And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 05059-I-84-00114
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
PERC No. 5059-I-84-114
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
OPINION OF THE NEUTRAL
CHAIRMAN
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A three person arbitration panel was selected by the
parties
in accordance with RCW 41.56.450 in order to resolve
certain
bargaining issues which remained at impasse fol-
lowing
negotiations and mediation. The
Employer, City of
tration Panel.
The Association,
Association, named Captain
William Taylor as its Arbitrator
on
the Panel. Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs was
selected as the
Neutral Chairman. A hearing was held in
on
May 15 and 16, June 25, 26, and 27, 1984.
The City was
represented
by Gordon Campbell,
The Association was
represented by James Webster, of the law
firm, Durning, Webster & Lonnquist.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence.
A reporter was present during
the proceedings, and a
transcript
was prepared and made available to the Neutral
Chairman
for his use in reaching a decision.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
posthearing briefs.
The briefs were postmarked in a timely
manner
and were received by the Neutral Chairman on
facts
were stipulated into evidence on August 30,
September 5, and
ISSUES
The City and the Association are parties to a
collective
bargaining agreement which expired on August 31,
1983. The parties were unable to reach agreement on
a
successor
agreement despite their efforts in negotiations
and
the efforts of a mediator. In accordance
with RCW
41.56.450, the Executive
Director of the Public Employment
Relations Commission certified
that a number of issues were
at
impasse. Since that certification, the
efforts of the
parties
in collective bargaining negotiations have resulted
in a
substantial reduction in the number of issues out-
standing. The parties agree that the issues remaining
un-
resolved
relate to salaries, clothing allowance, and work
outside
of classification.
Applicable Principles
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which must be considered by this Panel.
It
provides:
41.56.460 Uniformed personnel-Arbitration
panel-Basis for determination.
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 it in reaching
a decision,
it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer.
(b) Stipulations
of the parties.
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings with
the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods
and services, commonly known as
the cost of
living.
(e) Changes
in any of the foregoing
circumstances during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) 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.
RCW 41.56.430, which is
referred to in the above quoted
language,
provides as follows:
41.56.30 Uniformed personnel-Legislative
declaration. The intent and
purpose of this
1973 amendatory act is to recognize that
there exists a public policy in
the state of
sonnel
as a means of settling their labor
disputes; that the uninterrupted
and dedi-
cated
service of these classes of employees
is vital to the welfare and
public safety of
the state of
dedicated and uninterrupted
public service
there should exist an effective
and adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
Background
The bargaining unit is comprised of 57 police
management
employees, including 37 lieutenants, 14 captains,
5 majors,
and 1 police communications director who is paid
at
the captains rate. The average length of
service among
the
bargaining unit employees is about 20 years.
The
expired
agreement, the third between the parties, was
achieved
last year following an interest arbitration award
issued
by Arbitrator Michael H. Beck.
Comparable Cities
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated
in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which the panel must rely in making
its
determination is:
***
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings with
the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
***
In order to make such a
comparison, one must first determine
which
cities on the west coast should be selected as similar
in
size to
Arbitrator Beck, last year, selected five cities to be
used
for comparison with Seattle, those being
ciation argues that since there has been no change
in cir-
cumstances which would invalidate that determination
of
comparison
cities, it should be reaffirmed in order to
increase
the likelihood that future settlements can result
from
negotiations rather than litigation.
The City agrees that the five cities advocated by the
Association
are appropriate for comparison. However, it
would
also add the cities of Sacramento and San Diego. The
City reasons that a larger
sampling than five cities is
needed
to meet the needs of the parties. The
City points
out
that the comparable cities which it proposes are the
same
ones which have been used in past negotiations and
interest
arbitration with both the Seattle Police Officers
Guild and the Seattle Fire
Fighters Association, and are the same
cities
which it has used for the past ten years, except for
the
deletion of Tacoma.
Set forth below are the population figures for the
cities
suggested as comparable:
__________
Population
City figures Association figures
Long Beach, Ca. 361,334 356,906
Oakland, Ca. 339,288 338,721
Portland, Or. 366,383 366,383
San Francisco, Ca. 678,974 674,150
San Jose, Ca. 636,550 628,106
Sacramento, Ca. 275,741 -
San Diego, Ca. 875,5~4 -
__________
There is much to be said for the Association's argument
that
consistency in the selection of comparable cities would
be
beneficial to the negotiations process.
Nevertheless, I
am
persuaded by the City's argument that five comparables
are
just too small a sample. This dispute
involves rela-
tively few issues.
Yet, the difficulties caused by a sample
of
only five cities are still apparent. As
will be seen in
the
later discussion of each of the disputed bargaining
subjects,
frequently the information from one or more of the
five
comparable cities suggested by the Association are
either
not available or not applicable. For
example, re-
garding the issue of clothing allowance, Long
Beach,
Portland, and San Francisco
have quartermaster systems, and
thus
cannot serve as a basis for comparison.
This leaves
only
two cities that can be used for comparison.
Similar
difficulties
in establishing a trend for comparison purposes
can
be seen when one examines the divergent approaches taken
by
the suggested comparison cities with regard to the issues
relating
to pay steps and work out of classification.
If,
as
the Association argues, having a stable set of comparable
cities
would be beneficial to future negotiations between
the
parties, then I am convinced that a broader sampling
than
five cities would add a better measure of dependability
and
reliability for comparison of the variety of issues
which
are raised in negotiations.
If additional cities are to be added to the five
suggested
by the Association, then the two suggested by the
City
are the best candidates. The seven cities suggested
by
the City represent all the west coast cities with no less
than
half, nor more than twice Seattle's population.
Moreover, it is significant
that the Association suggested
the
inclusion of Sacramento and San Diego, among others, as
comparable
cities in the interest arbitration proceedings
before
Arbitrator Beck.
1) Salaries
The parties agree that the duration of the collective
bargaining
agreement should be three years. The
City
proposes
that all bargaining unit members receive a 1.5%
increase
effective September 1, 1983. It proposes
additional
increases effective September 1, 1984, and
September 1, 1985, each in an
amount equal to 80% of the
Seattle-Everett CPI-W, July to
July, with a minimum increase
of
1.5% and a maximum increase of 6%. The
City argues that
its
proposal is comparable to wage increases received by
other
city employees, and maintains the bargaining unit's
ranking
above the average among the west coast comparable
cities.
The Association proposes a 10.3% increase effective
September 1, 1983. It proposes that effective September 1,
1984, there be a 10% increase
plus a cost of living
adjustment
equal to the change in the CPI-W between July
1983 and July 1984. It proposes that effective September 1,
1985, there be a 5% increase
plus a cost of living increase
equal
to the change in the CPI-W between July 1984 and July
1985. In the alternative it proposes for
1983, an 8.2%
increase
which would restore the unit's total compensation
rates
to the relative levels of 1979, compared to the cities
which
it contends are comparable. Also in the
alternative,
it
proposes a wage increase of at least 6% for the second
year
of the settlement, based upon the average settlements
for
1984 in the suggested comparable cities.
Arbitrator Beck, in his Award, determined that a 15%
differential
in pay is appropriate between the pay of
lieutenants
and captains, and between the pay of captains
and
majors. Neither party has disputed that
formula.
Therefore, in the same manner
as Arbitrator Beck, I shall
set
the base monthly salary (top step) for a lieutenant and
add
15% to determine the rate of pay for captains, and add
15% above the captain rate for
the majors. Since the 15%
pay
differential is already in effect, this means that the
same
percentage pay increase awarded to the lieutenants
shall
also be awarded to the captains and majors.
The base monthly salaries (top step) for police
lieutenants
in the comparable west coast cities as of
January 1, 1984, and January
1, 1985, are reflected below:
__________
1984 1985
Long Beach 3635 3817
San Jose 3525 3713
Oakland 3383 3611
San Francisco 3347 3651
Portland 3073 Not Available
Sacramento 2952 3117
San Diego 2950 3098
Average 3266 3501
__________
The current base monthly salary
(top step) for lieutenants
in
Seattle is $3,372.
The delay in the settlement of the parties' collective
bargaining
dispute has had the effect of permitting the
panel
to be presented with all of the contract settlements
for
1983 and most for 1984, for the comparable cities. The
salary
increases granted in the comparable cities during
1983 are listed below:
__________
Long Beach, Ca. 4.0%
Oakland, Ca. 5.75%
Portland, Or. -0-
San Francisco, Ca. 5.4%
San Jose, Ca. 6.0%
(4% - 7/1; 2% - 8/1)
Sacramento, Ca. 8.0%
San Diego, Ca. 4.25%
__________
The average salary increase
for the comparable cities in
1983 was 4.77%.
All of the comparable cities except for Portland have
already
agreed upon contract settlements for 1984, and these
are
listed below:
__________
Long Beach 5%
Oakland 6.7%
Portland Not
Available
San Francisco 9.08%
San Jose 6%
(4% - 7/1; 2% - 11/1)
Sacramento 5.6%
San Diego 5%
__________
The average salary increase
for the comparable cities in
1984 was 6.23%.
Only two of the comparable cities have, as yet, reached
a
settlement to become effective during 1985.
Long Beach
agreed
to a wage increase equivalent to 90% of the CPI-U,
with a
minimum increase of 5% and a maximum increase of
7.5%. Oakland has agreed to a 5% wage increase for 1985.
Both parties agree that total compensation including
benefits
should also be considered. However, they
differ to
some
extent with regard to the specific benefits which
should
be considered. In the figures below, I
have added to
the
January 1984 base monthly salaries all the direct
monetary
reimbursements to the employees, such as,
marksmanship
pay, educational and training incentives,
holiday
pay, and longevity. I have also added
the costs
that
the cities have assumed for medical and dental
benefits. Finally, I have deducted the amount of
pension
contributions
that the employee is required to make:
__________
Long Beach
base monthly salary 3635
medical/dental benefits + 224
marksmanship pay + 12
3871
employee pension contribution - 73
3798
San Jose