Office and Professional
Employees International
Law and Justice Division,
AFL-CIO
And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06318-I-86-00145
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL NO. 11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION,
AFL-CIO
Dated Issued:
PERC
No.
6318-1-86-145
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
Appearances:
CITY OF
Nancy Williams
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES David E. Williams
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL NO.
11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION, AFL-CIO
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL NO. 11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION,
AFL-CIO
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. The parties
here agreed
upon
the selection of the undersigned to serve as Interest
Arbitrator
Pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW. The parties
waived
the tripartite arbitration panel provided for in RCW
41.56.450, and, instead,
determined to submit the matter to
the
undersigned as a single Arbitrator.
A hearing in this matter was held on February 19, 1987
in
land,
was represented by J. David Andrews and Nancy Williams
of
the law firm, Perkins Coie. The
fessional Employees International Union Local No. 11,
Law
and
Justice Division, AFL-CIO, was represented by David E.
Williams
of the law firm of Critchlow and Williams.
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 Arbitrator for his use in
reaching a
decision in this case.
The parties agreed to submit simultaneous posthearing
briefs. Both briefs were received by the Arbitrator
on
ties
agreed to waive the statutory requirement that a deci-
sion issue within thirty days, and instead
allowed him until
statutory
mandate, I set forth herein my findings of fact
and
determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
On
Employment Relations Commission
certified eight issues to be
submitted to
interest arbitration. Prior to the
hearing in
this
matter, the parties stipulated that the issue of line-
up
time compensation had been settled and was not an issue
for
arbitration. The parties further
stipulated that the
issue of
pay for holidays would be settled through the
contractual
grievance/arbitration procedure. The
parties
also
agreed that the issue of the term of the Agreement, not
previously
certified by the Executive Director, was in dis-
pute and was to be decided by the Arbitrator
here. Prior to
the
hearing, the
tion its proposals on the issue of pay for
clothing and
equipment During the hearing, the
Interest Arbitration its
proposal on the issue of education
al
incentive pay.
Thus, the following five issues are before the Arbitrator
Term of the Agreement
Insurance
Seniority
Sick Leave
Wages, Appendix A, Including Special Duty Pay
Therein
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria
should be
taken into consideration as relevant factors in
reaching a
decision:
[T]he panel shall be mindful of
the legisla-
tive 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 con-
ditions 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 United States;
(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 proceed-
ings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the
foregoing,
which are normally or traditional
ly taken into consideration in the determina-
tion of wages, hours and conditions of em-
ployment.
The legislative purpose for enactment of the
interest arbitration
statute is set forth in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of
this....act is
to
recognize that there exists a public
policy in
the state of
strikes by
uniformed personnel as a means of
Settling their labor disputes;
that the unin-
terrupted and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the welfare
and
public safety of the state of
that to
promote such dedication and uninter-
rupted public service there should exist an
effective
and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes.
The employees involved here are police officers em-
ployed by the City of
to a
population base of 30,240 according to the Employer or
30,508
according to the
difference in
these figures is less than one percent and
will
not affect a determination regarding appropriate compa-
rables, I find it unnecessary to resolve this
difference.
The parties stipulated. that for
the purposes of RCW
41.56.460(c), the jurisdictions
selected by either party as
comparators
shall be limited to the State of
that no
jurisdiction from outside the State of
shall be
Offered in this arbitration by either party as a
comparator to
the Employer In selecting the appropriate
comparators,
each party considered the cities in the State
of
of
the Employer's population. This produced
the same eight
cities
whether the Employer or
The
priate comparators to the Employer here. The Employer would
include
only
and
would add the cities of
A review of the eight comparators selected by the
reveals
that they all meet the statutory criteria set forth
in
RCW 41.56.460(c), since they employ like personnel, i.e.,
Police Officers; they are like
employers, i.e., Cities; and
they
are all of similar size in terms of their respective
population,
within plus or minus twenty percent.
Further,
they
meet the stipulation of the parties that the compara
tors be cities in the State of
facie
showing of comparability, it seems appropriate to
place
the burden on the party seeking to exclude a city from
consideration to show why the city should not
be considered.
Here, the Employer contends
that the cities of
Edmonds, Kent, Redmond and
Renton, Offered by the Union, are
not
comparable to the Employer because they are located in
close
proximity to a major metropolitan area, namely,
Seattle.
According to the Employer, the Union's selection of com-
parators, "ignores the principles traditionally
recognized
by
interest arbitrators, i.e., that the local labor market
provides
the best basis of comparison and that there are
substantial
differences between jurisdictions within a major
metropolitan area
and those outside it." (Employer's
Brief,
page
7.) The Employer further contends that
in determining
appropriate
wages, the Arbitrator should consider Only
"those
cities closest to the [Employer] which are subject to
similar
trends and influences." (Employer's
Brief, page
11.) These cities according to the Employer are
Kennewick,
Pasco
and Walla Walla.
The Legislature in enacting the interest arbitration
statute
may be assumed to have been aware of the various
regional
differences which exist between eastern and western
Washington. However, the Legislature, in setting forth
the
criteria
for comparators in RCW 41.56.460, did not restrict
the
jurisdiction to be selected to those within the same
local
labor market, but instead authorized comparisons with
employers on
the west coast of the United States, provided
such
employers meet the statutory criteria, as discussed
above. The foregoing makes clear that even if one
assumes
that a
jurisdiction within a local labor market, in some
respects,
may provide greater indicia of comparability with
another
jurisdiction in the same labor market than with a
jurisdiction
outside that local labor market, such fact does
not
indicate that the jurisdiction outside the local labor
market is
not comparable pursuant to RCW 41.56.460(c).
In the present case, there are compelling reasons why
the
Union's comparators should not be excluded from consi-
deration.
First, the Employer is a part of the Tn-Cities
metropolitan
area, which has a population of approximately
85,000
people.
According to the information introduced by
the
Employer in the form of newspaper reports (Employer
Exhibit No. 24), the Tn-Cities area has a workforce heavily
dependent on
employment involving the federal sector at the
Hanford
facility. These
same news reports state that
Hanford workers earn an average
of $34,400 per year. This
heavy
concentration of high paid workers causes Richland, as
a
part of the Tn-Cities, to be distinguishable from a
more
isolated
rural city such as, for example, Walla Walla.
Further, a review of the
various job functions per-
formed by
Richland Police Officers indicate that the Employ
er here is similar in many respects to the
Other Union
suggested
comparators. For example, the Employer
here has a
motorcycle
unit, but only two of the Employer's five sug-
gested comparators have motorcycles The Employer also has
a
bomb squad, but none of the five Employer comparators has
a
bomb squad. The Employer has a SWAT
team, but only one of
the
five Employer comparators has a SWAT team.
The Employer
has a
canine unit but, Only two of the five Employer's
comparators
have canine units. In contrast, all of
the
Union's eight suggested
comparators have motorcycles except
Longview, two have a bomb
squad, five have a SWAT team, and
all
but Walla Walla have canine units. Thus, in terms of
job
functions performed by the Employer's police department,
the
Employer is actually more "like" the eight Union sug-
gested comparators than the five Employer suggested
compara-
tors.
If I were to exclude consideration of the Union's
comparators,
there would be little or no basis for compari-
son
with respect to the special duty wage issues before the
Arbitrator. Thus, as the Employer recognizes, it is neces-
sary to include the Union's comparators in order
to have an
adequate
base from which to make a comparison on
these
issues. However, it does not appear appropriate,
pursuant
to
RCW 41.56.460(c), nor equitable, to choose certain cities
for
comparison on parts of a wage Package, i.e., that having
to do
with wages, and other cities for other parts of the
wage
package, i.e., that having to do with special duty pay
On this basis I also reject the
Employer suggestion that,
for
purposes of wage comparison,. the comparators should
be
limited
solely to those in what the Employer terms "the
local
labor market" of Kennewick, Pasco and Walla.
(Employer's Brief,
page 12.) Further, I note that for 1987,
the
Employer's suggested comparators would actually involve
only
two cities, inasmuch as Pasco is still in negotiations
with
respect to their 1987 collective bargaining agreement.