increase to the current percentage level from 8.5% to 10% for July 1, 2009.

Therefore, the City is being reasonable in its proposal in not trying to increase the health insurance percentage by 4 or 5 percentage points." (City Brief, page 41). The Union stated "While it is true that caps are disappearing throughout Connecticut the Union has offered to greatly increase the cap in an attempt to assist the City is some cost saving measures while at the same time attempting to protect its members from the volatile health care industry. An analysis of Issues 29,30,31,32,33 demonstrate the last best offers of the parties are not far off at all and actually match in several areas. In most cases the costs are only a year off. An example of this is that in issue 29 five of the areas actually match perfectly and that when Union 30 is combined with City 29 the only difference appears to be that the union proposes $200.00 in patient admission and the City proposes $250.00. The only other difference being that the union seeks to retain prosthetics and wellness visits. ISSUE IN DISPUTE 29 IN ISSUE IN DISPUTE 30 IN ISSUE IN DISPUTE 31 IN ISSUE IN DISPUTE 32 IN ISSUE IN DISPUTE 33 IN ISSUE IN DISPUTE 34 IN (Union Brief, page 37) NETWORK NETWORK NETWORK NETWORK NETWORK NETWORK BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT BENEFIT COPAYMENTS COPAYMENTS COPAYMENTS COPAYMENTS COPAYMENTS COPAYMENTS 19.1(b)l.a 19.1(b)l.a 19.1(b)l.a 19.1(b)l.a 19.1(b)l.f 19.1(b)l.f

43

Based on all the evidence submitted, the overwhelming evidence sustains the Union's last best offers for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offers of the Union for Issues 26 and 27 are accepted. The Union appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the City appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offers of the Union based upon the same Statutory Criteria. After reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 28 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

44

ISSUE 29 - Paragraph No. 253, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.a City - In-Network Benefit Co-Payments 2009-2010

The Union is proposing the following design changes to the health care plan effective July 1, N,• • • • • •
• • • • •

2009: $10 $10 $0 $100
$50

General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventing: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-Patient MI/ND/SA:
Outpatient per admission Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy

$25
X100 $100 $50 $25 $25

(20 visits maximum) (30 visits combined)"

The City is proposing the following design change to the health care plan effective July 1, "a. 2009: 2009:

In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1,

• General office visits: • Walk-ins/allergy testing: • Emergency Room: • Out-Patient Surgery • , Inpatient per admission • Urgent Care • Chiropractic • Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy

$15 $15 $50 $100 $250 $50 $25 (20 visits maximum) $25 (30 visits combined)"

The City argued "Terry DeMattie recommended that the City increase its co-payments because paying $5 for a doctor's office visit seems 'unreasonable'. Tr. 9/8/09 p.25. She recommended $25. The City compromised at $15 for 2009, which would represent 45

a savings to the City of approximately 2.3% (See p.11 of City Exhibit 4, at the top, or $45,900). Fifteen dollars is also a reasonable co-pay compared to surrounding towns (see pp.53-54, supra). Increasing these co-pays helps the City in slightly deferring the cost increases that it faces every year for an insurance plan that costs it over $20,000,000 per year. The same argument applies to the walk-in/allergy testing-a $15 co-pay for this service is reasonable. As to the in-patient per admission, $250 again is reasonable. Segal had recommended that this be $500 per admission charge, but the City compromised to $250 so that it could achieve some savings. Id. p,. 26. The

City would save 4.4% or $90,000, if it increased the out-patient co-pay to $200. Their savings would be cut in half it is was $100. (See City Exhibit 4, p. 11). Therefore, the amount of

$250 is reasonable given the City's poor economic condition. This is also consistent with comparable towns(See Issue 26 summary, pp. 41-42)." (City Brief, pages 43-44).

It appears that the changes proposed by the City are fair in light of the current design changes that have been agreed to by other similarly situated employees. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 29 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees

46

with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

47

ISSUE 30 - Paragraph No. 253a, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.a City - In-Network Benefit Co-Payments 2010-2011

The Union is proposing the following design change to the health care plan effective July 1, 2010: ,‘„, • • • • •
• • • • •

General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventing: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-Patient MI/ND/SA:
Outpatient per admission Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy

$15 $15

$0 $100
$50

$25
$100 $100 $50 $25 (20 visits maximum) $25 (30 visits combined)"

The City argued that "the health insurance costs increasing by 10% every year, it is not unreasonable to have the employees increase their co-pays by a mere $5 for doctor's visits, walk-ins and allergies. Moreover, the $50 charge from 2009 (Issue 29) is only being increased to $75 for emergency room visits. As to out-patient surgery, the City proposes to go from $100 to $150, which again is not a large increase. As to in-patient per admission, which is a relatively rare occurrence, the City is proposing to go from $250 to $350. Segal had recommended that the City seek $500 per in-patient admission, by the City has elected to gradually increase the in-patient cost over the three years of the contract going from $250 to $350 and then, effective

48

July 1, 2011, to $500 which is a fair approach." (City Brief, pages 44-45). "a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2010: • • • • • • • • General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Emergency Room: Out-Patient Surgery Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy $20 $20 $75 $150 $350 $50 $25 (20 visits maximum) $25 (30 visits combined)"

The proposed changes in the health care design by the City are in line with the changes that have been made in other contracts. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 30 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

49

ISSUE 31 - Paragraph No. 253b, Article/Section 19.1(B) .a City - In-Network Benefit Co-Payments 2011-2012

The Union is proposing the following design change to the health care plan effective July 1, ,• • • • • • •
• •

2011:
$20 $25

General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventing: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-Patient MI/ND/SA:
Outpatient per admission Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic

$0 $100
$50

$25
$150 $300 $50 $25 (20 visits maximum)


Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy

$25 (30 visits combined)"

The City argued that its proposed changes would bring the insurance plan which the police officers have in line with what is fair and reasonable considering the City's financial problems. pages 44-45). "a. In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Emergency Room: Out-Patient Surgery Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy 2011:

$25 $25 $100 $200 $500 $50 $30 (20 visits maximum) $30 (30 visits combined)"

The proposed changes by the City in its health design are in line with the changes that have been made in other contracts. 50

Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 31 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

ISSUE 32 - Paragraph No. 258, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f City - Prescription Co-payments 2009-2010 The City is proposing to change the prescription co-payments commencing July 1, 2009, from the current zero for mail orders, $3.00 for retail generics, and $6.00 for retail brands to $5.00 for mail orders, $10.00 for retail brands and $15.00 for retail non-listed brands. The Union is proposing $5.00 for mail orders, $10.00 for retail generics, and $15.00 for retail brands. The City stated "The City also wants to go to a formulary plan where it is three-tiered so that if you use a preferred brand drug, you pay the second tier, and preferred drugs are usually those that don't have generic available. Under this plan the employee would not be disincented for using a drug that doesn't have a generic available. Id. The third tier is the

highest co-pay because those are usually brand names that are not preferred and do have a generic available so you could be using a generic drug. Id.

The Union, in contract, continues to have a two-tier plan which is not acceptable in these times of rising costs. The City's proposed prescription co-pays for 2009 are reasonable when compared to comparable towns. (City Brief, page 46). (See Issue 26 list. Pp. 41-42)."

52

The City's proposal of a three-tier drug plan would bring it in conformity with about 80% of drug plans in Connecticut. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 32 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

53

ISSUE 33 - Paragraph No. 258a, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f City - Prescription Co-payments 2010-2011

The City is proposing to increase the retail non-listed brands from $15.00 to $20.00 as of July 1, 2010. Further, the City is proposing to increase the retail listed brands from $10.00 to $15.00 as of July 1, 2010. For all the same reasons stated in Issue 32, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 33 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

54

ISSUE 34 - Paragraph No. 258ba, Article/Section 19.1(B)1.f City - Prescription Co-payments 2011-2012

The City is proposing to increase the retail generics from $5.00 to $10.00, leaving the listed brands at $15.00 and increasing the retail non-listed brands from $20.00 to $25.00. The Union has proposed that its proposal for all three years of the contract be the same as it proposed to commence July 1, 2009. For all the same reasons stated in Issue 32, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 34 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

55

ISSUE 35 - Paragraph No. 293, Article/Section 24.1(A) City - City's 401K plan for new hires

The City is proposing that all employees hired after November
1 , 2009, will no longer be able to participate in the defined

Benefit Plan when they retire but would be enrolled in the City of West Haven's 401K Plan with disability insurance. The City argued that it is one of the poorest in the State of Connecticut. It has a $5,000,000 deficit; it has no cash reserves; it has a deplorable bond rating; and a substantial long-term debt. The City stated "It is undisputed that the City borrowed $66 million in 2002 to fully fund the Plan. Not seven years later, the City is forecasted to be underfunded again by at least $20 million in the January, 2010 reevaluation. As background, Steve Lemanski testified that the January, 2008 evaluation showed that the accrued liability of the plan was approximately $112.5 million against a market value of assets of $118 million, which defined the unfunded accrued liability. Tr. 9/16, pp. 36-37. At that time, the plan was over funded by $6.3 million, which he labeled a 'negative unfunded liability'.
See Milliman Actuarial Evaluation, January 1, 2008,

City Exhibit 3 (City Vol. II), Tab XI, p.3. Mr. Lemanski testified that while the Police Pension Plan was fully funded as of January, 2008, a primary source of the funds for the proceeds was from the 2002 pension obligation bond, which was

56

approximately $66.3 million.

Tr. 9/16, p. 48.

As shown by Mr.

Barron in his worksheet behind Tab XIV, City Exhibit 3 (City Vol. II), p. 2, as of 2002, the plan was 100% funded at $83,671,626, so the value of the pension was just over $17 million before the City bonded the balance of approximately $66 million to fully fund it. The liability to the City of the plan increased to just over $99 million in 2006, and then to just over $112 million for 2008, showing an annual growth rate of 6.4%. Id. Lemanski, Tr. 9/16, p.

52. Mr. Lemanski projects that the forecasted liability as of January 1, 2010 will be approximately $127 million based on the same rate of growth that happened to the plan from 2006 to 2008. Id. pp.

52-53. This is also shown on Mr. Barron's worksheet, City Exhibit 3, Tab XIV, p.2. Mr. Lemanski also explained that the terms of the pension obligation bond require that the pension be 100% funded. Tr. 9/16, pp. 49-50. Therefore, with a projected unfunded liability of close to $30 million as of August, 2009, the City is required to pay that over five years. Id. That would require the City repaying

just over $6 million in fiscal year 2011 if there was a $30 million annual shortfall. 9-10). The City further stated "The City updated the value of the pension plan as of December 7, 2009, showing that Morgan Stanley reports the value as $103 million. Therefore, Mr. Lemanski's estimate was not far off, and the City is still facing a $24 million See Barron Worksheet, p.2." (City Brief, pages

57

shortfall, instead of a $27 million shortfall, using the December 7 number from Morgan Stanley. Therefore, the Police defined benefit plan is strangling the City. The City not only had to borrow $66 million to fund it in 2002, but seven short years later now faces a shortfall of $24 million which it may have to repay over the next five years. The City cannot keep paying for the defined benefit plan for new hires." "Milliman did a 25-year projection of the proposed pension plan change from the current defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan where the City contributes 5% of the employee's salary. See City Exhibit 2 (City Vol. III), Tab V. Mr. Lemanski

testified that they modeled the new defined contribution plan for the new hires over a 25-year period, using evaluation assumptions from the defined benefit plan in terms of the separation of existing members and being replaced by new hires. Tr. 9/16, p. 60. Looking at Milliman's chart, p. 2 behind Tab V, year one assumes that there will be 10 new hires and that would increase to 110 by year 25. Further Milliman assumed that the new hires would each contribute 2% based on the City's existing 401(k) plan so that the City match would be 5%. Mr. Lemanski's assumption is that 10 officers would retire in year one and that 10 officers would replace them. Id.,

p. 61. In year one, the savings to the City would be $21,554, representing the difference in cost between the employer contribution to the defined contribution plan, and the defined

58

benefit City normal cost for the year

(see Line 5 of the Projected

Plan Change). By year 10, the savings in that one year would be approximately $122,000. By year 15, the annual savings would be close to $300,000. By year 20, the savings would be approximately $650,000. And for year 25, the savings would be close to $1.5 million in that one year." (City Brief, 2009 MBA 308, pages 11-12). Further, the City stated "The other three union in the City, CWA Local 1103, AFSCME Local 688 and UE Local 222 (CILU-CIPU), have the City of West Haven Pension Plan (401(k) as their pension and have had it since the 1980's. Mullin, Tr. 9/16, p. 24; Picard, Tr. 8/13, p. 90. All of the non-Union employees in the City are also members of the City of West Haven Pension Plan (401(k)).
Id.

The

summary plan description of the City of West Haven pension plan is attached as Tab IV to City Exhibit 2 (City's Vol. III). Therefore, putting new hires of the Police Department into the existing City's 401(k) is consistent with the other bargaining units in the City and is further reason under the statute to rule in the City's favor on this issue. The Police Department having a defined benefit plan is the anomaly." "In recognition of the physical nature of police work, the City also included in its last best offer a disability retirement plan which the City would purchase to provide 45% of final salary up to age 65 as a supplement to the 401(k). Tr. 9/16, p. 25. Last Best Offer, Issue in Dispute #5.
See City's

59

The Union falsely states in its brief that the City 'does not have any provisions in place for new hires that are not covered by the defined benefit plan to be eligible for Social Security'. Union Brief, p. 41. The City made it very clear that the new hires would go into Social Security when the 401(k) is adopted. Hence, the offer of disability insurance to age 65 includes, as explained to the Union, the fact that officers after age 65 would be eligible for Medicare under Social Security and that the City would start the process to apply for new hires to be eligible for Social Security once the pension was settled.". (City Brief, 2009 MBA 308, pages 14-15). The Union argued that it understands that the City is in tough financial shape. The City had to take $1,500,000 from the Police Pension Plan to pay its current bills. The Union further stated "The economic data is not such that the union is in a position to argue alternative statistical data to attempt to trick the panel into believing that the city is just claiming poverty in an attempt to have a positive position to support their economic proposals. The Union agrees the City of West Haven has been mismanaged for years and continues to be mismanaged into bankruptcy. It would not surprise anyone if the Municipal Finance Advisory Commission were to take over West Haven once again and apply the draconian policies it has applied in City's like Waterbury where collective bargaining was almost eliminated for a

60

Further, the Union stated, "Currently the City does not have provisions in place for new hires that are not covered by the defined benefit plan to be eligible for social security. (See Ex B attached hereto) The fact that New Hires would be entering a job not knowing what their retirement benefits were likely to be and what their social security protections would be is going to make recruiting new police officers into West Haven almost impossible. There are no provisions for a meaningful disability protections offered at this point in time. The volatile market makes any major decisions not only difficult but irresponsible. The Union readily concedes that if the pension plan is no longer sustainable that steps need to be taken to make it sustainable. The City's scorched earth negotiation tactics and policies are doing noting to solve the City's financial woes. It is true that there may come a time where the union will have no choice but accept the fact that the defined benefit pension in West Haven is obsolete but that time is not now. This panel ought to deny the city's request to delete the defined benefit pension for new hires and they should deny it with the admonition to the city that when they come back in four years to negotiate an end to the defined benefit program for new hires that they bring information that the union can analyze to help the union come to a decision about what is best for its members from a 20 or 25 year prospective.

61

Information like social security will be available, disability insurance will be available, advisors and counselors will be available to assist employees in insuring their investments are as profitable as possible. Had the City done these simple basic management steps in this negotiation the union may have been amenable to such a radical change." (Union Brief, pages 41-42). The evidence that has been submitted to the Panel clearly demonstrates that the City is in a very severe financial situation that has been compounded by the current fiscal crisis. Further, three other unions in the City are under the West Haven Pension Plan (401(k) since 1980. Also, the new police officer hires will receive a disability retirement plan and Social Security benefits. Therefore, after reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the City for Issue 35 is accepted. The City appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the Union appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the City based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

62

ISSUE 37 - Paragraph No. 331, Article/Section 29.1(A) City - Detective weekend off schedule June 30, 2012

The City is proposing to amend the Detective schedules so that all Detectives who currently work Monday through Friday will have a Friday and Saturday off or a Sunday and Monday off. The City indicated that it needs Detectives to work weekends to provide service to the citizens of West Haven. The Panel believes that the current schedule should remain. After reviewing all of the information received by the arbitration panel, in light of the Statutory Criteria, the Last Best Offer of the Union for Issue 37 is accepted. The Union appointed Arbitrator agrees with the Neutral Arbitrator based upon the same Statutory Criteria, and the City appointed Panel Member dissents on the selection of the Last Best Offer of the Union based upon the same Statutory Criteria.

63

CITY OF WEST HAVEN AND AFSCME, CO. 15, Local 895 Case No. 2009-MBA-64, Police

Romanow, Esquire Management Member

adZ
Paul Ari la Labor Member I M. Jack Chairman ebber

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #1 ARTICLE 5 SENIORITY SECTIONS 5.4

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 5.4 Patrol Officers and Sergeants shall select their shifts and beats according to seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days. UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER 5.4 Patrol Officers and Sergeants shall select their shifts and beats according to seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #2 ARTICLE 5 SENIORITY SECTIONS 5.5

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:

5.5 Detectives and Detective Sergeants shall pick their holidays and vacations according to seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER 5.5
Detectives and Detective Sergeants shall pick their holidays and vacations according to seniority from the effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan and Section 13.4 of this Agreement. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #3 ARTICLE 5 SENIORITY SECTIONS 5.6

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 5.6
Lieutenants shall select their shifts and days off according to seniority from effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan, Section 13.4 of this Agreement concerning Reorganization as set forth in Appendix E. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER 5.6 Lieutenants shall select their shifts and days off according to seniority from effective date of appointment to their respective ranks in accordance with the present selection plan, Section 13.4 of this Agreement concerning Reorganization as set forth in Appendix E. The selection period shall be fifty-six (56) days.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #4 ARTICLE 8 VACATIONS SECTION 8.3

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
8.3 Employees who have completed five (5) years of service but less than ten (10) years of service shall receive three (3) weeks of paid vacation annually.

CITY'S PROPOSAL:
8.3 Employees who have completed five (5) years of service but less than ten (10) years of service shall receive three (3) weeks of paid vacation annually.

UNION PROPOSAL:
Withdrawn

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #5 ARTICLE 9 WAGES SECTION 9.2

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER
9.2

1% General Wage Increase for January 1, 2009.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #6 ARTICLE 9 WAGES SECTION 9.3

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER

9.3

2.0% General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2009.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #7 ARTICLE 9 WAGES SECTION 9.4

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER

9.4

2.0 % General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2010.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #8 ARTICLE 9 WAGES SECTION 9.4 (NEW SECTION)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: None UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER NEW SECTION 9.4a

2.5% General Wage Increase effective July 1, 2011.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #9 ARTICLE 10 LONGEVITY SECTION 10.1

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 10.1 Eligibility and Amount: Each employee in the bargaining unit who has or will have five (5) years but less than ten (10) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of five hundred and fifty ($550) dollars. Each employee who has or will have ten (10) years of service but less than fifteen (15) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of six hundred and fifty ($650) dollars. Each employee who has or will have fifteen (15) years of service but less than twenty (20) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of seven hundred and fifty ($750) dollars. Each employee who has or will have twenty (20) years or more of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity increment of eight hundred and fifty hundred ($850) dollars. Such payments are to be made on the first pay day in December of said fiscal year. Effective July 1, 2007 the longevity payment shall be increased by an additional one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars. UNION'S PROPOSAL: 10.1 Eligibility and Amount: Each employee in the bargaining unit who has or will have five (5) years but less than ten (10) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of seven hundred ($700) dollars. Each employee who has or will have ten (10) years of service but less than fifteen (15) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of eight hundred ($800) dollars. Each employee who has or will have fifteen (15) years of service but less than twenty (20) years of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity payment of nine hundred ($900) dollars. Each employee who has or will have twenty (20) years or more of service on June 30th of each fiscal year shall receive an annual longevity increment of one thousand ($1000) dollars. Such payments are to be made on the first pay day in December of said fiscal year.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #I0 ARTICLE 11 EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS SECTION 11.1

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
11.1 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing an Associate's Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the teen of this contract:

Of two percent (1.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

11.2 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a B.A. or B.S. Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the term of this contract:
Of three percent (2.25) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

11.3 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a Master's Degree
Of four percent (2.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

UNION'S PROPOSAL 11.1 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing an Associate's Degree or the equivalent of college credits thereof, shall receive a yearly allowance during the term of this contract:
Of two percent (1.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

11.2 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a B.A. or B.S. Degree shall receive a yearly allowance during the term of this contract:
Of three percent (2.25) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

11.3 Each member of the bargaining unit with one year of service possessing a Master's Degree

Of four percent (2.75) of a Grade A Patrol Officer's salary

11.4 Each member of the bargaining unit who has the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in credit hours will be paid as though such member had obtained the degree. Proof of compliance with the various requirements of Section 11.4 shall be submitted to the Chief of Police. All credit hours and degrees must be from an accredited school. 11.5 Any employee who has a degree or the equivalent of an Associate's Degree in credit hours verified at any time during the year shall be paid the appropriate sum of money in either December or June.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #11 ARTICLE 11 RATES OF PAY EXTRA POLICE DUTY SECTION 12.2 (B)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
B. Payment for extra duty jobs shall be at a minimum of four (4) hours, except as provided in C below.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER
B. Payment for extra duty jobs shall be at a minimum of five (5) hours, except as provided in C below.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #12 ARTICLE 11 RATES OF PAY EXTRA POLICE DUTY , SECTION 12.2 (C)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
C. For the West Haven Board of Education and Notre Dame High School sporting events, payment shall be at a minimum of three (3) hours.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER

12.2 Rates of Pay: NEW D. For the West Haven Board of Education payment shall be set at a minimum of three (3) hours, and for Notre Dame High School sporting events payment shall be at a minimum of four (4) hours.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #13 ARTICLE 13 MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS SECTION 13.2 (A)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
A. A full compliment of officers shall be 10 patrol beats on the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m./3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, 9 patrol beats on the 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m./11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and 10 patrol beats on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m./7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER: A.
A full compliment of officers shall be 11 patrol beats on the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. / 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift, 10 patrol beats on the 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. /1 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and 11 patrol beats on the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. / 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #14 ARTICLE 13 EXTRA DUTY FOR CITY AND STAFFING SECTION 13.2(F) - ARBITRABILITY

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 13.2
(F)
Minimum Staffing: Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER
(F)
Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #14A ARTICLE 13 EXTRA DUTY FOR CITY AND STAFFING SECTION 13.2(F)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 13.3 Minimum Staffing: (G) Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER (G)_ Captains: There will be four divisions, each headed by a Captain...

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #15 ARTICLE 13 EXTRA DUTY CITY STAFFING SECTION 13.3(A)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra shift work, and extra police duty as defined in Section 12.1 the officer must have worked the full forty (40) hour work week during the week that the extra shift occurred. In the event of a recognized holiday or vacation, it will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hour week.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER: A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra shift the officer must have worked the full (40) hour work week during that week that the extra shift duty occurred. In the event that an officer takes Sick Leave as defined in Section 15.1, forty-eight (48) hours prior to or after working the extra shift duty, it will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hours. In the event of a recognized holiday, vacation, personal or compensatory day, it will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hours.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #16 ARTICLE 13

EXTRA DUTY CITY STAFFING
SECTION 13.3(B)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
B. In order to receive the time and one half for the extra police duty as defined in 12.1, the officer must have worked the full forty (40) hour work week during the week that the extra shift occurred. If an officer books off sick for a reason authorized under Article 15 and provides written documentation to the Chief of Police state that reason; the officer will be allowed an exemption from this provision. Two (2) exemptions will be allowed per officer per contract year if the above criteria are met. Failure to provide written documentation will result in loss of exemption. An approved holiday, vacation, personal or compensatory day will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty hour week.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER: A. In order to receive the time and one half rate for extra police duty as defined in section 12.1, the officer must have worked the full (40) hour work week during that week that the extra police duty occurred. In the event that an officer takes Sick Leave as defined in Section 15.1, forty-eight (48) hours prior to or after working the extra police duty, it will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hour week. An approved holiday, vacation, personal, or compensatory day will be considered as eight (8) working hours toward the full forty (40) hour week.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #17 ARTICLE 13 PAYMENT FOR EXTRA SHIFT WORK — RATE OF JOB BEING FILLED SECTION 13.3(C) — NEW SECTION

NEW CONTRACT LANGUAGE: Payment for Extra Shift Work C.
Officers shall receive time and one half for the extra police duty at the rate of the job being filled.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER Union rejects City's proposed language

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #18 ARTICLE 13 EXTRA DUTY SHIFT SELECTION PERIOD SECTION 13.4 (8 WEEKS)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
Shift Selection: All employees shall be required to bid within the time limits established herein. A copy of the upcoming pick sheet for bidding shall be distributed with employee paychecks prior to the fourth week preceding the start of the cycle. The bidding shall be done starting in the fourth week prior to the start of the fifty-six day cycle.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER All employees shall be required to bid within the time limits established herein. A copy of the upcoming pick sheet for bidding shall be distributed with employee paychecks prior to the fourth week preceding the start of the cycle. The bidding shall be done starting in the fourth week prior to the start of the fifty-six day cycle.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #19 ARTICLE 13 HOW COMP TIME CAN BE USED SECTION 13.6(1)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: A full shift of compensatory time may be used in any situation where the City may grant the time off without having to hire overtime. If a compensatory day is approved anticipating that a scheduled extra officer will replace the officer on a compensatory day and another employee subsequently takes the day off, the approval of the compensatory day shall not be withdrawn.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER 1. A full shift of compensatory time (8 hours) may be used in any situation including situations where the City has to hire overtime. So long as employee gives three (3) days notice to hiring SGT

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #20 ARTICLE 13 COMP TIME SECTION 13.6(3)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: Use of compensatory time is subject to approval of the Shift Commander based on staffing requirements.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER: Use of less than a full shift of compensatory time is subject to approval of the Shift Commander based on staffing requirements.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #21 ARTICLE 13 COMP TIME SECTION 13.6(4)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
4. Since compensatory time is not granted unless there is no overtime cost to the City, approval of compensatory time shall not normally be granted more than seventy-two (72) hours in advance of the time off requested.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER:
4. An officer may not take compensatory time in order to work overtime/extra duty.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #22 ARTICLE 13 COMP TIME SECTION 13.6(6)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 6. An officer shall be informed at the start of his shift, or at the time of the request if made during a shift, whether he may use compensatory time with the understanding that the decision may be rescinded later if an emergency occurs.

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER: 13.7 NEW Compensatory Time Compensatory time may be used as follows: 6. When using less than a full shift of compensatory time, an officer shall be infoinied at the start of his shift, or at the time of the request if made during a shift, whether he may use compensatory time with the understanding that the decision may be rescinded later if an emergency occurs.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #23 ARTICLE 14 HOLIDAYS SECTION 14.2

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: 14.2 When a holiday falls on Sunday and is celebrated on a Monday, then the Monday shall be considered the holiday. When a holiday falls on Saturday and is celebrated on the preceding Friday, then, Friday shall be considered the holiday. Christmas, New Year's, and Independence Day will be celebrated on the actual day. In the event for any reason whatsoever, a holiday is created by order of the President of the United States or the Governor of the State of Connecticut such holiday shall be awarded to each member of the bargaining unit. If the member is required to work on the day that is designated as a holiday, he/she shall be compensated for the holiday by eight hours pay or compensatory time off at the discretion of the employee. Such day shall be treated as all other holidays that are specified with this document.

UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER 14.2 When a holiday falls on Sunday and is celebrated on a Monday, then the Monday shall be considered the holiday. When a holiday falls on Saturday and is celebrated on the preceding Friday, then, Friday shall be considered the holiday. Christmas, New Year's, and Independence Day will be celebrated on the actual day. In the event for any reason whatsoever, a holiday is created by order of the President of the United States or the Governor of the State of Connecticut such holiday shall be awarded to each member of the bargaining unit. If the member is required to work on the day that is designated as a holiday, he/she shall be compensated for the holiday by eight hours pay or compensatory time off at the discretion of the employee. Such day shall be treated as all other holidays that are specified with this document.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #24 ARTICLE 18 EXAMINATIONS & PROMOTIONS SECTION 18.1(E)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
When an opening exists in the Detective Bureau for a Detective and/or a Detective Sergeant, the process for selecting a Patrol Officer or Sergeant to fill the spot is as follows: The Chief of Police will solicit input from his/her senior staff. The senior staff will provide a list of 3 — 5 candidates and rank them in order. From these individual's lists, a master list of the three (3) candidates is submitted by the Chief to the Board of Police Commissioners for review. The board will select one of the three candidates submitted from the master list.

UNION's LAST BEST OFFER Detective/Detective Sergeant Assignment E. Examinations for promotion to the rank of Detective and Detective Sergeant shall be
conducted at least every two (2) years. Promotional exams which shall consist of oral and written exams shall be conducted by a mutually agreed upon firm or agency and shall be valid for a two (2) year period as specified in Section 18.3 unless all eligible candidates are promoted prior to the expiration date. The firm or agency conducting said examinations shall be determined at least eight (8) months prior to the exam date. Should a vacancy(ies) arise after the regular list of eligible candidates is exhausted, or when there is no list for some other reason, a special examination shall be given. The special examination shall be given by the testing firm or agency that gave the last regularly scheduled examination. Such examination shall be given as soon as practicable following the date on which the vacancy arises, and in no event more than ninety (90) days following the date on which the vacancy arises. The special examination list shall expire on the April 30 prior to the new list resulting from the next regularly scheduled examination.

Applicants shall be eligible to take the special examination if they met the time-in-grade requirements as of the April 30 cut-off date for the last regularly scheduled examination. Seniority points shall also be determined as of that date. This provision will be effective upon award of contract.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #25 ARTICLE 18 EXAMINATIONS & PROMOTIONS SECTION 18.1(F) - NEW

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
NONE

UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER NEW F. Detective/Detective Sergeant Promotional Examinations
For the Detective's examination, the -written examination shall be worth fifty percent (50%) of the grade and the Assessment Center Examination shall be worth fifty (50%) of the grade before seniority points are added. For the Detective Sergeant's examination, the written examination shall be worth fifty percent (50%) of the grade and the Assessment Center Examination shall be worth fifty percent (50%) of the grade before seniority points are added. All Written Examinations and Assessment Center Examinations shall be held off site of the West Haven Police Department.

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #26 ARTICLE 19 HEALTH INSURANCE - PREMIUM COST SHARE SECTION 19.1(A)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: A. Effective July 1, 2005, the City shall provide at a 6.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2006 at a 7.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2007 at a 8.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER Effective July 1, 2009, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be 8.5%. cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #27 ARTICLE 19 HEALTH INSURANCE - PREMIUM COST SHARE SECTION 19.1(A)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: A. Effective July 1, 2005, the City shall provide at a 6.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2006 at a 7.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2007 at a 8.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER: A. Effective July 1, 2010, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be 11%. cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,500) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($2000) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($2500) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #28 ARTICLE 19 HEALTH INSURANCE - PREMIUM COST SHARE SECTION 19.1(A)

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE: A. Effective July 1, 2005, the City shall provide at a 6.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2006 at a 7.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, and effective July 1, 2007 at a 8.5% premium cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($1,300) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

UNION'S LAST BEST OFFER A. Effective July 1, 2011, the premium cost share amount for the employee will be 12%. cost sharing with the employee, all employee contributions shall be under a Section 125 Premium Only Plan with an annual cap on the employee's contribution of one thousand dollars ($ 1600) for single person coverage, one thousand two hundred dollars ($2600) for two (2) person coverage, and one thousand three hundred ($3400) for family coverage. The following health benefit plans for eligible employees and, unless otherwise provided, for their eligible dependents (which shall include an eligible employees spouse and unmarried dependents up to age 25):

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #29 ARTICLE 19 HEALTH INSURANCE — IN-NETWORK BENEFIT CO-PAYMENTS SECTION 19.1(B) 1.a.

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:
a. • • • • • • In-Network Benefit Copayments: General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventive: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-patient MUND/SA: $5 $5 $0 $100 $25 $25

UNIONS LAST BEST OFFER:
a. • • • • • • In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2009: General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventive: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-patient MI/ND/SA:

$10
$10 $0 $100

$50
$25

• • • • •

Outpatient Surgery Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic Physical/Occup./Speech Therapy

$100 $100 $50 $25 (20 visits maximum) $25 (30 visits combined)

ISSUE IN DISPUTE #30 ARTICLE 19 HEALTH INSURANCE — IN-NETWORK BENEFIT CO-PAYMENTS SECTION 19.1(B) 1.a.

CURRENT CONTRACT LANGUAGE:

a. • • • • • •

In-Network Benefit Copayments: General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventive: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-patient MI/ND/SA: $5 $5 $0 $100 $25 $25

Union's Last Best Offer:

a.

In-Network Benefit Copayments effective July 1, 2010:

• • • • • • • • • • •

General office visits: Walk-ins/allergy testing: Wellness and preventive: DME and prosthetics: Emergency Room: Out-patient MI/ND/SA:

Outpatient Surgery Inpatient per admission Urgent Care Chiropractic PhysicaUOccup./Speech Therapy

$15 $15 $0 $100 $50 $25 $100 $200 $50

$25 (20 visits maximum) $25 (30 visits combined)