March 03, 2009

 

Terri Singleton
Human Resource Director
City of Lansing
124 W. Michigan Ave. - 4th Floor
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 483-4016
fax: (517) 483-4017

 

Terri Singleton,

 

I’m writing this letter to you to address the various issues and concerns related to the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BC/BS) pharmacy initiatives, which the City of Lansing elected to not opt out of. My direct concern is that this decision was made by the City of Lansing, without any discussion, negotiation or notification with the respective bargaining units in the City of Lansing.

 

Since becoming aware of the BC/BS Pharmacy Initiatives in December 2008, I have raised numerous questions and my strong objection to how these BC/BS initiatives were implemented and agreed to by City Administration, without any prior notification of IAFF Local 421. Numerous Local 421 representatives have asked questions and have received no response from the Human Resource Staff. These discussions have taken place between Local 421 representatives, yourself and your staff, along with a letter being sent to Labor Relations Manager S. Graham, dated, January 15, 2009. During each conversation, IAFF Local 421 representatives have been told that the City would “look into it and get back with us”. As of today’s date and approximately three months later, I have had no verbal and/or written correspondence from the City of Lansing.

 

Based upon the discussions that have taken place, I have been told that “this is a BC/BS initiative and that it was not implemented by the City of Lansing”. Thus, it sounds as if the City is essentially denying any responsibility related to the potential change in our negotiated benefits. However, I believe that the City was made fully aware of each initiative and regardless of how the City views this initiative; IAFF Local 421 negotiates solely and directly with the City of Lansing and not with BC/BS of Michigan. So, whether this is a BC/BS initiative or not, it is the responsibility of the City to inform, discuss and negotiate with each respective bargaining unit the potential change(s) that have been implemented within our current negotiated benefit plan design.

After three months of receiving no written or verbal correspondence from the City, Local 421 researched this topic and obtained information that clearly indicates that the City was made aware of these initiatives for the fall of 2007, along with the impact to our members. I have also learned that the City was given the opportunity to opt out of the initiatives at no cost to the City, as they would not be charged a higher premium because they are self funded. However, after the City became aware of these initiatives and the changes to our negotiated benefits, the City preferred to


pass on the associated costs onto our membership and changed our negotiated benefits without negotiating any such change.

 

Throughout this process and through my discussions with S. Graham, I also expressed my concerns as how the City would view the timeliness of a Grievance being filed on this very issue. My direct concern was that while Local 421 has been waiting for a response from the City, we would surpass our timelines, as it relates to the first step of the Grievance process. I clearly expressed my concern for this and stated that I felt strongly that I did not want to waive my right to the Grievance and Arbitration process, simply because this matter was being investigated. Sue and I mutually agreed that due to the investigation and discussions that were taking place, the timelines would be extended. I can truly appreciate the willingness on the behalf of the City to attempt to work collaboratively on this particular issue; however, I feel strongly that after three months with no response, what I have learned through BC/BS and the potential impact to my membership, I believe that I have been left no other option other than to file on behalf of all adversely impacted members of IAFF Local 421.

 

After reviewing the pharmaceutical initiatives that the City was and has been aware of, it clearly outlines the impact to the member in the “What this means to members” section. So, why was there no correspondence from the City to each respective bargaining unit clearly outlining each initiative and the impact to our members, just as it is outlined in the pharmacy initiative? Why was there no attempt on behalf of the City to discuss and/or negotiate these changes, prior to the City electing to not opt out? It would only seem prudent that the City would have reviewed the initiatives, prior to electing to not opt out, would it not?

 

Again, I have been committed to amicably resolving this matter; however, given the response from the City of Lansing, or the lack there of, and the changes to our negotiated benefits with no prior negotiations, it is my intent to inform you that I will be contacting our Attorney to further discuss this matter and our response to the actions taken by the City of Lansing. These initiatives, as implemented and agreed to by the City, directly change our current 2006-2010 benefit plan design as negotiated between Local 421 and the City of Lansing. IAFF Local 421 will also be filing a Grievance by the close of the business day, March 04, 2009, on behalf of all adversely affected members of IAFF Local 421.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

 

Bryan P. Epling, President

Lansing Fire Fighters IAFF L-421

 

Cc Sue Graham, Labor Relations Manager

Ronald R. Helveston, Esq., Helveston and Helveston, P.C.