2.5. Pattern Bargaining
RLA Pattern Bargaining
Pattern Bargaining
Pattern bargaining developed and became accepted relatively early under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Essentially, under the "pattern" bargaining concept, great deference is accorded to the settlements reached with a very high percentage of the represented employees; however, this is generally a rail industry concept. Patterns may be formed in national negotiations or in local negotiations. When a pattern is determined to exist, it will be influential, if in not determinative, in the analysis and recommendations of PEBs. However, significant settlements may be reached in the same round of negotiations that may not be accepted as a "pattern" but still may be considered and may influence the analysis and recommendations of PEBs.
By the mid-1950s pattern bargaining, along with other factors, was credited with the decrease in the labor disputes going to PEBs and in the reduction in strikes. The prevalence of this dominating influence was so accepted before PEB 116 in 1957, referenced below, that the PEB noted that testimony to that effect was not even challenged.
Today, pattern bargaining addresses industry-wide bargaining with multiple labor organizations, as well as bargaining between one carrier and its multiple labor organizations and in bargaining within industry sectors such as commuter rail operations, including commuter rail operations that are a part of larger mass transit authorities with non-RLA operating units.
In the discussion of pattern bargaining, a useful dichotomy has been presented, internal patterns and external patterns. Internal patterns pertain to a pattern of agreements between one carrier and its labor organization, and external patterns pertain to a pattern of agreements between other carriers and their labor organizations. While useful, this dichotomy becomes a bit ambiguous in treating with entities such as Commuter operations that have multiple rail and non-rail operations under the umbrella of a larger mass transit authority.
Patterns developed on other carriers may be found to be informative but may not be controlling on the settlements of a different carrier. In such cases, generally there is deference to an "internal pattern" of a particular carrier. However, there is at least one instance where an external pattern was deemed appropriate when there was an internal pattern. When there is no internal pattern, the asserted external pattern may still not be controlling. The facts of the specific cases and the bargaining history are extremely important to the outcome.
In order to address pattern bargaining in its historical context, the initial development and rational for pattern bargaining use will be reviewed and, then, there will be a review of the pattern bargaining assertions in more recent years, both under Section 10 and Section 9a PEBs. For more detailed discussion on PEBs see both 3.3. Presidential Emergency Boards and 3.4. Commuter Rail PEBs.
Often in discussion of pattern bargaining, as well as in non-pattern bargaining cases, one or both parties to the dispute will advance arguments as to the appropriateness of comparators. The appropriateness of comparators will usually relate to either the propriety of comparing one carrier with one or more other carriers or the propriety of drawing a comparison of one labor organization with another. As it seems with pattern bargaining concepts generally, the appropriateness of comparators will likely turn on a number of factor.
The pattern bargaining issues addressed in Section 10 PEBs are those found in PEBs from 1992 forward that applied to freight operations and to Amtrak. The pattern bargaining issues in Section 9a PEBs for commuter operations are those found in PEBs established pursuant to said section, as amended in the NERSA Act of 1981 and applied to commuter rail operations operated by local entities.
For a full appreciation of exactly how pattern bargaining is addressed in theses PEBs, it is suggested the entire PEB report be reviewed. (Links to referenced PEBs are provided)
The following points should be kept in mind in relation to the pattern bargaining discussion:
Although early rationale for patterns contained certain criteria of large % of the represented employees that had settled, and other criteria, significant settlements representing employees when there is no determination of a pattern, even if less than 50%, may be taken into consideration by a PEB when circumstances are deemed appropriate. (PEBs 220, 221, 222, 228, 229, 230, 234, 243, 244, & 248)
Even when there is a determination of a pattern by a PEB, in limited instances, exceptions have been made when supported by compelling arguments that warranted altering the pattern's application for those seeking such exception. (PEBs 204, 225, 231, 237, 242, & 246)
A recurring and dominate voice in support of pattern arguments is the destabilizing effect of not applying it. (PEBs 116, 220, 222, 242, & 243)
While various rationales are given to support patterns, a prominent rationale rested on the "combined judgments" of the union and management officials that formed the pattern settlement. (PEB 116)
When the settlements advanced as a pattern include settlements established by awards, or other 3rd party determinations, and not by voluntary agreements, the settlements may not be viewed as patterns but may be given substantial weight in the PEB's recommendations. (PEBs 220, 222, 228, 229, 230 & 234).
While there is a preference for internal patterns over external patterns, in unique instances, arguments have been coupled with factors that have proven to warrant an exception from an internal pattern and the application of an external pattern. (PEB 225)
In determining the application of patterns to Commuter Rail operations, a PEB‘s determination that relatively large non-rail agreements were included as a component part of an overall transit authority’s economic pattern has been an element of the recommendations (PEBs 231, 237, 240, & 246), even when not asserted by the Carrier. (PEB 244)
PEB 116 (March 15, 1957) & Pattern Bargaining
PEB 116 involved approximately 175 Class 1 railroads and the employees represented by the BRT (Road Brakemen, Yard Conductors, and Brakemen). At the time of the PEB, 80% of the industry (approximately 800,000 employees) were under the "pattern" settlements. The Board took specific attention to the unchallenged testimony that earlier Emergency Boards recognized the dominating influence of the pattern settlement principle.
It should be noted that the pattern, in this instance, was established through a process that involved: 1. a concerted joint goal by 80% of the industry to establish a "settlement plan or settlement pattern which would combine uniform and non-discriminatory across-the-board treatment of all classes and crafts . . . ", 2. views that "were the result of 20 years' of experiences," 3. recognition that a "departure from the pattern method of settlement already established in the railroad industry would not be a settlement at all, but would inevitably have the effect of destroying all previous settlements and would prolong and complicate the disputes involved before this Board," and 4. the "combined judgments of the officers and members of the railway employees' organizations, particularly in view of the rivalry existing among organizations."
After stating the above, as well as other elements of its rationale, the PEB enumerated other reasons for its "decision to approve and recommend adoption of the settlement pattern plan:
"It is right and sound and fair that the remaining 20% of railroad workers be given the same package . . . as their fellow workers in the 80% . . . ."
"The pattern plan offers the best hope of preventing discriminatory treatment among the various crafts."
"No specific challenge of the propriety or fairness of the pattern settlement" was made.
"Earlier pattern plans have proven their worth as stabilizing influences."
The pattern settlement was "wholly sound and practical, and works no injustice on the employees."
The acceptance of the pattern settlement was "an excellent opportunity to give heed to the recent appeal made buy the President . . . to halt the inflationary wage-price spiral."
2018 Developments in Pattern Bargaining cases
While often Presidential Emergency Boards (PEBs) are the source of information and developments in cases involving pattern bargaining, three arbitration awards following the National Handling round concluded in 2017 and 2018 have addressed a unique aspect in the application of pattern bargaining: Arbitration Board Nos. 602, 603 & 604.
In these national negotiations, the NCCC was dealing with three coalitions of unions:
The CBG (Coordinated Bargaining Group) coalition, consisting of six unions (ATDA, IBB, NCF&O, BRS, BLET, & SMART-TD) and representing roughly 80,000 employees, reached tentative settlement on October 6, 2017. Five of the six unions ratified and the IBB did not. The technical start date for the agreement was January 1, 2015. The ratified agreements went into effect January 1, 2018.
The CRU (Coalition of Rail Union) coalition consisted of five unions (TCU, BRC, IAM, IBEW, & TWU) and representing about 31, 000 employees, reached tentative agreement December 2017. Three unions quickly ratified the agreements and two did not, the IAM and the IBEW. Ratification process for the three TCU coalition unions that did ratify their agreements was not completed by January 1, 2018. The changes to the prior health and welfare plan for the TCU coalition’s ratified agreements went into effect on February 1, 2018.
The MWSM coalition, consisting of two unions, the BMWED and the SMART-Mechanical and representing approximately 26,000 employees, never reached a tentative agreement and never went through the ratification process. The MWSM coalition and the NCCC agreed to send the disputed issues to an Arbitration Board.
In mid-April 2018, the IBB, after two failed ratifications, reached an agreement that was authorized by the IBB President. This agreement applied a January 1, 2018, effective date for the new healthcare plan changes with a “true-up” provision that was calculated to approximate the Carrier’s lost savings for the delayed implementation.
The NCCC and MWMS coalition reached agreement to arbitrate on February 27, 2018. This dispute involved both the application of plan design changes and question a “true-up” to reflect the Carrier’s lost savings due to the delayed plan design changes.
On May 8, 2018, the NCCC and the IBEW signed a ratified agreement with a June 1, 2018 effective date for the healthcare plan changes. At the same time, the NCCC and the IBEW agreed to submit the questions of whether the employees should be required to deduct a amount from their retroactive wage increases because of the four-month delay in reaching the agreement with the IBEW (February through May).
On August 16, 2018, an interest arbitration agreement was entered into by the NCCC and the IAM to resolve the dispute placed before the Arbitration Board, involving both requests for additional compensation and the matter of the “true-up” to reflect the Carrier’s lost savings due to the delayed health care plan design changes.
Arbitration Board No. 602, NCCC – MWSW (May 23, 2018) Opinion & Awarded Agreement (Two Documents)
The Arbitration Board utilized the pattern rationale in resolving both issues: the Board issued a decision in favor of the Carriers, adopting the Pattern Plan Design changes in all respects; and the Board found that the date on which the plan design changes were implemented was critical part of the overall agreements reached between the Carriers and the unions and awarded a “true-up” amount per-employee-per month to account for the Carriers’ lost savings caused by the delay in settling the agreement..
Arbitration Board No. 603, NCCC – IBEW (July 17, 2018) Opinion/Award & Mediation Agreement (Two Documents)
The Arbitration Board was confronted with a sole issue: whether the Carriers were “entitled to a deduction from the payment of retroactive wages equal to the $74.24 per month per employee, dating from February 2018 through May 2018 (four months), on account of the delay in the implementation of the design changes. In deciding in the Carriers’ favor, the Board stated that a “central feature of those health care design changes were savings which were lost for each day they are not implemented.” Additionally, the Board cited to Arbitration Board No. 602’s award, the IBB agreement, and the number of unions that made voluntary agreements that were implemented soon after their first tentative agreements.
Arbitration Board No. 604, NCCC – IAM (September 26, 2018) Opinion & Award (One Document)
The Arbitration Board was confronted by the selection on the Carriers’ proposal or the Union proposal. In following the general logic of the prior to Board’s and specifically citing Arbitration Board 603’s award, Arbitration Board No. 604 selected the Carrier’s proposal that included the “true-up” provision that reflected the Carrier’s lost savings due to the delayed implementation of the plan design changes.
Developments under Section 10.
PEB 220 NCCC & CSX - IAM
The unresolved contract issues before PEB 220 between the carriers and the IAM covered the same subjects as those considered by PEB 219. The recommendations of PEB 219, except as modified or clarified by a Special Board or otherwise modified by mutual agreement of the parties, were made effective between the carriers and all organizations except the IAM. See Post-PEB Congressional Intervention for PEB 219.
The same carriers before PEB 220 were before PEB 219. The organizations before PEB 219 represent about 95 percent of the organized work force employed by the freight carrier. The International Association of Machinists (LAM), the single organization before PEB 220, was not party to the PEB 219 proceedings; it represents an estimated five percent of the organized work force (approximately 7800 employees) on the Class I railroads.
The threshold question concerned the impact on Presidential Emergency Board 220 of the recommendations of PEB 219 as enacted by Congress, and as reviewed by the Special Board.
PEB 220 considered "it critical to the public interest that labor relations and collective bargaining on the nation's railroads be fair, stable, and reasonably consistent." Conversely, they believed "that political competition between and among unions for supremacy of benefits, with its ineluctably destabilizing consequences, is damaging to the public interest." Because the recommendations of PEB 219 were then in effect for most of the unionized employees in the railroad industry, they concluded "that significant variations for the IAM-represented employees that change previously linked or stabilized economic and work relationships with other rail employees would produce the destabilization" that they thought needed to be avoided. They said recognized, however, that exceptions may be made in special, compelling circumstances. They treated the recommendations of PEB 219 as "presumptively applicable to the IAM and the carriers" in the case before them, whether or not they are characterized as a "pattern." The presumption, however, was said to be "a rebuttable one."
When the IAM rejected the PEB recommendations, Congressional intervention ensued. See Post-PEB Congressional Interventions.
PEB 222 Amtrak - Multiple Unions
PEB 222 was held concurrent with PEBs 220 and 221. However, Amtrak had settled with a number of organizations representing about half of its employees on a wage package different from that recommended by PEB 219 and introduced an "internal model” for about 50% of its employees different from that established by PEB 219. In short, through negotiations and its position before the PEB, Amtrak "removed itself from the so-called pattern resulting from the PEB 219 wage recommendations and the resultant federal law." In evaluating the Amtrak "internal model," the PEB concluded that ignoring "that pattern" and granting "each of the organizations . . its own wage demand would reduce Amtrak's wage structure to chaos" and they declined "to make such recommendation." Referencing its decision in "companion" PEBs, the PEB reiterated its thoughts that it was "critical to the public interest that labor relations and collective bargaining in the nation's railroads be fair, stable, and reasonably consistent" and "that political competition between and among unions for supremacy of benefits, with its inevitable destabilizing consequences, is damaging to the public interest."
However, the PEB specifically stated that it was not to saying "that the PEB 219 recommendations were not relevant, but that they would be considered, where appropriate, on the same footing as other probative material. It should be noted that where Amtrak sought work rule changes, the “pattern” sought by Amtrak failed to be convincing where the work rule impact fell on the majority of employees to whom it would cover. The PEB 219 recommendations under consideration by the PEB 220 & 221 that ran concurrent with PEB 222 and whose Board Members also served on PEB 222 could be seen as influencing the PEB 222 recommendations on work rules. See Post-PEB Congressional Interventions.
PEB 225 Soo Line - UTU
In PEB 225, the Soo Line contended that it was essential to settle the common issues with the UTU on the basis of the "local pattern" established in 16 agreements and maintained that there were no circumstances peculiar to the UTU that justified treating trainmen represented by the UTU differently and more favorably than their fellow employees in other crafts, particularly locomotive engineers represented by the BLE. However, the Board found that the percentage increases, the lump sum payments and the cost of living adjustments recommended by PEB 219 and the dates upon which those pay elements were made effective for trainmen represented by the UTU on the other Class I carriers were appropriate for UTU-represented employees on the Soo Line. The recommendation was based, in significant part, upon the finding that, as the result of the recommendations concerning crew consist, the Soo Line's trainmen represented by the UTU, vis-a-vis their fellow Soo Line employees, would be contributing the overwhelming preponderance of the labor cost savings required to meet the Carrier's critical need for improved and more flexible operations.
PEB 228 NCCC-TCU
PEB 228 was established by Executive Order 13001 on May 8, 1996. In this PEB the Carriers involved in this dispute included most of the Nation's Class I line haul railroads and terminal and switching companies. The Transportation Communications International Union (TCU) was the collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act for approximately 39,000 Clerks and Carmen.
As with PEB 230, established May 17, 1996, the agreements settled prior to the PEB include an arbitrated agreement (UTU), and two other agreements, one of which was not ratified and the other of which required further negotiations. Also, combined these agreements did not exceed 50% of the work force and none of which applied to shop craft unions, three of which were before PEB 230. Despite the Carriers' assertions, the Board concluded that "We view it as less than the clear and compelling 'pattern' which the Carriers suggest it to be." However, based on other factors, i.e., by " appreciation of all the foregoing discussion as a cohesive whole," the Board concluded "we see no proper way for declining to apply the Carriers-UTU wage package as the wage package to be recommended for adoption by the Carriers and the TCU."
PEB 229 NCCC-BMWE
PEB 229 was established by Executive Order 13003 on May 15, 1996. Unlike PEBs 228 and 230 that were also established in May 1996, the PEB's recommendations did not mention pattern but appeared to be tailored to the parties and based on a specific set of principles, while tracking prior settlements on wages and health insurance:
"In assessing the parties' respective positions and in reaching its recommendations, the Board been (sic) guided by the following principles:
1. The parties have been given every opportunity to state their case and provide the Board with a complete understanding of the issues.
2. Each issue would be considered on its own merits as well as its relative position within a total contract.
3. The competitive and economic conditions so necessary for the carriers' survival are balanced with employment and institutional security so critical to the unions' survival.
4. Our recommendations would provide a framework for a stable, self-reliant and durable collective bargaining relationship."
PEB 230 NCCC - IAM, IBEW, & SMW
PEB 230 was established by Executive Order 13004 on May 17, 1996. As with PEB 228, established nine day earlier, the Carriers included most of the Nation's class I line haul railroads and terminal and switching companies. The labor organizations were four named in the Executive Order creating the Board, but the BRS reached an agreement and did not participate in the PEB with the other three labor organizations, the IAM, the IBEW and the SMW.
As with PEB 228, the agreements settled prior to the PEB include an arbitrated agreement, and two other agreements, one of which was not ratified and the other of which required further negotiations. Also, combined these agreements did not exceed 50% of the work force and none of which applied to shop craft unions, three of which were before the PEB.
The carriers argued that a pattern existed and should be followed, but such was challenged by the labor organizations. The PEB reviewed the carrier’s assertions and the unions’ contentions and found that under the circumstances before them “the pattern upon which the carriers rely is not as clear or compelling as the carriers would have us believe. We find that the wage level and other benefits set forth in the UTU, BLE and BRS agreements ought to be a large influence on our decision but cannot be treated as presumptively correct or controlling.”
PEB 234 Amtrak - BMWE
In PEB 234, without much discussion of patterns, the Board made its recommendations with heavy reliance on the recent freight settlements with the BMWE following PEB 229. However, after recognizing that the parties were best suited to forge such answers on certain unresolved issues, the Board then recommended a dispute resolution procedure for the parties' unresolved issues.
PEB 242 Amtrak - Multiple Unions
In PEB 242, the Board both noted the importance of pattern bargaining in the railroad industry had been the subject of commentary by a number of PEBs over the years and that pattern bargaining principles served a number of functions:
Absent changed circumstances sufficient to break the pattern, they provide an objective indicator of the terms that should result from arms length, good faith bargaining between parties in the same industry, attempting to set wages and working conditions in similar jobs, at the same points in time.
Pattern bargaining promotes stability, both internally within a carrier and externally in the industry, by utilizing referents that the Parties themselves used in prior rounds of bargaining and, depending upon the proposals, perhaps even in the current round of bargaining.
These principles provide benchmarks in bargaining, enhancing the likelihood of voluntary agreements.
The absence of a pattern would be much more uncertain and chaotic, encouraging groups at one carrier to attempt to outdo others, creating an undesirable and disruptive cycle. Given the critical nature of the services provided and the economic repercussions of labor disruptions, stability as a goal is even more important than in other industries. Avoiding strife and work stoppages, while ensuring that wages, benefits, and working conditions are fairly and appropriately determined, are among the principal goals underlying the RLA generally and the PEB process in particular.
Patterns assist in the maintenance of well recognized parity relationships among the wages paid to employees in different classes or crafts or working at different carriers.
There are a number of reasons why this Board rejected Amtrak's assertion of an "internal pattern" and refused to accept Amtrak’s argument that the claimed internal pattern trumped or modified the Freight Agreements as the appropriate relevant pattern in this case. First, the record contained no evidence that the agreements constituting the alleged pattern had historically been used as patterns for the settlements of the Agreements for the Organizations involved in this dispute. Second, the settlements covered a minority of Amtrak’s unionized working forces and did not prove acceptable as a basis for reaching agreement with the Organizations in this dispute or other organizations at Amtrak. In fact, several Tentative Agreements based upon that claimed “pattern” failed ratification by significant margins. Third, there is no real “pattern” at all regarding the period after December 31, 2004 (bargaining began in late 1999 and early 2000 and the PEB report was dated December 2007). No Agreement that passed ratification and became effective for Amtrak employees was introduced. Fourth, even if there was some limited linkage between the wages and benefits generally of the operating crafts who did settle for the pre-2005 period, there was no showing that their work rules and other working conditions have been used by Amtrak and the Organizations in this proceeding as pattern indicators of any type.
The Board specifically noted that "the finding in this case that the Freight Agreements provide the most fair and appropriate pattern for the Organizations in this dispute" was "grounded squarely upon historical considerations and also record facts and should not be construed as opining on whether in the future some pattern other than the Freight Agreement might be fair and appropriate."
It should also be noted that some adjustments were made to the accepted pattern where deemed appropriate.
PEB 243 NCCC - Multiple Unions
In PEB 243, the carriers asserted a pattern and the labor organizations vigorously challenged the assertion. The Carriers had settled with one operating union (UTU) that represented 38,000 employees. The eleven labor organization challenging the pattern represented approximately 92,000 employees, both operating and non-operating employees. While acknowledging the pattern arguments, the Board chose not to formally address the issue: ". . . we need not and do not resolve that issue. Rather we find it sufficient to consider the UTU agreement for what it unquestionably is: relevant evidence of what the carriers and one independent union agreed was a fair and equitable settlement."
In support of the Carriers' "contention that to permit competition in the area of compensation among fragmented unions would be destabilizing to a sensible bargaining process, and therefore, be damaging to the public interest," the Carrier cited a number of PEBs, including PEBs 242, 231, 228, 221, 220, 211, 195, 194, 187, 186, 185, 181, 174, 169, 159, 157, 137, 116, and 114. While the PEB used the UTU agreement as guidance in its analysis, in terms of general wage increases they reommended variations and specifically stated its rationale. In regard to the changes for the National Health and Welfare plan, the PEB recommended the Carriers' proposal that was based on its UTU agreement with slight modifications.
Developments under Section 9A (Commuter Rail Operations).
PEB 199 - LIRR - Multiple Cases
In the first PEB established under Section 9A, PEB 199 (LIRR), the Board, noting at the time of its report, BRAC and IBT have concluded negotiations, and their agreements are in effect. BRS, IBBB, IBFO, and SMWIA have reached agreement with LIRR on all issues, and only formal ratification procedures remain to be carried out. The IBEW and ARASA reached tentative agreement with LIRR, but ratification was not accomplished, The Board recommended that the parties follow the pattern “already established with half of the organizations.” Additionally, the Board buttressed its recommendation stating that this “package is comparable to the agreements between MTA and the unions representing bus and subway employees, as well as the recommendations of Emergency Board 198 with respect to the MetroNorth Railroad which MTA also operates.” It should be noted that PEB 198 was established under Section 10 of the Rail Passenger Service Act and was not a Section 9A PEB.
PEB 204 PATH - BRS (1984)
In PEB 204, the BRS, one of the nine labor organizations on PATH, represented 54 employees. In total, the 9 labor organizations at PATH represented 937 employees. Prior to the PEB's creation, the other 8 labor organizations had settled with PATH in what PATH referred to as a pattern settlements. The Board in this case recommended, due to the unique facts of this case, the history of negotiations, and the historical relationship among certain labor crafts, wage and pension adjustments to re solve a "perceived inequitable relationship." PEB 207, the second PEB, in the process selected PATH's proposal that was fashioned on PEB 204's recommendations.
PEB 226 MNRR - Multiple Unions
In MNRR’s first Section 9A PEB, PEB 226, the unions sought pay equity, or parity, with the LIRR, and the parties sought to bargain to closure two rounds of bargaining, 1992 – 1994 and 1995 – 1997. The PEB rejected the unions proposals for pay equity, or parity, along with the carrier’s proposal for a wage freeze. However, while settlement with some organizations were made to address the earlier 1992 – 1994 period, there were no settlements regarding the 1995 – 1997 period. The Board’s recommendations were clearly stated based on several factors: “Metro-North's wage levels and wage increases since 1983 place it at the top of a comparison with carriers such as New Jersey Transit, Conrail and Amtrak. As to recent settlements, those within the MTA family cannot be ignored. The trend, whether generally or in the railroad industry, is for moderate increases.”
PEB 231 SEPTA - BLE (1996)
In PEB 231, the Board accepted the internal pattern based on prior agreements, including from its largest union in its transit (non-rail) operation. However, while the Board did accept the concept of no retroactivity, it both introduced the concept of ensuring the "full value" of other settlements, in particular the most recent, and recognized the uniqueness of the BLE craft in considering certification pay and limited training allowance.
PEB 237 SEPTA - UTU (2004)
In PEB 237, the Board again acknowledged the general pattern on SEPTA and noted the different years primarily with one organization that did not fit the pattern. In recommending the pattern and no retroactivity for the UTU, they also recognized the "commonality" between Conductors and Engineers and recommended longevity pay for Conductors similar to what the Engineers had in their agreement.
PEB 240 MetroNorth - Multiple Unions (2007)
In PEB 240, there were several settlements on MetroNorth at the time the PEB was created. The Board took notice of the facts that the collective bargaining agreements between Metro-North and its unions, representing 12 bargaining units/crafts/cases, had been based over the years on the principle of pattern bargaining and settlements that included other than Commuter Rail operations. Accordingly, Board recommended the pattern of wage increases as proposed by Metro-North and contained in the "Term Sheet" that had been initialed by the parties. Certain aspects of the recommendations took other matters into account. The "Term Sheet" factored significantly into the recommendations, and "other equities" played a role, particularly in the fashioning of its unique healthcare employee contribution recommendation.
PEB 244 LIRR - Multiple Unions (2013)
In PEB 244, there were no settlements on the LIRR at the time the PEB was created and functioned. The LIRR took the position that the MTA non-Commuter Rail settlements, namely the MTA TWU 100 arbitration award, and other similar arbitration awards, should not constitute a "pattern" that should be applied to them and argued for the "pattern" of certain NY state settlements. After reviewing the MTA awards, other commuter rail operations, and non-commuter rail operations, the Board rejected the LIRR's arguments and fashioned its recommendations based in part on the MTA awards for the first part of the term of the recommended settlement and turned toward other Commuter Rail and non-Commuter Rail settlements for the remained of its wage recommendations.
PEB 246 SEPTA - BLET & IBEW
In PEB 246, SEPTA presented its internal SEPTA pattern based on a large non-rail union and 15 of the 17 commuter rail unions (approximately 95% of the SEPTA unionized workforce). In including the "pattern" in its recommendations, the Board did also make certain accommodations for certain issues raised by the unions.
PEB 248 NJT - Multiple Unions
In PEB 248, NJT had no prior settlements. The unions advanced the settlements from LIRR and MNRR, that had their basis in PEBs 244 and 245, along with settlements at SEPTA and MBTA, as appropriate comparators that would maintain the relative wage relationship of the NJT employees with other Northeast commuter rail operations. NJT based its wage proposals on its representations of the state's financial condition and its labor agreements with its state employees. While the PEB did not hold that other commuter rail labor settlements were controlling, the PEB did regard them as informative, particularly in addressing the relative relationship of NJT employees compensation levels with those of other Northeast commuter rail operations. The Board’s recommendation was intended to maintain “NJT’s relative wage standing among these comparable commuter railroads.”