The city of Toledo did not engage in unfair labor practices last year by rejecting a fact finder's report and then imposing a less-generous contract on about 140 unionized city refuse and sewer plant workers, according to a judge at the State Employment Relations Board.

The judge's recommendation, issued Wednesday and announced Thursday, was an initial rejection of complaints made by Toledo Teamsters Local 20, which represents the workers.

The union claimed that the city erred when Toledo City Council voted twice — not just once — on the question of whether to reject the fact finder's report; again by refusing to sign a more generous contract recommended by the fact finder, and finally when city council voted to imposed a less-generous three-year contract on the workers.

Beth A. Jewell, an administrative law judge with the employee relations board, sided with the city.

"We certainly expected this result because we felt the city's actions were legal and justified," city Law Director Adam Loukx said yesterday. "We are very happy."

Local 20 has 20 days to file an objection before the three-member SERB can vote on whether to accept the judge's recommendation, which would dismiss the union complaints.

Teamsters Local 20 President Bill Lichtenwald said the union plans to meet with its lawyers over the weekend to decide whether to appeal the recommendation.

At a hearing this month, Toledo Mayor Mike Bell told the SERB judge that Toledo couldn't afford the union contract that was recommended by the third-party fact finder.

That contract called for either a 2 percent pay raise in the contract's second year or a 3 percent jump in the third; it also would have rejected the city's request that workers pay the entire share of their pension contributions — 10 percent of wages. The city had previously picked up 8.5 percentage points of the 10 percent share.

City council voted twice in August to reject the fact-finder's report because council's first vote lacked a super-majority.

The union argued that the second vote was invalid because an agreement between the two sides provided for "a" vote on the pact, not multiple ones. The judge's recommendation condoned the second vote.

After subsequent negotiations between the city and the union reached an impasse, the city presented the union with a final offer in mid-September. A majority of union members voted to reject that offer. Days later, city council voted 8-4 to force the contract on the union.

The contract gave workers a 1 percent pay raise last fall, another 1 percent increase in July, and a third 1 percent raise in July, 2012. It also required workers to pay the entire employee share of their pension contribution, did away with some job perks, and instituted several incentives aimed at increasing worker productivity.

The issue of a local government's ability to afford union contracts recommended by third-parties has been a major discussion point in the current debate on Senate Bill 5.

Contact JC Reindl at: jcreindl@theblade.com or 419-724-6065.

First Published March 18, 2011, 4:38 a.m.