Design by Free CSS Templates
"Local 2067 I.A.F.F., Bargaining Agent for the Norman Fire Department, is making notice herewith as provided under O.S.A. 11 (1994) s51-101, et seq., of our intentions to negotiate for items requiring the appropriations of monies and other contract terms. We will look forward to you contacting us for our first meeting. In good faith and in a positive spirit; we will be looking forward to this year’s negotiations."
January 24, 2006 -
The Arbitration Board has found that the Last Best Offer made by
IAFF, Local 2067, is more in line with the factors required
under the Statute, specifically with reference to Factors 2, 3,
and 4, than the Last Best Offer of the City of Norman.
Accordingly, the Arbitration Board, Daniel J. Pagnano, Neutral
Arbitrator, awards the Union's last best offer.
Concurring: Jim Keesee, Union Board Member
Dissenting: Arland Perkins, City Board Member
December 20, 2005 - The IAFF Local 2067 concluded its arbitration hearing with the City of Norman today. The proceedings began at 9:00 a.m. in the City of Norman multi-purpose room at City Hall and continued for 11 hours until 8:00 p.m. The Arbitrator for this case was Mr. Daniel Pagnano from Houston, Texas. The Interest arbitrator for the City of Norman was Norman Attorney, Rick Knighton. The Interest arbitrator for the IAFF was Jim Keesee of the Norman Fraternal Order of Police. The IAFF was represented by Attorney Jim Moore, while the CON was represented by Attorney Tony Puckett.
In spite of the extended time spent on the single issue of "wages", the proceedings can only be described as "dull". The economic difference between the offer made by the CON & that of the IAFF Local 2067 was an annual cost to the City of Norman of $138,000.
The IAFF displayed evidence the City of Norman has funds to support its offer. Counter evidence also refuted the CON's standing that its own documentation, in terms of wage surveys, were visually slanted in support of unbalanced comparisons.
Aside from ducking the confusing numbers analyzed from all sides, the IAFF feels comfortable concerning its position and its offer of a 4.5% ATB pay raise for the bargaining group, and is therefore justified.
After the transcript is submitted, final briefs written and handed to the arbitrator, we should all expect a decision on or around January 24, 2006.
November 9, 2005 - The IAFF Local 2067 Executive Board & Negotiations Committee will meet in a joint meeting on November 14, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. at the Union office to finalize discussions towards the commitments for the upcoming December arbitration hearing.
September 28, 2005 - Negotiations failed to continue today as representatives from the City of Norman phoned the IAFF to inform them it would be a waste of time to continue. Apparently the CON does not wish to negotiate further in hopes of coming to an agreement for FY06.
NEXT: Arbitration. December 20, 2005.
September 26, 2005 - Negotiations moved onward with movement appropriate for traditional deal-making. The IAFF began the meeting with a short recap and made a quick movement from it's last 5.00% offering to 4.75% across-the-board pay raise. The City of Norman caucused and returned with an increase of their offer by 0.2% to 2.70%.
After a second caucus by the IAFF, we returned to the table with equal movement befitting a response appropriate for a reasonable for allowing consideration by the entire IAFF 2067 membership, with a request for consideration of 4.55%. The C.O.N. returned from a quick second caucus of their own with a request to meet again as soon as possible. A tentative date of Wednesday, September 28th at 1:00 p.m. was set.
September 19, 2005 - The IAFF Local 2067 & the City of Norman reentered negotiations for FY06 at 3:00 p.m. today at City Hall. Quick movements were made by both sides.
The meeting began with a quick review of where negotiations left off when last meeting in July. The City of Norman proposed a counter offer of a 2% 'across-the-board' COLA in addition to asking for a contract "re-opener" relating to Article #26, Health Insurance in which it was hoped the IAFF would consider recommendations from the Employee Health Insurance Committee (at such a time where recommendations would be developed).
The IAFF caucused, and returned with movement from the held 5.75% to a 5.00% 'across-the-board' COLA. The IAFF also requested the second item, the City's Health Insurance Re-opener, not be considered at this time and made no offer relating to this item.
After stressing the importance and "possible negative affect" the IAFF might inflict while not considering the second item at this point in negotiations, the City took one final caucus.
Upon returning, the City of Norman again moved from its new 2.00% COLA to 2.5%. The only change to the request for consideration of the Health Insurance Re-opener was the correction that the two were not as "tied together" as previously explained moments ago. Redefined, it now becomes a "strong request" as an item for consideration.
The IAFF asked for more time in which to consider its response and a date of Monday, September 26, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. was chosen.
August 4, 2005 - While no Arbitrator, or date, has been determined, both sides do have their "Interest Arbitrators" declared. The IAFF has selected Jim Kesee. The City of Norman has selected Rick Knighton. Conversations between IAFF attorney Jim Moore and CON attorney Tony Puckett has began the process of sending for a list of possible Arbitrators.
July 14, 2005 - A possible "last" negotiations session with the City of Norman was held today at City Hall.
The IAFF began with an opening statement that requested the City of Norman respond with a possible counter offer to the IAFF's reduced wage offer left on the table from the previous meeting. The CON was quick to answer with, "...there is just no money" and "...1.0% is all there is...".
The IAFF bargaining team reaffirmed the position that the "budget crises" the city is negotiating from does not appear to be seen on either side of the $2,000,000+ addition to last years forecast. There appears to be a better forecast this year than last. When the IAFF asked if there was a situation to which the City of Norman hasn't the "ability to pay", the response seemed to indicate that there was no evidence, nor expressed in conversations among City Staff, that the City negotiators could bank on as evidential proof of not having authority to move any further to reach a settlement.
After a short caucus desired by the IAFF, the Union was forced to submit a request to proceed with the "Arbitration" process. A formal request was given to the CON in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Oklahoma Police and Fire Arbitration Act that we wish to start this process. It was also stressed to the City that our hope is that we can continue to negotiate with the intent to resolve this single issue without having to complete the Arbitration process.
We are now waiting for either a possible return to the table if movement can be found by the CON or we will see them next in a more formal setting. The City has five (5) days to contact us with the City's Interest Arbitrators name and contact information.
May 18, 2005 - As reported by Secretary/Treasurer Dennis Mitchell, this meeting was 'quick and to the point'. Little was gained in negotiating an FY06 wage increase as both sides of the table felt movement away from all offers previously discussed were simply not that foreseeable at today's meeting.
However, CON Finance Director, Anthony Francisco did attend today's meeting in hopes of answering some questions that perhaps the Union and City Negotiators could use in helping to understand the positions of the opposite side of the debate.
Of noteworthy concern, was the CON feeling the IAFF should have arrived at today's meeting ready to move from its previous offer of the across the board 6% wage increase. In an attempt to promote movement away from the CON's original offer of 1%, the IAFF has asked for a 5.75% across-the-board pay increase for FY06. A change of .25% from the previous offer.
As would usually be the case, the CON has asked to postpone any adjustment in their offer until the next meeting which is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.
May 17, 2005 - Little ground was gained or missions accomplished in this the second meeting of FY2006 negotiation talks between the IAFF Local 2067 & the City of Norman. This contract seasons flavor is somewhat difficult to gauge as both sides of the table have but one issue to deal with; wages.
The IAFF sees this as an opportunity to make talks this year much less stressful and damaging than in previous years. (Quite frankly, this would be by default as there are fewer items which often bog discussions to uncomfortable levels.) The earlier request, as it was left from the meeting past, revolves around issues of Cost of Living, Pay-Parity, and adequate positioning in a fair market total compensation bracket. It is with those in mind the IAFF offered at the first meeting the settlement of a 6% across-the-board cost-of-living pay increase. The IAFF again began this meeting hoping and asking for the prepared response from CON Negotiating Team leader, Anita Breen.
Ms. Breen was fast and to the point on issuing an offer by the CON of a 1% across-the-board wage increase for its Norman IAFF members. The only discussed reasoning for suggesting this introductory offer by Ms. Breen was recent news media articles that she assumed we all had seen and could easily attest to when combining its validity with this initial offering. Asked later if she could help IAFF members understand the position the city is taking on this offer, and any apparent suggestion the CON might have with an "inability to pay" its firefighters an increase more than discussed, it was decided that little information could be utilized by Ms. Breen in meeting an adequate response in support of the CON's position. In fact, it was denied there being any connection at all to the 1% increase and the hint of trouble in her segua of the offer. (Apparently we will be seeing "flash cards" with numbers, fractions, and percentage signs from here on.)
It was then suggested that we invite Anthony Francisco (CON Finance Director) to the next meeting in an attempt to help Ms. Breen not only provide some semblance of validity in adequately representing the CON's situation, but to help those on the IAFF side of the table see what evidence there could be in warranting changes to what it feels are several factors in dealing with its own wage offer. These factors, as discussed by Butch Crawford again at today's meeting, include an increasing Cost of Living Adjustment of 3.1 or 3.2, other metro area increases in Midwest City, Moore, etc., parity issues with the FOP, and sales tax increases of 4% or better.
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 3, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.
March 18, 2005 - The first negotiations session to mark the beginning of the FY06 bargaining year has begun. It is of special consideration this year that the IAFF & the CON will be negotiating ONLY on two issues: Wages & Hazardous Materials Incentive pay for certified HAZMAT Technicians at the TECH Level.
Both sides begun today's meeting by reviewing "ground rules" for this years negotiations. After the IAFF and the CON took several minutes in brief discussion on this topic, both signed off on this primarily formal ritual.
The IAFF began the process by introducing the key players on the IAFF Negotiating Team. Present were IAFF President, Butch Crawford; IAFF Secretary/Treasurer Dennis Mitchell; IAFF 2nd-Vice President Tim McDermott; and 3rd-Vice President Leroy Lukinbill. New on the City of Norman (CON) side of the table was found to be Anita Breen. Anita is the new CON negotiator this year. She is the Principle Consultant for her own firm, "Breen Consulting" in Stillwater, Oklahoma.
Knowing the only two topics at issue to be discussed would be Wages & HazMat, the IAFF was fully prepared to meet both issues head-on and delivered a fair and reachable offer on both issues. It was hoped (but not expected) that negotiations could be over before it really began. This was not to be the case.
Brief history lessons were required and given to the CON negotiator as she was new to the bargaining process in Norman. The IAFF was, and will continue to be, always mindful of that fact and will offer any help in shining whatever light is necessary on all topics from an IAFF viewpoint.
In short, the CON did not, could not, and would not, respond in this particular meeting concerning either issue. They required additional time to review both IAFF proposals and hopefully will have some response at the next meeting.
The CON did blow the dust off of an old 16-City Survey using magical ACCRA, Unequalized-Equalized, Market Variant, Standard Deviated, & Mean Survey Compensated figures and (not surprisingly from a CON point of view) showed the IAFF somehow, "overpaid". A nice presentation; but hardly worth loosing sleep over.
The next scheduled meeting will be held on Monday,
April 4, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the Multipurpose room at City
Hall.
January 2, 2004 - Letter sent to the CON:
"Local 2067 I.A.F.F., Bargaining Agent for the
Norman Fire Department, is making notice herewith as provided
under O.S.A. 11 (1994) s51-101, et seq., of our intentions to
negotiate for items requiring the appropriations of monies and
other contract terms.
We will look forward to you contacting us for our first meeting.
In good faith and in a positive spirit; we will be looking
forward to this year’s negotiations."