City
of
And
Teamsters
Local Union No. 763
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 02566-I-80-00066
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) ARBITRATOR'S
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) OPINION
)
) AND
BETWEEN )
) AWARD
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
)
"THE
AND )
THE CITY OF
)
"THE CITY" OF "THE
EMPLOYER" )
HEARING SITE: HoIiday Inn
HEARING DATES: May 27, 28 and
ARBITRATOR: Mr. John H. Abernathy
APPEARING FOR THE
Mr. John Rabine Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. Michael J. Meglemre, Business Representative
Ms. Lois Eaden, Research
Analyst, Snohomish
Justice Planning
Mr. Scott Crichton,
Sergeant for City Police
Mr. Mark
C. Endresen, Research and Economics Advisor,
Joint Council of Teamsters #28
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Mr. Lawrence B. Hannah, Attorney at Law
of the
of Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen and Williams
Mr. Cabot Dow, City Negotiator
Mr. M. J. Hrdlicha, Mayor, City of
Mr. John Paddoch, Police Chief
Mr. Marvin Listoe,
Executive Administrative Assistant to
the Mayor.
EXHIBITS
Joint Exhibit #1 1978-79 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #2 1976-78 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #3 1975 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #4 1973-74 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #5 1971-72 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #6 . 1970 Police
Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #7 1980-83 Agreement, City of
Support Service Employees Local 763
Joint Exhibit #8 1979-81 Agreement, City of
Works Local 763
Joint Exhibit #9 1980-82 Agreement; City of
Local 1984
Union Exhibit #1 Black Notebook - Labor Agreements from
Cities
Selected by
Union Exhibit #2 Proposals and Counterproposals by
Parties in
(A-E) Negotiations .
City Exhibit #1 Arbitration Booklet
City Exhibit #2 Letter Schurke to Hannah and Rabine,
June 2,
1980
City Exhibit #3 Unfair Labor Practice Complaint and Cover
Letter,
BACKGROUND
Teamsters Local #763 (the
Police Officers,
and the City of
were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement which expired on
representatives
met several times to negotiate a successor agree-
ment. On
agreed
that (in whole or in part) twenty-two articles of the
contract
would remain unchanged or amended as agreed upon to date
(Union Exhibit 2D) . Following further
negotiations and mediation
in
the fall and winter, the parties were unable to reach agree-
ment on several remaining issues and sought
interest arbitration
to
resolve the issues in dispute. Pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450,
John H. Abernathy was selected
as impartial arbitrator on April 14
1980 and hearing dates. of May 27 and 28 were set.
The parties
subsequently
waived the requirement for a three-person arbitra-
tion board and agreed to submit the remaining
items in dispute to
a
single arbitrator.
Prior to the arbitration hearing, the City filed an
unfair labor
practice
complaint against the
Employee
Relations Commission. The City charged that the
had
insisted on bargaining to the point of impasse over its
proposes
minimum crew requirement in the new contract.
The
City asserted that minimum
manning is a non-mandatory subject of
bargaining
and that therefore the
provision
to the point of impasse and its unilateral submission
of
such a subject to interest arbitration constituted a viola-
tion of its duty to bargain in good faith. When the arbitration
hearing
began on Nay 27, 1980, the Executive Secretary of the
by
letter on June. 2, 1980 - City Exhibit 2) that the minimum man-
ning issue was not arbitrable
and that no record should be made on
that
issue pending the outcome of the unfair labor practice charge.
The remaining issues properly before the arbitrator at
the
hearing
were:
1. Management Rights and Entire Agreement .
2. Wages
With respect to these two issues, at the hearings held
May 27,
May 28 and continued on
tunity to make opening statements, introduce
documents, examine
and
cross-examine sworn witnesses, and make arguments in sup-.
port
of their positions. The parties agreed
to waive post hearing
briefs.
RULINGS ON MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS
During the second day of the hearing,
presented a
summary of its wage proposal (Union Exhibit 1-U10) .
The City strenuously objected
to the admission of this document
into
evidence. The City asserted that the
an
escalation of bargaining demands and as such constituted bad
faith
bargaining. The Arbitrator denied the
City's objection
as. to admissibility of the document on the grounds that it
did
represent. the Union's current position but indicated
he would
consider
the objection as to weight, when reviewing all the
evidence. The City then made a motion for a continuance
on
the
grounds of surprise and lack of opportunity to study and
prepare
to respond to the Union's proposal. The
Arbitrator
found
that the City had shown good cause for continuance and
therefore
granted the City's motion with the understanding that
the
City would present its case in chief on May 28 and that the
continuance
would be solely for purposes of rebuttal of each
party's
case in chief. The hearing was continued
and completed
on
June 17, 1980 in accordance with this understanding
During the interim between May 28 and June 17, the City
filed
a
second unfair labor practice complaint against the Union with
the
Washington PERC. The City charged that
the Union's wage
proposals
in arbitration constituted bad faith bargaining in
that
they escalated or materially altered the Union's prior
proposals
and positions. At the June 17th hearing,
the Arbi-
trator admitted an amended Union wage proposal. The City again
objected
and the Arbitrator again ruled the same as previously.
The City subsequently amended
its second unfair labor practice
complaint
to include this further amended Union proposal.
Deter-
mination of the unfair labor practice charge is
outside the
Arbitrator's authority and
jurisdiction Therefore, pending
the
Washington PERC's determination of the charge, the Arbitra-
tor's position, consistent with his rulings at
the hearings, is
that
the Union's wage proposals were properly admitted and that
the
City's objection to the proposals will be considered by the
Arbitrator
in weighing the evidence.
The City's other major objection was to admission of the
comparability
data used by the Union to support its wage pro-
posals. The
Arbitrator admitted the Union's data at the hearings
but
agreed to consider the City's objection in weighing the
evidence. The applicable State statute, RCW 41.56.460,
requires
the
Arbitrator to consider, among other factors, the wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment of uniformed personnel in
the
affected city with those of other cities of similar size
on
the west coast of the U.S. The Union
used seven cities in
the
State of Washington for comparison purposes.
While Wash-
ington cities are "west coast" cities,
the clear implication
of
the statute is that Oregon and California cities will be
considered
as well. Thus, while it is valid to
consider the
seven
Washington cities proposed by the Union because they
clearly
are west coast cities, they are not sufficient to
provide a
valid comparison that meets statutory requirements.
lt is valid to include the seven Washington
cities, but compari-
sons
will not be limited to those cities. The
Arbitrator, there-
fore
concludes that the Union did not meet the statutory require-
ment of "cities of similar size on the west
coast of the United
States" and will give
greater weight to the west coast compari-
sons
provided by the City.
The statute also requires the Arbitrator to consider
"stipulations
of the parties." The Union argued
that since the
City had not objected to the
use of the seven Washington compari-
son
cities in prior negotiations, they could properly be used
in
arbitration. The City, however, denied
having agreed to use
these
cities in arbitration and instead had prepared supporting
data
for its own proposal drawn from Oregon, Washington and
California cities whose
population ranged from 20% less to
20% greater than that of Lynnwood.1 Also,
the statutory require-
ments of comparisons with west coast cities came
after the
negotiations
for the previous agreement when the seven Washing
ton
cities were used. Furthermore, the
statute does not require
the
use of west coast cities. The Arbitrator
therefore must
conclude
that the parties had not stipulated to the seven Washing-
ton
cities for comparison purposes in arbitration.
In light of the foregoing, the Arbitrator finds that the
comparative
data provided by the Union should be given little
weight
in the Arbitrator's review of the evidence.
1 The City identified all Washington,
Oregon and California cities
whose
population ranged from 20% less to 20%, greater than Lynn-
wood's,
then reduced the resulting number of California cities
(29) to
a more manageable size by factoring out California cities
that
did not have a total assessed property valuation similar
to
Lynnwood's. While the statute does not
set forth a method-
ology for identifying comparable cities, the
Arbitrator finds
the
City's methodology reasonable and appropriate.
RELEVANT CONTRACT LANGUAGE
ISSUE #1 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT
ARTICLE XVIII MANAGEMENT
RIGHTS
18.1 The Union recognizes the prerogative of the
Employer to operate and manage its affairs
in all respects in accordance
with its responsi-
bilities,
and the powers and authority which
the Employer possesses.
18.2 The Union recognizes the exclusive right of the
Employer to establish reasonable work
rules.
18.3 The Employer has the right to schedule overtime
work as required in a manner
most advantageous
to the Employer and consistent
with the
requirements of municipal
employment and
public interest.
18.4 It is understood by the parties that every
incidental duty connected with
operations
enumerated in job descriptions
is not always
specifically described. Nevertheless, it
is intended that all such duties
shall be
performed by the employee.
18.5 The Employer reserves the right to discipline
or discharge for cause as
defined by the Civil
Service Laws and Rules of the City of Lynn-
wood. The Employer reserves the right to lay
off for lack of work or funds,
or the occurrence
of conditions beyond the control
of the
Employer or where such continuation of work
would be wasteful and
unproductive. The
Employer shall have the right to determine
reasonable schedules of work and
to establish
the methods and processes by
which such work
is performed.
18.6 There shall exist at the option of the Employer
a reserve unit of commissioned
law enforcement
officers to which the provisions
of this Agree-
ment
shall not apply.
18.7 This reserve unit of commissioned law enforce-
ment
officers may be utilized in an emergency
situation or, to supplement the
regular patrol
force on a limited basis and/or
when manpower
is restricted by vacations or
short term ill-
ness for performing those duties
normally per-
formed by bargaining unit
personnel; provided
however, in no event shall this
reserve unit
be more than ten (10) in number
or thirty (30)
percent of the recognized
bargaining unit,
whichever is greater.
ARTICLE XXII ENTIRE AGREEMENT
22.1 The Agreement expressed herein in writing con-
stitutes
the entire Agreement between the
parties and no oral statement
shall add to or
supersede any of its provisi