City Council rejected five JEA collective bargaining agreements Tuesday, denying deals that would have provided raises of 1.5 to 3 percent for the majority of the utility’s employees.
Several Council members raised issues with the pay raise, which had been reached in deals with the unions and JEA, saying that City and public safety employees took pay cuts or received no raises.
“I do believe there is an appropriate time to consider raises, but now is not the time,” said Council member Clay Yarborough.
“I think we’re sending the wrong message by being inconsistent to our other employees if we approve the increases,” he said.
JEA Managing Director and CEO Jim Dickenson stated his case for contract approval and told Council members that the utility had been proactive in its cuts and savings.
He said that in 2007, JEA suspended a popular short-term incentive program that offered employees an average 5 percent pay increase for realized savings.
Dickenson said the program was designed to encourage employees to find savings within their department, but was not written into prior union agreements because the utility wanted the ability to suspend it if needed.
When JEA raised fuel the fuel rate in mid-2007, Dickenson said the utility decided it could not give the bonuses.
Dickenson said the program was suspended during the recessionary economy and that both budget and compensation cuts were proactive beginning in 2008.
Depending on the contract, the increases would have ranged between 1.5 percent and 3 percent, still below the 5 percent employees recently earned.
Dickenson provided a chart that compared JEA with other union contracts to make JEA’s case about the merit of the raises, but not to compare payrolls or disparage others, he said.
“I believe that JEA, by taking action early, has done more than others have done up to this point,” Dickenson said.
Several Council members questioned Dickenson about potential fuel rate changes.
Dickenson replied he would try to ensure there will be no rate increases and he said the union deals would not result in rate hikes.
Some Council members weren’t swayed and said that while Dickenson and JEA leadership have done a good job managing the utility, the pay increases were a consistency and fairness issue among all City employees.
“It has nothing to do with trying to punish your employees,” said Council member Robin Lumb. “It is about maintaining a consistency going forward and this recession is far from over.”
Others contrasted the increases with cuts to public safety employees and those faced by private business owners.
The measures failed 5-13, with Council members Greg Anderson, Ray Holt, Warren Jones, Stephen Joost and Denise Lee in support.
Dickenson said after the vote he was “very disappointed” with the result and that Council did not seem to recognize the early cuts the utility had taken.
He said that the unions have worked for two years without the contracts and now the two sides will return to the negotiating table to work on a new deal, which he said would be “difficult.”
Dickenson said raises would eventually be needed and he fears the utility will lose employees to other jobs.
The prior agreements expired Sept. 30, 2009, and the unions have been working without a deal since.
356-2466