Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> The Union referred to my award involving the City police in <br />Duluth, Minnesota (Case No. 89-PN-133). I note that the facts are <br />totally different in that case in that the police were requesting <br />a 7% increase based upon their wage evaluation study and the points <br />that were allocated to them in relationship to their actual wage <br />scale. I gave very little consideration to the wage study in that <br />case because I do not believe and did hold that the Comparative <br />Worth Law is not for the purpose of providing for wage increases <br />to male-dominated classes as the police were in that instance which <br />would further aggravate the differential between a male-dominated <br />class and a' female-dominated class. <br /> <br />ISSUE 4 - STARTING RATE - APPENDIX <br /> <br />POSITION OF THE CITY <br /> <br /> The City proposes that the starting rate be established at' <br />72% of the top patrol rate for 1989 and 1990, respectively. <br /> <br />POSITION OF THE UNION <br /> <br /> The Union opposes any reduction in the starting rate which <br />was under the 1988 contract, 79% of the top .patrol rate. <br />AWARD <br /> <br /> The City's request is denied. There shall be no percentage <br />change in the starting rate. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />