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
[No interest arbitration for non-mandatory demand]