City
Of
And
Pullman
Police Officers’ Guild
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 09223-I-91-00204
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) NEUTRAL
ARBITRATOR'S
)
BETWEEN ) OPINION
AND AWARD
)
PULLMAN POLICE OFFICERS' GUILD, ) (1990-1992
CONTRACT)
)
Guild, )
and )
)
CITY OF
City. )
HEARING SITE: City
Hall
HEARING DATES: December
15, 16, 1991
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE:
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
ARBITRATION PANEL: Michael B.
Austin
Guild
Appointed Member
Scott
C. Broyles
City
Appointed Member
Gary
L. Axon
Neutral
Arbitrator
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
CITY REPRESENTATIVE : Roy Wesley
ELMS,
Inc.
GUILD REPRESENTATIVE: Daryl S. Garrettson
Aitchison, Hoag, Vick
&
Tarantino
Labor
Consultants
1313
NW 19th
The issues submitted to interest arbitration
are as
follows:
INDEX OF ISSUES
ISSUE PAGE
1
. Wages 7
2. Guild Security 30
3. Supervisory Duties 35
4
. Overtime 40
5
. Holidays 48
6
. Vacations 54
7. Premium Pay 57
8. Training Standards 61
9. Education/Longevity 67
10. Druq Testing 71
11. prevailing Riqhts 78
12. Pay
Days 82
INTRODUCTION
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450, 452, and 460
respectively. The parties to this
dispute are the City of
and the
status quo is represented by a Collective
Bargaining Agreement
between the City of
contract which covered the period 1987
through 1989. The Guild
succeeded the Teamsters as the
representative of people employed in
the Pullman Police Department. There are 21 members of the
bargaining unit represented by the
Guild. The Chief of Police is
William T. Weatherly.
The
City of
miles south of
City encompasses a land area of 5.9 square
miles.
is primarily an agricultural county. On the
north end of the City,
approximately 100 buildings to serve a
student population of
approximately 16,000.
employer in the City of
maintains its own police force.
The
determination of the population figure to be utilized
for
WSU students who occupy both on and off
campus housing within the
City.
The 1991 Association of Washington Cities Salary Survey
lists
$1,880,000 worth of bonds in 1988, the City
listed its population
at 22,069.
(G1.10). The signs indicating
motorists are entering
population of
residents occupying dormitories on the WSU
campus. The City
calculates
the figure that
should be utilized
for making
comparisons to be 17,705 persons. On the other hand, the Guild
believes the City should be held to the
23,000 figure as it is the
one City cites when securing funds from the
state of
In a 1981 award between the City and
Teamsters
arbitrator Zane Lumbley
allocated the total WSU student population
on a 50-50 basis between WSU and the City of
determined the 1981
population of the City for purposes
of
arbitration to be 15,316.
After
the
the employees of the Police Department, the
parties met in both
bargaining sessions and later in mediation
in an effort to conclude
a successor Agreement. The parties reached tentative agreement on
several issues, but were unable to conclude
a final Collective
Bargaining Agreement. This contract will be the first contract
between the
Guild also represents non-uniformed
personnel covered by a separate
Agreement referred to as the
Employees contract.
On
the failure of the parties to conclude a Collective
Bargaining Agreement, Marvin Schurke, PERC, Executive Director,
certified
the remaining 12
unresolved issues for
interest
arbitration.
A hearing was held before the arbitration panel on
December 15 and 16, 1991. At the hearing the parties were given
the full opportunity to present written
evidence, oral testimony
and argument. The testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and
recorded by a court reporter. The neutral Arbitrator hereinafter
("Arbitrator") was provided with a
verbatim transcript for his use
in reaching a decision in this case.
The
parties agreed to file post-hearing written briefs in
lieu of oral closing arguments. The briefs were timely filed and
the record closed as of
record made in this case, the parties agreed
to an extension of the
statutory requirement that a decision be
issued within 30 days of
the close of the record. On
and conferred with the party appointed
members of the arbitration
panel to discuss the evidence and argument
contained in the record
of this case. The input provided by the party appointed
panel
members was of great assistance to the
neutral Arbitrator in making
his findings of fact and award on the issues
presented for
arbitration.
The
hearing in this case took two full days for the
parties to present their evidence and
testimony. The transcript
contained 468 pages of testimony. The parties provided the
Arbitrator with substantial written
documentation in support of
their respective positions. Comprehensive
and lengthy post-hearing
briefs were submitted to the Arbitrator with
accompanying interest
arbitration awards issued by other
arbitrators in the state of
Washington.
The
approach of this Arbitrator in writing the award will
be to summarize the major and most
persuasive evidence and argument
presented by the parties. After the introduction of the issue and
position of the parties, I will state the
principal findings and
rationale to cause the Arbitrator to make
the award on a specific
issue.
It is also important to note that several of the major
issues broke down into numerous sub-issues
in which case extensive
evidence and argument was also
presented. In many of the issues
the evidence and argument applied to several
different issues and
sub-issues. For the sake of brevity, I will
try to avoid repeating
discussion of the evidence where the
evidence applied to more than
one issue.
This
Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant
to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.460. Since the record in this case is so
comprehensive it would be impractical for
the Arbitrator in this
discussion and award to discuss and refer to
each and every piece
of evidence or testimony presented. However, in each and every
issue the Arbitrator considered all of the
evidence and argument
submitted in formulating the award.
The
statutory factors to be considered by the Arbitrator
may be summarized as follows:
(a) The constitutional and
statutory
authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) (i) For employees
listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(a) and 41.56.495, 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:
*
* *
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and
services,
commonly known as
the cost of
living;
(e) changes
in any of the foregoing
of
circumstances during the pendency of the
proceeding;
(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.
ISSUE 1: Wages
A. Background
The
contract subject to arbitration covers the years 1990
through 1992. The present salary schedule is represented by
the
contract which expired at the end of
1989. Pursuant to that
contract a beginning police officer starts
at $1,845 per month at
Step 1 with advancement to $2,263 at Step
5. Sergeants and
detectives are paid $2,608 per month. (City Ex. 43). The
traditional benchmark comparison is the top
step of the police
officer classification. The evidence on comparability offered by
both sides concentrated on the top step
officer pay.
Due
to the protracted nature of the negotiations and
change in bargaining representatives, the
members of this unit have
not received a wage increase since
1989. Both parties are
proposing retroactivity back to January 1,
1990. The City's offer
would put in place a top step police
officer's salary on January 1,
1992, of $2,632 per month. The Guild is seeking a salary increase
which would place the top step police
officer on January 1, 1992,
at $2,938 per month. (City Ex.
36). Both parties offered
comprehensive and extensive data in support
of their respective
wage proposals. In the post-hearing briefs counsel for the
disputants provided the Arbitrator with a
comprehensive review of
the evidence submitted during the two days
of hearing. The neutral
Arbitrator with the assistance of the party
appointed arbitrators
reviewed the evidence and argument on the
wage issue at an
executive session.
The
driving force behind the positions of the parties on
the
wage issue was
comparability. Each party
submitted
considerable evidence and argument to
support its position on the
appropriate comparators for the purpose of
establishing wages for
Pullman police officers. The Arbitrator was also supplied with
several interest arbitration decisions
involving other Washington
cities.
The evaluation of the record in this case is unique in
that it involves a three year contract
period which will expire
approximately nine months from the date of
this award. As a
consequence, the evidence and findings on
the wage issue must be
evaluated in the context of a three year
Agreement soon to expire.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposed that 1990 salaries will be compensated
using the average of the top step of the
patrolman's salary for
each of the five comparator cities selected
by the Guild. For
1990, this would translate into a 10%
increase. Effective January
1, 1991, an additional 10% would be added to
the base salary.
Effective January 1, 1992, the base salary
would be increased by an
additional 7.3% to $2,938. The 27.3% salary increase over the
three year period is necessary to establish
a top step salary equal
to
the average top
step salary for
the five comparable
jurisdictions proposed by the Guild. (G1.36).
The
five cities selected as its comparable jurisdictions
are Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, Walla Walla and Wenatchee.
These
are the only five Washington cities east of
the Cascades with a
population between 15,000 and 50,000. According to the Guild, the
geographic
area and population make
these five cities
the
appropriate comparables for which to
establish Pullman police
wages.
The Guild advanced four primary reasons why the Arbitrator
should adopt the Guild's comparators.
First,
the Guild argued that RCW 41.56.460 requires the
panel to take into consideration the wages,
hours and conditions of
employment of like personnel of like
employers of similar size on
the West Coast of the United States. From the viewpoint of the
Guild,
like personnel are "uniform personnel of cities of a
population of 15,000 or more." RCW 41.56.030(7) defines uniform
personnel as law enforcement officers
employed by "cities with a
population of 15,000 or more." The Arbitrator is bound to respect
the definition established by the Washington
legislature.
Second,
the arbitration panel should reject consideration
of Washington cities below 15,000 in
population because they do not
share a common collective bargaining
status. Law enforcement
officers employed by Washington cities under
15,000 do not have
collective bargaining rights. As such, Washington cities with a
population of under 15,000 are not similarly
situated and should be
excluded from consideration by the
Arbitrator.
Third,
the Washington Association of Cities utilizes the
15,000 to 50,000 population category for
grouping jurisdictional
salary surveys. (G1.3(A) & (B)). Fourth, the City utilized that
same grouping when it compared itself to
other jurisdictions for
the purpose of evaluating management
salaries. (G1.2) It is the
position of the Guild that this grouping
reveals a statistically
significant pattern for wages in Washington
which the panel should
utilize in "determining what is a fair
day's pay for a fair day's
work for a police officer in the state of
Washington."
The
parties agree that the appropriate comparators must
be located east of the Cascades. Pursuant to that understanding
the City and Guild agree that Pasco, Walla Walla and Wenatchee are
appropriate comparators. The Guild vigorously rejects the City's
proposed comparables of Moses Lake,
Ellensburg, Whitman County, the
Washington State University Police
Department and Moscow, Idaho, as
appropriate comparators by which to
establish Pullman police wages.
Regarding
Ellensburg and Moses Lake, the Guild points out
their populations are below 15,000 and thus
should be excluded
under
the collective bargaining
statute as too
small for
comparison.
Moscow, Idaho is an inappropriate comparator because
it is not a West Coast city. RCW
41.56.460(C)(I) limits comparison
to West Coast cities. Arbitrators have held
that West Coast cities
are those cities located within the states
of Washington, Oregon
and California. Since Moscow is not a West Coast city and its
officers have no collective bargaining
rights, the Arbitrator
should reject Moscow as an appropriate
comparator.
Recognizing
that Pullman is located in Whitman County,
the Guild asserts Whitman County is not an
appropriate comparator.
Whitman County is not a like employer
because it is a county and
county law enforcement officers have no
collective bargaining
status.
In addition, the number of officers and crime statistics
do not support the use of Whitman County as
a comparator. The
economic circumstances are different in that
Whitman County is
broke.
Turning to the WSU Police Department which the City seeks
to compare with for purposes of establishing
wages, the Guild
asserts WSU does not meet the statutory test
of a like employer.
WSU is not a city but a university. WSU police officers do not
share common collective bargaining status.
As such, the Arbitrator
should reject the City's attempt to compare
Pullman police officers
with WSU officers.
The
Guild next asserts that the appropriate population
for Pullman is 23,000. From the viewpoint of the Guild, the
Arbitrator should reject the City's attempt
to adjust the Pullman
population by some 6,000 to 17,705 persons
because of the impact of
WSU students. According to the Guild, the City's position
on
population is inconsistent in that it uses a
23,000 population
figure when it seeks state revenue funds, on
signs posted at the
City limits and otherwise when securing
funds from outside sources.
WSU students also have a very profound
affect on the Pullman Police
Department in that its officers must provide
police services for
students living off campus. Further, Pullman police officers
perform police services on the WSU campus in
conjunction with the
WSU police force.
The
City presented an interest arbitration award by
arbitrator Thomas Levak
in the city of Walla Walla and the Walla
Walla Police Guild. (PERC No. 6213-I-86-139). The Guild notes
that in the Walla Walla
case Levak chose as the Washington
comparators the same five cities as proposed
by the Guild. Since
Walla Walla and
Pullman are very close in size, offer similar
geographic positions and the selection of
those five cities by
arbitrator Levak
as valid comparators, the five eastern Washington
cities proposed by the Guild offer the best
measure for determining
a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.
While
the City stated in its opening argument that it
would not make an inability to pay argument,
the Guild felt it was
appropriate to examine the City's ability to
pay in light of the
position taken by the City that it was not
in the position to fund
the Guild's proposal without major
adjustments in its budget. City
witness Tonkovich
testified at the arbitration hearing that the
City had more than enough resources to pay
the estimated cost of
the Guild's three year proposal of
$550,849. (City Ex. 36). The