By Anthony Rice
In City of Springdale, the Arbitrator ruled that the City violated the CBA when it refused to grant an officer’s wage increase after she was out on maternity and injury leave, where the intent of the parties surrounding the CBA was to grant the wage increase on the anniversary of the officer’s date of hire.
The incidents that lead to the denial of a wage increase started when the Grievant took maternity leave. Shortly thereafter, the Grievant sustained an on-the-job injury when she was involved in a car accident. During this time Lt. Michael Mathis was appointed Chief of Police. He denied the Grievant’s wage increase, stating:
“I believe that STEP increases are meant to convey that the employee has successfully mastered their job to a level and degree that merits them receiving a higher pay rate . . . Records indicate that you have actually worked only sixteen (16) days of your normally scheduled time this year.”
The portion of the CBA that governs wage increases (Article 11) is silent regarding dates of movement through the pay scales. The Union contended movement is based solely on seniority (the anniversary of an officer’s date of hire). The City, on the other hand, contended wage increases only take place on the anniversary of an officer’s date of hire when that officer has been successfully performing the requirements of his or her position. The City also asserted the provisions of the City Policy Manual which stated that the increases were not automatic or “guaranteed.”
The Union carried its burden of proof through the testimony of several witness. The testimony proved there were two instances of wage increases being granted after officers were off due to injuries, in which case 18 months. This persuaded the Arbitrator of the CBA’s intent:
“This Arbitrator is convinced, and finds as factual, that at all times since Article 11 was first implemented, up until this matter, progression through the Step Increases occurred automatically on the anniversary of the dates of hire of all Bargaining Unit Members. That there were only two instances of Officers being granted their Step Increases while off due to injuries is the result of a scarcity of these types of situations arising, and not the result of some other intent by the parties in the interpretation of Article 11. Additionally, while the burden is upon the Union to establish the parties’ intent in Article 11, and not upon the City to disprove, it is telling that the City chose not to produce any documentation whatsoever to rebut the testimony . . . or to bolster its argument.”
Editor’s Note (Jim Cline): The City’s reliance on its Policy Manual was misplaced. Language in an employer policy manual is unlikely to trump the bargained for contract language and the practices of the parties in following that language. That is especially true on a significant issue like wage progression.
