The Wrangell Borough Assembly rejected a last best offer on terms for a new collective bargaining agreement put forward by its public employees’ union.
Negotiators with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1547 arrived in Wrangell last week to meet with members of the bargaining unit ahead of a special meeting June 8. Meeting with most of the Borough Assembly, an offer package was put forward for their consideration.
The city negotiating team and IBEW bargaining unit have been at odds over the terms of a new CBA since the previous agreement expired at the end of June 2014.
Negotiations turned fractious last year as both parties pursued legal action against one another over whether the city could be compelled to arbitrate an agreement. Arbitration involves use of a third party to render a decision in an ongoing dispute, sometimes binding depending on the terms agreed upon. Wrangell contended it could not be legally compelled to binding arbitration, a perspective the courts took last September.
In December 2016 the city and union abandoned legal action against one another, agreeing in a settlement conference not to pursue a motion to compel arbitration in the ongoing dispute. As per their agreement, all claims and counterclaims that could have been brought by the union, the city and their proposed arbitrator were dismissed permanently. Negotiations on a new CBA would continue, but language in the agreement gave the union a unique opportunity to pitch its last best offer directly to the Assembly if both parties again reached an impasse.
That point was finally reached last week, with union representatives rejecting a last best offer put forward by the city on June 7, and the city likewise rejecting its offer the next morning. That offer was what was put forward for consideration by the Assembly during the June 8 meeting.
Up to this point the elected body has been removed from negotiations, which has been led by the city manager’s office. Borough attorney Bob Blasco explained the situation of a direct offer was thus a unique one. “As far as we know, it’s never happened before,” he said. “We’re just creating this procedure as it is.”
In last week’s presentation, IBEW could submit its terms to the Assembly without the input or opinions of former manager Jeff Jabusch, finance director Lee Burgess, or any other staff member involved in negotiating an agreement.
The meeting chambers at City Hall felt fairly stuffy as at least half of the city’s 24 represented employees sat in on discussions, along with city staff members, lawyers and other representatives. An overview of the offer was presented by Serena Green, IBEW’s associate general counsel.
The union’s offer had conceded to the city’s position on a couple of points, importantly on health care cost sharing. Due to a sharp rise in insurance costs in recent years, the Assembly last year passed a resolution which would require all city employees to cover 15 percent of their own premium costs. A proposal to reduce that to 10 percent for those partaking in an approved wellness program was scrapped after learning insurer Premera would no longer be offering such discounts to municipalities.
Green made the case that the copay requirement was problematic for represented workers, who have not been offered a corresponding raise in pay. Unionized employees are currently on a tiered system dependent on hire date, with the newer employees already covering a larger proportion of premium costs for spouses and children than longer-serving coworkers.
One lower-tier employee, Lorne Cook, explained costs for his family were already such that he was having to consider opting out of coverage altogether if the additional copay for himself went through.
“We’re not going to do it without a corresponding wage increase,” Green said.
What the union proposed was a $2.50 hourly pay increase across the board to adjust to the increased copayments. Additionally, the union asserts that Wrangell’s public employees are relatively underpaid compared to other municipalities, school district employees, and even non-union city staff. To address this, IBEW’s offer included a refiguring of the current pay scale, eliminating the bottom six steps on the wage and grade table while adding three additional ones to the top. All steps would instead reflect a two-percent cost-of-living adjustment, rather than a three-percent increase currently in place between those first six steps. This would help account for increased payments for health coverage for existing employees, while also making public positions more competitive for new hires.
Three of the bargaining unit’s 24 members are already at the top of the pay scale, and so no longer receive COLA in their salaries. Since the end of the previous CBA three years ago their salaries have essentially been locked in place, and as with other employees an uncompensated increase in premium copay would be seen as a cut.
“What we’re asking for is not to lose ground,” said Mark Armstrong, a line foreman and public employee for most of the years since 1994. “I understand things are difficult for the city, but it’s not any different at my house. Insurance is killing everybody.”
Green recommended the Assembly accept the union’s offer, which with the exception of the wage increases is in accord with the city’s last best offer. She offered as a concession that pay increases would not apply retroactively, which Green explained is common in such negotiations.
Assembly members were allowed to ask strictly factual questions of Burgess, Blasco and Jabusch about the offer. Burgess explained full costs would be difficult to project, but estimated the pay increase would amount to an additional $368,000 over three years, only about half of which would be offset by the added savings to health premiums. These rough projections come with a few assumptions, such as rates and staffing remaining static.
Taking about an hour in executive session with Blasco, the Assembly members present came back with a partial acceptance of the offer. In his motion to approve, Stephen Prysunka explained more work would be needed on the issue of wages.
“This was really a difficult thing for us to do,” he admitted. The Assembly voted 4-0 in favor.
The partial acceptance was effectively a rejection of the offer, which was presented as a complete package. “It’s a package deal,” Green noted.
On Friday IBEW reps informed the borough it considered the decision as a rejection, sending a new proposal for review on Friday. A counterproposal agreeing to a 75-cent wage increase was rejected by the bargaining team, but affected Wrangell employees will have the opportunity to vote on the proposal this week, or a better offer should one arise.
Green explained that if they choose to reject the latest offer, there is the possibility a strike could follow. To her knowledge, Wrangell’s public workers have never taken such a step. The 24 currently represented work in various utilities, from electricity and water to harbors and waste management.
“It’s important enough that the employees feel frustrated,” Green explained at the meeting. “They also feel undervalued.” She said they were still waiting to hear from the city on a new offer in the meantime.
Reader Comments(0)