03/20/2015 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit D Mike Hogan, Chairman January 26, 2015 Page 3 deserving cases. 8. (New) Article 26.05: Local 2201 rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation with respect to the addition of various restrictions on employees who request leave. First, other than the County falsely accusing a particular employee of being a "sick leave abuser," the County submitted no evidence in support of its proposal. Second, items in the County's proposal make no sense such as requiring an employee to schedule treatment by a doctor 72 hours in advance. Finally, the Special Magistrate provided no justification for his recommendation. 9. (New) Article 26.06: Local 2201 rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendations with respect to charging leave as identified in (new) Section 26.06(A), (B), and (C). Again, the employer provided no evidence in support of its proposal and the Special Magistrate provided no explanation for his recommendations. 10. Article 28 - Annual Leave: Local 2201 rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation to add a sentence to Section 28.03 as the employer provided no justification; the Special Magistrate provided no explanation; and both the County and the Special Magistrate ignored concrete evidence on comparisons. 11. Article 33 - Incentive Pay: Local 2201 rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendation with respect to Section 33.10 which would require the Fire Chief to fill solo paramedic slots which the County funded and which allow protocoled medics to obtain solo medic status. Filling funded solo paramedic slots and allowing protocoled paramedics to obtain solo paramedic status is supported by comparables, the interest and welfare of the public, the peculiarities of employment, and the availability of funds. 12. Article 34 - Salaries: It is not clear that the Special Magistrate had any idea what he was doing. He initially made recommendations covering four fiscal years. That statement provides at least one basis for the rejections identified below. First, Local 2201 accepts the Special Magistrate's recommendations with respect to the three percent COLA increase; the maintenance of the status quo of a nine -step level and five percent wage increase for all employees eligible; and lump sums payments to employees who do not receive the step level increases. However, Local 2201 rejects the recommended effective date of Union ratification and County approval. As cause, Local 2201 would note that the Special Magistrate ignored substantial evidence with respect to comparisons; the interest and welfare ofthe public; the peculiarities of employment; and the availability funds. Furthermore, as noted above, the Special Magistrate apparently did not even understand that the first year at impasse was fiscal year October 2013 through September 2014. Second, Local 2201 rejects the Special Magistrate's recommendations with respect to Article 34 - Salaries for fiscal years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 which were later changed to recommendations for fiscal years 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. As cause, Local 2201 would 49