Under the Administration of the
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION

In the Matter of A rbitration Between:

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE Case 0-17-0001-2297

LODGE #5 (Act 111 Interest Arbitration)
and

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Arbitration Panel

Marc Gelman, Esq.
JENNINGS SIGMOND
FOP-Appointed Arbitrator

Shannon Farmer, Esq.
BALLA RD SPA HR
City-Appointed Arbitrator

Walt De Treux, Esq.
Neutral Arbitrator and Panel Chair

Agmarances
FOR THE FOP: FOR THE CITY:

Stephen Holroyd, Esq. Meredith Swartz Dante, Esq.
JENNINGS SIGMOND Shaina Hicks, Esq.

BA LLARD SPAHR

Patrick Harvey, Esq.
CAMPBELL DURRAN BEA 
PALOMBO MILLER

Kay Kyungsun Yu, Esq.
AHMAD ZAFFARESE

FOREWARD

The undersigned arbitrators were duly appointed as the Board of Arbitration (?Board? or
?Panel?) pursuant to the provisions of Section 4(b) of the Act of June 24, 1968, PL. 237, as
amended, 43 RS. ?217.4(b) (Act 111) and the procedures of the Philadelphia Of?ce of the
American Arbitration Association. The Panel acknowledges that the parties agreed to waive the
time limits under Act 111. Hearings in this matter were conducted on April 24, June 1, June 26,
July 12, July 20, July 24, July 25, July 31, 2017, in Philadelphia, at which time
both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present documentary and other evidence, examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and offer argument in support of their respective positions.
Following Executive Sessions of the Arbitration Panel, which occurred during the course of and
following the conclusion of the hearings, the following Award was adopted by a majority of the
Panel.
1. BACKGROUND

This Act 111 interest arbitration was conducted under the dictates of the 
Intergovernmental Authorities Act Act?), which created the 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority The PICA Act requires that the City
develop, at least annually, ive-Year Financial Plans that provide for balanced budgets and must
be reviewed and approved by PICA. The City is further required to undertake ?a review of
compensation and bene?ts? and to ensure that expenditures, including those for employee wages
and bene?ts, are balanced with revenues. 53 PS. 12720.209(b) and
Under the PICA Act, a failure on the part of the City to comply with such requirements
would result in the mandatory withholding of state funding and tax revenues designated for the

City.

Most relevant for this Panel, Section 209(k) of the PICA statute, entitled ?Effect of Five
Year Plan on certain arbitration awards,? requires that, prior to rendering an Act 111 award
which grants a pay or fringe bene?t increase, the Panel must consider and accord substantial
weight to:
i. the approved ?nancial plan; and
ii. the ?nancial ability of the [City] to pay the cost of such

increase in wages or fringe bene?ts without adversely
affecting levels of service.

53 PS. The Panel also must make a written record of the factors it considered
when making its determination according substantial weight to the Five Year Plan and the City?s
ability to pay. 53 PS. 

During the course of this Act 111 proceeding, both parties raised arguments regarding the
City?s ?nancial condition and ability to pay for this Award within the con?nes of the Five Year
Plan. In making this Award, the Panel has carefully reviewed and considered the testimony of
the witnesses and the exhibits submitted by the parties, as well as statements made by both
parties in support of their respective positions. This Panel has duly considered the parties?
arguments and has accorded the City?s ?nancial concerns the substantial weight required by law.
11. FINDINGS

In light of the PICA Act?s requirement that the Panel make ?ndings, supported by
substantial evidence in the record, that the City has the ability to pay the cost of the Award
without adversely affecting service levels, the Panel has carefully considered the evidence and
the contentions of the parties. After doing so and fully complying therewith, the Panel has made
the following ?ndings in support of its Award:

A. City?s Financial Condition and Previous Awards

1. The City is statutorily required to maintain a balanced budget.

3

2. The City is also required to submit a revised ?ve year plan that is balanced
in each of its years to PICA for approval whenever it appears that the City?s budget is no longer
balanced as a result of unplanned revenue decreases or expense increases. The City is required to
provide quarterly updates to PICA showing how actual results and current projections compare
to those contained in the approved ?ve year plan.

3. PICA can require the City to make mid?year adjustments if there is a
variance from the approved ?ve year plan. Because the City is prohibited by law from enacting
mid-year tax increases, such adjustments generally must come from service reductions.

4. An arbitration panel issued an award setting the terms and conditions of
the bargaining unit for the period from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 on July 10, 2008
(?2008-2009 Award?). The 2008-2009 Award contained wage and longevity increases as well as
other bene?ts for bargaining unit employees. The City did not seek judicial review of the 2008-
2009 Award.

5. After the issuance of the 2008-2009 Award, the City suffered a ?nancial
crisis as a result of the then-deteriorating local and national economy and would have faced a
$2.4 billion de?cit in its Five Year Plan if it had not taken corrective actions.

6. As a result of the economic downturn, the City?s actual tax revenues in
FY09 were more than a hundred million less than the City had projected in the original FY09-
FY13 Plan and $60 million less than its actual Y08 tax revenue.

7. To close the de?cit in its Y10-FY14 Five Year Plan 
Plan?), the City sought and received approval from the state legislature for three changes: a
temporary 1% increase in the sales tax for a deferral of a portion of the City?s
minimum required contribution to the pension fund for FY10 and FY11, which would be repaid
with interest in FY13 and and a change in the amortization period for the City?s
repayment of the pension fund?s unfunded liability

8. This partial deferral of pension payments allowed the City to conserve
funds in FY10 and FY11, but cost the City more over the course of the Five Year Plan because
the deferral was required to be repaid at an interest rate of 8.25%. The City fully repaid the
pension deferral earlier than required with all required interest.

9. On December 18, 2009, the FOP interest arbitration panel issued an award
covering the period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2014 (?2009-2014 FOP Award?). The
Award reflected the panel?s keen awareness of the extreme ?nancial dif?culties facing the City,
state and nation at the time, while, at the same time, acknowledging the dangerous and dif?cult
task performed by the bargaining unit.

10. In a supplement to the 2009-2014 Award, on March 10, 2010, the interest
arbitration panel issued an award imposing new pension terms in the form of an additional
pension contribution of 1% of wages upon new hires or the acceptance of Plan 10 a different
retirement bene?t that reduced the bene?ts for covered new hires to a combination of de?ned
contribution and de?ned bene?t.

11. At the time of the supplemental hearing in 2010, the City?s pension plan
was more than 50% funded and the City?s pension obligations had grown by more than
130% since FY01.

12. Citing the adoption of Plan 10 as an important step in the City?s efforts to
bring its long-term pension obligations under control, the City projected that it would ultimately
save the City tens of millions of dollars in pension costs.

13. The 2009-2014 interest arbitration panel also required the FOP to entirely
restructure its health care delivery program, over the objection. Speci?cally, the 2009-
2014 interest arbitration panel directed the FOP to convert its insured health care program to a
self insured health care program that would thereafter be administered under a multifaceted and
complex arrangement dictated by the Award.

14. The 2009-2014 Award also modestly increased the City?s ?exibility to
make certain schedule changes to reSpond to Police Department operational needs without
incurring overtime costs.

15. An arbitration panel issued an award setting the terms and conditions of
the bargaining unit for the period from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017 on July 30, 2014
(?2014-2017 Award?). The 2014-2017 Award contained wage and longevity increases as well as
other bene?ts for bargaining unit employees.

16. The 2014-2017 Award did not make any changes to pension or health care
bene?ts for bargaining unit employees. In making the decision not to amend the health
care bene?ts, the panel found that the City had saved more than $80 million since July 1, 2008
because of the changes made by the 2008 and 2009-2014 interest arbitration Awards to the
funding, bene?ts and structure of the FOP health care program. The panel further found that, as
a result of transitioning to a self insured program, the City?s health care contribution for FOP
bargaining unit members remained consistently lower than it had been prior to the change.

17. The 2014-2017 Award also made a number of operational changes sought
by the Police Department including: increased ?exibility to make certain schedule changes to
respond to Police Department operational needs without incurring overtime costs, rotation of
of?cers out of the narcotics and internal affairs unit, increased drug testing of of?cers in certain
units and merit selection of certain of?cers.

18. Since FY11, the City has maintained positive fund balances and the City?s
respective ?ve year plans have projected continued modest, positive growth in the economy,
even as they continue to re?ect the City?s long-term challenges. As a result, each of these ?ve
year plans has projected fund balances far lower than experts recommend for a city of this size.
The City?s Y1 8-F Y22 Five Year Plan Plan?), which is the PICA-approved plan
at this time, continues to re?ect these challenges and, as a result, continues to project modest
fund balances as well.

19. FY18-FY22 Plan assumes steady economic growth. In recognition of the
City?s non-competitive tax structure, the Y1 8-FY22 Plan also continues targeted tax reductions

to attract both businesses and residents. In addition, the FY18-FY22 Plan makes targeted,
critical investments in public safety, health and human services.

20. Re?ecting the City?s fragile recovery since the economic downturn and its
long-term challenges, the FY18-FY22 plan contains projected ?md balances that are
signi?cantly lower than experts recommend.

21. The Panel was presented with experts from both parties who testi?ed
regarding the current and future economic condition of the City. All of their testimony was
considered and weighed in reaching this Award.

22. The Panel concludes that the City has acted responsibly in reaching its ?ve
year plan forecasts. The Panel notes, however, that those forecasts, at least in times of strong
economic growth, have sometimes proved more conservative than the actual revenues.

Similarly, the Panel recognizes that the threat of a recession exists, which could lead revenues to
be signi?cantly below the City's forecasts, as happened in the last recession.

23. It is clear to the Panel that weaknesses in the economy and demographic
challenges continue to pose threats to the City?s economy, including: a poor population that
creates a large demand for social services; its responsibility for both city and county government
services; signi?cant employee bene?t costs; and already high tax burdens.

24. City residents are among the most heavily taxed of any City in the
country, having the highest tax burden among the largest cities in each state on families with an
annual income of $25,000 and ?fth highest for families earning between $25,000 and $50,000 a
year.

25. The City?s poverty rate, at more than 25%, is the highest of the nation?s
ten largest cities, and much higher than that of the state or the nation as a whole.

26. A large portion of the City?s budget, 36%, is spent on expenses over
which the City has little to no control, including pension and debt service.

27. Personnel costs are projected to account for more than 65% of the City?s
FY18 General Fund spending or more than $3.3 billion.

28. In FY18, the City expects to spend more than $680 million on pension
costs alone, which is more than 15% of its General Fund budget.

29. Pension contributions grew from $194 million in FY01 to $622 million by
FY16, an increased rate of 230%. Even as Philadelphia?s contributions into the pension fund
have increased substantially, the retirement system?s funded ratio has declined from 77.5% in
FY01 to 44.8% in FY16.

30. At the time the 2014-2017 Award was issued in FY13, the City?s pension
was a little over 47% funded. Currently, the City?s pension is 44.8% funded, with a $6 billion
unfunded liability, a decrease in funding of 2.6% in just three ?scal years.

31. As a result of the City?s economic condition, coupled with its signi?cant
unfunded pension liabilities, bond rating agencies have placed Philadelphia on ?negative watch.?

32. The legislature has also recognized the gravity of the City's
pension situation, making permanent the additional 1% sales tax initially passed as a temporary
measure in 2010 and dedicating a portion of the revenues to pensions. Rather than using this
additional revenue to reduce the City's statutory minimum pension contribution the
City has committed to using the additional revenues to increase the pension funding above the
MMO.

33. The City has negotiated the same increased pension contributions it seeks
from this Panel with its largest union, District Council 33. The City has committed to using
these contributions to add additional revenues to the pension fund, rather than to offset its
required contributions under the MMO. The same is true of the City's proposed stacked hybrid
plan for new hires.

34. The Panel ?nds that the City?s pension ?mding ratio and its unfunded
liability is a signi?cant factor that must be addressed by this Award. The panel notes that the
issue of pensions dominated a signi?cant portion of these proceedings and recognizes that the

City will not attain ?scal stability until it has remedied the ?nancial condition of its pension
fund.

B. The Police Department

1. Since taking o?ice in 2016, Mayor Kenney has emphasized a commitment
to maintaining low crime rates and to increasing the Philadelphia Police Department?s
accountability to those it serves.

2. Crime control remains a signi?cant priority of the Kenney Administration,
as made clear by Commissioner Ross in his testimony before the Panel.

3. The Panel recognizes the signi?cant accomplishments the City and the
Police Department have made during this time in reducing crime, particularly homicides.

4. The panel also recognizes and commends the Police Department for their
extraordinary work in policing the recent Papal visit, Democratic National Convention, and NFL
Draft.

5. The Police Department has experienced depleted ranks since 2008 as a
result of the economic crisis and a large number of retirements.

6. According to the Y18-FY22 Plan, the City intends to hire approximately
300 additional of?cers.

7. The Panel was impressed by the testimony of Commissioner Ross
regarding the operational reforms that he is seeking in order to continue positive trends in crime
?ghting.

8. Finally, the Panel recognizes the importance of the operational reforms
sought by the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and encourages the parties to
continue to discuss those that have not been awarded by the Panel in this Award.

9. At the same time, the Panel recognizes and reaf?rms that any such
reforms must be structured and applied in a nondiscriminatory even-handed manner.

C. The Panel?s Reasoning

l. The Panel considers it signi?cant that, in light of a number of economic
factors in the City and nationally, the City projects positive tax revenue growth rates in its 
FY22 Plan.

2. Despite the prospect for positive growth in the City?s economy, as both
the City?s and the experts project, the Panel recognizes that there are threats to that
recovery on the national, state and local level.

3. As a result, it would not be permissible for the Panel to award the FOP all
of the economic improvements it is seeking.

4. Based on the testimony of experts presented by both parties, the wages of
Philadelphia police of?cers are generally at the median when compared to similar departments.
At the same time, the Panel recognizes that there is some merit in the testimony and evidence of
the City?s ?nancial experts that the City?s ?nancial condition is generally worse and its long-
terrn challenges and ?nancial burdens are generally greater than these cities.

5. The Panel notes that the City's negotiated agreement with District Council
33 balances pension changes sought by the City with wage increases which take some of the
sting out of the increased pension contributions for employees.

6. The Panel has struck a balance between the competing concerns in
awarding wage increases which are below those sought by the FOP but greater than those
negotiated by District Council 33 in light of the greater pension contribution increases which the
Panel is awarding.

7. The Panel recognizes that the City?s pension fund is only 44.8% funded
with a $6 billion unfunded liability and this is an area of serious concern to both the Panel and
the City. As a result, and notwithstanding the fact the FOP membership has in no way
contributed to the de?ciencies facing the pension fund, the Panel has determined that pension
reform, through increases in employee contributions, is appropriate.

8. The Panel is unwilling, however, to award tiered pension contributions out
of a concern over the impact the tiered contributions could have on the morale of the
Department.

9. Similarly, the Panel is unwilling to award the stacked hybrid plan sought
by the City for new police hires (and strongly opposed by the FOP throughout these proceedings)
given that they do not participate in Social Security as the majority of other City employees do.

8

10. The Panel sought, and received, a supplemental analysis from the actuary
which shows that the changes being awarded will provide improvements to the pension fund
which are on par with those that the City sought and which will allow the pension fund to reach
full funding one year sooner than if no action were taken. Given the size of the fund, the Panel
considers that a signi?cant achievement and one in which it is appropriate for employees to
share.

11. Finally, the Panel has decided not to award any changes in the current
health bene?t program. While the Panel recognizes that the bene?ts of these employees are
extraordinarily generous, the Panel also recognizes that the City has achieved signi?cant savings
over the past seven years as compared to trend and the Panel believes that it is appropriate to
reward FOP members for those savings by leaving their bene?ts untouched.

12. However, the Panel is concerned about the continued existence of disputes
over the current budgeting and end-of-year reconciliation process for reward sharing. Therefore,
the Panel has determined that modi?cations to the end-of-year reconciliation process for reward
sharing are necessary.

13. Finally, the Panel is convinced that the current level of reserves in the
FOP's health fund is unnecessary given the stability of the current funding system for health
bene?ts, which has now been in place for 7 years. The existence of any escrow accounts is now
unnecessary as well.

111. AWARD

1. Term: July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2020

a. 3.25% increase effective July 1, 2017
b. 3.50% increase effective July 1, 2018

c. 3.75% increase effective July 1, 2019

3. Pension: In ordering changes to the employee pension contributions for
both current employees and new hires, the Panel notes its concerns over the condition of the
City's pension ?md, which has worsened in the three years since the last award despite the City's
increased contributions. These concerns are balanced by the fact that the FOP has effectively
argued through its presentation that with increased contributions its members bear a signi?cant
burden not shouldered by other City employees due to their lack of participation in Social
Security. As previously noted, the Panel has therefore been persuaded to decline to award tiered
pension contributions for new hires. The Panel nevertheless notes that the City has taken steps
on its own to tackle the pension fund's condition before coming to this Panel, which is a

9

signi?cant factor in the Panel's decision to award increased contributions. The Panel also
considers it signi?cant that the City has committed to using these additional funds to supplement,
rather than replace, the City's contributions into the fund and was heartened to see that the
actuaries' analysis projects that these measures will allow the pension fund to signi?cantly
improve its funded status over time. Finally, the Panel has decided that it is appropriate to
exempt employees in Plan 67 from these changes given the small and dwindling number of
employees in that Plan who are still contributing to the fund and the limited number of years for
which they will contribute to the fund.

a. Effective July 1, 2017, the existing employee contributions
towards pension benefits shall be increased by .92% for employees in Plan and Plan ?10 hired
or rehired (in accordance with existing treatment of rehired employees under the pension
ordinance) on or before June 30, 2017. The increase shall be calculated based on the employee
contribution rates which would otherwise be in effect as of July 1, 2017 for each employee.

b. Effective July 1, 2018, the existing employee contributions
towards pension bene?ts shall be increased by an additional .92% for employees in Plan and
Plan '10 hired or rehired (in accordance with existing treatment of rehired employees under the
pension ordinance) on or before June 30, 2017.

c. The contribution rate for employees hired or rehired (in accordance
with existing treatment of rehired employees under the pension ordinance) on or a?er July 1,
2017 shall be increased by 2.5% over the employee contribution rate which would otherwise be
in effect as of July 1, 2017 for each employee.

d. All contribution increases which are directed by this Award will be
in addition to, rather than offset, the City's required contributions under the MMO. Accordingly,
in calculating the MMO each year, the City will not include the amount of these additional
contributions in calculating its required contribution.

e. No changes in employee contributions will be made for employees
in Plan D.

4. Court Notices:

a. Within 60 days of the issuance of the Award, each bargaining unit
member as of the date the Award is issued shall receive a one-time cash payment of $1,300, less
required deductions and withholdings, for the purpose of resolving all outstanding issues related
to the electronic delivery of court notices, including any outstanding grievances, and to
compensate members for any costs incurred in connection with electronic receipt of court
notices.

b. Effective 15 days after the date the Award is issued, the City is
hereby authorized to deliver court notices electronically in accordance with the following:

10

(1) Within 10 days of the issuance of this Award, each of?cer
shall be required to provide the Police Department with either an e-mail address or telephone
number at which the officer will receive court notices. If the of?cer chooses to provide a
telephone number, the of?cer must maintain a voice mail or answering machine at that number.
The information must be kept current with the Department at all times.

(2) An of?cer who fails to designate an e-mail address or
telephone number to the Police Department for court notices shall be subject to discipline under
the relevant Department policies requiring furnishing of information.

(3) The Police Department will use the of?cer?s designated e-
mail address or telephone number to notify the of?cer of court appearances. When of?cers are
on duty at the time the court notice is received by the o?icer?s work location, the Department
will deliver the notice to the of?cer using existing procedures when possible.

(4) Using the e-mail or phone number provided by the of?cer
to provide the information regarding the court notice shall satisfy the Department's delivery
obligation at the time the e-mail is sent or the phone call is placed.

(5) The Department shall retain a copy of any e-mail message
showing the date and time it was sent. For telephonic notice, any disputes over whether a call
was made will be resolved by reference to the records of the phone carrier showing the date and
time and length of the call.

(6) Any e-mail or telephone notice shall be deemed to be
received at the time it was sent by the Department; provided however, that any notice sent after
10:30 pm. but before 6:00 am. the next morning shall be deemed to be received by the of?cer at
6:00 am. of that morning.

(7) Placing the telephone call that results in speaking to the
of?cer or leaving an answering machine/phone message or sending the e-mail by the Department
shall be suf?cient to notify the of?cer of the court appearance.

(8) Of?cers continue to be required to comply with all court
notices.

5. Health Care:

a. In light of the excellent administration of the health fund by the
Joint Board and LEHB which has led to LEHB having assets in excess of $40 million while
providing exceptional bene?ts and service to members and their families, the City shall not be
responsible for the payment of any expenses for administration or claims incurred for the ?rst
full month following the issuance of the Award.

b. Effective July 1, 2017, the City?s annual administrative payment to
the Joint Board shall be $100,000.

11

0. Effective July 1, 2017, the annual reconciliation process for reward
sharing described in paragraphs through of the 2009-2014 Award shall be
deleted and replaced with the following:

(1) The City shall select a ?rm to prepare an annual calculation
of the projected trend for medical, prescription drug, dental and vision bene?ts for the following
plan year. LEHB shall have the right to review the RFP responses and provide input in the
City?s selection. The City shall bear the cost of the calculation.

(2) Prior to September 1, 2017, and each September 1
thereafter, the ?rm shall compute the projected per member per month cost less
administrative expenses.

(3) No later than each July 15', LEHB shall continue to present
to the City a budget of projected administrative costs for the upcoming plan year. LEHB shall
provide the City with a statement prepared by its auditor of actual administrative costs for the
previous plan year within 30 days of the end of the plan year. If the actual administrative costs
are less than the budgeted administrative costs for that plan year, the City shall take a credit
against the administrative costs payable in the current plan year. If the actual administrative
costs are greater than the budgeted administrative for that plan year, the City shall make payment
for those additional administrative costs within 30 days. Any disputes about the reasonableness
of the projected or actual administrative costs shall be resolved as set forth in this Award.

(4) To compute the Budgeted Cost, the trend stated by the ?rm
plus 1.5% on the medical and prescription drug trend, shall be applied to the actual PMPM (net
of credits or reimbursements) for the previous year. The Budgeted Cost shall also include the
projected administrative costs provided by LEHB for the plan year, subject to the dispute
resolution described above.

(5) Within 90 calendar days of the end of the plan year, the
Budgeted Cost will be compared to the actual PMPM, including administrative costs, net of
credits or reimbursements, as determined by LEHB's auditor, in order to determine the amount of
any reward sharing due to LEHB. If the actual cost is less than the Budgeted Cost for the last
completed plan year, the City shall immediately pay LEHB one-half of the difference thus
determined, less any credits due the City for reimbursement or credits received by LEHB during
the year. If the actual cost is more than the Budgeted Cost for the last completed ?scal year, there
shall be no additional payments for the last completed ?scal year to LEHB.

(6) If the credits owed to the City exceed the amount otherwise
due to LEHB under the reward sharing model in any year, LEHB will reimburse the remaining
credits to the City following the completion of that year?s ?nal cost calculations. This
does not obligate LEHB to pay the City when the actual cost is more than the Budgeted Cost, but
only to pay the City for credits and reimbursements which LEHB received and which were not
passed on to the City.

d. The obligation to create a run-out escrow account set forth in
paragraph of the 2009-2014 Award is abolished.

12

6. Work Schedule Committee: A joint committee with an equal number of
labor and management representatives shall be established to study the issue of the current shi?
schedule for the purpose of exploring whether there are any negative impacts on the quality of
life of bargaining unit members and their families. The committee shall put forth
recommendations attempting to address and alleviate any negative impacts.

7. Life Insurance: Effective December 1, 2017, the existing life insurance
bene?t for active employees shall be increased to $35,000 in coverage.

8. Compensatory Time for Commanders:

a. Effective for bargaining unit employees who retire a?er the date
the Award is issued, the cash out of compensatory time at retirement will be increased to a
maximum of 690 hours.

b. One week of compensatory time each year can be cashed out in
January using the existing rules. The other two weeks of compensatory time eligible for cash out
will continue to be cashed out under the existing schedule.

9. Schedule Change:

a. The City shall have the right to cancel vacation sign-ups for up to
two non-consecutive weeks a year in the event of a national security event taking place in
Philadelphia. Employees shall be provided notice of the cancellation no less than 12 months in
advance.

b. In addition to the existing right to adjust schedules under Article
VI of the collective bargaining agreement ("Contract"), the Department shall have the right to
adjust work schedules by up to 8 hours in connection with an event involving the deployment of
at least 600 of?cers. Employees will be given at least 60 days? notice of the change.

10. Vacation: Section IX of the Contract is amended to add a new paragraph
as follows:

Employees hired on or after July 1, 2017 will not be guaranteed vacation
during the period of the Summer Vacation Schedule from May 1 to
September 30 annually during their ?rst 3 years of sworn employment in
the Police Department 3 years from graduation from the Police

13

Academy) and will be scheduled for vacation based on an even
distribution of vacations during the calendar year. During their next 2
years of sworn employment in the Police Department, these employees
will be guaranteed 1 week of vacation during the period of the Summer
Vacation Schedule.

1 1. Grievance and Arbitration:

a. The FOP will deliver copies of all settlement agreements signed by
the grievant, if applicable, and the FOP to the Mayor?s Of?ce of Labor Relations. The
agreement shall be signed by the Mayor?s Of?ce of Labor Relations within ten (10) working
days of delivery. A fully-executed copy of the agreement shall be delivered to the FOP within
three (3) working days after being signed. The time for the City to implement the terms of any
settlement agreement shall not begin to run until it is delivered to the FOP. Delivery may be
e?ectuated by e-mail.

b. Implementation of any order of reinstatement by an arbitrator or
court shall be contingent on the employee successfully completing all conditions of employment.
Any employee who does not meet the requirements will not be reinstated or will be terminated
and any back pay ordered will cease at the time the employee receives written notice from the
City that he/she has failed to meet the requirements for reinstatement.

12. Retiree Trust Fund:

a. Within 60 days of the issuance of the Award, the City shall make a
lump sum payment of $4.5 million to the Retiree Joint Trust Fund.

b. On or before July 1, 2018, the City shall make a lump sum
payment of $4.5 million to the Retiree Joint Trust Fund.

c. On or before July 1, 2019, the City shall make a lump sum
payment of $4.5 million to the Retiree Joint Trust Fund.

13. Retention of Jurisdiction: The Panel will retain jurisdiction to resolve any
disputes directly related to the calculation of projected health care costs or the reconciliation of
the actual to budgeted costs.

14

CONCLUSION
All remaining terms and conditions of employment not expressly modi?ed by this Award
or previously agreed to by the parties in negotiations shall remain ?as is? through June 30, 2020.

All proposals of the parties not included in the Award are denied.

It is understood that the signature of the Arbitrators attest to the fact that the contractual

changes represent the majority opinion and Award on each issue by the members of the

 

 

 

Arbitration Panel.

m1? De TREUX
Neutral Arbitrator and Panel Chair
 .
. 
 - t_

MARC GELMAN, ESQ. SW D. FARMER, ESQ.,
FOP-Appointed Arbitrator City-Appointed Arbitrator

A 3 (gift?) 

Dated: August 15, 2017

IS