Title
February 10, 2005
TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA:
I am returning without signature Bill No. 040755, passed by the Council on January 25, 2005. Bill No. 040755 would continue health care coverage for children survivors of certain police or fire employees killed in the line of duty, where those children remain dependent after turning 18 by reason of physical or mental infirmity.
Bill No. 040755 – which amends the Pension Code to grant rights to current and former City employees more generous than that previously bargained – is lawful to the extent any increase in benefits is prospective. However, the bill mandates an increase in benefits for employees who already have separated from City service and for employees who are currently employed by the City under existing collective bargaining agreements. To the extend the bill mandatges increases in benefits for employees who no longer work for the City; or for current City employees during the life of their current collective bargaining agreements, it is unlawful, and I am returning it without my signature.
Sections 22-502(5) of The Philadelphia Code currently provides for continued health care coverage for the survivors of certain police or fire employees killed in the line of duty. For dependent children, this survivorship benefit currently ceases at age 18. Bill No. 040755 would continue the benefit for children who remain dependent after becoming 18 by reason of physical or mental infirmity. The bill is made retroactive to January 23, 1986, the date the benefit was first established.
This added benefit, while sorthy in its motivation, occurs outside of the normal “give-and-take” of the City’s collective bargaining process with its municipal workforce. Based on extensive research by the Law Department and an Opinion from City Solicitor Pedro A. Ramos, I conclude that Pennsylvania law prohibits City Council’s interference in the collective bargaining process to the extent that Council’s unilateral incrase in benefits would apply during the life of current collective bargaining agreements.
A second problem raised by Bill No. 040755 is its retroactivity. Council lacks the authority under Pennsylvania law to award such retroactive benefits.
Lastly, the fundamental idea of the collective bargaining process is a give and take between the City and its workforce. Issues such as this benefit must be – and indeed, have been – fairly bargained. Unilaterally awarding this benefit – after the collective bargaining process has been completed – undermines basic issues of equity and fiscal responsibility that I must uphold.
For all these stated reasons, I am returning Bill No. 040755 to City Council without signature.
Respectfully submitted.
John F. Street
Mayor
End