Arbitrator decides in city's favor
By Ken Powers Contributing Writer

Marlborough - A long legal dispute between the city and three of its unions was put to rest last week when arbitrator Tim Bornstein announced that the city did not violate collective bargaining agreements it has with the unions.

The allegations by the unions - the Marlborough Public Equipment Works Operators Association, the Marlborough Police Patrol Officers Association and the Massachusetts COP Local 366 - accused the city of collecting more than the required health insurance premiums from employees' weekly pay, which the unions claimed was a violation of the collective bargaining agreements.

Marlborough city employees, under the negotiated heath care insurance packages, pay an average of 31.8 percent of their heath care premium, and the city pays the remainder.

Four years ago, long before current Marlborough Mayor Nancy Stevens took office in 2006, the city attempted to bridge a gap of about $4 million in the health care trust fund by making the decision to take the money from the stabilization accounts.

The city moved to make up the deficit, according to Stevens, so the state would approve Marlborough's tax rate. The city needed the state to approve the tax rate because about 70 percent of Marlborough's funds come from property taxes. Because of that, the city complied with the state's demand to reduce the deficit.

Stevens made her remarks and explained the history of the case at an Aug. 28 press conference announcing the arbitrator's ruling.

To comply with the state's demand to reduce the deficit, the city increased health insurance premiums.

"While the health care premium increased, however, the city-to-employee split did not change," said Nicholas Anastasopoulos, the city's labor counsel in the case. "So, the deficit, coupled with continuously rising health care costs, made for the perfect health care storm."

The unions filed grievances against the city in 2005, claiming that the city - since July 1, 2003 - had been deducting a larger percentage from employees' weekly pay for health care premiums than allowed in the respective collective bargaining agreements.

For the grievances filed, the unions sought a 20 percent reduction in employee health care contributions as well as reimbursement for any extra premiums taken out of paychecks.

While Bornstein found no violations of the collective bargaining agreements, he did uncover inconsistencies in the city's deficit calculations.

The city's aggregate deficit for the start of fiscal 2004, for example, was $3,826,950, which was about $400,000 less than the city had claimed.

"The question becomes 'How does that bear in the existing deficit?'" said Jack Canzoneri, the legal representation for the unions in this matter. `"If we hadn't brought this up there would not have been any clarity on the issue."

The city did not overcharge their employees, Anastasopoulos said, explaining that Marlborough "has the right to recoup money. It did just that. There was no error in terms of calculation."

Stevens said she was glad to have the matter settled, but was frustrated by the detrimental impact it had on the city, including the time, money and resources expended that could have been better used on more important matters. Stevens said the arbitration cost the city about $100,000.

"The entire exercise hurt the overall morale in the city and caused an air of mistrust," Stevens said. "It also had a profound eff ect on recent contract negotiations, making them much more difficult, and it was all based on a misconception by union leadership.

"I'm looking to move forward with a focus on what our combined mission should be - serving the city's residents and ensuring the ongoing viability of the employee health plan."