In the matter of the fact-finding between the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities, employer, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459, union. PERB case no. M2009-336. Before: James R. McDonnell, Ph.D., fact finder

McDonnell, James R, Ph.D.

English

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities, employer, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459, union. PERB case no. M2009-336. Before: James R. McDonnell, Ph.D., fact finder.m2009_336.pdf: 89 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

McDonnell, James R

eCommons@Cornell

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
3-9-2011 
Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459 
James R. McDonnell Ph.D. 
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 International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers Local 459 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Jamestown Board of Public Utilities, employer, and the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459, union. PERB case no. M2009-336. Before: 
James R. McDonnell, Ph.D., fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/66 
 
 
NEW YORK STATE 
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPASSE 
 
BETWEEN 
 
JAMESTOWN BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 
and 
 
IBEW LOCAL 459 
 
 
 
PERB Case No. M 2009-336 
 
 
 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
For the Board: William L. Wright, Esq., Interim Labor Relations Administrator 
 
For the IBEW: Donald Hoak, Business Manager/Financial Secretary 
 
Fact Finder:  Dr. James R. McDonnell 
 
 
 
 
FACT FINDER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
 2
 Factual Background 
The Board of Public Utilities for the City of Jamestown, New York (hereinafter, "Board") 
and Local Union No. 459 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (hereinafter, 
"Local 459") have been engaged in collective bargaining negotiations for a successor collective 
bargaining agreement to the current agreement that expired by its terms on March 31, 2009. 
The Board provides electric, water, sanitation, sewage and district heating services to 
residents and businesses in the City of Jamestown and surrounding areas. Local 459 represents 
certain employees of the Board including those in the electric and water divisions, certain 
employees in the sewage division and employees in the customer service department who 
perform work for all divisions. 
The current collective bargaining agreement was initially negotiated in 1998 and was 
effective for a three-year period from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 2001. That agreement was 
thereafter extended twice, each time for a four-year period – from April 1, 2001 through March 
31, 2005 and again from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2009. During each of these extensions, the 
only modification to the agreement was that wage increases were provided during each year 
under these extension agreements. 
The parties began negotiations for a successor agreement to the current agreement on 
February 18, 2009. Each party submitted a substantial number of proposals, in part because it 
had been over 10 years since the parties last engaged in any extensive substantive negotiations 
and during that time, there had been changes in the nature and operation of the business. 
Over the course of the next year, the parties met 15 times and were able to make 
substantial progress in reshaping their agreement, resolving approximately half of the 35 
substantive proposals initially presented. 
 3
However, the parties were unable to resolve all their substantive issues and consummate 
an agreement and therefore, on February 3, 2010, impasse was declared and PERB assigned a 
mediator to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. Mediation sessions were conducted in 
April and May 2010, and with the assistance of the mediator, the parties were able to resolve all 
but four (4) of their outstanding issues. At the conclusion of the mediation, the issues still in 
dispute were wages, health insurance, sick leave payout upon retirement and line of progression 
in the water department. 
I was thereafter designated as the Fact Finder to assist the parties in trying to resolve 
these remaining issues. It should be noted that while four (4) issues remain outstanding, my 
Report in this matter will focus on wages and health insurance since those are the issues upon 
which the parties focused at the hearing in this matter and also the ones that were emphasized in 
the Fact-Finding Brief submitted by the Board at the hearing. As to the remaining issues, 
including sick leave pay out upon retirement and line of progression in the water department, I 
am recommending that the parties agree to maintain the status quo as to those issues. 
The fact that the parties were unable to agree on wages and health insurance comes as 
little surprise. In the current economic environment, both in the public and private sectors, wages 
and health insurance are the crucial issues in almost all collective bargaining negotiations. In the 
New York State public sector, both in negotiated agreements as well as in interest arbitration 
where that is an option, the amount of the wage increase is generally tied to an increased 
contribution by employees to the cost of providing health insurance. In addition and/or in the 
alternative, changes might be made to the health insurance plan to decrease the cost of providing 
such coverage. 
 4
The parties' positions in the current negotiations and their inability to reach agreement 
reflect these difficult economic realities. 
With this in mind, the following constitutes my findings and recommendations on the 
issues addressed. 
WAGES AND HEALTH INSURANCE 
At the conclusion of the mediation process, Local 459 proposed a four-year agreement 
with the following across-the-board percentage wage increases in each year of that agreement: 
April 1, 2009-March 31, 2010 – 3% 
April 1, 2010-March 31, 2011 – 3.5% 
April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012 – 4% 
April 1, 2012-March 31, 2013 – 3.75% 
The Board proposed more modest increases as follows: 
April 1, 2009-March 31, 2010 – 2% 
April 1, 2010-March 31, 2011 – 1.75% 
April 1, 2011-March 31, 2012 – 1.75% 
April 1, 2012-March 31, 2013 – 1.75% 
In support of its position, the Board noted that inflation has remained relatively flat 1 and 
the federal government has not increased Social Security benefits for two (2) years due to the 
stagnant economy. The Board argues that the wage increases proposed by Local 459 cannot be 
justified as they greatly exceed the inflation rate. 
                                                 
1 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the inflation rate as of the end of September 2010 was 1.1%, up from 
 -.4% for calendar year 2009. 
 
 
 5
 The Board further noted that its proposed wage increases were more in keeping with 
other contract settlements in the City of Jamestown, especially when one considers the health 
insurance contribution percentage provided for in these other settlements. It cited the following 
Jamestown settlements in support of its position: 
AFSCME: 2.75%, 3%, 2.75%, and 3%. Final health insurance contribution: 17% 
CSEA: 2.5%, 3%, 2.75% and 3%. Final health insurance contribution: 17% 
JCAA/JURA: 1.75% and 1.75%. Final health insurance contribution: 16% 
Teamsters: 2.5% (not retroactive), 1% and 0.3%. Final health insurance contribution 10% 
The Board explained that it uses a total cost bargaining approach and that the amount of 
the wage increase it is able to provide is dependent, at least in part, upon the health insurance 
contribution to which Local 459 is willing to agree. It notes that while some of the settlements 
set forth above have higher percentage wage increases, none of them has lower health insurance 
contributions and the one settlement (with the Teamsters) that does provide for lower health 
insurance contributions, also provides substantially lower wage increases. 
There is no question that the Board's proposed wage increases are significantly lower 
than the wage increases provided for in the AFSCME and CSEA's settlements. The Board notes 
that Local 459 members received yearly wage increases each year from 1998 through 2009. It 
reports in its Brief that the sum of the annual wage increases (on a non-cumulative basis) during 
this 11 year contract period was 27% and therefore, the wage increases kept pace with inflation, 
which was 27.1%. Section 11.1 on page 26 of the current contract specifies that there were 
2.25% increases in each year of the contract from 2005 through 2008. Thus, the historical annual 
increases fall somewhere between the respective positions of the parties. 
 6
With respect to the parties' health insurance proposals, Local 459 proposed a 10% 
employee contribution rate to be effective for the entire duration of the four-year contract. Based 
upon the fixed contribution in place under the current contract, this would represent 
approximately a 5% increase in employee contribution rates. That said, it is important to 
remember that the fixed contribution in place under the past contract represented approximately 
10% of the total cost of health insurance in 1998. That percentage fell of course as the cost of the 
insurance increased and the fixed contribution did not. 
The Board has proposed a combination of fixed and percentage employee contribution 
rates during the term of the contract as follows: 
Upon settlement of the contract – $50 single and $100 family 
Effective April 1, 2011 – $60 single and $150 family 
Effective April 1, 2012 – 15% 
In its Brief, the Board stressed that while it has done its best to provide exceptional health 
insurance coverage while minimizing annual cost increases, costs have nevertheless continued to 
increase dramatically. Of course, this is an unfortunate reality for all employers who provide any 
type of meaningful health insurance for their employees. Costs have and continue to increase 
considerably from year to year and those increases are expected to continue. 
Local 459 maintained its position that its proposal on health insurance contributions was 
entirely reasonable and represented a substantial increase in employee contributions. 
And it should be noted that the percentage increase proposed by Local 459 would 
increase the employee contribution automatically as the premiums increased whereas the Board's 
proposal would continue to provide for a fixed contribution until April 1, 2012. 



https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&amp;context=perbfact

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 459

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR