Mar 28, 2016 4:32 PM

Southampton Town Board members clashed Tuesday night regarding the execution of a settlement agreement with members of the local Civil Service Employees Association.

Though they ultimately had enough votes to authorize Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman to sign the settlement—Town Highway Superintendent Alex Gregor still must sign the document before the CSEA deal is finalized—board members split on party lines over the agreement, which stems from a complaint filed in December by the nearly 300 members of the Southampton chapter of the CSEA.

Filed with the Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB, the claim requested clarification on whether certain employee titles should be included in the CSEA bargaining unit that were not previously part of the union bargaining unit.

Union members hold various municipal town positions, with many serving as accountants, analysts and administrative aides.

Both Republican Town Board members, Christine Scalera and Councilman Stan Glinka, said they could not support the agreement, as well as other resolutions relating to the terms of the settlement, stating that they view it as “a one-sided deal” that favors high-ranking union members and, in the end, will be unfair to the town’s taxpayers.

“What we are contemplating includes several terms and conditions of your employment, which will have impacts on budgets well into the foreseeable future,” Ms. Scalera said while reading from a prepared statement at Tuesday night’s Town Board meeting, which was attended by about two dozen union members.

“I am proud of the work that you do. And I would support a reopening of the contract to discuss potential amendments,” she continued. “But I cannot support this one-sided deal, orchestrated through a low-level exposure PERB claim, and policy resolutions. It is wrong, and the taxpayers—of which many of you are, as I said—are not being fairly represented.”

In addition to Mr. Schneiderman, Town Board members John Bouvier and Julie Lofstad approved the settlement.

The settlement, if approved, would reduce employee contributions to their individual or family health insurance plans from 20 percent to 10 percent, and would be applied to all union members hired on or after June 10, 2014. Those hired after 1995, but before 2014, pursuant to the settlement, will pay 10 percent towards family plans, and those on individual plan will not contribute. As the contract stands now, union members still pay zero if on an individual health plan, and approximately 15 percent if they are on a family plan.

Employees hired prior to January 1, 1995 currently do not contribute towards the cost of health insurance, which will remain the same if the settlement is finalized.

The agreement would also add 34 more administrative titles to the contract, six more titles to the list of employees on the step salary schedule, accelerate the pay raise schedules of those employees, and provide overtime pay for emergency situations.

As per the terms of the settlement, if a full-time employee opts to reject or discontinue his or her health care coverage, the town must pay the employee 20 percent of the cost of the premium coverage per year. The deal also adds value to sick leave upon separation from employment, as well as $10,000 in additional funding for employee schooling and training,

Ms. Scalera said Wednesday morning that she would have preferred the town renegotiate the current contract, which was ratified in 2014, rather than settle a claim that CSEA representatives used to “indirectly” receive what “they were not entitled to directly.”

“That was wrong,” Ms. Scalera said. “We’re dealing with taxpayer dollars. We have to make sure that we’re doing the right thing.”

The councilwoman said the settlement could end up having a significant financial impact on the town, which is currently in good fiscal standing. She estimated that the agreement could end up costing the town approximately $500,000 in 2016 alone.

Ms. Scalera, as well as Mr. Glinka, also noted that they believe the terms of the settlement were not necessarily shared with all union members—many of whom attended Tuesday night’s meeting sporting the CSEA’s signature blue polo.

CSEA President Laura Smith countered that claim, telling audience members that she did go over the agreement with her members. “I went over each and every item in this settlement with my membership … on February 29,” she said. “The membership was fully noticed. I communicated it to them.”

Mr. Gregor said he also has some concerns about the contract. In a three-page memo sent to Mr. Schneiderman on Monday, the highway superintendent said some of the administrative titles added to the union bargaining unit would result in the union being controlled by high-level clerical and management positions.

“The town’s existing contract with the union specifically excludes the majority of the titles that are being proposed to be put in the union,” Mr. Gregor wrote. “It is likely that the town would be successful in its defense of the PERB action if we were to defend it, just based on the language of the contract.”

Mr. Gregor, who said he was too busy to discuss the situation when reached onWednesday morning, has not yet indicated if he will sign off on the agreement.

On Tuesday night, Mr. Schneiderman said it is his opinion that the contract was executed fairly, and properly addressed the concerns of the union.

“There were a lot of issues that were on the table,” he said. “I approached it all from an equity standpoint—what was fair. We arrived at what I thought was a very fair package.

“I think this is a reasonable package,” Mr. Schneiderman continued. “I think it’s well within the town’s financial capacities.”