Captains' Contract In Albany Limbo;

Need Arbitration Signoff
Captains' Contract In Albany Limbo


The State Senate's delay in confirming the new Public Employment Relations Board Chairperson has slowed the contract arbitration proceeding between the Captains' Endowment Association and the Bloomberg administration, CEA President John J. Driscoll said last week.

JOHN F. DRISCOLL: 'City's stalling us.' On Feb. 14, Governor Spitzer nominated Jerome Lefkowitz, Eric J. Schmertz and Robert S. Hite to the board, but the Senate has yet to sign off on his selections.

'Just Need One'

The CEA is awaiting a list of nine potential arbitrators compiled by PERB's Director of Conciliation, Richard A. Curreri. "We just need one of these guys confirmed and then it can be sent out," CEA President John F. Driscoll said during an April 6 phone interview. "They keep promising that they are going to send it out, but I haven't gotten it."

Mr. Curreri did not return a call seeking comment, and Mr. Lefkowitz was unavailable last week.

After multiple failed negotiation meetings and three fruitless mediation sessions, the CEA moved to have its contract decided by an arbitration panel, a process that the union has steadfastly avoided since a bad experience in the early 1990s.

JAMES F. HANLEY: What impasse? Mr. Driscoll, however, has contended that the Bloomberg administration's "insulting" offers have left him no choice. According to Mr. Driscoll, city negotiators have rejected offers from the union to extend tours or have new Captains work added shifts in order to match the 4.24 percent in savings the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association generated under the attrition-based award issued by an arbitration panel in 2005.

Contrast With LBA, DEA?

The Lieutenants' Benevolent Association and the Detectives' Endowment Association have both used similar concessions to create savings for the city, Mr. Driscoll noted.

But city negotiators contend that the CEA has refused to offer the same givebacks the other unions have produced.

The Bloomberg administration appears reluctant to have the contract settled by an arbitration panel. On March 6, the Office of Labor Relations objected to the arbitration process moving forward, contending that the two sides were not at an impasse.

'No Meaningful Response'

"The request for compulsory interest arbitration is premature as the parties have not had the opportunity to fully discuss their respective proposals in detail required to reach an agreement," an OLR letter to PERB argued. "In fact, the CEA has failed to respond meaningfully to almost any of the city's numerous proposals for a settlement."

But Mr. Curreri ruled that there was "no basis for the city's claim of prematurity." He noted that the parties participated in three mediation sessions in an attempt to settle their differences.

"They are obviously stalling," Mr. Driscoll contended. "They don't offer us a decent contract and now they refuse to go to arbitration as well."

Labor Commissioner James F. Hanley countered, "For the first three years the union sat back and did nothing in the bargaining process. That's the reason for the delay. They waited for the PBA and then they waited for the other unions."

The union president noted that city negotiators last July took the unusual step of petitioning PERB to declare an impasse in its contract negotiations with the PBA. "Obviously the city was more than willing to go ahead with the PBA, yet the city seems reluctant to proceed with us," he said. "Meanwhile, we are now starting month 41 without a contract."

The CEA represents 750 Captains; its contract expired Oct. 31, 2003.

'Bad-Faith Bargaining'

According to Mr. Driscoll, OLR recently sought to amend its list of contract demands initially submitted to PERB. "They are basically changing their tune," he asserted. "Meanwhile, they are time-barred from doing this. I've instructed my attorney to file an improper practice charge of bad-faith bargaining on behalf of the city."

The CEA and city negotiators have been unable to agree to the values of various concessions. A significant portion of the 10.25 percent in wage hikes over two years under the PBA award was offset by the reduction in the pay scale for future hires.

But the pay scale for Captains has suffered since a prior CEA leader, Bill Kelly, was forced to make similar concessions beyond those accepted by the PBA to match that union's wage gains under a 1988 contract. After the contract problem contributed heavily to Mr. Kelly's defeat at Mr. Driscoll's hands, the union's focus was on upgrading the scale for new Captains - the group that bore the brunt of the concessions more than 15 years ago.

'A Non-Starter'

A major issue of contention appears to be the city's demand that the CEA agree to a 40-hour overtime cap. But last month, Labor Commissioner James F. Hanley said that the city is not "wedded" to that proposal.

"The overtime cap is just a non-starter," Mr. Driscoll said last week. "What union leader in his right mind would ever accept that?"

The CEA, he continued, has offered to switch to an overtime monetary payment system from the current comp time plan "for the right value." That proposal, he noted, would save the city money because Captains who receive their comp time often get that benefit when they retire at their top pay rate. By contrast, money payments would be made to Captains right away, before any seniority increase kicks in.

The Captains' overtime issue has long been a matter of contention. In May 2005, the Board of Collective Bargaining ruled that the city violated the CEA's collective-bargaining agreement by failing to negotiate with the union before placing a 1,556-hour cap on the amount of comp time Captains can accumulate. The issue, the BCB concluded, is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

Since that ruling, Mr. Driscoll charged, the NYPD has retaliated by auditing and subtracting comp time from his members that the department had previously signed off on. In response, the CEA brought another unfair labor practice charge against the NYPD. That complaint is still pending.

Comp Overload

The NYPD has contended that it removed an existing cap on comp time in December 2001 because of the exhaustive post-Sept. 11, 2001 search-and-rescue efforts. As a result of that activity, however, many officers in ranks from Captain to Deputy Chief were able to accrue more than a year of comp time.

That situation has resulted in some individuals leaving the department and spending over a year on payroll as they exhaust their comp time, while continuing to hold civil service positions that cannot be filled, according to the NYPD. It also reduced the number of experienced supervisors and impinged on the department's ability to determine its staffing and scheduling needs, officials argued. To solve that problem, in April 2004 the NYPD moved to reinstate the cap. In addition, the city attempted to force Captains and other supervisors to use their comp time within 30 days.

The BCB majority decision stated, however, that the department must negotiate with the union before implementing such a modification. "We find that the department must bargain with the CEA over any imposition of or changes in the limitation on the accrual and use of compensatory time and related procedures," the 4-2 decision stated.

The BCB ruling suggested that the city address the matter during the contract talks with the union.