City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 03159-I-80-00074
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DECISION
AND AWARD
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
) OF ARBITRATION PANEL
BETWEEN )
)
)
"EPOA" OR "THE
ASSOCIATION" )
AND )
)
)
"THE CITY" ) Interest
Arbitration
HEARING SITE: Holiday Inn
HEARING DATE: January 2 and 3, 1981
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator
and For the
Chairman Association For
the City
John H. Abernathy Michael Campbell
City
Attorney
APPEARING FOR THE ASSOCIATION
Lt. Donald Pratt
Mr. Norm Lecours, President
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Mr. Lawrence Hannah, Attorney at Law
Mr. Cabot Dow, Labor Relations Consultant
Mr. Larry Foster, Personnel Analyst
Mr. William Cushman, Finance Director
EXHIBITS
Assn. Exhibit 1 Chart
of Comparable Cities
Assn. Exhibit 2 Association
Position Statement for Article VII -
Wages
Assn. Exhibit 3 Labor
Agreement for 1980
Assn. Exhibit 4 Crime
Index
Assn. Exhibit 5 Assault
on Officers
Assn. Exhibit 6 Memorandum
from Mr. Pratt re Failure of Dis
patchers to Number Police Responses and Events
Assn. Exhibit 7 Snohomish
Assn. Exhibit 8 Association
Position Statement for Article XI -
Hours of Duty
Assn. Exhibit 9 Association
Position Statement for Article XII -
Holidays
Assn. Exhibit 10 Association
Position Statement for Article XVI -
Prevailing Rights
Assn. Exhibit 11 Association
Position Statement for Article XVII -
Management Rights
Assn. Exhibit 12 Association
Position Statement for Article XVIII -
Overtime and Callback Pay
Assn. Exhibit 13 Association
Position Statement for LEOFF II -
Insurance Benefits
Assn. Exhibit 14 Association
Position Statement for Article XXXII -
Compensatory Time
Assn. Exhibit 15 Association
Position Statement for Article XXIV -
Duration
Assn. Exhibit 16 City
Position Statement for Election of
Remedies (New Article)
City Exhibit 1 Statement
of Mr. Langus
City Exhibit 2 Statement
of Mr. Doughty
City Exhibit 3 Chart
of Comparable Cities
City
Exhibit 4 City Position Statement. for Article VII -
Salary Schedule
City Exhibit 5 City
Position Statement for Article XI -
Hours
of Duty
City Exhibit 6 City
Position Statement for Article XII -
Holidays
City Exhibit 7 City
Position Statement for Article XVI -
Prevailing Rights
City Exhibit 8 City
Position Statement for Article XVII -
City Exhibit 9 City
Position Statement for Article XVIII -
Overtime and Callback Pay
City Exhibit 10 Last
Offer of
Article XVIII - Overtime and Callback Pay
City Exhibit 11 City
Position Statement for Article XXVII -
Insurance Benefits
City Exhibit 12 City
Position Statement for Article XXXII -
Compensatory Time
City Exhibit 13 City
Position Statement for Article XXXIV -
Duration
City Exhibit 14 City
Position Statement re Election of
Remedies New Article
BACKGROUND
Everett, Washington, is a city of approximately 56,000
population
located 25 miles north of
is
approximately 40 square miles in area, is classified as a
first
class city, and is operated under the mayor-council form
of
government. The Everett Police
Department consists of approxi-
mately 95 officers and 22 full-time civilian
employees. The
organization
which serves as the sole bargaining agent for all
commissioned
members of the Everett Police Department, excluding
the
Chief of Police and Deputy Chief. The
Association repre
sents, therefore, approximately 93 uniformed officers. The
parties
have had previous labor agreements.
In June, 1980, the city of
tions for a successor collective bargaining
agreement. After
some
twelve negotiation meetings and five mediation sessions,
the
Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission by letter of
parties
were at impasse and that interest arbitration should
proceed
as provided in RCW 41.56.450 on the following issues:
Compensation and Salary Overtime/Callback
Hours of Duty Insurance
Holidays Compensatory
Time
Prevailing Rights Duration
Management Rights Election
of Remedies
Consequently, the EPOA chose Michael Campbell to serve as
their
advocate arbitrator on the arbitration panel and the City
chose
Mr. Bradford N. Cattle, City Attorney, to serve as the
City
advocate. Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Cattle then chose Mr. John
H. Abernathy, neutral
arbitrator, to serve as Chairman. In
accordance
with the procedures set forth in RCW 41.56.450,
the
arbitration panel established a date, time and place for the
hearing
and provided reasonable notice thereof to the parties
of
the dispute. An arbitration hearing was
held on January 2,
and
3, 1981, at the Holiday Inn,
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the
arbitration
panel
was properly constituted and that the statutory time
lines
for the setting of a meeting had been met or waived. The
parties
also agreed to the waiving of post hearing briefs. The
Association arranged that the
hearing be recorded by a court
reporter
and agreed to be responsible for the cost of transcripts
for
the panel. The chairman ruled that the
hearing would be
closed
and deliberations would commence upon receipt of the
transcript.
At the arbitration hearing each party was given the oppor-
tunity to present arguments, evidence and
testimony in support
of
its position and arguments, evidence and testimony in rebut-
tal of the position of the other party. All witnesses were
sworn
and subject to cross examination.
At the completion of the arbitration hearing on January
3rd,
and
receipt of the transcript of the hearing on January 20th,
the
neutral arbitrator convened the arbitration panel in Seat-
tle, Washington, on
ing the facts, evidence and arguments on each
issue.
The report that follows will set forth a preliminary
ruling
and
then, in summary fashion, the positions of the parties, the
major
arguments on each issue followed by the panel's analysis,
findings,
and decision.
PRELIMINARY RULING
RCW 41.56.460 requires the arbitration panel, in making
its
determination, to be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 which is as follows:
"To recognize that there exists
a public policy
in the State of
uniformed personnel as a means
of settling
their labor disputes: That the uninterrupted
and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the
welfare and public
safety of the State of
Washington: That to
promote such dedicated and
uninterrupted public
service there should exist an
effective and ade-
quate
alternative means of settling disputes."
The statute further provides
that the alternative means of
settling
disputes established is interest arbitration.
However,
in
making its determination, the interest arbitration panel is
required
by RCW 41.56.460 to take into consideration the follow-
mg
factors:
"(a) The constitutional
and statutory authority
of the employer.
"(b)
Stipulations
of the parties.
"(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and condi-
tions
of employment of the uniformed person-
nel of
cities and counties involved in the
proceedings with the wages,
hours and
conditions of employment of
uniformed
personnel of cities and counties
respec-
tively
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 circum-
stances during the pendency of the preceding;
and
"(f) Such other factors not confined to the
fore-
going which are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in the determina-
tion
of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment . "
Throughout the course of the hearing, there was
considerable
dispute
between the City and the Police Officers Association
with
regard to the selection of cities to be used as comparable
cities
in comparing of wages, hours and conditions of employment.
The Police Officers Association
chose to use cities in the Puget
Sound area or in the State of
Washington generally, while the
City used cities in
Washington, Oregon and California, arguing
that
these were cities of similar size on the west coast of
the
United States. In rebuttal, the Police
Officers Association
argued
that some of the comparative cities chosen by the City of
Everett were not coastal
cities because they did not appear on
coastal
waters and consequently did not meet the concept of
cities
on the west coast of the United States.
On the other hand,
the
City argued that the language of RCW 41.56.460(c) was clear.
It requires comparisons with
cities of similar size on the west
coast
of the United States. As the term
"west coast of the United
States" is normally used, it does not mean that they have to be
on
the coastal salt waters to be considered a city on the west
coast
of the United States. The City also
objected to the
EPOA's
choice of cities to be used for comparison purposes because
they
were not of similar size, ranging in size from 156,000 to
17,200. The EPOA defended its choice of cities
as being in the
Seattle-Tacoma
area covered by the CPI.
After due consideration of the arguments of both parties,
this
Arbitration Panel ruled that the language of RCW 41.56.460(c)
controls
in this case and that such language is clear and un-
ambiguous
and will be given its ordinary meaning.
This language
requires
comparisons of cities and counties respectively of similar
size
on the west coast of the United States, and as normally used,
the
term "west coast of the United States" does not require the
strained
interpretation of being on coastal waters as the
Association so argued, but
applies to cities of comparable size
in
Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska.
The City of Everett utilized the 1980 U.S. Census to
identify
cities
in Washington, Oregon and California that had populations
between
20,000 more and 20,000 less than the City of Everett.
The range in population,
therefore, was between 34,300 and
74,300. This process led to the identification
of five
Washington cities, three
Oregon cities and 52 California cities.
To reduce the number of
California cities to a manageable
size,
the City of Everett applied two other selection criteria
to
the 52 California cities. California
cities had to have
populations
within 5,000 and assessed property valuation within
30%
of that of Everett.
After these criteria were applied, only
six
California cities remained in the comparison.
Thus, five
Washington cities, three
Oregon cities and six California
cities,
or a total of 14 cities were used by the City of
Everett
in their comparisons.
The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds the
methodology
used
by the City of Everett to select cities of similar size
to
be more consistent with statutory requirements.
The EPOA
argument
that only cities in the Seattle-Tacoma CPI area should
be
used is not required by statute and, in fact, confuses two
statutory
criteria - comparability and cost of living.
For these reasons the Arbitration Panel finds the 14
cities
selected
by the City of Everett to be more in accordance with
the
requirements of RCW 41.56.460(c), namely cities "of similar
size
on the west coast of tile United States." The majority of
the
Arbitration Panel will, therefore, place greater weight
to
the comparisons presented by the City in this respect than
those
presented by the Association.
ISSUES AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
ISSUE 1 - COMPENSATION AND SALARIES
The EPOA is seeking a 19.5% increase in the salaries of
all
Positions in the bargaining unit. The
EPOA argued that
the
May, 1979 to May, 1980 Consumer Price Index for the Seattle-
Tacoma
area increased by 17.5 percent. Since May, the CPI
has
increased an additional 3.4%. Based on
the CPI increase
alone,
the EPOA argued its demand for a 19.5% salary increase
is
reasonable and realistic. Furthermore,
the City's last
salary
offer of 8.5%. to EPOA was lower than the 12% the City
offered
the Everett Fire Department and would further increase
the
disparity between police and fire department salaries in
the
City. EPOA also argued on the basis of
their selection
of
cities for comparison the 19.5% increase was justified.
The City has proposed an 8.5% salary increase to be effec-
tive January 1, 1981 (the day after the current contract
expired -
Association Exhibit #3). The City's
proposal
would
generate a minimum of $117 per month at Step A (Police
Officer step)
of the salary schedule up to $201 per month for
the
Captain rate. Taking into account the
movement between
steps
in the schedule, the City argued, would result in an
average
increase of 10.35% for the 93 employees in the bargain
ing unit.
This compares favorably with the salaries in effect
on
January 1, 1981 in the 14 cities in the City's comparable
cities