Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 131709

Printable PDF Format

Clerk's Official Copy

File Number: 131709

File Type: Resolution

Status: Adopted

Version: 0

Reference: R-754-13

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: COUNTY PAID UNION REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced: 8/30/2013

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action: 9/17/2013

Agenda Date: 9/17/2013

Agenda Item Number: 11A3

Notes:

Title:

RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR’S DESIGNEE TO INCLUDE IN FUTURE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE ISSUE OF COUNTY-PAID UNION REPRESENTATIVES (SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 131569)

Indexes:	COUNTY EMPLOYEE
	COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS

Sponsors:

Esteban L. Bovo, Jr., Prime Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	9/17/2013	11A3	Adopted				P

County Attorney	8/30/2013		Assigned	Lee Kraftchick

Finance Committee	8/27/2013	2A AMENDED	Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s)				P
REPORT:	Assistant County Attorney Geri Bonzon-Keenan read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairman Bovo relinquished the Chair to Commissioner Heyman. It was moved by Chairman Bovo that the foregoing proposed resolution be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Moss requested an overview of funding for union representatives and how Miami-Dade County compared to other large municipal governments. Ms. Arleene Cuellar, Division Director, Payroll and Information Management, Internal Services Department explained that union representatives were funded through the County budget process in accordance with labor negotiations. She noted that a comparison was not currently available and that it would be prepared. Assistant County Attorney Lee Kraftchick clarified that the private sector began paying union representatives to act on behalf of unions approximately 40 years ago, noting the practice was soon incorporated into both private and public sector union contracts. He commented that the Public Employee Relations Commission determined that union representatives were not an improper aid to unions and approved its use legally. Assistant County Attorney Kraftchick noted that the Miami-Dade County Public Schools released approximately four employees for union representation purposes and also provided twenty-five hundred union days to be used throughout the year for union business. He said that the practice varied throughout the State and some municipalities did not provide any benefits. Commissioner Moss questioned whether a discussion over union representation occurred during the collective bargaining process. Assistant County Attorney Kraftchick responded that each collective bargaining unit began with at least one paid union representative approximately 30 years ago; however, as part of the negotiation process, the number of representatives increased to over 40 today. Commissioner Moss commented that he was supportive of a discussion to ensure the number of paid union representatives was appropriate; however, he did not support changing the model as part of the collective bargaining process. He noted he would need additional information on union representation funding in other large municipal governments. Acting Chairwoman Heyman commented that everything should be on the table for negotiation so that the County and union representatives could review all options prior to the beginning of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-14 budget. She expressed concern that the resolution’s language called for the County Mayor and his designated bargaining representatives to negotiate for the elimination or reduction in the number of employees released and paid by the County; noting that the savings could be accomplished in another manner. Commissioner Heyman was under the belief that the dues paid by employees to their union paid for their representation. She noted she supported a dialogue with union representatives to negotiate and identify an alternative concession, but not a direction to eliminate or reduce the number of released employees. Commissioner Bovo pointed out that commissioners had a fiduciary responsibility to County voters, taxpayers, and residents; whereas, the unions were only responsible to their employees. He explained that he respected the unions’ position; that the foregoing proposed resolution was not to be considered as anti-union; and that the proposed resolution supported the taxpayer’s interest. Commissioner Bovo noted that it was difficult to support over $3 million to be spent on union representatives’ salaries and fringe benefits in the community he represented. He commented that having 19 employees in one department, some with six figure salaries, who were dedicated to union business, was difficult to reconcile. Acting Chairwoman Heyman noted an extensive discussion on the budget, employee layoffs and salaried union representatives was held at yesterday’s (8/26) Committee of the Whole meeting. She said the Library and Fire Departments had paid union representatives whose salaries could otherwise be used to retain additional employees to deliver County services. Commissioner Heyman suggested that the language directing Mayor to include County paid employment of employees representing the unions in upcoming negotiations be used, rather than specific language calling for a specific reduction or elimination. She said she could not support the proposed resolution, noting that the issue should be discussed, rather than to direct the outcome. In response to Commissioner Bovo’s question whether a deferred item could be placed on the next Finance Committee Agenda, Assistant County Attorney Bonzon-Keenan clarified that a motion to defer an item to the next Committee meeting was in order. She noted in the event that the vote to forward the item failed, absent an application for renewal, three months was needed before an item could be placed on the agenda. Commissioner Bovo said that he would include Commissioner Heyman’s suggestion directing administration to discuss these options with union representatives, although he remained supportive of the proposed resolution as written. Acting Chairwoman Heyman inquired whether the Mayor could present alternatives other than paid employment by the County in his future negotiations with the unions. Deputy Mayor/Finance Director Edward Marquez responded that other alternatives would be included in union negotiations if directed to do so by the Board. Chairman Bovo asked Deputy Mayor Marquez to include County-paid union representation in future collective bargaining negotiations and to consider the use of that funding for other County purposes, as an alternative. Commissioner Moss questioned whether discussions related union paid representation was already being considered. Deputy Mayor Marquez responded that this discussion had previously taken place; however, he reiterated that a Board resolution directing administration to do so would ensure they placed more emphasis on this issue in future negotiations. Commissioner Moss noted that he was not supportive of the foregoing proposed resolution. He said that the legislation should not appear as anti-union; however, the issue of determining the appropriate number of union paid representatives should be part of the normal negotiation process. Commissioner Zapata commented that this was a fairness issue and should not be viewed as anti-union. He noted the costs paid by the County for union representatives who did not provide value to the County needed to be considered as those funds could otherwise have a positive impact on other budget priorities. Commissioner Zapata said that compensating union representatives needed to be discussed as part of the union negotiation process. He noted taxpayers were concerned that union representatives were often paid twice the amount of the area’s median income and these employees did not show up to work. Commissioner Zapata said a better understanding of the value union representatives created for the County was necessary. He pointed out that the proposed resolution should be forwarded to the Board; that it was fair to the County’s taxpayers; and that it gave the unions the opportunity explain the services they provided. Acting Chairwoman Heyman commented that she did not want to amend the proposed resolution just to have it changed back by the Board to something she believed was detrimental by constricting available options with the wording “elimination or reduction”. She encouraged all issues to be addressed during union negotiations. Commissioner Heyman suggested that each union allow their members to consider whether to pay for their representatives with union dues and use County funds for direct service related employment. She pointed out that her recommendation was to include the payment of union paid representatives as part of the union negotiation process and was not asking to for it to be eliminated or removed. Acting Chairwoman Heyman proceeded to read an amendment to the foregoing proposed resolution into the record as follows: “…that the County Mayor and his designated bargaining representatives are hereby directed to include County paid employment of County employees to perform union duties, as they negotiate the budget and contracts”. Deputy Mayor Marquez commented that he did not believe the connection to the budget was necessary. Acting Chairwoman Heyman asked Assistant County Attorney Kraftchick to clarify the amendment with removal of the budget reference. Assistant County Attorney Kraftchick read the amendment into the record as follows: “…that the County Mayor and his designated bargaining representatives are hereby directed to include the issue of County paid union representatives as one of the issues for collective bargaining negotiations”. Commissioner Bovo offered his commitment that the foregoing proposed resolution would proceed as approved by the Finance Committee. Mr. Terry Murphy pointed out that the Finance Committee was only receiving input from the Administration on a matter that affected collective bargaining units and suggested scheduling a public meeting to hear union representatives’ comments. Chairman Bovo commented that providing direction for the Administration to discuss issues with the unions gave both parties an opportunity to comment on the item. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Committee members proceeded to vote on this proposed resolution, as amended. The foregoing proposed resolution was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with Committee amendments to the NOW, THEREFORE clause on handwritten page 3 to replace the language as follows: “…that the County Mayor and his designated bargaining representatives are hereby directed to include the issue of County paid union representatives as one of the issues for collective bargaining negotiations”. Chairman Bovo resumed the Chair.

Legislative Text

TITLE
RESOLUTION DIRECTING COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO INCLUDE IN FUTURE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THE ISSUE OF COUNTY-PAID UNION REPRESENTATIVES

BODY
WHEREAS, the County�s various collective bargaining agreements presently call for the County to release employees to engage in union duties and to continue to pay them their regular County salary, wages and benefits; and
WHEREAS, despite being paid by the County, employees released to perform union duties are effectively without County supervision or accountability; and
WHEREAS, unions collect dues for the purpose of providing employees with representation and the County should not bear this cost; and
WHEREAS, the topic of releasing and paying employees to perform union duties is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the County Mayor and his designated bargaining representatives are hereby directed to [[negotiate for the elimination or reduction in the number of employees released and paid by the County to]] >>include the issue of paying County union representatives that<<1 perform union duties as one of the items for future collective bargaining negotiations.

1 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] are deleted, words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< are added.

-