By Jim Cline and Peter Haller
In City of New Albany, an Ohio arbitrator ruled that a shortened work week for three police officers following extensive work on a holiday weekend was not a violation of the CBA agreement. The Arbitrator reasoned that although the CBA guaranteed a 40-hour work week, a specific provision gave the Employer authority to temporarily adjust schedules according to department needs.
The City of New Albany has an annual July 4th celebration which requires an extended weekend work period for many police officers. In order to give the police officers rest, the city temporarily changed the work schedules for the following week. Three officers received a schedule that was shorter than usual. The Union then filed a grievance on their behalf.
The Employer argues that Section 15.2 of the CBA gives the Employer authority to temporarily adjust work schedules for department needs and maintaining efficient operations. It cited to Section 15.2 which stated: “The City may temporarily change work schedules with advance notice to the affected Member for the needs and efficiency of the operations of the Department. . .” It argued it had an interest in making sure police officers were rested.
The Union argued that the exercise of this section could not result in shorter hours the following week because the CBA guarantees a 40-hour work week.
The Arbitrator was persuaded by the Employer. The Arbitrator reasoned that the Employer’s exercise of a temporary schedule change was expressly authorized by the CBA, stating,
“The Management Rights provision allows the Employer to determine the needs and efficiency of the operations. In this case, the Employer determined that the need for rest on July 5, 2022, following long work hours on July 4, was in the best interest of the efficiency of the Department. The language is clear and unambiguous.”
The Arbitrator further noted that the three grieving officers received more than 40 hours the previous week. While the three officers received shorter hours the following week, they were effectively not deprived of any working hours. Thus, the Arbitrator found that the CBA had not been violated.
Issues around schedule changes can be complex and are definitely impacted by the specific CBA language in the contract. In this case the City had bargained for a management right to change the work schedule. There also is a general principle that schedules cannot be changed to avoid the payment of overtime. Those two principles were in direct conflict in this grievance.
In this case, it seems the union had the better argument that would have prevailed with majority arbitrators. As they pointed out, the city didn’t merely change their work schedule, it reduced their assigned 40-hour work week. That seems to go beyond the very general management right to change the work schedule.
Another factor that could impact how this issue would be resolved in your contract, besides the specific terms of the CBA, is the past practice. In this case the past practice evidence seemed inconclusive but in most issues of this sort, the past practice would be important if not controlling.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Management Rights and Hours of Work**
