And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 04369-I-82-00098
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
AAA No. 75 39 0014 83
PERC No. 4369-I-82-98
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
Appearances:
CITY OF
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes
when
collective bargaining negotiations have resulted in im-
passe. The
undersigned was selected by the parties to serve
as
the Neutral Chairman of the tripartite arbitration panel.
The Arbitrator selected by the
Employer, City of
William E. Hauskins,
Labor Negotiator. The Arbitrator se-
lected by the Union, Seattle Police Management
Association,
is
Lt. P. C. Vande Putte.
A hearing was held before the Arbitration Panel on
May 10, May 11, June 9 and
H. Webster of the law firm of Durning,
Webster & Lonnquist.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented voluminous documentary
evidence. The parties did not provide for a court
reporter,
and,
therefore, the Chairman tape recorded the proceedings
for
the sole purpose of supplementing his personal notes.
In view of the substantial testimonial and documentary
evidence
presented, the Chairman requested that the parties
provide posthearing briefs.
The parties agreed to this sug-
gestion and excellent posthearing
briefs were filed by each
party. Those briefs were received by the Arbitrator
on July
22,
1983. At
the request of the Arbitrator, the parties
agreed
to waive the statutory requirement that a decision
issue
within thirty days thereafter.
On
members
of the Arbitration Panel. A wide-ranging
discussion
of
the issues was held which was extremely helpful to your
Chairman. In accordance with the statutory mandate, I
set
forth
herein my findings of fact and determination of the
issues,
which I have labeled an Interest Arbitration Opinion
and
Award, as that is the manner in which arbitrators gene-
rally
label these decisions.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
At the time the Executive Director of the Public
Employment Relations
Commissions determined that this matter
should
be submitted to interest arbitration, he indicated in
his
letter of
that
seventeen issues remained unresolved between the
parties. These issues are listed below:
Overtime Compensation
Standby Compensation
Work out of Class
Clothing Allowance
Retention of Benefits
Medical Insurance
Medical for Retirees
Dental Benefits
Duration
Salary
Pay Steps
Retroactivity
C.O.L.A.
Longevity
Shift Differential
Grievance Procedure
Two of the seventeen issues were removed from consid-
eration by the Arbitration Panel due to the
stipulation of
the
parties. The parties stipulated that the
duration of the
agreement
should be one year from
the
question of duration resolved, but the C.O.L.A. issue is
rendered
moot by the fact that the C.O.L.A. allowances sought
by
the Union were for the second and third years of a pro-
posed
three year agreement. Thus we have
fifteen issues which
must
be addressed by your Chairman.
SALARY RELATED ISSUES
The Proposals
There are three direct salary related issues. These
are
listed below:
1. Salary
2. Pay Steps
3. Longevity
The bargaining unit is composed of thirty-seven lieu-
tenants,
fourteen captains, and six majors in the City of
Seattle
Police Department.
The Union proposes a one step monthly salary schedule.
The Employer proposes a three
step salary schedule in the
same
configuration as is presently in the expired agreement.
The Employer has two
alternative proposals. I have set forth
below a
chart which shows the monthly salary at the final
step
for each of the three classifications effective on the
last
day of the prior agreement, the salary figures indicated
by
the two Employer proposals, the salary figures indicated
by
the Union proposal, and the percent increase indicated by
Employer alternative no. 2 and
the Union proposal above the
8/31/82
figures.
__________
MONTHLY SALARIES TOP STEP
Employer
Proposals Union Proposal
(only
8/31/82 Alt.
1 Alt. 2 %
Increase step) % Increase
Lt. 3166 3269 3291 (3.95) 3490 (10.23)
Capt. 3640 3758 3765 (3.43) 4014 (10.27)
Major 4180 4316 4305 (2.99) 4615 (10.41)
__________
The Employer states in its brief that its
alternative
no.
1 reflects a 3.25% increase in each classification. Its
alternative
no. 2 is based on a flat increase of $1500 across
the
board.
The Union also proposes a longevity premium of 2%
after
five years of completed service, 4% after ten years of
completed
service, 6% after fifteen years of completed ser-
vice,
8% after twenty years of completed service, and 10%
after
twenty-five years of completed service.
The City pro-
poses
not to add any longevity premium to the contract.
Arbitrator Discussion
A review of the foregoing makes clear that the parties
have
vastly different positions as to the appropriate amount
of
wages to be paid to the members of the Seattle Police
Management Association during
the year September 1, 1982,
through August
31, 1983. A major reason for this
disparity
is
that the parties have not selected the same cities as
comparables. Reliance on comparables is based upon the
statutory
direction to the Arbitration Panel contained in
RCW 41.56.460, which provides
that:
In making its determination,
the panel shall be
mindful
of the legislative purpose enumerated
in
RCW 41.56.430 and as additional standards or
guidelines
to aid in reaching a decision, it
shall
take into consideration the following
factors:
...
(c) Comparison of wages, hours and condi-
tions of employment of the uniformed
personnel
of cities and counties in-
volved in the proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of em-
ployment of uniformed personnel of
cities
and counties respectively of
similar
size on the west coast of the
United States.
The legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430,
which
RCW 41.56.460 directs the Arbitration Panel to be
mindful
of is set forth below:
The intent and purpose of this
1973 amenda-
tory act is 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 adequate alternative
means
of settling disputes.
The Employer contends that there are eight cities on
the
west coast which "traditionally" have been used as the
comparable
cities in proceedings of this type. The
Union
would
consider seven of the eight cities listed by the Em-
ployer as comparables, but would remove Tacoma
since it does
not
meet the 200,000 threshold, which the Union believes
appropriate. However, the Union would add an additional
five
cities, giving it a total of twelve comparable cities.
In the next chart, I have set
forth the cities that both the
Employer and the Union contend
are the comparable cities,
their
population, and the population differential between
each
and Seattle.
In setting forth the population figures I have
examined
both the Union's Exhibit (No. 4), and the Employer's
Exhibit (No. 80). Where I have population figures for the
same
city from each exhibit, I have taken an average of those
two
population figures and rounded to the nearest 5,000. For
the
sake of consistency, I have also rounded to the nearest
5,000 the population figures
for the other cities which
appear
only on one of the two exhibits.
__________
CITIES SUGGESTED BY ONE OR
BOTH PARTIES
Percent
above Percent
Employer Union Population
to Seattle Seattle
City Selected Selected nearest 5,000 pop. above pop.
Seattle 495,000
Portland x x 365,000 36
Long Beach x x 360,000 38
Oakland x x 340,000 46
Sacramento x x 275,000 80
Anaheim x 220,000 125
Fresno x 215,000 130
Santa Ana x 205,000 141
Anchorage x 170,000 191
Tacoma x 160,000 209
__________
The Union developed, with the aid of Dr. David
Knowles, Associate Professor
of Economics, Albers School of
Business,
Seattle University, an economic theory that Dr.
Knowles referred to as the
"threshold test”. This test was
based
upon a determination that once a city reached 200,000
population
its police management officials would face similar
problems
and have comparable duties and responsibilities.
As I understand the Union's
reasoning, if your Chairman
agreed
with this conclusion, then he would also have to con-
dude
that all cities of 200,000 or more would be comparable
in
the economic sense contemplated by RCW 41.56.460. Addi-
tionally, although Dr. Knowles would drop Tacoma
from the
comparables
since it did not have a population of 200,000,
he
would add Anchorage because that city, being a port city
and
the largest city in the State of Alaska, would also have
to
be considered similar in an economic sense to Seattle.
The Employer, on the other hand, points out that
with
respect to the eight cities it has selected all, except
Tacoma, are within the 250,000
to 1,000,000 population
grouping. According to the Employer, this grouping is
appropriate
for Seattle because Seattle is right between two
traditional population
groupings used both by the Interna-
tional City Management Association and by
municipal bond
rating
agencies such as Moody's. These two
groupings are
250,000 to 499,999 and 500,000
to 1,000,000.
I start my determination of which cities to consider
as
the comparable cities by carefully examining the statu-
tory language establishing comparables as a
factor to be taken
into
consideration by the Arbitration Panel.
The key language
has
been quoted earlier in this Opinion and it is, " cities
of
similar size on the west coast of the United
States". The parties are not in dispute that the word
size
refers
to population as opposed to area. Nor
are the parties
really
in dispute regarding the phrase “west coast of the
United States". Although the Employer would not include
Anchorage, it does not argue
that it is not a west coast
city. Furthermore, both parties are willing to
consider
cities
such as Sacramento and San Jose whose borders do not
literally
touch the coast line of the United States.
The
area
of disagreement between the parties revolves around the
term
“similar”.
With all due respect to Dr. Knowles, who clearly is
well
qualified as an economist, I do not believe the statu-