Recently, however, the landscape began to shift. RPSU-Police has grown more assertive, particularly after one of its endorsed candidates secured a seat on Riverbend’s five-member City Council the previous year. With all labor agreements up for renewal this year, the police union chose to lead the way.

RPSU-Police reached a deal early on: a total 6% wage increase spread over three years, with no raise in the first year. In exchange, the union asked for protection against being undercut by any later, more generous agreements with other unions. The City agreed to this through a “me-too” clause, which included a provision that no other bargaining unit would receive a pay increase during the current fiscal year.

City negotiators believed that this clause would help curb wage growth expectations and aid in setting the tone for discussions with RGSU. The City aimed to replicate the police deal, proposing 0% in the first year, followed by 3% increases in the second and third years.

But when the RGSU team learned of the “me-too” agreement with the police union, they reacted strongly. They viewed the clause as a constraint on fair bargaining and refused to present any proposals unless the clause was revoked. Talks broke down, and the City declared impasse. Despite multiple mediation sessions, three contentious topics remained unresolved: wage increases, the timing of how family medical leave runs concurrently with paid sick leave, and the staffing structure for a large pipeline construction project.

Believing additional negotiations would not be productive, the City moved forward with a unilateral implementation of employment terms for the upcoming year. This action followed proper notice and delivery of a final written offer to RGSU. The union did not pursue factfinding.

The City maintained that its adjustments to leave policy were mandated by federal and state regulations and thus not open to bargaining. Similarly, it argued that decisions about how construction teams are assembled fall squarely within management’s exclusive rights. Regarding wages, the City noted that the first-year pay freeze was consistent with what the police unit had accepted. However, because unilateral implementation does not establish a multi-year agreement, there were no increases planned for years two and three—unlike what had been proposed in earlier talks.

Shortly thereafter, RGSU filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the state’s labor board, raising several objections:

1. The City should suspend its changes to the medical leave policy until RGSU has the opportunity to negotiate the timing of sick leave usage in relation to family leave;

   
   

2. The City should be compelled to negotiate the composition and deployment of work crews;

   
   

3. The City must meet and confer to determine whether the disputed topics are mandatory subjects of bargaining;

   
   

4. The “me-too” clause should be deemed invalid, and the City should resume salary negotiations unencumbered by that agreement, restoring its previously offered 3% raises in the second and third years.

   
   

The complaint placed Riverbend’s approach to both its bargaining strategy and interpretation of managerial authority under significant scrutiny, marking a pivotal moment in the City’s labor relations posture.

1. Agreeing to the “Me Too” clause?

2. Not meeting to clarify over the issues of crew size and crew makeup?

3. Unilaterally adopting:

• The “Me Too” clause?

• The crew size makeup?

• The FMLA/CFRA regulations on beginning of leave time?