Pleasant Hills collective bargaining agreement on hold
Pleasant Hills officials want additional clarification on a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the borough and the Utility Workers Union of America, which represents full- and part-time office staff, police dispatchers, public works and Pleasant Hills Authority employees.
Councilors unanimously voted to table the proposal following an hour-long executive session on Monday.
“As you can imagine, it's pretty comprehensive and very complex,” Councilman William Trimbath said. “After some discussions tonight we still have some clarification that we need to do.”
Mayor Warren Bourgeois offered similar comments after the meeting.
“This is the first contract because they didn't have a union until roughly a year ago,” the mayor said. “They approved (the union) and then they started negotiating. The result of that negotiation took a long time because it was a new thing for everybody.”
Trimbath declined to discuss terms of the agreement.
“I really can't go over that because it's still in negotiations,” he said.
Council unanimously approved a development agreement with Bakery Barn. The business at 111 Terence Drive is expanding. Further details were not available at presstime.
Council approved a development agreement for JDM Structures LTD, which is proposing a business along Clairton Boulevard that would sell sheds.
The borough is seeking a full-time public works laborer. More information about the position is available online at www.pleasanthillspa.com.
Michael DiVittorio is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-664-9161, ext. 1965, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.