International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local No. 1805
And
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 08346-I-90-00188
Employer: Clark
County Fire Protection District #6
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 6 ) PERC NO.: 8346-1-90-188
)
and ) Date
Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 1805 )
)
______________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Bud Seifert Employer
Member
Frank Spickelmire Union Member
Appearances:
DISTRICT NO. 6 A.
K. Baird
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE
FIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 1805 James
H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
PROTECTION
DISTRICT NO. 6 ) PERC NO.: 8346-1-90-188
)
and ) Date Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 1805 )
)
________________________________ )
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,
District No. 6, appointed Bud
Seifert as its member of the
Panel and the
Fighters, Local 1805,
appointed Frank Spickelmire as its
member
of the Panel. The undersigned was
selected to serve
as
Neutral Chairman of the Panel.
A hearing in this matter was held on
K. Baird of Allied Employers,
Inc. and the
sented by James H. Webster of the law firm of
Webster, Mrak
and
Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented substantial documentary
evidence. A court reporter was present at the hearing
and a
verbatim
transcript of the proceedings was made available to
the
Chairman for his use in reaching his determination in
this
case.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
posthearing briefs which were filed by each party and
received
by the Neutral Chairman on
parties
agreed to waive the statutory requirement that the
Chairman issue his decision
within thirty days following the
conclusion
of the hearing.
The Panel agreed that the Chairman would prepare a
draft
Decision and provide a copy to each of the other panel
Members
for comment. A
draft Decision was mailed to each of
the
other Panel Members on
the
chairman received a letter from Panel Member Seifert.
Additionally, the Panel
Members agreed that the Chairman
should
meet with counsel to further discuss this matter.
This meeting,
held
Baird,
Mr. Webster and myself. I
have carefully considered
all
of the comments I received in response to the Draft
Decision. What follows, based on the record and after
consultation
as described above, is my findings of fact and
determination
of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The following issues were presented to the Panel for
arbitration:
Salaries
Workweek
Holidays
Sick Leave
Medical Insurance
One remaining issue, Prevailing Rights, was not
resolved
by the parties prior to the hearing in this matter.
However, as explained in my letter
to counsel dated October
18, 1990, the Arbitration
Panel does not have authority to
consider
the Prevailing Rights issue at the present time.
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 leg-
islative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and as
ad-
ditional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching
a
decision, it shall take into consideration the fol-
lowing
factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of
the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
* *
(c)(ii) For
employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(b),
comparison of the wages, hours,
and conditions of em-
ployment
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
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 ser-
vices, 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 forego-
ing,
which are normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in the
determination of wages, hours and
conditions of
employment. . .
The legislative purpose which your Chairman is directed
to
be mindful of in applying the statutory criteria 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
sonnel as a means of settling their labor
disputes;
that
the uninterrupted and dedicated services of these
classes
of employees is vital to the welfare and public
safety
of the state of
dedicated
and uninterrupted public service there should
exist
an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes. . .
COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.460(c)(ii),
it is common in these
proceedings
for the arbitration panel to select an appropri-
ate
number of comparable employers. On
parties
executed a document entitled, "Ground Rules Meeting
for
1990 Contract Negotiations Between the Clark Co. Fire
Dist.
#6 and IAFF Local 1805."
Paragraph No. 9 of that document provided as follows:
If comparables are to be used,
criteria for the compa-
rables must not exceed 200%, or be less than 50%
of
that
of Fire District I 6.
The record does not indicate the extent to which compa-
rables were discussed during negotiations. Furthermore,
although
the outer limits of the comparables were defined by
the
parties, nothing in the record indicates whether the
parties
discussed the basis upon which the comparables were
to
be selected.
The
four were:
population served, assessed value, total depart-
ment manpower (paid) , and department
budget. Next the
reviewed
all of the Employers in
operate
fire departments and found that twenty-one employers
maintain
fire departments, which, with respect to popula-
tion, assessed value, number of employees and
budget were
within
the agreed upon range, that is, none of these twenty-
one
exceeded the Employer here by 200% or was less than the
Employer
here by 50%.
By letter dated
the
comparable
employers during the upcoming interest arbitra-
tion. The
Employer's list included fourteen employers
located
in Washington and four employers located in
This list was substantially
similar to that presented by the
Employer to the Arbitration
Panel chaired by Arbitrator
Kenneth M. McCaffree
with respect to the interest arbitra-
tion between the parties regarding the 1987-89
agreement.
Mr. McCaffree's
decision is in the record in this case but
it
does not indicate the basis upon which the Employer
selected
its comparables in that case.
In response to a letter from the Union dated January
27, 1990 requesting that the
Employer provide the
the
criteria it used in establishing its list of compara-
bles, the Employer on
a
new list of eighteen comparable employers.
This list
contained
only three
fifteen
being located in
As the Union points out, RCW 41.56.460(c) (ii) makes
clear
that when an adequate number of comparable employers
exist
within the State of
employers
shall not be considered." Here, the
provided
for an adequate number of comparable employers in
the
State of
fashion
in that it has, using four different size-related
criteria,
included each of the employers located in
agreed
upon by the parties at the beginning of negotiations
in
June of 1989. Therefore, I agree with
the
Arbitration Panel is precluded
from including as comparators
employers
located in the State of
The Employer contends that even if
cannot
be included as comparators pursuant to
41.56.460(c)(ii),
those employers may be considered pursuant
to
subsection (f) of RCW 41.56.460.
However, subsection (f)
refers
to:
Such other factors, not
confined to the foregoing,
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consid-
eration in the determination of wages, hours and condi-
tions of employment.
Thus, the language of RCW 421.56.460(f) is clear in
that
it refers to the consideration of factors other than
comparable
employers. It would make no sense to
construe
the
statute so as to preclude the consideration of
employers
in one subsection, but permitting them to be
brought
in the backdoor, so to speak, through another
subsection.
However, considerations of labor market raised by the
Employer are appropriately
considered by the Arbitration
Panel
pursuant to RCW 41.56.460. This is because labor
market
considerations have traditionally been taken into
consideration
in the determination of wages, hours and
conditions
of employment and, in fact, have been raised by
numerous
unions and employers before arbitration panels in
the
State of
to
the fact that the Employer comparables selected by the
tively as the "Seattle-King/Snohomish
County" area or the
"Seattle/Puget Sound
Basin area." It is not clear from
the
Employer's brief exactly which