By NICK KOTSOPOULOS
Telegram & Gazette (Massachusetts)
City councilors last night embraced the recent decision handed down by the Joint Labor Management Committee on the divisive firefighter salary dispute, calling the arbitration award a fair and equitable deal for all parties.
Several councilors said the decision will enable the city to live within its budget because it will be able to shift more of its health insurance costs to the firefighters. That alone is expected to save taxpayers about $700,000 in employee health insurance costs for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
At the same time, the councilors added, the work of firefighters will be recognized through “fair and balanced” wage and benefit packages. Under the ruling, firefighters will get a 9.25 percent pay raise over four years, similar to what other unions received.
Mayor Timothy P. Murray said neither side prevailed in all the issues the city and the firefighters’ union brought before the arbitration panel. But he said such a compromise will bring greater fiscal stability to municipal finances and the city’s ability to provide services.
“There are no big winners here, and there are no big losers, either,” Mr. Murray said. “There were some wins and losses for both parties, and that is the basis of any good decision. Hopefully, we can now put this long and difficult chapter behind us.”
District 4 Councilor Barbara G. Haller said she was delighted to say that the arbitration decision produced no winners or losers.
“That means that Worcester is the overall winner,” Ms. Haller said.
City Manager Michael V. O’Brien last night submitted to the City Council a copy of the arbitration decision and a preliminary analysis of the decision prepared by his administration.
The ruling nearly splits proposals made by the firefighters and the city during hearings held before the arbitration panel last month. It gives pay raises similar to what is called a “model” contract the city signed with police officers, the first contract the city administration signed in a new push to reduce contributions to employee health insurance.
Currently, the city pays 87 percent to 90 percent of health insurance costs for firefighters, depending on the health plan. Under the arbitration ruling, the city’s health contributions will be reduced to 80 percent for existing employees and 75 percent for new hires.
The arbitration panel also recognized a past ruling that gave firefighters a 3 percent raise on top of base wages for the contract that ended in 2003. That ruling was based on a “reopener clause” the firefighters invoked after police officers received additional stipends in that year. But that 3 percent raise, with an additional $1,500 stipend, will not be paid out until the last day of the contract, which is June 30, 2007.
At the same time, the panel permanently removed from the firefighters’ contract so-called “me-too” contract reopener clauses, which allowed the union to reopen the contract if another union received more than what it received. Mr. O’Brien said that clause was responsible for creating the “cycle of madness” that had led to this and other arbitration disputes.
“What we received in this arbitration decision was unprecedented,” Mr. O’Brien said. “The Joint Labor Management Committee demonstrated a sense of reality by recognizing our need to have fiscal stability. Members of my administration did a tremendous job in putting together the facts and briefs that helped frame the panel’s ultimate decision.”
Mr. O’Brien said he plans to submit a recommendation to the City Council next week, outlining his plan to fund the arbitration award.
The manager said the cost of the award for past years in dispute (fiscal years 2001-2003) is zero. He said the cost for fiscal years 2004-2007 is “fiscally manageable” and is pretty much in line with what city officials had anticipated.
He said, however, that the fiscal 2008 cost will be significant, but added that the arbitration decision will ultimately save the city “tens of millions of dollars.”
District 5 Councilor Frederick C. Rushton said the city administration’s preparation for this arbitration hearing was a key to its success. He and other councilors also said the decision likely would not have been possible had the city’s police union not previously agreed to have its members take on a greater share of their health insurance costs.
District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr. said he welcomes the end of the firefighter arbitration case. He said he cannot remember a more divisive issue on the council during the past 10 years.
“It was the most eye-opening and divisive issue I’ve seen and it will take some time for the wounds to heal,” Mr. Clancy said. “This administration has been able to succeed in the arbitration area where other administrations have failed miserably. Year after year, decision after decision, the city always lost its cases whenever it went before an arbitration panel.
“But through the efforts of this city manager, we have finally leveled the playing field in the arbitration area,” he added. “This is a fair and equitable agreement for both sides.”