In the matter of the fact-finding between the Chappaqua Central School District, employer, and the Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226, union. PERB case no. M2009-128. Before: Louis J. Patack, Esq., fact finder

Patack, Louis J, Esq.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
11-22-2010 
Chappaqua Central School District and CSEA, Local 1000 
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226 
Louis J. Patack 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. 
Chappaqua Central School District and CSEA, Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 
Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Chappaqua Central School District, employer, and the Civil 
Service Employees Association, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226, union. 
PERB case no. M2009-128. Before: Louis J. Patack, Esq., fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/59 
STATE OF NEW YORK 
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELAnONS BOARD 
In the Matter of the Fact-Finding between 
CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 
LOCAL 1000, AFSCNIE, AFL-CIO, CHAPPAQUA 
SCHOOL UNIT NO. 9226, 
-and-
UNION, 
FACT FINDER'S 
REPORT 
CHAPPAQUA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
EMPLOYER. 
PERB Case No.: M2009-128 
BEFORE:	 Louis J. Patack, Esq. 
Fact Finder 
APPEARANCES: 
For Civil Service Employees Association 
Fred Smit 
Labor Relations Specialist 
For Chappaqua Central School District 
Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP 
David S. Shaw, Esq. and Lisa S. Rusk, Esq., of counsel 
BACKGROUND 
The Civil Service Employees Association, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226 
("Union" or "CSEA") represents a bargaining unit consisting of approximately 55 
custodial and maintenance employees of the Chappaqua Central School District 
("Employer" or "District"). The parties' collective bargaining agreement expired on June 
30,2009. When they were unable to negotiate a successor agreement, impasse was 
declared and the parties entered into mediation. When mediation failed to produce a new 
agreement, the impasse proceeded to fact-finding, and the Public Employment Relations 
Board, in accordance with the provisions of Section 209 of the New York Civil Service 
Law, appointed the undersigned as the fact finder. 
A hearing was scheduled for August 27, 2010, at the District's administrative 
offices. Rather than having a formal hearing, a further attempt was made to settle the 
dispute. When an agreement still could not be reached, the parties agreed on the issues to 
be presented to the fact finder, and a date was set for the submission of briefs. 
I have carefully considered the briefs and the enclosed exhibits, and make the 
recommendations contained herein in an effort to resolve the impasse. 
The parties have submitted four issues. They include salary and wages, health 
insurance premium contributions, daily work schedule, and notice of vacation. During 
negotiations, including impasse, the parties modified their proposals. Those set forth 
below are what are contained in the briefs. 
SALARY AND WAGES 
PROPOSALS 
CSEA currently seeks a two-year agreement, with salary increases of 2.5%, 
exclusive of increment, and with the increases to be paid retroactive to July 1,2009, the 
starting date of the new agreement. 
The District proposes that there be no increase for the 2009 school year, but that 
eligible employees continue to receive their step increments. Starting July 1,2010, the 
District proposes a 1% increase, exclusive of steps. The District also suggests that a new 
agreement should be for three years, and proposes that there be no salary increase or step 
2
 
movement for the 2011-12 school year. Rather, it proposes that unit members receive a 
one-time payment equal to 2.75% of their 2010-11 salary. 
CSEA POSITION 
CSEA first makes the point that Chappaqua has a salary schedule with far more 
steps (20) than are found in most other Westchester County districts. It argues that the 
District saves thousands of dollars because it takes unit employees so long to move to the 
top of the schedule, and that, of the 55 unit employees, a majority are still moving 
through the schedule. 
CSEA's primary argument, however, is that the District has the ability to pay the 
requested increases, and that they are not only in line with those being paid in other area 
districts, but are lower than those recently negotiated by the District and The Chappaqua 
Office Staff AssociationINYSUT ("Office Staff Association") for the District's clerical 
employees and teacher aides. 
It is not necessary to address the ability-to-pay argument, since the District 
concedes that this is not an issue here. 
The districts referred to by CSEA as comparables, and the negotiated increases, 
are as follows. All are exclusive of steps. 
Ossining 
2010-11 2.5% 
2011-12 2.5% 
Hendrick Hudson 
2009-10 2.6% 
2010-11 2.5% 
2011-12 2.5% 
3
 
Bedford 
2008-09 2% 
2009-10 2% 
2010-11 2% 
2011-12 2% 
Katonah-Lewisboro l 
2009-10 2.5% 
2011-12 2% 
CSEA argues that the settlement that best supports its position is the one entered 
into between the District and the Office Staff Association. That agreement provides for 
3.45% increases, exclusive of steps, for the three-year period from July 1,2008 through 
June 30,2011. 
Finally, CSEA c;ontends that the U.S. Department of Labor's New York 
Consumer Price Index has risen between 1.9% and 2.1 % since July 1,2009, and that the 
forecast is for the CPI to remain below 3% for the next few years. 
DISTRICT POSITION 
The District argues that the economy remains in very difficult shape, with 
unemployment still high, and the State facing multi-billion dollar deficits for the current 
and next fiscal year. It notes that, because the asset value of the teacher and non-
instructional pension funds has decreased so dramatically, the District is being required to 
make ever increasing contributions to the two funds. 
I The figures here are from a fact-finding report; and the CSEA brief does not indicate 
whether the parties reached an agreement based on the report. 
4
 
The District makes an argument that even though its budget passed this year, 
given the state of the economy there is the real possibility it could fail in the next few 
years, making it increasingly difficult for the District to afford raises for its employees. 
The District also points to the CPI, which it claims dropped 0.6% for the year 
prior to June, 2009, when the parties' agreement expired. 
The District claims that, for comparability purposes, it is appropriate to look at 
recent non-instructional settlements, since these have been reached during what, 
according to the District, has been the height of the recession. 
It points to Valhalla, Hendrick Hudson, Ossining and Dobbs Ferry. It claims that 
the range of increases in those districts, inclusive of steps, was in the range of 2% to 
2.5%. It also notes that the cost of the increment in Valhalla is only 0.5%. 
The District emphasizes that the salaries it pays employees in this bargaining unit 
are much higher than what any other Westchester County district pays employees in the 
same positions. It contends that without any raises at all the salaries here would continue 
to remain the highest in the County. 
Finally, the District notes that it is not making an inability-to-pay argument. 
Rather, it contends that, based upon the economy, including the CPI, the trend in non­
instructional settlements, and the fact that unit employees already are so highly 
compensated in comparison to their counterparts elsewhere in the County, it is simply not 
reasonable that they should receive increases other than those the District has proposed. 
5
 
DISCUSSION AND RECOMNIENDAnON 
Before addressing the salary proposals, it should be noted that the 
recommendation will be for a two-year agreement. At the fact-finding meeting, although 
the District expressed its preference for a three-year deal, there were never serious 
discussions about a third year. 
As to the proposals, the increases CSEA seeks, not taking into account the value 
of steps, appear to be in line with settlements elsewhere in the County, and are obviously 
lower than those negotiated for the clerical and teacher aide unit. 
What the CSEA brief does not contain, however, is the cost of the steps in the 
districts to which it refers. Even when districts bargain for salary increases that are 
exclusive of steps, that does not mean that step movement does not represent an increase 
in salary for employees moving through the salary schedule. CSEA has not taken issue 
with the District's representation that the cost of step movement is 2.38% of payroll, 
hardly an insignificant number. 
CSEA makes the point that because there are 20 steps in the Chappaqua salary 
schedule, it takes longer than in other districts for employees to reach the top step. The 
fact that there are fewer steps in those districts, however, can also mean that at anyone 
time there are fewer employees recei ving step increases, and, therefore, that the cost of 
the steps might be less than what it is in Chappaqua. 
More important, however, it does appear to be the case, as the District claims, 
that its custodial and maintenance employees are paid higher than their counterparts in 
any of the districts used as comparables by either party. 
6
 
CSEA argues that the agreement that best supports its position is the one entered 
into by the District and The Office Staff Association. 
The fact finder agrees that 3.45% raises there are high, regardless of the cost of 
the increment, a figure not provided, and he cannot speculate as to the factors that went 
into that settlement. What he does know, however, is that (1) the economy is recovering 
at a slower pace than many anticipated, (2) unit employees are very well paid in 
comparison to their counterparts in other districts, and (3) there is a significant cost 
associated with providing the increments for the unit. The Office Staff Association 
settlement, therefore, does not persuade me that the increases CSEA seeks can be 
justified. 
The District, however, has not convinced me to adopt its salary proposal. There 
is merit to its position that the fact that it has the ability to pay the requested increases 
does not mean that it is prudent to do so in light of the State's fiscal problems. That said, 
the District should pay increases that, while taking into account the significant cost of the 
increments here, and the fact that unit employees might be the highest paid in the area, 
are more reflective of increases that have been negotiated in the other districts referred to 
by the parties, and by the District with the Office StaffAssociation, than those it has 
suggested. 
The fact finder believes that a reasonable settlement here would be one that 
provides increases of 1% in 2009-10 and 1.5% in 2010-11, exclusive of steps (meaning 
that eligible employees continue to move through the salary schedule), and that the 
increases be paid retroactive to July 1,2009. 
7
 
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM CONTRIBUTIONS 
PROPOSALS 
The District proposes to increase the contribution from 8% to 9% effective 
January 1,2010, and 10% effective July 1,2010. It also requests a recommendation that 
employees hired after April 10,2010, be required to contribute 20%. 
CSEA will agree to an increase to 9% effective July 1,2010, but only if the salary 
recommendation is close to its proposal. The union rejects the 20% contribution for new 
hires. 
DISTRICT POSITION 
The District points to the fact that the cost of both the family and indi vidual plans 
it provides has increased by over 16% in the past few years. It also notes that non­
instructional contracts in numerous Westchester districts now require contributions of at . 
least 10%, and that some of those contracts require new employees to pay even more. 
CSEA POSITION 
CSEA argues that a 1% increase is consistent with the contribution increase found 
in the districts it uses as comparables. It notes that in Ossining there is a 1% increase in 
each of the two years of the agreement, but that the increase from 10% to 11 % does not 
take effect until June 30, 2012, the last day of the agreement. In Hendrick Hudson there 
is an annual increase of V2% over the three-year term of the agreement, ending with an 
11.5% contribution for the 2011-12 school year. The agreement between the District and 
the Office Staff Association provides for annual contribution increases of 1.25%, with the 
rate reaching 9% effective July 1,2010. 
8 
CSEA does not believe the unit employees here should be required to contribute 
more than their colleagues in the Office Staff Association unit. 
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION 
The District's teachers currently contribute 10% toward health insurance 
premiums, and the District's goal is to bring both CSEA and the Office Staff Association, 
in the next round of bargaining for that unit, to this rate. 
Given that the Office Staff Association received considerably higher salary 
increases than those being recommended here, and that the agreements for both units 
expire at the same time, it seems appropriate to keep the units at the same contribution 
rate until the end of the 2010-11 school year. 
Accordingly, the recommendation is that, effective July 1,2010, the employee 
health insurance premium contribution be increased from 8% to 9%. 
With the District pointing to only two districts in which new hires are required to 
make significantly higher contributions than current employees, the District proposal for 
employees hired after April 10,2010 to contribute 20% is not recommended. 
DAILY WORK SCHEDULE 
At the fact-finding meeting the parties devoted considerable effort toward 
reaching an accommodation on the District's proposal. At the time that discussions on an 
overall agreement ended, the following language had either been accepted, or was under 
serious consideration, by CSEA: 
Article 8: DAILY WORK SCHEDULE 
The regular daily work schedule shall consist of eight consecutive hours 
per day, forty hours per week, Monday through Friday, exclusive of one­
9
 
half hour for lunch. However, a Tuesday through Saturday shift has been 
established at the high school. The employees on this shift shall receive a 
stipend equal to the night shift stipend for working the weekend. 
The District shall have the right to alter shifts; however, no employee with 
four (4) or more years of service in the unit may be moved involuntarily 
from a permanent shift assignment The exception to this would be in a 
situation of staff reduction, in which case transfers shall be on the basis of 
least seniority. Shifts as described in the parenthetical clause below may 
be adjusted by one hour on the starting and ending times as determined by 
the Director of Buildings and Grounds and shall not be considered a shift 
alteration. (Note: for Unit Members hired on or before January 1,2006, 
there shall be 3 permanent shifts for all Unit Members comprised of: 
Custodial shifts of 7 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. - 11 :30 p.m., as well 
as GroundslMaintenance from 6:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. For employees hired 
in the Unit after January 1,2006, there shall be three Custodial shifts: 7:00 
a.m. - 3:30 p.m., 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. -11:30 p.m. with the 
Grounds/Maintenance shifts to be: 6:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. and 9:30 a.m. ­
6:00 p.m. In the event of layoffs, Unit Members hired on or before 
January 1, 2006 may be assigned to the shifts immediately described 
above on the basis of the inverse order of seniority.) 
The fact finder recommends that this provision be included in the new agreement 
NOTICE OF VACATION 
PROPOSALS 
The District proposes that employees be required to submit vacation requests 
prior to April 1 of each year. CSEA urges the fact finder to reject the proposal. 
PARTIES' POSITIONS 
The District argues that adequate planning for absences requires advance notice of 
vacations, and that other area districts require such notice. 
CSEA points out that the agreement already provides that an employee who wants 
to take vacation during the two weeks prior to Labor Day must obtain prior approval and 
10
 
provide three weeks' notice, and that the District already exercises sufficient control over 
vacation scheduling to maintain adequate coverage. 
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION 
Although the agreement does provide, with the Labor Day exception, that 
employees may take vacation anytime during the year, there is also the condition that 
"the time sought does not interfere with the proper operation of the school." 
The District has not demonstrated that the current vacation language has 
negatively affected its ability to properly operate its facilities, and, therefore, the 
District's proposal is not recommended. 
In conclusion, the fact finder hopes that the above recommendations and 
discussion of the issues assist the parties in concluding their negotiations, and reaching an 
agreement. 
Dated: November 22, 2010 
Bonita Springs, Florida 
11
 


Chappaqua Central School District and CSEA, Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Chappaqua Central School District, employer, and the Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226, union. PERB case no. M2009-128. Before: Louis J. Patack, Esq., fact finder.m2009_128.pdf: 314 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Patack, Louis J.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&amp;context=perbfact

Chappaqua Central School District and CSEA, Local 1000 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Chappaqua School Unit No. 9226

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)