OFFICEOFCOLLECTIVEBARGAINING IntheMatteroftheImpasse -Between-LAWENFORCEMENTEMPLOYEESBENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION(LEEBA) -And-THECITYOFNEWYORK. BEIfORE: AlanR. Viani, ImpassePanel APPEARANCES: FORLEEBA: Richard1. Merritt, Counselorat Law By: RichardJ. Merritt, Esq. FOR THECITYOFNEWYORK: ProsakuerRose, LLP By: Neil Abramson, Esq. andDaniel DATESOFHEARING: October20,2010, October28,2010, November December 6,2010, January26, 2011, January31,2011, February 15,2011, March17,2010, May12,2011 OnMarch 17,2010, theundersignedwasdulydesignatedbytheNewYorkCityOffice ofCollectiveBargaining', pursuanttotheRules I PursuanttoaDecisionandOrderoftheOfficeofCollectiveBargaining, May29, 2012, all referencestotheSmithReport, containedinthis Recommendations, havebeenexpungedfromthisAmendedReport that thisPanel'srecommendationsarebasedsolelyandexclusivelyonthetestimonyanddocumentaryevidencein therecord ofthisproceeding, whichareextensivelycitedandreferencedherein. wasnot relieduponbythis Panel for findings offact, nor wasthat forany ofthisPanel'srecommendations. ThereferencetotheSmithReport consultant employedbyDepartment ofEnvironmental Protectionarrivedat concerningpersonnel mattersasarrivedat bythisPanel. This wouldhave(andhasafterareconsideration oftheevidence) recommendations asarecontainedinthisAmendedReport 2012 ReportandRecommendations. 2BywrittennoticefromtheOfficeofCollectiveBargaining, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CaseNo. I-2-09 (AMENDEDJUNE30,2012)I Altchek, Esq. 1,2010, November3, 2010, February7, 2011, oftheNewYorkCityCollectiveBargaining BoardofCollectiveBargainingissuedon Panel'sJanuary14,2012Report and andRecommendations. Theparties areadvised Thecontent oftheSmithReport report consideredsubstantiveevidenceasabasis was madesolelytonotethat a similar(but not identical)conclusions Panel, without anyconsideration oftheSmithReport, arrivedat thesameconclusions, findings offact, and andRecommendationsandthis Panel'sJanuary14, datedMarch 17,20IO. (Joint Exhibit 12)
-2-Law(hereinafter"NYCCBL")toserveasImpartial decidetermsandconditions ofemployment forthetitleofEnvironmental I, II, andIII(hereinafter"EPOs")employedbyDepartment City ofNewYork(hereinafter"City"or "DEP"), EmployeesBenevolent Association(hereinafter"Union"or"LEEBA"). InaccordancewiththeRules oftheNewYorkCityOfficeofCollectiveBargaining ("OCB"), theinstantproceedingwasconductedtoresolveacollectivebargainingimpasse betweentheCityandtheUnionconcerningtheappropriatewagepatternandother conditions ofemployment for theEPOtitleat all Hearingsinthis matterwereheldonOctober 2010, November 3,2010, December6,2010, January26, 2011, February15,201I, March 17,2010, andMay12,201I RelationsandtheOCB, in NewYork, NY. Thepartieshadafull cross-examinewitnesses, tosubmit documentationandmakewrittenargument respectivepositions. Inthecourse ofthehearing, Exhibits, and73UnionExhibits. Thepartieselectedtosubmit writtenpre-hearingandpost-hearingbriefs, receivedbythis Panel inatimelymanner. Thelast therecordinthismatterwastherebyclosed. Thepartiesareadvisedthat all matters ofrecord, herein, havebeenconsideredintheformulation STANDARDSOFREVIEWREQUIREDBYLAW Indeterminingtermsandconditionsofemployment, §12-3I lc(3) (b) oftheNewYorkCityCollectiveBargainingLaw("NYCCBL")to"consider whereverrelevant thefollowingstandardsinmakingitsrecommendationsforterms ChairmanofanImpassePanel tohear and PoliceOfficer, Levels ofEnvironmental ProtectionofThe andrepresentedbytheLawEnforcement termsand levels. 20,2010, October28,2010, November 1, 201I, January31,2011, February7, at theofficesoftheOfficeofLabor opportunitytoexamineand insupport oftheir thepartiessubmitted13Joint Exhibits, 16City whichwere submissionwasreceivedinJuly201I and whilenot necessarilycitedorreferredto ofthisReport andRecommendation. anImpassePanel isrequiredby of
-3-settlement: (i) comparisonofthewages, hours, employment ofthepublicemployeesinvolvedintheimpasseproceedingwiththe wages, hours, fringebenefits, conditionsandcharacteristicsofemployment otheremployeesperformingsimilarworkandotheremployeesgenerallyinpublic orprivateemployment inNewYorkCityorcomparablecommunities; (ii) theoverall compensationpaidtotheemployeesinvolvedintheimpasse proceeding, includingdirect wagecompensation, vacations, holidaysandotherexcusedtime, hospitalizationbenefits, foodandapparel received; (iii) changesintheaverageconsumerpricesforgoodsandservices, asthecost ofliving; (iv) theinterest andwelfare ofthepublic; (v) suchotherfactors asarenormallyandcustomarilyconsideredinthe determination ofwages, hours, fringebenefits, collectivebargainingorinimpassepanel BACKGROUND ThetitleofEnvironmental PoliceOfficer, 16, 2000byamendmenttotheCity'sClassifiedServicebytheDepartment AdministrativeServices("DCAS")(Joint Exhibit Special Officer (Aqueduct Patrol) andAssociateSpecial reclassifiedincumbent employees oftheseformer EPatitlewasexemptedfromtheCareerandSalaryPlanandplacedintotheMiscellaneous ServiceclassificationunderRuleX oftheCity'sPersonnel Under boththeformertitlesandthenewtitle, toprotect theCity'swatersupply, waterworks, andaqueducts, 3Technically, DCAScreatedthetitleofEPaandits3levels, requiredtheexisting Aqueduct Patrol employeestobesubject examination, bywhichtheywerescoredandplacedintothenewtitle. Report andRecommendation, "reclassified"ismeant broadlytomeanthis andtheemployeesredesignated. Similarly, hereinthewords"classification," interchangeabIy.fringebenefits, conditionsandcharacteristicsof of overtimeandpremiumpay, insurance, pensions, medical and furnished, andall other benefits commonlyknown andotherworkingconditionsin proceedings." LevelsI, II, andIII, wascreatedonFebruary ofCitywide 1),whichabolishedtheexistingjobtitlesof Officer(Aqueduct Patrol) and titlesintotheEPaclassification.' Thenew RulesandRegulations. themainresponsibility ofemployeeswas andtoenforcetheCity's deletedthe2former Aqueduct Patrol titles, and toaneducationandexperienceor promotional (Tr. 117-I2I, 1009-15) As usedinthis processbywhichthetitles werechanged "role,""position"and"title"areused
-4-WatershedRules andRegulationsandother laws. under §1.20(34) (0)4NewYorkCriminal Law("CPL"), ofNewYorkState, withtheirmainfocusonprotectingthewatersupply. Exhibits7, 13;Tr. 1380-81). Towardthisend, theEPOsoperateout functional Precinctsin9counties, andpatrol approximately19reservoirs, and2,000squaremiles ofwatershedarea. (CityExhibit andareas ofresponsibilityarelocatedbothwithinNewYorkCityandinseveral theCity. The2000establishment oftheEPOsarosefromtheCity'srecognitionofevolutionary changesinseveral aspects oftherolesoftheseemployees, totheir salaries, levels, hours ofemployment, scheduling, qualificationsandmanyotherterms andconditions undertheCareerandSalaryPlan. (Tr. at 1008-10) changesthenbeinginstitutedwerenot typical forcivilianmunicipal madegiventhisgroup ofemployees' classificationand, ruleandserviceclassificationandremovedthemfromcoveragebytheCitywideAgreement theirnewterms wereestablishedonaunit level. decidinghowtoinstitutethesechanges, andthesetactics"hadnothingtodowith"and relationship"topoliceofficerstatus. (Tr. 1016)5 ThereclassificationaddedcertainqualificationsandrequirementstothenewEPa position, includingahighschool diplomaor itsequivalent, years ofmilitaryserviceoroneyear oflawenforcementexperience, 4 CPL §1.20(34)(0)defines"policeofficer"toinclude: "Aswornofficerofthewater-supplypoliceemployedbythe city ofNewYork, appointedtoprotect thesources, works, York, andtoprotect personsonor inthevicinity ofsuchwatersources, 5While muchhasbeenmadeoftheimport ofthedistinctionsbetweentheclassificationsofRuleXandRuleXI, well asbetween"MiscellaneousService"and "PoliceService,"Schultzmadeclearthat administrativesolutionstocreatethechangesdesiredat thetime. consequencefor whethertheseemployeeswerepoliceofficers. TheEPOs aredefinedasPoliceOfficers withfull authoritytoenforcethelaws (CityExhibit 6; Joint of10geographical and threecontrolledlakes 10;Tr. 1377-80) TheEPa'sPrecincts countiesoutside whichwarrantedsignificant changes annual leave, structure, management, ofemployment fromwhat previouslyexisted AsDCASDirectorSchultzmadeclear, the employeesandcouldnot be therefore, DCASchangedtheir existing and (Id. at 1010-11) DCAShadfull discretionin "no 30semestercollegecredits ortwo psychological screening, andtransmissionofwatersuppliedtothecityofNew worksandtransmission." as theseweremerely Sheexplainedthat neitherwas ofany (Tr. 1016)
-5-backgroundchecks, randomdrugtesting, anda2yearprobationaryperiod. Exhibits3and13) And, tomeet therequirementsasPoliceOfficersunderCPL§1.20(34) applicantsmust be"foundqualifiedtoserveasPoliceOfficers." Exhibit 13at 6) Theranks ofEPOshasfluctuatedovertimetoacurrent includingapproximately140Level IpatrollingPoliceOfficersorDetectives, Sergeants, and8Level IIILieutenants(CityPost-Hearing arefurtherorganizedintoworkingdivisions-dependingontheirspecializationandwithsome EPOsassignedtomultiple units-includingapproximately10-15officerswhoareinthe DetectivesBureau(foundedin1999), 14intheEmergencyServicesUnit September2003, whichisSWAT-likeinfunction, weaponryandgasmasks), nineintheStrategicPatrol onboats, ATVs, motorcycles, andsnowmobiles), September1999, patrollingwithhelicopters), sixintheCanineUnit several intheDiveUnit (foundedinJanuary2004).(Joint TheEPOPrecinctsadditionallyareorganizedintofour Divisions(including "theSpecial OperationsDivision"), oneAssistant Chief, andtheEPOChief, whoreports and, ultimately, theDEPCommissioner. (Tr. 1379-80) Thecollectivebargaininghistory oftheseparties applicabletermsandconditions ofemploymentareapatchworkofprovisionsfoundinseveral documents(hereinaftercollectivelyknownasthe"CollectiveBargainingAgreement"). Aqueduct Patrol OfficerswererepresentedbyLocal ("Local 300") atthetime oftheirreclassificationtoEPOs. 6Inspector Milazzotestifiedthat, whiletheseformal Unitswereformedlater, Aqueduct Patrol Officersasearlyas 1995. (Tr. 1379)(CityExhibit 6;Joint (0), (CityExhibit 6at 5;Joint estimateofabout 175intotal, 27Level II Briefat 25; Tr. 1378). Some33EPOs (or"ESU,"foundedin usingriot gear, sniperrifles, high-capacity Unit (foundedinJune2003 6 andpatrolling twointheAviationUnit (foundedin (foundedinJune2003), and Exhibit 6at 8; Tr. 132, 1378-79) geographicandfunctional eachofwhichisoverseenbyaCaptain, directlytotheDEPDeputyCommissioner, isfairlycomplex, andthecurrently 300, ServiceEmployeesInternational Union Local 300andtheCityhadentered ATVs andboats wereusedby
-6-intoseveral successivecollectivebargainingunit Agreement")fortheperiods ofJanuary1, 1995-December31, 2000-March31,2002(Joint Exhibit4)and, lastly, 5). EffectiveMarch26, 2000, immediatelyfollowingandasaconsequenceoftheCity's creationoftheEPatitle, Local 300andtheCityenteredintoaSupplemental 1995-1999Assistant BuyersAgreement (hereinafter"Supplemental 3), whichsubstantiallymodifiedtheterms oftheAssistant appliedthosechangestoall incumbent employeesintheirnewtitle Agreement codifiedtheadministrativechangesmadetotheseemployeesunderthenewjobtitle, includingthecreation ofthreelevelswithintheonetitle, establishingsalarystepswithinLevell. Itestablisheda42-hour 24minuteworkday, withovertimebaseduponanexcess pursuanttotheFair Labor StandardsAct ("FLSA"), management rightsregardingscheduling. Itloweredtheuniformallowanceto$250peryear, eliminatedthe"Advancement Increases,"acknowledgedtheapplicabilityoftheestablished "LongevityIncrease"and"AnnuityFund" oftheAssistant CitywideAgreement'sannual leave, but reducedtheshift Agreement to5%andreducedbytwohoursthehoursbywhichan differential. Theagreement alsoinstituteda"CommandDiscipline"processforEl'Osandadded therequirementsforrandomdrugtesting. InJune2001, Local 300andtheCityenteredintoaMunicipal EconomicAgreement (hereinafter"2000MMEA"or"MemorandumofAgreement")(Joint Exhibit 3A), modifyingtheparties' economictermsandcarryingforwardall 7Asapart oftheSupplemental Agreement, theCityvoluntarilyrecognizedLocal agreements(hereinafter"Assistant Buyers 1999(Joint Exhibit 2), January1, April 1,2002-March31,2005(Joint Exhibit Agreement tothe Agreement")(Joint Exhibit BuyersAgreementthenineffect and ofEPa.7TheSupplemental settingwagesfor eachlevel, and workweekandan8hourand of171 hourswithina28-daycycle andwithanacknowledgment of Buyers' Agreements, andofthe differential providedbytheCitywide EPawouldbeeligibleforthe Memorandumof othertermsofeach 300asthe UnionfortheEPOs.
-7-individual bargainingunit agreement represented, and21) Additionally, variousterms ofthe1995-2001CitywideAgreement "CitywideAgreement") (CityExhibit 16), whichwasenteredintobytheCityandDistrict Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, onbehalf ofapreponderanceofall municipal employees, wereincorporatedbyreferenceintoLocal agreement, except totheextentthat theunit agreement provisions oftheCitywideAgreement for EPOs. InOctober2005LEEBAwascertifiedtorepresent partiesbeganalongandwindingroad ofnegotiationsanddisputes, Certificationinitsmost recent relateddecision, asfollows: Following LEEBA's certification, negotiations for an initial collective bargainingagreement. negotiateat least sixtimesbetweenthecommencement 2008. OnNovember 9, 2009, LEEBAfiledaRequest Impasse Panel ("Impasse Request"). ("OCB") brought thepartiestogether for 2010. The Board ofCollectiveBargaining, impasseexistsbetweentheparties. Duringthe course ofnegotiations, impasse, both parties filedimproper practicepetitions the negotiations. Each party asserted that bargaining. The charges raised included insistingonnegotiatingnon-mandatoryandprohibitedsubjects LEEBA'sassertionthat theCitywasrefusingtobargainover The Boardhas issuedthree decisions addressinganddisposing LEEBA, 79 OCB 18 (BCB 2007) (interimdecision, rulings); LEEBA, 2OCB2d29(BCB2009) faithbargainingclaims); andLEEBA, 2OCB2d43(BCB2009) Order directingbargainingingoodfaith)." (Joint Exhibit 10at 3, footnotesomitted.) TheCitythenpetitionedtheBoard BargainingonFebruary24, 20I0foradeterminationthat scope ofmandatorybargainingandshouldnot besubmittedtoanImpassePanel 8Joint Exhibits 7, 8, and9, respectively.includingthenewlycreatedEPatitle. (Id.. §2 (hereinafter NewYorkCitycivilian 300'sAssistant Buyersunit specificallyexemptedormodifiedcertain EPOs (Joint Exhibit 6A) andthe summarizedbytheBoardof the Union and the City began The parties met to ofbargainingandOctober for theAppointment ofan The Office of Collective Bargaining twomediationsessions heldinJanuary onJanuary25, 2010, declaredthat an andprior totheBoard'sdeclarationof relatingtothe conduct of the other had engagedin bad faith the City's claimthat LEEBAwas ofbargaining, and mandatorysubjects. ofthese claims: including negotiability (final decisionafter hearingsonbad (Supplemental ofCollective certainproposalswereoutsidethe andonJune29,
-8-2010theabovequoteddecisionwasissuedwithmixedfindings. (Id.) Intheinterim, thisPanel was appointed(Joint Exhibit 12)todeterminethesubstanceonall mandatorysubjects of bargainingthat reachedimpasse. POSITIONOJ?THEPARTJES 9 TheUnion LEEBA'sclaimsthroughouttheseproceedingscanbelargelysummedupasabroad request that thisPanel treat theEPOsasPoliceOfficers, entitledtotheCity'suniformedpattern ofsettlement, ifnotthesameagreement betweentheCityandtheNewYorkCityPatrolmen's BenevolentAssociation. At theheart ofitsargument isthat "patternbargainingisthestandard bywhichaninitial EPaCBAmust beevaluated, andLEEBAoffersthat NYChasrefused 'patternbargaining' for EPOswhoperformpoliceservicesforNYC." (UnionPost-Hearing Briefat 15-16) LEEBAasksthisPanel tocomparetherelativeduties, responsibilities, qualificationrequirementsandemployment examinations oftheEPOs totheNYPDinorder to determinethat a"substantial similarityrequiredthesamepayandbenefitsasNYPD." (Id. at 16) LEEBAsetsout alist offactorsthat EPOsandNYPDshareincommonandconcludes that "ashoehomisnot requiredtofit EPOsintothepatternwithNYPDbecauseEPa qualificationsandduties aresubstantiallysimilartoNYPD." (Id. at 17) Accordingly, theUnion urgesthisPanel to"defineEnvironmental PoliceService, andtodecidetheissue ofaproper comparisonforpatternbargaining." (Id. At 25) TheCity TheCityargues, first andforemost, that therearecritical aspectstothismatterthat underlayalltheUnion'sdemandsandrequiretheirrejection. Thesearethat: (1)thewell-9Excerptedfromtheparties' post-hearingsbriefs, whichhavebeeneditedforattribution, brevity, andcontinuity.
-9-establishedframeworkforcollectivebargainingthat distinguishesuniformedfromcivilian municipal employees; (2)theconsistent assignment ofbargainingunitsintooneortheother groupmust beupheldforthestability oflabor relations; and(3)thefact that thisbargainingunit historicallyhasconsentedtoaciviliansettlementrequiresthat theyremaininthat classification. AlthoughtheCitymakes asubstantial effort toitemizeandaddress theUnion'sindividual demands, it ultimatelyreliesheavilyonthesepoints. TheCityurges, asanunderlyingmatter, that theEPOs' demandsbeconsideredincontext withall othermunicipal employees. It arguesthat theeffect ofadecisiondepartingfromthe statusquoandagranting ofanyofLEEBA'sclaimswouldbetoencourageother bargaining unitsthat might havesomesimilaritiestoEPOstocomeforwardwithsimilardemands forhigher economicbenefits orothermorefavorableterms andconditions. Theresult, itargues, wouldbe seriousharmtotheCity. TheCityargues, inaddition, that theCity'Sfinancial difficultieshavegreatlydiminished itsabilityoverthelast years topayhigher costs ofwagesandothereconomicbenefits, and, asa result, itcannot affordthedemands ofthisUnion-northoseofothers whomayfollowtheir lead, ifsuccessful. TheCityconcludesthat thisinstant impassehearingshouldnot beaforumfor reconsideringthisbargainingunit'splacement withintheframeworkandthewell-known preferencetomaintainthestatusquowithregardtoestablishedpatterns ofbargainingshould ultimatelyprevent thisPanel fromgrantingtheUnion'sdemands. Accordingly, the City'spositionisthat thisPanel shouldreject LEEBA'sdemandthat EPOsareentitledtotheuniformedpattern ofsettlement. DISCUSSION Inarrivingat mydeterminationswithrespect tothedemandsofthepartiesthisPanel has attemptedtoarriveat arecommendationwhichaddresseswhat itbelievesshouldbetheprimary
-10-considerationinthisdispute, towit, establishingtheappropriatepatternofsettlement determiningwages, benefits, andothertermsandconditions regard, thecriteriaestablishedunder lawhavebeencarefullyconsidered. easytaskgiventhedivergence ofcritical concerns withrespect tothepresentation ofspecificissuesbytheUnion. MuchofthedifficultyindisposingoftheUnion'sindiscriminateproposal result ofwhat thisPanel viewsasaninadequateeffort andclearlydefinetheUnion'sspecificdemandsortolayout position. Asaresult, therehasbeenconfusionintheproceedings, Nonetheless, therecanbenodoubt that LEEBA'spositionisultimatelydiscernable. repeatedmanytimesover, inthisandinpriorproceedings, negotiationswiththeCityandconsistentlythereafter. thisPanel'scriticism oftheUnion'spresentation, Union'sright tohaveitspositionconsidered, howeverinartfullyproffered. record, therefore, will beconsideredinassessingtheUnion'scase. Fundamentally, thisPanel agreeswiththestatementbytheCitythat that "adramaticchangeinthebargainingframeworkisneverjustifiedunlessthereare'unique, extraordinary, compelling, andcritical circumstances. quotingImpassebetweenPatrolmen'sBenevolent 027, M2-146(Sept. 9,2002». Notwithstandingthisposition, thisPanel changes incircumstancesthat justifytakingafreshlookat andmakingdeterminationsthat wouldbeappropriategiventhecurrent standards. ThisPanel notes that thereisnostandardunderthelawthat boundbydeterminationsorfactsthat aresimplyhistorical, Amongthechangedcircumstancesareafewsalient for ofemployment forEPOs. Inthis Thishasnot beenan oftheparties andgiventhelackofclarity isthedirect bytheUnionanditscounsel tocarefully structuredargumentsforits record, andarguments. lt hasbeen aswell asfromitsveryfirst (Joint Exhibit 7at 5) Notwithstanding itviewsoneofitsobligationsasensuringthe Thetotality ofthe it iswell accepted '" (City'sPost-HearingBriefat43, AssociationandCity ofNewYork, IA201-recognizesthat uniquetothisdisputeareseveral theseissuesat thismoment intime facts, evidenceandlegal requiresthisPanel be but maynolongerbeapplicable. points, discussedbelow.
-1. LEEBAisarelativelynewplayer inthelonger group ofemployees. It wascertifiedandelectedbytheEPOsasitsUniononlyinOctober Thisunionwasnot involvedinnegotiatingany andtheCity, includingthosethat immediatelyfollowedthecreationoftheEPOtitle. WhentheBoard ofCertificationcertifiedin2005that longerappropriatelyapart ofacivilianbargainingunit recognizedthat significantchangeshadoccurredwithinthisunit jobtitlewascreatedandthereafter, particularlypost interests oftheseemployeessignificantlydifferedfromthecategoriesofemployeeswithwhich itpreviouslywasgrouped, therebyrequiringanewbargainingunit.10 LEEBAhassought torepresenttheinterestsofthisnewbargainingunit significantlyrevisedcontractterms betweenit andtheCity. theEPOsoversixyears ago, ithasconsistentlyassertedtheclaimfora"uniformedforces" pattern ofsettlement indifferent venues andinitscontract at variancefromtheposture ofisprior representative. Requiring, astheCityurges, that thestatusquomust prior bargaininghistory, wouldhavetheunintendedconsequencethat bargainingunit wouldbeestoppedfrompresentingargumentsthat representative. Thisresult wouldrender thecreation in, sotospeak, toapattern ofsettlementthat maynolonger criteria oftheNYCCBL. Circumstancesmayinfact juncturebecomeobsolete. Alternatively, therecouldbeinfact mayattainanewperspectivethat meansthat theprioragreement 10Notably, theBoardofCertificationbrieflymentionedapetitionin1990that orienteduniontorepresent theEPOsasSpecial Officers(Aqueduct recognizedexceptionfor lawenforcement officers. (Joint PoliceBenevolent Ass'n, DecisionNo. 12-91).11-historybetweentheCityandthis 2005. oftheAgreementsineffect betweentheEPOs thisgroupofemployeeswasno coveredbytheCareerandSalaryPlan, it ofemployees, atthetimethe 9/11. TheBoardalsorecognizedthat the byestablishing Sincethetimeitbegantorepresent negotiations. Itsassertionsareclearly always beupheld, basedsolelyon anynewlycreated differ fromapredecessor ofanewbargainingunit anullity, locked beappropriateundertheexisting changeandpriorarrangementsmayat some nochangeat all, but oneparty nolongerreflects itsview ofits ithaddeniedbyanother police-Patrol), andwhichoccurredbeforetherewasa Exhibit 6at 15-16,citing NewYorkCity WaterSupply
-rightsorneeds. This Panel rejectsthenotionthat carvedinstoneandrecognizesthat thelabor relationsprocessallows thatthisisapart oftheevolutionofathelabor-management Accordingly, theEPOshavearight tobeheardontheir obligatedtohearthosedemandsimpartially, without recommendationsthat might varyfromthehistorical prevailed. 2. Thisisthefirst ImpassePanel betweenthis thequestion ofwhichpatternofbargainingappliestotheEPOshasbeenproperlyraisedasa mattertobedecidedbyaPanel inaforumthat isempoweredtoadjudicateanddecidethat precisematter. LEEBAandtheCityhavebeeninvolvedinseveral beforetheBoard ofCollectiveBargainingandonebeforetheBoardofCertification, mediation, but nonewasfullyfocusedontheappropriatepattern decisionsfromtheBoards oftheOfficeofCollectiveBargainingdirectlyaddressedother includingtheappropriateness ofthebargainingunit chargesregardingtheir behaviorsduringactual negotiations(Joint appropriatescope ofbargainingissuestodeterminewhichdemandsaremandatoryornon-mandatorysubjects ofnegotiationandwhichareprohibited(Joint Thisproceedingarisesafternegotiationsstalledoverthepreciseproposals fromeachside. Duringthesenegotiations, theUnioncontinuedtoinsist theunformedpattern ofsettlementsandtheCitycontinuedtoassertthat entitledtothecivilianpattern ofbargaining. That eachsidehashadthefirst real opportunitytofullypresent asspecificdemandsandthis Panel hasfullyconsideredtheargumentsandevidencepresented frombothsidesregardingthesematters.12-collectivebargainingagreement termsareever for changesovertime -relationship. assertionsandthisPanel is necessarilybeingprecludedfromissuing pattern ofsettlementthatpreviously UnionandtheCityandthefirst timethat proceedings, includingthreehearings aswell as ofbargaining. Theprior issues, (Joint Exhibit 6), several improperpractices Exhibits7, 8and9), andthe Exhibit 10). ofsettlement that it wasentitledto theUnionwasonly impasseprecipitatedthis proceedinginwhich itscaseonpatternbargaining, aswell
-3. Theevidencedoesnot support, astheCityposits, essential dutiesandresponsibilitiesthat EPOsperformhavenot respect for decades"or that "therehavebeennochangessincetheEPatitlewascreatedand thesepartiesagreedtothreesettlements...that Post-HearingBriefat 26, 46) WhentheBoardofCertificationfoundinJune2005(Joint wasnolongerappropriatelypart ofthecivilianbargainingunit directedarepresentationelection, it articulatedthat refrainfromdisturbinglongstandingcollectivebargainingarrangementsunless"convincing proofofchangedcircumstancesdemonstratesthatthepre-existingunit (Joint Exhibit 6at 15) UponreviewingthecircumstancesoftheEPOs, suchchangeshadinfact occurredtotheEPOs, makingthemmoreakintolawenforcement civilianemployees, andthat thesechangesweresufficienttocreateaseparatebargainingunit. (Id. at 19) ThenumerousfactorsandchangesdiscussedbytheBoard equallyrelevant at thisjuncture, concerningthis andevidence ofmanyoftheseandadditional changesweresubmittedbeforethis EPO'sauthorityhas beenexpanded. TheCityor EPO'sactual dailywork, assignmentsandscheduling, administrativedesignations, organizational structure, deployedfor functions beyondtheprotectionofthewatersupply. whetherthechangesaresufficient toaffecttheapplicablepattern Amongthesignificant facts presentedtothis bytheCity, factuallyor otherwise. TheCitydoesnot specificactivities, useofequipment, training, etc. conclusionregardingtheirrelevanceor whethertheymeet 13-that "thereisnodisputethat the changedinanymaterial conformedtothecivilianpattern." (City's Exhibit 6)that theEPOs' unit representedbyLocal 300and it wasinaposition similartothis Panel -to isnolongerappropriate." it nonethelessfoundthat than ofCertificationat that timeare samegroup ofemployees. Moreover, testimony Panel. The itsmanagerial employeeshavealteredthe requirementsandtraining, pay, benefits, andmanagement. Andtheyhavebeen Thequestionat handissimply ofbargaining. Panel, therearenonethat arecontroverted refuteanyassertionbytheUnion of Ratherit simplywouldreachadifferent thestandardtorequireanychange.
-14-All partiesagreethat theEPOsnowhavelawenforcement statewide. TheEPOshavelonghadtheauthoritytoenforcestatelawsand, 1.20(34)(0), aredefinedasPoliceOfficers withfull laws ofNewYorkState, withtheirmainfocusonprotectingthewatersupply. Joint Exhibits 7,13; UnionExhibit 7; SmithReport Then, inMay2000, after thereclassification Criminal ProcedureLawgavetheEPOstheauthoritytopatrol NewYorkCity. (UnionExhibits7, 40; Tr. 1387) thetime, wrotealettertotheGovernor, urgingapproval recognizedthepoliceandlawenforcement role, that thesewereneededwithintheCitylimitsinorder withtheintricacies ofthewatersupplyinfrastructureanditsregulations, receivethemost appropriatetrainingtohandletheseuniquewatershedcases."(ld. Effectivelynotingtheinterchangeabilityinfunction statedthat thischangewouldalso"preservetheresources enforcement purposes"and"increasethesecurity InMay2005the NewYorkCourt ofAppealsinPeoplev. questionofwhethertheEPOscouldenforcetrafficlawswithintheCitylimitsandfoundthey hadthat authoritybecausetheywerevestedwith limitedto "lawenforcement activitiesrelatedspecificallytotheprotectionofthewater oradirect water source ...." (Joint Exhibit 6at 20-21 "inconsistentwiththeexpressdelegation ofpolicepower ProcedureLaw." (Id.) TheBoardofCertificationin2005foundVanBuren'sconclusion II CitedbytheBoardofCertificationas2005WL1106075(N.Y. N.Y.S.2d802.authoritybothcityand under NYCPL§ policepowersandauthoritytoenforcethe (CityExhibit 6; at 13, 15;Tr. 1380-81). oftheEPOs, alegislativechangetothe andhavefull policepower inside RudolphGiuliani, NewYorkCity'smayor at ofthelegislation, inwhichhe aswell astheexpertise, oftheEPOsandstated to "allowthepoliceforcemost familiar andthepoliceforcethat at 2) ofthesetwopoliceforces, Mayor Giuliani oftheNYPDforotherlaw ofthewater supplysystem." (Id.) VanBurenreviewedthe "broadpolicepowers,"ratherthanbeing facilities 11 ) Decidingotherwise, it found, wouldbe tothisforceunder theCriminal May10,2005). Seealso4N.Y.3d640, 797
-15-supportive ofitsownfindingthat EPOswereengagedingeneral interestsaremorealignedwithpoliceofficersthancivilians. ThisPanel rejectstheCity'scontentionthat effectontheamount ofworkdone"andismerelya"revisionofthestatusquothat to1983." (Tr. 1387-88; CityPost-HearingBriefat asufficient factortobeconsideredindeterminingwhethertheEPO'sstatusiscorrectlydefined. Moreover, suchachangenecessarilyhadanimpactontheday-to-dayactivities RegardingthechangesintheEPO'sactual "Since1990,andfollowingthebombing oftheWorldTradeCenter which... [theseOfficers] performedtheirdutieschanged." theirfocuswasonpoliceactivitiesaimedat counter-terrorismandstartingin1995EPOswere givenaccesstotheNewYorkStatePoliceInformationNetwork("NYSPIN"), networkprovidingcommunicationbetweenandamongcertifiedmembers andtheNYPDregardingcriminal andterrorist activities. In1999, aparamilitarycodewasinstituted, weredependent uponchangestointernational threat increasesecurityat reservoirs. (Joint Exhibit 6at In2000, manychangestotheEPOpositionoccurred. EPOtitleviatheDCASamendmentandissuedanewjobspecification, qualifications, discussedabove, includingeducational screeningandtesting, andtheabilitytobe"foundqualifiedtoserveasaPoliceOfficer." Exhibits 1, 13anddiscussedabove) TheworkloadincreasedandtheDEPaddeddispatchers better management, and "adesignationofdetectives...receivedextensivespecial interrogation, biochemical incidents, weaponsofmassdestruction, (Joint Exhibit 6at 7)lawenforcement andthat their thechangeintheEPOs' jurisdictionhas"no existedprior 47) Achangeintheirlegal authorityitselfis ofthegroup. workduties, ithasbeenrecognizedthat: in1993, themanner in (Joint Exhibit 6at 5) Increasingly acomputer ofInterpol, theFBI, (Joint Exhibit 6at 5) whichresultedindifferingassignmentsthat levels, androamingpatrolswereaddedto 15) TheCityvoluntarilycreatedthe containingadditional requirementsand/orworkexperience, (Joint for trainingin andhomicideinvestigation."
-16-Alsoin2000, theCityandLocal 300enteredintotheSupplemental modifiedtheEPO'stermsandconditions ofemployment linewithotherPoliceOfficersandincludedtermsthat asincludingsalaryincrement stepswithinalevel, andrequiringdrugtesting, promotional examinationsandattendanceat alsoweregivena42hour workweekandpaidovera28daypaycycletobetter patrol shift scheduling. After9/11, the "EPOslawenforcementresponsibilitiesincreasedbecauseofheightened securityconcernsregardingthewater supplyandinfrastructurethat City." (Joint Exhibit6at 8) Morecounter-terrorismrelatedcoordinationwiththeFBIandother lawenforcement agencieswasrequiredviaNYSPINandspecial somewith12-hourtours ofduty, duringtheinitial ofheightenedalertsthroughout 2002. (Joint Exhibit The2005BoardofCertificationmadefactual that theEPOsregularlyperformedgeneral lawenforcement recognizedto: have responded to or made arrests for accidents, suicide attempts, driving while burglary, grand larceny, stolenproperty, things. Theyalsowrite summonses for traffic law. Theyhave the dutytoarrest crime was committedwithinthegeographical theroamingpatrolswereinstitutes andmoreEPOshired, morearrests. Thegeographical areas EPOs beeninvolvedwithmakingfelonyarrestsoutsidethewatershedarea. (Joint Exhibit 6at 6) Extensivetestimonyandevidenceinthisproceedingregardingthese findingssupportsthesameconclusionregardingthetypes showsthat theEPOsperformgeneral policefunctions number oflawenforcement activities includingover 4,494summonsesbetweenMay2000andNovember2003(UnionExhibit Agreement, which inwaysthat broughttheEPOscloserin areunusual forcivilianemployees, such establishinga"CommandDiscipline"process apoliceacademy. EPOs managetheir transportswater intothe deploymentswerealsoadded, monthsfollowingtheattacks andothertimes 6at 8, 20) findingsthat supportedthedetermination duties, includingthat EPOswere impersonating a police officer, auto impaired, felony assault, robbery, andmisdemeanor assault, amongother violations ofthepenal lawandvehicle apersonfor crime whether or not the area oftheir employment. Since EPOshavebeenmaking patrol has expanded andEPOs have ofduties. Forexample, theevidence andareregularlyinvolvedinalarge 443arrestsandtheissuanceofsome 7), aswell as800
-17-arrestsandsome6,157summonsesfrom2006 -2009. 2006 -2009theycontinuedtobesometimesinvolvedinlawenforcement relatedtotheprotectionofthewatershed, primarilypropertycrimesandassault. TheweaponsgenerallyusedbyEPOshaveevolvedover typical oflawenforcement andpoliceofficersincluding, caliberammunition, sniperrifles, Glockhandguns, Moreover, theevidenceshowsthat theEPO'sspecializedpolicingandenvironmental skills -includingsuchskills asswimmingrescueandhandlingHazmat theynowgothroughtrainingsoextensivethat it standards, withover400additional hours ofacademytraining(Joint andnearly700hoursabovetheNewYorkStaterequirement. Asdiscussedabove, between1999and2004theEPOsestablishednewinternal "SpecializedUnits"commontolawenforcement Unit ("ESU"), StrategicPatrol, four CanineUnits, increaseditsMarineUnit. (Joint Exhibit 6at 8, Each oftheseadditional unitsandspecializationslogicallymust requirements oftheEPOs' job, uniforms, andequipment. determinedaneedforarescuecapability, itdevelopedtheEmergencyService, StrategicPatrol units, andgaveEPOsinthoseunitstheadditional requiredtocarryout that responsibility itemsthat 166-68) Additionally, EPOs whoareinspecializedunitsalsoarerequiredtoobtainadditional itemstosupplemental theiruniform. (Tr. 236) Asapart oftheBoardofCertification'sreasoningin2005that wasrequired, it adoptedalimitedrulefroma1996PERBdecisionthat employeesprimarilyinvolvedinlawenforcement disturbingbargainingunitsandconcludedthat theEPOs (CityExhibit 12) Italsoshowsthat from activitiesnot directly (Id.) recent yearstoincludeitems gasmasks, riot helmets, riot suits, high etc. (Joint Exhibit 6at 20) materials-requirethat hasbecomemoreadvancedthanNYPD Exhibit 6at 20; Tr. 239-40) (Tr. 239) departments, includingtheEmergencyService anAviationUnit andaSWATteam, andit 20; Tr. 132, 1378-80) havealteredthe Forexample, whenafter 9/11theDEP Canine, and trainingandweaponry wereabovewhat otherEPOsreceived. (Tr. aseparatebargainingunit requiredthosegroups of aregenerallyexceptedfromthepolicyagainst '"shareacommunityofinterest
-18-growingout ofthequalifications, traininganddutiesuniquetoapoliceofficer.'" citingCounty ofErie12) TheBoardofCertificationalsonotedtheexamplesofother enforcement unitsthat hadbeensimilarlyextracted, whichsubsequentlymergedwiththeNYPD. (Id.) EPOsregularlyworkalongsideotherlawenforcement andprovideassistanceuntil lawenforcementarrives(Joint coordinatewithintheCitylimits withNYPDonactivitiesthat largeevents. (Tr. 1389) Whilein2007theEPOChiefissuedaninterimorder "primarilyfocusedontheprotection ofthewater respondingto911callsandcomplaints(Tr. 1381-82),theEPOs' unrelatedtothewatershedhasnonethelesscontinued.(CityExhibit Overrecent years, theCityalsohasperiodicallydeployedEPOs needsbeyondtheirlimitedmission ofprotectingthewater theRepublicanNational ConventioninNewYork, supplementNYPDcoverageat protest sitesandtheir Exhibit 6at20; Tr. 1288-89, 151-52). In2005, theEPOssimilarlyweresent Mall torespondtoashooting. (Tr. 294) TheBoard ofCertificationin2005concludedfromthefactsbeforeit "exclusiveorprimarycharacteristicislawenforcement"or"thepreventionanddetectionof crimeandtheenforcement ofthegeneral lawsofthestate." theevidencebeforetheBoard ofCertificationandtheadditional areindiciathat theEPOs areinvolvedinafull range thesetrendshavecontinued. 12CountyofErie, a1996PERBcase, whichwas later confirmedbyacourt ConservationOfficers oftheNewYorkStateDepartment (Id. at 19,21, law includingtheHousingAuthorityPolice, officersorrespondtothescene Exhibit 6at 7, Tr. 1453-55) and arenot onDEPpropertyorat tokeeptheEPOs supplysystem"byrequiringpermissionbefore involvement inlawenforcement 12,Tr. 1449-55) forlawenforcement supply. Forexample, in2004, during EPOswereassignedspecial deploymentsto shiftswereextendedforthreeweeks(Joint toaHudsonValley that theEPOs' (Id. at 19) This Panel agreesthat factspresentedatthesehearings ofpoliceactivitiesandduties. Since2005, in1998, involvedtheEnvironmental ofEnvironmental Conservation.
-19-Accordingly, thisPanel finds, contrarytotheCity'sposition, that "therehasbeena changeincircumstances ofsuchdegreeandmagnitudeastojustify"thedeparturefromthe statusquoplacement oftheEPOsinthecivilianpatternofbargaining. (City'sPost-Hearing Briefat 46) Instead, this Panel findsthat thetotalityofthecircumstances, discussedabove, establishasufficientlycompellingbasistochangethecurrent status. ThesecircumstancesareuniquetotheEPOsandhavenodirect bearingonother bargainingunitsemployedbytheCity. Thechangesdetailedabovethat this unit has experiencedover morethanadecadearesubstantial. Itwouldbesomewhat circularin reasoningtoassert that thefact that theEPOshavespent thelast six ofthoseyears tryingto correct their status wouldsomehowprecludethemfromacorrectionat thispoint intime. ThisPanel finds unequivocallythat, giventhe EPOs' specificallydelineatedduties requiredtoperformtheirmission, legal authoritytoenforcestatelaws, official deployments bytheCity, andactual day-to-daytasks andeffortsthat areknowntotheCity, acceptedby theCityandhaveneverbeenobjectedtobytheCity, theEPOsareabsolutelypoliceofficers involvedinlawenforcement. They, therefore, areentitledtowages, benefitsandtermsand conditions ofemployment commensuratewithothermunicipal uniformedservices employees. ThisPanel, therefore, finds that theEPOsaspoliceofficersshouldbeawardeda uniformedservicespattern ofsettlement andwill recommendtermsthat will start the processtowardthegoal ofbringingthemclosertoparityinpayandbenefitswithuniformed servicesemployees. AlthoughthisPanel hastheauthoritytorecommendwagesandbenefitstothese employeestoprovide themwithfull payandbenefitparitywithpoliceofficers, andfinds that therearesufficient groundsunderthe NYCCBLstandardsfor doingso, itnonetheless will refrainfromdoingsobecause oftheextraordinarycoststhat theCitywouldincur and inrecognition ofthefact that thecurrentpoliceofficerpayandbenefitsdidnot occur
-20-overnight, but areaproduct ofyearsofnegotiationsandimpassepanel doesrecommend, however, that thepartiesworktogethertowardthegoal relativeparityin thefutureandthat theytakeprogressivestepstowardsthisgoaL ThePanel'srecommendedwageincreases, thesameperiod oftimeisrelativelymodest inthat recommendationsexceedthecivilianpatternby4.35%orlessthan1%per Theserecommendationswill haveanegligibleimpact recommendationonlyaffectsapproximately175individuals. acknowledges: Clearlywithagroup ofemployeesassmall thecity'sbudget, theissueisnot reallyforthisgroup...it'sreallyaquestionof thisgroupistreatedinaparticularway, intermsofthe collectivebargainingsettlements itsworkforce. (City 14at 1, quoting 2007Testimonyinapriorproceeding) findings arelimitedtotheuniquecircumstances spillovereffect, therebyprotectingtheinterests At theinstant hearings, theCityarguedthat dangerousasthat oftheNYPD. Whilethismaybetrueasamatter alsotruethat thepotential fordangertoEPOsisomnipresent, activitiespatrollingthewatershed, thesituationsthat enforceNewYorkStatelawandwhenperformingtheirdutiesinspecializeddeploymentsfor non-watershedpurposes. Infact, theriskisveryreal andsignificant, regardingseveral EPOswhowereseriouslyinjuredwhileonduty,including: knee(Tr. 136-37);Novi, whoselaceratedhandarequiredamonthout abouttherisk ofdiseasestransmittedbybloodandsaliva, injuriesorexposure (Tr. 282-85,293-94); anotherEPOintheEmergencyServicesUnitwhobrokeawards. ThisPanel ofachieving whenmeasuredagainstthecivilianpatternfor over afiveyearperiodthePanel'swage year. ontheCity'sbudget inthat this AsMarkPage'stestimony as oneandabudget as as what sort oframificationswill that have muchlarger portions That thisPanel's oftheEPOsshouldprecludeanyundue ofboththeEPOsandtheCity. theEPOs' lawenforcement jobisnot as ofday-to-daystatistics, it is giventheirdutiesandtypical otherwisearisefromtheirauthorityto asrevealedinthetestimonyandevidence Ricewhoinjuredhis ofserviceandwhospoke likeHepatitisB, duringon-the-duty
-21-hisback(Tr. 341-42); EricHoffman, whowasinadebilitatingaccident whohadtocomebacktoworkafterfivemonths, preservehisjobandmaintainanadequatelevel ofpayandbenefits, astheyhadbeenprior. (Tr. 476-99, 487-89, Tr. 783); acarcrashandwhosemonths offwithout paycausedhimtogointodebt benefitevent toraisemoneyforhim. (Tr. 738-41, Moreover, it iscertainlytruethat thedangersEPOsfacearenolessinherent thanforuniformedservicesor NYPDemployeeswhoarenot enforcement, but ratherperformadministrativeor aspoliceofficers withthepotential for injuryor thelack ofprotectionhasthenegativeeffect ofdeterringEPOsfromrespondingtoviolent otherwiseperformingtheirduties(Tr. 731, 781-83), individualsinvolved, theCityorthepublic. Therefore, thisPanel recommendsasfollows: RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, baseduponthediscussionabove, andconditionsforanewagreement. Wherenorecommendationismade, denied. However, all othertermsandconditions ofemployment BargainingAgreement-includingtermsfromtheCitywideAgreement, Agreement, theprior Assistant BuyersAgreements incorporatedintoanewstand-aloneAgreement except 1) Theterm oftheAgreementshall runfromOctober20, 2010. Thefirst effectivedatemarksthedateatwhichLEEBAgained recognitionastheUnionrepresentingEPOs. whileonanATVpatrol and well beforehewasfullyrecoveredinorderto neither ofwhichwereasmuch andEdKlan, whowasseverelyinjuredduring andresultedinanEPO 783, UnionExhibits53, 54) intheirroles assignedtopatrolsor activelaw trainingduties, andarenonethelessrecognized danger. LEEBAPresident Wynderindicatedthat crimesor whichdoesnot servetheinterests ofthe thePanel recommends thefollowingterms all other proposalsare providedinthepreviousCollective thepriorSupplemental andtheMemorandum ofAgreement shall be asspecificallymodifiedorprovidedbelow: 2005throughMarch31, Theenddateisaimedat serving
-22-adual purpose: First, tomaintainthenewagreementinthesametimeframeas thepriorcontracts(that is, renewingeachApril 1),whichhasadministrative benefitswhilemaintainingcontinuity oftermsandconditionsofemployment; second, tofoster soundlaborrelations, itmakeseminentsensetobringthe collectivebargainingagreementforthisunit ofemployeesintothesame timeframeastheir NewYorkCitymunicipal counterparts, allofwhomhave agreementsthat expirein2010. ThisPanel recognizesthat itistoofarpast 2008torecommendanagreementthat wouldendin2008andtrigger, almost immediately, anotherround ofbargaining. Thisrecommendedtimeframewill bringgreaterefficiencytothelaborrelationsprocessesbetweentheparties. 2) Thewagesforall levelsandsteps ofEPOsshall conformtoauniformed servicespattern. Under anewagreement, thegeneral wagesincreases recommendedbelowshall beappliedtoanemployee'sbasesalary, salary increment steps, currentminimumandmaximumsalaryrates, longevity increases, assignmentdifferentialsandexistingadvancement increases (ifany). -Effective10/20/05, awageincreaseof5%; -Effective4/1/06, anadditional wageincreaseof4%; Effective4/1/07, anadditional wageincrease of4%; -Effective4/1/08, anadditional wageincreaseof4%; and -Effective4/1/09andthrough3/31/10, anadditionalwageincreaseof4%. 3) Concerningthedemandsregardinga40-hour workweekandovertimepay, thisPanel hasdeterminedthatwhilethesetermsmight beappropriate, thereis insufficient informationintherecordregardingthisproposedchangeto
-23-recommendanychangeinthelengthoftheworkweekandcurrent arrangementsundertheFairLaborStandardsAct. 4) Thenewagreementshall includethestandardunit Clause, whichshall includealllevels ofEPOsforwhichUnionpossesses recognition, includingall"inhouse"designationssuchasDetective, etal. 5) Theannual contributiontotheUnion'sWelfareFundshall providedotherbargainingunitscoveredbystandardunit $1540.00effective10/1/05 and$1640.00effective4/1/10 6) Theremainingeconomicbenefits, discussedspecificallybelow, March31, 2010. ThisPanel hasdeterminedthat start ofthesebenefitsuntil that datebecausetheywill receivedinthepast, thedelaywill easetheiradministration, reducethecost totheCity ofthesechanges. 7) EffectiveMarch31, 2010, theUniformAllowanceforall increasedto$1,000under thesametermsandconditionsascurrentlyprovided toNYCPoliceOfficers. ThisPanel findsthat forcollectivebargainingpurposesshouldbetreatedinasimilarfashiontothe uniformedservices oftheCity, andwhoarerequiredtowear uniformsthat arevirtuallyidentical totheNYPD, forprovidingtheEPOswithadifferentuniformallowancethanwasagreedto withtheNYPD. Thecost incurredbytheEPOstopurchaseandmaintainthese 13Therecordisunclearastotheseamounts. It isthisPanel'sintent carriedforwardinanewagreement andadjustedtotheamountsindicatedabove. 2006therewasatemporaryreductioninstandardcontributionsthat that thenewagreement trackthecontributionratesgrantedother overtime agreement Recognition Sergeant, bethesameas agreements; towit, 13 shall beginon it isreasonabletodelaythe havealreadybeen andthedelayhelps EPOsshall be aspoliceofficers, whowefind complex thereisnojustifiablereason that theprior welfarefundcontributionshall be However, it wouldappearthat in wererestoredin2007. This Panel'sintent is Citybargainingunits.
-24-requireduniformsissubstantial, regardlessofinitialprovisionofuniformsby theCity(UnionExhibit 51),andbeyondthe$250allowancecurrently provided. (Tr. 763, 722,233-38) Forexample, EPOAdreanitestifiedthat aftertaxes,theallowancecoversonlythecosts ofonepairofseasonal boots andheestimatedthat hespendscloserto$1,000-1,200annuallytomaintainhis onrequireduniform. (Tr. 685, 722-23) 8) EffectiveMarch31,2010,theNight ShiftDifferentialshallberaisedto10% andthetimingforeligibility forsuchpaymentsshallbeginat 8:00p.m. These changesreverttotheformerterms,previouslyprovidedundertheCitywide Agreement. 9) EffectiveMarch31, 2010, theInjuryonDutyleaveshall bemodifiedfromthe existingprovisions oftheCitywideAgreement tobe18monthsleaveofabsencewith payforanyinjuryoccurringwhileonduty. Thisrecommendationexpandsthe assault-relatedprovisions ofCitywideContract tocover all injurieswhetherbyassault orothercauses. Moreover, thisleaveshall begrantedwithout chargetosickorannual leave. BecauseEPOs arepoliceofficersandarefirst respondersinemergencies, there isgreat potential for seriousinjuryintheir dailyduties andthesemodifications areintendedtotreat theseemployeesinamannermoreconsistent withother emergencyanduniformedservicesemployees, suchaswiththeNYPDortheFire Department. Theneedfor suchtreatment wasmadeapparent intestimony, discussedabove, regardinganumber ofEPOswhohavesustainedseriousinjuryandtheresulting impactontheEPOs, includingtheconclusionbyEPOTurkthat: "But post injury, the protection -theonlythinginourabilitytoprotectthemisfill out their NewYorkState compensationpaperworkasfast andefficientlyandasaccuratelyaspossibletotryto
-25-expeditethemthroughtheNewYorkStateCompensationBoard, seemslikeittakes about ayear until theyget 10) EffectiveMarch31,2010,theUnionwill upto$75peremployeeperyearforthepurpose beusedtodefendEPOsfromactionsdirectlyrelatedtotheperformance Dated: June30, 2012 AFFIRMATION StateofNewYork ) County ofWestchester) ss: Theundersigned, underpenaltyofperjury, affirmsthat proceedingandsignedsameinaccordancewiththearbitrationlaw Dated: June30, 2012 whichusually, it takencareof."(Tr. 342) bepermittedtoallocatefromitsWelfareFund ofestablishingaLegal DefenseFundto oftheirduties. AlanR. Viani, ImpassePanel heistheImpassePanel inthewithin oftheStateofNewYork. Alan
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.