And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Richard J. Ennis
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Ennis; Richard J.
Case #: 01752-I-78-00054
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN RE: ARBITRATION )
)
)
)
CITY OF
) MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND )
) OF
) NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR
This matter came on for arbitration pursuant
to RCW
41.56 which
provides a time frame for negotiations in connec-
tion with collective bargaining, to be followed
by a hearing
before a
fact-finding panel in the event the parties cannot
agree.
A fact finding hearing was had before Gary L.
Axon,
neutral
chairman, whose findings and recommendations are on
file. Both sides have challenged the fact finder's
report.
RCW 41.56.450 provides that,
in such case, the parties shall
proceed
to final and binding arbitration. The
arbitration
panel consists
of the following:
Richard J. Ennis, Neutral Chairman
Michael L. McClintock, Guild Member
Richard L. Campbe!l, City Member
Mr. McClintock and Mr.
Campbell were wholly partisan and, in
fact,
acted as advocates during the hearings.
Also appearing on behalf of the parties and
partici-
pating in the hearings were:
City: Robert
V. Prouty
Employee Relations
Specialist
Robert Beauinier T. J.
O'Brien
Corporation Counsel
Guild: Gary
Johnson, Guild President
Jerry Poindexter
Howard Russell
A pre-hearing conference was held on Monday, October
16, 1978, between the
panelists at which ground rules were
arrived
at and a tentative schedule established.
Hearings
were
commenced on October 18th, and continued on October 25, 27
and
31st.
A large number of exhibits were introduced by the
participants
on both sides and both sides called witnesses.
The hearings were conducted
informally.
Prior to presenting any evidence the city moved that
the
report of the fact finder be deemed Drima facie correct
unless
overcome by evidence to the contrary.
The guild re-
sisted bills arguing that the statute did not so
provide, but
did
provide that the fact-finders report should be considered
along
with all of the other factors set out in the statutory
guidelines. The motion was denied on that basis.
ISSUES
At the time of the fact finding hearing the city had
made
an offer of an 8 1/2 percent increase of
which 7 percent was
in
wages and 11/2 percent for fringe benefits. The guild was re-
questing a
20.94 percent increase which was reduced to 13 percent
going
into the arbitration.
The fact finder's report was in favor of the city on
the
four items directly related to base pay.
These items con-
sisted of base pay in itself, along with family
medical, lon-
gevity pay, and full family dental. The findings were in favor
of
the police on the issues pertaining to a second year contract,
shooting
qualification, and changing the payroll date.
At arbitration the police guild challenged the first four
findings
while the city challenged the last three.
The guild elected to accept the city's proposed change of
pay
date. There is also no dispute in regard
to the proposed
family
dental plan.
On the issue of base pay it appears that a more complete
and
detailed presentation was made by both sides at arbitration
than
was made at fact finding. It is also noted here that the
fact
finder did not have the benefit of later developments
which
will be discussed further on in this opinion.
Without question the largest and most hotly disputed
issue
is that of base pay. Well over one
hundred pages or
charts,
graphs, tables, schedules and compilations were intro-
duced in support of the positions of each side
and pertaining
to
the issue of base pay.
STATUTE
RCW 41.56.460 sets out the following standards and guide-
lines
to be considered in reaching a decision:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer.
(b) Stipulations
of the parties.
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of uniformed personnel of cities and counties res-
pectively of similar size on the West Coast of the
United
States.
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and services,
commonly
known as the cost of living.
(e) Changes
in any of the foregoing circumstances during
the pendancy of the proceedings.
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to the foregoing,
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consideration
in
the determination of wages, hours and conditions of employ-
ment.
(g) Findings
of fact made by the fact-finder pursuant
to
RCW 41.56.440.
The comparison cities used by the Guild were
Anaheim, Riverside, Fresno and
Tacoma, the
first four being
in
but
in addition, included
The Police Guild vigorously
and consistently objected to the
inclusion
of the latter two cities for reasons that will be
examined.
Prior to the enactment of the statute governing these
proceedings choice
of comparables was a matter of disagreement
in
the state legislature. Prior to passage
a bill had been
introduced
requiring comparison with the local job market.
Another bill required
comparison with the eleven Western States.
The bill finally enacted
requires that the comparison cities be
on
the West Coast.
This issue was further resolved in a Superior Court
determination
that the comparison cities be situated in
are
the closest in size to
HEARINGS
The hearings consisted largely of the presentation and
introduction
by both sides, of tabulations, charts, compile-
tions, schedules and graphs which embodied a
statistical analy-
sis
of wages, hours, working conditions and fringe benefits
enjoyed
by the
comparison
cities. The introduction of each exhibit
was ac-
companied
by testimony and argument in its support.
To say
that
there was disagreement between the parties on these points
would
be a gross understatement.
No exhibit was presented that was not challenged by
the
other side. Both sides consistently
contended that its
opponent's
graphs, charts and statistical comparisons were
either
invalid, or distorted, because of the inclusion of cer-
tam things that ought not to have been
included, or by the
failure
to include factors that ought to have been included.
Each side argued that his
adversary's figures should have been
weighted
to include other items, or if they were weighted,
then
they should not have been.
In this regard it is significant that the contestants
could
not agree as to just what the average
officer
was being paid right now. The Guild
contended that
the
only meaningful, real time figure was the amount on the
paycheck. The city took the position that a realistic
figure
must
include fringe benefits, and must also average out the
yearly
wage. These differences in computation
permeate many
of
the exhibits introduced by both sides.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The panel recognizes going in that it cannot determine
with
surgical precision just what amount of money is the "exact"
proper
pay for a
lutes
here. We can, at best, arrive at
something within a
reasonable
range.
As mentioned earlier, every conceivable argument has
been
raised by both sides in support of its own compilations,
and
in derogation of its opponent's.
Although these arguments
have
been considered, in the interest of reasonable brevity,
this
opinion will not attempt to treat with each contention
raised.
At the very outset we must determine what the average
tioned the city's approach is that of budgetary
outlay, an-
nualizes the pay rates and includes fringe
benefits. In so
doing
it arrives at a monthly figure of $1,418.00.
The Guild's real-time figure of $1,350 per month is
characterized
by the Guild as the amount the rank and file
police
officer receives. This is based on top
patrolman pay
and
is used because there are more officers in this rank than in
any
other and this rate of pay is applicable to two-thirds of
the
force. Since the Guild's approach seems
more direct and
realistic to
us we accept it.
The Guild's exhibits 33 and 34 show that officers in
the
four
22 percent behind the
WSU STUDY
In 1976, at the request of the City of
sity did a research study on comparable cities
in eleven
Western states in order to
determine what comparisons would be
'valid
in determining wages, hours and conditions of employment
for
uniformed personnel. The conclusions reached in the study
follow:
(1) The only city that is comparable to
is
well
as graphic profiles, indicate a close
similarity
between
(2) If we tolerate a higher degree of dissimilarity,
four
Fresno, and Riverside, and two
interior cities,
similarity
to
noted
that the similarities between
these
six cities are at best marginal, while the
similarity
between
strong.
(3)
to
kane to other independent cities in the eleven
Western States (e.g.,
City,
mentioned
in recent fact finding reports."
It should be noted here, that the statute governing
these
proceedings requires comparison with cities of similar
size
on the West Coast. In arriving at its
conclusions the
WSU study utilized a number of
factors of which, size, was
only
one. In fact, the WSU study entailed an
exhaustive analy-
sis
of a large number of factors and variables.
In our opinion
it
should be accorded a great deal of weight.
The city has justified its inclusion of Salt Lake City
and
Colorado Springs among its comparison cities because the
WSU study mentioned them along
with the four California cities
as
showing some similarity to Spokane. The
WSU study noted,
however,
that the similarity was marginal and went on to say
that
it was not useful to compare Spokane to other independent
cities. such as Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Tucson, and Colorado
Springs.
We note here, that the statute sets forth no require-
ments as to what cities shall be selected nor how
many cities
shall
be used. The cities used as comparables
were selected
because
they were within plus or minus 20 percent of the popu-
lation of Spokane.
The WSU study speaks of this as an arbi-
trary. choice
constituting a comparison in a limited sense.
The statute provides factors to be considered but
characterizes
them as guidelines. The tenor of the statute
makes
it clear that no slavish adherence to any one of the
factors
mentioned is required. We are not
precluded from
questioning
the validity of the selection of the comparison
cities
in the same manner as the WSU study has done.
The statute directs that West Coast cities be used.
However, in another guideline
it directs that we are to con-
sider other factors normally and traditionally
considered in
such
disputes, hence the City's inclusion of Salt Lake City
and
Colorado Springs. The WSU report found
that these cities
were
no more comparable than were the California cities.