The unions representing deputies and corrections officers are threatening to sue Pima County over raises they feel were inadequate to address salary inequities between new hires and experienced employees.
In early July, supervisors approved pay raises for deputies and corrections officers ranging from 2 to 20 percent.
In a notice of claim hand-delivered to the Board of Supervisors at its Tuesday meeting, Phoenix attorney Timothy La Sota, who represents the Pima County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Correctional Officers Association, said the recent raises fall “short of adhering to the contractual promises that have been made.”
Officers “have sacrificed continually to help the county operate within budgetary restraints in some challenging times,” he said in a letter handed to the board. “However, it is clear that the county has simply taken this assistance for granted, and has for far too long chosen to balance its budget on the backs of” officers.
La Sota, along with deputies union President Kevin Kubitskey, said they would file suit if there is no resolution within the next 60 days to force the county to provide raises in keeping with a step plan approved in September 2007. That plan provided for raises for every year of service.
“This is just a fraction, just half, of what they would have moved if the county had kept to the promise when they hired these individuals,” Kubitskey said of a recent pay package.
County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry dismissed the public delivery of the notice as “political theater” and said sticking to the step plan was never a contractual obligation of the county, a point echoed by Sheriff Chris Nanos. Additionally, the pay plan got rid of the step plans, replacing them with pay ranges, which is how most other county employees are compensated, according to Huckelberry.
La Sota said he had no obligation to provide a notice of claim, given that the unions are seeking prospective relief and not monetary damages, but did so out of courtesy.
La Sota’s letter included copies of recruitment materials used by the Sheriff’s Department that highlighted step increases as a benefit, adding that many employees “made life decisions based on what we believed was a contractual promise.”
Earlier this year, Nanos presented a pay plan to county administration that would have covered full decompression, but it was rebuffed as “unreasonable and unacceptable” in a June memo from Huckelberry. After the meeting Tuesday, Nanos told the Arizona Daily Star that the plan approved by the supervisors was a “fair” attempt to balance the needs of his employees and thousands of other county workers.
He also had a dim view of the potential lawsuit, saying, “I don’t think it’s any way to handle a problem. You sit down and discuss it.”
If a suit is filed, La Sota said he has a strong case to mount, and points to Arizona Supreme Court decisions that found statements by employers can create a “contractual liability” if there is “promissory intent.”
“As the evidence at trial would show, the deputies and correctional officers could reasonably conclude that there was a commitment by the county,” the notice reads.
Huckelberry said if the case becomes a formal suit, the county would be defended “vigorously,” and would also seek attorney fees.
