And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Howard S. Block
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Block; Howard S.
Case #: 03642-I-81-00083
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
In the Matter of Arbitration
)
)
Between )
) Issues: Contract Terms
CITY OF
)
and )
)
LOCAL 1604, INTERNATIONAL )
)
ASSOCIATION OF FIRE )
FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, CLC )
)
Impartial Arbitrator
Howard S Block, Esq.
1226 North Broadway
Hearing Held
March 16, 17 and 18, 1982
City Hall
Appearances
For
the
Durning, Webster & Lonnquist
For
the City: J. David Andrews,
Esq.
Nancy
Williams, Esq.
Perkins,
Coie, Stone, Olsen ~ Williams
1900
Seattle,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preliminary
Observations...........................................................................................................................1
Statutory
Criteria................................................................................................................... 3
Comparative
Cities................................................................................................................ 6
Monthly Salaries- Appendix
A............................................................................................. 11 Proposals of the
Parties........................................................................................... 11
Positions
of the Parties............................................................................................. 11
Opinion
of the
Arbitrator............................................................................................ 13
Award.......................................................................................................................... 17
Cost-of-living Adjustment -
Appendix
A............................................................................ 18
Proposals
of the Parties............................................................................................ 18
Positions
of the
Parties.............................................................................................. 18
Opinion
of the
Parties............................................................................................... 18
Opinion
of the
Arbitrator............................................................................................. 19
Award ........................................................................................................................... 21
Hours of Duty - Article
XII...................................................................................................... 22
Proposals
of the Parties............................................................................................. 22
Positions
of the
Parties.............................................................................................. 22
Opinion
of the Arbitrator............................................................................................. 24
Award........................................................................................................................... 26
Vacation Leave - Article
XVII................................................................................................ 27
Proposals
of the
Parties............................................................................................. 27
Opinion
of the Arbitrator............................................................................................. 27
Award ........................................................................................................................... 28
Insurance Coverage (Medical~Dental)
- Article
XXVII........................................................ 29
Proposals
of the
parties.............................................................................................. 29
Positions
of the Parties............................................................................................... 30
Opinion
of the
Arbitrator.............................................................................................. 31
Award .
......................................................................................................................... 32
Disability Leave and Sick Leave for
Employees
Hired on or after
Proposals
of the Parties............................................................................................. 33
Positions
of the
Parties............................................................................................... 33
Opinion
of the Arbitrator.............................................................................................. 35
Award............................................................................................................................ 35
Longevity
(Union Proposal) versus Performance
Recognition Program (City
Proposal)................................................................................
36
Proposals
of the
Parties..............................................................................................
36
Positions
of the
Parties................................................................................................
36
Opinion
of the
Arbitrator...............................................................................................
37
Award.............................................................................................................................
38
TABLE
OF CONTENTS (continued)
Communication Procedure -
Article XXV...............................................................................39
Proposals
of the
Parties.................................................................................................39
Positions
of the Parties...................................................................................................39
Opinion
of the
Arbitrator..................................................................................................40
Award................................................................................................................................40
Prevailing Rights Article
XX.....................................................................................................41
Proposals
of the Parties.................................................................................................41
Positions
of the
Parties...................................................................................................41
Opinion
of the Arbitrator..................................................................................................44
Award................................................................................................................................46
Reduction and Recall -
Article VII...........................................................................................47
Proposals
of the
Parties.................................................................................................47
Positions
of the Parties..................................................................................................47
Opinion
of the Arbitraor..................................................................................................48
Award...............................................................................................................................50
Award Sumary.............................................................................................................................51
Exhibit A.......................................................................................................................................54
PRELIMINARY
OBSERVATIONS
This arbitration
Proceeding arises out of
an impasse in
negotiations
between the City of
hereinafter
referred to as "City") and the
Local 1604 (sometimes hereinafter referred
to as "
conducted
pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW (Joint Exhibit 1).
The Union and
the City are
parties to a Collective
Bargaining Agreement which expired on
December 31, 1981 (Joint
Exhibit 2). The parties commenced bargaining in Summer, 1981 for
a
new labor agreement covering approximately 90 bargaining unit
employees
in the City's Fire Department. They
reached impasse on
a
number of issues and the Union invoked the provisions of RCW
41.56.430 et seq. for binding arbitration to
resolve the impasse
on
these issues. Several issues were settled by the parties
immediately
prior to
or during the
hearing. The unresolved
issues submitted for
decision in this
proceeding are the
following:
1. Monthly
Salaries--Appendix A.
2. Cost-of-living
Adjustment--Appendix A.
3. Hours
of Duty--Article XII.
4. Vacation
Leave--Article XVII.
S. Insurance
Coverage--Article XXVII.
6. Disability Leave and
Sick Leave for
Employees
Hired
On or After October 1, 1977- -Article XXVIII.
7. Performance Recognition Program --Article X and
Appendix B.
8. Longevity--New
Section.
9. Communication Procedure (Labor~Management
Committee)--Article XXV.
10. Prevailing Rights--Article
XX.
11. Reduction
and Recall--Article VII.
The parties waived
the tripartite arbitration panel and
selection
procedures provided in RCW 41.56.450 and agreed to
submit the foregoing issues to Impartial Arbitrator Howard S.
Block, serving as sole Arbitrator, with all
powers and duties of
an arbitration
panel under the statute.
A hearing was held
before
the Arbitrator on March 16, 17 and 18, 1982, at which time
all parties
concerned were given a full opportunity to present
evidence and argument
bearing on the
issues. Each party
concluded
its case with the filing of a Closing Brief on May 7,
1982.
At the Arbitrator's request, the parties waived the 30 day
statutory time limit
for rendering the decision
(Tr. 673:20-
674:3).
The
record of this 3-day proceeding is voluminous covering
almost
700 pages of transcript and more than 100 exhibits, most
of
which contain detailed statistical comparisons concerning the
issues
submitted for decision. In addition, as part of their
comprehensive
Closing Briefs, the parties submitted both judicial
and arbitral
case authority to
support their respective
positions. While the Arbitrator has carefully scrutinized
all of
this evidence and
argument, no constructive purpose would be
served
by reviewing all of the conflicting contentions of the
parties
or even most of them. Instead, the
Arbitrator will focus
his
attention solely upon those considerations deemed controlling
in
resolving the issues presented for decision.
STATUTORY
CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.460 (sometimes
hereinafter referred to as the
"Statute") sets forth the factors
by which the Arbitrator must be
guided in resolving
the disputed issues.
RCW 41.56.460(c)
stresses
the paramount importance of comparisons; it requires:
Comparison 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 United States.
On first reading, it would appear that the foregoing language
offers
an unambiguous basis for comparison.
Further reflection,
however,
poses a number of immediate questions.
An assumption is
warranted that "similar
size" refers to Population; but
does
population
mean only within the City limits or does it include
contract
areas served by the Fire Department - - a significant
difference
in the instant case which the Union has emphasized.
How close in size to be considered
similar? What of intra~city
comparisons,
a factor of considerable importance in maintaining
internal
stability, which the City has stressed.
Must all West
Coast
cities of similar
Size be given
the same weight
in
comparative
analysis? Are the wages and benefits of metropolitan
and
rural cities truly comparable? Are there "other factors"
(RCW 41.56.460(f)) that should be
considered? These are just a
few
of the questions
that, in the
final analysis, must
be
considered
in order to render a realistic decision that satisfies
the
statutory intent.
The range of
alternatives available for
comparison is
nowhere
more apparent than in the record of this Proceeding. The
City and Union
have both offered
plausible contentions for
sharply
conflicting interpretations of the statutory criteria.
In a prior proceeding between these parties
just 2 years ago, the
Union offered a somewhat different
interpretation of how "similar
size"
should be construed (City Exhibit 23).
All
of which brings us to the main point of this discussion,
namely, that
the legislature must
have intended a
flexible
application
of the statutory criteria in order to
satisfy its
stated
"intent and purpose"
as set forth
in RCW 41.56.430.
Otherwise, how could a
single statute be administered equitably
to
cities as diverse as Seattle, Bellevue
and Yakima, to name
just a
few? For example, on the basis of firmly established
principles
of wage and salary administration, the most relevant
comparison
to Seattle would be other large metropolitan cities on
the
West Coast Since
appropriate local comparisons
are not
available;
for Bellevue, the most relevant comparisons would be
Puget Sound cities and West Coast cities of
similar size that are
contiguous to large
metropolitan areas (a
point elaborated
shortly);
and for Yakima, located in rural Washington, a separate
and
distinct basis of comparison is indicated.
In
summary, the Arbitrator is convinced that the comparative
criteria
set forth in RCW 41.56.460(c) must be applied flexibly
depending
upon the particular city (or county) involved.
The
Arbitrator finds further
support for this
conclusion in the
provisions
of RCW 4l.56.460(f) which requires consideration of:
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
(Emphasis added.)
The foregoing statutory
language provides authority
for the
Arbitrator's reliance
upon area comparisons, intra-city
comparisons
and the concept of individual issues in the context
of a
total economic package.
With
these general observations in mind, we turn now to an
application
of these criteria to the instant case.
COMPARATIVE
CITIES
While the City and Union both agree that comparisons of
terms and conditions of employment are
critical in this case,
they
have sharply divergent perceptions of the West Coast cities
of
"similar size" deemed comparable.
That is hardly surprising.
After all, the Union's and City's Counsel have an
obligation to
present
their clients' case in the best Possible light. They have
done so with
resourcefulness and great conviction.
Ambiguities in the Statute have been
resolved in away most
favorable
to their respective client's Position.
As a result,
the
evidence
submitted reflects their highly Partisan
views.
The
comparative data offered by both the City and Union are
useful and illuminating,
but both are
flawed in significant
respects. For example, in the selection of its 15 comparative
cities from Washington,
Oregon and California
(5 from each
state),
Bellevue has ignored one crucial fact
namely, that it is
located
in the midst of a large metropolitan area. It is clear
from
the record of this proceeding and undisputed by the parties
that
compensation levels in large metropolitan cities and their
environs are higher
than those in
less densely populated
areas.1 On the other hand, the comparative cities selected by
the
Union are more relevant, but the population spread of those