STATE OF NEW YORK IMPROPER PRACTICE CHARGE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD INSTRUCTIONS: Fe an oiginal andour cope of tis Change” |) DO NOT WRITE THIS SPAGE wate Drectr of Puss eopoymort braces ane meses, E New Yor Sate bubie Empomomnestenstea EeooKaETe | Case No USOF4C, ESP AGENCY BLDG 2, FLS 18 & 20, ALBANY, NY 12220-0074. If "om mot space eure ir ey tm tach oon shoes, numbering item accordingly. Date Received: 1. CHARGING PARTY. . Address (No. & Street, City and Zip Code, County, Email: Telephone Number: (585) 594-8932 3545 Buffalo Road, Suite 8 Rochester, New York 14624 cc. Name and title of the representative filing charge James M. Hulbert, AFSCME Council 66 Arca Representative for AFSCME Local 1635-F d. Name, address, telephone number, and Email of attomey or other representative, if any, to whom correspondence is to be directed: Jeff leffrey N. Mis, Esq, Council Attorney (Buffalo) Telephone Number: (716) 634-6204 415 Lawrence Bell Dr, Suite 3, Amherst, NY 14221 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYER AND/OR EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION AGAINST WHICH CHARGE IS BROUGHT a. Name and Address (No. & Street, City and Zip Code, County, Email: Rochester Housing Authority 675 W. Main Street ». Telephone Number: (585) 697-6193 Rochester, New York 14611 3. Is the charging party filing a separate application for injunctive relief pursuant to §204.15 of the Board's Rules of Procedure? Yes XNo 4, VIOLATIONS ALLEGED Pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, as amended (Public Employees’ Fair Employment Act), the charging Party hereby alleges that the above-named respondent(s) has (have) engaged in or is (are) engaging in an improper practice within the meaning of the following subsections of Section 209-a of said Act (check the subsections) allegedly violated) If by a public employer Itby an emplovee organization (x) 209-a.1(a) ( )209-a.2(a) ( )209-2.1(b) ( )209-2.2(b) ( })208-a.1(c) ( )208-2.2(6)* (x) 209-2.1(¢) (x) 208-a.1(e) ( )209-a.1(f) ( )209-a.1(g) * Ifthe charge alleges a violation of Section 209-a.2(c) of the Act based on an employee organization's processing of of failure to process a claim that a public employer has breached its agreement with such employee organization, identify the public employer: a. Name and Address (No. & Street, City and Zip Code, County, Email . Telephone Number:If the charge alleges that a charter school, charter school board of directors, chief administrative officer and/or their agents has (have) committed an improper practice under the Charter School Act of 1998, check the applicable subsection(s)’ Education Law ( (1) 2864 3{¢-2) Education Law ( >) 2855.1(d)* ‘The charge must allege a practice and pattern of egregious acts andior conduct by the charter school andior its agents, 5. Specify in detail the alleged violation(s). Include names, dates, times, places and particular actions constituting 22h violetion. Use additional sheet(s), if necessary. Failure to supply sufficient factual detail may result in a elay in processing or dismissal of the charge. ‘SEE ATTACHED DETAILS OF CHARGE 6. Ifthe charge alleges a violation of Section 209-a.1(d) or 209-a.2(b) of the Act, has the charging party notified the Board in writing of the existence of an impasse pursuant to Section 205.1 of the Board's Rules of Procedure? __ Yes Xno 7. The charging party is available immediately to participate in a pre-hearing conference and a formal hearing Xyes __No STATE OF NEWYORK) Die Ss. county or ERLE ) JAMES #+HULBERT being duly sworn deposes and says, that (s)he isthe cheraing party above named, or is representative, and that (s)he has read the above charge consisting of this and 24_ additional page(s), ‘and is familiar with the facts alleged therein, which facts (s)he knows to be true, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, which matters (s)he believes to be true. James m. HolbeaT Council 66 Area Representative Title) tibed an JEFFREY N. MIS Subseiied ana vom tpbefogiye woo SEES I is ob Le =, INO. 2229835 (monthidatélyear 20 ye Ovetiied in Nianare poy 2 Va? ‘comission Eis Li?D of Charge n of State, County and Municipal Employees, New York. ing Authority ("RHA") are ce from July 1, 2015 through 1, The American Federati Council 66, Local 1635-F ("Union"), and the Rochester Ho parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") eff June 30, 2018. 2. That the Union represents a general unit composed of approximately 145 permanent full time employees. 3. That on October 25, 2013, and as required by the CBA, Union President Bill Slocum sent a letter to the RHA Executive Director expressing a desire to negoatiate with RHA modifications to the then existing CBA that was effective July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2014. (See Exhibit A) 4. That by letter dated April 7, 2014, notice was given by the Union to the Department of Human Resources of RIIA to also re-open discussions on Article Nineteen- Hospitalization and Medical Benefits of the then current CBA. (Sce Exhibit B) 5. Thatas a result of numerous negotiating sessions thereafter and cumulating on May 9, 2016, certain parts of Article Nineteen, Hospitalization and Medical Benefits were modified to reflect an agreement between the parties that in pertinent patt states as follows: "Health insurance is to be changed from "FLMHIT to LMHF as soon as notice can be given to FLMHIT that will not result in financial penalty to RHA". That there was also additional contract language negotiated in that Article of the CBA involving healthcare changes and implementation through a governance agreement. Attached for review are the pertinent healthcare, monetary, and non-monetary proposals agreed to in negotiations covering the term of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2018. Both parties have ratified the terms and conditions of the new CBA. (See Exhibit C) 6. That as background, the specific modification agreed to in said healthcare coverage ‘was a change from FLMUHIT (Finger Lakes Municipal Health Insurance Trust), an insurance consortium of approximately ten (10) municipalities including RHA, to a healthcare plan administered under LMHF (Labor-Mangament Healthcare Fund), a self- insured plan comprised of local municipal management and unionleaders to provide affordable health insurance benefits for all employees, with shared responsibility of labor and management. 7. That as part of the re-opening of the healthcare provision of the CBA, a joint labor and management heatheare committee ("HCC") was formed consisting of members of the respective negotiating teams and others, to investigate options for medical insurance. That HCC did release a Request for Proposal for a broker/consultant and as a result same, Lawley Benefits Group was chosen. (See Exhibit D) 8, That Lawley investigated the healthcare market and analyzed the current FLMHIT Plan and compared the self-insured LMHF plan and recommeded to the healthcare committee that there would be savings to the Union and RHA if both fully participated in the Labor-Management HealthCare Fund,Itheare 10, That it was explained to both the Union and RHA by Lawley at the committee meetings and to the negotiating team members that there existed a specific underwriting requirement in order to be included in this Labor-Mangement HeathCare Fund. That the requirement was for both the Union and RIA employees (non- bargaining) to be included as per LMI plan requirements. ‘That evidenced by a recent e- mail to Edward Trevvett, attorney for RHA, a full explanation of the ICC's and Mr. Berger's efforts and his consternation as to why RHA would be taking a position that it ‘would not be participating. This was alter he was retained for the specific purpose of reducing healthcare costs for all parties. Mr. Berger's e-mail makes i clear that the underwriting requirements of including the non-bargaining employees of RHA was a necessity to make this plan work. It is hereby attached for review.(See F: 11, That the underwriting requirements were clearly made known to both the Union and RHA throughout the numerous healthcare commitee and contract negotiating sessions. ‘That said understanding is even reflected by RHA when LMIIF was in the process of gathering information on the Union and RIIA employees (non-bargaining). That even Becky Maslowski of RITA Human Respurces Coordinator provided on or about March 31, 2016 a spreadsheet census to Ms. Vicki Martino, Executive Director of LMHE, showing a total of all 195 employecs for purposes of confirming RIIA's involvement of its non-bargaining employees and Union employees and the implementation of the negotiated LMHF plan covering both. (Sce Exhibit F) 12, ‘That even as far back as November 16, 2015, as evidenced by an e-mail from then RHA Director of Human Resources, Jackie Milne to John Berger, it shows that HCC had determined to move forward with joining LMHF in July (2016). That the ab referenced actions of Becky Maslowski as recent as March 31, 2016 in providing this requested information, subsequent to Ms. Milne’s clear acknowledgement of approval by the HICC, serves as clear proof to solidify the negotiated understanding and the collaborative efforts that Union and RHA employees would be part of the LMHF plan. (See Exhibit G) 13, ‘That we have come to bring this Charge at this point as it was expressed to the Union just last week by RHA, when the healthcare governance agreement was being finalized by the parties, that contrary to what the parties negotiated, RHA decided not to include its employees into the LMHF plan. That by not doing so, LMHF cannot implement the agreed upon healthcare plan as LMHF cannot just accept the Union members. That it was a clear requirement thoroughout negotiations that all employees of the Union and RHA must be part of the LMHF plan for it to move forward as negotiated. That what makes this regressive turn around by RHA so troubling is that in order for this plan to be implemented by January 1, 2017, a determination to proceed must be made on or before October 31, 2016. 14. That in response to this recent advisement by RHA that it will not participate, the Union President, Bill Slocum, by e-mail to Edward Trewvett, attomey for RHA, states clearly his concerns as to how RHA can now be dissavowing negotiated terms and alleging that it did not understand the requirement of RHA employee involvement in said healthcare plan after the numerous negotiating sessions that took place. One can 2understand his clear disappointment as Mr. Slocum was led to believe by the Interim Executive Director of RIA back on June 30, 2016 that the implementation of the LMHE plan that was negotiated would begin on Janaury 1, 2017. (See Exhibit 11) 15. That the Union negotiated a package containing numerous economic and non- economic modifications to be part of the new CBA and the total agreement forged between the parties was based upon the projected health insurance savings that the Union, RHA, and cach individual cmployee would benefit from under the LMHF plan. That now for RHA to disavow and repudiate its involvement in not having its non-bargaining employees included in the LMIF plan is disengenous, regressive, and being done in bad faith. 16. That the actions taken by RIIA will have a negative economic impact on the Union and each member financially, as members are required to pay a part of their insurance premiums. The Union is being forced by RIIA's repudiation of the CBA to remain in the FLMHIT plan as RHA's failure to follow the negotiated terms prevents implemetation and admittance into the LMHF plan for the Union. Based on the foregoing, the Union asserts that RHA has violated Sections 209-a. I(a), 209-a.1(d) and 209-a.1(c) of the Act by deliberately and unilaterally repudiating agreed upon terms of a healthcare plan that was legitmately and openly negotiated, which terms ‘were previously agreed upon by the healthcare committee and the parties respective negotiating teams terms, and furthermore, in doing so is engaging in what can only be considered to be regressive and bad faith bar i ‘That RHA's failure at this "eleventh hour" to refuse to implement the healthcare plan with LMHE set out in the recently negotiated CBA and to honor the terms and conditions of same, is clearly regressive and being done in bad faith and without just cause. REMEDY SOUGHT: The Union, as the Charging Party, respectfully urges PERB to issue the remedy as follows: (1) That the Respondent, RHA, be directed to bargain in good faith and to comply with all the terms and conditions of the recently settled CBA, and in particular, be further directed to cooperate with the Union and the LMHF in following and instituting the terms of the recently negotiated CBA pertaining to the healthcare plan at issue. (2) That the Respondent, RHA, be directed to cease and desist from any further unlawful conduct and improper aets which violate the spirit and intent of the Taylor Law, including bad faith and regressive bargaining that has taken place on this item of the CBA. (3) Lastly, in the interest of justice and in accordance with the broad remedial powers permitted PERB under Section 205 of the Taylor Law, the Charging Party respectfully urges that PERB fashion an appropriate remedy which includes publicizing that such unlawful actions by Respondent RIA not be tolerated at a place of public empoymyent and any other remedy that the Board may de ate. Hulbert, Area RepresentativeEXHIBIT #AAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO 3535 Buffalo Road, Unit 2, Rochester, New York 14624-1119 Telephone (585) 594-0753 FAX (585) 594-8929 Anthony Gingello Presse recive Decor October 25, 2013 Mr. Alex Castro, Executive Director Rochester Housing Authority 675 W. Main Street Rochester, New York 14614 RE: AFSCME Local 1635 F, Contract Negotiations Dear Ms. Castro: eae pe seaulrements of Article Thirty-three ofthe collective bargaining agreement between (he Rochester Housing Authority and AFSCME Local 1635 F and AFSCME New Yok Council $6, please accept this correspondence as the Union's written confismation of a decie negotiate with RHA regarding modifications to the Agreement. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these matters, Ifyou have any questions, you can Teach me at the 585-594-8932 We anticipate productive and cooperative negotiations between the parties. The Largest County and Municipal Union In New York °EB vyRe-opener Letter October 25, 2013, Page 2 ‘We look forward to a timely response. Sincerely, Lhect he (oa Bill Slocum President BS:if xe: Chick Masi, AFSCME Council 66 Staff Representative a Jacquline Milne, Director of Human Resources Bill Slocum, AFSCME Local 1635 F President fileEXHIBIT #Bpessoas BILL SLocuM PAGE e2/18 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO 3636 Buffalo Road, Unit 2, Rochester, New York 14624-1119 Telephone (585) 594-0753 FAX (585) 594-8929 April 7, 2014 Anthony Gingello Preasny Exe Ooo Jackle Mine, Director Department of Human Resources Rochester Housing Authority 675 W. Main Street Batavia, New York 14811 Purelant to provisions ofthe Collecive Bargaining Asreemert botween the Roche3tét Housing Authority and AFSCME Local 1635-F, AFL-CIO, specifically, ARTICLE NINETEEN ~ HOSPITA IEDICAL BENEFI AFSCME Council 66, Agent for AFSCME Local 1635-F, herewitn requests the opportunity to re-open discussions relative to hespltalization and medical benefits currently being received by members of AFSCME Locel 1636-F. itis our intention to bring forth information which we believe willbe beneficial to both RHA and all employees currently Covered by this provision, Council 68 also requests any and all RHA Board Minutes relative to the participants in the “Trust’, and how rates are developed, Our membership is responsibie for 20 percent in contribution and therefore we are interested in collaborating with RHA to explore any and all opportunities to buy insurance more efficiently, We wil put together a list of needed information and work with you to validate the seme, (On behalf of AFSCME Local 1635-F, | await your response, AFSCME Counail 68, Area Rep. ‘Agent for AFSCME Local 1635-F Co: Bill Slocum, President, AFSCME Local 1635 Alex Castro, Executive Director, RHA Edward A. Trewett, Esq., Attomey for RHA. on ‘The Largest County and Municipal Union In New York ° Mutualy Agreed (atria) Sep Gee 4 6. A16, St Hire Date Change Tier V INO oF gRterto 3/31/12: Add Tier Vi 4/1/12 or after + Mutually Agreed (4/21/14) Ru) Mutually BRTGH Accepted Proposals: “2 V7. ARTICLE THREE - HOURS OF WORK, SECTION 1. WHITE ‘COLLAR Insert “paid” between the words “two ao in the 2 sentence. © Mutually Agreed (4/30/14) V8 SECTION2. BLUE COLLAR (0) Change “the period” to “a comma" and add "Monday through Friday." Add “There shell Betwo scheced 1S.inuta breaks, op inthe am. and one the p= * Mutually Agreed (4/30/14) Ak voww.rochesterhousing.org fe =Other Mutually Accepted Proposals: { & Article 14, Section 1 (g) — No longer applies to RHA wages. REMOVE language — . + Mutually Agreed 28/15 Ay) V10.At6, 82 (a) Lengevity Pay Counter Proposal Number of Years of Service Completed 5 Years 10 Years 18 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 years $600 Annual Payment WITHDRAWN dow Annual Payment $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 + Mutually Agreed 2015 Aw) 11. A21: Settlement of Disputes * Mutually Agreed ongoing, and on rats Ay) Gow Proposed Payment $125 $225 $325 $425 $525 Oh secro1_pammons otsnind Sa\y For the purpose ofthis agreement, all disputes shal be subjost othe grievance procedure as outlined below. ‘A. Grievance — A dispute or complaint which may ‘meaning oF interpretation ofthis Agreement, is subj Arbitration, but excluding any grievance or dispute which has a statutory remedy available through an administrative agency. B. Response Date - The date the grievance is response is post marked, arise between the partes; concerning the application, ject to all steps at the grievance procedure ineluding resented to the designated party in person of the date the Working Days —_Monday — Friday, when Rochester Housing Authority isin operation Www rochesterhousing.org fasection2. carvances Du) Any disposition of a grievance from Which no appeal is made within the time limits specified herein shall be deemed resolved or abandoned and shall not thereafter be subject to the grievance and arbitration Procedure of this agreement, without exception. Employees should attempt to resolve their dispute informally with their supervisor as soon as possible. In the event the immediate supervisor is involved in the problem, either directly or indirectly, then the ‘employee shall present the issue to the next level of supervision or their designee within five (5) working days of when the issue became known to the employee. If a solution cannot be reached, the employee will present a formal grievance in writing using the following procedures: STEP 1 ‘The grievance shall be presented in writing by the Union Steward or authorized Union Representative to the Department Director or designee within eight (8) work days of its occurrence. The Director shall then attempt to adjust the matter and shall respond to the Union in writing within eight (8) work days of receipt of the grievance. STEP 2: If the grievance has not been settled, it shall be presented in writing by a Union Representative to the Director of Human Resources within eight (8) work days after the Department Director's response, or, if there is no response, the date that such response is due. The Director of Human Resources or designee shall respond to the Union Representative in writing within eight (8) work days. STEP3: _If the grievance still remains unresolved, it shall be presented by the Union President or other authorized representative to the Executive Director or designee in writing within four (4) work days after the Director of Human Resources’ response, or, if there is no response, the date that such response is due. ‘The Executive Director shall respond to the Union representative in writing within eight (8) work days. Within those eight (8) days, the Executive Director or their designee will discuss the grievance with the Union President, or their designee. STEP 4; If the grievance is still unsettled at Step 3, either party may within ten (10) work days after the Executive Director's or designee’s response is due, the Union may file a written Demand for Arbitration with the opposing party. IN 3. TO rAN URE (2) The time limits inthe grievance procedure may only be extended by mutual agreement in writing. (©) Any step of the grievance procedure may only be bypassed by mutual agreement in writing, (©) Failure of RHA to answer a grievance at any step shall be deemed a denial of the grievance and shall trigger the Union's duty to process the grievance to the next step. ‘The Rochester Housing Authority and the Union, upon written request by either party, shall meet in an effort to resolve outstanding grievances, www.rochesterhousing.org i(@) An Arbitration proceeding shall be conducted by an arbitrator designated, and pursuant to rules ‘agreed upon, in accordance with this subdivision. Within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Agreement, the Parties will: 1. Select and maintain a panel of mutually acceptable arbitrators who shall serve for the uration of the Agreement. Such panel shall be initially listed in alphabetical order and shall be designated on a rotating basis to arbitrate individual cases. In the event an arbitrator is ‘unavailable to hear a specific case, such arbitrator will be temporarily passed over, but shall ‘be at the top of the list for the mext case. Upon completion of his or her service on a case, the arbitrator shall be placed at the end of the panel list. Both parties reserve the right during the term of this Agreement to remove up to two (2) arbitrators from the panel. A party removing ‘an arbitrator from the panel shall propose a replacement acceptable to the other party. Arbitrators shall also be replaced by mutual agreement in the event of resignation or any ‘other inability to serve. 2. ‘The decision or award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on RHA, the Union and the Grievant or Grievant's to the extent permitted by and in accordance with applicable law and this Agreement, and the arbitrator shall be requested to issue his decision or award within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion ofthe testimony and arguments, 3. The arbitrator functioning under this step of the grievance procedure shall have no power to ‘amend, nullify, ignore, add to, subtract from or delete any provisions of this Agreement, and shall confine his decision and award solely to the interpretation and application of this Agreement. The arbitrator shall confine himself to the precise issue submitted for arbitration and shall have no authority or power to determine any other issues not so submitted to him. ‘The arbitrator shall have no authority or power to render a decision or award inconsistent with statutory or appellate decisional law or New York State Public Policy. (©) Expenses forthe arbitrator's services and the proceedings shall be borne equally by the Employer and Union. © A.witness required to testify shall not lose pay for the time required to testify. www.rochesterhousing ong =12. A 23, 6 ‘Uniforms and Protective Clothing’ ‘SECTION 6,__UNIFORMS AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING (@) The annual ‘Uniform allowance for biue collar employees is set at $2755195:$315/8195 (alternating years) and the “Winter Gear” allowance is set at $170 $170 (every other year) per bargaining field maintenance worker, Summarized: In alternating years $315 ‘Uniform/Boots’, and $365 Uniform" and ‘Winter Gear’ allowance. (B) These stipends are set at the average clothing sizes (which are the lowest vendor pricing), those needing larger sizes shall have the increased pricing added onto ther stipend for selections ordered (for example, if the average size polo style shirt is $20 and the employee orders a polo but needs @ 3x that is priced af $23, ‘he would get $3 added tothe standard stipend amount), (©) Stipends are based on past amounts of uniforms and winter gear provided with the addition of 3-season toe~ protective boots to be provided every other year with the annual uniforms. This isin addition to the winter ‘boots which are provided every other year. ' — ‘eyond-the-stipend-amount, the-employee-weukd-have-to-pay RICA the difference between the stipend ‘amount-and-the-emoust ordered by the-employee- (© Any unused stipend balance is loss and does not cary over from year to year. (©, Employees can order any combination of items depending on their individual needs but would stil remain responsible to come to work properly uniformed a in the past. (2) All employees willbe required to “ry on’ selected items for sizes and will sign off before the items are ordered. The employees will then be responsible for any misfittng items. (1) When the uniform package needs to be put back out to bid, ifthe averaging formula shows the increase or decrease fom the previous bid, then the percentage of this change willbe applied tothe existing stipends for fora ordering. shia The employee shall have the right fo purchase a pair of toe-protective boots this dem from the vendor of ‘their choice, with RHA reimbursing the employee for no more than $120 (excluding taxes) (The ‘Winter Gear’ stipend is every other year as before (an) Deteted wwrw.rochesterhousing.org aEXHIBIT #D3w: Justification Memo for Finance Committee Meeting - J. Mis |nttps://outlook.live.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessagelteméltem.. - Bill Slocum ‘Toa 10/20/2016 1153 AM. “el. Mis (elamestown Hull : 2 attachments (52 KB) (Board LUsteation HCC Broker 2015 jmadoc: HCC Broker Score Results 2O1SSior WF ‘On Tuesday, August 1, 2018 646 AM Jecauel |. Nine Smiine@Rechestetiousing.xo> note Good morning, ‘Attached is the justification memo for the Finance Committee meeting today at noon in the RHA Board Room. Please review and if you have any suggestions have them to neh 675 West Main Street Rochester, NY 14612 Ph: (585)697-6193 Fox: (585)362-8693 Dept Fax: (585)697-7179 jmilne@rochesterhousing.org ‘Statement of Confidentiality: This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mall, lease delete it from your system and advise the sender. ofl 10/20/2016 5:01 PMROCHESTER Housing Authority MEMORANDUM From: Health Care Committee: Tiekie Milne, Director of Human Resources; Sinclair Carrington, Int Director of Finance; Sandy Whitney, Public Housing Director; Bill Slocum, President AFSCM1 awa Steward; Tim O'Sullivan, Union Steward e and rated according to the criteria outlined in the RFP for the first round of evaluation. The top five (5) firms were selected to be interviewed for the second round utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. From the top five (5) firms, the HCC narrowed it down to two (2) firms to bring back for the third and final round of interviews, again utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP. The HCC agreed before the entire RFP process began that it would have to be a unanimous decision on the firm we selected for this process. ‘The request was posted on RHA’s website on April 22", advertised in the Democrat and Chronicle on April 26%, with a due date of May 27", RHA received seven responses to the RFP: ® Adirondack Financial Services * Brown & Brown . aangiens enefit Services © Rose & Kiernan, Ine. * Smola Consulting © US Employee Benefits Group Interviews for the 2" round of evaluations were held at RHA’s administrative offices on Monday, June 15® and interviews for the final two (2) firms were held on Tuesday, July 14". ‘The HCC developed questions for both rounds of interviews so that each organization was asked the same questions. Afier each round of interviews the HCC met to discuss and review their thoughts on each of the organizations interviewed. “BRE HCE wcssimosy speed dat Lay Benes Group i the firm that would best be able to provide with a variety of health care options, unlike the other organizations. Their fee is the highest of the five (5) firms interviewed, was negotiated and reduced by 7% to $38,130. This reduction does not reduce the scope of work included in the proposalThe consulting fee will only be paid if we ultimately determine not to use Lawley Benefits Group as our medical broker for 2016 and remain with our current health care plans through Finger Lakes Municipal Health Insurance Trust (FLMHIT). If this occurs, the fee paid to Lawley to consult will come out of the predetermined budget for union contract negotiations. If Lawley secures a health care option that better meets the needs of RHA and the union, then no fee will be paid since broker fees are already built into the cost of health care plans. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to ask. Respectfully submittedEXHIBIT #5Wo" LMHE and Rochester Housing Authority -J. Mis |brtps://outlook live.com/owa/?viewmodel-ReadMessagelteméItem] cfd: LMHF and Rochester Housing Authority: Bill Slocum ‘me roraameac a Jo Ms , Sensi Ptoasam>, "Varn Mio inating | e:Bil ; mrjim812@ gmail.com; berger @lawleyinsurance.com ‘Subject: Fw: LMHF and Rochester Housing Authority Dear Ms. Martino: First of al, | am Jeffrey Mis, AFSCME Council 6 (Buffalo) attorney and am assisting Bll Slocum on the above-referenced issue. You ‘may know that the RHA is taking the position that they are nat including the non-union employees as part of the LMHF as tis “alleged” that t was not their understanding and agreement that they had to do so. Thus, the problem we are now encountering on meeting the October 31, 2016 deadline, Please be advised that | was forwarded the e-mail below from Bll Slocum that you sent to Ed Trewett, Counsel for RHA (Bill ‘wanted to keep me up to date on the LMHF’s requirement of a October 31, 2036 decision date for a January 1, 2017 effective date ‘through the plan.) | did notice in your e-mail that you mentioned that the “LMHF approved RHA’s membership into the LMHF based F ofl‘tt: LMHF and Rochester Housing Authority - J Mis bttps://outlook live.com/owa!viewmodel~ReadMessageltem@Iteml Sof ll Vicki « BesaateDietor Labor Management Heaithcare Fund "™ 78 Brana Sct Chektowapa NY HORT Phone: 7165017980 Facsimile: 6017984 Enal: VighiMarino@ MBE aet West: woe MIE nat ‘Tai fie at cde ly Sr ef no wh tial Iona te ede er eve you aes is ena in oan yn emit erg coin is eli ity eb. Uyen he ad is mal pews rurn een oe ae Sve tlm dee ge myo mp: Ta tts ca mete cay avin ate te pom teenee ‘hie Howe Labor Maen His Pa! aces nya vie hae af pn hs oon eran From: John Berger [mailto:JBereer@law\cvinsurance com ‘Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:06 PM ‘Paward A. Trewett (Ce: Mark Stulmaker ; Rashondra Martin : Bill ; Vicki Martino ; Dana Mahoney ~; BMaslowski@rochesterhousing ore; Linda Brown : Alisia Allen Subject: RE: LMHF and Rochester Housing Authority Inthe spring of 2015, RHA conducted an REP for broker services in an effon forthe combined Iabor/management group st RHA to understand the various options around health insurance, We disclosed in our RFP response all the various chent relationships where Lawley fciltated outcomes with labor’management and emphasized our role withthe Labor Management Healthcare Fund, [twas my understanding based upon back and forth with Jackie Milne, that Lawley was selected based upon our track record with laborimanagement groups, our expertise and related. At our finalist interview ‘we emphasized that our approach requires 100% transparency, so all parties aren't arguing over facts but instead trying to figure out what to do with the same. We entered into one year agreement on September 1, 2015 and immediately the ‘market including NY44, the LMHF, direct with MVP and Excellus and FLMHT. Over the next 45-50 days the committee including yourself decided there wasn’t enough time and to remain status quo. It was also agreed at that time thet the ‘committee intended to move forward on trying to achieve an agreement between RHA and AFSCME. The process picked tp again in February 2016, the committee continued to collaborate and a decision to move forward with the LMHF was ‘greed upon between all stakeholders, There was concem around timing and notice to FLMHT in June 2016 who required 180 days. From June 2016 up until September 21, 2016, Lawley Ted the discussion with all stakeholders including the LMHF to implement the agreed to program for January 1, 2017. ‘When we were hired by RHA, they wanted to save money on health insurance and obtain a new deal with AFSCME. 1 believe Lawley achieved the same achieving RHL’s desired result of a complete a market review, facilitation of discussions between RHA/AFSCME eventually leading to an agreement and implementation of the RHA/AFSCME agreement to $0 With the LMHF providing a 100% transparent, jointly governed approach to managing the benefits agree to by RHA and AFSCME, ‘We simply represented the facts and achieved what I thought was RHA’s and APSCME"s desired results, ‘We have ad literally had over 100 emails, plenty of meetings and conversations with the committee, RHA, your name it ‘around the implementation of the LMHF forall actives and pre-65. As a recent as September 12, 2016, Becky looked for clarification on 85% of participation showing RHA at 77% ( Out of 207 employees, there are 48 opt outs). LMHF agreed {0 waive and I believe Mark confirmed the same. Not once until today, was there ever a discussion, representation, indication or other that non-rep’s would not be moving, If that would have been asked or raised by RHA, the response ‘would have been the same than as it was today. If that was the case, there was no need for RHA to give FLMHTT a 180 day notice of termination, IfRHA or AFCSME js interested in Lawley re-confirming the facts, we would be happy todo the same. With that ssid, we will not get in the middle or be putin the middle of any disagreement between RHA and AFCSME. A viitten communication from the LMHF will be forwarded soon,= = ro = aE] 910 pm put ” pant ‘ana 289] Tar RS (Waa UE STATIS HHO} la~a ~ fal lee e rear sae] a TORS ae (onegz 6S a]EXHIBIT #6Verizon | MyVerizon 2.0 | Verizon Message Center - Re: LMHF Page 3 of 4 Recognized as one of the Top 100 Brokers in the U.S. Please visit our website at sw lawleyinsurance.com. The information inthis e-mail and in any attachment is confidential. If you are not the named addressee or if you receive this e-mail in error, any distributionicopying/use of this ‘communication or the information it contains is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by e-mall and delete the message from your computer, While attachments are virus-checked, Lawioy dogs not accept any liabilty with respect to any virus which is not detected. Please note: Lawley cannot honor any request to bind or affect coverage, alter or amend coverage or terms of any policy, or accept notice of loss via e-mail or voice-mail request. -—Original Message— From: Jacquelyn J. Milne [mailto:jmiine@RochesterHousina ora] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 4:43 PM. To: John Berger ‘Subject: RE: LMHF Hey John, | don't mean to be a pest but I'm still waiting for your response Jackie Milne Director of Human Resources Rochester Housing Authority Ph: (585)697-6193, Fax: (585)362-8693 Statement of Confidentiality: This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information, If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mall, please delete it rom your system and advise the sender. -—Original Message— From: John Berger {mailto.JBerger@lawleyinsurance com] ‘Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 2:16 PM. To: Jacquelyn J. Milne Subject Re: LMHF lam out at a funeral and will be back to you tomorrow, thxs John G Berger Jr Partner Lawiey Benefits Group, LLC (718) 574-8628 cell Jberger@lawievinsurance.com <|milne@RochesterHousing org-> wrote: ''do have a question though, Tim thought it was mentioned that our rate was locked in for 18 months, ‘hitps://mail. verizon.com/webmail/oublic/nrint ienPwidews wildnat \40!Verizon | My Verizon 2.0 | Verizon Message Center - Re: LMHF Page 4 of 4 Thanks! eile sre ma res Rochester Housing Authority 675 West Main Suet Rochester, NY 14671 Ph: (585)697-8193 Fax: (685)362-8693, Dept Fax: (585)697-7179 imilne@rochesterhousing ora < image001.gi> Statement of Confidentiality: This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it rom your system and advise the sender Recognized as one of the Top 100 Brokers in the U.S. Please visit our website at ‘eau lawievinsurance com. The information inthis e-mail and in any attachment is confidential. you are not the named addressee or if you receive this e-mail in error, any distribution/copying/use of wis Serre urication or the information it contains is prohibited. Please notify me immediately by e-mail and golote the message from your computer. While attachments are virus-checked. Lawley does not aovopt any liailty with respect to any virus which is not detected. Please note: Lawiey cannot honor any (Eauest to bind or atfect coverage, alter or amend coverage or terms of any policy, or accept notice of oss via e-mail or voice-mail request. Recognized as one of the Top 100 Brokers in the U.S. Please visit our website at ‘eau lawlevinsurance com, The information inthis e-mail and in any attachment is confidential. Ifyou ate not the named addressee or i you receive this e-mail in error, any distrbutonlcopyingiice of ees ommunicaton othe information it contains is prohibited. Please notify me immediatly by conc wed delete the message from your computer. While attachments are virus-cheoked, Lawley does not accept any lablly wih respect to any virus which isnot detected, Please note’ Lawiey cannot honor any request to bind or affect coverage, alter or amend Coverage or terms of any policy, or accept notice of loss via e-mail or voice-mail request Recognized as one of the Top 100 Brokers in the U.S. Please visit our website at www lavvleyinsurance.com. The information in this e-mail and in any attachment is Confidential. if you are not the named addressee or if you receive this e-mail in error, any distribution/copying/use of this communication‘or the information it contains is Prohibited. Please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the message from your Computer. While attachments are virus-checked, Lawley does not accept any liability with respect to any virus which is not detected. Please note: Lawley cannot Honor any request to bind or affect coverage, alter or amend coverage or terms of any policy, or accept notice of loss via e-mail or voice-mail request. Beton «EXHIBIT #Hw: FLMBIT - J. Mis |hups:tfoutlook.live.com/owa/?viewmodel~ReadMessagelteméltem fo Fw: FLMHIT ‘ailseum Thu 1072072016 11583 ANE Inbox Tod, Mis Celamestown Hully «mejims12@qmeilcom>; ‘oo OP Thursday, June’ 30, 2016 8:12 AM, Shaw Burti ill | i are working hard to get on the ity Council agenda for July, but may have fo wai meeting. | will keep you informed if we don't make the July meeting. If we do have to wait until August, that will not affect us being able to start new plan on 1/1/17. Rochester Housing tes 675 West Main Street Rochester, NY 14611 www-rochesterhousing.org Office: (585)697-6184 Fax: (685)362-8684 ‘Statement of Confidentiality This electronic message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it from your system and advise the sender. —Original Message— From: Bill Slocum [maitto:bslocum1S@yahoo.com ‘Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:20 AM To: Shawn Burr Subject: FLMHIT Hi Shawn, How are we with The notice to Brown and Brown or FLMHIT? ‘Are we going to be able to go with LMHF by 1/1/17? 10/20/2016 5:01 PMa Se MAPS UULIOUR LIVE AARLY U Wal: ¥ Re rranIRUnE iNeed Bill Sent from my iPhone 2of2 10/20/2016 5:01 PM