The La Center Police Officers Association filed two unfair labor practices complaints this month against the city.
Both complaints were filed with the state Public Employment Relations Commission and allege the city didn’t give the union a chance to negotiate before changing policies. The city and union are already facing an arbitration hearing to settle the terms of the officers’ new contract after more than a year of negotiations failed. The officers are working under the terms of the previous three-year contract, which expired Dec. 31, 2009. That hearing has not yet been scheduled.
The first complaint alleges the city cancelled its take-home vehicle program for police sergeants without providing the union with an opportunity to negotiate. The second alleges the city again didn’t give the union a chance to negotiate when it changed its disciplinary procedures, drug and alcohol testing, and tenure. The changes were made when the city council adopted an employee policy manual this summer.
“The city hopes to resolve both the (unfair labor practices complaints) and union negotiations in an amicable and timely manner,” Finance Director Suzanne Levis said. “We want to take care of our employees while still being fiscally responsible to our citizens.”
Neither the local union representative nor the union’s attorney responded to a request for comment.
According to the complaint, when the city terminated its take-home vehicle program in September, it violated the union’s right to bargain. The city, however, argues the union contract gives the city the authority to change that policy. The contract says “the city council reserves the right to revoke at any time the use of city-owned vehicles for any purpose other than official city business,” the city said in its written response to the complaint.
In October 2008, the city passed a resolution allowing police sergeants to take vehicles home. This October, the council passed another resolution to revoke the policy. When the council first approved the policy, the city had only one police sergeant, who lived more than 25 miles outside of city limits. The sergeant was on-call 24 hours a day. Since then, the city created a second police sergeant position, which was filled by someone who lives just outside city limits and can respond to emergencies, according to the resolution rescinding the policy.
Budgetary constraints and the absence of any public safety justification required the termination of the policy, according to the resolution.
According to the second complaint, the city proposed changes to its policy manual during negotiations but the union did not agree to the changes. When the city adopted its manual anyway, it changed the status quo of numerous mandatory subjects of bargaining, according to the complaint.
The city contends it asked the union for input on the manual and e-mailed the union’s attorney a copy of the manual on four occasions. After waiting 18 months and receiving no feedback from the union, the city adopted the manual in June, according to the city’s response. The manual also says personnel policies in contracts trump the employee manual. As such, the city has asked the union to clarify the complaint.
The city and union are now scheduling a meeting with a PERC mediator. If no agreement can made, PERC will hold an arbitration hearing to settle the issues.
In August, the city and union settled another complaint through a mediator. The union filed a complaint against the city because the city began requiring written preapproval for employees to purchase items using their $500 clothing allowance. The city agreed to waive the written approval and instead created a list of acceptable purchases using the clothing allowance.
Marissa Harshman: 360-735-4546 or marissa.harshman@columbian.com.
