OHIO – A state appeals court agreed in a decision that the Toledo police command officers’ union is entitled to binding arbitration over the “exigent circumstances” that were unilaterally imposed on its contract four years ago.
The complicated 30-page ruling, released Friday, largely agreed with the union, the Toledo Police Command Officers Association.
However, still up in the air is whether the city of Toledo must repay the unions for its losses estimated at more than $1 million.
The case was taken to the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals by the city of Toledo, which contended the union was not entitled to binding arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement because the city had based its actions in financial “exigent circumstances.”
Three of the city’s claims of errors were rebuffed. Two claims of error were partly agreed to by the court, having to do with limitations on a arbitrator’s authority.
“There will be arbitration as appropriate. The city has various options, at this point, which we’ll kick around internally,” said city Law Director Adam Loukx. He said the decision is procedural, and will make a difference when a second case still pending in the appeals court is released.
The case goes back to March 30, 2010, when Toledo City Council approved an ordinance declaring that the city’s budgetary shortfall caused unforeseen, or exigent, circumstances requiring it to make unilateral cuts in city employee union contracts.
While some other city unions negotiated concessionary agreements to help the city out of its budget jam, the TPCOA filed grievances. The union representing 135 police command officers including sergeants, lieutenants, and captains contended the city illegally amended its contract when it started making the officers pay for their own pension contribution of 10 percent, known as the pension pickup, and increased their monthly health care contributions.
The union also grieved a violation of the “me-too” provision, saying the city had agreed to a pension pickup of 7 percent for Firefighters Local 92, but not the TPCOA, as a retaliation.
In 2013, Lucas County Common Pleas Judge Gary Cook granted the union’s request to order the city into arbitration.
The oversight of the city’s appeal now falls to Mayor D. Michael Collins who, as a councilman sided with the unions against the exigent circumstances designation. Mayor Mike Bell asked for the exigent circumstances vote by council because of what he said was a $48 million deficit. Mr. Collins voted against the “exigent circumstances” ordinance. During his campaign for mayor in 2013, he argued the deficit was exaggerated.
Mr. Collins said the court’s ruling agreed with the stance he took as a city councilman four years ago, when he voted against the exigent circumstances designation.
Mr. Collins said the Bell administration had no right to force concessions on the union and should have negotiated changes to the labor agreement.
“Those particular issues are consistent with the position I took when the Bell administration defined unilateral bargaining as his executive right,” he said.
He said that, as mayor, he still holds that position. “To take a position that is different from the one I took as a councilman … that would be the height of hypocrisy,” he said.
Mr. Collins said that given the city’s current financial condition, “I will work through this.”
He expressed confidence that the command officers association “will work with me on this issue without compromising the city’s financial position.”
The related case centers on the State Employment Relations Board, which ruled April 29, 2011, in favor of the city that its claim of “exigent circumstances” was justified. However, two years later, a Common Pleas judge overruled SERB and ordered the police command officers to be reimbursed for their losses. The city government appealed, and the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals is still deciding that appeal.
Contact Tom Troy: tomtroy@theblade.com or 419-724-6058 or on Twitter @TomFTroy.
http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2014/09/22/Arbitration-to-decide-union-case.html