Bargaining, not self-congrats, solves issues

To the Editor:
On Jan. 6, the Narragansett Bay Commission published a press release on PBN.com with a headline “Narragansett Bay Commission Prevails in Health Care Arbitration.”
In fact and in substance, the commissions did not “prevail” in this arbitration. In brief, the facts are as follows.
The Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between the commission and its employees, who are members of Public Employees’ Local Union 1033, allows the conversion from one health care carrier to another if the new insurer’s coverage is “substantially equivalent” to the negotiated plan’s benefits. In fact, the union acknowledges its obligation to assist in achieving this goal. Acting consistent with our mutual goal, the commission solicited proposals for health care benefits in early 2009.
However, when the commission approached our union to review the proposals received from both Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and UnitedHealthcare of New England, it was obvious to our union that the employer-chosen-UnitedHealthcare-benefit levels were not “substantially equivalent.” We presented a proposal to improve the UnitedHealthcare benefit level so that they would be so. There were a number of proposals made from both sides of the bargaining table, but we did not reach a final agreement. We subsequently agreed to address our concerns in the forum of our mutual choosing: grievance arbitration. Both parties sought a determination so as to have a definitive meaning to “substantially equivalent.”
Following the expiration of the commission’s contract with Blue Cross the commission wanted to implement the new UnitedHealthcare contract while we processed our grievance (usually a nine- to 12-month process). To mitigate any harm to a union member or family member caused by the change, and pending a final determination, our union sought the assistance of R.I. Superior Court by seeking to restrain a carrier conversion pending the outcome of the arbitration hearing.
At the court hearing both parties agreed to fast track arbitration, a procedure that calls for a timely conclusion in order to keep any employee from becoming adversely affected. The injunction was neither ordered nor denied.
The court selected the union’s nominee, Marc D. Greenbaum, as arbitrator, and hearings occurred from September through November. The only issue before the arbitrator was to determine whether the plans were “substantially equivalent.” After hearing from a plethora of expert witnesses, it became obvious that there existed benefit differences between the UnitedHealthcare plans as implemented in August 2009, and those that existed in the prior Blue Cross plans. The evidence also established that the significant difference in provider networks between UnitedHealthcare and Blue Cross, as documented by the carriers in December 2008, had been neutralized by October 2009. The parties had taken the most responsible course of action, action that proves bilateral collective bargaining works. The parties ranked and prioritized the differences. The commission demonstrated its genuine concern for its most important resource, its work force, and its commitment to true bilateral bargaining by going to UnitedHealthcare and asking it to do what UnitedHealthcare had previously declared that it could not do – change its plans so as to address what the union argued were deficiencies.
To my surprise, and I commend UnitedHealthcare for its efforts, UnitedHealthcare modified contracts, amended summary benefit documents and filed a host of regulatory amendments with the R.I. Department of Health, the R.I. Department of Business Regulation and the insurance commissioner. At this point, the union acknowledged that the comission and UnitedHealthcare had made more than 75 percent of the changes that the union sought and the union offered to resolve the dispute by entering into a consent award that acknowledged all of the changes agreed to by its collective bargaining partner and requesting that the changes be implemented retroactively to Aug. 1, 2009.
Accordingly, contrary to the self-gloating presentation of the commission press release, Mr. Greenbaum never concluded that the initial Narragansett Bay Commission-UnitedHealthcare plans were “substantially equivalent” to the commission’s previous health plans. Rather, the parties agreed to vast changes and improvements, and the parties concluded that the modified the Narragansett Bay Commission-UnitedHealthcare plans were “substantially equivalent.”
These are the true facts with regard to this case and may be verified by review of the legal documents. This case should not be reviewed with an “us against them” mentality as the commission press release indicates. Neither party prevails when it’s a dragged-out, absolute winner and loser result. The process of collective bargaining and labor-management partnership is what prevailed in this case.
DONALD S. IANNAZZI
Public Employees’ Local Union 1033,
business manager