HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2019 (2) BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
,iLVV ER CINDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
Q' o�. it.:?.(v.
34COMMISSION AGENDA
* 1.
/' •T.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13,2019 - 1:00 PM
* * Commission Chambers
PLORVO ' Indian River County Administration Complex
1801 27th Street, Building A
Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388
www.ircgov.com
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Bob Solari,Chairman,District 5 Jason E. Brown,County Administrator
Susan Adams,Vice Chairman,District 1 Dylan Reingold,County Attorney
Joseph E. Flescher,District 2 Jeffrey R.Smith,Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Peter D.O'Bryan,District 4
Tim Zorc,District 3
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPASSE HEARING
1. CALL TO ORDER
2.A. A MOMENT OF SILENT REFLECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS
2.B. INVOCATION
Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Bob Solari
4. BRIEF INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROCESS
County Attorney Dylan Reingold
5. ARTICLE AT IMPASSE
A. Article 17--Wages
30 minutes each, Sheriff presents first
1. Documents submitted by Indian River County Sheriffs Office
Attachments:IRCSO correspondence 7.8.19 impasse letter
Indian River SO Memo
September 13,2019 Page 1 of 2
2. Documents submitted by Indian River County Deputies' Association, IUPA,
Local 6080
Attachments:Impasse IUPA and IRCSO - Union Brief- FINAL - 05.23.19
Indian River Cnty Sheriff IUPA SM 2018 029 DECISION
IRCSO - Impasse Ltr to BOCC - 07.12.19
6. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DISCUSSION AND ACTION
7. ADJOURNMENT
Except for those matters specifically exempted under the State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Board shall
provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Board of any action on the agenda,
including those matters on the Consent Agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any proposition which
the Board is to take action which was either not on the Board agenda or distributed to the public prior to the
commencement of the meeting.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA) Coordinator at(772)226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Anyone who needs special accommodation with a hearing aid for this meeting may contact the Board of
County Commission Office at 772-226-1490 at least 20 hours in advance of the meeting.
The full agenda is available on line at the Indian River County Website at www.ircgov.com The full agenda is
also available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,the Indian River County Main Library,
and the North County Library.
Commission Meetings are broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27
Rebroadcasts continuously with the following proposed schedule:
Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 a.m.,
Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.,
Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning,
and Saturday at 12:00 Noon to 5:00 p.m.
September 13,2019 Page 2 of 2
,_,,,---, A . 1 ,
"ASV"CO� o' Sheriff Deryl Lour
'1,�.3 1.4 f..*-1.4,0
`*
Indian River County- w
'ir QRI tr,,;t`s11
July 8, 2019
Honorable Bob Solari. Chairman
Honorable Susan Adams, Vice-Chairman
Honorable Joseph E. Flescher,Commissioner
Honorable Tim Zorc,Commissioner
Honorable Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner
1801 27th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388
RE: Collective bargaining impasse between the Indian River County Sheriffs Office and the Indian
River County Deputies'Association, LU.P.A., Local 6080; SM-2018-029
Dear Commissioners:
As you know, an impasse was declared by the Indian River County Deputies' Association,
I.U.P.A., Local 680 in contract negotiations with the Indian River County Sheriffs Office for the 2018-19
fiscal year. The sole issue at impasse is a dispute over salary increases. A Special Magistrate was
appointed by the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission(PERC)to conduct a hearing and issue
a recommendation to resolve the impasse issue. His Report and Recommendation is attached for your
review. On June 28, 2019, I filed with PERC a written rejection of the Special Magistrate's
Recommendations. In accordance with Section 447.403(4)(a), Florida Statutes, I am now submitting to
you as the legislative body my recommendations for resolving the impasse issue.
Background
The Sheriff and the Indian River Deputies Association, I.U.P.A. Local 6080 (hereinafter"IUPA"
or "the Union") are signatories to a collective bargaining agreement which by its terms expires on
September 30, 2019. Pursuant to Article 38 of the Agreement, the parties annually re-negotiate wages,
which are established in Article 17 of the Agreement.Negotiations for fiscal year 2018/19 wage increases
with the Union, as well as the Sheriffs other unions, began in the summer of 2018. Agreement was
reached with Teamsters Local 769 on behalf of the Lieutenants' bargaining unit for a 5%across the board
increase, or a$1,500 lump sum to those at the top of the pay grade. Agreement was likewise reached with
IUPA on behalf of the Sergeants' bargaining unit for a 5% across the board increase and the same
arrangement for those at or near the top of the range. Agreement was also reached with PBA on behalf of
the Correctional Deputy bargaining unit for a 5% across the board increase and the same arrangement for
those at or near the top of the range. The Correctional Deputy agreement also included an increase of
starting pay from$38,950 to$42,000.
4055 4l'`Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 NA,V.,Vi ircsherifforg
(772)569-6700 e's, 6 a
Indian River County Commissioners
July 8, 2019
Page two of four
Negotiations with IUPA for the Deputy bargaining unit began in August of 2018. Based on
anticipated salary dollars to be appropriated by the County Commission, the Sheriff offered to IUPA a
wage proposal consisting of the following:
1. A 5%across the board increase in base pay effective the first full pay period in October 2018
for those Deputies not within 5%of the maximum of the pay grade and who have not reached
the maximum of the pay grade;
2. For those Deputies who are within 5%of the maximum of the pay grade and their base salary
increase to the top of the pay grade is less than $1,500,their salary would be increased to the
top of the pay grade and any difference between the amount of the base salary increase and
the $1,500 would be paid in a lump sum;
3. For those Deputies who are topped out,a lump sum increase of$1,500;
4. Bargaining unit members hired after April 30, 2017 would have their salary adjusted from
$38,950 to$42,500 effective the first full pay period of October 2018;
5. Bargaining unit members hired after April 30, 2018 would have their salary adjusted from
$38,950 to$42,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018; and
6. Newly hired bargaining unit employees would start at$42,000.
The Union summarily rejected this proposal and instead offered two alternative counter-
proposals. Option 1 only included an increase in the starting pay (and the pay for those hired after April
30, 2017) from $38,950 to $41,000. Option 1 also included a provision requiring that bargaining unit
members who have at least twenty years of experience with the Sheriff's Office who have not reached
topped out salary be brought up to the maximum of the pay grade($63,151). The latter component of the
Union's first alternative proposal would have resulted in fifteen (15) bargaining unit members receiving
between a 2.6% and an 8.8% increase in pay, with the vast majority (11) receiving the 8.8% increase.
Option 2 of the Union's proposals simply eschewed Option 1 in favor of an increase in pay to all
bargaining unit members of$3,550.
The Sheriff rejected the Union's two options. Option I was rejected because, as more fully set
forth below: (1) the Union's proposal did not raise starting pay to a level that allowed the Sheriff to be
competitive with comparable jurisdictions ($42,000); and (2)the Union's proposal unfairly favored those
more senior bargaining unit employees at the expense of those at the lower end. (R.57-58). Option 2 was
rejected because: (1) it was far costlier than the Sheriff's proposal and inconsistent with the dollars that
had been allocated to the Sheriff by the County Commission for salary increases; (2) it was wholly
inconsistent with that agreed to and provided to other Sheriff's employees; and (3) as a "flat amount"
increase versus a percentage, it disproportionately favored newer employees at the expense of more senior
deputies.
Ultimately, the Sheriff gave the Union a proposal that was designed to encourage the bargaining
unit members to either accept it or face economic consequences. Specifically, on November 2, 2018, the
Sheriff proposed to implement its previous offer retroactive to the first pay period in October of 2018 if
the Union ratified the Agreement prior to November 30, 2018. Otherwise any subsequent agreement for
salary increases would not be made retroactive. The Union rejected this proposal and declared impasse.
2
Indian River County Commissioners
July 8,2019
Page three of four
The parties presented their respective positions to Special Magistrate Dennis Campagna on April
5, 2019. The Special Magistrate thereafter issued his Report and Recommendations. Specifically, the
Special Magistrate recommended the following:
1. Increase the starting base wage rate to$42,000;
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 shall have their salary adjusted from $38,950
to $42,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018. Those Deputies having one
year of service shall have their salaries increased to $43,000 and that any remaining funds be
paid to any such Deputy in a lump sum fashion.
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30, 2018 and unaffected by (2) above shall
receive a 4.3% increase in their base salary;
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867;
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151;
Those bargaining unit members who were at the top of the pay grade($63,151)shall move to
the new top salary of$65,867.
As previously mentioned, I filed with the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission a
written rejection of the recommendations of the Special Magistrate in their entirety for the following
reasons:
1. Although the Special Magistrate agreed with raising the starting salary for Deputies to $42,000,
he largely rejected the Sheriff's mechanism for dealing with the resulting compression problems
that would be created if those existing Deputies at the lower end of the pay scale did not have
their salaries raised in an associated manner. Specifically, the Special Magistrate agreed with the
Sheriffs proposal to raise the pay of Deputies hired after April 30, 2018 from $38,950 to
$42,000, but made an exception for those with more than one year of experience by raising those
Deputies to $43,000. Also, the Special Magistrate rejected the Sheriffs proposal to raise the
salaries of those existing Deputies hired after April 30, 2017 from $38,950 to $42,500, instead
recommending that their salaries be raised by the lower amount of 4.3%. These recommendations
of the Special Magistrate would not adequately address the compression issues for existing
employees at the lower end of the pay scale inherent in raising the starting salary to $42,000.
2. Although the Special Magistrate recommended that the starting rate for Deputies, as well as the
salaries for Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 and those Deputies having one year of
service, all be raised, he recommended that the raise be made retroactive to the first full pay
period of October 2018. The Sheriff rejects the retroactive component of this recommendation as
the Sheriff gave the Union the opportunity to accept raises for employees in these categories back
in November of 2018 as an incentive to settle the contract consistent with what the other Unions
at the Sheriffs Office had agreed to. The Sheriff made this offer with the specific understanding
that if it were to be rejected, the Sheriff would take the position in the impasse process that any
increase in salary to these bargaining unit members would not be made retroactive. To accept the
Special Magistrate's recommendation in this regard would be to give the Union, and indeed all
other Unions at the Sheriffs Office, little incentive in the future to voluntarily resolve contract
issues.
3
Indian River County Commissioners
July 8, 2019
Page four of four
3. The Special Magistrate recommended that multiple Deputies at the top of the pay range be given
as much as 8.8% pay increases, funded by a reduction in the 5% increase offered to the majority
of remaining bargaining unit members. This would result in most Deputies in the bargaining unit
receiving less than the 5% increase offered by the Sheriff. The 4.3% increase recommended by
the Special Magistrate would also be less than that received by all other employees of the Sheriff,
and less than the 5% received by employees of Indian River County and the employees of its
Constitutional Officers. The Sheriff is unwilling to reduce the 5% offer to the majority of
Deputies in this bargaining unit in order to fund a larger increase for a relatively few Deputies at
the top of the range.
Recommendation to Resolve the Impasse Issue
For the above reasons, I recommend that the County Commission resolve the impasse issue by
voting to accept the following:
Effective upon resolution of the impasse issue by the County Commission, bargaining unit
members would receive the following salary increases:
a. A 5%across the board increase in base pay for those Deputies not within 5%of the
maximum of the pay grade and who have not reached the maximum of the pay grade;
b. For those Deputies who are within 5%of the maximum of the pay grade and their base
salary increase to the top of the pay grade is less than$1,500,their salary would be
increased to the top of the pay grade and any difference between the amount of the base
salary increase and the $1,500 would be paid in a lump sum;
c. For those Deputies who are topped out, a lump sum increase of$1,500;
d. Bargaining unit members hired after April 30,2017 would have their salary adjusted
from$38,950 to $42,500;
e. Bargaining unit members hired after April 30, 2018 would have their salary adjusted
from$38,950 to$42,000;and
f. Newly hired bargaining unit employees would start at$42,000.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
DERYL LOAR, SHERIFF
cc: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Dylan Reingold, Esq.,County Attorney
4
STATE OF FLORIDA
In the Matter of Impasse Between:
SHERIFF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PERC Case No. SM-2018-029
-And-
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE
ASSOCIATIONS,AFL-CIO,LOCAL 6080
Before: Dennis J. Campagna,Special Magistrate
Hearing Date: April 5,2019
APPEARANCES
A. For the County:
Wayne L. Helsby, Esq.—Allen,Norton&Blue, PA, Counsel
James Harpring—Undersheriff
B. For IUPA:
Ryan W. Burton, Esq.—IUPA General Counsel
Katheryn Gibson—Secretary-Treasurer
THE ISSUE
What is the recommended&appropriate wage increase for fiscal year 2018-2019?
BACKGROUND
A. The Parties to this Impasse:
The International Union of Police Associations, Local 6080 ("Union")and the Sheriff of Indian
River County("Sheriff") are in the third year of a three-year collective bargaining agreement
("CBA"). The bargaining unit at issue includes all Law Enforcement Deputies employed by the
Indian River County Sheriff's Office. Excluded are all supervisors(Sergeants and above)and
Corrections Deputies. Wages for each year of the agreement have been subject to reopeners
1
5
pursuant to the agreement by and between the Parties hereto. Pursuant to the CBA,wage
changes are negotiated during the prior fiscal year and are effective on October 1 (or the
beginning of the next fiscal year). The record reflects that for the first two years of this CBA,
wage increases were negotiated at 3.5%for the first year,(with additional monies for longevity),
and a 5% increase for the second year. These agreed-upon wage increases were evenly applied
to all bargaining unit employees(and have been effective or retroactive to October 1 2016 and
2017). The wages for the current(2018-2019) fiscal year offered to other employees were
offered"across the board"; however, not for this bargaining unit. (Sergeants and Lieutenants
bargaining units received "across the board raises")
Negotiations for the current wage reopeners began in early 2018. The record reflects that the
intention of starting negotiations so early was to provide the Sheriff an opportunity to hear the
Union's proposals before he presented his budget request to the Indian River Board of County
Commissioners ("County") in July 2018. Pursuant to the CBA,wages determined pursuant to
the agreed-upon terms of this Agreement become effective on October 1,2018.
B. Position of the Parties on 2018-2019 Wage Increases
In fiscal year 2018-19,employees of the Indian River consisting of the Sheriff,County Clerk,
Property Appraiser, Comptroller, Supervisor of Elections County Board of County
Commissioners and the County's respective Constitutional Officers all received a 5% increase in
pay as funded through dollars approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The record
reflects that the Sheriff extended this same percentage increase to all non-unionized employees.
In addition,the record reflects that those Unions representing three other bargaining units at the
Sheriffs Office each accepted the same percentage increase of 5%.
Following application of a 5%wage increase to those County employees noted above,the County
extended the same percentage increase for this IUPA/Deputy unit, and at the same time increasing
the starting salary and addressing compression issues for recently hired Deputies. Following their
review of this County proposal,the Union rejected the County's proposal. The Union's proposal
consisted of the following options:
2
6
Option 1: To lower the starting salary from what the County had proposed and instead use that
money to single out a small group of highly paid Deputies and give to them large percentage
increases, as much as 8.8%for most.This option was rejected by the County since it did not
achieve the Sheriff's objective of raising the Deputies' starting salary with the goal of becoming
competitive with surrounding law enforcement agencies. In addition,the County notes that
Option 1 as proposed,reduced the amount of available funds so as to allow the Sheriff to afford
lower level Deputies salary increases to address compression issues at the expense of larger
increases to more senior Deputies.
Option 2: To afford every Deputy in the bargaining unit a flat$3,250 increase. Option 2 was also
rejected by the County since the County believed that this Option if implemented would do an
injustice to those at the higher end of the wage scale and more importantly,would exceed the total
funds allocated by the County Commission for wage increases for the fiscal year 2018-19.
The County,through approval by the Board of County Commissioners, approved funds which
would permit a 5% increase to all employees, a position rejected by the Union.
DISCUSSION
A. The Established Statutory Criteria
Section 447.405 of the Florida Statues provides, in relevant part, that in formulating a
recommendation on the subject issue, the Special Magistrate must consider the following
criteria:
1. Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question
with the annual income of employment maintained for the same or similar work of
employees exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions
in the local operating area involved.
3
7
2. Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question
with the annual income of employment of public employees in similar public employee
governmental bodies of comparable size within the state.
3. The interest and welfare of the public.
4. Comparison of peculiarities of employment in regard to other trades or professions,
including:
• Hazards of employment.
• Physical qualifications.
• Educational qualifications.
• Intellectual qualifications.
• Job training and skills.
• Retirement plans.
• Sick leave.
• Job security.
5. Availability of funds
B. Application of the Foregoing Criteria
In applying the foregoing criteria, the following relevant facts should be considered:
First, recent Florida legislative actions require each public school in each of Florida's Counties
to staff each such school with a school safety officer. Uncontested testimony offered by
Undersheriff Harpring noted that such mandate would place a"substantial drain on manpower
and created a need for hiring." (See TR 74). As a result, the County will be compelled to hire
new Deputies in order to meet this mandate. Accordingly, it is in the County's best interest to
have a starting salary that would attract and retain the best possible candidates for such positions.
Second, the County offers the following entities for purpose of comparison:
4
8
(l)Martin County Sheriff;
(2) Stuart Police Department;
(3)Indian River Shores Public Safety Department;
(4) St. Lucie Sheriff's Office;
(5)Port St. Lucie Police Department;
(6)Ft.Pierce Police Department;
(7) Vero Beach Police Department;
(8) Sebastian Police Department;and
(9)Fellsmere Police Department.
(See Sheriff Exhibit 7).
There was no objecting from the Union as to the use of the foregoing entities.
A. Recommendation for Newly Hired Deputies:
The record evidence reflects that the current starting salary for Deputies at the Indian River
Sheriffs Office($38,950) is lower than all but one of those jurisdictions,Fellsmere. When
comparing he starting salary for Deputies at the Indian River Sheriff's Office with the list of
comparable jurisdictions noted above, such starting salary is more than$8,500 lower than that of
the neighboring Martin County Sheriff's Office, and over$6,000 less than neighboring St. Lucie
County Sheriff's Office. As a result,all Parties hereto agree that the starting salary for Deputies
must be raised substantially in order to attract and retain qualified Deputies necessary for
continued and expanded service in Indian River County. In accepting this challenge, the Union's
last proposal sought to increase the starting salary for those Deputies hired after April 30, 2017
to$41,500, and those hired after April 30, 2018 to$41,000. The Sheriff,on the other hand,
proposed to increase starting salary for newly hired Deputies to $42,000. Following my careful
review of the comparable jurisdictions, it is Recommended that the Starting Salary for Deputies
be increased to $42,000. It is also Recommended that Deputies with one year of service receive
an increase of base salary to $43,000.
5
9
B. Recommendation for Established Deputies
As noted above,the Indian River Board of County Commissioners("Legislative Body")approved
a 5% increase for their own employees, as well as for the employees of all other County
Constitutional Officers, including the Sheriff.' Currently,while the County does not have a salary
schedule for Deputies, it notes that Deputies are paid somewhere in the range starting at$38,950
and topping out at$63,151.(See County Exhibit 3). Therefore, an increase of the base salary to
$42,000 as proposed by the County amounts to an increase of approximately 7.8%to the
base/starting salary. The County has also proposed that all other Deputies not at the top of the
paygrade receive a 5%increase,and that those Deputies currently at the top of the pay grade
receive a"lump sum"increase of$1500. In this later regard,the County proposes that"anyone
not at the top of the paygrade but within 5%of topping out,that employee would be moved to the
top of the paygrade in base pay and receive the balance in a lump sum." While the Union has not
taken issue with a 5%wage increase, it has opposed the manner in which the County seeks to
apply this 5% increase. It is the Union's position that those employees with 20 or more years of
County service be placed at the top of the wage schedule.
In formulating a recommendation for the Deputies, it is boilerplate interest based bargaining logic
that the key to any such recommendation should be to attract outstanding candidates for the
position of Deputy Sheriff,as well as to retain the uniquely skilled and dedicated Deputies
currently on the Sheriff's roster. In this regard,the record reflects that while the bargaining unit
consists of approximately 150 employees,a total of 31 bargaining unit Deputies and four
Detectives have voluntarily departed from the Sheriff's office of which the majority of those
Deputies and Detectives had at least 2 or more years of experience, with the average experience of
those who departed as 10.5 years. To any law enforcement agency,this number of departing
Deputies and Detectives should be cause for concern. The key question to be addressed is
whether there was a common issue which triggered their departure. In addressing this common
issue,the Union maintains that has it has"[m]ade the Sheriff aware that the retention epidemic is
result of low wages and benefits." (Union brief at page 7). The County has not disagreed and in
'The County notes that this 5%increase would cost the County$483,360.56. Accordingly,using basic math,each
1%increase would cost the County approximately$96,672.
6
10
fact has acknowledged the need to establish a pay scale that would attract new Deputies. ("As
explained by Undersheriff/General Counsel Harpring in his testimony,at this point in time it is
much more compelling for the Sheriff to attract new Deputies . . . ".)
As noted earlier, it has been the Union's position from the outset that all bargaining unit
members having at least 20-years of experience with the Sheriffs Office should be moved to the
top of the salary scale, i.e.,to an annual salary of$63,151. The Union cost-out for this proposal
amounts to approximately$67,856.64 or 0.7%. (See Union Exhibit 3). Assuming,arguendo,
that the County accepted the Union's position,and assuming further that the total available
funding is generated by 5%, there would be a net of 4.3%available for distribution to the
remaining members of the bargaining unit, amounting to approximately$415,554.2
Accordingly, assuming acceptability of the Union's proposal regarding the 20+year Deputies,
and the County's proposal regarding the availability and application of the remaining equivalent
funds generated by 5.0%, this scenario would recognize the top priority of the County as well as
the top priority of the Union while staying within the funding authorized by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County. It is for this reason that I make the following
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Increase the Starting Salary to$42,000.
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 who have one year of service shall have
their salary adjusted to$43,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018.
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30,2018 and unaffected by(2)above shall
receive a 4.3%increase in their base salary. Should this calculation produce a result that
is less than$43,000,any such Deputy so affected shall have his/her base salary adjusted
to $43,000 with any balance given to any such Deputy in lump sum fashion.
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867.
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151, and
'Assuming an increase of the base salary to$42,000,there would be,at this juncture,no cost attached to this
increase since such base salary would only apply to future bargaining unit employees. Assuming equal distribution
to the remaining 135 Deputies,each would receive approximately$3078.
7
11
6. Those bargaining unit members who were already at the top of the pay grade($63,151)
shall move to the new top salary of$65,867.
The foregoing recommendation satisfies the statutory criteria in the following manner:
First, with regard to the first two comparability criteria, the County maintains,with no dispute
from the Union,that the Department lags behind other comparable jurisdictions with regard to
entry level pay for its Deputies. In this regard,the County notes that"In terms of comparability,
then,the starting salary of Deputies at the Indian River Sheriffs Office must be raised
substantially in order to become and remain competitive." In addition,this recommendation
achieves the goal of eliminating the compression issues at the bottom level of the Deputy pay
scale by moving those Deputies hired after April 30,2017 with a current base salary of$38,950
to a salary that is higher than those Deputies hired after April 30, 2018 making the same base
salary. To achieve this goal, I recommend an additional$1000 differential thereby creating an
established salary of$43,000 for all bargaining Unit members with one year of service. All other
Bargaining Unit Members shall have their base salaries increased by 4.3%.
The next statutory criteria,"availability of funds", is satisfied by fashioning a recommendation
within the parameters already approved by the County Commissioners who, as noted above,
approved a 5% increase for the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
The final statutory criteria,"the interest and welfare of the public"is likewise satisfied by
fashioning Deputy salaries that will attract and retain qualified and dedicated law enforcement
Deputies as reflected by recent actions by the Florida Legislature in demanding more Deputies to
protect our students in their schools. Moreover, the public interest is always satisfied with a
stable and dedicated police presence.
8
12
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
For those reasons noted and discussed above, it is the Conclusion of this Special Magistrate that
the following recommendations be adopted by the County and the Union in satisfaction of the
current impasse that exists.
1. Increase the starting base wage rate to $42,000;
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 shall have their salary adjusted from
$38,950 to $42,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018. Those Deputies
having one year of service shall have their salaries increased to $43,000 and that any
remaining funds be paid to any such Deputy in a lump sum fashion.
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30,2018 and unaffected by(2)above shall
receive a 4.3% increase in their base salary;
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867.
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151.;
6. Those bargaining unit members who were at the top of the pay grade($63,151)shall
move to the new top salary of$65,867.
Dated: June 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted:
Dennis J.Campagna
Florida Special Magistrate
9
13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Bob Solari, Chairman
Ms. Susan Adams, Vice-Chairman
Mr. Joseph E. Fletcher, Commissioner
Mr. Tim Zorc, Commissioner
Mr. Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner
FROM: Wayne L. Helsby, Esq.
DATE: September 6, 2019
RE: Collective bargaining impasse between the Indian River Sheriff's Office
and the Indian River County Deputies' Association, I U.P.A., Local 6080;
SM-2018-029
CC: Jason E. Brown, County Administrator
Dylan Reingold, Esq., County Attorney
County Attorney Dylan Reingold has invited the parties to this impasse dispute to submit
written briefs or memorandums setting forth their respective positions in advance of the upcoming
impasse hearing on September 13, 2019. Sheriff Daryl Loar previously submitted to you a
memorandum dated July 8, 2019 providing background on the impasse and his recommendations
for resolving the impasse. I will simply add a brief commentary.
The current collective bargaining agreement between the Sheriff's Office and IUPA
expires on September 30, 2019; however, the contract contains a "wage re-opener" for the 2018-
19 fiscal year. The Sheriff's Office and IUPA began negotiations for a 2018-19 wage increase in
January of 2018. Subsequent to the Sheriff's Budget for the 2018-2019 fiscal year being finalized,
the Sheriff provided a proposal to the Union on August 13, 2018. This was not accepted by the
Union. The parties met again on August 31, 2018 and September 24, 2018. These meetings ended
without agreement on wages. The Sheriff provided a second proposal on November 2, 2018 and
the Union rejected the proposal and declined to present the Sheriff's proposal to the membership.
Thereafter, the Union declared an impasse on December 3, 2018.
SPDN-868764429-2604710 14
A Special Magistrate was selected by the parties with a hearing held on April 5, 2019 to
hear the issues between the parties and to provide a non-binding recommendation to resolve the
issues. As outlined in the Sheriff's letter to the Board of July 8, 2019, the recommendations of the
Special Magistrate were rejected by the Sheriff.
The Sheriff requests that the BOCC resolve the impasse issue by voting to adopt the
Sheriff's attached wage offer dated November 2, 2018, without retroactivity, effective September
9, 2019.
We look forward to presenting our position at the September 13th impasse hearing.
SPDN-868764429-2604710 15
IRCSO Proposal 11/02/18
ARTICLE 17
WAGES
Section 1
The Sheriff agrees that members of the bargaining unit to which this agreement applies,
shall receive a 5.00% increase in their base salary for those members who are not within 5.00%
of the maximum of the pay grade and who have not reached the maximum of the pay grade.
Members of the bargaining unit to which this agreement applies and who are within 5.00% of the
maximum of the pay grade and whose base salary increase to the top of the pay grade is less
than fifteen-hundred dollars ($1,500) shall have their base salary increased to the top of the pay
grade. Additionally, they shall receive a one-time, lump-sum payment in an amount equal to the
difference between the amount of the base salary increase and fifteen-hundred dollars ($1,500),
but not to exceed fifteen-hundred ($1,500) dollars. Members who are currently at the top of the
pay grade shall receive a one-time, lump-sum payment of fifteen-hundred ($1,500). Any lump-
sum amount payable to the employee shall be a gross amount.
Section 2
Bargaining unit members hired after April 30, 2017 will have their salary adjusted to $42,500.
Bargaining unit members hired after April 30, 2018 will have their annual salary adjusted to
$42,000. Bargaining unit members hired after ratification of this agreement will be hired at the
new starting salary of$42,000.
Section 3
If this agreement is not ratified prior to November 30, 2018, the increases as contemplated
herein shall not be retroactive to the first full pay period of October 2018. The parties further agree
that any increase in base salary referenced herein is effective for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. Any
entitlement to an increase in base salary based on this agreement for members of the bargaining
unit to which this agreement applies, after expiration of this agreement or the applicable time
SPDN-868764429-2604710 16
frame noted in this article, shall be subject to collective bargaining and shall not be considered
status quo. Additionally, the parties agree to re-open this article for negotiation in June 2019.
SPDN-868764429-2604710 17
STATE OF FLORIDA
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION
IN RE: IMPASSE BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE
ASSOCIATIONS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL 6080
And, Case No. SM-2018-029
SHERIFF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
BRIEF OF THE UNION
I. ISSUE
The only issue presented for resolution by the Special Magistrate is: Wages for Fiscal Year
2018-2019.
II. BACKGROUND
The International Union of Police Associations, Local 6080 (hereinafter"Union") and the
Sheriff of Indian River County(hereinafter"Sheriff') (collectively "Parties") are in the third year
of a three-year collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Tr. 8. The bargaining unit at issue
includes all Law Enforcement Deputies employed by the Indian River County Sheriff's Office.
See Employer Ex. 1; PERC Certification # 1814. Excluded are all supervisors (Sergeants and
above) and Corrections Deputies. Id. Wages for each year of the agreement have been subject to
reopeners. Employer Ex. 1, Tr. 8. Under the CBA, wage changes are negotiated during the prior
fiscal year and are effective on October 1 (or the beginning of the next fiscal year). Employer Ex.
1. For the last two years, wage increases have been 3.5% with additional monies for longevity and
1
18
5% respectively. Tr. 8-9, 50. These wage increases have been evenly applied to all bargaining
unit employees (and have been effective or retroactive to October 1 2016 and 2017). Tr. 49, 50.
The wages for the current fiscal year offered to other employees were offered "across the board";
however, not for this bargaining unit. See Tr. 71 (Sergeants and Lieutenants bargaining units
received "across the board raises")
Negotiations for the current wage reopeners began in early 2018. Tr. 9. The intention of
starting negotiations so early was to provide the Sheriff ample opportunity to hear the Union's
proposals before he presented his budget request to the Indian River Board of County
Commissioners ("BOCC") in July 2018. Tr. 9. Pursuant to the CBA, wages would be effective
on October 1, 2018. Employer Ex. 1. See also Union Ex. 1.
III. UNION'S INITIAL PROPOSAL
The initial negotiations between the parties were presented in very broad terms. Tr. 55.
Essentially, the Parties agreed that the Sheriff should ask for as much as possible in order to
increase wages and remain competitive with the surrounding jurisdictions. However,the Union's
position from the outset was that all bargaining unit employees who have at least twenty(20)years'
experience with the Indian River County Sheriff's Office ("Sheriff's Office") should be brought
to the top of the pay scale ($63,151.00) if not already topped out. See Union Exhibit 3, Pg. 3. See
also, Tr. 10. The Union provided a list to the Sheriff's Office's negotiating team at the outset of
negotiations. See Union Ex. 3, Pg. 3. This list contained fifteen (15) employees. Subsequently,
one employee has left employment and fourteen (14) employees are still subject to this proposal.
Because there is no Step Plan at the Sheriff's Office,these long-term employees have been unable
to reach topped out salary even though they have provided extensive service to the Sheriff's Office
2
19
and community at large. See Tr. 19 ("every agency with the exception of Fellsmere PD that
surrounds us all the way down to Martin County has a step plan. We do not, and a lot of deputies
are having problems with the fact that they're foreseeing their future of being here 20-plus years
and not even reaching top-out pay."). The Union's position is that these employees should be
brought to topped-out salary so that they do not lose out on pensionable earnings at the end of their
careers. Id.
IV. SHERIFF'S INITIAL PROPOSAL
The Sheriff's first official proposal came after the budget meetings in July. See Union Ex.
1. This initial proposal was for a five percent (5%) raise for all employees along with an increase
to the starting salary to $42,000.00. Id. In addition, members with one year of service will be
brought up to $42,500.00 in order to have separation with new-hires and future employees. Id.
Lastly, members who have reached topped-out salary or were within 5% of topped out salary
would receive up to a $1,500.00 one-time lump sum bonus, depending on their current salary. Id.
The Sheriff's initial proposal would be effective October 1, 2018 and would be retroactive if
agreed-to after the effective date. Id.
V. UNION'S COUNTER PROPOSALS
A. Counter Proposal One: "Parity and Twenty-Plus Employees"
In response to the Sheriff's proposal, the Union offered two counter proposals. See Union
Exs. 3 and 4 (Offered 8/13/18 Options 1 and 2). The Union offered both proposals as acceptable
options, either of which would be acceptable to the bargaining unit. Tr. 13, 16. The first proposal
mirrored the Sheriff's initial proposal, but with two differences:
3
20
1. Starting pay would be reduced to $41,000.00, with the corresponding increase to one-
year Deputies to $41,500.00; and
2. Deputies with twenty-plus(20+)years' experience would be brought to topped out pay.
This was exactly the same as the Union's initial proposal on the subject.
See Union Ex. 3.
The Union offered this proposal to accomplish complete parity within the bargaining unit.
Upon running the numbers of the Sheriff's proposal,the Union discovered that while the proposal
was offered as 5% "across the board", this was far from the case. Specifically, newly-hired
employees would receive approximately a 7.8% raise. See Union Ex. 5. These employees would
be brought up from making $38,950 to making $42,000 (7.8%). Id. Even more alarming is the
fact that employees with one year of service would receive a 9.1% increase. Id. These employees
would be brought up from making $38,950 to making $42,500 (9.1%). Id.
The Union's counter proposal of a $41,000.00 starting salary and increase for one-year
employees to $41,500.00 was meant to more-closely match the 5% increase offered to all other
employees. See Union Ex. 6. Specifically, an increase to $41,000.00 starting would be
approximately a 5.26% increase and an increase to $41,500.00 for one-year employees would be
a 6.54% increase. Id.
Additionally,Union Counter Proposal One would accomplish the important task of raising
long-term Deputies to topped-out pay. Lastly, the cost savings of the Union's proposal (the
Sheriff's Office saving $1000.00 per new, one-year and future employee) would account for the
difference in cost between the Union's proposal and the Sheriff's initial proposal. In striving for
parity and rewarding long-term employees, this proposal would accomplish all goals with little-
to-no additional cost to the Sheriff's Office.
4
21
B. Counter Proposal Two: "Parity and Flat-Amount Increase"
The second counter proposal offered by the Union would also mirror the Sheriff's proposal
with only one difference:
1. Instead of a 5% across the board raise, all bargaining unit members would receive an
across the board raise of$3,550.00.
See Union Ex. 4.
The Union offered this proposal to accomplish parity within the bargaining unit and
achieve the Sheriff's desired goal of increasing starting pay to $42,000.00. Tr. 15. See also Tr.
73. As noted previously, the Sheriff's proposal does not provide an "across the board" raise.
Instead, new employees can earn as much as a 9.1% raise, while the rest of the bargaining unit
receives only 5%. Those employees who would receive a 9.1% raise would receive $3,550 as a
total salary increase. See Union Ex. 5 (42,500 - $38,950 = $3,550). Therefore, in order to have
complete parity in the bargaining unit the Union offered its Counter Proposal Two which would
provide every employee with at least one-years' experience the exact same dollar amount raise
($3,550). See Union Ex. 4. Union Counter Proposal Two did not request to increase all twenty-
plus(20+)year employees to topped pay. This was because the Union recognized that this counter
proposal would top-out most of the twenty-plus (20+) Deputies and get the rest within
approximately$1,400 of top-out pay. Tr. 16
It is of particular note,the Sheriff's bargaining representatives never stated that their refusal
to agree to the Union's counter proposal was due to the cost of the proposal. See Tr. 12, 72. In
fact, the Sheriff's Office has never stated to the Union that this proposal is in excess of the total
budgeted amount for salaries for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. See Tr. 13, 72-73 (Harpring: "I didn't
5
22
make those calculations at that time. ... these calculations were not done as part of, um, the
negotiations."). See also Tr. 82:
Detective Bartuccelli: Well, when he [Mr. Harpring] came back and he -- when
they spoke, they said that the proposals -- both proposals
were not unreasonable,that they just didn't want to give it to
us.No reasoning for it.
Burton: Okay. They didn't state anything about it being, you know, money or
budget or anything like that?
Detective Bartuccelli: Not at all.
Lastly, as will be outlined below, the Sheriff's final proposal does not include retroactive
pay; the lack thereof would more than cover any additional cost of Union Counter Proposal Two.
Union Counter Proposal Two would accomplish the vast majority of the Union's goals, while
achieving the desired parity of wages increases within the bargaining unit. Additionally, Union
Counter Proposal Two would accomplish the Sheriffs goal or increasing starting pay with no
financial burden on the Sheriffs Office.
VI. SHERIFF'S FINAL OFFER
Following the August 13, 2018 bargaining session, the Sheriff rejected both counter
proposals by the Union. Tr.16. At that time (and at no time subsequent) did the Sheriff or his
representatives cite cost or budget for the basis of the rejection. See supra, Tr. 13, 72-73, 82. The
Sheriffs representatives simply advised that the Sheriff was not willing to agree to the proposal(s).
Id. This sentiment has echoed throughout the impasse process.
Therefore, as the Sheriffs August 13, 2018 proposal was the Sheriffs "last/ best" offer,
the Union sent the proposal to the bargaining unit for a ratification vote. Tr. 17. The bargaining
unit soundly rejected the proposal on the basis that it offered disproportionate wage increases and
6
23
placed value on new and future employees over current and tenured employees. Id. Following
the failed ratification, the Sheriff's representatives requested another negotiation session. See
Union Ex.2;Tr. 33. However,instead of offering a resolution,the Sheriff's representatives offered
a new "final offer" which removed retroactive pay unless the exact same proposal was ratified
with twenty-eight(28) days. See Union Ex. 2,Tr. 17, 33. Thereafter, the Parties reached impasse.
VII. SUMMARY AND ARGUMENT
Contrary to the Sheriff's position during negotiations and at impasse, his proposals offer
an insurmountable disparity within the bargaining unit. The Sheriffs proposals are tantamount to
recruiting new employees on the backs of the current men and women of the bargaining unit. The
Indian River County Sheriffs Office is in the midst of a retention epidemic. The bargaining unit
contains approximately 150 employees. See PERC Certification # 1814. Since 2014, a total of
thirty-one (31) bargaining unit Deputies and four (4) bargaining unit Detectives have voluntarily
left the Sheriffs Office. See Union Exs. 7 and 8. Those thirty-five (35) employees account for
more than 23% of the work force. Id. To compound the issue, the vast majority of those Deputies
and Detectives had at least two-years' or more experience, with the average amount of experience
of departing Deputies as 6.5 years and the average amount of experience of departing Detectives
as 10.5 years. Id.
One of the primary functions of the Union is to be a communication conduit between the
bargaining unit and the Sheriff. As such, the Union has made the Sheriff aware that the retention
epidemic is result of low wages and benefits. For the Sheriff to offer and stand on proposals that
offer pay raises to new and future Deputies that are almost double what is being offered to current
Deputies only compounds the issue at bar. Further, the Sheriffs lack of acknowledgment that
7
24
long-tenured employees(Deputies who have risked their lives for their community for no less than
twenty years) should be at the top of the pay scale, adds insult to injury.
The Union's counter proposals not only offer the parity and equality only postured-at by
the Sheriff, but do so at little-to-no additional cost to the Sheriffs Office. In fact, Union Counter
Proposal One is likely a cost savings to the Sheriff, and undoubtable so if retroactive pay is limited
or removed. In that regard, the Sheriff's final offer retracting retroactive pay can only be seen as
retaliation for the bargaining unit failing to acquiesce to the Sheriffs proposal of adhesion.
Therefore, the Union respectfully requests that either its Counter Proposal One or Two be
recommended and that any recommendation by the Special Magistrate include retroactive pay.
Date: May 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Ryan Burton
Ryan Burton, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 91346
Associate General Counsel
International Union of Police Associations,
AFL-CIO
1549 Ringling Blvd., 6th Floor
Sarasota, FL 34236
Tel: (941) 487-2560
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that one (1) copy of the forgoing has been furnished via US Mail
and electronic mail to Wayne Helsby, ALLEN, NORTON, AND BLUE P.A., 1477 West
Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100, Winter Park, Florida 32789 on this 23 day of May 2019.
/s/Ryan Burton
Ryan Burton
8
25
STATE OF FLORIDA
In the Matter of Impasse Between:
SHERIFF OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PERC Case No. SM-2018-029
-And-
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF POLICE
ASSOCIATIONS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 6080
Before: Dennis J. Campagna, Special Magistrate
Hearing Date: April 5, 2019
APPEARANCES
A. For the County:
Wayne L. Helsby, Esq. —Allen,Norton& Blue, PA, Counsel
James Harpring—Undersheriff
B. For IUPA:
Ryan W. Burton, Esq. —IUPA General Counsel
Katheryn Gibson— Secretary-Treasurer
THE ISSUE
What is the recommended& appropriate wage increase for fiscal year 2018-2019?
BACKGROUND
A. The Parties to this Impasse:
The International Union of Police Associations, Local 6080 ("Union") and the Sheriff of Indian
River County("Sheriff') are in the third year of a three-year collective bargaining agreement
("CBA"). The bargaining unit at issue includes all Law Enforcement Deputies employed by the
Indian River County Sheriffs Office. Excluded are all supervisors (Sergeants and above) and
Corrections Deputies. Wages for each year of the agreement have been subject to reopeners
1
26
pursuant to the agreement by and between the Parties hereto. Pursuant to the CBA, wage
changes are negotiated during the prior fiscal year and are effective on October 1 (or the
beginning of the next fiscal year). The record reflects that for the first two years of this CBA,
wage increases were negotiated at 3.5% for the first year, (with additional monies for longevity),
and a 5% increase for the second year. These agreed-upon wage increases were evenly applied
to all bargaining unit employees (and have been effective or retroactive to October 1 2016 and
2017). The wages for the current(2018-2019) fiscal year offered to other employees were
offered"across the board"; however, not for this bargaining unit. (Sergeants and Lieutenants
bargaining units received"across the board raises")
Negotiations for the current wage reopeners began in early 2018. The record reflects that the
intention of starting negotiations so early was to provide the Sheriff an opportunity to hear the
Union's proposals before he presented his budget request to the Indian River Board of County
Commissioners ("County")in July 2018. Pursuant to the CBA, wages determined pursuant to
the agreed-upon terms of this Agreement become effective on October 1, 2018.
B. Position of the Parties on 2018-2019 Wage Increases
In fiscal year 2018-19, employees of the Indian River consisting of the Sheriff, County Clerk,
Property Appraiser, Comptroller, Supervisor of Elections County Board of County
Commissioners and the County's respective Constitutional Officers all received a 5% increase in
pay as funded through dollars approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The record
reflects that the Sheriff extended this same percentage increase to all non-unionized employees.
In addition, the record reflects that those Unions representing three other bargaining units at the
Sheriff's Office each accepted the same percentage increase of 5%.
Following application of a 5% wage increase to those County employees noted above, the County
extended the same percentage increase for this IUPA/Deputy unit, and at the same time increasing
the starting salary and addressing compression issues for recently hired Deputies. Following their
review of this County proposal, the Union rejected the County's proposal. The Union's proposal
consisted of the following options:
2
27
Option 1: To lower the starting salary from what the County had proposed and instead use that
money to single out a small group of highly paid Deputies and give to them large percentage
increases, as much as 8.8% for most. This option was rejected by the County since it did not
achieve the Sheriffs objective of raising the Deputies' starting salary with the goal of becoming
competitive with surrounding law enforcement agencies. In addition, the County notes that
Option 1 as proposed, reduced the amount of available funds so as to allow the Sheriff to afford
lower level Deputies salary increases to address compression issues at the expense of larger
increases to more senior Deputies.
Option 2: To afford every Deputy in the bargaining unit a flat$3,250 increase. Option 2 was also
rejected by the County since the County believed that this Option if implemented would do an
injustice to those at the higher end of the wage scale and more importantly, would exceed the total
funds allocated by the County Commission for wage increases for the fiscal year 2018-19.
The County, through approval by the Board of County Commissioners, approved funds which
would permit a 5% increase to all employees, a position rejected by the Union.
DISCUSSION
A. The Established Statutory Criteria
Section 447.405 of the Florida Statues provides, in relevant part, that in formulating a
recommendation on the subject issue, the Special Magistrate must consider the following
criteria:
1. Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question
with the annual income of employment maintained for the same or similar work of
employees exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions
in the local operating area involved.
3
28
2. Comparison of the annual income of employment of the public employees in question
with the annual income of employment of public employees in similar public employee
governmental bodies of comparable size within the state.
3. The interest and welfare of the public.
4. Comparison of peculiarities of employment in regard to other trades or professions,
including:
• Hazards of employment.
• Physical qualifications.
• Educational qualifications.
• Intellectual qualifications.
• Job training and skills.
• Retirement plans.
• Sick leave.
• Job security.
5. Availability of funds
B. Application of the Foregoing Criteria
In applying the foregoing criteria, the following relevant facts should be considered:
First, recent Florida legislative actions require each public school in each of Florida's Counties
to staff each such school with a school safety officer. Uncontested testimony offered by
Undersheriff Harpring noted that such mandate would place a "substantial drain on manpower
and created a need for hiring." (See TR 74). As a result, the County will be compelled to hire
new Deputies in order to meet this mandate. Accordingly, it is in the County's best interest to
have a starting salary that would attract and retain the best possible candidates for such positions.
Second, the County offers the following entities for purpose of comparison:
4
29
(1) Martin County Sheriff;
(2) Stuart Police Department;
(3) Indian River Shores Public Safety Department;
(4) St. Lucie Sheriff's Office;
(5) Port St. Lucie Police Department;
(6) Ft. Pierce Police Department;
(7) Vero Beach Police Department;
(8) Sebastian Police Department; and
(9) Fellsmere Police Department.
(See Sheriff Exhibit 7).
There was no objecting from the Union as to the use of the foregoing entities.
A. Recommendation for Newly Hired Deputies:
The record evidence reflects that the current starting salary for Deputies at the Indian River
Sheriff's Office ($38,950) is lower than all but one of those jurisdictions, Fellsmere. When
comparing he starting salary for Deputies at the Indian River Sheriff's Office with the list of
comparable jurisdictions noted above, such starting salary is more than$8,500 lower than that of
the neighboring Martin County Sheriffs Office, and over$6,000 less than neighboring St. Lucie
County Sheriff's Office. As a result, all Parties hereto agree that the starting salary for Deputies
must be raised substantially in order to attract and retain qualified Deputies necessary for
continued and expanded service in Indian River County. In accepting this challenge, the Union's
last proposal sought to increase the starting salary for those Deputies hired after April 30, 2017
to $41,500, and those hired after April 30, 2018 to $41,000. The Sheriff, on the other hand,
proposed to increase starting salary for newly hired Deputies to $42,000. Following my careful
review of the comparable jurisdictions, it is Recommended that the Starting Salary for Deputies
be increased to $42,000. It is also Recommended that Deputies with one year of service receive
an increase of base salary to $43,000.
5
30
B. Recommendation for Established Deputies
As noted above, the Indian River Board of County Commissioners("Legislative Body") approved
a 5% increase for their own employees, as well as for the employees of all other County
Constitutional Officers, including the Sheriff. Currently, while the County does not have a salary
schedule for Deputies, it notes that Deputies are paid somewhere in the range starting at$38,950
and topping out at $63,151.(See County Exhibit 3). Therefore, an increase of the base salary to
$42,000 as proposed by the County amounts to an increase of approximately 7.8% to the
base/starting salary. The County has also proposed that all other Deputies not at the top of the
paygrade receive a 5% increase, and that those Deputies currently at the top of the pay grade
receive a"lump sum" increase of$1500. In this later regard, the County proposes that"anyone
not at the top of the paygrade but within 5% of topping out, that employee would be moved to the
top of the paygrade in base pay and receive the balance in a lump sum." While the Union has not
taken issue with a 5%wage increase, it has opposed the manner in which the County seeks to
apply this 5% increase. It is the Union's position that those employees with 20 or more years of
County service be placed at the top of the wage schedule.
In formulating a recommendation for the Deputies, it is boilerplate interest based bargaining logic
that the key to any such recommendation should be to attract outstanding candidates for the
position of Deputy Sheriff, as well as to retain the uniquely skilled and dedicated Deputies
currently on the Sheriff's roster. In this regard, the record reflects that while the bargaining unit
consists of approximately 150 employees, a total of 31 bargaining unit Deputies and four
Detectives have voluntarily departed from the Sheriff's office of which the majority of those
Deputies and Detectives had at least 2 or more years of experience, with the average experience of
those who departed as 10.5 years. To any law enforcement agency, this number of departing
Deputies and Detectives should be cause for concern. The key question to be addressed is
whether there was a common issue which triggered their departure. In addressing this common
issue,the Union maintains that has it has"[m]ade the Sheriff aware that the retention epidemic is
result of low wages and benefits." (Union brief at page 7). The County has not disagreed and in
1 The County notes that this 5%increase would cost the County$483,360.56. Accordingly, using basic math,each
1%increase would cost the County approximately$96,672.
6
31
fact has acknowledged the need to establish a pay scale that would attract new Deputies. ("As
explained by Undersheriff/General Counsel Harpring in his testimony, at this point in time it is
much more compelling for the Sheriff to attract new Deputies . . . ".)
As noted earlier, it has been the Union's position from the outset that all bargaining unit
members having at least 20-years of experience with the Sheriff's Office should be moved to the
top of the salary scale, i.e., to an annual salary of$63,151. The Union cost-out for this proposal
amounts to approximately$67,856.64 or 0.7%. (See Union Exhibit 3). Assuming, arguendo,
that the County accepted the Union's position, and assuming further that the total available
funding is generated by 5%, there would be a net of 4.3% available for distribution to the
remaining members of the bargaining unit, amounting to approximately$415,554.2
Accordingly, assuming acceptability of the Union's proposal regarding the 20+year Deputies,
and the County's proposal regarding the availability and application of the remaining equivalent
funds generated by 5.0%, this scenario would recognize the top priority of the County as well as
the top priority of the Union while staying within the funding authorized by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County. It is for this reason that I make the following
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Increase the Starting Salary to $42,000.
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 who have one year of service shall have
their salary adjusted to $43,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018.
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30, 2018 and unaffected by(2) above shall
receive a 4.3%increase in their base salary. Should this calculation produce a result that
is less than$43,000, any such Deputy so affected shall have his/her base salary adjusted
to $43,000 with any balance given to any such Deputy in lump sum fashion.
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867.
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151, and
'Assuming an increase of the base salary to$42,000,there would be, at this juncture, no cost attached to this
increase since such base salary would only apply to future bargaining unit employees. Assuming equal distribution
to the remaining 135 Deputies,each would receive approximately$3078.
7
32
6. Those bargaining unit members who were already at the top of the pay grade($63,151)
shall move to the new top salary of$65,867.
The foregoing recommendation satisfies the statutory criteria in the following manner:
First, with regard to the first two comparability criteria, the County maintains, with no dispute
from the Union, that the Department lags behind other comparable jurisdictions with regard to
entry level pay for its Deputies. In this regard, the County notes that"In terms of comparability,
then, the starting salary of Deputies at the Indian River Sheriffs Office must be raised
substantially in order to become and remain competitive." In addition, this recommendation
achieves the goal of eliminating the compression issues at the bottom level of the Deputy pay
scale by moving those Deputies hired after April 30, 2017 with a current base salary of$38,950
to a salary that is higher than those Deputies hired after April 30, 2018 making the same base
salary. To achieve this goal, I recommend an additional $1000 differential thereby creating an
established salary of$43,000 for all bargaining Unit members with one year of service. All other
Bargaining Unit Members shall have their base salaries increased by 4.3%.
The next statutory criteria, "availability of funds", is satisfied by fashioning a recommendation
within the parameters already approved by the County Commissioners who, as noted above,
approved a 5% increase for the 2018-2019 fiscal year.
The final statutory criteria, "the interest and welfare of the public" is likewise satisfied by
fashioning Deputy salaries that will attract and retain qualified and dedicated law enforcement
Deputies as reflected by recent actions by the Florida Legislature in demanding more Deputies to
protect our students in their schools. Moreover, the public interest is always satisfied with a
stable and dedicated police presence.
8
33
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
For those reasons noted and discussed above, it is the Conclusion of this Special Magistrate that
the following recommendations be adopted by the County and the Union in satisfaction of the
current impasse that exists.
1. Increase the starting base wage rate to $42,000;
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 shall have their salary adjusted from
$38,950 to $42,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018. Those Deputies
having one year of service shall have their salaries increased to $43,000 and that any
remaining funds be paid to any such Deputy in a lump sum fashion.
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30, 2018 and unaffected by(2) above shall
receive a 4.3% increase in their base salary;
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867.
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151.;
6. Those bargaining unit members who were at the top of the pay grade ($63,151) shall
move to the new top salary of$65,867.
Dated: June 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted:
Dennis J. Campagna
Florida Special Magistrate
9
34
Office of the General Counsel
International Union of Police
Associations, AFL-CIO
Al' 1�� The only Union for Law Enforcement Officers
I�
Sent Via Email care of Dylan Reingold,Esq. (dreinjold(i1 irccov.com) and US Mail
July 12, 2019
Honorable Bob Solari, Chariman
Honorable Susan Adams, Vice Chairman
Honorable Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner
Honorable Tim Zorc, Commissioner
Honorable Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner
1801 27th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388
RE: Impasse Between the Sheriff of Indian River County and Indian River County
Deputies' Association, I.U.P.A., Local 6080
Dear Commissioners:
The Indian River County Deputies' Association, I.U.P.A., Local 6080 ("Association")
hereby provides its recommendations to resolve the impasse between the Sheriff of Indian River
County and Association (jointly"Parties").
On June 13, 2019, the jointly-selected Special Magistrate, Dennis Campagna, issued his
recommendation to resolve the impasse between the Parties. Magistrate Campagna recommended
the following items:
1. Increase the Starting Salary to $42,000;
2. Those Deputies hired on or after April 30, 2018 who have one year of service shall
have their salary adjusted to$43,000 effective the first full pay period of October 2018;
3. Bargaining Unit members hired before April 30,2018 and unaffected by(2)above shall
receive a 4.3% increase in their base salary. Should this calculation produce a result
that is less than $43,000, any such Deputy so affected shall have his/her base salary
adjusted to $43,000 with any balance given to any such Deputy in lump sum fashion;
1IPaLrc
35
4. Increase the top salary by 4.3%resulting in a new top salary of$65,867;
5. Move those bargaining unit members who have at least 20 years of experience with the
County to an annual salary of$63,151; and
6. Those bargaining unit members who were already at the top of the pay grade($63,151)
shall move to the new top salary of$65,867.
Further, Magistrate Campagna clarified in a subsequent communication with the Parties
that all of the aspects of his recommendation were to be retroactive to October 1, 2018 ("the first
full pay period of October 2018"). A copy of Magistrate Campagna's entire recommendation is
included as an attachment to this correspondence.
On June 27, 2019, the Deputies Association held a vote for the entire bargaining unit to
determine if the employees would accept, reject, or accept in-part the recommendation by
Magistrate Campagna. Of 111 votes cast, 90 employees voted to accept the recommendation in
its entirety.
Magistrate Campagna's decision is extremely well reasoned and accounted for all of the
arguments presented by both parties. It is of important note that Magistrate Campagna's decision
did not grant the Association every item it requested. However, Magistrate Campagna was able
to address all of the pertinent issues brought before him including:
1. The retention epidemic at the Indian River County Sheriffs Office;
2. The lack of an "across the board raise" (in that new employees receive in excess of a
9% raise while some senior employees would receive just over a 3% raise); and
3. The need to bring long-tenured employees(20-plus year Deputies)to topped-out salary.
For reference, the Association's Brief to Magistrate Campagna, which addresses these issues in
greater detail, is included as an attachment.
The Association and vast majority of the bargaining unit recognizes that the recommended
compromises offered by Magistrate Campagna are reasonable to everyone involved. Therefore,
the Deputies Association respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners follow
Magistrate Campagna's recommendations and issue a decision consistent with his decision.
2 � Pac
36
Thank you for your consideration and assistance in bringing this impasse to a final
resolution.
Best regards,
/s/Ryan W. Burton
Ryan W. Burton, Esq.
Associate General Counsel, I.U.P.A.
Cc. Wayne Helsby, Esq., Allen,Norton and Blue, Counsel for the Sheriff
Indian River County Deputies' Association, I.U.P.A., Local 6080
3IPagc
37
'3 A
4)
CIDCt
Ct
O,,, H
i ' minoze. .4/
I
� ,�t� '.,�,,
SpL iq T (J
cr �`15 /�j�J Oit)0
ZI . 0 1 ..Cl''
dap
O JPO 1
4 V ` 2
voor, , 1:s., ivoil-:,7-.\‘'\\N - 4,,,4„,,
N tz4.1.\\\\.\\\\
1, \ .-4 .1
O
N
00
O
N
8
-4.'' co
V)
O 4.4CL� V V
o C, .0
C
Cl)vEI cid
E ‘.4 ci)
4..e cu H u
!X F--4 .r■i,
i :4? 1
V V
limi q g4 s'i r—I
0 0 � o
N Z Z
41‘
V CU au
COlmmi 4.0 4.4
Cid
.
Ecn 4-4
z E1—..., i..) (0 u cit
.1-4 4-4 .1-4 (I)
Pm( 5
U u ai ryml
a4 H A •rt
. . .
3i
`Ja
ct
0 v CI) U
A.:1.4 QIO� - ca, v
y ct
4.4 Cl)o p o o
icL,' 8 '-ai, -cii
• 1 �A O a, O
rsi O ^n f:)-( O
+ 0O
p O >> v by J
0
n .t� E V cd
lav O
CuWV eu la'
rn al a • a
Cl)4
�1DCO v a.o
v F O
4-1
v
WJ N 4 A�e 1, O
tC3 4-4 U 8
t&ld CO CI) CI) 4.1
ci .5:2( .Z tr-44 CI t0
O O 0 ,
F
N 4 p .5 4 i i o c!,
cn V4 (/) . o 0005 00u
N Ci;' �
I I I c� o at a?o o °�-+° ''
OHO 00 00 O N A N ¢,, N M N v
N N0 N p N "N 4 0e) U
c ej e-+ O e-+ 4-I ty t �A t t cA
e-4 N '+ M Q'' 4 t 4 .Z ,,Q V ..Q c�d'
q
bA 0 clgi3 Ary p Z y '"''
4 ' 4 4 c°� CAI cn cz Zan A o
. . .
M
rr N N 0 o O, O 0 cA cA 'pn,
00 N �p 0 0 .0 O O N O N in Pp N O
NNNC` N rON ON ON
y0 0 0 O p =
Z
o.= s <-1 N� MO .� s O '3 ti-1 N
O dN iO,
O ` N �' M bN8 >,
MM M U -1,3; N CC 00 E 2 a E N L' = N0N aT O E
sE 01
v,• Mp _ = L E > 7 y p oUAca Is 0 _ 0 cN = ti
t. O 3. zca OC'
O. O. . '5zQ p O y O Q Z ' cM
w 0 yp . .,
ppp M N 0 O O O O p L In
'n M O0 T 'n S senz „ —� N N ,-• 0 -. Ch y 0 ,1- C 00 00 m -g O OO N N O NO N O N
O el U OU
o O C ^y . N Ncl
0
O .-r ON [ .� . -C VD G] N M '
cu
• x cC cd as N cd C UU N cC N .D O e, E
cd ¢ 0 z
V CA
u
Ill
le
ti
v
tl
u
r• IR IR hhv�iM '1P, :;lvwlw 'laaooacRo"; IR a .: .! '� 4
w• O O O V1 00 O; CO ,r 1 N N rn ^r1 N * h 0 n o0 O: N' 00 00 pt; 0 V
O O O �0 00 O N ti Os •1 h tN O o0 '� N e9 rh V OOOp® ,O *. ...
OV1V1NOv0 � t® w000 ® � NVO' Ve1hh000 'rN p C „
N N Al N. vO h Op O O
L V 4* 7 i! * V V1 h 41 V1 h V1 V1 h V1 V1 V1 �O �O )O �O �O ,`• 4 O
d A
to, rn It7.1
U
z
:J
J
r rr .
, . . , , r, .r, q-- ,r,.
J: .r, .r. .r r, .r, .r. ., .r .r. .r. .r. ,rr, .
SIJ
J
.J
T
L
00 0 0 0 `D r. 00 00 0 00 00 N 00 00 M 00
Ca O O to 0) 01 0) N0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) v) O ,t 0) .O t--. ,n CT 00 a)
cA 0 O N 00 If kr) 00 .--• r-. r 00 N Cl f _ N un N CA N
c CA CA 0000 en*fl ' OD 't N C' N 000 QOp, O� C' O N O O O O N 'Nn
00 00 O N ' I N 00 pp 0 —. N M M 00 00 00 00 Q, —
• M M "t" '- '1 'et 't 7r 7 u tel v� it ', u in to in un \O
U
Li1
sn
cd
O if)
� 0a)td o w 0 p , .p
. eri ZN Crc 0.9 ES .'3 M U
i
0 00 V)
C v O, V 'v P'� (,) q °o 0 0 0 v m fi
CO
u tu
c Q 4N •G V
H
0' O O 74
74
co U U Nr oco p(JDc O 0U
A /1
° aa o '� crc o U `� en • ,�
A )—IM
cn
O O ^ O p V in cn Tti
OD N ^ Er)
N a) .
'4 ° '`'' U N n C . ccO n +fib u
cd 4r 4 cr7 ::, cr) 00 V' cd cu
cu
VVI 't N y 06 6,
n r � H
tep tq cr N Hwl-
rz
v -O O O p., O o • 14 U -OOVOCi) .�U U �0
44
eri v cd cu
A H
cn 7,1
'U .1 U 0 N o c—+ e
►4 tw - in 71= �
Qcn C0 M a 4A N
64 ~ Q
'a' V
4-4
(1) 00 CO CO CO 0 6" a
A
60 VI
r rn
i� ' � :d ¢, � ' U .i
At%elUc'n UW 4 � cn o � ( 4