They get back pay for doing deputies' work
Examiners smiling all the way to the bank		  
How would you like to have the work and responsibility of a deputy commissioner at your agency with none of the status, pay, benefits or other perks that are supposed to go with it?

That's what happened to four PEF members at the state Banking Department starting in 1996. They grieved the out-of-title work. And now, thanks to their own tough persistence and that of their union representatives, they are smiling, all the way to the bank.

Exactly how much compensation these members will receive has not yet been determined, but the difference in pay between a supervising bank examiner and an assistant deputy superintendent over the last three years could be as much as $15,000.

'Cheap labor'
It all began in March 1996. PEF member Kenneth Bielemeier was a supervising bank examiner in the Licensed Financial Services Division of the state Banking Department. But he was assigned the duties of an assistant deputy superintendent - a very high managerial position. He wasn't promoted and he wasn't receiving any more pay. He was just told to do the work.

And Bielemeier wasn't alone. Three other supervising bank examiners were in the same predicament: Robert Gregor (Licensed Financial Services), John Nodalny (Mortgaged Banking Division), and Mario D'Onofrio (who later retired from the Thrifts Division in 1997).
PEF filed its grievance against the Banking Department later that March.

Nearly four years later - in December 1999 - the Governor's Office of Employee Relations ruled in favor of the PEF members.
"We're very pleased that the state has admitted that the department made a mistake," says Bielemeier, who has been a steward, council leader and Executive Board representative at various times in his career.

It takes courage
But the win was not always a given.
Priscilla Marco, a PEF field representative who took over the grievance in 1999, says she wondered how she could possibly win it after the case was dismissed in January 1999 for lack of specifics.
What they needed was a "smoking gun." And the affected members had to step up and fight.

"In order to win, we had to put members' names on the grievance, and we needed very specific documentation," Marco says.
The members did step forward, and the evidence surfaced.

A 1996 memo clearly showed the Banking Department assigning the PEF members duties of assistant deputy superintendents. It was exactly what Marco needed to build an ironclad case and draft the wining April 1999 addendum to the grievance.

Bielemeier says the ruling sends a clear message: "This should encourage workers in similar situations to seek the redress available to them. It shows it can be won, even if it takes a long time."
Marco sees more. "People need to come forward and give their names in these situations. These cases are very difficult to prove without names and specific documentation."

 

The Communicator Home Page