Havre faces court petition over police health benefits

Havre is going to court to answer a petition by the Montana Federation of Public Employees that represents Havre police officers saying the city needs to make up for a shortage of payments in an arbitrated agreement over the officers’ health insurance.

MFPE filed a petition for enforcement Friday.

The petition says when the city made a payment in March to officers to make up shortfalls in what it was supposed to pay for health insurance premiums under a July 1, 2018, to June 30, 20202 collective bargaining agreement, it did not pay the full amount.

“The recent actions by Havre’s city leaders are not only illegal, they are also just deplorable,” MFPE President Amanda Curtis said in a press release. “By refusing to honor the contract bargained between the city and its police force, city politicians are demonstrating an incredible lack of respect for Montana’s police officers, their families, and our communities. It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this, but the city has left its police officers little choice.”

Havre Mayor Tim Solomon said he could not comment on an ongoing court case and referred questions to the attorney representing the city on the issue, Jean Faure.

Faure had not responded to a message requesting comment by print deadline this morning.

The petition says the collective bargaining agreement provides that the city will pay some or all cost of medical insurance for the covered officers and will cover the increase of insurance premiums during the term of the agreement.

The Havre police unit, through MFPE, submitted a grievance for arbitration Nov. 7, 2019.

The grievance concerned the proper amount of the city’s contribution for police employee health insurance, specifically police officers who elect family coverage, the petition says.

The arbitrator, James A. Lundberg, issued his decision and award Jan. 15 of this year, the petition says, holding that the city had agreed to pay increases in health insurance premiums but did not do so for officers employed before 2017 who had elected family and dependent health insurance coverage.

He ordered the city pay the difference beginning 20 days before the issuing of the grievance and going forward, the petition says.

When officers received reimbursement checks on or about March 12, the petition says, the affected officers did not believe the amounts were correct.

MFPE brought the issue back to the arbitrator.

A letter to Lundberg from the attorney representing MFPE, Karl Englund, said the city used the wrong base amount to figure the increases it should pay and also did not pay the difference after June 30, 2020, although a new agreement was not reached and the previous agreement still was in effect.

In a letter to Lundberg, Faure argued that because the ruling set a 20-day look-back from the filing of the grievance for payment and that was what was used, no additional payment was due. She also argued that the agreement in question expired June 30, 2020, and that is the date through which the city agreed to cover the increase

Lundberg found in favor of the police officers in a decision issued May 7, requiring the city to make up the difference.

The petition says the city still has not followed Lundberg’s requirement and requests the court to enforce his decision.