International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 2099
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 06722-I-87-00155
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 2099
AAA No.: 75 300 0025 87
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO.
2099 James H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 2099
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator was selected by the parties with the
assistance
of the American Arbitration Association, and in
accordance
with RCW 41.56.450. RCW 41.56.450 provides for
hearings
to be held before an arbitration panel consisting of
three
persons. The parties stipulated that this matter would
be
heard by a single arbitrator, rather than the three person
panel
described in the statute. A hearing was held in
represented
by Jerald L. Osterman, City Manager.
International Association of
Firefighters, Local No. 2099 was
represented
by James H. Webster of the law firm Webster, Mrak
and
Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath
and the parties presented documentary evidence. There
was
no reporter present, and, therefore, the Arbitrator tape
recorded
the proceedings for the sole purpose of supplementing
his
personal notes.
The parties agreed upon the submission of post hearing
briefs.
The briefs of the parties were received by the
Arbitrator on
ISSUES
The
firefighting
personnel, including 22 firefighters, 6
lieutenants,
and 2 captains. The
parties
to a collective bargaining agreement which expired on
a
new agreement despite their efforts in negotiations and the
efforts
of a mediator. In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, the
Executive Director of the
Relations Commission certified
that the parties were at
impasse,
specifically, with regard to wage rates and longevity
pay.
With the exception of these two issues, the parties have
agreed
to all contract provisions for a two-year agreement,
effective from
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed
personnel
are unable to reach agreement on new contract terms
by
means of negotiations and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls
for
the interest arbitration of their disputes. In interest
arbitration,
an arbitrator or arbitration panel adjudicates a
resolution
to contract issues which are at impasse following
collective
bargaining negotiations. RCW 41.56.030 defines
"uniformed
personnel," for whom interest arbitration are
available,
as encompassing firefighters. The parties agree
that
RCW 41.56.450 is applicable here.
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which
must be considered by an arbitrator in deciding the
controversy.
This statute has been amended, effective July
26,
1987. Thus, the negotiations and the hearing in
the
instant
matter were conducted before the effective date of the
amended
statute. This Decision is being issued after that
effective
date. The old language reads as follows:
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) Stipulation 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.
The recent amendment to RCW
41.56.460 changed only subsection
(c). The
newly revised subsection (c) is quoted below, with
the
new subsection (c) language underlined:
(c)(i) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(6) (a) and (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
(c)(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(6)(b), 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 public fire
departments
of similar size on the west
coast
of the
an
adequate number of comparable employers
exists
within the state of
other
west coast employers shall not be
considered;
Subsection (c) (ii) is
applicable to firefighters since
firefighters
are referenced in RCW 41.56.030(6)(b).1
1 My analysis of the instant controversy
would be no
different
whether the old or the revised version of the
statute
is applied.
_____
RCW 41.56.430, which is referred to in RCW 41.56.460,
reads
as follows:
41.56.430 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.
Proposals
The City proposes that all members of the bargaining unit
should
receive a 2 percent wage increase effective January 1,
1987 and an additional 2
percent wage increase effective
longevity
pay should be inserted into the Agreement. The City
asserts
that such a compensation increase is more than fair
considering
the consumer price index and the settlements
reached
with other City employees. The compensation paid to
bargaining
unit members is very close to the average of the
jurisdictions
suggested by the City as comparable.
The
percent
increase in total compensation effective January 1,
1987, and a wage increase effective
increases
in the CPI during 1987. The
part
of its total compensation increase, it be awarded
longevity
pay of 2 percent of monthly salary after 5 years, 4
percent
after 10 years, and 6 percent after 15 years. The
employees
to "catch up" with their peers employed by
comparable
fire departments.
Comparables
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which an
arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision
is a comparison of wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with those
of
like personnel in comparable employers of similar size. In
order
to make such a comparison, one must first determine
which
comparable employers should be selected.
The parties were unable to agree upon a list of comparable
employers.
The City proposes that the Arbitrator consider two
cities
and four fire districts as appropriate for comparison.
The cities are Issaquah and
Marysville. The fire districts
are
King County Fire Districts Nos. 16 and 36, and Snohomish
County
Fire Districts Nos. 7 and 12. The
comparable
jurisdictions. Two are cities:
Districts Nos. 2, 11, 24, 36,
and 40; Snohomish Fire Districts
Nos.
7 and 12; and Pierce County Fire Districts Nos. 3 and 5.
In selecting comparables, both
the City and the
on
comparing the population and assessed property valuation of
the
employing entity here with those of other public employers
located
nearby.
The City of
and
falls within both
has a
population of about 9,500. The City's fire department
provides
fire protection and emergency medical service not
only
within the geographic confines of the City of
but
also to two neighboring fire districts. King County Fire
Protection District No. 42 and
Snohomish
Protection District No. 10
each have had contractual
relationships
with the City for a number of years. It is not
clear
when these relationships began, though they existed in
1983 when the parties were
last involved in an interest
arbitration
proceeding. Three of the four fire stations
operated
by the City are situated outside of the City's
geographic
boundaries. In return, the City receives a major
share
of its funding for its fire department from the two fire
districts.
The City's fire department budget for 1987 is
$1,350,349, of which the
contracting fire districts provide
$978,500.
A significant preponderance of the population served by
the
City's fire department live within the confines of the
contracting
fire districts. Within the service area of Fire
District No. 42 are about
12,000 residents. Within Fire
District No. 10 are about
13,500 residents.
The City limited its choice of comparable jurisdictions to
cities
and fire districts located within King and Snohomish
Counties.
It chose Issaquah and Marysville because they are
the
only two cities within King and
have a
population between 5,000 and 15,000 and also operate
fire
departments with paid staff. It chose the four fire
districts
that it did because they were close in population to
the
combined population total of the two fire districts which
the
City serviced (25,500).
The
to
cities and fire districts situated in King, Snohomish, and
Pierce
Counties.
south.
King, Snohomish, and
constitute
the labor market that is recognized by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for
its Consumer Price Index for
the
comparables
to those located within the three county area, the
departments
that had a population and an assessed valuation
which
each were between 70 percent and 140 percent of the
total
for the City of
districts
which it services. The Union points out that in its
1983 interest arbitration with
the City, Arbitrator Michael
Beck had selected comparable
jurisdictions which had fallen
within a
population range of 70 percent and 140 percent of the
population
serviced by the City's fire department.2
2 The
jurisdictions
selected by Arbitrator Beck should not be used
in
the instant proceeding. The City disagrees with the method
by
which Arbitrator Beck selected comparators. The
asserts
that changed circumstances require that new
comparators
be used. Since the time of the 1983 interest
arbitration,
the population of the area for which the City
provides
fire services has grown. While Arbitrator Beck based
his
selection of comparators on a population served amounting
to
25,000, the parties agree that the population for the same
service
area now totals 35,000. Thus, both parties agree,
though
for differing reasons, that it is appropriate to select
new
comparators.
_____
The combined population of the City and the two fire
districts
which it services is about 35,000. It is that
figure
which shall be used as a basis for comparison. The
City argues that consideration
must be given to the fact that
the
City has less than 10,000 residents. Comparing it to much
larger
jurisdictions would result in higher salaries for its
fire
department employees in relation to that received by
those
employed in other departments of the City. I view it as
more
unfair to compare the salaries of City's firefighters
with
the two cities proposed for comparison by the City.
Those two cities have a
population of 6,000 and 7,000
respectively.
It is unlikely that their fire departments are
similar
to that of the City. The City operates a fire
department
which services a population five or six times
greater.
The number of alarm responses made by the City's
fire
department approximates the average of those made by the
comparators
proposed by the
the
Bothell Fire Department's manpower, number of stations,
response
time, equipment, and type and quantity of duties, all
are
more akin to that of much larger jurisdictions than the
two
small cities proposed by the City as comparators.
Moreover, there is a
distinction between the City's fire
department
and the fire departments of similarly sized cities,
which
lessens the significance of a salary comparison between
them.
Most of the fire department's budget here is derived
not
from taxes and fees collected by the City, but rather from
payments
made by the two contracting fire districts. Thus,
with