International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 106
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 08420-I-90-00191
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
)
BETWEEN )
)
CITY OF
) PERC Case No.: 08420-I-90-191
and ) Date Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 106 )
________________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Otto G. Klein, III Employer
Member
Merlin
Halverson Union Member
Appearances:
Employer:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 106 James H. Webster
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION 1
Procedural Matters 1
Issues in Dispute 4
Statutory Criteria 5
Comparable Employers 6
Wages 24
Longevity 41
Driver Engineer Premium 42
Ambulance Driver Premium 43
Paramedic Premium/Longevity 45
Education Incentive 48
Parental Leave 49
Rescheduling of Holidays 51
Personnel Reduction 53
Paramedic Reassignment 54
II. INTEREST
ARBITRATION AWARD 55
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
BETWEEN )
CITY OF
)
and ) PERC Case No.: 8420-1-90-191
) Date Issued:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 106 )
_____________________________________ )
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, City of
Otto G. Klein, III, as its member of the
Panel and the
106, appointed Merlin Halverson 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 June 11 through 14,
1990 at
sented
by Bruce L. Disend,
Webster, Mrak and
Blumberg.
At
the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under oath and the parties
presented a substantial amount of
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.
After
the hearing, the parties held discussions in an
attempt
to reach settlement of some or all of the matters at
issue. At the parties' request, the Chairman met
with the
parties
in September in an attempt to help the parties to
settle some or all of the
issues. Thereafter, the parties
continued
discussions in an attempt to reach settlement.
Unfortunately, the parties were unable to
reach settlement
with respect to any of the issues
before the Arbitration
Panel, and, therefore, final posthearing briefs were
submitted
which were received by the Arbitrator on January
14, 1990. The parties agreed to waive the statutory
requirement
that the Chairman issue his decision within
thirty days following the conclusion
of the hearing.
The
Chairman reviewed the complete record in this case
(a stack of
documents over fourteen inches in height
consisting
of several thousand pages) and prepared a Draft
Decision which was mailed to each of the
other Panel Members
on
Panel Members met and had a full discussion
of the issues
which was very helpful to your
Chairman. Eased on the
record and my consultation with the
Panel, the following
constitutes
my findings of fact and determination of the
issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The
following issues were presented to the Panel for
arbitration:
1. Wages;
2. Longevity;
3. Driver/Engineer
Premium;
4. Ambulance
Driver Premium;
5. Paramedic
Premium/Longevity;
6. Education
Incentive;
7. Parental
Leave;
8. Rescheduling
of Holidays;
9. Personnel
Reduction; and
10. Paramedic
Reassignment.
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-
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 an~
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 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 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 Washington against strikes by uniformed per-
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 Washington; that to promote such
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, hereinafter also
referred
to as comparators. Here, the Employer
and Union
have employed different methods in
selecting comparators
resulting
in different lists of comparable employers.
Unfortunately, the parties bargaining
history does not pro-
vide the Arbitration Panel with
assistance regarding appro-
priate
method for selecting comparators. Both
parties
agree, however, that during their
negotiations for the
Agreement submitted to arbitration here,
they did discuss
comparable
employers and determined that the range of compa-
rability
should be no greater than 100% above Bellingham nor
lower than 50% below
Bellingham. However, it does not
appear from the evidence or the
briefs of the parties that
the parties ever reached
agreement on the particular
criteria
to be employed in connection with the range limita-
tions
they had agreed upon.
The
Union proposes two separate sets or groups of
comparators. The Group 1 comparators were obtained by
using
the population of the City of
Bellingham for fire suppres-
sion
services, which population the parties agree at the
time of hearing was 47,290. A second criterion applied by
the Union relates to fire
department size based on the
number of full time paid employees
working in the fire
department,
which was 108. Thus, the Union, as I
understand
it, looked at all of the fire
departments in the State of
Washington and selected out those that came
within 100%
above and 50% below the population
of Bellingham and also
came within 100% above and 50%
below the number of full-time
paid employees working in the fire
department. This left a
list of twelve comparators, seven
of which are located in
King, Snohomish and Pierce counties.
The
Union also proposes what it refers to as a Group 2
set of comparators using again
population and number of
employees
in the fire department, but using a different
population
figure for Bellingham than was used in connection
with Group 1 employees. In this regard, the City of
Bellingham provides paramedic service not
only within the
City of Bellingham, as it does in connection
with fire
suppression
service, but also provides paramedic services
throughout
Whatcom County. Thus, what the Union did
in
connection
with selecting its Group 2 comparators was to
take the population of Whatcom
County, listed as 122,200,
subtract
the population of Bellingham, 47,290, leaving a
population
of 74,910. Because emergency medical
service
(EMS) responses amounted to 75% of the
department's response
activity,
the Union took 75% of the 74,910 population
located
outside the City of Bellingham which came to 56,182
as the effective service
population in the County. The
Union then added back the resident
population in Bellingham
to come up with a population for
comparison purposes of
103,472.
When
the same 100% plus and 50% minus range is applied
to population served in the
other comparators based on a
population
of 103,472 and to the number of employees in the
fire department, a list of seven
comparators remain. These
seven, Bellevue, Spokane Fire
District No. 1, King County
Fire District No. 39 (Federal Way), Clark
County Fire
District No. 5, Kent, Pierce County Fire
District No.2
(Lakewood) , and
Everett also appear as Group 1 comparators.
Of the seven comparators in Group 2, five
are located in
King, Snohomish or Pierce counties. The five comparators
which are included as a part of
Group 1 and not included as
part of Group 2 are Yakima,
Vancouver, Renton, Auburn and
Olympia.
The
Union takes the view that either Group 1 or Group 2
would satisfactorily serve as
comparators. However, the
Employer strongly objects to the use of
either group on
several
grounds. I find myself in agreement with
the
Employer that the comparators proposed by
the Union, whether
Group 1 or Group 2, are not appropriate
comparators pursuant
to the statutory criteria. Thus, RCW 41.56.460(c) (ii) pro-
vides for a comparison based on
"similar size." Similar
size has most frequently been
interpreted by arbitrators to
mean population served and not the
number of employees
employed
in the fire department. In fact, prior
to 1987,
RCW 41.56.460(c) referred to "like
employers" instead of
"public fire
departments." It is clear that this
change was
made by the Legislature merely for
the purpose of making
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. There was no decision
or attempt by the Legislature to
change the requirement that
comparators
be based on similar size of like employers.
In
this regard, I note that the last
sentence of RCW
41.56.460(c)(ii),
added in 1987, refers to comparable
employers
and not to public fire departments.
The
Union recognizes that the purpose for changing the
law in 1987 was, as I have
described in the paragraph
immediately
above, however, the Union takes the position
that number of employees in the
fire department was an
appropriate
parameter of employer size prior to 1987.
How-
ever, the Union has not supplied
evidence of the extent to
which such a parameter of employer
size was found to be
appropriate
by arbitrators. However, the Employer's
position
as set forth in 18 ARB 3-4 and the testimony of
Cabot Dow that number of personnel in the
fire department is
an infrequently used criterion
by arbitrators in connection
with "similar size"
comparisons is in accord with my
research
and experience as an Arbitrator.
Furthermore,
as a result of the Union using number of
employees
in the department as a criterion, a large number
of employers much closer in size
by population to Bellingham
than the ones selected by the
Union are eliminated from
consideration
as a comparator. Thus, if one reviews
the
Group 1 comparators, Bellingham is ninth out
of thirteen in
population
and the average population using the Union's
population
figures is approximately 31% higher than the
population
in Bellingham. The foregoing analysis is
based
on population served for fire
suppression. If population
served is based on fire suppression
plus the 75% formula
employed
by the Employer regarding EMS calls throughout
Whatcom County, then Bellingham has a higher
population than
all of the seven Group 2
comparators.
The
Employer objects to the use of any comparators
located
in the counties of King, Snohomish or Pierce on the
theory that those counties
constitute a separate and
distinct
labor market with a higher wage structure than is
found in Bellingham. The question of labor markets and its
applicability
to comparators is complex. It is true,
how-
ever, that arbitrators have looked
to considerations of
labor market either in helping to
shape the appropriate
comparators
or as an additional factor, "normally or tradi-
tionally
taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours and conditions of
employment," pursuant to
Subsection (f) of RCW 41.56.460.
The
Union recognizes considerations of labor market,
but points out that Bellingham,
located as it is in Whatcom
County, is not part of a labor market where
other firefight-
are employed. Thus, necessarily the Union points out,
Bellingham must be compared with comparators
located in
other labor markets in other parts
of the State. The Union
placed in evidence through the
testimony of its expert
witness
James J. Kilgallon certain evidence regarding the
comparability
of wages paid in Bellingham and Whatcom County
with those paid in King, Snohomish
and Pierce counties. The
Employer countered with the testimony of its
expert witness
David R. Knowles who put in substantial
evidence indicating
that the wage structure in King,
Snohomish and Pierce
counties
is higher than that paid in Bellingham and Whatcom
County.
It
is my conclusion after reviewing all of the testi-