The San Luis Obispo City Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523, challenged a city council decision to remove the right of unions to have a third party arbiter make the final decision on labor disputes — called binding arbitration — Feb. 23. The decision would also remove a city charter section requiring voter approval on an upcoming August ballot to reduce retirement benefits for public safety organizations like the Firefighters Association and the Police Officers Association.
The city council passed the measure with a 4-1 vote Feb. 22, causing the Firefighters Association’s attorney, Stuart D. Adams, to send a letter to City Attorney J. Christine Dietrick.
In the letter, Adams stated the San Luis Obispo City Council’s actions are was illegal because the council had not contacted public service employees first.
Though voters approved binding arbitration in 2000, with budget issues in both San Luis Obispo and California, the council must consider ways to balance the budget. Yet, in Adams’ letter, Section 1107 “is designed to resolve disputes over wages, hours and terms and conditions.” If the repeal measure were to be passed and then approved on the ballot, both the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association would presumably lose the right to negotiate.
However, Dietrick said IAFF’s frustrations were a misunderstanding. She said the council did not finalize its decision to put a repeal on the ballot; rather, it asked Dietrick to draft an ordinance for the special election in August as well as draft the “language for proposed measures.”
“I would disagree with Adams’ assessment that the action they took was illegal,” Dietrick said. “They didn’t take any action to put it on the ballot yet, and they didn’t make an ordinance for a special election (yet).”
In a response letter to Adams and Local 3523, Dietrick wrote, “The city values very highly its employees and our culture of open communication and collaboration in working through difficult issues” and that the City Council purposefully did not pass the measure because they wanted to “accommodate time for discussion with employee groups to occur well before any deadlines for such action.”
City council member Andrew Carter said the city is well aware of its legal rights and mirrored Dietrick’s statement that the council instructed city staff to draft the measures for future formal vote.
“What needs to be asked, however, is why does the Firefighters Association want to try to prevent taxpayers from being able to vote on pension reform and binding arbitration?” Carter said. “In the end, it’s the taxpayers who pay for all city salaries and benefits, not (the) council.”
If the measure does get approved in future votes, Adams’ letter detailed a threat of litigation because of the legality of the vote. According to the letter, “the city cannot make changes to the City Charter via city proposed amendments to Charter provisions which effect (sic) terms and conditions of employment without meeting and conferring with Local 3523 and other effected (sic) bargaining unit representatives first” due to the 1984 case, People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach.
Vice Mayor John Ashbaugh said he opposed the vote, and now feels the threatened litigation puts the city in unfortunate circumstances.
“We are now in the position where we are facing litigation; this is essentially a legal dispute between the city and our public employee associations,” Ashbaugh said. “What I can say is that the city intends to meet fully its obligations under applicable state law with respect to the issues that currently divide our council majority and our public employees.”
In Dietrick’s letter to Adams, she wrote the council wants to discuss the matter with Local 3523 before the ballot measure is pursued further. Yet, Dietrick said she affirmed Adams would most likely follow through with his threat if the measure did go through.
Baskin said Local 3523 is prepared to fight for their rights with all of the “tools (they) have at (their) disposal.”
“We’re going to let our team handle things,” Baskin said. “The bottom line for us is that binding arbitration protects our staffing levels for citizens, and we’re going to do everything we can to prevent its (repeal).”
However, Dietrick said she hoped the issue would be resolved by the city and Local 3523 could come to a reasonable decision, though she said if they could not, “that is what the court is for.”
Dietrick did not know what would happen if the measure does get on the ballot and is approved.
“That’s difficult to answer,” Dietrick said. “We don’t know if it will pass or fail.”
If the measure does pass, labor relations for public employees may be changed considerably in the future.
Baskin said he felt if the City wants to change binding arbitration, they should do so with the same signature collecting techniques that public safety employees had to use eleven years ago.
“We feel that binding arbitration is a fair negotiation process for public safety employees who don’t have the right to strike,” Baskin said.