In the matter of the fact-finding between the Town of Barker, employer, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 317, union. PERB case no. M2015-259. Before: Timothy W. Gorman, fact finder

Gorman, Timothy W

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

Cornell University ILR School 
DigitalCommons@ILR 
Fact Finding Reports - NYS PERB New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) 
2-28-2017 
Barker, Town of and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), 
AFL-CIO, Local 317 
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. 
Barker, Town of and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 
317 
Abstract 
In the matter of the fact-finding between the Town of Barker, employer, and the International Brotherhood 
of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 317, union. PERB case no. M2015-259. 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/124 
 THE NEW YORK STATE  
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD 
 
            IN THE MATTER OF IMPASSE 
              between 
                 THE TOWN OF BARKER, NY  
        and        
 THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 
          OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 317     
 
 
Appearances:       
 
For the Union: Roberta Dunker, Business Agent, Teamsters Local 317 
 
 
For the District: Michael Richardson, Labor Consultant, Town of Barker 
 
 
Date of Hearing: January 23, 2017 
Date of Briefs: February 15, 2017 
Date of Report: February 28, 2017  
 
 
 
NYS PERB Case:  M2015-259 
 
 
Report and Recommendations  
 
of 
 
Timothy W. Gorman, 
Fact Finder 
 
[2] 
 
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 Town 
of Barker, NY and Teamsters Local 317. On January 23, 2017, a fact-finding hearing was 
held at the Town of Barker offices. At this hearing both parties gave overviews of their 
respective bargaining positions. By mutual agreement, the parties submitted briefs which 
were received by me on February 15, 2017. Upon receipt of these briefs, I declared the 
hearing closed. 
BACKGROUND 
  The Town of Barker, NY (hereafter the Employer or the Town) and Teamsters 
Local 317 (hereafter the Union) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. This 
agreement expired on December 31, 2015. The parties met to bargain on a new agreement 
on November 30, 2015. They held a second session on June 15, 2016, this time with a 
Public Employment Relations Board appointed mediator. Despite the mediator’s best 
efforts, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on a new contract. The Union 
subsequently declared an impasse and filed with the New York State Public Employment 
Relations Board for fact-finding. 
 
 
[3] 
 
OUTSTANDING ISSUES 
 The parties have identified four major open issues. These are listed below: 
 
1. Duration 
2. Health Insurance  
3. Wage Increases 
4. Longevity 
  
SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS 
 
Duration 
 The parties exchanged many ideas about the length of the new contract. At the 
conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, and in their respective briefs it was clear that both 
parties were willing to consider a four-year contract expiring December 31, 2019, if an 
agreement on the remaining three issues could be reached.  
Health Insurance 
The Union 
 The Union proposed that the Town switch to the Teamsters Health and Hospital 
Fund’s HSA plan. This plan is comparable to the Town’s current health insurance plan and 
would provide substantial savings to the Town. This savings was estimated by the Union 
to be almost $13,000 per year, and would more than offset the wage and longevity increases 
sought by the Union. 
 
[4] 
 
The Town 
 The Town, while not opposed to a switch to the Teamsters Health and Hospital 
Fund’s HSA plan, could only make this switch on January 1, 2018 as its budget and 
monetary allocation for health insurance have already been made by the Town for its 
current health plan. At the end of the new contract, the Town would also reserve the sole 
right to revert back to its former community-rated plan.  
Wage Increases 
The Union 
 The Union’s last wage proposal was for wage increases of 1% for 2016, 2% for 
2017, 2% for 2018, and 2% for 2019. It cites the fact that switching to the Teamsters Health 
and Hospital Fund’s HSA plan would save the Town almost $13,000 per year. With these 
savings, the Town could surely afford the modest wage increases that the Union is seeking. 
Given these health insurance savings, the Town’s proposal of a 0% increases for 2016, and 
a 0% increase for 2017 is indefensible as the Teamsters Health and Hospital Fund’s HSA 
plan savings more than fund the wage increases proposed by the Union.  
The Town 
 The Town’s last wage proposal submitted during a discussion at the fact-finding 
hearing was for wage increases of 0% for 2016, 0% for 2017, 1.5% for 2018, and 2% for 
2019. It cited the fact that the Town is forced by the state comptroller’s office to submit a 
budget on November 20th for the coming year (i.e. the 2016 budget is submitted on or 
before November 20, 2015, the 2017 budget is submitted on or before November 20, 2016, 
etc.).  
[5] 
 
 Because the first negotiation for a new CBA was not schedule to commence until 
November 30, 2015, the Town made no provision for any wage increase in 2016. 
Additionally, because no agreement was in place by November 20, 2016, the Town, again 
submitted its budget to the state comptroller’s office without any wage increase for 2017; 
therefore, the Town has no monies available for any wage increases for either of these 
years.  
The Town also cited the low consumer inflation rate (consumer price index) and the 
state imposed property tax cap as its basis for it wage increase proposal. 
Longevity 
The Union 
 The Union sought an increase in longevity by adding five more steps after an 
employee reached 30 years of service. These longevity payment steps are as follows: 
31 years of service, $ 645.00 
32 years of service, $ 666.00 
33 years of service, $ 687.00 
34 years of service, $ 708.00 
35 years of service, $ 729.00 
 
With the savings that the Town would reap from a switch to the Teamsters Health 
and Hospital Fund’s HSA plan it could easily afford the extra five years of the longevity 
benefit. 
The Town 
 The Town proposed a change to longevity stating that only employees hired into the 
bargaining unit before January 1, 2016 would be eligible for longevity payments. 
Additionally, it would place a cap of 30 years of longevity payments for employees hired 
[6] 
 
before January 1, 2010 and a cap of 20 years for employees hired on or after January 1, 
2010.  
The Town’s reasoning for this is similar to its reasoning for the wage freeze in 2016 
and 2017, namely, because it is forced by the state Comptroller’s office to submit a budget 
on November 20th of the prior year that the budget takes effect there was no contingency 
made in the 2016 or 2017 budget for increases in longevity payments. It also notes that 
three towns in Broome County that are also represented by the Union all have longevity 
caps at 30 years.  
 
FACT FINDER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Both parties made compelling cases in support of their negotiating positions. It is 
with this in mind that I offer the recommendations below. The parties should not read, or 
interpret these as separate and unrelated. Rather, I would like the parties to consider the 
recommendations as a whole and use it as a basis for continuing negotiations that would 
lead to a settlement of this impasse. 
Duration 
 Both parties were open to a four-year agreement. Because the other 
recommendations in this report rely on the parties accepting this duration, a four-year 
agreement is necessary.  
 
[7] 
 
Recommendation  
 The parties adopt a four-year agreement covering 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. 
Health Insurance 
 Both parties made cogent cases as to health insurance. The Town, while not opposed 
to the Teamsters Health and Hospital Fund’s HSA plan cannot reasonably implement this 
plan until January of 2018 as that is when their current plan, which they have already 
included in their budget, expires. Also, at the end of the new contract, the Town would 
reserve the sole right to revert back to its community-rated plan.    
 The Union also made a strong case as to the cost savings that the Teamsters Health 
and Hospital Fund’s HSA plan could provide the Town. According to the Union this plan, 
if implemented could save the Town almost $13,000 per year.  
I believe that this plan, and the savings associated with it would open the door to the 
overall wage increases the Union seeks. I also recommend that at the end of the new 
contract this provision be negotiated by the parties, as opposed to the Town retaining the 
right to unilaterally revert to the former community-rated plan. This negotiation could lead 
to further cost savings, either with the Teamster plan, another plan or, the Town’s 
community-rated plan. 
Recommendation  
The parties adopt the Teamster Health and Hospital Fund’s HSA plan as of January 
1, 2018. 
 
[8] 
 
Wages 
 The record showed that with the parties adopting the Teamster Health and Hospital 
Fund’s HSA plan the Town would have room for wage increases. However, these increases 
would only be available for 2018 and 2019 of the proposed new contract as the Town has 
already submitted its budget for 2016 and 2017.   
 The Town’s last wage proposal submitted during a discussion at the fact-finding 
hearing was for wage increases of 0% for 2016, 0% for 2017, 1.5% for 2018, and 2% for 
2019. While I understand that it cannot give wage increase in 2016 and 2017 due to budget 
constraints, its proposal of 1.5% for 2018, and 2% for 2019 is inadequate. With the savings 
from the new health insurance plan the Town can be more substantial with its wage 
increases.  
 I also understand  Union’s desire for wage increases of 1% for 2016, 2% for 2017, 
2% for 2018, and 2% for 2019. I also think this is unwarranted given the fact that the Town 
– right or wrong – made no contingency for wage increases in 2016 and 2017. The state-
imposed tax cap has also placed a financial burden on the Town.  
  I do believe that if the parties adopt the Teamster Health and Hospital Fund’s HSA 
plan on January 1, 2018, there are sufficient monies available for greater wages increases 
in 2018 and 2019 than the Town is currently proposing.   
Recommendation  
 The wage increase be structured as follows: 0% for 2016, 0% for 2017, 2.8% for 
2018, and 2.8% for 2019. 
 
[9] 
 
 
Longevity 
The Union seeks an increase in longevity by adding five more steps after an 
employee reaches 30 years of service. By contrast, the Town proposes a change to 
longevity, stating that only employees hired into the bargaining unit before January 1, 2016 
would be eligible for longevity payments. Additionally, it would place a cap of 30 years of 
longevity payments for employees hired before January 1, 2010 and a cap of 20 years for 
employees hired on or after January 1, 2010. 
Both of these proposals seem unreasonable. The Town’s proposal is harsh as it 
would effectively eliminate longevity for new hires. Likewise, the Union’s proposal of 
adding another five years to the longevity schedule is out of line with contracts of other 
similar sized bargaining units. 
Recommendation  
 I recommend no change to the longevity schedule. Longevity would remain as it 
appears in Article 11.2 of the CBA that was in effect from January 1, 2014 through 
December 31, 2015.    
 
 
 
 
[10] 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 It was clear from the hearing and the submitted briefs that the parties have zealously 
represented their respective interests. I believe the parties have been negotiating in good 
faith, but at the hearing, frustration from both parties was evident.  
As stated above, I recommend the parties read, and interpret the recommendations 
I have outlined not as separate and unrelated. Rather, I would like them to consider the 
recommendations as a whole and use it as a basis for continuing negotiations that would 
lead to a settlement of this impasse 
 It is my fervent hope that this report along with its recommendations will serve as a 
catalyst to restart the parties’ negotiations and lead to an agreement that is mutually 
beneficial to all. 
        
Date:  February 28, 2017       Signed: _________________________________________  
                       Timothy W. Gorman, Fact Finder  
 
 


Barker, Town of and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 317

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Town of Barker, employer, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 317, union. PERB case no. M2015-259. Before: Timothy W. Gorman, fact finder.m2015_259.pdf: 27 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Gorman, Timothy W.

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&amp;context=perbfact

Barker, Town of and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), AFL-CIO, Local 317

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)