In the matter of the fact-finding between the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, employer, and the United Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU), union. PERB case no. M2014-056. Before: Thomas J. Linden, fact finder

Linden, Thomas J

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
8-19-2015 
Northport-East Northport Union Free School District and United 
Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU) 
Thomas J. Linden 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact 
Thank you for downloading an article from DigitalCommons@ILR. 
Support this valuable resource today! 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board 
(PERB) at DigitalCommons@ILR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB by an 
authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@ILR. For more information, please contact catherwood-
dig@cornell.edu. 
If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an 
alternate format, contact web-accessibility@cornell.edu for assistance. 
Northport-East Northport Union Free School District and United Public Service 
Employees Union (UPSEU) 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, 
employer, and the United Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU), union. PERB case no. M2014-056. 
Before: Thomas J. Linden, fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/116 
 1 
STATE OF NEW YORK 
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
 
 
 
___________________________________________ 
 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF FACT FINDING BETWEEN 
 
NORTHPORT-EAST NORTHPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL 
DISTRICT 
 
 -And     PERB Case No M2014-056 
 
 
UNITED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES UNION 
 
 
_____________________________________________ 
 
 
 
REPRESENTATIVES 
 
A. For the Employer 
 
 Christopher Venator, Esq.  Ingerman Smith L.L.P. 
 Rosemarie Coletti, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources 
 Lou Curra, Interim Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources 
 
B. For the Union 
 
 Kevin Boyle, President, United Public Service Employees Union 
 Amanda Barker 
 Wanda Sarro 
 Maureen Callaghen 
 Susan Shelton 
 Christl Olsen 
 2 
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
 
 
 Fact finding is, by its nature, an extension of the collective bargaining 
process and comes about only after the parties, for whatever reason, have 
been unsuccessful in the negotiation and mediation process. It is part of the 
statutorily mandated process of alternate dispute resolution found in the 
Taylor Law.  The sole reason for the existence of any of these extensions of 
the process is to bring the parties to an agreement. Often, in the short term, 
the parties to the process lose sight of the long term perspective, the big 
picture. It is the fact finder’s responsibility to help the parties overcome this 
shortsightedness and to help the parties pay a visit to the other side’s 
perspective, even if they don’t fully agree with it. It is obvious that the 
parties to this agreement had ambitious goals; it is now time to take stock of 
what can reasonably be attained in bargaining. 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
  The Northport-East Northport Union Free School District 
(hereinafter, “District”) and the United Public Service Employees Union 
(hereinafter “Union”) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement 
 3 
(hereinafter, the “CBA” or “Agreement”) covering the period July 1, 2011 to 
June 30, 2013, which, notwithstanding its expiration, remains in full force 
and effect pursuant to Section 209-a(1)(e) of the Taylor Law. In an effort to 
negotiate a successor agreement, the parties participated in five bargaining 
sessions, the last of which was held on April 29, 2014. After these 
negotiations failed to generate a new agreement, the Union filed a 
Declaration of Impasse with the Public Employment Relations Board 
(hereinafter, “PERB”) on May 12, 2014. Shortly thereafter, PERB appointed 
Ms. Carol Hoffman as mediator who subsequently conducted four mediation 
sessions. Despite these efforts, no agreement was reached by letter of March 
13, 2015 the Union requested the case move to fact finding, and on April 9, 
2015 the undersigned was appointed.  During email exchanges between the 
fact finder and the parties, it was decided that one mediation session would 
be held by the fact finder prior to briefs being filed. This meeting was held 
on July 2, 2015. The issues were narrowed at this meeting, but no agreement 
was reached on the two main sticking points. At this point the fact finder 
requested briefs be filed by Monday, August 3, 2015, and at that point, the 
record was closed. 
 
 
 4 
THE ISSUES 
 
 Health Insurance Contribution Rate 
 Salary 
 
 
Health Insurance Contribution Rate: Initial Fact Finder Discussion 
 During our mediation session of July 2, 2015, it became clear to the 
fact finder that increasing the health insurance contribution rate was key to 
the settlement of these negotiations. The District, in its brief, states that this 
“remains a significant issue that needs to be addressed if the parties are 
going to eventually reach an agreement.” The District is correct in 
referencing concerns about what might be construed as a late addition to 
what was on the bargaining table for discussion. However, the fact finder is 
convinced that the relative positions on this item, on both sides, needs to 
shift. In an effort to reach an agreement, I am not drawing a line in the sand 
concerning this item, but am instead recommending that the parties agree to 
extend the CBA to June 30, 2018, one year longer than has been discussed. 
This will have the additional effect of putting the expiration date of this 
CBA in line with the expiration date of the recently negotiated teacher 
 5 
agreement. With that being said, it is now possible to make a 
recommendation on health insurance contribution rate. 
 
District Position on Health Insurance Contribution Rate 
 Members of the bargaining unit currently contribute 16% toward the 
cost of health insurance. The percentage rate of contribution is the same for 
individual and family coverage. Declination payments and retiree rates were 
never brought up before the fact finder. The District’s initial proposal in 
bargaining was to increase employee contribution rates from 16% to 18% 
(District Exhibit “I”).  
 The District notes in its brief that health insurance premiums over the 
past twelve years have risen an average of 7% per year. The District posits 
that there is no relief in sight for this ever increasing financial burden.  
 
Union Position on Health Insurance Contribution Rate 
 The Union believes that “the district is prohibited from raising a 
health coverage increase, as same was not included in the open issues for 
fact finding.” 
 
 
 6 
 
Fact Finder Further Discussion and Recommendation on Health Insurance 
Contribution Rate. 
 
 The vexing conclusion we must reach, if we examine health care costs 
going back many years, is that they have never trended downward. In fact, 
health care costs and premium costs have increased dramatically in the 
recent past. These increases have far exceeded previous projections and 
actuarial assumptions, and employee contribution rates have also been 
trending upward. Contribution rates have increased across all public sector 
bargaining units (including police units previously immune to such 
increases), and financial pressure on employers has resulted in a substantial 
cost shifting to employees who are now participating more and more in the 
form of incremental percentage increases. 
 It is with these background reality checks in mind that the fact finder 
recommends that on July 1, 2017 the employee contribution rate increase 
to 17%. This increase will place this unit’s contribution rate closer to the 
teacher rate of 21% and ahead of the other bargaining units (albeit 
temporarily). 
 
 
 
 7 
District Position on Salary 
 In a labor intensive climate such as a school district, it is easy to 
understand that during bargaining, economic issues are the key demarcation 
points between the parties. The District points to many things which it 
believes prevent it from acceding to the proposals as presented by the Union. 
The main sticking point is, of course, the state property  tax cap which for 
them is calculated for 2015/16 at 1.8%. Based on the current rate of 
inflation, the District argues that the projected tax cap for 2016/17 will also 
be less than 2%. That potential has a significant impact on the District’s 
ability to provide employees with contractual increases that exceed the tax 
cap.   
 In addition, the District notes that state aid reductions, coupled with 
health insurance premium rate increases and the deceleration of restricted 
reserve amounts, does not lend itself to anything but a modest pay increase 
for the next few years. 
 The District’s initial position on salary was simply that any salary 
increase be “within the tax cap.” Over the course of negotiations and into 
mediation, the District was more specific and indicated they would agree to 
slightly more than a 2% increase each year. This gradually morphed into  
amounts approaching 2.75 % per year. This offer was contingent on the 
 8 
Union’s willingness  to increase its health insurance contribution rate by 1%. 
This was the tipping point. The District argued very strongly that it was not 
in a position to agree to any salary percentage increases unless the Union 
agreed to an increase in health insurance contribution.  
 
Union Position on Salary 
 The Union believes that the central dispute in the negotiations from 
the onset has been the lack of a salary schedule. The Union’s position at the 
conclusion of our mediation session was very close to a 2.75% per year 
salary increase. At that point, however, the union was not willing to increase 
the health insurance contribution rate by 1%. This was the main point of 
contention that prompted the parties to leave mediation after our session and 
continue into fact finding. 
An examination of the CBA reveals that there is, in fact something 
called a salary schedule therein, it only provides levels and percentage 
increases as opposed to increments. In addition, the Union argues that there 
is a disparity between this unit and other units in surrounding districts, and 
that in comparisons with the wages of these other units as reported by 
Eastern and Western Suffolk BOCES reports, this unit falls far behind. As to 
 9 
the unit’s salaries when compared to their clerical counterparts, the unit 
salaries are also far behind. 
 The Union also points to dramatic reductions in staff resulting in 
significant payroll deductions. The Union notes also that in the next three 
years a projected 6-8 unit members will be retiring and that replacements 
will be hired at significantly lower levels of salary.  
 The Union posits very strongly that due to these factors its position on 
salary should be accepted in its entirety by the fact finder. 
 
Fact Finder Discussion of Salary and Recommendation 
It is the fact finder’s hope that the recommendations in this section of 
the report will be an important factor in bringing the parties to an agreement. 
After having read all the considerable data presented, both in the briefs, 
exhibits, recollection and notes taken at the mediation session, the fact finder 
comes to the conclusion that a recommendation can be made that recognizes 
economic realities. Not surprisingly, the parties, using relatively similar 
sources of data, have come to very different conclusion concerning a proper 
salary package. 
 The fact finder believes that the totality of circumstances supports a 
modest pay increase in each year of the new agreement. The first two years 
 10 
have passed and salary increases will be retroactive to July 1, 2015. 
Because there is no salary schedule, and consequently no increments, the 
following is the recommendation on salary:  
 2013-2014  2.65 % 
 2014-2015  2.65 % 
 2015-2016  2.85 % 
 2016-2017  2.85 % 
 2017-2018  2.85 % 
This recommendation is close to the amounts discussed at the mediation 
session of July 2. In addition, the question whether or not any portion of the 
above increases is assigned to an increase in levels, is remanded back to the 
parties for further discussion/negotiation. 
 
Concluding Statement 
 The fact finder hopes this report provides a roadmap to settlement. It 
is also hoped that the recommendations set forth herein be adopted in their 
entirety by both parties and that they form the basis for the new CBA. The 
parties may not see these recommendations as a perfect resolution to this 
impasse; however, they do represent a reasonable solution to resolving these 
 11 
negotiations. The parties are encouraged to adopt them as written and to do 
so as soon as possible. 
        
 
 
 
       _________________________ 
August 19, 2015     Thomas J. Linden, Fact Finder  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 


Northport-East Northport Union Free School District and United Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU)

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, employer, and the United Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU), union. PERB case no. M2014-056. Before: Thomas J. Linden, fact finder.m2014_056.pdf: 117 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Linden, Thomas J.

eCommons@Cornell

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&amp;context=perbfact

Northport-East Northport Union Free School District and United Public Service Employees Union (UPSEU)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons@Cornell