The Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (O.P.B.A)
IN RE CITY OF GREEN: SERB AGAIN TAKES ON THE PART-TIME QUESTION
By: Mark Volcheck, Esq.
An employer’s attempt to utilize part-time workers to perform work traditionally done by full-time bargaining unit workers can be the source of significant tension and dispute. Full-time bargaining units generally take the position that their work and potential for overtime should be protected from being contracted out to lesser paid non-union employees. Among safety forces, full-time units additionally oppose the introduction of part-time employees on the basis of officer safety, as similarly experienced and dedicated personnel are vital to confronting the profession’s dangers. In the case of In re City of Green, SERB No. 14-01, 2014 OH SERB LEXIS 1 (2/20/14), the State Employment Relations Board held that the City of Green committed unfair labor practices by unilaterally reassigning bargaining unit work performed exclusively by full-time firefighters to part-time non-bargaining unit firefighters and by refusing to bargain collectively with the Union over such reassignment. The Board’s holding effectively warns employers that any intention to reassign the work of a full-time safety service bargaining unit to part-time employees must be subjected to the procedural protections of fact-finding and conciliation.
Prior to June of 2001, the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Green and its full-time firefighter bargaining unit referenced part-time, non-bargaining unit employees, but as the City moved to an exclusively full-time firefighter staff, the parties agreed to delete part-time references in the agreement. Since June of 2001, the City’s Fire Department has been staffed exclusively with full-time firefighters/paramedics (firefighters) and the emergency response and related safety-service work performed in the City’s Fire Division has been performed exclusively by full-time bargaining unit members.
In 2010 and 2011, the parties negotiated a successor collective bargaining agreement. During the first bargaining session for a successor agreement, the City presented the Union with a proposal to eliminate a minimum staffing clause in the collective bargaining agreement that required the City’s Fire Department to be staffed each shift by ten (10) on-duty, full-time firefighters. Additionally, at this session, the City handed the Union a “Notice of Intent” wherein the City announced its intent “to establish and utilize part-time firefighter/medics to assist in avoiding overtime, covering time off, meeting its service needs and performing duties that it otherwise determines necessary.”
The parties proceeded to fact-finding where the City proposed to eliminate the minimum staffing clause and proposed to add language allowing the City to establish part-time firefighter positions. The fact-finder rejected such proposal. At conciliation, the City abandoned such proposals. Instead, it proposed that minimum full-time staffing be reduced from ten to nine under certain circumstances. The parties agreed to such language in mediation prior to the conciliation hearing. Thus, the successor agreement included no language allowing the City to use part-time personnel.
After the successor agreement was executed, the Fire Chief issued a memorandum announcing that the City “will begin using part-time fire medics to supplement (their) response shift staffing in the very near future. . . .” The Union requested to bargain the issue, but the City refused. Approximately (3) months later, the City hired part-time firefighters to perform emergency response work. Thereafter, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with SERB alleging that such refusal to bargain and unilateral action constituted violations of R.C. 4117.11(A)(1)&(5).
The Board’s analysis finding the unfair labor practices is plain and clear-cut. Pursuant to R.C. 4117.08(A), all matters pertaining to wages, hours, or terms and other conditions of employment and the continuation, modification, or deletion of an existing provision of a collective bargaining agreement are subject to collective bargaining between the public employer and the exclusive representative. Citing an extensive trail of SERB and court precedent, the Board reiterated its consistently held ruling that “the reassignment of work previously performed by members of a bargaining unit to persons outside the unit is a mandatory subject for collective bargaining under R.C. 4117.08(A) & (C).” In re City of Green, 2014 OH SERB LEXIS 1, 10-11; quoting Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. State Employment Relations Board, 40 Ohio St.3d 257, 262 (1988). Accordingly, the City’s unilateral reassignment of bargaining unit work and refusal to bargain over such reassignment constituted unfair labor practices.
As a remedy, the Board ordered that the City return to the status quo ante the bargaining unit work of full-time firefighters in the City of Green Fire Division prior to the City’s hiring of part-time firefighters. By such order, the City must return to utilizing only full-time bargaining unit employees to perform the work of the bargaining unit. Additionally, SERB ordered that the City of Green cease and desist from interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights by such unfair labor practices. R.C. 4117.11(A)(1)&(5).
The Board made a point in its decision to refute the City’s argument that this case renders the management rights set forth in R.C. 4117.08(C) meaningless. However, the Board’s decision does place the issue of reassignment at the negotiating table. If the subject is brought up at the table as part of a negotiation for a successor agreement or initial agreement, the matter will ultimately be decided by a conciliator if the parties are unable to reach agreement. If it is brought up as a proposal by the employer during mid-term bargaining, such can only be imposed by the employer after bargaining to impasse in the extraordinarily rare circumstance where such immediate action is necessary due to: (1) exigent circumstances unforeseen at the time of negotiations or (2) legislative action taken by a higher level legislative body after the agreement became effective that requires a change to conform to the statutes. In re City of Toledo, SERB No. 11-01, 2011 OH SERB LEXIS 22. It is most difficult to conceive a scenario where either of those conditions can be met relative to the subject of reassigning bargaining unit work.
The heavy-handed tactics of the City to impose its own sense of industrial justice irrespective of its duty to bargain under the Ohio Collective Bargaining Act was deservedly shot down by the Board in City of Green. Such decision highlights the importance of the Act’s protections and the necessity of each bargaining committee to be prepared to successfully negotiate and/or block reassignment of work proposals at the table.
Education is Key in Managing Member Expectations
By: Daniel J. Leffler
With regard to collective bargaining, historically in the public sector, employees could expect general wage increases in the 3-4% range for each year. A review of the SERB Wage Settlement Report indicates that statewide wages increased an average of 2.94% from 2000-2008. The average Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) or annual inflation rate during that period was 2.82% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a former firefighter in 2001, our local saw wage increases in the 4-5% range following 9-11. Many groups probably saw increases greater than 3% during that period with an average wage increase of 3.7% in 2001 according to SERB. The CPI rose 3.73% in 2001. It is, at least anecdotally, fair to say that wage increases were directly related to inflation in order for employees to maintain the value of their purchasing Dollar. For healthcare, the percentage of employees actually contributing toward healthcare premiums was about 50% and, of those contributing, employee contribution rates were well under $100/month. Ancillary Benefits, such as longevity, bonus pays, holiday pay, and vacation accrual were fairly stable and one could expect to seek increases in benefits each year.
Then the economic issues in 2009 came, followed by Governor Kasich’s attack on public sector bargaining through SB5. At least for public safety forces, which were once thought of as recession and layoff proof, a hard reality started to hit. Although SB5 was defeated at the state level, what we started to see was local governments taking the same approach; i.e.: reducing or eliminating ancillary benefits, demands that employees pay 15% of their healthcare cost, minimal wage increases, wage freezes or worse wage reductions and layoffs.
There is a lingering impression by employees that a 3% wage increase is still the norm and that once the local and federal economies started to emerge from the economic issues of 2009, there should be some form of catch-up (not the sauce). Many times bargaining groups say that since they took wage freezes for three years, they now should get a 9% increase in year 1 of the CBA to make up for lost time. However, according to SERB data, statewide wages increased by an average of 1.28% from 2009-2012 and it appears likely that the average for 2013 will be approximately 1.5%. From 2009-2013, the CPI rose an average of 1.73%. If we follow the same logic as the wage increases for the early 2000s, the actual wage increases since 2009 compared to the CPI are only about one-half of one percent behind the CPI benchmark. Therefore, it does not appear that significant wage increases are likely in order to “catch-up” for previous freezes.
Further compounding the issue is the significant increase in healthcare premiums. According to the 2013 SERB Report on the Cost of Health Insurance, healthcare premiums have increased by 115% since 2000. As a result, employers have been attempting to shift more of the burden of healthcare to employees. In 2013, nearly 90% of employees contributed toward the cost of healthcare premiums with a statewide average contribution rate of 12%. The evidence suggests that neutrals have been buying into the employer demands.
Obviously, every jurisdiction has its own particular facts and circumstances. However, as the local advocate, the bargaining committee needs to be aware of the practical difficulties in obtaining wage and benefit packages similar to those prior to 2009. In addition to local factors and financial considerations, generally speaking, the trend continues that neutrals (fact-finders and conciliators) are more conservative than in the past.
So reality is not matching the members’ expectation and trying to educate employees is a difficult task, particularly where conciliation is an all-or-nothing outcome. Conciliation entails a decision between two specific and often widely diverse proposals and neutrals select the most financially reasonable position. Although the members expect and deserve 3-4% wage increases and that their cost of healthcare will remain consistent, that is not the present reality regardless of a jurisdiction’s financial ability. When engaged in fact-finding or conciliation, the bargaining committee must fashion a final position that is reasonable and often far less than the members’ expectations. As a consequence, members may be frustrated and perhaps angry when the outcome of negotiations do not meet these expectations.
The key for a local advocate is to first understand these constraints and second to educate members related to bargaining in the present reality. While comparables between the local jurisdiction and surrounding employees performing similar work are vital in the dispute settlement process, they can also be useful in managing the membership’s expectations prior to the bargaining process. Information is essential in keeping the members’ expectations well grounded and consistent with reality.
Tips on Interviewing Juveniles
By: Sherri Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecutor
Imagine you get a call for a fight at your local mall. When you arrive, the mall security tells you that several people were involved. An 18-year-old male is en route to the hospital with an abdominal stab wound. The witnesses and suspects are between the ages of 13 and 19.
Should you handle interviewing the juveniles the same way you handle interviewing an adult? Does it matter if the juvenile is a witness or suspect?
Generally, the same rules for police interviews of adults apply to police interviews of juveniles. However, you must take extra care to ensure that the juvenile fully understands his rights. Police should consider the juvenile’s age and apparent cognitive ability to decide whether the juvenile is capable of waiving his rights and speaking with the police.
Age is not always an obvious indicator of the juvenile’s ability to knowledgeably waive Miranda rights. Certainly a 16- or 17-year-old without cognitive disabilities can be expected to competently waive his Miranda rights or refuse to speak with police. But what about someone who is 14 or 15? My office has seen many juveniles younger than 14 effectively waive their rights prior to an interrogation.
The witnesses to the mall fight in our example are free to speak with police if they choose. They are also free to refuse. This applies to witnesses of any age.
Similarly, suspects in custody are free to waive their Miranda rights regardless of their age. However, police should take steps to ensure that juveniles meet the standard of “knowingly and voluntarily” waiving their rights.
Does a parent or guardian need to be present when you interview a juvenile suspect? Like adults, juveniles have the right to request an attorney be present during an interrogation. Juveniles also have the right to request their parent or legal guardian be present.
The appellate courts have held that there is no constitutional requirement of parental or guardian presence during juvenile interviews. However, police need to ensure to the best of their ability that the juvenile thoroughly understands his Miranda rights and is voluntarily speaking with police. The presence of a parent or guardian during the interview is another factor that must be considered when determining whether the juvenile is sufficiently waiving his rights.
In general, the rights afforded juveniles and adults for interview purposes are the same. But it is important to remember that what might not be considered a custodial interview requiring Miranda warnings when an adult is questioned, may be considered a custodial interview when a juvenile is questioned. In addition, there are several additional factors that must be weighed when determining whether a juvenile suspect’s Miranda rights have been properly waived. This includes the juvenile’s age and apparent level of comprehension, as well as the presence of a parent/guardian or counsel. Police should also be on the lookout for signs that the juvenile waived his rights out of fear or because he did not fully understand those rights.
This article is not to be considered legal advice. Please consult your police legal advisor regarding any legal issue.
Six Years Later and Still Fighting to Recover
by S. Randall Weltman, Esq.
September of this year will mark 6 years since the wholesale collapse of the U.S. economy. As big of a blow that the Great Recession was to the OPBA’s membership, it was never contemplated that it would take 6 years to recover from!
It did not help that during the long, slow battle back to normalcy other harmful shots were delivered to the core of the OPBA’s membership, public employees working for municipalities and counties. One was the state’s recent reduction and deletion of both its local government funds and the estate tax. These moves reduced and eliminated revenue that was vital to our employers at the exact time that their revenue was already diminishing from the recession.
Another blow was Senate Bill 5 and its implicit backlash against public employees. While Senate Bill 5 was beaten back it has left lingering effects, all negative in nature. One such negative is my belief that SERB and its neutrals have shifted their thinking and attitudes in a way that is conducive to our employers’ loss of those important revenue streams.
It is now apparent that the state’s annual grant of local government revenue and the funds derived from the estate tax served as our employers’ “margin” or their “house money”, the dough that they depended on getting every year in varying but large amounts. This was the money that our employers often used to fund wages and benefits, allowing us to slowly but steadily negotiate our pay packages to respectable, “middle-class” levels.
The elimination of these monies, spread out over the last few years, has allowed every one of the OPBA’s employers to truthfully declare that it has lost significant revenue. And unless that employer has the demographic composition that produces growing income tax revenue, that employer has had some powerful arguments in favor of “towing the line” on wages and benefits.
As you know, when we can not get an employer to offer a reasonable settlement on wages, benefits and healthcare the only recourse we have to get more is to use SERB’s fact-finding/conciliation process. Those are the proceedings before a professional neutral who will consider the facts and certain factors and then dictate the outcome of the parties’ negotiations.
You might recall that per the terms of Senate Bill 5, the fact-finding process was to be altered in favor of limiting the fact-finder’s so call “free reign” to impose a fair settlement. Conciliation, per the bill, was to be modified so drastically as to render it virtually ineffective and useless.
Senate Bill 5’s proponents complained loudly that the neutrals on SERB’s roster were beholden to the unions and not sensitive to the specific needs of the employers or their communities. They maintained that these neutral “outsiders” had too much power over local officials and the locality’s issues. Senate Bill 5 was designed to reverse what its supporters perceived as a biased process.
Even though Senate Bill 5 was repealed, SERB has apparently taken heed of its anti-public employee sentiment. In the last few years, SERB has clearly modified the fact-finding selection process so that we are offered neutrals that we are unfamiliar with and who are unfamiliar with our jurisdictions. More and more the “panels” of neutrals offered by SERB to the OPBA and its Cleveland area employers are from the Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo areas instead of from Northeast Ohio, as in the past. I suspect that our area’s neutrals are now being offered to downstate parties in an attempt by SERB to alleviate any claims of bias.
Furthermore, we have learned that SERB is now “training” its neutrals in a manner that is conducive to addressing other Senate Bill 5 elements. I do believe that SERB has urged its neutrals to more strongly consider “the public’s interest” when making their recommendations and rulings. And I am convinced that this has resulted in decisions far less favorable to us than those received even a few years ago.
Where does all of the foregoing put us, or leave us? Much like the world in which we live, the “have” cities and counties are now back to doing ok; restoring lost positions, granting raises and acting reasonable in regard to health care costs. Then there are the “have-not” jurisdictions which, because of the nature of their community, have not recovered because their income tax or sales tax have not grown sufficiently.
The have-nots really miss that “house money” and their miss results in substandard offers and below average settlements. When we challenge those offers in fact-finding and conciliation it is harder than ever to get a really good result. Ah, such is life 6 years after the outset of the financial crisis.
Meanwhile, I am not sure how good of a “go” these neutrals are having here in Ohio given the atmosphere and the persistent decline of union membership. Based on the simple law of “supply and demand” this period of time can not be favorable for a career as a neutral.
There really is no factor that can control or limit the “supply” of neutrals. Pretty much anyone can hang a shingle and vie for work as a neutral. While all neutrals have to meet certain standards to be on the SERB roster and even more standards to be on the American Arbitration Association (AAA”) or Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”) rosters, and even more for entry into the National Academy of Arbitrators, all can and do ultimately compete for the same work. This makes for a lot of supply which ultimately means that they all work less frequently if not for less money unless, of course, the “demand” for their services outstrips their supply.
Unfortunately for the neutrals the demand for their services is declining and really shows no prospects for a pick-up. Some of the slack in demand for neutrals is attributable to the slow but steady drop in union membership during the last several years. Fewer union members translates into fewer collective bargaining agreements meaning fewer grievance procedures and fewer grievances to arbitrate, or disputes to mediate or otherwise resolve.
I believe that even within the existing union/management situations there are less grievances that are ultimately arbitrated. No doubt that the economy has forced some employers to be more conciliatory now that their budgets for outside counsel and other legal costs have been cut. Or, maybe we can say that the parties are familiar enough with each other and the reality of each situation so as to permit them to more readily settle matters. Either way, being a financially successful, full-time neutral these days must be quite a challenge.
Monitoring Risk in a Volatile Market
Determine Your Need for Risk
Many individuals will claim they are adverse to a high level of risk, while others embrace it and feel that a long-term strategy can make up for any short-term losses. However, it is still prudent to try to mitigate and control risk at all stages in an attempt to manage your long-term returns. I think "risk" is the most widely misunderstood investment concept. The consequences can be dire—running out of money before you run out of time. My favorite framework for thinking about risk looks at risk in three ways: your willingness, your ability, and your need to take risk. Most individuals can measure their willingness and ability for risk, but few factor their actual need to take on an appropriate level of risk.
Risk is often defined as the odds of losing money or the chance of getting a return different from that which you expect. Against this backdrop many individuals—understandably—focus on their willingness to endure "risk." Others will focus on their ability to take risk. These investors will ask themselves if, given their age, income or profession, they have enough time, future earnings or job stability to stomach risk.
But the question that I don't hear asked nearly enough is whether or not one needs to take risk. For example, take a 65-year-old retired police officer with an investment portfolio and no debt maintaining an all-equity portfolio. His living expenses are more than fully covered by his pension, required minimum distributions, and his reduced Social Security benefit. In this case the "need" to take excessive risk is not there even if the willingness is. On the other end of the spectrum is the 22-year-old new hire Patrolman who elects to put his entire 457(b) in a stable or fixed fund. In this case, the willingness to take risk is absent but the need for "risk," in the face of potential long run inflation, would be high. In both scenarios, they did not consider what their need for risk should be.
Everyone’s comfort level of risk can be different, and the outcome of performance is likely to be affected by that level. However, with proper diversification and active management of your portfolio, there are ways to control and alleviate your level of risk, while still allowing for potential returns that can meet your long-term goals. Having a well structured, diversified portfolio is a prudent way to help manage your risk level. Some people prefer to have professionals manage their account for them, so it takes the emotion out of the decision making. This can help prevent the “panic sell”, which may turn into a “buy high and sell low strategy”.
So how does the typical investor’s returns compare to some of the major market indices over the past 20 years? To make it very simple, the S&P 500 averaged 7.8% per year, while the Barclays Capital US Aggregate Bond Index returned 6.5% per year over the same time period. A 50/50 blend of these two asset classes would have yielded a nominal annualized return of 7.2%.
However, the average investor's 20 year annualized return is dismal compared to those figures. According to an analysis by Dalbar, the average investor earned 2.1% over the twenty year period ended Dec. 31, 2011. But wait, it gets even worse. After including inflation, the average investor actually got a negative real return. Inflation (CPI) grew at an annualized rate of 2.5% during that same period. So the average investors' net real return was -0.4%. The average investor is not very good at capturing the market return of a simple balanced portfolio, never mind outperforming it.
As you can see, many investors make decisions based on “short-term concerns, crowding out longer-term, more rational strategies,” and are overly influenced by the daily noise about stocks in the media. By taking emotion out of the equation, you are more likely to benefit from a "Buy low, sell high” strategy. Note that that phrase does not call for buying at the "lowest" or selling at the "highest," which is, of course, impossible to do on a consistent basis. It simply recommends a process of harvesting those holdings that have done well, and reseeding a portfolio with holdings that have underperformed. This, essentially, is what rebalancing a portfolio is all about: a prudent strategy for managing an investor's overall risk. Most people think that "buying low and selling high" is the magic formula for above-average returns, but in fact it is a strategy for managing portfolio risk and many individuals aren’t able to do this by themselves.
While risk and reward go hand in hand, it's important to think about all three elements of risk—your willingness, ability, and need to take risk—before making investment decisions. If after reviewing your current portfolio or level of risk you have questions, feel free to give us a call.
Lineweaver Financial Group s 9035 Sweet Valley Drive s Valley View, OH 44125 s 216.520.1711
Securities offered through Sigma Financial Corporation. Member FINRA/SIPC.
Lineweaver Financial Group is independently owned and operated.
It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Diversification and asset allocation does not guarantee against loss or ensure a profit. They are methods used to help manage risk.
by Kevin Powers, Esq.
If you read Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, you see that it starts out with a very broad definition of “public record”: “…ANY record that is kept by ANY public office…” The statute then goes on to define nearly two dozen exceptions.
One such exception is medical records. Medical records could include things like the Family Medical Leave paperwork you had to submit in order to be eligible for leave. It could also include doctors’ notes you are required to submit when using sick leave.
But what if you are sent for a medical or psychological evaluation by your employer who suspects you of being unfit for duty? Does the doctor’s report in such cases constitute a medical record? According to Ohio courts, the answer is “no”. Such records are public records that your employer must disclose to anyone requesting them.
In State ex rel Toledo Blade v. Telb, the newspaper was investigating a Sheriff’s deputy and requested his personnel file. Based on what was provided the newspaper learned that the Sheriff had sent the deputy for psychological evaluations but the reports from the psychologists had not been disclosed with the Sheriff arguing that they were medical records exempt from disclosure.
The court looked at the statutory definition of medical records as “...any document… that pertains to the medical history, diagnosis prognosis or medical condition of a patient that is generated and maintained in the process of medical treatment.”
Here the court reasoned that the psychological reports were not generated in the process of medical treatment and must be disclosed. While this decision was a common pleas court ruling, it has been cited with approval and followed by higher courts including the Ohio Supreme Court. See, State ex rel. Strothers v. Wertheim.
In State ex rel. Multimedia v. Snowden the Ohio Supreme Court determined that pre-hire psychological evaluations are public records. Presumably, the results of pre-hire and fit for-duty medical examinations are available to the public.
So armed with this knowledge what can you do if you are ordered to submit to a medical/psychiatric evaluation? Most medical doctors would instinctively believe that whatever report they send to the employer would remain confidential. You should explain to the doctor that such reports are in fact public records and ask that he/she use discretion on what is put into the report.
- Informational Pickets Freed from the 10 Day Notice Requirement
- Brady v. Maryland
- Another Attack Against Labor Unions
- General Membership Meeting March 6th
- New Law Enforcement Bulletin Updates
- Message from the Executive Director
- The Case for a Facility Dog Program
- Taking Full Advantage of Your Available Pension Benefits
- The Changing Real Estate and Interest Rate Environment
- How to make the Employee premium contribution for health insurance benefits: “Very fair and very balanced”
- Contract Interpretation: What Do The Words Of A Contract Mean And How Do We Determine That Meaning?
- The SERB 2013 Report on Health Insurance Costs
- The New Normal: Negotiating in the Age of Health Insurance Exchanges
- The Grievance and Arbitration Process - Part II
- Message from the Executive Director
- Letter of Appreciation
- Valued Supporters of the OPBA Charitable Foundation
- Which 457 Deferred Compensation Plan is Right for You?
- In Memoriam
- A Picture is Worth… A Guilty Verdict