In the Matter of: PERB Case # M2007-103 Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Association. Before: John Callahan, Fact Finder

Callahan, John

English

In the Matter of: PERB Case # M2007-103 Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Association. Before: John Callahan, Fact Finder.m2007_103.pdf: 325 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Associaton

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
10-20-2008 
Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott 
Maintenance Workers Associaton 
John Callahan 
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. 
Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers 
Associaton 
Abstract 
In the Matter of: PERB Case # M2007-103 Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott 
Maintenance Workers Association. Before: John Callahan, Fact Finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/24 
 In the Matter of: 
PERB Case # M2007-103 
Union-Endicott Central School District 
                and 
Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Association 
 
Fact-Finding 
 
-HISTORY- 
 
     The Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Association (hereafter the “Association“) 
is the duly recognized bargaining agent for a unit consisting of sixty-four civil service 
employees who are employed by the Union-Endicott Central School District (hereafter 
the “District“). 
 
     Though all terms and conditions of employment go forward, as prescribed by law, the 
four year agreement between the parties expired on June 30, 2007. 
 
     The parties conducted five negotiation sessions in an attempt to secure a successor to 
the 2003-2007 collective bargaining agreement. These sessions, conducted on May 7; 
May18; June 10; and July 13, 2007, failed to produce an agreement. 
 
     At the final negotiation session, the  parties issued a  joint declaration of impasse. In 
response, the Public Employment Relations Board (hereafter “PERB”) appointed 
Anthony Zumbolo as mediator. 
 
     Mediator Zumbolo, according to the Association, “quickly and accurately surmised 
the major stumbling block between the parties as the retiree health insurance issue”. 
Mediation sessions were conducted on October 22, 2007 and March 6, 2008. Though 
there was considerable dialogue between the parties, all attempts to resolve the issues 
were for naught. 
 
     On June 18, 2008 the District requested PERB to assign a fact finder.  On or about 
July 14, 2008 the undersigned was appointed and met with the parties on August 13, 
2008.  I witnessed sincere and exhaustive attempts by both parties to reach a compromise 
on the issue of retiree health insurance. Once again those attempts failed to reach closure. 
 
     The District and the Association initially set September 26, 2008 as the deadline for 
submission of briefs.  Later, the District and the Association mutually agreed to extend 
the deadline for submission of briefs to October 3, 2008.  The briefs were received from 
the parties in a timely fashion. What follows are the recommendations and rationale of 
the fact-finder regarding the issues put forth by the parties. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISSUE:   HEALTH INSURANCE 
                . Retirees 
                   . Premium payments 
                   . Major Medical Deductions 
 
     Currently, for bargaining unit members hired prior to July 1, 1997, continued health 
insurance coverage upon retirement is determined by the percentage of unused sick leave 
accumulated on the last day of employment prior to retirement, as well as other 
requirements (see attached Fig. 2). 
 
     The Association has proposed an “enhancement” of this provision, which would 
require the District to eliminate the current practice (based on accumulated sick leave) 
and continue to maintain premium payments toward health insurance at the level in effect 
at the time of the employee’s retirement. 
 
     The Association presented numerous pages illustrating “potential” savings to the 
District for each of the twelve members eligible or soon to be eligible for retirement. 
It is the Association’s position that many members cannot afford health insurance 
coverage in retirement and thus tend to work well beyond retirement age. 
 
     The District is opposed to the idea of “enhancing” the health insurance retirement 
benefit and claims that the reason some Association members cannot afford health 
insurance coverage  in retirement is “because their attendance at the time of retirement 
was poor.” 
 
     The District has nine bargaining units representing full-time employees. Each of those 
bargaining units uses the same formula as the Maintenance Workers Association to 
compute health insurance premium payments for retirees (see Fig. 2 attached). The only 
exception is the teacher and administrator benefit which is somewhat better for those who 
retire with less than 50% accrual. In all other respects they are identical. 
 
     The District has achieved a very high degree of parity under the health insurance 
article of its nine bargaining units.  The Association’s proposal to “enhance” this benefit 
would set them apart as the only unit so “advantaged”.  While the Association claims that 
it would be a ‘boon’ for the District, the District views it as a ‘bust’. 
 
     The District, in its brief, stated: “Anytime a long term Association member  retires 
from the District, the District will save money by replacing that individual with a new 
hire at a lower salary.  The District’s savings, as referred to in labor relations, its 
’breakage’, can only be reduced if the District agrees to pay more for the retiree’s health 
insurance.  The District will not save money, it will actually lose money if it agrees to the 
Association’s proposal” 
     
     As the Association’s proposal to “enhance” employee health insurance benefit in 
retirement  deviates so far from the obvious pattern established district-wide, it is the fact 
finder’s recommendation that the Association’s proposal be rejected. Rejected not 
 
 because it is different but because it is so different.    
 
     Turning to the matter of health insurance premium contributions, the District seeks to 
reduce its current individual policy premium payment from 95% to 90% and its current 
family policy premium payment  from 90% to 87.5%. Again, the District has gained an 
all-encompassing pattern here as well. Each of the remaining eight bargaining units has 
agreed to the identical increase in premium payments spoken to above, the latest three 
effective July 1, 2007.  The Association has indicated its willingness to agree to this but 
only if the District agrees to the Association’s proposal to “enhance” the retiree health 
insurance benefit. 
 
     With the above in mind, it is the recommendation of the fact finder that retroactive to 
July 1, 2007, members of the Association shall contribute 10% toward the individual 
health insurance premium and 12.5% toward the family health insurance premium. 
 
     Finally, to the matter of major medical deductions.  The District has finalized 
negotiations with each of the other eight bargaining units.  In each of those negotiated 
agreements there is a provision which increases major medical deductions from the 
current $75/$225 to $100/$300 effective July 1, 2010. 
 
     It is the recommendation of the fact finder that this pattern be adopted by the parties 
on the effective date. 
 
 
ISSUE:    COMPENSATION 
                 . Base Salary Increases 
                 . Starting Salary Increases       
 
     In its brief, the District presented a four year (2007-2011) proposal illustrating base 
salary increases which have been previously agreed to by the parties (see below): 
 
             Base Salary Increases: 2007-2011 
                   2007-2008       4% 
               *  2008-2009       3.9% 
                   2009-2010       4% 
               *  2010-2011       3.9% 
       *  Flat dollar equivalent that includes breakage 
 
     The District stated that the above proposal is conditioned on the Association’s 
acceptance of increased premium payments by its members to individual and family 
health insurance plans. 
 
     The Association has indicated that the above proposal is conditioned on the District’s 
acceptance of its proposal to “enhance” health insurance coverage for retired unit 
members. (The fact finder has previously addressed the Association’s proposal to 
“enhance” the retirement benefit for unit members and further comments are not 
 
 necessary.) 
 
     The District has indicated that all other units in the District have agreed to have their 
base salary increases tied to the effective date of their agreement to increase employee 
health insurance premium contributions.  Not one unit was given a full salary increase in 
the 2007-2008 school year without having to increase their health insurance contributions 
in that year.  The District has made the same proposal to the Association that has been 
agreed to by every other unit in the District (see Fig. 1 attached). 
 
     It is the recommendation of the fact finder that base salary increases illustrated above 
and the increased health insurance contributions by members be retroactive to  
July 1, 2007.  The pattern has been established district-wide. 
 
     As to the matter of starting salary increases. The District has proposed to increase 
starting salaries by 1.0% less than the agreed upon base salary increase for unit members.      
The District stated “Not one unit was given a full salary increase in the 2007-2008 school 
year without having to increase their health insurance premium contributions in that 
year.”  The Association has indicated that this is acceptable. 
 
     The fact-finder  recommends that the parties adopt the District proposal to increase 
starting salaries by 1.0% less than the agreed  upon percentage of base salary increases 
for the school years 2007-2011. 
 
Note:  The recommendation regarding base salary increases strikes a middle ground 
between the District’s desire to grant a flat dollar  increase and the Association’s desire to 
grant a percentage increase.  
 
 
ISSUE:   OVERTIME 
       (Subcontracting) 
 
 
     The Association seeks acknowledgement from the District of its exclusivity of 
bargaining unit work.  It is the position of the District that the bargaining unit does not 
have exclusivity over certain work performed by bargaining unit members.  The parties 
have discussed this matter several times over the past two years and their respective 
positions have not changed. 
 
     It is the recommendation of the fact finder that either or both parties place this matter 
before PERB for review and determination by an Administrative Law Judge. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ISSUE:   DISASTER RELIEF 
 
 
     While open to the concept, the District is opposed to the creation of a disaster relief 
bank for bargaining unit members who could not work due to a natural disaster.   
 
     The District indicated a willingness to allow bargaining unit members to donate 
vacation and personal days to fellow members who have exhausted such days due to a 
natural disaster. 
 
     The Union, however, did not address this matter in its brief. 
 
     The fact finder recommends that the parties explore the District’s willingness to allow 
bargaining unit members to donate vacation and personal days to fellow members who 
have exhausted such days due to a natural disaster. 
 
 
ISSUE:   UNIFORMS 
 
 
     The parties appear to be very close to agreement on this matter.  All that remains to be 
decided is which job titles will be issued uniforms.  Previous discussions lead the fact 
finder to believe this matter is best resolved between parties. 
 
 
ISSUE:     EVALUATION 
 
 
     It is the District’s position that a public employer has the right to conduct employee 
evaluations without prior negotiations.  Further, the criteria for employee evaluations are 
non-mandatory subjects of negotiation.  The District, however, is willing to negotiate the 
procedural aspects of the evaluation process.  It is the understanding of the District that 
the evaluation form, as proposed, is agreeable to the Association. 
 
     It is the Association’s position that the parties are in agreement that the fourth column 
of the evaluation form should be labeled “Comments” instead of “Problems”.  The only 
conflict before the fact finder is the contractual language which accompanies the form. 
     The Association’s proposal regarding the contractual language to accompany the 
evaluation form is as follows: 
     “In consultation, the head custodian, the Director of Plant Operations, or his/her 
designee  may request that the head custodian evaluate an employee using the evaluation 
form attached to the collective bargaining agreement.” 
 
     It is the recommendation of the fact finder that the language, as stated above, is 
appropriate contractual language. 
 
 ISSUE:  SICK LEAVE BANK 
 
     The Association has proposed that in the future, each unit member would initially 
donate two days to the sick leave bank. The sick leave bank would then be funded by 
unused accumulated days which could then be donated when a unit member’s 
employment is terminated. 
 
     In view of the fact finder’s recommendation that the district-wide language regarding  
days in the sick leave bank used to determine an employee’s level of retirement benefit, 
the Association’s proposal must be rejected. 
 
 
ISSUE:  VACATION PROVISIONS 
 
    The Association has agreed to increase the vacation request advanced notice         
requirement from five days to ten days.  The Association has also proposed that the 
number of unused vacation days that a unit member may carry over into the next year be 
increased from the current five days. 
 
     The District is opposed to the additional carryover days.  A review of the collective 
bargaining agreements establishes that the Association members have essentially the 
same vacation schedule as other twelve month employees. 
 
     As no specific problems or needs were brought forth by the Association, why are 
additional carryover days necessary?  The fact finder recommends that the change in 
advanced notice spoken to above be adopted. 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
     The fact finder thanks the parties for the wealth of information put forth in support of 
their respective positions. 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
John Callahan 
Fact Finder 
 
Date:    October 20, 2008 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&amp;context=perbfact

Union-Endicott Central School District and Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Associaton

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR