03/20/2015 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to determine what additional safety equipment will be provided. The County opposes Local 2201's proposed change. Paragraph 14.02 provides that uniforms and protective clothing "shall be replaced upon being lost, or becoming worn or damaged as determined by management." In practice, the decision to replace worn or damaged articles is made by the Training Division — one member of management and one bargaining unit employee. Local 2201 has proposed the deletion of management's right to determine when items should be replaced. The County opposes Local 2201's proposed change. Special Magistrate's Recommendation: Replace the existing 1114.01 with the following as proposed by the County: "The Employer will provide adequate uniforms and safety equipment as deemed necessary by management." Keep 1114.02 status quo as proposed by the County. County Administrator's Recommendation: As of the parties' 13th bargaining session on April 16, 2014, both parties were proposing the changes to ¶14.01 requested by the County, and were proposing to leave Paragraph 14.02 status quo. [See Exhibit F hereto; Local 2201 11/18/13 Proposal.] At the parties' next bargaining session on May 29, 2014, on the eve of the declaration of impasse, Local 2201 significantly changed its position on these paragraphs. Local 2201 has presented no valid basis for doing so. Hence the reason why the Special Magistrate recommended in favor of the County on both paragraphs. It is the County's position that uniforms and equipment should be replaced when worn out or damaged, not on an artificial annual schedule. Simply stated, it would be irresponsible for the County to spend taxpayer money to replace items that do not need to be replaced. Moreover, it is management's right under Article 10 of the CBA to determine the safety equipment to be provided to the bargaining unit employees and when uniforms or protective clothing should be replaced. Local 2201's proposal would result in the disagreements regarding what safety equipment is necessary, and whether uniform items should be replaced, being determined by an arbitrator. Besides the absurdity of going to arbitration over the replacement of a pair of trousers, it is outside the purview of an arbitrator to determine on what safety equipment the County should spend taxpayers' money to purchase and require its employees to use. Thus, Local 220I's proposal must be rejected. While the Special Magistrate recommended the County's position on 114.01 and 14.02, in an attempt to alleviate some of Local 2201's concerns about deleting the list of uniform items and equipment, the County has modified its proposal as reflected in Exhibit G hereto. Accordingly, I recommend that the BCC adopt the County's modified proposal attached as Exhibit G hereto.