Hits: 0
WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. From the Gallery Coverage By John F. Bailey. June 29, 2010: Judge Stephen C. Robinson after hearing both sides persuaded Mr. Zuckerman, the city attorney (of Lamb & Barnosky), to acknowledge that irreparable harm could conceivably be done to certain retirees by the new city policy due to take effect July 1 of requiring retirees to pay 15% of their medical benefits going forward (even, the judge admonished, if only one retiree was unable to pay and lose their health benefits).
After an hour and 20 minutes of fascinating, lively, and weighty thrust and parry between White Plains Retirees Association lawyer, Albert Pirro, Junior and City of White Plains lawyer, Richard Zuckerman, Judge Stephen C. Robinson of the U.S. District Court, southern Division thanked both barristers for their framing of the arguments.
Albert J. Pirro, Jr., leaving Federal Court in White Plains Tuesday afternoon. He has until Thursday to retort in detail to the city’s two citings of case law the city says justify retiree medical premium payments who have received medical coverage without charge for decades.
The Judge is giving Mr. Pirro until Thursday to submit official rebuttals to two case submissions entered by Mr. Zuckerman earlier this afternoon, and indicated he would issue a decision before July 10 on whether to grant Mr. Pirro’s motion for a preliminary injunction while the case was tried
Mr. Zuckerman contended the city was within their rights to change the amount retirees under previous police contracts based on two state cases, one of which had ruled that if retirees’ rights (to such entitlements previously in effect) were not specifically addressed in a new contract (such as the one negotiated by police in 1996), the town of Sewanaka had the right to reduce retiree benefits.
Mr. Pirro rejected this interpretation because the case involved pensions, not health care benefits, so “it was not applicable under state law.” In the second case cited by the city’s attorney, Mr. Zuckerman argued that a contract was changed by an ordinance, similar to the city ordinance the Common Council changed the health care premium contribution May 24, having the effect of law.
Pirro, speaking apparently extemporaneously countered both cases, pointing out the city position that the police union “could have and should have” negotiated for continuance of previous retiree benefits in the July 1, 1996 contract, was not applicable because the first police contract signed in 1967 contained the language reading “all conditions not specifically confirmed in this contract should be maintained.” Mr. Pirro in presenting his opening arguments cited a number of cases supporting the retirees’ position
Pirro also argued this city argument fails in his opinion because the original police contract in 1967 guaranteed rights contained in a Resolution (which states “public policy”) while an “ordinance” is simply “legislation enacted,” and resolutions (policy) state the intent of the city.
Zuckerman said that the Sewanaka case ruled that retirees not represented by the union were not automatically continued to enjoy benefits enjoyed by the union, unless specifically mentioned and covered by the contract.
Mr. Pirro countered this by pointing out that since retirees were not represented by the union any more meant that because of the contract they were hired under, that the benefits they were hired under and worked under should be continued (using the original police contract language back in 1967).
Zuckerman argued the case really belonged in arbitration because it was a matter of contract intepretation. Mr. Pirro stated to the judge his clients would not consider arbitration because they are no longer part of a union contract, and this was a matter of breach of contract.
Mr. Zuckerman, Mr. Pirro alleged, confused the conditions of one contract with another in making his arguments to the judge justifying the city’s right to cut their share of medical premiums.
Judge Robinson chided Mr. Zuckerman for arguing recent city union contracts were instruments for changing work rules such as certain standard procedures like “breaks,” while not reserved for discussion of continuing medical benefits.
Judge Robinson observed to Mr. Zuckerman that the letter from city Commissioner of Finance, Michael Genito, in which failure to pay the first quarter medical premium “may result” in cancellation of health insurance could cause “irreparable harm” to some retirees.
The Judge gave Mr. Pirro until Thursday to give his arguments, (apparently made off the cuff today) in response to arguments submitted by the city quite late.
Court did not convene until 2:20 P.M. Judge Robinson noted he himself had not thoroughly familiarized himself with the caselaw.
