REP FC 038 2019/05/20 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FC-38 Page 2 May 20, 2019 Mr. Brilhante stated that although it is a binding arbitration and the arbitrator makes a final determination, any item that relates to cost or the funding mandate, has to be approved by each of the independent County jurisdictions; if this measure is not approved by any one of the jurisdictions, the process starts all over and the current contract will carry over. Also, while going through negotiations, what was brought to the employer's group was that Fire was asking for nothing more or nothing less. than what SHOPO (State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers) received two years ago, and that is where the arbitrator got the numbers from for the decision. In regards to retirement, Council Member Herbert "Tim"Richards, III, questioned the difference between general versus first responders. Ms. Sako responded that part of it is the first responders' participation in social security programs across the nation. Fire does pay the Medicare tax but does not pay the FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act)tax portion. Each Fire employee pays a higher percentage contribution into the Employee Retirement System as well,higher than a typical employee. Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz asked, and Mr. Brilhante confirmed, that Hawai`i County is the only County where the fire fighters serve asfire fighters, EMT's (Emergency,Medical Technicians) and paramedics. Mr. Brilhante stated that this County is unique, in that Hawaii County runs the Emergency Medical Service through the Fire Department. Committee Chair Maile David asked Mr. Brilhante what options would be available to the Council, given the fact that Mayor Kim expressed his negative position. Would this go back to arbitration? Mr. Brilhante said whether there is a positive or negative recommendation, this item moves forward for discussion at full Council, at which time the Council can approve or deny this resolution. Ms. Poindexter asked Ms. Sako to explain the reason for the bonus provision. Ms. Sako explained that because Police and SHOPO had the bonuses, the arbitrator felt it was okay to put a bonus provision in the Fire contract. Ms. Sako stated she believed the reason SHOPO was approved at that time_was because Police had retention issues but did not have rank-for-rank. Director Sako further explained that at the time SHOPO was going through arbitration, there were jurisdictional issues, being able to recruit . officers and also retaining the longer employed officers. Ms. Poindexter commented SHOPO had justification,but Fire does not, and stated she is unable to support the resolution at this time. Council Member Susan Lee Loy asked, if it is known, where any of the other jurisdictions stand on this issue. Ms. Sako responded it is unknown at this time,but would be able to provide an update at Council. She noted that all jurisdictions are considered as one. It is her understanding.that if one jurisdiction says no, everyone goes back to arbitration. Ms. Lee Loy stated she did not mind moving the resolution forward to the next level. Council Member Rebecca Villegas agrees with the two percent (cost of living), however, expressed concern with the bonuses due to the County's budget issues at this time. Committee Chair Maile David asked Director Brilhante, given concerns regarding specific items in the contract, whether there is an option to negotiate, or is it all or nothing? In other words, if the Council decides it cannot support one or two components of this contract, is there an option to negotiate those FC Report No. 38