2004 -2007 CBA to the 2007 – 2011 CBA Article 8 Lodge Business The FOP sought to change the President of the Lodge to a full-time position and proposed to have officers donate paid leave time to pay for the salary plus overtime and benefits. Thus argued the FOP, there was no cost to Metro. Metro rejected that proposal, not due to cost, but as a bad precedent to set in light of the other 4000 unionized employees of Metro. Article 12 Grievance Procedure No change in the 2004-07 agreement was made. The Metro proposal for the addition of a new step that would provide for mediation before arbitration was largely a “throwaway” item. The FOP proposal to change step 4 in the process from “advisory arbitration” to “final and binding” was sternly rejected by Metro because it would potentially violate state law for a governmental body to turn over authority to an outside party. Article 17 Disciplinary Procedure No significant change. Metro was unable to allow the Chief to use a polygraph exam as a part of an administrative investigation procedure, even though it was in current use for police applicants (who are not part of the bargaining unit until hired, thus not under the CBA). Article 23 Legal Protection

No change in was made in the 2007 -2011 agreement. Metro argued that officers and sergeants who are sued and leave already received legal representation from the county Attorney’s Office for line-of-duty actions while they were employed by LMPD. The FOP wanted Metro to pay for an attorney of the officer’s choosing. Article 24 Salary The formula used in the 2004-07 agreement was continued. The formula provides the minimum of a 2% salary increase each year or half the percentage increase in Metro’s tax revenues, whichever is greater. The longevity table was not changed. (Estimated additional annual cost in wages is $1,600, 000 each year of the contract). Article 26 Court Pay Court pay was increased from $46 per appearance to $50 per appearance. Metro agreed that the old rate might not have provided adequate overtime pay to meet state law (time and half). (Estimated additional annual cost in wages is $113, 043.) Article 29 Special Assignment Pay The 2007-11 contract includes a new benefit; fifty cents ($.50) per hour shift differential for officers whose scheduled shift begins between 2200 and 0200 hours. (Estimated additional annual cost in wages is $250,000.)

Article 30

Paid and Unpaid Leaves

Sec. 3 Bereavement Pay. Aunts and uncles were included as members of immediate family. (estimated annual cost not significant) Article 31 Sick Leave

Sec. 5 No change was made. The FOP request to include grandparents and significant others in this section was not agreed to by Metro. Article 37 Personal Property

No change in this article for the 2007-2011 agreement. Article 33 Health Insurance No change in health insurance benefits or premium co-payments for the two FOP-only plans calendar year 2008. In calendar year 2009, the benefits of the FOP-only plans was changed; co-pay for urgent care center increases from $35.00 to $50.00; and the co-pay on emergency room visit increases from $50.00 to $75.00. No other benefit level change during the term of the contract, including prescription drug co-payments. Premium co-payment increases for health insurance plan years 2009, 2010 and 2011, included increases: FOP-only Plans Employee only Employee + child/ren Employee + spouse Family $30 (from $20) $40 (from $30) $50 (from $40) $70 (from $50) Non-FOP Plans $30 (from $20) $30 (from $20) $30 (from $20) $40 (from $20)

While the increases in co-pays and premium costs were small, they were important to Metro which could cite increases to other unions. (Estimated annual savings from the health insurance changes = $ 58,750) Article 34 Clothing and Equipment Allowance The officers received a $60.00 increase per month in equipment allowance beginning July 2009. (Estimated annual additional cost is $864,000.) Article 40 Term The parties agreed to a four year term – which is at least a year longer than any recently negotiated contract with the FOP. A longer term agreement was beneficial to both parties, but especially desired by Metro which wanted to more easily make budget predictions for future years, and to set a model for other unions.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful