West Haven Arbitration Award-CBA-Part II

increase to the current percentage level from 8.
5% to 10% for
July 1, 2009. Therefore, the City is being reasonable in its
proposal in not trying to increase the health insurance
percentage by 4 or 5 percentage points." (City Brief, page 41).
The Union stated "While it is true that caps are
disappearing throughout Connecticut the Union has offered to
greatly increase the cap in an attempt to assist the City is some
cost saving measures while at the same time attempting to protect
its members from the volatile health care industry.
An analysis of Issues 29,30,31,32,33 demonstrate the last
best offers of the parties are not far off at all and actually
match in several areas. In most cases the costs are only a year
off. An example of this is that in issue 29 five of the areas
actually match perfectly and that when Union 30 is combined with
City 29 the only difference appears to be that the union proposes
$200.00 in patient admission and the City proposes $250.00. The
only other difference being that the union seeks to retain
prosthetics and wellness visits.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE 29 IN NETWORK BENEFIT COPAYMENTS 19.1(b)l.a

ISSUE IN DISPUTE 33 IN NETWORK BENEFIT COPAYMENTS 19.1(b)l.f
ISSUE IN DISPUTE 34 IN NETWORK BENEFIT COPAYMENTS 19.1(b)l.f
(Union Brief, page 37)
43
Based on all the evidence submitted, the overwhelming
evidence sustains the Union's last best offers for the years
2009-2010 and 2010-2011.
Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received
by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the
Last Best Offers of the Union for Issues 26 and 27 are accepted.
The Union appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator
based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the City appointed
Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offers of
the Union based upon the same Statutory Criteria.
After reviewing all of the information received by the
arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last
Best Offer of the City for Issue 28 is accepted. The City
appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based
upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel
Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the
City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.
44
ISSUE 29 - Paragraph No. 253, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.a
City - In-Network Benefit Co-Payments 2009-2010
The Union is proposing the following design changes to the
health care plan effective July 1, 2009:

N,• General office visits: $10
• Walk-ins/allergy testing: $10
• Wellness and preventing: $0
• DME and prosthetics: $100
• Emergency Room: $50
• Out-Patient MI/ND/SA: $25
• Outpatient per admission X100
• Inpatient per admission $100
• Urgent Care $50
• Chiropractic $25 (20 visits maximum)
• Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy $25 (30 visits combined)"
The City is proposing the following design change to the
"a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2009:
• General office visits: $15

• Out-Patient Surgery $100
• , Inpatient per admission $250
• Urgent Care $50
The City argued "Terry DeMattie recommended that the City
increase its co-payments because paying $5 for a doctor's office
visit seems 'unreasonable'. Tr. 9/8/09 p.25. She recommended
$25. The City compromised at $15 for 2009, which would represent
45
a savings to the City of approximately 2.3% (See p.11 of City
Exhibit 4, at the top, or $45,900). Fifteen dollars is also a
reasonable co-pay compared to surrounding towns (see pp.53-54,
supra).
Increasing these co-pays helps the City in slightly
deferring the cost increases that it faces every year for an
insurance plan that costs it over $20,000,000 per year.
The same argument applies to the walk-in/allergy testing-a
$15 co-pay for this service is reasonable. As to the in-patient
per admission, $250 again is reasonable. Segal had recommended
that this be $500 per admission charge, but the City compromised
to $250 so that it could achieve some savings. Id. p,. 26. The
City would save 4.4% or $90,000, if it increased the out-patient
co-pay to $200. Their savings would be cut in half it is was
$100. (See City Exhibit 4, p. 11). Therefore, the amount of
$250 is reasonable given the City's poor economic condition.
This is also consistent with comparable towns(See Issue 26
summary, pp. 41-42)." (City Brief, pages 43-44).
It appears that the changes proposed by the City are fair in
light of the current design changes that have been agreed to by
other similarly situated employees. Therefore, after reviewing
all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in
light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City
for Issue 29 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees
46
with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory
Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the
selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same
Statutory Criteria.
47
ISSUE 30 - Paragraph No. 253a, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.a
The Union is proposing the following design change to the

,‘„, General office visits: $15
• Outpatient per admission $100
• Urgent Care $50
The City argued that "the health insurance costs increasing
by 10% every year, it is not unreasonable to have the employees
increase their co-pays by a mere $5 for doctor's visits, walk-ins
and allergies. Moreover, the $50 charge from 2009 (Issue 29) is
only being increased to $75 for emergency room visits. As to
out-patient surgery, the City proposes to go from $100 to $150,
which again is not a large increase. As to in-patient per
admission, which is a relatively rare occurrence, the City is
proposing to go from $250 to $350. Segal had recommended that
the City seek $500 per in-patient admission, by the City has
elected to gradually increase the in-patient cost over the three
years of the contract going from $250 to $350 and then, effective
48
July 1, 2011, to $500 which is a fair approach." (City Brief,
pages 44-45).

• Out-Patient Surgery $150
• Urgent Care $50
The proposed changes in the health care design by the City
are in line with the changes that have been made in other
contracts. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information
received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory
Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 30 is
accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral
Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union
appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best
Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.
49
ISSUE 31 - Paragraph No. 253b, Article/Section 19.1(B) .a
The Union is proposing the following design change to the
,• General office visits: $20

• Outpatient per admission $150
• Urgent Care $50
The City argued that its proposed changes would bring the
insurance plan which the police officers have in line with what
is fair and reasonable considering the City's financial problems.
pages 44-45).
General office visits: $25

Walk-ins/allergy testing: $25
Emergency Room: $100
Out-Patient Surgery $200
Inpatient per admission $500
Urgent Care $50
Chiropractic $30 (20 visits maximum)
Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy $30 (30 visits combined)"
The proposed changes by the City in its health design are in
line with the changes that have been made in other contracts.
50
Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the

ISSUE 32 - Paragraph No. 258, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f
City - Prescription Co-payments 2009-2010
The City is proposing to change the prescription co-payments
commencing July 1, 2009, from the current zero for mail orders,
$3.00 for retail generics, and $6.00 for retail brands to $5.00
for mail orders, $10.00 for retail brands and $15.00 for retail
non-listed brands.
The Union is proposing $5.00 for mail orders, $10.00 for
retail generics, and $15.00 for retail brands.
The City stated "The City also wants to go to a formulary
plan where it is three-tiered so that if you use a preferred
brand drug, you pay the second tier, and preferred drugs are
usually those that don't have generic available. Under this plan
the employee would not be disincented for using a drug that
doesn't have a generic available. Id. The third tier is the
highest co-pay because those are usually brand names that are not
preferred and do have a generic available so you could be using a
generic drug. Id.
The Union, in contract, continues to have a two-tier plan
which is not acceptable in these times of rising costs. The
City's proposed prescription co-pays for 2009 are reasonable when
compared to comparable towns. (See Issue 26 list. Pp. 41-42)."
(City Brief, page 46).
52
The City's proposal of a three-tier drug plan would bring it
in conformity with about 80% of drug plans in Connecticut.
Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the
53
ISSUE 33 - Paragraph No. 258a, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f
The City is proposing to increase the retail non-listed
brands from $15.00 to $20.00 as of July 1, 2010. Further, the
City is proposing to increase the retail listed brands from
$10.00 to $15.00 as of July 1, 2010.
For all the same reasons stated in Issue 32, after reviewing
Statutory Criteria.
54
ISSUE 34 - Paragraph No. 258ba, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f
The City is proposing to increase the retail generics from
$5.00 to $10.00, leaving the listed brands at $15.00 and
increasing the retail non-listed brands from $20.00 to $25.00.
The Union has proposed that its proposal for all three years
of the contract be the same as it proposed to commence July 1,
2009.
For all the same reasons stated in Issue 32, after reviewing
Statutory Criteria.
55
ISSUE 35 - Paragraph No. 293, Article/Section 24.1(A)
City - City's 401K plan for new hires
The City is proposing that all employees hired after November
1 , 2009, will no longer be able to participate in the defined
Benefit Plan when they retire but would be enrolled in the City of
West Haven's 401K Plan with disability insurance.
The City argued that it is one of the poorest in the State of
Connecticut. It has a $5,000,000 deficit; it has no cash reserves;
it has a deplorable bond rating; and a substantial long-term debt.
The City stated "It is undisputed that the City borrowed $66 million
in 2002 to fully fund the Plan. Not seven years later, the City is
forecasted to be underfunded again by at least $20 million in the
January, 2010 reevaluation. As background, Steve Lemanski testified
that the January, 2008 evaluation showed that the accrued liability
of the plan was approximately $112.5 million against a market value
of assets of $118 million, which defined the unfunded accrued
liability. Tr. 9/16, pp. 36-37. At that time, the plan was over
funded by $6.3 million, which he labeled a 'negative unfunded
liability'. See Milliman Actuarial Evaluation, January 1, 2008,
City Exhibit 3 (City Vol. II), Tab XI, p.3.
Mr. Lemanski testified that while the Police Pension Plan was
fully funded as of January, 2008, a primary source of the funds for
the proceeds was from the 2002 pension obligation bond, which was
56
approximately $66.3 million. Tr. 9/16, p. 48. As shown by Mr.
Barron in his worksheet behind Tab XIV, City Exhibit 3 (City Vol.
II), p. 2, as of 2002, the plan was 100% funded at $83,671,626, so
the value of the pension was just over $17 million before the City
bonded the balance of approximately $66 million to fully fund it.
The liability to the City of the plan increased to just over $99
million in 2006, and then to just over $112 million for 2008,
showing an annual growth rate of 6.4%. Id. Lemanski, Tr. 9/16, p.
52. Mr. Lemanski projects that the forecasted liability as of
January 1, 2010 will be approximately $127 million based on the same
rate of growth that happened to the plan from 2006 to 2008. Id. pp.
52-53. This is also shown on Mr. Barron's worksheet, City Exhibit
3, Tab XIV, p.2. Mr. Lemanski also explained that the terms of the
pension obligation bond require that the pension be 100% funded.
Tr. 9/16, pp. 49-50. Therefore, with a projected unfunded liability
of close to $30 million as of August, 2009, the City is required to
pay that over five years. Id. That would require the City repaying
just over $6 million in fiscal year 2011 if there was a $30 million
annual shortfall. See Barron Worksheet, p.2." (City Brief, pages
9-10).
The City further stated "The City updated the value of the
pension plan as of December 7, 2009, showing that Morgan Stanley
reports the value as $103 million. Therefore, Mr. Lemanski's
estimate was not far off, and the City is still facing a $24 million
57
shortfall, instead of a $27 million shortfall, using the December
7 number from Morgan Stanley.
Therefore, the Police defined benefit plan is strangling the
City. The City not only had to borrow $66 million to fund it in
2002, but seven short years later now faces a shortfall of $24
million which it may have to repay over the next five years. The
City cannot keep paying for the defined benefit plan for new hires."
"Milliman did a 25-year projection of the proposed pension plan
change from the current defined benefit plan to a defined
contribution plan where the City contributes 5% of the employee's
salary. See City Exhibit 2 (City Vol. III), Tab V. Mr. Lemanski
testified that they modeled the new defined contribution plan for
the new hires over a 25-year period, using evaluation assumptions
from the defined benefit plan in terms of the separation of existing
members and being replaced by new hires. Tr. 9/16, p. 60. Looking
at Milliman's chart, p. 2 behind Tab V, year one assumes that there
will be 10 new hires and that would increase to 110 by year 25.
Further Milliman assumed that the new hires would each contribute
2% based on the City's existing 401(k) plan so that the City match
would be 5%. Mr. Lemanski's assumption is that 10 officers would
retire in year one and that 10 officers would replace them. Id.,
p. 61. In year one, the savings to the City would be $21,554,
representing the difference in cost between the employer
contribution to the defined contribution plan, and the defined
58
benefit City normal cost for the year (see Line 5 of the Projected
Plan Change). By year 10, the savings in that one year would be
approximately $122,000. By year 15, the annual savings would be
close to $300,000. By year 20, the savings would be approximately
$650,000. And for year 25, the savings would be close to $1.5
million in that one year." (City Brief, 2009 MBA 308, pages 11-12).
Further, the City stated "The other three union in the City,
CWA Local 1103, AFSCME Local 688 and UE Local 222 (CILU-CIPU), have
the City of West Haven Pension Plan (401(k) as their pension and
have had it since the 1980's. Mullin, Tr. 9/16, p. 24; Picard, Tr.
8/13, p. 90. All of the non-Union employees in the City are also
members of the City of West Haven Pension Plan (401(k)). Id. The
summary plan description of the City of West Haven pension plan is
attached as Tab IV to City Exhibit 2 (City's Vol. III).
Therefore, putting new hires of the Police Department into the
existing City's 401(k) is consistent with the other bargaining units
in the City and is further reason under the statute to rule in the
City's favor on this issue. The Police Department having a defined
benefit plan is the anomaly."
"In recognition of the physical nature of police work, the City
also included in its last best offer a disability retirement plan
which the City would purchase to provide 45% of final salary up to
age 65 as a supplement to the 401(k). Tr. 9/16, p. 25. See City's
Last Best Offer, Issue in Dispute #5.
59
The Union falsely states in its brief that the City 'does not
have any provisions in place for new hires that are not covered by
the defined benefit plan to be eligible for Social Security'. Union
Brief, p. 41. The City made it very clear that the new hires would
go into Social Security when the 401(k) is adopted. Hence, the
offer of disability insurance to age 65 includes, as explained to
the Union, the fact that officers after age 65 would be eligible for
Medicare under Social Security and that the City would start the
process to apply for new hires to be eligible for Social Security
once the pension was settled.". (City Brief, 2009 MBA 308, pages
14-15).
The Union argued that it understands that the City is in tough
financial shape. The City had to take $1,500,000 from the Police
Pension Plan to pay its current bills.
The Union further stated "The economic data is not such that
the union is in a position to argue alternative statistical data to
attempt to trick the panel into believing that the city is just
claiming poverty in an attempt to have a positive position to
support their economic proposals. The Union agrees the City of West
Haven has been mismanaged for years and continues to be mismanaged
into bankruptcy. It would not surprise anyone if the Municipal
Finance Advisory Commission were to take over West Haven once again
and apply the draconian policies it has applied in City's like
Waterbury where collective bargaining was almost eliminated for a
60
Further, the Union stated, "Currently the City does not have
provisions in place for new hires that are not covered by the
defined benefit plan to be eligible for social security. (See Ex
B attached hereto) The fact that New Hires would be entering a job
not knowing what their retirement benefits were likely to be and
what their social security protections would be is going to make
recruiting new police officers into West Haven almost impossible.
There are no provisions for a meaningful disability protections
offered at this point in time.
The volatile market makes any major decisions not only
difficult but irresponsible. The Union readily concedes that if the
pension plan is no longer sustainable that steps need to be taken
to make it sustainable. The City's scorched earth negotiation
tactics and policies are doing noting to solve the City's financial
woes.
It is true that there may come a time where the union will have
no choice but accept the fact that the defined benefit pension in
West Haven is obsolete but that time is not now. This panel ought
to deny the city's request to delete the defined benefit pension for
new hires and they should deny it with the admonition to the city
that when they come back in four years to negotiate an end to the
defined benefit program for new hires that they bring information
that the union can analyze to help the union come to a decision
about what is best for its members from a 20 or 25 year prospective.
61
Information like social security will be available, disability
insurance will be available, advisors and counselors will be
available to assist employees in insuring their investments are as
profitable as possible. Had the City done these simple basic
management steps in this negotiation the union may have been
amenable to such a radical change." (Union Brief, pages 41-42).
The evidence that has been submitted to the Panel clearly
demonstrates that the City is in a very severe financial situation
that has been compounded by the current fiscal crisis. Further,
three other unions in the City are under the West Haven Pension Plan
(401(k) since 1980. Also, the new police officer hires will receive
a disability retirement plan and Social Security benefits.
Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by
the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last
Best Offer of the City for Issue 35 is accepted. The City appointed
Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same
Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents
on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the
same Statutory Criteria.
62
ISSUE 37 - Paragraph No. 331, Article/Section 29.1(A)
City - Detective weekend off schedule June 30, 2012
The City is proposing to amend the Detective schedules so that
all Detectives who currently work Monday through Friday will have
a Friday and Saturday off or a Sunday and Monday off. The City
indicated that it needs Detectives to work weekends to provide
service to the citizens of West Haven.
The Panel believes that the current schedule should remain.
After reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration
panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of
the Union for Issue 37 is accepted. The Union appointed Arbitrator
agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory
Criteria, and the City appointed Panel Member dissents on the
selection of the Last Best Offer of the Union based upon the same
Statutory Criteria.
63
CITY OF WEST HAVEN
AND
AFSCME, CO. 15, Local 895
Case No. 2009-MBA-64, Police
Romanow, Esquire
Management Member
Paul Ari la
adZ
Labor Member
I
M. Jack ebber
Chairman
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #1
ARTICLE 5
SENIORITY
SECTIONS 5.4
CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
5.4 Patrol Officers and Sergeants shall select their shifts and beats according to seniority from
the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present
selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six
(56) days.
UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER
5.4 Patrol Officers and Sergeants shall select their shifts and beats according to seniority from
the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present
selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six
(56) days.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #2
ARTICLE 5
SENIORITY
SECTIONS 5.5
5.5 Detectives and Detective Sergeants shall pick their holidays and vacations according to
seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with
the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be
fifty-six (56) days.
5.5 Detectives and Detective Sergeants shall pick their holidays and vacations according to
seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance
with the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period
shall be fifty-six (56) days.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #3
ARTICLE 5
SENIORITY
SECTIONS 5.6
5.6 Lieutenants shall select their shifts and days off according to seniority from effective date
of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan,
Section 13.4 of this Agreement concerning Reorganization as set forth in Appendix E. The
selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.
5.6 Lieutenants shall select their shifts and days off according to seniority from effective date of
appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan, Section
13.4 of this Agreement concerning Reorganization as set forth in Appendix E. The selection
period shall be fifty-six (56) days.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #4
ARTICLE 8
VACATIONS
SECTION 8.3
8.3 Employees who have completed five (5) years of service but less than ten (10) years of
service shall receive three (3) weeks of paid vacation annually.
CITY'S PROPOSAL:
8.3 Employees who have completed five (5) years of service but less than ten (10) years of
service shall receive three (3) weeks of paid vacation annually.
UNION PROPOSAL:
Withdrawn
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #5
ARTICLE 9
WAGES
SECTION 9.2
9.2 1% General Wage Increase for January 1, 2009.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #6
ARTICLE 9
WAGES
SECTION 9.3
9.3 2.0% General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2009.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #7
ARTICLE 9
WAGES
SECTION 9.4
9.4 2.0 % General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2010.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #8
ARTICLE 9
WAGES
SECTION 9.4 (NEW SECTION)
None
NEW SECTION 9.4a 2.5% General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2011.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #9
ARTICLE 10
LONGEVITY
SECTION 10.1
10.1 Eligibility and Amount: Each employee in the bargaining unit who has or will have five
(5) years but less than ten (10) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall
receive an annual longevity payment of five hundred and fifty ($550) dollars. Each
employee who has or will have ten (10) years of service but less than fifteen (15) years of
service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of six
hundred and fifty ($650) dollars. Each employee who has or will have fifteen (15) years
of service but less than twenty (20) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall
receive an annual longevity payment of seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars. Each
employee who has or will have twenty (20) years or more of service on June 30th of each
fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity increment of eight hundred and fifty hundred
($850) dollars. Such payments are to be made on the first pay day in December of said
fiscal year.
Effective July 1, 2007 the longevity payment shall be increased by an additional one
hundred and fifty ($150) dollars.
UNION'S PROPOSAL:
10.1 Eligibility and Amount: Each employee in the bargaining unit who has or will have five
(5) years but less than ten (10) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall
receive an annual longevity payment of seven hundred ($700) dollars. Each employee
who has or will have ten (10) years of service but less than fifteen (15) years of service
on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of eight
hundred ($800) dollars. Each employee who has or will have fifteen (15) years of service
but less than twenty (20) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an
annual longevity payment of nine hundred ($900) dollars. Each employee who has or will
have twenty (20) years or more of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive
an annual longevity increment of one thousand ($1000) dollars. Such payments are to be
made on the first pay day in December of said fiscal year.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #I0
ARTICLE 11
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
SECTION 11.1
11.1 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing an Associate's
Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the teen of this contract:
Of two percent (1.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
11.2 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a B.A. or B.S.
Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the term of this contract:
Of three percent (2.25) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
11.3 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a Master's
Degree
Of four percent (2.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
UNION'S PROPOSAL
11.1 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing an Associate's
Degree or the equivalent of college credits thereof, shall receive a yearly allowance during the
term of this contract:
Of two percent (1.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
11.2 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a B.A. or B.S.
Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the term of this contract:
Of three percent (2.25) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
11.3 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a Master's
Degree
Of four percent (2.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary
11.4 Each member of the bargaining unit who has the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in
credit hours will be paid as though such member had obtained the degree. Proof of compliance
with the various requirements of Section 11.4 shall be submitted to the Chief of Police. All
credit hours and degrees must be from an accredited school.
11.5 Any employee who has a degree or the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in credit
hours verified at any time during the year shall be paid the appropriate sum of money in either
December or June.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE #11
ARTICLE 11
RATES OF PAY EXTRA POLICE DUTY
SECTION 12.2 (B)
B. Payment for extra duty jobs shall be at a minimum of four (4) hours, except as provided
in C below.
B. Payment for extra duty jobs shall be at a minimum of five (5) hours, except as
provided in C below.
ARTICLE 11
RATES OF PAY EXTRA POLICE DUTY ,
SECTION 12.2 (C)
C. For the West Haven Board of Education and Notre Dame High School sporting events,
payment shall be at a minimum of three (3) hours.
12.2 Rates of Pay:
NEW
D. For the West Haven Board of Education payment shall be set at a minimum of three (3)
hours, and for Notre Dame High School sporting events payment shall be at a minimum of
four (4) hours.
ARTICLE 13
MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS
SECTION 13.2 (A)
A. A full compliment of officers shall be 10 patrol beats on the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m./3:00
p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, 9 patrol beats on the 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m./11:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. shift and 10 patrol beats on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m./7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift.
UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER:
A. A full compliment of officers shall be 11 patrol beats on the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00
a.m. / 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, 10 patrol beats on the 12:00 a.m. to 8:00
a.m. /1 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and 11 patrol beats on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. / 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift.
ARTICLE 13
EXTRA DUTY FOR CITY AND STAFFING
SECTION 13.2(F) - ARBITRABILITY
13.2 Minimum Staffing:
(F) Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...
(F) Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #14A
ARTICLE 13
EXTRA DUTY FOR CITY AND STAFFING
SECTION 13.2(F)
13.3 Minimum Staffing:
(G) Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...
(G)_ Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

ARTICLE 13
EXTRA DUTY CITY STAFFING
SECTION 13.3(A)
A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra shift work, and extra police duty as
defined in Section 12.1 the officer must have worked the full forty (40) hour work week
during the week that the extra shift occurred. In the event of a recognized holiday or
vacation, it will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hour
week.
A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra shift the officer must have
worked the full (40) hour work week during that week that the extra shift duty
occurred. In the event that an officer takes Sick Leave as defined in Section 15.1,
forty-eight (48) hours prior to or after working the extra shift duty, it will be
considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hours. In the event of
a recognized holiday, vacation, personal or compensatory day, it will be considered as
eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hours.
ARTICLE 13
EXTRA DUTY CITY STAFFING
SECTION 13.3(B)
B. In order to receive the time and one half for the extra police duty as defined in 12.1, the
officer must have worked the full forty (40) hour work week during the week that the
extra shift occurred. If an officer books off sick for a reason authorized under Article 15
and provides written documentation to the Chief of Police state that reason; the officer
will be allowed an exemption from this provision. Two (2) exemptions will be allowed
per officer per contract year if the above criteria are met. Failure to provide written
documentation will result in loss of exemption. An approved holiday, vacation, personal
or compensatory day will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty
hour week.
A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra police duty as defined in section
12.1, the officer must have worked the full (40) hour work week during that week that the
extra police duty occurred. In the event that an officer takes Sick Leave as defined in
Section 15.1, forty-eight (48) hours prior to or after working the extra police duty, it will
be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hour week. An
approved holiday, vacation, personal, or compensatory day will be considered as eight (8)
working hours toward the full forty (40) hour week.
ARTICLE 13
PAYMENT FOR EXTRA SHIFT WORK — RATE OF JOB BEING FILLED
SECTION 13.3(C) — NEW SECTION
NEW CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
Payment for Extra Shift Work
C. Officers shall receive time and one half for the extra police duty at the rate of
the job being filled.
Union rejects City's proposed language

ARTICLE 13
EXTRA DUTY SHIFT SELECTION PERIOD (8 WEEKS)
SECTION 13.4
Shift Selection:
All employees shall be required to bid within the time limits established herein.
A copy of the upcoming pick sheet for bidding shall be distributed with employee
paychecks prior to the fourth week preceding the start of the cycle. The bidding shall be done
starting in the fourth week prior to the start of the fifty-six day cycle.
All employees shall be required to bid within the time limits established herein.
A copy of the upcoming pick sheet for bidding shall be distributed with employee
paychecks prior to the fourth week preceding the start of the cycle. The bidding shall be done
starting in the fourth week prior to the start of the fifty-six day cycle.
ARTICLE 13
HOW COMP TIME CAN BE USED
SECTION 13.6(1)
A full shift of compensatory time may be used in any situation where the City may grant
the time off without having to hire overtime. If a compensatory day is approved
anticipating that a scheduled extra officer will replace the officer on a compensatory day
and another employee subsequently takes the day off, the approval of the compensatory
day shall not be withdrawn.
1. A full shift of compensatory time (8 hours) may be used in any situation including
situations where the City has to hire overtime. So long as employee gives three (3) days
notice to hiring SGT
ARTICLE 13
COMP TIME
SECTION 13.6(3)
Use of compensatory time is subject to approval of the Shift Commander based on

staffing requirements.
Use of less than a full shift of compensatory time is subject to approval of the Shift
Commander based on staffing requirements.
ARTICLE 13
COMP TIME
SECTION 13.6(4)
4. Since compensatory time is not granted unless there is no overtime cost to the City,
approval of compensatory time shall not normally be granted more than seventy-two (72)
hours in advance of the time off requested.
4. An officer may not take compensatory time in order to work overtime/extra duty.
ARTICLE 13
COMP TIME
SECTION 13.6(6)
6. An officer shall be informed at the start of his shift, or at the time of the request if made
during a shift, whether he may use compensatory time with the understanding that the
decision may be rescinded later if an emergency occurs.
13.7 NEW
Compensatory Time
Compensatory time may be used as follows:
6. When using less than a full shift of compensatory time, an officer shall be infoinied at the
start of his shift, or at the time of the request if made during a shift, whether he may use
compensatory time with the understanding that the decision may be rescinded later if an
emergency occurs.
ARTICLE 14
HOLIDAYS
SECTION 14.2
14.2 When a holiday falls on Sunday and is celebrated on a Monday, then the Monday shall be
considered the holiday. When a holiday falls on Saturday and is celebrated on the
preceding Friday, then, Friday shall be considered the holiday. Christmas, New Year's,
and Independence Day will be celebrated on the actual day. In the event for any reason
whatsoever, a holiday is created by order of the President of the United States or the
Governor of the State of Connecticut such holiday shall be awarded to each member of
the bargaining unit. If the member is required to work on the day that is designated as a
holiday, he/she shall be compensated for the holiday by eight hours pay or compensatory
time off at the discretion of the employee. Such day shall be treated as all other holidays
that are specified with this document.
UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER
14.2 When a holiday falls on Sunday and is celebrated on a Monday, then the Monday shall be
considered the holiday. When a holiday falls on Saturday and is celebrated on the
preceding Friday, then, Friday shall be considered the holiday. Christmas, New Year's,
and Independence Day will be celebrated on the actual day. In the event for any reason
whatsoever, a holiday is created by order of the President of the United States or the
Governor of the State of Connecticut such holiday shall be awarded to each member of
the bargaining unit. If the member is required to work on the day that is designated as a
holiday, he/she shall be compensated for the holiday by eight hours pay or compensatory
time off at the discretion of the employee. Such day shall be treated as all other holidays
that are specified with this document.
ARTICLE 18
EXAMINATIONS & PROMOTIONS
SECTION 18.1(E)
When an opening exists in the Detective Bureau for a Detective and/or a Detective
Sergeant, the process for selecting a Patrol Officer or Sergeant to fill the spot is as
follows:
The Chief of Police will solicit input from his/her senior staff. The senior staff will
provide a list of 3 — 5 candidates and rank them in order. From these individual's lists, a
master list of the three (3) candidates is submitted by the Chief to the Board of Police
Commissioners for review. The board will select one of the three candidates submitted
from the master list.
UNION's LAST BEST OFFER
Detective/Detective Sergeant Assignment
E. Examinations for promotion to the rank of Detective and Detective Sergeant shall be
conducted at least every two (2) years. Promotional exams which shall consist of oral
and written exams shall be conducted by a mutually agreed upon firm or agency and shall
be valid for a two (2) year period as specified in Section 18.3 unless all eligible
candidates are promoted prior to the expiration date. The firm or agency conducting said
examinations shall be determined at least eight (8) months prior to the exam date.
Should a vacancy(ies) arise after the regular list of eligible candidates is exhausted, or
when there is no list for some other reason, a special examination shall be given. The
special examination shall be given by the testing firm or agency that gave the last
regularly scheduled examination. Such examination shall be given as soon as practicable
following the date on which the vacancy arises, and in no event more than ninety (90)
days following the date on which the vacancy arises. The special examination list shall
expire on the April 30 prior to the new list resulting from the next regularly scheduled
examination.
Applicants shall be eligible to take the special examination if they met the time-in-grade
requirements as of the April 30 cut-off date for the last regularly scheduled examination.
Seniority points shall also be determined as of that date.
This provision will be effective upon award of contract.

ARTICLE 18
EXAMINATIONS & PROMOTIONS
SECTION 18.1(F) - NEW
NONE
NEW
F. Detective/Detective Sergeant Promotional Examinations
For the Detective's examination, the -written examination shall be worth fifty
percent (50%) of the grade and the Assessment Center Examination shall be worth fifty
(50%) of the grade before seniority points are added.
For the Detective Sergeant's examination, the written examination shall be worth
fifty percent (50%) of the grade and the Assessment Center Examination shall be worth
fifty percent (50%) of the grade before seniority points are added.
All Written Examinations and Assessment Center Examinations shall be held off
site of the West Haven Police Department.
ARTICLE 19
HEALTH INSURANCE - PREMIUM COST SHARE
SECTION 19.1(A)
A. Effective July 1, 2005, the City shall provide at a 6.5% premium cost sharing with the
employee, and effective July 1, 2006 at a 7.5% premium cost sharing with the employee,
and effective July 1, 2007 at a 8.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, all
employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual
cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) for single person
coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for two (2) person coverage, and
one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family coverage. The following health benefit
plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents
(which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age
25):
Effective July 1, 2009, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be 8.5%.
cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125
Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand
dollars ($ 1,000) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200)
for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family
coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise
provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse
and unmarried dependents up to age 25):
ARTICLE 19
SECTION 19.1(A)
25):
UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER:
A. Effective July 1, 2010, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be
11%. cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section
125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one
thousand dollars ($ 1,500) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars
($2000) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($2500) for family
ARTICLE 19
SECTION 19.1(A)
25):
A. Effective July 1, 2011, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be
12%. cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section
125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one
thousand dollars ($ 1600) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars
($2600) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($3400) for family
ARTICLE 19
HEALTH INSURANCE — IN-NETWORK BENEFIT CO-PAYMENTS
SECTION 19.1(B) 1.a.
a. In-Network Benefit Copayments:

• Wellness and preventive: $0
• Out-patient MUND/SA: $25
UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER:
a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2009:

• Out-patient MI/ND/SA: $25
• Outpatient Surgery $100
• Urgent Care $50
• Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy $25 (30 visits combined)
ARTICLE 19
HEALTH INSURANCE — IN-NETWORK BENEFIT CO-PAYMENTS
SECTION 19.1(B) 1.a.
a. In-Network Benefit Copayments:

Union's Last Best Offer:
a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2010:

• Outpatient Surgery $100
• Urgent Care $50
• PhysicaUOccup./Speech Therapy $25 (30 visits combined)

West Haven Arbitration Award-CBA-Part II

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

West Haven Arbitration Award-CBA-Part II

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

increase to the current percentage level from 8.

July 1, 2009. Therefore, the City is being reasonable in its

proposal in not trying to increase the health insurance

percentage by 4 or 5 percentage points." (City Brief, page 41).

The Union stated "While it is true that caps are

disappearing throughout Connecticut the Union has offered to

greatly increase the cap in an attempt to assist the City is some

cost saving measures while at the same time attempting to protect

its members from the volatile health care industry.

An analysis of Issues 29,30,31,32,33 demonstrate the last

off. An example of this is that in issue 29 five of the areas

actually match perfectly and that when Union 30 is combined with

City 29 the only difference appears to be that the union proposes

$200.00 in patient admission and the City proposes $250.00. The

only other difference being that the union seeks to retain

prosthetics and wellness visits.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE 29 IN NETWORK BENEFIT COPAYMENTS 19.1(b)l.a

The Union is proposing the following design changes to the

health care plan effective July 1, 2009:

The City is proposing the following design change to the

health care plan effective July 1, 2009:

"a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2009:

• General office visits: $15

The City argued "Terry DeMattie recommended that the City

increase its co-payments because paying $5 for a doctor's office

visit seems 'unreasonable'. Tr. 9/8/09 p.25. She recommended

Exhibit 4, at the top, or $45,900). Fifteen dollars is also a

reasonable co-pay compared to surrounding towns (see pp.53-54,

Increasing these co-pays helps the City in slightly

deferring the cost increases that it faces every year for an

insurance plan that costs it over $20,000,000 per year.

The same argument applies to the walk-in/allergy testing-a

$15 co-pay for this service is reasonable. As to the in-patient

per admission, $250 again is reasonable. Segal had recommended

City would save 4.4% or $90,000, if it increased the out-patient

co-pay to $200. Their savings would be cut in half it is was

$100. (See City Exhibit 4, p. 11). Therefore, the amount of

$250 is reasonable given the City's poor economic condition.

This is also consistent with comparable towns(See Issue 26

summary, pp. 41-42)." (City Brief, pages 43-44).

It appears that the changes proposed by the City are fair in

light of the current design changes that have been agreed to by

other similarly situated employees. Therefore, after reviewing

all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in

for Issue 29 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees

Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the

The Union is proposing the following design change to the

health care plan effective July 1, 2010:

The City argued that "the health insurance costs increasing

by 10% every year, it is not unreasonable to have the employees

increase their co-pays by a mere $5 for doctor's visits, walk-ins

only being increased to $75 for emergency room visits. As to

out-patient surgery, the City proposes to go from $100 to $150,

which again is not a large increase. As to in-patient per

admission, which is a relatively rare occurrence, the City is

proposing to go from $250 to $350. Segal had recommended that

elected to gradually increase the in-patient cost over the three

"a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2010:

• General office visits: $20

The proposed changes in the health care design by the City

contracts. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information

received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory

Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 30 is