Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99th Special Meeting99th SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 99th Special Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Tuesday, March 3, 2009. The meeting was called to order at 3:50 p.m. Members Present: Ronald E. Campau, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Also Present: Keith Besonen, Sewer Maintenance Worker I Kimberly Buchholz -Lewis, Construction Worker II Brian Buda, Custodian Mary Ciolino, Property Appraiser II Colleen Coogan, Chief Accountant Ward Cowen, Water Operations Mechanic I John Dauffenbach, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Tim Dawe, Equipment Operator III Jeanette, DiFlorio, Staff Representative, AFSCME Council 25 Gary Garrison, Equipment Maintenance Foreman Brian Gnagey, Equipment Mechanic II Maureen Gordon, Library Aide II Fred Grates, DPS Garage, Department/Division Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Kathy Hawblitzel, Program Supervisor Marsha Hawkins, Clerk -Typist II Charles Hirst, President, AFSCME Union Local 1917 James Hirst, Equipment Operator III Ed Hoffman, Equipment Operator II Lindsay Kantzler, Custodian William Kuchera, Equipment Operator II Yvonne Lillibridge, Account Clerk III Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Vickey Locke, Sewer Foreman Ruth Love, Cleric -Typist 11 Pat McKeon, Retiree Lynette Meeks, Clerk II Jeff Michael, Engineering Assistant I Lori Miller, Secretary, AFSCME Union Local 192 Catherine Mitchell, Account Clerk II Dennis Opsommer, Water Operations Mechanic I Roger Ponder, Equipment Operator II David Robertson, Water Foreman Walter Rost, Water Operations Mechanic I Steven Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Gregg Schultz, Attorney Mary Seder, Account Clerk III Deb Seeman, Account Clerk III Chris Smith, Equipment Mechanic I Thomas Stadler, Sewer Maintenance Worker I Liz Stone, Tax Account Clerk James Sturgill, Equipment Operator III Gerald Szymanski, Park Maintenance Worker I Colleen Tomchuck, Clerk -Typist 11 Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator 11 Debbie Walter, Clerk -Typist 11 Susan Williamson, Account Clerk I John Wojnar, Water Foreman Audrey Young, Chief Roads Steward Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11 Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Brian Mills, Essex Benefits Group Page 2 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 20W The Chairperson outlined the procedures to be followed in the meeting. He then requested of Presidents Hirst and Locke that the Commission treat both grievances as one. Hearing no objections, the meeting continued. Mr. Tatigian informed the audience that as a former employee and retiree of the City he had the PPO. He mentioned this so everyone knew what interest he had in this matter. He asked if anyone had objections to him hearing the grievances and there were none. Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, stated when the City received the new Blue Cross rates they were compared. It was found that the Point of Service (POS) product was more expensive than the Community Blue 2 (CB2). A Notice was circulated advising employees that in accordance with the labor contract, employees would be responsible for paying the difference between the CB2 product and the POS product unless they wanted to convert to the CB2 product. February is the annual reopening period where an open house is conducted and Blue Cross representatives give employees an overview of the benefits available. The Civil Service Department was deluged with phone calls because most employees are in the POS and they asked why they had to pay because it's not an HMO, it's a POS. Mr. Biga explained the history of the transition where HMOs were replaced with POS and stated no grievances were fled. In 2006 we were informed by BCN and HAP that they would not accept a retiree -only plan. After meeting with affected retirees, Brian Mills, and John Hahka from Blue Cross, all retirees left BCN and HAP and enrolled in the POS. Mr. Campau asked how long this language been in the contract. Mr. Biga replied that it has been in both the 192 and the 1917 contracts since 1983. There have been two (2) occasions that the HMO cost exceeded that of the basic Blue Cross coverage and in both cases the employees had to pay the difference. Last year the PPO rate went down 5% and the POS rate went up 5%. Mr. Biga advised that the open -enrollment period had been extended until March 31, 2009 for anyone who wanted to change. He suggested to the bargaining units to go to expedited arbitration, but they chose to have the Commission review the matter. Since there was not a three-person Commission available in February, they waited until a three-person Commission could hear this. There were time constraints for scheduling the meeting for the Commissioners and some employees wanted it scheduled later than 3:00 p.m. The starting time for the meeting was changed to 3:45 p.m. Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Jeanette DiFlorio, Staff Representative, AFSCME Council 25; and Charles Hirst, President, AFSCME Union Local 1917 introduced themselves. Mr. Locke agreed that in 2004 there were three memos distributed indicating the City was converting to the POS plan to contain spiraling health costs. He cited several sections in Article 41 of the contract language and stated the Union's feeling is that Article 41.A is the only pertinent section and that in Article 41.D there is no mention of alternative health care, it addresses HMOs. Mr. Locke continued that the current health care dilemma is a result of actions the City took to switch from a managed care system to a self-funded health care system to save money. Ms. DiFlorio commented that the POS is kind of a blend. She handed out a paper that pointed out the differences. She stated she took part in the last two (2) negotiations and Page 3 99th Streoal Meeting March 3, 2009 the City negotiated the CB2. When there was an HMO, the City had the right to charge. She referred to a letter of implementation which stated when the rates on the HMO were higher than the Blue Cross Preferred coverage or self-insured coverage, the employee could be charged the difference. At the time, the Preferred was the Preferred plan option one. It wasn't a CB2. So in 1983, the contract referred to the differences of a Preferred plan and an HMO. When the contract was negotiated, the City had the POS and the CB2 because they couldn't afford the Preferred any longer. The City said the POS was a good plan with less out-of-pocket costs and that is the one they tried to steer everybody to. She pointed to language that talks about the difference between an HMO and Blue Cross. She doesn't understand how the employer can say the employee needs to pay the difference. She again referred to the letter of implementation that was taken out, after 1990, 1991 and 1992, where it says the employee shall pay the full cost of the premium difference when the HMO rate is higher than the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Preferred coverage or self-insured program and she stated there is no HMO. Ms. DiFlorio agreed the City has the right to be self-insured and the administrator had to be Blue Cross Blue Shield. The employees were not happy to switch from their HMO and she added the employees do a good job and they bargained in good faith. She explained the employees are upset because this is not in good faith and was not the intent of bargaining. Mr. Tatigian inquired if there was an HMO available under Blue Cross. Mr. Biga replied that Blue Care Network is available. Mr. Tatigian stated that as an alternative to the situation and to comply with the contract language, the City could provide the Blue Care Network. Ms. DiFlorio commented that threat was already made. Mr. Tatigian said it was a statement of fact. Ms. DiFlorio commented that part of the issue is when this language was negotiated, it was way back when. Now we've had new negotiations and we no longer have the HMO. It is POS and CB2. So the HMO is old language, but it's not enforced because there is no HMO. She believed with this language it related the HMO to the Preferred 1. If you read this language it doesn't talk about the CB2, it was relative, so if you cost it out, going by your theory, we would have to look at what the HMO cost against the Preferred 1. At this time they are comparing the POS cost to the CB2. The CB2 is going to be cheaper than the Preferred that used to be available. She said the insurance offered to employees who retired prior to Mr. Tatigian is probably more costly than what the individuals today are offered, because they were richer plans. Charles Hirst, President, AFSCME Union Local 1917, stated in 2004 when the City decided to go to a self-insured plan and provide employees with the Blue Cross POS, they decided not to challenge it due to the fad that they were concerned with the cost of health care. Being concerned employees they embraced this in good faith and sold it to their membership as a cost savings measure. They believed that they have done their part to help the City save money. The POS is a good plan; a lot of the employees enjoy this plan right now. They don't want to see anything switch back to the way it was. They entered into the agreement in good faith and hopefully it was seen as a good faith partnership. Gregg Schultz, Attorney for the City, introduced Brian Mills from Essex Benefits, our Blue Cross representative. Mr. Schultz stated he heard anger in the voices and he wanted to Page 4 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 2009 make clear that obviously the employees do a good job for the City and the Human Resources Director recognizes that. The City also recognizes that health insurance is an important issue to everyone. Mr. Schultz stated they are here on behalf of the citizens of the City. He referred to a document showing the health insurance cost for the City. He discussed the increase in costs stating the amount is significant. The amount that the City pays goes up every year. He agreed that in recent years there was long and short negotiations. This didn't have anything to do with negotiations in the last couple of years. He discussed how the contract language that was agreed to 26 years ago has developed and how the language has changed with the times. When the contracts were written in 1983, there was a clear distinction between a traditional medical plan, the Blue Cross basic plan and the HMO. He explained the advantages and disadvantages of the HMO. Over the years there has been a push to the middle, making the HMO product look more like the traditional product. He referred to an employee of the City using the term health care "alphabet" for the acronym used in health care. There is a basic plan that all the employees can have and a non -basic plan. Since 1983 there has been contract language that when the HMO becomes more expensive than the basic plan, the employees have to pay the difference. He heard someone say the City can't charge because Blue Cross offers the POS. In 1991 the Blue Care Network was the HMO that became higher than the Blue Cross plan and it was a Blue Cross product. The Union wants us to believe that POS can't be the HMO because it's a Blue Cross product. That is not true. Employees did pay the premium difference between Blue Cross and BCN, also a Blue Cross product. Mr. Schultz also stated that what hasn't changed is employees have the option to elect to be part of the basic plan and not pay anything additional, or they can be part of the HMO non -basic plan and pay. The City extended the open enrollment deadline as a good faith gesture, to allow more time so people can make a more educated decision. Mr. Schultz thought the Union's argument is really one thing..... the contract says HMO, so technically they think this has to be an HMO. The City sees this much differently. While the language could be more on point, for all intents and purposes, the POS is an HMO alternative. He asked Mr. Mills to give an explanation of the difference between the basic plan and the non -basic plan or the POS in this case. Mr. Mills staled he was very involved in 2004 when the POS plan replaced the HMO plan. They discussed at length the fact that the POS Blue Cross plan was modified for the City of Livonia to be an HMO to replace BCN. Blue Cross and their subsidiary, Blue Care Network, administered the POS plan. Blue Cross and BCN representatives came in and stated to employees that the benefits being provided under the POS plan were equal or better than the HMO product. Clearly, the intent was, it was a replacement HMO plan. He further explained that POS plans in general are a hybrid plan between a PPO and an HMO. He gave an analogy of health care compared to a bull's eye. The center being an HMO with limited number of doctors. The POS having more doctors and more choices. The PPO has even more doctors and more options. Page 5 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 2009 Mr. Campau asked if Blue Cross currently offered HMOs. Mr. Mills replied that Blue Cross has a subsidiary, Blue Care Network, and they offer HMO coverage and they are the largest HMO provider in the state. Ms. DiFlorio agreed 100% the POS was a hybrid, it's not an HMO and the reason there wasn't the concern was twofold. They had the language that said if the City carried the self-insured plan they fulfilled the obligation as long as the benefit levels were at least what they were and it was a hybrid. It was better than what they had. If the City changed back to BCN, they would be diminishing their benefits, so there would be that issue. The Union believes the negotiated benefit is the self-insured POS plan, which is not an HMO, and they do not have to pay any more than the $30, $35, or $40 for it or the CB2. So to change to an HMO would be a lesser benefit than the POS. Mr. Schultz thanked Mr. Mills. Mr. Schultz staled the case boils down to the term HMO. The City offers the same benefits, or in fact as Brian pointed out, better benefits than an HMO. It's kind of counterintuitive. We will get to the Blue Care Network issue you raised earlier to talk about going back to the quote HMO. Which raises another question, it reminded me about these continuing, spiraling, health care costs and I think what Mr. Locke said was true; we have looked to AFSCME for help. The switch to POS did save the City money. The point is, it's still saving the City money. He referred back to the sheet in the packet explaining the costs for coverage under Blue Care Network which are more than the POS. Ms. DiFlorio wasn't sure if Mr. Schultz was comparing apples to apples and Mr. Schultz clarified that he was comparing the POS costs to the BCN. Mr. Schultz continued his argument by staling that Mr. Biga was teaching him the concept of substitution and that's all this was. The City always had to have and always has had an HMO, that's why the language is still in the contract. The City substituted the POS in place of the HMO in 2003. It was a switch to a plan that was equal in benefits. The City got to go to a self-insured plan and the employees ended up with a better plan. Mr. Schultz thought the contract language supported their position. There have been negotiations with both AFSCME groups and there has been some major clean up since then but the language in question has not been changed. Mr. Tatigian stated this part of contract language was not cleaned up. Mr. Schultz explained that from the City's perspective that the POS is the HMO. Mr. Tatigian stated in 2004, the President of AFSCME 1917 very honestly conceded that his Union knew what this was, that it was the POS and you agreed to it. If that language had been put in the contract, we wouldn't be sitting here today. There have been two contracts since and still the language remains as is. The audience applauded. Mr. Tatigian cautioned the audience about clapping before they listened to all of what he had to say, because old fashioned lawyers believe in the concept of de facto vs. de jure. The fad is the City has POS. The language doesn't give the de jure basis upon which to have it, but in fad, you've had it for the last five (5) years. Mr. Tatigian referred to custom and usage. Page 6 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 2009 Mr. Schultz pointed out that this was done prior to any contract negotiations because the City believed it had a right to charge the difference. There were very tough negotiations, as Ms. DiFlorio pointed out, it took over 2 years. Mr. Biga and Mr. Schultz hoped at the end of the 2003-07 negotiations that the parties would sit down in a committee and clean up this contract. They tried to do that but it didn't happen because the contract was close to expiring. So all the changes the City wanted to make after the 2003-07 contract were actually incorporated in the 2007-10 contract. While the City wishes this language was clearer, it's been the City's position that with this language, you just substitute the POS for HMO. Mr. Schultz asked Mr. Biga to tell them what percentage of employees in the City have the POS plan. Mr. Biga advised it was about 75%. Mr. Schultz continued that equaled some 400 to 500 employees with POS and it was obvious that is what we're talking about in Article 41.D. That's been the City's position and will continue to be. The City's position is that the POS just replaced the HMO. Could the language be clearer? Yes. In five (5) years of negotiations, through two (2) bargaining units, never once did he hear that POS is not an HMO. Mr. Mills slated when he mentioned that it was a hybrid; a true POS plan has benefits when you go outside the network. If you don't have any benefits when you go outside the network, it's an HMO. There are no out of network benefits with the City's POS. In an HMO you have to pick a primary care provider. You have to pick one in the POS plan. You have limited network providers that you can choose from. Same is true with the POS. You have no out of network benefits, same as the HMO. So we duplicated the benefits of the HMO contract that were in effect and it was agreed to. The second point Mr. Schultz made was that 75% of the employees have a plan that is mentioned in one brief sentence. That cuts against the Union's argument. Nowhere in the contract does it say what the prescription co -pay is, $10, $20, $30. If you ignore that and say section D should have been taken out, 75% of the employees are paying a prescription co -pay not referenced in the contract, which makes no sense. The other thing that can't be lost is under this contract, the City has an obligation to provide an HMO. The language in D. says employees hired on or after December 1, 1994 will have the choice of only one (1) HMO. If we're not considering the POS as an HMO, why have we not gotten a grievance in six (6) years since BCN was replaced by the POS that the City's not offering an HMO. The contract clearly gives the employees the right to at least one (1) HMO. Just another point where this contract seems to suggest, you can't read the contract without section D. Arbitrators, when they are interpreting contracts, are told, assume language means something. If we all of a sudden say, that this POS is not an HMO, now this whole section D. is meaningless. Why is it there? Because the City believes it refers to the POS. Mr. Schultz didn't know how the Union explains that the language is there after two (2) full clean ups. Also, why was the language about the employee paying the difference in the cost between an HMO and a basic plan in the contract? If there is no HMO, that language should have been removed. The City didn't want it removed, that's why the language is there. Finally, Mr. Schultz wanted the Commission to consider that the employees still have the election to switch to the basic Blue Cross plan and that the City has improved on the HMO. He referred to a point that Mr. Tatigian made, when he said the City, under the contract today, could undoubtedly go to Blue Care Network, and if that occurred, instead of single coverage having an increase of $44, the employees would pay an additional $56. He also cited the additional costs of two (2) person coverage as well as family coverage. He stated that legally, with a signature and a phone call today, Mr. Biga could switch everyone over to the Blue Care Network. It's not retaliatory as alleged by the Union. The Page 7 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 2009 City has the right under the contract, and employees would be paying more for less benefits. Mr. Schultz said this shows the silliness of this argument that employees could go to a plan that would cost the City more and cost the employee more and doesn't have the same benefits, because the POS clearly has better benefits. He commented that Ms. DiFlorio kept referring to the letter of implementation and that it seemed to be pointing out that the POS is referenced in there, that it is self-insurance. That is simply not true. He thought that language predated by some five or ten years the concept of POS, which didn't even come into existence until 2002-2003. That language clearly was referring only to the fact that the employer is allowed to have the basic fully insured plan or a self-insured plan. In conclusion, Mr. Schultz slated this wasn't an attack on employees. With health insurance costing $16,000 per contract, not to mention the cost of retirees' health insurance, which could be for another 30 or 40 years, the City will continue to do everything it has done to keep the costs down. The City believes the clear intent of the contract all along was when the non -basic plan, which was 24 years ago called the HMO, became more expensive, the employees would pick up the additional cost. This occurred in 1986 and also in 1991. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Schultz if the City lost this case they would take it to arbitration. Mr. Schultz replied they would. He asked the same question of Ms. DiFlorio who responded yes. Ms. Mahoney clarified with Ms. DiFlorio the amount of money an employee pays for premium for the health insurance coverage. Mr. Biga clarified some misstatements that were made and slated the City has been self-insured for basic health care coverage since 1990. He stated in 2004 when the City went to the POS product, the POS product is a self- insured HMO substitute. At that point the City was 100% self-insured for all health care provided. In 2006 when we went to the POS for retirees, the retirement system, the Voluntary Employees Beneficiaries Association (VEBA) went 100% self-insured for medical coverage. Prior to that the PPO was self-insured and the HMOs were not. So since 2006 the retirement system and the City have been self-insured for all health insurance. It did not happen in 2004, it happened over a period of time from 1990 for the basic plan, then in 2004 for the HMO/POS and then 2006 for retirees. In 1982 when this contract provision regarding paying the difference came about, there was only one (1) HMO that the City had. He referred to a spreadsheet regarding this. At that point we had Health Alliance Plan (HAP) only. Over the years the City has had from two (2) to five (5) health care programs. One year in 1998 we had four (4) HMOs and one (1) basic Blue Cross plan. From 1982 through 2007 we have had multiple health care basic Blue Cross plans. We were a Michigan Variable Fee (MVFI) plan originally; we went to Preferred Provider Option (PPO) coverage. Now we have Community Blue 2 PPO. We've had multiple programs for the basic Blue Cross coverage. In the HMO we have had HAP, Selectcare, Independent Health Plan, Blue Care Network, Health Care Network and POS, so we have had multiple alternative health care providers over the years. Those are facts. The POS is our HMO. Mr. Campau stated the issue is the City says this is the HMO and the Union says they don't have an HMO. Ms. DiFlorio once again referred to a letter of implementation that is not reflected in any contract language. Ms. Mahoney inquired what the date on the letter was. Ms. DiFlorio replied 1992. Ms. Mahoney asked if any contracts had been negotiated since then, to which Ms. DiFlorio replied yes. Ms. DiFlorio replied that it was a third option of self- Page 8 99th Streoal Meeting March 3, 2009 insurance and if the HMO was more than the Preferred or the self-insurance. Mr. Schultz said that was not in the contract anymore. Mr. Locke stated that only AFSCME members are affected. Police, Fire and District Court employees are treated differently. Mr. Biga indicated that these employees are covered by other collective bargaining agreements that do not have the same provisions as AFSCME. No union employees are affected the same provision as AFSCME employees. Mr. Campau corrected Mr. Locke in that the 192 agreement doesn't have the language. Mr. Locke countered that they do have the language and he was in the contract clean up with Mr. Schultz and they went through the contract line by line. There was no mention and it wasn't even broached that perhaps they should include in Section D. the POS or even the term "alternative" health care. Had that been done, they wouldn't be here right now. Mr. Biga clarified two misstatements and responded that the contract still has the language in it regarding self-insurance, which has not been eliminated. Self-insurance is not anything other than who funds the benefit. The basic plan is a Blue Cross plan. We are self-insured. The POS is a Blue Cross plan, we are self-insured. That means we are paying the actual claims plus administrative fees. We do not pay insurance premiums, so self-insurance is not an option it's just a different funding relationship. Mr. Schultz commented that Mr. Tatigian raised a good point about why this language wasn't cleaned up. He explained that the City did not feel that it needed to address this issue because it believed that the POS was covered. Mr. Locke says we wouldn't be here today. Is he suggesting that if the City had just put POS in the contract we wouldn't be here today? That's our perspective loo. If we had agreed a year ago, when we were cleaning the contract language up we wouldn't be here today and the employees would be paying the premium sharing, which is exactly what we're trying to do. While the language should be clearer, it was our intent and our understanding that the language still applied. One final point is that health care, Select Care, Independent Health Plan, Health Alliance Plan, Blue Care Network, Point of Service, Blue Cross Blue Shield, those are all the plans we've had. None of them say Health Maintenance Organization, that's a term we use. The same argument could have been made in 1998 when we had Independent Health Plan. That's a little different, that's not technically a HMO. POS is as much an HMO as any of these other items and we're getting caught up on a technicality. Mr. Biga advised that Blue Care Network was not around in 1986 but we did have the plan in 1991. Ms. DiFlorio passed out a letter of implementation for Local 1917 that shows various provisions. She stated that to them POS is not an HMO. Ms. DiFlorio and Mr. Biga differed in this being part of the 1917 contract language. Mr. Biga referred to the 2004-07 1917 contract stating the language in the letter of implementation is not in the contract language for 1917. Gary Garrison, Equipment Maintenance Foreman, stated he has been around for a couple of contracts, and he recalled Mr. Mills selling the POS. It was explained it was not an HMO and he remembered because he has health issues in his family that were of great concern to him if he were to switch to an HMO. Today Mr. Mills appears that he is telling us it mimics it. He had a hard time with that. He told Mr. Tatigian that they don't practice in his Page 9 99th Speoal Meeting March 3, 2009 field and words were not their strongpoint. They count on the City coming to the table, but POS was sold to them, and if the numbers are approaching 75%, it was a good sales approach. They believed it and they went that way. At no time was it ever sold as an HMO, it was clearly different. He stated he was here during the 1983 contract and at that time they were looking to move away from the HMO. Employees moved into the POS in good faith and now it appeared they're trying to reinterpret what the intent was back then. Ms. DiFlorio explained the previous Union President was President for a long time and who negotiated both of the agreements while POS was in effect. If you have any questions or issues with what she had to say, feel free to check with Ms. Lillibridge. Mr. Schultz said that Mr. Garrison likely went to the POS because it didn't have the negative attributes of an HMO. The things that are different are much better for the employees. This is a financial issue. We didn't hear that this was not an HMO for six (6) years; we're only hearing it because it is going to cost the employee something. Mr. Hirst stated the reason they haven't grieved this was because they accepted this plan in good faith. We believe it has saved the City money and they believe they are doing our part in trying to save the City money. They talked about forming a committee to discuss health savings and he hasn't heard anything about that but they do have some good ideas and they would be willing to share those ideas to see if they could put a curb on spending on health care. Mr. Schultz said the City would be happy to meet any time they wanted. Ms. Lillibridge agreed with what Mr. Garrison has said. The POS was presented as a cost savings to them. They had to convince the employees it was good for them. In the two (2) contracts negotiated since then it has never been looked at as an intent to have our employees start to pay for the POS. In fact we removed that letter of intent because they felt it was out of context because they no longer have a real HMO like there was in 1983, before it was a self-insured program. She stated it was never her intent when she was sitting at the negotiating table that their employees would pay any money except the monthly co -pay. Debbie Seeman, Account Clerk III, stated she had spoken with Blue Cross and was informed that the POS is not an HMO and even Mr. Mills stated that this is not an HMO. John Dauffenbach, Chief Clerical Stewart, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated that back in 2004 there is documentation that there was a POS offered, but it was never offered to anybody working at the time as an HMO, it was specifically brought forth as a substitute for it. He believed they were repeatedly told that they can't ad Iib the contract; they had to stick to the contract. He added that they had alternatives back in the old days, they also had traditional Blue Cross back then, it wasn't an HMO either. Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, stated he has been employed with the City for 30 years and he remembered that they said their benefit packages were over -funded and the City quit paying into it. Mr. Campau advised that was pension benefits not medical benefits. Page 10 99th Special Meeting Mangla 3,2D09 Mr. Tatigian agreed with the Chairman, that he didn't believe this is an HMO. If anything he thought it was an HMO plus. He felt the lawyers and the staff people that worked on the contracts from at least 2004 on should have cleared up that language. The Union representatives have been honest when they say they agreed to this and the employees agreed to it if participation is up to 75%. The City could go with the Blue Care Network and that would cost the employees more. The contract could have been drafted differently, but the intent of the parties was to go with this language and he couldn't believe both parties were so off base. He explained that the 192 clients did agree with this and this isn't a bad plan in this day and age when employees from Ford, GM and Chrysler, etc. are going through some hard times. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Biga what the options were if they decide this. Mr. Biga clarified that if the Commission denied the grievance, the employees can take this to arbitration. Both parties will get together to try to select an arbitrator. If they can't select an arbitrator, the matter goes to American Arbitration Association (AAA). An arbitrator will be selected and then there will be a hearing. The process could lake several months. In the interim the City has extended the open enrollment period through the end of March for people to take the option of converting from POS to CB2, with an effective date of May 1, 2009. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Biga to explain the differences. Mr. Biga explained the CB2 has co- insurance and deductibles. The POS does not. For an individual coverage there is a $100 deductible that has to be met before going into co-insurance. Then when you have co- insurance, for the next $5,000 worth of benefit employees pay 10% of that, the plan would pay 90%. That gets up to $600 per individual or $1,200 per family. After that 100% of covered services are paid for by the plan. That's in the CB2 plan. If you don't use the services you pay nothing. Mr. Mills explained that the prescription drug plan, the office visit co -pay and the emergency room co -pay in the CB2 plan and the POS plan are exactly the same. Whatever service is done at the doctors office is covered by the co -pay. The only time that the deductible and co-insurance come into play in general terms, are the outpatient x-ray and lab benefits, surgery and hospitalization. The most anybody would have to pay is $600 as an individual. Mr. Campau asked if an employee stays in the POS and the Commission denies the grievance, then a family would have to pay $1400 per year more? Mr. Schultz stated we can get an arbitrator right now and get this done. Ms. DiFlorio said she would support that. Ms. Mahoney stated if the arbitration goes past the 3V of March, which is the deadline for an employee to convert to other insurance, the employee would not be able to change insurance for an entire year. Ms. Mahoney asked if the decision from the arbitrator says this is in fact an HMO, there could be another round of negotiations that could undo this, would that be retroactive? Mr. Campau said it would not be retroactive. Page 11 99th Special Meeting Marts 3, 2009 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 09-43 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #09-11, dated February 5, 2009, and AFSCME Local 1917 Grievance #09-01, dated January 30, 2009, regarding the increase in the health insurance premium for the Point of Service (POS) plan, and having discussion with Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Jeanette DiFlorio, Staff Representative, AFSCME Council 25; Charles Hirst, President, AFSCME 1917; Gregg Schultz, Attorney; Brian Mills, Essex Benefits Group; Robert Biga, Human Resources Director; Gary Garrison, Equipment Maintenance Foreman; Yvonne Lillibridge, past President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Debbie Seeman, Account Clerk III; John Dauffenbach; Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; and Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the grievances. AYE: Tatigian and Mahoney NAY: Campau Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 09-44 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the tentative agreement negotiated between the City of Livonia and the Livonia Fire Fighters Union, ratified by the LFFU on February 24, 2009, for the period December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2012, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the tentative agreement and submits same to the City Council for its review and approval. RESOLVED, That the special meeting be adjourned at 5:23 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Ronald E. Campau, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner