Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Collective Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport News council adopts local collective‑bargaining ordinance for city employees
Summary
After an extended public hearing with union leaders and city employees, the council adopted a revised ordinance establishing collective bargaining rights for eligible municipal employees; the council recorded unanimous votes on both a substitute and final ordinance. Supporters praised the ordinance as a pathway to recruitment and retention; opponents flagged disputed fiscal estimates.
The Newport News City Council voted July 14 to add a collective‑bargaining article to the city code, authorizing eligible city employees to negotiate wages, benefits and working conditions with the city.
City Manager Alan Archer presented the ordinance that would add Article 37 to chapter 2 of the city code to establish a local bargaining process. Councilman Cleon Long offered a revised substitute at the meeting; the council approved the substitute and later adopted the ordinance, both votes recorded as 7-0.
The council heard more than two hours of public comment from union representatives, rank‑and‑file city employees and labor organizers before voting. ‘‘This partnership has been meaningful and it reflects a shared belief that collaboration leads to better outcomes for us all,’’ said Adrian Manning, president of International Association of Firefighters Local 794 and chair of the city’s 2025 collective‑bargaining task force.
Union leaders representing police, firefighters, electricians, steelworkers and building trades urged the council to pass the ordinance. Randy Dillard, political director for Laborers’ International Union, and Matthew Gerasa, president of the Newport News chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, both said the ordinance would give long‑serving municipal employees a consistent process across administrations.
Several speakers urged amendments to ensure equity in unit recognition and election rules. ‘‘Certification elections should be determined by the majority of votes actually cast,’’ said Curtis Hartsfield, a longtime city employee and task force member, referring to language the task force recommended to prevent non‑voters from being counted as ‘‘no’’ votes.
A few commenters questioned the fiscal estimates attached to the ordinance. Dr. James Graves said he did not understand a cited $1,500,000 fiscal impact and urged the council to re‑examine the calculation; he offered a lower estimate that he said state lawyers had used in a separate school‑board review. Councilmembers acknowledged concerns about fiscal impacts but said the ordinance preserves council control over budgets while creating a process for negotiation.
Council members who spoke in favor described the ordinance as a long‑sought benefit and an avenue to stabilize the city workforce. ‘‘This is a good day for our city,’’ Councilman Long said, adding the ordinance does not compel bargaining but provides an orderly way for employees to pursue it.
The ordinance includes provisions on eligible bargaining units, bargaining procedures and limitations on topics that may be excluded. Council discussion and public comments focused heavily on ensuring a neutral certification process, preserving management’s budget authority, and specifying the bargaining units that would be eligible in the initial period.
The council approved the substitute ordinance and later the final adoption by recorded votes (both recorded as 7-0). The city manager and staff will implement the new article and follow the ordinance’s certification and bargaining procedures going forward.
