Snow-day pay: The issue isn’t melting away

As published in the Record Journal on Sunday April 7, 2013

By Jesse Buchanan
Record-Journal staff
jbuchanan@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2230
Twitter: @JBuchananRJ

WALLINGFORD - Although it’s rare for Town Hall to close due to bad weather, the question of paying workers under those circumstances has become a contentious issue between Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. and town employee union leaders.

Dickinson said the town is under no obligation to pay workers for Feb. 11, the day Town Hall was closed due to a blizzard. To get paid, employees must use a vacation day, Dickinson said in a Feb. 14 memo.

Dickinson said he can remember closing Town Hall one other time, but couldn’t recall the year. He has been mayor for almost 30 years.

Despite the infrequency, Dickinson said he’s trying to establish a policy.

“These things do arise,” he said. “You can’t look at it as a one-time expense. It becomes a potential ongoing issue.

Town Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said he can only remember a handful of times that Town Hall has closed due to weather in the last two decades.

“It’s so infrequent you can probably count on one hand,” he said. “It’s a very infrequent occurrence.”

Based on adding the salary and overtime costs of Town Hall departments in the 2011-12 fiscal year budget, Wallingford pays more than $22,000 per day in employee compensation. The yearly salary costs were divided by the 248 workdays to estimate daily employee pay.

The salary figure didn’t include police, fire, public works and utilities, since those departments operate in all weather.

Departments at both Town Hall and 6 Fairfield Boulevard were included in the daily salary estimate.

Dickinson didn’t have an estimate of how much a day’s pay would cost Town Hall.

Jason Zandri, a Town Council Democrat running for mayor, said it’s unfair to expect town employees to use a vacation day when Dickinson closes Town Hall. Paying employees who stay home in a storm isn’t a common occurrence, Zandri said Refusing to pay employees for a snow day was “completely in character” for Dickinson, according to Zandri. He said the mayor is looking to save money by not paying employees, but risking thousands of dollars in a legal battle that the town will likely lose.

“You get to 20 hours of legal fees and you’re already halfway there,” Zandri said.

Town leaders shouldn’t be intimidated by unions threatening arbitration, according to Republican Councilor Craig Fishbein.

“Merely to run away and cower in the corner because of the arbitration process is, in my opinion, not the appropriate way to deal with these issues,” Fishbein said.

Fear of losing arbitration and incurring legal fees is often used as a reason by the council to avoid conflict with the unions, he said.

Chuck Ballard, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Co. 4, Local 1183, said the union has filed for an arbitration hearing date with the state labor board. He declined to comment on the issue and its effects on employees.

“This is definitely an ongoing process,” he said.

No date has been set for arbitration. “Typically these take awhile,” Ballard said. “If it takes less than a year, I’d be surprised.”

Wallingford - Unions protest vacation-day edict

As published in the Record Journal on Saturday February 23, 2013

By Andrew Ragali
Record-Journal staff
aragali@record-journal.com
(203) 317-2224
Twitter:@AndyRagz

WALLINGFORD – Two unions have filed grievances protesting the mayor’s decision requiring town employees to use a vacation day to cover time not worked when Town Hall was closed earlier this month due to the blizzard.

Personnel Director Terence Sullivan said Friday that United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-14, representing municipal managers, and United Public Service Employees Union Local 424-16, representing the Water Department employees, had filed a grievance protesting Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr.’s Feb. 14 memo.

Sullivan also said he expects Local 1183 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the union representing public works, clerical and sewer workers, to file a grievance soon. Earlier this week, the union’s president, Chuck Ballard, said one would be filed by week’s end.

“I’m hopeful we find some resolution,” Sullivan said.

Because multiple unions are filing grievances, Sullivan said the first two steps of the resolution process will be skipped. Normally, an aggrieved employee first brings his or her complaint to a direct supervisor. If the supervisor cannot resolve the issue, it’s brought to the department head. If the complaint is still unresolved, Sullivan holds an informal hearing.

In this case, though, the process will skip directly to the informal hearing with Sullivan because it’s not a single employee bringing forward a complaint.

Separate hearings will be held within “the next two weeks,” Sullivan said, calling the meetings “a fair process.”

Sullivan said that Dickinson is unlikely to be involved in the hearings. Also, no matter what the decision, no disciplinary action will be taken.

“This is just an administrative matter,” Sullivan said.

If the issue can’t be resolved through Sullivan, there is the possibility it will go to arbitration through either the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration or the American Arbitration Association. That is a last resort, though.

“Very few grievances actually go all the way,” Sullivan said.

Shelby Jackson, president of the managers union, was out of the office and unavailable for comment on Friday. Joseph Mrozowski, president of the water workers union, referred comment to Wayne Gilbert, regional director of the United Public Service Employees Union, but Gilbert was out of his office on Friday.

Ballard was also unavailable for comment, but made his position clear in a letter to the editor published in the Record-Journal Friday.

After referring to Dickinson’s memo, Ballard wrote: “However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees— so why is this situation any different?”

Ballard goes on to say that, with multiple grievances filed,work hours will be wasted and the expense to the town will grow.

“The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers,” he said.

Town Councilor Craig Fishbein, a Republican, agreed with Dickinson’s stance, stating, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to pay people arbitrarily.”

While the cost of arbitration and time put into finding a resolution are “always a concern,” Fishbein said, he thinks it’s inappropriate for the unions to use them as leverage. He called the blizzard “a once-in-a lifetime storm,” and doesn’t think this issue will come up again anytime soon.

Town Councilor John Letourneau, a Republican, said he disagreed with Dickinson, and that the issue could “cost the town thousands in litigation.”

“Is it worth it at the end of the day for a philosophical stance?” LeTourneau said. “That’s where I differ from the mayor.”

Editor Letter from the Record Journal - Miscalculated memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Wallingford municipal employees who could not attend a day of work because of Blizzard Nemo should not be forced into counting it as a vacation day.

Mayor William W. Dickinson Jr. has requested this use of time-off from workers who stayed home when town hall was closed Feb. 11 due to snowfall. Fiscal conservatism of Dickinson has long helped Wallingford remain in solid financial shape, even during stormy economic times. Thus, in asking that staff count a day lost to Nemo as vacation, he’s at least acting with the best monetary interests of taxpayers in mind. “I have a hard time feeling the town should be paying people when they didn’t work,” Dickinson logically argued in a Feb. 14 memo (R-J, 2-16).

Problem is that this comes after the fact. Certain civic employees were told to attend work on Feb. 11 for assistance with cleanup efforts. Maybe additional individuals would have come in had they known beforehand that the alternative was a lost vacation day.

Employees in private sectors, or even other municipalities, justifiably might be unhappy if their boss requested similar sacrifice days after the storm. It’s therefore reasonable, as outlined by Local 1183 President Chuck Ballard (see his letter below), that at least one union representing Wallingford workers expects to file a grievance. “Town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?” Ballard persuasively writes. Especially since Dickinson’s decision is opposite some public policy in Connecticut.

In Meriden, Southington and Cheshire, municipal employees are not required to use vacation hours in order to receive wages for days when work is canceled. State staff also gets paid even if officials close Connecticut offices in extreme situations like Nemo, as was the case on Feb. 11. Comparatively, Dickinson’s request is unorthodox.

But more importantly, it seems retroactive, and based on unclear legal language. In his memo about the matter, Dickinson stated that he did “believe” that collective bargaining contracts do not require payment of wages unless an employee reports for work. Wallingford unions probably would have responded differently to this if a definite answer existed — and was widely known before Nemo — about whether it’s contractually permissible or not.

Some readers understandably may agree here with the mayor, who has made another tough decision in his decades-long tradition of holding the line on expenses. Wallingford retains sound monetary status partly because of Dickinson’s willingness to govern conservatively and, at times, unconventionally. But taking away vacation without employees knowing prior that those hours were at risk is unjust.

If Dickinson plans to continue requiring vacation time for workdays canceled amidst severe weather conditions, he must negotiate such language unambiguously into future union contracts — ensuring fair, even-handed treatment for both employees and community.

Letter to the Editor of the Record Journal - Mayor and memo

As published in the Record Journal on Friday February 22, 2013

Editor: What good is an agreement if it’s violated? More importantly, what is the ramification if either party does not adhere to the agreement issued by the State Labor Board? It all comes down to this: taxpayer dollars! The fact is that Wallingford Mayor Bill Dickinson closed town government offices on Monday, February 11, 2013. Mayor Dickinson then issued a memo declaring that all employees must use vacation time or lose pay for that Monday.

However, the binding agreement states that the town is not allowed to close town government offices and demand vacation time to be used. Furthermore, town government offices have been closed in the past and have fulfilled their obligation to pay employees — so why is this situation any different?

There will certainly be grievances filed by affected unions, which will result in a multitude of work hours being spent on the case. In addition, add the expense of the town’s labor attorney, which can be even more costly. The end result is a huge bill for taxpayers.

According to a Record-Journal news story (Saturday, February 16), the mayor stated: “I don’t want to feel like we are giving money away when it isn’t warranted.” In this instance, he is doing just that. He is wasting time and taxpayer dollars on a poor labor decision (which is not his first).

Perhaps the residents of Wallingford need to realize it’s time for a change and bring this town into the twenty first century by not wasting taxpayer dollars!

(The writer is President, Local 1183.) CHUCK BALLARD, CARMEL, NEW YORK