OFFICEOFCOLLECTIVEBARGAINING ***************************************** Inthematterbetween * * DISTRICTCOUNCIL37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, * LOCAL1549 * * -and-* * THECITYOFNEWYORK * THENYCPOLICEDEPARTMENT * * * ***************************************** OCBCaseNo.# 1-1-09 RE: Police Communications Technicians and Supervising Police CommunicationsTechnicians Before: ImpassePanel of MarkM.Grossman, Chair, GayleA. Gavin, Member Earl R. Pfeffer, Member Appearances: FortheUnion:JesseGribben AssistantGeneralCounsel FortheCity:ProskauerRoseLLP, by: Neil H. Abramson, Esq. & Daniel Altchek, Esq. TheaboveImpasse Panel wasdesignated, pursuant totheNewYork City Collective Bargaining Law(''NYCCBL'') and Office of Collective Bargaining("OCB") Rules, tohearandmakeareportandrecommendations
inadisputebetweenDistrict Council ("Union" or "DC37") andtheCityofNewYorkandtheNewYorkCity Police Department ("City"). By letter requestedbargainingover what it termedascertainchangesbeingmadeto theduties andresponsibilities ofthePoliceCommunications ("PCTs") andtheSeniorPoliceCommunicationsTechnicians("SPCTs")as well as the establishment ofauniformrequirement claimed there was a "practical impact" implementedbytheCity. Thepartiesmet 2009. Duringsaidmeetings, theUnionproposedasalaryincreasefor handling of the fire calls by the PCTs UnifiedCall TakingSystem("UCT"). would have to be in the form of connectedtotheimplementation ofUCT. that thecost oftheuniforms was $185.00, annual maintenance. Astotheuniforms, andSPCTswouldhavetopurchasetheirown. eitherissue. On July 24, 2009 the Unionfileda Impasse Panel with OCB, claiming involvingthemove ofthePCTs andSPCTsto11 andtheir dutiesasaresult oftheCity's mediationprovedunsuccessful, theBoard declaredanimpassebyletterdatedNovember24,2009. Ahearinginthismatter wasconductedbythisPanel and 28, 2010, at the OCB. The parties witnesses, introducedexhibits, andarguedtheirpositions. post-hearingbriefs. BACKGROUND The Unionand the City of NewYorkare bargaining agreement covering clerical agencies. Included in the bargainingunit approximately1200PCTsandSPCTs, PoliceDepartment. Thiscaseonlyconcernsachangeincertaindutiesand 237, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 1549 dated April 14, 2009, the Union Technicians for these titles. They as a result of the changes onMay8, June8, andJune29, the under the implementationofthe TheCitycounteredthatanyincrease an assignment differential that was Additionally, theCityestimated andapproximately$75.00for theCitymaintainedthat thePCTs Noagreementwasreachedon Request for Appointment of it was at an impasse over issues MetrotechinBrooklyn implementationoftheUCT. After ofCollectiveBargaining("BCB") onJuly26, 27, examined and cross-examined Bothpartiesfiled parties toa collective employees throughout the city represented by the Unionare all employedbytheNewYorkCity
responsibilitiesofthePCTsandSPCTsandtherequirement uniformstotheiroffices. The City decided to consolidate operations intoasinglelocation, 11 MetrotechinBrooklyn, themainaredividedintocall-takersandradiodispatchers. consolidationtheCityinformedtheUnionthat berequired, forthefirsttime, towearauniformstartingDecember ThePCTs,servingascall-takers,areresponsibleforfielding911calls andobtainingnecessaryinformationfromthe entered into the NYPDSprint telecommunication servingas radiodispatchers, intumanalyzethat determinehowtoappropriatelydispatchpolice overseethedispatchedpoliceunitsviaradioor SPCTsareresponsibleforsupervisingthecall-takersandradiodispatchers. At somepoint subsequent totheSeptember theCitybegananinitiativetodeterminehowtheCity'semergencyresponse systems could beimproved. It was CommunicationsTransformationProject("ECTP"). oftheproject wasto"centralizeandintegratethecall operations amongthe NYPD, FDNYandEMS." ECTPwastheimplementation oftheCity'sVCT, handling time for fire calls and toenable emergencymorequickly. Beforethe VCTwasput inplace,whenacall elicit information fromthe caller andenter telecommunication system. If the call conference-in a Fire AlarmDispatcher AlarmReceipt Dispatcher ("ARD"), collect the necessary information and FDNY's Starfire telecommunication received bya FDNYDecision Dispatcher requisite fire apparatus to the fire site. whethertheinformationshouldbereleasedtoapolicedispatcherwhowould determinewhetherpoliceunitsshouldbedeployed. 3that theywear all emergency communications NY. PCTsin Aspart ofthe thePCTsandSPCTswould 1,2009. callers. This informationis system. Other PCTs, informationinorder to personnel andcontinueto telephonecommunication. 11,200I terroristattack, referredtoas the City's Emergency Theestablishedpurpose takinganddispatch One component ofthe establishedtoreducecall-first responders toget to an cameinthePCTwould it into the NYPD's Sprint was a fire call, the PCTwould ("FAD"), also referred toas an fromthe FDNY. The FADwould enter such information into the system. This information wouldbe who would thendispatchthe The PCTin tumwoulddecide
With the VCT, one aspect was directlytothe FDNYStarfiresystem. PCTshadtolearnanexpandedandmorespecificlist firecodestoenabletheinformationfromtheNYPDsystemtobeabletobe readautomaticallybythe FDNYStarfiresystem. wouldbereleasedtotheFDNYDecisionDispatcher, fortheaddedlayer oftheARDbeingconferenced-inpriortotheinformation goingtotheDecisionDispatcher. Priortothe thePCTsweregiventhenewcodesandlistswerepostedat reference. Additionally, thePCTswereprovidedaone-daytrainingprogram anda halfhourrefresherinpreparationfortheactual system. Another facet ofthe trainingreflectedtheneedfor detail critical informationfromthecallerinthefirst the Sprint systemas the Starfire systemcould characters ofinformation.InMay2009,theVCTwasimplemented. FromMayuntilNovember2009, duetocomplaintsregardingthePCTshandling imagined, certainmodifications resultedinNovember aftertheinformationwasreleasedtotheStarfiresystem, ARDwas conferenced-in by the Pf'Tto repeatedtheinformation. Thiswasdonetomakesure address information. As theARDpatchedinwas concerned, the ARDwouldbe moreapt inconsistencies. Further, ifthePCTwasunabletoreachanARD, wouldreviewtheinformationthePCThadelicitedfromthecallerbeforeit wastransmitted. Anadditional component oftheECTPandinconjunctionwiththe consolidation ofoperations at 11 MetrotechCenter, require PCTs and SPCTs to wear consisted of twopairs ofpants, twolong-sleeve shirts andabelt, all ofwhichwouldbetheresponsibilityofthePCTor SPCTtopurchase. ByletterdatedSeptember21, Union ofthis requirement. However, untilfurthernoticeonOctober26,2009. 4to link the NYPDSprint system Toaccomplishthis integration, the ofseventeenadditional Such informationthen eliminatingtheneed VCTactuallybeinginstituted, eachstationfor implementationofthe thePCTs to 40-characterentryinto onlycapture the first 40 the VCTwasoperational. However, offirecalls, whetherreal or 2009. At this time, aborough-specific whomthe PCTor the caller oftheaccuracyofthe specifictotheborough topick uponanymistakes or aSPCT the Citydecided to uniforms. The uniformrequirement shirts, twoshort-sleeve 2009, theCityadvisedthe theCitysuspendedthis requirement
UNIONPOSITION The Union contends the City's responsibility for handling and processing specializedskillset"requiredforperformingthatwork, AccordingtotheUnion, theaddition ofthis"tremendousresponsibility"to complement thePCTs' "alreadystressful, 911Operators, warrants"asignificantincreaseincompensation."TheUnion insiststheCity'sinitial offer ofa$500annual inthebargainingpriortoanimpassebeingdeclarediswoefullyinadequate, andit rejectsout ofhandtheCity'sreducedofferof$200, firsttimeinthecourse ofthisproceeding. Asfortheuniformrequirement, Unionarguestheinitialpurchase, ifbornebytheemployees, tonothinglessthanaone-timedeductioninsalary."Assuch, Cityabsorbthefullcost ofpurchasingtheuniformsandprovide, annual uniformallowance of$209, anamount review ofothercivilianemployeecontracts. As athresholdmatter, theUnionarguesthat right toassert therewas no"practical therefore no duty to bargain over changedor addedasaconsequence ofitsimplementationoftheUCT. Unionpoints out that theCity, inMayandJune2009, Unionover thefirecallsassignment, failedtoobject for the appointment of an impasse bargainingpetitionseekingtoexclude Union's demand PCTs and SPCTs emergencycall duties. Moreover, theUnionargues, thequestion at theveryleast, alawful subject ofbargainingwhichtheCityvoluntarily discussed withthe Unionand whichhas without objection. TheUnioncontendstheCity, fromasking thePanel todetermine whether fromthe changes inassignment resultingfromthe UCT. It insists that "there is onlyoneissuefor 5adoption of the UCThas shifted fire calls, and the "highly fromFADstoPCTs. demandingandvital functions"as assignment differential made presentedforthe fornowput onholdbytheCity, the "wouldamount itdemandsthe aswell, an it deems fair, basedon a theCityhaswaivedits impact" onPCTs andSPCTs, and additional compensation for duties The bargainedwiththe totheUnion'srequest panel, and did not file a scope of fromthepanel's considerationthe be compensated for additional fire offirecall compensationis, nowreached animpassepanel therefore, isnowprecluded a"practical impact"resulted implementation ofthe this panel todecidewith
regardstothenewlyassignedfirecalls;howmuchtheyareworth." Accordingtothe Union, thenewresponsibilitiesbornebyPCTsand SPCTs in connectionwith the implementation changeintheir duties and, as such, warrant TheUnionargues that the PCTs didnot procedure, asarguedbytheCity, butratherhavebeennewlyburdenedwith fireemergencyresponsibilitiescriticaltopublicsafety. thatpriortothe UCT, itwastheARDwhowaschargedwithcollectingfrom the 911 caller the critical and relevant important firedispatch determinations, responsibilitieshaveshiftedtothePCT. TheUnioninsiststhisisnosmall beenrequiredtolearnandmemorizeseventeennewfirecodes. Unionargues, thiswasnot amereroteendeavor, havereceivedextensivetrainingonhowtoutilizethosecodes, howto followa 40-character input Department's StarFiresystemtorecordtheinformation. addsthat themerefact emergencyfirecallsmayrepresent percent (2-3%) ofthetotal volumeof911callshandledandprocessedby PCTs, is misleading. The Unionclaims training, knowledge, preparationandabilitytohandlethesefirecalls, life and death situations, when theyoccur, percentage offirecalls." The Unionhighlights NewYork City Council's Joint Committee relatedtofiresandfireoperationsrequireahighlyspecializedskillset. The end result, according to responsibilitywhichadds "a newlevel pressurethat cannotbemeasuredinhowmanynewcodesweneedtoknow orhowmanyfirecallswe handle."TheaddedstressextendstotheSPCTs, theUnionargues, citingthetestimony ofSPCTCynthiaHill,whoexplained, "asasupervisor, Ifeel that theFDcallswereamajorchangeto9-1-1."The testimony of Hill, and of PCTs Pamela regardingthesignificant pressureandaddedstresswhichresultedfromthe addition of fire calls to the peTs emergencycall-takingresponsibilities, draws additional support froman independent 6of the UCTare a major areasonable salaryincrease. simplyexperience a change in TheUnioncontends information necessary to make but under UCT, those duties and matter, asthePCTsandSPCTshave Further, the asthePCTsandSPCTs inparticular limitation which allows the Fire Thus, theUnion onlytwotothree "[t]he critical issuehere is the these versus the total number or theconclusionstatedthe Report: "[e]mergency calls .." the Union, is a newcategory of ofstress tothejob, a stress and Rodriguez and Gail Williams, report prepared by the
HewlettPackardCompany, UnionExhibit Department of the UCT implementation observesthattheHPReport, whichstatesits"factual andapprovedbythePolice Department, "major change" fromhaving"littleFirecall VCTtobearing"[r]esponsibilitiesandcomplexitiesofcompletelyhandling theFirecalls." AlthoughtheUnionofferednowitnesstoauthenticatetheHPReport (indeed, Commissioner Handleydeniedeverhavingseenit), arguesthat theReport'sfindingsarecredible. producednowitnessor evidencetodisputetheReport'sauthenticityor independence ofthepersons whopreparedit; containedintheReport areconsistentwithhearingtestimonyabouttheUCT procedures andhistory. Ofcritical note, Report confirms theUnion's "central majorchangetothePCT jobfunction." Thus, theUnionargues, thereisfirmrecordsupport thatthisPanelgrantareasonablesalaryincreaseascompensationforthefire call responsibilitiesnewlyassignedtoPCTsandSPCTs.· Union, thehearingrecorddemonstrates changetothePCTjobfunction," andassuch, not anappropriate manner ofcompensation. which, theUnioncontends, ismost appropriatelyawardedtoasub-group employees withinatitlewhoareassignedtoadiscretetaskor salaryincreaseiswarrantedwhenanentireclass newarray ofjobdutiesandresponsibilities. Meridianand/or TDDduties, andthe6IWYRESandDARPresponsibilities for which PCTs receive, respectively, $1,161.00, "in no way compare tothe involved in handling fire calls." Moreover, differentialswerecarvedout oftheoveralleconomicpackagelongafterthe dutieswereestablishedandperformedbyPCTs, specificallyaddressedinbargaining. Incontrast, here, byinitiallyofferinga$500andnowa$200differential, valuedthefire-call workasauniqueassignment 711,ontheimpact uponthePolice ("HP Report"). The Union content"wasreviewed concludes that PCTsunderwent a processingresponsibility"pre-it nevertheless TheUnionobservestheCity the further, thefactual assertions the Unionadds, is thefact the claim; theaddition ofFirecalls is a for itsproposal Accordingtothe thenewduties represent "amajor anassignment differential is Unlike a salarydifferential of function, a ofemployeesisassigneda Moreover, theUnionadds, the differentials of $720.00 and complexities and responsibilities the Union argues, those andtheir valuewasnever theUnionargues, theCity hasminimally properlyaddressedoutside
patternbargaining. According tothe Union, however, approachforpayingemployeeswhohaveassumedanewandcritical ofduties. Thus, it argues, thebest assignedfire-call duties are the salaryranges jurisdictionswhoperformthesameorsimilarduties. similarlytitledemployees inBoston, Francisco, Washington, DCandSeattle, and Nassau Counties, the Union submits between$5.00and$6.00anhour lessthanemployeeswhodothesameor similar work inother major U.S. cities Under asimilar analysis, theUnioncontendsSPCTs"earnanywherefrom $3.79to$6.18lessthantheircounterpartsinthecitiesandcountiesusedin theUnion'scomparison."AccordingtotheUnion, which the comparable employees performdifferent received2010increases, doesnot impeachtheforce Union's failuretoincludethePCTs' dispatchbonusinitscalculationdoes not change theanalysis. It points out PCTs receive nodispatchbonus at all, approximately$1.86or $1.19per hour, figures whichdonot undercut theUnion's takersareunderpaid. Indeed, theUnionobserves, "[t]hePCTsalaryisapproximately$4,000.00belowthenationalaverage." Further, the Union argues, PCTs comparedwithFireAlarmDispatchers. fifth(5 th ) year ofemployment, earn$3.25per asserts this pay inequality under varying differencebetweenthetwotitlesrangingfromtwentytotwenty-ninepercent (20-29%). It argues that the City's "illusory"ismisleading. The Unionacknowledges that the multiple wage, sexandrace discriminationclaims against theCity, Joint Exhibit 4~ resolvedissues PCTs/SPCTs andemployees intheFADandSFADtitles. disputes, however, theCity'sclaimtherisingdisparityinpaybetweenthe 8a differential is not the proper class indicators ofthevalue ofthenewly paidtoemployees inother Analyzingthepay of Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, San as well as innearbyWestchester that "PCTs, on average, earn and two neighboring counties." theisolatedinstancesin functions or have ofitsdata. So, too, the that thirty-sixpercent (36%) ofall andthose whodoget aboost of dependingontheheadcount used, argument theCity's 911 call-theHPReportnotesthat and SPCTs are underpaidwhen It points out that FADs~bytheir hour more thanPCTs. It analyses results in a salary characterizationofthis disparityas 1991 Consent Decreeconcerning by PCTs andSPCTs ofpaydisparitybetween It vigorously
PoliceDepartment andFireDepartment settlement mayfullybeattributedtochoicesmadebytherespectiveunions on how to allocate available pattern bargaining. Rather, theUnionargues,itismoreamatterofscale,astheFire AlarmDispatchers Benevolent Association("FADBA"), approximately200FireDepartment employeesintheFADandSFADtitles, hasfar morechoiceandopportunitytoachieveincreasesinbasepaythan doesaUnionwhichmust negotiateacontract Joint Exhibit 1, whichcovers approximately20,000employees nine(89)titlesinnumerousCityAgenciesandDepartments. Moreover, the Union adds, City salaries ofthePCTswiththeFADsismisleading, DispatchBonus of$4,298.37. The Unionagainpoints percent (36%) ofPCTsreceivenosuchbonus, for, evenbyaveragingamongPCTsthetotal out,thePCTbasesalaryis$10,954.72lessthanFADpay, atwenty-four percent (24%) difference. disparityinpaybetweenPCTsandFADsisanythingbutillusory." Insum, withrespect totheUCT, exaggerationtostatethat PCTs, inassumingfirecalls, jobsinone. That iswhyparitybetweenPCTsandFADsissimplyastarting point. TheUnifiedCallTakerisaPCTandFADrolledintoone." The Union further asserts modification" ofrequiringthePCTonafirecall afterinterviewingthecaller andreleasingthecodestotheStarFiresystem, did not result in any significant responsibilitiesforfirecalls. Infact, time PCTs have spent on fire calls November2009modification. Assuch, theUnionargues, thePanelmustreject that the PCTs duties and responsibilities, changes, is no longer even worth negotiations. TheUnionthereforearguesthat principled basis for declining to offer 9call-takersinthedecadessincethe funds in subsequent rounds of whichrepresents liketheClerical Agreement, ineighty-Exhibit II, which compares the asitassumesamaximum out that thirty-six andwhenthisisaccounted amount ofbonusmoniespaid whichamountsto TheUnionargues, "[a]ssuch, the theUnioncontends "it is not an areperformingtwo that the November 2009 "slight toconference-inanARD change to the PCTs' duties and astestifiedtobyPCTRodriguez, the has actually increased since the theCity'scontention having been devalued by the the $500 differential it offered in theCityhas"absolutelyno the same differential under the
modification," andanyincrease insalaryawardedbythe retroactivetoMay4,2009, theinitialdatetheUCTwasimplemented. Inconnectionwiththeuniformissue, claimit is properlyinsistingPCTs andSPCTspayfor cost, since that is anoutlayrequired Unionarguesthat theuniformpurchaseobligationforthoseother known, understood and accepted" commenceemployment. Itcontendsforcingincumbent assumeresponsibilityfortheinitialpurchase AccordingtotheUnion, "forcingincumbent thisinitial cost wouldamount tonothinglessthanaone-timedeductionin salary." The Union also contends the allowanceproposedbythe Cityis insufficient. amountlower thantheallowanceofferedeveryotherNYPDtitle, thaneveryDC37-representedgrouprequiredtowearauniform. observesthat PoliceAttendants, aciviliantitlerepresentedbyDC37,receive a$209annual uniformallowanceformaintenance similartotheoutfitsproposedforPCTsandSPCTs. SPCTsshouldbeaffordedsimilartreatment. CITYPOSITION TheCitycountersthereexistsnoproper leastinitscurrent form, toawardanyadditional SPCTs. Simply stated, the City contends impact"upontheworkloads ofPCTsandSPCTswhichcreatesanobligation onthepart oftheCitytopayPCTsand/or Cityoffers, however, that iftheVCTprocedures place prior to November 2009, under information to the StarFire Systemand Dispatcher, without the involvement differentialwillbeappropriate. Withrespect totheuniformrequirement,nowonhold, thatallpoliceemployeeswhoarerequiredtowearuniformsareresponsible 10Panel must be theUniondisputes theCity's theinitial uniform ofall other Policeemployees. The titles"is by those employees before they PCTsandSPCTsto oftheiruniformsisunjustified. PCTs andSPCTs toassume $I00 annual uniformmaintenance It points out $100is an andlower TheUnion ofuniformssubstantially ItarguesthePCTsand grounds under theUCT, at compensationtoPCTsor there has beenno "practical theSPCTs moremoney. The returntothesystemin which PCTs released fire-call to a Fire Department Decision of an ARD, a $200 conditional theCityargues
1 '{ fortheirinitialpurchase, andthereisnoreasonforthisgrouptoenjoybetter treatment. The City adds that the allowance it has proposed is more replacementcosts ofthetwo(2)pairsofpants, whichmakeupthePCTandSPCToutfits. TheCitystressesthecreationandimplementation managerial decision about which Accordingly, it argues, thewisdomandrationality andoutside thisPanel's purview. Theonlyquestionsproperlybeforethe panel, therefore, arewhethertheUCThada"practical andSPCTs' workload, and ifso, howmuchadditional theCityberequiredtopaythemasaresult. TheCitystressesthat theimplementation thewaythe 911 call-takers performcertainduties, workload. According to the City, the attemptstolikentheduties ofPCTsandSPCTstoFADsandtoemergency call-takersinother cities, doesnot compel aninterest arbitration, it argues, andthereconsequentlyisnoproperbasisto conduct "a full-blown review" of comparableemployees. Rather, accordingtotheCity, theonlyproper implementation oftheUCThasresultedinan"unreasonablyexcessiveor undulyburdensome"workload. TheCityemphasizesthat isnotshownmerelybyevidence of"some"increaseinworkload. Board's decision in NYSNAv. City 2003)(DecisionNo. B-23-2003) at 12,it of additional duties does not demonstrate more,but notpresenthere, isrequired, an imposition of mandatory overtime completed in the employees' regular Wardens/Deputy Wardens Ass'n v, Corrections, 69OCB16(BCB2002)(DecisionNo. Cityclaims that theUnion"bears aheavyburden "practical impact," UFAv. City of 1989)(DecisionNo. B-70-89), anduntil 11$100 annual uniformmaintenance than sufficient to cover care and four(4)shirtsandsinglebelt oftheUCTwasa it had no obligation to bargain. oftheUCTisirrelevant impact"onthePCTs' compensationshould oftheVCTmerelychanged andhadnoimpact on Union's evidence, including its adifferent analysis. Thisisnot the salaries received by allegedly inquiryiswhether its apractical impact Citingthe of NewYork, 71 OCB23 (BCB contendsthat amereenumeration a practical impact. Something theCityargues, suchas,forexample, when newduties could not be hours. See, e.g., Ass't Deputy City of NewYork and Dep't of B-16-2002). Thus, the ofpersuasion" toshow NewYork, 43 OCB 70 (BCB andunless the Unionmeets that
burden, thequestionofcompensationsimplydoesnot That is so, the City argues, conferredwiththeUnionconcerningtheUCT'simplementation, proposedsomeamount ofadditional compensation. willingness todiscuss withthe Unionvarious might have settled the Union's claimthat unreasonablyexcessiveandundulyburdensome"workloaddidnot toaconcession of"practical impact,"astheUnionargues. claimsits decisionagainst initiatingaformal not precludethispanel fromadhering"totherationaleunderlyingthevery highthresholdforwhatconstitutesa'practical Indeed, theCityargues, undertheBCB's"practical theUnionmust meet certainevidentiaryburdens, failed" to demonstrate any increase workloadchangewhichis"unreasonablyexcessiveorundulyburdensome." Itistrue, theCityacknowledges, thatUCThassomewhatenlargedthePCTs roleinfirecalls. However, it observes, part of the NYPDcall-takers' jobduties systemmorethanforty(40) yearsago. thenumber of calls, nor didit changethe overtime. Infact, theCityobserves, thePCTs' fallsquarelywithintheirjobspecifications. Rather, theCitypointsout, inameretwotothreepercent theemergencycallsPCTs handle-inother emergency911callswhichconcernfiresorfire-relatedincidents-call-takersnowarerequiredtocompletethequestioning than simply turning it over to an FAD) informationtotheFire Department's newsubcodes, whileconfiningtheirCADentries TheCity, accordingly, stressesthat 97%to98% peTs andSPCTsremains whollyunaffectedbyVCT. recordevidencedemonstratesthatimplementation increaseincommanddisciplines. Moreover, the Cityargues, it is 12arise. even though it previously met and andeven TheCityassertsthatits economicproposals which the UCT imposed "an amount So, too, theCity BCBscopeproceedingdoes impact.'" impact"standard, andhereit has "utterly in the call-takers' workload, or a thefielding offirecallshasbeen since the beginningofthe 911 It contendsUCTneither increased PCTs' hours or requiremore andSPCTs' dutiesall still (2-3%) of words, for thesmall subset of theE911 ofthecaller(rather and then release the elicited StarFire Systemutilizingseventeen toforty(40) characters. oftheworkperformedby So, too, it argues, oftheUCThascausedno not without precedent that it has
changedemergencycall-takers' duties increasecompensation. AccordingtotheCity, assignednewdutiesrelatedtotheFireDepartment'simplementation CPR/CertifiedFirst Responder-Defibrillatorprogramwithout additionalpay. Thiswasso, eventhoughtheFADshadtolearnanewset codesandnewproceduresforsendingfireunitstomedical too, andunlike the PCTs and SPCTs entirelynewcategory ofdispatchingduties. FADsandSFADsreceivednodifferential, thoughmorethanfortypercent (40%) thenewproceduresconcernedEMSincidents. The City, nevertheless, allows upontheelimination oftheARDsparticipationinfirecalls, awardin this case. According to the appropriate thanits pre-arbitrationoffer therewas noFireDepartment FADassignedtoassist TheCityassertsthat the$200differential the UCT gives additional responsibility concedingtherehasbeenanyincreaseinworkload. factit earliermadeanoffer of$500inorder"toachieveaspeedyresolution andcircumvent afull-blowndispute." resolve this dispute does not bind it obligation. The City maintains that the payment conditions for the entitlement be restored, increaseinbasesalary, theresolutionproposedbytheUnion. "flawed"theUnion'sargument adifferentialisappropriateonlyinorderto compensateasubset ofemployeeswhoperformauniquetask. theCity,"theobjectivelylimitedimpactthatUCThashadontheactualday-to-dayworkperformedbySPCTs andPCTs"makes moreappropriate thana general wageincrease futurewageincreases." TheCitypointsout degree ofdispatchdutyonaregular workisadifferential. According to the City, moreover, 13without incurringanobligationto inthemid-1990sFADswere ofits receivingany of emergencies.So, here, the FADs were assignedan Indeed, theCitypointsout, the nor anyadditional salary, even ofall therunstheydispatchedunder that a $200 differential, contingent isanappropriate City, the $200 payment is more of$500, whichwas madewhen PCTs onfirecalls. fairlyaccountsforanyperception to PCTs and SPCTs without TheCitystressesthe It insistsits unsuccessful attempt to to an excessive and inappropriate ofa differential, shouldthe is more appropriate thanan Itdescribesas Accordingto adifferential "clearly that wouldbe subject to that most PCTsperformsome basis, andthecompensationfor said the Union's argument the
differential theCityofferedisnot commensuratewiththeimportanceofthe PCTs' firecall dutiesmissesthemark. other Citycontractsis areflection ofvaluejudgmentsmadeinbargaining rather thanacalculation oftheintrinsicworthofanyparticular Thus, theCityarguesthedifferencebetweenthesalaries isaproduct oftherespectiveunions' bargainingchoicesandtheirdifferent hourly work schedules, rather than Department's call-takers. According evidence of a salary disparity between shouldreceivenoweight. TheCityoffersdatatoshowthatfollowingthe1991Consent under whichmaximumbase salaries equalized, any subsequent disparity discretionaryfunds each ofthe Cityunions constraint amongtheirrepresentedtitles. Also flawed, the City argues, performdutiesandresponsibilities substantiallysimilar byFADsandbyhigher-paidemployeesinotherjurisdictions. the City, FADs arenot a comparable performa host of functions which arenot includereceivingandprocessingprivatecompanyalarms, voicealarms. For each, FADs rotatethroughfive(5) AlarmReceipt Dispatcher, DecisionDispatcher, RadioDispatcherandSEPOperator. Throughthesemultiplefunctions,and theuse oftheStarFiresystemandvariouspieces .also serve as the primary answering administrativephonelines andinteract theselines. Thus, for all calls other than911calls, caller, evaluatestheinformation, determineswhetheranemergencyresponse isrequiredand, ifso, transmits thealarmthroughStarFiretotheDecision Dispatcher, whoevaluatestheinformationandmakestheunit If the dispatch is not acknowledged occupyingthepositions ofVoiceAlarmDispatcher followprocedures to ensure appropriate 14Thesize ofdifferentialsinthisand jobduty. ofPCTsandFADs favorable treatment of the Fire to the City, therefore, the Union's PCTs/SPCTs and FADs/SFADs Decree, ofPCTs andFADs wereeffectively must be attributed directly to was free toallocate without is the Union's assertion the PCTs tothoseperformed Accordingto group ofemployees because they performed by PCTs. These radioalarmsand different positions: Voice alarmDispatcher, ofequipment, theFADs point for borough in-house directlywithfirecompanies using the ARDinterrogates the assignments. or a unit is not available, FADs andRadioDispatcher response. The SEP Operator
updatesStarFiretoshowthestatusoftheassignedunits. argues, the PCTs andFADs donot allegedbytheUnion. Further, accordingtotheCity,theUnion'scontentiontheUCTcaused atransfer ofFADworktoPCTsisbaseless. followingmodificationstotheUCTinNovember2009, 911 firecall, astheydidbeforetheUCT. theprimaryquestioning ofthecallers, theaccuracy ofthelocationinformationtakenbythePCTs, requiredtoinput that andother informationabout StarFire. AccordingtotheCity, theFADsareall emergencyfire-call taking. Indeed, FADs,asDecisionDispatchers, haveexpandedreviewresponsibilities. TheCitysubmits, further, that thecomparisonsmadebytheUnionto emergency call-takers in other jurisdictions panel, and donot, inanycase, support assertsthereis nofair basis for thisPanel data,sincethisisnotaninterestarbitrationoverasuccessorcontract,andthe record, therefore, does not containsufficient consideration ofthefactorsappropriatefor Cityargues, "theUnion's 'analysis' issorepletewithmethodological factualerrorsthatitpermitsnoconclusionwhatsoever." AccordingtotheCity, five(5) ofthenine(9)jurisdictionstheUnion offers for comparison are inappropriate supposedlyreceivecompensationlargerthanthePCTshaveresponsibilities andperformfunctionsthat arenot part Citypointsout, althoughdispatchingtitlesinotherjurisdictions those offeredby the Union for comparisonwiththe analysisdoesnot factorinthedispatchingbonusesreceivedbythemajority ofPCTs. The Cityadds that theUnionalsoomittedlongevitydataand ignoredthefact that theemployeesinfour(4) forcomparisonhavereceived2010salaryincreases, havenot. Theseflawsare"fatal"totheUnion'scomparativeanalysis, Cityargues. 15Inshort, theCity performthe "exact sameduties," as TheCityobservesthat FADs, participateinevery Althoughtheynolongerconduct theyremainresponsibleforverifying andtheyare eachreportedfireinto still "activelyengaged"in the Cityargues, for some calls the are not properly before the the Union's position. The City toconsider comparativesalary informationtoallowproper suchareview. Moreover, the and because the employees who ofthePCTs' duties. Inaddition, the areamong PCTs, the Union's ofthejurisdictionsproposed whichPCTsandSPCTs the
The HPReport, accordingtotheCity, conclusion. Although the document disparitybetweenPCTsandemergencycall-takersinotherjurisdictions, instant recordisdevoid ofevidenceconcerningwhopreparedtheReport, what procedurestheyfollowed, andtheirsources conclusionthisrecordsupports, accordingtotheCity, issimplya"draft version" ofaninternaldocument. not uptodate, andinfact, wascreatedbeforetheUCTwasimplemented. Moreover, it offers comparisons betweenthe municipalitieswhichobviouslyarenotapt. Report whetherthesupposedlycomparabletitlesevensharewithPCTsthe thirty-five(35)hourworkweek. Withrespect tothe UniformAllowance, proposeda$100annual payment tocover replacement of the wash-and-wear items requiredtowear. AccordingtotheCity, longsleeveshirtsandtwo(2) short sleeveshirts, are inexpensive and easily maintained. expectedonlytobewornindoorsduringworkhours. TheCitydisputestheUnion'sclaimthepurchaseprice elements, estimatedtobe$180, shouldnot whonever previouslyhavebeenrequiredtowear that all other NYPDemployees areresponsible purchases. So, too,theCitycontendstheannualallowanceitproposesisnot low. It asserts the Union's reliance maintenancebenefitsenjoyedbyotherNYPDtitles, titles, ignoresthefact thoseemployeesarerequiredtowearsuchadditional clothingelementsascoats, jackets, raingear, ofhats,dressuniformsandgloves. Inaddition, inmany cases, accordingto subsidy is a reflection of bargaining supplementedtheir uniformbenefit byapplyingdiscretionarymoney, making concessions. The City argues precludeanymeaningful comparison oftheallowanceproposedbytheCity tothisUnion, fortheinitial implementation 16does not compel adifferent does contain allegations of salary the ofinformation. Theonly isthat theHPReport TheCitycontendsit is City and numerous small Itisnot evenapparentfromthe the City, as notedabove, thecosts ofcleaning, careand the PCTs and SPCTs will be thetwo(2) pairs ofpants, two(2) all wash-and-wearitems, It points out the uniforms are oftheuniform fairlybechargedtoemployees auniform. It pointsout for their initial uniform on evidence of higher uniform includingsomecivilian boots, sweaters, anassortment the City, the size of the choices, as many groups have or that those "bargaining choices ofauniformrequirement, and
theallowancethatotherunionshavenegotiatedovertheyears." OPINION TheImpassePanelhascarefullyconsideredthedocumentaryevidence submitted, the testimony elicited, and parties in support of their respective ImpassePanel has likewiseconsidered, criteriainarrivingatitsfindingsandrecommendations. TherearetwoissuesbeforethePanel: Issue #I-Shouldtherebeanincreaseincompensationasaresult thechanges indutiesandresponsibilitiesofpeTsandSPCTs?Ifso, muchshouldtheincreasebe? Issue #2 Are the PCTs and compensationasaresult oftherequirement uniformtowork? Priortodiscussion ofourrecommendations, recommendations, somepreliminarymattersneedtobeaddressed. preliminary matter is whether the Panel impact" resulted fromthe changes existence ofa"practical impact"thatgivesrisetotheobligationtoengagein mid-termbargaining. The issuesintheseproceedingswerefirst letterdatedApril 14,2009. ItrequestedthattheCitybargainwiththeUnion overa"practical impact"that hadoccurredasaresult theduties andresponsibilities of PCTs uniformrequirement. The City and bargaining over these issues. Whenthe agreement resolving their differences, Appointment ofanImpasse Panel withthe mediatortoassistthepartiesinresolvingtheirimpasse. effortswereunsuccessful,thisImpassePanelwasappointedbytheOCB. DuringtheproceedingsbeforethisPanel, assertedthat theimplementation oftheueThadnotresultedina"practical 17the arguments proffered by both positions in this proceeding. The andapplied, therelevant statutory of how SPCTs entitled to any form of (currentlysuspended)toweara andthereasonsforthose Thefirst is todetermine if a "practical implementedby the City. It is the raisedbytheUnion, ina ofcertainchangesin and SPCTs, as well as over the the Union did engage in collective parties were unable toreachan the Union filed a Request for OCB. The OCBassigneda Whenthemediation theCity, forthefirst time,
impact,"withinthemeaningoftheNYCCBL. the Panel determine that there hadbeenno"practical UCT, that warrantedanyincreaseincompensation. theevidencebeforethePanel demonstratedthat inworkload, let alone anunreasonablyexcessive, workload, asrequiredbytheNYCCBLforadeterminationthat impact"resulted. TheUnionhasassertedthattheBCBhasexclusivejurisdictiontohear andresolvescope ofbargainingissues,includingdeterminationofwhethera "practical impact"hasarisen, andthatthispanel suchmatters. TheUnionmaintainsthattheCitywaiveditsright issue ofwhether a"practical impact"hadarisenbyfailingtofileascopeof bargainingpositionswiththeBCBpriortotheappointment panel. ThePanel agrees withtheUnion'spositionregardingitsjurisdiction todeterminewhether ornot a"practical 311(t)(2), theNYCCBLprovides that arbitrabilityorthescope ofcollectivebargainingshall board ofcollectivebargainingonly."Underthestatute, to object to the appointment of animpasse "practical impact"resultedfromthechangesimplementedbytheCitywhen it initiatedtheUCT. However, that objectionhadtoberaised, prior tothe appointment ofthe impassepanel. "only" theBCBhas theauthoritytodeterminewhether impact"resulted. In this case, the City never determination regarding whether the resulted in a "practical impact." The impasse,mediationwasconductedbyanofficial weregiventheopportunitytoselect thepanel without anysuggestionthat theCitybelievedthat resulted. The NYCCBLauthorizes the BCBtobe determinations ofthescope ofcollectivebargainingissues. 18TheCityalsorequestedthat impact," fromthe TheCityassertedthat therehadbeennoincrease or undulyburdensome, a"practical hasnojurisdictiontodecide toraisethe oftheimpasse impact"hadarisen. InSection12.-"questions, issues or disputes as to bedeterminedbythe theCityhadtheright panel on the basis that no totheBCB, According tothestatute, or not a"practical petitioned the BCB to make a changes implemented by the City Union filed for a declaration of oftheaCB, andtheparties members. All ofthisoccurred no"practical impact"had the sole entityto make TheNYCCBL
considers theBCBtobe the experts Clearly, a singleauthorityrenderingstatutoryinterpretations rather than a systemin which eachimpasse determinewhat issuescouldberaisedbeforeit. own decision, conflicting interpretations impassepanels. Forthesake ofstableandconstructivelaborrelations, preferablethat oneentityrender statutoryinterpretations. Panel declinestheCity's request that "practical impact," because wedonot decidethatissue. Asecondpreliminary matter before comparisonsofsalariesandbenefitsbetweenPCTsandSPCTsandsimilar workers inotherjurisdictions. TheUnionhasspent effort topresent, tothe panel, its view salarystructure ofthePCTs andSPCTs. various exhibits andtestimony, has presentedits SPCTsarenotappropriatelycompensatedfortheperformance whencomparedwithemployees, inotherjurisdictions, work. The City argues that the comparison jurisdictions is not properlybefore thePanel support theUnion'sposition. TheissuesbeforethePanel arenot are limitedtotheimpact ofchanges duties, andtherequirement towear uniforms. present compensation, and onlyare dutieswarrant asalaryincrease. It isnotwithinourjurisdictiontodetermine theadequacy ofthePCTsandSPCTscurrentsalaryascompensationforthe dutiesastheyexistedpriortotheimplementation Panel seesnoprobativevalueinthecomparison employeesinotherjurisdictionsperformingsimilarwork. oftheevidencesubmitted, comparingPCTsandSPCTswithemployeesin other jurisdictions, related to theadditional implementation oftheUCT. We do, however, findthat, tosomeextent, duties oftheFADsisrelevant inthiscase. 19onthe interpretationofthe statute. is preferred, panel has the authorityto Ifeachpanel madetheir might be issued by different it is Inconclusion, the wedeterminethat therehasbeenno believe we have anyauthorityto the panel is the relevance of considerabletimeand oftheinadequacyof thepresent Inparticular, theUnion, through viewthat thePCTs and oftheirduties performingsimilar of employees in other and, inanyevent, does not part ofacontract renewal. They inregardtothePCTs' andSPCTs' Weaccept, as agiven, the todetermine whether the additional oftheUCT.Therefore,the ofPCTsandSPCTswith Wenotethatnone duties that resultedfromthe thecompensationand Certainly, totheextent that the
Unioncanconnect theFADs' compensationtotheissueofthevalueofthe additionalduties ofPCTsandSPCTs,theinformationisrelevant. Issue#1 -Shouldtherebeanincreaseincompensationasaresult changesindutiesandresponsibilities ofPCTsandSPCTs?Ifso, shouldtheincreasebe? TheUnionargues that theimplementation major change inthePCTandSPCTjobduties reasonablesalaryincreaseis warranted. been no significant increase in the Nevertheless, the City urges the Panel differential andhaveit becomeeffective UCTtogobacktothemanner inwhich inputfromtheFADs. The record demonstrates some performedbythePCTsandSPCTsasaresult UCT.Theyhadtocontinueperformingthedutiestheyhadbeenperforming, and also performadditional duties Althoughthe PCTs andSPCTs always therehasbeenachangeinthedutiesperformedrelatedtothosecalls. Union asserts that this change warrants compensation. ThePaneldoesnot agree. Interms of the quantity of time performing duties related to fire alarmdispatching, substantial, for only2-3% oftheemergencycallsPCTsandSPCTshandle concernfiresorfire-relatedincidents. Ontheotherhand, the fire-relatedcalls, the PCTs andSPCTs codes, andare limitedtoa 40-character because that is how the Fire Department's Regardless ofhowfewfire-relatedcalls SPCTshavetohavethetraining, knowledge,andabilitytobeabletohandle thefirecalls. ThePanelagreeswiththeUnionthat beingable totransmit, with a limitedinput, PCTs' andSPCTs' duties. Indeed, usingthisknowledgeonlyoccasionally 20ofthe howmuch oftheUCTresultedina and, as aconsequence, a TheCitymaintains that therehas duties of the PCTs and SPCTs. to award the $200 conditional ifandwhentheCitymodifiesthe it wasfirst implemented, without increase in the number of duties oftheimplementationofthe related to fire alarmdispatching. answeredsome fire-relatedcalls, The a significant increase in that the PCTs andSPCTs spend the change is not inordertoprocess have tolearnseventeennew input torecordthe information StarFire systemworks. actuallycome in, the PCTs and learningthesecodesand does represent a change in
maymakeitmoredifficult tobereadyat notice, than using this knowledge regularly concludesthat therehasbeenasmall, andSPCTdutieswhichwarrantsacommensuratesalaryincrease The Panel also concludes that differential, isanappropriate method PCTs' andSPCTs' dutiesandresponsibilities. andSPCTs arerequiredcontinuallytobeabletoperformthenewduties. Althoughthe PCTs andSPCTs handledfire-relatedcalls dutieshavebeenexpandedwithregardtothosecalls. nowconferences-in anARDtoassist, involved, does lessenthetraining, knowledgeor PCT. However, thePCTsarestillrequiredtoobtainall input it, that theywereresponsibleforprior procedure. Asalaryincreaseismoreappropriatethanadifferential. Attentionisnowturnedtotheamount appropriate. The Union argued that justified, becausethePCTsandSPCTsarenowperformingtheexact dutiesastheFADs. Itcontendedthateventhoughsuchisthecase, widediscrepancyintheirsalaries. TheCitycounteredbyarguingthatthisis not theproper forumtoargueabout paydisparities. disputedthe Union's claim, and maintained FADsdonot performtheexact sameduties, wasadifferenceinsalaryasaresult oftheirdistinctbargaininghistory. The Unionargues that PCTs andSPCTs duties as well as theduties oftheFADs. determiningfaircompensationforthePCTsandSPCTsshouldbethesalary oftheFADs. However, thePCTsandSPCTsarenot The PCTs and SPCTs have undertaken performedbytheFADs. As previouslynoted, amount ofthePCTs' andSPCTs' worktime. dutiesthatarenotperformedbythe peTsandSPCTs. The record in this case simply contentionthat PCTsandSPCTsperformtheexact 21all times, torespondatamoment's would. In short, the Panel but not insignificant, changeinPCT a salary increase, as opposed to a ofacknowledgingthechangeinthe Most significantly, thePCTs inthepast, the Thefact that aPCT with identification of the address expertiserequired ofthe theinformation,and tothemodificationinthePCT ofthesalaryincreasewedeem a "reasonable" salary increase is same thereisa Additionally, theCity that the PCTs, SPCTs, and andfurthercontendsthat there are nowperformingtheir Therefore, thestartingpoint for performingbothjobs. only a portion of the duties thisrepresents anegligible TheFADsperformmanyother does not support the Union's sameworkasFADs, as
well astheir ownwork. FADs handleall beingbut onetype. Additionally, therearefivedifferent FADsrotatethrough: AlarmReceipt Dispatcher, AlarmDispatcher, Radio Dispatcher, Operator. Eachassignment playsadistinct, receipt andhandling ofvarious firealarms,andemergenciesnecessitatinga responsefromtheFDNY. As previouslystated, thecharge additional compensation, ifany, thePCTsandSPCTs result oftheir increasedduties. Thisdoesnot current compensation ofPCTs, SPCTs, Consent Decreerecognizedthat thejobs becompensatedaccordingly. TheUnionasserts now, evenafter makingaccommodations morehoursperweek.TheCityassertsthatsimilarcontract obtainedbybothunions involved andanydifference respectivechoicesbytheunions. It isnot this dispute in order to makes its accordingly, thePanelwill notcomment ThePanel concludesthat therehasbeenanincreaseinthedutiesand responsibilities ofthePCTsandSPCTsasaresult theVCT. Whilethechangeinactual dutiesisnot thetraining, skills, andtherequiredpreparedness. SPCTs, andFADshavealreadybeenperforminggenerallyatthesamelevel, the change simply is not a dramatic compensationis duethePCTs andSPCTsintheform increase. Therefore, werecommendthatthePCTsandSPCTsreceivea$500 wageincrease, effectivein2008, whentheUCTwasfirst Issue#2-Uniform Requirement The City's uniformproposal presents Panel's reviewandrecommendations. purchasingtherequireduniformelements. payment toeachPCTandSPCTtocoverreasonablecostsfortheuniform's 22types ofalarms, withUCTcalls assignments that DecisionDispatcher,Voice and Status Entry Panel ("SEP") andcritical, roleintheFDNY's ofthis Panel is todeterminewhat shouldreceiveas a necessitateananalysisofthe andFADs. Wedonotethatthe1991 werebasicallysimilar, andshould that thereisadiscrepancy for thefact that theFADswork settlementswere is theresult of the necessaryforthePanel toresolve recommendations in this case and, furtheronthisdispute. oftheimplementationof great, thereisachangein Giventhefactthat PCTs, one. We believe an increase in ofamodest wage implemented. two (2) components for this Thefirst involves theinitial cost of Thesecondinvolvesanannual
careandreplacement. As totheinitial purchaseprice Cityestimateswill be$180, theCityhasmadenooffer. police employees who are required responsible for the initial purchase. Indeed, thehearingrecorddemonstratesthat receivesabenefit tocover, inwholeorinpart, requireduniforms. TheUnion, however, contendsthat PCTsandSPCTsarisesunderdistinctlydifferent not be equatedwitha requirement imposedonnewemployees Policedivisions. Newemployeesapplyforandaccept Department withtheknowledgeandunderstandingthat initial burden of purchasing their uniforms. employeeswhonever previouslyhadtowear theyeachbear theinitial cost oftheuniformstheyarenewlymandatedto wear,representsapayreduction. Weagree. In fact, there is no record evidence employees, whenfirst requiredas incumbentstoswitchtouniforms, requiredtocover theinitial purchasepriceout argues,withoutdispute, thatuniformdifferentialshistoricallyhavebeenpaid for withdiscretionary funds. Thus, theCityobserves Operators and Watchpersons employed Corporationreceived, for the first time, camefrommonies availablewithinthepattern. group,however, theCityacknowledgesitdidnotdetermine payment correspondedtoaninitial requirement casehere, or ifagroupofemployeeswhohadpreviouslybeenrequiredto wear andpay for uniforms determinedtoapplymonies patternsettlement tooffset theirexistinguniformcosts. This Panel finds that distinctiontobe groups ofemployeesaresituateddifferently. tooffset anexistingpersonal cost associatedwithemployment; beingrequiredtopersonallyabsorbthecost 23oftheuniformelements, whichthe It assertsthat all to wear a uniformare personally That claimhas not been refuted. nogroup ofPoliceemployees theinitial purchase oftheir theinitial uniformobligationfor circumstances, andshould inother theirpositionsinthe theywill bear the The Union argues that for auniform, arequirement that that any group of Police was ofpersonal funds. TheCity that whenElevator by the Health and Hospitals auniformallowance, thebenefit Withrespect tothelatter ifthenegotiated towear uniforms, asisthe availableinthe animportant one. Thetwo Oneseeks, throughthepattern, theotheris ofanew, work-relatedexpense.
ThePCTs andSPCTs fall intothelatter therefore, that fortheincumbent employeesonly, purchase oftheuniformelements. Futurehires, purchasetheirinitial uniforms, until andunlessthepartiesestablish, collectivenegotiations, abenefit tocover,inwholeorinpart, Withrespect totheuniformmaintenanceallowance, disagreethat abenefit payablebytheCityisappropriate. that $100per annumis a reasonable upkeep and replacement of the components oftheproposeduniform. istoolow, andthat$209annuallyiswhatisreasonableandnecessary. Based upon our careful consideration appropriate factors, we recommend allowance proposed by the City. The appropriatebecause that is what ispaidtoPolice without showing comparability between uniformelements. ThePanel notesthatPCTsandSPCTsarenotrequired, part oftheiruniforms, towearsweaters,jackets, theyrequiredtotraveloutsidethecallcenters. doesnot demonstratethat theamountofferedbytheCity, half ofwhat the Union proposes, is replacement oftheproposedPCT/SPCTuniformcomponents. Obviously, therecommendationsastouniformsareonlytotakeeffect intheevent that theCityactuallyrequiresthePCTs uniform. Thereisnobasistoprovideanyreimbursement, whiletherequirementthatuniformsbewornisheldinabeyance. RECO~ENDATIONS 1. As a result of the changes in the responsibilities, associatedwiththeimplementation andSPCTsshouldreceivea$500wageincrease. beeffectivein2008whenthe VCTwasfirstimplemented. 24group. This Panel recommends, theCitypayfortheinitial wefind, mayberequiredto through thatexpense. thepartiesdonot TheCityoffers andsufficient amount tocover the simple and relatively inexpensive TheUnionarguesthattheCity'soffer of the record evidence and the adoption of the $100 annual Union argues that $209 is more Department Attendants, the Attendants' and the PCTs' as raincoatsorgloves. Norare Inshort, theUnion'sevidence althoughlessthan insufficient for reasonable care and andSPCTstowear a orcompensation, PCTs' and SPCTs' duties and oftheUCT, thePCTs Thissalaryincreaseshould
2. At suchtimeastheCityactuallyrequiresthePCTsandSPCTstowear uniforms, it shouldprovidethem, atnocost Thenstartinginthefollowingyear, thereshouldbeanannual uniformallowance of$100. Dated: July19,2011 We, MarkM. Grossman, Gayle fullyaware ofthepenalties for perjury, Opinion and Recommendations, executedthesame. Dated: July19,2011 25tothethencurrent employees. maintenance Earl R. Pfeffer, Member A. Gavin, andEarl R. Pfeffer, being affirmthat the above document is and that we are the Arbitrators who
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.