International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2595
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06299-I-86-00143
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS)
Date Issued:
PERC No. 6299-I-86-143
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR
THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral Chairman
Randy Bellon Union
Representative
Albert G. Ross Employer Representative
Appearances:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS) James
H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS)
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes when
collective
bargaining negotiations involving uniformed
personnel
have resulted in impasse. In 1985 a new
section
was
added to chapter 41.56 RCW which brought certain life
support
technicians within the arbitration procedures called
for
in RCW 41.56.450. The parties agree that
the 32
paramedics
employed by
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,
Albert G. Ross, Personnel
Manager. The Arbitrator selected
by
the
Local 2595, is Randy Bellon, Paramedic.
A hearing was held before the Arbitration panel on July
29 and
S. Smolen,
Labor/Employee Relations Specialist. The
was
represented by James H. Webster of the law firm,
Webster,
Mrak & Blumberg.
At the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence.
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. Timely postmarked briefs were received by the
Chairman on December 16 and
request
of the Chairman, the parties agreed to waive the
statutory
requirement that a decision issue within thirty
days. On
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
On
Employment Relations
Commission certified five issues to be
submitted
to interest arbitration. Those issues
are:
WAGES
FURLOUGH (VACATION//
DURATION ON
HEALTH AND WELFARE PACKAGE
LONGEVITY
DISCUSSION
Comparables
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria
should
be taken into consideration as relevant factors in
reaching a
decision:
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and
conditions
of employment of personnel
involved
in the proceedings 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.
***
(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 parties involved here are civilian paramedics
employed
by a county. They provide service to a
population
base
of approximately 384,000 people according to the
Employer (Exhibit No. 57) or
430,000 people according to the
used,
the evidence presented at the hearing by the Employer
indicated
that there are no counties on the west coast of
the
United States that employ paramedics to serve a popula-
tion of similar size. This evidence was unrebutted. The
Union contends that the cities
of Seattle, Everett and
(Shoreline), and King County
Public Hospital District No. 2
(Evergreen) should be
considered comparable to
because
they are the only jurisdictions to employ paramedics
specially
trained at
ther party is contending that there are
Comparables that
fully
fleet the statutory criteria. However,
the
contending
that by limiting the comparables to jurisdictions
where
the paramedics are Harborview trained, those parame-
dics will at least constitute "like
personnel" within the
meaning
of RCW 41.56.460(c) even if they cannot be said to
be
employed by "like employers of similar size".
Both parties agree, however, that pursuant to RCW
41.56.460 (f) the Chairman can
consider the wages, hours and
conditions
of employment which exist for similarly employed
individuals
in the relevant labor market. The
the
Arbitrator to consider only the jurisdictions noted
above
based on the common Harborview training. The
Employer, in addition to those
jurisdictions offered by the
Pierce
County Fire Districts 2, 3, 9; Sno-Com.
It is the Employer's position that in order to properly
compare
the wages, hours and conditions of employment among
these
labor market jurisdictions, an adjustment must be made
for
the fact that in most of the jurisdictions, the parame-
dics also function as firefighters. This was referred to as
being
"dual function" employees.
According to the Employer,
because
the paramedics employed by
dual
function skills, their wages cannot be directly com-
pared
to the wages of a dual function firefighter/paramedic
in
other jurisdictions. In order to account
for the lack of
dual
function skills, the Employer proposes using reduced
wage
rates for the labor market jurisdictions employing dual
function
employees. According to the Employer,
the appro-
priate reduction is that amount (generally about
10%) which
is
paid as a wage premium to firefighters when they are
assigned
to work as paramedics.
I have carefully considered the Employer's position
regarding
its dual function employee adjustment and find
that
it would be inappropriate to make the adjustment urged
by
the Employer. First, here we are seeking
to compare King
County paramedics
wages, hours and conditions of employment
with
those of other individuals employed as paramedics in
other
relevant jurisdictions. By eliminating
from compari-
son
the premium paid by these jurisdictions to firefighters
while
working as paramedics, the Employer's proposal would
essentially
result in a comparison of King County paramedics
wages
to the wages received by firefighters, rather than
paramedics. The job of a paramedic is a very different
job
involving
very different skills and training than that of a
firefighter. Additionally, the Employer's proposal does
not
address
the fact that by paying firefighters a premium for
working
as paramedics, the relevant jurisdictions are recog-
nizing that the job of paramedic should be
compensated at a
higher
level than that of firefighters. In view
of all of
the
foregoing, I must find that to reduce the wages in the
comparable
jurisdictions by the amount of the paramedic
premium
as the Employer suggests, does not result in a
meaningful
comparison.
In submitting evidence regarding the labor market com-
parators it selected, the Employer provided wage
rates
adjusted
to reflect the dual function argument discussed and
rejected
above. The Employer did not provide the
actual
paramedic
wage rates for these proposed labor market compar-
ators.
According to the Employer, the paramedic premium was
generally
about 10%. I have compared the actual
wage rates
supplied
by the Union for Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Shore-
line
and Evergreen, with those rates set forth by the Em-
ployer.
Evergreen provides only paramedic services. Of the
four
remaining, only Seattle and Everett match the Union
provided
paramedic salary figure when one adds 10% to the
Employer
figure. The
figures for Bellevue and Shoreline
cone
out above those provided by the Union.
The differences
are
in the one to 1.4 percent range.
Since it is not possible to determine from the evidence
in
the record exactly how much the wages for Tacoma and
Pierce County Fire Districts
2, 3 and 9 were adjusted by the
Employer, I have decided not
to include them in the labor
market
comparators. As has already been
discussed an
adjustment
of 10% would, at best, be an approximation.
Here, where a difference of
even one percentage point could
mean
thousands of dollars over the term of the collective
bargaining
agreement, it would be inappropriate to engage in
such
guesswork.
Sno-Com and Evergreen are
civilian paramedic providers
that
do not employ firefighters. Thus, no
adjustment has
been
made in their wage rates by the Employer.
Because
accurate
wage rates can be determined for both jurisdic-
tions, they will be included as labor market
comparators
along
with Seattle, Everett, Bellevue and Shoreline.
Selecting these six
jurisdictions to use as comparators will
insure
that accurate wage rates are used. Further,
using
these
comparators is also consistent with the consumer price
index
employed by the parties in their negotiations to
evaluate
the cost of living, namely the CPI-W calculated
based
on the Seattle-Everett area. Thus, the six jurisdic-
tions I have selected include all the paramedic
service
providers
suggested by either party located in Snohomish and
King
Counties.
Further, Sno-Com is a public provider of
paramedic
services which includes the area adjacent to
Shoreline
to the south and Everett to the north.
The evidence does not support the Union's contention
that
only Harborview trained paramedics are appropriate
comparators. In this regard, Dr. Michael Copass, founder
and
presently Director of Training for the Harborview Medi-
cal
Center Paramedic Program, testified that although Sno-
Com uses paramedics trained in
a variety of different pro-
grams,
that organization has "done a very good job of mold-
mg a
variety of people into a common theme and their
paramedics
are "all well trained". (Tr.
pages 24-25.) Al-
though
the Harborview program is clearly an excellent pro-
gram,
the evidence presented was not sufficient to justify
excluding a
jurisdiction which, although not employing only
Harborview
trained paramedics, did ensure that all its para-
medics
were well trained. Further, Sno-Com is a "like
employer"
to King County in the sense that it is also a
civilian
provider of paramedic services. The only
other
civilian
provider, Evergreen, is also included.
Finally
Sno-Con's
relatively low net total hourly wage will offset
the
disproportionately high net total hourly wage paid by
Everett, thereby providing a
more balanced range of wages
and
benefits among the comparators.
Health and Welfare
Turning first to the issue of Health and Welfare, it is
my
understanding that the Union is agreeable to language
which
would permit the Employer, "to incorporate changes to
employee
insurance benefits agreed on by the Joint Labor-
Management Insurance Committee
to the extent that no benefit
is
in any way diminished." (Union Brief at page 43.)
The
Employer's proposal is to
retain language requiring it "to
maintain
the level of benefits currently provided by {its
group
medical, dental and life insurance plans} for the
duration
of this Agreement." In addition,
the Employer
seeks
to incorporate changes in employee insurance benefits
agreed
on by the Joint Labor-Management Insurance Committee.
It does appear that by adding the language sought by
the
employer regarding the Joint Labor-Management Insurance
Committee while retaining the
maintenance of benefits provi-
sion, both parties will substantially achieve
their objec-
tives.
Additionally, as I understand the Union's position,
it
is currently satisfied with the revised mental health
coverage
described in the October 3, 1986 letter from Em-
ployer Labor Relations Specialist Stephen Robinson
to Union
Counsel Jim Webster,
copied to the Chairman. In view of all
of
the foregoing, I find that Article X of the Agreement
should
be modified to read as proposed by the Employer as
follows:
King County presently
participates in group
medical,
dental and life insurance programs.
The County agrees to maintain
the level of