Hits: 0
WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. By John F. Bailey. November 19, 2003: The fact finder who crafted the arbitration award of $2,100 to the White Plains Police Benevolent Assocation four years ago, has rejected Civil Service Employee Association contract proposals presented to the city requesting an across-the-board “step-up” of $2,100 over 4 years plus incremental percentage wage gains for its 413 members.
The C.S.E.A. in a statement has taken issue with Fact Finder David Stein’s report issued two weeks ago. Janice Marra, spokesperson for the C.S.E.A. said, in an interview with WPCNR today:
”CSEA has rejected the report of the fact finder in the matter of the impasse between CSEA and the City of White Plains. The reason that CSEA has rejected the packagfe is because the CSEA has not gotten the same salary package offer as the firefighers union which had received $2,100 on each step by the city council after its contract settlement nor did it get the payment salary package as the PBA which received $2,100 in arbitration. The csea is seeking the same treatment from the White Plains CityCouncil as well as the same value as the $2,100 including our salary package. At this time the CSEA is preparing to contact the city to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible.”
Fact-Finder Stein, in his report, notes, “During the course of a prior PBA round of negotiations covering 1997 to 1999, a compulsory interest aribitration panel which I chaired directed that the City increase each step on the base alary schedule by an additional $2,100 effective July 1, 1999. The reason for this extraordinary adjustment was that the White Plains Police were near or at the bottom of compensation at every level when compared to their similarly situated colleagues in other jurisdictions withint Westchester County which created a clear and present danger of a massive badge drain to these jurisdictions. Notably the parties were unamimous in awarding the $2,100 adjustment. The PBA was ordered to make some concessions in recognition of the substantial improvement it had achieved for police.”
$2100 Comes Back to Haunt Council
The Fact-Finder describes the Firefighters’ $2100 as being awarded voluntarily by the City Council and the Mayor,”unaccompanied by any public findings which justified it,” “as part of their 2000-02 contract settlement through legislative action.”
WPCNR reporting in September, 2002, noted that this FireFighters’ increase was being tied to a dropping of a Council proposal to study the splitting apart into two separate departments, the Police and Fire operations. The Common Council at the time noted that this was a raise in appreciation of the firefighters in light of the World Trade Center attack, and the fact that many volunteered for rescue operations and coverage around New York City.
The CSEA union, whose contract expired June 30 of 2002, seeks a similar $2100 “step up” on all steps incrementally added at the rate of $525, each year for four years, instead of in a lump sum, as the police and firefighters received. In addition, the Union desires a 3.75% raise for retroactive to 2002, an additional 2% retroactive to 7/1/03, 2% again beginning 7/01/04, and 4% as of 7/1/05.
They are also seeking the following Longevity Schedule: $725 after 9 years; $925 after 11 years; $1,125 after 19 years; and $1,325 after 24 years. The union in addition seeks the city to pay the same premium increase for dental insurance as charge by the plan, added to the prior year’s contribution.
Exactly What Is Pattern Bargaining Anyway?
The Fact-Finder states that the C.S.E.A. “maintains that it has never participated in pattern bargaining. Rather, it characterizes the style of negotiations it has favored as package bargaining. In its view, package bargaining reflects what the union believes is the most appropriate package for the needs of the members of the bargaining units of the Employers’ employees which it represents.”
Stein characterizes the union position as being, “there is nothing in the Taylor Law which mandates that it accept a deal which other unions have negotiated for bargaining units of employees which they represent, and which are not represented by the union…The Union submits, it would be an improper practice for the Employers and it to bargain based on agreements which other unions have negotiated with them, as it would place an unfair burden on the ability of those unions to bargain for the employees in the other bargaining units.”
In Stein’s words, “The Union stresses, the Employers are misusing the term pattern bargaining. Both the PBA and the Firefighters have received an additional $2,100.00 increase above the pattern cited by the Employers (the city), the Union alleges. Thus, if there is a pattern or “pattern bargaining” as the City maintains, the Union reasons that the pattern is far greater than cited by the City. In fact, the Union points out, were the City to include the additional $2,100 in its offer to it (the CSEA employees), the Union would accept the offer of the patter for the round of negotiations covered by this Report.”
The union, according to the report, claims its White Plains members “are not paid as well as employees in comparagble titles throughout the County,” especially the City School District who serve in “comparable titles.” The union, Stein writes, notes the city has not claimed it does not have the money to pay for the increases the union seeks, and cites rising costs in the dental program as having “run amok.” The union also rejects the city’s asking for productivity concessions, since the FireFighters were required to make productivity concessions in return for their $2,100 increase.
City Cites History; Uniformed Services Compulsory Arbitration.
The city, reports the fact-finder, says the city and the C.S.E.A. have pattern bargained for thirty years, describing it as an “internal pattern” which by tradition, “has bound all of the unions which negotiate with the city.”
The city disputes that the $2,100 increases to the police and the firefighters are part of the pattern, as the fact-finder writes, “The question is not whether there is pattern bargaining, but in identifying the relevant pattern..”
The city also, the fact-finder writes, contends that “it is the civilian pattern, rather the public safety (uniformed) pattern which governs negotiations with the (C.S.E.A.) union. First, public safety employees have a special provision of law in New York State which allows them to settle their contact disputes through compulsory arbitration. In such proceedings, the Employers contend, comparability in terms of compensation paid to similar employees in similar jurisdictions is statutorily significant.”
No Proof of Disparities?
According to the report, the city contends the Union has not provided proof of widespread differences in salaries and benefits of C.S.E.A. White Plains employees as compared to similar positions around Westchester County.
The city, according to the report, chides the Union for requesting “catch up due to disparities between the compensation earned by employees in comparable titles who are presented by Local 456, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The city blames the difference to C.S.E.A.’s negotiating for longevity “steps” and their dental plan, which the city characterizes as too generous, and provides more benefits than other unions’, according to the report. The City feels, the report notes, it would be unfair to fund premium increases in the C.S.E.A. dental program simply to maintain because it would exceed the pattern bargained package.
Fact Finder Writes Delicately on the $2,100 Issue, But Rejects Union Claims
Stein appears to concede the union has a point, writing, “where there have been inequalities in settlements in the past, the parties have provided for make-up increases in the next round. Since it was the City’s voluntary addition of the $2,100 to the firefighters’ schedule without an indication of a recruitment or retention problem which created confusion about the relevant (bargaining) pattern, it would have been appropriate in this round to provide the employees represented by the Union with a “catch-up” adjustment were the $2,100 adjustment to the firefighters’ schedule relevant to the employees represented by the Union.”
Stein says Teamsters’ Contract Involving Civilians, not Uniformed Personnel Is the Pacesetter.
Stein writes: “The employees in the unit represented by Local 456 is comprised of civilian, rather than uniformed employees and both units have employees filling similar titles performing similar jobs. The fact that the Teamsters contract commenced in 2001 rather than 2002 does not render it less relevant to the instant dispute. The most recent police and firefighter packages followed the pattern set by the Teamsters.
A paragraph later, he adds, “a settlement covering civilians has more bearing on other civilians than does a uniformed settlement.”
He also noted, by way of dismissing comparisons with the White Plains City School District CSEA employees, that the School District employees “have no finality to negotiations,” while employees who are represented by the Union or Local 456 are subject to the imposition of settlement after a legislative hearing.” He also points out the School District has a different revenue base, has to have expenses approved by vote of the public, and receives significant state aid.
Sowing Seeds of Financial Irregularity.
Stein writes the Teamsters’ settlement set the parameters for pattern agreements for the police and firefighters and that “it would be destructive from a labor relations standpoint to uncouple the pattern relationship of thirty years between the City’s settlements with various unions.”
He wryly reports, “The Union has failed to adduce a scintilla of evidence that any of the factors which prompted the arbitration panel which I chaired to award the police the $2,100 adjustment in addition to the pattern settlement pertained to the Employer’s (city) civilian units,” but also notes, “Although the fire adjustment was unaccompanied by any public findings which justified it, the similarities between and among public safety employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, on the one hand, and the similarities between and among civilian employees represented by the Union or the Teamsters, on the other, creates a rational basis for finding that a civilian pattern is more relevant to employees represented by the Union (C.S.E.A.) (or the Teamsters), than is a pattern which is common to public safety employees, such as police or fire.”
Stein also raised the spectre that if he ruled that the C.S.E.A. were entitled to the $2,100, than it would have to be given to the Teamsters, too.
Rejects City Productivity Suggestions
Stein rejected the city’s productivity proposal that consisted of removal of the right of arbitration after 90 days when being passed over for a merit raise was not protested within 90 days; library summer hours; Parking Authority Pay Scales; and an experimental policy on unused vacation days.
Go with the Package
Stein concludes recommending the wage settlements received by the Teamsters, Police Benevolent Association, and White Plains Professional FireFighters of 3.75%, 3.75% and 4.0% for 2002-03, 03-04, and 04-05.
He recommends a $25 longevity increase effective July 1, 2002, and $25, effective July 1, 2003.
He proposes the city pay capped Dental/Optical plan benefit of an additional $25 per employee for 2002-03; to rise to an additional $50 from the city effective July 1, 03; and to raise to $150 more city payment per employee July 1, 2004.
Job Action?
Asked whether the C.S.E.A. might contemplate a job action as a result of this impasse, Ms. Marra said they would not, because the Taylor Law prohibits the union from such action.
The Civil Service Employees Association represents 413 city employees, according to City Hall spokesman, Rick Ammirato. Ammirato reports 339 work for the city, 21 are employed by the White Plains Housing Authority, and 53 work for the White Plains Parking Authority.
The $2100 increase if provided at each step for all CSEA employes would cost the city roughly $867,300 in straight salary, before any yearly raises sought in addition to the $2100 “upgrade.”
