Town officials in West Tisbury are trying to figure out if money approved at town meeting for police details can be paid to non-union employees.
Town officials in West Tisbury are trying to figure out if money approved at town meeting for police details can be paid to non-union employees.
The issue bubbled up at Wednesday’s select board meeting when police Chief Matt Mincone came to the board with questions about article 25, which allocated $50,000 for details at the April 8 annual town meeting.
The article states the money from free cash could be used to establish the fund for police officers, but is silent on whether it should be for union or non-union employees.
The select board ultimately voted to pay the full-time union officers with the money in the fund and consult the attorney who helped negotiate the union contract for further guidance.
Chief Mincone believed that the money should apply to all officers, union or not.
“I’m being asked by the union with a potential grievance behind it, saying [the money] is just for the union,” he said. “So I need a clarification, because payroll’s on Friday and my opinion is different than theirs.”
Select board member Jessica Miller agreed with the chief.
“In our language of the warrant article, I don’t remember the warrant article being specific only to members of the union,” she said.
According to Jeremie Rogers, a police officer who spoke on behalf of the union, the understanding was that the funds were only to support union officers.
“When we negotiated the contract, we were doing that on behalf of the full-time members of the department for the benefit of them,” he said.
The labor union said that using these funds to pay non-union members violates the collective bargaining agreement, according to a letter sent to the police chief.
“The collective bargaining agreement clearly applies to ‘sworn full time personnel’ while directly excluding all other personnel,” the letter stated.
Town administrator Jennifer Rand, who wrote the warrant article, said she didn’t intend on creating any discrepancy between union and non-union officers.
“The language was mine and not intended to differentiate when it was written between union or non-union details,” she said.
Comments
Good work here all the way
Tom Engley West TisburyGood work here all the way around it’s great to see people able to enter into a discussion and have it come out well. The officer stood up for the union knew What the facts were and made his point. Most things in governance these days are out of control Many people are very angry with what’s going on in Washington. We are a small island. We need to work together to make it through this mess.
Another example of why unions
Bob EdgartownAnother example of why unions cost a taxpayer more money than they should be paying for services. Here is something that was proposed for the entire department, except the union wants to keep it for themselves. Shameful on the part of this group who think the taxpayers has bottomless pockets
Delineation of how many union
George Stein OBDelineation of how many union and non union employees involved would be pertinent. Injecting federal drama in this conversation is just wrong. Portraying Union as greedy is petty also.
Add new comment