17 CIR 280 (2012)
NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Entered June 15, 2012
Before: Commissioners Lindahl, Blake, and McGinn
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
On January 27, 2012 the Commission entered a Findings and Order on the issue of the array in this case involving the Professional Firefighters of Omaha, Local 385 (“Petitioner” or “Union”) and the City of Omaha (“Respondent” or “City”). The Findings and Order contained herein is a continuation of the bifurcated findings agreed to by the parties, and will determine the wages and terms and conditions of employment for the employees of this collective bargaining unit for the December 29, 2009 through December 25, 2010 contract year. The bargaining unit consists of all uniformed employees of the Omaha Fire Department, including the classifications of Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Engineer, Fire Captain, Drill Master, EMS Shift Supervisor, Assistant Fire Marshal and Battalion Chief, but excluding the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chiefs.
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 the Commission is charged with determining rates of pay and conditions of employment which are comparable to prevalent wage rates paid and conditions of employment maintained under the same or similar working conditions.
In our previous Findings and Order, we established the array in this case to include Des Moines, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Madison, Wisconsin; St. Paul, Minnesota; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Cincinnati, Ohio. We will now compare data from the chosen array cities to establish prevalent wage rates paid and conditions of employment, determining the overall compensation.
Petitioner requests that the Commission determine a separate wage for probationary or newly hired firefighters, submitting evidence for both a 40-hour workweek rate and a 24-hour shift rate. Respondent contends that it is not prevalent to pay a separate 40-hour workweek wage rate in the array, and that the wage for newly hired firefighters should be determined using the 24-hour shift rate.
Cincinnati, Lincoln, and St. Paul have separate classifications for Firefighter Trainees, while Des Moines, Madison, and Milwaukee do not have a separate classification. Lincoln, Des Moines, and Milwaukee pay the same rate for newly hired firefighters working either a 40-hour workweek or 24-hour shift. Cincinnati, St. Paul, and Madison each pay a separate rate for the 40-hour workweek and the 24-hour shift.
In regards to Cincinnati, Respondent argues that the appropriate rate for the 24-hour shift should be $14.41, which is the rate established in the collective bargaining agreement for Firefighter Recruits working a 24-hour shift. Testimony was given regarding the 24-hour shift wage rate, stating that Firefighter Trainees in Cincinnati are paid $17.29 while scheduled to a 40-hour workweek for 24 weeks of academy training. After leaving the academy, Firefighter Trainees are scheduled to 24-hour shifts and moved to the Firefighter Probationary rate of $19.02. Witness testimony further stated that Firefighter Trainees are not scheduled to a 24-hour shift while in the academy and are therefore not paid the $14.41 rate. We shall therefore utilize the 24-hour shift Firefighter Probationary Rate for Cincinnati in making our wage determination.
Based on the evidence presented for the chosen array, we determine that Omaha shall continue to pay a separate wage for probationary or newly hired firefighters. We also find that it is not prevalent to pay probationary firefighters a separate wage based on either a 40-hour workweek or a 24-hour shift schedule and therefore will not order any change in Omaha’s current pay practice for probationary firefighters. Comparing the wage rates for a 24-hour shift schedule, the current pay in Omaha for the Probationary Firefighter is below the prevalent rate and should be increased from $14.79 to $16.15. See Table 1.
In regards to determining the probationary period for newly hired firefighters, each array city has its own schedule of how long a newly hired firefighter is in training. The evidence is not clear in regards to academy time and training. Therefore, we order no change in Omaha’s current probationary period.
In Cincinnati, each wage classification’s minimum and maximum wage, except Firefighter Trainees, receive an additional $0.96 an hour for having basic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) certification. In Professional Firefighters Ass’n of Omaha, Local 385 v. City of Omaha, 16 CIR 35 (2008), the Commission included a $0.92 additional payment in the wage rate for Cincinnati firefighters because the EMT certification was considered a condition of their employment and Omaha firefighters were required to hold at least the same certification. In the present case, the evidence shows that basic EMT certification is still a condition of employment as a Cincinnati firefighter and Omaha firefighters within the bargaining unit are required to be at least basic EMT certified. We shall therefore include the supplemental payment of $0.96 per hour as part of the minimum and maximum of the wages for Firefighter/Senior Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Engineer, and Captain for Cincinnati. Wages in Omaha should be adjusted based on the data submitted for the chosen array cities. See Tables 2 through 8. Because the job classifications of Drill Master and EMS Shift Supervisor for Omaha do not exist elsewhere, wages for the job classifications of Drill Master and EMS Shift Supervisor were imputed from the wage determination for Captain. See Tables 5 and 6. Likewise, the wage determination for Assistant Fire Marshall has been imputed from the Battalion Fire Chief position. See Table 7.
Petitioner states that each wage classification should continue to progress based on a combination of individual years of service in the classification and successful completion of employee performance evaluations. Respondent also believes that this should be the method of progression, and recommends that the Commission not take into account Petitioner’s evidence regarding the amount of time an employee would spend at each step when determining progression along the pay line.
The Nebraska Supreme Court in Douglas County Health Dept. Emp. Ass’n v. Douglas County, 229 Neb. 301, 427 N.W.2d 28 (1988) specifically held that the “manner in which an individual moves from the minimum to the maximum salary rate of a job classification is a timing difference in the salary schedule, which must be adjusted to reach a comparability determination” and is a condition of employment which the Commission has the authority to establish. In the 2009 Omaha Firefighters wage case, the Commission ordered employees to be placed on the pay-line both by time of service and performance. See Professional Firefighters Ass’n of Omaha, Local 385 v. City of Omaha, 16 CIR 408 (2011). Based upon the array, we find that it is prevalent to place the Firefighter/Senior Firefighter, Fire Apparatus Engineer, and Fire Captain employees on the pay line based on a combination of time in service and completion of successful performance evaluations. Respondent shall use performance evaluations of each firefighter, which are in the custody of Respondent, when placing employees within the pay plan. See Tables 9 through 11. We will not calculate the amount of time spent at each step as the time a firefighter spends at a particular step may be affected by how the firefighter is evaluated in the performance of assigned duties.
For the Battalion Fire Chief, it is bi-modal whether employees are placed on a step pay line and the number of steps on that pay line. No mode was found for the number of years to max and movement is based on a combination of performance and time or seniority and time. We therefore order no change and Omaha shall continue to place Battalion Fire Chiefs on a step pay plan with steps remaining unchanged at 9. Progression along the pay-line shall also remain unchanged as a combination of performance and time or seniority and time. Therefore, years to max shall remain at 7 years. See Table 12.
In regards to promotional overlap, Petitioner states that is prevalent to not allow lower ranking workers to earn a wage that is more than a higher ranking worker. Petitioner cites Omaha Municipal Code §23-148, which prohibits a Fire Department employee from receiving a base wage rate less than the base wage rate paid to an employee that is less senior in rank, class, or grade, and asks the Commission to order Respondent to maintain its adherence to the municipal code and continue to allow promotion of employees to a position in the next rank that is close to a 5% increase upon promotion. Respondent argues that the Commission does not have the authority to interpret and/or enforce a local ordinance, and that the Omaha Municipal Code should have no bearing on the Commission’s findings. We agree. It is outside our jurisdiction to order Respondent to adhere to the Omaha Municipal Code, and the existence of the Code would not have any bearing on the jurisdiction we have to determine wages and terms and conditions of employment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818.
Petitioner recommends that the Commission find that it is prevalent in the array to provide a plan for longevity pay at five years. Each party submitted exhibits which reflect that St. Paul is the only city within the chosen array which does not offer longevity pay as a separate benefit.
Based on the chosen array, it is prevalent to provide longevity pay and Respondent shall continue to offer the benefit. See Table 14. It is agreed that St. Paul does not have a separate longevity pay plan. Therefore, St. Paul will not be used in the analysis of prevalence for longevity which will be reflected by the use of “not applicable.” See Tables 15-18.
In past cases, we have stated that we will not use zeros in calculating longevity as the use of zeros should indicate that a benefit is provided but not paid for. We have evaluated this practice and have determined that longevity is a benefit that is offered as an overall benefit provided to employees. A zero shall be entered where no money is paid for that year. The use of “not applicable” is appropriate only in those situations, such as St. Paul, where an employer does not offer the benefit at all. It seems rather confusing to use “not applicable” for cities such as Milwaukee, which provides the longevity benefit to the Firefighter/Senior Firefighter employees but does not pay longevity until Year 10 and for St. Paul that does not offer the benefit at all. Therefore, longevity pay shall be calculated as described above.
Pension Pick Up
Evidence was presented to show that two array cities, Madison and Milwaukee, pick up the employee contribution amount for an employee’s pension benefit which resulted in employees within those cities not contributing any money from their compensation into their retirement plans. The parties are not advocating that such a pension pick up is prevalent to warrant any changes to the current contribution rate in Omaha, and we shall decline making any determination as to pension pick up or other pension benefits in this case.
As we have stated in previous cases, a pension plan is in the nature of a long-term contract which extends beyond the one-year period over which the Commission has jurisdiction. We have no general jurisdiction over contractual disputes. See Transport Workers of America v. Transit Auth. Of City of Omaha, 205 Neb. 26, 286 N.W.2d 729 (1980); Professional Firefighters Ass’n, 16 CIR 408 (2011). The Commission does have jurisdiction to offset favorable and unfavorable comparisons of current to prevalent when reaching its decision establishing wage rates. Douglas County Health Dept. Emp. Ass’n, 229 Neb. 301, 422 N.W.2d 28 (1998). We have ordered an offset of wages, but only after receiving actuarial evidence which analyzed the theoretical costs of retirement benefits, equalizing the percentage of contributions. See Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 12 CIR 248 (1997), aff’d 253 Neb. 837 (1998). As no actuarial analysis was offered for consideration in this case, we shall not make any determination regarding retirement plans and contribution rates.
Petitioner contends that unit staffing of medic units and engine and truck companies is a firefighter and public safety issue and is therefore a mandatory subject of bargaining. Respondent states that Omaha’s current unit staffing practice is comparable within the array and requests that the Commission order no change. Additionally, Respondent maintains that the Commission is without jurisdiction to order any change in unit staffing because the issue is a management prerogative.
There are three categories of collective bargaining subjects: mandatory, permissive, and prohibited. The Industrial Relations Act only requires parties to bargain over mandatory subjects. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-816(1). Whether an issue is one for bargaining under the Industrial Relations Act depends on whether the issue is primarily related to wages, hours and conditions of employment, or whether it is primarily related to formulation or management of public policy. See Service Emp. Int’l Union, Local No. 226 v. School Dist. No. 66, 3 CIR 514 (1978). As explained in Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 8 v. Douglas County, 16 CIR 401 (2010), those issues which are conditions of employment have an economic impact on the employee’s job assignment.
In the 2009 wage case, the Commission held that daily staffing, staffing by rank, and overall staffing requirements were akin to scheduling work and therefore a management prerogative as contemplated by School Dist. of Seward Educ. Ass’n v. School Dist. of Seward, 188 Neb. 772, 199 N.W.2d 752 (1972). See Professional Firefighters Ass’n of Omaha, Local 385, AFL-CIO CLC v. City of Omaha, 16 CIR 408 (2011). We do recognize Petitioner’s argument that the number of firefighters staffed to a unit can be seen as an issue of safety for both the firefighters and the public. However, we believe that these staffing issues are ones best answered by the City, and we therefore do not order any change in Omaha’s unit staffing practices.
Moot Fringe Benefits
The Commission will consider issues to be moot for two reasons. First, an issue will be found to be moot where it is impossible or impractical to retroactively change a benefit. Additionally, an issue will be moot where a decision for all practical purposes is advisory and has no carryover value. See Nebraska Public Employees Local 251 v. Otoe County, 12 CIR 177 (1996). The Commission determines that the following fringe benefits are moot because the year in dispute is over; See General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 554 v. County of Gage, et. al., 14 CIR 170 (2003):
1) Vision Insurance
2) Lead Worker
3) Work Time- Compensation for Trading Time
4) Lasik Surgery
5) Life Insurance
6) Employee Assistance Program
7) Funeral Leave
8) Fire Bunker Gear
9) Long Term Disability
10) Call-In Pay- When Policy Applies
11) Vacation Conversion to Cash at End of Year
12) Sick Leave- Family Illness Provisions
13) Sick Leave- Define Family
14) Health Insurance Stop Loss- Provided
15) Health Insurance Major Medical- Provided
16) Health Insurance Prescription Drug Plan- Provided and Generic/Brand
17) Dental Insurance- Part of Health Insurance Plan
18) Personal Hours
19) Holiday- Number of Hours Per Year
20) Holiday- Accumulate Holiday Hours Into Holiday and Compensatory Leave Bank
21) Compensatory Time- Plan Provisions
22) Specialty Compensatory Practices- Fire Uniform Provided
23) Specialty Compensatory Practices- Provide Turn Out Gear
Benefits Not Considered
The Commission shall continue to determine comparability of health insurance and life insurance by comparing the percent of the premium to be paid by the employer and employee. See Professional Firefighters Ass’n of Omaha, Local 385, AFL-CIO CLC v. City of Omaha, 16 CIR 408 (2011); Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 12 CIR 248 (1997).
The following benefits will not be considered according to the above rule:
1) Health Insurance Dollar Amounts
2) Life Insurance Dollar Amounts
3) Dental Insurance Dollar Amounts
Comparable Fringe Benefits
The following fringe benefits currently received by Petitioner’s members shall remain unchanged because they are comparable to the prevalent fringe benefits received by comparable members in the array cities:
1) Pay Administration Fire Apparatus Engineer. See Table 10.
2) Pay Administration Fire Captain. See Table 11.
3) Pay Administration Battalion Fire Chief. See Table 12.
4) Holiday Pay- Rate of Pay for Holidays Worked. See Table 13.
5) Longevity Pay Plan Provided. See Table 14.
6) Specialty Pay Paramedics- Assigned. See Table 19.
7) Specialty Pay Hazardous Materials. See Table 20.
8) Work Out of Class Pay Provisions. See Table 21.
9) Overtime/Compensatory Time Pay Practices- Compensatory Time Bank. See Table 22.
10) Overtime Pay Practices- Vacation, Sick, Holidays and Compensatory Time as Time Worked. See Table 23.
11) Overtime Pay Practices- How Compensated. See Table 24.
12) Vacation Accumulation and Conversion to Cash Upon Resignation, Dismissal, Retirement or Death. See Table 27.
13) Paid Vacation Policies- Accumulation and Carryover. See Table 28.
14) Sick Leave- Hours Earned per Year for 8-10 Hour Employees and Maximum Accumulation of Hours for 24-Hour and 8-10 Hour Employees. See Table 29.
15) Sick Leave- Conversion to Cash Upon Resignation and Dismissal. See Table 30.
16) Injured On Duty Leave- Provided, Maximum, How Compensated. See Table 31.
17) Call-In Pay- Practice and Guaranteed Rate. See Table 32.
18) Health Insurance- Percentage Paid by Employer. See Table 33.
19) Court Duty Pay. See Table 35.
20) Educational Assistance- Provided, Maximum Allowance, and Educational Incentive. See Table 36.
21) Uniform Allowance- Provided. See Table 37.
The Commission determines that, based upon the array, the following findings on fringe benefits are sufficiently different from the fringe benefits currently received by Petitioner’s members. These differences shall be adjusted as to the following fringe benefits:
1) Pay Administration Firefighter/Senior Firefighter- Number of Steps decreased from 8 to 7, and Years to Maximum decreased from 7 to 6. See Table 9.
2) Longevity Pay Firefighter/Senior Firefighter- Starting at Year 5, decreased and increased as necessary. See Table 15.
3) Longevity Pay Fire Apparatus Engineer- Starting at Year 5, decreased and increased as necessary. See Table 16.
4) Longevity Pay Captain- Starting at Year 5, decreased and increased as necessary. See Table 17.
5) Longevity Pay Battalion Chief- Starting in Year 5, decreased and increased as necessary. See Table 18.
6) Specialty Pay Paramedics- increased from 7% to 8 % if unassigned. See Table 19.
7) Overtime/Compensatory Time Pay Practices- increased maximum number of accumulated hours in bank from 109 to 127. See Table 22.
8) Vacation Annual Accrual 24 Hour Employees- increased and decreased as necessary. See Table 25.
9) Vacation Annual Accrual Day Employees- increased and decreased as necessary. See Table 26.
10) Sick Leave Hours Earned Per Year 24 Hour Employees- decreased from 152 to 148. See Table 29.
11) Sick Leave Conversion to Cash Upon Retirement and Death- increased from 57% to 65%. See Table 30.
12) Call-In Pay Practice- Time- decreased from 4 hours to 3.2 hours. See Table 32.
13) Dental Insurance Percentage Paid by Employer- decreased from 93% to 87% for Individual and decreased from 90% to 82% for Family. See Table 34.
14) Educational Assistance- Percent Reimbursed for Expenses adjusted from 100% reimbursed for Tuition Only to 100% reimbursed for expenses. See Table 36.
15) Uniform Allowance Annual Amount- increased from $417 to $519. See Table 37.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the December 29, 2009 through December 25, 2010 contract year, the following shall be effective as of December 29, 2009:
1) Petitioner’s wages for the December 29, 2009 through December 25, 2010 contract year shall be as follows:
JOB CLASSIFICATION MIN MAX
Probationary Firefighter $16.15
Firefighter/Senior Firefighter $16.93 $22.64
Fire Apparatus Engineer $19.63 $24.05
Captain $22.65 $27.66
Drill Master $25.19 $30.76
EMS Shift Supervisor $25.19 $30.76
Assistant Fire Marshall $28.02 $32.67
Battalion Fire Chief $30.06 $35.05
2) The fringe benefit and wage offset, as found herein, shall be calculated on an individual employee basis. Respondent shall determine the net lump sum overpayment or underpayment for the contract year for each employee. Any lump sum underpayment for any employee shall be paid by Respondent to each such employee; however, any employee reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of compensation owed to the employee from Respondent.
3) Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Firefighter/Senior Firefighter but shall decrease the number of steps from 8 to 7 and the years to maximum from 7 to 6. Respondent shall maintain movement on the pay plan based on performance and time.
4) Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Fire Apparatus Engineer and maintain the number of steps at 7 and the number of years to maximum at 4. Respondent shall maintain movement on the pay plan based on performance and time.
5) Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Fire Captain and shall maintain the number of steps at 7 and the years to maximum at 4. Respondent shall maintain movement along the pay plan based on performance and time.
6) Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Battalion Chief and shall maintain the number of steps at 9 and the years to maximum at 7. Respondent shall maintain movement along the pay plan based on a combination of performance and time.
7) Respondent shall continue to provide longevity pay beginning at Year 5 for the Firefighter/Senior Firefighter, but shall decrease the rate to $563. Respondent shall decrease the rate of longevity pay after years: 6 from $688 to $563; 7 from $688 to $563; 8 from $688 to $652; 9 from $917 to $652; 13 from $1,290 to $1,209; 14 from $1,500 to $1,209; 15 from $1,787 to $1,766; 16 from $1,787 to $1,766; 17 from $1,851 to $1,766; 18 from $2,062 to $1,766; 19 from $2,125 to $1,766; and decreasing the maximum from $2,855 to $2,756. Respondent shall increase the rate of longevity pay in year: 10 from $1,162 to $1,209; 11 from $1,162 to $1,209; 12 from $1,162 to $1,209; 20 from $2,361 to $2,405; 21 from $2,361 to $2,405; 22 from $2,571 to $2,405; 23 from $2,361 to $2,405; 24 from $2,361 to $2,405; and 25 from $2,644 to $2,698.
8) Respondent shall continue to provide longevity pay beginning at Year 5 for the Fire Apparatus Engineer, but shall decrease the rate from $722 to $593. Respondent shall decrease the rate after years: 6 from $722 to $593; 7 from $722 to $593; 8 from $722 to $681; 9 from $722 to $681; 15 from $1,852 to $1,851; 16 from $1,852 to $1,851; 17 from $1,852 to $1,851; 18 from $1,852 to $1,851; 19 from $1,852 to $1,851; and decreasing the maximum from $2,962 to $2,869. Respondent shall increase the rate of longevity pay in year: 10 from $1,205 to $1,276; 11 from $1,205 to $1,276; 12 from $1,205 to $1,276; 13 from $1,205 to $1,276; 14 from $1,205 to $1,276; 20 from $2,444 to $2,466; 21 from $2,444 to $2,466; 22 from $2,444 to $2,466; 23 from $2,444 to $2,466; 24 from $2,444 to $2,466; and 25 from $2,739 to $2,808.
9) Respondent shall continue to provide longevity pay at Year 5 for Captain, decreasing the rate from $808 to $672. Respondent shall decrease the rate of longevity pay after years: 6 from $808 to $672; 7 from $808 to $672; 8 from $808 to $742; 9 from $808 to $742; and decreasing the maximum from $3,234 to $3,133. Respondent shall increase the rate of longevity pay in year: 10 from $1,310 to $1,374; 11 from $1,310 to $1,374; 12 from $1,310 to $1,374; 13 from $1,310 to $1,374; 14 from $1,310 to $1,491; 15 from $2,010 to $2,022; 16 from $2,010 to $2,022; 17 from $2,010 to $2,022; 18 from $2,010 to $2,022; 19 from $2,010 to $2,139; 20 from $2,649 to $2,709; 21 from $2,649 to $2,709; 22 from $2,649 to $2,768; 23 from $2,649 to $2,768; 24 from $2,649 to $2,768; and 25 from $2,978 to $3,062.
10) Respondent shall start providing longevity pay at Year 5 for Battalion Chief at the rate of $349; 6 at $349; 7 at $349; 8 at $769; 9 at $769. Respondent shall decrease the rate of longevity pay after years: 10 from $2,130 to $1,307; 11 from $2,130 to $1,307; 12 from $2,130 to $1,307; 13 from $2,130 to $1,307; 14 from $2,130 to $1,477; 15 from $3,173 to $1,786; 16 from $3,173 to $1,786; 17 from $3,173 to $1,871; 18 from $3,173 to $1,956; 19 from $3,173 to $1,956; 20 from $4,084 to $2,304; 21 from $4,084 to $2,304; 22 from $4,084 to $2,389; 23 from $4,084 to $2,389; 24 from $4,084 to $2,389; 25 from $4,861 to $2,748; and decreasing the maximum from $5,504 to $3,022.
11) Respondent shall continue to provide specialty pay for Paramedics at 10% of the employee’s current salary if assigned, and shall increase from 7% to 8% of the employee’s current salary if unassigned.
12) Respondent shall continue to provide specialty pay for Hazardous Materials at 4% of the employee’s current salary if assigned and 2% of the employee’s current salary if unassigned.
13) Respondent shall continue to pay for work out of class for all hours worked at the rate of the higher classification.
14) Respondent shall continue to allow fire employees to bank compensatory time earned, and shall increase the maximum number of accumulated hours from 109 to 127.
15) Respondent shall continue to compute overtime by not counting vacation, sick leave, holidays, or compensatory time.
16) Respondent shall continue to compensate for overtime with compensatory time and pay at a rate of time and one-half, and shall continue to not pay at a rate of double time.
17) Respondent shall maintain annual vacation accrual for 24 Hour Employees in Year 15 at 247 hours. Respondent shall decrease annual vacation accrual as follows in Year: 1 from 143 hours to 135 hours; 2 from 143 hours to 135 hours; 3 from 143 hours to 135 hours; 4 from 143 hours to 137 hours; 6 from 187 hours to 168 hours; 7 from 197 to 187 hours; 8 from 202 hours to 191 hours; 9 from 202 hours to 191 hours; 10 from 202 hours to 192 hours; 11 from 209 hours to 196 hours; 12 from 240 hours to 229 hours; 13 from 240 hours to 229 hours; 14 from 240 hours to 229 hours; 16 from 265 hours to 251 hours; 17 from 265 hours to 251 hours; 18 from 265 hours to 251 hours; 20 from 302 hours to 296 hours; 21 from 306 hours to 296 hours; 22 from 306 hours to 296 hours; 23 from 306 hours to 296 hours; 24 from 306 hours to 296 hours; 25 from 307 hours to 297 hours; 30 from 308 hours to 298 hours; and decrease the maximum from 308 hours to 298 hours. Respondent shall increase annual vacation accrual in Years: 5 from 151 hours to 168 hours; and 19 from 265 hours to 270 hours.
18) Respondent shall maintain annual vacation accrual for Day Employees as follows in Year: 1 at 83 hours; 2 at 83 hours; and 3 at 83 hours. Respondent shall decrease annual vacation accrual in Years: 6 from 103 hours to 98 hours; 7 from 121 hours to 119 hours; 8 from 123 hours to 121 hours; 9 from 123 hours to 122 hours; 10 from 123 hours to 122 hours; 11 from 130 hours to 127 hours; 12 from 145 hours to 142 hours; 13 from 145 hours to 142 hours; 15 from 160 hours to 159 hours; 16 from 163 hours to 162 hours; 17 from 163 hours to 162 hours; 18 from 163 hours to 162 hours; 20 from 195 hours to 193 hours; 21 from 198 hours to 195 hours; 22 from 198 hours to 195 hours; 23 from 198 hours to 195 hours; 24 from 198 hours to 195 hours; 25 from 199 hours to 198 hours; 30 from 199 hours to 198 hours; and decrease the maximum from 199 hours to 198 hours. Respondent shall increase annual vacation accrual in Years: 4 from 85 hours to 91 hours; 5 from 89 hours to 94 hours; 14 from 145 hours to 146 hours; and 19 from 167 hours to 168 hours.
19) Respondent shall continue to convert vacation to cash at 100% of vacation hours earned upon resignation, dismissal, retirement, or death.
20) Respondent shall continue to allow employees to accumulate paid vacation up to 72 hours above the cap of 360 hours.
21) Respondent shall decrease number of sick leave hours earned per year for 24 Hour Employees from 152 hours to 148 hours; maintain number of hours earned per year for 8-10 Hour Employees at 104 hours; and continue to allow an unlimited maximum accumulation of hours for 24 Hour Employees and 8-10 Hour Employees.
22) Respondent shall continue to convert sick leave to cash upon resignation; shall continue to not convert sick leave to cash upon dismissal; shall continue to convert sick leave to cash upon retirement or death and increase the percentage from 57% to 65% of sick leave earned.
23) Respondent shall continue to provide injured on duty leave at 100% of salary for 1 year.
24) Respondent shall continue to provide call-in pay at a guaranteed rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay, and shall decrease the amount of time paid from 4 hours to 3.2 hours.
25) Respondent shall continue to provide health insurance and pay 100% of health insurance premium costs for individuals; 96% of health insurance premium costs for family; and 96% of health insurance premium costs for 2-Party.
26) Respondent shall continue to provide dental insurance premium costs but shall decrease the percentage paid from 93% to 87% of dental insurance premium costs for individuals and from 90% to 82% of dental insurance premium costs for family coverage.
27) Respondent shall continue to provide a minimum of 3 hours of court duty pay at the rate of 1.5 times the regular rate of pay.
28) Respondent shall continue to provide educational assistance. Respondent shall reimburse each eligible employee 100% for educational expenses with a maximum allowance for tuition only and shall continue to not provide an educational incentive.
29) Respondent shall continue to provide a uniform allowance and shall increase the annual amount of the uniform allowance from $417 to $519.
30) Any adjustments in compensation resulting from the Final Order rendered in this matter will be made by lump sum payment within 90 days of the Final Order.
All other terms and conditions of employment are not affected by this Order.
All panel Commissioners join in the entry of this Order.