Preserved Starting Pay
Productivity Key To Sanit Supers' Deal

By REUVEN BLAU

The union representing Sanitation Supervisors used a favorable court decision - which ordered the city to pay its members millions of dollars extra because it failed to assign managers to supervise cleaning crews in violation of the group's contract - to finance a significant portion of its just-announced tentative wage accord.

COURT WIN HELPED SAVE PAY PLAN: Sanitation Officers' Association President Joseph Mannion used a court decision that the city was obligated to pay its members for assuming expanded supervisory duties as a bargaining chip to win 17 percent in raises without having to reduce the pay scale for future members of the union.

"It was an issue that was used in the funding method," Labor Commissioner James F. Hanley said during a Dec. 5 phone interview.

Produced Key Savings

Joseph Mannion, president of Sanitation Officers' Association Local 444 of the Service Employees' International Union, said that the major court victory generated 2.7 percent of the 4.24 percent in savings the union needed to generate to match the attrition-based pattern set by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association arbitration award issued in June 2005.

"I would have liked to get more credit," he remarked during a Dec. 6 phone interview. "Dealing with the city is not easy, but I think we got a fair value."

A significant portion of the wage hikes for the PBA was offset by the reduction in the pay scale for future hires. But because savings to the city are greater under the PBA deal due to the higher attrition rate among cops, the Bloomberg administration demanded additional savings from Local 444 and other uniformed unions to even out its costs.

Expands Their Duties

Local 444 went a long way toward satisfying that demand when it agreed to modify contract language allowing the Sanitation Department to assign night-time supervisors to monitor additional collection trucks and handle expanded areas crossing traditional Community Board lines.

That agreement essentially negates the city's obligation under the legal decision to pay the supervisors for the work they should have been assigned. "It was a big issue for the department," Mr. Mannion said. "It's a big savings for them to do it."

The union president stressed that the tradeoff made sense, contending that the raise is a recurring benefit that the union can build on during future contract negotiations. He also emphasized that the union insisted that the city include language in the new contract protecting members from being unfairly disciplined within their new guidelines and work responsibilities.

'Must Talk to Us'

"If somebody is going to be disciplined because of supervising more than one district, the department has to sit down with the supervisor and the union to review the situation," Mr. Mannion said.

Local 444 represents approximately 1,200 Sanitation Supervisors and General Superintendents.

The issue dates back to April 1993 and involves three legal decisions, by arbitrators Edmund G. Gerber and Eugene M. Kaufman and, most recently, by New York State Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Lippman, who also serves as the court's chief administrative judge.

In 1993, the union filed a grievance against Sanitation, charging that in five districts in Brooklyn the agency failed to use supervisors to oversee cleaning trucks and other equipment during the day shift.

In a huge victory for the union, Arbitrator Gerber ruled that the department violated the group's collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Gerber concluded that the contractual term "supervisor" means monitoring specific duties, and not merely meeting the broom trucks at a pre-arranged location and signing off on the trucks' performance report.

Asking Too Much

Citing testimony from the hearing, he concluded that there are specific duties which comprise the act of supervision, including enforcement of parking regulations, inspection of cleaning, and signing off twice a day.

Based on the contract, he noted, the city has the right to assign anyone it wants to supervise. But he pointed out that it was physically impossible for a supervisor to effectively oversee two sections due to the size of the areas.

He limited the remedy to the winter of 1992 through 1993, and ordered the department to "cease and desist from causing to operate mechanical brooms or any piece of equipment without assigning actual supervision." He also directed the DSNY to compensate the supervisors on the overtime list for every violation found.

Mr. Mannion said that money, which was not a large sum because the violation affected only a small number of supervisors, was put in the union's Security Benefits Fund. "So it benefited everybody," he said.

Same Beef, Same Result

The matter surfaced again in 2003, when the union filed another grievance, contending that the DSNY was breaking the same contract rule during the night shifts.

Arbitrator Kaufman ruled in favor of the union, citing Mr. Gerber's earlier decision. Mr. Kaufman noted that with one or two exceptions, the city failed to cross-examine witnesses testifying on behalf of Local 444 and didn't address any of the issues raised by the union.

He found that Sanitation continued to violate the union's contract and ordered the agency to pay all the supervisors affected, which this time included hundreds of managers. The city once again appealed, arguing that the order to pay the supervisors constituted "punitive damages."

Last month, Justice Lippman upheld the earlier rulings. "Since the award is neither violative of a strong public policy nor totally irrational, and Arbitrator Kaufman did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his power, [the city's] motion to vacate is denied," he ruled.

Offered Leverage

Mr. Mannion used that decision, which he noted "had a lot more value" than the earlier ruling, as leverage for the union's proposed contract. That deal with the city provides 17 percent in raises over 54 months and 12 days.

The productivity component of the Local 444 deal meant that, in contrast to three other uniformed union pacts, starting salary for new members would not be reduced.

The tentative deal's two 5-percent raises equal those from the PBA's arbitration award issued under the aegis of the Public Employment Relations Board. The third- and fourth-year raises are consistent with those won during that period by uniformed unions that have agreed to lengthen their contracts in return for additional raises without more concessions.

Ballots have been mailed to members, Mr. Mannion said and are set to be counted Dec. 15. "We are getting very positive reaction," he added. "We are trying to make sure that everybody does their due diligence."