SR-603-006 (2)
,
.
?f}3-tOO~
.
PE:SEM:p
Council Meetlng: January 10, 1983
Santa MonIca, California
l:2. - B
TO:
Mayor and Clty CouncIl
JAM 1 0 1984
FROM:
CIty Staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of MunIcIpal ~ployee
DetermInation RegardIng United
PetItIon.
RelatIons Officer's
Transportation UnIon
IntroductIon
ThIS report transmIts the appeal of the United TransportatIon
UnIon regardIng the determinatIon of the Municipal Employee
Relations
OffIcer
that t~e maIntenance personnel of the
TransportatIon Department do not constItute an appropriate unit
with Motor Coach Operators under Ordinance Number 801 (CCS), and
requests adoption of the attached findings regarding the appeal.
Backg round
Under Ordinance Number 801, the City Manager In hIS capacity as
MunICIp3l Employee Relations Officer must determine whether a
proposed bargaInIng unit is an "appropriate unit". The UTU's
petItIon and related documents are attached for the CIty
CouncIl's informatIon as is a copy of the CIty Manager's
response.
The
CIty
Manag er' s
decision
was
based on
conSIderatIon of t~e crIterIa established by OrdInance Number
801 (CCS).
rhe UTU appealed the City Manager's determInation
WIthin the ten day perIod provided under OrdInance Number 801
and the CIty Council has thirty days from the f1lIng of the
appeal to reach a decI~ion in the matter.
'" - B
J.~~ fI~
:.......i..r"'r.
.
.
Consequences of CouncIl ActIon
Under OrdInance Number 801, CouncIl's decIsIon on the appeal IS
final. If the appeal is denIed, UTU may pursue a CiVIl action.
RecommendatIon
It IS recommended that Council deny t~e appeal of UTU and adopt
the following fIndings:
1. Ordinance Number 801 (CCS), section 3.02 provIdes:
liThe MunicIpal Employees Relations Officer, after
reviewIng
the
petItIon
filed
by
an employee
organIzatIon seekIng formal recognItIon as maJorIty
representatIve and acknowledgement as the recognIzed
employee organizatIon shall determIne whether the
proposed unIt lS an appropriate unit. The princIpal
crIterIon In makIng this determination IS whether
there IS a community of interest among such employees.
The followIng factors, among others, are to be
considered In making such determinations:
(a) Which unit WIll assure employees the fullest
freedom In the excerClse of rights set forth under
thIS Ordinance.
(b) The hIStOry of employee relations in the unit,
among ot~er employees of the City and 10 SImIlar
public employment.
.
.
(c) The effect of the unit on the efflClent operation
of the CIty and sound employer-employee relations.
(d) The extent to WhICh employees have common SkIlls,
Job dutIes, workIng condItions, or departmental
assignment.
provIded, however, no unIt shall be established solely
on the basis of the extent to WhICh employees In the
proposed unlt have organlzed.1I
2. In regard to fullest freedom In the excercise of
rIghts under OrdIna.nce 801, the CIty CouncIl fInds:
A. wage, benefIt and workIng condItion negotiations
can be most effectively pressed by a unified
communIty of similar interests.
B. Motor Coach Operators and maIntenance personnel in
the TransportatIon Department work under
substantially dIfferent conditlons and do not
share
a cammon history of wage and benefIt
conventIons and practIces.
C. Maintenance personnel In the Transportation
Department share substantIally similar work i ng
conditIons and a history of wage and benefit
conven t ions and practices with the Mechanics,
Assistant Mechanics and other malntenance
personnel who work elsewhere in the City.
.
.
D. Maintenance personnel in the Transportation
Department can exerCise the fullest freedom of
theiC rights iO theic current bargalnin~ unit as
opposed to UTU.
E. DissatisfactIon with the currently recognIzed
employee organizatIon is more appropriately
addressed by a change 1n representation than by a
change 10 appropriate unit.
3. In regard to the history of employee relations in the
unit, among other employees of the Clty and In simIlar
public employment, the City Council fInds:
A. Slnce the 1969 adoption of OrdInance Number SOl
(CCS) which ~ave CIty employees the right to
collectIvely bargain, Transportation Department
maintenance personnel have been part of an
approprIate unit that includes other blue collar
employees.
B. Since the adoption of Ordinance Number BOl {CCS)
Motor Coach Operators have been in an appropriate
unIt consist1ng only of Motor Coach Operators.
c. Prlor to 1969 any association of Transportation
Department maintenance personnel with the
Brotherhood of Rallroad Trainmen was not and could
not be recognized by the Clty and must be regarded
as haVing no bearing on modern labor relatIons.
.
.
D. Other munIcipalitIes with bus lines (Culver City,
Torrance, Montebello and Gardena) have their
transportatIon maIntenance personnel in the same
units as theIr other blue collar employees.
4. In regard to the effect of the unit on the effICIent
operation of the City and sound employer-employee
relations, the CIty CouncIl finds:
A. The effiCIent operatIons of the CIty are best
served If ~aIntenance personnel of the
Transportation Department remain in theIr current
bargaIning unit SInce safety could be affected if
drivers became less likely to criticize the
quality of the maIntenance functIon because
maIntenance personnel are fellow members of their
un Ion.
B. Given the sIgnificantly different interests of
drivers and malntanance personnel, bargaining
would not be for unified purpose. As drIvers
signIfIcantly outnumber maintenance personnel,
their Interests would undoubtedly dominate
collectIve bargaIning to the detrIment of
maIntenance personnel.
5. I~ regard to the extent to which employees have common
SkIlls, dutIes, workIng condltions and departmental
assignments, the City Council tinds:
.
.
A. The Skills required of Transportatlon Department
maintenance personnel are not similar to those
requIred of Motor Coach operators.
They are
Slmllar
to
those of other City malntenance
pe rsonne 1 .
B . The
job
dutle~ of Transportatlon Department
maintenance personnel are not simllar to those of
~otor Coach Operators. They are similar to those
of other C1ty ma1ntenance personnel.
C. The
work i og
conditions
of
Transportation
Department malotenance personnel are not similar
to those of Motor Coach operators.
They are
s im i 1 a r
to
those of other City malntenance
personnel.
D. Although
maintenance
pe rsonne 1
work
in
Transportat~on as do Motor Coach Operators, this
is not a sufficient argument for an appropriate
unlt.
6. Based upon all of the above considerations, the City
Counc il f Inds:
A. UTU has not established that a co~nunity of
interest exist~ between Motor Coach Operators and
Transportation Department maintenance personnel.
Prepared By:
Susan E. McCarthy
[ /
,~
}
,
~
J
. .
u . ,] /PaDsponation :J~7]:tZ7
LOCAL 1785 SANTA MONICA CALIj:"OR~IA
June 1, 1983
Personel Director
City of Santa ~fun~ca
1685 }hin Street
Santa Honiea, California 90401
Dear Susan:
I am submitting herewith, a petition to be filed a.long with the
request of Local 1785. That requwst being that the mechanics and
service personel be allowed representation by this Local.
I really don't think it is necessary to have an election. Arter
all, the maJority of these people have signed authorization cards.
Also, they are will~ to petition the depattment for their re-
lease from the groap they are now with and request that we be
designated their representative.
For the most part, their problems and grievances will be handled
locally (for 'the most part withl.Il the department) and I bel eave
the moral and productiv1 ty will show an improvement.
If it is necesary for the Council to act on this question, I feel
tha.t it can be done under the provisions of 801.
Sincerely yours, 7~)' ;I
/)Uf{~
~~ E. Clark
Secretar,y and Treasurer
Legislative Representative
Delagate
Alternate Legislative Representative
Ca1i.forn1a Sta.te Legislative Board
United Transportation Union
~.
8j'l;
9:
1
lOr
\ !
1]:
12 I
13
14
]5,
I
i
Hj:
17 '
lR
1!1'
20
2]
22
2:l
2,1
I .
.
.
]
2,'
L
31'
1
I
i'
41
r:!
.) 1
6
Richard L. Knickerbocker
KNICKERBOCKER & FICHTER
Wilsh~re-Pal~sades Building
1299 Ocean Avenue, Su~te 300
Santa Mon~ca, California 90401
(213) 393-5321
PETITION FOR RECOGNITION
,
AS BARGAINING UNIT
The United Transportat1.on Union, Local 1785, hereby
pet1.t1.ons the City of Santa Monica to be formally recognized
as the exclusive representative of Santa Monica employees
engaged
in maintenance
coaches
of motor
and
other
transportation for the City transportation system.
In support of this petition the United Transportation
Union, Local 1785, states:
1. Name and address of Union:
United Transportation
Union, Local 1785, 613 Boccaccio Avenue, Venice, California,
90291.
2.
Byron will~ams, President;
Officers and ti ties ~
John
Clark,
Sec-
Secvinck,
Vice-president;
Charles
~- retary/Treasurer; J.J. Alme~de, Cha1.rman, Committee of
-.)
AdJustment.
2G
4)"'"
_t
2~
PAGE 1
10
J],
I
I
12'
131
I
ILl
15
]G!
i:
"
]7, i
I
] 8 i 1
In:
20
21
22
2:1
2J
~)-
_I
;
i
I
11
I
21
.
.-
and J. J .
Almel.de,
Charles Clark,
Secretary,
3.
Chairman,
Committee of Adjustment, are authorized to speak
3 on behalf of the United Transportation Union, Local 1785.
4!
5\
4.
One of the primary purposes of the United
G Transporatl.on Union, Local 1785, is to represent employees
71
8i
I
1
9;
!
in their employment relations with Santa Monica.
5. United Transportation Union, Local 1785, is a
member of the United Transportation International Union,
14600 Detroit Avenue, Cleveland,
Ohio,
44107 and is
affiliated with AFL/CIO, Call.fornia State Board.
6. Attached to and incorporated into this petitl.on by
reference is a certified copy of the United Transportation
Union Constitution.
7. Notice sent to the below listed indl.vidual by
regular United States mal.l will be deemed sufficient notice
on the United Transportation Union, Local 1785:
Charles Clark, Legislatl.ve Representatl.ve
United Transportation Unl.on
613 Boccaccio Avenue, Venice, Ca. 90291
Copy to: KNICKERBOCKER & FICHTER
1299 Ocean Avenue, SUlte 300
Santa Monica, Californl.a 90401
24
8. The Unlted Transportation Dnl.on has no restriction
2G
on membership based on race, color, creed, sex or national
2S
PAGE 2
.
!
3:
I
41
, ~
51!
!
;
~I
811
91'
II
I!
10li
,\
I
11:
12:
13:
!
14: :
II
, .
; ,
15: :
i'
101
I:
I:
17: i
I
]8
1n
20
.
.
1:
,
origins and recognizes that the provisions of Section 923 of
2;
the Labor Code are not applicable to City employees.
9. The Un~ ted Transportation Union cla~ms the below
listed employee classif~cations to be the appropriate unit
for the purpose of meeting and conferring in good faith on
all matters within the scope of representation:
TRANSPORTATION ~~INTENANCE PERSONNEL
Transit Mechanic
Transit Assistant Mechanic
Motor Coach Cleaner
10.
It is requested that the Municipal Employee
Relations Officer determ~ne the appropriate un1t, establish
the
election
major~ty
date
determlning
the
for
representative,
and formally acknowledge the majority
representative as the recognlzed employee organization.
Executed on March 30, 1983 at Santa Monica, California.
211 I declare, under penalty of perJury, that the foregoing is
i
22! true, correct, and complete.
2:1'
2.1
25
20
271
2:1
~ /.r-'i?-
/;L-y ~rl l~~-(,/:r:t~:j
Br~'W1lliams, presldent
/;Z~L1:I@J
{ e~rles Clark)..- -Secr~ry
PAGE 3
.
.
PETITION
FOR RECOGNITION OF BARGAINING UNIT
HECHANICS AND MAIN'rENANCE PERSONNEL
FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
We I the undersigned Members of the United Transportation
Union, Local 1785, hereby pet~t~on the City of Santa Monica to
des~gnate the mechanics and maintenance personnel of the
transportatlon department as a separate and distinct appropriate
un~t for the purpose of negotlation with regard to wages, hours,
and working conditions in order to negotiation a binding
memorandum of understanding in accordance with appllcable law.
It is our view that historically, practically, and empirically,
a separate unit exists and that any other unit would not be
approprlate and detrimental to the City, the users of the bus
lines, and to each of us. We are concerned with the issue of
safety and timely service. The transporation department,
moreover, i.s in large part Federally funded and the Federal
competency requirements and the City's abillty to fund
T'r;::tnc:T"'\r"'\."....~.....:_-
.
.
NN-'l.E
POSITION
~L /1:/ /l
-p
. .'" - ".' <.
~ L -/. ('1 /jz:t? {;- -
;/ /;/ / ,
~! C.e;;~
---/ '$ .
,'/~0:~//-":/~'// /d#p/C/
,-
/~;y'"S: /{./~4/1/~'@/
/ 4
1'/1. / <
/ttAlUJ1,t ~ / ty0~ry;U
fL-;l. ~'
~ t0J;I- '-1j(IL!t~~
I[ ~ 0:Jd IJ1J-i
...--s- , P)'7
\JeTnJn,~ L O~~VO
171/} IV S j'v11F tilll /11/ r.
_( a ,tI,ii/ ill)' '-
. L' J J
-?#! . n':' ~ ~ ./ "? - -
~ (1/)
11[tcfi~J"( ~- I a,;r--~
I.
CCr --,
, 11-11Y1t'~~ !SC/':j-'I.!
fJ .J ~ (/) () -)
,;0ll~V ~
.- -- -.. - -
--: riLei.. ~-'f-J\---'
jJ/i c- c--.
,'" _ b .( /1
~------~ - - - /' ). \
C/C~/V':'P-..5
II I I
;/; (~ ~
nil V~}.o '" L.oriZc t-\ C {C#ync.t.
. 1"
-1i ~ -it r~ _~ ", (l /.~:i
"
.
.
.
NAi.\1.E
POSITION
~", /~; -, iL' "
( '["
" .,.' I
~ I ( "I .~ -,.' ,~,
r--- f~(L. '-....-L/I. I '_'_ F ;, ~../(. ,
,,-;-' ...~ - :\' t-;----
~ ' I
-' ' ,
~ ~ ...,. I .- I
< 1:)L t'- Ll /7-- ' VI.. tl;..J.-v -, '-
t/
~ CI7J"~ :1h-i~~
( . - . . -
;'Y1~(... ~
~--v1/1 ~~ -/r- I) /J Il j)
I: [~t,j\ CM~ Lc_2~
l I
~...:/\ /......... J ':
~ ! . , " /\.. J, ~ ,
~u:.. .i}-j -},.I"') . " u Ij~.,' ,"f?v \
".- . l~ - ., '-..
-n ~ '" --. - '\' - -
f.! {. ~ ,- '. ;--:; i\ i l'r l'e ....; , J \ .--:.--.J (1. ~) , C
f 1/.1..... _ r .\ Ii. I, .
~
/
0/ ri-'
",/''v-I (71. /11
. f 1 _'t
(' {LU-J..-&-L.t?& ~ -7, / ~
[' t(-'"c f
~,~~~d4,~~k.
. .7
~ ,.y.6~ y -T'
C;J
..,
. .
trufYJ}!f!7ljJ} ff!!ljjJ;ml11lrJIm1ffj;';~. Wll ~J ~7 '?,'? ~ ~
U. uJ,JiJUwul.!./J{JJJIl- u{JU iJ". ~. ..,1:: :'~/.'1_~~: .
I:i - . ·
LOCAL 1785 SANTA "'O.....ICA CAL'FOR'~iA
.... ..
[1- ~........ ,'1:-- 'J9I"".-
f;. , . I. ~. ~
ii'M" : - .. -_~:"J; t,_
October 21,
1983
Ms. Susan E. McCarthy
Director of Personnel
C~ty of Santa Monica
City Hall
1685 Maln Street
Santa Monlca, CA. 90401
Re: Pet~tlon for Recognition
Dear Ms. McCarthy:
We have prevlously submitted to you a petltion for recognl-
tion signed by the maJor~ty of the mechanlcs of the transporta-
tion department of the Clty of Santa Monica. You have lndicated
that the submission should be wlthin the 90 day period preceding
the ternination of the existing contract, ie January 1, 1984.
Please re-submit as of the present date the previous peti-
t10n and utilize it as If it were filed as of the date of this
letter. If there is any reason why this cannot be done or if
there are, in your view, any technical or other defects in the
petitlon or the procedure, please advise us in suff1cient tlme
that we may make appropriate corrections or take appropriate
correctlve action.
With regard to the petition, please aug~ent the previous
pet1tlon with the information which follows in this letter.
--
The UTU is an appropriate representative for the mechanlcs.
ThlS is based upon the hlstory of representation by thlS union,
by vlrtue of the co~monallty of interests ln that unlt wlth other
unlts represented by the unlon, by virtue of the source of funds
for payment of members of both unlts, and by vlrtue of the
common allegiance and desires of the membership of both.
/
I'
f
!
/~
When the Clty acquired Bay City's Transit, the UTU
represented both the drlvers and the mechanics In the
transporatlon department. This representation contlnued until
1970. Brother Earl W. Colby, a member of the orig~nal un~t, was
, a wechanlc in the transporat~on, retlred ~n 1973. He was the
;
~.
...
~. .
-. ..,.~ " II...
-- -.--"' ~-~.<~~'<.... Ii. 171l~/' rrTltmfT[!tmrM'm'm"l1fLrAl'l"nfJ!j r,"!.'0t<7..-..~
.:~,-_._. ._~_~~',__,-- iO "rrrfjlJlr~:1t!tiif/ilJlli.l 1,,.;/1 ij(J1,U. 'f" ''-;'', :..J.'f-f
--... -- ~-- -- UI ~LlJJ~1 ~ UJ,/J 1~,!:ii..~.~...I:J:~:~-/.,.(tl
LOCAL l"T5S S....NT.... vO'lle.... CALI>,"ORNIA
last of the Mechanics that this Local represented under the
memorandum of understanding in 1951. He is still a retired
meIT~er of this un~on. Thus, from an historlcal perspectlve,
there has been in fact a long term representation.
~ The interests of transportation workers ln general are
/ corrmon. Drivers have an lnterest in the safe operation of the
i transportat~on system. It is the~r lives and safety and the
llves and safety of their passengers that are at stake when
ma~ntenance values are comproroised or quality mechanics are not
" ret~~n~d by adequate pay and fringe benefits.. - -
--~ - -
The transportation system as a whole is financed by federal
and state funds, which are separate and distinct from the funding
provided in other departments of the City. The interest of the
transportation department is State, County, and Federal. State,
County, and Federal interests, are definitely effected by the
labor contracts and all of these governmental entities have an
interest in the transportation department as a whole. The City's
capacity to pay ~~~rcs mechanlcs ln the transporation department
differs from that of ~ts capacity to pay other mechanics ~n the
Clty. Payment of mechanics in the transporation department 1S
not limited by the fiscal capacity of the City alone, but by the
comblned fiscal capacitles of the City, the County, the State,
and the Federal government.
The transportatlon department as a whole has developed a
comradship and esprit de corps which is beneficial to the City,
"the dr~vers, and the public. The workers ~n the department
recogn~ze themselves as a combined labor force serviclng the
public w1th responsibillty to quallty, safe, and dependable
serVlce.
Thank you for your many courtesies and the competency with
WhlCh you have handled these negotiatlons thus far.
q~~l;j~~
(:adles --E. Clark--' ~
Secretary and Tresurer
United Transporation Union
Local l785
~.
.
.
,
.... - . i- f...!'.. ~
tfGffDIifS,lJjfflffJu,1JlIDfJD r:~::~"" ~
LC::Al.. 1755 S';'TA MD""ICA CALIFORNIA
October 26, 1983
Y.:s. Susan E. HcCarthy
Director of Personnel
C~ ty of Santa }::On~ca
City Hall
1685 ~kL~ Street
Santa 11oZllca, Ca. 90401
Re: Petition for Recognition
Dear Ns. HcCarthy:
~~en I b~ught my Petition for R~cognition to your office (October 21, 1983)
I ,,:rote on the botto:::1 lI"iITH RESERVES II t th~s was because I had wanted to talk
to you personally. It was la.te in the day fjIld you had left the builcine.
The P.ESERVATIOlI was that if 1. the Eus nep~tment t-[echanics could not be (in
the eyes of the adoinistration) ?eleased to Local 1785 United Transportation
Un~on. then my application would be for the contested unit as a Whole.
I understand that the contested QOit is refered to as the State Wide Employees
Un~t.
I was referred to the State Conc~liat~on Service b,y an officer of the National
Labor Board. Altho the City or Santa l-ionica does receive funds under the Urb&Il
Transportation Act, the State should handle quest~ons of representat~ont that
do not l..'1fringe on Federal Law. Of' course, this "vr'Ould only apply when improper
use of these funds could be "Oxoven. Then all items "''QuId come under suxvey. I
assured the person (to whom I was talki...'1g by phone) that I Oll~Y wanted to find
w~thin ~nose jurisdiction my problem ~~uld fall.
Mr. l--[oCarthy (coincidence) of the State Conciliation Service was mterested,
and asked that he be kept advised on dev-elopemernts of my petition. Also, to
advise those interested parties that the Servlce was available at all t~es to
handle this situation.
As I reported to the Council, the United Transrortat~on Union has revised it's
Constitution to include all categories of none supeTV1S0r,y persor~'el. Other
than ~at detailed in the Constitutlon. I thank you for your indulgence.
Since!:'ly _yotU"9' ~~,.J E1
/':/ '~";' ~/(/
,'" ?" ~"/
. -c...-~ . I , C"< --~ -
Cm,;.I.':f'es ~ar~, ,11~~e,te
United 'I-ransportation Un~on, Local 1785
.. -
~'"
-
.
.
CITY OF
0\G
\-, \ C'
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 393-9975. ext 301
1685 Mam Street, Santa Momca. Cahlorma 90401
December 1, 1983
Charles Clarl<
unit~d Transportatlon Unlon, Local 1785
Santa Monica, California
Dear Mr. Clark:
The City has reviewed your petitIon for recognitIon of a unit
to represent the ma1ntenance employees of the Transportatlon
Department. As Municipal E~ployee Relatlons OffIcer, I do
not flnd the unlt appropriate under the terms of Ord1nance
Number 801 (CCS). I have based my decision on the followlng
factors:
1. You contend that UTU has hIstorically represented the
mechanics. However, no formal recognItion to represent the
mechanlCS has been granted by the City to UTU as long as
representational units have been established under Ordinance
Number 801 (CCS). The situation you Clte was more than 30
years ago and hardly constitutes a history of bargaIning
argument for recognItion today.
Slnce the InceptIon of municipal bargainIng law in 1969, the
employees of the proposed unit have been represented by a
unIon or aSSOCIatIon covering all blue collar employees of
the Clty. The Teamsters were recognIzed between 1970 and
1978, and SEA has been recognized Slnce 1978 to represent
those employees. All City mechanic classiflcations are in
SEA, includIng the FIre f.lechanic which is unIque to that
department. Your argument to create a new unlt for Transit
maIntenance personnel is not credlble. It could be lIkened to
mechanICS who work on pollce vehIcles petItIoning to be In
the PolIce AssociatIon.
2. You clta a "commonalIty of interests." The current UTU
bargaIning unlt 1S composed of drivers exclUSIvely, and the
interests of those drlvers are frequently expressed in
complaInts about maintenance employees and the maIntenance
funct lon.
You cita the safety factor as a common 1nterest of mechaniCS
and drlvers. I would hope that all employees, regardless of
bargaInIng unlt, would share such an interest and I fall to
see that the recognItIon of UTU would enhance safety at the
.
.
Transportatlon Department. In fact,
were in the same unlon drlvers
crIticIze the qualIty of work ~nd
dangerous condltlons In order not
member.
if mechanICS and drivers
mIght be less likely to
to overlook potentIally
to criticize a fellow
In regard to other common interests, I doubt that drIvers
would forego wage or benefit increases to address the pay and
fringe- benefIts of mechanics. Further, mechanics are not
scheduled, assigned, or provided overtime in the same manner
as bus drl~ers. For example, the drlvers have concerns
re]arding schedul-lng, walk-over time, accident reporting, and
other items WhICh are unique to bus driver operational n~eds.
The communIty of interest argument fails. Instead, the
Skills, Job dutIes, and working conditIons of the employees
in the maintenance divis10n are simIldr if not identical to
those of other Clty mechanical personnel.
3~ You cita the-source of funding "for transit employees as a
factor WhiCh encourages the formatlon of a UTU unIt for
maintenance employe€s. However, there are many employees of
the Transportation Department who ace represented by other
than tranSIt unIons, inClUding the Municipal ~ployees'
Association, the SuperVIsory Team ASSOCIates, the Management
Team ASSOCIates, and t~e present organIzation of the
maIntenance employees, the StateWIde Employees' ASSOCIation.
These unIons and associations also represent employees in
other departments and under numerous non-tranSIt funding
sources. The mere fact of a fundIng source unique to a
depart~ent does not JustIfy a recognitIon of one unIon for
all or most of that department's employees.
4. In other munlCIpalItIes, WhICh ~re a more approprIate
co~parlson than tranS1t agencies, I find that Culver City,
Torrance, Montebello, and Gardena Bus Lines have thelr blue
collar employees In one unIt, not segregated by depart~ent.
Wh1le a tranSI~ 3gency may have its mechanics In a unIt with
or concurr~nt to It5 drIvers, the CIty of Santa MonIca has
broader responSIbIlItIes to the public than a s1ngle purp8se
tranSIt ope~ation. Our overall operation ~ust b~ conSIdered
In establishIng the bargaining structure.
5. T~e workplace argu~ent (all emploY8es are located at the
Transportation Yard) would also argue for employees In the
..
.
.
.
Cemetery, the CIVIC Auditor1um, and any other department
whose offIces are located 1n one place. This 1S n~t a
compelling reason for creatIng a new unl~.
However, your letter of October 26, 1983, implies an
interest in petitIonIng for the blue-collar unIt as a whole.
A new petitIon would be requlr9d for that purpose as that
letter does not constitute suffIC1ent request for such
recognition.
I also note your reference to various agencies in labor
relatIons. You should understand that the Nat10nal Labor
Relat10ns Act does not apply to a municipalIty and that local
barga ining la'N' I s determIned under the Cal i fornia Government
Code, SectIons 3500-3509. The State has no dlrect
Jurisdictlon over Santa Monica labor relations matters.
,Rather, ordinance Number 801 (CCS) IS conSIstent with th~
- ~ity's Charter authority to govern its own municipal
~mployer-employee relat1ons. The State Concil1ation SerVIce
will not Intervene ~Ithout our consent or rEquest, and then
only to provide third-party assistance.
You have the right to appeal thIS determinatIon withIn ten
days pursuant to section 3.03 of Ordinance Number 801 (CeS).
Your appeal must be 1n writIng and be filed with this office
and the Clty Clerk. If you appeal, the City Council will
consider the matter and make a final determlnation.
Sincerely,
d~
John H. Alschuler, Jr.
Clty Manager
Municlpal E~ployee Relatlons Officer
...
_ - 1
. .
- -1 d.13:rJ 71 ~ nn!nIPf:z:Jz"-in r:J ., -ry SO $""H~l
J.j-.i.JJ;Jr;J .t'jJJ~ 1.0;; JLlJil ~.tl:" \;,It'',~~1
....OCA.i.. '785 SAI'....A VO"11-:::A CAL,.:FOAN'A
O::G 'i~ 5
December 14, 1983
. ..
Jon~ nG Alschuler,Jro Manager
City of Santa ~on~ca
1685 ~ain Street
Santa ~o~ica, California 90401
Dear John: ~ct
I hope that I am not being /10 fa~iliari useing your first
name. You see, you are th~ first City ~anager (in the past
thirty years) that I have/met former1yo In this period of
time, I have represented the employees in one capacity or
anothero
I am disturbed about one factor, this is the fact in which
the city handles their correspondanceo
10 On June 1,1983 I petitioned the City for recognition of
the Mechanics request to be separated from the bargai~ing
unit in wh1cn they were trapped.
20 I did not receive a reply until after October 1st, 19830
;0 I was informed that my petition was not timely. It had
been submitted to early, and should be resubmitted.
40 I re-submitted the petition, and asked that all other
petitions be re-submitted in this considerationo
50 I received the answer from your office on Decemoer lOth,
19830 The postal machine mark was for December 8t~t 19830
I re-submitted my petition on October 21, 1983, delevered
by hando
60 My position was made clear to the council, and is a part
of the minutes~ this was noted by the local pressc
70 The ewp10yees organizations in the City of Santa Monica
have been recognized by the council during my period of
Tenure.o~ June 15th, 1952 until the presentc
80 The hlstory of e~ployee ~eprese~tat1on does rrot start in
19680 AS for Orclnance 801, I helped write ita
..."1.- "oJ
. ----.
.....~.
.,
. .
-, -~. '.. :1 ipf)J]s771JP1IJlj:nJJ ~r:: :r~ 7J
'r LOCAL 1"'25 S"'....T.; "O....ICA. CA.LlFCR~IA.
P~e Two
UTU-J.HoAo
Mechanics
December 14, 1983
90 This o~dinance is not infallib1e~ I had the ACLU rev~ew
it, and it was the opinion of one of the~r lawyers that
parts of tais ordinance were un-constitutionalo This
was brought to the attention of the Council, but the or-
dinance was passed anywaYD I was told by one of your
predisors to sue~ I almost dido
100 Previous to the ~ployer/E~ployee Ordina~ce~ each piece
of business was brought before the Counci1~ Their re-
cords show that each item was considered, and the repre-
sentative notedo In looking through the Salary Resolutions
you will find that specific not is taken to mention Police
Fire, Transportation, Recreation, Auditorium, act.
110 The involvement of the Mechanics in this Local goes back
to the issue of the Original Chartero This was granted
by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen on March 12th)
1950. On this Charter is the names of at least five ~5)
mechanics that I knew, Perhaps there are moreo It was
two years later that I came to work for the cityo
120 ~nen the City bought Bay Cities Transit in 1951, an
election was held and the Brotherhood was recognized
by the Council as the representative of the Transpor-
tation employeeso This is fact~ not contentiono
13. The point of the fore-going is to create the understand-
ing, that the employees do not want to have new represent-
at1ono They want to come homeo
14. The friction caused between the drivers, can be traced
directly back to the head of maintenanceo
150 I would challenge you tommorrow, to bring in Cal OSHAo
The health and welfare of the workers on this property
is jeopard~zed every day by the oily drive ways, the
dirty restrooms, and the lack of accommoda~1oDs at the
ends of most runso Also, the lack of time to use those
accomodations available.
160 As for Federal, State acd County Law: I would like to
see the artlcle that say's that City Law can preceed
any of the intities ~emtioned above 10
,J
.."..,. - ... ...."!. -.
. .
7 jpJ]ll:JjJJ}P1JJ1llJ]J ':7.:'ITrr),7J
LOCAL 1765 SA'iTA '''C''IICA CALIFORNI....
...
Page Three
UTU-U.H.A.
Mechanics
December l~, 1983
17. I don't thin~ it wise to mention the City of Culver
City. In their i~finate ~isdo~, they a depart~ent
head that nearly picked them clean. He was mak~ng
money on the sida, and his credintia1s were bogus.
As for their ordinance (I have a copy) part5 of it
are just as bad as ours.
18. Sparing around about this matter is just so mapy worss.
Summation:
This is a petition to have this item heard by the
council. I would like them to make the final discission
on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
, ':UfBJ-
CharleffiE. Clark S&T
Delegate
Legislative Representative
Alternate Bus Representative
State of California, UTU
. .
. tpODSpOPlatlOD it,.",: '"'
LOCAL '785 SAi-.I-A 'V'-::)">'';:::A CALIFOR""lIA
AeI d -ro
/2,0
..
..
JAN 1 0 1984
December 29, 1983
~
--
--
Te:
Council, City of Santa Monica
Charles E. Clark, United Transportation Unien
...-n
-::::? .::u
~ ~ 1f11
:) .......
.J:;.
Frem:
. -'
--~
-<:
Subject: Appropriate Empleyee Representation
~ --'--v--
-, - ~
~
-
r ~'"
In my letter to the Cheif Administrative OfIicer, I tried to
make complete and abjective replies to the contents there of..
In my thirty plus years with the City of Santa Monica, I have
stood before many councils. I beleave the first council I
spoke before, was the one where Mr. Hart was Mayor. They
were all very attentive, sympathetic and said that they under-
stood my contentions. I was full of hope, but as I stood
there with my hat in my hand, one by one the council made (as
a matter of record) why they were denying my plea.
T am stateing this fact, in the h.pe that you can better under-
stand my attitude. I knew that you represent the City. I alae
feel that you should represent the employees. I say this from
the conviction (and from years of butting my head against the
wall of no blesse/o blige) that altho the employee may live in
Santa Monica his wishes are secondary. Now this is not(and is
net intended to be) an accusation. This is the first time that
I have appeared in a representative pesition before this council
in years. I don't know how you feel individually about unions,
but I would like to remind you that we are all members of the
greatest union that ever surfaced on this earth...
The United States of America.
I was proud when I was drafted in World War II. I also served
in the Regular Army, and was activated with the National Guard.
I was a member of A Ba"ttery, 143rd Field Artillary Ba-ttal.ion,
stationed in Santa,.. Monica. This was for the Korean "1ar.
The reason I put this paragraph in this appeaQ, is that I want
you to undera~and that I am not a trouble maker. I would like
each of you to digest what you see before yeu. I am an old
team player. I am appealing a rule of the game. As m senier
player, I have been petitioned by other members of the team
whe feel that the efficiating is not just in their respect, and
they feel that a senior member of the tewm should air their
contentions and ple~their grievance.
At'Pd -kJ
/2 -/j
JAN 1 0 19S4~,
.
- .
.
.
::-
.
.
.
"
.~
.
~ -
.
.
,
~.
".. L _
..
.-
- .
.=
.
. .
. IpanspoPlatlon ~~fl'!,!;n,"~
LOCAL .7~5 SA"rA VO""ICA CA.LIFORNIA
December 291 1983
City Counai
Employee Representatlon
page two
A~ I sadd in the last paragraph, look at me. I have gout
in both feet. I have arthritis in both knees, an ulcer,
also hypertension. I have lost some hearing in my left ear,
thata the one that absorbs the traffic noise through the open
left window of my bus. I can almost read your minds. Why?
dcnft you retire, and what does this have to do with employee
representation.
1. I will retire in 1984. The Public Employees Retirement
Fund is not overly generous to retirees who are only 57
years old. Even if they have over thirty year&~ service.
2. In the first eighteen years of my employment, my pay was
so lew that my retirement pay will not make me independly
wealthy.
3. I vigorously objectt to the lumping employees into a pool
ef miscellaneous numbers, and I always will.
4. Each of the employees have a definite Classification. I
only have to point to the employment flyers.
5. Yet, the representative units in the City represent all
empleyeeain that unit, from Mechanic down to the Mainte-
nance person. Each with their ewn problems.
6. I have been told that the United Transportation Union is
a drivera union. Also, that I should stick to something
that I know and leave the mechanics problems alone.
7. When Norman Smith was in charge of the Bus Maintenance
department, he asked me on numerious occassions to change
over to this facility. Mr. Smith taught class at Santa-
~o~ica City College. I at one time took four years of
instruction in auto~atic transmissions. He thought that
I was pretty good. He also knew t~at I was a fuel and
carbureation specialist. That I had a back ground that
would be useful. I turned him down. Why?, because the
Job didn1t pay enough. That is the same reason that I
turned down the Bus Supervisors job. OhI, I knmw.' that
the report given by the committee who interviewed me was
unacceptable, but they and I know what W3S said in that
interview..
~.
.
"':::::. .......
. --L_
.
"
.
-,
u
'~ .
, , J
-
~
. -
.
')
-'-
r
-,
.
. .
.. tP8nJlp~~!,1!~!~'!c:f:~,r,~~~:: 'c
December 291 1983
City Counci
Employees Representation
page three
8. I am trying to qualify myself in fact, and also the other
officers in this lecal. Most of these people have some
mechanical back ground, and do understand the problems
that the mechanics, and of course will understand the fact
af the econmic situation we new live in and work in.
9. The rransporta~ion Department ar the City of Santa Monica
is unique. The eriginal property is new part of the Civic
Aditorium Complex. Also part of the property is part of
that enjoined in the Court House area. For ye~rs the buses
had the distinetion of being the only profit making unit
in the city. In fact, for a time our department was the
only transportation company in the United States to show an
appreciable profit. The cost of living went up 10 percent
per year, and this was for a period of over ten years. The
cost of new buses went up 400 to 500 percent. Fuel prices
went up at about the same rate.
10. The employees were in the same boat. We cound'nt work for
less, because we had to pay the same as other people. Our
Union worked with mamagement to get all of the ap~repreat1ons
we could under the Urban Mass Transportation Act (UMTA~.
I am sure that you know, that under UMTA the representatives
of the employees have to sign the request for funds. The
area covered is the fact that the Employer must meet and con-
fer in good faith and abide by the conditions of the contract
in force. The officers of this Local just signed a request
for new buses. We are team players.
11. Those who work in the maintenance (except for some of the
seniors) department do not realize that in the original
charter of this local were the names of severaa of the men
in their department. This charter was let on March 12th,
1950 by the Brotherhoed of Railroad Trainmen. I can prove
that this lacal is the oldest representative union in the
city representating city employees.
12. In 1970 or 71 (somewhere about there) the mechanics deceided
to try one of the new groups. This was granted and the
local realesed them. They became unhappy, and the group
brought in the Teamsters. Once again they were not happy,
the organization is not representative of them and they
have asked by petition that the UTU be their representative.
~>
.~
. ,
.
.
~.
~.
.
.
.
.~
.
.
'"
.
.;...
c
.
..
~-
..
. .
tp8oSpOl'tatloo ft.??;V:!'"
LOCAL "785 SANTA MO"-'ICA CALlFORN;A
December 29, 1983
City Council
Employees Representation
page four
13. Under Article 41 (revised 8-83)
Lines 1 thru 3
Any person of good moral character who is employed in
a craft or vocation, whether public or private employment,
represented by the United Transportation Union is eligible
for membership.
14. This local has application cards from the majority of the
maintenance personal of the Transportation Department for
membership.
15. A petition was submitted to the personnel department, and
to the cheif administrative officer bearing their names
on June 1st, 1983.
16. All articles were deemed in-appropriate, and I requested
that they be re-filed and that the request i filed on
October 21, accompany them. It seemseth1s request must
be filed within 90 day~before the end ~f ~ contract. Not
before that time.
l7. On December 1, 1983 the City Manager wrote me a letter.
It was mailed on December 8th, 1983 and I received it on
December 10th. I replied on December 14th, 1983 and re-
eeived notice from Susan McCarthy on December 27th, 1983
to submit this request to you.
s,ummatioDI
I feel that there is something wrong. It bothers me when
people I have known for years, think that I sneaking around
with some ulterior motive in mind. The mechanics eame to
me when they were represented by the Teamsters, frankly they
wanted out. At the time we had an agreement with the Teams-
ters. It was a no raid agreement. When this new association
came in, some of the older mechanics had retired and the inter-
est went to this association. So 3e It. The men in maintenance
feel that this organization has not done a thing for them. This
association is not a Union. I aan~ and the officers of this
local can represent these people. If you give us the permission.
We den't think any worker should be made to stand for something
they don't beleave in, or be forced to work for less than they
deserve. We feel that these people have dignity, and should be
treated fairly.
Respectf~ly. //jf~ ~ ~ I)
~h~lesE. Clark, 8&T~85
UTU
~,
.
.
fJ
..
"c
r ~
~ -'
; ['
,-
-'--
-'
~
~:
.
.
- ~ ..
. ,
~ .
-I> r- .
Jj
..
;
~
.
'I
Jl
. -L
11
.