During the throes of the COVID Pandemic, the Sheriff and the Union negotiated a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. The parties agreed to a wage increase for 2020 and wage reopeners in 2021 and 2022 in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU was amended by the parties in November of 2020, stating that members would receive a lump sum payment in lieu of a wage reopener in 2021. The new MOU contained a “me-too” provision in which the Employer agreed:

Should other County Charter Group personnel (i.e., 169 Offices (bargaining and non-bargaining): Clerk of Courts, Engineer, Executive, Fiscal, Prosecutor, Sheriff) be granted a general wage increase or hourly adjustment for the year 2021, then the bargaining unit members will receive the same increase or hourly adjustment under the same terms and conditions as given to those groups.

In March 2021, County Council passed a resolution granting raises for eight (8) workers who were making less than $15 per hour. One (1) worker received a wage increase from $13.11 per hour to $15 per hour while seven (7) workers received raises from $14.44 per hour to $15 per hour. The Union filed a class action grievance seeking a 14.4% raise under the me-too clause.

The Union then discovered another County Council resolution that authorized the Sheriff’s Office Director of Administration an increase in salary from $34.19 per hour to $37.07 per hour. The Union filed a class action grievance for an 8% raise under the me-too clause.

The Sheriff denied the grievances. The Sheriff asserted arbitrability issues causing a delay in the actual arbitration hearing. The hearing was bifurcated, first for arbitrability and then the merits. The Arbitrator ruled that the matter was arbitrable and then proceeded to the merits at a later hearing.

The Sheriff presented arguments to the Arbitrator including:

• The bargaining history did not support the Union’s interpretation.
• The term “personnel” refers to a general wage increase to a Charter Group and not an isolated hourly increase to individuals within the Group.
• The term “general wage increase” does not include a wage adjustment to a subset of a classification or to an individual.
• The phrase “under the same terms and conditions” means similarly situated in all respects which did not occur here in that no entire County Charter Group was granted a general wage increase.
• The subsequent CBA (2023-2025) adopted a general wage increase rendering the grievances moot.
• The Union’s misinterpretation of the MOU would lead to a harsh and absurd result.

The Union asserted that the language was unambiguous and the plain meaning rule should apply, making the following arguments:

• The word “personnel” had a singular meaning and need not apply to an entire group.
• The word “general” applies to wage increases, not to hourly adjustments.
• The phrase “same terms and conditions” refers to Deputies receiving the same increases on the same basis as other employees.
• The Employer’s concern over the overall dollar amount is irrelevant in that the Employer agreed to a me-too increase.
• The wage increases in 2022 and 2023 did not prohibit the Union’s requested remedy.
• The requested remedy does not result in an absurd or harsh result but reflects the agreed-to bargain made by the parties.

The Arbitrator determined that the me-too provision would be triggered by granting a “general wage increase or hourly adjustment to other County Charter Group personnel.” The dispute is what is meant by “personnel” (singular or plural) and what is meant by a “general” wage increase or hourly adjustment (does it refer only to a wage increase or also an hourly adjustment). The Arbitrator did not find the clause ambiguous. The Arbitrator found that “personnel” was not meant to be singular and that a “general wage increase or hourly adjustment” was meant to refer to more than an individual salary increase. The phrase “County Charter Group personnel” indicates that an increase must be given to one of the identified groups, which logically would not be a single member of the group, but the group in total. Further, a “general wage increase” normally refers to an across-the-board salary increase where all employees receive a pay increase. The Arbitrator distinguished a general wage increase from individual wage increases, finding that the Resolutions did not authorize general wage increases. Thus, the me-too provision did not apply.

Grievances denied.

Employer: Summit County Sheriff’s Office                           Date: February 2024