Tobacco Documents Online

,~f L i1-i SAN iVI( K® COUNTY FIRr-- FTiCILIRs INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS - LOCAL 2400 "1, ~ AFFILIATED WITH _ c A.F.L•C 1 0 CLNTRAL LADON COUNCIL OF SAN MATEO COUNTY FEDERATED FIRE FIGHTERS - . Of CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS 0 1A191 348-2400 35 SO BAYSNORE BLVD SAN MATEO. CALIFORNIA 9A401 February 2, 1982 Mr. 0. James Linenberger Deputy City 'Manager City of San Mateo 330 [dest Twentieth Avenue San Mateo, California 94403 Dear Mr. Linnenberger: In response to your letter of January 25, 1982, there are a number of areas where you have erred in your analysis of :I-IN-B and its application to the issues before us. The courts, in the cases cited to you, did not differentiate between new, existing or retired employees and the issues ruled on pertained to what are mandatory subjects for bargaining. It is obvious from those cases that the city has a mandatory obligation to comply with the statutory requirements of :1-'f-B. In your letter you cite Government Code S.3504 as having precedence over what issues are subject to meet and confer. In Fire Fighters Union vs. City of Vallejo the Court directed its attention to the language at the end of Section 3504 which limits meeting and conferring on "merits, necessity or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order." The Court held that this language should not be read as making the scope of representation under the M-M-B Act narrower than the scope of bargaining in the private sector. "Although the iJLRA does not contain specific wording comparabie to the 'merits, necessity or organization' terminology in the city chsrter and the state act, the underlying fear that gener- ated this language - that is, that wages, hours and working Condit ons could be expanded beyond reasonable boundaries to deprive an employer of his legitimate management prerogatives - lies imbedded in fcderal precedents undor the NT,RA. As a review of federal case law in this field demonstrates, the trepidation that the union would extend its province into matters that should properly remain in the hands of employers has been incorporated into the intcrpretation of thc scope of 'wahes, hours and tcr-:s and conditions of cmplo)ment.' EXHIBIT E .

Mr.O. •James LinenberN , Page Two February 2, 1982 "Thus, because the federal decisions effectively reflect the same interests_as those that prompted the inclusion of the 'merits, necessity or organization' bargaining limitation in the charter provision and state act, the federal precedents provide reliable if analogous authority on the issue." The Vallejo case went on to hold that subjects such as schedules, vacancies, promotions, manning procedure, work load, and personnei reduction were all within the scope of representation. vision of our current Memorandum of Understanding. It is indeed very diffi- cult to review your position with any degree of objectivity when in fact we have met and conferred in the past on physical fitness. GC S.3504 preempts the provisions in our current contract pertaining to physi- cal fitness? If the foregoing is an accurate assumption, then your position would be contrary to current California Labor Law and to the appropriate pro- individual contractual commitment. Is the city now taking the position that standards an employee is required to comply with. No mention is made of any Our,current agreement, Section 23, Physical Fitness, sets forth the type of Finally, it is our position that until you comply with Government Code S.3500 - 3511 of the State of California, Local 2400 refuses to accept the im- plementation of"physical standards and no smoking clause." We are willing to meet and confer on the issues at any mutually agreeable time and place. Sincerely, LEO C. 'tInDPNnORF Labor Relations Representative Paralenal LC:1/wwc cc: Mayor and City Council Ron :•funier, District Vice President, Local •2400 Richard Graham, District Vice President, Local 2400