In the Matter of Fact Finding Between Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit). PERB CASE NO. M2007-221. Before: Donna R. Beal

Beal, Donna R.

English

In the Matter of Fact Finding Between Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit). PERB CASE NO. M2007-221. Before: Donna R. Beal.jamestown_board.pdf: 169 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit)

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
12-15-2008 
Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue 
Collar Unit) 
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. 
Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit) 
Abstract 
In the Matter of Fact Finding Between Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar 
Unit). PERB CASE NO. M2007-221. Before: Donna R. Beal. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/27 
State of New York 
Public Employment Relations Board 
______________________________________ 
 
In the Matter of Fact Finding Between 
 
Jamestown Board of Public Utilities 
              - and - 
IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit) 
 
PERB CASE NO. M2007-221 
_______________________________________ 
 
Before:  Donna R. Beal 
 
REPRESENTATIVES 
 
For Management 
 
 William L. Wright 
 Interim Labor Relations Administrator 
 Jamestown Board of Public Utilities 
 
 
For the Union 
 
 Bradley Haag 
 Business Agent 
 Teamsters Local 264 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
A.  The Parties: 
 
Prior to 1994, the sanitation division of the Jamestown Board of Public 
Utilities (BPU) was a part of the City of Jamestown but at or around that 
time, the division was transferred to the BPU due to the financial condition 
of the division and the City was unable to sustain it.  The parties have since 
negotiated three (3) contracts, 1996, 1999 and 2002.  The current contract 
expired on June 30, 2007 after being extended for a year.  This occurred due 
to the failure to open the contract in a timely period and thus, the contract 
was extended to 2008 having the same terms and conditions.   
 
The Teamsters Local 264 (union) represents twelve (12) employees in the 
sanitation division, however one member is currently on a long-term military 
leave.  
 
B.  Negotiations History: 
 
The parties commenced negotiations mid-January 2007 and met 
approximately sixteen (16) times prior to the Union filing for impasse early 
December 2007. On February 7, 2008, a State mediator met with the parties. 
Several meetings took place between the parties following the mediation 
without resolution and in a letter dated September 9, 2008  the undersigned 
was assigned as the Fact Finder for the impasse.   
 
A Fact-Finding hearing was held with the parties on October 8, 2008 and 
both parties provided information and material reflecting their respective 
positions on the unresolved issues.  Briefs supporting their positions were 
due to the Fact Finder on November 12, 2008 and this date was extended.  
Rebuttals to the briefs were received on December 5, 2008.    
  
C.  Issues before the Fact Finder:  
 
The following issues were addressed in fact-finding on Wednesday, October 
8, 2008: 
   
 I.    Health Insurance 
 II.   Pension 
 III.  Discipline & Discharge  
 IV.  Wages 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I.  HEALTH INSURANCE 
 
The Sanitation Department employees receive health insurance benefits 
through the Teamsters Union’s Plan and the employees currently contribute 
$32.50 per month for single coverage, $50.00 per month for a two-person 
plan and $60.00 per month for family coverage.  According to total costs of 
the plan submitted by BPU, this represents 7.8% for single, 6.3% for the 
two-person plan and 5.7% for the family plan. In April of 2008, the Union 
went to a less expensive plan (Teamsters Select Plan from the Teamsters 
Supreme Plan) as a result of a lawsuit awarded in favor of the BPU 
regarding a parity provision in the contract which held the employer’s 
contribution for health insurance for Teamsters to equal the contribution 
made by the employer for its IBEW members. As a result of the suit, the 
members of the Teamsters were ordered to choose to go to the less-
expensive plan or pay higher insurance contributions. As a result, the 
members chose to go to the Teamsters’ Select Plan. 
  
 
- Position of BPU – 
 
While the move to the less expensive plan was a cost savings over the 
previous plan, the costs of that health insurance continues to escalate every 
year and the BPU desires to have the employee contribution increased over 
the life of the contract. It proposes to let the current contribution remain for 
the 2008 and 2009 years but increase the amount of employee contribution  
to an amount that equals a 10% contribution for all levels of coverage for 
2010. It points out in its rebuttal brief that the Select Plan’s costs for the 
2008 family plan have increased nearly $100 more than the 2007 cost, $184 
more the second year and $167 for the third year.  
 
It further points out that they have already taken into account the savings it 
realized by the move from the Supreme plan to the Select plan in offering 
the wage increase. 
 
- Position of the Union – 
 
The Union provided data comparing the cost and benefits under their 
previous Supreme Plan to that of the Select Plan, which they now have. It 
further maintains that the BPU has enjoyed a savings by that move; it desires 
to retain its current contribution rate for insurance.  In response to the 
proposal by management of a percentage for the contribution rate, the Union 
stated it is “not interested in doing any sort of a percentage”. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
While the health insurance issue is one that must be faced by everyone, it 
is not unusual or contrary to practice that both parties progressively adjust 
their ownership of the escalating costs of this benefit. It is therefore 
the recommendation that the rates remain at the current dollar amount for 
2008 and 2009 but that the 2010 rate be figured at a percentage as follows: 
  Family – Employee contribution 8% 
  Two-person – Employee contribution 8% 
  Single – Employee contribution 10% 
 
This recommendation is well below many of the percentages contributed 
by employees in both the public and private sector.  The bargaining units 
that are with the City of Jamestown (5) have negotiated from 15% to 17% 
employee contribution.   The above recommendation would occur in the 
last year of the contract and reflects approximately an additional 2% more 
than what each category is now paying if it was figured as a percentage.  
 
 II. PENSION  
 
Of the twelve (12) employees in the Union, eight (8) of them are covered by 
the Teamster Retirement Plan and the remaining four (4) are in the New 
York State Employees Retirement System.  The contribution made to the 
Teamster’s plan is $2.35 per hour, significantly higher than the contribution 
made to the NYS System which is based on a percentage of the employee’s 
wages. 
 
- Position of BPU – 
 
An offer of an additional $ .10 per hour in each of the first two (2) years of 
the contract and $ .05 in the third year has been made.  It is the BPU’s 
position that the Union’s proposal would only create a greater inequity 
within the bargaining unit. 
 
- Position of the Union – 
 
The Union originally proposed a $ .25 per hour increase on 7/1/07 and a  
$ .10 per hour increase each year of the contract.  They subtracted $ .10  
from what they figured to be an insurance savings to be put into the pension. 
Its position is for a contribution of $2.55 for 2008, $2.65 for 2009 and $2.75 
for 2010.   
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
It is the recommendation that $ .10 be added  for each of the first two (2) 
years of the contract (2008, 2009) and $ .05 cents to the third year (2010). 
 
III. DISCIPLINE & DISCHARGE 
 
According to the BPU’s brief, the current language regarding this issue 
reads: 
 
 “The above language notwithstanding, the Employer  
 reserves the right to impose a one or two-day suspension  
 upon any employee without pay as a penalty for cause  
 deemed sufficient.  However, the Employer agrees that  
 such suspension will not be done in an arbitrary,  
 capricious or malicious manner.”  (Article XVI Page 13) 
 
BPU proposed language on the subject and stated that it has been agreed 
upon with the exception of adding the following sentence:     
 
 “The severity of the offense and the penalty imposed  
 shall not be subject to review by arbitration.” 
 
- Position of BPU - 
 
In its argument, BPU has stated that the current language has been confusing 
to arbitrators because it has been the subject of two (2) Supreme Court cases 
during the duration of the contract.  It further states that in both cases, the 
judges found that the arbitrators misapplied the contractual standard and 
remanded the case for another decision based on the “arbitrary, capricious or 
malicious manner.” BPU feels that its proposal to add the additional sentence 
would clarify the existing language and eliminate the element of evaluating 
the severity of the discipline and the penalty and thus eliminate the 
additional cost of possible litigation. 
 
 
- Position of Union – 
 
The Union argues that BPU’s position is to do away with binding arbitration 
as a final step and give management the right to go to court should the 
arbitrator’s decision not be in their favor.  Their position is that the 
arbitrator’s decision should be “final and binding”.   
 
At the time of the hearing, the Union expressed its concern for one (1) or 
two (2) day suspensions.  No reference to that concern was given in its brief 
or rebuttal. 
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
Having read the Order of the two Supreme Court cases referred to by BPU, 
one dated November 14, 2005 where BPU was the petitioner and one dated 
June 18, 2007 where the Union was the petitioner, I recommend that the 
additional sentence be added to the already approved contract language on 
the subject.   
 
In both of these cases, the judge ruled that the parties remand the case to 
another arbitrator who would rule on the two-day suspension based on 
contract language of “arbitrary and capricious or malicious manner”.  
 
The new contractual language, in the opinion of this Fact Finder, 
addresses the issue of the one (1) or two (2) day suspensions.  
 
IV. WAGES 
 
 
The parties are in agreement that the succeeding contract would be a three 
(3) year contract.  
 
 
  
- Position of BPU – 
  
BPU has held that its offers on all economic issues has been made as a “total 
package”. It provided much information as to the declining population of the 
communities that it services as well as the cost of service.  It also adds that 
the members enjoy a provision in their contract that allows them to go home 
after their work is completed but still get paid for a full eight (8) hours of 
work.  They have estimated that the employees work a typical five (5) to 
seven (7) hours a day. Thus, the members truly earn more than the $14.73 
per hour. 
  
In its’ brief, the BPU offered wage increases of $ .27 per hour effective April 
1, 2008; $ .05 per hour effective January 1, 2009 and $ .07 per hour effective 
January 1, 2010.  BPU’s offer dating April 1, 2008 rather than January 1, 
2008 accounts for the time the less expensive insurance plan actually went 
into effect where it feels that the effective date should have been at the 
beginning of the year. As a result, the employer paid a higher amount for 
three (3) months and considers such as an employee benefit.  
 
BPU agrees that the members of this bargaining unit have not had an 
increase in wages since 2005, as was explained in a previous issue of this 
fact-finding report. 
 
- Position of the Union - 
 
In the Union’s brief, it argues that since they have not had any increase since 
2005, its proposal includes an increase for 2007 of $ .40; 2008 of $ .64; 2009 
of $ .65 and 2010 of $ .67. It provided material to support its arguments that 
the employer realized a savings by the union moving to a less expensive 
insurance plan. It also argues that the BPU has given wage increases to other 
employees in the IBEW unit of 2.25% effective for the years 2005, 2006, 
2007 and 2008 and their proposal is based on providing a 2.25% increase as 
the members of IBEW received for all of those years, along with the 
insurance savings of $ .29 per hour it figures the BPU will save for the 2008, 
2009 and 2010 years. It further proposed a flat 2.25% increase for two other 
classifications of employees that are represented in the union, that of the full 
time labor pool employee who has benefits and the casual employee who has 
no benefits.     
 
DISCUSSION 
 
The Union’s original demand was for $1.00 per hour for each of the three 
(3) years, whereas the BPU’s offer was to freeze the rate.  
 
At the time of the Fact-Finding Hearing, the Union held at $1.00 per hour, 
whereas management submitted information indicating that  a previous 
offer had been made of $ .50 for the first year and $ .27 for the second with 
a freeze for the remaining years.   
 
At fact-finding, BPU stated that its last proposal dated May 1, 2008 was 
$15.10 for the first year (which equals $ .37 per hour), $15.25 the second 
(which equals $ .15 per hour) and $15.50 for the third (which equals $ .25 
per hour). 
 
As stated above, in its’ brief,  BPU offered $ .27 per hour for the first year, 
(which would equal $15.27), $ .05 per hour for the second (which would 
equal $15.32) and $ .07 per hour (which would equal $15.39) for the third.  
 
As one can see, the offers made by BPU are quite confusing.  
 
In the Union’s brief, as previously stated, proposal was for $15.40 effective 
July 1, 2007, $16.04 effective January 1, 2008, $16.69 effective January 1, 
2009 and $17.36 effective January 1, 2010.  Their demand took into 
consideration what they figured to be a $ .29 savings that the BPU enjoyed 
as a result of the decrease in health insurance plans.  As stated previously, 
their demand was a straight 2.25% increase for the other two 
classifications that were in their unit.  The BPU has not addressed at any 
time a  different rate for these classifications, therefore these will not be 
addressed in this recommendation.  
 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
It is the recommendation that for the first year of the contract, retroactive 
to January 1, 2008, a 3% increase be granted to all employees in the unit. 
Effective January 1, 2009, a 2.25% increase be granted to all employees 
and effective January 1, 2010, a 2.25% increase be granted to all 
employees. 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 
The above recommendations were made after considerable deliberations on 
the part of this Fact Finder.  In order for the parties to reach an agreement, 
it will be necessary for both parties to compromise their positions and it is 
the hope that this can be accomplished. 
 
Respectively submitted: 
 
 
 
Donna R. Beal 
Fact Finder       December 23, 2008 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&amp;context=perbfact

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and IBT Local 264 (Blue Collar Unit)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR