Arbitration ruling irks Saugus police union

SAUGUS – Police officer Matthew Vecchio, President of the Saugus Patrolman?s Union, said he isn?t happy with the recent salary arbitration awarded to the union earlier this month.In a settlement reached on Jan. 23, arbitrator Gary D. Altman Esq. awarded the union a 13 percent raise over six years dating from July 2009 and ending in July 2014. Town Meeting must now vote to approve the additional funding.?We weren?t pleased with the award, but we?ll have to live with it,” said Vecchio. “We were hoping for a little bit more of a percentage, but we were also asking for other things that other unions had received in previous contracts and we didn?t get anyone that.”According the agreement, no raises will be given for 2009 through 2011, but a 6 percent raise kicks in as of Jan. 1, 2012 once Town Meeting approves the funds. This is followed by 1.5 percent raises on July 1, 2012 and Jan. 1, 2013, and 2 percent raises on July 1, 2013 and Jan. 1, 2014.The town budget for patrolmen in 2012 is $1,844,150.According to Vecchio, the base salary for a patrolman in Saugus is $49,000. He said they have been working without pay increases since 2005.?In 2006 through 2008 we took zeroes in those three years also, but we were able to get some education-related language in our contract,” said Vecchio. “The Town Manager refused to negotiate with us. He?s never negotiated a contract with us in his term here.”The 25-page agreement states both sides of the negotiations. In it, the town proposed no wage or benefit increases through 2014, while the union proposed a 28 percent increase over six years including increases in vacation time and a $1,500 stipend for officers with CPR certification.These two provisions were not awarded, while the town?s proposals to lower sick leave from 15 days per year to 12, initiate drug testing and eliminate the police mechanic were also not awarded.?It must be noted that the town?s proposal of no increases for a six-year period is much lower than provided to other town and school employees,” said Altman in the written decision. “Similarly, the union?s 28 percent cumulative increase over a six-year period is also not justified ? nor does it reflect the current fiscal reality of the town.”Town Meeting member Sean Maltais said he?s not sure how this will play out when the town budget comes to Town Meeting for a vote, but noted he?s happy the issue was finally settled.?I?m guessing it might cost us around $150,000,” said Maltais. “It?s always an issue ? but it?s a good thing the contract is signed. Unsigned contracts go against your bond rating. Whether you?re pro-union or anti-union, these contracts need to get signed and we need to move on. These guys protect us, I have four kids and a wife at home. I don?t begrudge them whatsoever.”Town Meeting member Al DiNardo said rising costs and stagnant revenues will make it hard to find extra money, no matter what it may be for.?We?re at the 2? percent cap and we have some costs like medical that are growing at 7 ? 10 percent,” said DiNardo. “It doesn?t take an economist to figure out that trajectory at some point is going to catch up to the town.”Vecchio, however, was more optimistic about funding the pay increase, and noted it could have cost the town a lot more if the decision was different.?The town would have been responsible for retroactive pay, which could have cost over a million dollars,” said Vecchio. “It?s pretty good for the town, not so good for the patrolmen. Hopefully when we have a new manager in place we?ll be able to negotiate with him and get some of the things we were looking for with this contract.”Matt Tempesta can be reached at [email protected].