Determining final average salary for retirement purposes - lump sum payments

Wallon v NYS Teachers' Retirement System, 294 AD2d 644

An employee's final average salary [FAS] is a critical element in determining the individual's retirement allowance. In the Wallon case the issue before the court concerned whether or not certain "lump sum payments" should have been included in determining the retiree's FAS.

When Thomas Wallon retired from his position as an elementary school principal with the Avon School District, the School District included its lump sum payments of $21,500 to Wallon's tax-sheltered annuity and $14,793.43 in lieu of health insurance in reporting his compensation to the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS]. Both lump sum payments were made in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the District and Wallon's collective bargaining unit representative.

Initially TRS included these lump sum payments in determining Wallon's FAS for the purpose of calculating his retirement allowance. Later TRS decided that neither lump sum payment constituted "compensation" for the purpose of determining his FAS within the meaning of Education Law Section 501(11).

TRS also determined that the inclusion of these amounts in calculating Wallon's retirement allowance resulted in a $9,031.63 overpayment of retirement benefits. This, said TRS, required it to deduct $1,000 from Wallon's monthly benefits until this overpayment was recouped.

Wallon sued, seeking a court order annulling TRS's determinations. Supreme Court ruled that while the lump sum payment for Wallon's tax deferred annuity may not be included in determining his FAS, Avon's "payments in lieu of health insurance was properly included in determining [Wallon's] FAS."

Wallon and TRS both appealed this ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that it had previously ruled that "payments made near the end of an applicant's career of benefits which he [or she] accumulated throughout the course of his [or her] working life will not be included in the ultimate determination of his [or her] retirement income," citing Martone v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 105 AD2d 511.

According to the decision, the record did not demonstrate that "the payments to [Wallon's] annuity were for services performed during the time period covered by the … collective bargaining agreement."

Turning to the question of including the amount of the lump sum payment in lieu of health insurance in determining Wallon's FAS, the court noted that although TRS had included such payments in the FAS of another Avon retiree, Richard Letvin, it disallowed similar payments in Wallon's case. It appears that TRS's decision was based on its finding that Letvin, in retirement, was covered by his spouse's health insurance while Wallon used his lump sum payment to purchase health insurance.

The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court's conclusion that Wallon and Letvin "were similarly situated and had to be similarly treated by [TRS] to avoid being arbitrary and capricious."

Finally, the court sustained the recoupment any overpayments made by TRS to Wallon, commenting that TRS did not abuse its discretion by demanding such repayment over a nine-month period since Wallon was on notice for at least 13 months that substantial portions of his FAS were being disputed and that he might be required to repay any overpayments.

The Appellate Division observed that once Wallon had initiated his lawsuit, TRS suspended the monthly deduction pending resolution of the litigation, thus giving Wallon an additional 15-month grace period before resumption of the now reduced deductions. Accordingly, the court ruled that TRS's recoupment schedule of repayment over a nine-month period was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Determining final average salary for retirement purposes - lump sum payments

Determining final average salary for retirement purposes - lump sum payments
Wallon v NYS Teachers' Retirement System, 294 AD2d 644

An employee's final average salary [FAS] is a critical element in determining the individual's retirement allowance. In the Wallon case the issue before the court concerned whether or not certain "lump sum payments" should have been included in determining the retiree's FAS.

When Thomas Wallon retired from his position as an elementary school principal with the Avon School District, the School District included its lump sum payments of $21,500 to Wallon's tax-sheltered annuity and $14,793.43 in lieu of health insurance in reporting his compensation to the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS]. Both lump sum payments were made in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the District and Wallon's collective bargaining unit representative.

Initially TRS included these lump sum payments in determining Wallon's FAS for the purpose of calculating his retirement allowance. Later TRS decided that neither lump sum payment constituted "compensation" for the purpose of determining his FAS within the meaning of Education Law Section 501(11).

TRS also determined that the inclusion of these amounts in calculating Wallon's retirement allowance resulted in a $9,031.63 overpayment of retirement benefits. This, said TRS, required it to deduct $1,000 from Wallon's monthly benefits until this overpayment was recouped.

Wallon sued, seeking a court order annulling TRS's determinations. Supreme Court ruled that while the lump sum payment for Wallon's tax deferred annuity may not be included in determining his FAS, Avon's "payments in lieu of health insurance was properly included in determining [Wallon's] FAS."

Wallon and TRS both appealed this ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that it had previously ruled that "payments made near the end of an applicant's career of benefits which he [or she] accumulated throughout the course of his [or her] working life will not be included in the ultimate determination of his [or her] retirement income," citing Martone v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 105 AD2d 511.

According to the decision, the record did not demonstrate that "the payments to [Wallon's] annuity were for services performed during the time period covered by the … collective bargaining agreement."

Turning to the question of including the amount of the lump sum payment in lieu of health insurance in determining Wallon's FAS, the court noted that although TRS had included such payments in the FAS of another Avon retiree, Richard Letvin, it disallowed similar payments in Wallon's case. It appears that TRS's decision was based on its finding that Letvin, in retirement, was covered by his spouse's health insurance while Wallon used his lump sum payment to purchase health insurance.

The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court's conclusion that Wallon and Letvin "were similarly situated and had to be similarly treated by [TRS] to avoid being arbitrary and capricious."

Finally, the court sustained the recoupment any overpayments made by TRS to Wallon, commenting that TRS did not abuse its discretion by demanding such repayment over a nine-month period since Wallon was on notice for at least 13 months that substantial portions of his FAS were being disputed and that he might be required to repay any overpayments.

The Appellate Division observed that once Wallon had initiated his lawsuit, TRS suspended the monthly deduction pending resolution of the litigation, thus giving Wallon an additional 15-month grace period before resumption of the now reduced deductions. Accordingly, the court ruled that TRS's recoupment schedule of repayment over a nine-month period was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Town may reduce health insurance

Informal Opinions of the State Comptroller, Op St Comp 80-105

The State Comptroller has issued an opinion indicating that a town may terminate the health insurance coverage of a retired town employee when the retiree becomes qualified for Medicare coverage benefits.

It appears that the view of the Comptroller is limited to local governments which are not participating in the State’s Employees’ Health Insurance Programs. §167-a of the Civil Service Law deals with this issue.

Town may reduce health insurance

Informal Opinions of the State Comptroller, Op St Comp 80-105

The State Comptroller has issued an opinion indicating that a town may terminate the health insurance coverage of a retired town employee when the retiree becomes qualified for Medicare coverage benefits.

It appears that the view of the Comptroller is limited to local governments, which are not participating in the State’s Employees’ Health Insurance Programs. §167-a of the Civil Service Law deals with this issue.

No interest arbitration for non-mandatory negotiating demands

The Union (PBA) demanded hospitalization benefits which the City said would apply to retired employees. 

The PBA reformulated the demand, claiming that the benefit improvement would apply only to present employees and that it merely requested that the present health insurance benefits be continued for retired employees. 

The City filed a charge with PERB claiming PBA had applied for arbitration on non-mandatory items of negotiations. When the hearing officer ruled in favor of the City, finding the "revised demand constituted a unitary demand which is nonnegotiable," PBA appealed, arguing that the Lynbrook decision* held that hospitalization benefits for families of current employees who die after retirement are mandatory subjects of negotiations. 

PERB rejected the argument, distinguishing between negotiations on behalf of present employees with respect to benefits available to them following retirement and negotiating on behalf of retired employees.** 

PBA had the right to negotiate only for current unit members and retired persons are not "current unit members". However PERB said "we believe the City should reasonably have understood that PBA was willing to negotiate the paragraphs of the demand separately". 

PBA was then ordered to withdraw from interest arbitration with respect to its demand for hospitalization.

* See 48 NY2d 398.

** Oneida PBA v City of Oneida, PERB Case U-5805

[No interest arbitration for non-mandatory demand]

 

Selected Fact Finders salary recommendations for impasse resolution during 1997

In efforts to resolve negotiations impasses in collective bargaining involving compensation, fact finders proposed a variety of formulas, some fairly complex, to be used in determining salary increases. Some of those recommended are summarized below.

 

Cattaraugus-Allegany-Erie-Wyoming BOCES and BOCES Educational Support Personnel Association. Three-year contract providing for salary increases of 3.75% in the first year; 3.72% in the second year and 3.19% in the third year. The union had asked for a 15% increase for the three year period; BOCES had proposed an increase of 9.4% for the same period. Factfinder: John G. Watson.

 

Hadley-Luzerne Central School District and Hadley-Luzerne Teachers Association. Four annual increases of 2% each year. The Union had asked for a 5% increase each year. Also suggested were a number of changes involving employer contributions for health insurance for both active employees and school district retirees. Factfinder: Ben Falcigno

 

Massapequa Union Free School Districtand Massapequa Federation of Teachers. A 2.5% increase in the salary schedule each year based on adoption of a five-year contract but if employee contributions for health insurance are agreed upon by the parties, the salary schedule should be increased by 2.85% each year of the agreement. The teachers had proposed a 4% increase coupled to a four year contract; the District had proposed 1.8% each year over a three-year contract period. Factfinder: Robert Douglas

 

Pine Valley Central School District and Pine Valley Teachers' Association. A three-year agreement providing for a 1.81% salary increase, plus increments valued at 2.5% the first year, followed by salary increases of 4.2% and 4.01% in the second and third years of the agreement. The Association has sought a 6% increase. The District had offered a number of "off-schedule increases" plus increments, with a 4% cost of living cap, including increments, in the final year of the agreement. Also recommended: the deletion of a "sunset provision" that had halted automatic increment payments from the new agreement. Factfinder: John Watson

 

Port Jefferson Union Free School Districtand Port Jefferson Teachers Association. A four-year agreement, with no increase in the salary schedule in the first 18 months. Annual increment, with no increase in the salary schedule the first year. Effective February 1997, a 2.5% increase in the salary schedule plus increments to be followed by 2.75% increases and increments in the next two years of the agreement. The District had offered an average increase of 3.98% over a four-year contract period; the teachers had asked for a 4.25% average increase in salary over a three year period. Factfinder: Theodore Lang.

 

Corning-Painted Post Area School District and Corning Teachers Association. A four-year agreement providing increments only and $1,000 on the top step of the salary schedule in the first year, followed by 4%, 5% and 3.75% increases, including increments, in the three succeeding years. The teachers had sought a three year agreement providing an average salary increase of 4.25% while the District looked towards a four-year contract providing for a 3.98% average increase over the four years. Factfinder: Mona Miller.