Police union, city, to meet Monday on college credits issue
The local police union has delayed refiling an unfair labor practice claim with the state pending the outcome of a meeting Monday.
The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 33 will meet with the city to try and resolve the issue of 10 officers that the city says received pay increases for 60 educational credits that they were required to, but did not, obtain.
“The union’s always been willing, and is willing, to sit down and discuss the issues with the city and come to an amicable resolution,” Gene Gibbons, the union’s attorney, said Friday.
Earlier in the week, the union had announced plans to amend the charge alleging unfair labor practices by the city and refile it with Florida’s Public Employees Relations Commission. The union had identified the “technical deficiencies” in the charge and would address them, Gibbons reported.
Soon after the city announced that it would postpone for two weeks the repayment plans and pay reductions for the officers that were scheduled to begin with the paychecks issued Jan. 27. The city is seeking about $91,275, with the reimbursements varying from $3,554 to $23,195 per officer.
With the extension by the city, the union reported a change in plans.
“At this juncture, we will not file it,” Gibbons said Friday.
Last month, the city announced that it would seek repayment from several officers for failing to earn the educational credits, which the city maintains are a provision for employment and which the officers had agreed to earn when they were hired.
According to officials, the education requirement is mandatory for officers to move up in “step” levels and receive the higher pay provided at each level.
City officials also announced that the officers would return to what was determined to be their appropriate step and their pay would be cut by 10 percent. The officers also were told that they must earn the required 60 credits — 15 credits per year over 48 months — beginning in January.
In response, the union filed the charge Jan 4 with the state, alleging that the city entered into illegal pre-employment contracts and coerced its employees to enforce the contracts. It also contended that the city refused to bargain.
On Jan. 14, the charge was dismissed. General counsel for the commission concluded that a violation had not been established because the charge that the contracts were unlawful was untimely, and the union was not specific in its allegation regarding the request to bargain with the city.
It has 20 days from the dismissal to amend or appeal the charge.
Gibbons said Friday that the union does not want to have to refile the claim.
“The union does not want to be at odds with its employer, the city, and never has,” he said.
“We’re absolutely hoping we don’t have to pursue the labor practice charge because it’s costly, it’s time consuming and it builds animosity between the employees and the employer,” Gibbons added.
As for what the union is seeking, Gibbons said it wants the city “to back off garnishing the wages” of the officers and negotiate a policy moving forward.
“From the beginning, all we’ve been asking the city to do is negotiate a policy going forward as to what the requirements will be, what type of credits are acceptable, how long they have to obtain the credits, what happens if they don’t obtain the credits,” he said.
The city’s labor attorney did not return a message seeking comment.
City Manager Gary King said he could not discuss the specifics of the case Friday, but he expressed that the city also has a desire to find a resolution.
“I’m just hopeful that we can resolve it and move on,” he said.
If the city and union cannot come to an agreement by the end of the two-week extension, the scheduled repayments plans and pay reductions will go into effect. The changes will be reflected on the paychecks issued Feb. 10.