A retired West Windsor Police officer has filed a grievance against the township alleging that administration illegally increased prescription co-pays for seven police officers who retired in the mid-1990s.##M:[more]##
Retired Detective Sergeant Barry Hibbs appeared before West Windsor Council on April 25 to decry the increased co-pays, which went into effect without notice to the officers in January.
Administration called several emergency meetings in the past week with officials from PBA Local 271 (the union representing the department’s rank-and-file police officers), and the Superior Officers Association, (the union representing the township’s lieutenants), in anticipation of Hibbs appearance before council. Also involved in the talks were former police Chief Frank Cox, and current Chief Joseph Pica.
The dispute stems from a decision by a state arbitrator on the township’s current contract with PBA 271. In his decision, the arbitrator increased the amount of salary increase requested by the officers in exchange for an increase in prescription co-pays from $2 to $5 for generic and $12 for brand name drugs.
According to Business Administrator Chris Marion, the township’s labor lawyer, Mark S. Ruderman, gave an opinion that the 1994-96 contract under which the officers retired allowed the township to increase the prescription co-pay.
Retirees affected by the increase were Sergeant Gary Watlington, Sergeant John Hencken, Sergeant Barry Morris, Officer Ed Foran, Officer Ralph Carnevale, and Detective Michael Dansbury.
Hibbs, who says he was speaking for all of the retired officers, called the township’s decision “arbitrary and capricious” and out of line with the township’s past practices.
“They’re putting the screws to us. We don’t deserve to be treated like scum after having given 25 years worth of service to the township,” said Hibbs in an interview with the News. He alleges that one administration official even told one of the officers to get a job if he wanted better benefits.
Hibbs says that although the increase in co-pay seems small, it sets a dangerous precedent. “In future contracts the PBA could agree to a large salary increase in exchange for a big decrease in medical benefits,” he explains. “Well, we wouldn’t see the extra money. All we would get is the lesser benefits.”
Hibbs also claims that state courts have ruled that a decision by an arbitrator cannot be passed on to retired officers, as appears to have happened in this case.
At issue is several paragraphs in the 1994-96 contract — in effect when the officers retired — and different interpretations of the word “currently” by the administration and the police officers.
“The township, through an insurance carrier, shall provide a prescription program for each employee, spouse, and dependent child, whereby the employee pays a fixed co-payment of $2 for each prescription,” states paragraph A.5 of the contract.
“The township will continue… prescription coverage as currently provided in paragraph A.5… for the employee, his/her spouse and children as currently defined commencing upon the date of full retirement of the employee,” states the disputed paragraph of the contract.
Administration is interpreting “currently” as meaning the PBA contract that is now in effect. The retired officers, PBA, and Superior Officers, maintain that the intent of the paragraph is for officers to receive, in perpetuity, the level of benefits in effect under the contract at their time of retirement.
The officers point out that the township set a precedent for their point several years ago when the benefit for vision coverage increased from $350 to $400. Administration ruled at that time that the retired officers were only entitled to $350, the rate in effect in the contract under which they retired.
The township is now claiming that it made a mistake, and in a letter to the PBA, Marion said that the retirees are now entitled to the higher rates for vision coverage.
Marion says that administration is now looking into the issue. “We’re reviewing additional info from PBA and Superior Officers, and I appreciated Detective Hibbs expressing his opinion and concern.”
According to Marion, after the arbitrator’s decision the township sought clarification of the impact of the new contract on the retired officers in January. He said Ruderman interpreted the language in the 1994-96 contract as allowing the increased co-pays. The township is continuing to meet with the PBA and Superior Officers and researching past documentation in an attempt to come to a resolution on the issue.
