Health Care Bargaining Strategies Without Violating P.E.R.A.
Strategies for addressing health care in collective bargaining without violating P.E.R.A., including insights on mandatory bargaining subjects, likely litigation issues, and challenges faced. Exploring general rules, problematic aspects, potential ULPs, and premature impasse declarations in health care negotiations.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Health Care Bargaining: Strategies for Change Without Violating P.E.R.A. Deborah C. Brown Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A, May 15, 2014
Agenda PERC view on health care as mandatory subject of bargaining Most likely litigation issues when health care is in dispute Possible bargaining option and strategies
Health Care as a Mandatory Subject of Bargaining Wages, Hours, Terms and Conditions of Employment An issue or subject regarding which either party is legally obligated to bargain upon the request of the other Position can be insisted upon to the point of impasse and imposed through legislative body action
General Rule on Health Care City of Dunedin, 8 FPER 13102 (1982) Public employer s payment of insurance premiums is term or condition of employment Union entitled to notice of increase and right to bargain before implementation Generalized language alone with zipper clause not a waiver
Why Health Care Bargaining in Problematic Often at the mercy of the insurer Plan year and CBA year may not match Even if self insured, delays that often accompany resolution of bargaining disputes problematic Challenges compounded with multiple units Crafting language that can be imposed and is effective is difficult And now we have ACA
Likely ULPs if Things Go South Refusal to Bargain Premature impasse declaration Unlawful unilateral change Imposition of waiver at impasse
Premature Impasse Declaration City of Cocoa, 30 FPER 295 (2004)(to sustain charge, must establish that a reasonable period of negotiation has not transpired, meaning CP must allege and demonstrate that the respondent refused to meaningfully negotiate mandatory subjects of bargaining by declaring an impasse before negotiating those issues) No deadlock required like NLRA Recent cases suggest a stay of impasse has become more unlikely as interim measure
Unlawful Unilateral Change Absent clear and unmistakable waiver, exigent circumstances, or legislative body action after bargaining impasse, changes in status quo of mandatory subjects cannot be made by public employer without providing notice to union and an opportunity to conduct meaningful negotiations, before implementing the change. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind Teachers United v. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, 11 FPER 16080 (1985), aff d., 483 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) Such unilateral changes constitute a per se violation of Section 447.501(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes
Imposition of Waiver at Impasse Palm Beach Junior College Board of Trustees v. United Faculty of Palm Beach Junior College, 475 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1985), aff g in part and rev g in part, 425 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), aff g 7 FPER 12300 (1981)(unfair labor practice for a public employer to legislate or impose a waiver of the right to bargain over changes in mandatory subjects) Language granting unilateral right to change would constitute a waiver But language proposed must actually contain a waiver (State of Florida DMS, 20 FPER 25102 (1994)) And see Clay County Board of County Commissioners, 40 FPER 121 (2013) on switching back and forth
Defenses To ULP Charges Most Common Defenses Statute of Limitations Unilateral change defenses: (1) waiver; (2) no objective reasonable expectation; (3) legislative body action; (4) exigent circumstances Whether subject has been bargained Effectiveness of demand Financial urgency?
Statute of Limitations Six months by statute; typically runs from notice, not when effects felt Central Florida PBA v. City of Casselberry, 25 FPER 30305 (1999)(Commission dismissed charge alleging unlawful unilateral change in promotional process and refusal to bargain impact; Commission held that, by failing to timely challenge change, which the Union knew or should have known about, change had now become status quo and no impact bargaining obligation remained)
Unilateral Change Defenses Waiver No objective reasonable expectation Legislative body action Exigent circumstances Maybe financial urgency???
Precursor: Do You Have a Change? City of Coral Gables, 9 FPER 14912 (1983) Suggesting a change in insurer alone without change in benefits may not be sufficient to constitute unilateral change But see, School Board of Palm Beach County, 9 FPER 14290 (1983)(answer might be different if employer is new carrier) And State of Florida, 14 FPER 19085 (1988)(charge on change of HMO carriers where insufficient evidence of past practice and requirement for bidding, but noting some aspects of selection may be bargaining subject)
When You Bargain Remember that during bargaining, it is lawful for a party to propose a non-mandatory subject of bargaining. (District 2A, Transportation, Technical, Warehouse, Industrial and Service Employees Union, Affiliated with American Maritime Officers v. Canaveral Port Authority, 26 FPER 31221 (2000), aff d., 799 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).) But if impasse resolution process used, neither party may insist that a special magistrate consider a non- mandatory subject of bargaining And of course a legislative body may not impose a non- mandatory subject such as a waiver of a union' s right to bargain over mandatory subjects of bargaining
Waiver After Expiration United Faculty of Florida v. Florida State University Board of Trustees, 34 FPER 159, per cur. aff d., 9 So. 3d 622(Fla. 1stDCA 2009) Not an insurance case, but stands for proposition that a waiver that concerns itself with a mandatory subject of bargaining does indeed survive contract expiration In this case, it was the ability to grant discretionary pay increases
Impact Bargaining? City of Fort Pierce, 36 FPER 87 (2010), aff d., 51 So.3d 1158 (Fla. 1stDCA 2011) Waiver found in language Impact argument kicked out based on pleading issue
No Objective Reasonable Expectation Sheriff of Clay County, 36 FPER 402 (2010) The disjunctive test affirmed (i.e., a past practice cannot be the status quo unless it is both unequivocal and has existed substantially unvaried for a significant period of time, and could reasonably be expected to remain unchanged) Commission concluded that because health benefits were not substantially unvaried for significant period of time, employees could not reasonably expect no change
More on Past Practice DeSoto County, 13 FPER 18215 (1987) Pre- contract increase in dependant health premium and employee/dependant deductibles dismissed Not enough to show the terms in existence at time of certification In absence of contract, terms and conditions to be viewed dynamically over time and the status quo against which change is considered must take into account past practice and past patterns of change
Expectation Analysis is Fact Specific City of Tallahassee, 8 FPER 13400 (1982), aff'd. mem., 445 So.2d 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Unilateral change case Increase in premiums for newly certified supervisory police unit unlawful City lost arguments on (1) status quo and objective reasonable expectations based on historic treatment on unit pre-certification, and (2) waiver by ineffective demand
What Does a Waiver Look Like? Palm Beach County School Board, 9 FPER 14306 (1983) During FY 83, the Board agrees to pay the full amount of the cost of health insurance for regular employees who elect individual coverage. Any increases in cost for individual coverage after June 30, 1983, shall be borne by the employee, unless contrary to the terms of a successor agreement.
So What About Retiree Insurance Premiums? City of Gainesville, 65 So.3d 1070 (2011) Right of current employees to bargain retiree contributions now established Caution must be exercised
The Polk Cases Polk Education Association v. School District of Polk County, 36 FPER 260 (2010), aff d., 100 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) Polk County Non-Industrial Employees Union, Local 2227, AFSCME v. School District of Polk County, 36 FPER 261 (2010), aff d., 100 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)
The Polk Cases Committee participation by unions did not carry the day, but perhaps in part because new options not considered at Committee level were interjected Neither case had adequate language for waiver Exigent circumstances not established
Other Whether subject has been bargained See City of Deerfield Beach, 38 FPER 89 (2011)(couched in terms of waiver but noting no obligation to bargain where you already have and the CBA contains language) Effectiveness of demand Argued in City of Tallahassee; typically objecting alone not enough, but for inaction to ripen to waiver, all circumstances must point to abandonment of bargaining right)
Subject Bargained Lake Worth Utilities Authority, 10 FPER 15004 (1983) Status quo is fixed employer contribution Maintaining status quo in face of premium increase after contract expiration not a violation No obligation to even notify union of change (that is only triggered by possible change in status quo or information request)
How Bad is Messing Up? Remedy if employer changes plan unlawfully is generally restoration of status quo Fees can be awarded and a notice will be required Village of Key Biscayne, 39 FPER 2 (2012) tells us interim injunctive relief unlikely PERC declined request by union to seek injunction in this case because adequate remedy at law available
Bargaining Options and Strategies Express Language (no waiver) Waiver Options Buying a Waiver Waiver by Committee Waiver by Conscious Yielding A Possible Nuclear Option (health care opt out)
Speaker Information Deborah C. Brown o Of Counsel, Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. o dbrown@tsghlaw.com
Disclaimer The information contained in these materials is intended as an informational report on legal developments of general interest. It is not intended to provide a complete analysis or discussion of each subject covered. Applicability to a particular situation depends upon an investigation of the specific facts and more exhaustive study of applicable law than can be provided in this format.
