Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Union Grievance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police union argues anniversary-date step increases; city counters with administrative, legal concerns — council to deliberate in closed session
Summary
At a hearing on a grievance from the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association, the union argued Article 16.3 requires step increases to take effect on each officer’s anniversary date; city counsel and staff said the word "eligible" allows administrative timing and that mid-pay-period adjustments risk payroll errors. The council adjourned to closed session to deliberate.
The Pacific Grove City Council on July 15 heard an appeal from the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association (POA) over when negotiated step increases must take effect. The POA asked the council to reverse a city manager decision and direct payroll to make step increases effective on each officer’s anniversary date, with any retroactive pay to follow.
Robert Rutledge, secretary of the POA, argued the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) language is clear: employees are eligible for a step increase on their anniversary date and the city’s long-standing practice of paying the increase in a later pay period cannot override explicit contract wording. "Will the city honor the plain words it negotiated or continue a unilateral practice that shortchanges the men and women who protect this community?" Rutledge asked the council.
City counsel Che Johnson urged the council to deny the grievance. He said the MOU uses the word "eligible," which the city interprets as a trigger that permits implementation in a later administratively feasible pay period. Johnson argued the practice has been in place for years, a prior grievance on the issue was adjudicated without a POA appeal to the council, and that mid-pay-period adjustments raise complex calculation and overtime-rate issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act that increase the risk of payroll errors.
Finance staff corrected an earlier reference to Tyler Munis, stating the city's payroll system is Central Square and is more than 25 years old; staff said that technical limitation increases the administrative burden and error risk of implementing anniversary-date mid-pay-period adjustments. The finance representative said the city is planning a future replacement of its accounting/payroll system.
Public commenters included residents who urged the council to honor officers’ anniversary-date pay increases, saying delayed payments shortchange employees and hurt retention. Other commenters said retention is a broader staffing issue and questioned whether step-date timing alone would change outcomes.
Councilmembers asked procedural and technical questions: how long the city's pay period is (two weeks), whether other bargaining units have anniversary-date language (staff said other units' contracts specify payment in the first pay period following the anniversary), and whether payroll systems can support mid-pay-period adjustments (staff said Central Square does not readily support that and replacement is being considered).
After questions, the council adjourned to closed session to deliberate the appeal; the council said it will return to open session and take a recorded vote when deliberations conclude.
