ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

February 05, 2008

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]

 

December 31, 1997

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.


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com