Politics
How many highway crew chiefs does Lancaster need?
By Lee Chowaniec
Jun 21, 2007, 01:41

Not only should Lancaster residents question “how many crew chiefs are needed in the Lancaster Highway Department”, but also “how did the town get into this mess in the first place”?

In 2006, the town promoted a blue-collar highway department worker into the white- collar position of “working crew chief.” The night the resolution was being approved by the Town Board a white-collar CSEA union representative threatened a lawsuit would surely follow if the town approved the resolution.

The union rep informed the board that the $60,000 white-collar position had language in the contract that specified: “the first preference goes to those employees who work in the department. At that time the board was informed that a couple of white-collar employees did apply for the position, were qualified, but were never interviewed.

The CSEA white-collar union grieved the town’s appointment. The union argued that the word employee in the contract referred only to white-collar employees. An arbitrator agreed with the union’s claim and the town was ordered to approve the individual (John Smith – Engineering Department) to the position.

According to contracted Lancaster attorney Jeff Swiatek, by approving Smith to the crew chief position, the town was only doing what the arbitrator ordered. Not so says the union. The town has created another $60,000 position and that’s a waste of taxpayer’s money.

Recently the town approved a resolution to combine the white and blue-collar unions. When asked what the reasoning was behind the resolution, the answer given was tie up a few loose ends. Hmmm?

As reported by WGRZ2 today, the town will be asking the arbitrator for a ruling as to whether the first guy hired should be pushed back to the blue-collar ranks, or keep his job.

Monday’s Town Board meeting

Resident Dan Beutler addressed the board and declared that he was assured last year by the board that the appointment of highway department blue-collar employee Dan Lotello was not political.

"Yet the white-collar union filed a grievance on job posting emploment experience and was successful. The board was ordered to approve the promotion of John Smith, the guy that was passed over, and that’s what you’re doing tonight. Yet I am being led to believe that Lotello will remain as the third working crew chief."

“Why do we need so many working crew chiefs? We have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians; That's one crew chief for every 5 workers,” declared Beutler."

“In 2005 there was a non working crew chief and one crew chief. As a taxpayer, I have to ask why Lotello isn’t being pushed back to his former blue-collar position?”

Town Attorney Richard Sherwood answered that at one time white collar workers could only apply for the position. “We now don’t have that issue. The CSEA unions have combined as of the ruling day of the arbitration, May 7, 2007.

Sherwood also told Beutler that he was making assertions that may not be true. Beutler shot back that the town was increasing its payroll and that that is a concern to him.

The writer then addressed the board. Chowaniec reiterated Butler’s concerns on the creation of another job. “There was only one working crew chief in 2005. Now there are three. The town gave the job to the wrong individual in 2006 and now we are expected to be stuck with three crew chiefs and an increased payroll and not voice concerns?

Sherwood replied that the town did not err. “It is a question of interpretation. The arbitrator decided to interpret the contract only in white-collar contract terms. It was not a matter of choosing the wrong person, it was a matter of contract interpretation by the arbitrator.”

Chowaniec: “Why can’t the individual who was first given the crew chief position be returned to his blue-collar position?”

Sherwood: “Because you can’t. There is a civil service law requirement under Section 75 that says that he has property rights, a vested interest in that position. You just can’t dismiss somebody after you have given him a position.”

Chowaniec: Wasn’t there a union representative at last year’s meeting that said…

Sherwood: “I don’t care what the union says!”

Chowaniec: “We are not only looking at $12,000 and $14,000 salary increases for the two positions, but are asking whether another job would have to be created in the Engineering Department to replace Smith – another $48,000.”

Sherwood: “Smith’s job would not be replaced. The PIP (Public Improvement Permits) inspections he was making would be taken over by the contracted engineering consultant. Contractors are now obligated to pay all the overtime costs that are required to get PIP’s done. We pushed all those costs out to the contractors."

Union Labor Relations Specialist addresses board

Terri Hoffman, CSEA labor relations specialist for the white and blue-collar unions then addressed the board. Hoffmann declared the town now has 4 crew chiefs on the payroll since the arbitration settlement and the appointing this evening of John Smith.

Hoffmann: “Pursuant to Article 24 of the white-collar bargaining agreement John Smith is being appointed to the position of working crew chief, retroactive to July 3, 2006 with pay back pay and lost benefits”

“Secondly, on May 13, 2007, I sent a letter to Supervisor Giza asking Supervisor Giza asking for information whether or not Dan Lotello was a working crew chief or had been returned back to his position of light equipment operator. I received no response!”

Hoffmann stated that last year CSEA filed a petition to the Public Employer Relations Board requesting that the position of appointing crew chief be placed in the blue-collar unit where it rightfully belonged in the CSEA’s opinion. That task was just done recently, in the beginning of May 2007.

As far as Hoffmann knows (never received a reply from Giza) Mr. Lotello is still in the position of working crew chief. For the last 25 years there have been 24 employees in the Town Highway Department, despite the town’s growth. That means there will now be four (4) working crew chiefs in addition to an elected Town Highway Superintendent, meaning that for every 5.75 employees working in the highway department there will be a working crew chief.

Hoffmann declared that the matter would have to be arbitrated all over again, wasting taxpayer dollars to resolve this issue because Mr. Latello does not have right to the position according to the contractual language regarding job vacancies and job postings.

Hoffmann referred to Sherwood’s mention of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law and said the law is used for disciplinary purposes only. Both contracts have binding arbitration that was decided by an arbitrator who is an impartial party.

“The town’s tax dollars are going to be wasted on an issue that has already been answered by an arbitrator,” stated Hoffmann.

Sherwood interjected that it was not appropriate for a CSEA representative or anyone from the union to be commenting on arbitration matters. There is no reason to publicly discuss a subject that is, or apparently will be from what I hear, a subject for further arbitration.

“I am here also as a taxpayer,” shouted Hoffmann.

Sherwood again responded that it was not appropriate to speak on such matters publicly. “You know that Ms. Hoffmann, that such matters should not be discussed until arbitration is completed.”

Comments

If in fact, if what Ms. Hoffmann says is true, namely that the highway staffing has not increased over the past 25 years, why do we now need four crew chiefs when there were only 2 crew chiefs two years ago? Four crew chiefs each making over $60,000 - $12,000 and $14,000 more in salaries than they earned in their previous positions.

Sherwood claims the town made an honest mistake and was now forced to create a new position and that the individual who filled the position last year cannot be demoted according to Civil Service rules. Hoffmann claims otherwise considering contract requirements were not adhered to.

As stated above, the town will be looking to the arbitrator for a ruling on the matter. According to the language set by Impartial Arbitrator Michael S. Lewandowski that’s what the town should be doing:

In the event that the parties are unable to agree on the interpretation of the ruling, the arbitrator retains jurisdiction and if necessary, will rule on the proper implementation of the terms of this stipulation.


© Copyright 2003 by Speakupwny.com