The state should calculate and award back pay to state union employees, according to an opinion by an arbitrator in a recent grievance case.

It's unknown how much the back pay would be or when the state might award it, but the price tag could be hefty.

Union members had negotiated a contract with the state that employees would get varying raises starting Jan. 1 of this year, based on their salary and subject to satisfactory performance. The agreement, which covers 10,000 employees, was subject to legislative appropriation.

The increases were meant to equalize pay between veteran employees and newer hires, said Arcy Baca, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 477.

"We were trying to bring in parity across the board. People were coming in at mid-point range and there were veterans making something that wasn't even close to that," he said.

The negotiated amount called for raises ranging from 1 to 3.5 percent, depending on the employees "compa-ratio," or compensation ratio, which is an employee's salary divided by the midpoint salary of the job's pay range.

However, the state gave employees a 2.9 percent increase across the board, effective July 1, 2008.

"That just opened up the (salary) gap even more," Baca said.

Gov. Bill Richardson spokesman Gilbert Gallegos said little about the case, saying "There is continued dialogue on the interpretation of the arbitrator's decision."

He wouldn't say whether the state plans to challenge the decision.

According to the opinion and award, the Legislature appropriated $19.1 million for salary increases, and specified that $12.8 million would be used for 2.4 percent pay increases. A separate allocation set aside up to $500,000 for an additional half percent salary increase.

The 1.5 to 3 percent compa-ratio increase would have cost $2.7 million, according to information in the opinion and award from a State Personnel Office official.

The arbitrator's opinion and award says the State Personnel Office "shall calculate what the salary levels would have been for bargaining unit employees had their pay been adjusted for fiscal year 2009 by raising pay band mid-points by two percent, and had they been given the additional increases based on the compa-ratio percentages set forth" in a collective bargaining agreement.

It also says that if the 2010 fiscal year budget permits, the State Personnel Office "shall adjust the 2010 salary base mid-points of bargaining unit personnel to the level they would be at had they been raised two percent in fiscal year 2009. In addition, the fiscal year 2010 pay levels of bargaining unit personnel shall be adjusted to reflect what they would be if they had received in fiscal year 2009 the compa-ratio percentages set forth" in the collective bargaining agreement.

If that can't be done in the 2010 fiscal year, the adjustments should be made in 2011, the opinion and award states.

It also states that in 2010 if possible, or in 2011 if not, "bargaining unit employees shall be paid the difference between what they were paid in fiscal year 2009 and what they would have been paid had their pay been raised by increasing by two percent the salary base mid-points and had their pay levels been adjusted by increases based on the compa-ratio percentages set forth" in the collective bargaining agreement."

Baca said union employees, like everyone, are feeling the economic pinch. Several unions have a lawsuit pending over a provision approved by the Legislature this year and signed by the governor that calls for government employees to boost payroll contributions by 1.5 percent of their salaries and reduces the government's contribution by the same amount for the next two years.

"It's been said that we're greedy, we're lucky to have a job," Baca said. "It's not about having a job, it's not about greed, it's about following what's in the contracts."

Contact Kate Nash at 986-3036 or knash@sfnewmexican.com. Read her blog at www.greenchilechatter.com.