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.