BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
THE BERLIN PROFESSIONAL POLICEMEN'S
UNION LOCAL 514-B, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
THE CITY OF BERLIN
Mr. Lee W. Gierke, Representative, Wisconsin Council 40,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, P.O. Box 2236, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 54936-2236, appearing on
behalf of the Union.
Attorney Matthew G. Chier, City of Berlin, 111 South Pearl
Street, Berlin, Wisconsin 54923, appearing on behalf of the City.
The Berlin Professional Policemen's Union, Local 514-B, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
Union, and City of Berlin (Police Department), hereafter City or Employer, are parties to a
bargaining agreement that provides for the final and binding arbitration of grievances arising
thereunder. The Union requested, and the City concurred, in the appointment of a
arbitrator to resolve a pending grievance. The undersigned was so designated and an
hearing was held in Berlin, Wisconsin on May 3, 2000. The hearing was not transcribed and
record was closed on June 17, 2000, upon receipt of post-hearing written argument.
The parties stipulated to the following statement of the issue:
Did the City of Berlin violate the Collective Bargaining
Agreement with AFSCME Local 514-B when, after it made the decision not to fill the open
Communications Officer Flex Position in
January, 2000, it did not revert the flex shift Police Officer position back to a fixed shift
If so, what is the remedy?
This Agreement made and entered into at Berlin, Wisconsin,
pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 111.70 and Chapter 41 and 62.13 of the Wisconsin Statutes by and between the City
Berlin, a municipal corporation, as municipal Employer with the Police Chief as its agent
referred to as the City, and the Berlin professional Policemen's Union, as sole bargaining
all full time and part-time Employees of the Berlin Police Department, excluding the Chief of
and Captain, Communications Officers, and Municipal Employees hereinafter referred to as
Unless otherwise herein provided, the management of the
and direction of the working
forces, including the right to hire, promote, demote, or suspend, or discharge for proper
the right to lay off Employees due to lack of work or funds, is vested exclusively in the
The Employer may adopt and publish
reasonable rules which may be amended from time to
time. Except for rules, regulations and directives from the State of Wisconsin or any other
governmental agency having jurisdiction over the City, such rules shall be submitted for the
thirty (30) days prior to their effective dates. The Union shall have thirty days from
decide whether to grieve the reasonableness of the rule or accept it as reasonable.
Action to amend or to otherwise alter or change said rules and
regulations by the Union shall
be taken through the Grievance Procedure in this Agreement.
If any action taken by the Employer under
the established work rules and after the Grievance
Procedures have been completed is determined as unjustified, any wages or benefits lost by
Employee as a result of such action shall be restored.
The right of contracting or subcontracting
is vested in the Employer provided that the present
work force is not reduced in number of hours.
A normal workday shall consist of an eight (8) hour shift.
normal work week for all
Employees shall average thirty-seven and one-half (37 ½) hours based on a fifty-two
(52) week year.
All Employees shall work a continuous schedule of six (6) days on and three (3) days off.
Employees shall initially select a shift on
the basis of seniority, and thereafter shift assignment
selections will be conducted on an annual basis by seniority with implementation the first
a. There will be no overtime paid by the City
caused by seniority bumping or shift
b. There shall not be
two (2) probationary patrolmen permanently assigned to any given
c. Any vacancies
occurring after the aforementioned annual shift selection shall be filled
Once the Chief of Police decides to fill all
or part of a vacancy, the existing policy for shift
coverage shall be maintained to seek volunteers to fill the shift. If volunteers are not
Chief may assign employees to work the vacancy by reverse seniority.
. . .
Grievances within the meaning of the Grievance Procedure
consist only of disputes about
the interpretation or application of particular clauses of this Agreement and items concerning
hours and conditions of employment and about alleged violations of this Agreement.
All such grievances shall be processed as
Step 1. If an
Employee has a grievance, he shall first present the grievance orally to
the Captain. Said grievance shall be presented within the Employee's first five (5) working
the date of the event or occurrence which gave rise to the complaint, vacation or sick leave
to be counted as working days. If such grievance is not presented within the specified time
it shall be deemed waived and abandoned and shall not thereafter form the basis of a
between the parties hereto.
Step 2. If the
grievance is not settled in Step 1 within five (5) working days after
having been presented to the Captain, then the grievance may be presented to the Chief of
writing. The Chief shall, in five (5) working days, give a written response to the grievance.
Step 3. If the
grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved in Step 2 of the Grievance
Procedure, the grievance may then be presented to the Common Council Committee of
or the City Police and Fire Commission, whichever has jurisdiction over the particular
Committee of Proper Jurisdiction shall, within ten (10) working days of receipt of the
written response to the grievance unless such time be extended by mutual consent.
Step 4. If the
Employee's grievance is not satisfactorily resolved in Step 3 of the
Grievance Procedure, either party may submit said grievance to arbitration by giving notice
to the other party provided such notice is given within ten (10) days after receipt of the
provided in Step 3 of this procedure. Either of the parties hereto, may submit the grievance
arbitrator to be selected by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission provided the
so appointed is acceptable to both parties. In the event the arbitrator is not acceptable to
a second arbitrator shall be requested, and that arbitrator shall hear the grievance irrespective
objections raised by either of the parties hereto.
Each party shall share equally in the costs, if any, of the
arbitrator. The decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties, except for a judicial review.
PARAMETERS FOR ADDING 5TH
I. CONCEPT AND
A. Communications officers should provide
staffing for the communications center.
B. Police Officers should provide staffing for
the police duties.
C. Employees who work in the
communication center will be adequately trained to
perform job responsibilities.
II. CREATE 2 TOTAL
FLEX TYPE SHIFTS FOR NEW HIRE JUNIOR
COMMUNICATION OFFICERS AND JUNIOR POLICE OFFICER
A. Both positions would
operate on an established 9 day cycle consisting of 6 working
days and 3 off days, but neither work nor off days would necessarily be consecutive.
B. Flex type shifts
normally will be 12-8, 8-4, or 4-12 work assignments. Minimum 8
hour shifts; no split shifts.
C. Flex schedules would
normally be assigned on the 25th of the month.
1. Shifts would be subject to
reassignment up to 24 hours before beginning of
shift. (24 hour notification required in advance)
2. There shall be no 16 hour
assignments (12 hour maximum).
III. VACATION POLICY
A. Retain a policy of 3
employees off any given day with following restrictions:
Communication Officer off
2. 2 Police
B. No more than 2
employees off per shift regardless of job classification, including
C. Any exceptions to vacation policy will be
by mutual agreement.
exceptions in excess to restricted numbers of Employees off shall be
subject to voluntary overtime within job classification to meet minimum
D. All employees except
Chief of Police or Captain will be counted for vacation
restrictions, except as identified in III. B.
IV. FLEX SHIFT VACATION POLICY
A. Vacations will be within framework of
established 9 day work cycle.
1. Less than 3
days vacation = just vacation days.
2. 3-5 days =
vacation days + 3 off days.
3. 6 days
vacation = vacation days + 6 off days (12 days).
4. 12 days
vacation = vacation days + 9 off days (21 days off).
5. 18 days
vacation = vacation days + 12 off days (30 days off).
B. Flex employees will
specify dates desired within framework of established 9 day work
cycle and off days from cycle before and after vacation will be scheduled and assigned
V. WORK SHIFT
1. 8a 4 p
2. 12a 8 a
3. (3 days) 12a 8a
(3 days) 4p 12m
4. 4p 12a
5. Flex 9 day work cycle
B. Police Officer Shifts
1. 8a 4p
2. 8a 4p
3. 8a 4p
4. 8a 4p
5. 4p 12a
6. 4p 12a
7. 4p 12a
8. 4p 12a
9. 12a 8a
10. 12a 8a
11. 12a 8a
12. 9 day work cycle.
C. No employee shall be assigned to work
more than three (3) mandatory 12 hour shifts
per work cycle.
1. Under this circumstance the next
junior employee shall be assigned.
D. Time Certification shall not be considered
criterion for filling a Communication Center
vacancy by sworn officers.
VI. FLEX POSITION
A. Flex employees may indicate preference
for shift or overtime on the overtime posting
but will be assigned shifts by management based on staffing needs.
1. Flex employees will not be
privileged for specific shifts, unless assigned.
A. With transition of an existing full-time
officer from a fixed to a flex shift, all conditions
of employment with respect to seniority, pay schedules, vacation, sick leave and
probationary status will remain unchanged.
VIII. SIDE BAR AGREEMENT TO
A. Permit 2 flex
positions within 9 day work schedule to be established.
B. Specify reverse
seniority by classification.
IMPLEMENTATION OF APPENDIX C
WHEN A COMMUNICATION OFFICER
POSITION IS VACANT
IF THERE ARE FIVE (5) FULL TIME
COMMUNICATION OFFICERS ON THE
SCHEDULE, THE VACANCY WILL BE FILLED IN THE FOLLOWING
1. Seek a Part-Time
Communication Officer to volunteer to fill in.
2. Seek a Full-Time
Communication Officer, by seniority, to volunteer to fill in.
3. Order in a Full-Time
Communication operator, but not on days off.
4. Fill in with an on
duty Police Officer.
5. Seek a Police
Officer, by seniority, to volunteer to fill in.
6. Order in a Police
Officer by reverse seniority.
IF THERE ARE LESS THAN
FIVE (5) FULL TIME COMMUNICATION OFFICERS
ON THE SCHEDULE THE VACANCY WILL BE FILLED IN THE FOLLOWING
1. Seek a Part-Time
Communication Officer to volunteer to fill in.
2. Fill in with an on
duty Police Officer.
3. Seek a Full Time Communication Officer,
by seniority, to volunteer to fill in.
4. Order in a Full Time
Communication operator, but not on days off.
5. Seek a Police
Officer, by seniority, to volunteer to fill in.
6. Order in a Police
Officer by reverse seniority.
In July, 1994, Communications Officer Margaret Beuthin filed a grievance over the
she, a more senior employe, had been called in to work 12-hour shifts to fill-in for a
Officer that was on family leave. Prior to the start of the arbitration hearing on that
City's labor attorney made a proposal to the Union regarding staffing. The Union did not
proposal and the parties arbitrated the grievance.
Following the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, but prior to the receipt of the
award, the City presented the Union with two proposals. The Departmental Meeting Minutes
January 10, 1995 state as follows:
Chief DOBSON stated the purpose of this meeting is to provide
Police Department personnel
an opportunity for input into resolving the Staffing issue and to present two plans of action in
to reach that resolution.
Mark ROHLOFF stated that there is a City
wide budget problem in which personnel costs are
of priority concern. In the City, 50% of the budget is absorbed in personnel costs while in
Department personnel costs take up 90% of the budget. The options presented would reduce
and provide staffing to maintain minimum coverage.
1. Hire a 5th full-time
Communications Officer on a 9 day work cycle.
2. Both the Junior
Communications Officer and the Junior Police Officer would work
a total flex shift. No guarantee of off days or shift work days.
3. On the
25th of each month the scheduling would be posted for the following month.
4. There would be 8 hrs. minimum
notification in advance of a work shift.
5. There would be no
16 hr. work shifts assigned but possibly 12 hr. work shifts
maximum would be assigned.
1. Attempt would be made for staffing needs
coverage with part-time employees.
2. One Police Officer position reduced to part-time.
The above plans of action would keep Officers in the field doing
Police work and
Communications Officers in the Communications Center doing Communications work. Plan
not comply with current language contained in the Union Contract.
A sidebar agreement would need to be added the Union Contract
for Plan A permitting:
1. Establishment of 2 flex positions on a 9 day work
2. Reverse seniority by job classification.
Chief Dobson stated that the above plans would allow for more
staff available when needed.
An acceptance of Plan A is requested no later than 01-31-95 so
that the Common Council can
authorize the additional staffing position in an effort to implement the plan as soon as
Failure to accept Plan A may result in the implementation of Plan B.
Chief Dobson, Captain Morehouse and
Mark Rohloff left the room so that the employees could
discuss the plans further. All three returned a short time later and were requested by the
to present their options on paper so that it could be discussed at the Union Meeting to be
On March 6, 1995, representatives of the City and the Union executed a Memorandum
Understanding that states as follows:
The undersigned parties agree to the terms and conditions of the
attached Local 514B letter dated
January 31, 1995 and Plan A Staffing Plan for the duration of the present collective
Provisions of this staffing plan shall be
subject to the next bargaining process for inclusion into
a future contract.
The attached letter states as follows:
January 31, 1995
TO: James W. DOBSON
FROM: Kevin J. BLOCK
REF: (new) Plan A Proposal
Dear Mr. DOBSON,
On behalf of the B.P.P.U. Local 514B I,
am writing this letter to inform you of the following.
On O1-30-95 at about 6:30 PM our union members met. A vote was taken reference the
above-mentioned proposal. The outcome of the vote was that the union will accept the new
A that I have attached. It is the union's understanding that the following apply to this
1) Plan A is the side bar
agreement to our current contract that expires 12-31-95.
2) Plan A will not take effect
for any employee until all new hires are properly trained and ready
to work on their own.
3) Both sides entering into this
agreement will make every effort to make the transition as easy
as possible for the flex employees.
4) Both sides agree to keep an
open line of communication when problems may result from this
agreement, with the intent to improve working relations between management and
The union will have its next meeting on 2-16-95. If you could
please inform me of the decision
made on this proposal by this date it would be appreciated.
Also attached to the Memorandum of Understanding was a three-page document
"Plan A Parameters for Adding a 5th Full-time Communications Officer."
In all significant respects,
the body of the attached Plan A mirrors the language of Appendix B that has been attached to
subsequent Union collective bargaining agreements.
On September 8, 1995, representatives of the Union and the City executed a Letter of
Acceptance, in which the Union accepted the removal of non-sworn employees from the
bargaining unit represented by the Union. Subsequently, the Communications Officers were
in another collective bargaining unit represented by AFSCME. Appendix B and C were
all subsequent Union labor contracts.
On December 9, 1999, the City Police and Fire Commission recommended to the
Council that the City Communications/Dispatch Center be closed and combined with the
County Sheriff's Department. On January 5, 2000, the City Police and Fire Commission
the resignation of a full-time Communications Officer and decided that it would not hire any
additional Communications Officers.
On January 11, 2000, the City Common Council adopted "A Resolution Closing and
Combining Communications/Dispatch Center With Green Lake County Sheriff's
Resolution required the closure to be completed in a timely and efficient fashion, with a
not later than December 31, 2000, and authorized the lay-off of all current
On or about January 11, 2000, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Police
Commission's January 5, 2000 decision to not hire additional Communications Officers,
leaving the dispatch center with only four full-time dispatchers, violated Appendix B of the
labor contract. The grievance was denied at all steps and, thereafter, submitted to
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
At the time that the language was bargained, the intent was to have a "flex police
long as there were five full-time employes in the Communications Center. Following the
of the Communications Officers from the Police unit, the City continued to maintain the five
Communications Officers required by the contract. There was
no violation of the contract until January 2000. The grievance was filed in response to
The grievance was filed within five working days of the event that gave rise to the
The grievance is timely.
By failing to raise the question of timeliness at any time prior to arbitration, the City
effectively waived that defense. If a violation occurred at the time that the Communications
were excluded from the Police unit, the same violation would be reoccurring in January,
remedy for a tardy filing of a reoccurring grievance is not forfeiture of contractual rights for
The Union called three witnesses who testified as to the intent of the language of the
collective bargaining agreement. The unrebutted testimony demonstrates that, during the
to reach this agreement, the City Administrator assured the Union negotiating team that if the
went with less than five Communications Officers, then the flex officer would be restored to
shift position. It was with that understanding and agreement that the Union reluctantly went
with the proposal to create the flex officer positions.
Following the exclusion of the Communications Officers from the Police unit,
and C remained in the contract. The Union's subsequent proposal to remove language
relating to the
Communications Officers was rejected by the City. If the Appendices are no longer in
work hours are controlled by Article 4.
The collective bargaining agreement must be construed as a whole. Logic dictates
language in Appendix B and Appendix C no longer applies and that police officers' work
should be determined strictly by the language in Article 4 Hours of Work.
The City has violated the collective bargaining agreement by continuing to have a
officer work a "flex schedule" after the City made the decision not to keep five full-time
Communications Center Officers. Therefore, the Union respectfully requests the Arbitrator
the grievance. The remedy for the instant grievance is to have the junior officer who is now
a "flex schedule" to be immediately put on a straight shift schedule of an eight (8) hour shift
(6) days on and three days off.
Appendix B of the contract resulted from negotiations revolving around previous
litigation relating to the filling of vacant shifts in the Communications Center. The City
the Union's concession to be that there would be two (2) total flex-type shifts created, one
a new hire Junior Communications Officer and the other a Junior Police Officer.
officers gave up certain vacation scheduling rights.
Appendix B relieved some Police Officer scheduling problems. However, the
to the Union and concession by the City involved an additional fifth full-time
Officer. The fifth full-time Communications Officer was not a benefit negotiated to the
Officers, but was an accommodation to the Communications Officers.
Appendix B, on its face, does not contain a specific requirement that the City have a
fifth full-time Communications Center Officer. Although members of the police union claim
that there was
an additional benefit to the Police Officers in that they were less frequently required to fill
Communications Center shifts, such a benefit was not stated in the Agreement. To accept
testimony as fact would be to violate the parol evidence rule.
On September 8, 1995, the Union accepted the removal of Communications Officers
Union. The Communications Officers became a part of the City public works union.
The closing of the Communications Center is no different than the removal of the
Communications Officers from the Union. The Union's bargaining unit members could not
be damaged by either event.
If there were a lost benefit of the bargain, as claimed by the Union, the time to file
grievance would have been when the Communications Officers were removed from the police
and made a part of the public works union. The police union never grieved the separation of
The Communications Officers are not members of the police unit. Therefore, there
possible damage to the Union by failing to fill vacancies for Communications Officers.
Appendix B has remained in the contract. Appendix B contains agreements other
addition of a fifth full-time Communications Officer.
As a result of the closing of the Communications Center, Appendix B should be
not deleted in its entirety. The City's right to flex the shift of at least one Police Officer is
with established practice that has not been grieved by the Union.
During the transition period, the City has been unable to hire anyone for the
Center. The City should not be held responsible for that which it cannot accomplish,
i.e., the hiring
of additional full-time workers who will be terminated within a few months.
The Union's grievance is untimely and without merit. The Union's grievance should
At the start of the arbitration hearing, the City made the claim that the grievance was
in a timely manner. The City argues that the grievance is not timely because the grievance
required to be raised at the time that the Communications Officers were excluded from the
in September of 1995. In a prior Award involving the Union and the City, Arbitrator Jane
states as follows:
Grievance timelines help to promote good labor relations by
facilitating the speedy resolution of
problems. In spite of the usefulness of timelines, however, parties occasionally find it
waive them. Such a waiver may be made either explicitly through agreement, or impliedly,
action or inaction. I conclude that by failing to object at any time prior to hearing to the
of the grievance, the City effectively waived that objection as to this grievance. The
procedure timeline, therefore, does not operate to bar this particular grievance and the
The record establishes that the City did not raise the
issue until the arbitration
hearing. The undersigned agrees with Arbitrator Buffett's conclusion that, by failing to raise
timeliness objection at any time prior to hearing, the City has effectively waived that
objection as to
A party's unilateral understanding does not give rise to a contractual obligation.
arguments regarding a party's unilateral understanding of the benefits, or concessions, of the
are not persuasive.
Following the Communications Officers' exclusion from the Union's bargaining unit,
parties continued to attach Appendix B to their collective bargaining agreement. By this
the parties demonstrated their mutual intent to incorporate the language of Appendix B into
The undersigned must give effect to the plain language of the contract, including the
of Appendix B. Where the contract language is ambiguous, then extrinsic evidence,
history or past practice, may be of assistance in determining the parties' mutual intent.
Section II of Appendix B states: CREATE 2 TOTAL FLEX TYPE SHIFTS FOR
HIRE JUNIOR COMMUNICATION OFFICERS AND JUNIOR POLICE OFFICER. This
language does not provide the City with discretion to create only a Police Officer flex shift
Rather, it requires the City to create both a "junior" Police Officer flex shift position and a
junior" flex shift Communications Officer position.
Although Appendix B is entitled "Parameters for Adding 5th
Full-time Police Officer", the
record clearly demonstrates that the correct title, as agreed upon by the parties when they
entered into their flex shift agreement, is "Parameters for Adding 5th
Officer." One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that the "new hire junior" flex shift
Communications Officer position referenced in Appendix B is the 5th
Following the execution of the Memorandum of March 6, 1995, the City created and
maintained a 5th full-time Communications Officer position. Prior to
January 2000, any vacancy in
the 5th full-time Communications Officer position was a result of attrition
and the City made
reasonable attempts to fill any vacant 5th full-time Communications Officer
The testimony of Patrolman Block demonstrates that, on January 5, 2000, the City
Fire Commission determined that it would not hire into the Communications Officer position.
same date, the Commission accepted the resignation of Communications Officer Gary
Boening's departure, there were fewer than five full-time Communications Officers.
On January 11, 2000, the City Common Council approved "A Resolution Closing and
Combining Communications/Dispatch Center with Green Lake County Sheriff's Department"
which the Council resolved to close its Communications Center by December 31, 2000 and
all Communications Officers on the effective date of closure. It may be, as the City argues,
impending closure of the Communications Center would have made it impossible for the City
additional Communications Center Officers. Inasmuch as this "impossibility to hire" would
logical result of the City's decision to close the Communications Center and lay-off
Officers, the City may not reasonably claim that it would not be responsible for any resulting
By its conduct in January 2000, the City effectively abolished the
Officer position. Appendix B addresses the creation of two positions, but is silent with
the abolition of these positions. Given the ambiguity concerning the City's right to abolish a
created under Appendix B, it is appropriate to give consideration to the evidence of
At the January 10, 1995 Departmental Meeting, the City presented a "Plan A" in
City proposed to hire a fifth full-time Communications Officer and to have both the junior
Communications Officer and the junior Police Officer work a "total flex shift." The Union
to the City's proposal of January 10, 1995 with a letter dated January 31, 1995.
The Union's letter of January 31, 1995 stated certain Union understandings. Among
Union "understandings" was that "Plan A will not take effect for any employee until all hew
properly trained and ready to work on their own."
Given the fact that the "new hire" referenced in "Plan A" was the
Communications Officer, the Union was expressing an understanding that the City's right to
a flex shift Police Officer was contingent upon the City's employment of a
Communications Officer. This Union understanding became a mutual understanding when
parties executed the Memorandum of March 6, 1995 in which the parties agreed to "Plan A"
Union's letter of January 31, 1995.
The Appendix B that was attached to the parties' subsequent collective bargaining
was, in all significant respects, the "Plan A" that was agreed to in the March 6, 1995
After the parties had agreed to exclude the Communications Officers from the
collective bargaining agreement, the Union asked the City if Appendix B should be retained
changed. The City responded that Appendix B should be retained because Police Officers
Communications Officers were in the same department and continued to work together.
It is not evident that, after the execution of the March 6, 1995 Memorandum of
Understanding, the parties bargained the substance of the terms and conditions of Appendix
undersigned is persuaded, therefore, that the mutual understandings that gave rise to the
Memorandum of Understanding of March 6, 1995 also gave rise to its successor Appendix
In summary, upon consideration of the language of Appendix B and the relevant
history, the undersigned concludes that Appendix B provides the City with a limited right to
and maintain a flex shift Police Officer position. Specifically, Appendix B provides the City
right to create and maintain a flex shift Police Officer position if the City also creates and
a fifth full-time Communications Officer flex shift position.
The City argues that it has a "past practice" right to schedule a flex shift Police
position. However, the "practice" of scheduling a flex shift Police Officer did not begin
parties implemented the March 6, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding. The undersigned is
persuaded, therefore, that the "practice" of scheduling a flex shift Police Officer is, in fact,
exercise of rights provided in this Memorandum of Understanding and its successor
The evidence of the parties' prior conduct indicates that, at the time the parties
March 6, 1995 Memorandum of Understanding, both parties recognized that the City did not
a contractual right to schedule flex shifts. The Union argues that Article 4 requires the City
schedule Police Officers to fixed shifts. The City does not argue otherwise. The
concludes, therefore, that the parties are in agreement on this point.
Appendix B provides an exception to the Article 4 requirement that the City schedule
shifts. As discussed above, this "exception" permits the City to establish and maintain a flex
Police Officer if the City establishes and maintains a 5th full-time
Communications Officer position.
Having effectively abolished the 5th full-time Communications
Officer position in January
2000, the City does not have an Appendix B right to schedule a flex shift Police Officer.
continuing to schedule a flex shift Police Officer position, the City has violated Article 4 of
parties' collective bargaining agreement.
The Union does not seek a retrospective remedy. Rather, the Union seeks an order
the City to immediately revert the flex shift Police Officer position back to a fixed shift
position. The remedy sought by the Union is appropriate.
Based upon the above and foregoing and the record as a whole, the undersigned
1. The City of Berlin violated the collective bargaining agreement with AFSCME
Local 541-B when, after it made the decision not to fill the open Communications Officer
Flex Position in
January 2000, it did not revert the flex shift Police Officer position back to a fixed shift
2. In remedy of this contract violation, the City is to immediately revert the flex
Officer position back to a fixed shift Police Officer position.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 17th day of August, 2000.