SR 05-24-2023 12A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 24, 2023
Agenda Item: 12.A
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Lori Gentles, Chief People Officer, Human Resources Department
Subject: Government Code Section 3505.7 Public Hearing on Impasse with
Administrative Team Associates
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines;
2. Adopt the Factfinding Report dated March 7, 2023, as the official report in the
matter of the impasse between Administrative Team Associates (ATA) and the
City of Santa Monica (City) (Attachment A); and
3. Adopt and Direct staff to implement the Last, Best and Final Offer authorized by
City Council and presented to ATA on February 15, 2022.
Summary
The City and Administrative Team Associates (ATA) conducted negotiations from
September 2021 to March 2022 over the City’s proposed changes in the minimum
qualifications for three job classifications in the Public Works and Information Services
departments. The City proposed to revise the minimum qualifications because the
degree requirement presented an inappropriate barrier to the consideration of qualified
candidates. Following negotiations, the City presented its Last, Best and Final Offer
(LBFO) to ATA concerning the proposed changes. ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.
The City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations. ATA requested that the
parties’ impasse be referred to a factfinding panel, in accordance with the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act (MMBA). The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before a
tripartite panel in August and October 2022. The neutral chairperson of the factfinding
12.A
Packet Pg. 34
2 of 6
panel issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for settlement, which was
joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent.
As required under the MMBA, the City publicly posted the factfinding report along with
the City’s dissent.
Discussion
The City and ATA mutually agreed to the selection of the neutral factfinder, who was the
chairperson of a tripartite factfinding panel also consisting of a member selected by the
City and a member selected by ATA. The neutral factfinder issued a report which made
the following findings of fact:
• ATA represents 256 employees, all with some managerial or administrative
responsibility, in over 100 job classifications. Historically, all but three of the job
classifications have required a bachelor’s degree and work experience.
• In 2021, the City’s Information Services and Public Works Departments
requested that the Human Resources Department review the minimum
qualifications for two job classifications and add an alternative option wherein
work experience may be substituted for the bachelor’s degree requirement .
• The City reviewed the two job classifications and concluded that the requested
modification was appropriate. In addition, a new job classification for the
bargaining unit was created.
• In April 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the mini mum
qualifications for the position of Technology Training Coordinator. As an
alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two
years of experience (beyond the three years’ experience required for all
candidates) can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In June 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum
qualifications for the position of Software Developer. As an alternative to the
bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that two years of experience
can substitute for the bachelor’s degree.
• In August 2021, the City presented to ATA proposed changes in the minimum
qualifications for the position of Engineering Support Services Administrator. As
12.A
Packet Pg. 35
3 of 6
an alternative to the bachelor’s degree requirement, the City proposed that
additional qualifying experience can substitute for the bachelor’s degree on a
year for year basis with successful completion of 30 units equal to one year of
the additional required work experience.
• The purpose of the City’s proposals was based on its view that possession of a
bachelor’s degree requirement as a minimum qualification precluded City
Departments from considering candidates who may not have a bachelor’s degree
but could perform the requisite job duties in each of the classif ications. In
addition, the City stated that removing such barriers to employment may have the
added benefit of improving diversity in its applicant pools.
• ATA opposed the City’s proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications for
each of the three job classifications.
• During negotiations, which occurred between September 2021 and March 2022,
ATA made three proposals for settlement: 1.) ATA would agree to permit the City
to change the degree requirement of the classifications in exchange for
educational incentive pay in the amount of 8% of base salary for a bachelor’s
degree and an additional 4.8% for those with a master’s degree; 2.) ATA would
agree to temporarily suspend the bachelor’s degree requirement where the
applicant pool was insufficient; and 3.) ATA would agree to the proposed
changes by the City in minimum qualifications if work experience credit was
commensurate with the number of years to obtain the bachelor’s degree.
• On February 15, 2022, the City presented ATA with its Last, Best and Final Offer
(LBFO) concerning the proposed revisions to the minimum qualifications to
provide a work experience alternative to the educational degree. The proposals
in the LBFO are the same as what the City initially presented to ATA in June and
August 2021.
• ATA did not accept the City’s LBFO.
• In March 2022, the City declared an impasse in the parties’ negotiations.
• In March 2022, ATA requested that the parties’ impasse be referred to a
factfinding panel.
12.A
Packet Pg. 36
4 of 6
• The parties participated in a factfinding hearing before the tripartite panel in
August and October 2022.
In March 2023, the factfinder issued findings of fact and advisory recommendations for
settlement, which was joined by ATA’s panel member. The City’s panel member
submitted a written dissent. The City publicly posted the factfinding report along with the
City’s dissent.
The factfinder made the following three recommendations to settle the impasse , which
are advisory only:
1) The City will modify its class specifications for the three positions to requ ire
four years of additional experience instead of two years as an alternative to a
bachelor’s degree;
2) ATA will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a
college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any
position in the bargaining unit; and
3) ATA members who have a four-year college degree will receive an annual
bonus of 3% of their base salary.
The City’s panel member submitted a written dissent and addressed each of the three
settlement recommendations as follows:
1) The City should not modify its class specifications for the three positions to require
four years of additional experience instead of two as the alternative to a college degree.
Instead, the City should implement its LBFO to ATA on this subject;
2) The City does not request that ATA waive its right to participate in the established
City process for reviewing and revising classification specifications. The City values
ATA’s contributions to this process; and
12.A
Packet Pg. 37
5 of 6
3) The City should not modify the compensation for ATA employees who have a college
degree so that they would receive an annual bonus of 3% of base salary. This would
create inequity between comparably situated employees who possess the same or
substantially similar capacity to perform the requisite duties for the job. Furthermore,
the compensation market changes, and the City must be flexible not only as an
employer but as an entity which services the public.
The City also provided clarification that it did not refuse to provide a counterproposal to
ATA proposals during negotiations on this matter. This statement in the factfinding
report is inaccurate and mischaracterizes the City’s restatement of its initial proposal
during the negotiation process. Staff recommends that Council direct City staff to
implement the LBFO which the Council previously authorized City staff to present to
ATA.
The City Council has three options following the public hearing on the factfinding:
1. Take no action, in which case the status quo would be maintained and the
minimum qualifications will remain as they are;
2. Impose the terms of the City’s LBFO, in which case the City will implement the
revisions that it proposed; or
3. Direct the City to reopen negotiations with ATA according to the direction that the
Council provides, whether that direction aligns with the factfinders’
recommendations or otherwise.
Staff recommends that Council impose the terms of the City’s LBFO.
Environmental Review
The City’s proposed changes in the minimum qualifications for the three job
classifications are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines,
which states that CEQA does not apply, where it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
12.A
Packet Pg. 38
6 of 6
environment. The proposed changes to job qualifications are administrative in nature
and would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, a nd as such, are
categorically exempt from CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
The Last, Best and Final Offer as presented to ATA on February 15, 2022, and outlined
in Attachment A has no financial impact.
Prepared By: Sasha Sargent, Executive Administrative Assistant
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM
B. PowerPoint Presentation
12.A
Packet Pg. 39
1
FACTFINDING PROCEEDINGS
In the Matter of the ) Anthony Miller
Impasse Between ) 2020 5th St #2220
) Davis, CA, CA 95616
ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM ) 805/657-8794
ASSOCIATES )
)
Union, ) Case Number: LA-IM-310-M
)
And ) FACTFINDING REPORT
)
CITY OF SANTA MONICA )
) Date: March 7, 2023
Employer, )
)
(RE: Job Descriptions) )
____________________________________)
FACTFINDING PANEL
Impartial Chair
Anthony Miller
2020 5th St #2220
Davis, CA, CA 95616
Union Member
Benjamin Steers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
City Member
Ericka Reinke
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
2
APPEARANCES
For the Union
Richard A. Levine, Esq.
Rains Lucia Stern
St. Phalle & Silver, PC
16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 600
Encino, CA 91436
For the City
Alexander Volberding, Esq.
Adriana Guzman, Esq.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
6033 West Century Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90045
INTRODUCTION
The parties, the Administrative Team Associates (Union) and the City of Santa
Monica, selected the neutral factfinder, Anthony Miller, pursuant to the provisions of
California Law. The Union appointed Benjamin Steers and the City appointed Ericka
Reinke as their respective members of the factfinding panel. The panel conducted two
days of hearing--August 19 and October 25, 2022—via Zoom. At the hearings the parties
were afforded the opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, introduce exhibits
and propound arguments in support of their positions. Both parties submitted post hearing
briefs at which time the matter was fully submitted. The parties agreed to waive statutory
time limits.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
3
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
California Government Code Section 3505.4
(a) The employee organization may request that the parties' differences
be submitted to a factfinding panel not sooner than 30 days, but not more
than 45 days, following the appointment or selection of a mediator pursuant
to the parties' agreement to mediate or a mediation process required by a
public agency's local rules. If the dispute was not submitted to mediation, an
employee organization may request that the parties' differences be
submitted to a factfinding panel not later than 30 days following the date
that either party provided the other with a written notice of a declaration of
impasse. Within five days after receipt of the written request, each party
shall select a person to serve as its member of the factfinding panel. The
Public Employment Relations Board shall, within five days after the
selection of panel members by the parties, select a chairperson of the
factfinding panel.
(b) Within five days after the board selects a chairperson of the
factfinding panel, the parties may mutually agree upon a person to serve as
chairperson in lieu of the person selected by the board.
(c) The panel shall, within 10 days after its appointment, meet with the
parties or their representatives, either jointly or separately, and may make
inquiries and investigations, hold hearings, and take any other steps it
deems appropriate. For the purpose of the hearings, investigations, and
inquiries, the panel shall have the power to issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of evidence. Any
state agency, as defined in Section 11000, the California State University,
or any political subdivision of the state, including any board of education,
shall furnish the panel, upon its request, with all records, papers, and
information in their possession relating to any matter under investigation by
or in issue before the panel.
(e) The procedural right of an employee organization to request a
factfinding panel cannot be expressly or voluntarily waived.
(d) In arriving at their findings and recommendations, the factfinders
shall consider, weigh, and be guided by all the following criteria:
(1) State and federal laws that are applicable to the employer.
(2) Local rules, regulations, or ordinances.
(3) Stipulations of the parties.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
4
(4) The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the
public agency.
(5) Comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of
the employees involved in the factfinding proceeding with the wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing
similar services in comparable public agencies.
(6) The consumer price index for goods and services, commonly known
as the cost of living.
(7) The overall compensation presently received by the employees,
including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays, and other
excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization
benefits, the continuity and stability of employment, and all other
benefits received.
(8) Any other facts, not confined to those specified in paragraphs (1) to
(7), inclusive, which are normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in making the findings and recommendations.
(e) The procedural right of an employee organization to request a
factfinding panel cannot be expressly or voluntarily waived.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Union is the recognized employee organization representing 256 employees, all
with some managerial or administrative responsibility, in over 100 job classifications.
Historically, all but three of the job classifications for employees who are represented
by the Union have required a bachelor’s degree and work experience.
2. In 2021, the City’s Information Services Department and Public Works Department
requested that the Human Resources Department review the minimum qualifications
for two job classifications and add an alternative option wherein work experience may
be substituted for the bachelor’s degree requirement.
3. To implement this proposal, the Human Resources Department followed the regular
process for reviewing and modifying job specifications including the two that were
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
5
involved herein and concluded that the modification was appropriate. In addition, a
new job class specification for the bargaining unit was created.
4. On April 16, 2021, the City presented to the Union the proposed changes in the
classification for the position of Technology Training Coordinator. Under the heading
of Minimum Qualifications, it includes the requirement of “Graduation from an
accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree in business, information
systems, computer science or a closely related field.” In additions it states that two
years of experience (beyond the three years’ experience required for all candidates) can
substitute for the college degree: “Two additional years of work experience may
substitute for the required bachelor’s degree. Professional experience in the field of
public sector customer support, administration, or technology is desirable.”
5. On June 30, 2021, the City presented the proposed qualifications for the position of
Software Developer. Under Minimum Qualifications, the classification lists graduation
with a bachelor’s degree, but adds that two years of experience may serve as a
substitute: “Graduation from an accredited college or university with a bachelor’s
degree in computer science, computer technology, software engineering, information
systems, or a closely related field. Two additional years of qualifying work experience
may substitute for the bachelor’s degree requirement.”
6. On August 5, 2021, the City presented the proposed changes in the qualification for the
position of Engineering Support Services Administrator. Under the heading of
Minimum Qualifications, the revised classification added a provision which allowed
years of experience to substitute for a bachelor’s degree: “Graduation from an
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
6
accredited college or university with a bachelor’s degree. Additional qualifying work
experience may substitute for the educational requirement on a year for year basis.
(Successful completion of 30 units is equal to one year of the additional required work
experience.)”
7. The stated purpose of these proposals was based upon the view that possession of a
degree requirement as a minimum qualification effectively precluded City Departments
from considering, as part of the City’s recruitment and selection process, candidates
who could perform the requisite job duties in each of the classifications
8. On August 10, 2021, attorney Elizabeth Silver Tourgeman, on behalf of the Union,
stated the Union’s opposition to proposed revisions to the minimum qualification for
the job classifications and stated the view that this was a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
9. Subsequently the parties engaged in multiple negotiation sessions and the exchange of
letters between Attorney Tourgeman and Sarah Rebensdorf, Acting Human Resources
Manager.
10. In the course of negotiations, the Union made three proposals for settlement, and the
City never made a counter offer or deviated from its original position regarding its
proposed revisions of the minimum qualifications. Here is a summary of each
proposal:
1. The Union would vest the City with the discretion to manage the degree
requirement of the bargaining unit in exchange for educational incentive
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
7
pay in the amount of 8% of base salary for a bachelor’s degree and an
additional 4.8% for those with a master’s degree.
2. The Union would agree to temporarily suspend the bachelor’s degree
requirement where the applicant pool was insufficient.
3. The Union would agree to proposed changes in minimum qualification if
work experience credit was commensurate with the number of years to
obtain the college degree, the approach used for the Custodial Services
Administrator.
11. During the negotiations, Ms. Rebensdorf, in an email to Ms. Tourgeman, stated that the
changes in minimum requirements for the three classifications was “the goal of
eliminating inappropriate barriers to employment that may negatively impact a
qualified individual’s ability to obtain employment with the City. This may have the
added benefit of improving diversity in our applicant pools.” Testimony at the hearing
supported the view that the degree requirement was the barrier that was removed.
12. On February 15, 2022, following the period of negotiations, the City provided ATA its
last, best, and final offer concerning the proposed revisions to the minimum
qualifications to provide an alternative to a bachelor’s degree. The language
concerning the work experience alternative in the last best and final offer is the same as
the language in the original job class specifications submitted to the Union. Here are
the relevant provisions verbatim:
1. Software Developer:
Graduation from an accredited college or university with a
bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer technology,
software engineering, information systems, or a closely related field.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
8
Two additional years of qualifying work experience may substitute
for the bachelor’s degree requirement.
Experience: Three years of recent, paid work experience designing
and developing web content in a windows-based server
environment.
2. Technology Training Coordinator:
Education: Graduation from an accredited college or university with
a bachelor’s degree in business, information systems, computer
science or a closely related field.
Experience: Three years of recent, paid work experience in
technology support, training and learning systems management.
Two additional years of work experience may substitute for the
required bachelor’s degree. Professional experience in the field of
public sector customer support, administration, or technology is
desirable.
3. Engineering Support Services Administrator:
Education:
Graduation from an accredited college or university with a
bachelor’s degree. Additional qualifying work experience may
substitute for the educational requirement on a year for year basis.
(Successful completion of 30 units is equal to one year of the
additional required work experience.)
Experience:
Four years of recent, paid, and progressively responsible work
experience providing general office management in public or private
business work environment including two years of supervisory
experience. One year of leading, coordinating or supervising the
work of others and successful completion of the City of Santa
Monica’s Pre-Supervisory Academy may substitute for the two
years of supervisory experience.
13. On March 7, 2022 the City declared an impasse.
14. On March 25, 2022, ATA requested factfinding concerning the City’s proposed
revisions.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
California Government Code Section 3505.4 (d) requires that “the factfinders shall
consider, weigh, and be guided by” a list of statutory criteria or factors. These factors are
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
9
fully set out above under the heading “Relevant Statutory Provisions.” While not all of
these factors proved to be relevant to the present case, here are the Factfinding Panel’s
response to all eight sections.
Section (1) which deals with state and federal law is only relevant in the present
situation because the Union has accused the City of failing to bargain in good faith as
required by California Government Codes section 3505. It is not the place of this panel to
determine if the City has committed an unfair practice, but it is worthwhile to note that the
panel has not viewed the City as having failed to negotiate in good faith. The city
presented its first proposed change to the Union on April 16, 2021 and the third on August
5, 2021. On August 10, the Union informed the City that it considered the matter to be a
mandatory subject of bargaining. After that, there were multiple meetings between the
parties. Additionally, representatives of the parties exchanged several letters in which the
Union and the City fully stated their positions. In addition, there were a number of
informal conversations between representatives of the parties on these issues. The City did
not present its last, best, and final offer until February 15, 2022. The Union points out that
the City, in the course of these negotiations, never presented a counter offer to the Union
proposals or modified its original position. While the refusal to make a counter proposal is
one indicator of a failure to bargain in good faith, it is not a per se factor. The test for
failure to bargain in good faith requires an examination of “all the surrounding
circumstances.” In the present situation, the parties met, exchanged views, discussed the
matter in meetings, letters, and personal conversations over a period of time. The City
clearly attempted to explain its position to the Union. Moreover, the City has made no
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
10
attempt to unilaterally implement the changes that it has proposed. The only thing the City
did not do was modify its position which, in and of itself, does not necessarily indicate a
lack of good faith.
Section (2) requires consideration of local law and regulation. The Factfinding Panel
has not found any local law or regulation relevant to the present situation. And, Section
(3) concerning stipulations of the parties has not played a significant role in the present
case other than the parties agreed to waive the statutory time limits.
Section (4) is relevant in that the City has asserted the “the interests and welfare of the
public” as the main reason for the modification of the minimum requirement for the three
classifications in question. The City view is that having the best possible pool of
applicants for a position is in the public good and that, in regard to the three job
classifications in question, there is the possibility that the proposed change in the minimum
job requirement would enhance the application pool. While this is a credible assertion—a
college degree does not ensure competence and competence can certainly be gained by real
world experience—there is no evidence on the record herein that this result would be the
case with these three classifications. Nevertheless, the Departments which will supervise
employees in these classifications have requested these changes, and the City’s decision to
implement this request is a judgment call and policy decision that the City is entitled to
make.
Section (5) deals with issues of compensation which have not played a significant role
in the Panel’s deliberation. While one of the counter proposals by the Union involved
bonus compensation for the ATA employees who did have a college degree, the only
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
11
evidence presented regarding this proposal was that both the Police Department and the
Fire Department in the City of Santa Monica had bachelor’s degree and Master’s bonuses
for certain employees. This evidence was insufficient to justify any conclusion by the
Factfinding Panel.
Section (6) regarding the consumer price index or cost of living and Section (7)
regarding consideration of the overall compensation of the employees played no role in the
deliberations of the Factfinding Panel.
Finally, Section (8) invites consideration of additional factors which are “normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in making the findings and recommendations.” In the
present case it has been important to consider the interests of the parties.
As discussed above in regard to Section (4), the City has a viable interest in increasing
the pool of qualified candidates for City employment. Managers apparently noticed that
there are employees and non-employees who have the qualifications to work in the
classifications in question even though they do not have a college degree, and they
recommended that the class specifications be changed. Management has denied that the
purpose of these changes in the class specifications is intended to increase diversity in
terms of those groups of people who have been and are discriminated against, but admitted
that the change in the class specifications could have that effect. The Union has agreed
with this assessment.
The Union’s interest, and indeed goals, in this situation appear to be long range rather
than immediate. The evidence does not establish that in the short run much will change for
the Union if the City’s proposal is implemented. The City will begin the process of hiring
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
12
employees to fill the classifications. There may or may not be candidates who meet the
experience requirements, and such candidates may or may not be the best qualified. The
evidence does not show that Union membership, dues, and ability to represent its members
will immediately be threatened. The Union’s concern is that if the City is allowed to
modify the present job classifications, it will continue to modify other job classifications or
even all the job classifications in the bargaining unit represented by the Union; and, if this
long range vitiation of the requirement for a college degree continues, the economic
bargaining power of the Union on behalf of its members will be diminished. The Union’s
concern in this regard is both genuine and credible.
Although the Union represents the employees in the Bargaining Unit, the employees
have their own collective interest in the change in classification. It is reasonable to assume
that some or maybe all of the employees in the bargaining unit, may believe that it is unfair
that someone else may now have the same job without a college degree. College degrees
cost a great deal in time, money, and effort. The employees may also believe that the
importance of their degree and the job which formerly required a degree is now
diminished, which could result in the vitiation of bargaining power in future negotiations.
That said, it does not appear that the employees in the bargaining unit have suffered any
immediate compensable loss, and future losses through the vitiation of bargaining power is
at this time speculative.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT
The tripartite factfinding panel, consisting of Ms. Ericka Reinke (appointed by the
Employer), Mr. Benjamin Steers (appointed by the Union), and Anthony Miller (neutral)
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
13
have carefully considered the evidence which has been presented to them and fully
discussed all of the options that the parties have presented. The proposed recommendation
of the panel is divided into two parts. The first proposal concerns the specifications for the
three job classifications under consideration here: Software Developer, Technology
Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator. All of these new class
specifications substitute work experience for the college degree. Software Developer and
Technology Training Coordinator both substitute two years of additional work experience
beyond the work experience requirement stated in the specification. The requirement for
Engineering Support Services Administrator is more nuanced but, on its face, a less clear
approach to substituting work experience for college credit. The recommendation for
settlement is to modify all three class specifications to simply require four years of
additional work experience as the substitute for a college degree. This proposal would
make the requirement more comparable and, indeed, a fairer approach in that all
classifications are treated equally.
The second recommendation for settlement concerns the long-range relationship
between the parties. The Union has serious concerns about the future of the college degree
requirement for all of the classifications in the bargaining unit, that over time the City will
add experience criteria as a substitute for a college degree to all or most of the
classifications. The Union can of course seek to bargain about each change in the job
specification, and when the bargaining reaches impasse, it can go to factfinding. This
process with be costly for both parties. One way to avoid this dispute resolution melt-
down would be to change the parties’ approach to college degrees. Instead, of making a
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
14
college degree required for every classification, an experience requirement could be added
to any classification the City deems appropriate, and the Union would waive its right to
bargain on these changes to each classification. Such a waiver would be a significant
concession to the City. In effect, the Union would be giving up its statutory right to
bargain in good faith on wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, the right
which is fundamental to the labor management relationships since the time of the Wagner
Act. In return for this waiver, the City would establish a yearly bonus for all members of
the ATA bargaining unit who have a college degree in the amount of 3 per cent of their
yearly salary. This bonus is not intended as compensation for economic loss by the
members, but rather as a benefit which will be conferred on the employees because the
Union has negotiated for them. There is of course precedent for this type of bonus in the
City: both police officers and firefighters receive a yearly bonus if they have attained a
college degree and, indeed, an additional bonus if they have a master’s degree.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT
1. The City will modify its class specifications for the positions of Software Developer,
Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator to
require four years of additional experience instead of just two as the alternative to a
college degree.
2. The Union will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications by a
college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any position
in the bargaining unit.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
15
3. Members of the bargaining unit ATA who have a four-year college degree will receive
an annual bonus of 3 per cent of their base salary.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Dated: March 7, 2023
___________________________________
Anthony Miller, Chair and Neutral Member
_________________________________
Benjamin Steers, Member Appointed by the Union
NOT JOINING IN THE RECOMMENDATION AND SUBMITTING SEPARATE REPORT
Ericka Reinke
_______________________
Ericka Reinke, Member Appointed by the City
City of Santa Monica and Administrative Team Associates
Case No. LA-IM-310-M
City of Santa Monica’s Representative to the Factfinding Panel
Ericka Reinke
Clarification of Points in the Factfinding Panel’s Report and Dissent to the
Recommendations of the Neutral Factfinding Panel Chair and the Administrative Team
Associates’ Panel Member Pursuant to California Government Code section 3505.4 and
3505.5:
As the City of Santa Monica’s (“City”) representative to the Factfinding Panel for the
present dispute between the City and the Administrative Team Associates (“ATA”),
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
16
I respectfully dissent as to each of the settlement recommendations made by the neutral
Factfinding Panel Chair, Mr. Anthony Miller, and ATA’s representative to the Panel, Mr.
Benjamin Steers (hereinafter referred to as “Majority Settlement Recommendations”).
I. Clarification of Points in the Factfinding Panel’s Report
The Factfinding Panel’s Report includes several points that merit clarification:
Point #1 – The City Did Not Refuse to Provide a Counterproposal to ATA Proposal
The Factfinding Report characterizes the City as refusing to provide a
counterproposal to ATA proposals. (See Factfinding Report, p. 6.) This point is
inaccurate and mischaracterizes the City’s maintenance and restatement of its
initial proposal.
At the beginning of the negotiations between the parties on these classification
specifications, the City made a proposal to ATA concerning revisions to the
minimum qualifications for the job classifications at issue in order to allow
qualified candidates to be considered for employment in those p ositions without
regard for their possession of a college degree. The City’s proposal, developed in
conjunction and consultation with the subject matter experts in the City
Departments that employ employees in these classifications, allowed individuals
with a certain amount of relevant experience to satisfy the minimum
qualifications for employment with such experience rather than by demonstrating
possession of a college degree.
In response to the ATA counterproposals (See Factfinding Report, p. 6), which
either did not adequately address the City’s concerns about removing
inappropriate barriers to employment (e.g., required additional relevant
experience which exceeded what was necessary to perform the job) or imposed
additional conditions on the City that were not related to the narrow issue being
negotiated (e.g., required significant additional compensation to employees with
college degrees), the City maintained and restated its initial proposal.
The City is lawfully entitled to maintain adamantly its position in bargaining, so
long as it explains the reasons for its position and otherwise bargains in good faith.
During the negotiations, the City discharged its obligations under the law and
explained its position concerning the proposed revisions.
Specifically, the City explained that its position was intended to remove barriers to
employment (i.e., remove minimum qualification requirements regarding the
possession of a college degree, oppose counterproposals that required more
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
17
experience than was necessary to perform the job) which inappropriately
excluded or would inappropriately exclude otherwise qualified candidates from
consideration for employment. The City explained that its position, which it
adamantly maintained and restated throughout the negotiations, would benefit
the City departments that employ employees in these job classifications by
providing those Department additional candidates to consider for employment.
The City further explained that its positions would in turn benefited the City as a
whole and the public served by the City.
The Factfinding Report’s characterization of the City’s action as amounting to a
refusal to provide a counterproposal is inaccurate.
II. Dissent to the Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations
The Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations and my Dissenting
Recommendations are as follows:
Settlement Recommendation #1
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:
The City will modify its class specifications for the positions of Software Developer,
Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services Administrator to
require four years of additional experience instead of just two as the alternative to
a college degree.
The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:
The City should implement its last best and final proposal to ATA on this subject.
The City should not modify the classification specifications for Software
Developer, Technology Training Coordinator, Engineering Support Services
Administrator classifications in the manner that the Factfinding Panel
recommends.
The City’s last best and final offer concerning the experience necessary to perform
the duties for each of these job classifications reflects the opinions of the subject
matter experts in the City Departments that employee City employees in these
classifications.
A “year for year” experience-for-education requirement is not appropriate for the
classifications at issue. Imposition of the Factfinding Panel’s recommendation
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
18
would present an inappropriate barrier to entry for prospective employees who
may, as a result of their experience, be able to perform the duties associated with
the job classifications without the additional experience required under the
Factfinding Panel’s proposal.
Settlement Recommendation #2
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:
The Union will waive the right to modify additional bargaining unit classifications
by a college equivalent of four years’ experience to any class specification for any
position in the bargaining unit.
The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:
The City should not modify the classification specifications in the ATA bargaining
unit as recommended by the Factfinding Panel.
As provided above, a “year for year” experience-for-education requirement is not
necessarily appropriate for all the classifications in the bargaining unit. Where
such requirement is not appropriate, imposition of the Factfinding Panel’s
recommendation would present an inappropriate barrier to entry for prospective
employees who may, as a result of their experience, be able to perform the duties
associated with the job classifications without the additional experience required
under the Factfinding Panel’s proposal.
Further, the City does not request that ATA waive its right to participate in the
established City process for reviewing and revising classification specifications.
The City values ATA’s contributions to this process.
Settlement Recommendation #3
Factfinding Panel’s Majority Settlement Recommendations:
Members of the bargaining unit ATA who have a four-year college degree will
receive an annual bonus of 3 per cent of their base salary.
The City’s Dissenting Recommendation:
The City should not modify the compensation for the employees in the ATA
bargaining unit as recommended by ATA and the neutral party’s shared
recommendation.
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
19
The Factfinding Panel’s recommendation is unnecessary and would create
inequity between comparably situated employees who possess the same or
substantially similar capacity to perform the requisite duties for their jobs.
Throughout the City’s negotiations with ATA, the City maintained its opposition to
providing additional compensation to bargaining un it members who satisfy the
minimum qualifications by possessing a college degree, rather than by possessing
addition relevant experience. The City maintains that ATA failed to articulate any
material harm that would actually impact its members with the mere option to
have a separate pathway to qualifying for a position.
Lastly, compensation is based on many factors. The job functions, knowledge, skills,
abilities and the labor market are considered. Further, things change. The market
changes and we must be flexible not only as an employer but as those who serve the
community of Santa Monica.
I believe everything the City has provided up until this point sufficiently justifies our
position and I cannot agree with the recommendation of the Neutral Factfi nder Panel
Chair and ATA Panel Member.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ericka Reinke, City of Santa Monica Factfinding Panel Member
12.A.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Attachment A- Factfinding Report ATA and CSM (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Factfinding Public Hearing –
City Proposal to Revise the
Minimum Qualifications for
Three ATA-Represented Classifications
Public Hearing
May 24, 2023
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:
Overview
Request:
o Vote to implement the terms of the City’s Last Best and Final Offer (“LBFO”) to ATA.
Terms of the LBFO:
o Allow the City to revise the minimum qualifications for employment (“MQ”) for the Engineering Support Services Administrator, Technology Training Coordinator, and Software Developer classifications in order to allow for candidates who possess either:
1.A college degree; or
2.Additional relevant professional experience.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Proposal
Development of Proposals:
o In advance of opening recruitment for the classifications, the City developed these proposals.
o Human Resources consulted with the relevant City Departments to develop proposals that were specific to the duties of each classification.
o The proposals would allow the City to consider candidates who possessed the appropriate amount of additional relevant professional experience, but who lacked a college degree.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Proposal
City Objectives:
o Remove qualifications that are not directly related to job performance;
o Increase the supply of minimally qualified candidates from which City Departments could select the most qualified candidate; and
o Make the City more competitive for talent in tight labor market.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Proposal
City Departments (Subject Matter Experts)
o Not necessary that an employee in any of these classifications possess a college degree in order to perform the requisite job duties for the classification.
o Employees with additional relevant professional experience described below could perform the requisite job duties for these classifications.
•4 years of additional experience for Engineering Support Services Administrator; and
•2 years of additional experience for Technology Training Coordinator and Software Developer
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Proposal
What the City’s Proposal Is Not
o The City did not propose a one-size-fits-all for the additional professional experience required.
o The City did not propose to revise the MQs in order to “devalue” the classifications/reduce the amount of compensation that the City would provide.
o The City did not propose to revise the MQs for any other ulterior objective (e.g., to increase diversity).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Bargaining with ATA
Brief Bargaining History
o The City initially proposed to revise the MQs for these classifications more than 2 years ago:
•April 2021 –City proposal re: Technology Training Coordinator;
•June 2021 –City proposal re: Engineering Support Services Administrator; and
•August 2021 –City proposal re: Software Developer.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Bargaining with ATA
Brief Bargaining History (Continued)
o The City met and conferred with ATA between September 2021 and March 2022 regarding the City’s proposal to revise the MQs.
o The City did not implement these changes unilaterally.
o The City has been unable to recruit for these positions during this time
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Bargaining with ATA
ATA proposal:
o Revise the MQs for all the classifications in the bargaining unit in exchange for:
•An 8% increase in salary for employees with a college degree; and
•An additional 4.8% increase in salary for employees with a master’s degree.
ATA identified no actual harm that would justify the salary increase.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Bargaining with ATA
ATA proposal:
o Revise the MQs for the classifications, but require at least four years of additional relevant professional experience for each classification.
ATA did not explain why this one-size -fits-all approach was always appropriate.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Bargaining with ATA
Brief Bargaining History (Continued)
o In February 2022, after six months of negotiating, the City made its LBFO to ATA.
o In March 2022, after making little progress in the negotiations, the City declared impasse.
o Thereafter, the City and ATA started the post-impasse process.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
How We Got Here:
The City’s Engagement in Factfinding
Factfinding
o In August and October 2022, the City and ATA made their presentations to the Factfinding Panel.
o In March 2023, the Factfinding Chair issued a report and recommendations.
•The City-appointed panelist dissented.
o The City posted the Chair’s report and recommendations and the City’s dissent.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:
Impose the City’s LBFO
The LBFO is Appropriately Limited in Scope
o Revise the classification specifications for only the three classifications at issue, not all bargaining unit classifications.
o Revise the MQs in the manner recommended by the subject matter experts after case-by-case study, not a one-size-fits-all approach.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:
Impose the City’s LBFO
The LBFO is Necessary for Recruitment
o Allow the City to consider the all minimally qualified candidates in order to select the most qualified candidate.
o Allow the City to compete with other employers who do not require degrees for comparable jobs.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:
Impose the City’s LBFO
The LBFO is Fair and Reasonable
o Will not harm ATA or its members.
o Will treat comparably situated employees equitably.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
The City’s Request:
Impose the City’s LBFO
The City requests that the City Council implements the terms of the City’s LBFO
o Remove qualifications that impose unnecessary barriers to employment; and
o Allow the City to begin recruiting the most qualified candidate for employment in these classifications.
o Its implementation will serve the City’s and public interest.
Thank you.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: PowerPoint Presentation (5727 : CSM and ATA Factfinding)