International
Association of Fire Fighters
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John J. Champagne
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
John J. Champagne
Case #: 02440-I-79-00064
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of an Interest
Arbitration Between
CITY OF
and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS
Appearing for the City of
J. David Andrews
Otto C. Klein III
Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen
& Williams
1900
Appearing for the
Thomas H. Grimm
Inslee,
Best, Chapin, Uhlman & Doezie,
P.S.
10800 Northeast 8th
1.
INTRODUCTION
This proceeding is an interest
arbitration hearing between the
City of
and
International Association of Firefighters
(hereinafter
referred to as "the
with
RCW 41.56.450 (as last amended by sec. 2, ch. 184,
Laws of
1979, 1st Ex. Sess.), the hearing on this matter was conducted on
March 4, 5 and 6, 1980, in
Bellevue, Washington, pursuant to a
submission
agreement (EX. 22) dated
was
represented by J. David Andrews and Otto G. Klein III,
attorneys
at law of the firm of Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen &
Williams, Seattle, and the
Union by Thomas H. Grimm, attorney at
law,
of the firm of Inslee, Best, Chapin, Uhlman & Doezie, of
Pursuant to the submission
agreement, John J. Champagne,
Esquire, of Olympia,
Washington, was selected as the sole arbiter
for
this interest arbitration proceeding.
The entire proceedings were
reported by a qualified court
reporter,
and a transcript consisting of three volumes, containing
a
total of 674 pages, was prepared by the court reporter. There
were a
total of 73 exhibits introduced at the hearing.
Under the submission
agreement, Ex 22, there were a total of
16 issues to be submitted to
the arbiter, to be presented, issue by
issue;
that is, each issue being tried separately. The submission
agreement
also provided that all evidence considered by the arbiter
must
be included in the submission agreement or introduced at the
hearing.
At the outset of the hearing,
it was disclosed that a
complaint
charging unfair labor practices had been filed with the
Public Employment Relations
Commission by the City of
under
date of
No.15 under the submission
agreement entitled "New Section -
Health
and Safety (Minimum Manning)." Under letter dated February
29, 1980, the Executive
Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission notified the
arbiter and the parties that the issue
above
listed was considered to be now in litigation before the
Commission and in said letter
ordered that issue withheld from the
interest
arbitration. The arbiter ruled that no evidence would be
permitted
on this particular issue and ordered that the issue be
excluded
from the interest arbitration.
At the outset of the hearing,
the parties were able to
stipulate
as to issue No. 7 (Holidays) as listed in the submission
agreement,
with the exception that the following paragraph was to
be placed
in the "Hours" section (Article XII) of the existing
collective
bargaining agreement between the parties:
"For clarification, it is
understood that if holiday time
is
worked and straight time pay received in lieu thereof, no
claim
shall be made that the employees' hours of work have been
affected
in any way."
(Joint Ex. 2)
It is extremely important in
this introduction to point out
the
criteria used by the arbiter in arriving at the arbiter's
award.
RCW 41.56.460 directs the arbiter to be cognizant of the
legislative
purpose of ch. 41.56 contained in RCW 41.56.430, and
also
consider the standards listed in RCW 41.56.460. RCW 41.56.430
reads:
Uniformed
personnel -- Legislative declaration. The intent
and
purpose of this is 1973 amendatory act is to recognize that t
there
exists a public policy in the state of
against
strikes by uniformed personnel as a means of settling
their
labor disputes; that the interrupted and dedicated
service
of these class of employees is vital to the welfare
and
public safety of the state of
such
dedicated and uninterrupted public service ice there should
exist
an effective and adequate alternative means of settling
disputes. (1973 c 131 _ l.)
The foregoing general
statement of legislative intent will be
considered
by the arbiter throughout in reaching the arbiter's
decisions
and awards.
The criteria set out in RCW
41.56.460 are as follows:
Uniformed personnel -- Arbitration panel --
Basis for
determination
ion . In making it's determination, the panel shall
be
mindful of the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and as additional
standards or guideline to aid it
in
reaching a decision, it shall take into consideration the
following
factors" ,
(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 the uniformed personnel of cities and counties
involved
in the proceeding 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
know 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. [1979 1st ex.s. c 184 § 3; 1973 c 131 §
5.]
The parties in an interest
arbitration have an exceedingly
difficult
task under 41.56.460(c) above. It is an equally
difficult
task for the arbiter to apply the guideline comparable
cities
selected by the parties to arrive at a just and fair award.
In this case the City followed
the literal mandate of the statute
and
selected cities from
cities
selected being of similar size and located on the west coast
of
the
only
in the State of Washington, and only those located in the Puget
Sound region, which cities
were of varying size and which contained
varying
elements of comparability to the City of
as
geographic location, size, assessed valuation, etc. were
concerned.
Both parties introduced extensive testimony and
evidence
concerning the comparability of the cities selected by
each
party, and each party spent considerable time cross-examining
the
opposing party's witnesses regarding the comparability of the
selected
cities, and in criticizing the opposition party's
selection
of the cities.
The cities of similar size
evidence presented by each of the
parties
with their respective elements of comparability, will be
considered
by the arbiter, the City's selection because it was
selected
pursuant to the mandate of the statue and the
selection
because the arbiter must give more weight to the
more
in common with the City of
State
of
comparability
or lack of comparability have been taken into
consideration.
II.
ISSUES
Of the original 16 issues
listed under the submission
agreement,
the parties presented 14 issues to the arbiter which are
as
follows:
1 - Preamble - Retroactivity
2 - Article VII - Reduction
and Recall
3 - Article X and Appendix B -
Education Incentive
4 - Article XI - Overtime
5 - Article XII - Hours
6 - Article XIII - Off Shift
Response
7 - Article XVII - Vacation
Leave
8 - Article XXIII - Savings
Clause
9 - Article XXVII - Medical
Coverage
10 - Article XXVIII - Term of
the Agreement
11 - Article IX and Appendix A - Wages
12 - New Section - LEOFF, II
(Pension)
13 - New Section - No
Pyramiding
14 - New Section - Longevity
DISCUSSION
ISSUE
NO. 1 - PREAMBLE - RETROACTIVITY
It is the Union's position
that the contract should be made
retroactive
to January 1, 1980, and the City's position that it
should
be March 1, 1980. The parties to this dispute began their
negotiations
for a new contract to replace the contract then in
existence
which would expire December 31, 1979, in May of 1979. The
parties
held approximately 16 meetings in an attempt to resolve
their
differences and were unable to do so which resulted in this
arbitration
hearing.
The City is opposed to making
the contract retroactive to
January 1, 1980 because they
feel it probably promotes stalling on
the
part of the Union. On the other hand, the Union wants the
contract
made retroactive to January 1, 1980 because if a later
date
were selected the Union feels this could promote stalling on
behalf
of the City.
DISCUSSION:
It is apparent from a reading
of the record herein that there
is a
potential for either of the parties to engage in stalling
tactics.
However, the potential for stalling perhaps lies more
with
the City. It the City were to engage in stalling tactics, the
the
longer they could stall, the more money they can save if a later
retroactive
date is selected by the arbiter. On the other hand, the
longer
Union stalls and a later retroactive date is selected by the
arbiter,
the longer the Union members are without their pay
increase
and other benefits, if any.
The legislative directive to
be found in RCW 41.56.430 to
prevent
strikes, is, in the opinion of the arbiter, better served
by
encouraging prompt settlement of collective bargaining agreement
negotiations
and the selection of a January 1, 1980 retroactive
date
would also act as reassurance to the uniformed members of the
Union that they would not be
financially penalized - a factor which
could
conceivably result in lesser tensions between the parties.
ARBITER 'S AWARD:
The contract shall be made
retroactive to January 1, 1980.
ISSUE NO. 2 - ARTICLE
VII - REDUCTION AND RECALL
City's position is illustrated
by City's Ex. 16 which is dated
February 28, 1980, one day
following the date of the submission
agreement.
The City desired to add the following final paragraph
to
Article VII placed in the collective bargaining agreement:
"Notwithstanding the
above, in a lay off situation, the
Union and it's
members agree to work with the employer to
preserve
the Department's minority and female hiring level and
its
paramedic capabilities."
The union's position is that
the City's proposal is
unnecessary
and ambiguous and basically unworkable.
DISCUSSION:
The Chief of the Department
testified that in his experience
with
the Bellevue Fire Department beginning back in the mid-
sixties,
the City had never had to lay off any personnel and
repeatedly
testified that he did not anticipate any lay offs over
the
next two years. On the contrary, there was testimony to the
effect
that the City was beginning to hire, commencing March 1,
1980, nine or ten additional
new firemen to man a new station in the
Bellevue
Fire Department. The clause as submitted by the City does
not
have any clear definition of the duty placed upon the Union or
upon
the City, for that matter; and it is ambiguous in this regard
It would be impossible under
the clause as submitted to determine
who
would be laid off, whereas the current reduction and recall
clause
is definite and maintains a strict seniority based reduction
and
recall system. There is ample testimony in the record to the
effect
that both parties are supportive of the affirmative action
and
paramedic program of the City, but to place the City's
suggested
clause in the contract would seriously affect the
existing
relationship, and perhaps morale, where there is at
present
no anticipated need for force reduction.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The contract should not
include a new final paragraph as
proposed
by the City. Article VII of the existing contract shall remain
the
same.
ISSUE
NO. 3 - ARTICLE X AND APPENDIX B - EDUCATION
INCENTIVE
It is the City's position that
educational incentive pay be
amended
to provide for straight dollar amounts rather than a
percentage
of base salary. The Union's position is to retain the
current
percentage of base salary compilation.
Discussion:
The City's position is that
education incentive pay should not
be
automatically increased merely because wages may have been
increased
under a collective bargaining agreement, nor under
arbitration
for that matter. An educational incentive pay plan has
been
in effect for many years, and was proposed by the then Chief of
the
Department in 1970. The training received and education gained
is a
benefit not only to the individual fireman but also to the City
as
well. This is evidenced by the recognition that the Bellevue
Fire Department is one of the
finest, if not the finest, in the
Puget Sound region of the
State of Washington, and perhaps the
entire
State of Washington. There is no doubt in The
arbiter's mind
that
the educational incentive program plays a significant part in
the
high esteem in which the Department is held . The arbiter can
find
nowhere in the record or in the briefs adequate rationale or
substantiation
for this change in the contract as proposed by the
City, other than the fact that
it will in the future, save the City
money
at least for the term of the new contract. To reduce an
incentive
that has proven its value, without adequate rationale, is
not
indicated.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
Article X and Appendix B -
Education Incentive - shall remain
unchanged.
ISSUE NO. 4 - ARTICLE
XI - OVERTIME
The Union's position t ion : The Union proposes that mandatory
overtime
be paid at the rate of two times the regular hourly rate
and
that, in addition, the base for computing overtime pay be
changed
from the present 2,763 hours to 2,080 hours. The Union
proposed
no change in the present contract regarding payment of
time-and-a-half
of the hourly rate for discretionary overtime.
The City's position: The City
believes that overtime should
be
calculated a t the t rate of one-and-a-half times the
firefighter
's base hourly rate.
DISCUSSION: