NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Transcription

1 NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN SULLIVAN COUNTY The Employer and- LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 17 The Union PERB Case No. A Grievance: SUBCONTRACTING- SHARED HEALTH CLINIC BEFORE: Haydeé Rosario, Esq. Arbitrator APPEARANCES: For: Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 17 By: Richard S. Corenthal, Esq. Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Richard Messino, Union Representative, Local 17 Joseph Cinsiglio, Chief Shop Steward Steven Hewlett, Shop Steward For: By: Sullivan County Earl T. Redding, Esq. Roemer Wallens Gold & Mineaux LLP Edward McAndrew, Commissioner, Department of Public Works Lynda G. Levine, Director of Human Resources, Personnel Officer OPINION AND AWARD In accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement 1 ("the CBA"), between the County of Sullivan, the Department of Public Works ("the County") and the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 17 ("the Union"), 1 Joint Exhibits 1. 2 Joint Exhibit 1. See Schedule A at 43

2 covering a bargaining unit that includes Custodial Workers, 2 which is effective by its terms for the period of July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017, I was selected to serve as an impartial arbitrator and to render a final and binding decision and award with regard to the Union's grievance. The grievance alleges that the County violated Article XXI, Section 2101, the Subcontracting provision of the CBA, when it subcontracted the custodial and housekeeping work performed at the Shared Health facility ("Shared Health facility") to Facility Management Corp ("FMC"). The hearing in this case was held on July 25, 2017, at the offices of Sullivan County located in Monticello, New York. The parties were afforded a full and fair hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and make arguments in support of their respective positions. The record was closed upon presentation of the parties' written arguments. I have fully considered the evidence adduced during the arbitration hearing, the arguments of the parties, and the precedent relied upon by the parties in the preparation of this Opinion and its accompanying Award. THE ISSUE The parties stipulated to the following issue: Did the Employer violate Article XXI, Section 2101 of the CBA by subcontracting the custodial and housekeeping work performed at the Shared Health facility? If so, what shall be the remedy? 3 ARTICLE XXI, Subcontracting RELEVANT CONTRACT PROVISIONS In the event the Employer finds it necessary to contract work out in order to save money, it shall be allowed to do so except that no contract shall be let which results in the elimination of employment in the Employer's Regular work. 5 ARTICLE XVII, Employer Rights Except to the extent modified by the terms of this Agreement, the rights and responsibilities of the Employer include, but are not limited to the following: 2 Joint Exhibit 1. See Schedule A at 43 3 No arbitrability issue was raised. 4 Joint Exhibit 1 5 Joint Exhibit 1 at 50 2

3 a. To determine the standards of services to the County of Sullivan not inconsistent with applicable laws; b. To direct employees in their respective positions; c. To hire, promote, transfer, assign, and retain employees, and to suspend, demote, discharge, or to take disciplinary action against employees; d. To relieve employees from duties because of lack of work, or other legitimate reasons; e. To maintain the efficiency of government operations entrusted to them; f. To determine the methods, means and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted; g. To take whatever actions may be necessary to carry out the missions of the Department. SECTION 1803(d) of the Grievance Procedures provides, in part, that "[t]he arbitrator shall not have the authority to amend, modify or delete any provisions of this Agreement." FACTUAL BACKGROUND The parties stipulated to the following facts: 1. The County has fifteen (15) funded Custodial Workers The Custodial Workers are assigned to clean several facilities throughout the County, including the Liberty Complex, which includes the Shared Health facility. 3. The Union represents the Custodial Workers as part of the bargaining unit. 7 4(a). Since approximately 1991, the Shared Health facility has been cleaned by employees represented by the Union. 4(b). William Franze ("Franze") began to work in (c). Shortly after Franze was began to work, he was assigned to the Shared Health facility on a regular basis. 4(d). Beginning in November 2015, Franze began to take extended sporadic sick leave throughout 2016 due to health conditions. 4(e). Eric Bradley ("Bradley"), a Laborer II, 8 was at times assigned to work at the Shared Health facility and assigned to perform work that Franze would have been assigned to perform but for his sick leave in 2015 and Joint 3 Custodial Workers' Job description 7 Custodial Workers are included in the bargaining unit of the CBA. See Joint Exhibit 1 3

4 5. In October and November 2016, Franze was on payroll. 6. The County's subcontracting of the cleaning work for the Shared Health facility was approved in October 2016 and effective November October 21, 2016 was the last day that Franze worked. 8. As of the end of November 2016, the Shared Health facility was no longer being cleaned by employees represented by the Union. 8(a). As of March 25, 2017, Franze has been off the County's payroll. 10 8(b). Franze's position as a Custodial Worker is still funded by the County. 9(a). The subcontracting at issue involves only one employee, who works five days per week. 9(b) After the subcontracting of the cleaning services, the County still has fifteen (15) funded Custodial Workers positions. In addition to the above-mentioned stipulated facts, the documentary record evidence submitted by the parties shows that the annual salary for a full rate Custodial Worker in 2017 is $ 37, Franze's position represents a total cost of $69, to the County, including salary and employment benefits. The salary amount is $37, per year and employment benefits are $32, per year. Custodial Workers are assigned to clean the County's facilities, which include the Liberty Campus, the Adult Care Center and the Court House. The documentation provided by the County also shows that the work of housekeeping and Custodial Workers at issue was subcontracted to FMC at a cost of $35, annually ($2, per month), and that the subcontracting required authorization, by the County's Legislature, of additional funds in the amount of $35, The documentation also shows that Franze remains employed by the County, even though he has been on extended leave and off the payroll since 8 Laborers II are in the bargaining unit covered by the CBA. 9 See County Exhibit 1(a), Modification Agreement dated December 1, 2016; County Exhibit 1(b) Agenda regarding the meeting held on October 13, 2016; County Exhibit 2, Resolution Memo October 13, 2016, County Exhibit 4, Detailed Specifications Part I Complete Cleaning; County Exhibit 5, Letter dated October 5, 2016, regarding executed agreement for the cleaning services at issue; County Exhibit 6, s regarding the cleaning services agreement. See also Joint Exhibit 9-- Note that the Agreement between the County and Facilities Maintenance, Corp. ("Facilities Maintenance") related to the cleaning work at issue was signed on November 15, Stipulated facts in paragraphs 8(a) through 9 are reflected as stipulated facts on the Arbitrator's record. 11 Union Exhibit 4 12 County Exhibits 1(a), and County Exhibit 2 4

5 March 25, Various s submitted by the County, including the dated August 9, 2016, sent by Kathleen Jones, the County's Director of Purchasing to Edward McAndrew, the County's Commissioner, indicate that the cleaning work at Shared Health facility was subcontracted after representatives of the Shared Health facility requested cleaning services to maintain a minimum level of cleaning performed at the facility. 14 During the processing of the grievance in this case, the County denied any violation of the subcontracting provision, and asserted that it subcontracted the cleaning work at Shared Health facility because it needed "additional cleaning services" to be performed at the "most cost effective way to perform the requested services. 15 The County also indicated that providing the additional cleaning services at Shared Health facility would require the hiring of another employee. The County maintained that the cost of hiring an additional Custodial Worker, with benefits, would be $65, During the processing of the grievance, the County asserted that instead of hiring another employee, it decided to subcontract the cleaning services at Shared Health Facility to FMC to save $31, THE PARTIES' POSITIONS The Union asserts the stipulated record is sufficient to establish that the County violated Article XXI, Section 2101, the Subcontracting provision of the CBA, for the reasons set forth below. The Union points out that Article XXI explicitly restricts the County's right to subcontract the work of the employees covered by the CBA. Specifically, the Union indicates that this provision states: "In the event the Employer finds it necessary to contract work out in order to save money, it shall be allowed to do so except that no contract shall be let which results in the elimination of employment in the Employer's regular work force." 16 The Union argues that the language of this provision is clear and unambiguous, and, as such, it maintains that it cannot be changed without the parties' agreement. The Union acknowledges that the provision allows for the County to subcontract work in 13 See County Exhibits 1(a) and 2 including the Legislative Memorandum re the Certificate of Availability of Funds and Resolution 14 County Exhibit 6 ad Joint Exhibit 9 15 Joint Exhibits 5 and 8 16 Joint Exhibit 1. Emphasis added. 5

6 order to save money. However, the Union insists that the express language of this provision restricts the subcontracting of the work performed by employees in the bargaining unit only to: (1) to "save money" and (2) as long as the subcontracting does not result in the elimination of jobs. In this regard, the Union posits that the subcontracting provision at issue does not allow the County to subcontract the work for any other reason, including to maintain the efficiency of services and/or to deal with the extended absences of employees who are sick, as suggested by the County. Furthermore, the Union urges me to reject any claim by the County that it subcontracted the work in accordance with the Employer's Rights provided in Article XVII of the CBA. In so doing, the Union argues that in matters of contract interpretation, it is a well-established principle that all parts of the contract must be read as a whole in pari materia in order to give meaning to all parts of the contract. An interpretation that grants the County the right to subcontract based on the Employer's Rights provision, the Union contends, would render the subcontracting provision "meaningless." 17 The Union also points out that a prior arbitrator award exists in the Matter of Sullivan County and the Union, 18 which involved the same parties, the identical subcontracting provision, and a similar set of circumstances, wherein the County subcontracted the housekeeping and custodial work performed at the Travis and Annex buildings, which was decided by Arbitrator Richard Gaba. In the Travis/Annex buildings case, the Union indicates, Arbitrator Gaba concluded that the subcontracting provision limits subcontracting by the County as follows: "There must be a saving of money and the contract shall not result...'in the elimination of employment in the Employer's regular work force.' " 19 The Union further indicates that after finding that the County did not save money by subcontracting the housekeeping and custodial work at the Travis and Annex buildings, Arbitrator Gaba concluded that he was "not required to consider the fact [that] no employees were laid off as a result of the subcontract." 20 Thus, in accordance with Arbitrator Gaba's holding, the Union argues, a violation of the 17 The Union's closing brief. 18 Joint Exhibit 2, a copy of Sullivan County and LIUNA, Local 17, Case No. A (Arbitrator Richard M. Gaba 2004) 19 Joint Exhibit 1, CBA and Joint Exhibit 2, Id. 20 Joint Exhibit 2 at 8 6

7 subcontracting provision may be established simply by meeting the first part of the twofold test established by Arbitrator Gaba, i.e., by establishing that no money was saved with the subcontracting of the work. In such circumstances, the Union notes, consistent with Arbitrator Gaba's decision, there is no need to determine whether the subcontracting resulted in the elimination of regular work force. With regard to Gaba's decision, the Union also argues that Arbitrator Gaba's Award constitutes well-established arbitral precedent. As such, the Union urges me to follow Arbitrator Gaba's interpretation of the subcontracting provision of the CBA. In so doing, the Union asserts that, as a matter of law, I should give great deference to his award. 21 In this case, the Union asserts, the record evidence does not support the conclusion that the County saved money with the subcontracting at issue. In this regard, the Union argues that the County did not save money because: (1) the subcontracting of the cleaning work required the approval of additional expenditures by the County's Legislature, and (2) the stipulated record shows that, similar to the previous case decided by Arbitrator Gaba, the two employees assigned to clean the Shared Health facility, before the subcontracting of the work, remain employed by the County. Specifically, the Union indicates that Bradley who covered from Franze during his sick leave, remains employed, and Franze, who was regularly assigned to clean the Shared Health facility remains employed by the County at a cost of $37, in salary and $32, in benefits. Thus, the Union insists, there were no savings involved in the subcontracting of the work. The Union also indicates that in 2016 and 2017, the County was in a better fiscal state than in previous years. 22 In view of the sound fiscal state of the County in 2016 and 2017, and in the absence of any explanation as to why the County ceased utilizing Bradley to cover for Franze, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the subcontracting of the cleaning services was "necessary" to "save money" as required by the subcontracting provision of the CBA. 21 In support of its assertion, the Union cites E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, District 17, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000), wherein U.S. Supreme Court that for the purposes of determining the arbitrability of the abitrator's award, the award is considered part of the collective bargaining agreement noting that "the award is not distinguishable from the contractual agreement" See also United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987) 22 Union Exhibit 2 7

8 With regard to Franze's position, the Union maintains that while the position was not "technically" eliminated because it is still funded, the reality is that it was eliminated because, it argues, the actual work previously performed by Franze and by other employees in the bargaining unit for over 20 years, is now being performed by FMC, the subcontractor. Additionally, the Union asserts that the undisputed facts demonstrate the County subcontracted the work in question to maintain the minimum level of cleaning services at Shared Health Facility, not to save money. Such subcontracting, the Union contends, constitutes the restrictions contained in the subcontracting provision of the CBA. In this respect, the Union notes that an employer is required to comply with the restrictions placed in the parties' agreement when it subcontracts the work performed by the bargaining unit employees. 23 It is also undisputed, the Union notes, that the County unilaterally subcontracted the work without notice and without bargaining with the Union. For all these reasons, the Union contends that the County violated Article XXI, Section 2101 of the CBA when it subcontracted the custodial and housekeeping work performed at Shared Health facility. As a remedy, the Union asks for the following: (1) an order prohibiting further subcontracting of the bargaining unit's work, including the custodial and housekeeping work at issue; (2) a cease and desist order directing the County to cease the subcontracting of the custodial and housekeeping work at Shared Health facility and to reassign the work back to the employees in the bargaining unit; (3) a make-whole of damages, including lost of union dues because the subcontracting resulted in the replacement of at least one bargaining unit employee. The make whole damages should be based, according to the Union, on the number of hour and amount charged by the subcontractor with interest thereon In support of this assertion, the Union cites, in part, Manville Forest Products, Corp., 85 LA 85 (1985), wherein it was found that the Employer improperly contracted out the insulation of piping and tanks instead of allowing laid-off maintenance employees to do the work, as required by the collective bargaining agreement. 24 In support of the requested remedy, the Union cites, in part, Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, 5th Edition at , Tennessee Valley Authority and Machinists, 101 LA 218 (1993), wherein a employer was ordered to pay back pay to the employees who would have performed the work that was subcontracted, and to pay the Union $25,000 as partial reimbursement for lost union dues and to pay the cost of the arbitration; and Pemco Aeroplex Inc., and Plant Police of Alabama of Birmingham Lodge 1, 109 LA 385 (1997), wherein the employer was ordered to pay lost union dues to the Union for the unlawful subcontracting of the work. 8

9 On the other hand, the County has asked for me to deny the grievance in its entirety for the following reasons: the County indicates that it needed to subcontract the custodial and housekeeping work at Shared Health facility because additional cleaning services were needed, as requested by the Shared Health facility. Rather than hiring another employee to perform the additional cleaning services, the County explained, it determined that it was more cost effective to subcontract the cleaning work to FMC, a company the County was already utilizing for cleaning services at other sites. The County points out that it is undisputed that the subcontracting of the work in question did not result in the elimination of any position covered by the CBA. The County asserts that there is no violation of the subcontracting provision since the cleaning work that was subcontracted for additional cleaning services was based on the most cost effective manner to achieve the desired result and did not cause the elimination of any position. In this regard, the County argues, its determination "should not be second guessed by hindsight rhetoric," which claims that the County's finances are in good shape or that it was unnecessary for the County to spend additional money for cleaning services that could have been performed by employees within the bargaining unit. As for the arbitral precedent established by Arbitrator Gaba, the County asserts that the facts in the instant case are distinguishable from the previous case. In the case involving the Travis/Annex buildings, decided by Arbitrator Gaba, the cleaning work of two employees who were transferred to the night shift was subcontracted without providing any reason for their transfer to the night shift. 25 As a result, the County notes, Arbitrator Gaba concluded that there was no cost savings involved in that subcontracting. The County reasons that in the case related to the Travis/Annex buildings, contrary to the case as hand, there was no proof to show an increase in the workload on the night shift. This case is different, the County argues, because the subcontracting of the work was due to the need for additional cleaning services at the Shared Health facility. As such, the County reasons, the subcontracted cleaning services was done to provide cleaning services that were "additional to and above" what was already being provided by Franze or by Bradley. Such 25 The record in Arbitrator Gaba's cases shows they were transferred due to excessive absenteeism. 9

10 difference, i.e., the need for additional services, the County insists, serves to distinguish this case from the one decided by Arbitrator Gaba. While the County maintains that it is not requesting for me to ignore the arbitral precedent established by Arbitrator Gaba, it urges for me to distinguish it from the underlying facts of this case and to conclude that the arbitral precedent established by Arbitrator Gaba is not applicable to this case. In so doing, the County notes that, Prior arbitral awards rendered in disputes between the same parties under the same contract provision are not necessarily binding on successor arbitrators under the traditional principles of stare decisis, res judicate or collateral estoppel. Courts and arbitrators alike agree that the weight to be given to such arbitral precedent, when not dictated by the collective bargaining agreement lies within the discretion of the arbitrator. 26 Accordingly, the County argues that Arbitrator Gaba's award should be instructive but not dispositive. Additionally, the County maintains, the language in the subcontracting provision that states "In the event the Employer finds it necessary," should not be taken lightly when interpreting the subcontracting provision of the CBA. The County posits that the subcontracting provision is not meant to be used only when the County is in dire financial need, as suggested by the Union. Instead, according to the County, the subcontracting provision is intended to allow the County to save money as long as no position in the bargaining unit is eliminated as a result of the subcontracting. In this regard, the County points out that the subcontracting provision states that the subcontracting is permissible when the "Employer finds it necessary" and argues that such clear language vests the County with the discretion to subcontract work to save money as long as it does not result in the elimination of employment. With regard to the Union's contention that the subcontracting provision is only meant for overall budgetary savings, the County asserts that such position ignores the fact that the subcontracting, in this case, is for additional work that was not already performed. The County argues that accepting the Union's argument, i.e., that the subcontracting is allowed only for overall budgetary savings, would require, the County argues, a determination of whether the County's decision to subcontract 26 Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, at 11-20, (7th Ed. 2012) 10

11 the work has a rational basis or whether it was arbitrary and capricious. A determination of such nature, the County argues, would run contrary to the terms and intent of the subcontracting provision, because, it notes, the provision does not state "In the event it is necessary..." Instead, the County points out, the subcontracting provision clearly indicates it is within the discretion of the Employer by stating, "In the event the Employer finds it necessary... For these reasons, the County maintains that the Union's argument that money was not saved by subcontracting the cleaning work is irrelevant. The County contends that a determination based on the Union's argument, would modify or delete the subcontracting provision in violation of the limitations of the Arbitrator's powers contained in Section 1803(d) of the CBA. In this case, the County indicates, Commissioner McAndrew determined that hiring another employee to perform the requested additional cleaning work at Shared Heath facility would cost $66,955, and subcontracting the cleaning work to FMC would cost $35, Accordingly, to save $31,087.00, the County subcontracted the work to FMC to perform the additional cleaning services. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS After a careful review of the entire record, I find the Union met its burden to establish that no savings of money was involved in the subcontracting of the housekeeping and cleaning work at Shared Health facility. In so doing, I concluded that, on this record, no reason exists to disturb the arbitral precedent established by Arbitrator Gaba, wherein he concluded that Article XXI, Section 2101, the Subcontracting provision of the CBA, places the following "twofold" restriction on the subcontracting of bargaining unit work by the County: (1) "There must be a saving of money" and (2) the contract shall not result "in the elimination of employment in the Employer's regular work force." 27 A finding on one of these restrictions is sufficient to find a violation of the subcontracting provision. I considered the County's argument that this case should be distinguished from the Travis/Annex buildings case decided by Arbitrator Gaba because in the instant case, the County maintains, it was able to demonstrate an increase in the workload based on the need for the additional cleaning services requested by the 27 See Joint exhibit 1 and Joint Exhibit 2, Gaba's Award at 8. Emphasis added. 11

12 Shared Health facility. In the previous case, the County points out, two employees were transferred to the night shift, making it a four-person night shift, without any proof to show that the employees were transferred due to an increase in the workload on the night shift. The lack of such proof, the County argues, led Arbitrator Gaba to conclude that there was no monetary savings by the subcontracting of the bargaining unit work at the Travis/Annex buildings. For this reason, the County contends, this case is clearly distinct from the case decided by Arbitrator Gaba. I disagree. While it is true that in the previous case the County did not demonstrate an increase in the workload on the night shift to explain the transfer of two employees to the night shift, I believe, Arbitrator Gaba's findings that no monetary savings was achieved by the subcontracting of the work was based, in significant measure, on the undisputed fact that the two employees who were transferred to the night shift remained in the County's payroll after the subcontracting of the work, which was sufficient to establish that no money was saved by the subcontracting of the work. In the case at hand, as in the previous case decided by Arbitrator Gaba, the two Custodial Workers remained employed by the County after it subcontracted the work they performed at the Shared Health facility to FMC. The stipulated record also shows that in order to subcontract the cleaning work at Shared Health facility the County needed the Legislature to approve additional funding for the subcontracting of the work. This serves to undermine the County's assertion that it saved money by subcontracting the work at issue. Furthermore, I am not convinced the stipulated record is sufficient to establish that an actual increase of the workload existed at Shared Health facility, as the County insists. As for the increase of the workload claim, I considered that Commissioner McAndrew, in response to the request by Shared Health facility, determined that providing the requested cleaning services required the hiring of another employee. Such determination was well within the County's managerial discretion. Also, the s submitted by the County support the conclusion that the determination was made in response to the complaints made by Shared Health facility that a minimum level of cleanliness needed to be maintained. The s also show that, as part of the modification of the contract between the County and FMC, the Shared Health specified the areas that needed to be 12

13 cleaned by FMC. Nonetheless, it is unclear from the s on record that the specified areas that needed to be included in the modification of the agreement were "additional to and above," as the County argued, the cleaning services that were already performed by the one custodial worker, i.e., Franze, who had served the Shared Health facility since 2008, or by Bradley, who covered for Franze during his extended absences. In this regard, I note, the initial request made by Shared Health facility in May 2016, when Franze was on extended sporadic sick leave (which was unrelated to the modification of the agreement between the County and FMC) was for the County to provide "Regular routine maintenance and cleanliness" 28 In these circumstances, I find, the County never fully explained the actual increase in the workload, i.e., why a facility that was served with one Custodial Worker five days per week since 2008, needed an additional employee beginning in 2016, when Franze was on extended sporadic sick leave and while Bradley, a Laborer II, was assigned to cover for Franze. In this context, the evidence is insufficient to establish the increase in the workload claimed by the County. As such, similar to the decision made by Arbitrator Gaba, here the record shows that there were no savings through subcontracting of the cleaning work at Shared Health facility since the County continued to fund Franze s and Bradley's position and that additional funding was needed to subcontract the work previously performed by Franze and Bradley. For these reasons, I find, the County violated Section XXI, Section 2101 of the CBA when it subcontracted the cleaning and housekeeping work to FMC. Accordingly, the Union's grievance is granted. As the appropriate remedy, the County shall cease and desist from performing the various provisions of its contract with FMC that relates to the Shared Health facility in accordance with the modification agreement between Sullivan County and FMC adopted by the Legislature on October 20, 2016, by Resolution No All other relief requested by the Union is hereby denied, including the Union's request for Union dues, which, I find, is not supported by the record in this case.. 28 See Joint Exhibit 9 29 See Joint Exhibit 1(a) 13

14 AWARD Based on the entirety of the record evidence, and for the reasons stated in my Opinion and Award, the Union's grievance alleging that Sullivan County violated Article XXI, Section 2101, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by subcontracting the custodial and housekeeping work performed at the Shared Health facility, is granted. As the appropriate remedy, Sullivan County shall cease and desist from performing the various provisions of its contract with FMC that relates to the Shared Health facility in accordance with the modification agreement between Sullivan County and Facilities Maintenance Corporation adopted by the Legislature on October 20, 2016, by Resolution No All other relief requested by the Union is hereby denied, including the Union's request for Union dues, which, I find, is not supported by the record in this case. I will retain jurisdiction for six (6) months following the issuance of this Opinion and Award to address only matters related to the implementation of my Opinion and Award. Dated: November 22, 2017 Haydeé Rosario, Esq. STATE OF NEW YORK} COUNTY OF BRONX} ss: On November 22, 2017, I, Haydeé Rosario, Esq., affirm, that I have executed the foregoing, as my OPINION AND AWARD. Dated: November 22, 2017 Haydeé Rosario, Esq. 30 See Joint Exhibit 1(a) 14