HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2009.12.09 - 9749MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION 409314
BY: Human Resources Committee, Sue Ann Douglas, Chairperson
IN RE: HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT — FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2010 LABOR
AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE OAKLAND COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION (0CDSA)
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson. Lathes and Gentlemen.
WHEREAS the County of Oakland and the °COSA, have been negotiating a contract for
approximately 365 Sheriff's Office employees covered by the Corrections and Court Services
bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS a seven year agreement based on the attached fact finder's recommendation
has been reached for the period October 1, 2004, through September 30. 2010; and
WHEREAS this agreement provides for a 2% increase for Fiscal Year 2004; a 3%
increase for Fiscal Year 2005; a 2% increase for Fiscal Year 2006, a 2% increase for Fiscal Year
2007, a 1% increase for Fiscal Year 2008, a 2% increase for Fiscal Year 2009 and a 2.5%
decrease for Fiscal Year 2010; and
WHEREAS effective with the ratification of this agreement employees in this bargaining
unit's health care contribution shall be the same as the 2009 bi-weekly health benefit contribution
provided for in Miscellaneous Resolution #07216; and
WHEREAS new hires to this bargaining unit, after the ratification of this agreement, will
no longer be eligible for a retiree health care, but will be covered by a Health Savings Account
with an annual County contribution of $1,300 as provided for in Miscellaneous Resolution
#05258; and
WHEREAS the agreement based on the fact finder's recommendation has been
reviewed by your Human Resources Committee, which recommends approval of the agreement.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners approves the
proposed agreement between the County of Oakland and the OCDSA covering the period of
October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2010, and that the Board Chairperson on behalf of the
County of Oakland, is authorized to execute said agreement as attached.
Chairperson. on behalf of the Human Resources Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing
resolution.
1-I1/MAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
0-47
HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Summary of agreements for Fiscal Year 2004 — 2010 between the County of Oakland and
the Oakland County Deputy Sheriffs Association, not submitted to fact finder for his
recommendation:
Article Change to Contract
Grievance Procedure: Updated rotating arbitrator list
Seniority and
Layoff. Recall,
and Transfers:
Defined seniority as a result of the creation of two bargaining
units: Law Enforcement and Corrections and Court Services
Promotions: Provides for promotional opportunities between the two bargaining
units
General Conditions: Eliminate requirement to send employees to Police Academy by
their seventh year of employment and reduce number of employees
sent annual to Academy from 10 to 6.
Adds "Special Conference" provision to discuss any matter of
concern to the parties.
Dues Check Off: Restore Voluntary dues deductions, eliminated Agency Shop
provision
Scheduling Leave: Gives three or more "consecutively scheduled work days" priority
Location Preference: The annual Location Preference process will be conducted by the
union. Employees on leave will be eligible to participate.
Special Assignments: Defines the bargaining unit's special assignments and the process
to request the assignment
Overtime: Defines how overtime will be offered and mandated as a result
of the two bargaining units.
Personal Mileage: Pay at the current IRS rate
12/9/09
12/02/2809 13:07 3139622937 GEORGE I ROUMELL OR PAGE 00/26
FACIUMBEMLIMEQUACM
M0111' AND R.K0.11 1.
ALPEARANCES:
FOR OAKLAND COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION:
James M. Moore, Attorney
Ken Hiller, President OCDSA
Brian Partogian, Alternate Chief Steward
Chad Engelhardt, Attorney
FOR COUNTY OF OAIMAND:
Malcolm D. Brown, Attorney
Thomas Eaton, Deputy Director HiR
Robert Daddow, Deputy County Executive
M* Charles Snarey, Sheriffs Dept
Major Demon Shields, Retired
Amy Sullivan, Consultant
Karen Jones, Labor Relations Supervisor
Tim Soave, Manager, Fiscal Services
David Hieber, Managers Equalization
LtRIALM
The employees (lite Oakland County Sheriff's Office oovercd by this Fact Finding
Report have been working under a Collective Bargaining Agreement that expired on September
30, 2003. It is now December 2009. For six years, thme employee have not experienced any
increase in wages or any other consideration of benefits and working conditions. In September
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES
MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
FACT FINDING
In the Matter of
OAKLAND COUNTY
-and- MERC Fact Finding
Case No. DOS A-0055
OAKLAND COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERTFFS ASSOCIATION
12/02/2809 19:07 3139622937 GEORGE T RIOLHELL JR PAGE 84/26
2003, Michigan was not experiencing an economic downturn, 13y November 2009, Michigan
had experienmi more than a reeession, probably a depression, bad the highest unemployment in
the nation and the two automobile companies that went into bankruptcy had major presence in
Oakland County. In addition, the financial condition of the State of Michigan and its ability to
provide State aid to local governments is on the verge of collapsing.
There is a time where bargaining impasses must come to an end, contracts must be
tatified, and agreements must be signed for the benefit of both the employees and the Employer.
Now is the time. if the recommendations here are ratified by both parties, retroactive wages MU
be forthcoming in the near future so that holiday spending can be properly budgeted by
employees and holiday bills that come due in the new year QM be paid.
The parties should understand this is not an Act 312. Either party could reject this Feet
Finding Report. But if the Fact Finder's Report is *ejected and there is no ratitimtion, the six
year period of a contimied expired contract will be unnecessarily extended because, mike a
proceeding under Act 312, which this is not, the parties can reject the Fact Finder's Report Eind
continue negotiating. Such an approach in this anation would be tragic to both parties going six
years without a pay increase. Going six years without a pay increase should not be acceptable to
any employee in the bargaining unit.
It is necessary for the employees to have a conclusion to this marathon bargaining so as to
be able to plan their own personal budgets. Likewise, it is necessary for the County to have a
conclusion so that the County cult control its finances and avoid the financial disaster that struck
one of Oakland County's lasgest communities — Pontiac — and is now plaguing the State of
Michigan.
12/02/2009 1:7 X.39622337 GEORGE T ROUHELL JR PAGE 050'26
There are two events that impact on. the Fact Finder's Report and Recommendations.
One is dramatic change in the fulancik) climate from the time that the previous contract expired
and current/y. Second is the September 11, 2009 Opinion and Award issued under Act 312 in
Case No, DO .5 4-0055, authored by Donald F, Sugarman, Chairman, cowling Oakblild County
Deputy Sheriffs eligible for Act 312-
The Sugerman Panel hearings were conducted on substantive issues in July, August and
October 2008 based upon evidence that essentially preceded the current financial atmosphere in
Michigan.
The Sugermen Panel resolved major issues between the parties concerning pensions and
health Me,
There is no reason for this Feet Finder with two exceptions to recommend pension and
health care provisions different than those awarded by the majority of the Sugerman Panel
because this Fact Finder is now faced with an even more declining financ4a1 atmosphere.
In fact, though this Fact Finder will look to the Sugerman Panel majority awards on a
number of issues as guidance, he will not necessarily follow same because the financial situation
has substantially changed since The hearings bekre Chairman Sugennau- In addition, the
bargaining patterns in the County with other bargAirsing units will determine this Fact Finder's
recommendation as to some of the issues.
In the end, the employees covered by this Fact Finding and the Employer must tecogni'ze
"the Art of The possible" and bring this long negotiation journey to an end and, hopefully, accept
the recommendations herein.
-3-
12/02/2009 13:E7 2139622937 GSORGE T ROUMELL JP PAGE 06/26
11,treaustion
The Oakland County Deputy Sheriffs Association had represented a bargaining unit
consisting of a unit of Road Deputies, Dispatchers, employees in the Corrections and Court.
Service Divisions, the Circuit Court Investigators, and Forensic Laboratory employees. This
bargaining unit had a succession of Collective Bargaining Agreements with the County covering
the unit. The last Collective Bargaining Agreement expired OA September 30, 2001 Prier to the
expiration of that contract, the parties commenced bargaining.
Two events oCCU1Tea After almost three years, after the expiration of the previous
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Oakland County Deputy Sheriffs Association
("Association') filed a Petition for kbitration under Act 312 of Public Acts of 1969 on August
29, 2006. The County filed a Unit Clarification Petition with the Michigan Employment
Relations Commission seeking to sever the bargaining units as between Corrections Officers and
Road Deputies, taking the position that the employees in the Corrections and Court Services
DivisionS, the Chet* Court Investigators and the Forensic Laboratory employees were riOt
subject to Act 312 arbitration.
The Michigan Employment Relations Commission agreed with the County, holding that
the employees in the Corrections and Court Service& Division, the Forensic Laboratory
employees and the Circuit Court Investigators were not subject to arbitration under Act 312. "The
Michigan Employmeut Relations Conmission clarified the bargaining lira by Witting it into
two separate bargaining units — one for employees eligible for Act 312 (Law Enforcement
Deputies and Dispatchers) undone for non-Act 312 employees (Corrections and Court Services
Deputies, Circuit Court Investigators, and Forensic Laboratory employees).
GEORGE T ROUMFLL JR PAGE 07/26 12.032/2004 13:B7 2139622937
The Oakland County Deputy Sheri& s Association sled an appeal of iviERC's decision
and order to the Michigau Court of Appeals. On February 3,2002, the Conti of Appeals
afro:tiled NiERC's decision and order. The OCDSA sought leave to appeal from the Michigan
Supreme Court and it was denied, in the meantime, the Association petitioned for fact finding
for the non-eligible At 312 bargaining unit. The undersigned, George T. Rournell, Jr-, was
appointed Fact Finder, The Association and the County did proceed with the Act 312 process on
behalf of the At 312 eligible employees. As already noted, Donald F. Sugerman was appointed
the Cluirman of thc Act 312 Panel which on September 11, 2009 issued its opinion and awards.
The paties met with the Fact Finder several times and conducted pre-trial proceedlings to
eliminate certain issues by agreement. Subsequently, the parties conducted fact finding hearings
before the Fact Fizder on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 and on. Tuesday, October 20, 2009.
The hoes
Following the July 15, 2009 hearing, the Fact Finder conducted farther meetings with the
bargaining teams exploring the foots. By the time of the final meeting on October 20, 2009, them
remained &mad. 22 issues to he resolved as to which this Fact Finder is to make a
recommendation concerning same. These issues included duration, wages, wage retroactivity,
pension issues, health care insurance issues, representation issues, holiday issues, compensatory
time issues, adoption or reference and investigator), end disciplinary procedures. On some of the
issues there were sub-issues that accounted for the count of around 22 issues.
The criteria
In Pact finding, the Fact Finder relies on recognized criteria as a guide in making foglings
of fact and, ultimately, recommendations. The most recognized list of criteria are those adopted
-5-
(a)
(b)
(d)
(a)
(t)
(g)
(12)
12/02/2009 13:7 3139;22927 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 08/26
by the Legislature when enacting Act 312 of Public Acts of 1969. MCI, 423.239, Suction 9 of
the Act sets forth the following or
Where there is no agreement between the parties, or where there is an
agreement but the patties have begun negotiations or discussions looking
to a tleve agreernent or amendment of the existing agreement, and wage
rates or other conditions of employment under the proposed new or
amended agreement are in dispute, the arbitration panel 4tiall base its
findings, opinions and order open the following factors, as applicable.
The lawful authority of the employer,
stipulations of the patties.
The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability
of the unit of government to meet those costs.
Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment
of the employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the
wages, hours and contittions of employment of other employees
performing similar services and with other employees generally.
(i) in public employinent in comparable communities
(ii) in private eropioyment in comparable communities.
Tho average cousumer prices fQr good and services, commonly
known as the cast of living.
The overall compensation presently received by the employees
including direct wage compensatlan, vacations, holidays and
other excused time insurance and pensions, medical and
hospitalization bene6ts, time continuity and stability of
e.inploymen,t, aml all other benefits received.
Changes in amy of the foregoing circumstances during the
pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which are
normally or traditionally talm into consideration in the
determination of wages, bolus and conditions of employment
through voluntary coliective bargaittlo& mediation, fact finding,
arbitration or otherwise between die parties, in the public service
or in private employment
Section 9(h) is a catch-all, re to speak, in that there are criteria that have been recognized
-6-
12/02/2009 13:07 3139622937 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE a9/26
by fact finders that should be mentioned at this point Among these is the bargaicang history of
the parties, both over past collective barigiining agreements and during current negotiations.
Such history gives some indication of what the parties might ultimately settle for in their
collective bargaining agreement.
There is the bargaining history, nan-Azii, whet occurred during bargaining between the
parties and between other bargaining units in the County. The bargaining history in this case is
tied into the internal comparables plus what did happen in the Act 312 proceedings chaired by
Donald F. Sugerman. Those proceedings addressed some major issues that impact my
recommendations.
Them is also the "art of the possible" which is a criteria that recognizes that collective
bargaining involves compromise on the part of the parties. Compromise by its nature is really a
recognition of the sat of the possible in given negotiations.
A key criteria in this situation is comparisons with other Oakland County bargaining unit
that are not subject to Act 312 as well as giving consideration to the Sugerman Award. But the
importance of ronsidering other Cowl), units who are not Mt 312 eligible is to recognize the
bargaining patterns in Oakland County, particularly in these economic difficult times.
The financial ability is an important criteria. This becomes critical in these negotiations
because of the change in the financial climate from the time that the contract expired and
presently. The fact that Oakland County has managed its financial affairs with prudence =mot
be a r=son to ignore the financial climate because an irresponsible recommendation could end
up to the disadvantage of the employees, peahapa causing unwanted layoffs.
The Fact Finder has emphasized internal comparables including the Sugarman Act 312
-7-
12/02/2,089 12:07 3123622937 GEORGE I ROUMELL JR PAGE 1U/26
award as well as the County's bargaining with other bargaining units in the County. The reason
the Fact Finder has emphasized internal comparables is because the Fact Finder is dealing with
the economics of Oakland County; that the internal courparables suggest a pattern that has been
followed in Oakland County in these dificult economic times, The pattern sets the tone.
And, of course, to repeat, "change in any of the foregoing circumstances during the
pendency of the arbitration proceedings" is particularly relevant to these proceedings because of
the fiscal erisie facing the nation and in particular the State of Michigan.
As suggested in the Prologue, there is the art of the possible. There is only so much that
can be gained in one negotiations, particularly when the negotiations axe occurring in
tiercessionaryirecessienary times.
Econoinict— Fluvial Ability of the County
To understaed the econemics, i,e, the financial ability of Oakland County as applied to
this round of context negotiations, one must recognize that if the contract had been able to be
negotiated in due time and completed within a reasonable proximity of when the previous
contract expired in October '2003, this contract would have been settled long before America., and
particularly Southeast Michigan, was faced with the current economic erisie. This is particularly
so when one realizes that the crisis in the automobile industry did not surface publicly until the
last 15 MOZ11113 with its concomitant impact on Southeast Michigan, including Oakland County.
What the parties now find themselves in is asking a Fact Finder to neeke
recommendations in a financially charged crisis atmosphere.
This fact is not lost on the Fact Finder and should not be lest on the parties. This is
December 2009. Two of the big three automobile companies have been in bankruptcy (General
-8-
12/02/2009 13:07 3135622937 GEORGE T ROWELL JR P46E 11/26
Motors and Chrysler), both of which have faeilities in Oakland Comity. Cleneral Motors is the
largest employer in Oakland County and continues to =IMMO layoffs. The largest Ford plant in
Oalclaod County has now been permanently closed.
Private home foreclosures have dramatically increased in the County. The state
equalization value and taxable value of both commercial and residential property in Oaldand
County have dropped.
The unemployment rate in Southeast Michigan is about 15%, the highest in the nation.
The State of Michigan that provides State aid and gams to the County has been and is facing a
budget crisLs impacting revenues flowing from the State to the County.
Succinctly put, the financial health of Oakland County has been affected by the fmaneiel
downturn.
What follows we some examples of the impact on the County's ability to raise revenue.
• In the past, Oakland County had received $60 million a year from the State with
$30 minima, in direct State grants and $30 million, in matching fun& from the
State to obtain federal grants. Because of the State budget erisis, Oakland Comity
cannot plan on continuing to receive this money.
• Approximately 60% of the County's revenue conies from property taxes. In 2007,
the County received $259 million in property tax revenue. In 2009, based upon
the drop in property values and mortgage foreclosures, the revenue dropped
approximately 4%, or by $7 million. The projection is that there will be another
1314) drop in MO and another /2% drop in 2011 and a $% drop in 2012 —
meaning that in 2012 the County will receive $181 million in revenue from
-9-
12/02/2009 13:0? 3139622937 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 12/26
property tax.
• The County receives about 25% of its revenue for services. The demand for such
services is decreasing.
• Although the State temporarily shifted State aid by permitting the counties to tax
in three years for four years, this money is running out and there is no assurance
that the State with its &Lancia/ situation will restore State shared revenue,
Faced with a deteriorating financial situation with the drop in revenue, the County has
taken the following steps to stabilize its financial picture.
• The County has closed certain facilities, includiug in the Sheriff's Office,
namely, the Trustee Camp, the Southfield Fanility, and the Boot Camp. The
Frank Gramm Facility is scheduled to begin closing in faivary 2010. Other
departments la addition to the Sheriffs Office have been required to make
budget reductions.
▪ 'rile County hes had a lifting freeze.
• The County budget for fiscal year 2010 c.ontains a wage reduction of 2.5% for all
ranployees and has already negotiated said reduction with Most units.
The County's fiscal year is October 1 to September 30. In order to balance its budget for
fiscal year 2009, the County has had to utilize some reserve funds and take from its fund balance
because of MYCJIIIC shortfall.
If the County's current revenues continue to fall and the County 'must rely on its fund
balance to balance its budget as required by aw , the County viill he faced with a continuing
deteriorating financial situation.
-10-
12/02/2009 13:07 3139522337 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 13/26
There is one other point. One of the witnesses testifying before the Fact Finder was
Deputy County Executive Robert Daddow who explained, alone with other 'WitricSaeS, the
County's difficult financial situation. On cross-examination, he was asked by the Association
Advocate a question which noted that before Chairman Sugerman Mr. Daddow had given a more
positive statement about Oakland County's finances. When asked that, Mr. Daddow pointed out
that the financial climate had changed since the Sugerman bearing. This Fact Finder agrees, as
pointed out above.
The County's financial situation cannot be ignored. The situation is not lost on this Fact
Finder. It may bc fOr SotTle years involved in this contract dispute the financial considerations
were not as cogent as they are now because, back in 2003, the OcUlonlie downturn was not
generally predicted. But the economic downturn has happened. It has crane to Michigan. The
circumstances have changed even from the time that the hearinga before Chairman Sugerman
were completed in October 2008.
The parties cannot ignore tilt economic realities.
ti%ainiug_Iliatery —likternal Comparablrea
As this Fact Finder views the bargaining histray, this history is against a background of
tho Act 312 opinion and awards of the Sugerman Panel plus the internal comparables raid current
negotiated contracts with other bargaining units in the County. The 312 opinion and awards
answer some of the basic issues concerning health care and pensions. With two exceptions, and
these exceptions are controlled by the internal comparables, considering the financial condition
of the County there is no reason to change the pattern set by the Act 312 Sugennan Panel, Thus,
this Fact Finder, where applicable, has adopted the Sugearrian Panel rationale for the
12/02/2009 13:07 3i3622937
•
•••• GEORGE T ROLIMEUL jR PAGE 14/26
recommendations that follow. And where the Fact Finder is in disagmernent, he has been
persuaded by the bargaining pattern in the County as impacted by the County's deteriorating
financial situation. The Fact Finder believes that this is not the time to deviate Dom bargaining
patterns in the County or the County's history of bargaining. The whole point of this Report is to
get a contract and stabilize the County's finances so that a foundation for future fruitful
bargaining tor both parties can be established.
1. The Association had proposed a defined benefit plan available to all present unit
employees and applicable to new unit employees under MERS. The Sugerman award rejected
this proposal and awarded no KERS defined benefit plan. In doing so, the Sugerrn.an Panel
relied on the history of the move from defined benefit to defined contribution in Oakland County,
concluding that with this systaa there is no basis to revert to a defined benefit plan.. All other
bargaining units have a defined contribution plan. Since the Suigerman Panel settled this issue
and did so based upon the bargaining history in the County, there is no mason on this record nOT
to follow the same approaeli as the Sugentran Panel. This Fact Finder's recommendation will be
that there be no MEM defined benefit plan.
2. In the Act 312 case, both parties agreed to prohibit all new loans from the defined
contribution plan through their matching final offers. This Fact Finder agrees and will so
recommend such a prohibition.
3. Increase in Employer contribution to defined contribution plan to 10% for
employees hired after May 27, 199S with no retroactivity. This was an Association issue.
Chairman Sugenmur awarded this issue. However, there is a history Other bargaining units
have an 8% eontribution. The Corrections Officers have in the past had 1% more than the other
-12-
12/ 82/ 2909 13;07 3139622937 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 15/2G
non-312 bargaining units. The problem here is that with the economic downturn and its impact
on the County's finances, the County just cannot afford to treat the Corrections Unit any different
than other non-312 units. For this reason, the Fact Finder will recommend the status quo as to
the Employees contribution to the defined conttibution plan. This is not the time to make
changes. •
4. There was a controversy between the parties in the fact finding over the
proposition that employees hired after the date of the issuance of the Fact Finder's Report shall
only be eligible to participate in a health savings account forretiree health care. This was an
issue in the Act 312. The Act 312 Panel did not accept the propooal and made no change in.
retiree health care for new hires.
The problem, however, is that all other bargaining units have what the County has
proposed for new employees, namely, the participation in a health savings account for employees
hired after the date of the issuance of the Fact Finder's Report for retiree health care with the
County contributing $1,300 per year.
In this way, the County cart predict its cost for retiree health care. Arguments
were made that this amount MS not sufficient. But if this turns out to be the case, then this could
be the subject of future bargaining. It is based upon lc fact that the $1,300 retiree health savings
account for retiree health care for new employees is prevalent throughout the County that this
Fact Finder will recommend that new employees hired after the (late of the issuance of this Fact
Finder's Report shall only be eligible to participate in a health savings account for retiree health
cue with the County contributing $1,300 toward said savings account per year.
5. As to employee prescription co-pays, the Sugcnnen Panel ado pted a $A10325
43-
12/92/2099 13:97 3139522937 GaRGE T ROWELL JR PAGE 16/2S
ca-pay, This means $5.00 for a generic drug, $10.00 for brand name end $25.00 for non-
formulary. The Association before this Fact Finder asked for a 40 prescription per year cap at
which time the co-pay would revert back to $5.00. Chairman Sugarman rejected such a proposal.
Stet a proposal is not prevalent in other Oakland County bargaining units or in bargaining units
in general. For this reason, the recommendation would be the $5/$10/$25 co-pay proposal with
DO Cap.
6, Office Co-Pay. In the Act 312 case, both parties agreed to a $20 co-pay for (Ace
vsils as well as employee Master Medical deductibles of $2004400 through their matching 4nnl
offers. There is no reason not to have the same provisions in tile Corrections Unit contact. They
are reasonable and consistent with the internal annparables and what this Fact Finder has dubbed
the bargaining history.
7 The Employer asked the Act 312 Panel to delete all labor contract language
policies and benefit plan provisions under which bErrgaiaing unit eli2P/Drus are Provided cash
incentives for selecting CMM. PPO and FOS health care plans. The Association agreed to this
proposal in its final offer and the Sugerman Panel adopted the proposal. There is no reason why
this proposal should not apply to the Corrections Unit. For this reason, this Fact Finder will
recommend such a deletion,
8. The County proposed to eliminate HAP as a health care plan choice for employees
hired after the issuance of this Report. Such a proposal was made to the Sugarman Pallel. This
Fact Finder believes that as long as the County has provided an adequate health care plan, which
it has, to its employees, there is no reason not to gradually eliminate one particular plan. For this
reason, the Fact Finder will recommend that the HAP plan be eliminated f;:or new hires in the
-14-
12/02/280,9 13:07 3139622957 GEORGIE ,T ROUMELL JR PAGE 17/26
Corrections Unit.
9. The Sugerman Panel awarded as to employee health care contribution that the
contribution be Ed the 2008 contribution rate. Before the Fact Fizwien the County is urging a 2009
contribution rate. The Fact Finder bdieves that for both current and now employees the 2009
contribution rate should be followed because it was followed with other Oakland County
employee groups. The Fact Finder will so recommend.
10, The County's longstanding practice has been to treat all retirees, including Deputy
retirees, as part of a single retiree group. The County can alter non-core benefits, oo-pays and
deductibles of the retiree group. The Associatiou sought to change this in the Act 312, The
Sugarman Panel agreed to retain the Status quo. This Fact Finder would agree. There is no basis
to make such a change as being asked by the Association.
11. The Association seeks to pay the Assoeiation President additional two days per
week for onion activities aod to bank 32 paid hams per month for the grievance committee. This
was the same proposal as proposed to the Sugerman Panel. The Sugencaan Panel adopted the
County's propzAal, namely, the statu$ quo —no additional time offwith pay, no bank for
grievance committee. The Fact Finder finds no reason to deviate from the Sugarman approach,
even tbeagh the two units have been separated. The President is President of both units. It is
difficult to determine whether more time is needed. For this reason, this Fact Finder will
recommend no change as to the representation, issues.
12. Under the expired contract, Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve were treated as
holidays on certain days of the week The Association seeks to add these as holidays regardless
of the day of the week on which they fail, The Sugermen Panel adopted the Association's
-15-
12/432/2B09 13:@7 3139622917 GEOPGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 18/25
position. There is really no reason= to follow the agent= Panel as the Corrections Officers,
like the Deputies, ere in a 2417 operation and for this reason this Fact Finder will recommend that
Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve will be holidays regardless of the day of the week on which
they fan.
13. The AsseelatiOn has presented a proposal that there be a compensatory time bank,
the same proposal as presented in Act 312. The Sugerman Panel rejected such a proposal and
avian:led no compensatory time bank. There lane reason not to follow this same approach. This
Fact Finder recommends that there bc no compensatory time bank.
14. The Association sought in Act 312 to eliminate ianguage in the contraCt
incorporating all Board resolutions in effect on the date of the award, which was the County's
offer. This language has been in the contact for many years. It is in all of the County's
collective bargaining agreements. This proposal was rejected by the Sugerman Panel. There is
no rcisBon to adopt this proposal. Therefore, this Fact Finder recommends that the 0012traCt
incorporate all Board resolutions in effect on the date of this Fact Finder's Report and
Recommendations in accordance with the Act 312 Award,
15. Investigative and disciplinary procedures. The Fact Finder understands that the
County and the Association are now in the process of negotiating a disciplinary procedure. The
Fact Finder makes no recommendation on this issue and defers to the parties' negotiations.
Wars
To understand the wage issue, one must recognize the County's fiscal condition and its
concerns in this economic downturn. The County is balancing its budget which is projected on a
three year basis, based on relying on a reducing fund balance against a background of reduced
-16-
12/02/2009 13:07 3139622927 GEORGE T ROINELL JR PAGE 19/26
local tax revenue and reduced State aid. This situation was not as prevalent when the record
before Cliainnan Sugerrnan closed in October 2008, which was before the hill impact of the
economic crisis faced in Southeast Michigan MS realized.
Now, observe what happened in the Act 312 as to wages for each of the years and the
positions of the respective parties, and the ultimate awards;
Act 312 Petition of Act 312 PiNiti0IL
hy_4g Covell V&A A:tyard
Wages (Union issue)
a. VY 04 (10-01-03 to 9-30-04) 2% 2% 2%
b. FY 05 (0-01-04 to 9-30-05) 3% 3% 3%
e. FY 06 (10-01-05 to 9-30-09 2% 3% 3%
d, FY 07 (10-01-06 to 9-30-07) 2% 2% 2%
e. FY 08 (10-01-07 to 9-30-08) 0% 2% 2%
f. FY 09 (10-D1-08 to 9-30-09) 1% 2% 2%
The awards meant that for The six fiscal years involved the wage increase for the Deputies was
14%, In some years, namely, Fiscal Years 2004, 2005 and 2007, the last best offers of the parties
were the same. Before the Fact Finder, the County was willing to ofk.x the awarded amounts for
Fiscal Years 2004,2005 and 2007, For Fiscal Year 2006, the County was insisting on its ofiginal
2% position. For Fiscal Year 2008, the County was insisting on zero percent and for Fiscal Year
2009,1%.
The reason the County is insisting on zero percent for Fiscal Year 2008 is because the
other bargaining units have been making contributions to health care, whereas the Corrections
Officers have not and the County is seeking to recoup some of The contributions that should have
been made.
This would have meant a 10% package for the shr fiscal years.
Tha view of the Fuel. Finder is that The County, with the exception of Fiscal Year 2006,
-17-
12/02/2809 13:87 3139622937 GEORGE T ROI-NELL JR PAGE 2B/26
was prepared to offer the Corrections Unit through Fiscal Year 2007 the same package awarded
by the Sugenuan Panel, The County was still insisting that for Fiscal Year 2006 on a 2%
increase. This would mean for the four years the difference in wages would be 1% —10% versus
9%,
Where the differences widen as between the Act 312 award and the County's offer before
this Fact Finder, and before the Sugemian Panel, was in Fiscal YOUT5 2008 and 2009 as the state
and the ration began to approach financial difficulties. By Fiscal Year 2009, beginning October
1,2008, the financial difficulties had begun to arrive,
ff.-this Fact Finder accepts the County's proposal of 2% for Fiscal, Year 2006, and ups the
zero in Fiscal Year 2008 to 1%, and adopts 2% for Fiscal Year 2009, then the wage difference
between the Deputies and the Corrections Unit for the six years will be 2% —14% versus 12%.
Yet, within the County, the noa-312 employees were not receiving 14% dAring the six year
period. They all received 11%. Add to this the financial situation and the art of the possible.
The best ibis Fact Finder can recommend is a 12% package for six years, namely, as follow;
FY 04 (10-01-03 to 9-30-04) 2%
FY 05 (10-01-04 to 9-30-05) 3%
FY 06 (10-01-05 to 9-30-06) 2%
FY 07 (10-01-06 to 9-30-07) 2%
FY 08 (10-01-07 to 9-30-08) 1%
1-1Y 09 (10-01-08, to 9-30-09) 2%
But, even then, the County announced that it would not avec at this point to a contract unless
there was a seventh year, namely, Fiscal Year 2010 (10-01-09 to 9-30-10). The County hao
pointed out that the following six bargaining units have ratified a 2.5% wage reduction for Fiscal
Year 2010, namely:
12102/2009 13:07 313S-622437 GEORGE T ROWELL JR PAGE 21/26
Children's Village ((lomment Employees Labor COUrxil)
Prosecutors Investigators
Sail 1-tea1th Nurses (Teamsters, Local 214)
Board of Commissioners Committee Coordinators (44.1-SCME COLITICH 25)
Oakland county Employees Union
Family Court Employees Union (AFSCME Local 2437)
During fact Euiding, the bargaining team for the Association was aware of the County's
position for Fiscal Year 2010 and that the County would not enter into a contract unless Fiscal
Year 2010 was included. This caused the bargaining unit to :suggest three to five furlough days
rather than a wage reduction. The Fact Finder considered this but, considering the pattern that
the County has already adopted with six bargaining writs, this Fast Finder, as part of the contract,
will not only recommend the increases for Fiscal Years 2004,2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009,
but also a 2.5% reduction for Fiscal Year 2010. The Fact Finder zeloctantly does this. But these
are difficult times.
It turns out that because of the circumstances We members of the Corrections Unit will
actually have more take-home pay than they now have because of the retroactivity of their pay
increases, even though there will be a 15% reduction for 2010. it is a give and take proposition.
And if the members wish to obtain the benefit of the wage increase for the fiscal years prior to
2010, theo the art of the possible suggests that the contract should be ratified.
The wages shall be retroactive. But the County takes the position that the retroactivity
shall not apply to voluntary quits and discharges. The Association agrees that the retroactivity
shall not apply to discharges, but should apply to volwitary quits. Chairman Sugerrnan agreed
with the Association on this point This Pact Finder does not. This Fact Finder believes that in
this economic climate all financial assets should be conserved to protect the active employees
and not those who left the County's employment voluntarily. Furthermore, the County,
12/02/2009 13:e7 2139622937 GEORGE T MICHELL JR PAGE 2V25
according to the testimony, had never paid retroactive wages to voluntary quits.
Thus, contrary to Chairman Sugerman, this Fact Finder will recommend that the
retroactivity would not apply to discharges and voluntary quits. The 2.5% wage reduction shall
be effective October 1, 2009, but its effect will be ameliorated by the 12% wage increase over the
preceding six years.
Two additional items related to compensation should be noted. First, part of the County's
proposal for the 2010 Fiscal Year, which has been, accepted by most of the tion-Act 312 eligible
unions, 1s the elimination of the $300.00 match to the deferred compensation program. The
Association is opposed to this btu, for the same reasons that I have recommended the total
compensation 1 have outlined, I recommend that this deferred compensation rcateh be eliroinated.
The second item refers to the possibility that during the remaining contract year one of the
non-Act 312 eligible unions negotiates some alternative to the 23% wage reduction (or a portion
Dirt), for example, through the use of unpaid furlough timc — a ooneept the County has rejected
in this proceeding. In the event such a negotiation results in an alternative to the 2.5% wage
reduction, the Association shall be entitled to return to the bargaining table to address wbether
that alternative may be applied to the Association and its members.
Finally, there have been in the past equity adjustments. There is one equity adjustment
that should apply in this situation. There are two Forensic Laboratory Specialist Leaders at this
time. Because these positions are a lead position they should receive an additional $1,500 per
year bonus dreetive October 1, 2009. Said bonus to be paid in their hi-weekly paychecks. The
Fact Finder will ao recommend.
-20-
32/0212609 1307 3139,62297 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 2312E
Ouratiog
The 'contract beirig recommended here will be from October 1, 2003 through September
30, 2010 for, unless the contra.ct covers the fiscal year 2010, the parties will not be able to reach
an agreement
sl_ilsourx
In summary, as the reader will recognize, in many cam this Fact Finder has adopted as
his recommendation the award of the Sugerman Panel. Dui there have been exceptions. One
could suggest that the Fact Finder has been inconsistent The problem is that the County is
bargaining with other bargaining units who are not covered by Mt 312 and ttIC growing financial
crisis. This has tempered the County's %Ulna= to adopt the Sugerman award in total for the
Corrections Unit. Thus, there is the art of the possible, And the art of the possible suggests that
some compromises are required in order to obtain an agreement, recognizing that Ibis fact finding
is not binding on either party and the parties still must negotiate an Agreement,
EPlittrul
There is the art of the possible. This fact finding is not like an Act 312. The
recommendations here are not binding on either party. gut, hopefully, the parties will accept
these recommendations and ratify a contact because six years is too long to be without a
contract. There axe advantages to the employees to ratify the contract at this point for the reasons
already stated. Hopefully, both parties will do so.
RECONIbMIDATI_ONS
The Fact finder recommends that the contract succeeding the contract expiring
-21-
12/02/2009 13:07 3139622937 GEORGE 7 ROUMELL JR PAGE 24/26
September 30, 2003 for the Corrections Unit shall have the provisions:
L Edo&
FY 04 (10-01-03 to 9-30-04) 2%
FY 05 (1041-04 to 9-30-05) 3%
FY 06 (10-01-05 to 9-30-06) 2%
py 07 (10-01-06 to 9-304)7) 296
FY 08 (10-01-07 to 9-30-08)
FY 09 (10-01-08 to 9-30-09) 2%
FY 10 (10-01-09 to 9-30-10) 2 'A% reduction
2. Wages shall be retroactive except for voluataiy quits and discharges.
3, The Forensic Laboratory Specialist Leaders will be paid a $1,5(0 per year bonus
to he paid in their hi-weekly paychecks beginning October 1.2009.
4. There will be no IvIERS defined benefit plan.
5. All DCW loans from the defined contribution plan are prohibited.
a Employer contribution to defined contribution plan shall remain at 9%.
7. The employee prescription ou-pay shall be $5/$10/$25 with no prescription per
year cap.
8. Employee office visit co -pays shall be $20.00.
9. Employee Master Medical deductible shall be $2004400.
10. AU language in rile contact, policies and benefit plans under which bargaining
unit employees are provided cash incentives for selecting QL4, PVC) and FOS health plans art
deleted.
11. For new hires after the date of this Fact Finding Report, the HAP plan will be
eliminated.
12. The employee health care contribution following this fact finding, but not
-22-
12/02/2009 13;07 313622S37 GEORGE T ROWNELL JR PAGE 25126
retroactively, shall be at 2009 contributor! rates.
13. The employee health care contribution for employees hired after the date of this
Fact Finding Report shall be at the 2009 contribution rate.
14. Health care contributions shall not be retroactive.
15. MI new employees hired after the date of this Fact Finding Report shall only be
eligible to participate in a health savings account tor retiree hUlii11 CAM with the employer
contributing $1,300 per year.
16. Employees are to remain part of a single retiree group. The County can alter non-
care benefits, co-pays and deductibles.
VT Paid. time off for anion activities for the grievance committee and the Union
President 41,311 remain the same.
I. Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve shall be added as bolklays, regardless of the
day of the week on which they fall.
19. There shall be no compensatory time.
20. The provisions in the contract ineciporating all Board resolutions in effect on the
date of this Fact Finding Report shall coratinue,
21. The investigative and disciplinary procedures will be negotiated by the parties.
22, 'The duration of the contract shall run from October 1,2003 to September 30,
2010.
23. The $300.00 deferred compensation match shall be eliminated.
24. In the event the County negotiates an altexuative to the 2,5% wage reduction in
Fiscal Year 2010 or a wage reduction less than 2.5% for Fiscal Year 2010 with a non-Act 312
-23-
12/02/20n 13:07 3139622937 GEORGE T ROUMELL JR PAGE 26/26
bargaining unit, the ASSOCiEttOn shall be entitled to return to the bargaining table to address
wb.ether that alterative may be applied to the Assodalion and its members-
--JitedittirotoRGE ouyniti
Fact Finder
December 2, 2009
e
FISCAL NOTE (RisC. 109314)
BY: Finance Committee, Tom Middleton, Chairperson
IN RE: HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT— FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2010 LABOR
AGREEMENT FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE OAKLAND COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION (0CDSA)
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson. Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Rule XII-C of this Board, the Finance Committee has reviewed the above-referenced
resolution and finds:
1. The County of Oakland and the Oakland County Deputy Sheriffs Association (0CDSA)
representing approximately 365 Sheriffs Office employees covered by the Corrections
and Court Services, Bargaining Unit #009 have agreed to a contract agreement covering
the six (6) year period of October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2010.
2. The agreement provides essentially the same wage and benefit agreement as non-union
employees which includes a 2.5% wage reduction for Fiscal Year 2010, effective October
1, 2009, and eliminates the $300 deferred compensation match effective January 2010.
3. The impact of an additional 1% wage and fringe benefits increase for FY 2009 is
approximately $349,826 a budget amendment will be offered with the FY 2010 1 st
Quarter Forecast report to adjust for this and other union settlements.
4. The 2.5% wage and benefit reduction for FY 2010 equals approximately $896,989 in
salaries and fringe benefits; of which salaries is $545,183 and fringe benefits is $351,806.
5. The 2.5% wage and deferred compensation reduction is included in the FY 2010 Budget,
and therefore, no budget amendment is recommended at this time
FINANCE COMMITTEE
FINANCE COMMITTEE
Motion
I IRBY E THE FORGOING RESOLUTION IRMO
Resolution #09314 December 9, 2009
Moved by Douglas supported by Middleton the resolution (with fiscal note attached) be adopted.
Discussion followed.
AYES: Jackson, Jacobsen, Long, McGillivray, Middleton, Nash, Potter, Potts, Runestad,
Schwartz, Scott, Taub, Woodward, Zack, Bullard, Burns, Cabello, Coleman, Coulter, Douglas,
Gershenson, Gingen, Gosselin, Greimel, Hatchett. (25)
NAYS: None (0)
A sufficient majority l-aving voted in favor, the resolution (with fiscal note attached) was adopted.
,1••n••
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I. Ruth Johnson. Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true
and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on December
9, 2009. with the original record thereof now remaining in my office,
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at
Pontiac, Michigan this 9th day of December, 2009.
eat
Ruth Johnson, County Clerk