This arbitration involved a class-action grievance protesting the Employer’s increase in employee health insurance contributions.  The employees in the bargaining unit are eligible to participate in the County Health Care Plan which is self-insured.  The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) states that bargaining unit members pay 15% of the monthly cost of the health plan and the Sheriff pays 85% of the cost. It also states:

In the case of a premium increase, the Employer shall provide the Union with supporting documentation (including any actuarial report prepared for the Board of Commissioners) that the increase is necessary.

The County Commissioners retained a consulting group to determine the funding that would be necessary to provide benefits for the next calendar year.  The consultant determined that the monthly contribution should increase by 17.5%.  However, the Commissioners decided to increase contributions by only 7.9%.  The Sheriff provided the Union with a draft actuarial report prepared by the consultant. The Union requested additional documentation, including a final report. However, the requested documentation was not provided.  A grievance was filed.

The Union argued that the Sheriff did not meet its burden of proof to show that the 7.9% increase was necessary.  The “proof of necessity” language was designed to protect employees from unjustified increases.  The Sheriff failed to provide sufficient documentation to prove the premium increase was necessary. The Employer did not make a good faith effort to obtain the necessary information, thus shirking his duty under the CBA.

The Sheriff argued that he had no control over health insurance costs; rather, premium cost was a matter between the Commissioners and the Auditor. The Sheriff further argued that he had complied with the CBA by providing the Union with all the information to establish that an increase was necessary.  The Sheriff asserted that the consultant’s report that was marked “draft” was his final report and that a 17.5% increase was necessary because claims had been increasing but premiums had not increased in the previous four (4) years.

The Arbitrator found that the Sheriff does not control healthcare coverage or costs for bargaining unit employees; those decisions are made by the Commissioners.  While the Sheriff must provide the Union with supporting documentation, he can only share information received from the Commissioners.  The Arbitrator found that the documentation provided to the Union was sufficient to show that the premium increase was justified.  The Commissioners did not abuse their discretion in establishing the contributions that employees would be required to make.  The premium increase was not made arbitrarily but was based on a comprehensive actuarial study.  The increase was substantially less than the increase recommended by the actuary.

Grievance denied.

Employer:  Lorain County Sheriff                                                      Date:  January 2025