ALFRED — The union that represents rural patrol deputies claims that York County government did not bargain in good faith and engaged in “coercive and discriminatory termination” during recent contract negotiations.

The county, in a response filed last week with the Maine Labor Relations Board, denies the allegations and is asking the MLRB to dismiss the complaint.

A hearing on the prohibited practices complaint by the County Patrol Association will be scheduled, likely for mid- to late-March, said Roger Putnam of the MLRB.

The complaint centers around employee health insurance issue.

The CPA contends the statements made by county officials in Journal Tribune articles last year “were intended to communicate to employees and their families that unless they accepted the county’s insurance proposal, one or more CPA employees would be laid off.”

Furthermore, the CPA, in the filing by its attorney John W. Chapman, alleges that in a Sept. 14 mediated bargaining session, county attorney Gene Libby said the county would not deviate from its insurance proposal because of a contractual commitment it made to corrections staff at York County Jail. Corrections workers have a separate contract and are represented by a different union. It also refers to a “no layoff” clause in a contract the county signed with Maine State Employees Association, which represents county clerical and custodial staff.

In June, then-County Manager Richard Brown told York County Commissioners that health insurance rates were expected to increase by 24.9 percent, and that county employees would be asked to contribute 15 percent toward their health insurance. He said the alternative was to ask the county’s municipalities to pay more in taxes, or an employee layoff.

In October, County Manager Greg Zinser said potential layoffs ”“ at the time five were outlined in various county departments including the sheriff’s office ”“ could be mitigated, depending on the outcome of union contracts.

The complaint alleges the county refused to execute any tentative agreements unless the CPA agreed to a 15 percent per member contribution to insurance premiums.

The complaint further alleges violation of bargaining “ground rules,” and said taken together, these and other factors violate the county’s statutory duty to bargain in good faith.

For its part, the county said it pursued other insurance options suggested by the CPA, until the union dropped its request when presented with the costs and benefits of other insurance plans. The county, in its response, said the union violated ground rules for negotiations and made public statements to the news media about respective bargaining positions “in an intentional effort to subvert the bargaining process.”

In its response to the CPA complaint, county attorney Timothy O’Brien said any statements made to the news media by the county were comment on budget-related issues and a matter of legitimate public inquiry. It said the contract reached between the MSEA and the county “speaks for itself” and asks that the complaint be dismissed.

The county claims the complaint is barred in part by the statute of limitations, alleges the CPA itself did not bargain in good faith and said any layoffs that took place were the result of budgetary and funding decisions, and that the CPA was well aware of the possibility of layoffs.

The contract between the county government and the CPA remains unsettled.

— Senior Staff Writer Tammy Wells can be contacted at 324-4444 or twells@journaltribune.com.