What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY
Fact: Our contract, both the previous and new, sates the following:
“For employees hired prior to July 1, 2004 the following employee health insurance contribution applies:
2011 -2012 All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 10% of the
premium cost for individual or family coverage
2012-2013 All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 12% of the
premium cost for individual or family coverage”
My question is, if that statement is in the contract, why are they allowed to charge me about $1000 extra per month for being lowered to .6?
Reply from the local New York State United Teachers Labor Relations specialist:
“We researched this and there is a 20 year practice of pro-rating health insurance for part-time employees at Elmsford CSD. Despite the contract language, it is possible to have a past practice that contradicts the contact language if it has been going on for a very long time, as is the case here. I'm sorry, but this isn't something that we can pursue.”
I am thinking:
The fact that the practice had to be researched indicates that no mutual agreement existed- the union president has been the president for 3 years, and for 9 years before that he was the vice-president. The statement there is, ”a 20 year practice of pro-rating health insurance for part-time employees,” means that the district can prove (provide documentation) that previous employees paid more than the agreement in the contract all the way back to 1991; and, the district can demonstrate that the union agreed to the policy by supporting such practice? If the past practice was never challenged, or the district cannot prove the union demonstrated support for the policy, then there is no mutual agreement- regardless of time. It’s only a past practice if the practice has taken place a significant number of times regardless of the test of time. There is no ambiguity that lends itself for interpretation on this issue. The contract very specifically states, “All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 10% of the premium cost for individual or family coverage.”
Am I wrong? Advice?
Fact: Our contract, both the previous and new, sates the following:
“For employees hired prior to July 1, 2004 the following employee health insurance contribution applies:
2011 -2012 All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 10% of the
premium cost for individual or family coverage
2012-2013 All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 12% of the
premium cost for individual or family coverage”
My question is, if that statement is in the contract, why are they allowed to charge me about $1000 extra per month for being lowered to .6?
Reply from the local New York State United Teachers Labor Relations specialist:
“We researched this and there is a 20 year practice of pro-rating health insurance for part-time employees at Elmsford CSD. Despite the contract language, it is possible to have a past practice that contradicts the contact language if it has been going on for a very long time, as is the case here. I'm sorry, but this isn't something that we can pursue.”
I am thinking:
The fact that the practice had to be researched indicates that no mutual agreement existed- the union president has been the president for 3 years, and for 9 years before that he was the vice-president. The statement there is, ”a 20 year practice of pro-rating health insurance for part-time employees,” means that the district can prove (provide documentation) that previous employees paid more than the agreement in the contract all the way back to 1991; and, the district can demonstrate that the union agreed to the policy by supporting such practice? If the past practice was never challenged, or the district cannot prove the union demonstrated support for the policy, then there is no mutual agreement- regardless of time. It’s only a past practice if the practice has taken place a significant number of times regardless of the test of time. There is no ambiguity that lends itself for interpretation on this issue. The contract very specifically states, “All employees, unless they decline health insurance will pay 10% of the premium cost for individual or family coverage.”
Am I wrong? Advice?