Title: Central State University and
Fraternal Order of Police
IN THE MATTER OF:
of Police, Ohio Labor Council Inc.
Before Fact Finder
Edward E. Taylor, Administrator
Ross Rader, Representative
Andrew C. Hughey, General Counsel
N. Eugene Brundige was selected by the parties to serve as Fact Finder in the above referenced case and duly appointed by the State Employment Relations Board in compliance with Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.14 C (3). The Fact Finder was notified of the appointment by letter dated November 7, 2005.
The parties informed the Fact Finder that time extensions would be filed. A hearing date of April 11, 2006, was established. Pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code and Administrative Rules, a good faith effort was made to resolve the remaining issues through mediation. The parties were unable to reach a mediated settlement. A hearing was conducted.
The parties timely filed the required pre-hearing briefs.
In their pre-hearing filings one or more of the parties identified the following issues, and/or contract provisions as being unresolved:
10 No Strike/ No Lockout
At the hearing the parties were able to resolve
Article 10 and thus the only issue before this Fact Finder is the matter of
The parties originally agreed that the Report of the Fact Finder would be submitted by May 8, 2006. The parties graciously agreed to extend the deadline until June 12, 2006, due to a death in the Fact Finderís family.
Also at the hearing the parties executed an agreement wherein they waived overnight delivery of the Recommendation and Report.
Central State is the smallest state university in Ohio. It is located on a beautiful rural campus in Greene County. The campus is primarily residential.
The University is protected by its own police department consisting of nine officers (including two part-time) and two sergeants. The Chief is Tyree Broomfield.
The Central State Police Department performs all traditional policing duties including patrolling, arrests, and transporting and prosecution of violators. The campus is protected seven days a week, twenty four hours per day. The officers work four ten hour shifts per week.
POSITION OF THE FOP:
is the position of the FOP that members of this bargaining unit are
significantly underpaid. To remedy this problem the FOP proposes that the current
fixed salary for police officers
be replaced with a five step pay scale.
notes that no other department pays all officers the same wage without regard
to their tenure with the department.
The current salary for a Police Officer 1 is
$12.30 per hour. The
that this is nearly 45% lower than other area law enforcement.
departments and 14% lower than the comparable state
argument that the composition of the student body of Central State presents a
unique challenge to law enforcement. It
advances a list of felony crimes
that have been handled by the Central State Police Department and notes that
these same crimes are handled
by most urban police agencies.
The FOP believes the setting of Central State University
also increases the danger to its officers due to the distance from the next
available police backup.
The bargaining unit representative advances a
novel argument by comparing the pay of various university
police departments to the crime
rate at each institution.
Other comparables offered by the FOP include
three area police organizations:
Fairborn, Greene County Sheriffís Office, and Xenia. The FOP notes
that the average pay for a comparable officer in these three jurisdictions is
$25.96 per hour compared to $12.30 for a Central State Officer.
The five state university
comparisons show an average hourly pay of $15.47 compared to the $12.30 at
In an attempt to provide some internal comparables, the FOP cites a
number of university
positions including Administrative Assistants, Electricians, Painters, Plumbers,
Carpenters, Machine Operators, and Payroll Clerks. All
classifications cited pay a significantly higher hourly rate that the $12.30
paid to a Police Officer 1. 
In support of its
position the FOP provided the Fact Finder with excerpts of a Fact Finding
recommendation by Raymond J. Navarre including a series of hourly adjustment
increases for police
officers at Bowling Green State University.
The FOP notes that employees would receive
their proposed increases on their anniversary date and thus the University
should be able to better absorb the increased costs.
POSITION OF THE UNIVERSITY:
University has proposed a 2% per year increase in the base salary of Police
Officers and Sergeants.
argues that the University simply
cannot afford to offer more to this Bargaining Unit and is
facing a very difficult financial situation primarily based on the current
enrollment and declining state revenues.
The University notes that
enrollment has been growing from year to year from 2001 forward. In 2004 it
had a total of 1,820 students with an FTE 
count of 1,824.
Based upon these numbers the University
budgeted for 2,000 students in the 2005 academic year.
The actual enrollment fell far short of that number.
Only 1623 students enrolled and the FTE count was 1,425.
This was 10.8% below the expected headcount, and 18.8% below the budgeted
Tuition increased during this time due to the State of
Ohio reducing funding to the University.
The University argues that there really are no
comparables among the other state
universities. Central State is
about one tenth of the average size of Ohio state universities.
The only one that is close is Shawnee State and it has nearly twice as
budget is even proportionally smaller due to the desire of the Trustees and
Administration to keep tuition as low as possible to make education accessible to more students.
The University notes that in addition to the
enrollment decline, state support is expected to be cut by an additional
$627,441 or 3.9% in fiscal
The University provided testimony that it has implemented strict
cost control measures, included restraint in filling vacant positions, and has
declined to grant wage increases for any employees except the faculty.
In regard to internal comparables, the
University notes that the faculty accepted a contract which provides first year
the current time the University anticipates a year end balance of only seventy
thousand dollars compared to a budget of over thirty million.
The position offered by the University in its
pre hearing submission was 2% across the board increases with a re-opener in the
second and third years of the Agreement.
At the hearing the University
representative stated that the Employer
could offer a 2% increase in the first year
with a 4% increase in the second and third years of the Agreement.
The University explained the requirements of
Senate Bill 6 ratios
as they relate to the long term fiscal health of the organization.
The University needs to keep its ratios at 1.75 or above in order to keep
off the Fiscal Watch requirements of
Based upon its
current financial situation, the University asks the Fact Finder to recommend its
The University has moved from the quarter
system to the semester system. The second semester of the academic year showed a further
decline in enrollment.
The University notes that it
has agreed to other economic
benefits for these employees. These
include increases in the uniform allowance, shift differentials, and higher
FINDING OF FACT AND
any measurement considered,
the members of this bargaining unit are underpaid.
the proposal of the FOP would
overextend the University and would work a financial hardship on the University.
University is facing significant financial difficulty in the current fiscal year
and must increase enrollment or face even more significant financial problems
in the future.
fact that this is a very small unit is seen from very different perspectives by
the parties. The FOP argues that the small number of people involved
allows the University to make some major adjustments without a major outlay of
University sees a very small unit that should not receive a disproportionate
share of University funds especially in this very tight economic situation.
fears large increases would set a
pattern for others within the University community.
of the most difficult issues for this fact finder is the one salary for all
persons within a classification notwithstanding any other criteria.
This is very unusual in the collective
University seems to have a very professional police force
even with the very low salaries.
would conclude that this is due, in part,
to the educational benefits
available to bargaining unit members.
upon the realities of the current situation and the very low pay rates currently
in place, I recommend the following.
the first year of the Agreement
I find myself in sympathy with
the University and its current financial position. Even though the amount
is grossly inadequate, I recommend a 2% increase.
noted the current situation, it is unfair to think that the University can
continue to underpay its police
officers at the rate it has in
does appear to this Fact Finder that no one at Central State seems to be making
the wages they would be receiving in comparable situations.
This is likely due to the commitment of individuals who believe in the
unique mission of the University and their dedication to serving the students.
I cannot recommend the major adjustments that would achieve equity with area police agencies or other state
universities, but some steps in that direction need to be taken.
the second year of the Agreement
I recommend a 4% across the board increase plus the addition of a step increase
for those officers who have served at least five years at Central State.
This increase would add an additional 2% for affected individuals.
the third year I recommend a 4% across the board increase including those who
qualify for the newly added step plus one additional step after ten years of
service. This step would also be 2%
greater than the previous step.
would receive the same percentage increases and the additional steps after five
and ten years of service as
a Sergeant at Central State. The
2 % adjustment in the current year should assist the University to survive the
current budget crisis. The larger
amounts and the addition of new steps should permit bargaining unit members to
make some limited progress toward achieving more adequate pay rates.
It also provides some incentive for career officers to stay with the
Department and the University.
recommend Article 39 read as follows:
This Article is the sole source of rights and
obligations of the parties to this Agreement concerning wages with exception to
those provisions set forth in.
Hours of work, overtime and shift differentials.
Call Back/ Call-In Pay
Higher Education Pay
Court time and Appearances.
All compensation items listed in this Article shall
be effective November 1, 2005.
Effective November 1, 2005, Bargaining Unit Members
will be paid in accordance with the pay plan set forth in this Agreement.
All payments discussed in this Article shall be
subject to deductions for all applicable tax and retirement withholdings.
Police Officer 1:
Second year of
4% increase for those officers serving less than 5 years as a
Police Officer at Central State University $13.05 per hour
Officers serving five or more years
$13.31 per hour.
Third year of the
4 % increase for all officers serving less than five years as a Police
Officer at Central State University or $ 13.57 per hour.
serving more than five years and less than ten years, $13.84 per hour.
In the Third year
of the Agreement those Police Officers serving ten or more years as a
Police Officer at Central State shall receive $14.12 per hour.
Police Officer 2:
(Based upon the testimony it appears that the University does not intend to
utilize the classification of Police Officer 2 thus I have not recommended
specific increases. If the
Classification is to be utilized then the increases should reflect the same
Second year of
the Agreement 4% increase for
those Sergeants serving less than 5 years as a Sergeant at Central State
University or $18.25 per hour.
serving five or more years as a Sergeant at Central State $18.62 per hour.
Third year of the
4 % increase for all Sergeants serving less than five years as a Sergeant
at Central State University or $
18.98 per hour.
serving more than five years and less than ten years, as a Sergeant at Central
State $ 19.74 per hour.
In the Third year
of the agreement those Sergeants serving ten or more years as a Sergeant at
Central State shall receive $ 20.13 per hour.
After giving due consideration to the positions and arguments of the parties and to the criteria enumerated on SERB Rule 4117-9-05(J) the Fact Finder recommends the provisions as enumerated herein.
In addition, all Agreements previously reached by and between the parties and tentative agreed to, along with any sections of the current Agreement not negotiated and/or changed, are hereby incorporated by reference into this Fact Finding Report, and should be included in the resulting Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Respectfully submitted and issued at London, Ohio this 12th. Day of June, 2006.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing Fact Finderís
Report was served by electronic mail and regular U. S. Mail upon Ross Rader,
Representative, Fraternal Order of Police/ Ohio Labor Council Inc., 222 East
Town Street, Columbus, OH 43215-4611, (email@example.com)
and Andrew C. Hughey, General Counsel, Central State University, 1400
Brush Row Rd., P. O. Box 1004, Wilberforce, OH 45384 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
and by regular U.S. Mail upon
Edward E. Taylor, Administrator of the
Bureau of Mediation, State Employment Relations Board, 65 East State Street, 12th.
Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4213, this 12th Day of June, 2006.
 The FOP uses five State Universities as its comparable universe: Bowling Green, Cleveland State, Toledo, Wright State, and Youngstown State.
 Even though there is a Police Officer II classification, there are no incumbents in that position.
 FTE = Full time equivalent
 It is the intent of this recommendation to add one step at the five year level in year two of the agreement and a second step at the ten year level in year three. These steps should be 2% greater than the previous step. If the Fact Finder has made a mathematical error, the parties are urged to mutually agree to its correction.