While it’s true the statute in the State’s  Civil Service Law (Taylor Law) Section 209 involving the arbitration process refers to the award decision of an arbitration panel as “final and binding,” that doesn’t mean the determination can’t be challenged in a court of law.

In addition, the actual term used to describe the onset of the arbitration process is “Compulsory Interest Arbitration.” It is given this term because if one of the two parties determines contract negotiations are at an impasse and beyond the point of mediation, then it can request the state Public Relations Employment Board (PERB) refer the dispute to an arbitration panel, regardless of whether or not the other party also agrees with moving forward with arbitration (Section 209-4(c)(i)).  As a result, the party that didn’t initiate the arbitration is still required, or “compulsed,” to participate.

An arbitration panel is a three-member panel made up of one representative from each of the two sides involved in the contract negotiations, along with a third, independent party appointed by PERB. Once the arbitration panel has been created and hears all the required and necessary testimony and arguments involving the contract dispute, in then will make a determination and award a decision, which is “final and binding” (Section 209-4(c)(vi)) on the parties. The term “final and binding” in this case means that neither party is required to vote to give final ratification to the decision and that once in place can not be changed or altered without the consent from both parties.

There is also a process in place to legally challenge the Compulsory Interest Arbitration process. If either party disagrees with the arbitration panel’s award decision, the Taylor Law clearly states that decision shall be subject to review by an appropriate court of law (Section 209-4(c)(vii)).

In the case involving the city of Jamestown and the Kendall Club Police Benevolent Association‘s 2016-17 labor contract, it was the union that requested in early 2018 that the contract dispute move into the arbitration phase after it felt the two sides were at an impasse, mostly due to the union seeking a 5 percent salary increase while the city didn’t want to offer any increase. As a result of that request by the union, the city was “compulsed” to also participate.

The arbitration panel delivered its decision in October 2018 and it settled on a 2 percent increase for the union, along with other provisions as well. That decision was “final and binding” only if neither side opted to call for for a judicial review. However, the Jamestown City Council voted in November to exercise the city’s right to call for that review, saying the award violated the 70-percent weighting factor statute that is required to be used when dealing with a fiscally eligible municipality’s ability to pay (Section 209-6(e)). As a result, the matter is being taken up in State Supreme Court.

When the city council voted to call for the review of the decision, Councilman Andrew Liuzzo (R-At Large) voted against it. He later explained his vote to WRFA.

“If you’re going to agree to binding arbitration, it seems to me the word ‘binding’ – that’s what you agreed to. So whether you like it or not, we agreed to binding arbitration. To send that to litigation, I think is a waste of funds” Liuzzo said.

While it’s well within Liuzzo’s right to be against the challenge based on the cost associated with the legal process (the council voted to spend $25,000 on attorney fees on the arbitration challenge and which Liuzzo also voted against), it appears he is unaware that the city was actually compulsed under state law to participate in the initial arbitration process, rather than voluntarily agreeing to enter into it.

In addition to councilman Liuzzo, some members of the community have spoken out against the arbitration challenge.

“Binding arbitration means just that,” wrote one local resident on our Facebook page after we ran a story on the arbitration challenge. “It was proven there was money on the books to pay, but rather than accept it the politicians chose to flex a muscle they did not have.”

Arguments in the arbitration challenge will be made in Chautauqua County State Supreme Court on Monday, March 18. The Kendall Club is being represented by legal counsel from Fessenden, Laumer & De Angelo while the city will be represented by Bond, Schoeneck & King.

At the top of the list was working toward a balanced and honest spending plan as well as continuing the effort to look at a possible consolidation between the city Police Department and the County Sheriff’s office.

The mayor also focused on Albany, saying the state needs to provide the city with more flexibility in how it runs local government.

“We are clearly not demanding a financial handout. We know that the state is in no position to send big bailout checks our way,” Teresi said. “What we are asking for is the state to give us the authority and the tools to become more creative, efficient, leaner and effective. And if this can be done, we at the local level will not merely cap, but will lower the highest property tax burden in the nation and make New York State an even more attractive place in which to invest and live.”

Teresi said in order for the city to achieve this flexibility, the city and other local governments need to pressure Albany to eliminate binding arbitration, which he says has led to unfair contracts with some city labor groups, in comparison to other labor organizations in the both the public and private sector.

The mayor is also calling for a reform of the state’s 1982 Triborough Amendment, which he says limits and discourages a true and effective collective bargaining process. And he is calling for Albany to reform a section of the state General Municipal Law, which would grants full pay and benefits to injured firefighters up to theage of 70. Teresi says this stipulation alone costs the city $230,000 in 2013 – or $.35 per thousand of assessed value on the city tax rate.

Teresi also called for a reform of the state’s real property tax law as it pertains to non-profit organizations and tax incentives given out by local Industrial Development Agencies.

On the local front, the mayor said he wants to continue looking for ways to develop the city and make it more business friendly. He says that begins with hiring a new city development director. Teresi also discussed improving the city’s housing inspection program, by creating a new “48 Hour Rule” to deal with complaints.

“During 2013, we will initiate what I like to refer to as the ’48 Hour Rule,’ in which every city complaint is logged, responded to and a resolution of the matter with or without court action is launched within two business days.”

In what may have been a first in the state of a city speech, the mayor acknowledged the city’s dependence on coal to operate its municipal power plant, saying it is time to convert one of the BPU’s boilers from running on coal to natural gas, which will serve as the next step towards the complete elimination of coal as an energy source in the city.

The mayor highlighted several other points in his address as well. A complete copy of the state of the city can be found on the city website, JamestownNY.Net.

The mayor’s full address to the city council will also be broadcast later this week on WRFA during our community matters program at 6 p.m. on Thursday.