AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Pay Disputes - In General
A certified class of California state correctional employees claimed that they were entitled to additional pay for time they spent on pre- and post-work activities. The trial court defined the time employees spent traveling from the outermost gate of the prison facility to their posts within the facility as “entry-exit walk time” and the time they spent after beginning the first activity they were assigned to but before arriving at their assigned post “duty-integrated walk time.” It divided the plaintiffs into two subclasses: one for supervisory employees who were not represented by a union and the other for represented employees. The California Supreme Court rejected these claims by represented employees in seeking pay for insofar as they sought additional compensation for either “duty-integrated walk time” or “entry-exit walk time” but held that a subclass of unrepresented employees might be entitled to additional pay for duty-integrated walk time. It found that the subclass of represented plaintiffs had expressly agreed to a specific amount of pay for duty-integrated walk time, and that and the collective bargaining agreements barred other forms of compensation. The represented employees could not seek additional pay for either duty-integrated walk time or entry-exit walk time. Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, #S244751, 2019 Cal. Lexis 4937.
Employees who retired or were separated from positions with the Veterans’ Administration in 1993-99 with accrued but unused leave sued the federal government. They received lump-sum payments for their accrued and unused annual leave and later received supplemental lump-sum payments that reflected statutory pay increases and general system-wide pay increases that became effective before the expiration of their accrued annual leave, as required by the Lump Sum Pay Act (LSPA), 5 U.S.C. 5551-5552 Their lawsuit claimed that the VA omitted increases included Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) and Locality Pay Adjustments and that payments made to certain plaintiffs improperly omitted non-overtime Sunday premium pay or evening and weekend “additional pay” that they would have received had they remained on the job. They sought pre-judgment interest under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596. The claims for additional COLAs, Locality Pay Adjustments, and non-overtime Sunday premium pay were subsequently resolved. A federal appeals court upheld a Claims Court decision that the plaintiffs were not entitled to have evening and weekend “additional pay” included in their payments. They were also not entitled to receive pre-judgment interest on amounts improperly withheld from their lump sum payments. Athey v. United States, #17-2277, (Fed. Cir.).
Two Milwaukee police officers were fired for cause by the police chief, and their pay and benefits immediately stopped. Appeals of their terminations to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners were rejected. They claimed that their employment did not end when they were discharged by the chief because they were entitled to employment until the conclusion of their appeals. They alleged that they were denied constitutional due process and wages. A federal appeals court upheld the rejection of their claims and judgment on the pleadings. Under Wisconsin state law, the former officers had no property interest in employment once they were discharged for cause by the chief. They were provided a full and adequate appeals process, and their discharges were upheld in accordance with Wisconsin law. They were not entitled to wages for the period of time between their discharge and the conclusion of their appeal under state law, as they were not employed during that time. Milwaukee Police Association v. Flynn, #16-3743, 863 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2017).
Current and former correctional officers who worked at various California facilities claimed that they were improperly denied pay for time they were under their employer’s control before and after their shifts, such as when traveling to and from their posts, attending briefings, checking out required equipment, and being searched at security checkpoints. They asserted state law claims for failure to pay contractual overtime, failure to pay the California minimum wage, failure to keep accurate records of hours worked, and failure to pay overtime in breach of common law contractual obligations. The trial court certified classes, with two subclasses, distinguishing between employees represented by unions and those not represented, and then held that the plaintiffs’ entitlement to overtime pay was controlled by federal, rather than California, law, as well as entering judgment for the defendants. An intermediate state appeals court reversed as to the subclass of unrepresented supervisory employees and affirmed as to the subclass of union represented employees. It ruled that the officers who were employed by state correctional facilities and represented by a union could not recover unpaid minimum wages under state law because a memorandum of understanding, which specified that federal law would apply to preclude compensation for time spent under the employer's control before and after work shifts, had received legislative approval, superseding the state minimum wage law. Unrepresented employees were entitled to pay for all hours worked under the applicable state standard and could pursue breach of contract claims based on the failure to pay overtime. Stoetzl v. State of California, #A142832, 2017 Cal. App. Lexis 765.
A management level
employee of a public school system discovered that she was being paid less for
the same work than her male counterparts. A federal appeals court rejected her
equal pay claims under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5; and the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code 12940. The county admitted that it paid her
less than comparable male employees, but raised an affirmative defense under
the Equal Pay Act that the difference was based on the prior salaries of the
employees involved. Prior salary can be a factor other than sex, so long as the
employer shows that prior salary accomplishes some business policy and that the
employer uses prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purpose as well as
its other practices. The appeals court vacated the district court's denial of
the county's motion for summary judgment, providing instructions for the trial
court to evaluate the business reasons offered by the county and determine
whether it used prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purposes as well
as its other practices. Rizo
v. Yovino, #16-15372, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7427 (9th Cir.).
A
retired employee of a California state agency sued on behalf of similarly
situated resigned and retired employees, claiming that they were not paid their
final wages within a statutory deadline. The statute requires prompt payment to
employees who are discharged or who resign. The plaintiff, who had retired from
her job, stated a claim to statutory penalties for late payment of final wages
as the statute applies to those who "quit to retire." McLean v.
State, #S221554, 1 Cal. 5th 615, 2016 Cal. Lexis 6787, 167 Lab. Cas. (CCH)
P61734.
While working for the
state Department of Corrections, an officer sustained a knee injury and
received workers' compensation benefits, along with assault pay. He later was
terminated as medically unfit for duty, and the employer stopped paying assault
pay. He sued, seeking a judicial declaration that he was entitled to keep
receiving assault pay for as long as he kept receiving workers' compensation.
The highest court in Massachusetts ruled that a state employee's right to assault
pay ends when his or her employment ends. Assault pay was intended to be a
substitute for the use of accrued sick leave.
Marchand v. Dep’t of Corr., #SJC-11949,
475 Mass. 1006, 2016 Mass. Lexis 597.
A number of retired D.C. Metropolitan police
officers were later rehired by the D. C. Protective Services Division, an
agency charged with protecting D.C. owned property and government buildings.
They received salaries for their new jobs and pension benefits from their
former jobs. A provision of the D.C. statutes, however, aimed at preventing
so-called "double dipping," required that their current salaries be
reduced by the amount of their pensions. A federal appeals court upheld a
ruling that the salary reductions did not violate the Public Salary Tax Act of
939, 4 U.S.C. 111(a), a statute that only permitted states or D.C. to
"tax" compensation paid to federal employees if that tax did not
discriminate against federal employees. The court ruled that the salary
reduction provision was not a "tax" but instead reduced D.C.'s total
expenditure on salaries. The amount of the reduction was not collected through
normal taxation mechanisms and did not raise revenue, but only lower
expenditures. Cannon v. Dist. of Columbia, #14-7014, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6320
(D.C. Cir.).
Diplomatic Security Special Agent employed by the
U.S. State Department volunteered to serve one year in Iraq during wartime,
arriving there in February of 2004. Because their permanent duty station was
then still listed as Washington, D.C., they received, in addition to their base
pay, additional "locality pay" designed to equalize the pay of
federal employees with non-federal employees' pay in the same area. After their
permanent duty station was changed to Baghdad, they no longer received the
locality pay, but they did receive significant overtime pay. After they
returned to the U.S. in 2005, they were informed that new Office of Personnel
Management regulations placed an annual premium pay cap on their compensation
of $128,200, and that their pay to date either had already or would soon be
over the cap amount, so that the government would seek to collect ay
overpayments. They received letters later requesting repayments of amounts
ranging from $435.94 to $10,514.98. A federal appeals court rejected an
argument that the State Department acted arbitrarily in declining to agree to a
discretionary waiver of the employees' obligations to repay the overpayments
and found that the Department "permissibly construed" the law at
issue, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584. Lubow v. Dep't of State, #13-5057, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 6302 (D.C. Cir.).
Four separate lawsuits were brought against a
city by current and retired police officers and firefighters. They claimed that
the city's failure to pay them certain wages and benefits violated state and
federal law, including breach of contract. A federal appeals court ruled that
it had jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals by the city of the denial of
its motions to dismiss on the basis of governmental immunity in the lawsuits.
The appeals court further found that the city was not entitled to the dismissal
of the lawsuits since the plaintiff had sufficiently valid contracts with the
city. The city itself had conceded that such claims prevented a municipality
from being awarded dismissal on the basis of governmental immunity. Davis v.
City of Greensboro, #13-1820, 770 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2014).
A retired California state employee could proceed
with a class action claim that the state did not comply with a prompt payment
of due wages statute. The word "quits" in the statute including
employees quitting to retire. The statute did not require her to name the
specific agency she had worked for as a defendant, and she properly named the
State of California as the defendant because she was a civil service employee.
McLean v. State of California, #C074515, 228 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 176 Cal. Rptr.
3d 734, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 755.
A county sheriff's office paid varying amounts to
a group of sergeants within an established pay range. A grievance by the
sergeants challenged the discrepancy, and the department's civil service board
upheld the grievance and ordered that the sheriff equalize the pay of all the
sergeants. The Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed, stating that in the absence
of any proof that the sheriff had violated the civil service manual or a
provision of state law, the board did not have the power to order the
equalization of salaries. The civil service manual explicitly gave the sheriff
the authority to make individual determinations of pay, and there was no proof
that the sheriff violated any state law, so the board exceeded its authority.
Hammond v. Harvey, #E2011-01700-SC-R11-CV,2013 Tenn. Lexis 640.
Police unions challenged a wage freeze imposed on
county employees in 2011 by an interim finance authority. They argued that the
freeze violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution and that the finance
authority powers to impose a freeze had expired under a state statute. The
trial court granted the unions summary judgment on the basis of their state law
claim without reaching the constitutional issue. The federal appeals court
found that the trial court had erred in doing so, since doing it required it to
interpret, for the first time, an important state legislative scheme enacted to
prevent the fiscal fail;ure of the county. The ruling was therefore vacated and
remanded for further proceedings. Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance,
#13-801 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 19366 (2nd Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld in general the
District of Columbia's laws against "double dipping" by employees who
retired from a job with the District and then were rehired in another job,
attempting to draw both a full pension and a full salary. The plaintiffs were
retired employees of the Metropolitan Police Department who drew a pension and
were subsequently hired by another District agency. The court found that the
claims that the salary offset violated the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal
Protection Clause were meritless. It did, however, find that in slashing three
of the plaintiffs' salaries, allegedly below the federal minimum wage, the
District may have overstepped the boundaries of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), so further proceedings were needed. Cannon v. District of
Columbia, #12-7064, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11130 (D.C. Cir.).
A firefighters union was entitled to a judgment
in its favor when it presented evidence to support its interpretation of the
collective bargaining agreement that the city was required to give step pay
increases to all eligible firefighters. The City failed to present any real
evidence to the contrary. The lawsuit was filed when the city refused to give
pay increases to five firefighters who qualified for a step increase in pay.
Sheridan Fire Fighters Local No. 276 v. City of Sheridan, #S-12-0108, 2013 WY
36, 2013 Wyo. Lexis 40.
Just before a Naval Criminal Investigative
Service employee was to be transferred from California to Washington, D.C., she
submitted a questionnaire to serve on a California state grand jury, and was
chosen to serve for a year. The Navy allowed her to serve and paid her salary
under a federal statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6322(a). It instructed her, however, not
to reapply for another term on the grand jury. She did, however, and was
appointed to serve for a second one-year term. The Navy then placed her on AWOL
status and withheld her pay, subsequently terminating her. A federal appeals
court held that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) erred in rejecting her
claims for back pay on the basis that she had not been "summoned" for
grand jury duty for the second year but sought it voluntarily. The CFC did not,
however, have jurisdiction to hear her wrongful termination claim. Hall v.
U.S., #2011-5119, 677 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Because the state of Illinois faced a major
fiscal crisis, a union representing 40,000 state employees agreed to postpone a
portion of a wage hike promised in a negotiated contract. Subsequently, the
state legislators refused to appropriate sufficient funds to pay the deferred
wage increases to 75% of the employees. The union's lawsuit against state
officials asserting violations of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution
and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity. State officials could not be compelled by such a
federal lawsuit to pay funds from the state treasury. The court also found that
there was no Contract Clause violation in the outcome, which was the result of
non-appropriation of funds and a mere breach of contract, insufficient to
establish a constitutional claim. Any Equal Protection argument would be
defeated by the fact that imposing cost savings measures rationally served a
legitimate governmental interest in light of the fiscal crisis. Council 31 of
AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Quinn, #11–3111, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9897 (7th Cir.).
While the adoption by California of a
three-day-per-month furlough program for state employees reduced the pay of
members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, this was
within the authority of the state legislature in revising the state budget, and
did not violate state labor or government codes or the state's minimum wage
law. A trial court award of back pay for the officers was therefore reversed.
Brown v. Superior Court, #A127292, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 1259 (1st Dist.).
Unionized city employees who accepted early
retirement under an incentive program while the city was negotiating with their
unions for new contracts were not entitled to retroactive pay raises provided
for city employees in the new contracts. The early retirement incentive program
did not contain any provisions entitling them to such back pay, and the new
contracts expressly excluded them from receiving such retroactive payments.
This did not violate their due process rights. Marcatante v. City of Chicago,
#10-2114, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17683 (7th Cir.).
City employees were not entitled a
four-stage wage increase because the N.Y. legislature imposed a three-year
salary freeze. Matter of Meegan v. Brown, #37, 2011 NY Slip Op 2436, 2011 N.Y.
Lexis 470.
When counsel for a party subpoenas a California
peace officer, both the litigant and counsel are the party at whose request the
subpoena is issued and both are liable for the reimbursement of the officer's
compensation. Maddox v. City of Costa Mesa, #G043297, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 339
(4th Dist.).
President signs legislation to prohibit statutory
pay adjustments for non-military Federal civilian employees for a 2-year
period. Executive Order, Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay.
New York Public Employment Relations Board judge
dismisses an appeal relating to payments due a public employee. The charging
party failed to appear at a status conference or provide reasons excusing his
absence. Carroll and AFSCME L-870 and Patchogue-Medford, PERB #U-29075, 2009
NYPER Lexis 120.
Federal court overturns an employer-imposed economic measure
that reduced the work hours of all covered employees by 80 in FY-2009, reducing
the annual salaries of those employees by 3.85%. “The Framers of the
Constitution drafted the Contract Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, §10, cl. 1.)
based on the concern that state governments might enact legislation to alter,
relax or unilaterally modify contractual obligations.” FOP v. Prince George’s
Co., #AW-08-2455, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72810 (D.Md.).
After a three-year wage freeze had ended, police
officers, firefighters and other employee were entitled to more than a one-year
advancement on their pay scales. They continued to accrue service credit and
climbed the ladder of salary and career increments set forth in the bargaining
agreements, but a partial lifting of the wage freeze with respect to one union
should not have applied to all. Meegan v. Brown; Foley v. Brown,
#322CA-08-00492, 2009 NY Slip Op 4805, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4721 (4th
Dept.).
Bankruptcy court rules that a city has the
authority to void its existing union contracts in its effort to reorganize. Public
workers lack the protections of union workers for private companies. In re City
of Vallejo, Calif., #08-26813, Memorandum decision (PACER Doc. 473); Findings
of Fact & Conclusions of Law (E.D. Cal. 2009).
Police chief lacked
standing to challenge a new ordinance that effectively reduced his pay. The
suit did not advance a public aim or seek to enforce a public right. State ex
rel. Simeone v. City of Niles, #2008-T-0059, 2008-Ohio-7000, 2008 Ohio App.
Lexis 5856 (11th Dist.).
Union members win a ruling to compel DHS and FPS to
obey an order issued by an administrative law judge to pay the prevailing wages
to employees performing contractual services for the Federal Protective
Service. United Govt. Security Officers L-52 v. Chertoff, #07-173, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 95476 (D.D.C.).
Arbitrator upholds a pay grade grievance where a
corporal was temporarily placed in sergeant's position without receiving the
pay differential. The contract was silent on temporary assignments to acting
ranks. Franklin Co. Sheriff's Office and FOP L-9, FMCS Case #070724/58773-8,
125 LA (BNA) 332, (Weatherspoon, 2008).
Arbitrator finds that favoritism resulted in
others receiving merit pay increases, and orders a retroactive pay raise for
the grievant. City of Vandalia and Ohio PBA, 125 LA (BNA) 62 (Paolucci, 2008).
Arbitrator holds that management violated the
bargaining agreement by denying pay shift differential to police officers that
volunteered to work on the swing or night shifts; the term "regular rate
of pay" under the Fair Labor Standards Act includes shift incentives and
differentials. City of Tacoma and Tacoma Police Union L-6, 124 LA (BNA) 642
(Landau, 2007).
In a pay dispute where the employer raised the
defense of prior litigation, a federal court rejects the theory that each
paycheck that a plaintiff receives constitutes a new discriminatory act; the
continuing effects of past discriminatory actions do not resuscitate
time-barred claims. Groesch v. City of Springfield, #04-3162, 2007 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 50009 (C.D. Ill.).
In a case where the county claimed that the
sheriff falsely certified department payrolls, resulting in key employees
receiving unauthorized premium pay adjustments, the sheriff was immune from
liability for negligent misrepresentations, because his erroneous decision to
increase commanders pay involved policymaking. County of Kern v. Sparks,
#F050440, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 467 (5th Dist.).
A sheriff's dept. that erroneously overpaid an
employee was entitled to a summary judgment to recover the overpayments. Gibson
v. Ada County, #29694, 2006 Ida. Lexis 12 (2006). {N/R}
Arbitrator rules that although the CBA
specifically allowed four hours minimum pay for off-duty court appearances,
only actual hours need be paid for other callback duty, such as a flood
response. Columbiana County Sheriff and FOP, 121 LA (BNA) 902, FMCS Case
#05/01634 (D'Eletto, 2005). {N/R} Arbitrator
concludes, in a grievance related to longevity pay, that "years of
service" means total service, and not uninterrupted, continuous service.
City of Chehalis and Teamsters L-252, Wash. PERC Case #18589-A-04-1401 121 LA
(BNA) 38 (Schwendiman, 2005). {N/R}
Arbitrator holds that a firefighter that was
reinstated after his termination was overturned was entitled to payment for 282
hours overtime he likely would have worked, but for the disciplinary action.
City of Barberton and IAFF L-329, 120 LA (BNA) 1367, FMCS #040209/52328
(Goggin, 2004). {N/R}
Arbitrator finds that Treasury Dept. underpaid
its 2003 performance awards program by as much as $6.7 million, affecting as
many as 40,000 IRS employees. The underfunding was due to the fact that
management had used salary projections rather than actual compensation amounts.
National Treasury Employees Union and I.R.S., 42 (2086) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1155
(Ross, 2004). {N/R}
Arbitrator holds that a city violated the
bargaining agreement when it refused to pay a police officer for 12 partial
days of jury duty, even though the city changed the officer's schedule so that
the jury appearances would not conflict with his scheduled duty. City of
Urichsville, Ohio and Fraternal Order of Police, 119 LA (BNA) 1723 (Harlan,
2004). [2004 FP Dec]
Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission holds
that it was an Unfair Labor Practice to change the payroll period from weekly
to biweekly, without bargaining with the union. Worcester County Sheriff's
Office and Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, #SUP-4531 (Mass.
LRC 2004). {N/R}
Federal appeals court rejects a pay
discrimination suit filed by 18 former Chicago Police crime lab scientists who
were absorbed into the Illinois State Police Forensic Services Division. The
plaintiffs were unable to prove the transfer process failed to account for their
seniority, or that incumbent ISP scientists were paid more than them because
they were white; 27 of 51 the former CPD scientists were minorities. Boyd v.
Illinois State Police, #02-2880, 384 F.3d 888, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20576, 94
FEP Cases (BNA) 839 (7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
Arbitrator refuses to enforce a side agreement to
pay a police officer more than the wages indicated in the bargaining agreement.
"The rights and remedies of a bargaining unit member with respect to wages
derive solely from the terms of the collective bargaining agreement entered
into between the employer and the representative union. An employer cannot
enter into separate, private agreements with individual members of the
bargaining unit where the effect of such agreements would be to contradict the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement." Borough of Brentwood and
Teamsters L-205, Pa. Bur. of Mediation #4195, 119 LA (BNA) 1020 (Dissen, 2003).
{N/R}
Arbitrator holds that longevity pay is calculated
on the basis of each entire year worked, and does not include a prorated credit
for a partial year. Twp. of Austintown and FOP L- 126,117 LA (BNA) 900, AAA
Case No. 53-390-00365-0 (Ruben, 2002). {N/R}
Arbitrator finds that a city did not violate the
bargaining contract when it refused to give officers extra pay for transporting
a prisoner to court during times when the officers are required to appear at
court hearings. City of Amherst and Ohio P.B.A., 117 LA (BNA) 572 (Adamson,
2002). {N/R}
Arbitrator declines to impose wage increases
based on years of service, where there is no history of seniority
differentials. Mason City and IBOT L-828, 117 LA (BNA) 472 (Feldman, 2002).
[2002 FP Dec]
212,000 current and former "special salary
rate" federal employees, who worked between 1982 and 1988, will share more
than $173 million in back pay under a class action settlement. Most awards will
be in the $1,000 to $3,000 range, but some workers may recover as much as
$30,000. NTEU v. King, #96-1263, 132 F.3d 736, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 17 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); NTEU v. Horner, #87-1506, 869 F.2d 571 (Fed. Cir. 1989). [N/R]
Arbitrator upholds a grievance that a city
improperly hired a new firefighter at 10% more than the contract minimum wage.
Although allowed under an ordinance, the bargaining history between the city
and firefighters' union prevented this action. Boca Raton (City of) and
I.A.F.F. Local 1560, FMCS #05454-3, 116 LA (BNA) 328 (Abrams, 2001). [2002 FP
Feb]
Arbitrator holds that detectives were not
entitled to a FTO pay supplement if they were accompanied by newly appointed
evidence technicians that they were not required to evaluate -- even though
patrol FTOs were additionally compensated. San Antonio (City of) and San
Antonio POA, AAA Case #70-390-00121-98, 115 LA (BNA) 513 (Moore, 2001). [2001
FP 72-3]
Miscellaneous one-time events, such as a delayed
check or a failure to receive an overtime check, do not amount to legally
cognizable employment injury. Thomas v. Dept. of Corrections, 77 Cal.App.4th
507, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 11, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 00 C.D.O.S. 267 (Cal.App.
2000). {N/R}
City did not violate an officers' equal
protection rights with a new pay structure that calculated his work week at
42.5 hours, even though the hourly rate of other same-grade city employees were
calculated at a 40-hour work week. Police officers are often required to work
during their lunch breaks, and other city employees are not. Arnold v. City of
Columbia, Mo., 197 F.3d 1217, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 31550, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA)
1284 (8th Cir.). (N/R}
Arbitrator holds that public employer was not
required to pay for time spent on recertification training, absent a provision
in the bargaining agreement. Pickaway Co. Sheriff and FOP Ohio, FMCS Case
#99/00168, 112 LA (BNA) 742 (Bell, 1999). [1999 FP 158]
City was not obligated to pay new police officers
the higher amount listed in a recruiting brochure; claimants knew the correct
salary before they accepted their appointments. Williams v. City of Midland,
932 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.App. 1996). [1997 FP 121]
Arbitrator holds that patrol officers who
function as acting sergeants were entitled to extra pay. Saddle River (Bor. of)
and PBA L-348, NJPERC #AR-95-4474, 106 LA (BNA) 684 (DiLauro, 1996). [1996 FP
171]
Arbitrator declines to order city to pay other
patrolmen salary increases because one member of the bargaining unit was
receiving a higher rate than he was eligible for. Rye Brook (Vil. of) and
P.B.A., 104 LA (BNA) 822 (Marx, 1995). [1995 FP 170-1]
City was obligated to pay officers for private,
off-duty work details, even though contractor failed to pay the city for their
work. The arbitrator noted the duty involved traffic control at a construction
site, which benefited the town. Winthrop and IBPO L-397, LAIG #5006 (Higgins,
1994); 3 (9) Pub.Sfty.Lab. News (LRIS) 9. {N/R}
Employer could not deduct its unspecified losses
from employee earnings. Cal. Labor Code Sec. 221 prohibits deductions for cash
shortages, breakage, loss of equipment, sales returns where the salesperson is
not known, and other business losses. Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d
46 (App. 1995). {N/R}
Representations to an employee that a former
payment policy would be used are not enforceable. The doctrine of equitable
estoppel does not generally apply to acts of public agents. Carson v. City of
Lafollette, 878 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn.App. 1994), citing State ex rel. Dossett v.
Obion Co., 221 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1949). [1995 FP 125]
Refusal to pay corrections officers
"hazardous duty pay" at a minimum security facility did not violate
the Equal Protection Clause. McDermott v. Coughlin, 610 N.Y.S.2d 329 (A.D.
1994). {N/R}
Alabama rules that a fire dept. was not obligated
to pay the rate advertised in a job announcement. Paseur v. Huntsville, 1994
Ala. Lexis 340, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 1174 (Ala. 1994). [1994 FP 171-2]
Federal appeals court upholds police and teacher
pay reductions in violation of union contracts, reversing a trial court ruling
which found the reductions violated the "Contracts Clause" of the
Federal Constitution. Baltimore City F.O.P. v. Mayor, 801 F.Supp. 1506 (D.Md.
1992); reversed, 6 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 58-9]
Appellate court upholds arbitrator's use of CPI
for future wage increases. Moses Lake (City of) v. I.A.F.F. Local 2052, 847
P.2d 16 (Wash.App. 1993). [1993 FP 155]
An involuntarily terminated worker is entitled to
receive all wages due him. A state law requiring prompt payment of wages to
employees does not exclude those who are fired from their jobs. Duke v. Norman
Eqpmt., 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21152, 30 WH Cases (BNA) 1528 (N.D. Ind.). {N/R}
City could not rotate sergeants to acting
lieutenant to avoid paying differential salary to a sergeant who would have
been assigned to the acting rank on a long-term basis. City of Boston v. Boston
Police Super. Ofcrs. Fed., 29 Mass. App. 907, 556 N.E.2d 1053 (1990).
Sergeant who was assigned to replace a lieutenant
as platoon commander was not entitled to higher pay. Chaisson v. Dept. of
Police, 556 So.2d 73 (La. App. 1990).
Personnel code which required a survey of
comparable pay for similar positions in public and private employment did not
require inclusion of federal pay positions. Anderson v. State Dept. of
Personnel, 756 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1988).
Although a comparable worth study done by the
City was sound, the law does not release the employer from an obligation to
bargain in good faith nor to totally ignore historical comparisons, both
external and internal. Arbitrators must consider pay equity and pay compression
as a determinant for making an award. Blaine (City of), MN and Minn. Teamsters
L-320, Case No. 87 PN 707, 90 LA (BNA) 549 (Perretti, 2/5/1988). {N/R}
Firefighter lacked standing to challenge pay
raise given other firefighters who were EMT-A qualified. Bowers v. Columbus
Munic. Civil Serv. Cmsn., 34 Ohio App. 280, 518 N.E.2d 584 (1986).
Police technician entitled to supervisory pay
when those duties are regularly performed, along with car allowance given
supervisors. Mokwa v. City of Houston, 741 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.App. 1987).
Predominantly female police dispatchers not
entitled to same pay as predominantly male fire dispatchers. Peters v. City of
Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1987).
State police could pay officers in northern part
of state 20 percent more than officers in rest of state. Eldridge v. Bouchard,
645 F.Supp. 749 (W.D. Va. 1986).
Wardens, jailers and radio dispatchers do “police
work” for minimum pay considerations. Houston County Commission v. Hart, 477
So.2d 321 (Ala. 1985).
Firefighters allowed to sue city for wage
reductions because city failed to exclude them from new social security law.
Williams v. City of Bastrop, 464 So.2d 1389; subsequent opinion on merits, 475
So.2d 118 (La. App. 1985).
Elected officials have no right to a “fair” or
“reasonable” salary, but it cannot be reduced when they are in office.
Trinisewski v. Hudock, 494 A.2d 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Court lacks authority to order county to pay for
needed deputies from unappropriated funds. Ledbetter v. Duncan, 676 S.W.2d 91
(Tenn. App. 1984).
Employees on overtime while appearing in court
must turn over witness fees to their department. Perry v. Metropolitan Dade
County, 437 So.2d 295 (Fla. App. 1983).
Employees have no legal right to continuation of
college incentive pay in future years. Foley v. Consolidated City of
Indianapolis, 421 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind.App. 1981).
“Pay compression” assumes that higher
differentials prevailing elsewhere are the norm and, hence that the local
structure is “compressed.” Pay differences between positions in the promotional
scheme “must be taken into account in determining the proper relativity of
salaries.” The phenomenon of “pay compression” occurs where “the differentials
between positions of lower and higher job content are smaller.” Air New Zealand
Ltd. and N.Z. Airline Pilots Assn., 77 LA (BNA) 667 (Perretti 1981). {N/R}
Mayor cannot refuse to pay raises established by
city council over Mayor's veto. City of Gary v. State ex rel. Paris, 406 N.E.2d
1247 (Ind.App. 1980).
Interim service at higher rank, although no
vacancy technically exists, entitles employee to extra pay for that period.
Adams v. Goldner, 79 N.J. 78, 397 A.2d 1088 (1979).
New Hampshire rejects argument that detectives
possess higher skills and should receive greater pay. Wilson v. State Personnel
Cmsn. 387 A.2d 1160 (N.H. 1978).
City can collect overpayment of wages
inadvertently paid firefighters. Moran v. City of Milwaukie, 568 P.2d 711 (Ore.
App. 1977).
Kentucky Supreme Court upholds local ordinance
setting hourly firefighter scale before time-and-one-half law became operative.
Snyder v. City of Owensboro, 555 S.W.2d 246 (Ky. 1977).
Emergency law supercedes collectively bargained
contract. Mutual Aid Assn. of Paid Fire Dept. and Local 628, I.A.F.F. v. City
of Yonkers, 401 N.Y.S.2d 98 (A.D. 1978).
Does a change in pay periods entitle firefighters
to a back pay award? Tennessee court finds claims lacking in substance.
Metropolitan Fire Fighters Assn., Local 763 AFL-CIO v. Briley, 524 S.W.2d 671
(Tenn. 1975).
$12 million in back pay to Los Angeles firemen
and police affirmed. Melendres v. City of Los Angeles, 115 Cal.Rptr. 409, 40
C.A.3d 718, aff'd 117 Cal.Rptr. 577 (Cal. 1974).
See also: Fair Labor
Standards Act; Holiday and Premium Pay; Pay Parity; Stand-by Pay Claims.