pages: CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf, 30
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-07-27 | 30 | Vice Mayor deHaan stated the basic concern is why there is binding arbitration for one union and not others; inquired how existing negotiations would be affected if the proposed resolution went forward. Joe Wiley, Labor Negotiator, responded the ground rule would be predicated on the existence of the Charter amendment; stated binding interest arbitration could be bargained if Council gave authority to do so; the issue would be a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the issue has been done for any other unions, to which Mr. Wiley responded not to his knowledge. The City Attorney stated parties could always elect to go to arbitration when there is a dispute; arbitration does not have to be mandatory or binding. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why one bargaining unit would have something that others would not. Councilmember Tam responded fire fighters are precluded from striking. Mr. Wiley stated that fire fighters and police officers are precluded from striking; the Seal Beach decision stated having a strike that would create an impact to public health and safety would be unlawful and would be subject to being enjoin; the Seal Beach case does not apply to the City's circumstances; the Seal Beach case addressed a mandatory subject of bargaining in which an employee would be fired without review if engaged in the conduct [strike]; a mandatory subject of bargaining cannot be placed on the ballot without first having a meet and confer; two decisions have been handed down Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 30 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission July 27, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-27.pdf |