More than two years after imposing a labor contract on its attorneys when negotiations stalled, the Orange County Board of Supervisors was expected Tuesday to settle a legal dispute that arose out of the conflict and approve a contract that could break new ground for county employees.
The board has tentatively agreed to pay $10.5 million to the county’s prosecutors and public defenders, roughly the difference in what they were receiving in salary versus the contract imposed on them two years ago.
A new contract with the attorneys offers a few firsts for the county in the way employees receive vacation benefits while on the job and health insurance after they retire, said Larry Yellin, president of the Orange County Attorneys Association.
“They’re giving us back the amount that represents the employee share of the contribution (in benefits) that was illegally imposed on us,” Yellin said.
A change in the makeup of the board helped make negotiations much easier, and both sides made concessions, Yellin said.
The attorneys have agreed to pay the full share toward their pension. The attorneys will receive pay increases over the next four years that amount to a 10.75 bump overall, Yellin said.
The attorneys have also agreed to give annual leave time and change it to a more private-industry model of vacation and sick time, Yellin said. That helps the county save money because employees can’t just rack up unlimited time off and then cash it in at the end of their employment, he said. Also, sick days can’t be cashed in at the end of the year.
Vacation hours would be capped at 480, so beyond that employees must take time off or risk losing the benefit.
The attorneys are the first county department to agree to the changes in time off, Yellin said.
The attorneys also came up with a plan “that will save the county literally millions of dollars” with a reform of health benefits for retirees, Yellin said.
Under the current system, the employees receive a stipend for health insurance until Medicare kicks in, Yellin said. It is based on years of service. Now the attorneys have agreed to pay a percentage of salary to a health savings account, which will be sheltered from taxes, Yellin said. The 1 percent the attorneys chip in will be matched by the county, he added.
Despite having to pay for health insurance, the attorneys were happy with the compromise because it allows them much more flexibility in health plans.
Under the old plan, for instance, the stipend was strictly regulated so attorneys could not spend it at a new home out of state or get another job with health insurance and save the benefit for later, Yellin said.
It’s also common in the legal field that attorneys retire, but keep working, “so they don’t always need (the insurance stipend) from the county,” Yellin said.
That meant the county had to fund a pot of money for the benefit with a substantial portion going unused, Yellin said.
In March 2013, county supervisors voted unanimously to impose a new contract on the county’s attorneys and prosecutors. It led to a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court and a complaint before the Public Employment Relations Board.
The attorneys won a favorable ruling from the PERB, but got a mixed ruling from Orange County Superior Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw. The attorneys, however, felt the PERB ruling superseded part of the judge’s ruling. County supervisors appealed the rulings.
The ruling from a PERB administrative law judge was appealed to the agency’s full board. From there a ruling could be challenged in appellate court, Yellin said.
At issue was how much the attorneys should pay toward their pension.
The county picked up the employee contribution to the pension benefit since 2002. It was a perk the attorneys accepted in exchange for not receiving a 3.5 percent pay raise.
Requiring the attorneys to pick up more of their pension expenses stood to cost some attorneys thousands of dollars annually.
Colaw ruled that the county could impose higher pension contributions for the attorneys, but said officials could not also force the lawyers to pay any part of the employer’s share, known as a “reverse pickup.”
Yellin said the PERB ruling conflicted with that judgment.
—City News Service