One of the oldest goals of the labor movement has been to secure greater wages and benefits as a reward for long service with employers. In many collective bargaining agreements wages are enhanced based on years of service with the employer. The Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association (“COBA”) has such a provision. The enhancement is called a “salary increment” which is a pay raise based on time of service. That provision, however, states that the employer, in this case the County of Westchester, may deny the increase so long as the denial is not unreasonable.
The County did deny an increment for a COBA represented Correction Officer. The County provided shifting reasons, however. Initially, the County stated that the denial was due to the officer’s poor attendance resulting in her placement on the County’s attendance review program. As it turns out, the officer had never been on attendance review. Later, the employer claimed that the increment was denied because the officer was absent for a training session. The absence was true but the officer made up the training session shortly afterward. The County had already punished the officer for the missed training session with a formal reprimand memorialized in a stipulated disciplinary agreement. That agreement stated that the matter of the missed training session was fully resolved but did not address what would happen to the increment.
COBA argued that the first reason offered was not true, the second reason offered was petty and insignificant and the settlement agreement’s resolution of all matters pertaining to the missed training session meant that the denial was unreasonable. The County argued that the missed training session was a reasonable basis for denial and that the failure of the union to address increments in the disciplinary stipulation meant the issue could not be raised later in a contract interpretation grievance.
Arbitrator Rosemary Townley rejected the County’s claims and ordered the County to pay the increment. Arbitrator Townley first noted that the “rule of reasonableness as applied” to the increment denial was that “the decision be one an average person would consider fair and just and not be arbitrary or capricious in nature.” The initial denial based on attendance review status was a “serious error of fact” as “the record shows that [the officer] had never been on such a review. Further, there was no dispute that she had been AWOL…, admitted to the same…, agreed to accept a Letter of Reprimand … and made up the day shortly thereafter.” As such, “to deny an increment based on the claim that [she] was on attendance review, when she was not is a clear error and works an unfairness, and in unreasonable.” Turning the stipulation, Arbitrator Townley rejected the County’s claims that the union should have secured increment specific language stating, “the language in the Stipulation is broad and vague and, in any event, cannot overcome the clear language” in the CBA.
As a result, the officer was granted her increment, valued at $1,400.00, retroactive to its original due date.
IDC&W partner Howard Wien served as counsel to COBA in this arbitration.