School custodians who voted down a labor contract in August now face basically the same deal, after a panel sided with the city on 15 of 16 issues in binding arbitration.
The decision comes from the three-judge panel of arbitrators considering a labor contract in binding arbitration after the district failed to come to an agreement with AFSCME Council 4 Local 827, the union for 154 custodians who clean the city schools and serve as drivers for the school district.
Melissa Bailey File Photo
Custodians after voting “no” on the proposed contract in August.
The decision, dated Nov. 25 and released to the Independent Wednesday through a Freedom of Information request, ends a long-running, acrimonious battle over privatizing custodial work. (The school board had previously denied the Freedom of Information request even though the law required it to release the document.)
The decision comes after rank-and-file custodians rejected a contract agreed upon by the city and union leadership in August. Custodians chose instead to cast their luck with the binding arbitration process, where three judges make decisions on issues in the contract. Judges must accept either the city’s position or the union’s on each issue; there is no more negotiating.
The rank-and-file lost the gamble.
The decision mirrors the offer custodians turned down. That’s because the bulk of the “last best offers” the city made in the arbitration process were “very similar” to what the city offered in the labor contract the custodians turned down, according to schools spokesman Chris Hoffman.
The arbitration award does not need a vote by the union rank-and-file. The Board of Aldermen has 25 days to reject it if it chooses to.
Historically unions have gambled that they can more often win in arbitration if they turn down governments’ “last best” contract offers. Governments need to prove to the arbitration panels that they face pressing economic conditions to obtain givebacks or new rules or wage freezes. New Haven succeeded in doing that here — and may have sent a message to other municipal unions that times may be different at arbitration panels.
The panel’s decision outlines a six-year labor contract covering July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. It calls for no pay raises for the first two years, followed by two 2‑percent wage hikes.
As in the contract union members rejected, the award would cut the workforce from 154 to 100 workers, allowing some jobs to be privatized. It also cuts back vacation days and changes some work rules that the district said were getting in the way of productivity.
Click here to read the decision. Click here to read the agreed-upon language that, combined with the award, will determine the labor contract.
Mayor John DeStefano hailed the decision in a press release Wednesday.
“This award gives custodians fair wages and benefits and the Board of Education the flexibility and savings it needs to properly maintain schools and educate students in a time of flat budgets,” he said.
“Under this award, custodians join teachers and administrators in new thinking and approaches that will safeguard the city’s fiscal future.”
Schools Superintendent Reggie Mayo said the award “provides the district with the flexibility, efficiency and cost savings needed to maintain our buildings and educate kids. Thanks to this award, we will be able to commit a greater share of our budget to classroom instruction.”
The award will save the school district $4 million per year, according to Hoffman.
Larry Dorman, spokesman for AFSCME Council 4, applauded the award for keeping 100 unionized jobs.
“The arbitration award affirms our belief that keeping public sector workers in the schools is necessary both to preserve quality services and to maintain a decent standard of living for the city’s workforce.
However, he said, “we are obviously concerned that the arbitration award could lead to a further reduction in the already thin labor force of school custodians. This force of dedicated workers is already stretched to the limit.”
Arbitrators took sides on 16 issues on which union and management remained at loggerheads. The school district prevailed on 15 issues including privatization, layoffs and vacation days; the union prevailed on only one, which concerned wage hikes.
On each issue, neutral arbitrator Attorney Marty Webber split the vote between the union-appointed arbitrator, AFSCME Council 4’s Kevin Murphy, and the city’s chosen arbitrator, former city labor director John Romanow.
The union had asked for a no-layoff clause in the contract, which the panel denied.
The workforce will be reduced as follows: From Dec. 1 to the end of the year, custodians will be offered the chance to leave through buyouts and early retirements, with the goal of reducing the number of custodians from 154 to 130 by Dec. 31, according to Hoffman.
Another 30 jobs will be cut by July 1, “hopefully through attrition and retirements,” Hoffman said.
The award reduces the number of jobs union workers do from 24 to four. It allows the district to privatize jobs such as “snowplowing, audio-visual work, and mechanics,” Hoffman said.
DeStefano called the new contract “a model,” in that it offers pension and health insurance givebacks he has sought from other city unions.
The award introduces a new health savings account base plan, which school principals agreed to in their latest contract, Hoffman said.
Pension payments will be based on budgeted salary, not overtime. Employees will pay more into their pension contributions, and the cost-of-living increases will be capped.
The award eliminates retiree health care for new employees, and “retiree health care for employees with less than ten years of service is limited to employees only and not their dependents,” Hoffman added.
Arbitrators allowed the city to change a work rule that allowed custodians to bid out for jobs four times per year. Under that rule, a quarter of custodians would change jobs every year, causing the district to “constantly retrain” workers. Under the new award, custodians would get one chance to choose their work site when they get hired. Vacancies would then be posted, but they would be given to the most senior union member.
Vacation Days
The union sought to preserve the number of vacation days allotted to members, which was 20 days for 15 years’ service and 25 days for 20 years’ service.
The district aimed to cap vacation days to 20 and require new hires to work for 20 years before qualifying for all 20 days. The proposal aimed for “better productivity.”
The union replied that cutting vacation days would not save the city money for 15 years, and would create an unprecedented disparity between the number of vacation days custodians get, according to when they were hired.
Arbitrators sided with the city, ruling that curbing vacation days would “start to [rein] in some of the costly benefits that current employees now receive” without affecting current employees with more than 20 years’ service.
Pay Raises
The union won the issue of pay hikes, where the board and the union fell about $90,000 apart in their proposals.
Custodians last received a wage hike on July 1, 2008. Since the contract ended on June 30, 2009, custodians have been waiting for two years through contract negotiations for a pay increase.
Since union members didn’t get a pay hike in two years, and since other unions got raises of at least 3 percent, the arbitration panel awarded the union its requested wage hike of 2 percent in the third year. The district had offered only 1.75 percent wage hikes.
The award comes as DeStefano remains at an impasse or in arbitration with most of the city’s 14 unions. “I am hopeful that this award signals a new day for the city and its unions,” he said.
Right! After the mayor beating up the unions for how long? He all of a sudden is sensitive to his "workers"? Mayor, you don't have to comment, just turn over the decision when the press asks for it! And if you are trying to show a gentle side to the aldermen elect because they are union,just remember that you have said way too much in the past about all the horrible greedy union members throughout your regime and I don't think they are going to buy it. Why in the world do you think all those union affiliated folks ran? I doubt it was because they liked hearing what you had to say.