City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 02439-I-79-00063
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DECISION
AND AWARD
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
) OF
ARBITRATION PANEL
)
BETWEEN
)
) ON
THE ISSUES OF
) 1. wages
) 2. shift
differential
"THE POLICE ASSOCIATION" ) 3. sick leave
accrual
) 4. effective date of award
AND )
CITY OF YAK IMA ) IN THE
)
) City
of
"THE
CITY" ) Case
No. 2439-I-9-63
HEARING SITE: Holiday Inn
HEARING DATES: January 28 and 29, 1980
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator Panel
Member Panel Member
and Appointed
by Appointed by
Chairman the Association the City
John H. Abernathy George D. Eastman Anthony F. Menke,
Esq
APPEARING FOR THE ASSOCIATION
Mr. John H. Rayback, Attorney
at Law
Mr. Michael Amos, Chairman
Mr. Victor M. Kusske, Patrolman
Mr. Michael A. Welton,
Patrolman
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Mr. L. J. Wittenberg, Assistant City Manager
Mr. H. J. LaRue, Chief of
Police
Mr. R. H. Weaver, Personnel Officer
Mr. R. J. Capen, Police Captain
Mr. A. C. Zerbach, Finance
Director
EXHIBITS
Joint Exhibit #1 1977-79 Agreement
City Exhibit #1 Complaint - ULP and Appeal (package)
BACKGROUND
During 1979 the
City of
to
the 1977-79 collective bargaining agreement (Joint Exhibit #1).
While the parties were able to resolve many of the
issuing in
dispute
during negotiations, they were unable to resolve others;
consequently,
mediation was requested. Further items
were resolved
in
mediation; however, on
of
the mediator, Executive Director Marvin L. Schurke of
the
Public Employment Relations
Commission certified that the remain-
ing issues were to be submitted to interest
arbitration as pro-
vided
in RCW 41.56.450. Schurke
also informed the parties to
proceed
with the appointment of partisan arbitrators and with the
selection
of a neutral chairman as provided in WAC 391-21-720,
et seq. The City named Mr. Anthony F. Menke of the
firm
of Elofson, Vincent, Hurst and Crossland
as their Partisan
Arbitrator; and the Police
Association appointed Mr. George D.
Eastman of Eastman Enterprises
in
Arbitrator. The Partisan Arbitrators then chose John H. Aber-
nathy, Arbitrator of Portland, Oregon, to serve
as Neutral
Arbitrator
and Chairman. Upon
his appointment as Chairman and
Neutral Arbitrator, Mr.
Abernathy wrote the partisan arbitrators
and
the parties accepting appointment in January 1980 and naming
January 28 and 29, 1980 as the
hearing dates. In later cor-
respondence to the partisan arbitrators and the
parties, Panel
Chairman Abernathy asked the
parties to submit lists of issues.
The parties subsequently
complied and their lists of issues
were
in agreement with respect to the following issues:
1. wages
2. shift differential
3. sick leave accrual
4. effective date of the award
There was, however, a dispute over the issue of shift
scheduling. The City moved that arbitration on this issue
be
withheld
until the Unfair Labor Practice charge in this matter
was
decided. The Arbitration Panel informed
the parties they
would
consider the City's motion as a threshhold issue at
the
arbitration
hearing. Subsequently, at the
arbitration hearing
on
and
testimony from the parties on this issue, and on January 29th
entered a
written decision on this issue which stated in relevant
part.
"... This Arbitration Panel will not hear and
will not make an
award on the shift scheduling
issue at this
time. If, however, the Public
Employment Relations Commission determines
this
is a mandatory issue
of bargaining, or if the
Public Employment Relations Commission specifi-
cally
orders this Arbitration Panel to hear this
issue, this
Arbitration Panel reserves the right
to reconvene this
hearing within a reasonable
period of time after
either such decision for the
purpose of receiving
evidence and argument on the
issue."
Copies of that written decision were then hand delivered
to
the counsels for the parties on
to
Mr. Marvin Schurke, Executive Director of PERC on the
same
date. At that point the hearing continued on the
other issues in
dispute
throughout the remainder of January 28th and into
January 29th.
In compliance with Chapter 184, Public Employees Collective
Bargaining-Impasse Procedures
for Uniformed Personnel, Section 2,
the
Arbitration Panel, once constituted, promptly established a
date,
time and place for the hearing. The
hearing was held.
Each party had the opportunity
to present evidence and make
arguments,
and to file post-hearing briefs. No
member of the
arbitration
panel presented a case for party at the proceedings.
The Impartial Chairman made a
tape recording of the proceedings
and
has consulted with other members of the arbitration panel.
The parties requested, and the Arbitration Panel granted,
permission
for the granting of post-hearing briefs.
On timely
receipt
of the City's brief on February 15th and the Associa-
tion's brief on February 11th, the Arbitration
Panel closed the
hearing
effective
On
offices
of Arbitrator John H. Abernathy in
the
purpose of reviewing the evidence and testimony provided in
this case. The report that follows contains written
findings of
facts
and decisions on the issues and disputes based on the
evidence
presented.
In making its decisions, the Arbitration Panel was
mindful
of
"the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430" and
additionally
was mindful of the guidelines provided in Section 3,
Chapter 184, as follows:
A. The
constitutional and statutory authority of the
Employer;
B. Stipulations
of the parties;
C. Comparisons
of the wages, hours and conditions of
employment of the
uniformed personnel of cities and
counties involved in
the proceedings with the wages,
hours, and
conditions of employment of uniformed
personnel of cities
and counties respectively of
similar size on the
west coast of the
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 pendency 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
employment.
The parties did not argue the constitutional and
statutory
authority
of the Employer. The parties only
stipulated to their
issues
in dispute and to the positions of the parties on this
issue. The parties then only argued comparison of
wages,
comparability,
the cost of living, and changes in the cost of
living
which occurred during the pendency of the
proceedings.
In the report that follows, the issue will be identified,
the
positions of the parties on each issue will be outlined,
followed
by the Arbitration Panel's evaluation of the evidence
and
arguments in support of these Positions, and finally, the
award
on each issue.
ISSUES AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Issue #1 - Wages
The existing salary schedule, including the number of
officers
and the cost of that salary schedule is reproduced
below.
SALARY SCHEDULE AS OF
Monthly No. of Total
Wage Officers Cost
Patrolman, Step 1 1109 2 2,218
2 1198 5 5,990
3 1265 - -
4 1322 2 2,644
5 1505 51 76,755
Sergeant 4 1584 2 3,168
5 1662 13 21,606
112,381
(per month)
The Association presented a salary proposal which would
result
in salary improvements as follows:
YPPA SALARY PROPOSAL
Monthly
Wage (Months) Cost
Patrolman, Step 1 1316
3 3,948.
2 1422 55 78,210
3 1501 26 39,026
4 1569 19 29,811
5 1786 605 1,080,530
1,231,525 (annual cost
for patrolmen)
Sergeant 4 1956 - -
5 2052 180 369,360 (annual cost
for sergeants)
This Association proposal
includes the basic salary increase,
plus
any step increases that members of the bargaining unit are
eligible
for during the year. It does not include
the five
vacancies
which have occurred during the year. The
Association
estimated
the cost of this proposal without the five vacant
positions
for 1980 to be $1,600,885 which is $184,223 over the
compensation
paid for these same positions in 1979.
The Associa-
tion argues that this represents roughly a 13%
increase. In sup-
port
of their position, the Association pointed to the increase
in the
cost of living of approximately 11.1% that had occurred at
the
beginning of these negotiations, and that the cost of living
had
increased to approximately 18.5% from the last's year's con-
tract
during negotiations, and during, the pending of this hearing,
to
the date of the hearing. The Association
pointed out that
Consumer Price Index (CPI) as
well as changes therein during the
pendency of negotiations The Association argued that the Arbi-
tration Panel should award the. Association's wage
proposal for
that
reason alone.
In terms of comparability, the Association presented
materials
comparing the salaries in some 15
These cities and their
populations are as follows:
1979
Populations
Bell ingham 40,000
The Association found the average salary for the top step
police
officer in these cities for 1979 to be $1593 per month,
and
police officer salaries ranged between $1780 and $1786 per
month
for 1980. The 1979 top step police
officers in
received
$1505, or some $88 per month less than the 1979
average. When a similar comparison is made for the top
step
sergeant
Position, the average in these cities was found to be
$1825 for 1979 and between
$2045 and $2054 for 1980, where the
City of
Association argued that this
comparison further justified the wage
increase
sought by the Association.
The Association also contended that the City has the
ability
to
pay such salaries which was demonstrated by the 9.5% to 29.4%
increases
granted to management personnel within the City.
The City, on the other hand, maintained its last offer of
an
8.5% increase in the base salary schedule.
The City argued
that
when viewed from a total compensation perspective, and
considering
not only cost of living but comparability of cities
of
similar size, and the serious financial limitations of the
City, this is an equitable
wage offer. The City's proposed
increase
would result in a 1980 salary schedule as follows:
PROPOSED 1980 CITY SALARY SCHEDULE