And
Public
Safety Employees, Local 519, SEIU, AFL-C101
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: William H. Dorsey
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Dorsey; William H.
Case #: 05500-I-84-00125
Employer:
Date Issued:
In the Matter of the Interest
Arbitration between: )
) PERC CASE NO.
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL
519, SEIU, AFL-C101 ) 5500-1-84-125
)
The
) BASE WAGE RATES
and )
)
)
The County. )
)
_____________________________________________________
)
Dates and Place of Public
Hearings: February
25 and 26, 1985;
Dates and Place of Executive
Sessions
of
the Interest Arbitration Panel:
April
1, 15 and 17, 1985;
Representing the
Will
Aitchison, Esq.
Aitchison, Imperati, Paull,
Barnett & Sherwood, P.C.
Jared Karstetter
Business Representative
Public Safety Employees,
SEIU Local 519
Representing the County: Albert
G. Ross
Personnel
Manager
Dept.
of Executive Administration,
Daniel
S. Smolen
Labor/Employee
Relations
Specialist
- Personnel
Dept.
of Executive Administration,
REPORT OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN
INTEREST ARBITRATION PANEL
INTRODUCTION
On
collective
bargaining agreement covering the two-year period
For the two-year period in question, this agreement fixed
the
wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment for
the
sworn personnel of the County's Department of Public Safety
who
are below the rank of captain.
However, Section 1(b) of Article VIII, Wage Rates, of
this
Agreement expressly provided
that:
"Effective
set
forth in the 1984 wage addendum shall be adjusted
by
an amount as negotiated between the parties during
1984 or as established through
binding arbitration
as
provided for in R.C.W. 41.56."
(Arbitrator's
emphasis;
page 21 of Joint Exhibit I.)
Negotiation and mediation ultimately proved unsuccessful
in
establishing
"the base wage rates" to be effective January 1,
1985. Accordingly, by a letter dated
L. Schurke,
Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission of the State of
he
had concluded that they "remained at impasse and that there-
fore
they must proceed to interest arbitration (see Joint Exhibit
II)
By a letter dated
both
the Neutral Chairman and the Public Employment Relations
Commission that the interest
arbitration panel in this case
would
be composed of the following persons:
William H. Dorsey, Neutral
Chairman
Arbitrator,
Dustin N. Frederick, Union
Arbitrator
Business Representative
Public Safety Employees Local
519
James R. Anshutz,
Budget Supervisor, King County
Budget Office
The parties then agreed with the Neutral Chairman that
the
public
hearings in this case would be held on February 25 and 26,
1985 in
third
day of public hearing proved to be necessary, it too was
held
in
In addition, the panel members met in executive session
in
1985.
ISSUE
Because of the express language used by the parties in
Sec-
tion 1(b) of Article VIII of their 1984-1985 Agreement
(page 21
of
Joint Exhibit I), the sole issue before this interest arbitra-
tion panel is:
By what amount, if any, should
the base wage rates set
forth
in the 1984 wage addendum (Addendum A to the
1984-1985 Agreement; see pages
49-50 of Joint Exhibit
I) be adjusted, retroactive to
effective
through
CONTROLLING STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
The parties agree that the statutory standards which are
controlling
on this interest arbitration panel are set forth in
RCW 41.56.460, which reads:
"UNIFORMED PERSONNEL -
INTEREST ARBITRATION PANEL -
BASIS
FOR DETERMINATION. In making its determination,
the
[interest arbitration] 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 considera-
tion the following 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 personnel involved in the
pro-
ceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
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 circum-
stances
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."
(Arbitrator's
emphases;
pages SR-37/SR-38 of Joint Exhibit VII.)
QUESTIONS OF FACT BEFORE
THE PANEL
Essentially, there are three questions of fact in this
case:
One, what is the appropriate method for selecting
"employers
of
similar size [to
of
the
Two, having selected these "comparable"
employers, how does
one
then assess "the base wage rate set forth in the 1984 wage
addendum"
to the parties' 1984-1985 Agreement (pages 49-50 of
Joint Exhibit I), in light of
"the base wage rates" paid by these
comparable
employers?
Three, irrespective of what these comparisons of base
wage
rates
might show, nevertheless must the interest arbitration
panel
make an adjustment for the difference in the cost of living in
these
comparable jurisdictions in northern and southern
with
the cost of living in
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Position and Arguments of the
The
wages
alone the members of the bargaining unit should be given an
across-the-board
wage increase of between 8.52 percent and 11.20
percent.
In support of this position, the
One, from the evidence in the record, it is now clear
that
the
parties wish this arbitration panel to select a set of juris-
dictions
which represent jurisdictions which have a good deal in
common
with King County, Washington.
Two, also from the evidence in the record, it would now
appear
that the parties agree that the utilization of demographic
characteristics
in the selection of comparable jurisdictions to
King County is the most
appropriate approach for the panel to
take.
Three, the following three counties should be viewed by
the
panel
as comparable to King County:
-Alameda County, California
-Orange County, California
-Santa Clara County, California.
Four, looking at comparable wages, the panel should
include
the
so-called PERS "pick-up" where it exists.
Five, the panel should ignore the participation or non-
participation
of all employers (including King County) in the
social
security system in making its wage comparisons.
Six, because the only two current methods of evaluating
comparative
costs of living are both greatly flawed in a methodo-
logical
and data collection sense, the arbitration panel should
make
no attempt to adjust any conclusion reached by it after com-
paring
the base wage rates paid by King County to the members of
the
bargaining unit with those paid to like employees by the
other
comparable jurisdictions.
Seven, a comparison of the base wage rates paid to the mem-
bers of the bargaining unit by King County with
the three compar-
able
jurisdictions selected by the Union shows that the panel will
need
to award an 11.20 percent wage increase in order to bring
the
King County deputies to the average wage paid to law enforce-
ment officers in these comparable jurisdictions.
Eight, moreover, when wages are viewed across levels of
tenure
of five, ten, fifteen and twenty years (and levels of
education
including high school, A.A. and B.A. degrees), it is
immediately
evident that a minimum wage increase of 8.52 percent
is
indeed appropriate for the members of the bargaining unit
represented
by the Union.
Position and Arguments of the County
The County's position is that on the basis of all of the
statutory
standards set forth in RCW 41.56.460 (including, of
course,
comparable wages) no across-the-board wage increase in
the
calendar year 1985 should be given to the members of the bar-
gaining
unit represented by the Union.
In support of this position, the County argues:
One, the utilization of demographic characteristics in
the
selection
of jurisdictions comparable to King County is indeed
the
most appropriate approach for the panel to take.
Two, however, in the selection of jurisdictions
comparable
to
King County, only the demographic characteristics of the un-
incorporated
areas of King County should be compared with the
demographic
characteristics of other unincorporated areas of
counties
on the west coast of the United States.
Three, the following three counties should then be viewed
by
the
panel as comparable to King County for purposes of this case:
- Sacramento County, California
- San Mateo County, California
- San Diego County, California.
Four, looking at comparable wages, the panel should not
include
the so-called PERS "pick-up", even where it exists,
unless
in doing so the panel then compares the total pension costs
of
each jurisdiction (including, of course, King County) as a
measure
of the value of the actual pension benefits being pur-
chased
by each jurisdiction.
Five, the panel cannot ignore the participation or
non-par-
ticipation of all employers (including King County) in
the social
security
system in making its wage comparisons.
Six, in any event, the panel must adjust any conclusion
reached
by it after comparing the base wage rates paid by King
County to the members of the
bargaining unit with those paid to
like
employees by the other comparable jurisdictions because of
the
obvious differences in the cost of living in any comparable
jurisdiction
in northern and southern California with the cost of
living
in King County, Washington.
It is obvious that any person contemplating a relocation
from
one geographical area to another who fails to consider rela-
tive living costs of the two areas involved does
so at his/her
peril. Moreover, the cost of living is a major
factor driving