Laserfiche WebLink
�1?11`�� <br />MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL <br />'^ FROM: CLERK -ADM INISTRATOJ <br />DATE: JULY 6, 1989 <br />SUBJECT: LOCAL 49 (PJBLIC WORKS) CONTRACT NEGOTIA'PIONS <br />Attached please find correspondence received by the City <br />from I.U.O.E. Local No. 49 representing the CiLy's Public <br />Works employees requesting that the City bargain directly <br />with Local No. 49 rather than as part of the MAMA joint <br />bargaining group. <br />The City has been bargaining with I.U.O.E. Local No. 49 <br />through the MAMA juint bargaining group since the Union was <br />certified as a representative of our Public Works employees <br />in the early 1970's. The advantage of bargaining with the <br />MAMAjoint bargaining group for the City has been that we <br />have been able to maintain uniform wage rates and benefits <br />for our Public Works employees as compared with other cities <br />in the Twin City Metropolitan Area. <br />After discussing this request with our labor consultant, Cy <br />Smythe, Public Works Foreman Mike Ulrich and Public Works <br />Director Ric Minetor, I see no real advantage to the City to <br />begin bargaining separately with Local No. 49. The <br />potential disadvantage to the City as far as bargaining with <br />Local No. 49 separately would be the breakdown in our <br />ability to withstand any efforts on the part of the Union to <br />establish different wage rates in cities which could then be <br />used against us in wage case arbitrations. I would <br />recommend that Council authorize me to advise I.U.O.E. Local <br />No. 49 that their request to bargain separately with the <br />City of Mounds View is rejected and that consistent with the <br />provisions of M.S. 179A.14, Subdivision 2, the City chooses <br />to negotiate the 1989 contract through the MAHA joint <br />bargaining group. <br />DFP/MJS <br />Attachment: <br />