In the matter of the fact-finding between the Village of Horseheads, NY, employer, and CSEA Local 1000, Unit#6359, union. PERB case no. 2011-146. Before: Timothy W. Gorman, fact finder

Gorman, Timothy W

English

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Village of Horseheads, NY, employer, and CSEA Local 1000, Unit#6359, union. PERB case no. 2011-146. Before: Timothy W. Gorman, fact finder.m2011_146.pdf: 129 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Gorman, Timothy W.

eCommons@Cornell

Village of Horseheads, NY and CSEA Local 1000, Unit #6359

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
5-28-2012 
Village of Horseheads, NY and CSEA Local 1000, Unit #6359 
Timothy W. Gorman 
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. 
Village of Horseheads, NY and CSEA Local 1000, Unit #6359 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Village of Horseheads, NY, employer, and CSEA Local 1000, 
Unit#6359, union. PERB case no. 2011-146. Before: Timothy W. Gorman, fact finder. 
Keywords 
New York State, PERB, fact finding 
This article is available at DigitalCommons@ILR: https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/perbfact/87 
 
 
THE NEW YORK STATE  
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
 
 
IN THE MATTER OF FACT-FINDING 
between 
THE VILLAGE OF HORSEHEADS, NY  
and 
CSEA LOCAL 1000, UNIT #6359 
 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
 
 
 
Case Number  M2011-146 
 
Report and Recommendations 
 
of 
 
Timothy W. Gorman, 
 
Fact Finder 
  
 
Appearances:       
For the Union: Shawn M. Lucas, Labor Relations Specialist 
  CSEA Local 1000, Unit #6359 
 
For the Company: James W. Roemer, JR, Esq. 
 Roemer, Wallens Gold & Mineaux, LLP 
Also Present: 
Walt Herbst, Village Mayor  
George F. Koliwasky, Trustee 
Sean M. Lohmuller, Bargaining Unit President 
David Stow, Bargaining Unit Vice President 
 
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2012 
Date of Report:  May 28, 2012  
 
INTRODUCTION 
 In accordance with Civil Service Law §209.3, the New York State Public 
Employment Relations Board appointed me as Fact Finder in an impasse between the Village 
of Horseheads, New York and the CSEA Local 1000, Unit 6359. On April 30, 2012 a fact-
finding hearing was held at the Village of Horseheads offices. At this hearing both parties 
were given full opportunity to present oral and documentary evidence. At the end of the 
hearing and per an agreement between the parties, no briefs were filed and I declared the 
hearing closed.  
BACKGROUND 
 The Village of Horseheads, New York (hereafter the Employer or the Village) and 
The Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000, Unit 6359 (hereafter the Union) are 
parties to a collective bargaining agreement. This agreement expired on May 31, 2011. 
Bargaining for a new agreement began in May 2011 with the assistance of a mediator. 
Despite the mediator’s best effort the parties were unable to reach an agreement for a new 
contract. The Village subsequently declared an impasse and filed with the New York State 
Public Employment Relations Board for fact-finding. 
 
OUTSTANDING ISSUES  
 
  At the hearing the parties identified two issues of dispute: 
 (1) Healthcare, which includes: plan options and premium contributions,   
  movement of employees between plans, and health savings accounts (HSA). 
   
 (2)  Wage increases. 
- 2 - 
 
 SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS  
 
THE VILLAGE 
 
1. Healthcare 
 The Village’s stated goal is to eventually have all employees, both Union and Non-
Union under a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) health insurance plan. Currently all 
non-union personnel are already under a PPO plan. However, the Village realizes that a 
transition to the PPO plan would take time; therefore, it offered a compromise to the Union 
in a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 6, 2011(E-4) (see below). 
 Plan Options and Premium Contribution - The Village proposes to still have two 
health plans available to the bargaining unit, an indemnity plan and a PPO plan. However, it 
asserts that, as the plans stand now, the premium contributions are reversed from what they 
should be, considering the costs of the respective plans. These cost and contribution figures 
are below: 
 Monthly cost of insurance coverage to Village in 2012 dollars: 
 
 Insurance Rates   2012     2012 
      Indemnity    PPO 
  
 Individual Medical and Dental $  744.75  $  625.22 
 Family Medical and Dental  $1479.03  $1175.86 
  
 
  
 Premium contributions by bargaining unit members (as of the last CBA) are: 
  
 Indemnity Plan: 
     2008    Single   $18 per bi-weekly pay,   2009  $19 per bi-weekly pay 
     2008   Family   $20 per bi-weekly pay,   2009  $21 per bi-weekly pay 
    
- 3 - 
 
  
 PPO Plan : 
               2008   Single   $24 per bi-weekly pay,   2009   $26 per bi-weekly pay 
              2008   Family  $24 per bi-weekly pay,   2009   $26 per bi-weekly pay 
 
  
 
 Since the indemnity plan currently has lower contribution rates than the PPO plan, 
even though the indemnity plan costs the Village far more, there is no incentive for any 
bargaining unit member to ever convert to the PPO plan. 
 In a July 21, 2011 proposed offer to settle negotiations between the Village of 
Horseheads and CSEA (U-1), the Village made the following offer to the Union: 
 Current health insurance premium contributions shall be converted to a  
 percentage of premium. In fiscal year June 1, 2011 - May 31, 2012, premium  
 contributions shall be 3.50% for family premium and 6.50% for individual 
 premium. In the second fiscal year of the Agreement (June 1, 2012 - May 31, 
 2013), premium contributions will be 5.00% of family premium and 7.50% 
 individual premium. In the third fiscal year of the Agreement (June 1,2013 - May 
 31,2014), premium contributions for both family and individual will be 7.50% of 
 premium.  
 
 In a Memorandum of Understanding with the Union dated December 6, 2011 (E-4), 
the Village, seeking to assuage the apprehension that premium contributions, when expressed 
as a percentage of total premium, would not protect bargaining unit members from a large 
increase in the  plan’s overall cost (i.e. if the total plan cost to the Village increased so would 
the members’ contribution because said contribution is expressed as a percentage of this 
increase, not a flat dollar amount), offered both plans to the bargaining unit with flat dollar 
amount contributions. This is as follows: 
 
  
 
 
- 4 - 
 
 PPO Plan :                   Individual                     Family 
   02/01/12 -12/31/12    $19 per bi-weekly pay     $20 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13    $23 per bi-weekly pay     $30 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 - 05/31/14   $25 per bi-weekly pay     $45 per bi-weekly pay 
  
     
 Indemnity Plan:           Individual                      Family 
   02/01/12 -12/31/12     $47 per bi-weekly pay      $74 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13     $52 per bi-weekly pay      $86 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 -05/31/14     $54 per bi-weekly pay   $107 per bi-weekly pay 
 
  
 Movement Between Plans - The Village also states that in an effort to get more 
bargaining unit employees into the PPO plan, effective 02/01/12 employees hired before 
01/01/12 can elect either the Indemnity Plan or the PPO Plan. Employees hired on or after 
01/01/12 will be eligible to enroll in only the PPO Plan.  
 Health Savings Account - The Village proposes to set up a Health Savings Account 
(HSA) for unit members. If the members choose the PPO plan the Village would contribute 
to the plan as follows:  For employees choosing the PPO individual coverage, the Village’s 
contribution to the HSA would be $300 annually. For employees choosing the PPO family 
coverage, the Village’s contribution to the HSA would be $600 annually. If employees chose 
the indemnity plan, the Village would make no contribution to the HSA.  
2. Wages  
  The Village has proposed that wage increases would be as follows:  Effective May 
31, 2011 the salary schedule would be amended cumulatively by 2% on June 1, 2011, 2% on 
June 1, 2012, 3% on June 1, 2013.  
 The Village reasons that the benefit level of the two insurance plans, Indemnity and 
PPO, are nearly identical when one considers the contribution to the HSA by the Village to 
help soften out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the employees. The PPO plan, because of its 
- 5 - 
 
lower cost to the Village, allows for a more generous wage increase than would otherwise be 
possible if the Village just kept the PPO and Indemnity plans as they currently exist in the 
expired contract without the Village’s proposed changes.  
 Lastly, the Village points to the fact that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 
December 6, 2011(E-4) was agreed to by the Village and CSEA negotiating committees, but 
voted down by the union general membership. 
 
THE UNION 
1. Healthcare 
 The Union asserts that its members prefer and most still take the indemnity plan and 
they have little interest in the PPO plan. Also, with the Village’s proposed contribution 
amount, as outlined in its last proposal (E-4), being much higher when compared to the 
indemnity plan contribution in the expired contract, the monetary difference and thus the cost 
to the employee is too severe.  
 Plan Options and Premium Contribution -The last proposal from the Village more 
than doubles the indemnity plan premium contribution for bargaining unit members. In the 
first year of the new contract the increase would be from the current $19 per pay to $47 per 
pay for employees taking individual coverage and an increase from $21 to $74 for those 
choosing family coverage. Furthermore, this contribution amount increases every year 
thereafter. The Union also objected to the elimination of a $600 bonus (see J-1, CBA section 
29.6) if an employee did decide to go with the PPO plan. The Union proposed the following 
plan contributions with yearly caps on total contributions: 
   
- 6 - 
 
 PPO Plan:     
       Individual                        Family 
   01/01/12 -12/31/12      $30 per bi-weekly pay     $30 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13      $32 per bi-weekly pay     $32 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 -12/31/14      $34 per bi-weekly pay     $34 per bi-weekly pay 
  
 Indemnity Plan:               
        Individual                   Family 
   01/01/12 -12/31/12       $21 per bi-weekly pay    $21 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13       $22 per bi-weekly pay    $22 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 -12/31/14       $23 per bi-weekly pay    $23 per bi-weekly pay 
 
 Movement Between Plans - The Union objects to the inability of its members to 
move from one plan to another. Employees hired on or after 01/01/12 would be required to 
enroll in the PPO Plan and do not have the option after a certain period to move to the 
Indemnity plan. The Union is willing to consider having both plans available to its members, 
but only if there is the ability to move freely between the two at agreed upon intervals.  
 Health Savings Account - The Union does not object to a HSA plan but the 
Village’s contribution amounts of $300 for individuals and $600 for families per year are 
simply insufficient when one considers the cost of today’s medical care. A family with 
children can run through the $600 limit quite quickly and then would be stuck with out-of-
pocket expenses to make up this deficit.  As stated above, the Union also objects to the 
elimination of the $600 bonus if an employee did decide to go with the PPO plan as this 
could help defray out-of-pocket expenses. 
2. Wages 
  The Village’s proposed wage increases of 2% on June 1, 2011, 2% on June 1, 2012, 
and 3% on June 1, 2013 are simply insufficient as they would be eaten up by the increased 
costs to the members of the proposed health insurance plan. This is magnified by the 
- 7 - 
 
elimination of the $600 bonus. The Union seeks wage increases of 3% in 2011, 3% in 2012, 
and 3% in 2013, with all increases to be retroactive.  
 In conclusion, the Union states that because of the above reasons it cannot accept the 
Village’s last proposal.  
FACT FINDER’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS   
 
 In stating their cases to me the parties presented the various costs of the plans, the 
options available, their willingness or unwillingness to accept these plans and their costs, 
along with the associated proposed wage increases suggested by each party. However the 
Village and the Union did not make any comparisons to other healthcare plans for other like 
or similar localities or bargaining units. It is therefore up to me to assess what is reasonable 
using the parties’ presentations and exhibits. 
1. Healthcare 
 Plan Options and Premium Contribution - There is merit in the Village’s assertion 
that the premium contributions are the reverse of what they should be, considering the costs 
of the respective plans. The indemnity plan should require a larger contribution by 
bargaining unit employees simply because it costs more. The current indemnity plan costs 
20% more than the PPO plan, but in the 2009 contract the employee contribution to the 
indemnity plan is 26% less than the PPO plan for an individual plan, and 19% less for a 
family plan. This is also true when we examine the Union’s proposed plan contributions. 
Given the total cost of the two plans to the Village I find its proposal to be reasonable.  
  
  
- 8 - 
 
 Recommendation - The parties should adopt the contributions as outlined below:   
        
 PPO Plan :                   Individual                       Family 
   02/01/12 -12/31/12    $19 per bi-weekly pay     $20 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13    $23 per bi-weekly pay     $30 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 - 05/31/14   $25 per bi-weekly pay     $45 per bi-weekly pay 
  
     
 Indemnity Plan:           Individual                        Family 
   02/01/12 -12/31/12     $47 per bi-weekly pay      $74 per bi-weekly pay 
   01/01/13 -12/31/13     $52 per bi-weekly pay      $86 per bi-weekly pay
   01/01/14 -05/31/14     $54 per bi-weekly pay   $107 per bi-weekly pay 
 
 Movement Between Plans - Because the Village is willing to offer both the 
indemnity and PPO plans to the current bargaining unit members, I believe it is fair to limit 
new hires to only the PPO plan. 
 Recommendation - Effective 02/01/12 employees hired before 01/01/12 can elect 
either the Indemnity Plan or the PPO Plan. Employees hired on or after 01/01/12 will be 
eligible to enroll in only the PPO Plan.  
 Health Savings Account - The Union’s concern about the amount of the Village’s 
contribution to the Health Savings Account (HSA) is warranted considering that the Village 
wishes to eliminate the $600 PPO bonus payment in their recently expired contract (see J-1, 
CBA section 29.6).   
  Recommendation - For employees choosing the PPO individual coverage the 
Village’s contribution to the HSA would be $350 annually. For employees choosing the PPO 
family coverage the Village’s contribution to the HSA would be $700 annually. The $600 
PPO bonus payment will be eliminated. There will be no HSA contribution by the Village 
for employees choosing the indemnity plan. 
 
- 9 - 
 
- 10 - 
 
2. Wages 
 The parties are not very far apart as to wage increases. The Village proposes 
increases of 2% in 2011, 2% in 2012, and 3% in 2013. The Union proposes increases of 3% 
in 2011, 3% in 2012, and 3% in 2013. Because the parties did not offer any other similar 
contract settlements for which the Fact Finder could draw information, I must again 
determine what is reasonable given all of the other points of contention in this impasse, the 
general economy and other settlements.  
 Recommendation - Given the current state of the economy and drawing from recent 
settlements that I have seen or been involved in, I believe the Village’s proposed increases of 
2% in 2011, 2% in 2012, and 3% in 2013 (retroactive) are reasonable and proper. 
CONCLUSION   
 It was clear from the hearing that the parties do have mutual respect for each other 
even while zealously representing their respective interests. I believe the parties negotiated in 
good faith a memorandum of understanding (MOA) with terms they both believed to be 
reasonable. Recommendations that would constitute major changes to this MOA would be 
unwarranted on the evidence presented, and would do harm to the parties’ good relationship, 
as well as the collective bargaining process as a whole. 
 It is my hope that this report and recommendation, along with above-mentioned 
mutual respect will serve as a catalyst to restart the parties’ negotiations and lead to an 
agreement that is mutually beneficial to all. 
 
 
Date: __________________   Signed: _________________________________________  
       Timothy W. Gorman, Fact Finder  


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&amp;context=perbfact

Village of Horseheads, NY and CSEA Local 1000, Unit #6359

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@Cornell

DigitalCommons@ILR