Highway Supe Claims Victory; Town in Conundrum

In a decision Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman called a “minor victory” for Alex Gregor, the town highway superintendent, a Supreme Court judge ruled that Mr. Gregor is a necessary component in union issues that affect highway workers. The question of whether Mr. Gregor had such authority was one Mr. Schneiderman said needed to be clarified.

In March, the supervisor agreed to the settlement that affected compensation and benefits, largely for supervisory and clerical roles. The town board, in a 3-2 vote, authorized him to sign the agreement, despite objections from the two Republicans on the board and Mr. Gregor. As the highway superintendent, he was asked to sign the stipulation and refused. 

Justice Joseph A. Santorelli ruled on Oct. 17 that Mr. Gregor is “a necessary party to any stipulation or agreement relating to his employees.” The justice said his signature was necessary on the stipulation to the extent that it affects only the highway department workers. There are 298 employees in the Civil Service Employees Association’s bargaining unit, 59 of which are highway department workers. 

In a statement issued last Thursday, Mr. Gregor said the town supervisor had “made a back room deal” with the president of the C.S.E.A. “As I have stated in the past, I agree that the hard-working town employees deserve to share in the financial prosperity of the town, but the process that occurred in this situation without the participation of the C.S.E.A. membership was wrong,” Mr. Gregor said.

The settlement stemmed from a complaint filed with the Public Employees Relations Board late last year over the current contract’s exclusion of certain employee titles. The settlement would add 34 administrative titles, approve raises for six titles, accelerated pay raises, and more overtime for emergencies, and called for a reduction to employee contributions for family health insurance plans, but not for individual plans. 

Councilwoman Christina Scalera, at the time the agreement was announced, called it a one-sided deal that she calculated could cost the town a half-million dollars in the first year alone. Mr. Schneiderman countered that it was well within the town’s financial capabilities and that it corrected “a lot of longstanding inequities” after the recession. He allowed for the increases in his proposed 2017 budget and even still yielded a two percent reduction in the tax rate. 

Mr. Gregor called for formal renegotiation of the contract to address the issues, many of which he agreed needed to be righted. Still, he refused to sign. 

In May, the Civil Service Employees Association filed a grievance with the town to try to force the town to uphold the contract agreement. The supervisor denied the grievance, noting that the collective bargaining agreement is a three-party contract that may require the highway superintendent’s signature. 

“This is an anomaly,” Mr. Schneiderman said, adding it is a “mistake made 30 years ago and carried over.” Municipal law does not give the town highway superintendent the power to set compensation or benefits for town employees, but reserves that role for the town board. However, the current contract between the collective bargaining unit and the town calls Mr. Gregor a joint employer. “That, in essence, is the problem,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “How can one individual veto the town board?” 

With the judge’s decision that Mr. Gregor is a necessary party to a settlement that affects the 59 highway workers — about 20 percent of the total workforce — Mr. Schneiderman said the town is faced with an interesting issue. 

The town is filing a notice of appeal. In the meantime, the supervisor said the changes in the contract that affect the 80 percent of the workforce not in the highway department can move forward based on the judge’s decision. That means some have pay raises coming to them, though he said the union may not want the money to be released until it is for all of its members. “They don’t want to leave some of the workers behind and create a division,” he said. However, he said he does not feel the town can withhold it. “My position is that we can no longer withhold those benefits, that we have to release them. The money belongs to them.”

The current contract expires at the end of 2017. Mr. Schneiderman said it is possible that there will be a move to end the contract and start a new one early, which could yield a faster result than waiting for an appeal.

Mr. Gregor suggested instead that all parties come together now without further litigating the matter. “I hope that we can now move forward in the spirit of cooperation toward a legal solution that benefits the taxpayers of Southampton and the employees that serve them,” Mr. Gregor said. 

Laura Smith, the president of the Southampton C.S.E.A., did not return a call for comment.