OFFICE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BOARD OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING -x In the Matter of Impasse -between-DETECTIVE INVESTIGATORS Case: 1-246-06 ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., Petitioner, -agai.nts C, , I— THE CITY OF NEW YORK cz Respondent X REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Before: Gayle A. Gavin, Arbitrator Appearances: For Detective Investigators Association: Greenberg, Burzichelli, Greenberg, P.C. By: Harry Greenberg, Esq. Robert Burzichelli, Esq. Seth Greenberg, Esq. For City of New York: Proskauer, Rose, LLP By: M. David Zurndorfer, Esq. Neil Abramson, Esq. Daniel Altchek, Esq
The Detective Investigators Association the City of New York, Inc. (hereinafter, “the agent for all investigator titles within the five New York City and the Office of the Manhattan Pursuant to Section 12-303(g)(2) of the NYCCBL, the not part of the mayoralty but rather are defined pursuant to the provisions of the New York referred to as “NYCCBL”). For many years, the bargained for purposes of collective bargaining capacity the City and the DIA (and their predecessor collective bargaining relationship for decades. bargaining agreement between the parties 2000 through April 12, 2003, the terms of Negotiations for a successor agreement continued without success until in or about the Union filed a Request for the Appointment Collective Bargaining advised the parties July 7, 2006. Thereafter, the Office of Collective undersigned as a one-person impasse panel of the New York City Collective Bargaining recommendation for the settlement of the The City also filed a Scope of Bargaining of the DIA be declared outside the scope Bargaining issued a decision and declared scope of bargaining. 0GB Decision No, B1320O7. before this panel. The demands that are
of The District Attorney’s Office of DIA”) is the exclusive bargaining District Attorney (DA) Offices within Special Narcotics Procesutor. DA5, their employers, are as separate “Public Employers’ City Collective Bargaining Law (also City by designation has on behalf of the DAs. In this unions) have been in a The most recent collective covered the period between May 1, which remain in full force and effect. began in the fall of 2004 and February 2006. On February 27, 2006 of Impasse Panel. The Board of it declared an impasse by letter dated Bargaining appointed the in accordance with Section 310 (c) Law to issue a report and Agreement. Petition to have certain demands of bargaining. The Board of Collective certain demands to be outside the Those demands are not before this panel will be discussed infra.
A prehearing conference was held briefs were submitted on April 5, 2007. Following on April 11 12, 13, 16, 17 and 19, 2007 of the hearings were transcribed. Post June 15, 2007. Mutual extensions were hearing briefs on September 9, 2007. The amendment of the Taylor Law that had and which impacted the majority of the titles parties submit information regarding the provided the City the opportunity to respond response was received on November 10, 2007. At the parties represented to agree where possible issue and submit them to the Panel. While such costing would be forthcoming, ultimately to costings. Submissions were received submission was received by the Panel on record was closed. During the proceeding, both parties full opportunity to present oral and written provide argument and otherwise support their adduced and the positions and arguments issuance of this Report and Recommendation. Bargaining The Detective investigator Association the City of New York represents a bargaining 293 employees who work in the District Attorneys’ and the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor. The
on October 18, 2006. Pre-hearing that, hearings were conducted at the Office of Collective Bargaining. All hearing briefs were to be submitted by requested and the parties filed post-Union addressed in its brief a recent been enacted subsequent to the hearings in the unit. The Panel requested the amendment to the statute and also to the Union’s argument. The City’s close of the hearing the to the costings for each demand at the Panel was given assurances that the parties did not submit agreed-on costings without unanimity. The final December 21, 2007, whereby the were represented and were afforded evidence, cross-examine witnesses, respective positions. The evidence have been carefully considered in Unit of the District Attorneys Office of unit comprised of approximately Offices in the City of New York Racket series titles are
all non-competitive while the Detetctive competitive classThey are all considered comprised of the following titles and number Rackets Investigator - 90 Senior Rackets Investigator - 135 Supervisor Rackets Investigator - County Detective -10 Detective Investigator — 0 Senior Detective Investigator - 5 All of the titles except for County Detective District Attorneys’ Offices. The County Detective District Attorney’s Office and those individuals City Bargaining The Detective1Investigators are part of work force that contains approximately 150 large extent, the City’s current bargaining work of the designations created by the Traditionally, employees have been grouped are: 1) employees of the uniformed services; 2) Career and Salary Plan; and 3) employees set under Section 220 of the New York State not at issue in this case and are not relevant to the parties). According to Department of Citywide Commissioner, Martha Hirst, the legislative to standardize, where possible, matters involving Hereinafter, where the term “Detective Investigator” delineated otherwise, it refers collectively to all represented
Investigator series titles are in the Career and Salary titles. The Union is of employees in each title: 53 are considered Investigators of the title is used by the Manhattan perform security work. Structure a large and complex municipal collective bargaining units. To a structure has grown from the frame municipal civil service commission. into one of three categories. They employees covered under the whose wages and supplements are Labor Law (these employees are the resolution of this dispute by Administration and Services (DCAS) policy of the City has historically been pay, and time and leave for or ‘Investigator’ is used, unless speofcally titles except County Detectives. 4
positions when their working conditions passed a Career and Salary Plan in the the rules regulating time and leave (Time grouped employees into occupational or regulations applied to all positions in the classes of employees, except those employees accordance with the prevaling wage under those employees in positions within the In 1967, the State reorganized what (which included the District Attorneys offices) responsibiity for the titles in those offices Commission. The Detective Investigator without any jurisdictional or title change. The classifying them as Rule 11 employees of the DA’s offices changed, the City increased titles in their title series. According to the transferred positions were deliberately classified working conditions of the Detective Investigators. The the DA Investigator titles were found to be employees because of their work schedules They worked a normal workday and were coverage like those in the uniformed services. She offered in the Career and Salary Plan versus forces as being a factor, She testified that flexibility in attracting new employees of could pay more than the stated minimum. The that Rule 10 tt!es are made up of the titles certain other miscellaneous titles that don’t lend groupings. Unless there is a clear basis
are similar. The Board of Estimate 1 950s standardizing both salaries and and Leave Rules). The City then service categories. Career and Salary competitive, non-competitve and labor whose positions were paid in Section 220 of the NYS Labor Law or uniformed services. was termed the “County Offices’, and legislatively transferred to the City’s Municipal Civil Service titles were transferred to the City City then passed a resolution (Career and Salary Plan). As the needs the number of non-competitive Commissioner of DCAS, the as Rule 11 titles because of the Commissioner stated that more akin to Career and Salary Plan and the salary ranges employed. not required to have round the clock also cited the salary ranges the step pay plans in the uniformed the salary ranges offered the DAs differing experience levels because they Commissioner further explained in the four uniform services and themselves to Rule 11 for deviating from the general rules
governing these classifications, a title classified remain as such. These groupings are reflected in the Law. With respect to Career and Salary City bargaining into two tiers. First, wages bargained directly with the certified union and matters covered by the Career and designated by the Board of Certification representing more than 50 per cent of all such 12-307(a)(2). Unions representing employees with the City directly for wages and other regarding time and leave. NYCCBL, Section During the City’s fiscal crisis in the representing a majority of its employees whereby separate patterns were set covering “Uniform Coalition”. In some rounds of bargaining, the others they were basically the same. No coalition for bargaining and, in recent years, there ‘Uniformed” or “Civilian” coalition. However, since for civilian and uniformed employees have rounds and applied to the specific units. Undisputedly, pattern been a fixture in the City labor relations landscape. Unit History n 1971. Section 120 of the New York amended to include Detective Investigators The New York City Administrative Code these Investigators all the powers and duties
in the Career and Salary would New York City Collective Bargaining Plan employees, the NYCCBL divides and certain economic benefits are (or through a coalition of such unions) Salary Plan are bargained with the union of the Office of Collective Bargaining as employees. NYCCBL, Section in the uniformed services bargain terms and conditions, including rules 12-307(a)(4). mid 1970’s, the City and the Unions entered into coalition bargaining the “Civilian Coalition” and the patterns were different, in union is forced to be part of any has been a lack of a such time separate patterns continued to be negotiated in most bargaining has State Criminal Procedure Law was under the definition of “police officer was amended in 1986 to confer upon of police officers in the state. ()
Since 1989, the DIA has bargained conditions of employment, pursuant to Section NYCCBL was amended in that year to include Section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Law so defined. The DIA asserts that the increased members perform, coupled with the statutory last impasse award in 1986, require the increases equal to what the parties refer In fact, the DIA, or its predecessors, City over compensation since the DIA titles collective bargaining. In the early 1970s, the represented by Local 237 of the International parties were unsuccessful in reaching agreement matter was sent to an impasse proceeding 1971. In that proceeding, chaired by Arbitrator Panel”), the Union argued that the duties Investigators should be equated with those City Police Department and Detective Investigators Counties. Specifically, they sought a pay Detective 1st grade. At that time, the unit consisted of Detective Investigator title. The panel concluded between the NYPD Detectives and the Detective were also differences between some of the titles, as well as job qualifications and They rejected the Union’s salary demands requested to be ‘too staggering” to justify reclassification” of the positions. The panel
directly with the City over all terms and 12-307(a)(4) of the NYCCBL. The police officers as defined under in such section. The Investigators are complexity of the duties its changes affecting the unit since the City to provide its members with to as the “Uniform Pattern”, has continually been at odds with the were first certified for purposes of Detective Investigator titles were Brotherhood of Teamsters. The on their first contract and the for the period covering 1968 through Malkin (“hereinafter, the Malkin performed by the Detective of the Detectives in the New York in Nassau and Suffolk rate equal to that of a New York City 100 employees, 52 of whom held the that, although certain duties Investigators were similar, there the duties and responsibilitites between the risks and exposures of the jobs. as too high and found the increases what they termed would almost be a granted increases in accordance 7
with the City’s proposal, which was expressed a percentage increase. The parties again reached an impasse covering the period, 1972-1974. The panel, chaired Panel), considered the Union’s arguments par” with police titles. The House Panel from the prior impasse proceeding and found change from the circumstances found by recommended wage increases consistent In the next round of bargaining, 1974-1976, the reach a mutual settlement. The case was comprised of Arbitrator Weisenfeld ( Weisenfeld was in the midst of the fiscal crisis and was Emergency Act (FEA). Again the Union a substantial wage increase. It argued that increasingly more demanding and that the Officers in 1971 constituted official recognition because Investigators were now required considered to be on continuous duty. The Weisenfeld Panel found that reorganized the duties and functions of the previously been what the Panel termed investigatory law enforcement positionThe there were meaningful changes in the manner Investigators performed their jobs and that recommend substantial wage increases Collective Bargaining rejected the wage found the increases recommended by the
in real dollar terms rather than as in the next round of bargaining by Daniel House (House that the titles should be placed on “a accepted the parties’ use of the record no evidence of a substantial the Malkin Panel. The House Panel with the civilian unions. parties again failed to heard by a one person impasse panel Panel). By then, New York City operating under the Financial contended its members were entitled to its members’ jobs had become State’s classification of them as Police of this increased responsibility to carry firearms and as police officers, the DA’s Offices had substantially Detective Investigators. What had a ‘politicial gofer” job was now an Weisenfeld Panel concluded that in which the Detective these changes compelled the Panel to for the titles. However, the Board of recommendations of the Panel and Panel violated the Fiscal Emergency 8
Act that it found controlling in this matter. As the negotiating table and agreed upon a City was offering the other civilian unions. The 1976-78 round of bargaining City unions received only cost of living increases required to provide “give-backs”. The civilian through a reduction in benefits in the City-Wide forces, on the other hand, negotiated give-backs Investigators were part of the Citywide Agreement give-backs The Detective Investigators then came In the 1978-80 round, they reached an agreement pattern set by the Municipal Coalition Economic also able to reach agreement covering the The parties could not reach a voluntary 84 and, therefore went to impasse. The Crowley (hereinafter, the “Crowley Panel”) upon the Municipal Employees Coalition the Report included the recommendation Detective Investigators from 35 hours to hours generated a 14% wage increase for specifically determined that despite some were not performing Detective duties and should be equated with NYPD Detectives In the next round of negotiations, 1984-1987, the unable to reach an agreement. The parties prior proceeding to the one person impasse Grossman (hereinafter referred to as the
a result, the parties went back to settlement consistent with the terms the involved no wage increases. Rather, the and the unions were also unions provided their give-backs Agreement. The uniformed on a unit basis. The Detective during the round. to be represented by the PBADAO. with the City based upon the Agreement. The parties were 1980-82 period. settlement for the period of 1982-Panel, headed by Arbitrator Joseph recommended a settlement based Agreement. An important element of to increase the work week of the 40 hours per week, This change in the additional productivity. The Panel similarities in duties the Investigators declined to find that the unit salaries Third Grade. parties were, again, agreed to submit the transcript of the panel comprised of Arbitrator Mark “Grossman Panel”). This time the 9
Union argued that it should get the uniform of interest” was with the employees in the Salary Plan employees. The Panel rejected the civilian pattern. In doing so, the Panel Investigators had attained statutory police dispositive. The Panel indicated it did not have the typical daily duties of the Investigators. The titles should not be easily taken out of one comparison purposes. In considering the really asking for a de facto reclassification have the authority to reclassify the titles. The 1987-1990 round of bargaining patterns, one for civilian employees and services. A voluntary settlement between whereby the Union received the civilain In 1989, the NYCCBL was amended under Section 1 2-307(a)(4) of the New York result, in subsequent negotiations, the Detective City directly over all terms and conditions The 1990 -2000 rounds of bargaining the civilian and uniform forces. The parties settlements.
During the 2000..2003 round of bargaining, the increases consstent with the uniform pattern able to reach an agreement where the Union with the PBA increases of 5% and 5%. but at a cvilian pattern.
pattern because its real “community uniformed forces not the Career and the Union’s arguments and awarded specifically considered the fact that the officer status but failed to find it a sufficient record to determine Panel nonetheless noted that group and put in another for matter the Panel thought the Union was for these titles and the Panel did not again there were two separate one for employees of the uniformed the City and the Union was reached settlement. to include the Detective Investigators City Collective Bargaining Law. As a Investigators bargained with the of their employment. resulted in a single pattern for both were able to reach voluntary
DIA again sought set by the PBA The parties were obtained wage increases consistent final cost consistent with the I ()
Current Health Benefits: The current round of bargaining began commencement of negotiations by the Municipal Labor health benefits agreement. The parties maintain the City’s PICA program and certain for increased co-pays, deductible and other agreement in December 2003 and the Agreement 2004.
Civilian Pattern: The Civilian round of negotiations began in the fall of 2003. On April 20, 2004 DC 37. This settlement set the pattern for provided: • A $1,000.00 pensionable lump • A 3% general wage increase month of the contract; • A 2% general wage increase day of the 2th5 month of the the productivity improvements agency efficiencies: • An additional 1 % increase productivity improvements • An additional 11% to increase wage increase.
Round in the fall of 2002 with the Coalition (MLC) for a new came to an agreement that helped other enhancements in exchange modifications. The parties reached was executed in January
for 2002-2005 round of bargaining the City reached a settlement with the civilian unions. The Agreement sum payment upon ratification: effective on the first day of the 1tu31 (compounded) effective on the first contract —1 % of which was funded by and the other 1 % funded by internal t2b5 in the month of the contract if to fund the increase are agreed upon; “additions to gross” by the general ii
The DC 37 Agreement had an overall cost months. Since the DC37 Agreement, most every employees has reached an agreement with those same terms. Following that Agreement, a new established by the Agreement reached Teachers and the City on October 3, 2005. The Fact Finding proceeding under Section negotiated a four year agreement that had the agreement. Effectively, the last year pattern for the next 12 months. Subsequently, in July 2006, DC 37 the City which contained the 3.15% pattern The next 18 months were then set by DC 2% general wage increase on the first day the first day of the seventh month, plus cost of 6.19%. Uniform Pattern: The Uniform Pattern for the 2002-2004 established by the interest arbitration award 2005 by a PERB appointed impasse panel Schmertz award covered only two years the applicable provision of the Taylor Law) increases offset by a 424% of productivity cost of the agreement was 601 % which the round.
to the City of 4.17% over 36 civilian unit covering 279.024 the City that was consistent with pattern for the next 12 months was between the United Federation of Agreement was reached after a 209(3) of the Taylor Law. The parties a net cost of 3.15% for the last year of of the Agreement then set the civilian reached a successor agreement with conforming increase for the first year. 37’s new Agreement which contained a and a 4% general wage increase on .11% additions to gross funding for a total round of bargaining was involving the PBA issued in June chaired by Eric Schmertz. The (the maximum duration allowed under and provided two 5% annuai wage and other internal savings The net was the pattern for the first two years of 12
The City and the Uniformed Firefighters agreement on October 25, 2005. This agreement running from June 1, 2002 through July Agreement contained the 5% annual wage award, which were offset by 4.24% in productivity the contract was extended two months. The first day of the 2th7 month of the contract. That next, coming one year later, was 3.15%. Thus, the pattern and had a net cost of 6.24%. At this time, all other uniform unions first two years of the round in accordance and all uniform unions other than the PBA next two years in conformance with the DIA Barqaininç: The DIA’s expired agreement ran 2003. The City offered the DIA the civilian contended that it should receive the uniformed 5% annual wage increases with the 4.24% each party are discussed later in the Award. Positions of the Parties: DIA’s Position The DIA seeks application of the contract It argues that its members are egisativeIy inc’uded with the uniform forces duties are most closely comparable to the that since the last interest arbitration in 1986, there 2 The PBA and the City are currently in impasse
Association (UFA) reached had a term of 50 months, 31, 2006. The first two years of the increases contained in the PBA savings. To generate savings next wage increase occurred on the wage increase was 3% and the next two years portion set the have settled their contracts for the with the pattern set by the PBA Award have settled their agreement for the pattern set by the U2FA. from May 1, 2000 thorugh April 12, pattern. The DIA, on the other hand, pattern settlement, including two in offsetting savings. The demands of uniform pattern as the basis for its legally considered police officers. for bargaining purposes and their NYPD Detectives. The Union contends have been important changes proceedings under 209(3) under the Taylor Law.
in both the law and the scope of their duties uniform pattern. Since the Grossman Report was emphasize that the City’s Administrative Police Officer status on Investigators of importantly, they argue, the 1989 amendment “reclassification” of the unit to the uniformed thus, they should be included in the uniform Governor Spitzer recently signed legislation interest arbitration under Section 209(3) enforcement status, demonstrating that Detective greater community of interest with the uniform The DIA contends that the legislative compel a different status upon them. Specifically, they amendment to the NYCCBL, which changed them as uniform forces employees for purposes argue the legislature intended the amendment Union with the same benefits as those received letter from bill’s sponsor Assemblyman Brennan states:
This legislation will allow the 165) to participate in collective shared by the other police unlimited sick time for line allowance, pension benefits, annual holiday pay. The DIA contends that this legislative history accomplish the de facto reclassification The County Detective utle s not ncluded n this c;ted by the Unon.
that warrant the application of the issued in 1986, they Code has been amended to confer the District Attorneys’ Offices. Most to the NYCCBL provided a forces for bargaining purposes and, pattern. They also argue that providing the DIA the right to binding of the Taylor Law based upon their law Investigators have an even f3orces. changes since the Grossman Report argue that the 1989 their level of bargaining, reclassified of collective bargaining. They to compel the City to provide the by the police unions. They cite a to then Governor Cuomo, which
small number of police officers (about bargaining to obtain benefits that are officers. These benefits include of duty injury or illness, equipment leave provisions, overtime and shows a desire by the legislature to referenced in the Grossman Report. egsative change or any of the Iega changes 14
Governor Spitzer’s enactment of status, the DIA argues. They note that Governor because the Detective Investigators are Investigators in the state have binding arbitration The DIA ties these legal changes Detective Investigators over the years and the unit must be awarded the uniform pattern. They Panel declined to give the Detective Investigators the uniform pattern in 1986 because there what constitutes a typical workday for investigators.” record now demonstrates that the daily DAs offices (including Special Narcotics) enforcement duties such as homicide, drug and white collar crime investigations which Detectives. The Union offered evidence Investigators in all the District Attorney’s on a daily basis. They also provided statements are their employers indicating that the Detective than their colleagues in police departments that their witnesses demonstrate that the same as NYPD Detectives. Not only did but letters from the various District Attorneys behalf of the Investigators demonstrate enforcement activities. These witnesses, representatives of the Manhattan Speca! Narcotics Prosecutor, testified occurred since the 1980s regarding the that the Investigators took over much of NYPD Detectives, Each explained the enhanced
binding impasse arbitration cements this Spitzer supported the change law enforcement and all other Detective pursuant to the Taylor Law. to the increased functions of the argues that they compel a finding that contend that the Grossman wage increases consistent with was ‘an insufficient basis to judge The Union argues that the range of duties for Investigators in all the include undercover work and other law trafficking, organized crime, narcotics make them equivalent to NYPD that they claim demonstrated Detective Offices are performing Detective duties from the District Attorneys who Investigators are “not different across New York.” The DIA argues duties the Investigators perform are the high ranking officials testify in this regard supportive of legislative efforts on the breadth and scope of their law from various DAs Offices and the Office to the changes that duties of the Investigators. They testified the work formerly performed by the responsibilities and more 15
sophisticated duties performed by the Investigators Investigators, according to the witnesses, enforcement agencies and are involved narcotics, long-term wiretaps to international witnesses, execute warrants, wiretaps, make seizures, carry guns and wear bullet proof the duties performed by NYPD Detectives. The Union argues that the increased Investigators is highlighted by the changes deployed in the District Attorney’s Offices note that much of the work formerly performed various DA offices is now conducted by Detectives assigned to the DA offices has there are only 10 NYPD Detectives compared the reverse of what existed in the 1980s. Likewise, the taken place in all the other DA Offices. The Union contends that the current Investigators also compel a finding that they Detectives. They argue that the job specifications outdated and urge this panel to consider the DA offices in making its determination for these positions. The various job announcements experience in one or more areas including: gun trafficking, money laundering, violent announcements require a minimum of 3-10 enforcement, current or renewable police must pass a background investigation and New York State.
since such time. work closely with other law with all types of investigations from drug smuggling. They locate street arrests, conduct drug vests. These duties were all akin to job responsibilities of the in the ratio of NYPD Detectives versus the DIA Investigators. They by NYPD Detectives assigned to Investigators and the number of NYPD decreased. For example, in the Bronx, to 43 Investigators. This ratio is same changes have level of training and qualifications of are most comparable to NYPD for the current titles are the job announcements published by as to the job duties and qualifications require applicants to have organized crime, narcotics, trafficking, crime, special victims. Further, the years of experience in law officer certification, and that candidates be certifiable as a police officer in 16
The DIA avers that the training received comparable to NYPD Detectives. They note NYPD experience and have had extensive hires also attend either the Rockland or and NYPD programs such as the undercover other investigative courses. The Union also argues that the City’s the uniform settlement indicates that the the Career and Salary Plan is not dispositive. They Investigator are greater and more similar Deputy Sheriffs and, therefore, to continue capricious.
As to comparability, the DIA contends compensated on the same level as other within comparable communitites. The Union compensation under the civilian and uniform the Grossman Award. The Union performed Officer, Deputy Sheriff and Senior Rackets Senior Rackets Investigator title for analysis in the bargaining unit. In this comparison Senior Rackets Investigator and the increases between 1987 and 2001 reveals a discrepancy midpoint annual wage4schedule. From 2003-2007 $16033. When comparing the Senior Rackets and Deputy Sheriffs over this period as measured Investigator median reveals the disparity The Senior Rackets Investigator title was the title
by the Investigators is that many Investigators have prior training in the police academy. New Westchester County Police Academy school, CIC and a multitude of inclusion of the Deputy Sheriffs in City’s arguments regarding placement in contend the duties of an to NYPD Detectives than are the such a disparity is arbitrary and
that Investigators are not comparable titles within the City nor argues that the disparity in patterns has only grown larger since a comparability analysis of Police Investigator. It chose to use the because it had the most incumbents the actual cash difference between a received by the PBA pattern of $13,513 when viewed from the that discrepancy grows to Investigators to the NYPD Police by the Senior Rackets resulting from the two patterns utilized in all their analyses 17
Year Police/Dep.Sh. DI/unif.patt. $54,048 $57,139 1 $56,750 $59,996 4(2007) $63,309 $66,930 When a comparison between the three titles the Senior Rackets Investigator title for the same difference in the two patterns: Year Police/Dep,Sh, Dl/unif,patt. $54,048 $46,555 1 $56,750 $48,882 4(2007) $63,309 $54,532 The Union further disputed the City’s position Detectives somehow should be considered in regarding the Investigators. The Union maintains specious at best. As to bonuses and merit pay discretionary with the DAs and are seldom awarded. Finally, when Investigators are compared Westchester County and Suffolk County, the paid significantly less. The Union also points jurisdictions are treated the same as police in settlements.
City Position: The City argues that the Union has failed reason to grant the DIA the uniform pattern. They bargaining has developed into the framework City and has been upheld as such in every impasse has been a party. Pattern bargaining has been
DI/civilian pattern $57,139 $57,139 $61,921 as measured by the minimum for period again demonstrates the DI/civilian patt. $46,555 $46,555 $50,451 that the pensions of retired NYPD the comparability equation that such an argument is the Union contains that they are to Investigators employed by New York City Investigators are out that Investigators in both terms of collective bargaining
to demonstrate any compelling maintain that pattern governing all labor relations in the proceeding to which the City recognized as a tried and true 18
way to achieve fair and stable labor relations reach settlements with the City without the frogging” that could result if unions were better settlements if they waited for other The City argues that placement of date would, in fact, be a break in the pattern collective bargaining within the City. Only historically received the uniform pattern the years that separate patterns have existed. historically received the uniform pattern, only the Police, Fire, Correction or Sanitation given the uniform settlement, according issue and not because the Deputy Sheriffs According to the City, the Deputy Sheriffs They performed the same duties Correction until that time. The Deputy Sheriffs, therefore, had Correction Officers which the City contends the uniform pattern to them in bargaining. Although performing these duties in the 1970s, the this historical parity relationship, which is such relationships once set. They note that sought salaries or increases on the same demands have been consistently d5enied. unions claiming to be like uniform employees. is not speculative. They point to the 11.000 Local Laws 1819 and 256. These Local amended 11 OOO new employees in various bargaining The City notes that the Weisenfeld Panel did award but points out that the recommendation was rejected being n olation of the FEA The parties later reached provided to the civilian unions
within the City. It enables unions to fear of the “whipsawing and leap not certain that others would not obtain unions to settle first. the DIA in the uniform settlement at this and, ultimately, erode the stability of 15 of the City’s 150 bargaining units and that grouping has not changed in all Of the unions that have the Deputy Sheriffs are not part of Services. The Deputy Sheriffs are to the City, because of a historical parity are part of the uniformed forces. operated the civil jails until the 1970s. Officers did in the criminal jails up a parity relationship with could only be maintained by applying Deputy Sheriffs stopped City contends it continues to maintain consistent with its policy not to change the DIA has, for over 35 years, level as the NYPD titles and those Such a change would result in many The City maintains this argument employees affected by enactment of the NYCCBL to include over units in the section enabling them increases greater than the civilian pattern by the Office of Collective Bargaining for a settlement consistent with the Increases 19
to bargain individually for all terms and conditions. They Detective Investigators the uniform pattern 12-307(a)(4) would create crippling new all these other titles would demand and The original placement of the Investigator Offices within the Career and Salary Plan It reflected an assessment that the titles and Salary Plan rather than the uniform group was based on their salary range structure specifically, their standard workday schedule required for the uniform services. The City New York City Police Department are recognized and that is by design. The two groups, civilian delineated for bargaining purposes in the Law. Pattern bargaining and the concepts time based upon the fiscal circumstances bargaining units. Therefore, the City argues, changing has historically received would disrupt this all labor relations within the City. Additionally, the City denies that any cites compels a different outcome in this amendment to the NYCCBL was achieved examination of the duties of the job. More change in the law is no guarantee of a bargaining change as to the level of bargaining and have matters such as time and leave bargained the union holding the bargaining certificate The City bargains with the DIA in accordance
argue that giving the based upon their inclusion in Section expenses to the City’s budget because expect the same treatment. titles of the District Attorney’s was appropriate, according to the City. were more akin to those in the Career services. Original placement of the and the working conditions, versus the continuous coverage notes that only police who are in the as uniform service employees and uniform services, were New York City Collective Bargaining of the two patterns developed over of the City and the structure of their the pattern that this unit long and rich history and destabilize of the statutory changes the Union proceeding. They argue that the 1989 through lobbying and not an importantly, they contend that the outcome. It only provides a takes the DIA out of the requirement to for them on the Citywide level by for the the majority of City employees. with the law, but there is no
compelling reason to change the pattern years. Likewise the City argues the enactment 2007 is not relevant to this proceeding. The the right to seek binding interest arbitration Relations Board in the event of a bargaining the bill’s sponsor it serves to harmonize bargaining units with respect to impasse The City disputes that there has been of Investigators which would change their note that the job descriptions have not changed have always noted some overlap in duties Detectives. However, they contend there between them, such as the competitive status and qualifications needed to become a Detective. They “vast differences” between the process for of the District Attorney’s Offices and the Detective. They contend that for both the Investigator titles a candidate only needs diploma (or equivalent) plus two years of receive training at police academies outside comparable, they say, to the NYPD’s Police Such training, they argue, does not compare becoming an NYPD Detective, NYPD Detectives Officers, which requires a score of 70 or higher examination to even be considered, Those placement on the list. The Department then the applicant, which includes a background psychological examinations. Applicants
they have been given for the last 30 of Chapter 190 of the Laws of Legislation merely gives the Union under the Public Employment impasse in the future. According to the treatment of all Detective Investigator resolution procedures. any significant change in the duties status to uniform employees. They and that prior arbitration panels with NYPD Police Officers or NYPD are many distinguishing factors of Police Officers and the training argue that there are becoming a career Investigator in one process for becoming an NYPD Detective Investigator and the Rackets a bachelors degree or high school investigative experience. They then New York City, that are not Academy. to the rigorous training for must first become Police on a written civil service who score 70 or higher receive conducts a lengthy investigation of investigation, and medical and must also have 60 college credits or 2
years of military service. Training in the Officers are then assigned to a two year more formal training. According to the City, one a Detective within the NYPD is through provides a process for a Police Officer to the abiity to perform detective work in an substantial period of time. It typically takes become a Detective. Once assigned, it takes the designation. The City, moreover, maintains that to this panel’s determination because they settlement and not a parity relationship. are not really an issue but rather whether established relationships that make up the The City further maintains that the contention, are well compensated and favorably similarly situated employees. Supportive nothing in the record to suggest there is Examination of the average total wages that comprise 95% of the unit also demonstrates as revealed in the following: Title Mm. Salary Max. Salary Racket lnv. $38,170 $55,742 Sr. Rac. lnv. $43443 $62098 Sup. Rac nv. S45.732 $64047 In 2006. examination of regular gross pay and merit pay revealed that 31% of the Senior the Supervisor Racket Investigators received maximum salary level.
Police Academy takes 6 months. probationary period. They then receive of the major tracks to becoming a formal career program. The program become a Detective by demonstrating investigative assignment for a 5 years to accrue enough points to a Detective 18 months to receive the duties themselves are not relevant are seeking the uniform wage In sum, the City contends that the duties they warrant a change from the pattern groupings. Investigators, contrary to the Union’s compensated when compared to of this the City notes that there is a recruitment or retention problem. for the three Rackets Investigator titles that they are well compensated Average Total Wages $53,371 $63714 $78.253 levels including longevity, differentials Rackets Investigators and 49% of pay that exceeded the contractual
The City also points out that for the retired from the NYPD their income is further and VSF payments. Additionally when the are compared to Deputy Sheriff, Police Officer they again compare favorably as demonstarted: Median Rackets Investigator Sr. Rackets Investigator Sup. Rackets Investigator Deputy Sheriff Police Officer NYPD Det. 3rd Grade The Senior Rackets Investigator, the title Police Officer and Deputy Sheriff salaries. The title exceeds the NYPD Detective 3’ Grade. Thus, there issue the Union can claim, according to of 15 days in the first year increasing to for the Investigator and his/her family, including dental, all without employee premium contributions; retirement a 50% pension benefit and no age requirement; benefits for the employee and their dependents Also of great significance, the City investigators are hired into senior or supervisory exceed the entry level rate found in the unit are employed directly into a supervisory these titIes In addition Investigators receive the City maintains, this is unique among
bargaining unit members who are supplemented by generous pension median salaries for Racket series titles and NYPD Detective d3 Grade Salaries $46,589 $57,139 $64,047 $54,048 $54,048 $61,670 with the most incumbents, exceeds the Supervising Rackets Investigator is no compelling wage the City. They also receive annual leave 27 days after 14 years; medical coverage prescription drugs, vision and after 20 years with and lifetime retiree health without premium contributions. argues, is the fact that many level positions at rates that far parties’ contract. Forty percent of the position. a circumstance unique to merit increases and bonuses. Again the represented titles within the City.
Finally the City claims that when the Investigators titles that perform investigative and/or law greater salaries at every level. While the with Westchester and Suffolk Counties was job requirement in those counties are more specifications in evidence and there is nothing are comparable communities as required Bargaining Law. ANALYSIS AND The central issue to be decided in uniform pattern should be awarded to the b6argaining. The DIA argues that substantial framework surrounding the unit and the members perform since the last impasse reclassifies them for bargaining purposes they must receive the uniform settlement. The that the DIA’s placement within the Career civilian pattern has long been established argue that none of the circumstances the longstanding relationship. To do so they pattern. Such a break, they argue, would bargaining relationships within the City’s entire structure of pattern bargaining and, ultimately, destroy fairness that pattern bargaining has created municipal labor relations. The DIA has requested a four year agreement while agreement The decision is included irifra.
are compared to other City enforcement duties they receive Union attempted to argue a comparison warranted, the City contends that the stringent as indicated by the job in the record to support that they by the New York City Collective OPINION this proceeding is whether the civilian or DIA unit for the 2003-2006 round of changes in both the legal nature and scope of the duties its proceeding in 1986, in essence, as “Uniform” employees, and, therefore City, on the other hand, argues and Salary titles that receive the and should not be disturbed. They Union claims support changing that argue would, in fact, be breaking the so disrupt the long established workforce that it would undermine the the stability and over the last three decades of the City has requested a three year 24
This panel was appointed under Collective Bargaining Law which prescribes (b) An impasse panel appointed pursuant shall consider wherever relevant the following recommendations for terms of settlement: (i) comparison of the wages, hours, fringe characteristics of employment of the impasse proceeding with conditions and characteristics performing similar work and private employment in New (ii) the overall compensation impasse proceeding, including and premium pay, vacations, holidays insurance, pensions, medical and apparel furnished, and all other (iii) changes in the average consumer commonly known as the cost (iv) the interest and welfare of (v) such other factors as are normally the determination of wages, hours, fringe working conditions in collective proceedings.
This Panel has carefully considered fashioning its Report and Recommendations, The parties agree that pattern bargaining municipal labor relations framework and determination of the parties’ contract. They the pattern must be applied. This Panel the role of the panel s not to discount the have validated over the years by their own Arbitrator Eischen stated in the 2002 PBA
the authority of the New York City that: to paragraph two of this subdivision c standards in making its benefits, conditions and the public employees involved in the wages, hours, fringe benefits, of employment of other employees other employees generally in public or York city or comparable communities; paid to the employees involved in the direct wage compensation, overtime and other excused time, hospitalization benefits, food and benefits received; prices for goods and services, of living; the public; and customarily considered in benefits, and other bargaining or in impasse panel
the above statutory criteria in is the cornerstone of the should be applied to this Panel’s differ in their interpretation of how agrees with prior impasse panels that values which the parties themselves actions at the bargaining table. As Impasse Award:
[t]he arbitrator must respect validated over the years. acceptable historical standards judgments divorced from the would be a clear invitation than they could obtain negotiators.
Pattern bargaining has historically equivalence of net costs between bargaining established as a cornerstone of New York “Over the years, the City coalitions representing City arbitration tribunal called upon interest, have accepted pattern-conformity unless a particular case compelling and critical” circumstances without stretching the parameters “The Unions representing traditionally have participated because it always favors their recognize that not only is it necessary interests of the unions and as the public and the City. The leaders to agree to fair and comfort that they will not later richer settlement achieved unions. (Eischen, 2002) In this way, the City’s reliance upon recognized as a bar against the “whipsawing presumably occur if different net settlements approximately 1 50 bargaining units. Impartials recognized that without pattern bargaining come to the bargaining table and settle their they would be in fear of another union obtaining bargaining round. Bargaining in such an difficult
historical relationships that have been For arbitrators to reject such mutually and impose their own value realities of the bargaining relationship to the parties to seek more in arbitration in negotiations with knowledgeable
been defined as the general units. This construct has long been City labor relations. and the individual unions or union employees, as well as every impartial for dispute intervention in the public as a primary benchmark, presented “unique, extraordinary, that could not be addressed of the pattern. New York City employees. in pattern bargaining not necessarily positions but because they seem to but it usually best serves the the employees they represent, as well pattern principle allows labor reasonable settlements, with a level of be embarrassed or outdone by a by one of the dozens of other municipal pattern bargaining has been widely and leapfrogging” that would could be achieved by the City’s and the unions themselves have the parties would lack the incentive to agreements voluntarily because a better settlement later in the environment would be extraordinarily
In considering how the “pattern” fits enumerated in the NYCCBL, prior impasse ‘interest and welfare of the public” criteria has found that pattern bargaining has been to contain labor costs and maintain a stable Aiges Panel concluded in 1996 in an impasse [T]he history of the public City clearly indicates recognition labor neutrals of both the logic It is essential to the public consideration of pattern bargaining New York City collective bargaining. While the pattern, as it is understood NYCCBL or any other statute, it appears grouping titles into Career and Salary Plan working conditions attributed to each group. originally reflected in the NYCCBL, which developed. The need to maintain a stable settlement and contain costs were the primary precedent mandates great caution in making of relationships” of the various titles and City points out that only 15 bargaining units pattern and no unit has ever been added exception to these groupings has been the Commissioner of Labor Relations testified, and that their inclusion with the uniform services relationship with the Correction Officers years. Because of this parity relationship uniform pattern. However, there is nothing had or claimed to have a parity relationship
within the statutory criteria panels have recognized that the includes the City’s ability to pay and a meaningful mechanism for the City labor relations environment. As the proceeding involving the PBA: sector collective bargaining in New York by the City, the unions and the and necessity of pattern bargaining. interest that the normal and customary be the general rule applied to today, is not codified under the to have grown out of the history of and uniform services statuses and the Of course, these groupings were led to the bargaining history that has labor environment to encourage drivers in this history. Prior any changes to the “complex web bargaining units within the City. The have ever been granted the uniform to or subtracted from them, The only Deputy Sheriffs. The City it was uncontested in the record, titles was predicated on a parity that covered a period in excess of 50 they have always been a part of the in the record to suggest that the DlAs with any other title. 27
The DIA and its predecessor unions the City, which includes resorting to impasse the last time being in 1986. The current which pattern should apply — has, in essence, between the parties for the entire history negotiation in which there have been separate whether it has led to a mutual settlement disagreed on the level of compensation to the uniform pattern. Thus, there is a prior record of impasse awards to serve In this regard the parties’ last impasse Grossman Panel. The Union argued it deserved real community of interest was with the uniform Salary Plan employees. The City maintained the pattern. In rejecting that contention, the demand for the uniform pattern was not an pattern, but rather a determination of which the Union was not challenging the basic pattern in terms of the net cost, it was challenging should apply. Similarly in this proceeding the Union construct of pattern bargaining but rather pattern should apply. According to the Union, since legislative developments and the changes mandate that the Investigators be given that the DIA is making the same arguments nothing has changed over those two decades. They always been a part of the civilian pattern
have a long bargaining history with proceedings on several occasions, point of contention between the parties — been the major bone of contention of the bargaining unit. In every civilian and uniform patterns, or an arbitrated one, the parties have the DIA members should receive relative considerable bargaining history and a as reference tools for this Panel. proceeding was before the the uniform pattern because its forces and not the Career and that the Union was seeking to break Grossman Panel stated that the attempt by the union to break the pattern was more appropriate. While construct of the uniform or civilian its status as to which pattern again is not challenging the basic seeks a determination as to which the Grossman Award the in the scope and nature of their duties the uniform pattern The City maintains the Union has always made and that argue that the Union has and there is no reason to break the
pattern by awarding them the uniform pattern. The placing them in the civilian pattern, was has remained unchanged ever since. Finally, they the uniform pattern will destabilze City labor There is no argument that the DIA civilian pattern since its inclusion in City years. Four impasse panels all arrived at the Union was consistent in claiming its it varied in its comparison to either Police to having a community of interest with the there was the claim that the duties had changed dangerous, using more sophisicated equipment, investigations, to mention but a few. Yet in same the panel found them to be more — titles than with the uniform forces. In each acknowledgement by the panel that there the title to which they sought comparison. The same is reflected in the bargaining unions, spanning a period from 1968 to current round under consideration by the two different patterns and the parties reached pattern was the benchmark for settlement. Panel the voluntary settlement was the civilian the round prior to this round of bargaining NYCCBL that gave the Investigators the over terms and conditions of their employment, voiuntary settlement premised on the civilian In considering the Union’s arguments create a different classification for bargaining
labor relations framework, established over three decades ago and maintain that to award the DIA relations. has historically been grouped with the bargaining, a span of close to forty the same result. In each instance, while alignment to be with the uniform pattern, Officers, Detetctives, Deputy Sheriffs or uniformed forces. In each proceeding dramatically - becoming more performing “virgin” each proceeding the outcome was the appropriately included with the civilian instance there was an were similarities between the unit and However, the outcome never changed. history of DIA, and its predecessor 2003, including the last round prior to the Panel. In each round that there were a voluntary settlement, the civilian In the round following the Grossman pattern. In the 2000-2003 round. and well after the amendment to the right to bargain directly with the City the parties again reached a pattern. that recent legal developments purposes for the Investigators, this 29
Panel is constrained to reject such argument. of Appeals has specifically held that placement mandate any particular bargaining outcome 19. The Court held: It has been held and the parties prohibits local legislative bodies to agree with the unions on terms of Doyle v. City of Troy, 51 A.D.2 laws [i.e. Local Laws 18 and 19] not dictate the substantive terms certain issues) the procedure by bargaining with the unions representing than bargaining with unions representing to the citywide Career and Salary (Mayor of the City of New York v. Council of 2007 NY Slip Op 5132, *4 2007 The 1989 amendment to Section 12-307(a)(4) bargaining relationship with the City over Arguably the original placement of the units “legislative” policy, cited by the DCAS Commisioner, of uniform certain terms and conditions of Regulations) for certain groups of employees circumstances — i.e. working standard or course, explain why the Time and Leave uniform and were required to be bargained bargaining clearly provides the Union a treatment, but it does not guarantee it, They employees in the Career and Salary Plan. Furthermore DCAS testified that no case has ever been employment in those titles is so fundamentally and Salary Plan positions as to warrant Certainly the DAs as the employers of the
In fact, the New York State Court in Section 12-307(a)(4) cannot when it upheld Local Laws 18 and here do not dispute, that the Taylor Law from usurping the executive’s prerogative and conditions of employment. (Matter 845 (3d Dep’t 1976)). But these local do not violate that prohibition. They do of an agreement; they prescribe (as to which agreements may be reached — dispatchers and EMTs, rather a majority of employees subject Plan. the City of New York, No. 69, N.Y. LEXIS 1564 (June 12, 2007)). placed the Union in a direct all terms and conditions of employment. into these categories reflected the the City’s desire to make employment (like Time and Leave based upon their particular continuous shifts. That would, of rules for the civilian titles should be by one union. The new level of better platform to achieve different are still classified as Rule 11 the Commissioner for made to DCAS that the nature of different from that of other Career removal of those titles from the Plan.’ Investigators could have sought 1)
removal of them if the DAs felt it was warranted. Yet, this evidence that any DAs Office sought to Likewise, the recent passage of the provide binding arbitration to Investigator compel a finding they are entitled to the 12-307(a)(4) of the NYCCBL, the most recent merely a procedural rather than a substantive noted in his approval memorandum, the arbitration like other Detective Investigators through out the state. Nothing more and that it mandated any particular bargaining Having rejected the DIA’s argument its members be awarded the uniform argument that they are legally recognized NYPD Detectives. With that in mind the to those performed by the NYPD Detectives. They existed when the Grossman Panel issued not exist in the present. In that vein the to become Investigators have dramatically them comparable to the Detectives in the The record established that since to Investigators has reversed itself. Where Detectives in the DAs Offices, a snapshot that there are significantly more Investigators argues that this demonstrates that the Investigators NYPD Detectives had been performing. This question the Investigators are now the main Offices. As to whether their duties have changed
record is devoid of any have them reclassified. amendment of the Taylor Law to titles within the DA’s Offices cannot uniform pattern. Like the amendment to Taylor Law amendment provides change. As Governor Spitzer Bill granted the right to binding and other law enforcement officers nothing less. Nothing in the Bill suggests outcome. that legislative changes mandate that pattern, this Panel turns to the Union’s police officers who are most similar to DIA claims that their duties are identical claim that the distinctions that its Report and Recommendations do Investigators claim that the requirements changed as has the training, making NYPD. the 1 980s the ratio of NYPD Detectives in the 1980s there were more NYPD of the present makeup demonstrates than NYPD Detectives, The Union are doing the duties that the Panel notes that there is no investigative component in the DAs drastically since the Grossman j
Panel award is not as apparent. Is it that that the Investigators are doing more of over a span of time predating the Grossman questions the Panel went back to prior impasse Panel is struck by the similarity in terms attributed to this same Investigator title. As by which time the Investigators were already to State law, there was a recognition that duties. In certain aspects the duties were Detectives and the Investigators, according dissimilarities overshadowed and distinguished again contended that their duties had changed. They informants, using expert witnesses, using They further claimed that the job was more nighttime arrests. performing undercover performing extraditions. According to the investigatory work and more demanding that they employed new recruitment policies duties and enhancements were all described Recommendations, issued in 1977, over accompanying submissions to the Governor’s amendment to the NYCCBL was a recital of Investigators at that time. The list included participates in stationary and moving surveillances maintains electronic devices and other technical aids concealed recording devices and travels secure ‘iitnesses and to transport prisoners tp “i’jt’s Anain that was 1 years ann ago and. yet. the testimony presented in the claimed change as to the duties the conclusion that this Panel can draw is that
their duties have changed or is it merely the duties that they had been performing Panel award. To answer those panel awards. In so doing this used to describe the changes in duties far back as the Malkin Panel award. classified as police officers pursuant there was overlap and even similarity of the same between the NYPD to that panel. However the the two titles. In 1976, the Union were then developing sophisticated electronic equipment. dangerous in that they were making functions, doing stakeouts and Union, they were performing ‘virgin investigations.They also maintained to elevate the candidate pool. Those in the Weisenfeld Report and thirty years ago. Included in the Bill Jacket for the 1989 typical duties performed by executes search warrants; and stakeouts: installs and to obtain evidence: wears out of state and country to locate and to local jurisdictions, to cite hut a few Those duties were recited decades this proceeding is similar, in reflecting Investigators were performing. The only while the Investigators are indeed
performing much more of the work that had NYPD Detectives, the essential nature of same.
While the Investigators share a similarity clearly have for decades, there remains they are employees, not of the City, but of boroughs together with the Office of the The DAs, as their employers, have exercised titles were used, the starting title of new employees, and the awarding of bonuses measures are unique to these titles and within the uniform services. As to the use of titles, back in the Investigator and Senior Detective Investigator titles requiring a passing score on a civil service DAs requested that DCAS, or its predecessor in the Racket Investigator series, noncompetitive examination unlike the requisite for becoming afforded the DAs more discretion and control over exercised this discretion as the record demonstrates. There Investigators in any of the DAs Offices and work in Richmond County. In contrast there Senior Rackets Investigators and 53 Supervisor competitive positions. As to the particular titles and salaries record established that the DAs regularly positions and at above the minimum rates, The Salary Plan titles have salary ranges encompassing
been previously handled by the their job has remained substantially the
in duties with the Detectives and much that distinguishes them. First of all the District Attorneys for the five Manhattan Special Narcotics Prosecutor. considerable discretion in what employees, the starting salary of new and merit increases. All these cannot be compared to any position 1970s the DAs used the Detective titles. Both titles were competitive examination. Over the years the agencies, allow them to use titles titles requiring no civil service a police officer. This obviously their hires. The DA5 have are now no Detective only 5 Senior Detective Investigators are 90 Rackets Investigators, 135 Rackets Investigators — all non the DAs hire candidates into, the hire candidates into the supervisory Investigator titles as Career and a range between a minimum
and a maximum. Yet in point of fact 40% into supervisory titles at salaries above the evidence of 5 recently hired Senior Rackets Detectives, who were all hired well above The amounts exceeded the new hire rate $13557. When the breakdown between 193 of the 293 incumbents are in supervisory Importantly it was uncontraverted that this the uniform services nor is it replicated anywhere Additionally, the Investigators are merit pay i.7ncreases The record reflected much as $8555 in 2006. It further reflected $1000 to $3000. Again this is unprecedented uniform services titles or any other represented As to the qualifications for these positions, the specifications that the City entered into the reflective of the augmented requirements. submitted a handful of job announcements enhanced qualifications. The last modifications occurred over twenty years ago. The Union conducted any desk audits or further analysis there were such changes as the Union has that are not reflected in the job specifications, this The DAs are their employers not the City. Yet there record to support or even suggest that any The Union submitted excerpts from the right to pay performance compensation. However, there to establish, or even suggest, that right was
of the bargaining unit are hired directly minimum rate. The City provided Investigators, all former NYPD the minimum salary rate for the title. for these individuals from $6557 to the titles was examined by the Panel, titles, that is 66% of the entire unit. practice clearly does not exist within else within City employment. the only titles that receive bonuses and that bonuses ranged from $1000 to as that merit increases ranging from and is not replicated in any of the title within City employment. Union argued that the job record are outdated and are not In support of its position the Union that they contend reflect these to any of the job specifications argued that the City has not of the titles since then. However if contended over the past twenty years Panel must state the obvious. is absolutely nothing in the of the DAs ever sought to have the 2002-2005 PSA contract regarding the is nothing in the record ever effectuated. 34
DOAS reevaluate the job specifications had changed to such a degree that the job Additionally, after examining the job record it is difficult to draw any conclusions as to what experience is required. While Office seeking Investigators required a high progressive responsible police enforcement another posting for Richmond County, in required 3 or more years of full time “police posting for a Senior Rackets Investigator years of full time paid experience as a sworn announcement for the Manhattan DAs Office years of law enforcement experience. The Investigators, the title with the most incumbents, are requirements listed in the job specification general sense is that the postings demonstrate the DAs in hiring its staff. However, the postings the Panel from concluding that the job requirements consistent sense, certainly not to the extent Detective 3rd Grade. Certain high ranking officials from formerly the Chief Investigator of the Manhattan’s Senior Investigator in the same office, Lawrence in the Queens DAs Office and Joseph Ponzi, the County DAs Office — all testified to the training that there are two tracks within the DAs of whom are former NYPD Detectives, are Rackets Investigator’s titles. Because they not require the same training as career Investigators. New
because the duties and/or qualifications specifications needed to be modified. postings that were entered in the other than that there is no uniformity one posting for the Special Prosecutor’s school diploma and 10 years of or criminal investigative experience, seeking Senior Detective Investigators, enforcement or investigative work.” A for the Bronx DAs Office, required 3 police officer in New York State, An required a bachelar’s degree and 2 postings for the Senior Rackets actually akin to the existing for such title. What can be said in a the wide discretion exercised by that were submitted preclude have been enhanced in any that they are comparable to a NYPD the DAs Offices Andrew Rosenweig DAs Office, John Freck, a Festa, Deputy Chief Investigator Chief Investigator for King’s provided. What became clear is Offices Experienced Investigators, many hired into the Senior and Supervising are seasoned professionals they do candidates who are
hired with little experience are subject to sent to a Police Academy and attend various Office these new recruits are partnered monthly in-house training sessions for them “from time to time” to the criminal investigation NYPD, In the Queens DAs Office, Deputy the new Investigators initially train at Rockland take other courses such as the CIC course the homicide course comes up, I try to grab course.” In Brooklyn Chief Investigator Ponzi testified Investigators are sent to Rockland Police Trial Division where they work directly with indicated they remain there for from 3-5 and enhancement of cases, duties that would work.
The record established that the qualifications Detectives in the NYPD are so markedly comparable. To become a NYPD Detective Officer, a competitive title. To qualify a candidate 2 years of military experience. Then he/she examination and undergo an extensive background medical and physical examinations. If successful month of extensive training at the New York years on patrol and typically 5 years of service be considered for a Detective Assignment designation does not become permanently are Police Officers who are designated as Program with less tenure than the Career of those who make Detective go through examination of the average number of years
various amounts of training. They are courses. In the Manhattan DA5 with a senior investigator. The Office had on various topics and also sent them course and other courses at Chief Investigator Festa testified that County Police Academy and then at the NYPD. He testified that “When a seat or two with the homicide that the entry level Academy and are then assigned to the an Assistant District Attorney. He years where they work on preparation be considered routine investigative
and career path for different that the two groups are not one must first become a Police must have 60 college credits or must pass a competitive civil service investigation together with a the individual undergoes six City Police Academy, at least 2 to obtain the necessary points to under the Career Program. The effective for 18 months. While there Detectives outside of the Career Path Path Program requires, the lion’s share the Career Program. Additionally of experience as a Police Officer ‘1
prior to becoming a Detective (including years, 2000-2006, was 9.60 years. This Detective is very different than the requirements Investigator in the DAs Offices where there experience required. It simply does not As to a comparison of compensation demonstrates that the Investigators are Police/Deputy Sheriffs titles, titles to which also to the other investigative titles in the City cites as comparable. When comparing the Senior Rackets Officer/Deputy Sheriff titles by applying the 2007 period, the Union argues that they rate for the Senior Rackets Investigator Year Police Unif. Force Pattern $54,048 $46,555 1 $56,750 $48,882 4 $63,309 $54,532 This comparison of the minimum rates is salary practices of the DAs because the regularly exercise discretion in hiring well above also do not take into account the additional compensation receive in the form of bonuses and merit increases Therefore the comparison of the medians the contractual rates in effect at the end salaries for the Rackets Investigator titles Police Officer and NYPD Detective 3 Grade counterparts.
37
Detectives Specialists) between the structured process to become a NYPD and training required to be an is no clear uniformity in training or lend itself to comparison. with similar titles, the record paid favorably relative to both the the Union claims comparison, and Career and Salary Plan, to which the Investigator title to the Police two different patterns for the 2003-fall significantly behind at the minimum title. Civilian Pattern $46,555 $46,555 $50,451 not a true reflection of the hiring and record established was that the DAs the minimum. Those numbers the Investigators that the DAs award. is more persausive Based on of the expired contract the median when compared to the Deputy Sheriff. are consistent with or exceed their
Rackets Investigator $46,589 Senior Rackets Investigator $57,139 Supervising Rackets Investigator $64,047 Deputy Sheriff/Police Officer $54,048 NYPD Detective 3rd Grade $61,670 While the Rackets Investigator title appears account that the qualifications are significantly the DAs Offices there effectively is a two Investigators perform duties of a more routine Investigators. Finally it must be mentioned and Supervising Rackets Investigator titles. Their favorably to such other titles. Again bonuses numbers. Importantly, the Panel heard no retention problem, the existence of which problematic.
When the DIA Investigator titles are titles, they prove to be paid significantly Hiring rate Minimum
Rackets Investigator $38,170 $40,903 $55,742 Sr. Rackets Investigator $43,443 $46,555 $62098 Sup. Rackets Investigator S45.732 $49005 64O47 Fraud Investigator - Fin an ce/D SS LevelI $29,895 $32036 $47711 38
to lag below, it fails to take into different. Additionally in certain of track system whereby the entry nature than the experienced that 66% of the unit are in the Senior median salaries compare may not be reflected in these evidence that there is a recruitment or is often a sign that the salary is
compared to other City investigative higher compensation: Incumbent Minimum Maximum Eff. 4/1/01
Level II $36,813 Investigator $29,895 -other agencies Environ mental -Police Officer - 6 step pay plan Start/26 Step 6 The Union also argued that the unit should Investigators in Suffolk and Westchester not sufficiently establish that they are comparable the NYCCBL, the threshold for comparison Finally of consideration is the County County Detective title within the Unit is troubling position is not included in any of the statutory (including the NYCCBL 12-307(a)(4)) that upon them. An examination of the duties show any comparability with any NYPD or creates is, for lack of a better phrase, a “split” officer status and a title without such status is small in number, the Union has failed of the uniform pattern to what, at best, can unit.
As to the City’s ability to pay. obviously Budget Director conceded, would have less However, having determined that the appropriate the reasons set forth above and in view of its ability to pay the civilian pattern, the Panel contentions of the City in this regard.
$39,447 $54,044 $32,036 $44,481--Level I $28,058 weeks $32,187 $42,587 be compared to the DAs Offices. However, the record does communities as required under purposes. Detective title. The inclusion of the and cannot be ignored. This provisions cited by the DIAs the Union argues confer uniform status for the County Detective title fails to uniform services titles. What this unit with titles that have police within the same unit. While the group to provide any precedent for application only be termed a “split” bargaining
a unit this size, as even the City’s impact on the City’s budget. pattern is the civilian one for the fact that there is no argument over does not need to rule on the 39
Consideration of the statutory criteria together with the reasons recited herein pattern to the DIA today. The Investigators criminal justice system. This decision does diminish their valued contributions. Therefore, based on the voluminous the following: 1. That the duration of the contract Union sought a four year one, this contract of longer duration. This will enable fashioning future contracts. 2. That the civilain pattern shall apply. As to the individual demands, the parties the DIA should receive the civilian or the emphasis was almost entirely on which costing for individual demands. Acceptance demands have certain costs or savings case, actual terms are left to the parties may exist regarding the costings. Application to the City of 4.17% over 36 months. The Panel recommends the following a. Private Hospital Accommodations - No evidence was submitted significance of the demand. The demand b Deletion of all reference to Terms and Salary Plan DIA Proposal They are still Career and Salary classification as such must be Therefore, references in the c. Time and Leave Review — DIA Proposal - No evidence was submitted review. Presently members
as applied to the evidence presented requires the Panel to apply the civilian of today perform a vital function in the not reflect differently or in any way record this Panel recommends be for a three year period. While the Panel does not want to impose a the parties more latitude in focused almost entirely on whether uniform pattern. Because their pattern, there was no agreement on or rejection of many of these associated with them. That being the after ironing out whatever differences of the civilian pattern has a net cost as to demands that are non-economic: — DIA Proposal No. 4 to demonstrate the need and Panel therefore rejects this and conditions of the Alternate Career No. 7 Plan employees. Their addressed in another forum. Agreement should not be disturbed. No. 9 to establish the need for additional are provided with a summary on their 40
bi-weekly paycheck. There need for additional, more in demand. d. Disciplinary Procedures — DIA Proposal This demand pertains only Investigator and County Investigator, comprising would give employees in these arbitration. This would create segment of the unit. The wisdom questionable. Therefore the Dated February 11 2008 /72EGavin7rbitrator
Affirmation CITY OF NEW YORK County of NEW YORK ) I, Gayle A. Gavin, affirm that I am executed the foregoing instrument, which Dated: February 13, 2008 // /‘ // 7/
was nothing provided to suggest the depth review. The Panel rejects this No. 10 to members in the title of Detective 10 incumbents. It titles the option of binding a system available to a very small of a two-tier system is Panel rejects this demand. / / 7 J / ,. // L1,4‘C— ,4
the individual described in and who is my Report and Recommendations. / /// 1’ / / //J Gayle A. Ga/ 41