City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 10376-I-93-00222
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
) PERC CASE NO.
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
) 10376-1-93-00222
BETWEEN )
) INTEREST
ASSOCIATION, ) OPINION AND AWARD
Union, ) 1992-1994
AGREEMENT
)
and )
)
CITY OF
City. )
HEARING SITE:
HEARING DATES: July 26, 27, 28,
29, 30
August
3, 4, 9, 1993
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Lynn
D. Weir
Webster,
Mrak & Blumberg
600
1325
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF SEATTLE: Otto G. Klein, III
Heller, Ehrman,
White & McAuliffe
Cathy
L. Parker
Civil
Division
City
of
600
ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 2
II. PROCEDURAL
RULING ON
TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE 10
III. POSITION
OF
A. Background 14
B. SPMA Proposals 18
C. Cost of Living 21
D. Cost of Living Is Not an Appropriate
Factor
in
Comparative Economic Analysis 22
E. Other
F. Ability to Pay and Spending Priorities 27
G. SPMA's
Overtime Proposals 28
H. Medical Issues 30
I. Emergency Leave 33
J. Duration 34
K. Conclusion 35
IV. POSITION
OF THE CITY
A. Background 36
B. Wage Proposal 38
C. Cost of Living 39
D. Relative Cost of Living Differences in
the
WC
7 Should be Given Substantial Weight by
the
Arbitrator 40
E. Available Indexes Support the Existence
of
the
Cost of Living Differential Between
Seattle
and the WC 7 41
F. Runzheimer
Study 44
G. Benchmark for Comparison 47
H. Medical Premiums 47
I. Uniform Allowance, Differed
Compensation and
Pension
Pick-Up 48
J. Top Step Wages 49
K. Internal Equity 50
L. Public and Private Sector Settlements 51
M. Second Year Wages 52
N. Three Percent Premium Pay for
Precinct
Captains 52
0. Contract Year 53
P. Overtime 53
Q. City Insurance Proposals 55
R. Longevity 58
S. Sick Leave/Family Emergencies 59
T. Conclusion 60
V. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - WAGES
A. Background 61
B. Constitutional and Statutory Authority
of
the Employer 69
C. Stipulation of the Parties 70
D. Cost of Living 71
E. Intercity Cost of Living Data 73
F. Comparability 78
G. 1994 Adjustment 91
H. Longevity 92
I. Premium Pay for Precinct Captains 92
J. Changes in Circumstances During Pendency
of
this proceeding 92
K. Other Factors Normally or Traditionally
Taken
Into
Consideration in the Determination of
Wages,
Hours and Conditions of Employment 93
APPENDIX
A - SALARIES 94
VI. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - MEDICAL COVERAGE 96
VII. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - OVERTIME 100
VIII. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD -
SICK
LEAVE/FAMILY EMERGENCIES 103
IX. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - LONGEVITY 104
X. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - DURATION 106
I. INTRODUCTION
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450. The parties to this dispute are the City of
Management Association ( "
are parties to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement that expired on
1992
for a new labor Agreement. The
Collective Bargaining
Agreement covers approximately 62 employees
holding the ranks of
lieutenant, captain and major in the Seattle
Police Department.
The members of this bargaining unit are
generally long-term
employees of the City who hold supervisory
Positions in the Police
Department.
The
City of
522,000 in 1992. The Seattle Police Department is divided into
four main precincts for the purposes of
delivering police services.
The North Precinct extends north from
square miles with a population of
approximately 222,000. The West
Precinct includes the downtown business core
and some community
living areas, with 11.5 square miles and
63,000 residents. The
East Precinct covers from I-5 to Lake
Washington, with 8.5 square
miles and a population of 80,000. The South Precinct covers some
31 square miles of the south end of the City
with a population of
about 152,000.
A precinct
is commanded by a patrol
captain and
supervised by a lieutenant on each of three
8 hour daily watches.
Up to 180 police officers are assigned to a
single precinct, with
a lieutenant typically commanding 50 or more
personnel at one time.
Administratively
the Police Department is divided into
four bureaus, each commanded by an assistant
chief, who is assisted
by a major.
Another major commands all of the patrol captains. In
addition, a major also commands the street
functions which include
traffic, K-9, swat teams and the Harbor
Patrol Unit. Within each
bureau the major manages certain areas of
responsibility and
oversees captains and lieutenants. Some of the majors are assigned
to manage specific police functions such as
vice, narcotics and the
follow-up investigation of crimes.
The
first Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
parties was effective
to interest arbitration before a panel
chaired by arbitrator
Michael
H. Beck. The
parties again resorted
to interest
arbitration in 1984 before a panel chaired
by arbitrator Allen R.
Krebs.
Once again the parties went to interest arbitration in 1987
before a panel chaired by arbitrator
terms of
agreement which took effect on
Concurrently with the proceeding before
arbitrator Snow, the City
also resorted to interest arbitration with
the International
Association
of Firefighters Locals 27
and 2893 representing
bargaining units within the
In
1989 the City and its two firefighter units submitted
to interest arbitration its contract dispute
for resolution before
a panel chaired by arbitrator Phillip Kienast. Following
the 1989
award by Kienast,
the City sued to set the award aside.
The
parties resolved the litigation with a new
Agreement. The City and
the firefighter unions were thereafter able
to negotiate successor
contracts
expiring on
arbitration.
The
parties to this arbitration made extensive reference
to the decisions issued by the other
arbitrators in the earlier
awards.
Each side found support for its respective positions from
the prior interest arbitration awards. The previous interest
arbitration awards were specifically cited
by the parties with
respect to how the other arbitrators dealt
with the issue of the
City's
attempt to introduce
evidence concerning relative
differences in the cost of living among the
various comparator
jurisdictions. Each of the other arbitrators was required
to
address
a private study the City had commissioned from the
Runzheimer
Company on the issue of relative differences in the cost
of living among the seven West Coast
jurisdictions the parties had
used for purposes of comparison.
In
anticipation that the City would seek to introduce the
work of the Runzheimer
Company on the alleged relative differences
in the cost of living among the seven West
Coast jurisdictions, the
differences in the cost of living. The motion was filed prior to
the commencement of the arbitration
hearing. The City filed a
reply asking the Arbitrator to deny the
evidence.
At the beginning of the arbitration hearing, the
announced that it would not seek a ruling
from the Arbitrator on
its motion to exclude evidence prior to the
taking of testimony on
the merits of this case. The
motion in the post-hearing brief, and asked
the Arbitrator to
reject the use of any evidence concerning
relative differences in
the cost of living in coming to an Award in
this case. The
Arbitrator will deal with this issue in the
section entitled
Procedural Rulings.
Concurrently
with the filing of the motion to exclude
evidence, there were a number of unfair
labor practices filed with
the PERC relating to issues placed before
this Arbitrator. In a
memorandum dated
preliminary decision which pulled several of
the subjects the
parties had submitted to interest
arbitration. Based on Schurke's
decision, the Arbitrator took no evidence or
argument on the issues
that had been removed from interest
arbitration by Mr. Schurke.
The
hearing in this case took eight days for the parties
to present their evidence and
testimony. The majority of the
hearing time was consumed on the issues
surrounding the statutory
factor of comparability. The hearing was recorded by a court
reporter and a transcript consisting of
approximately 1,267 pages
was made available to the parties and the
Arbitrator for the
purpose of preparing the post-hearing briefs
and the 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. Each side called expert
witnesses to testify in support of their
respective positions. The
expert
witnesses were knowledgeable
and qualified in
their
respective fields. The parties offered into evidence substantial
written documentation to sustain their
arguments on the issues
submitted to interest arbitration.
The
Arbitrator continued to receive evidence from the
parties
after the last
day of hearing.
The post-hearing
submissions were offered by mutual agreement
in order to complete
the record, and to make the arbitration
record as current as
possible.
Counsel for the parties submitted comprehensive and
lengthy post-hearing briefs to assist the
Arbitrator in corning to
a decision in this case. Both sides also offered numerous interest
arbitration awards issued by other
arbitrators in the state of
entered into a stipulation that this case
would be heard and
decided without the use of partisan
arbitrators specified in RCW
41.56.450.
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 introduction of the issue and
position of the parties, I then will state
the principle findings
and rational which caused the Arbitrator to
make the Award on the
issues in dispute.
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 and argument presented. However, when formulating this
Award the Arbitrator did give careful
consideration to all of the
evidence and argument contained in the
record of this case.
Because of the size and complexity of the
record, the parties
agreed that the Arbitrator would be excused
from the 30-day time
limit prescribed by RCW 41.56.450 for the
issuance of his Award.
In
a letter received on
for the
had settled issues raised by the City's
proposals to define "shift
extension" as two hours preceding or
one hour following the normal
shift, and for a work schedule reopener. As such,
there was no
need for the Arbitrator to address these
issues in the opinion and
Award.
The parties also made the
Arbitrator aware of the
continuing litigation of the unfair labor
practices- during the
course of the Arbitrator's preparation of
the Award.
During
the long bargaining history the parties have
developed a list of agreed upon comparators
for the purpose of
determining wages and working conditions for
the members of this
bargaining unit. The agreed upon list of comparators consists
of
seven West Coast cities. The comparators are referred to by the
parties as the West Coast 7 ("WC
7"). The seven jurisdictions are
as follows:
The
wages and working conditions of command officers
employed in the WC 7 served as the primary
point of reference for
the evidence presented by the parties in
this case.
This arbitration
arises under the Public
Employees
Collective Bargaining Act ("the
Act"). The Act enumerates several
statutory
factors to be considered by the
Arbitrator. The
statutory guidelines to be considered by an
interest 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
*
* *
(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. PROCEDURAL
RULING ON
The
commencement of the arbitration hearing, and
continued during the
course of the arbitration hearing is best
summarized in the
introduction to the
This
motion is based on: (1) 1993
amendments
to
the statutory standards by which Interest
Arbitration Panels
must make their
determinations,
which demonstrate the intent
of
the legislature that such evidence not be
considered
in proceedings such as these; (2)
the dubious
value of analyses
concerning
relative
cost of living and the refusal by