City of Mount Vernon

And

Mount Vernon Police Services Guild

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      Gary L. Axon

Date Issued:   11/06/1993

 

 

Arbitrator:         Axon; Gary L.

Case #:              10183-I-92-00218

Employer:          City of Mount Vernon

Union:                Mount Vernon Police Services Guild

Date Issued:     11/06/1993

 

 

IN THE MATER OF                         )          

                                                                        )          

INTEREST ARBITRATION                       )           PERC NO. 10183-1-92-218

                                                                        )

            BETWEEN                                         )           NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR'S

                                                                        )

            MOUNT VERNON POLICE           )           OPINION AND

            SERVICES GUILD,                          )           AWARD

                                                Guild,              )           1993 WAGE REOPENER

                                                                        )

                        and                                          )

                                                                        )

CITY OF MOUNT VERNON,                     )

WASHINGTON,                                           )

                                                                        )

                                                City.                )

 

 

HEARING SITE:                                                      City Hall

                                                                                    Mount Vernon, Washington

 

HEARING DATES:                                                  July 8, 9, 12, 1993

 

POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE:                            Postmarked September 2, 1993

 

RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:  September 7, 1993

 

REPRESENTING THE GUILD:                 James M. Cline

                                                                         Hoag, Vick, Tarantino & Garrettson

                                                                        Suite 200

                                                                        425 Pontius Avenue N.

                                                                        Seattle, WA 98109

 

REPRESENTING THE CITY:                     Bruce L. Schroeder

                                                                        Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe

                                                                        6100 Columbia Center

                                                                        701 Fifth Avenue

                                                                        Seattle, WA 98104-7098

 

ARBITRATION PANEL:                             Mike Marker

                                                                        Guild Appointed Member

                                                                        Linford Smith

                                                                        City Appointed Member

 

                                                                        Gary L. Axon

                                                                        Neutral Arbitrator

                                                                        1465 Pinecrest Terrace

                                                                        Ashland, OR 97520

                                                                        (503) 488-1573

 

 

                                                            Table of Contents

                                                                                                                                    Page

I.          Introduction                                                                                                    2

II.        Background                                                                                                    7

III.       Position of the Guild                                                                                      9

IV.       Position of the City                                                                                        23

V.        Discussion and Findings                                                                                41

            A.        Guild Proposal to Change the Wage Grid                                        44

            B.        Wages                                                                                                 46

                        Constitutional and Statutory Authority

                        of the Employer                                                                                  49

                        Stipulations of the Parties                                                                 49

                        Comparability                                                                         49

                        Cost of Living                                                                         57

                        Changes                                                                                              59

                        Other Factors                                                                         59

                        Award                                                                                                 60

 

I.          INTRODUCTION

 

            This case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant

to Chapter 41.56 RCW.  The parties to this dispute are the City of

Mount Vernon, Washington (hereinafter "City") or ("Mount Vernon")

and the Mount Vernon Police Services Guild (hereinafter "Union") or

("Guild").  In 1990 the parties negotiated their first Collective

Bargaining Agreement under Washington law.   The first Agreement

covered  the three-year period  from January  1, 1991,  through

December 31, 1993.   The 1991-93 Collective Bargaining Agreement

called for a salary reopener for the third year of the contract.

The  parties  were  unable  to  resolve  the  sole  issue  of  the

appropriate wage rate for 1993 through negotiation and mediation.

The matter was certified for interest arbitration pursuant td RCW

41.56.450, et seq.

            The City of Mount Vernon is located in Skagit County.

Skagit County is the center for a basically agricultural, fishing

and timber economy.  Mount Vernon is located approximately mid-way

between Bellingham and Everett, Washington along the Interstate 5

corridor.  The 1993 population of the City is approximately 20,450.

The City actively promotes a rural and small-town atmosphere as

part of its mission statement.  City Ex. 65.

            Skagit County has experienced a population growth from

66,100 in 1983 to 88,500 in 1993.  The City of Mount Vernon has

also grown from a population of 17,647 in 1990 to 20,450 in 1993.

City Ex. 19.  The largest employers within the City limits are the

various public agencies, including Skagit County, the City, schools

and  a  public  hospital.    There  are  no  major  industrial  or

manufacturing employers located in Mount Vernon.  In 1990 a mall

opened in the neighboring city to the north, Burlington.  Several

retail businesses relocated out of Mount Vernon and into the mall

at Burlington.   However, during the same period the City has

approved several new residential subdivisions to accommodate the

increasing population of Mount Vernon which has grown steadily

since the mid-1980s.

            The Mount Vernon Police Department is comprised of

approximately 36 full-time positions including a Chief, Assistant

Chief, a Captain and a Records Manager who are in non-represented

management positions.   The bargaining unit is composed of 27

officers.  Twenty-one are patrol officers and 6 are sergeants.  The

average length of service in the bargaining unit is almost 10

years.  The Mount Vernon Police Department provides a full range of

law enforcement services for the citizens of the City.  The bulk of

the Police Department is funded by the City's general fund.

            The hearing in this case took three days for the parties

to present their evidence and testimony.   The majority of the

hearing  time was  consumed  on  the  issue  of  the  appropriate

jurisdictions with which to compare Mount Vernon for the purpose of

establishing the 1993 wage schedule.  The hearing was recorded by

a court reporter and a transcript consisting of 689 pages was made

available to the parties and the arbitration panel for the purpose

of preparing the post-hearing briefs and award.  Testimony of the

witnesses was taken under oath.  At the hearing the parties were

given the full opportunity to present written evidence,  oral

testimony and argument.  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 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

positions of the parties, I will state the principal findings and

rationale which caused the Arbitrator to make the award on the wage

issue.

            The parties filed their post-hearing written briefs in a

timely manner and the record was closed as of September 7, 1993.

On October 6, 1993, the Union filed a Motion to Reopen the Record

for the purpose of the admission of the newly signed Oak Harbor

Police Department agreement.  On October 8, 1993, the City filed a

brief in opposition to the Union's Motion to Reopen the Record.

After evaluating the arguments submitted by counsel regarding the

Motion to Reopen the Record, the Arbitrator denied the Motion to

Reopen in an order dated October 19, 1993.

            Because of the extensive record made in this case the

parties agreed to an extension of the statutory requirement that a

decision be issued within thirty days of the close of the record.

On September 29, 1993, the neutral Arbitrator met 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 comments and observations of the party appointed panel

members were of great assistant to the neutral Arbitrator in making

his  findings  of  fact  and  award on the  issue presented  for

arbitration.   The written decision is solely the work of the

neutral Arbitrator.

            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 restate and refer to each and every piece

of evidence or testimony presented.  However, when formulating the

1993 wage award the Arbitrator did give careful consideration to

all of the evidence and argument submitted.

            The single issue submitted to interest arbitration in

this case is the 1993 wage issue under the reopener provision of

the 1991-93 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

            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.

 

II.        BACKGROUND

 

 

            This case comes to arbitration pursuant to a reopener

clause in the 1991-93 Collective Bargaining Agreement.  The single

issue subject to the reopener involves the wage level for 1993.

The present salary schedule is structured on an eight step system.

It takes nine years to reach the top step of the current salary

schedule.  The nine year salary grid has been in place for several

years.  Pursuant to the 1992 contract, a beginning patrolman starts

at $2,278 per month and rises to a top step after nine years of

$2,838 per month.  A Mount Vernon police officer's wage is $2,742

after five years with the Police Department.

            The sergeants are also included in this bargaining unit.

A sergeant with zero to two years experience earns $2,949 per month

which increases to $3,049 per month after two years.  The sergeant

reaches the top step of the salary scale after four years.  The top

step pay for a sergeant is $3,149 per month.

            The City pays the entire premium for medical care for

bargaining unit members and their dependents pursuant to the terms

of the contract.   The members of this bargaining unit work a

substantial amount of overtime.  In addition, shift differential is

paid for work between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.  Premium pay is also

provided for special assignments made to the members of this

bargaining unit.

            The 1991 Agreement yielded a 7% increase.  The second

year of the contract generated a 3% increase under a CPI formula

based on 100% of the all-cities CPI-U index, with a minimum of 3%

and a maximum of 7% computed on a reading of the November 1990 to

November 1991 index.

            The Union proposed for 1993 to alter the wage grid by

reducing the time it takes to reach the top step from nine years to

five years.  The Union has proposed a wage increase that would

average 17%.  The City proposed to retain the existing salary grid

with a 3% across the board increase.

            The driving force behind the positions of the parties on

the wage issue was comparability. Each party submitted substantial

evidence and argument to support its position on the appropriate

comparators for the purpose of establishing wages for Mount Vernon

police officers.  The Arbitrator was also supplied with several

interest arbitration decisions involving other Washington cities.

The arbitration of this case was conducted approximately six and

one-half months into the 1993 contract year.  By the time this

award is issued, approximately two months will remain on the 1993

contract.  The Arbitrator has evaluated this case in the context of

a third year reopener and the implications of this award for future

negotiations between the parties.

 

III.       POSITION OF THE GUILD

 

            The Union proposed a salary schedule for 1993 wages as

follows:

            PATROL PAY STEP MONTHLY WAGE

            0-1       years                           $2606

            1-2       years                           $2737

            2-3       years                           $2867

            3-4       years                           $2997

            4-5       years                           $3128

            5+        years                           $3258

 

            SERGEANTS' PAY STEP

            0-2       years                           $3449.89

            2-4       years                           $3567.31

            4+        years                           $3684.69

 

 

            The Guild's position on 1993 wages was based almost

exclusively on its list of comparators.  According to the Guild,

its proposed list is more consistent with both statutory and other

traditional factors relied upon in the selection of comparator

jurisdictions in interest arbitrations than the list offered by the

City.  The Guild's "Weighted Multi-Factor Approach" resulted in a

list of eight Washington jurisdictions which the Union believed

represented a fair and equitable basis on which to establish Mount

Vernon  police  wages.    The  Guild  proposed  eight  Washington

jurisdictions as its list of comparables.  They are as follows:

 

CITY                                       POPULATION           NUMBER OF OFFICERS

 

Bremerton                              36,380                         56

Longview                                32,650                         46

Puyallup                                  26,140                         43

Lacey                                      22,660                         31

Mount Vernon                        20,450                         29

Mountlake Terrace               19,880                         29

Des Moines                            19,460                         27

Port Angeles                           18,270                         27

Aberdeen                                16,665                         36

 

Average without

            Mount Vernon            24,013                         35

 

 

The Union submits the factors which relate to size, function,

wealth and location of the comparator jurisdictions are most likely

to be understood by the parties to produce a list of "like"

jurisdictions.

            The Guild avers that its method of analysis produced a

balanced and reasonable set of comparators.  The Union's list was

composed of cities located in western Washington and excluded

cities without "uniform personnel" or those with less that 15,000

population.   The variance range was established to multiply or

divide by a factor of 2.  The Guild's demographic factors used as

a basis for selecting comparables were as follows:

 

1)         Population

2)         Assessed Valuation

3)         Assessed Valuation per capita

4)         Retail Sales

5)         Retail Sales per capita

6)         Number of Officers

7)         Number of Crimes

 

The factors given the most weight in the analysis were population

and assessed valuation.

 

            The Guild claimed that the factors it relied on for

selecting comparators offer the best approach to determine "like

employers  of  similar  size."   The  argument  of  the  Guild is

summarized in the sections which follow.

            1.         Population.      Population  is  the  best

measure of "similar size."  Further, increases

in population often increase the complexity

and workload of the law enforcement officers'

job.  Population must be viewed in tandem with

several other factors.  Cities in the Guild's

list of comparables range from 16,665 persons

in Aberdeen to 36,380 persons in Bremerton.

The average population of the eight cities

without Mount Vernon is 24,013.  The Guild's

comparators  are  justified  based  upon  the

population   range   of   the   jurisdictions

resulting from the Guild's study.

 

2.         Assessed Valuation.  Assessed valuation is

a traditional factor utilized by arbitrators

in the process of selecting comparators.  The

reasoning for using assessed valuation is that

police officers not only protect people, they

also protect property.   Assessed valuation

when viewed in conjunction with retail sales

is probably far and away the best measure of

the City's tax base and its ability to pay.

An equitable wage award will take into account

the similarity of Mount Vernon to cities of

similar ability to pay.   Assessed valuation

serves as a rough measure of the wealth of a

community.

 

3.         Assessed Valuation Per Capita.  Assessed

valuation per capita is simply a more fine-

tuned method of selecting comparators.   The

logic  of  utilizing  assessed valuation per

capita is that one gets a better measure of a

city's ability to pay than by looking at

assessed valuation alone.  Assessed valuation

per capita also provides a better snapshot of

the local effort than does assessed valuation

standing by itself.

 

4.         Retail  Sales.     In  Washington,  a

significant share of local income to cities is