City
of
And
Teamsters
Local No. 117, Police Lieutenants Unit
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Kenneth M. McCaffree
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: McCaffree; Kenneth M.
Case #: 03425-I-81-00080
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN ARBITRATION
Between
TEAMSTERS Local No. 117,
Police
Lieutenants Unit,
-and by
Kenneth
M. McCaffree
CITY OF
RE: Wages, Overtime/Compensatory Time
and
Case
No. 3425-1-81-80
Representatives: Public
Employee Relations
For the
For the City: William
A Coats
INTEREST
ARBITRATION
I. INTRODUCTION
A hearing on this matter was held in
pursuant
to RCW 41.56. Following a declaration of
impasse in their attempts
to
complete an agreement, this arbitrator was accepted to hear the issues
and
render a decision. The parties affirmed
the arbitrator was properly
selected
and was given the authority to determine the issues presented to
him.
Accordingly, the arbitrator proceeded to determine the
issues before
him,
and to afford to the parties full opportunity to present their
respective
positions on each issue, to examine and cross examine witnesses,
to
offer information and data through exhibits, to make oral arguments and
otherwise
to inform the arbitrator on the relevant aspects of the issues in
dispute. The
included
E. Miller, Police Lieutenant; William R. Harold, City Personnel
Director, N.J. Gibson, Jr.,
City Chief of Police, and Edward J. Wilson,
Police Captain. Others who entered into the discussion at
various times
included
Russ Olson, Business Representative of the
Lieutenants
opening
oral statement, and brief concluding summary remarks. An opening
written
statement was given the arbitrator by the City.
Post hearing
written
summary briefs were due on
from
the City and this was timely done. The
arbitrator also tape recorded
the
proceedings.
II. ISSUES AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
There were three issues placed before the arbitrator:
first, the level
of
monthly salary for police lieutenants; second, overtime time
payments/compensatory
time for overtime work, and third, compensation for
work
on a holiday. The positions of the
below.
A. Salary Level
increase of l9.95% over the
current salary of $2,356 per month
(Un. Ex. #1).
City: Effective
increase of 13.98% over the
current salary of $2,356 per month
(C. Op. S.2).
B. Overtime/Compensatory Time
their hourly base rate for all
hours worked outside a regular
assigned eight (8) hour shift in
any one day and/or 40 hours
in a regularly scheduled work
week. The employee has the
option to take overtime pay or
compensatory time off for said
overtime hours.
(Union Ex. #1 has been reproduced as Attachment A. That sets
forth the full proposal of the
City: The City's
wage offer above was made, subject to the
dropping its request for
overtime/compensatory time and
holiday pay. An "Hours of Work" proposal was
made by the City
(Attachment A).
C.
shall
receive one and one-half times their hourly base rate
for
hours worked and shall receive a furlough day in lieu of
that
holiday worked. (The exact proposal is
included in
Attachment
A).
City: If a lieutenant works a holiday, the employee will be allowed
to
take a mutually agreed to compensatory day (C. Op.S.
3).
In the discussion of
had
not discussed, negotiated, nor resolved the
accruing
of 40 hours of compensatory time; (b) three hours minimum call back
pay or (c) three hours standby
pay. These are matters dependent upon
resolution
of the overtime/compensatory time provision above. The
arbitrator
was requested to remain available potentially to consider these
issues,
dependent upon his decision in the overtime/compensatory time
issue. After a decision on the latter provision the
parties wished an
opportunity
to resolve any remaining issues before proceeding to submit any
other
issues to this arbitrator.
III. SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS
A. Wages and
Salaries
1.
maintained
between the Lieutenants' and Port Police Sergeants'
base
monthly rate" (Un. Ex. #2).
2. Renton
Police Department - In both 1980 and 1981 ,
Lieutenants'
base monthly
salary exceeded sergeants' base monthly salary by
13%.
The Lieutenants' salary in 1981 was $2,787 per month,
with $35 per
month added after five years service, and with 90
credits under
the educational incentive provision, an
additional $30
per month was agreed to (Un. Ex. #3).
3. Auburn Police Sergeants averaged 76.8 hours per month In
overtime in 1980, equivalent to
$132.29 per month (Un. Ex.
#4). Five individuals, who were sergeants over the
entire
first six months of 1981
averaged $15,803. One, who was the
detective sergeant earned
$17,109 and the remaining four
averaged $15,481 (C. R. Br. 5).
4. Increase in base salary levels and salary ranges in other
cities for lieutenants have been
summarized below from City
Ex. #13.
Base Salary
Percentage
Increase
City 1981 over 1980
Mountlake Terrace 11.0 $2435 $2619
Mercer Island 10.0 2130 - 2719
Average 11.17 $2230
- $2666
*All salaries, except for
Police
Department.
**This rate is $2822 after five
years service and $2817 with 90 credits
of
educational incentive.
5. Percentage wage/salary increases of 1981 over 1980 for other
units
of employees in the City were as follows (C. Op.S.6).
Police Unit - 13.1
Fire Unit - 13.1
Public Works - 13.0
Finance - 12.5
Unrepresented
Management - 13.1
6. Salaries for department heads in the City of
Planning Director $2657 (9)*
Street Supt. $2619 (30-40)
Water & Sewer Supt. $2313 (17)
Park Director $2598 (25/50-150 p.t.)
Fire Dept.
Capt. $2679 N/A
Fire Dept.
Lieut. $2464 N/A
*Approximate number of
employees supervised.
7. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
all urban consumers,
increased
10.0% from April 1980 to April 1981. The
annualized
rate
of increase for the CPI (U) during the first four months
of
1981 was 8.4%. The increase over the 12
months in 1980 was
12.4 percent (C. Op.S., BNA LRR attachment, News and
Background Information,
B. Overtime/Compensatory Time/Holiday Pay
The data on the two remaining
issues have been summarized together.
1. Lieutenants, in coopertion with
Police Captains and their Police
Chief, establish currently a
working schedule in accordance with
the
responsibilities of the positions occupied.
The exact hours
required
to be "on the job" are somewhat flexible, and no overtime
is
currently authorized. Lieutenants and
captains may be called at
home
or when off duty for a number of reasons, that occur
infrequently,
and do not always require the presence of the
lieutenant
at the scene of the event, activity, etc. (Un. Ex. #5;
Testimony: C. Op.S 8).
2. Lieutenants have been, and may be, assigned to a shift, and
hence
lose
the current flexibility of hours (Un. Ex. #6). Requests for
compensatory
time have been denied, although adjustments for
"casual"
overtime by taking compensatory time was possible, and
done
(Un. Ex. #7, 8, and 9).
3. A Lieutenant Mulkey was presumed
to have received two hours
compensatory
time explicitly in January, 1980 (U. Ex. #10).
The
exact
circumstances were not established.
Testimony did confirm,
however,
that no compensatory time pay offs were made to any
lieutenants,
while they worked as lieutenants, under the recent
arbitration
decision and Court settlement of accumulated
compensatory
time (City Ex. #14).
4. The following table shows Overtime/Compensatory Time/Holiday
Pay
for
ten other cities (C. Ex. 12).
City Overtime Compensatory
Time
Mountlake Terrace No
Yes
Kirland No No
Mercer Island No No
*"
"Day off" means the
day is not a regular work day, and if worked,
another
day off is allowed in lieu of the worked holiday. No City pays
1-1/2 time for day worked, and
gives a day off in lieu of the holiday
worked
(C. Op.S.ll).
**All police department
personnel on duty during the annual
Fair are paid overtime.
5. No overtime is paid for extra hours of work for the Planning
Director, Street Superintendent,
Water and Sewer Superintendent and
Parks
director in the City. None
of these are granted additional
compensation
if they work a holiday (C. Op. 5.11).
C. General Information
The Police Department in
Lieutenant, Director of the
Administrative Services Division, reports
directly
to the Chief. Two Captains are employed,
one heads the Support
Services Bureau and a
Lieutenant who heads the Special Services Division
that
includes the jail services unit, record unit and traffic violations
reports
to him. The second Captain directs the Opeations Bureau of which
the
major division is the Uniformed Services headed by a Lieutenant. The
entire
Department contains about 65 people. One
Sergeant heads the
identification
unit, another leads the detective unit, and four others
report
to the Lieutenant in the Uniformed Services Division. Thus one
Lieutenant is in a
senior-staff relationship to the Chief, and the other two
are
in line command, at the second level below the Chief. All have several
persons
in their divisions that require supervision (City Ex. #15).
IV. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
The arbitrator is directed by statute to
examine the level of salaries
and
working conditions prevailing in comparable cities for comparable
positions,
to look at internal salary and wage structures and working
conditions
of the employer, to review trends in wages, compensation, and
working
conditions, to evaluate changes in the "cost of living," and to
evaluate
other factors that may affect the bargaining relationship (RCW
41.56.460). These factors are reflected, to a
substantial extent, in the
data
and information provided above. Further,
however, the arbitrator
should
be guided by those factors that most likely would direct the parties,
and
attempt to arrive at a proposed settlement that would be most likely
reached
by the parties in a "free" collective bargaining situation, when the
right
to strike was available. This latter
consideration requires some
judgement on the relative strengths of the two
parties, and what they would
likely
do, or how they would react, If in fact a strike, or other pressures,
were
available to both. Obviously, such a judgement can never be precise,
and
thus quantative data on prevailing patterns of settlement,
where
available,
and comparable levels of wages and conditions become primary
considerations
for the arbitrator.
There are reasons for considering the three
issues presented to the
arbitrator
essentially as a single proposal and a counter proposal. The
City explicitly made the offer
of a monthly salary, $2685, conditional to
the
withdrawal of the Union requests on overtime/compensatory and holiday
pay. In addition, the general approach and
argument of the
the
compensation character of the latter issues.
The major argument
emphasized
the added income obtained by sergeants from overtime and similar
premium
pay situations, which the lieutenants believed should be available
to
them to keep their salaries a certain percentage above that amount
received
by sergeants. Finally, regular
compensation is related to hours
normally
worked, and extra hours worked reasonably relate to compensation
levels
and/or increases.
A. Hours and Compensation
There were no very firm data on how much overtime
the lieutenants would
actually
have, but the total has not been large in recent years. A very
limited
number of special events and/or activities were cited when the
lieutenants
were required to work over extended time periods. Although
subject to
being called out at night or on week-ends, this had occurred
equally
as infrequently, and perhaps occurred only two or three times per
year. Miller could identify no specific instance
for himself in the last
three
months. Only three examples were offered
that lieutenants had worked
on
week-ends, outside their regularly scheduled day work during the week,
and
two of these occasions were at the option of the employee. No work by
lieutenants
was reported on holidays.
The employees did indicate that a certain amount of
"casual" overtime
occurred. This was generally described as occurring at
the end of a shift,
at
lunch, or even prior to the beginning of a regular day's work in order to
be
certain to see a member of the department.
For this type of "overtime,"
the
Lieutenants were able to exercise discretion in quitting early, take a
slightly
longer lunch period, next day, or coming in late some day to
compensate. This arrangement allowed some nominal
flexibility of hours on
duty,
and even permitted lieutenants "to stop by the department" on
week-ends. There were no extended periods of overtime in
these cases, nor
work
directed to be done by the Chief or a Police Captain. Finally, the
evidence
was substantial that lieutenants at Auburn have not been paid
overtime
nor were any lieutenants included in the compensatory time pay off
from
the recent court decision for any overtime worked while a lieutenant.
On the basis of the above evaluation, the arbitrator
concluded that the
demand
for overtime beyond the "casual" overtime described above was
primarily a
"protective measure" to avoid being directed to work extended
periods
of time outside the presently established day shifts without
specific
provision in advance for,compensation. The Union presentation at
the
hearing emphasized this aspect of overtime, and spent little effort in
justifying
that part of the Union proposal dealing with specific hours and
overtime
arrangements.
The arbitrator also concluded that set hours at which the
lieutenants
were
to be continuously on the job and effectively supervised, such as those
hours
for sergeants, patrol officers, jail services employees and so forth,
were
important, but less so than additional compensation. Set hours and
compensation
for overtime such as contained In the Police Unit Agreement are
not
compatible with employee discretion to adjust hours nominally daily
and/or
weekly to suit the convenience of the employee and/or compensate for
each
bit of "casual" overtime.
Keeping records of such activity, and
determining
what was to be paid as overtime and what was compensatory time
would
be exceedingly burdensone on all and unnecessarily
costly
administratively.
There was no convincing evidence or argument made to the
arbitrator that
the employees wanted a set
eight hour day, five day week, and forgo the
present
flexibility afforded employees to adjust daily and weekly hours in a
nomimal way, with the expectation that some
"overtime" would result.
Rather
the
argument was that lieutenants should be paid substantially more than
sergeants
because "casual" overtime
exceeded the corresponding compensatory
time
off, in order for the lieutenants to get their work assignments
completed. Since sergeants get overtime pay, the
"extra hour" put in by
lieutenants
should be compensated for in higher salaries.
It was not
necessarily a
means to insure regularized work schedules, or to obtain
overtime
income per se but to justify higher compensation in a regular
monthly
salary. Thus the issue is really how
much should lieutenants be
paid,
given their working conditions, hours, and hours arrangements?
B. Salary Increases and Levels
The Union's proposal of $2825 per month,
that increases lieutenants'
salaries
by over 19 percent between 1980 and 1981 has little factual data to
support
it. First, the $2825 per month, as a
single rate for all
lieutenants,
is higher than the top of the range for lieutenants and/or
those
second in command in Police Departments in nine of ten other
comparable
cities in the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma Metropolitan area, per Item
4
on Wages and Salaries above. No lieutenant in the Auburn Police
Department has two years
service. The rate at Renton, a city
cited
explicitly
by the Union, does not pay its lieutenants the proposed salary
until
after five years of service. Further, no
Police Department among the
ten
cities shown in item 4 has increased salaries this year by more than 14
percent
(Redmond). The base rate for lieutenants
is only $2242 In Redmond,
compared
to the proposed $2825 starting rate (and ceiling rate) in Auburn, a
difference
in favor of Auburn by 26 percent.
Difference in hours, work
load,
or responsibilities were not evident with which to justify such a
differential. With the exception of Mountlake Terrace,
similar
differentials
would exist between beginning rates and that proposed by the
Union
among the several cities in the comparison group.
In addition, the relationship between sergeants and
lieutenants in other
cities
cannot support the increase proposed by the Union. The Union cited a
13% base rate differential
between sergeants and lieutenants at the Port of
Seattle, and in Renton (Un. Ex's#, 2 and 3). The Union proposal would make
the
base rate monthly salary differential between sergeants and lieutenants
at
Auburn over 25%.
Finally, the 1980 Consumer Price Index rose by 12 percent
and the
annualized
rate, in recent months, has been falling.
The proposed 19.98%
far
exceeds an amount justifiably based on the changes in the "cost of
living"
as measured by the change in the CPI.
Thus, on the basis of the above factual information, the
Union proposal
was
clearly too much. Neither the precent increase in salaries nor the
level
of salary can be justified by prevailing patterns or levels. On the
other
hand, was the City's proposal too low?
The offer was a 13.98%
increase,
$2685 per month, if the Union dropped its request for
overtime/compensatory
time and holiday pay.
Clearly, the City's offer fits much more closely to the
pattern in
surrounding
cities. The percentage increase proposed
is within a very small
fraction
as great as any of the ten cities of comparable size, that have
been
used frequently for comparison purposes with Auburn. The 13.98%
increase
proposed by the City exceeds the average increase by nearly three
percentage
points. The proposed increase of 13.98%
also exceeds the
percentage
increase given to all other union groups in the City as well as
unrepresented
management personnel. As the City also
points out in its
brief:
"While the City of Auburn
does not give credit for experience, the
salary
which would be generated by the City's offer of $2685, exceeds
the
top salary available in all but four cities and exceeds the average
of
the top of the salary range by approximately $20 per month. The
salary
exceeds the average minimum of the salary ranges by $455 per
month"
(C. R Br. 2).
Further, the City's proposal
provides an 18-1/2% differential between the
sergeants'
base monthly salary compared to the proposed salary of
lieutenants
at $2685. This exceeds both the
differentials between
sergeants'
and lieutenants' base salaries in Renton and at the Port of
Seattle. In addition, given the general description of
administrative
responsibilities
of the Lieutenants, the City's proposed salary compares
favorably
internally with that paid other administrative personnel, as seen
in
item six above, under Wages and Salaries, pertinent data. Finally, the
City's offer in percentage
salary increase exceeded the 1980 CPI percentage
increase
by 1.6 percent points, and if total compensation were included
(14.58% increase; C. Op. S.
3), the excess of the precentage change in total
compensation
over the "cost of living" change exceeds two percentage
points. This Increase in "real" income was greater
than other groups in
Auburn's government, and
substantially in excess of what most members of the
labor
force obtained in 1981 (107 LRR 83,
Column 2; Attachment, C. Op. S.).
The final aspect of the analysis relates to the hours of
overtime. The
trade-off
is in part for a provision to pay overtime for "casual " overtime
(with
set shift hours) or continuation of the flexibile
daily/weekly hours
arrangement
and informal compensatory time off within the pay period, as
discussed
above. Another part deals with the
overtime of sergeants, and
their
resulting salaries in relation to the City's proposed salary for
lieutenants. The claim by the lieutenants that the City's
proposal failed
to
take account of extra hours worked as "casual overtime" uncompensated
by
other
short period time off, is not well founded on the basis of the sizable
differential
provided between sergeants' base pay and the proposed
lieutenants'
monthly salary. The City's proposal
allows sergeants to earn
nearly
six percent more from overtime, and a 13 percent differential between
sergeants'
base pay plus overtime and the lieutenants' salary would still
remain. The arbitrator recognized, first, that
sergeants' overtime pay is
confined
to a substantial extent, to one sergeant, and second, sergeants
work
irregular shift schedules on a rotating basis, including week-ends and
on
holidays. This latter hours arrangement
cannot be disregarded, and, to
most
persons including the current members of this bargaining unit will be
regarded
as substantially less desirable or advantageous than the hours
arrangement
now provided to lieutenants.
Furthermore, a comparison of
overtime
earnings by the four or five sergeants other than the detective
sergeant
indicated an even greater margin for the lieutenants pay over the
earnings
of the sergeants including overtime pay, than the 13% noted above.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
The above data and evidence on salary levels,
and
other
economic information are preponderantly in support of the conclusion
that
the Union's proposal is "too high" and substantially "out of
line" with
comparable
employees with other bargaining units.
The City's proposal, on
the
other hand is at or very near the top, either in percentage wage
Increases or salary levels for
Auburn Police lieutenants relative to that
obtained
by other comparable employee groups and police
lieutenants/captains. The arbitrator concluded that the City's
proposal
mets the criteria in the statute, and
accordingly decided that the salary of
employees
in the lientuenant's bargaining unit should be $2685
per month,
effective
on January 6, 1981.
The current "flexible" hours arrangement allows substantial discretion
to
the lieutenants in completing their duties and meeting their
responsibilities. To develop a set schedule of hours and to allow
overtime/compensatory
time at one-quarter hour intervals and attempt to
maintain a
"flexible" hours arrangement would be administratively unwise if
not
impossible. There is merit to the City's
argument that lieutenants are
supervisors
and a part of management, with an obligation to do the job even
if
some "casual" overtime occurs beyond what nominal compensatory time
may
be
taken under the "flexible" hours arrangement. This arbitrator was not
convinced
that the extent of this "casual overtime" is presently burdensome
on
the employee nor greater than what an individual In a responsible
supervisory
role should anticipate. The above salary
level of $2685 under
usual
and general circumstances, will provide a reasonable differential
between
the salaries of lieutenants and those they supervise directly.
On the other hand, there are certain aspects of a
collective bargaining
relationship
that should properly be recognized and reduced to writing.
Assignments of an unusual
character and for an extended time beyond the
normal
work period should be considered "extra," and provisions made in
advance
on how these situations should be handled and compensated. Although
the
working relationships are such now that these assignments have not
occurred
to an extensive amount, this situation may not always be the case,
especially
if superiors to the lieutenants should change.
An agreement on
employment
relationships should speak both to "normal" work loads and
responsibilities
and to "extra"work assignments. The extra work
assignments
should not necessarily be considered "overtime," but work for
which
extra compensation should be paid.
On the basis of the above, the arbitrator has developed a
section on
"regular
hours of duty" and a section on "extra work assignments," in
lieu
of
an extended article on hours of work, overtime, compensatory time, and
other
similar duty and compensation arrangements.
These are as follows:
Article
V Duty Assignment
Section 1: Regular Hours of Duty.
The Chief of Police or his designee shall approve the
regular work
week
schedule for the members of the bargaining unit. Members of the
bargaining
unit shall be consulted in the development of such work week
schedules
which shall establish the hours to be followed by the
employees
in meeting the responsibilities of the positions to which they
have
been assigned.
Section 2: Extra Work Assignments.
A. In the event an employee is directed by the Chief of Police
or
his
designee to work
(a) in excess of four (4) hours beyond the hours of any
regular scheduled work day , or
(b) in excess of four (4) hours on any regularly scheduled
day for not working.
for
all hours worked over eight (8) hours under (a) above or
for
all hours worked under (b) above, the employee, at the
time
said hours are worked, may elect
(1) to receive compensation at one and one-half his regular
hourly salary rate, or
(2) to take compensatory time off at one and one-half the
time worked for his regularly
scheduled hours of work,
provided the compensatory time is
taken prior to the end
of the next regular pay period.
B. In the event an employee is directed by the Chief of Police
or
his
designee to work on a holiday, the employee shall be given
a
day off from his regular work scheduled within thirty (30)
days
after the holiday.
In summary, it is the intent In Section 1 above to retain
essentially
the
current working arrangements so that employees in the unit are not bound
by a
set schedule of hours from which no deviation may be made. The
responsibilities
of second and third level supervisors can be met and
carried
out with some discretion on the part of the employee, who may well
be
confronted with "casual overtime" in excess of any nominal
compensatory
time. Further, the administrative hassle of keeping
track of and monitoring
the
hours worked by lieutenants can be administratively and advantageously
avoided. Furthermore, it is the intent of Section 2
that there may well be
times
when the lieutenants will be required to work extra hours to meet an
emergency,
or a series of unexpected events, and in line with the nature of
a
collective bargaining agreement and the normal responsibilities and duties
of
these employees at second and third level supervision, these extra hours
should
be paid for by special salary arrangements or compensatory time.
Finally, the arbitrator has taken into account the hours
and working
conditions
of the lieutenants, he has examined the factual data and evidence
on
salary levels and recent increases in wages and salaries; he has looked
at
the changes in the Consumer Price Index and the "cost of
living." The
prevailing
practice and conditions in overtime and holiday pay in
neighboring
cities were reviewed. In addition, it
was recognized that this
was
the first agreement of a new bargaining unit of lieutenants, of which
were
are no others among other comparable sized cities in the Seattle
metropolitan
area. All of these factors were combined
to reach the
decisions
set forth above on the monthly salary levels and the working
conditions specified
under Article V - Duty Assignments.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. CmCaffree
KMM:mg
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTER CONTRACT PROPOSAL
FROM LOCAL 117 TO CITY OF AUBURN
(LIEUTENANTS)
WAGES Effective
1-6-81 increase wage to $2,825.33 per month.
ARTICLE V HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME
Section
1. HOURS OF DUTY. -The
Chief of Police shall establish regular work
schedules
for the members of the bargaining unit, such that the working hours
for
the employees shall be equivalent to forty (40) hours per week on an
annualized
basis. The normal workday shall be eight
(8) hours inclusive of
the
lunch period.
Section
2. OVERTIME. Except as
otherwise provided in this Article, employees
shall
be paid at the rate of time and one-half of their hourly base rate for:
a. all hours worked outside the regularly assigned eight (8)
hour shift in any
one day;
b. all hours worked on a scheduled furlough day; and
All overtime must be
authorized by the Chief of Police. In
all cases in
computing
overtime, the nearest one-quarter hour shall be used.
Section
3. If
an employee is called back to duty he/she will be guaranteed
a
minimum of three (3) hours at one-and one-half tinies
his/her hourly base
rate.
Section
4.
COURT An
employee required to testify in court on behalf
of
the Auburn Police Department during off duty hours shall be paid a minimum
of
three (3) hours at one and one-half -times his/her hourly base rate for such
attendance,
except where such attendance is an extension of the end of his/her
regularly scheduled
shift at which time normal overtime procedures will apply.
For court attendance in
Seattle only, pay time shall-be based on portal to
portal
from the Auburn Police Department to the court in Seattle and return.
Section
5.
Payment for authorized overtime hours worked shall be pay or com-
pensatory time at the employee's option, such option
to be exercised at the
time
earned. Compensatory time shall be
earned and accumulated at the rate of
one
and one-half hours for each overtime hour worked.
All compensatory time
accumulated by an employee in excess of forty (40) hours
as
of the 30th of November each year shall be paid at the employee's then
current
rate of pay on the first payday of December. At the option of the
employee,
any or all of the remaining forty (40) hours may be paid at that
time,
but no more than forty (40) hours of accumulated compensatory time be
carried
past the 30th of November.
Section
6. The City and the Union agree that the use
of standby time shall be
consistent
with sound law enforcement practices and the maintenance of public
safety. Employees formally placed on standby status
shall be compensated on the
basis
of three (3) hours straight-time pay for eight (8) hours or fraction
thereof. If an
employee
is actually called back to work, normal overtime shall apply in addition to
such
standby premium.
ARTICLE VII - HOLIDAYS
Section
2. Employees
who are required to work on a designated holiday shall receive
one
and one-half times their hourly base rate for hours worked and shall receive a
furlough
day
in lieu of that holiday worked at a time which is mutually agreeable to the
employee and
the
Chief of Police or his designee in writing by the employee and such requests
shall be
answered
in writing by the Chief of Police or his designee. Said furlough day in lieu of a
holiday
shall be taken within on (1) year of the date accrued.
Section
3. A request to take a Floating Holiday may
be made by an employee at any
time
prior to a shift assignment for which it is to be used. It may be approved by the unit
or
Superior Officer so long as there remains the required number of personnel on
duty for that
shift.
THE UNION RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO ADD TO, DELETE, MODIFY OR AMEND ANY OF THESE
PROPOSALS
DURING THE COURSE OF NEGOTIATIONS.
ARTICLE V
HOURS OF WORK
HOURS
OF DUTY. The
Chief of Police or his designee shall approve regular work schedules
for
the members of the bargaining unit.
Members of the bargaining unit shall be
expected
to participate in development of such schedules which will establish the
normal
work week within the responsibilities of the position.