 |
|
|
 |
||
Absurdity reversedIn the last issue of The PBA Magazine, I called Administrative Law Judge Philip A. Maier’s May 3 ruling that the PBA proposal to extend tours beyond eight hours with fewer appearances was a prohibited subject of collective bargaining “the height of absurdity.” The PERB board agreed with our position in an Aug. 29 decision reversing that decision in response to our appeal. The city had also appealed the ALJ’s decision, wanting to define charts as a non-mandatory (permissible) but not prohibited subject of collective bargaining, but the board agreed with the PBA that it should be mandatory. The effect is that any future change in the chart requires the PBA’s approval. PERB said it based its decision reversing Maier on the scope-of-bargaining hearing three years ago, referred to in my last column, at which I testified that work schedules are not only a mandatory subject of collective bargaining but also that a modern chart should be adopted. As I pointed out in the last column, one of the absurdities of the situation was that he ruled in our favor on that occasion, saying that tour schedules are mandatory subjects and that “Puglissi’s testimony was unrebutted” by the city. In response to our appeal, PERB also affirmed the right to negotiate the periodic replacement of bullet-resistant vests, a decision that could have far-reaching ramifications, setting the stage for the day when every police officer in the state will be provided with the best available bullet-resistant technology. In another victory for our side, PERB also rejected the city’s appeal
of the decision making premium pay negotiable |
The third PERB arbitration in PBA history has begun. While we believe it is in everyone’s interest to achieve a fair settlement negotiated face-to-face with the city without resorting to arbitration, this union has once again been forced to try to do what’s right for its members by presenting its case for market-based compensation before a three-member arbitration panel of the state Public Employment Relations Board, where the requirements of the Taylor Law should presumably govern. The most significant development in this process following the filing for impasse was this July’s selection of veteran arbitrator Susan T. Mackenzie as chairwoman of the three-member panel that will decide our contract. The panel also includes our representative and the city’s. Ms. Mackenzie works in both the public and private sector and has served as a designated grievance mediator/arbitrator for United Airlinesand the Association of Flight Attendants, Verizon and the Communications Workers of America. On August 27, a preliminary conference was held to settle issues of scheduling, the need for submission of briefs, and questions of discovery — meaning items the city is obliged to share with the PBA and vice-versa. We pushed for early hearing dates in October, which the City rejected, apparently unconcerned about the personnel crisis the department now faces. What happens next in the process resembles a trial. The statutory criteria set forth by the Taylor Law mandate that the panel make a just and reasonable determination of the matters in dispute, specifying the basis for its findings and taking into consideration, besides any other relevant factors, the following:
|
At the hearings, both sides present evidence in the form of documents, witness and expert-witness testimony in support of the statutory criteria. After the “trial” portion of the arbitration, each side will likely submit closing briefs, which are reviewed by all of the arbitrators. The chairperson will then attempt to reach a resolution acceptable to the panel. If both sides reject it, the chairperson goes back to the drawing board. If either side accepts the proposal, it becomes the award, because it takes only two signatures (that of the chairperson who proposed it and the side that accepted it) to issue an award. This, of course, is an oversimplification but gives you an idea of how it’s supposed to work. We continue to believe we have a solid case with substantial evidence to present at the hearings. Our pay, relative to other police jurisdictions, remains low. The City’s ability to pay remains strong; it is perhaps in the best financial shape in its history. Other statutory factors also cut in our favor. Notwithstanding that the Taylor Law’s criteria lean sharply in the union’s favor, the City will not come to the table with a fair settlement, necessitating this arbitration. Given the uncertainty of the process, with its many steps and without knowing what roadblocks the city will create, it’s difficult to predict when the process will be completed. It’s important to note that up to the very brink of an arbitrated award, the parties may reach a negotiated settlement. However, any extra-arbitrational offer must fairly meet the needs of our members. SchedulingArbitration pre-hearing briefs are due by October 22nd and the following hearing dates have been set: November 6, 2007 We will keep you informed regarding these crucial hearings.
|
A comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment
of the employees with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment
of other employees performing similar services or requiring similar skills
under similar working conditions and with other employees generally in
public and private employment in comparable communities; 