19
CIR 21 (2014)
NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
FRATERNAL
ORDER OF POLICE LODGE 74,
Petitioner, v. CITY
OF CRETE, A Political Subdivision of the State of Nebraska,
Respondent. . |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
|
Case
No. 1338 FINDINGS
AND ORDER |
September 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For
Petitioner Gary
L. Young
Keating,
O’Gara, Nedved & Peter, PC, LLO
530
South 13th Street, Ste 100
Lincoln,
NE 68508
For
Respondent William
A. Harding
Harding
& Shultz, P.C., L.L.O.
121
South 13th Street
P.O.
Box 82028
Lincoln,
NE 68501
Before
Commissioners Spray, Lindahl, and Pillen
SPRAY, Commissioner
NATURE OF THE CASE
On July 26, 2013, the Fraternal
Order of Police Lodge #74 (“Union” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant
to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818(1)
(Cum.Supp. 2012) seeking a determination of wages and benefits for the contract
period of July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. Petitioner is a labor
organization representing three job classifications consisting of regular
full-time and part-time employees of the City of Crete (“City” or “Respondent”,
together with Petitioner, the “Parties”), a political subdivision of the State
of Nebraska. This case is the first determination of wages and benefits by the
Commission since the amendment of the Industrial Relations Act (the “Act”)
effective October 1, 2011 by LB 397, 102nd Leg., 1st
Sess. (Neb. 2011).
On
August 14, 2013, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition to correct the title of
one job classification in the bargaining unit. Respondent filed its Amended
Answer on August 14, 2013, arguing that the contract period in dispute should be
October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. Pursuant to § 48-813(2), Petitioner
filed its report of the rejection of Respondent’s final offer on August 22,
2013, and Respondent filed its report of the rejection of Petitioner’s final
offer on August 23, 2013.
Throughout
the pendency of the case, the Parties filed several joint stipulations with the
Commission. The Parties filed a joint stipulation on October 4, 2013, agreeing
that the period in dispute is October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013. On October 28, 2013, the Parties stipulated
to the array, which includes the Nebraska cities of Beatrice, Fairbury, York,
Nebraska City, Schuyler, Falls City, and Wayne, as well as agreeing that
working conditions were similar in all agreed-upon cities. On November 13,
2013, the parties agreed that the period in dispute did not fall within a
recession as defined by § 48-818(2)(j)(ii). The parties also submitted a Joint
Stipulation for Trial on December 5, 2013 as well as an amended Joint
Stipulation for Trial on February 7, 2014, agreeing to several issues including
almost all fringe benefits.
Trial
in this matter was held on February 10 and 11, 2014 before Commissioners Spray,
Lindahl and Pillen as required by § 48-804(3). Post-trial briefs were received
March 10, 2014 and Reply Briefs received March 24, 2014. The case has been
deemed submitted.
DISCUSSION
Evidence Presented
Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 48-818(2)(g) (Cum.Supp. 2012) details the evidentiary
standard to be used in wage cases for all public employers except school
districts and those subject to the State Employees Collective Bargaining Act. This
section provides that the Commission shall not be bound by the usual common law
or statutory rules of evidence or technical or formal rules of procedure except
those adopted by rule pursuant to § 48-809, which authorizes the Commission to
adopt its own rules to govern its proceedings and to require the observance of
the Nebraska Rules of Evidence in all cases except otherwise provided by
statute. Commission Rule 37 adopts the reasonably prudent person standard in
cases where the Nebraska Rules of Evidence are not required to be observed.
Prior to the adoption of LB 397, the Commission would have been required to
follow the Nebraska Rules of Evidence under § 48-809 in this proceeding. All
evidence was received under the revised evidentiary standard.
Array
As noted previously, the parties
agreed to the following array of Nebraska cities prior to trial: Beatrice,
Fairbury, York, Nebraska City, Schuyler, Falls City, and Wayne. Under §
48-818(2)(b) (Cum.Supp. 2012), the following criteria must be adhered to when
the Commission establishes an array:
1)
Geographically proximate and Nebraska public
employers are preferable;
2)
The preferred array size is seven to nine
members, and the array can be as few as five if all array members are Nebraska
employers,;
3)
The Commission shall not require a
balanced number of larger or smaller employers or a balanced number of Nebraska
or out-of-state employers; and
4)
If the public employer before the
Commission is located in a metropolitan statistical area, then only one public
employer from another metropolitan statistical area can be included in the
array.
Parties
are free to stipulate to an array member that does not meet these criteria, and
are free to agree to less than seven or more than nine array members. § 48-818(2)(b)(iv).
Additionally, Nebraska public employers are presumed to provide same or similar
working conditions unless the evidence establishes otherwise. §
48-818(2)(c)(i).
The
Commission shall include mutually agreed upon members in the array. §
48-818(2)(b)(ii). Because the parties have stipulated to all members of the
proposed array and no other public employers were presented for consideration, we
therefore find that the array shall include the Nebraska cities of Beatrice,
Fairbury, York, Nebraska City, Schuyler, Falls City, and Wayne. Since the array
consists of Nebraska employers, all array members are presumed to provide the
same or similar working conditions.
Hourly Rate Value
Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 48-818(2)(h) (Cum.Supp. 2012) requires that the Commission
determine the value of defined benefit and defined contribution retirement
plans and health insurance or health benefit plans to include in the total
compensation of bargaining unit employees. Value is determined by calculating
the hourly rate value (“HRV”) of each benefit, which is then combined with
wages to show the overall compensation for an employee in a particular job
classification. We will discuss our determination of each HRV below.
Retirement HRV
Crete and the members of the array
offer its employees a defined contribution retirement plan. Section
48-818(2)(h)(iii) states that the HRV for defined contribution retirement plans
shall be established upon comparison of employer contributions. Additionally, defined
benefit plans and defined contribution plans cannot be compared to each other
when determining the retirement HRV. § 48-818(2)(h)(v). Since all array members
offered employees a defined contribution plan and only one member also offered
a defined benefit plan, only the defined contribution plans in the array were
comparable to Crete for purposes of calculating the retirement HRV.
Prior
to trial, the parties stipulated to the amount of employer contributions to the
defined contribution plans as being 6%. Petitioner’s expert, John Cripe,
testified that he performed a basic calculation of multiplying the minimum and
maximum wage in Crete and each array city by the 6% contribution percentage of
pension to determine the retirement HRV. (159:10-160:3). The calculation was
also performed by Respondent’s expert, Sheila Shukei, in the same manner. Following
this method, the retirement HRV shall be as follows:
Retirement
HRV:
1) Police
Officer: minimum $0.97, maximum $1.34.
2) Police
Sergeant: minimum $1.19, maximum $1.54.
3) Telecommunicator:
minimum $0.76, maximum $1.04.
Health Insurance HRV
Prior
to trial, the parties came to agreement on the dollar amount of monthly health
insurance premiums paid by Crete and each member of the array. The parties also
agreed to use 2080 scheduled hours of work per year for employees in the
bargaining unit and each array member when calculating the HRV. However, the
parties are in disagreement as to how the health HRV should ultimately be
calculated based upon the language of the statute.
Section
48-818(h)(i) states that each array member and the public employer at issue
shall provide the most recent copies of their health insurance plans or health
benefit plans with associated employer and employee costs, as well as
information regarding premium equivalent payments and contributions to health
savings accounts. The array and public employer should also indicate which
plans are most used, as the most used plans are those which shall be used for
comparison. Under § 48-818(2)(h)(iv), the hourly rate value for health
insurance is determined based upon the public employer’s premium payments,
premium equivalent payments, and employer/employee contributions to health
savings accounts. In their briefs, each party sets forth its proposed method of
calculation of the health HRV.
Petitioner’s
methodology begins with collecting data on each health care plan offered in
Crete and the array during the period in dispute, as well as collecting
associated employer/employee costs, premium equivalent payments and
contributions to Health Savings Accounts (HSA). Next, Petitioner’s experts
determined which health insurance plans were the “plans most used” as required
by § 48-818(2)(h)(i). Petitioner contends that this language is not ambiguous
and complying with the requirement is straightforward. To determine the “plan
most used,” Petitioner’s expert, Paul Essman, testified that Crete and five of
the seven array cities offer its employees one health plan. The remaining two
cities offer their employees two plans: a standard Blue Cross plan and an HSA
high deductible plan. Mr. Essman determined which plan was most used by
comparing the utilization rate of each plan offered in the two cities. The plan
with the highest utilization rate was deemed the “plan most used” for purposes
of calculating the HRV for that array member. Finally, premium payments of the
array cities and Crete are converted to an hourly rate value. Mr. Cripe
testified that he first determined the number of employees in each array city
which chose a particular coverage option in a health insurance plan- single,
family or 2/4 party coverage. Monthly premium payments are then multiplied by
the utilization rates of each coverage option for each job classification, then
multiplied by twelve to find an annual rate, then the annual rate is divided by
2080 scheduled hours of work per year to find the HRV for each job
classification. After finding the hourly rate, the mean, median, and midpoint is
calculated. This midpoint is the final component to be combined with the base
hourly wage and the retirement HRV to find the total compensation of the
Sergeant, Police Officer, and Telecommunicator positions in each array city and
Crete.
Respondent’s
calculation of the health HRV is similar to Petitioner in that a monthly rate
is multiplied by twelve to find an annual rate, then the annual rate is divided
by 2080 scheduled hours of work per year to find the health HRV for each job
classification. However, Respondent contends that the term “plans most used” in
§ 48-818(2)(h)(i) is ambiguous and that the term “plan” in § 48-818 should be
interpreted to mean “coverage.” This interpretation results in the HRV being
established based upon the coverage chosen most often by the employees in the
bargaining unit, which in Crete would be the single premium during the year in
dispute. Respondent argues that because Crete’s “plan most used” is single
coverage, then comparing only the single coverage value for Crete with the
single coverage value for each array member would result in an “apples to
apples” comparison. Ms. Shukei multiplied the monthly single premium payments paid
in Crete by the number of employees who chose the single premium, regardless of
job classification. In Crete, 11 of 13 employees who chose health coverage
chose the single coverage option. The monthly premium payment is multiplied by
12 to find an annual rate, then the annual rate is divided by 2080 scheduled
hours of work per year to find the health HRV for Crete. Ms. Shukei then
followed the same process for each array member based upon the number of their
employees who chose the single premium. Finally, Ms. Shukei calculated the
mean, median, and midpoint, with the midpoint combined with the midpoint of the
base hourly wage and the retirement HRV to find the total compensation
recommended by Respondent for each job classification.
The
Nebraska Supreme Court has stated that “In reading a statute, a court must
determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as
ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its plain,
ordinary, and popular sense.” Fisher v.
Payflex Systems USA, Inc., 285 Neb. 808 (2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Local 571 v. City of
Plattsmouth, 265 Neb. 817 (2003). Although this Commission is not a court,
we must attempt to ascertain the meaning of these terms as this is a case of
first impression under the new law. We must also “give statutory language its
plain and ordinary meaning and will not resort to interpretation to ascertain
the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.” Davis
v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 8, 15 Neb.App. 470 (Neb.App. 2007).
The
legislative history of LB 397 gives no indication of the Legislature’s
definition of the word “plan” and the term is not defined in the Industrial
Relations Act. However, we do not believe that the Legislature meant “plan” in
any other way than what is the most plain, ordinary and reasonable meaning-
that “plan” is referring to the overall health insurance plan type, such as a
PPO or High Deductible plan, and not the narrow term “coverage” used to
describe the inclusion options, such as single or family coverage. We agree
with Petitioner that the term “plan most used” is straightforward. Giving this
term the meaning suggested by Respondent would create quite a confusing
situation should the case before us involve an employer which offered its
employees more than one health insurance plan. In fact, the evidence shows that
two array cities in the present case offer their employees two health plans
with coverage options, while every other array member including Crete only
offers employees one health plan with coverage options. We do not believe that
the Legislature intended for the Commission to interpret “plan most used”
differently for every case. Instead, we believe that the Legislature intended
to create a consistent method of calculation for all wage cases that come
before the Commission. If a city offers only one health plan, then that plan
must be considered the “most used” plan. In cities which offer multiple health
plans, the utilization information of each health plan can be used to determine
which plan is the most used plan in that array city. Interpreting “plan” as
meaning “plan” and not “coverage” seems the only way to see the true and most
complete picture of what a city is contributing for its employees’ health
insurance.
Following
this reasoning, the health HRV shall be calculated as proposed by Petitioner. Per
the language of § 48-818(2)(h)(iv), the health HRV shall include all costs,
including any HSA contributions. Based on the evidence presented, we find that
the health HRV for each job classification is as follows:
Health
HRV:
1) Police
Officer: $5.74.
2) Police
Sergeant: $6.01.
3) Telecommunicator:
$4.64.
Total Compensation
Section
48-818(1) gives the Commission jurisdiction to establish rates of pay and
conditions of employment that are comparable to the prevalent wage rates paid
for same or similar work of workers with same or similar skills under same or
similar working conditions. With the enactment of LB 397, the Commission must
take into account an employee’s overall compensation, which includes wages,
health insurance and pension benefits when determining the comparable wages for
employees within a bargaining group.
Prior to
trial, the parties agreed to the unadjusted wages and pay line progression for
all three job classifications. Based upon the stipulated evidence, we find that
the unadjusted minimum and maximum base wage for each job classification is as
follows:
Base
Wages:
1) Police
Officer: minimum $16.32, maximum $22.37.
2) Police
Sergeant: minimum $19.89, maximum $25.73.
3) Telecommunicator:
minimum $12.62, maximum $17.33.
An
employee’s total compensation is the base wage rate plus the retirement HRV and
health HRV. This total minimum and maximum HRV is calculated for each array
member in order to find the mean, median and midpoint minimum and maximum HRV
for each job classification in the array. The same calculation is done for
Crete, and this minimum and maximum HRV is compared to the midpoint minimum and
maximum HRV of the array to determine whether employees in Crete are receiving
comparable total compensation. Tables 10, 11 and 12 illustrate the final
calculation of the total compensation received for the three job
classifications within the bargaining unit in the city of Crete. We find that
the total compensation for Police Officers, Police Sergeants, and
Telecommunicators in the city of Crete fall below the midpoint of total
compensation within the array.
When
determining the wages to be ordered, we look to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818(j) (Cum.Supp. 2012) for guidance in
issuing an order to increase or decrease base wage rates. Section 48-818(j)(ii)
states that the Commission shall determine whether a classification’s total HRV
falls within a 98%-102% range of the array’s midpoint. If a job
classification’s total HRV falls within the 98% -102% range, then the
Commission shall order no change in base wage rates. If the total HRV is less
than 98% of the midpoint, then base wage rates are increased to 98% of the
midpoint. If the total HRV is less than 93% of the midpoint, the Commission
shall enter an order increasing base wage rates to 98% of the midpoint in three
equal annual increases. Increases and decreases to base wage rates shall be
retroactive to the beginning of the contract year in dispute. § 48-818(j)(i).
Police
Officers in Crete are found to have a minimum total HRV of $20.45 and a maximum
total HRV of $26.70, which is below 93% of the midpoint of the array- $21.29
minimum and $27.45 maximum. We therefore order that the minimum and maximum
base wage rate for Police Officers be increased in three equal annual increases.
The annual increase is determined by finding the difference between the 98%
market total HRV and Crete’s total HRV for Police Officers, which is $1.98 for
the minimum total HRV and $2.23 for the maximum total HRV, and then dividing
this rate by three to find the three year allowance of $0.661 for the minimum and
$0.743 for the maximum. Based upon these calculations, we therefore order that
Police Officers at Crete shall receive a minimum base pay rate of $16.32 plus
$0.661 first year allowance and a maximum base pay rate of $22.37 plus $0.743
first year allowance as of the contract date, October 1, 2012. The minimum base
wage shall be increased by $0.661 and the maximum base wage rate shall be
increased by $0.743 as of October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2014. See Table 13.
Next,
Police Sergeants in Crete are found to have a minimum and maximum total HRV of
$23.83 and $28.49, which falls below 93% of the midpoint of the array- $24.78
and $30.16. We therefore order Police Sergeants at Crete shall receive a
minimum base pay rate of $19.89 plus $0.759 first year allowance and a maximum
base pay rate of $25.73 plus $1.097 first year allowance as of the contract
date, October 1, 2012. The minimum base wage shall be increased by $0.759 and
the maximum base wage rate shall be increased by $1.097 as of October 1, 2013
and October 1, 2014. See Table 14.
Finally,
Telecommunicators in Crete are found to have a minimum total HRV of $15.77 and
a maximum total HRV of $21.82. The minimum total HRV falls below 93% of the
midpoint of the array- $16.60. We therefore order that the minimum base wage
rate for Telecommunicators in Crete shall be $12.62 with a first year allowance
of $0.574 as of the contract date, October 1, 2012, with annual increases of
$0.574 as of October 1, 2013 and October 1, 2014. The maximum total HRV for
Telecommunicators is $21.82, which is above the 93% of the array midpoint of $21.42,
but below the 98% of the array midpoint of $22.57. As we previously noted, § 48-818(j)(ii)
states that if a total HRV is less than
98% of the midpoint, then the base wage rate is increased to 98% of the
midpoint. We therefore order that the maximum base wage rate for the
Telecommunicator position in Crete be increased in one installment from $17.33
to $22.57. See Table 15.
Wage Administration
In the Joint Stipulation for Trial
dated December 5, 2013, the parties agreed to the pay plan format for each job
classification in the array. Based on that stipulation, we therefore order the
following:
1) Police
Officer: Step pay plan with 8 steps from minimum to maximum; 7 years, 6 months
of service from minimum to maximum, with the first step as a 6 month step and
remaining steps each being one year with mathematically even percentages of
income between each step. See Table 16.
2) Police
Sergeant: Step pay plan with 8 steps from minimum to maximum; 7 years, 4 months
of service from minimum to maximum; first step shall be a 4 month step with
remaining steps each being one year with mathematically even percentages of
income between each step. See Table 17.
3) Telecommunicator:
Step pay plan with 8 steps from minimum to maximum; 7 years, 4 months of
service from minimum to maximum; first step shall be a 4 month step and the
remaining steps shall each be one year with mathematically even percentages of
income between each step. See Table 18.
Currently, movement along the pay
line in Crete is based upon an employee’s years of service. We find that it is
prevalent for Crete to continue that practice. Respondent shall place the
Police Officer, Police Sergeant and Telecommunicator on the pay plan based upon
an employee’s years of service at a step for which such employee has qualified
by time in service of the contract date, October 1, 2012.
Fringe Benefits
In determining the comparability of
fringe benefits, the Commission must determine whether a certain benefit is
prevalent in the chosen array:
Prevalent shall be
determined as follows: (i) For numeric values, prevalent shall be the midpoint
between the arithmetic mean and the arithmetic median. For fringe benefits,
prevalent shall be the midpoint between the arithmetic mean and the arithmetic
median as long as a majority of the array members provide the benefit; and (ii)
for nonnumeric comparisons, prevalent shall be the mode that the majority of
the array members provide if the compared-to benefit is similar in nature. If
there is no clear mode, the benefit or working condition shall remain unaltered
by the commission.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818(2)(d) (Cum.Supp. 2012).
Section 48-818(2)(f) states that all
economic items shall be valued even if the year in dispute in question has
expired. Benefits are ordered to be increased or decreased back to the beginning
of the year in dispute. § 48-818(2)(j)(i). Finally, the Commission shall
provide an offset to the public employer when a lump-sum payment is due because
benefits were paid in excess of the prevalent as determined under § 48-818(2)(d)
or when benefits were paid below the prevalent as so determined but wages were
above prevalent. § 48-818(j)(iv).
In
its Joint Stipulation for Trial filed December 5, 2013, the parties agreed to
the prevalence of the applicable benefits for the parties during the period in
dispute. The Commission shall make its determinations based upon this stipulated
evidence and shall address any non-agreed upon benefits below.
Dental Insurance
The parties agree that dental
insurance is a prevalent benefit in the array. However, the parties disagree as
to whether it is prevalent for the employer to contribute to the cost of dental
insurance for employees. Based upon our examination of the evidence, three of
the seven array members contribute to the cost of employee dental insurance,
three do not contribute, and one array member, Wayne, does not offer dental
insurance as a benefit. Under our prevalency analysis, Wayne is not applicable
and creates a bi-modal result with 3 “yes” array cities and 3 “no” array
cities. As there is no clear mode, the benefit remains unchanged. We therefore
order that Crete continue to provide dental insurance to its employees and
continue to contribute to its cost.
Insurance Premiums Paid by Employer
and Employee
The
Commission has always determined comparability of life, dental, and health
insurance by comparing the percent of the insurance 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); International Ass’n of
Firefighters, Local Union No. 647 v. City of Grand Island, 15 CIR 324
(2007); Local Union No. 571,
International Union of Operating Engineers AFL-CIO v. County of Douglas, 15
CIR 203 (2006); General Drivers &
Helpers Union Local 554 v. County of Gage, 14 CIR 170 (2003). The passage
of LB 397 changed this treatment for health insurance, as it is excluded under
§ 48-818(2)(i) from a prevalency determination
along with health benefit plans, defined benefit retirement plans and
defined contribution retirement plans. Life insurance and dental insurance were
not excluded from prevalency determination under § 48-818(2)(i). As such, the
following benefits will be considered using the prevalence determination of §
48-818(2)(d):
1) Life
Insurance Percent of Premium Paid
2) Dental
Insurance Percent of Premium Paid
In
their Stipulation for Trial, the parties agreed that the City shall provide
employees with life insurance coverage in the amount of $19,375, and that the
City shall pay 100% of the premium cost up to $7.29 per month. The parties are
free to agree to whatever insurance premium dollar amounts they wish during
negotiations. However, the Commission shall adhere to the above rule and only
order the percentage of employer contribution, if applicable, towards the cost
of life and dental insurance.
Sick Leave, Vacation, and PTO
During the year in dispute, Crete
offered its employees a Paid Time Off (PTO) bank with no distinct sick leave or
vacation hours. Any earned PTO in Crete could be used for any purpose at any
time scheduling allowed. The parties have agreed to abolish the PTO bank and
establish separate time banks for vacation and sick leave, which is the
practice within the array. The annual accrual rate for sick leave shall be 99
hours per year. Vacation shall be accrued from the first day of employment
based upon the accrual schedule set forth in Table 35, with a maximum annual
carryover of 281 hours.
Crete also offered its employees the
use of personal leave. The parties have agreed that personal leave is not prevalent
in the array and should therefore be discontinued. Therefore, it shall be
ordered that Crete no longer offer employees the use of personal leave.
The parties disagree as to what
should be done with any PTO earned by an employee during the year in dispute. Crete
established a PTO accrual system, starting employees with 96 hours during the
first year and setting a maximum annual accrual of 240 hours. Additionally,
Crete gave its employees personal leave- 24 hours for 8-hour shifts, 30 hours
for 10-hour shifts. At trial, Petitioner’s expert Mr. Essman described his
recommendation for providing credit for leave hours provided to employees in
Crete. To compare the PTO and personal leave with market benefits for vacation
and sick leave, Mr. Essman added the vacation hours and sick leave hours
provided to market employees, calculated a midpoint, and then compared those
numbers to the total PTO and personal leave possible for a Crete employee in any given year. Mr. Essman
then calculated the difference between the total PTO and personal leave for an
employee in Crete and the midpoint number of hours in the array to determine
the number of hours that a Crete employee could not, or had no opportunity to,
spend during the year in dispute. (80:9-17).
We find that this is a fair method
of determining what should be done with any earned PTO and personal leave for
Crete employees. See Tables 30 and 31. Because the year in dispute is over, it
is possible for Crete to determine how much PTO an employee actually used and
what hours an employee worked on their shifts to calculate whether a particular
employee should be credited for the difference in benefit. Therefore,
Respondent shall calculate any amount due to a particular employee based upon
that employee’s actual time worked and any PTO or personal time utilized during
the year in dispute.
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:
1) Longevity
Pay. See Table 19.
2) Call
In Pay. See Table 21.
3) Shift
Differential Pay. See Table 22.
4) Specialty
Pay. See Table 24.
5) Court
Attendance Pay. See Table 25.
6) Holiday
Pay- Scheduled and Called In. See Table 26.
7) Overtime-
Leave Time Counted as Time Worked. See Table 28.
8) Meal
Time Considered Work Time. See Table 29.
9) Personal
Days. See Table 32.
10) Time
Bank. See Table 33.
11) Vacation
Leave from First Day of Employment. See Table 34.
12) Additional
Paid Leave. See Table 44.
13) Employee
Assistance Program. See Table 45.
14) Wellness
Program. See Table 46.
15) Funeral
Leave- Immediate Family. See Table 48.
16) Funeral
Leave- Time Allowed. See Table 48.
17) Disability
Plans- Long Term Disability. See Table 49.
18) Life
Insurance- Percent of Premium Paid. See Table 50.
19) Vision
Insurance. See Table 51.
20) Union
Dues Check Off. See Table 53.
21) Educational
Assistance. See Table 54.
22) Uniforms.
See Table 55.
23) Law
Enforcement Equipment Provided. See Table 56.
Non-Comparable Fringe Benefits
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) On
Call Pay: Offer on call pay. See Table 20.
2) Out
of Class Pay: Eliminate out of class pay. See Table 23.
3) Holidays:
Number reduced from 11.5 to 10. See Table 26.
4) Compensatory
Time: Allowed with ability to bank 128.17 hours. See Table 27.
5) Vacation:
Establish annual accrual of hours. See Table 35.
6) Vacation:
Allow annual maximum accumulation of 281 hours. See Table 36.
7) Vacation:
Allow conversion to cash upon Resignation, Dismissal, Retirement, and Death.
See Table 37.
8) Sick
Leave: Earn 99 hours per year with maximum accumulation of 991 hours. See Table
38.
9) Sick
Leave: Spouse, Parents, In-Laws, Child, Grandchild, Siblings. See Table 39.
10) Sick
Leave: 50% conversion to cash upon Retirement and Death. See Table 40.
11) Sick
Leave: Additional hours earned beyond maximum annual accumulation cannot be applied
to vacation or converted to cash. See Table 41.
12) Light
Duty Policy: Eliminate. See Table 42.
13) Injury
Leave: Eliminate separate injury leave policy. See Table 43.
14) Funeral
Leave: Allow 1 day funeral leave for Secondary. See Table 47.
15) Disability
Plans: Eliminate short term disability. See Table 49.
16) Dental
Insurance Paid by Employer: Decreased from 61.9% to 31.9% for Family and
decreased from 100% to 38% for Single. See Table 52.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the
October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 contract year, the following shall
be effective as of October 1, 2012:
1) Police
Officer wages for the October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 contract year
shall be as follows: minimum base wage rate shall be increased from $15.44 to
$16.32, with an annual allowance of $0.661 due on October 1, 2012, October 1,
2013, and October 1, 2014. The maximum base wage rate shall be increased from
$21.24 to $22.37, with an annual allowance of $0.743 due on October 1, 2012,
October 1, 2013, and October 1, 2014.
2) Police
Sergeant wages for the October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 contract year
shall be as follows: minimum base wage rate shall be increased from $19.22 to
$19.89, with an annual allowance of $0.759 due on October 1, 2012, October 1,
2013, and October 1, 2014. The maximum base wage rate shall be increased from
$23.62 to $25.73, with an annual allowance of $1.097 due on October 1, 2012,
October 1, 2013, and October 1, 2014.
3) Telecommunicator
wages for the October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 contract year shall be
as follows: minimum base wage rate shall be increased from $11.62 to $12.62,
with an annual allowance of $0.574 due on October 1, 2012, October 1, 2013, and
October 1, 2014. The maximum base wage rate shall be increased from $17.33 to
$22.57 as of October 1, 2012.
4) Respondent
shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Officers and shall decrease the
number of steps from 9 to 8 and the years to maximum from 8 to 7.5, with the
first step as a 6 month step and remaining steps each being one year with
mathematically even percentages of income between each step. Respondent shall
maintain movement on the pay line based on years of service.
5) Respondent
shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Sergeants and shall increase the
number of steps from 5 to 8 and the years to maximum from 4 to 7.3, with the
first step as a 4 month step with remaining steps each being one year with
mathematically even percentages of income between each step. Respondent shall
maintain movement on the pay line based on years of service.
6) Respondent
shall maintain a step pay plan for Telecommunicators and decrease the number of
steps from 9 to 8 and years to maximum from 8 to 7.3, with the first step as a
4 month step and the remaining steps shall each be one year with mathematically
even percentages of income between each step. Respondent shall maintain
movement on the pay line based on years of service.
7) Respondent
shall continue to not offer longevity pay.
8) Respondent
shall begin providing on call pay and shall set the amount provided.
9) Respondent
shall continue to provide a minimum of 2 hours call in pay at a rate of 1.5
times the base rate per hour.
10) Respondent
shall continue to not provide shift differential pay.
11) Respondent
shall eliminate out of class pay.
12) Respondent
shall continue to not provide specialty pay.
13) Respondent
shall continue to provide a minimum of 2 hours court attendance pay at a rate
of 1.5 times the base rate per hour.
14) Respondent
shall decrease the number of holiday days from 11.5 to 10, and shall continue
to pay scheduled holidays at 2.5 times the base rate per hour and called in
holidays at 2.5 times the base rate per hour.
15) Respondent
shall create a compensatory time bank and allow employees to bank a maximum of
128.17 accumulated hours.
16) Respondent
shall continue to compute overtime by counting holidays and not counting
vacation, sick leave, or compensatory time.
17) Respondent
shall continue to consider meal time as work time for sworn employees.
18) Respondent
shall continue to not provide personal days.
19) Respondent
shall eliminate the paid time off time bank.
20) Respondent
shall continue to allow employees to earn vacation leave from the first day of
employment.
21) Respondent
shall begin to allow annual vacation accrual as follows: Year: 1 at 80 hours; 2
through 4 at 82 hours; 5 through 9 at 115 hours; 10 through 14 at 128 hours; 15
and 16 at 146 hours; 17through 19 at 156 hours; 20 through 22 at 165 hours; 23
and 24 at 170 hours; 25 and 26 at 171 hours; 27 at 172 hours; and 28+ at 186
hours.
22) Respondent
shall begin to allow employees to carry over 281 vacation hours annually.
23) Respondent
shall begin to convert vacation to cash upon resignation, dismissal,
retirement, or death. Respondent shall not begin to convert vacation to cash
annually.
24) Respondent
shall begin to allow employees to earn 99 hours of sick leave per year and
allow a maximum accumulation of 991 hours.
25) Respondent
shall begin to allow employees to use sick leave for spouse, parents, in-laws,
children, grandchildren and siblings.
26) Respondent
shall begin to convert sick leave to cash upon retirement or death at a rate of
50% of accumulated sick leave, and shall not begin to convert sick leave to
cash upon resignation or dismissal.
27) Respondent
shall not begin to convert sick leave to vacation or cash upon accumulating the
maximum amount of sick leave.
28) Respondent
shall eliminate light duty policy.
29) Respondent
shall eliminate the separate injury leave policy.
30) Respondent
shall continue to not offer additional paid leave.
31) Respondent
shall continue to not offer an employee assistance plan.
32) Respondent
shall continue to not offer a wellness program.
33) Respondent
shall continue to allow employees to use funeral leave for spouses, parents,
step-parents, in-laws, children, step-children, siblings, and brothers/sisters
in-law.
34) Respondent
shall continue to provide 3 days of funeral leave for immediate family and
begin to provide 1 day of funeral leave for non-immediate family.
35) Respondent
shall continue to provide long term disability and shall eliminate short term
disability.
36) Respondent
shall continue to provide life insurance and pay 100% of premium costs for
employees.
37) Respondent
shall continue to not provide vision insurance.
38) Respondent
shall continue to provide dental insurance and shall decrease the percentage
paid from 61.9% to 31.9% for family coverage and 100% to 38% for single
coverage.
39) Respondent
shall continue to provide for union dues check off.
40) Respondent
shall continue to not offer educational assistance.
41) Respondent
shall continue to provide uniforms and not provide a cleaning allowance.
42) Respondent
shall continue to provide employees with a badge, brass, whistle, night stick,
handcuffs, case, flashlight, batteries, a weapon, ammunition clips, shotgun,
body armor, belt, vest, and ammunition.
43) 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.
44) The
parties shall have twenty-five calendar days to negotiate modification to wages
and benefits. If no agreement is reached, the Commission’s Order shall be
followed as issued.
45) Any
adjustments in compensation resulting from the Final Order rendered in this
matter will be made within 90 days of the Final Order.
All
Panel Commissioners join in the entry of this Order.