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
Guild further argues that the City has
adequate money stored away
in its various accounts to fully fund the
Guild's proposal.
According to the Guild, the City has
historically transferred
significant moneys from the general fund to
special fund reserve
accounts.
The 1992 preliminary budget also shows a figure of
$1,419,699 for law enforcement. (City Ex.
48). The Guild
interprets the City's budgeting process as
calling for $424,935
more than is necessary to meet all of the
1991 police expenditures.
Since there were no additional personnel
added to the police budget
for 1992, the Guild reasons it is a safe
assumption that the 1991
expenditures reflect the 1992
expenditures. Therefore, the Guild
concludes there is more than sufficient
funds to meet the cost of
the Guild's wage proposal in the 1992
budget.
Turning
to the cost of living factor, the Guild argues
the five comparables chosen by the Guild
reflect favorably in the
area of cost of living. In eastern Washington employees must often
reside within the employing community. Guild Exhibit G1.8 shows
that housing costs for various jurisdictions
reflect that the cost
of living for Pullman is higher than any of
the other comparators.
In awarding a salary increase, the higher
cost of housing in
Pullman should be weighed in favor of a
higher salary increase than
proposed by the City.
For
all of the above stated reasons, the Guild submits
its offer represents a wage position which
reflects the statutory
intent and is within the means of the City
to fund.
C. The
City
The
City proposed a 2% wage increase effective January 1,
1990, and an additional 2% on July 1, 1990.
The City would
implement wage increases on January 1, 1991,
and January 1, 1992,
based on a cost of living formula derived
from the Seattle CPI for
all urban consumers. If the CPI exceeded 5%, a 1/2% increase would
be given for each full 1% increase until the
CPI reached 10%.
Adoption of the City's CPI formula would
yield a 5.5% increase for
January 1, 1991, and a 6% increase for
January 1, 1992. The
percentage increase over the base salary
would be 16.3% or $369 per
month.
The top salary for a police officer effective January 1,
1992, would be set at $2,632 per month. (City Ex. 36).
The
City argued that this increase would be in line with
the pay for top step officers in its
selected comparators. The
City's 1991, salary study revealed the
following:
CITY COMPARABLES
1991 TOP STEP OFFICER SALARY
1991
Top
City Step
Officer
Ellensburg $
2,475.00
Moscow,
ID $
2,511.00
Moses
Lake $
2,510.00
Pasco $
2,685.00
Walla
Walla $
2,562.00
W.S.U. $
2,493.00
Wenatchee $
3,000.00
Whitman
County $
2,065.00
AVERAGE $
2,537.63
PULLMAN OFFER $
2,483.00
(City
Ex. 34)
It
is the position of the City that Pullman is unique in
that it is characterized as being dominated
by a large tax exempt
employer which provides its own police
services. Further, it is
important to note that the City receives
neither property taxes nor
contractual payments from WSU to support
police services. Pullman
is a college town without a retail or
industrial base.
The
City's position on the appropriate comparators was
best summarized at page 2 in its hearing
brief as follows:
These
cities: Ellensburg, Moses Lake, Pasco,
Wenatchee,
Walla Walla, Moscow, Idaho, WSU,
and
Whitman County are
quite similar to
Pullman
in population, financial position,
size
of department, number of officers, part
one
offenses, and in various other comparison
basis
as well. They are all located east of
the Cascade
Mountains and are
rural/
agricultural. Four of the five cities are
distant
from other population centers. Only
Pasco
is near two other larger cities. Each
has
one or more college institutions adjacent
to
or in the City. Moscow is also a college
town
and only eight (8) miles from Pullman.
WSU and Whitman
County both provide
law
enforcement
services and are local, public
employers. For these reasons and others which
will
be submitted, the City requests that
these cities
and agencies be
used as
comparisons.
The
City asks the Arbitrator to reject Kennewick and
Richland as appropriate comparators because
they have much larger
populations than Pullman. In addition, Richland's industrial,
commercial and assessed valuation are vastly
different from and
superior to those of Pullman. Hence, the
City submits there simply
is no basis for selecting Richland and
Kennewick as comparable to
Pullman.
The
City also asserts the Guild's comparables
are
seriously flawed. According to the City, RCW
41.56.030(7) does not
limit comparisons to those jurisdictions
which have collective
bargaining and interest arbitration. Arbitrator Levak so
held in
the Walla Walla
case as did arbitrator Michael Beck in Cowlitz
County. (PERC No. 6151-I-85-135). Hence, it is proper to include
in a list of comparables jurisdictions who
do not have collective
bargaining and interest arbitration.
The City
also contends the
Guild's exclusion of
comparables from the local job market is
inappropriate. Present in
the Pullman job market are the jurisdictions
of WSU, Whitman County
and Moscow, Idaho. The evidence at the hearing indicated that
Pullman police officers work with, support
and train sworn officers
in the three local jurisdictions. Since the four sworn police
forces work closely with each other, it is
proper to include them
as points of comparison. All of the cities on the City list of
comparators fall within the population range
of 10,000 to 30,000.
Kennewick has a population of 42,780 and
Richland has a population
of 32,600 which the City believes
inappropriately skews the average
size of the comparators in a thinly veiled
move designed to obtain
the Guild's desired bargaining gains.
While
the City made no per se inability to pay argument,
it does not accept the Guild's position that
the City has adequate
money to fund a 30% increase in wages for
the police unit. The
economic picture in Pullman and the state
can only be described as
"grim and uncertain as to the near
future." The mayor's budget
message clearly reports the already
unfavorable financial standing.
(City Ex. 41). Given the stark reality of a local, national
and
state wide recession, the City's finances face a bleak and
uncertain future at best. An award in the amount proposed by the
Guild is excessive and would seriously
jeopardize the financial
standing of the City.
The
City also contends the Guild does not understand the
limitations on the ability of the City to
transfer funds between
accounts.
The equipment rental fund is designed to replace
equipment and is unavailable to fund police
salaries. Nor is the
City legally able to tap contributions from
the utilities fund or
transit in order to pay for police salaries.
Turning
to the factor of cost of living, the City submits
that police salary increases granted over
the last three contract
periods exceeded both the national and
Seattle CPI increases.
(City Ex. 71 & 72). Due to the fact that cost of living increases
are at the lowest point in 24 years, an
award in the amount claimed
by the Guild would far exceed rising costs
as reflected in the CPI
Index.
It is
also the position of the City
that it
is
appropriate to utilize a population figure
of 17,705 for Pullman.
WSU staffs its own police force to service
the WSU campus. By
virtue of the police services being
performed by WSU, City submits
it
is appropriate to deduct the 6,000
students who occupy
university housing on campus for purposes of
this proceeding. The
police work performed by members of this
Department on the WSU
campus is primarily that of backup or to
provide assistance to WSU
officers.
Concerning
internal parity, the City submits it has
reached agreements with its fire, library,
public works, recreation
and transit bargaining units. These signed contracts demonstrate
the City has dealt fairly and responsibly in
a manner satisfactory
to those other labor organizations. The contract entered into
between
the Guild and
Support Services includes
a package
comparable with what the City is offering
this unit. It is these
internal settlements that should establish
the guidelines and basis
for an award covering sworn police officers.
The
City submits that its offer compares favorably with
the average of the jurisdictions it has
submitted for purposes of
comparison.
When the salary settlements provided for the internal
and external comparators are evaluated, City concludes this
provides the basis for a salary award on the
terms offered by the
City.
D. Discussion
and Findings
At
the outset of this issue a few comments about the
statutory procedure are in order. RCW 41.56.460 refers to the
basis on which an interest arbitration award
should be formulated
as " standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a decision." The
Arbitrator is then directed to take
into "consideration" the
factors listed in the provision. The listed criteria are not
defined in the law. Arbitral authority has provided some guidance
to the application of the statutory factors
to particular cases.
The statute also provides that the
Arbitrator may consider 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."
This phrase allows the
parties and the interest arbitrator
considerable latitude in
determining what are the relevant facts on
which to base an award
to resolve a dispute.
The
factors identified in the statute are "standards or
guidelines" which cannot be applied
with surgical precision. The
relative weight to be given to any of the
criteria listed in the
statute is not defined. Further, it is important to note that this
Arbitrator
is responsible for applying the evidence to the
statutory factors even if the evidence
submitted by the parties is
incomplete, misleading, selective or
manipulative. Recognizing
these problems, it still remains the
obligation of this Arbitrator
to apply the record evidence to the criteria
set forth in the
statute.
In assessing the evidence and argument on the wage issue,
the Arbitrator has attempted to extract
facts from the record
evidence which provide reasonable and
credible support for this
award.
The starting point for the analysis of the evidence in this
case on the wage issue is
comparability. Both sides devoted the
majority
of their evidence
and argument to
the issue of
comparability. Evidence with respect to the other statutory
factors was minimal or nonexistent.
The
Arbitrator finds after review of the evidence and
argument as applied to the statutory
criteria that a 5.5% increase
on the 1989 base effective January 1, 1990,
is justified. For
1991, the base salary shall be adjusted an
additional 6%, effective
January 1, 1991. The 1991 base salary shall be increased by
7%.
Application of these percentage figures will
result in a top step
wage as follows:
1990 $2,387
1991 $2,530
1992 $2,707
The reasoning of the Arbitrator is set forth
in the discussion and
findings which follow.
The
threshold consideration on comparability is resolving
the dispute over what should be the
population figure for Pullman.
The Arbitrator finds that a population
figure of 23,000 should be
utilized for determining the jurisdictions
with which to compare
Pullman for making a wage determination.
Pullman uses a population
figure in the 23,000 range when it seeks
funds from the state or
federal government Pullman used a similar population figure in a
1988 bond issue. The signs posted by the City at the entrance
to
Pullman announce a population of
23,478. The Association of
Washington
Cities Survey of
Salaries lists Pullman with
a
population of 23,090. The only place the Arbitrator could discern
a listing of a population for Pullman of
17,705 was in the City's
argument at arbitration.
The
Arbitrator finds the City's
attempt to deduct
approximately 6,000 resident students from
the Pullman population
base to be without merit. While it is true WSU has its own police
force, WSU is within the jurisdiction of the
Pullman Police
Department.
As the record indicates, the members of this
bargaining
unit provide police
services where students
are
involved.
While the existence of a WSU police force might be a
mitigating factor in the population served
by the Pullman Police
Department, it in no way can serve as the
foundation to reduce the
police service area of Pullman by 6,000
persons.
The
next step in the analysis of the comparability issue
is to recognize both parties agree that
Pasco, Walla Walla and
Wenatchee are appropriate jurisdictions with
which to compare
Pullman for determining police wages. The 1991 populations of
these jurisdictions are 20,660, 27,020 and
22,080 respectively.
The Arbitrator is bound to honor the
stipulation of the parties
with respect to the three named cities.
The
parties have also stipulated that the appropriate
jurisdictions by which to set Pullman police
wages should come from
cities east of the Cascades. The statute
refers to "like employers
of
similar size on the West Coast of the
United States.
Arbitrators have interpreted the reference
to West Coast to mean
the states of Washington, Oregon, California
and Alaska. Since
Moscow, Idaho is not located on the West
Coast, it may not be
properly considered as a primary
comparator. The same would hold
true for WSU as it is a university as
opposed to a municipal
employer.
The university is not engaged in the business of
providing public service comparable to that
of the City of Pullman.
Whitman County suffers from a similar
problem in that it is a unit
of county government as opposed to a
city. In addition, Whitman
County deputies do not have the benefit of
the same collective
bargaining statute as is available for
Pullman police officers.
Ellensburg
has a population of 12,570 and Moses Lake has
a population of 11,420. Neither of those jurisdictions meet the
15,000 person test placing their sworn
personnel under the interest
arbitration procedure. This fact alone
argues against making these
two jurisdictions a primary comparator under
RCW 41.56.460(C)(i).
However, in the judgment of this Arbitrator
the jurisdictions of
WSU, Whitman County and Moscow, Idaho can be
properly considered
under the "other" factors element
of the statute as they are within
the immediate geographic area and labor
market of Pullman. In
addition,
these three agencies support and work together in
providing police services in the three
communities. Ellensburg and
Moses Lake are also entitled to some
attention under this provision
of the statute. These five jurisdictions serve as a counter
balance to the large cities of Kennewick and
Richland.
In
adopting the Guild's proposed list of comparators, the
Arbitrator recognizes that Kennewick and
Richland have larger
populations than Pullman. The fact that Richland is
10,000 greater in population and Kennewick
is approximately 20,000
greater in population still keeps the cities
in a reasonable
population range. Further, the population difference does not
detract from the fact they are Washington
cities located east of
the Cascades and are covered by the same
collective bargaining law.
Arbitrator Levak
in the Walla Walla award accepted the five same
cities which the Guild proposes for this
case. Pullman was listed
as a comparator for the Walla Walla case. By
extension it is
appropriate to include the same cities as
the primary comparators
for this interest arbitration. While not controlling, it is
relevant that the City utilized the 15,000
to 50,000 population
grouping of cities east of the Cascades,
when constructing the
appropriate salary for its mayor and City
superintendent.
The
Arbitrator adopts as the primary point of comparison
for measuring the level of police wages for
Pullman the following
cities:
Pasco
Kennewick
Richland
Wenatchee
Walla
Walla
Based
on the 1991 Association of Washington Cities Salary
Survey, the following population and wage
data reads:
POPULATION CITY TOP SALARY
20660 Pasco 2685
22080 Wenatchee 3000
27020 Walla Walla 2562
32600 Richland 2903
42780 Kennewick 2962
29028 Avg. 2822
Avg.
23090 Pullman 2263
26.0%
Diff. 25.0%
Diff.
(Ex.
G1.3(a))
A similar study for 1990 revealed an average
salary of $2,735 per
month or 21% above the Pullman average top
step salary. (G1.4).
A Guild summary of wage comparisons based on
"net hourly wages
asserted a wage increase ranging from 21.05%
to 28.65% wages
necessary to catch-up with the comparable
jurisdictions. (G1.6).
A
Guild summary of top step police officer increases for
1992 established:
SUMMARY 1992 INCREASES
TOP STEP POLICE OFFICER
Effective 1991 1992
Date % Increase Salary Salary
Kennewick 1/1/92 5.9% 2962 3137
Pasco
90% West Coast CPI 3 % 2695 2776
10/31/91 - Effective 1/1/92
Min.
3% - MAX. 6%
Richland 2903 In Negotiation s
Walla Walla 1/1/92 7.0% 2562 2742
Wenatchee 1/1/92 4.5% 3000 3135
Average 2824 2948
(G1.7(a))
The City provided no evidence of the amount
of increases set for
its list of comparator jurisdictions in
1992. Based on the City's
1991 figures the average top salary of
police officers in its list
of comparators was $2,537. (City Ex. 35).
While the
City argued strenuously
for internal
comparability on wages with its other
bargaining units, the City
did not provide the evidence of what the
1992 increases were for
those other bargaining units. The one exception was the Support
Services contract negotiated between the
Guild and the City. The
Arbitrator did note from a paragraph in the
1992 mayor 5 budget
message that all City employees be given a
6% increase in line with
the provisions contained in the current
labor contracts. (City Ex. 41).
The
Arbitrator rejects the Guild's proposal which would
contractually link the wages for Pullman
officers with that of the
five comparators. Pullman is a separate and
distinct jurisdiction.
As such, its wages should not be
contractually set as the average
of the five cities. Neither the statute or arbitral authority
support such a connection with other like
employers. It should be
recalled the statute refers to comparability
as a "guideline" to
consider in establishing wages.
Moreover,
adoption of the Guild's proposal would generate
a 20% increase for the first two years of
the contract. On its
face, two 10% successive increases is an
amount that would generate
excessive costs to the City. In addition, no evidence is present
in this record that 10% increases in 1990
and 1991 were the norm in
the five eastern Washington cities. Likewise, the City's offer of
2% and 2% in 1990, and 5.5% in 1991, is
unacceptable because it
will drive the already low wage level even
lower in the relative
standings of the like jurisdictions.
The average
top salary for
1992, of the
three
jurisdictions the City agrees are comparable
is $2,884. pursuant
to the City's proposal, the top salary in
1992, would be $2,632 or
$252 per month below the average. The average top salary of the
five cities for 1991, was $2,824. On the other hand, adoption of
the Guild's proposal would place Pullman
officers $99 per month
above the average for the three cities. The average top salary for
the four cities for 1992, iS $2,948. Richland
was still in
negotiations at the time of the arbitration
hearing.
The
Arbitrator was unconvinced Pullman should be the wage
leader for cities in the 15,000 to 50,000
population range east of
the Cascades. This is particularly true when the larger
cities of
Kennewick and Richland are included in the
primary comparator
group.
Absent from this record is any evidence Pullman should pay
its officers the highest wage of the
comparators.
The
goal of the Arbitrator is to award a wage package
which will make some effort in decreasing
the difference between
what is paid by this City to sworn officers
when compared to the
five other eastern Washington cities in the
15,000 to 50,000
population range. Even with the Arbitrator's award of $2,707
per
month, Pullman will rank last in the level
of pay for police
officers.
However, the salary
is competitive with the two
comparators both sides agree are
relevant. The award will place
Pullman $35 per month below Walla Walla and $65 per month below
Pasco sworn officers at the top step. Walla Walla
officers
received a 7% increase for 1992. On the other hand, Pullman
officers will be paid $428 per month less
than Wenatchee officers.
While
the Arbitrator was not provided with the 1992
salaries on the cities list of comparators,
the 1991 salary set by
this award will be $2,530 per month or $7
below the average top
step in the group of jurisdictions with
which the City seeks to
compare itself.
The
constitutional and statutory authority of the City
was not an issue placed before the
Arbitrator and therefore not a
factor in this award.
Regarding
the factor of stipulations of the parties, the
stipulation that Pullman should compare
itself with cities east of
the Cascades was accepted by the Arbitrator
and used to select the
list of comparators.
Regarding
the cost of living factor, the Arbitrator finds
this criteria of little assistance because
of the lack of current
and meaningful CPI data included in the
record of this case by the
parties.
The City did attach some CPI data to its closing brief.
Due to the fact this CPI data was not
admitted into evidence at the
hearing, the Arbitrator did not consider
this exhibit.
Regarding the
factor of changes
of the foregoing
circumstances during the pendency
of the proceedings, this factor
was of no relevance in formulating the
award.
Regarding
the "other factors" guideline, three elements
were of importance in coming to an
award. Pursuant to this
criteria, the Arbitrator reviewed the
ability to pay the proposed
wage increase, the City's proposed list of
external comparators and
internal comparators. The City made no "per se inability to
pay
argument" in this case. However, the
City correctly maintained the
amount of money in the budget to fund
increases, the probable
impact on City services and projects and the
long term impact of
the salary award are valid elements to
consider. Further, the
City's position that the current economic
climate argues against a
wage increase that is out of touch with
economic conditions was
persuasive.
In other words, this Arbitrator has avoided making an
award that would have a crippling effect on
the ability of
to maintain essential governmental services.
As
previously discussed, the Arbitrator considered the
City's proposed list of local comparators and
cities less than
15,000 as a check and balance on the five
cities used as the
primary comparators to establish the
wage level for sworn police
officers in
While
the City offered considerable argument with respect
to internal comparators, the record was void
of evidence of how the
other bargaining units such as fire, transit
and public works
compare
in wages with their counterparts performing similar
services.
The best the Arbitrator could ascertain with respect to
1992 wage increases for other City employees
was from the mayor's
budget message. The budget message revealed
that 6% increases were
the norm.
The Arbitrator's award of 7% in 1992 while slightly
higher than the 6% figure is in line with
the internal comparables
and the 6% offered by the City.
The award of this Arbitrator will establish
a salary
schedule that is within the range of
reasonableness when compared
with the five cities adopted as the primary
point of reference with
which to set
not out of line with the jurisdictions
offered by the City for the
purpose of establishing wage comparability.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator finds after review of the evidence and
argument as applied to the statutory
guidelines the wage schedule
for the 1990-1992 contract period shall be
as follows:
1. Effective
January 1, 1990, the base salary
shall be increased by 5.5%.
2. Effective
January 1, 1991, the 1990, base
salary shall be increased by 6%.
3. Effective
January 1, 1992, the 1991, base
salary shall be increased by 7%.
ISSUE 2: Guild Security
A. Background
Article
1 of the 1987-89 contract provides for union
security but does not require employees to
join the Guild. The
Guild proposed new language which would
require employees covered
by this Agreement to join the union. Employees who are bona fide
members of a church or religious body whose
religious tenets or
teachings prohibit membership in employee
associations would be
excused from joining the Guild. The City proposed a modification
to Article 1 but would continue the
voluntary nature of Guild
membership for employees.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild argued that its proposal should be awarded
because there has been no objection from any
employee to mandatory
Guild membership. The record evidence
established that 100% of the
bargaining unit belongs to the Guild. According to the Guild, the
100% membership speaks in favor of the
Guild's proposal. Since the
Guild bargains for all members of the
bargaining unit it is vital
that the Guild receive not only the
financial support, but personal
participation which mandatory membership
brings.
Therefore,
the Guild concludes that since it is legally
required to bargain for all employees
covered by the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, it is appropriate that
it have the financial
support and participation of all employees.
C. The
City
City
takes the position that mandatory union membership
should not be included in this Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
City Exhibit 44 reveals that mandatory union
membership or payment
of dues does not exist in any other City
bargaining unit. In
addition, the City's evidence reflected that
this provision does
not exist in other local comparable
agencies. The City's proposed
language is consistent with that already
agreed to by the Guild in
their separate contract covering Support
Services. It would be
grossly inconsistent to have a mandatory
provision in this contract
and not in the Support Services contract.
The
City also argues that there is no demonstrated need
for mandatory membership in the Guild. The union's own evidence
established that virtually all sworn
employees have voluntarily
joined the Guild. Thus, the Guild's proposal should be rejected
and the City's proposal awarded.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator finds the Guild has made its case that
financial support should be required from
all members of the
bargaining unit except those who are excused
from membership in
employee associations because of bona fide
religions tenets. The
Arbitrator was not convinced that all
employees should be required
to join the Guild. Compelling employees to be members of the
Guild
will not necessarily insure participation in
Guild activities.
Hence, the Arbitrator will award modified
language which requires
employees who elect not to join the association to make a
contribution in lieu of union dues.
The Guild
has incurred considerable
expenses in
attempting to bargain its first labor
contract with the City. All
of the members of the bargaining unit will
benefit from the efforts
of the Guild, not just those who elect to
join the Guild now or in
the future.
The fact the Guild has 100% membership argues in favor
of requiring Guild membership or a
contribution in lieu of dues.
In a small unit such as this, it is
imperative all employees
covered by the contract provide financial
support to its collective
bargaining representative.
The
Guild has the legal duty to represent all members of
the bargaining unit. Several recent court decisions have imposed
very stringent standards on a union's duty
to fully and fairly
represent all members of the bargaining
unit. Regardless of
membership in the Pullman Police Officers'
Guild, the Guild has a
legal obligation to defend the rights of the
bargaining unit
member, whether or not they provide support
to the Guild. Members
who do not contribute toward the cost of
collective bargaining also
receive the value of improved salary and
fringe benefits in
addition to improved working conditions
resulting from contract
negotiations. It is a reasonable and fair conclusion that
all
employees who benefit from the services of
the Guild should be
required to contribute towards the cost of
maintaining the services
of collective bargaining and contract
administration.
The
language awarded does not require employees to join
the Guild.
It only demands that all members of the bargaining unit
pay for the cost of collective bargaining
and related contract
administration. The language awarded by the Arbitrator does
not
require individuals to attend meetings or to
take part in Guild
activities.
However, all members of the bargaining unit should be
expected to contribute financial support to
the Guild for the
purpose of performing the duties of an
exclusive representative of
employees in dealing with the City on
labor/management issues. For
these reasons, the Arbitrator finds that
Article 1 be modified to
require a payment in lieu of dues for those
employees who do not
choose to join the Guild.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Article 1 be
amended to read:
1. Membership:
Membership or non-membership
in the Guild shall be the individual choice
of
employees covered by this Agreement.
However,
any employee who chooses not to belong to
the
Guild shall make a payment in lieu of dues
to
the Guild.
2. New
Employees: A newly hired employee
shall
determine within thirty
(30) days
whether he or she wishes to (1) join the
Guild
and pay Guild dues and fees or (2) decline
to
join
the Guild and
pay a service
fee
equivalent to regular Guild initiation fees
and
dues as a
consideration toward the
administration of this Agreement.
3. Equivalent
Dues Payment: In accordance
with RCW 41.56, objections to joining the
Guild which are based on bona fide religious
tenets or teachings of a church or religious
body as may be determined by the Public
Employment
Relations Commission will
be
observed.
Any such employee shall pay an
amount of money equivalent to regular Guild
dues to a nonreligious charity mutually
agreed
upon by the employee affected and the Guild.
4. Failure
to Comply: An employee who is
required
to maintain membership
in good
standing and fails to do so and an employee
who is required to pay a service fee and
fails
to do so under the provisions of this
Article,
shall be terminated upon notice of such fact
in writing
from the Guild
to the City.
Termination of such an employee shall become
effective within thirty (30) days from the
date the City received the notice, unless
the
employee has remedied the delinquency within
said thirty (30) day period provided that
the
habitual failure to timely pay dues, service
fees or charitable contributions shall, upon
the request of the Guild, result
in the
discharge of the offending employee.
ISSUE 3: Supervisory Duties
A. Background
Status
quo is represented by Article 6 of the 1987-89
Agreement which provides that an officer
assigned to supervisory
duties in an acting capacity shall receive
the difference between
the minimum sergeant rate of pay and
patrolman I rate of pay for
actual hours worked. The term "Acting Sergeant" is used
when a
bargaining unit member is temporarily
assigned to perform the
supervisory duties of a sergeant. Pursuant to the language in
Article 6 it is the City's discretion of
whether or not to
designate an officer as an Acting Sergeant.
The
Guild proposed language to require a supervisor to be
designated when the patrol supervisor in
unavailable. The Guild's
proposal would define when the regular
supervisor is not available.
The City proposed modified language which
would continue the
discretion of management to designate an
acting supervisor when the
regular supervisor in unavailable.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposed language to state as follows:
It
is recognized that some employees covered
under
this Agreement shall perform the duties
of
a supervisor. Nothing in this Agreement
shall
in any way interfere with carrying out
their
supervisory duties.
Police
Officers, assigned by the Chief or
his/her designee
to perform the duty
of
"Acting
Sergeant" shall receive the difference
between
the minimum Sergeant rate of pay and
Patrolman
I rate of pay for actual hours
worked.
The
Guild's proposal on this issue arose out of a
situation where a sergeant was assigned to
light duty and was
unable to respond to the scene of a
crime. The City chose to have
the sergeant remain as the shift supervisor
even though he was
unable to respond. According to the Guild, the officers at the
scene were jeopardized as the result of the
inability of the
supervisor to respond to the situation.
The
Guild next pointed to the testimony of Chief
Weatherly who agreed there should be an
officer in charge when
there is not a supervisor available. The
Chief also testified that
he expected the sergeant to appoint such an
officer in charge if he
were not there. From the viewpoint of the Guild, the parties
are
in agreement as to the need for an officer
to be assigned for on-
the-scene supervision if a supervisor is not
available.
In
sum, the Guild submits this is a safety issue, and not
a monetary issue. While there is a monetary
component in the sense
that those officers placed in charge of the
scene shall receive
extra compensation, the motivating force for
this proposal is
officer safety. Thus, the Arbitrator should award the
language
proposed by the Guild.
C. The
City
The
City proposed language to read as follows:
It
is recognized that some employees covered
under
this agreement shall perform the duties
of
a supervisor. Nothing in this agreement
shall
in any way interfere with carrying out
their
supervisory duties.
Police
officers assigned by the Chief of
Police
or his/her designee to perform the duty
of
"Officer in Charge" (O.I.C.) shall receive
the
beginning sergeant rate of pay.
An
O.I.C. may be assigned when a Patrol
Supervisor
is not available. An officer
acting
as O.I.C. will be considered to have
been
acting in that capacity for actual time
worked
with a minimum of one (1) hour.
"Not
available" may be considered to mean that
the Patrol
Supervisor is unavailable
to
communicate
direction or respond to a field
scene
when needed.
The
City maintains that the Guild's proposal would
require it to appoint an acting officer in
charge without regard to
the circumstances of the individual
case. The City's proposal to
continue management discretion to assess
whether or not it was
necessary to appoint an officer in charge
should be continued.
Adoption of the Guild's proposal would
remove the decision making
responsibility from the Chief and place it
in the Guild.
The
City next points out that when an officer is
designated as the officer in charge it
carries with it a higher
rate of pay for that officer. In the view of the City, higher pay
and the assignment connected thereto should
be controlled by
management rather than an automatic contract
entitlement.
It
is also the position of the City that the Guild's
explanation of "Not available" are
words to grieve and an attempt
to mandate when and how officer in charge
assignments are to be
made.
If the language proposed by the Guild were adopted it would
result in a proliferation of officer in
charge assignments and
grievances challenging the City when it did
not appoint an officer
in charge at a particular problem. The City believes that the
Guild's four definitions of "Not
available" are unneeded and will
unduly restrict the exercise of management
prerogatives to deal
with situations on a case per case
basis. Therefore, the
Arbitrator should reject the Guild's
proposal and award the City's
language.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator finds the Guild's proposal creates an
unreasonable restriction on management's
right to determine when
and if supervision at a crime scene is
necessary. Pursuant to the
Guild's proposal an officer in charge would
be required without
regard to the individual circumstances
present at the crime scene
or the availability of the patrol
supervisor. In the judgment of
this Arbitrator, the need to provide police
services and deploy
human resources in the most efficient manner
possible should not be
restricted in the manner proposed by the
Guild.
The
Guild's one example cited to support its proposal
does not rise to the level to justify the
unnecessary restriction
on managerial prerogatives. Adoption of the
Guild's proposal would
result in a proliferation of officer in
charge assignments and
increased cost for police services. An officer in charge would be
required to be assigned even though the
patrol supervisor is
capable of handling the situation. Thus, the Arbitrator was not
persuaded that a substantial restriction on the ability of
management to determine the level of
supervision should be placed
into this contract.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator will award the language
proposed by the City which continues the
present practice of
permitting management to determine whether
or not an officer in
charge is needed.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that Article 6 be amended to read
as follows:
It
is recognized that some employees covered
under
this agreement shall perform the duties
of
a supervisor. Nothing in this agreement
shall
in any way interfere with carrying out
their
supervisory duties.
Police
officers assigned by the Chief of
Police
or his/her designee to perform the duty
of
"Officer in Charge" (O.I.C.) shall receive
the
beginning sergeant rate of pay.
An
O.I.C. may be assigned when a Patrol
Supervisor
is not available. An officer
acting
as O.I.C. will be considered to have
been
acting in that capacity for actual time
worked
with a minimum of one (1) hour.
"Not
available" may be considered to mean that
the Patrol
Supervisor is unavailable
to
communicate
direction or respond to a field
scene
when needed.
ISSUE 4: Overtime
A. Background
The
subject of overtime is addressed in Article 9 of the
1987-89 Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The Guild proposed
substantial changes in the overtime article.
The City offered some
minor changes in the current language. However, for the most part
the City is proposing continuation of
present contract language.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposes to increase the amount of compensatory
time which may be accumulated from 40 hours
to 80 hours. Pursuant
to Section 9.02 employees with authorized
overtime entitlements are
allowed to request to be compensated with
time off at the time and
one-half rate instead of monetary
compensation. The Guild would
also amend the holiday overtime which
currently stands at two times
the regular rate of pay to time and one-half
the holiday rate of
pay.
Section
9.03 compels the City to pay an employee at the
overtime rate calculated to the nearest
one-quarter hour if that
employee is ordered to remain on duty at the
end of the shift. The
Guild proposed that an employee who is
ordered to remain on duty or
report earlier than the regular shift would
be entitled to two
hours at the applicable overtime rate in
addition to the overtime
for hours actually worked. The Guild would also modify Section
9.04 to require a minimum of 2 hours of
overtime when an officer is
requested to report on a day off, leave,
etc. or after going home
from work.
When the employee is ordered to report to duty on a day
off, the employee will be paid a 4 hour
allowance at the overtime
rate in addition to overtime for the hours
actually worked.
The
Guild also proposed to add new language to the
existing overtime provision. Under the Guild's proposal an
employee would have to be given at least
seven working days notice
prior to any regular schedule or overtime
schedule changes. If the
notification is less than the required seven
days, the employee
would be considered as being ordered to work
and the provisions of
Section 9.03 and/or 9.04 would apply. The Guild also proposed new
language that when an employee is returned
to work with less than
12 continuous hours off, that employee would
be considered to have
worked continuously from the previous work
period. Compensation
for those hours would be at the overtime
rate.
The
Guild proposed a new Section 9.08 on the subject of
standby.
An employee who is "requested" to be on standby would be
paid a 2 hour allowance at the applicable
overtime rate in addition
to the hours requested to maintain standby
status. An employee who
is ordered to be on standby would be paid a
4 hour allowance at the
overtime rate in addition to the hours
ordered to maintain standby
status.
The
Guild frames the overtime issue as a "safety, time
off issue" rather than a monetary
issue. According to the Guild,
the City has historically substituted
overtime for additional
officers.
The City continuously overspends its overtime budget.
The Guild asserts that the overtime required
by the Department is
not only excessive, but dangerous.
It
is against this background that the Guild has proposed
language which is punitive in nature to
force the City to
reconsider its excessive reliance on
overtime to make-up for
staffing shortages. In addition, the amount of overtime being
worked by members of this bargaining unit
creates a situation of
officer fatigue causing a serious danger to
both the public and the
officers. Testimony was also presented that
the impact of overtime
is seriously disruptive to the family life
of members of this
bargaining unit. Since overtime is mandatory in this
Department,
the City should be required to adequately
compensate officers for
working excessive overtime due to the fact
the City has refused to
increase the number of police officers.
The
seven day notice prior to any regular schedule change
is necessary to give officers a reasonable
amount of time to plan
their family and personal lives. The seven day notice would
subject the City to a monetary penalty for
its violation. The City
would still be able to change the schedule
in order to meet its
staffing needs, but would be required to pay
a monetary penalty for
failing to give the seven day notice.
The
Guild argues in support of its 12 continuous hours
off provision that fatigue presents a real
danger for officers and
the public.
A requirement that an officer be given at least 12
hours off is reasonable protection for the
safety of officers and
the public.
The monetary penalty for failing to comply with the 12
hour off provision will compel the City to
provide additional
staff.
For all of the above stated reasons, the Arbitrator should
award the Guild's proposal as an appropriate
safeguard for officer
safety.
C. The
City
The
City rejects the Guild's proposals on three main
grounds.
First, the Guild's proposal would increase the overtime
cost to the City by a significant
amount. Second, the doubling of
the amount of compensatory time accrual
maximum would increase an
already severe scheduling problem. Likewise, the seven day notice
of a shift change is not workable due to the
nature of police work.
Third, the evidence on comparability does
not support the Guild's
proposals .
In
sum, the City believes the Guild's overtime proposal
in total, is unreasonable and would have an
excessive cost impact
on the City.
Therefore, the Arbitrator should award the City's
proposal which essentially continues
existing contract language.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator concurs with the City that adoption of the
Guild's proposal would be excessive in total
cost and create an
unreasonable restriction on the ability of
the City to provide
police services. The record does establish that the members of
this bargaining unit do work substantial
amounts of overtime which
intrudes on their ability to maintain a life
separate and apart
from the Police Department. As such, there is room for some
modification in the overtime article which
would not create
excessive costs or unduly restrict the
Department's ability to
maintain its staffing levels.
The
Guild's proposal to double the amount of compensatory
time available to members of this unit is
excessive and should not
be adopted.
A 20% increase in the maximum amount of compensatory
time that could be accrued would set the cap
at 48 hours. The
availability of a additional 8 hours of compensatory
time off
should not unduly restrict the ability of
the Department to
maintain adequate police services. The Guild proposal to increase
holiday overtime to time and one-half the
holiday rate of pay is
excessive.
Employees who work holiday overtime are paid an
adequate amount at two times the regular
rate of pay.
The
Guild's proposal to modify Section 9.03 to provide a
minimum 2 hour allowance at the applicable
overtime rate in
addition to the hours worked at the
applicable overtime rate when
an employee is ordered to remain on duty at
the end of his shift or
to report
early goes beyond the acceptable
limit for such
circumstances. Under current contract language an employee
who
remains after the end of the shift is paid
for time actually
worked, calculated to the next one-quarter
hour. This is an
acceptable method to deal with an employee
who is required to work
beyond the normal shift. The contract is
silent with respect to an
employee who is called to work before the
scheduled shift. It is
reasonable to compensate an officer who is
required to report early
with an minimum amount of overtime
compensation. A 1 hour minimum
is reasonable for an officer who is expected
to report to work
early on a particular shift.
Section
9.04 requires the City to pay a minimum of 2
hours at the applicable overtime rate for an
employee who is
ordered to report for duty on the day off or
after going home from
work.
The Guild's proposal to require minimum compensation for an
employee who is "requested to report to duty" is
vague and
uncertain.
The City should only be required to provide minimum
compensation when it orders an emplqyee to report for duty on a day
off or after going home. A minimum callback payment of 3 hours is
the standard in the comparables offered by
the Guild. Hence, the
Arbitrator will increase the existing
minimum callback time to 3
hours.
A
3 hour minimum is warranted to compensate the officer
for disruption to his or her personal life
on a day off or holiday.
Further, the 3 hour minimum is justified as
recognition of the fact
the officer must not only work the hours but
prepare for duty and
travel to and from the work site for an
additional tour of duty.
Accordingly, it will be the award of the
Arbitrator to increase the
2 hour minimum callback to 3 hours.
The
Guild proposal to require a seven day notice prior to
any regular schedule change represents an
undue restriction on the
ability of the City to staff the police
force. Absent from this
record is any evidence members have been
subjected to frequent and
repeated changes in shift schedule without
adequate notice. Nor is
there evidence that employees have been
required to work on a
regular basis without a minimum of 12 hours
between shifts. Hence,
the Arbitrator rejects the Guild's proposal
to add a new section
9.07.
The
final proposal of the Guild to add standby pay in
Section 9.08 should not become a part of the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
The record does not reflect that employees are
requested to standby or be at the beckon
call of Department
management.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards with respect to overtime as
follows:
1. Section 9.01 shall remain unchanged in
the
successor
contract.
2. Section 9.02 shall be amended to
provide
for
a maximum accrual of compensatory time off
at
48 hours.
3. Section 9.03 shall be amended to read:
An
employee ordered to remain on duty at the
end
of his regular shift or to report early
shall
be paid at the applicable overtime rate
for
time actually worked, calculated to the
nearest
one-quarter (1/4) hour.
A
new paragraph would be added which states:
An
employee who has left the workplace and who
is
called back to duty for a period of time
which
is less
than two (2) hours,
shall
receive
a minimum of two (2) hours of overtime
compensation.
4. Section 9.04 shall be modified to read:
An
employee called to report to duty on his
day
off or holiday shall be guaranteed a
minimum
of three (3) hours at the applicable
overtime
rate.
5. Section 9.05 shall remain unchanged in
the
successor
contract.
6. Section 9.06 shall remain unchanged in
the
successor
contract.
7.
The Guild's proposals to add new
language
in
9.06, 9.07 and 9.08 shall not become a part
of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Further, if the holiday falls on a day in
which the officer is
required to work, the officer should receive
the regular pay, plus
an extra days pay, and if overtime is
required, the overtime rate
be one and one-half times the regular pay.
According to the Guild,
if an employee is required to work on the
holiday, an employee
should receive recognition of that fact in
the form of additional
compensation. By making a monetary distinction between a
worked
and a non-worked holiday, the Guild submits
it would encourage the
City to reschedule an employee and grant an
employee's request for
time off.
The
City's proposal is defective in that it makes no
distinction between the employee who is not
required to work and an
employee who is required to work when it
comes to monetary
compensation. Therefore, the Arbitrator should sustain the
Guild
and award its proposal.
C. The
City
The City takes the position that present contract
language should be continued with a minor
change it has proposed.
Because members of this bargaining unit
enjoy a competitive holiday
benefit, the existing contract language
should be continued. There
is no justification for increasing the cost
to the City by awarding
the language proposed by the Guild.
Turning
to the Guild's proposal to add an additional
holiday if a holiday is so proclaimed by the
state, federal or City
government, City submits that this type of
holiday should be
handled at the time such declaration of a
holiday is made. The
ISSUE 5: Holidays
A. Background
Article
10 of the existing contract incorporates ten
designated holidays and one floating
holiday. If a holiday falls
during the employee's scheduled vacation,
employee's day off or if
the employee is scheduled to work a holiday,
the employee is given
another work day off during the month or
with the approval of the
Chief
of Police have
eight hours added to
the employee's
compensatory time bank. Neither party proposes to change the
number of holidays available for employees.
However, the Guild did
propose language which would grant an
additional holiday if such
holidays were created by declaration,
emergency or proclamation of
the City.
The Guild would also provide additional compensation
when an employee worked on a holiday or the
holiday fell during the
regular day off. The City proposed to continue current
contract
language with the addition of
language which would require
personnel working shift work to observe the
four traditional
holidays.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposed to add language which would add an
additional
holiday "created by
declaration, emergency or
proclamation of the City." The Guild reasons that if the federal,
state or City government declares a day a
holiday, a police officer
should be entitled to receive the holiday just
the same as other
employees who enjoy the benefit. The
contract between the City and
the firefighters grants an additional
holiday if the day is
declared to be such by the mayor. While a different holiday
schedule is a rare occurrence, the police officers
of this City
should
not be excluded
from receiving additional
holidays
established by the state, federal or City
governments.
The
Guild also proposed to add new language to the
contract which stated:
*
* *
If
the employee's regular day off falls on a
holiday,
she/he shall receive the equivalent
of
an extra day off, in comp time or annual
leave
at their option, for said holiday. (By
way
of illustration, a person working (5) 8
hour
shifts during a week will receive 8 hours
of
comp time or annual leave.)
At
the employee's option, subject to the
approval of
the Chief or his designee,
holidays
may be taken off and not worked.
Holidays
on which the employee elects not to
work
will be compensated for in comp time at
the
same rate as those worked. (By way of
illustration,
the day off plus an additional 8
hours
of comp time.)
An
employee whose schedule is changed or is
required
to take the holiday off will be
compensated
as a day off plus an additidnal 8
hours
of comp time.
Employees
working overtime on a holiday will
have
their overtime rate based on the holiday
rate
of pay, for all overtime hours worked.
The
essence of the Guild's proposal is that if a holiday
falls on a day off or during an employee's
vacation, the officer
should receive, in addition to regular pay,
either eight hours
compensatory time or annual leave at the
employee's option.
City should not be locked into granting an
additional holiday
simply because another agency declares a
holiday.
On
the issue of holidays falling within scheduled
vacation or days off, the City maintains its
proposed language is
simpler to administer and less costly
overall. The Guild's
proposal would complicate the computations
and make it more
difficult to administer the language. Regarding holidays that are
worked, the City argues the present system
has served the parties
well.
The contract should not be complicated with the Guild's
vague and confusing language.
In
sum, the City submits the Guild's proposal should be
rejected as unnecessarily adding to the
overtime costs and
injecting confusing language into the
contract.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator disagrees with the Guild's position that
it should have a holiday when such is
declared by either the
federal or state government. The City is an independent political
entity which should not be automatically
subjected to holidays
declared by either the state or federal
government. The fact that
a federal or state worker may get an
additional holiday is not
sufficient justification to grant the same
to a City worker.
However, the Arbitrator was persuaded that
if the City declares an
additional holiday that members of this
bargaining unit should be
entitled to that holiday without additional
negotiations. The
precedent for this is set in the firefighter
contract. The
Arbitrator will award language identical to
that contained in the
firefighter contract mandating an additional
holiday when it is so
declared by the mayor of
A
comparison of either the City's list of comparables or
the Guild's list of comparable cities
establishes that the members
of this bargaining unit enjoy a competitive
number of paid
holidays. This fact argues against the
increase in the cost of the
holiday benefits which would follow with the
adoption of the
Guild's proposals. The Arbitrator has awarded salary increases
which will increase the compensation for
members of this bargaining
unit. There is little justification for
increasing the cost to the
City by adding a provision that will result
in higher costs to fund
the holiday benefits.
Present
contract language requires that an employee who
is on a scheduled vacation or on a day off
is entitled to
recognition for the designated holiday. The
contract provides that
such an employee will receive a scheduled
day off in recognition of
the holiday falling during a vacation or day
off. Further, with
the approval of the Chief of police, an
additional eight hours can
be added to the employee's compensatory time
bank. While there is
some merit to providing additional
compensation to employees who
work on a scheduled holiday, it is the
conclusion of the Arbitrator
that the time is not ripe for such increase
in the value of the
holiday benefit. None of the comparator contracts support an
increased overtime rate for all holidays
worked.
The
Arbitrator will award the continuation of present
contract language with the addition of the
language that should a
holiday be declared by the mayor of
unit would receive the additional holiday.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that Article 10 should be continued
in the new contract with the addition of
language to state:
1. The employee shall also have a holiday
on
any
day so declared by the mayor of
2. All personnel working shift work will
observe
the traditional holidays as follows:
January
1 - New Year's Day
July
4 - Independence Day
November
11 - Veterans Day
December
25 - Christmas
ISSUE 6: Vacations
A. Background
The
vacation benefit is contained in Article 11 of the
existing contract. Both parties are proposing to continue the
existing vacation allotment. The difference in this issue centers
over the amount of time employees should be
allowed to accumulate
with respect to vacations. Article
11 allows employees to
accumulate
"up to a maximum of twenty-five (25) days vacation
time."
The City proposed to continue current contract language.
The Guild proposed to increase the amount of
vacation time which
could be accumulated up to a maximum of 35
days of vacation time.
The only issue before the Arbitrator on
vacations is whether or not
accumulation should be 25 days or 35 days.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild takes the position that its proposal to
increase the accumulation of vacation from
25 to 35 days is
supported by comparability. The maximum that
can be accumulated in
Wenatchee is 50 days, Richland 37.7 days,
Pasco 24 to 40 days,
Kennewick 35 days, and 1 week from the
previous year in Walla
Walla.
The
gives 20 days vacation after 10 years of
service, a total annual
leave that is much higher than the other
comparables.
C. The
City
The
City takes the position that both internal and
external comparators support retention of
the 25 day maximum
accumulation of vacation time. According to the City, vacation
hours should be used to reduce job stress
rather than build up to
excess.
Increased absences due to vacation also create scheduling
problems and increase the City's overtime
costs. If an employee
with a large amount of vacation accrual
terminates with the City,
an additional financial burden is placed on
the tax payers because
the vacation time is not used but must be
paid for in cash. The
practice within the City is to allow
employees to accumulate up to
a maximum of 25 days vacation time. That standard should be
continued for members of the police
bargaining unit.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator finds that a slight increase in the amount
of time which employees will be allowed to
accumulate for vacation
is justified. While the City's evidence on internal
comparators
supports its position, the evidence of
either the City or the Guild
on the external comparators supports an
upward adjustment in the
maximum
amount of vacation
time which can be
accumulated.
Ellensburg, Pasco,
significantly more vacation time to be
accumulated. Likewise the
Guild's evidence from
provide for substantially higher
accumulation rates than is present
in this contract. The Arbitrator will award an increase in the
maximum accumulation rate to 30 days
effective January 1, 1992. An
increase of 5 days is supported by the
external comparators and
will be consistent with the internal
comparators.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that existing contract language be
continued
except that the
paragraph providing a
maximum
accumulation of vacation time at 25 days be
amended to state as
follows:
Effective
be
allowed to accumulate up to a maximum of
thirty
(30) days vacation time.
ISSUE 7: Premium Pay
A. Background
Article
21 of the existing Agreement provides premium pay
for officers who work swing or graveyard
shift. Premium pay for
swing shift is $15 per month and $20 per
month for graveyard shift.
The sole remaining issue in dispute is the
pay differential that
should be established for swing and
graveyard shifts. The City
would continue the existing amount of
premium pay while the Guild
would increase the premium pay to $50 per
month for swing shift and
$100 per month for graveyard shift.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild notes at the outset that while the title of the
article
is premium pay the
issue is really
one of shift
differential for officers who work swing and
graveyard shifts. The
Guild suggested that the Arbitrator might relabel this article to