Employees of cities, counties, and other political subdivisions of the state bargain their wages and working conditions under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA). For certain uniformed personnel, the PECBA requires binding interest arbitration if negotiations for a contract reach an impasse and cannot be resolved through mediation. Under interest arbitration, an impartial third party makes decisions regarding the unresolved terms of the contract. There are statutory procedures for parties to select arbitrators, and factors the arbitration panel must consider when making its decision.
Uniformed personnel include, among others, correctional employees who are uniformed and non-uniformed, commissioned and noncommissioned security personnel employed in a jail by a county with a population of 70,000 or more. Other correctional employees with interest arbitration include those employed in regional jails and in juvenile detention facilities that are located in a county with a population over 1.5 million.
The limitation requiring correctional employees of jails to be employed by a county with a population of more than 70,000 to be eligible for interest arbitration is removed. Correctional employees who are uniformed and non-uniformed, commissioned and noncommissioned security personnel employed in a jail are eligible for interest arbitration.
(In support) The population threshold requirement for interest arbitration is arbitrary. This inequity undermines the important work of corrections officers in smaller jurisdictions. This bill ensures all correctional officers are treated the same regarding access to a fair and impartial process to settle labor disputes. It is not fair if correctional employees in the county jail have interest arbitration and the correctional employees in the city jail do not.
(Opposed) This bill disproportionately impacts smaller and rural counties. The bill should be amended to require the arbitrator to consider the financial ability of the county employer to pay and to provide that the arbitrator's decision is not binding on the county. These provisions exist for the Legislature and should be extended to local government. City jails could end up closing or relying more on county facilities, which would result in reduced access to local services.
(In support) Carl Keller, Teamsters Local 760; and Michael Rainey, AFSCME Council 2.
No new changes were recommended.
(In support) The population thresholds were removed for law enforcement officers in small jurisdictions last year, and the same should now be done for corrections officers. Disparities in compensation levels are leading to internal dissention at some local employers. As a five-year employee at a city jail, low compensation has led to employee retention issues, and the low staffing levels have created safety concerns.
(Opposed) A small handful of cities operate their own jails. They confine individuals for a short time, for misdemeanor cases, close to home. This arbitration requirement will not improve labor relations; more attorneys are involved, and the arbitrator does not have to take into account the ability of the employer to pay. Many counties are eliminating employees in local corrections. Over half of the counties will be hit with higher costs because of this bill. Please include a requirement that arbitrators consider the employers' ability to pay, and that the decision of the arbitrator is not binding on the county legislative body. Cities support a level playing field, but this bill goes too far, and was developed without consultation with employers. The bill will eventually result in substantial cost increases and force the closure of local jails. Jails with low average populations or accredited facilities should be exempt.
(In support) Daron Smith, Teamsters Local 231; and Rachid Bensultana, correction SGT.