Public,
Professional & Office-Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union No. 763
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 06360-I-86-00146
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION NO.
763
PERC No.: 6360-I-86-146
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
J. David Andrews and
Nancy Williams
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS, LOCAL
NO. 763
Heal L. Wacker
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION
NO.763
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator was selected by the parties in accordance
with RCW 41.56.450 and Article
XVI, Section 16.2.1 of their
1985-87 collective Bargaining
Agreement. The first day of
hearing was held in
1986. The second day of
hearing was held in Everett,
represented by J. David
Andrews and Nancy Williams of the law
firm, Perkins Coie. Public,
Professional & Office-Clerical
Employees and Drivers, Local
Union No. 763 was represented by
Herman L. Wacker of the law
firm, Davies, Roberts, Reid &
Wacker.
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 Arbitrator for his use
in reaching a decision.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
post hearing briefs. The
briefs were received by the
Arbitrator on
BACKGROUND
The County and the
bargaining agreement which
expires on
bargaining unit is comprised
of 120 law enforcement officers
of the
sergeants, and 5 lieutenants.
The median length of service is
about 7 years for deputies,
and considerably longer for
sergeants and lieutenants.
Article XVI, Section 16.2 of the
labor agreement permits either
party to reopen the agreement
as of
relating to wages, educational
incentive pay, longevity pay,
and health and welfare.
Article XVI, Section 16.2.1 provides
that in the event that the
parties are unable to reach
agreement on these issues, the
dispute shall be submitted for
interest arbitration in
accordance with RCW 41.56.
ISSUES
The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the
reopened issues 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 the
parties were at impasse with
regard to wages, educational
incentive pay, longevity pay, and
health and welfare. Since that
certification, the efforts of
the parties in collective
bargaining negotiations have
resulted in an agreement with
regard to health and welfare.
The parties agree that the
issues remaining unresolved relate
to wages, educational
incentive pay, and longevity pay.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PRINCIPLES
Where certain cities and counties and their uniformed
personnel are unable to reach
agreement on new contract terms
through negotiations and
mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for
the interest arbitration of
their disputes. RCW 41.56.030
defines "uniformed
personnel" for whom interest arbitration is
available as encompassing law
enforcement officers of cities
with a population of at least
15,000, or of counties of the
second class or larger. The
parties agree that Snohomish
County, with a population of
366,700, meets the statutory
standard for interest
arbitration.
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which must be considered by
this Arbitrator. 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
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
and uninterrupted public
service there
should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
Comparables
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which the
Arbitrator must rely in making
his 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 like employers on the
west coast should be selected as
similar in size to
proceeding.
The parties were unable to agree upon a list of like
employers. The County proposes
that the Arbitrator consider
the following three counties
as appropriate for comparison:
from among all the counties in
the three west coast states,
Washington, Oregon, and
California, based on an examination of
each county's total
population, population in nonincorporated
areas, total square miles,
nonincorporated square miles, and
miles of county-maintained
roads. A county was considered
similar to
was within 25 percent of that
for
county came within the similar
range on nonincorporated
population and on at least two
of the other size criteria, it
became one of the County's
comparators.
The
three types of employers as
comparable jurisdictions. It
urges that all ten of the
to statutory interest
arbitration be considered. It also
asserts that all 17 counties
in
are comparable. As additional
comparable employers, the
to statutory interest
arbitration and which are situated
within counties which are
subject to interest arbitration.
Whatever the merits of the County's methodology, the
sample that it came up with is
just too small. With only
three comparators, any one of
them will have an enormous
influence on the conclusions
reached. One or two of them may
have unusual contract terms
reflecting unique circumstances or
an atypical labor relations
relationship. A larger sample is
necessary in order to reflect
a meaningful norm of like-sized
jurisdictions. No larger
sample can be gleaned from the
information supplied by the
County.
The
broad. First, its suggestion
to use all counties subject to
interest arbitration would
result in using comparators that
are not of similar size. That
would not comply with the
requirement of RCW
41.56.460(c) that "similar size" employers
be compared. Counties such as
79,000, and King, with a
population of 1,326,600, cannot be
considered to be of similar
size to
population of 366,700.
The same reasoning can be applied to the
on
cities are not of like size to
is
officers, whereas
statute calls for a comparison
of "like employers." While
there are many similarities in
the nature of law enforcement
supplied by counties and
cities, counties and cities are
distinguishable entities. They
generally serve different
purposes and have different
taxing authorities. An adequate
sample can be obtained by
using counties alone, and counties,
after all, are more like
counties than they are like
cities.1
__________________
1 The
County cited several interest arbitration
decisions in which the
arbitrator declined to find that cities
and counties are like
employers, including City of
and
(Carlton J. Snow, 1986).
The
cities have added significance
because that compensation has
been influenced by the
statutory interest arbitration
procedure, whereas, interest
arbitration is new for most
counties. Thus, the Union
argues, the compensation paid by
cities reflects the product of
impartial dispute resolution,
while compensation paid by
counties reflects a former
bargaining process which favored
the employer. The statute
does not indicate that any
special weight should be given to
those employers who are
subject to interest arbitration. The
nature of their labor
relations does not determine whether two
employers are alike for the
purpose of the statute. Rather,
the statute focuses the
selection of comparators on "like
employers of similar size on
the west coast."
Your Arbitrator has selected seven counties to serve as
comparators. They are as
follows:
_____________________________________________________
Washington State Population
Clark County 201,700
Pierce County 514,600
Spokane County 349,400
Oregon
Marion County 210,000
Washington County 260,000
California
San Joaquin County 390,600
Stanislaus County 292,350
_____________________________________________________
The three Washington State counties reflect all of the
counties in Washington,
besides Snohomish County, which have a
population between 200,000 and
525,000. Oregon and California
have more counties falling
within this population band than
does Washington. Only two
counties were selected from each of
those west coast states, so
that the experience of California
counties would not dominate.
Oregon has four counties with a population of between
200,000 and 525,000. Those
four counties each have a
population of between 210,000
and 268,500. Marion County and
Washington County were
selected because their ratio of
reported part one criminal
offenses to law enforcement
officers is very similar to
that of Snohomish County. D.P.
Van Blaricom, former police
chief of the Bellevue Police
Department, testified that
such a ratio reflects the way that
he would measure work load.
Since the populations of the four
Oregon Counties are fairly
close, using the work load is the
most rational basis in the
record to select the two most
comparable Oregon counties.
According to the Union, California has ten counties with a
population of between 200,000
and 525,000. That number was
reduced to seven by
considering only those counties which had
a population within 25 percent
of the population of Snohomish
County. That eliminated
Tulare, Mann, and Santa Cruz
Counties from consideration.
Of the remaining seven counties,
San Joaquin and Stanislaus
were significantly closest to
Snohomish County in the work
load of their officers according
to the crime statistics. The
following chart reflects all the
counties in Oregon and
California with a population of between
200,000 and 525,000, as well
as their rate of crimes per
officer:2
_____________________________________________________
Crime
Rate
Population Per Officer
Oregon Counties
Lane 268,500 33.9
Washington* 260,200 50.0
Clackamas 246,300 82.7
Marion* 210,000 56.6
California Counties
Kern 400,506 27.9
San
Joaquin* 390,600 44.5
Santa
Barbara 320,362 26.7
Monterey 316,179 24.6
Sonoma 305,000 37.2
Stanislaus* 292,350 53.3
Solano 282,350 71.1
Tulare 249,000 25.5
Mann 223,000 30.1
Santa
Cruz 200,300 46.0
Snohomish County 366,700 52.6
_____
*reflects the counties
selected
_____________________________________________________
2 This chart is derived from Union exhibits
25 and
26. The Union indicated that
the crime statistics come from
the 1985-86 Personnel and
Budget Study of Oregon Law
Enforcement Agency published
by the Board on Police
Standards And Training, the
1985 Oregon Report of Criminal
Offenses and Arrests published
by the Board on Police
Systems, and the 1984
California Criminal Justice Profile
published by the California
Department of Justice. Union
Business Representative
Richard Basarab testified that these
data sources indicated that
uniform FBI reporting procedures
were used. Mr. Basarab further
testified that the crime
figures used were those for
part 1 crimes, such as homicide,
rape, aggravated assault, etc.
The Union argues that in order to make a meaningful
comparison between the
compensation of County personnel and
the compensation of personnel
in other jurisdictions, each
element of compensation must
be valued and the total in each
jurisdiction reduced to a
single statistic. The Union
asserts that it is meaningless
to compare only wages and to
ignore other nonwage
compensation, such as health and
welfare benefits, longevity
pay, educational incentive pay,
medical, dental, vision and
life insurance contributions,
social security and/or benefit
trust contributions,
retirement contributions,
holiday and vacation pay, and
uniform allowances. Under the
Union's model, the various
elements of compensation are
each translated into a dollars
and cents cost per hour to the
employer. All such itemized
costs are then totaled to
determine the total hourly cost to
the employer for compensation
for the law enforcement
officers.
The County argues that the compilation and presentation
of compensation data in the
manner proposed by the Union
improperly expands and
distorts the focus of the issues
before the Arbitrator. The
County points out that the
Arbitrator's jurisdiction is
limited to wages, educational
incentive pay and longevity
pay. The County asserts that it
would be an improper expansion
of the scope of the
arbitration if the Arbitrator
were to consider other items,
and, indirectly, make
adjustments to those through an award
on the limited items properly
before him. The County argues
that the Union's analysis
ignores the possibility that in
collective bargaining,
monetary components often are
subordinated to nonmonetary
issues. Further, the County
argues, the Union's focus on
monetary cost to the employer
ignores the actual benefits
received by the employees. The
County points out that the same
costs can supply differing
levels of insurance or
retirement benefits. The County argues
that it would be inappropriate
to reduce all compensation to
an hourly rate because the
parties have historically