The City of Alexandria is setting itself up to be among the first municipalities in the state to pass an ordinance allowing for collective bargaining by unions on behalf of city employees.
A recent change in Virginia law, codified in Virginia Code § 40.1-57.2, permits counties, cities and towns to adopt an ordinance to legally recognize and negotiate with labor unions or other employee associations who represent the interests of public employees. The law goes into effect on May 1.
In response, the City of Alexandria is one of the first jurisdictions considering adoption of an ordinance that will allow for collective bargaining on behalf of City employees. Fairfax County and Arlington have considered increasing their upcoming budgets to accommodate for collective bargaining in light of the change in law.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations defines collective bargaining as “the process in which working people, through their unions, negotiate contracts with their employers to determine their terms of employment.” Collective bargaining for public workers was banned in Virginia in 1977. Although public workers retained the right to organize and meet with their jurisdictions to present issues of concern, jurisdictions were not legally obligated to respond.
The City’s proposed collective bargaining ordinance attempts to strike a balance between employee equity and operational efficiency. In a staff memorandum for the draft ordinance, which was presented to the City Council on Feb. 9, the City emphasized its commitment to maintaining City services and retaining the City’s ultimate and exclusive authority over its own budget and hiring decisions.
Employee Associations Push for Larger Agreement
The city staff memorandum discussed four main points of the ordinance that are already facing criticism from employee associations like the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Local 2141.
The first issue is the scope of bargaining allowed between the City and the employee organization. The draft ordinance limits collective bargaining to matters of wages and benefits (as defined in the draft ordinance to include paid and unpaid leave, holidays, insurance plans, and applicable retirement provisions). The memorandum says this limitation is necessary in order to maintain efficiency and avoid an adversarial environment among City employees. A presentation to the City Council also referenced the need to keep the scope narrow for now, until the City becomes more familiar with the process of collective bargaining.
The City used the COVID-19 pandemic as an example for the need to limit the scope saying “the government needs to have flexibility to adjust and change as external influences and needs surface…. COVID-19 required major shifts in how work was undertaken, immediate safety protocol development and implementation, reassignment of many City employees to new tasks not in their job descriptions, and dramatically changed work environments.”
The memorandum and presentation also clarified that just because the official scope could be limited to wages and benefits, that does not mean that other employment issues cannot be brought up and even be included in a collective bargaining agreement. “Identifying and limiting the subjects of bargaining in the ordinance sets a floor. Importantly, perhaps, it does not set a ceiling,” says the memorandum. That being said, the City would have no legal obligation to respond to these additional requests outside of wages and benefits.
Employee organizations say this scope of bargaining is too limited. “When the scope of bargaining is limited to wages and benefits, public service employees’ voices are silenced,” said an AFSCME/IAFF press release dated Feb. 9. They instead call for an expanded scope to include work safety, scheduling and other conditions of employment.
Size and Number of Bargaining Units Up for Debate
The second issue laid out in the memorandum is the number of bargaining units the City will recognize. The ordinance proposes four: the Police Unit, the Fire Unit, the Labor and Trades Unit and the General Government Unit. City staff say that any differences between employees can be adequately addressed during bargaining, particularly in light of the narrow scope of bargaining. Too many units would pose an unnecessary fiscal burden and drain manpower.
On the other hand, employee organizations would like to see eight bargaining units including a Library Unit, Service and Maintenance Unit, Clerical and Administrative Unit, a Professional Unit and a Department of Community and Human Services Professional and Technical Unit. The AFSCME/IAFF's argument is that “because there [is] a wide diversity of occupations and functions within city government, there should be a reasonable number of bargaining units to provide for sufficient employee self-expression, regarding their choice to be represented – or not – by a labor organization.”
Which employees are included and excluded from collective bargaining is the third controversial point. The draft ordinance currently excludes elected or appointed officials and their employees, managerial employees, employees in supervisory roles, employees with access to confidential management information as well as temporary, intermittent, probationary employees, volunteers and interns. The City manager would define some of the more vague categories like managerial and supervisory employees.
This would mean approximately 1,009 City employees would likely be unable to participate in collective bargaining, although they could still “meet and confer” with City management. The memorandum does say that despite this “a practice would likely be followed so that those excluded from collective bargaining would be granted salary increases and benefits which would be equitable and consistent with those provided for in collective bargaining agreements.”
One of the most controversial excluded groups under the draft ordinance applies to first responders who are in a supervisory role. The draft ordinance begins supervisor classification at Sergeant for police and Lieutenant for fire/EMS because of their influence on employment-related decisions of those who work under them. Most members of City Council said earlier this month they had a concern with this because ultimately employment decisions are made at the Chief level and they thought this was too exclusionary.
Employee organizations believe these definitions are too broad and do not think the ultimate decision should rest with the City Manager. They think for first responders, police supervisor should begin at Captain and fire/EMS supervisor should start at Deputy Chief.
Back to the Drawing Board
The fourth and final point of difference mentioned in the staff memorandum is regarding what the model for collective bargaining will look like. Employee organizations do not object to the proposed Labor Relations Administrator (LRA) model which allows a neutral third party to be responsible for election, negotiation, and contract disputes. The LRA would be chosen by the City Manager from candidates approved by both management and employee associations and would require confirmation by City Council.
Instead, employee organizations object to the ordinance’s proposal to make impasses during contract negotiations subject to non-binding mediation instead of binding arbitration.
Ultimately, AFSCME and other employee organizations do not believe the draft ordinance presented on Feb. 9 gives public workers enough of a voice.
“Public workers have been on the front lines, keeping our community functioning during this pandemic. They deserve a full voice on the job. As a longtime resident of Alexandria, I understand that when public employees have strong collective bargaining rights, we all benefit,” said Luis Velez Sr., an AFSCME Virginia Member and Alexandria resident in the Feb. 9 press release.
City staff said that collective bargaining will have a significant financial impact on the City, which concerns some taxpayers. The cost of increased wages and benefits if Alexandria City Public Schools employees is included could go as high as $22 million with the cost of administration reaching up to a million dollars a year. It could also have an effect on the City’s AAA bond rating, although it would not be enough to lower the bond rating without other factors.
On Feb. 9, City Council members voted unanimously to send the proposed ordinance back to the drawing board. Staff has been asked to consider revisions to the scope of bargaining, the number of bargaining units, the mediation vs. arbitration structure, and the definition of supervisory roles for public safety employees. The draft ordinance will be re-introduced on March 13.
