International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2459

And

King County Fire Protection District No. 16

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck

Date Issued: 07/06/1988

Arbitrator: Beck; Michael H.

Case #: 06970-I-87-00164

Employer: King County Fire Protection District #16

Union: IAFF; Local 2459

Date Issued: 07/06/1988

In the Matter of Arbitration )

between )

)

KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT )

NO. 16 )

) PERC Case No.

and ) 6970-I-87-164

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE )

FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 )

___________________________________________ )

Dated Issued: July 6, 1988

INTEREST ARBITRATION

OPINION AND AWARD

OF

MICHAEL H. BECK

FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL

Michael H. Beck Neutral Chairman

Rex H. Lindquist Union Member

Cabot Dow Employer Member

Appearances:

KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

NO. 16 W. Mitchell Cogdill

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE

FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 William L. Williams

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION......................................................................1

PROCEDURAL MATTERS............................................................................1

ISSUES IN DISPUTE.....................................................................................3

STATUTORY CRITERIA.................................................................................3

COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS........................................................................5

TERM OF AGREEMENT.. .............................................................................15

WAGES............................................................................................................16

Union Proposal.....................................................................................16

Employer Proposal...............................................................................17

PREMIUM PAY................................................................................................30

HOLIDAYS........................................................................................................31

HOURS OF DUTY............................................................................................32

OVERTIME.......................................................................................................33

II. AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN................................................................36

In the Matter of Arbitration )

between )

)

KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT )

NO. 16 )

) PERC Case No.

and ) 6970-I-87-164

)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE )

FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 )

)

___________________________________________ )

INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes

involving uniformed personnel when collective bargaining

negotiations have resulted in impasse. Accordingly, a

tripartite arbitration panel was formed with respect to the

instant matter. The Employer, King County Fire Protection

District No. 16, (Kenmore) appointed Cabot Dow as its member

of the panel, and the Union, International Association of

Fire Fighters, Local 2459, appointed Rex Lindquist as its

member of the panel. In turn, these two members selected

the undersigned to serve as Neutral Chairman of the panel.

A hearing in this matter was held on March 15 and 16,

1988 in Kenmore, Washington. The Employer was represented

by William L. Williams, Attorney at Law, and the Union was

represented by W. Mitchell Cogdill of the law firm Cogdill,

Deno, Millikan & Carter. At the hearing the testimony of

witnesses was taken under oath and the parties presented

documentary evidence. A court reporter was present and made

a record of the proceedings, but the record was not

transcribed for use by the Neutral Chairman (hereinafter

Chairman). By letter dated March 29, 1988, the parties

informed the Chairman that the parties would submit

posthearing briefs. The last such brief was received by the

Chairman on May 12, 1988. Thereafter, the Chairman was

required to rule on a posthearing motion. The record in

this matter was closed on the date of that ruling, May 31,

1988.

At the request of the Chairman, the parties have agreed

to extend the time for issuance of a decision until July 15,

1988. On June 28, 1988, the Chairman met with the 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

Pursuant to letters to the Chairman from both parties

dated March 9, 1988, the following issues were presented for

arbitration by the panel:

Term of Agreement

Wages

Premium Pay

Holidays

Hours of Duty

Overtime

STATUTORY CRITERIA

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

consideration the following factors:

(a) The constitutional and statutory author-

ity of the employer;

(b) Stipulations of the parties;

(c)(i) For employees listed in *RCW

41.54.030(6) (a) and (c), [uniformed personnel

other than fire fighters] 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 United States;

(ii) For employees listed in *RCW

41.54.030(6)(b), [fire fighters] 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 United

States. However, when an adequate number of

comparable employers exists within the state of

Washington, other west coast employers shall

not be considered;

(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.

As the code revisors I note indicates, a portion of Chapter

521 {Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 498] which was

passed by the Legislature during the 1987 Legislative

Session and which made certain changes in RCW 41.56.460 was

partially vetoed by the Governor. However, Section 2 of

that Bill, which made certain changes with respect to how

comparables are to be selected in cases involving fire

fighters was not vetoed and appears as 41.56.460(c) (ii).

The Legislative purpose which your Chairman is directed

to be mindful of in applying the standards and guidelines in

reaching his decision 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 Washington 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 Washington; that to

promote such dedicated and uninterrupted public

service there should exist an effective and

adequate alternative means of settling

disputes.

COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS

Prior to the passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill

No. 498 during the 1987 Legislative Session, fire fighters

were subject to the same requirements as those presently set

forth in RCW 41.56.460 (c)(i). The changes with respect to

fire fighters are twofold. First, the phrase "public fire

departments" was substituted for the phrase "like

employers." Secondly, the last sentence of RCW 41.56.460

(c)(ii) did not appear in the statute prior to the 1987

Legislative change.

Both parties are in agreement that the substitution of

the phrase "public fire departments" for the phrase "like

employers" with respect to fire fighters was taken by the

Legislature in order to make clear that all employers

operating a public fire department, whether it be a

department maintained by a city, a county, or a fire

protection district, would be considered a comparable

employer as long as such employer was of similar size and on

the west coast of the United States. However, the Employer

takes the position that the above-discussed change in the

statute along with the addition of the last sentence of RCW

41.56.460 (c)(ii) made clear that the only geographic

limitation was the State of Washington. Thus, as I under-

stand the Employer's argument it is that if there are an

adequate number of comparable employers within the State of

Washington, then not only shall west coast employers not be

considered, but all such employers within the State of

Washington must be considered. That is, the Arbitration

Panel would be precluded from limiting its consideration to

a particular labor market within the State of Washington,

even though such comparison would yield an adequate number

of comparable employers.

Additionally, the Employer contends that population is

the only appropriate measure of similar size. Both the

Employer and the Union agree that the relevant population

figure for the Employer is 24,000. They also both agree

that the population range should be from thirty percent

below 24,000 (16,800) to thirty percent above 0

(31,200). Using the 30% plus or minus approach, the

Employer determined that there were twenty-four comparable

jurisdictions within the State of Washington.

The Union does not agree with the Employer's contention

that population is the only appropriate basis upon which to

measure size. In the Union's view, population is only one

of the three most relevant measures of size, the other two

being the size of the geographic area served by a public

fire department and the number of personnel in the appro-

priate bargaining unit of the public fire department. Of

secondary relevance, but still worthy of consideration

according to the Union, are a fire department's budget and

the assessed valuation of property within the area served by

the fire department.

In addition to size, the Union urges the Panel to

consider the geographic proximity of other public fire

departments to the Employer here. In this regard, the Union

did place in the record evidence which established that the

parties, to some extent, had used nearby jurisdictions for

purposes of making wage and benefit comparisons during the

bargaining process, both with respect to the Collective

Bargaining Agreement before the Panel here, as well as

several prior agreements. Additionally, the evidence indi-

cated that the Employer here used these same "traditional"

comparators when establishing wage levels for the newly

created position of Battalion Chief in early 1986. These

five jurisdictions are Snohomish County Fire Protection

District No. 1 (SCFPD, No. 1), King County Fire Protection

District No. 36 (Woodinville), King County Fire Protection

District No. 4 (Shoreline), Kirkland, and Bothell. The

evidence indicates that Redmond has also been used by the

parties as a "traditional" comparator to some extent. How-

ever, the record does not contain information regarding the

size or wages structure of Redmond. Therefore, I have not

included it as a "traditional" comparator.

None of the "traditional" comparators, with two

exceptions, meet the Union's criteria of being of similar

size with respect to what the Union considers to be the