Loading...
SR 06-26-2018 8B City Council Report City Council Meeting: June 26, 2018 Agenda Item: 8.B 1 of 8 To: Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Director, Housing and Economic Development, Economic Development Division Subject: Labor Peace Agreements for Food-Service Operators on City-Owned Properties Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether the model of the San Francisco Airport Labor Peace/Card Check policy is responsive to Council’s October 2017 direction to develop new Labor Peace policy provisions for the City’s food service leases (subject to setting thresholds for exempting various subcategories of those leases from an LPA requirement). Executive Summary The City owns various properties throughout Santa Monica, including the Pier, the Airport and the Third Street Promenade, and has a long-term lease to operate the three miles of State beach. Stewardship of these public assets has long involved leases and concessions granted to private businesses that offer food services. The City has a strong proprietary interest in protecting $4.5 million in annual lease revenues on its 27 food-service leaseholds (City Tenants). Current labor-peace provisions in the City’s leasing and licensing guidelines (Leasing Guidelines) for the Downtown and Pier are intended to minimize disruption to the City’s revenue stream arising from potential labor conflicts. At the direction of Council, for the past two years, staff has explored the inclusion in the Leasing Guidelines of a requirement that tenants execute a labor-peace agreement (LPA), an agreement between an employer and a labor organization which generally involves the labor organization giving up the right to strike or otherwise disrupt the business’s operations in exchange for negotiated provisions that strengthen workers’ rights to organize. 2 of 8 Community and Council debate identified tensions and challenges inherent in balancing the Council’s desire to both support the ability of locally owned small businesses to maintain and compete for City leasing opportunities and provide strong protections for stable revenue from those leases. Staff has analyzed the legal, financial, and policy considerations of Council’s direction and concluded that, given the difficulties of balancing these interests, the most feasible model may be the long-established LPA policy that provides a comprehensive process for compliance and enforcement at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). If Council determines that the SFO model (or some close variation) meets its goals, staff recommends employing a hearing officer to make determinations regarding procedural disputes and the application of the terms of the LPA, using a template to clarify and streamline the LPA process, and determining thresholds for certain exemptions to the LPA policy. Based on direction received, staff would return to Council with corresponding amendments to the City’s Leasing Guidelines and policies. On the other hand, if the Council concludes that the SFO model does not meet its goals, given the thorough and lengthy effort to find an acceptable alternative model, staff recommends leaving the current LPA language in the Leasing Guidelines unchanged. Background Consideration of strengthening the current LPA provisions of the Leasing Guidelines originally surfaced in discussions around the extension of the lease for the Spitfire Grill at the Santa Monica Airport (SMO) in 2016. Since that time, Council and staff have sought to find a workable model that effectively addresses the multiple objectives involved. After more than a year of discussions regarding the LPA model used at Los Angeles International Airport, on October 24, 2017, Council held a study session to discuss whether the City’s Leasing Guidelines and policies for City-owned properties with food- service operations should require labor-peace agreements (see Attachment A). Staff provided an overview of the key elements of a labor-peace agreement (LPA) and Council provided the following direction: 3 of 8  Develop a policy, similar to the requirement adopted by the Santa Monica-Malibu School District (School District) for a School District-owned hospitality property, that would require an LPA with a no-strike pledge and identify a non-political body that would determine whether a labor organization’s LPA requirements are arbitrary or capricious.  Consider ways to reduce the time and cost for businesses to negotiate an LPA, including whether an LPA template could be used.  Evaluate the use of exemptions or thresholds to minimize impacts to small businesses.  Exempt food-service carts and outdoor-dining licenses from an LPA requirement. Discussion As outlined in greater detail in the June 12, 2018, Council Information Item (Attachment B) staff has analyzed whether a workable policy can be based on the School District’s requirement, which applies to only one operator—the Doubletree Hotel—that includes food services. While that lease has a provision to address the potential that a labor organization could insist on “arbitrary or capricious conditions,” that term is not clearly defined in the School District’s policy. Since its adoption in 2005, the Board of Education has not had to determine any claims of arbitrary or capricious conditions. Because of its lack of a clear definition and with no record of determinations to assess best practices, the School District policy does not appear to provide a sound basis for fulfilling the objectives of the Council’s direction. Another aspect of the Council’s direction was to examine whether a “template” for the provisions of an LPA could give further clarity to what might be termed as “arbitrary and capricious.” Unfortunately, the more prescriptive such a template might be, the more it resembles local government regulation of labor relations (which is pre-empted by Federal law) and the less it resembles voluntary good faith bargaining between two parties to preclude workplace disruptions. 4 of 8 To address this challenge, research done by the City Attorney’s Office identified the SFO model -- which bypasses the challenges involved in imposing a template. Instead, it offers a “default.” To protect its proprietary interests and to avoid labor disputes at the Airport, SFO has utilized a Model Card Check Agreement in its labor peace agreement procedures (see Attachment C for the resolution adopting labor peace/card check rule and Attachment D for the model card check agreement template at SFO). As an alternative to an appeal process to assess what might be deemed “arbitrary and capricious”, a model card check agreement is an option that could provide a more streamlined LPA negotiation process, potentially minimizing expenses for prospective food-service operators and labor organizations. In the SFO model, the LPA process requires the employer to enter into a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement within 30 days of a labor organization’s request. In the event the labor organization and the employer are unable to negotiate an agreement within the 30-day period, the parties are then bound by the Model Card Check Agreement. Attachment E is a general fact sheet on Card Check. While Card Check is a long-established procedure for avoiding protracted and even bitter disputes over rights to representation by workers, it is certainly not without its drawbacks. Its primary advantage is that workers have the opportunity to privately express their support for labor organization representation with less fear of retaliatory action by their employer. The primary criticism levelled against this procedure is that, unlike a secret ballot election, critics argue that individuals may be duped or coerced into signing their support for labor organization representation. Given the contentious debate over these trade-offs, this report does not attempt to provide detailed objective analysis of the pros and cons of the Card Check procedure other than to note that it has been in place for nearly two decades at SFO – while acknowledging there are significant differences between the concessions at an international airport and those embedded in our community at the Pier, SMO, the Third Street Promenade and the Santa Monica beach. Council expressed preference for an impartial, non-political entity to address LPA disputes. In the SFO model, if a dispute arises over procedural issues or the 5 of 8 interpretation or application of the terms of the Model Labor Peace/Card Agreement, the parties submit their concerns or claims to an arbitrator, with costs shared equally between the food-service operator and labor organization. For complaints involving a violation, breach, or exemption of an LPA agreement, the SFO model designates the Airport Director or designee to investigate. The process in Santa Monica could be established similarly, with investigatory duties assigned to staff. As at SFO, the City could use a City-appointed hearing officer. Various state and local laws provide for appeals of citations or City decisions to appointed hearing officers. A hearing officer is an independent arbitrator of facts and law for resolution of a wide range of disputes or citations, including code compliance, business license, personnel matters, and airport citations. As outlined in Attachment F, the overhead and fees associated with arbitration providers such as American Arbitration Association, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc., and Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. can vary widely. The City Attorney’s Office and the City’s Rent Control Board use hearing officers to issue determinations on a variety of matters. Currently, the costs of hearing officers are borne by the City at approximately $112 per hour. If there is an interest in expanding the use of hearing officers to resolve disputes between private parties during the course of negotiating an LPA, Council, in its discretion, could elect to allocate the costs of the hearing officer between the parties or to bear such costs. Thresholds In addition to seeking a model policy regarding LPAs, Council expressed interest in establishing thresholds to address concerns regarding the potential disproportional cost burden on small businesses related to an LPA requirement. As noted in the Information Item, there is no single definition of small business, as eligibility thresholds are industry- and context-specific. One threshold option would be the number of employees. The City does not currently require food-service operators to report the number of employees. However, establishing an exemption for businesses with 25 or fewer employees would align with 6 of 8 the City’s minimum wage ordinance, which defines a small business as having 25 or fewer employees. There are other federal laws that apply thresholds for exemption based upon the number of employees and number of calendar weeks worked during a specific period. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers with 50 or more full-time- equivalent employees are considered large employers. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempt firms that employ fewer than 15 employees each working day for 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Another threshold option would be gross sales. The City does not currently require food- service operators to report gross sales unless their lease includes a percentage rent provision. However, there are several examples of gross sales as the threshold for exemption. Under the Fair Labor Act, firms with gross sales under $500,000 are exempt from regulation. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as any non-manufacturing businesses with less than $7.5 million in annual receipts. The Department of Energy (DOE) may allow for temporary exemptions for manufacturers of consumer products with annual gross revenues not exceeding $8 million from all operations. Council may wish to affirm that the LPA requirement applies only to City-owned properties that are subject to new leases/license agreements or substantial modifications of those agreements. The current definition of substantial modification as defined in the Santa Monica Pier and Downtown Leasing Guidelines is: (i) a change of use of the property, (ii) increase in seating or square footage of more than 25%; or (iii) an extension of lease duration. Confining the application of LPA to City-owned properties would exempt City-administered leases on the State-owned beach. Alternatives Council may also consider the following alternatives:  Keep Existing Labor Peace Provisions As-Is: Council could maintain the existing labor-peace provisions given that; (1) the existing labor-peace provisions in the Leasing Guidelines currently prohibit city tenants from engaging in practices that 7 of 8 impede employees’ ability to organize and contract with a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining; (2) the City has not experienced work stoppages at any of the city’s leasehold properties; and (3) the impacts of LPAs on rental income and small businesses is unknown and unpredictable at this time.  Expand the Financial Obligations of Food-Service Operators: Council could eliminate the use of percentage rent formulas in lease agreements and seek higher base rents to avoid fluctuations in revenues and minimize impacts from labor issues. Higher base rents, however, may reduce the interest of potential food-service operators in pursuing City leases or licenses. Next Steps If the Council supports the SFO model, staff would return with appropriate changes (including any thresholds imposed on its applicability) to the Leasing Guidelines for Council adoption. If the alternative is to expand the financial obligations of food-service operators, staff would work to further develop that alternative for future Council consideration. If the alternative chosen is not to proceed with the SFO model or expanding the financial obligations of food service operators, no further action is required. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. Prepared By: Nia Tang, Senior Development Analyst Approved Forwarded to Council 8 of 8 Attachments: A. Staff Report October 24, 2017 (Web Link) B. Labor Peace Requirements Information Item June 12, 2018 C. Attachment C - SFO Labor Peace Card Check Rule Resolution 00-0049 D. Attachment D - SFO Model Card Check Agreement Template E. Attachment E - Card Check Fact Sheet F. Attachment F - Example of Arbitration Service Providers & Costs of Services G. Written Comments Information Item 1 Date: June 12, 2018 To: Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Director of Housing and Economic Development Subject: Labor Peace Requirements for Food-Service Operators on City Property Introduction As a follow-up to the Council study session of October 24, 2017, this report provides information regarding the implementation of labor-peace agreement requirements for food-service operations on City-owned properties. Staff anticipates bringing an action item on the matter before Council on June 26, 2018. This report is intended to provide additional information to the Council and interested members of the public in advance of Council consideration. Background The City receives approximately $4.5 million annually from rental revenues generated by 27 food-service tenants within City-owned properties. Boycotts, picketing, work stoppages, or other types of labor conflict can negatively impact City revenues from its food-service tenants. Labor-peace provisions are intended to minimize disruption to the City’s revenue stream arising from potential labor conflicts. Currently, the labor-peace provisions in the City’s existing leasing and licensing guidelines (Leasing Guidelines) for the Downtown and Pier contain provisions prohibiting City tenants from impeding employee efforts to unionize. However, the Leasing Guidelines do not require tenants to execute a labor-peace agreement (LPA). On October 24, 2017, Council held a study session regarding LPAs. Staff presented a report (Attachment A) providing an overview of key elements of an LPA including legal, financial, and policy considerations related to LPAs. Staff presented a range of policy options for Council’s consideration. At the meeting, Council gave the following direction to staff:  Develop a policy, similar to the requirement adopted by Santa Monica-Malibu School District (School District) for School District-owned properties, that would require LPAs with oversight to ensure that the labor organization’s conditions are not arbitrary or capricious.  Consider who, other than the City Council, should take responsibility for ensuring that the conditions of any prospective labor-peace agreement are not arbitrary and capricious.  Consider ways to reduce the time and cost for businesses to negotiate an LPA, including whether an LPA template could be used in certain situations.  Exempt food-service carts and outdoor-dining licenses from an LPA requirement.  Consider other appropriate exemptions or thresholds. This report outlines staff’s research in response to the direction and concerns of Council. In addition to the School District LPA policy, staff has included the San Francisco International Airport’s (SFO) Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement policy for Council’s consideration. The policy has been included based on Council’s stated interest in identifying strategies to limit time and expense for food-service operators pursuing lease opportunities with the City. The SFO LPA policy requires a labor-peace agreement with a no-strike pledge that also contains a template of a model card-check agreement in case the food service operator and labor organization cannot execute an LPA. By including such a model agreement, the policy offers an alternative mechanism for attempting to address concerns expressed by food-service operators about uncertainty regarding LPA requirements and reducing potential arbitration costs to the parties. Discussion School District LPA Requirement The School District does not execute a lease with a hospitality operator unless the hospitality operator has entered into a labor-peace agreement with any labor organization seeking to represent hospitality workers at the premises covered by the lease. The District’s LPA requirement contains a no-strike pledge specifying: “Each labor peace agreement must contain a No Strike Pledge. A Hospitality Operations Lessee shall be relieved of the obligations of this section with respect to a Labor Organization if the Labor Organization places conditions upon its No-Strike Pledge that the Board of Education finds, after notice and hearing, to be arbitrary or capricious.” The no-strike provision prohibits “the labor organization and its members from engaging in picketing, work stoppages, boycotts or any other economic interference with hospitality operations of a hospitality operations lessee for the duration of the district lease term.” Negotiations must be exercised in good faith and the LPA process must be fair and uniformly applied. Moreover, the LPA requirements requested by a labor organization cannot be arbitrary or capricious, with the Board of Education determining if the labor organization’s requested requirements in the LPA are arbitrary or capricious. Arbitrary or capricious conditions, however, are not clearly defined in the School District’s policy. Since its adoption in 2005, the Board of Education has not had to determine any claims of arbitrary or capricious conditions. Currently, the LPA policy applies to one School District-owned property with hospitality operations at 1707 4th Street, the Double Tree Hotel. Resolution of Disputes in LPA Negotiations To maintain neutrality, Council expressed preference for an impartial, non-political entity to help determine claims concerning arbitrary or capricious conditions of an LPA. Staff evaluated various dispute resolution options available to help address disputes that may arise during the negotiation of an LPA. LAX Model Under the Los Angeles World Airports (LAX) LPA policy, the LPA process involves using a mediator in the event an employer and a labor organization are unable to agree to an LPA within 60 days of the labor organization’s written request. Both parties submit the dispute to a mutually agreed-upon mediator to assist the parties in reaching a reasonable LPA through mediation. In the event an employer and a labor organization are unable to reach a reasonable LPA through mediation, the parties submit the dispute to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) for arbitration conducted in accordance with the AAA rules. See Attachment B for more information regarding mediation and arbitration. The mediation and arbitration costs are split between the employer and the labor organization. While mediation and arbitration provide a means for concluding negotiations in a non-political setting, the two processes can be expensive and time- consuming for both parties. In addition to the costs of mediation or arbitration, food- service operators would likely feel compelled to hire legal counsel with expertise in labor law, likely further increasing the costs to secure a lease with the City. See Attachment C for more information regarding potential mediation and arbitration costs. Hearing Officer Another option is to use a hearing officer, also known as a hearing examiner, to evaluate claims of arbitrary or capricious conditions required by a labor organization. Various state and local laws provide for appeals of citations or City decisions to a hearing examiner who is appointed pursuant to adopted administrative instruction. Hearing examiners are independent arbiters of facts and law for resolution of a wide range of City-related disputes or citations, including code compliance, business license, personnel matters, and airport citations. The City and the Rent Control Board both use hearing examiners to issue determinations on a variety of matters. Currently, the costs of the hearing examiners are borne by the City at approximately $112 per hour. If there is an interest in expanding the use of hearing examiners to resolve disputes between private parties during the course of negotiating an LPA, then Council, in its discretion, could elect to allocate the costs of the hearing examiner between the parties or to bear such costs.   Using a hearing officer could achieve the goal of making determinations in a non- political setting. While the costs of using a hearing officer would likely be lower than those associated with mediation or arbitration, the costs may burden small food-service operations, particularly if legal representation was considered necessary for the hearing process. Template After Negotiation Since 2000, nearly two decades in practice, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) has utilized a Model Card Check Agreement in its labor peace agreement procedures to protect its proprietary interests and to avoid labor disputes at the Airport. See Attachment D for the resolution adopting labor peace/card check rule and model card- check agreement at SFO. A model card check agreement is an option that could provide a more streamlined LPA negotiation process, potentially minimizing expenses for prospective food-service operators and labor organizations. In the SFO model, the LPA process requires the employer to enter into a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement within 30 days of a labor organization’s request. In the event the labor organization and the employer are unable to negotiate an agreement within the 30-day period, the parties are then bound by the Model Card Check Agreement. Refer to Attachment E of the SFO Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement for the specific requirements, and Attachment F for a fact sheet on Card Check. By providing a template/model agreement in the event negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties could be incentivized to reach a negotiated agreement that better meets the need of the specific business and labor organization. Enforcement of the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement including investigation of violations and compliance and requests for exemptions is assigned to the Airport Director or his/her designee. In the event a dispute arises over the interpretation or application of the terms of the card- check process, or if the parties cannot agree on specific procedures to be utilized in the card check or any other substantive or procedurals issue(s), the parties may submit their concerns or claims to an arbitrator from a selected list provided by the Airport. Any such arbitration is final and binding. Potential Thresholds for Applicability At its October 24, 2017 meeting, Council directed staff to exempt food-service carts and outdoor-dining licenses from proposed LPA requirements. Council did not provide specific direction on additional exemptions, though the discussion included consideration of other exemption thresholds to encourage small, independent businesses to pursue City leases. Other policies might provide guidance on how to define small businesses for potential exemptions. For example, the City’s minimum wage ordinance provides a longer implementation period for businesses with 25 or fewer employees, regardless of whether the employees are full-time or part-time. Alternatively, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), employers with 50 or more equivalent full-time employees are considered large employers. The ACA considers a full-time employee to be employed on average, per month, at least 30 hours of service per week, or at least 130 hours of service in a calendar month. Aside from the City’s minimum wage ordinance and the Affordable Care Act, there are other federal laws that apply thresholds for exemption based upon the number of employees and number of calendar weeks during a specific period. For example, both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempt firms that employ fewer than 15 employees each working day for 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. Section 12111(5)(A) and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(b)). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act increases that threshold to fewer than 20 employees each working day for 20 calendar weeks in the current or preceding year (29 U.S.C. Section 630(b)). These federal thresholds use an employee count higher than the current 5 or more full or part-time employees specified in the current labor peace provisions of the Pier leasing guidelines. The concept of gross sales as a threshold is an additional option. For example, the Fair Labor Act uses gross sales as the basis of threshold for exemption, and firms with gross sales under $500,000 are exempt from the regulations of the Fair Labor Act (29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1)(A)). Lastly, Council could consider exempting concession stands on the State Beach that are managed through an operating agreement with the State of California. Council may also wish to confirm that the LPA requirement applies only to City-owned properties that are subject to a new lease or substantial amendments to an existing lease. The current definition of substantial amendment consists of: (i) a change of use of the property, (ii) increase in seating or square footage of more than 25 percent; or (iii) an extension of lease duration. Alternative Approaches for Consideration In addition to adopting an LPA requirement, other policy approaches to addressing labor peace for food-service operators on City property include the following:  Keep Existing Labor-Peace Provisions: Council could keep the existing labor- peace provisions given that: (a) the existing labor-peace provisions in the Leasing Guidelines currently prohibit city tenants from engaging in practices that impede employees’ ability to organize and contract with a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining; (b) the City has not yet experienced work stoppages on any of the city’s leasehold properties; and (c) the impacts of LPAs on rental income and small businesses is unknown and unpredictable at this time.  Expand the Financial Obligations of Food-Service Operators: To address Council’s goals to protect revenues and to ensure lease payments are guaranteed even in the event of labor conflict or business disruption, the City could add requirements to increase financial commitments by food-service operators. The use of percentage rent formulas as a part of the rent structure of a lease or license agreements could be eliminated to specify the collection of higher base rents to avoid fluctuations in revenues. Seeking higher base rents, however, may reduce the interest of potential food-service operators in pursuing City leases or licenses. Next Steps Staff plans to return to Council on June 26, 2018 for formal direction on the matter. Based on Council direction, staff would return to Council at a future date to seek formal approval to amend the Leasing Guidelines to implement the Council direction, as well as to adopt a policy that applies to all City-owned properties. Any LPA requirements or conditions would be applied prospectively in forthcoming requests for proposals, leases, and licenses. Additionally, staff would define the implementation process of the labor- peace policy within the procurement process, as well as conduct outreach and education for the business community and interested labor organizations. Attachment A: Council Item #4 A – October 24, 2017 Attachment B: Background on Arbitration and Mediation Attachment C: Example of Arbitration Service Providers & Cost of Services Attachment D: SFO Labor Peace/Card Check Rule Resolution 00-0049 Attachment E: SFO Model Card Check Agreement Template Attachment F: Card Check Fact Sheet Attachment B: Background on Arbitration and Mediation Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is any method of resolving disputes without litigation. There are several ADR approaches that involve a third party neutral individual to assist disputing parties in resolving their disagreements. ADR typically includes early neutral evaluation, negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration, and offers several advantages over formal litigation, including a quicker and less costly process. Mediation and arbitration are the two major forms of ADR, and the salient features are as follows:  Mediation. The goal of mediation is for a neutral third party, a “mediator”, to help disputants reach consensus and come to a mutually acceptable settlement Mediation is confidential. A mediator’s influence is limited to willingness of both parties to negotiate in good faith. Rather than imposing a solution, a mediator’s primary function is to identify issues, explore possible bases for agreement, discuss the consequences of reaching impasse, and encourage each party to accommodate the interests of the other party through negotiation. Working with both parties together and sometimes separately, mediators try to help both parties reach a resolution that is sustainable, voluntary, and nonbinding. However, unlike arbitrators, mediators lack the power to impose a decision on the parties if they fail to reach an agreement on their own.  Arbitration. In arbitration, a neutral third party serves as an "arbitrator" acting similar to a trial judge. Unlike a mediator, an arbitrator is not a passive go-between facilitator. Arbitration resembles traditional civil litigation in that the arbitrator listens as each side argues its case and presents relevant evidence and then renders a decision, which can be binding upon the parties and enforceable by the courts. Private arbitration is the primary method of settling labor disputes between unions and employers. For example, unions and employers almost always include an arbitration clause in their formal negotiations, known as collective bargaining agreements. By doing so, they agree to arbitrate future employee grievances over wages, hours, working conditions, and job security. Many real estate and insurance contracts also make arbitration the exclusive method of negotiating and resolving certain disputes that can arise between the parties entering those types of relationships. Attachment C: Example of Arbitration Service Providers & Cost of Services Staff researched options for dispute resolution services. There are several highly respected firms that provide mediation, arbitration and ADR services. In addition to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) which LAX utilizes in LPA disputes, there are other firms such as JAMS and ADR Services, Inc. who have offices in Century City and downtown LA. Please insert a 5th column for City Hearing Examiner Service Fees AAA JAMS ADR Services, Inc. City of Santa Monica Hearing Officer Professional Fees (Hourly rate vary depending on neutral. Neutrals are independent contractors and set their own rates.) Varies depending on neutral Varies depending on neutral Published rates: Retired Jurists hourly rates from $495-$700 per hour or $4,500 half-day/ $7,500 full day. Attorneys hourly rates range from $425 - $850 per hour. Approximately $112 per hour Administrative Fee/ Case Management Fee $275 for each party 12% of Professional Fees (includes time spent for hearings, pre- and post-hearing and reading and research, and award preparation). $450 per party Arbitration Fees n/a $1,200 – Two Party Matter $2,000 – Matters involving three or more parties. $300 Initial Filing Postponement Fees $150 by party causing postponement. n/a n/a The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) also provides services to employers and unions in the resolution of negotiation impasses if third-party mediation fails to resolve a negotiation impasse. Either party may request the Federal Service Impasses Panel to consider the matter. The Panel is composed of six members who are appointed by the President. The fees are competitive to the other ADR services in the market place. Attachment E: SFO Model Card Check Agreement Template LABOR PEACE/CARD CHECK RULE The Airport Commission, consistent with the findings stated in attached Resolution No. 00-0049 that it is essential for the protection of the Airport Commission's proprietary and financial interests, adopt this Rule that Employers/Contractors and Labor Organizations agree to enter into and abide by Labor Peace/Card Check Agreements through recognition in the circumstances specified below. I. DEFINITIONS Whenever used in Rule 12, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. (A) "Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement" shall mean a written agreement within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (or a written agreement that would qualify as such an agreement but for the fact that the Employer does not meet that statute's definition of an Employer), between an Employer and a Labor Organization providing a procedure for determining employee preference on the subject of whether to be represented by a Labor Organization for collective bargaining, and if so, by which Labor Organization to be represented, which provides, at a minimum, the following: (1) Determining employee preference regarding Labor Organization representation shall be by a card check procedure conducted by a neutral third party in lieu of a formal election; (2) All disputes over interpretation or application of the parties' Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement, and over issues regarding how to carry out the card check process or specific card check procedures shall be submitted to expedited binding arbitration. For purposes of this Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement, absent other agreement between the parties, the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the American Arbitration Association Labor Arbitration Rules including its Expedited Labor Arbitration procedures; (3) Forbearance by any Labor Organization from economic action including strikes, picketing, boycotts or other such interference with the business of the Employer/Contractor at the work site of an organizing drive covered by this Rule in relation to an organizing campaign only (not as to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement), so long as the Employer/Contractor complies with the terms of the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement. (B) "Covered Contract" means a lease, sublease, or permit of Airport property at the Airport or any property owned by the Airport. Covered Contract also means a contract, subcontract, license, sublicense, operating permit, or similar agreement pursuant to which a Contractor is to provide services to the Airport or to a Contractor or Subcontractor which services are integral to the operations of the Airport or to sell goods or services in public areas of the Airport, including but not limited to, janitorial and maintenance, security, baggage and passenger screening, wheelchair assistance, baggage handling, parking lot services, shuttle vans, rental cars, ticketing agents, gate attendants, aircraft maintenance workers, ramp service workers, electricians, plumbers, airline sales personnel, baggage claim services, cart driving services, refueling personnel and clerical services. (C) "Contractor" means any person or business entity that enters into a Covered Contract, as defined herein with the Airport Commission. (D) "Airport" means the San Francisco International Airport. (E) "Commission" means the Airport Commission established by the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco. (F) "Airport Director" means the director of the San Francisco International Airport. (G) "Subcontractor" means any person or business entity, not an employee, that enters into a subcontract, sublicense or sublease or similar agreement with a Contractor to perform duties at the Airport related in any way to a Covered Contract. Reference herein to Contractor means Subcontractor. (H) "Employer" means any person or business entity who is a Contractor or Subcontractor who enters into a Covered Contract. (I) "Labor Organization" means any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with Employers/ Contractors concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. II. LABOR PEACE/CARD CHECK DUTIES (A) Employer/Contractor Duties (1) An Employer/Contractor shall enter into a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement, as defined in this Rule, with any Labor Organization which requests such an agreement and which has registered with the Airport Director. The Employer/Contractor shall enter into the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement not later than thirty (30) days from the request. If an Employer/Contractor enters into such an agreement with a Labor Organization, it must offer that same agreement to any other Labor Organization seeking to represent the Employer/ Contractor's employees. Any Labor Organization that was not a party to the initial Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement may, at its discretion, reject the terms negotiated by the first Labor Organization, and negotiate for a different Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement. In the event that a Labor Organization and the Employer/Contractor are unable to negotiate an agreement within the 30-day period, the parties shall then be bound by the Model Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement referred to in Part III of this Rule. (2) Not less than 30 days prior to the modification or extension of any Covered Contract, the Employer/Contractor shall provide notice, by mail to any Labor Organization or federation of labor organizations which have registered with the Director, that the Employer/ Contractor is seeking to modify or extend such Covered Contract. (3) Upon issuing any request for proposals, invitations to bid, or similar notice, or in any event, not less than 30 days prior to entering into any Subcontract, an Employer/Contractor shall provide notice, by mail, to any Labor Organization or federation of labor organizations which has registered with the Airport Director, that the Employer/ Contractor is seeking to enter into such Subcontract. (4) The Employer/Contractor shall include in any subcontract with a Subcontractor performing services pursuant to any Covered Contract, a provision requiring the Subcontractor to comply with the requirements of this Rule. (5) Notwithstanding the requirements provided in (1) -(5), any Employer/ Contractor who has in good faith fully complied with those requirements will be excused from further compliance as to a Labor Organization which has been found by an arbitrator to have violated the forbearance provisions in the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement, until and unless such finding has been vacated by any reviewing court.   (B) Airport Director Duties The Airport Director shall: (1) Include in any Covered Contract a provision requiring any Employer/ Contractor to abide by the requirements imposed under Section 12.3(A) above as a condition of entering into, modifying or intending any Covered Contract. (2) Include the description or reference to this Rule in requests for proposals or invitations to bid or similar documents regarding Covered Contracts. All will include a summary description of and reference to the requirements of this Rule. Failure to include the description of reference to this Rule in any such document shall not exempt any Employer/ Contractor otherwise subject to the requirements of this Rule. (3) Upon publication of any request for proposal, invitation to bid, or similar document distributed in anticipation of entering into a Covered Contract, provide notice by mail to any Labor Organization or federation of labor organizations, which has registered with the Director that the Director is seeking to enter into such Covered Contract. (4) Not enter into or recommend to the Commission any Covered Contract with an Employer/Contractor without an express finding that the Employer/ Contractor has agreed to comply with the provisions of this Rule. (5) Grant exemptions from this Rule as set forth in Section 12.3(D). (C) Labor Organization's Duties (1) Any Labor Organization seeking to invoke the provisions of this Rule, and to receive notifications as provided in this Rule, must register with the Airport Director, on a form designed by the Airport Director for that purpose, or by sending a letter signed by an agent of the Labor Organization, indicating which types of Covered Contracts the Labor Organization would like notification of, and certifying that the Labor Organization will comply with the terms of this Rule relative to such designated Covered Contract. (2) A federation of labor organizations wishing to receive notification as provided in this Rule shall register with the Airport Director, on a form designed by the Airport Director for that purpose, or by sending a letter to the Airport Director signed by an agent of the federation. (3) Any Labor Organization seeking to invoke the provisions of this Rule shall agree not to undertake economic action including strikes, picketing, boycotts or other such interference with the business of the Employer/ Contractor at the work site of an organizing drive covered by this Rule, and in relation to an organizing campaign only (not to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement), so long as the Employer/Contractor complies with the terms of the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement. (D) Exemptions The provisions of the Labor Peace/Card Check Rule shall not apply to any of the following: (1) A bargaining unit of any Employer/Contractor, which has already recognized a Labor Organization for that bargaining unit; (2) New construction or any work covered by an Airport Project Stabilization Agreement; (3) An Employer/Contractor who is obligated to enter into a card check agreement with a Labor Organization by San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 23, Article VII, "Labor Representation Procedures in Hotel and Restaurant Development," and/or Airport Commission Policy No. 99-0198, as such procedures may be modified from time to time; (4) A Labor Organization that does not register with the Airport Director nor a Labor Organization which does not request a card check procedure; (5) An Employer/Contractor's operations at the Airport which are subject to the Railway Labor Act either by a final decision by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, or by mutual agreement between the Employer/ Contractor and a Labor Organization which is the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees. In such cases, the Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement shall be voluntary; (6) A Covered Contract to provide or sell goods, services, materials or equipment where the Employer/Contractor does not operate on a regular basis with a defined complement of employees at the Airport; (7) An agreement between the Airport and a public agency; or (8) A Covered Contract where the Airport Director determines that the risk to the Airport's financial or other nonregulatory interest resulting from labor/ management conflict is so minimal or speculative so as not to warrant concern for the Airport's proprietary, investment or other nonregulatory interest. III. MODEL LABOR PEACE/CARD CHECK AGREEMENT To facilitate the requirements imposed by this Rule, the Commission hereby adopts a Model Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement appended to this Rule that includes the mandatory terms and which provides protection against labor/management conflict arising out of an organizing drive, and makes such Agreement available to parties required to enter into such agreement. The Airport Director may also prepare guidelines establishing standards and procedures related to this Rule. Notwithstanding this provision regarding the Model Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement, or related guidelines, this Rule shall be self-executing, and shall apply in the absence of or regardless of such model agreement or guidelines. IV. ENFORCEMENT (A) The Airport Director shall investigate complaints that this Rule has been violated or that a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement provision included in a Covered Contract has been breached, and shall take any action necessary to enforce compliance, including but not limited to instituting a civil action. (B) The Airport Director may, in addition to any other remedies available to the Airport, terminate the Covered Contract upon 30-days notice to the Employer/Contractor to cure its breach where the Employer/Contractor has failed (1) to give notice to Labor Organizations as required by this Rule, (2) to enter into a Labor Peace/ Card Check Agreement as required by this Rule, (3) to include in an Subcontract the provision requiring compliance with this Rule, or (4) has failed to abide by the terms of an arbitration award enforcing a Labor Peace/Card Check Agreement. (C) Any challenge to the applicability of this Rule to a particular Employer/Contractor or Labor Organization shall be brought to the Commission only after first seeking an exemption from the Airport Director as provided for in this Rule. Any such challenge must be commenced with the Commission within 15 days after notification that such exemption has been denied by the Airport Director. V. EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this Rule shall apply to any Covered Contract awarded, modified, let, extended, or renegotiated after the effective date of this Rule. The provisions of this Rule shall also apply to Covered Contracts in effect at the time of this Rule's adoption to the extent such contract requires that the Employer/Contractor comply with the rules of this Commission. This Rule shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Commission. VI. SEVERABILITY If any part or provision of this Rule, or the application thereof to any person, business entity or circumstance, is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Rule, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons, business entities or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Rule are severable. MODEL CARD CHECK AGREEMENT 1. To accommodate a decision of the employees of ________________________ (hereby referred to as Employer) as to whether or not they wish to be represented by a Labor Organization seeking to represent them, in order to avoid costly labor disputes, and/or economic action that might arise, and to avoid jeopardizing the economic viability of the Airport and/or the Airport Commission's proprietary and economic interests in the Airport, Employer shall, upon request by any Labor Organization: (i) provide such Labor Organization with a complete and accurate list of the names and complete addresses and phone numbers of the employees of Employer working in the jobs set forth in subsection (4) of this Section; (ii) immediately comply with such Labor Organization's request under clause (i) even if the Facility that the employees will work in has not yet actually opened for business. The Employer shall not withhold names pending the actual opening for business of any or all of the Facility; (iii) allow such Labor Organization to refer applicants for employment at the Facility consistent with any applicable Airport policies; (iv) at such time as the Facility begins seeking, accepting, or interviewing applicants for employment, provide to such Labor Organization's members and representatives timely and reasonable access to the Facility for the purpose of providing employees with information about the Labor Organization. 2. Employer shall allow employees of the Facility to have reasonable access during nonworking time to the facilities and information made available via Section 1 of this Agreement. 3. Labor Organization agrees not to undertake economic action including strikes, picketing, boycotts or other interference with the business of Employer at the work site of an organizing drive covered by this Agreement, and in relation to an organizing campaign only (not to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement). 4. Employer agrees to voluntarily recognize for the purpose of exclusive collective bargaining, one or more Labor Organizations demonstrating that it or they represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit determined as set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement, in a "Card Check". Said Card Check shall be conducted by a Commissioner of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, or if that Service is unable to so, by a Commissioner of the California State Conciliation Service. 5. Employer agrees that the card check shall take place in the bargaining unit requested by a Labor Organization provided it is an appropriate bargaining unit as that phrase has meaning under the national labor laws. Disputes over whether the requested unit is an appropriate unit and/or whether certain employees properly are included in a requested unit shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration as provided for in Section 5. In the event a dispute arises over the interpretation or application of the terms of this card check procedure, or if the parties cannot agree on specific procedures to be used in the card check or any other substantive or procedural issue(s) pertaining to the card check, including without limitation, the eligibility standard for employees working less than a full-time schedule, the contents of authorization cards, potential disputes over the validity and/or authentication of authorization cards, etc., they shall submit such "interests" or "rights" to an arbitrator for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator shall have broad powers to determine the procedures and other substantive terms of the card check process for the parties as well as to resolve any and all disputes over the interpretation and application of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall apply principles of federal labor laws developed by the National Labor Relations Board. Any such arbitration shall be concluded within 30 days of the demand for arbitration. 7. Employer shall abide by the results of the card check procedure, and hereby irrevocably waives the filing of a representation petition before the NLRB in lieu of the card check procedure. The Employer shall recognize any Labor Organization establishing that a majority of employees in the bargaining unit eligible to participate in the card check has designated the Labor Organization as the employees' exclusive collective bargaining agent for all purposes recognized by federal labor laws. 8. Employer further agrees that an interest demonstrated by employees of the Facility in joining a Labor Organization, membership in a Labor Organization and/or signing or circulating authorization cards or supporting a union organizing drive, (or not doing so) pursuant to this Agreement, shall not constitute grounds for discriminatory or disparate treatment or disciplinary action, and shall not adversely impact a potential employee's ability to be hired or promoted. The Employer and Labor Organization shall agree to submit to final and binding arbitration, as provided for in Section 5 above, grievances filed by employees or Labor Organizations seeking to organize employees concerning alleged violations of this section of the card check agreement and procedure. 9. Employer and Labor Organization further agree that this card check agreement and these mandated procedures shall be in effect and last for a term of not less than three (3) years from the date of execution, or from the date of opening, whichever is longer. 10. If the Employer has complied with the terms of this Agreement, and a Labor Organization, as part of a campaign to organize the employees of Employer, engages in economic action against Employer at sites covered by this Agreement, Employer shall be excused from further compliance with the card check procedures required in this Agreement with respect to the organizing campaign of that Labor Organization. "Economic action" means any concerted action initiated or conducted by a Labor Organization and/or employees acting in concert therewith to bring economic pressure to bear against Employer as part of a campaign to organize employees or prospective employees of Employer including such activities as striking, picketing, boycotting at the Airport. 11. This Agreement applies only to the procedures for determining employee preference regarding whether to be represented by a Labor Organization for purposes of collective bargaining and/or by which Labor Organization to be represented. This Agreement does not apply to the procedures governing the process of collective bargaining itself, once a Labor Organization has been recognized as the bargaining representative for employees of Employers subject to this Agreement. Attachment F Card Check Fact Sheet 1. What is a card check? A card check is an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) secret ballot election process. The difference is that with card check sign-in, employees sign authorization cards stating they want a union, the cards are submitted to the NLRB and if more than 50% of the employees submitted cards, the NLRB requires the employer to recognize the union. If over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would order a secret ballot election for union representation. 2. How does majority sign-up work? Majority sign-up, or “card check,” allows workers who want to join a union to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them in collective bargaining. If a majority of workers sign cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (private sector) or the Public Employment Relations Board (public sector). If the Board finds that the majority of workers want a union, the union is entitled to recognition. 3. How long has the card check process been in existence? Since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, it has been legal for workers to form a union when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards indicating their intent to bargain collectively with the employer. 4. Who oversees the process of card check? The National Labor Relations Board. If the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, a union is automatically formed. The NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if more than 50% of employees have authorized that representation via card check, without requiring a secret ballot election. 5. Are employers able to see how employees vote? No, employers never see identifying information of how an employee voted, though in card check unions would see how an employee voted. 1 MODEL CARD CHECK AGREEMENT 1. To accommodate a decision of the employees of (hereby referred to as Employer) as to whether or not they wish to be represented by a Labor Organization seeking to represent them, in order to avoid costly labor disputes, and/or economic action that might arise, and to avoid jeopardizing the economic viability of the Airport and/or the Airport Commission's proprietar y and economic interests in the Airport, Employer shall, upon request by any Labor Organization: (i) provide such Labor Organization with a complete and accurate list of the names and complete addresses and phone numbers of the employees of Employer working in the jobs set forth in subsection (4) of this Section; (ii) immediately comply with such Labor Organization's request under clause (i) even if the Facility that the employees will work in has not yet actually opened for business. The Employer shall not withhold names pending the actual opening for business of any or all of the Facility; (iii) allow such Labor Organization to refer applicants for employment at the Facility consistent with any applicable Airport policies; (iv) at such time as the Facility begins seeking, accepting, or interviewing applicants for employment, provide to such Labor Organization's members and representatives timely and reasonable access to the Facility for the purpose of providing employees with information about the Labor Organization. 2. Employer shall allow employees of the Facility to have reasonable access during nonworking time to the facilities and information made available via Section 1 of this Agreement. 3. Labor Organization agrees not to undertake economic action including strikes, picketing, boycotts or other interference with the business of Employer at the work site of an organizing drive covered by this Agreement, and in relation to an organizing campaign only (not to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement). 4. Employer agrees to voluntarily recognize for the purpose of exclusive collective bargaining, one or more Labor Organizations demonstrating that it or they represent a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit determined as set forth in Section 5 of this Agreement, in a "Card Check". Said Card Check shall be conducted by a Commissioner of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, or if that Service is unable to so, by a Commissioner of the California State Conciliation Service. 5. Employer agrees that the card check shall take place in the bargaining unit requested by a Labor Organization provided it is an appropriate bargaining unit as that phrase has meaning under the national labor laws. Disputes over whether the requested unit is an appropriate unit and/or whether certain employees properly are included in a requested unit shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration as provided for in Section 5. 6. In the event a dispute arises over the interpretation or application of the terms of this card check procedure, or if the parties cannot agree on specific procedures to be used in the card check or any other substantive or procedural issue(s) pertaining to the card check, including without limitation, the eligibility standard for employees working less than a full-time schedule, the contents of authorization cards, potential disputes over the validity and/or authentication of authorization cards, etc., they shall submit such "interests" or "rights" to an arbitrator for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator shall have broad powers to determine the procedures and other substantive terms of the card check process for the parties as well as to resolve any and all 2 disputes over the interpretation and application of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall apply principles of federal labor laws developed by the National Labor Relations Board. Any such arbitration shall be concluded within 30 days of the demand for arbitration. 7. Employer shall abide by the results of the card check procedure, and hereby irrevocably waives the filing of a representation petition before the NLRB in lieu of the card check procedure. The Employer shall recognize any Labor Organization establishing that a majority of employees in the bargaining unit eligible to participate in the card check has designated the Labor Organization as the employees' exclusive collective bargaining agent for all purposes recognized by federal labor laws. 8. Employer further agrees that an interest demonstrated by employees of the Facility in joining a Labor Organization, membership in a Labor Organization and/or signing or circulating authorization cards or supporting a union organizing drive, (or not doing so) pursuant to this Agreement, shall not constitute grounds for discriminatory or disparate treatment or disciplinary action, and shall not adversely impact a potential employee's ability to be hired or promoted. The Employer and Labor Organization shall agree to submit to final and binding arbitration, as provided for in Section 5 above, grievances filed by employees or Labor Organizations seeking to organize employees concerning alleged violations of this section of the card check agreement and procedure. 9. Employer and Labor Organization further agree that this card check agreement and these mandated procedures shall be in effect and last for a term of not less than three (3) years from the date of execution, or from the date of opening, whichever is longer. 10. If the Employer has complied with the terms of this Agreement, and a Labor Organization, as part of a campaign to organize the employees of Employer, engages in economic action against Employer at sites covered by this Agreement, Employer shall be excused from further compliance with the card check procedures required in this Agreement with respect to the organizing campaign of that Labor Organization. "Economic action" means any concerted action initiated or conducted by a Labor Organization and/or employees acting in concert therewith to bring economic pressure to bear against Employer as part of a campaign to organize employees or prospective employees of Employer including such activities as striking, picketing, boycotting at the Airport. 11. This Agreement applies only to the procedures for determining employee preference regarding whether to be represented by a Labor Organization for purposes of collective bargaining and/or by which Labor Organization to be represented. This Agreement does not apply to the procedures governing the process of collective bargaining itself, once a Labor Organization has been recognized as the bargaining representative for employees of Employers subject to this Agreement. Attachment D Card Check Fact Sheet 1. What is a card check? A card check is an alternative to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) secret ballot election process. The difference is that with card check sign-in, employees sign authorization cards stating they want a union, the cards are submitted to the NLRB and if more than 50% of the employees submitted cards, the NLRB requires the employer to recognize the union. If over 30% and fewer than 50% of employees sign a petition or authorization cards, the NLRB would order a secret ballot election for union representation. 2. How does card check work? Majority sign-up, or “card check,” allows workers who want to join a union to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them in collective bargaining. If a majority of workers sign cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (private sector) or the Public Employment Relations Board (public sector). If the Board finds that the majority of workers want a union, the union is entitled to recognition. 3. How long has the card check process been in existence? Since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, it has been legal for workers to form a union when a majority of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards indicating their intent to bargain collectively with the employer. 4. Who oversees the process of card check? The National Labor Relations Board. If the NLRB verifies that over 50% of the employees signed authorization cards, a union is automatically formed. The NLRB would recognize the union's role as the official bargaining representative if more than 50% of employees have authorized that representation via card check, without requiring a secret ballot election. 5. Are employers able to see how employees vote? No, employers never see identifying information of how an employee voted, though in card check unions would see how an employee voted. Attachment F: Example of Arbitration Service Providers & Cost of Services Staff researched options for dispute resolution services. There are several highly respected firms that provide mediation, arbitration and ADR services. In addition to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) which LAX utilizes in LPA disputes, there are other firms such as JAMS and ADR Services, Inc. who have offices in Century City and downtown LA. Please insert a 5th column for City Hearing Examiner Service Fees AAA JAMS ADR Services, Inc. City of Santa Monica Hearing Officer Professional Fees (Hourly rate vary depending on neutral. Neutrals are independent contractors and set their own rates.) Varies depending on neutral Varies depending on neutral Published rates: Retired Jurists hourly rates from $495-$700 per hour or $4,500 half-day/ $7,500 full day. Attorneys hourly rates range from $425 - $850 per hour. Approximately $112 per hour Administrative Fee/ Case Management Fee $275 for each party 12% of Professional Fees (includes time spent for hearings, pre- and post-hearing and reading and research, and award preparation). $450 per party Arbitration Fees n/a $1,200 – Two Party Matter $2,000 – Matters involving three or more parties. $300 Initial Filing Postponement Fees $150 by party causing postponement. n/a n/a 1 Vernice Hankins From:Dan G <daniel.r.guay@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 14, 2018 12:58 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:LPA Council Members, I have been a CPA in Southern California for almost thirty years. I am also a Santa Monica resident. Year after year I see clients and other small business owners shutting their doors due to the high cost of doing business in California. The effect of the onerous red tape, regulations, taxes and other fees is not only realized in the significant cost to these entrepreneurs, it is also realized by the countless hours of their precious time that it consumes. These business owners are far from wealthy. They are industrious and they toil endlessly for their business to succeed. Many of the clients and business owners that I refer to earn just enough to make a living. In addition, the fact that they own their business allows their employees to make a living as well. If the LPA is adopted, many of these businesses will be forced to close. This is not theoretical. Essentially forcing the employees at these businesses to unionize will simply make the cost of doing business unaffordable for many of these business owners who are just getting by. I can't believe that you wish this to happen. Please support Santa Monica local businesses and vote down this measure. Sincerely, Daniel Guay, CPA Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ann Maggio <annmaggio@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 17, 2018 9:46 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:NO to LPA on June 26 Agenda Dear City Council Members, We were at Back on the Beach last week when I overheard the chatter between some patrons at another table and a waitress. She was saying how she was still in school but back for the summer. This reminded me how important those summer jobs were for me while in college. It reminded me of the handful of conversations I had with servers there last summer. They were there earning money, home for the summer and maybe taking summer classes too. It felt really good, it felt like home even though I did not grow up here. NO to the LPA for independent restaurants on our public land. Regards, Ann Maggio Thanawalla "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 8-B 6/26/18 2 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:07 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: LPA council vote ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jane Pannor [mailto:pannor@verizon.net]   Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:00 PM  To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: LPA council vote   Hello,  As long time city residents, it sounds like LPA would be a good thing for Santa Monica, that bringing in floods of national  chain corporate restaurants would be a good thing. The reason we feel this way is because long time city residents,  especially seniors, students and the homeless are not necessarily wealthy, and can’t afford 90% of the restaurants that  are in existence in Santa Monica today. So we say, bring on the national chain corporate restaurants and let them take  over the town. Yay  Sincerely,  30 year Santa Monican and 62 year Native Westside  Item 8-B 6/26/18 3 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Wendy Dembo <wendydembo@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 21, 2018 6:34 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Subject:Teens need jobs! Keep Santa Monica Local for the kids! Council Members, I worked at the Sand and Sea Club the summer between 10th and 11th grades as well as before my Senior year. My nephew worked at the Annenberg last summer. But he was told that he wouldn't be hired again this summer, because he was not a nion member. He is 18. Working at the Annenberg was a great opportunity for him to learn to work with people, to be responsible and to understand the realities of day to day work. It is very difficult in this job market for teens to get jobs, other than babysitting. Just today on Nextdoor a kid posted that he would teach lacrosse.. The Annenberg and other beach cafes offer job opportunities to local kids that they won't be able to get, if only Union members can work at these places. Also, when you go to eat at the beach you don't want to spend $25 for each person and if the Union workers are hired, that is what you will have to spend. I wouldn't eat at Perry's, if it cost that much. These are small places and are perfect for local teen workers, not Union workers, who don't live in Santa Monica. Thanks, Wendy Dembo Santa Monica Resident and Voter Item 8-B 6/26/18 4 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Wendy Dembo <wendydembo@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:26 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Subject:Re: Teens need jobs! Keep Santa Monica Local for the kids! I should clarify. My nephew was working for Back on the Beach at the Annenberg, not actually at the Annenberg Beach House. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:34 PM Wendy Dembo <wendydembo@gmail.com> wrote: Council Members, I worked at the Sand and Sea Club the summer between 10th and 11th grades as well as before my Senior year. My nephew worked at the Annenberg last summer. But he was told that he wouldn't be hired again this summer, because he was not a nion member. He is 18. Working at the Annenberg was a great opportunity for him to learn to work with people, to be responsible and to understand the realities of day to day work. It is very difficult in this job market for teens to get jobs, other than babysitting. Just today on Nextdoor a kid posted that he would teach lacrosse.. The Annenberg and other beach cafes offer job opportunities to local kids that they won't be able to get, if only Union members can work at these places. Also, when you go to eat at the beach you don't want to spend $25 for each person and if the Union workers are hired, that is what you will have to spend. I wouldn't eat at Perry's, if it cost that much. These are small places and are perfect for local teen workers, not Union workers, who don't live in Santa Monica. Thanks, Wendy Dembo Santa Monica Resident and Voter Item 8-B 6/26/18 5 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 I t e m 8 - B 6 / 2 6 / 1 8 6 o f 1 3 6 I t e m 8 - B 6 / 2 6 / 1 8 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 12:50 PM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; Andy Agle Subject:FW: Proposed LPA Council‐    Please see the email below regarding labor peace.    Thank you,    Stephanie    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Brenda Anderson [mailto:brendaanderson3942@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 2:07 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Proposed LPA    Dear Council Members:    Please enable Santa Monica’s small restaurants such as The Spitfire Grill and Ye Olde King’s Head to continue operating  as they have for many, many years as independent businesses without  the onerous requirement to unionize.      Do not approve the LPA that would lead to a decline in their business and a loss to the citizens of Santa Monica who  enjoy patronizing these long‐time favorite places to dine.      These businesses have many part‐time employees who do not want to become members of a union.  We have spoken to  many of the part‐time staff at Spitfire Grill who are happy with the working conditions that now exist.  They will not be  well‐served by an LPA.    Respectfully submitted,  Brenda Anderson  475 24th Street  SM 90402  Item 8-B 6/26/18 7 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 12:51 PM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Labor Peace Agreement (LPA) Council‐    Please see the email below regarding labor peace.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Diana Thatcher [mailto:thatcher@ucla.edu]   Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 12:10 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Labor Peace Agreement (LPA)  Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I am writing to let you know I oppose the Labor Peace Agreement (LPA), and hope you will do the same. Sincerely, Diana Thatcher 1130 9th Street, #7 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Item 8-B 6/26/18 8 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:zinajosephs@aol.com Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 2:43 PM To:councilmtgitems; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Rick Cole Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com Subject:FOSP: City Council 6/26/18 agenda item 8-B -- OPPOSE June 24, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 6/26/18 agenda item 8-B Labor Peace Agreements for Food-Service Operators on City-Owned Properties While the FOSP Board supports unions and workers’ rights in general, we oppose adoption of a Labor Peace Agreement by the City for businesses operating on City-owned property. The proposed Labor Peace Agreement seems to us to be a solution in search of a problem. To our knowledge, none of the local businesses operating on City property have suffered any labor disputes or protests until after a provision similar to the proposed Labor Peace Agreement was raised in lease negotiations between the City and the Spitfire Grill. It was not until after that discussion arose, that the Spitfire Grill, which has operated at that site for many years without incident, suffered its first ever labor protest. Notably, the protest was led by outside forces, specifically, Unite Here Local 11, and not employees of the Spitfire Grill. One wonders how the union might have heard about the subject of those ostensibly confidential lease negotiations. But, the timing of that protest leaves no doubt that it was the direct result of those discussions and is not indicative of any general labor unrest that might negatively impact business operations on City-owned property. Other than the protest outside of the Spitfire Grill, which appears to have been ironically precipitated by the City’s inclusion of a “labor peace” agreement in the Spitfire Grill’s lease discussions, we are unaware of any protests or disturbances that would necessitate the City considering such an agreement. As you all know, that protest ended up spilling over to the private residence of one of the Spitfire’s employees, a reprehensible Item 8-B 6/26/18 9 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 2 intimidation tactic utilized by Unite Here Local 11 that should not be rewarded by the City’s passage of this type of an agreement, which will, as already demonstrated, lead to more intimidation of current employees, who are, theoretically, supposed to be the beneficiaries of the City’s efforts to protect workers. Exposing current resident and non-resident workers to this type of intimidation, which is not hypothetical but has already occurred, is completely unwarranted, given the actual state of labor peace between virtually all businesses operating on City property and their employees, as demonstrated by the lack of labor unrest in the City. We applaud many of the steps taken by City Council to strengthen workers’ rights, such as requiring local businesses to pay a living wage. But, we believe that inclusion of a Labor Peace Agreement in leasing guidelines will have a negative effect on small, family owned businesses and favor union members over long time current employees, who will face intimidation tactics, such as those already demonstrated by Unite Here Local 11, if they do not show support for labor organizing efforts. This is a proposal that is not good for workers, residents, locally owned small businesses, or our community. The Board of the Friends of Sunset Park urges City Council to reject the concept of a Labor Peace Agreement for businesses operating on City-owned property as unnecessary and harmful. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Item 8-B 6/26/18 10 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 12:24 PM To:Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez Cc:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; Andy Agle Subject:FW: NO to LPAs Council‐    Please see the email below regarding labor peace.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Reynold Dacon [mailto:r.dacon@verizon.net]   Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 9:38 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: NO to LPAs  City Council Members: I urge all the Santa Monica City Council on the 26th to say NO to an LPA! LPAs would unfairly affect small businesses in Santa Monica by giving large businesses a big advantage over smaller ones. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce has previously sent a letter to all of you urging you to move away from LPAs. The Chamber has argued that an LPA prerequisite gives the unions unilateral power during negotiations. You already have been accused repeatedly of siding with large developers; don’t also side with large businesses over  smaller Mom‐and‐Pop business in Santa Monica!  Reynold Dacon Santa Monica CA Item 8-B 6/26/18 11 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 June 25, 2018 Denise Anderson-Warren Santa Monica City Hall City Clerk’s Office 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Opposition to the Labor Peace Agreement – June 26 Dear City Clerk, I write today on behalf of our local restaurants in opposition to the city’s consideration of imposing a Labor Peace Agreement (LPA) on local restaurants. The California Restaurant Association is the definitive voice of the food service community in California and is the oldest restaurant trade association in the nation. The Santa Monica restaurant community is unique in that it remains to be a hotbed of many treasured businesses that have been run by local families for generations. However, this foundation is getting harder and harder to maintain and has slowly begun to change. The passage of a labor peace agreement will exacerbate this trend, changing the local restaurant landscape in a negative way for the city. We have studied the various options for labor peace proposals with heightened attention to the suggested San Francisco Airport Ordinance as a model for the City of Santa Monica. As the voice of the restaurant community, we support all restaurants – chains and local – but it is vital to ensure that local restaurants can compete, are not hindered by additional regulations, and can afford to choose to continue operating in Santa Monica. There are multiple reasons why we oppose a LPA of any kind: 1) Solution in search of a problem. There has never been an organic work stoppage on city-owned property. There has been no lost revenue to the city of Santa Monica ever. There is no economic analysis that has been conducted to demonstrate there is any issue connected with loss of revenue from actual work stoppages at local restaurants. In fact, it is likely a LPA will add additional costs to the city. 2) Unfair to small Santa Monica restaurants. Item 8-B 6/26/18 12 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Small restaurants run by Santa Monica residents will have a disadvantage as they cannot afford a LPA providing an economic advantage to those with larger economies of scale. We believe this would be counter to the downtown leasing guidelines goals, and the goals of Santa Monica's Buy Local program. 3) Eliminates workers’ privacy rights. One of the most alarming provisions of the language from the San Francisco Airport LPA the city is considering is that workers lose their privacy. Any union who asks for workers’ home addresses and phone numbers could be given that information with no choice by workers. This is extremely disturbing as there was an incident shared during the study session where a worker was intimidated at her home. Furthermore, the proposed language also violates the privacy of workers who have not yet started employment with these affected businesses. 4) Violation of workers’ fundamental democratic rights. A cornerstone of democracy is the right to private voting. One of the benefits of a secret ballot is that no person can intimidate or bully others into voting a specific way. A card check, which the LPA legalizes, strips employees of their sacred right to a private vote. 5) Overreach that could impact a larger number of local businesses. The language proposed states that it’s a lease, sublease, or permit of a city purposely or any property owned by the city. This, we believe, could mean that it could include restaurants with sidewalk patios, valet stands, parking lot services or many other permits restaurants may need to operate in the city. Furthermore, the definition of subcontractor is a massive overreach where it could apply for vendors of linens, landscaping, valets, or many other services. 6) Thumb pressed on the scale in favor of the large unions versus the small restaurant. The proposed language states that any non-agreement between an employer and any labor organization results in a forced card check. This is a non-negotiation with all of the power and advantage granted to the large union organizations and none to the small Santa Monica business. Furthermore, unions will be allowed to dictate increases in cost and rules with no recourse or equal playing field for small businesses. Labor and employment is the largest cost for local restaurants. 7) Santa Monica businesses have only two choices – union demands or elimination of workers’ rights. Item 8-B 6/26/18 13 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 The language in the proposal states that a business must agree with the labor unions’ demands regardless of the cost or disruption to the business. Otherwise, workers lose their rights to a secret ballot subjecting themselves to potential intimidation during voting to decide to unionize. 8) Mid-stream rule changes regardless of negative impact on the small business. The language allows for rule changes mid-stream that would force cost and operational challenges on Santa Monica restaurants regardless of economic realities. 9) Unions have authority to picket in front of facilities and can interrupt businesses to organize. Some of the provisions in the proposed LPA allow for options to still disrupt a restaurant through pickets in front – but not on – restaurant property. Furthermore, there is no provision that would prevent the union from not disrupting work so they could attempt to union organize. This would all be more disruptive than the supposed solution that is solving zero problems. Any LPA would result in a significant and negative shift for both employers and employees in Santa Monica restaurants. If the city is concerned about revenues, then they should dismiss any further consideration of an LPA and continue to work with local restaurants to foster a pro- restaurant climate and to preserve what is valued by both local residents and tourists: the local Santa Monica flavor. There is no question that the city’s revenues would be negatively impacted by an LPA and the local restaurant scene would undoubtedly change. We urge you to dismiss any LPA. It is the only way to keep Santa Monica local and thriving. Sincerely, Matt Sutton Senior Vice President, Government Affairs + Public Policy California Restaurant Association Item 8-B 6/26/18 14 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:William Schoene <williamschoene@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 25, 2018 6:50 PM To:Pam OConnor; Kevin McKeown Fwd; gleam.davis@gmail.com; Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Council Mailbox; Terry O’Day; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Santa Monica City Manager's Office Subject:Mandated Labor Peace Agreements Honorable Council People,    I have read city staff's document on the proposed mandated LPA regulation on food business on city property, as well as  several articles on it in the local papers.    My sense of this proposal is that it is a "solution" in search of a problem. There has apparently been no labor issues at  any of the business to which this regulation would apply, for which an in‐place LPA would have been necessary or  helpful in resolving. None of these business have called for an LPA to bind them and their workers and there's no reason  to expect any labor issues requiring an LPA to exist within them any time soon ‐‐ or ever.    A few years ago I asked workers at two SM businesses I patronize ‐‐ non‐chain Bob's Market and chain Trader Joe's ‐‐  whether or not they were unionized and how they were being treated. I was somewhat surprised, but pleased to learn  that they felt very well treated and had no need to attempt to unionize. This may well be the norm here in progressive  SM. I think it would be better to trust these business to work out their labor issues ‐‐ including involving a union if their  workers think that is necessary ‐‐ than to force union involvement even though workers are not seeking it. As the  computer industry saying goes "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."    I am generally pro‐union. I have always been aware that almost all of the employment benefits I ‐‐ and most working  folks ‐‐ take for granted today exist because of the efforts of workers in the past organizing, unionizing and obtaining  these benefits through collectively bargaining and striking.  One of my daughters is the president of her faculty union at South Seattle College. But I just think that forcing  businesses to negotiate with unions when there is no worker call for it would be unwise, and would represent  government overreach.    Thank you.  Item 8-B 6/26/18 15 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 To: The Santa Monica City Council CC: City Staff From: MSBIA Executive Director Re: Proposed Labor Peace Agreement Requirement Date: 6/25/18 Dear City Councilmembers, I write to you today on behalf of the Main Street Business Improvement Association, as the Executive Director, and as an active participant in the community. Myself, and our board, encourages you to reject any form of labor peace agreement requirement, as we believe it would significantly harm our local independent restaurants, and would damage the unique character of our community. We would recognize the necessity of this proposed requirement if there were a history of protests between employees and local food service establishments, but this is just not the case. Santa Monica’s local restaurants, and especially those we know operating on Main Street or elsewhere in Santa Monica on city property, have a history of being great employers. And, whilst we certainly understand the motivation to protect revenue as a de facto landlord, there is no history of this type of disruption in Santa Monica, or any reason to believe it will occur in the future. In reality, LPA’s will likely turn out to be more of a hindrance to City revenue than protector of it. Just look at the hotel at 4th and Colorado as evidence of that. As somebody who has personally interacted with many small businesses , and every restaurant in Santa Monica regularly over the past several years, I can tell you that every F&B operator is still scrambling to try and figure out how best to adjust to the unprecedented and rapid increase in cost s. Unfortunately, there have already been several restaurant closures as a result of these increased costs, and there will be more. On top of that, Santa Monica is sti ll grappling with its reputation as a difficult and expensive city to do business in in general. Why would we want to make that even more challenging? Many restaurants are already struggling to make ends meet. The biggest issues with the proposed LPA requirement, as with most things, are its potential unintended consequences. One example, is that every restaurant we’ve spoken with that currently has a patio dining permit might begrudgingly opt to not renew it when the time came to do so if there were additional complications or requirements down the line in regards to leasing on City property. Eventually, if that were to happen, Santa Monica could be a city with little sidewalk dining. Item 8-B 6/26/18 16 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Expanding on that, what will become of the Pier? Do we want it to become prohibitively expensive to low and middle-income families? Pacific Park was recently sold to a mega-operator. What’s next? Slowly but surely, families with limited means may decide to go elsewhere. It is already very difficult to afford to live here, and a prohibitively expensive Pier experience would just be one more thing that sends visitors and locals elsewhere. In the recent Promenade 3.0 reimagining sessions held by DTSM, the locals unanimously opined that the promenade was overwhelmingly corporate and they did not enjoy spending time there as a result. What happens when the rest of Santa Monica looks and feels like that? Further, local Santa Monica businesses are dependent on customers who are attracted to the unique character of The City. If the Pier and our downtown see more vacancies or begin to only attract corporate tenants, that is clearly a serious threat to the community fabric and culture that makes Santa Monica great. Another concern, perhaps the most important one of all, is privacy. How can The City allow a business to be forced to turn over personal employee information to a 3rd party? At the study session last year, you heard testimony from employees who were approached at their homes, unwelcomed, by union reps. The implications of that kind of policy change are deeply troubling. Is that the kind of city we want to be? I don’t think so. I don’t think the residents and staff of Santa Monica want this, and neither do our visitors. By now, you’ve also heard from businesses in the other BIDs on Montana, Pico, and Downtown, and The Pier, many of whom I know share this sentiment. LPAs make sense at LAX, where guaranteed uninterrupted operation is necessary, but not on Main Street, the Pier, the beach, downtown, or our own small airport, and they are certainly not ever necessary on the sidewalks of our City. Please reject the LPA proposal. It’s unnecessary, it puts the affected businesses at a competitive disadvantage, and it’s a solution to a problem that does not currently exist. The existing leasing guidelines have served our community well and employees who wish to unionize can already do so without obstruction. Thank you all very much for your service to our unique and vibrant community. We truly appreciate everything you do, and we look forward to working with The City to build a more vibrant, unique, green, and healthy commercial and residential community together. As always, please don’t hesitate to contact me at anytime if you have any questions. Sincerely, Hunter G. Hall Executive Director Main Street Business Improvement District 314-323-4663 Hunter@MainStreetSM.com Item 8-B 6/26/18 17 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:32 AM To:Council Mailbox; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor Cc:Rick Cole; Katie E. Lichtig; Andy Agle; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox Subject:No Labor Peace Agreement Please -- June 26, 2018 Council Meeting - Item 8.B. Dear Mayor Winterer and Esteemed Council Members - For once I agree with Matthew Hall. This is a bad idea. If you are serious about keeping Santa Monica local, about preserving its smaller & unique businesses, about nurturing small business owners, etc., etc., you will not implement an LPA in our City. Hopefully most of you are NOT so deeply in the pocket of Local 11 that you cannot do the right thing & discard this idea. Thank you - Ann Bowman Resident, 22 years City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 8.B., City Council meeting of June 26, 2018.  Causing conflict to create peace is a bad policy Causing conflict to create peace is a bad policy On Tuesday, City Hall will debate a new Labor Peace Agreement rule for the City of Santa Monica and while an LPA... Item 8-B 6/26/18 18 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Donna Gentry <gentryevents@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:25 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Labor Peace Agreement Dear Council, Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting tonight as I will be working with the Pico Improvement Organization and Virginia Ave Park on Movies in the Park. Our PIO businesses (the majority are small and independent) support many events at VAP. In brief, as a long-time customer of many of our local small businesses, I urge you to reject the requirement that 27 food-service leaseholds (City Tenants) execute a labor-peace agreement. Many of these small businesses are challenged each day by the difficulties of success as a small, independent proprietor and yet many not only support their employees but also are generous in our community to nonprofits and other organizations. The July 1 increase in wages will be good for employees and can be challenging for their employers. We all know that for years across our country, unions were critical to the well-being of employees in many industries. Today I don't believe we need their leadership and actions on behalf of our small restaurants' employees -- many of whom are part-time. Thank you for your support of our small businesses by rejecting this potentially damaging and destructive LPA. Donna Donna J. Gentry Gentry Group Marketing Communications/Special Events office 310.313.3132 cell 310.990.4284 www.santamonicabayevents.net -- Your essential resource for what's happening facebook.com/santamonicabayevents How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. ~ Anne Frank Item 8-B 6/26/18 19 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 20 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 21 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 22 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 23 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 24 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 25 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 26 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 27 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 28 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 29 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 30 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 31 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 32 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 33 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 34 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 35 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 36 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 37 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 38 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 39 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 40 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 41 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 42 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 43 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 44 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 45 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 46 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 47 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 48 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 49 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 50 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 51 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 52 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 53 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 54 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 55 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 56 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 57 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 58 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 59 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 60 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 61 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 62 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 63 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 64 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 65 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 66 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 67 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 68 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 69 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 70 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 71 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 72 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 73 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 74 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 75 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 76 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 77 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 78 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 79 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 80 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 81 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 82 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 83 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 84 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 85 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 86 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 87 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 88 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 89 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 90 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 91 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 92 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 93 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 94 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 95 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 96 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 97 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 98 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 99 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 100 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 101 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 102 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 103 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 104 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 105 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 106 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 107 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 108 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 109 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 110 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 111 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 112 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 113 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 114 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 115 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 116 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 117 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 118 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 119 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 120 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 121 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 122 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 123 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 124 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 125 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 126 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 127 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 128 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 129 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 130 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 131 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 132 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 133 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 134 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 135 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18 Item 8-B 6/26/18 136 of 136 Item 8-B 6/26/18