In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between The County of Genesee, New York and The Civil Service Employees Association. PERB Case No. M2008-249. Michael S. Lewandowski, Fact Finder

Lewandowski, Michael S.

English

In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between The County of Genesee, New York and The Civil Service Employees Association. PERB Case No. M2008-249. Michael S. Lewandowski, Fact Finder.m2008_249.pdf: 218 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

Genesee, County of and The Civil Service Employees Association

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
10-21-2009 
Genesee, County of and The Civil Service Employees Association 
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. 
Genesee, County of and The Civil Service Employees Association 
Abstract 
In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between The County of Genesee, New York and The Civil Service 
Employees Association. PERB Case No. M2008-249. Michael S. Lewandowski, Fact Finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/48 
1 
NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
 
In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between, 
The County of Genesee, New York,  
                     Employer,  
             -and- 
The Civil Service Employees Association, 
Union. 
REPORT AND 
RECOMMENDATION 
PERB CASE NO. 
M2008-249 
Before: MICHAEL S. LEWANDOWSKI, Independent Fact Finder 
Appearances: 
 
For the County: Karen Marchese 
 Human Resources Director 
For the Union: Lynn M. Knoop 
CSEA Labor Relations Specialist 
The County of Genesee, New York ("County") and the Civil 
Service Employees Association ("Union"), a union that represents 
approximately 300 employees of the County, engaged in collective 
negotiations for a successor agreement to the collective 
bargaining agreement that expired on December 31, 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 resulted in a 
2 
tentative agreement however in the end those efforts failed after 
the tentative agreement was rejected by the Union's membership. 
I was then designated Fact Finder. 
 
In accordance with the preceding designation, the parties 
agreed to meet on June 29, 2009 to set in place a process to go 
thru 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. It should be understood that this report and 
recommendation does not address all of the issues open in the 
parties' negotiations but it does contain, as I understand the 
position of the parties, a prioritized list of those issues, 
which if resolved, could lead to a new agreement between the 
parties. The issues that are not addressed here are still 
considered open however the parties have reached a tentative 
agreement on how to handle those issues they feel need to be 
included in a new agreement. What I attempt here is to analyze 
the data and provide information that may lead to a resolution of 
this dispute. 
3 
Before I get into an address of the issues for which I here 
make findings and recommendations, I think it is appropriate to 
acknowledge the tentative "agreement" that failed to gain 
acceptance from the majority of voting Union members. In its 
written submission, the Union stated that it "reluctantly 
consented to take an agreement to the membership for 
ratification." The terms of that "agreement" provided wage 
increases of 2% effective February 1, 2009; 1.25% effective July 
1, 2010 and 1.25% effective July 1, 2011. Wages for new 
employees hired after ratification of the proposed agreement 
would be reduced by 10% across the board. Additionally, new 
hires would see a reduction in sick leave accruals earning one 
sick day per month for a total of 12 days per year. The spousal 
buy back for health insurance benefit would be increased if 50 or 
more employees participated by November 1, 2009. This benefit 
would increase to $3,000.00. If 60 or more members participated 
by November 1, 2011, the benefit would go up to $3,500.00 as of 
January 1, 2011. Effective November 1, 2010, personal leave 
would be adjusted to provide 2 personal leave days to employees 
working 20-35 hours per week and 1 personal leave day to 
employees working 20-29 hours per week. The parties also agreed 
that any item previously agreed to as evidenced in writing in 
their current negotiations would be incorporated into the new 
agreement. 
4 
ISSUES, 
 
The following constitutes my findings and recommendations on 
the issues addressed. 
 
WAGES: 
The County proposes wage increases as follows. 
Upon ratification of a new agreement, 2% 
Effective 7/1/2010; 1.25% 
Effective 7/1/2011; 1.25% 
The Union's last wage proposal follows. 
Effective 1/1/2009; 2% 
 
Both sides submitted financial data. The Union provided a 
significant amount of data including a review of the County's 
finances and information concerning the recent settlements 
reached between public employers and public unions in surrounding 
counties as well as information about what the County has agreed 
to in wage increases for its employees in other bargaining units. 
 
There is no doubt that at the present time and into the 
foreseeable future, the State and the County face significant 
potential losses in revenue due to the current state of the 
economy. Nevertheless, the data presented shows that the County 
5 
has seen a 6.74% increase in sales tax revenues for the second 
quarter of 2009 and has been able to fund wage increases that are 
in excess of that which it offers this Union. Specifically, the 
Genesee County Sheriff's Employees Association ("SEA") received a 
2% salary increase retroactive to January 1, 2009. That union 
will also receive a 2% wage increase in 2010 and another 2% wage 
increase in 2011. Each of the agreed to wage increases would be 
payable on a date later than the historically normal wage 
increase date for SEA wage increases. While the County 
justifies the variance between what it offers CSEA and what 
it agreed to with SEA by noting that the deputy sheriffs here 
receive salaries lower than comparable employees in surrounding 
counties and by the County's analysis, CSEA-represented employees 
receive wages higher than employees in comparable titles in 
surrounding counties, the facts show that by granting 2% per 
new contract year, the County will still be increasing CSEA 
employees less than what comparably titled employees will get 
under their collective bargaining agreements (note chart that 
follows) and when considering my recommendation that the County 
and CSEA adopt the reduced wage adjustment schedule that was 
advanced in mediation, the County can take steps towards reducing 
wages without affecting current employees. The net effect is 
that the County would be providing proper wage increases to its 
employees who are members of this bargaining unit while at the 
6 
same time starting a process of reducing what it believes is the 
disparity with other Counties in the wages paid this work group. 
 
Again, this is accomplished by providing a wage increase 
that, while more than what was advanced in mediation and rejected 
by the Union membership, is less than what competing Counties are 
increasing the pay of their CSEA-represented employees. 
 
The following chart shows what surrounding counties have agreed 
to for wage increases for contract years 2009-2011. 
 
WAGE INCREASES AGREED TO IN SURROUNDING COUNTIES 
COUNTY 2009 2010 2011 
WYOMING COUNTY 2% 2% 2.25% 
ORLEANS COUNTY 2.25% 2.25% 3% 
CATTARAUGUS CO 3% 3% 3% 
STEUBEN COUNTY 3% 3.25% 3.4% 
CHAUTAUQUA CO 3% 3% 3% 
ONTARIO COUNTY 3% 3.5% 3% 
I do take note that the budget data/picture presented by the 
parties is in conflict. The Union did an analysis of the 
County's budget that shows that the County has historically 
7 
grossly overstated expenses and understated revenues and the same 
analysis shows the County has a healthy surplus in funds. This 
conflicts with the County's presentation which shows the County 
has historically had a higher tax levy than surrounding counties 
and is experiencing staggering (34%) increases in health 
insurance premium cost and higher retirement system 
contributions. 
 
It is difficult to ascertain what the economic picture will 
look like for the immediate upcoming years especially noting the 
dire fiscal condition of New York State; however the increases 
recommended here are modest and the reduction in future wages 
should provide a basis to allow for an increase to current 
employees and to allow the County to move towards achieving pay 
comparability with surrounding counties for this group of 
employees. 
 
Based on the above, I recommend that the parties return to 
the previously mediated settlement plan, which included both 
increases in wages for current employees and reductions in wages 
for future employees. The only modification I would recommend is 
to increase the percentage increases to 2% per year for each year 
of a three-year agreement, the first year becoming effective July 
8 
1, 2009, the second year becomes effective July 1, 2010 and the 
third year becomes effective July 1, 2011. 
 
SCHEDULE D: As noted above, I recommend the County adopt Schedule 
D for future employees hired after the ratification of the new 
agreement. 
 
OTHER ITEMS: I further recommend that the parties agree, as 
detailed in the tentative agreement dated February 19, 2009, that 
"in addition to the above matters, previously agreed to as 
evidenced by signed agreements" to incorporate such items into 
the new agreement. This package should include the changes in 
personal leave and spousal buy back as referred to in the 
tentative agreement. 
 
Based on my analysis of the data presented to me including 
the economic data and the positions of the parties, I recommend 
that the parties resolve their negotiations based on the 
foregoing recommendations. 
 
Respectfully submitted, October 18, 2009 
MIC ? S. O KI 
FACT FINDER 


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&amp;context=perbfact

Genesee, County of and The Civil Service Employees Association

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR