With organized labour groups paying close attention, city council will be asked next week to consider whether municipal employees should continue to enjoy free parking at the civic centre and other city workplaces.
Mayor Matthew Shoemaker has tried twice before to charge city workers for parking, and will be pushing at Monday's council meeting to make it happen.
"I've been advocating for the implementation of paid parking for municipal staff and city council for several years, and I'm pleased to help bring forward a motion at Monday's meeting to make it a reality," the mayor says in a social media post.
"As the only public-sector institution in the downtown core (and one of the only citywide) that pays for its employees’ parking, it’s a matter of fairness to join our comparators in recovering our costs for these lots," Shoemaker says.
But Brent Lamming, the city's deputy chief administrative officer for community development and enterprise services, is warning the issue is complicated.
"Union groups withing the city have already submitted written opposition to the introduction of paid parking for their members," Lamming says in a report prepared for Monday's council meeting.
"Instituting and deducting a parking fee changes an employee’s take-home compensation level in the collective agreement, without negotiation. Should council wish to implement a parking fee, this should be done through the bargaining of a new collective agreement," Lamming says.
"The risk of grievances and arbitration could result if a parking fee is implemented outside of bargaining and the resultant cost of arbitration proceedings.
"If union employees are protected under their current collective agreements from paying parking fees and non-union are not, this creates an internal equity concern in an environment where full-time non-union staff have typically been granted similar benefits.
"Charging some members of the same union and not others is problematic. For example, CUPE 67 members work across the various sites beyond the civic centre such as the transit office, public works, cemeteries and GFL Memorial Gardens.
"The city has a salary review underway. There has been difficulty in several areas attracting and retaining staff. The introduction of parking fee may hamper efforts and will further affect staff’s financial considerations. It may impact the pool of qualified individuals submitting interest moving forward when looking to recruit the best talent."
Lamming also points out that enforcing a paid-parking policy could be problematic.
"If the city imposed a method that involved enforcement there may be a prosecutorial impact. A city prosecutor cannot prosecute a city employee as it would be considered a conflict. If vehicles are ticketed and the ticket is challenged the city may incur legal costs retaining outside counsel," he says.
The city has 1,167 full- and part-time employees. Until now, they’ve never been charged to park at the civic centre or other municipal workplaces.
Visitors to city workplaces and city councillors have similarly enjoyed free parking at these locations.
City staff will recommend on Monday that parking fees not be charged to part-time workers, student employees and members of the public visiting city buildings.
If 80 percent of the city's 613 full-time staff buy $467-a-year parking passes, the city will get $228,830 in new revenue.
But it's not quite that simple.
For starters, the cost of enforcing paid parking Monday to Friday from 8:30 a.m to 4:30 p.m. in the north and south lots near the civic centre and the Bay Street Active Living Centre is estimated at $51,355 a year.
"There is a potential for the net benefit to be reduced should a parking fee be challenged by union members, and it proceeded to arbitration," Lamming warns.
"A resultant increase in wages would negate the cost savings of implementing parking fees. If union employees are protected under their current collective agreements from paying parking fees and non-union are not, this creates an internal equity concern in an environment where full-time non-union staff have typically been granted similar benefits."
The Canadian Union of Public Employees has sent this notice today to Mayor Shoemaker and city councillors:
Dear Mr. Mayor and Council
Please accept this joint letter on behalf of the sole bargaining agents of CUPE Local 67 & Local 3.
We are providing formal notice of our opposition to the introduction of paid parking for our members. Not only are we concerned with the financial impacts to our members; we question the lack of communication regarding these intentions.
As you are aware, this spring the union(s) and employer entered negotiations for renewed collective agreements.
That process includes the necessity for both sides to bring forward estopples that would alter practices and/or precedents that currently exist.
The current practice and precedents are that our members do not and have never had to pay to park at work.
The employer did not bring any information nor discussions regarding the issue of paid parking forward to the union at that time.
This is an obvious monetary item that affects bargaining, and our position remains that any financial implications to our members be brought forth at the time of bargaining.
Attempting to negatively impact our members financially after agreements are signed demonstrates a lack of good faith and negatively impacts bargaining relationships.
Our members have provided us with clear support to address this issue as most Saultites, including city employees are attempting to navigate these challenging financial times.
The additional unplanned cost not only affects the negotiated increments it directly impacts their ability to provide for themselves and their families.
If the employer chooses to proceed with this paid parking plan without proper discussion or notice during open bargaining, the union is prepared to utilize all legal means to defend our members and protect their rights.
Sincerely,
Janelle Martin - President CUPE Local 67
Marco Niro - President CUPE Local 3