A Good Synopsis of Harris v. Quinn and How It May (Or Not) Change the Landscape for Labor Relations in the Public Sector

Complex case; arguably limited questions of law right?  But maybe not.  This article is a fairly good synopsis of what is going on and where this may or may not be headed. Worth a read.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/argument-recap-public-employee-unionism-under-fire/

Rural Patrol Versus City Patrol - Wages and Comparability

When confronted with the issue of whether the nature and hazards of the job of being a law enforcement officer come into play in an interest arbitration, it is not uncommon for management to argue that rural patrol is less dangerous (through the use of crime statistics, among other things) than patrolling the streets of a City or larger municipalites.

Well, have you ever been to Massena, NY?  Do you know where it is? Located far up in the North Country of New York, Massena is a Town located in St. Lawrence County literally bordering Canada.  Many would argue that patrolling such a rural town is not dangerous.  I beg to differ.

What is the average response time in such a County?  Who do the County deputies call for back up when needed?  What about the Town PD? While the NYS Troopers serve as first-responders and as back-up to both, it can often take anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes before a Trooper arrives on the scene based upon where the Trooper is patrolling at the time. Does that make a difference?  It certainly can.  Consider this hypothetical - a deputy gets a call that there is a domestic dispute on a farm.  The deputy responds to find an intoxicated male wielding a 12-gauge shotgun - a firearm that the farmer is likely quite proficient with - even through glassy eyes. As the deputy hides behind the engine block (as if there is any good place to find cover in such a situation) and calls in for back-up, the farmer is permitted to carry on unless the deputy is willing to take that potentially fatal chance all on his lonesome, i.e., one of the problems with one-man cars, until back up arrives. Could be a long time - could be too long.

Consider the recent arrest of several individuals in Massena who were running a massive drug ring out of this good ole township.

No different than a large bust downstate.  There is not much of a distinction except that local municipalities are not provided with the funds or the manpower to handle such situations.  Not to mention, these counties are dealing with substantial issues of homeland security and border security - not an easy task.  Do they deserve wages that are comparable to some of New York's smaller cities?   Some Arbitrators may see "rural patrol" as less dangerous - but as this recent happening shows - there are times when it is just as dangerous if not more dangerous. 

My hat goes off to the officers who busted these dealers as well the the NYS Troopers, the BCI and the tribal police who participated substantially in the investigation.  Well-done.  

Conference/Seminar Video from the National FOP on Grievances and Arbitrations

He Is Right About One Thing - Interest Arbitration Will Continue; As For the Commentary and Opinions . . . .

New York Renews Binding Arbitration for Three More Years | Goldberg Segalla

A few attorneys from Goldberg & Segalla recently published the above article on their website.  While they are right about a few things in this article in terms of the law; the rest is opinion, frankly.  Not saying we disagree one way or the other, but it is not an objective article for the most part.  It is aimed at clients and potential clients, i.e., management and municipalities.  Having written that, there is validity to the following statement:

This legislation is a reform in name only. While the Board may provide some meaningful recommendations, in most cases, municipalities will be obligated to bargain with their unions prior to implementing them. It is highly unlikely that any union will consent to submit an impasse to the 10-member Board when it can submit the impasse to a three-member panel, where it selects one member and has a say in the selection of the neutral.

Whether employers like it or not - interest arbitration is here to stay . . . at least for the next three years.

New York Public Personnel Law: Interest arbitration held to contravene public policy insofar as a public entity's being bound to nonmandatory subjects of collective bargaining in negotiating a new agreement

New York Public Personnel Law: Interest arbitration held to contravene public policy insofar as a public entity's being bound to nonmandatory subjects of collective bargaining in negotiating a new agreement

Good article on a Feb. 2013 decision regarding mandatory/non-mandatory subjects of bargaining in interest arbitration.

Excellent Commentary on the Now (somewhat) Moot Interest Arbitration Legislation

This article (click this link or the picture above) does a good job, although it certainly is not an objective article, of outlining the fact that interest arbitration actually saves money.  In contrast to the Empire Center's Policy Paper on interest arbitration, this article cites another study listed under "Resources" published by the Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations to backup the argument that tossing interest arbitration will only cost taxpayers MORE money despite public perception.

Recent Decision: Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff's PBA

On August 15, 2013, Arbitrator Jay M. Siegel, Esq., a well-known, prolific and extremely reputable arbitrator*, in his capacity as the mutually agreed upon, impartial, and neutral panelist, issued an Opinion and Award in an interest arbitration between the Saratoga County Deputy Sheriff's PBA (represented by Council 82) and the County of Saratoga/Saratoga County Sheriff (represented by James E. Girvn of Girvin & Ferlazzo).

This is the most recent interest arbitration Opinion and Award listed on PERB's website.

Quick Summary: A two-year award providing for reasonable wage increases with certain exceptions and no changes to health insurance contributions.  A win-win for both management and the union in terms of settling the terms and conditions of the contract for 2010 and 2011 without having to do battle over ever aspect of the contract when the parties are likely to end up back in negotiations again soon.    

The basic stats/outcome of the decision are as follows:

Base Wages: 2010 (1% increase); 2011 (1.5% increase) on base salaries.  Both panelists concurred with the Arbitrator determination.  The above increases were not applied to the base starting salary or to Step 1 of the salary schedule.  Notably, the panel also agreed to award the stated wage increases with retroactive payment to be made within 60 days after the issuance of the award.  Further, the panel rejected the union's proposal to create hazardous duty pay for officers assigned to perform certain types of work, such as Commentary: Given the economic evidence presented and the fact that this award deals with a period of time during which the economy was suffering even more so than today, an increase with retroactivity is a nice win.  The fact that this aspect of the award was unanimous also shows management's willingness to work with the union.  All in all bravo to the union for garnering a raise and for managing to keep the agreement to a two-year deal (as mandated by law unless the parties agree to do otherwise).  At the same time, it should not go unnoticed that management clearly brokered a fair, intelligent and reasonable deal in this matter.  

Health Insurance for Active Employees:  The County strongly argued for a change in the contribution of active employees to health insurance, proposing that employees hired before 1998 (who current do not contribute) begin contributing 5% and that employees hired after 1998 (currently required to contribute 15%) begin contributing 20%.  The Arbitrator appears to have accepted the union's argument that because the Opinion and Award deals with years past that any increase would destroy the financial benefits of any increase in wages.  However, the Arbitrator ultimately noted that bargaining units must come to terms with the fact that: (1) health insurance costs are rising but more critically, that the days of 100% employer paid for health insurance are over.  Yet, the Arbitrator refused to grant the County's proposal citing the issue of retroactivity and the County's dealings with other unions in recent contract negotiations.  Commentary: A good decision and the right decision - plus, both parties know that this issue will be back on the table in the soon to be had next round of contract negotiations.  Also, as noted by the Arbitrator, this is only a two year award.  If the County is looking for concessions of that nature then they should have agreed to an agreement with a longer term (at least that appears to be the implication).   

Remaining Issues:  According to the Opinion and Award, the parties each made numerous other proposals.  However, with the Arbitrator  and the union's panelist concurring and Mr. Girvin dissenting, the Opinion and Award addresses only wages and health insurance purposefully left all other issues aside.  Commentary: This was likely necessary in order for the parties to come to a reasonably close agreement with the Opinion and Award of the Arbitrator.  Critically, this was likely agreed to because the Opinion and Award only covers a 2 year period, i.e., let's get this part of the deal done because we are going to be right back at the table in contract negotiations and perhaps another interest arbitration proceeding - we can deal with those issues later.  This is the age old kick the can down the road play . . . a useful tactic when it garners a wage raise and keeps your active and retiree health insurance intact or at a reasonable rate. 

Final Comments:  A well-brokered and very intelligently litigated arbitration by two parties who know the process and understand that this is simply the precursor to the next interest arbitration should the parties reach impasse yet again. 

 *To date, in 2013 alone, Arbitrator Siegel issued 5 interest arbitration awards.