"CSEA Reaches Contract Settlement for 6,000 Court Employees Across New York"
CSEA - New York's Leading Union - has reached a tentative agreement with the New York State Office of Court Administration on a new contract covering more than 6,000 non-judicial employees in the state's Unified Court System.
"CSEA and the Unified Court System have reached a fair and responsible agreement that recognizes the value and importance of the court employees who make the system work every day," said CSEA President Danny Donohue. "These were challenging negotiations and I am extremely proud of the focus and commitment of the CSEA bargaining team."
The four-year agreement retroactive to April 1, 2007 includes salary increases in every year of the agreement, improved downstate and Mid-Hudson Valley location pay, enhancements in longevity bonuses for long-term employees, improved payments to the Employee Benefit Fund and Labor-Management programs and increased funding for body armor for security personnel. There were no significant changes to health insurance provisions.
Across-the-board cost of living adjustments are as follows:
* April 1 2007 - 3 percent or $950, whichever is greater (retroactive);
* April 1, 2008 - 3 percent or $975, whichever is greater (retroactive);
* April 1, 2009 - 3 percent or $1,000, whichever is greater; and
* April 1, 2010 - 4 percent or $1,025, whichever is greater.
CSEA also agreed to a salary increase deferral for employees earning more than $115,000 annually until a judicial pay raise is enacted. Employees at or above that level will have their salaries held harmless but will receive the contract provisions once the judicial pay raise issue is resolved. If it is not resolved by the end of the contract, the employees will receive all of the contract cost of living adjustments retroactively. This issue would affect about 500 individuals out of the bargaining unit's 6,000 members.
CSEA-represented court employees work in a range of non-judicial jobs, from court clerks to clerical and administrative staff to security officers in the court system in every part of New York.
Additional details about the agreement will be posted on the CSEA website www.csealocal1000.org shortly. The agreement will be presented to the CSEA rank and file members for review and ratification in the weeks ahead. It must also be approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor.
[Editor's note: Additional details will also be available here at the CSEA Judiciary web site, www.cseajudiciary.org]
CSEA and UCS have made a tentative agreement on a new contract for 2007-2011. The deal includes increases in compensation, location pay, and other benefits. More details will follow once final wording is agreed upon.
(Kathy Guild, Contract Adminstration Specialist, CSEA Headquarters)
CSEA published a summary of the Unified Court System's contract proposals after we received them. Following is a summary of some of CSEA's proposals to the Unified Court System.
SICK LEAVE
- Increase benefits for line of duty injuriesLOCATION PAY
- CSEA has requested location pay consistent with other bargaining units, retroactive to 04/01/06ON-CALL PAY
- CSEA is requesting that standby on-call roster lists be created and that on-call assignments be equitably distributedUNIFORM AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE
- Increase amount of uniform and equipment allowance to reflect parity with downstate unions and additional amounts for future yearsHOLIDAYS
- Requesting that the day after Thanksgiving be designated as a Floating HolidayREIMBURSEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
- Requesting that any member required to maintain a professional license or credential required to perform their job duties shall be reimbursed the fee for that license or credential by UCSVACATION BUY-BACK
- Requesting that employees be allowed to designate up to five annual leave days to be exchanged for monetary compensation at a rate of 100 percent for each dayCSEA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND
- Increase contributions from UCS for better benefit packageCHILD/ELDER CARE REIMBURSEMENT
- Increase contributions from UCS for child/elder care reimbursementWORKING CONDITIONS
- Request that early dismissal of employees be allowed if Temperature Humidity Index cannot be lowered below 80 degrees within 30 minutes of the initial measurement, instead of 4 p.m.INSPECTOR GENERAL
- Proposed a Bill of Rights for CSEA members with respect to the Inspector General's Office investigations, which will preserve CSEA members' rights during an investigation, whether or not they are the target of the investigationGRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES
- Requesting improved language for grievance and arbitration procedures so that the process is completed in a shorter time-frameCONTINUING EDUCATION
- Requesting that QTP monies continue to be contributed by UCS for continuing education
(James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
CSEA and UCS met during the first week in August to continue negotiations for a new contract. For the first time, UCS presented some of their proposals. Management had indicated earlier in talks that it intended to suggest cutbacks in benefits. Nevertheless, the enormity of the reductions proposed is shocking:PAY
--cap salaries at $115,000
--sunset (allow to expire) increments and longevity bonuses until a new contract is ratified
--reduce longevity bonus
SICK LEAVE
--cut maximum amount of sick leave bank grants from 229 days to 130 days
--employees on sick leave are confined to their homes or must be reachable by telephone at all times
--reduce benefits for line-of-duty injuries
WORKWEEK
--increase to 40 hours a week
OVERTIME
--no time and a half pay until the employee WORKS 40 hours in a week (paid leave would not count as time worked)
QTP MONEY
(used for employee education vouchers and payment to defray health insurance costs)
--eliminate altogether
CSEA EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUND
--no increases in contributions (which means cuts in current benefits)
--remove retirees from the EBF
--sunset EBF contributions at the end of a contract (that is, no benefits at all until a new contract is reached)
CHILD CARE/ELDER CARE
--no funding for this any longer
WORKING CONDITIONS
--eliminate provision closing courts when temperatures are too hot or too cold
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION LEAVE
--significantly reduce amount of EOL available
--prevent CSEA representatives on EOL from accruing vacation and sick leave
UCS further indicated that this was about 75% of its proposals. We expect more demands which would cut our members' benefits even more. Take particular notice of an increased work week, the elimination of child care and elder care payments, and the severe reductions in contributions to the CSEA Employee Benefit Fund. EBF benefits would have to be reduced, and UCS wants retired employees completely removed from the program!
Needless to say, the CSEA Negotiating Team sees a long, hard slog in negotiations until we get to a point where we can agree with UCS on a new contract. The CSEA Team has no intention of making an agreement which would slash our members' benefits.
(James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
CSEA and UCS were scheduled to meet for another session of contract negotiations in mid-June. UCS informed CSEA that it did not expect to have its negotiating proposals ready by that time. Both CSEA and UCS have tentatively agreed to meet again in early August. The UCS proposals will seek concessions and reductions in a number of benefits, UCS has told us. CSEA has been preparing for these negotiations since last summer. The CSEA Negotiating Team has presented numerous written proposals to management and attempted to have some real bargaining on the contract. Apparently UCS is not yet impressed with the hard work the CSEA Team has done.
CSEA is deeply disappointed in the continuing pattern of UCS delay regarding negotiations for a new contract. The old contract expired March 31, and CSEA has energetically pushed for an agreement, only to be met by procrastination on the part of management.
UCS has come perilously close to committing an improper employer practice-bargaining in bad faith-by its actions thus far. CSEA is fully prepared, if necessary, to take appropriate legal action to force UCS to cease its dilly-dallying and get down to work on a new contract. Let's hope the August session takes place and is productive.
(May 17, 2007)
The CSEA Negotiations Team met on May 15, 16, and 17, 2007 for our second round of negotiations with the Unified Court System management.
CSEA submitted additional proposals (adding to our initial proposals in March). Regrettably, UCS did not submit any proposals and indicated that they were still, even at this late date, working on them. We discussed our proposals with UCS, and during that dialogue, UCS indicated that they are looking to cut back in many areas beneficial to our members.
Tentative dates are scheduled for mid June.
(March 21, 2007, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
The Court Employee Negotiating Team of CSEA began negotiations with the NYS Unified Court System for a new contract on March 20 and 21. The meetings took place in the Albany area. The CSEA Team had already sent UCS its initial proposals some weeks ago. UCS said it had not yet completed its analysis of CSEA's proposals but did engage in some discussion of the issues we presented.
UCS offered no proposals to CSEA yet, although the management representatives indicated they would do so no later than the next bargaining session, which will probably be in mid-May.
(December 18, 2006, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
The Appellate Division, Third Department, effectively killed the CSEA lawsuit disputing UCS's decision to change its mind and not reclassify Court Clerks to Senior Court Clerks when Court Officers provide security. The Justices insist that the peace officer status of Clerk titles in the downstate area does provide a "back-up security" force that makes them different from upstate Clerks. The fact that that belief is completely untrue does not seem to have penetrated the judicial mindset.
The Court also pooh-poohed the Civil Service Law mandate that the State give equal pay for equal work, questioning the ability to enforce it, and saying that the State can violate the policy in some cases. This is the kind of "reasoning" that makes the public think judges are irrational, arbitrary, and capricious!
There will probably not be an appeal of the decision. We would need Court of Appeals permission to appeal, and they are not going to find against the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge, their bosses. CSEA will work on new strategies to address this ongoing problem.
(December 14, 2006, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
The NYS Legislature took no action on an early retirement incentive, pay raises for judges, or anything else, except that it confirmed the appointment of a number of Court of Claims Judges. Although it is possible that both houses could take action before December 31, the Senate Majority Leader announced that he would not have his chamber return until Jan. 3 of 2007. So it looks like the Support Magistrate pay issue remains as it was, and that there will be no early retirement incentive.
(November 22, 2006, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
CSEA began a lawsuit earlier this year disputing New York State's decision to make our members pay for the cost of Medicare Part B premiums for retired employees. Previously, the State and local governments (for those in the NYS Health Insurance Plan) paid for the cost of the Part B premiums. CSEA contends that the change violates the Civil Service Law and is a change in terms of employment without negotiations, and a violation of the Health Insurance articles of the various CSEA-NYS Contracts.
State Supreme Court in Albany County ruled that CSEA was wrong and NYS right. We appealed.
The Appellate Division of Supreme Court, Third Department, has UNANIMOUSLY overruled Supreme Court and agreed with CSEA 100%! We expect the State to request the highest court, the Court of Appeals, to reconsider the matter. In the meantime, it looks like NYS may not get away with this cost-shifting through a back door.
The CSEA/UCS Sick Leave Bank exists pursuant to an agreement between the parties dating back to February 8, 1994. The agreement was negotiated by a subcommittee appointed by CSEA, comprised of Tom Jefferson and Robert Lorenc, and a designee appointed by UCS, Robert Herrick. That agreement outlined in specific detail the intent, benefits, guidelines, and operational aspects of the Sick Bank. The agreement remained unchanged until the contract negotiations and collective bargaining agreement between UCS and CSEA agreed to on August 4, 2004 covering the contract period 2003-2007. The newly agreed to agreement, only slightly modified from the original, is printed in its entirety in the current contract as Appendix C, pages 99 thru 104. That printed agreement represents the proverbial "bible"governing the operational aspects of the bank.
In broad terms, the bank is administered by one representative each from UCS and CSEA. Each designee has veto power relating to any particular application, that is, an application requires two "yes" votes to be approved. The representatives are in more than frequent contact with each other reviewing applications. On occasion, the applicant is asked to submit additional medical documentation. All information in the application is strictly confidential, discussed neither with local management or local union representatives. Coverage to an applicant can be awarded for up to a year at either full- or half-time rate. Given the fact that medical conditions are not static and, hopefully, subject to improvement and change, grants are not made for extended periods of time. Rather, a grant of a mutually agreed to reasonable period of time is made and the applicant is encouraged to reapply as needed.
When reviewing an application, five criteria are utilized for evaluation purposes. Said criteria are: 1) length of service, 2) nature of the disability, 3) reasonable expectation of return to work, 4) attendance history record, and, 5)the maximum number of days that can or have been granted.
The bank cannot make retroactive grants to cover any lapsed periods wherein the employee is on off-payroll status. Thus, it is vitally important to have completed applications submitted well in advance of the expiration of total leave credits.
Employees transferring in from another union who were members of the former union's sick bank may apply to join the CSEA/UCS bank within sixty days of transfer. They must pay the initial full contribution charge. It is analogous to changing insurance carriers. Carrier B will not give you credit or a refund for what you paid to Carrier A. One would be expected to pay Carrier B's full charges for coverage.
The bank functions to serve in a fair and equitable fashion to applicants "in need." It also has an equally important mission, to shepherd and protect that precious commodity, the time paid into the bank by all of the members that have joined the bank. Since its inception and to date, the bank has been a huge joint labor/management success. Countless members /employees have been permitted to utilize the grants to get well and return to work, thus benefiting both labor and management.
(June 6, 2006, Bob Dillon, CSEA Contract Administration Specialist)
CSEA and the UCS have settled an Improper Practice Charge filed by CSEA when the Courts unilaterally changed the Court Reporters Manual in relation to what material must be turned over when a Reporter leaves state service.
In a 2003 revision to the Manual, UCS stated that reporters, when leaving court service, may be required to turn over electronic notes and CAT (computer aided transcription) personal dictionaries to their supervisor for storage. This was a change from the previous practice, which required reporters to give to the UCS only the paper tapes of court proceedings transcribed by the reporter, since the tapes were the only material that the UCS supplied reporters with.
The modification unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment for court reporters, without notice or negotiation with CSEA.
CSEA immediately filed an Improper Practice Charge with the Public Employment Relations Board.
The settlement calls for reporters leaving State service to sign an affidavit agreeing to produce all transcripts requested after separation from service or, alternatively, to provide, on UCS-provided disks, a copy of electronic stenographic note files and CAT dictionary to UCS.
(March 8, 2006, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
Judge Dan Lamont of State Supreme Court, Albany County, has upheld UCS's secret plan to pay upstate Court Clerks less than it pays employees performing the same duties downstate. The decision asserts that UCS's possible use of Senior Court Clerks downstate as a backup security force(they are peace officers by statute) is sufficient justification to set up the discriminatory pay system, the Judge has ruled. He notes CSEA's "scoffing" reference to the UCS allegation, as there is no evidence Senior Court Clerks have ever been used to provide security services of any kind. Nevertheless, the Judge holds that UCS has at least one rational reason for the discrimination, and therefore he refuses to disturb the practice.
CSEA is reviewing the decision, but we already know that the appellate court which hears such appeals has a long record of upholding UCS on just about anything. Check back here for further news.
(February 10, 2006, James Hennerty, Dep. Director of Contract Administration)
The Civil Service Employees Association, on behalf of New York's Support Magistrates, today announced the filing in Albany County Supreme Court of an Article 78 proceeding against the State of New York Unified Court System (UCS). The petition seeks to have rescinded the salary classification imposed by UCS in October 2005 as arbitrary and capricious, and requests that all Support Magistrates statewide be allocated on the salary grade JG-33.
In a Dec. 5, 2000 memorandum, UCS announced the completion of a review of various job titles and salaries, with Support Magistrates assigned a salary grade of JG-33. Despite the urging of the Support Magistrates since 2000, the UCS never implemented the Support Magistrates at the promised Grade 33, and contrary to its own study and classification plans, UCS implemented the Support Magistrates at a Grade JG-31 in October 2005.
"We have exhausted all remedies available to us," said Thomas Gordon, a CSEA Local 333 activist who is also president of the New York State Support Magistrates Association. "This is an issue of fairness and equity. With the filing of this petition, Support Magistrates are only seeking what was promised to us by UCS in 2000. The Grade 31 allocated to us in October 2005 is grossly inappropriate because it fails to recognize essential substantive differences between magistrates and other non-judicial legal employees of the State court system. The Grade 33 promised five years ago does recognize those essential differences."
Family Court Support Magistrates are empowered under the Family Court Act to hear and decide child and spousal support and paternity proceedings. Support Magistrates handle approximately 48 percent of the cases filings in Family Court each year. Two-thirds of the salary of each Support Magistrate is reimbursed to the state by the federal government.
(Note: There are approximately 100 Support Magistrates.)