In the Matter of Fact-finding between Town of Sheridan and IBT Local 264.  PERB Case No. M2007-097.  Before: Donna R. Beal, Mediator/Fact Finder

Beal, Donna R

English

In the Matter of Fact-finding between Town of Sheridan and IBT Local 264.  PERB Case No. M2007-097.  Before: Donna R. Beal, Mediator/Fact Finder.sheridan.pdf: 258 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Beal, Donna R.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

Sheridan, Town of and IBT Local 264 (Town of Sheridan Highway Department)

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
February 2008 
Sheridan, Town of and IBT Local 264 (Town of Sheridan Highway 
Department) 
Donna R. Beal 
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. 
Sheridan, Town of and IBT Local 264 (Town of Sheridan Highway Department) 
Abstract 
In the Matter of Fact-finding between Town of Sheridan and IBT Local 264. PERB Case No. M2007-097. 
Before: Donna R. Beal, Mediator/Fact Finder. 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/20 
State of New York 
Public Employment Relations Board 
______________________________________ 
 
In the Matter of Fact-Finding Between 
 
SHERIDAN, TOWN OF 
  
- and – 
 
IBT LOCAL 264 (TOWN OF SHERIDAN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT) 
 
        
      PERB CASE NO. M2007-097 
_______________________________________ 
 
Before:  Donna R. Beal – Mediator/Fact Finder 
 
REPRESENTATIVES 
 
For the Town 
 
 William Holcomb – Consultant 
 John Walker II – Town Supervisor 
 Richard Feinen – Deputy Town Supervisor 
 
For the Union 
 
 Brad Haag – Teamsters Local 264 
 David C. Rouch 
 
 
       February 12, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
A.  The Parties: 
 
The Town of Sheridan (“Town”) and the Teamsters Local 264(“the Union”) 
are parties to a collective bargaining agreement effective January 1, 2003 
through December 31, 2005, with a one-year extension to December 31, 
2006. The one-year extension followed fact-finding before Samuel Cugalj on 
July 14, 2006.  His recommendations were not accepted on the part of the 
Town and the terms and conditions of the 2003-2005 contract were thus 
extended for 2006.  Union represents 4 individuals holding the title of 
Machine Operators.  
 
B.  Negotiations History/Issues: 
 
The Parties met five times, April 17, May 7, May 23, June 11 and June 15, 
2007. The following four issues remained open at the time the Union 
declared impasse on July 17, 2007: 
   
  I.    Wages (3% increase each year of the contract) 
  II.   Health Insurance 
  III.  Overtime by Seniority 
  IV.   Length of the contract 
 
This Fact Finder was appointed January 16, 2008. 
 
Following discussions with the parties at the first meeting, February 8, 2008, 
attempts were made to mediate.  One issue, Overtime by Seniority,  was 
initialed and set aside.  It was agreed that a second mediation session would 
be conducted and if the parties could not come to an agreement on the one 
main issue, Health Insurance, the parties would then go to formal fact-
finding.  During the second meeting, February 11, 2008,  new issues 
surfaced and the  parties tentatively agreed to several of them.    Not 
reaching agreement on the health insurance issue, the parties agreed to file 
briefs with the Fact Finder no later than February 19, 2008.  It was 
understood that all four (4) of the original issues, as well as the new issues of 
Good Friday,   Additional Sick Leave  and Bereavement would be 
addressed in the report. 
 
 
I. Wages 
 
  
Prior to this formal fact-finding, both Parties agreed that the wage increases  
would be: 
  4% - 2007 
  3% - 2008 
  3% - 2009 
 and should agreement be reached for a four-year contract 
  3% - 2010 
 
In Fact Finder Cugalj’s report dated September 29, 2006, a three percent 
(3%) wage increase was recommended for the years of 2006, 2007 and 2008. 
 
 
 
. 
 
II. Health Insurance 
 
In 2002, the Town received notice that the insurance plan they had been 
carrying for the employees would increase dramatically and the Town 
moved the coverage to the Teamsters’ plan.   A  LETTER OF 
UNDERSTANDING was signed by  John Walker, Supervisor, and Glenn 
Miller, Business Agent, indicating the following:  
 
 “During recent contract negotiations, the parties agreed to  
 A Health Insurance Select Plan for three (3) years at no cost  
 to the employees. 
 
 Effective January 1, 2002, the Town instituted a $6,900.00  
 Annual cap for health insurance costs.  The negotiated Select 
 Plan will enable the Town to fund this benefit at a cost of 
 $20,683 per employee during the term of the contract.” 
 
This signed agreement does not indicate a date on which it was signed. 
 
On or about the same period of time, a resolution was passed by the Town 
Board as follows: 
 
 
 
RESOLUTION #67-12/01 
RESOLUTION REGARDING HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS 
FOR TOWN OF SHERIDAN 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES EMPLOYEES 
 
WHEREAS, the Town of Sheridan provides certain health insurance benefits 
for the Town’s Department of Public Facilities employees, and 
 
      WHEREAS, the cost for such benefits continues to escalate, and 
 
       WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to maintain sound fiscal     
        responsibility to the taxpayers of the Town. 
 
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on motion of Councilman 
 Sheffield and seconded by Councilman Feinen, that 
 
 1.  A “cap” of $6,900 per employee, per policy year, is hereby 
 established on the total cost of insurance premiums to be paid 
 by the Town of Sheridan. 
 2.  If, and when, the cost per employee, per policy year, for insurance 
 benefits exceeds the “cap”, the excess amount will be the 
 responsibility of the insured employee.  Such excess amount is to be 
 paid to the Town, one month in advance, on a monthly basis. 
 3.  The “cap” of $6,900 per employee, per policy year, shall become 
 effective January 1, 2002 and shall remain, unless and until from time 
 to time modified by the Town Board of the town of Sheridan. 
 4.  The “cap” amount as set by the Town Board from time to time  
 shall also apply to retiree benefits as may be provided from time to 
 time by Town Board resolution. 
 
 
 
Again, this resolution does not list a date on which it was acted upon. 
 
The current labor agreement reads: 
 
 “Section 21.1 – Effective March 1, 2003, for the term of this 
 contract the Town will provide all bargaining unit employees 
 of the Town of Sheridan with the New York State Teamsters 
 Council Health and Hospital Fund’s Health Insurance at no 
 Cost to the employees with the following options: 
   Medical – Select Plan 
   Rx Drugs – Option 1  
   Dental – Options 1 
   Disability – Option 1 
   Life and AD&D – Option 1 
   Vision – Scheduled Plan of Benefits 
   Legal – Scheduled Plan of Benefits ” 
 
 
Further, a signed MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER PARTICIPATION 
AGREEMENT lists the monthly rates of : 
   Effective 3/1/2003 - $531.92 
   Effective 1/1/2004 - $572.00 
   Effective 1/1/2005 - $619.67 
 
Item #4. of that same signed agreement reads in part:  
 
 “--------- and the Employer also agrees to continue to make 
 contributions on all these employees for as long as there  
 shall be a Collective Bargaining Agreement or Agreements 
 between the Employer and the Union, subject to any and all 
 rules and regulations or decisions covering this group that are 
 issued by the  Fund.” 
 
Item #9 of this same agreement reads: 
 
 “This Participation Agreement shall become effective as of the 
date of execution hereof and the payments above provided shall be payable 
from and after   3/1/2003   and expire on   12/31/2005  .  This Participation 
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for the same term as the 
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Upon expiration, unless a new 
Participation agreement is signed and submitted to the Fund, the terms and 
conditions of this Participation Agreement shall continue in effect.  In that 
event, the employer shall pay the contribution rate in effect on January 1st of 
each calendar year.  If the employer fails to comply with the above 
requirements, the Fund may terminate the employer’s participation and take 
legal action against the employer for all amounts due the Fund.. 
 
Effective Date of Collective Bargaining Agreement    1/1/2003  . Expiration 
Date of Collective Bargaining Agreement     12/31/2005    .  ” 
 
 
 
 
This Participation Agreement was signed on February 21, 2003 by Glenn 
Miller, Business Representative, and John H. Walker II, Supervisor. 
 
 
 
 
III. OVERTIME BY SENIORITY 
 
This issue was initialed by both parties at the first session via mediation on 
February 8, 2008. 
 
 
 
 
IV. LENGTH OF CONTRACT 
 
This issue is subject to reaching an agreement on all other issues. 
 
 
V.  GOOD FRIDAY 
 
 
During the mediation session on February 11th,  the Town proposed the 
elimination of one holiday, Good Friday.  The Union had agreed to this 
demand. 
 
 
 
 
VI.  ADDITIONAL SICK LEAVE 
 
Also during the mediation session on February 11th,  the Union proposed that 
sick days be increased from the current 75 to 90 days.  The Town had agreed 
to this demand. 
 
VII. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE 
 
Further, on February 11th, the Town proposed the addition of Bereavement 
Leave to the contract.  Language will be drafted and both parties initialed the 
definition of “immediate family.”    
 
 
 
TOWN’S POSITION: 
 
The brief filed for the Town by William L. Holcomb, Consultant, clarifies 
that the present issue before this fact finder, Health Insurance, was the 
same issue addressed by a previous fact finder which led to an imposed 
contract under the NYSPERB and Taylor Law procedures, effective for the 
year 2006.   
 
The Town proposed the continuation of the current health insurance plan 
with employee contribution of 25% of the annual premium above the cap of 
$6,900.  Contract language found in Article 21, Section 21.1 was cited with 
the interpretation that “This sentence was intended to be a true sunset 
clause” and further claims that “The parties agreed that the Town will 
provide health insurance benefits at no cost to the employees only for the 
three years covered by the Contract.  Following the three years, the Town 
would not be required to maintain the benefit at no cost to the employees.”  
 
The Town acknowledges the legal requirements under Triborough Doctrine 
(27 PERB 3001 [1994]) and states that “PERB has also consistently held 
that while negotiated health benefits are part of the total compensation 
package, compensation can be the subject of a sunset clause, pursuant to the 
agreement of the parties.”  
Several PERB cases were cited to support their position that when an 
expired agreement contains a sunset clause, the employer is obligated to only 
maintain existing benefits (not to increase) at the same level provided at the 
time of the expiration of a contract until a new agreement is negotiated. In 
particular, 27 PERB 4540 (1994) was cited and quoted as follows: 
  
 “…pursuant to the parties’ agreement, [a sunset clause] is 
 intended to terminate a substantive benefit specified in the 
 collective bargaining agreement at a specific  
  time or upon specified conditions.  Where such termination   
 proceeds or is simultaneous with the expiration of the 
  agreement itself, the public employer’s refusal to continue  
 to  provide the terminated benefit after the expiration of 
 the agreement does not violate the law.” 
 
 
The position is that “the Town is obligated to maintain health insurance 
benefits at the level provided during the final contract year throughout 
contract negotiations.”  Further, that the Participation Agreement specifically 
lists effective dates from 3/1/2003 to 12/31/2005 and that the Town is 
obligated to provide the health insurance benefit at no cost to the employee 
only for the three year period specified. 
 
 
UNION’S POSITION: 
 
The brief filed by Brad Haag, Business Agent, points out that the Sheridan 
Highway Employees have been working without a contract since 
12/31/2006, without raises and uncertain of their future benefits. 
 
Since 2006, the Town has not paid the increase in insurance premiums to the 
New York State Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund, resulting in large late 
fees amounting to approximately $30,000 as of this date.  The position is 
that the Town is now asking for some “relief” from their penalty fees and 
should they succeed in their request, the Union feels that the money should 
be turned back into past wage increases over and beyond the wage offer of 
three (3%)  percent, depending on what the Town is able to receive. 
 
 
Their brief included copies of three (3) surrounding Towns showing their 
contribution for health insurance for its highway employees as follows: 
 
 Town of Arkwright –Select Plan 
       100% paid for current employees 
                          New employees pay 10% for first 
        Five (5) years after which Town to 
        Pay 100% 
 
 Town of Villenova – Select Plan 
       100% paid for current employees 
       Vision paid for by employees 
     (cost = $2.00 wk. single; $5.40 family) 
 
         Option of repudiating coverage 
         Employees receive $1,000 annually 
 
 Town of Charlotte -     Supreme Plan 
         Effective 1/1/2006 
         Employees pay 5% - 2006, 2007 
         Effective 1/1/2008 
         Employees pay 8% 
 
It is noted that the Supreme Plan is more expensive as it covers more and has 
much lower co-pays. 
 
The Union further points out that the Town of Sheridan’s rates have been 
figured in the “Composite” family plan vs. the “Component” plan, thus 
saving the Town more money.  Other towns have been under the 
“Component” plan where costs are figured separately using single, two 
person and family rates.   
  
 
  
 
  
  
 .   
 
DISCUSSION: 
 
The Town seeks to have its health insurance costs shared by its employees 
and while one cannot disagree with the need for cost containment, the Union 
had made movement on its position during the two mediation sessions.  The 
Town in turn made movement on its position and had made offers to drop 
the “cap” previously created and move to a percentage of costs to be shared 
by the parties.  Unfortunately, the percentages offered by both parties could 
not be agreed to. 
 
In reviewing several other cases and studying trends within the Teamster 
contracts, it is noted that several locals have moved from the Supreme Plan 
to the Select Plan, thus saving the Towns their costs for health insurance.  In 
this case, the Sheridan Local already had the lower plan but had 100% paid 
in the past few years and is quite reluctant to agree to the percentage of 
contribution the Town desires. 
 
It is noted that the Town has not cried inability to pay but wishes to contain 
future costs it will incur by having the employees contribute towards their  
benefit.  
 
In the Town’s brief, it included a comparison of what the previous fact finder 
had recommended compared to the positions of both parties at the time of 
the previous hearing. The fact finder had recommended “A 7% employee 
premium co-pay effective January 1, 2008”.  This is figured to equal 
$761.30 or $14.64 per week per employee.  The Town’s position was a 
contribution of 25% of the cost over the cap of $6,900  which was instituted. 
This equaled $993.96, or $19.11 per week per employee.  The Union’s 
position was a 3% contribution of the total cost which equaled $326.28, or 
$6.27 per week per employee.  
 
RECOMMENDATION: 
 
 
Effective January 1, 2008, employees will contribute 7% of the total cost 
of the premium.  This percentage was discussed during the mediation 
session on February 12, 2008. 
 
Effective January 1, 2009, employees will contribute 10% of the total 
cost of the premium. 
 
During the 2009 year, the parties will study health insurance plans 
which would be of benefit to both parties and be placed in effect for the 
2010 year.  Employee contribution will continue at the rate of 10%.   
 
Should the parties fail to reach agreement on a different plan and the 
current Teamster plan remain in effect, the employee contribution will 
increase to 15% of the total cost of the premium.  
 
With the understanding that the rate of increase for the employees is 
4% for 2007, 3% for 2008, 3% for 2009 and 3% for 2010, this Fact 
Finder feels that the above recommendation is not out of line and that 
the new concept of contributing to one’s health insurance benefits which 
are constantly increasing each year is not too burdensome when one 
considers the full cost of this benefit in comparison to what each 
employee is expected to contribute.  
 
 
  
 
 Final Statement  
 
These recommendations have been made with the intent that all issues have 
been addressed fairly and equitably for both parties.  Settlement is long over-
due and it is hoped that the parties can reach agreement and move forward in 
peace.  
 
       Respectfully submitted,  
  
 
 
 
 
                                                      ________________________________ 
                                                     Donna R. Beal, Fact Finder    


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&amp;context=perbfact

Sheridan, Town of and IBT Local 264 (Town of Sheridan Highway Department)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR