Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Consequently I do not award the City's proposal for an update of <br />the current proficiency test. <br /> <br /> The Union pointed out in its argument that no one from the <br />City ever brought up the issue of whether the proficiency test was <br />outdated until the City's labor relations consultant raised the <br />issue in negotiations. It further noted that the chief was not <br />able to point out in what areas the proficiency test needed to be <br />updated and that the City did not give any specifics pertaining to <br />the reasons and need for the change. <br /> <br /> It..is apparent to me that this matter of updating the <br />proficiency test has not been fully explored by the parties, and <br />particularly the City in this instance. At the hearing I did not <br />see any specifics presented for the need of the change, nor did I <br />see any specifics that would convince me that I am in a position <br />to make that decision. I remind both parties that under PELRA and <br />under Article 20 of the current contract that they were and are <br />obligated to conduct meaningful negotiations pertaining to the <br />proficiency test prior to any interest arbitration. Having agreed <br />upon a proficiency test and program involved in it, the parties, <br />including the City, concede its negotiability. Section 20.3 <br />specifically provides that: <br /> <br /> "The proficiency pay program may be amended by mutual <br /> agreement of the parties hereto." <br /> <br /> In that the two-year period for the contract presently <br />covered by this award will be expiring on December 31, 1990, less <br />than one year, I believe that it is appropriate for the City and <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br /> <br />