Decision No. 18,568
Appeal of MICHAEL CAMBARERI and LORI KREBS from action of the Board of Education of the Sandy Creek Central School District regarding retirement benefits.
Decision No. 18,568
(June 9, 2025)
Office of Inter-Municipal Legal Services, Jefferson Lewis Board of Cooperative Educational Services, attorneys for respondent, George R. Shaffer III, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners challenge the determination of the Board of Education of the Sandy Creek Central School District (“respondent” or “board”) to modify their health insurance premiums in retirement. The appeal must be dismissed.
Petitioners began their employment with respondent over 20 years ago. Both of their positions were designated “confidential,” which made them ineligible to join any of the bargaining units recognized by respondent. Petitioners’ employment conditions were identified in documents entitled “Terms of Employment for Civil Service Positions Non-Contract Confidential Employees” (the “agreements”).[1] The agreements indicated that all “terms of employment and other benefits” were deemed “equal to those” negotiated by the Support Staff Association (“SSA”) bargaining unit, with limited exceptions. One exception specified that petitioners would contribute to health insurance premiums at the rate of six percent. The agreements did not address health insurance contribution rates in retirement.[2] Petitioners Krebs and Cambareri retired from their employment with respondent in 2021 and 2024, respectively.
By letter dated August 19, 2024, respondent informed petitioners that it had agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the SSA that would increase petitioners’ contribution rate for health insurance premiums.[3] Petitioners attended a September 12, 2024 board meeting to contest this change. By letters dated September 17, 2024, respondent informed petitioners that its determination to change the health insurance premiums was final. This appeal ensued.
Petitioners contend that respondent is estopped from modifying the terms of their employment, which they characterize as binding contracts. Petitioners submit statements from two other confidential employees who indicate that their health insurance contribution rate will remain the same in retirement (the “confidential retirees”). Petitioners seek an order maintaining their contributions to the health insurance plan at six percent.
Respondent contends, among other arguments, that it exercised its right to unilaterally modify the provision of the terms of employment regarding health insurance contributions. Alternatively, respondent argues that petitioners lack standing to challenging respondent’s past practice of providing health insurance benefits to confidential retirees. Respondent further submits that the two confidential employees are dissimilar to petitioners as these employees negotiated specific provisions regarding health insurance in retirement.
In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884).
Petitioners have not proven that respondent agreed to maintain the six percent contribution rate throughout their retirement. As indicated above, petitioners’ agreements do not address retirement benefits. Board policy 9510 indicates that “health insurance will continue to be provided for retired employees … at the same level of district/employee contribution as the corresponding bargaining unit….” This provision is inapplicable to petitioners as they did not belong to any bargaining unit. Therefore, neither the agreements nor policy 9510 guaranteed petitioners a specific contribution rate in retirement. While respondent has a past practice equating such rates with those negotiated by the SSA, petitioners were not aggrieved by this benefit (Matter of Aenas McDonald Police Benevolent Assn v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326, 330-331 [1998]).[4]
The language of the agreements between respondent and the two confidential retirees are not to the contrary. These retirees, unlike petitioners, separately negotiated provisions regarding health insurance in retirement. These provisions were then memorialized in the confidential retirees’ agreements under headings such as “health insurance in retirement” and “medical benefits/insurance post employment.” Petitioners’ agreements do not contain comparable provisions.[5] Thus, I find that petitioners have failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to a six percent contribution rate through retirement.
While the appeal must be dismissed, I encourage respondent to develop a consistent policy regarding retirement benefits for confidential employees. If such benefits (including health insurance) are commensurate with those afforded to SSA members, respondent’s policy or agreements should so state.
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions, including respondent’s procedural contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] Respondent issued separate agreements to each petitioner. The material provisions of these agreements are identical.
[2] Retirement benefits for employees are generally addressed in board policy 9510, discussed below.
[3] Consistent with its past practice described below, respondent determined that these changes applied to petitioners.
[4] In this decision, the Court of Appeals also held “that there is no legal impediment to [a] municipality’s unilateral alteration of [a] past practice” and that “a public employer’s statutory duty to bargain does not extend to retirees.” Id. at 330-31, 332.
[5] Petitioners also submit statements from two current confidential employees, who indicate that when their supervisor “presented [them] with … Terms of Conditions that included a 6% insurance premium,” she represented “that it would carry through into … retirement.” While petitioners argue that this reflects the binding nature of the six percent rate, it is equally plausible that the supervisor’s statement referred to the past practice described above.