In the matter of the fact-finding between the Barker Central School District, employer, and the Barker Central School Support Staff, union. PERB case no. M2009-035

Lewandowski, Michael S

English

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Barker Central School District, employer, and the Barker Central School Support Staff, union. PERB case no. M2009-035.m2009_035.pdf: 148 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Lewandowski, Michael S.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

Barker Central School District and Barker Central School Support Staff

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
10-6-2010 
Barker Central School District and Barker Central School Support 
Staff 
Michael S. Lewandowski 
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. 
Barker Central School District and Barker Central School Support Staff 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Barker Central School District, employer, and the Barker 
Central School Support Staff, union. PERB case no. M2009-035. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/54 
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between, 
THE BARKER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
Employer, 
-and-
THE BARKER CENTRAL SCHOOL SUPPORT STAFF, 
Union. 
REPORT 
AND 
RECOMMENDATION 
PERB CASE NO. 
M2009-035 
Before: MICHAEL S. LEWANDOWSKI, Independent Fact Finder 
Appearances: 
For the DISTRICT: 
For the UNION: 
David W. Lippitt, Esq. 
Of Counsel 
Elizabeth Vignaux 
Labor Relations Specialist 
The Barker Central School District ("District") and the Barker 
Central School Support Staff ("Union” “Association”), a union 
that represents the District’s 21 typists and teacher aides, 
engaged in collective negotiations for a successor agreement to 
the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 
2008. The negotiations efforts of the parties were unsuccessful 
and thus resulted in an impasse. After failing to reach 
agreement, the parties petitioned the New York State Public 
Employment Relations Board ("PERB") to appoint a mediator to 
assist them in the resolution of their dispute. Mediation 
efforts failed. I was then designated Fact Finder. 
2 
In accordance with the preceding designation, the parties 
agreed to meet on July 16, 2010 to set in place a process to go 
through the instant fact-finding. At the aforementioned meeting, 
a date was set for data to be exchanged and presented to me for 
consideration. As part of the agreed-to process, the parties 
provided written narratives and data in support of their 
respective positions as to how the dispute should be resolved in 
negotiations. The writings were received on August 21, 2010. 
This report and recommendation addresses those issues 
identified by the parties as the outstanding issues needing to be 
resolved in order for the parties to come to a settlement of this 
dispute. The parties have reached agreement on the major issues. 
What I attempt here is to analyze the data and provide 
information that may lead to a resolution of this dispute. 
ISSUES 
The following constitutes my findings and recommendations on 
the issues addressed. 
2 
3 
I note first, that the parties have narrowed the issues to 
health insurance compensation and the retroactivity of increases 
in compensation. 
HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PREMIUM: 
At the present time, all members on this bargaining unit 
who elect to do so receive coverage under the District’s health 
insurance plan without making any contributions. The District 
proposes that all bargaining unit members pay 10% of the premiums 
of the health and dental insurance plans they participate in. The 
Union initially proposed that the bargaining unit members 
continue coverage in these plans without any contribution towards 
premium. During the course of the negotiations and the 
mediation, the Union proposed several options that would include 
an employee contribution towards insurance coverage but not at 
the level of contribution proposed by the District. 
The District, like many other school districts across the 
State, is experiencing a dramatic increase in premiums for health 
insurance. For example, within the last two years, the District 
has seen health insurance premiums increase by 8.31% for the 
2007–2008 school year and an additional increase of 11% for the 
2009–2010 school year. To make matters worse, these increases are 
part of a continuing trend that has produced a 106% increase in 
premiums since 2003. The District, like most other school 
districts in the State, is seeking a way to contain the rapidly 
growing increases in premium. It is important to note, that the 
3 
4 
cost of a family plan in the 2007–2008 school year was 
$11,146.80. This figure represents 47.4% of the average wage paid 
to members of this bargaining unit in that year. The 2009–2010 
family-plan premium increased to $13,401.72, or 52.5% of the 
extrapolated wage for members of this bargaining unit. There is 
no doubt that the data presented shows skyrocketing health 
insurance costs at a time when the overall cost of living has 
remained relatively stagnant. This also comes as school 
districts brace for cuts in State aid. There is thus no doubt 
that the District is justified in asking its employees to share 
in those cost increases both from a financial standpoint and from 
the standpoint that employees who must share part of the burden 
of these staggering costs will most likely be inclined to 
participate in providing solutions for cost containment. 
The data before me shows teacher aides with five years of 
service working for the District are paid $10.52 per hour under 
the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 
2008. Should the parties ultimately agree to the terms they have 
tentatively negotiated, these teacher aides would see their rate 
of pay increase on average by 4.25% for school year 2008-2009 and 
by 4.07% in the 2009-2010 school year that has already passed. 
Those tentatively negotiated increases would raise the hourly 
rate on average for a five-year teacher aide to $11.42. The 
chart that follows shows how the average hourly wage of a 
District teacher aide stacks up against individuals in similar 
titles in other school districts. 
4 
5 
TEACHER AIDE HOURLY WAGES AT 5 YEARS SERVICE 
2009-2010 SCHOOL YEAR 
Albion 
Lewiston-Porter 
Lockport 
Lyndonville 
Medina 
Newfane 
Niagara Falls 
Niagara Wheatfield 
North Tonawanda 
Starpoint 
Wilson 
Average 
$9.16 
$12.19 
$10.41 
$8.96 
$10.43 
$11.68 
$13.29 
$14.29 
$11.90 
$14.15 
$14.31 
$11.88 
While it is true that the District’s teacher aide hourly 
wages would fall somewhat lower than the average hour wage shown 
in the above data that presents information about school 
districts gleaned from the data provided to me by the District, 
what is also true is that the above data includes school 
districts that are significantly larger than Barker and located 
in urban settings; Niagara Falls being an example of this. When 
compared to smaller, rural school districts, the data shows the 
teacher aides here are compensated at the same or above rate of 
pay. 
5 
6 
It is important also to note that the wages paid to members 
of the bargaining unit, although average (as shown above) for the 
work they perform, are not the highest of wages paid in the 
District. The Union asserts, and in my opinion properly so, that 
while higher paid employees may be able to absorb a change in the 
benefit structure that would require a 10% of premium 
contribution towards health insurance, that 10% of premium 
contribution would represent a significant decrease in the wages 
members of the bargaining unit receive. The Union asserts that 
employees of this unit make on average less than $23,000.00 per 
annum. The District’s submission shows the average salary as 
slightly above $23,000.00. Using the District’s figures for the 
premium paid for a family plan at the family-plan rate in the 
2009-2010 school year ($13,401.72), the District’s proposal would 
require a member of this unit to contribute $1,341 towards health 
insurance. Again, while I recognize that the District’s health 
care cost are soaring and it has a legitimate right to pursue 
cost sharing, I note that for members of this unit when using the 
$23,000.00 average earnings figure, a 10% contribution towards 
premium equals approximately a 5.8% drop in income. 
The District notes this but points out that the parties have 
reached agreement on significant increases in salary for members 
of this unit (4.25% the first year; 4.07% the next year; 4.05% 
the next and 4.31% in the final year) therefore the increases in 
wages would more than offset the premium contribution proposed by 
the District. I note however, that even considering the generous 
6 
7 
increases in compensation negotiated in this round of 
negotiations, members of this unit would see a significant 
reduction in compensation gains by accepting the 10% of 
contribution proposal. At the wage level that is in place for 
members of this unit, the cost is disproportionate as compared to 
other District employees such as teachers for example. 
Additionally, the decrease in gains would continue as premiums 
continue to significantly increase, as they most likely will. 
Higher paid employees would more easily handle the 10% of premium 
contribution; it would be a heavy burden for the lower paid 
members of this unit and would get worse with each premium 
increase. 
The data provided by the parties also shows that while some 
employees in similar titles at other school districts pay nothing 
towards health insurance premiums (Lyndonville and Newfane), 
others do contribute. Those contributions range from a flat 
dollar amount ($225.00 towards a family plan for employee of the 
Lockport school district to 7% (to be increased to 10% in 2011) 
in the Albion school district. The net effect is that, 
considering the increase in cost of premium, the salary increases 
being offered to members of this unit, and considering the fact 
that employees in other districts do contribute towards premium, 
it does make sense to conclude a contribution towards premium is 
appropriate for members of this unit. While the District points 
out that some of the other employee groups in the District have 
already agreed to or had imposed a 10% contribution towards 
7 
8 
premium, and the District intends to seek such a contribution 
when it negotiates with teachers, I find it is proper to temper 
the implementation of such a contribution for members of this 
unit considering, as noted above, their low average compensation 
when compared to other employees of the District such as 
teachers. 
The information provided by the Union here also shows that 
the Union, recognizing what I note above, has indicated a 
willingness to make premium contributions and has made several 
proposals that include varying levels of contribution. My 
finding here is based on the data provided and leads to a 
recommendation that the parties agree to a contribution level 
consistent with the facts noted above. Specifically, I recommend 
that current employees of this unit contribute 5% towards the 
premium of health and dental insurances and that individuals 
hired into this unit after the execution of a new collective 
bargaining agreement contribute 10% towards such premiums. This 
way the District may move towards a 10% contribution rate with 
potential new hires (as the Union notes) having the opportunity 
to accept or reject a position with the District knowing what the 
insurance contribution rate is. 
8 
9 
RETROACTIVITY OF SALARY INCREASES: 
The District submits that the wage increases it tentatively 
agrees to in this round of negotiations were based upon the 
expectation that it would achieve some cost savings on health 
insurance through employee contributions towards health and dental 
insurance premiums. The District further asserts that members of 
this bargaining unit are fairly compensated when compared with 
their peers, and have received generous wage increases in prior 
years when compared with their peers. When one considers that the 
inflation rate was -1.4% for the year ending June 30, 2009, and 
only 1.1% for the year ending June 30, 2010, the tentatively 
agreed to average wage increases as referenced above are extremely 
generous. Given that the current negotiations are unlikely to 
produce a new bargaining agreement before the end of 2010, the 
members of this bargaining unit will have at least 2 ½ years of 
full health insurance coverage without contributing anything 
towards the premiums. The District therefore will have lost 2 ½ 
years of potential cost savings. Based on the circumstances the 
District submits that retroactivity is not justified. 
The Union submits that the first time it became aware that the 
District would seek not to pay the negotiated salary increases 
retroactively was during the fact-finding process. The Union sees 
no reason for this and strongly opposes any attempt to limit the 
retroactivity of salary increases. The Union further argues that 
the District cannot lose cost savings when it never had them to 
begin with. The Union further argues that it would be patently 
9 
10 
unfair for an employer to be permitted not to provide retroactive 
salary increases if that employer caused the delay in reaching an 
agreement in a timelier manner. The Union asserts that it cannot 
agree to any settlement of the dispute that does not include 
retroactive salary increases. 
Considering all of the information contained above 
including the fact that I am here recommending that the members of 
the bargaining unit and future members of the bargaining unit 
contribute towards health insurance premiums, I recommend that the 
District pay the wage increases negotiated retroactively to the 
date on which the parties have tentatively agreed those increases 
should be paid. I also recommend that the 5% towards health 
insurance premiums that I recommend here also be retroactive for 
current employees commencing with the start of the 2009–2010 
contract year, or, in other words, effective July 1, 2009. This 
could be accomplished by deducting an amount equal to the premium 
contribution from the retroactive salary increases as they are 
paid to members of this bargaining unit. In this manner, the 
employees in this bargaining unit would see retroactive salary 
increases and the District would see retroactive cost savings. 
The above recommendations reflect my total recommendation as 
to how the parties should bring this dispute the closure. 
DATE: October 3, 2010 
10 
11 
Respectfully submitted, 
MICHAEL S. LEWANDOWSKI 
FACT FINDER 


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&amp;context=perbfact

Barker Central School District and Barker Central School Support Staff

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR