International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
58
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06151-I-85-00135
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 58
Date Issued:
PERC No. 6151-I-85-135
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR
THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael
H. Beck Neutral Chairman
Barbara
Revo Employer
Representative
John
Komar Union
Representative
Appearances:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS,
LOCAL
UNION NO. 58 Herman
L. Wacker
IN THE MATTER OF
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 58
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for the arbitration of disputes
when
collective bargaining negotiations involving uniformed
personnel
have resulted in impasse. The parties
agree that
the
deputy sheriffs and sergeants employed by
are
subject to the aforementioned arbitration procedures.
The undersigned was selected by
the parties to serve as the
Neutral
Chairman of the tripartite arbitration panel. The
Arbitrator selected by the
Employer,
Barbara Revo,
of the management consulting firm of Cabot Dow
&
Associates. The
Arbitrator selected by the
national
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and
Helpers, Local Union No. 58, is John Komar, Administra
tive Assistant for the public, Professional &
Office-
Clerical Employees and Drivers
Local Union No. 763, affi-
liated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers.
A hearing was held before the Arbitration panel on
represented by
Coie. The
law
firm, Davies, Roberts, Reid & Wacker. At the hearing
the
testimony of witnesses was taken under oath and the
parties
presented extensive documentary evidence which
measured
almost a foot in height. A court
reporter was
present
and a verbatim transcript was prepared and provided
to
the Neutral Chairman (hereinafter Chairman) for his use
in
reaching a decision in this matter.
The parties agreed to file simultaneous posthearing
briefs. The Employer's brief was timely postmarked
and
received on
postmarked
but was mailed to the wrong address and thus was
not
received until 0, 1987
Chairman, the parties agreed to
an extension of the statut-
ory requirement that a decision issue within
thirty days.
Instead, the Chairman was given
until
his
decision. On
other
members of the Arbitration panel. A
discussion of the
issues
occurred which was very helpful to the Chairman. In
accordance
with the statutory mandate, I set forth herein my
findings of
fact and determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
By letter of
of
the public Employment Relations Commission certified a
number of
issues to be submitted to interest arbitration.
Subsequent to such
certification, the parties were able to
settle a
large number of the outstanding issues.
Pursuant
to
the parties'
the
following issues remain:
Holidays
Uniforms and Uniform Equipment
List
Salary Schedule
Salaries - Step Advancement
DISCUSSION
Comparables
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria
shall be
taken into consideration as relevant factors in
reaching a
decision:
(T)he
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 consider-
ation 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 employ-
ment 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.
The legislative purpose for enactment of the interest
arbitration
statute is set forth in RCW 4l.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of this . .
act is
to recognize that there exists a
public
policy in the state of
ington 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
cated and uninterrupted public service
there
should exist an effective and
adequate
alternativeness of settling
disputes.
The parties involved here are deputy sheriffs and
sergeants
employed by a county. They provide
service to a
population
base of approximately 79,600. I have
used the
Employer's population figure
for
rather
than the
of
the Employer's population figure appears to be slightly
more
recent and because I have generally determined to use
the
Employer comparators, as will be explained later in
this
Opinion.
The parties are not agreed upon which comparators are
appropriate to
use in reviewing the matters at issue here.
The
and
counties in the State of
the
statutory interest arbitration procedures.
According to
the
''like employers" refers
only to other counties. The
contends
that cities and counties are appropriately con-
sidered like employers since there are few
significant
differences
between the law enforcement activities of city
police
officers and those of county sheriffs.
Further, the
cities
and counties not to be like employers, i.e.,
different
revenue-raising devices, does not address the
issue of
comparability but only the relative ability of
cities
and counties to pay for personnel costs.
Finally,
the
subject to
interest arbitration reflect the effects of in-
terest arbitration whereas compensation levels in
counties
not
subject to interest arbitration reflect compensation
amounts
which tend to favor employers.
Whatever merit there may be in the
interpretation of
the statutory requirement that comparisons
be
made between "like personnel of like employers", it is
clear
that the statutory interpretation urged by the
cannot be
adopted since it conflicts with another specific
statutory
requirement. Here, use of the
would
require that the Chairman ignore the statutory
requirement
that comparators be of "similar size".
The
Exhibit No. 44 (Counties) and
The
from
107,700 to 1,326,600. The
cities
range in population from 16,02 to 490,300
Thus,
the
below to
more than 1566% above the population of
County. In my view such wide variances in population
cannot
be
considered to meet the statutory requirement that the
comparators be
of similar size. As the Employer points
out
in
its brief, there is ample arbitral support for the con-
clusion that population variances of such magnitude
do not
comport
with the statutory requirement that comparators be
of
similar size. Finally, in this regard,
if your Chairman
were to
accept the
statutory
requirement that the comparators selected are to
be
"west coast" jurisdictions and not simply jurisdictions
from
the State of
The Employer has proposed a set of twenty comparators.
The Employer arrived at these
by selecting all counties in
lation range of plus or minus 50% of the population
of
Washington, one in Alaska, ten
in Oregon, and twelve in
Star Borough, was eliminated
because it does not provide any
police
services. The Employer reduced the
number of
counties In
counties in
each state closest to
The Employer made no further
reduction in the counties
selected
for
For
comparators
range in population from a low of 61,500
(
which is
a range of from 23% below to 27% above
County. For
range
from a low of 48,400 (
116,000 (
to
46% above
disparities
and the fact that the statute does not indicate
that
weighted
than other jurisdictions on the west coast, I have
determined to
select only five
decision is
consistent with the method used by the Employer
to
select counties in
chosen
the five counties in
population to
use as
a
sample of fifteen comparators, five each from
selected
comparators is almost exactly plus or minus 33%
I also reviewed the comparators provided by the
to
determine whether any of the
fell
within this population range. Only one
of the
proposed
counties,
for
use as a comparator from the Employer's proposed list)
and