Talks continue for new Lancaster contract
LANCASTER – Negotiations of a collective bargaining agreement between the city of Lancaster and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Local 3427 continue after both organizations rejected a fact finding report presented this week.
The two groups are working on a new agreement after the contract ended at the end of December 2020. Although it has expired, union employees are still protected under those terms until a new agreement is established.
One hundred-and-thirty city employees fall under the contract, from various departments in the city, including utilities collection; cemetery; sanitation; wastewater-water pollution; water treatment; department of transportation; gas; city hall; police; and information technology.
Lancaster City Council and representatives from the LOCAL 3427 had a chance to review and approve or reject the fact finding report, conducted by Harry D. Silver for the State Employment Relations Board. A fact finding hearing was conducted in November 2021. Both organizations rejected the agreement.
Tom Stoughton, Lancaster City Councilman 4th Ward representative, introduced the legislation to approve the fact finding report during Monday night’s meeting. He recommended rejecting the report, because after council reviewed it in an executive session, he said it was “not advantageous” for the city, even harmful. Council rejected the report unanimously.
Tony Schroth, a staff representative for AFSCME Ohio Council 8 and working with Local 3427, said he could not make any official comments while negotiations are underway.
Paul Martin, the city’s Service-safety Director, echoed Schroth’s statement, adding he didn’t want to tip his hat. He added negotiations are continuing and that he appreciates the city’s AFSCME workers and all that they do, and that the city will work diligently to reach a negotiated deal that satisfies both parties.
According to the report, 32 articles were not being considered for change, including things like purpose of the agreement, seniority, overtime, compensatory time, and severability. There were 12 articles that both sides had reached a tentative agreement on, like discipline, grievance procedure, holidays, and layoffs.
For the remaining seven articles and one appendix under consideration, both sides offered their solution, and the fact finder was tasked with weighing the practicality and fairness of each solution or condition. The items under consideration include the recognition of the union; union rights; vacancies, promotion, and transfers; retirement pick-up; shift differential; vacation; health insurance; and job classifications and pay ranges.
Some changes by the fact finder were minor, such as the change to retirement pick-up: Silver suggested no changes, after the Union proposed the city pay 3% of the Public Employees Retirement System monthly premium, as a solution to increase compensation without increasing wages. The city argued pension pick-ups are less common today, and the move could increase debt to the city.
The fact finder did not recommend the pension pick-up, stating it is not an agreed benefit between the parties and would add expenses to the city if approved. According to the report, the fact finder suggested wage proposals was a more adequate way of finding proper compensation for union members without hurting the city.
The topics that the report spent the most time on is the arguments regarding union rights and job classifications and pay ranges.
In regards to union rights, the union is essentially asking to limit the number of non-union employees used for union members’ duties and limiting the time union members can be asked to perform supervisory duties or temporary work a day. The union also asked to add language that prevents the city from using temporary and seasonal employees to perform “skilled labor,” defining skilled labor as “work generally performed by classifications in pay range 8 and above.”
The city asked to delete the language to limit for non-union members to a two-hour-a-day limit, to work on an emergency or temporary basis. It also argued there was no need to define emergency.
The fact finder recommends adding the definition for “emergency” to the appropriate clause and referencing it as needed and the skilled labor definition. Certain clauses like the “fair share fees” were recommended to be deleted, to bring the agreement into line with an Ohio Supreme Court ruling in 2018.
In regards to the pay ranges, the union asked for the union members covered by this agreement to receive a five percent increase, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2021, and then moving forward to Jan. 1, 2022 and Jan. 1, 2023. The city argued that was too high, opting to offer a two percent increase, retroactive to the first pay period in September 2021, and then going forward to September 2022 and 2023.
The fact finder disagreed with both arguments, suggesting a third option to make the pay change retroactive to Jan. 1, 2021, and the amount increases occur on the first pay period of January 2022 and January 2023. He added five percent is too high while two percent is too low. According to the report, the increase of three percent would be affordable for the city while offering the union members more than the city’s proposed amount.
Because both organizations rejected the report, they’ll need to bring more options to the table, and start the process over again.
Barrett Lawlis is a reporter with the Lancaster Eagle-gazette. You can share story ideas or comments with him at 740-681-4342 or send an e-mail to blawlis@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @Barrettlawlis