Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Romeo trustees deny police‑union grievance over new‑hire pay increase
Summary
Trustees denied a grievance from the police officers union alleging a new hire was paid $342 above contractual starting pay; the board directed the village attorney to deliver the written denial and noted arbitration remains a possible next step for the union.
The Village of Romeo Board of Trustees voted April 21 to deny a grievance from the police officers bargaining unit that alleged a new hire received a starting wage $342 higher than the contractual entry rate.
Kevin Loftess, representing the Police Officers Association of Michigan, told trustees the union learned a new officer was hired at a rate above the contract and that the village had failed to bargain changes. ‘‘This is a clear violation of the agreement,’’ Loftess said, requesting remediation that would equate pay for bargaining‑unit members. He asked the board to grant the grievance and provide the requested remedy.
Clerk Lucero and village attorney Mark Clark explained prior steps in the grievance process and said the village had entered an interim forbearance agreement while staff gathered financial information. Clark noted the collective‑bargaining agreement contains a management‑rights clause that authorizes certain hiring decisions, and he described the available remedies and timelines should the union pursue arbitration.
After deliberation the board voted to deny the grievance. Trustees also directed Clark to issue the formal written response under the contract. The union has a contract window to pursue arbitration if it elects to move to the next step; participants in the meeting cited a 14‑day arbitration demand window in the contract.
Chiefs and trustees discussed the new hire’s background; Chief said the new officer had no prior law‑enforcement experience but did have military service. Clark said the hiring decision raised questions about whether the posted pay band and management rights permitted the salary offered. The vote to deny was made as a recorded board action; Clark advised the board on response timing and on the openness of settlement talks should both parties choose to negotiate rather than proceed to arbitration.
The board’s denial resolves step four in the grievance procedure but does not foreclose arbitration if the union pursues step five. The board directed the village attorney to deliver the denial in writing within the contract’s response window.
