In the matter of the fact-finding between the Onondaga Community College, employer, and the Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators, union. PERB case no. M2009-254. Before: Gordon R. Mayo, Esq., fact finder

Mayo, Gordon R., Esq.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
2-20-2011 
Onondaga Community College and The Professional 
Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of 
Teachers and Administrators 
Gordon R. Mayo Esq. 
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. 
Onondaga Community College and The Professional Administrators of Onondaga 
Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Onondaga Community College, employer, and the 
Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators, 
union. PERB case no. M2009-254. Before: Gordon R. Mayo, Esq., fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/64 
STATE OF NEW YORK - COUNTY OF ONONDAGA 
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
In The Matter of the Fact Finding Between 
THE PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS OF ONONDAGA COMMUNITY 
COLLEGE FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS 
PERB CASE M2009-254 
-and-
ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 
Appearances: 
Gordon R. Mayo, Esq., Fact Finder 
Susan Marie DeCarlo, Labor Relations Specialist, NYSUT 
Robert Rogers, HR Director, Labor Relations & Employee Development, OCC 
On July 7, 2010,1 was appointed as the fact finder in the above contractual 
dispute between the Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College 
Federation of Teachers and Administrators (hereinafter Union) and the Onondaga 
Community College (hereinafter College). The predecessor collective bargaining 
agreement (hereinafter CBA) expired on August 31, 2008, and, after numerous 
negotiating sessions, the parties were unable to reach consensus on a successor 
agreement. Subsequently, the parties met with a mediator on three occasions, again 
with no successful conclusion being reached. The Union filed for fact finding on June 
3, 2010, precipitating my appointment. The parties met on October 18, 2010, at 
which all parties were present and represented; the most compelling open issues were 
discussed, and a briefing schedule was established. Briefs were received in my office 
on or about December 20, 2010. 
Although there are there are several other items that I will briefly discuss, the 
most compelling issues facing the parties are compensation and health insurance. 
Obviously, the issue most pressing is compensation. Not only is the Union seeking a 
salary increase for its unit positions (there are approximately 97 named titles in the 
2005^~2008TBAXit is~sl^ 
minimum salaries. In today's uncertain economy, with looming State budget cuts and 
increased pressure upon College sponsors (here, Onondaga County) to cut expenses 
in response to State cutbacks, it is impossible to predict what revenue streams will be 
available to the parties in the coming years. Both the Union and the College have 
posited that a six year agreement (2008-2014) is preferable, given that this 
agreement is now 2 Vi years out, and I agree. 
The Union has proposed a 2.5% increase in 2008-2009, a 2.5% increase in 2009-
2010, a 4.0% increase in 2010-2011, a 4.0% increase in 2011-2012, a 4.5% increase 
in 2012-2013, and a 4.5% increase in 2013-2014 for all members in its bargaining 
unit. Additionally, it seeks the following increases in salaries for unit members who 
are promoted to a higher grade, and might typically be adversely affected monetarily 
for a time because of being at the bottom of grade: 2.0% in 2008-2009, 2.0% in 
2009-2010, 3.5% in 2010-2011, 3.5% in 2011-2012, 4.0% in 2012-2013, and 4.0% in 
2013-2014. As justification for its increases supra, it points to the other College 
bargaining unit, CSEA, which has a five year agreement that expires on December 31, 
2012. That unit received (or will receive) the following increases: 
o 
2008 - 2.5% 
2009 - 3.0% 
2010 - 3.0% 
2011 - 3.25% 
2012 - 3.5% 
Moreover, management-confidential employees have also received annual increases 
during the 2008-2011 time frame that range from 2% to 13.6% annually. The Union 
claims that the College has sufficient resources to pay these increases, inasmuch as 
"tTTere are sufficientTeservelTolThaTTdlhaT^ 
who have gone without a raise for 2 Vi years. 
The College counters with the following wage proposal: 
2.0% lump sum bonus upon ratification and not added to base 
2.5% following September 1 (presumably 2011) 
3.0% following September 1 (presumably 2012) 
3.0% following September 1 (presumably 2013) 
3.5% following September 1 (presumably 2014) 
There is no retroactivity in the College proposal, it being their position that "[T]he 
College's wage increase is competitive when compared with other comparable 
administrator contracts and general wage settlements." The College has made no 
proposal regarding promotional minimums, which is contrary to the Faculty fact-
finding simultaneously presented. 
As is typical in fact-finding, each party provides statistics that are most helpful to 
their individual situation, while in truth, there is no such animal as an accurate 
comparable. There are no recent contract settlements relied upon by either party, 
which is not surprising given the state of the economy and the uncertainty as to when 
(or if) there is an actual economic turnaround. Although the College claims that it is 
opposed to any retroactivity in salary advances, that position is untenable, given that 
every other College employee has enjoyed yearly increases during the past 2 Vi years 
that this unit has been without an agreement. Nonetheless, I am mindful of the 
current difficulties being faced by the State and the County, who provide a major 
share of the College's operating funds. I therefore propose the following salary 
increases for the Union's unit members: 
2008 - 2009 - 2.0% 
2009- 2010 - 2.0% 
2010^2011-2:5%" 
2011 - 2012 - 3.0% 
2012 - 2013 - 3.5% 
2013 - 2014 - 4.0% 
The promotional minimum salary increase shall be 2.00% per year for each year of 
the agreement. 
The Union also seeks to define the work week as 35 hours per week, Monday 
through Friday. If a unit member then works more than 35 hours per week, he/she 
shall be entitled to compensatory time. The College is opposed to this proposal, 
inasmuch as the employees within the bargaining unit are all salaried employees not 
required to -punch a time clock, and hold professional titles. In this current financial 
climate, I believe that caution is the watchword, and now is not the time to 
fundamentally change the current time and attendance parameters for the Union's 
members. Accordingly, the Union's workweek and compensatory time proposal is not 
accepted. All other items dealing with compensation not addressed supra will not be 
dealt with in this report. 
Health insurance is the second major issue facing the parties, and because of the 
constant escalation in the cost of this benefit, the most difficult to nail down. The 
College has proposed a plan that allocates a flat dollar amount towards each unit 
member's premiums, whether it be single or family coverage. Given a base year of 
2011, each ensuing year would see an additional 5% added to the previous year's 
contribution. The effective result of such a plan would see a percentage increase of 
each employee's contribution from a 10% co-pay in 2011 to 17.75% in 2014, 
assuming 8.2% increases in health insurance premiums each year. In real dollar 
amounts, the employee's contribution monthly would rise from $46.72 in 2011 to 
~$T057061rr20T4T^a^^ 
$122.11 in 2011 and end at 274.58 in 2014. 
Unfortunately, these projected costs are totally based upon a constant 8.2% 
annual increase in premiums, and most employers would sign up for such an amount 
over a stated period of time in a heartbeat. Although the College posits that the 
increases might be less than 8.2% each year, and thus would curtail the employee's 
monthly expenditure, such an assumption flies in the face of recent history. The 
Union has proposed a plan whereby the single employee contribution escalates from 
its current 10% to 16% in 2014, with a $54.06 monthly contribution in 2011 
escalating to $90.80 in 2014, and the family from $141.30 in 2011 to $237.33 in 
2014. 
The College's plan, while unique, places too much emphasis on assumptions 
regarding health care costs that cannot be calculated and may be just wrong. That 
being said, the Union must realize that this benefit has become so expensive that it 
must share in the burden of paying for it. Because health insurance and the relatively 
low contributions made for it by public employees have become so ingrained in the 
culture, there is frequently very little realization exactly how much it costs. In private 
< 
industry and small business, employees generally pay much more for the benefit than 
their public sector brethren. I therefore propose that current employees begin paying 
15% of their current monthly premiums effective immediately upon the acceptance of 
this report by the parties that shall continue until the expiration of the Agreement in 
2014. As for newly hired employees, the College has proposed a 40% contribution to 
health insurance for employees hired on or after January 1, 2012. Even with this 
cctfftrfBUfioTiTT:^ ^ 
increases) to this employment category. 
Although a tiered employment benefit structure has become more commonplace in 
the public sector workplace in recent years, I must confess that I have not observed 
so severe a dichotomy as that proposed by the College. In addition to beginning 
employment at the bottom of the food chain, this proposal would ask new employees 
to pay $202.21 monthly (as opposed to current employees' $64.10) for single 
coverage and $528.50 monthly (as opposed to current employees' $167.29) for family 
coverage beginning January 1, 2012. Thus, family coverage would cost each new 
employee $6,342 annually in 2012, and, according to the College's proposal, $8,073 in 
2014. I realize that fact-finding proposals espoused by parties are often just wish 
lists, and are sometimes not based in reality. However, to expect new employees to 
pay these health insurance premiums, which in the case of family coverage, are 
approximately 2 Vi times those of current employees, is not a tenable position. 
I propose that new employees hired on or after January 1, 2012 pay 25% of their 
health insurance premiums, with this amount to remain stable through the end of the 
agreement. The same contribution shall made to the group dental insurance plan, 
which remains free for current employees. 
As to other issues, the Union has proposed combining both the Faculty and the 
Professional Administrators units into one all-encompassing union, which will make 
collective bargaining process more efficient and streamlined, inasmuch as both units 
share a majority of common issues. It is my opinion that such action would take an 
applicationi tcTPERB, either as ^ uTiitplaceTfient or unit cla^ ^ 
without authority to make such a ruling. 
After having reviewed the submissions and proposals by both parties, I hereby 
make the following recommendations: 
1. Wages for all unit positions shall be increased 2.00% for 2008 - 2009, 2.00% 
for 2009 - 2010, 2.5% for 2010 - 2011, 3.00% for 2011 -2012, 3.5% for 2012 
- 2013 and 4.00% for 2013 -2014. 
2. The promotional minimum salary increase shall be 2.00% per year for each 
year of the agreement. Any other issues involving compensation will not be 
dealt with in this report. 
3. The union proposal setting forth a standardized 35 hour workweek for unit 
members and the accumulation of compensatory time for hours worked in 
excess of 35 hours per week is not accepted. 
4. Effective with the acceptance of this report, current unit members shall pay a 
15% contribution towards their health insurance premiums. 
5. Effective January 1, 2012, new hires shall pay 25% of their health insurance 
premiums; they shall also pay 25% of their dental insurance premiums. 
The above report addresses the most pressing issues presented to me during the 
fact finding process, and my recommendations for the manner in which the instant 
impasse may be resolved. 
Dated: February 20, 2011 
CnJ/^- /L 
GORDON R. MAYO, Fact Finder 
STATE OF NEWYORIT ) 
COUNTY OF RENSSELAER ) ss. 
I, GORDON R. MAYO, an attorney licensed to practice in New York State, do 
hereby affirm on my oath as Fact Finder that I am the individual described herein 
and who executed the subject Ffect Finding Report oruFebruary 20, 2011. 
OvA— 
GORDON R. MAYO 
e 


Onondaga Community College and The Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Onondaga Community College, employer, and the Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators, union. PERB case no. M2009-254. Before: Gordon R. Mayo, Esq., fact finder.m2009_254.pdf: 243 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Mayo, Gordon R.

eCommons@Cornell

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Onondaga Community College, employer, and the Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators, union. PERB case no. M2009-241. Before: Gordon R. Mayo, Esq., Fact Finder.m2009_241.pdf: 30 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Onondaga Community College and Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&amp;context=perbfact

Onondaga Community College and The Professional Administrators of Onondaga Community College Federation of Teachers and Administrators

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons@Cornell

eCommons@Cornell