A demand is directly related to compensation when its primary characteristic is a modification in the amount or level of compensation and is thus arbitrable

To contact us Click HERE

A demand is directly related to compensation when its primarycharacteristic is a modification in the amount or level of compensation and isthus arbitrableCounty of Orange and Sheriff of Orange County and OrangeCounty Deputy Sheriff’s Police Benevolent Association, Inc., 44 PERB ¶3023,U-28693, U-28738 
The Board reaffirmed that a demand is directly related tocompensation, and therefore arbitrable under §209.4(g) of the Public Employees’Fair Employment Act (Act), when its sole, predominant or primary characteristicis a modification in the amount or level of compensation.
In making such a determination, the Board compares theproposal with the lists of subjects specifically identified by the Legislaturein §209.4(g) of the Act. The Board, however, reversed the decision in Putnam County Sheriff’s Dept PBA, Inc., 38 PERB ¶3031 (2005), to the extent it heldthat a proposal seeking a change in the aggregate amount or level ofcompensation received by unit members from the nonuse of sick leave isnonarbitrable under §209.4(g) of the Act.
The Board concluded that the primary characteristic of sucha demand is the monetization of sick leave, a compensatory benefit ordinarilyunavailable to public employees.
In addition, the Board reversed SullivanCounty Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, 39PERB ¶3034 (2006) to the extent it concluded that a proposal seeking to permitthe conversion of overtime compensation into compensatory leave and to permitthe subsequent remonetization of that leave back into cash or to be applied tohealth insurance is nonarbitrable because it relates only to “potential”compensation.
The Board held that union proposals in the present casesseeking to permit the conversion of accumulated unused leave time into cash atthe time of separation from service were arbitrable under §209.4(g) of the Actbecause each seeks a form of deferred compensation. However, the Board found that a proposal to increase theamount of compensatory leave time that can be accumulated is nonarbitrable.
Finally, it found a proposal to require an unpaid leave ofabsence to run currently with leave under the Family Medical Leave Act wasnonarbitrable.
PERB reached the same conclusion concerning a unitary demandinvolving overtime, flex time and scheduling. 
Practice tip noted by PERB staff:  The practical impact of thedistinction drawn in §209.4(g) of the Act between arbitrable and nonarbitrablesubjects might lead parties to choose to segregate arbitrable subjects from thenonarbitrable in their initial proposals or to sever them during the course ofnegotiations. While such an approach is not obligatory under §209.4(g) of theAct, it can help avoid unnecessary delays in the issuance of interestarbitration awards and fact-finding reports following an impasse. In contrast,placing arbitrable and nonarbitable subjects into a single demand creates thehigh risk that the demand will be treated as a nonarbitrable unitary demand.