City of Everett

And

Everett Police Officers Association “EPOA” or “The Association”

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      John H. Abernathy

Date Issued:   03/05/1981

 

 

Arbitrator:         Abernathy; John H.

Case #:              03159-I-80-00074

Employer:          City of Everett

Union:                Everett Police Officers Association

Date Issued:     03/05/1981

 

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE                                     )           DECISION AND AWARD

INTEREST ARBITRATION                                               )

                                                                                                )          OF ARBITRATION PANEL

BETWEEN                                                                             )

                                                                                                )

                                                                                                )          

EVERETT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION  )         

"EPOA" OR "THE ASSOCIATION"                                )

AND                                                                                       )

                                                                                                )

CITY OF EVERETT, WASHINGTON                                )          

                                                                                                )

            "THE CITY"                                                             )           Interest Arbitration

 

HEARING SITE:      Holiday Inn

                                    Everett, Washington

 

 

HEARING DATE:    January 2 and 3, 1981

 

 

ARBITRATION PANEL:

 

Impartial Arbitrator

            and                                          For the

     Chairman                                       Association                             For the City

           

John H. Abernathy                             Michael Campbell                  Bradford N. Cattle

                                                            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 County Police Services Events Cards

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 Union in Mediation re

                                    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 Seattle at the mouth of

Snohomish River on the eastern shore of Puget Sound.  The city

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

Everett Police Officers Association (EPOA) is a private labor

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 Everett and the EPOA began negotia

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 November 17, 1980, certified that the

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, Everett, Washington.

            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 January 28, 1981, for the purpose of review-

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 Washington against strikes by

            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.

            The City of Everett also argued that the CPI is not a cost

of living index; rather it is a measure of changes in the prices

of a given market basket of goods over time.  Furthermore, the

City argued, the CPI overstates the cost of living particularly

the housing component (especially the home purchase and home

financing elements).  In addition, where the Employer pays a

substantial portion of medical-dental insurance, as here, then

a substantial portion of the medical component should be

factored out of the CPI.  The City also argued the CPI does

not accurately measure a consumer's substitution of products

for those in the market basket, nor the quality improvements

that mean the market basket of goods is not truly a fixed market

basket.  For these reasons, the City argued, the CPI over-

states the cost of living by 3 to 6%.  Thus, the CPI should not

be used to justify a percentage increase in wages for each per-

centage increase in CPI.

            The City also argued that its proposal was fiscally responsi-

ble and in the best interests of the taxpayers of the community.

 

Analysis and Award

            The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds that the

evidence will not justify the 19.5% wage increase requested

by the Association.  The City's attack on the validity of the

CPI was not refuted by EPOA and the City's comparative salaries

approach was afforded greater weight in light of the Panel's

preliminary ruling.  On the other hand, the majority of the

Panel finds the 8.5% direct wage increase offered by the City

to be insufficient to allow the City to remain comparable, given

the wage settlements for the current year.  Therefore, a majority

of the Panel awards a direct wage increase of 11% to be applied

to the salary schedule in accordance with the City proposal.

 

                                                ISSUE II - HOURS

 

            The Patrol Officers of the City park their cars at the

City Service Center, pick up a police car and drive the police

car to City Hall for the beginning of the shift briefing.  The

reverse procedure is followed when going off shift.  This pro-

cedure requires approximately 15 minutes per day for some 50

patrol officers, i.e., 7 1/2 minutes at the beginning and end of

the shift.

            The Association has contended that this 15 minutes should

be eliminated or should be paid for at the overtime rate.  The

City's position is that this time should remain as an unpaid

period.  The City argued that this change would cost $40,000 a

year.

 

Analysis

            While the Arbitration Panel recognizes that this is an

issue that is highly emotional with EPOA members, it is not a

benefit that is commonly enjoyed by other police organizations.

The Chairman of the Panel is aware of industries where the

employees do not get paid for changing into work clothes, wash-

ing up or walking from the employee parking lot to the time

clock.  These activities are all similar in nature to that

being discussed here - getting ready to work.  The Association

has suggested changing the site of the briefing to that of the

City Service Center.  That suggestion would perhaps eliminate

the problem, but the majority of the Panel does not feel

that it was fully discussed by the parties nor is there

sufficient evidence to justify awarding this alternative or

the EPOA proposal.

 

Award

            The majority of the Panel would award the City's position

and deny the EPOA Position.

 

                                                ISSUE III - HOLIDAYS

 

            Article XII of the current agreement governs holidays as

follows:

 

            The following days are designated to be paid holi-

            days for those persons in pay status on the day

            before and the day after the holiday:

 

            New Year's Day                                             January 1

            Lincoln's Birthday                                          February 12

            Washington's Birthday                                  Third Monday in February

            Memorial Day                                                Last Monday in May

            Independence Day                                         July 4

            Labor Day                                                      First Monday in September

            Veteran's Day                                                November 11

            Thanksgiving Day                                          Fourth Thursday in November

            Day After Thanksgiving                                Fourth Friday in November

                        Day

            Christmas                                                       December 25

            One Floating Holiday                         At employee's choice subject

                                                                                    to concurrence with employer.

 

            An employee who is required to work one of the fore-

            going holidays shall be paid in addition to his regular

            pay for that day, an additional hour's pay for each

            hour worked on said holiday.  The hourly rate will be

            determined by dividing the annual rate by 2080 hours.

 

            When a holiday falls on a regularly scheduled day off,

            a compensatory day off will be provided in a manner

            consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1974.

            A regularly scheduled day off is defined as those days

            not covered in a regularly scheduled work week.

 

            The position of EPOA is that instead of receiving time off

for holidays, they should be paid for them.  That is, there

should be payout for holidays at the rate of 1/25th of the

annual salary for all members of the bargaining unit.  EPOA

aruged that such a practice would be consistent with what the

City is doing in the Everett Fire Department.

            The Position of the City is that the EPOA proposal is a

radical change in holiday pay that was made in the waining

hours of mediation and that was never fully discussed or negoti-

ated.  The current holiday provision cost the City $46,152 in

1980.  If the Association's proposal was implemented, holiday

costs would increase by 38.9% to $64,105 based on 1980 salary

rates.  The increase would, of course, be higher because it would

be tied to 1981 salaries.  The City argued that no other City in

the state has a holiday payout for police.  The City argued

that the current holiday compensation arrangement compares

favorably with other cities and should not be changed.

 

Analysis

            The Panel finds that the existing number of holidays to be

comparable.  The dispute really involves the administration of

holidays.

            The majority of the Arbitration Panel held that the moving

party has the burden of proof.  That is, EPOA had the responsi-

bility of proving to the Panel that the current contractual

provisions governing Holidays created a problem that required

changing and that the change proposed would, in fact, correct

the problem.  The majority of the Panel finds the evidence sub-

mitted by EPOA to be deficient on both counts.

 

Award

            The majority of the Arbitration Panel denies the EPOA's

proposal and awards that the language of the previous contract

be continued in the future agreement between the parties.

 

                                    ISSUE IV - PREVAILING RIGHTS

 

            The present contract includes a clause that says:

 

                        "The rights and privileges prevailing at

                        the present time which are not mentioned

                        or included in this agreement shall remain

                        in force, unchanged and unaffected in any

                        manner by this agreement."

 

            It is the City's Position that this language should be

either deleted or made specific and administerable.  The City

argued that this clause causes the City to commit to maintain-

ing unnamed rights and privileges.  The City argued that if the

Association has definable rights and privileges that it wants

memorialized in the agreement, it could negotiate those into the

labor agreement.  Under current language, the City argued, this

clause is like a bomb that's going to go off sooner or later.

The City also argued that this language is vague and ambiguous.

            The Association's Position is to retain this clause in any

successor agreement.  The EPOA argued that this clause had been

discussed during the past two negotiations but no specific

problems had been identified.  Half of the cities in the compara-

ble cities used by the City of Everett have such clauses.

 

Analysis

            Provisions of this type are usually sought in the first

negotiations between the parties because first contracts tend

to be short documents and such provisions provide protection

against the elimination of benefits.  The continuation of such

provisions beyond the first few contracts often creates opera-

tional and management problems, particularly when changes in

management and operations are contemplated.  The parties have

had at least two previous contracts.

 

Award

            The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds this statement

of prevailing rights to be broad and vague and a source of poten-

tial problems.  Therefore, the majority of the Panel would award

the City's proposal for the elimination of this language from

any successor agreements.

 

                        ISSUE V - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS

 

            The present contract contains what is known as a "general"

management rights clause as follows:

 

            "Any and all rights concerned witht he (sic)

            management and operation of the Police Depart-

            ment are exclusively that of the City unless

            otherwise provided by the terms of this agree-

            ment.  The City has the authority to adopt

            rules for the operation of the Department and

            conduct of its employees, provided such rules

            are not in conflict with the provisions of this

            agreement or with applicable law.

 

            The City has proposed a larger "specific" clause that

lists some 18 areas of management rights.  The Association pro-

posed to retain current language.

 

Analysis

            Expanded management rights clauses as proposed by the City

are commonly found in collective bargaining agreements.  It is

one of the few "management' clauses in labor agreements.  The

dispute in this case is not whether the collective bargaining

agreement should contain a management rights clause -- it does.

The dispute is over the form - expanded or shortened.  Management

has expressed dissatisfaction with the shortened form and

preference for the expanded form.  Even by the evidence sub-

mitted by EPOA, about half of the contracts that EPOA surveyed

had one form, and half the other.

 

Award

            The majority of the Panel awards the City's management rights

clause.

 

                        ISSUE VI - OVERTIME/CALLBACK

 

            Bargaining unit members presently get minimum callback pay

only for attending court - 2 hours of overtime pay for court

appearances on duty days and 4 hours of overtime for court

appearances on non-duty days.  The Association wants a guarantee

of four (4) hours of inconvenience pay for any callback from

scheduled time off, plus the overtime rate for the time actually

worked.

            The City objected to the Panel's hearing this Association

position as being a change in the position taken in bargaining

and as bad faith bargaining.  The Panel denied this objection.

The City then argued that this proposal was costly and not

comparable to that found in other cities.

 

Analysis

            The majority of the Panel does not find the evidence suf-

ficient to justify this Association proposal.  When found in the

private sector, callback guarantees are usually either the

callback guarantee or pay for time actually worked, whichever

is greater, but not both.

 

Award

            The majority of the Panel would deny the Association's

Position.

 

                                    ISSUE VII - INSURANCE

 

            Article XXVII of the current agreement provides that:

 

                        The City agrees to sponsor and administer

                        a disability insurance program through

                        Standard Insurance Company for all LEOFF II

                        members.  Premiums for this coverage will be

                        the responsibility of LEOFF II officers with

                        the requirement that all LEOFF II officers

                        participate.

 

            The issue in dispute is the long term disability program

for the 13 LEOFF officers currently in the department.  EPOA

wants long term disability coverage equal to that provided for

LEOFF I officers.  The City proposes no change.

 

Analysis

            LEOFF II officers are those employed after October, 1977.

Thus, while there are only 13 such officers in the department

now and the Association figures the current cost of their pro-

posal at $18.70 per LEOFF II officer per month or $3907.20 per

year, future costs cannot be calculated.  The Panel notes that all

present and future hires are LEOFF II officers.  Consequently,

future costs cannot be determined.  Because of this uncertainty,

the majority of the Panel rejects the Association's proposal.

 

Award

            Continue present contract language.

 

                                    ISSUE VIII - COMPENSATORY TIME

 

            Existing contract language is as follows:

 

            An employee, subject to the approval of  the

            Chief of Police, may receive compensable time

            off in lieu of overtime pay at the rate of one

            hour and one-half for each hour worked.

 

            On January 10, 1979, the Chief of Police issued a directive

saying that by January 1, 1980, all officers were prohibited

from accumulating more than 40 hours of compensatory time

without the approval of the Chief of Police.  This 40 hour lid

was subsequently raised to 60 hours.  The Association's fear

that officers may lose compensatory time hours over the 60 maxi-

mum allowed led them to propose the following:

 

            An officer has the option of receiving

            compensable time off in lieu of overtime

            pay at the rate of one-hour and one-half

            for each hour worked.  There will be no

            limit on the amount of compensatory time

            an employee may accumulate.  Compensatory

            time shall be repaid at a time mutually

            convenient between the Police Department

            and the employee.

 

            The City has proposed to continue present contract language

and the continue of the 60 hour maximum accumulation established

by the Police Chief.  The City argued that the present contract

language allowed employees to choose between overtime pay and

compensatory time off at overtime equivalents.  This choice

permits the accumulation of an unfunded liability that must be

controlled.  The 60-hour maximum is a control device that is

necessary and comparable.

 

Analysis and Award

            The majority of the Panel recognizes both the employees'

fears and management's need to manage.  The 60-hour maximum

accumulation for compensatory time is both necessary and

competitive.  Unlimited accumulation of compensatory time would

not only create a large unfunded liability, but also would serve

to make future scheduling difficult.  The evidence is insufficient

to justify unlimited accumulation.  The City's proposal does not

address the problem of accumulation of hours over the maximum.

Consequently, the majority of the Panel would award:

 

            1.         the continuation of current language; and

 

            2.         the addition of the following:

 

                        The maximum accumulation of compensatory

                        time is 60 hours.  Compensatory time

                        earned over the maximum must be taken

                        within 30 days of the time it was earned

                        or it will be paid out at the overtime

                        rate at the pay period immediately follow-

                        ing this 30-day period.

 

                                                ISSUE IX - DURATION

 

            The Association has proposed three alternatives, namely:

 

                        a one year agreement;

 

            or         a two year agreement with a full CPI wage

                        increase the first year and parity with the

                        Everett Fire Department the second year;

 

            or         a two year agreement with parity with the

                        Everett Fire Department the first year

                        and full CPI increase the second year.

 

            The City has proposed a two year agreement with a wage

reopener for the second year of the agreement.  The City

objected to EPOA options two and three on the grounds that they

had never been advanced in bargaining and represents, in the

City's opinion, bad faith bargaining.

 

Analysis

            Both parties recognized by statements at the hearing that

if a one-year agreement were awarded by the Arbitration Panel,

the parties would be back in full scale negotiations within four

months of the arbitration award.  Neither party expressed

opposition to the principle of a two year agreement; thus the

dispute was to the form of wages in the second year - open for

negotiations or closed.

 

Award

            The majority of the Arbitration Panel awards a two year

contract with wages in the second year being determined as fol-

lows:

 

            Wages to be based on the percentage increase in the

Seattle, Washington, Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers

for the period May, 1980 to May, 1981 applied as follows:

 

            For each percentage increase in this index in

            the period up to 8% in equal increase in wages;

 

            for each increase in this index between 8.01% and

            12%, an increase in wages of .75% for each 1%

            increase in the index; and

 

            for each increase from 12.1% to 16% in the index,

            a .5% increase in salary to a maximum salary

            increase of 13.2%.

 

                        ARTICLE X - ELECTION OF REMEDIES

 

            There is no provision in the current contract governing

this matter.  The City has proposed adding the following pro-

vision to a successor agreement:

 

            Election of Remedies.  The following limita-

            tions shall be applicable to this agreement.

            In the event an employee elects to file a

            Civil Service appeal concerning his or her

            employment status or working conditions, no

            grievance under this agreement by or on

            behalf of the employee shall be filed or

            pursued to the extent the subject matter of

            the Civil Service appeal overlaps with any

            actual or potential grievance under this

            agreement.

 

            The Association opposed this additional provision on the

grounds that it denies due process rights to police officers,

limits choices of appeal routes and would open the possibility

that the Association would be liable to suit by members for

violating the duty of fair representation.

            The City argued that there is no constitutional or statutory

right to grievance arbitration, rather it is a creation of the

parties through collective bargaining.

 

Analysis

            The majority of the Panel does not find the evidence to

be sufficient to justify the addition of this provision.

 

Award

            The City's proposal is denied.

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE                                     )                 AWARD

                                                                                                )

INTEREST ARBITRATION                                               )                  OF

                                                                                                )

BETWEEN                                                                             )           ARBITRATION PANEL

                                                                                                )

EVERETT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION  )

                                                                                                )

"EPOA" OR "THE ASSOCIATION"                                )

                                                                                                )

AND                                                                                       )

                                                                                                )

CITY OF EVERETT, WASHINGTON                                )

                                                                                                )

"THE CITY" Interest Arbitration                                        )

 

 

            After careful consideration of all oral and written argu-

ments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth above, it is

awarded that:

 

1.         Issue 1 - Compensation and Salaries

 

                        A direct wage increase of 11% is to be

                        applied to the salary schedule as per the

                        City's method for the first year of the

                        agreement.

 

2.         Issue 2 - Hours

 

                        Retain current contract language.

 

3.         Issue 3 - Holidays

 

                        The EPOA's proposal is denied.  Retain cur-

                        ent contract language.

 

4.         Issue 4 - Prevailing Rights

 

                        The language of the current contract is to

                        be eliminated from any successor agreement.

           

5.         Issue 5 - Management Rights

                        The expanded management rights clause as

                        requested by the City is approved.

           

6.         Issue 6 - Overtime/Callback

                        The Association's request for increased

                        overtime/callback pay is denied.

 

7.         Issue 7 - Insurance

                        Continue present contract language.

 

8.         Issue 8 - Compensatory Time

                        1.         Continue current language; and

                        2.         Add the following:

                                    The maximum accumulation of compensatory

                                    time is 60 hours.  Compensatory time

                                    earned over the maximum must be taken

                                    within 30 days of the time it was earned

                                    or it will be paid out at the overtime

                                    rate at the pay period immediately follow-

                                    ing this 30-day period.

 

9.         Issue 9 - Duration

                        A two year contract is awarded with wages in

                        the second year being determined as follows:

                                    Wages to be based on the percentage

                                    increase in the Seattle , Washington,

                                    Consumer Price Index for all urban con-

                                    sumers for the period May, 1980 to May,

                                    1981 applied as follows:

                                                For each percentage increase in this

                                                index in the period up to 8% an equal

                                                increase in wages;

 

                                                for each increase in this index between

                                                8.01% and 12%, an increase in wages of

                                                .75% for each 1% increase in the index;

                                                and

 

                                                for each increase from 12.1% to 16% in

                                                the index, a .5% increase in salary to

                                                a maximum salary increase of 13.2%.

 

10.       Issue 10 - Election of Remedies

                        The City's proposal is denied.

 

 

Respectfully submitted on this the 11th day of February, 1981

by

 

John H. Abernathy

Chairman, Arbitration Panel