And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 11845-I-95-00252
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC
NO. 11845-1-95-252
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
)
DEPUTY
SHERIFF'S GUILD, )
) 1995-97 AGREEMENT
Guild, )
)
and )
)
)
County. )
HEARING SITE:
HEARING DATES: February 26, 27,
28, 29, 1996
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked April Si 1996
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE GUILD: Daryl S. Garrettson
Hoag,
Garrettson, Goldberg
&
Fenrich
1313
N.W. 19th
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Otto G. Klein, III
Heller,
Ehrman, White
&
McAuliffe
6100
701
INTEREST ARBITRATOR : Gary L. Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
Table
of Contents
ISSUE Page
Introduction 2
1 - Wages/Economics 6
2 - Paid
Days Off/Holidays 43
3 - Incentive
Plan 52
4 - Pay
period/Method of Pay 59
5 - Hours
of Work/Schedules 70
6 - Benefits/Insurance 83
7 - Miscellaneous 87
Conclusion 94
I. INTRODUCTION
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to the public Employees Collective
Bargaining Act. The parties to
this dispute are the
"Guild") and
County and the Guild are parties to an
Agreement that covered the
period from
the first Collective Bargaining Agreement
entered into by the
parties following certification of the Guild
in 1991 as the
representative of the deputies in the
Office. The prior Agreement concluded with
an interest arbitration
in the summer of 1993. The parties were unable to reach final
agreement for the successor contract in
either bargaining or
mediation and submitted their dispute to
interest arbitration. The
parties agreed to waive the provision for
partisan arbitrators and
the case was submitted to this Arbitrator
for a final Award.
Clark
County is located in southwestern Washington,
across the river from
rapidly over the last ten years. The Sheriff's Office is
responsible for providing a variety of
police services within the
633 square miles that encompass
services the unincorporated areas of
current population of about 206,000
people. The total population
of
The
Guild represents approximately 107 deputy sheriffs
and 15 sergeants in the bargaining
unit. During 1995 patrol
officers received approximately 67,944 calls
for service. Thirteen
percent of those calls were priority 1 and 2
which required
immediate response.
citations and wrote over 24,510 original
crime reports. The
Sheriff's Office employs a total of 326
persons in paid positions.
At
the commencement of the arbitration hearing the
parties agreed to a list of comparable
jurisdictions to assist in
the
resolution of this contract
dispute. The jurisdictions
stipulated to as comparable for the purposes
of this interest
arbitration are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The
hearing in this case took four days for the parties
to
present their evidence
and testimony. Because
of the
stipulation of the parties, it was
unnecessary for the parties to
present evidence on the issue of the
appropriate jurisdictions with
which to compare
terms of the successor Agreement to the
1992-94 contract. The
majority of the hearing time was consumed
with different attempts
by the parties to make comparisons of
compensation among the seven
jurisdictions. The hearing was tape recorded by the
Arbitrator as
an extension of his personal note
taking. Testimony of the
witnesses was received 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
cases.
The
parties also submitted comprehensive and lengthy
post-hearing briefs in support of their
respective positions taken
at arbitration. For the purpose of presenting evidence and
argument, the parties categorized the areas
of dispute into seven
issues.
In addition, there were sub-issues included within the
seven areas in dispute. The seven issues identified for an Award
by this Arbitrator are as follows:
1
. Wages/Economics
2. Paid Days Off/Holidays
3
. Incentive Plan
4. Pay period/Method of Pay
5. Hours of Work/Schedules
6
. Benefits/Insurance
7. Miscellaneous
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 on each of the
issues. After the
introduction of the issue and positions of
the parties, I will
state the basic findings and rationale which
caused the Arbitrator
to make the award on the individual
issues. A considerable portion
of the evidence and argument related to more
than one of the issues
and will not be duplicated in its entirety
in the discussion of the
separate issues.
This
Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant
to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.465. Since the record in this case is so
comprehensive it would be impractical for
the Arbitrator in the
discussion and Award to restate and refer to
each and every piece
of evidence and testimony presented. However, when formulating
this Award the Arbitrator did give careful
consideration to all of
the evidence and argument placed into the
record by the parties.
The
statutory factors to be considered by the Arbitrator
may be summarized as follows:
(a) the
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) the stipulations of the parties;
(c) 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
circumstances during
the pendency of the
proceedings;
and
(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/ECONOMICS
A. Background
This
contract came to arbitration as the result of the
impasse reached between the parties in
negotiations for a successor
to the 1992-94 Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The top pay for a
40-hour deputy under the 1992-94 contract
was $3,337 per month.
The 48-hour deputy top pay was set at $3,514
per month. The road
deputies work a 48-hour schedule consisting
of four 12 hour shifts.
In the 1992-94 Agreement, the parties added
a 5.28% premium pay for
all of the deputies working on the 48-hour
schedule. This
compensated the road deputies for the
additional time they spent
working for the County. Sixty percent of the Guild members are
road deputies. The pay system for the
48-hour deputies complicated
the ability of the parties to make direct
comparisons with the
other law enforcement agencies stipulated to
by the parties as the
point of comparison.
The
current salary schedule is a six-step system which
provides separate salary ranges for 40-hour
deputies, 48-hour
deputies, 40-hour sergeants and 48-hour
sergeants. A major point
of contention between the parties is a
County proposal to convert
the monthly pay system to an hourly pay
system for the members of
this bargaining unit. This issue will be discussed separately
under Issue 7.
Moreover, the
Guild proposed to
make additional
adjustments to the rates of pay set forth in
Article 11. The
County countered with a number of its own
proposals to change
existing language or to continue current
contract language rather
than adopt the Guild proposals.
B. The Guild
The
Guild proposed to increase the salary schedule over
a two-year Agreement with four separate pay
adjustments. Effective
January 1, 1995, the Guild seeks a 5%
increase plus an amount equal
to the Portland CPI-W for the period July
1993 to July 1994.
Effective July 1, 1995, the salary schedule
would be adjusted by an
additional 5%. Effective January 1, 1996,
the Guild would have the
salary schedule increased by 5% plus an
amount equal to the
Portland CPI-W for the period July 1994 to
July 1995. The final
wage increase would be effective July 1,
1996, with an additional
5%
increase. The Guild proposal would make
the increase
retroactive to January 1, 1995, for all
employees as well as for
those who may have retired in the
interim. The Guild would
continue the 5.28% premium for the 48-hour
deputies.
The
Guild begins by noting that a straightforward top
step analysis reveals that as of the date of
the arbitration the
Clark County deputy sheriffs are paid 5.9%
below the comparable
jurisdictions. Guild Ex. G-1-4. In order to make an accurate
comparison
of the compensation
paid by the
comparator
jurisdictions, the
Guild maintains several
adjustments are
necessary to accurately reflect the true
compensation received by
deputies in the comparable
jurisdictions. In Guild Exhibit G-1-5
wages are projected to December 31, 1996.
The analysis of
projected increases in the comparator
jurisdictions reflects an
adjusted wage deficiency of 8.4%. The Guild reasons that a
straightforward comparability
analysis of the
adjusted wage
indicates a catch-up of 5.9% is necessary on
the date of the
arbitration, and a catch-up of 8.4% is
necessary at the expiration
of the contract.
The
wage increase the Guild is seeking is reinforced by
the total compensation analysis provided in
Guild Exhibit G-1-11.
The Guild notes that a total compensation
analysis is complicated
by the unique system in Clark County
concerning paid days off.
None of the comparable jurisdictions have a
similar paid days off
system.
In essence, the Clark County program provides that holiday
time off, vacation time off and sick time
off all are encompassed
under the paid days off umbrella. Although Clark County does
provide for sick leave at the rate of 4
hours per month, that sick
leave cannot be utilized until the individual
has been sick for
three consecutive days. All of the other
comparators have holidays
off and first day sick leave.
The
normal compensation analysis utilizes the value-of
vacation, sick leave and holidays for the
purpose of developing a
net hourly wage. The methodology used was to reduce the normal
173.3 hours by the value of the time of
holidays and vacation days
off.
This results in a net hours worked a month which is divided
into the monthly salary and the result is
the net hourly wage. In
this case, the Guild undertook a total
compensation analysis that
properly considered the uniqueness of the
paid days off component
of the Clark County compensation
package. The Guild converted
holidays off into a value for holiday pay.
Vacation and sick leave
are then deleted as categories in the
computations. The Guild
reasons that because patrol deputies working
a 4/12 schedule work
approximately 120 hours more per year than
deputies in the
comparator jurisdictions, vacation and sick
leave are properly
deleted from the computations. The extra
hours have been valued at
approximately 5.28% by the Guild.
The
Guild then chose to demonstrate its compensation
analysis based on salaries in existence at
the time of the
arbitration, and not the salaries adjusted
to reflect the increases
which will be received during the term of
the contract as set forth
in Exhibit G-1-5. Based on the total compensation analysis, the
Guild submits that the overall amount of
catch-up necessary to
reach
the average total
compensation in the
comparable
jurisdictions is 8.2%. Guild Ex. G-1-3.
If the
projected salaries for
the comparator
jurisdictions are utilized, the numbers set
forth in Exhibit G-1-3
would increase substantially. In Exhibit
G-1-5 the Guild projected
adjusted wages to December 31, 1996, the end
of the two-year
contract it is seeking. The exhibit reflects that Guild members
are currently 5.9% behind and will be 8.4%
behind the adjusted wage
at the completion of the two-year
contract. In the area of total
compensation they are 8.4% behind as of the
date of arbitration and
will on the expiration of the contract
period be 10.2% behind in
the
overall average compensation
paid in the
comparator
jurisdictions.
Turning
to the County's comparability exhibits, the Guild
argues these exhibits are seriously flawed
in several respects.
First, none of the County exhibits reflect
the salary increases
received by the Oregon jurisdictions on July
1, 1995. Second, the
County compounds its errors in County Exhibit
6 when it seeks to
delineate the value of the PERS pickup by
failing to pickup the
additional 4% of deferred compensation by
Clackamas County. This
results
in the overall
understatement of Clackamas
County
compensation in excess of 7%.
Third, the County consistently failed to take into
account the status of salaries at the time
of arbitration which
understated
the total compensation. Fourth,
the County's
capriciousness in utilization of numbers can
also be found in its
decision to utilize arbitrarily a five year
mark for educational
pay analysis. The failure to recognize the increasing
valuation of
the educational incentive results in further
understatement of
total compensation received incomparable
jurisdictions.
In
sum, the County has plainly understated the total
compensation for the comparable
jurisdictions. The County has also
made certain assumptions which are not
accurate and further
understate the compensation paid in the
comparable jurisdictions.
By the County's own analysis for 1995, the
average increase offered
in the comparable jurisdictions is
2.76%. However, the County
offers only 1.5% to the members of this
bargaining unit.
Regarding
the Consumer Price Index, the percentage of
change for the first half of 1995 was 3.2% and
the percentage of
change for the first half of 1994 was
2.9%. According to the
Guild, the minimum increase necessary for
1995 is 2.9% and the
minimum increase for 1996 would be 3.2% to
keep pace with increases
in the cost of living. A cost of living increase would not catch
the Clark County deputies up with the
comparable jurisdictions or
bring them to a salary appropriate for the
Portland Metropolitan
Area.
The
County's own exhibits on the CPI reflect an increase
of over 6.1%. The County has offered increases amounting to
50% of
the CPI.
No analysis submitted by the County can justify such a
low offer for the members of this bargaining
unit.
With
respect to changes during the pendency of these
proceedings, the only circumstance
applicable to this is the fact
that salary increases have occurred for
comparable jurisdictions up
to the arbitration. Further, salary increases will occur in the
comparable jurisdictions after the rendering
of the Award in this
case.
The
Guild asserts the labor market for Clark County is an
integral part of the Portland Metropolitan
Area. The Portland
Metropolitan Area consists of four counties,
with Multnomah County
at the center. If Multnomah County is added to the equation,
then
Clark County is 14.7% behind the projected
salaries. Adding the
cities and counties together for the total
Portland Metropolitan
Area labor market as of the date of the
arbitration, reveals that
Clark County is 14.8% behind It is clear from the evidence that
the labor market analysis establishes Clark
County deputy sheriffs
are paid substantially below the labor
market for police officers
and deputy sheriffs within the Portland
Metropolitan Area. The
members of this bargaining unit need a
substantial increase to
bring them in line with the comparable
jurisdictions, not only
outside the Portland Metropolitan Area, but
more particularly
inside the Portland Metropolitan Area.
Regarding
the ability to pay factor, the Guild suggests
the County's evidence on this factor is
highly suspect. The County
presented no official documents but chose to
rely upon highly
suspicious
working papers for
the purpose of
justifying a
preordained result. While the County relies on projected revenue
losses as the result of annexations, the
County's exhibits do not
reflect any savings in reduced demand for
services as the result of
annexations.
Finally, a County witness testified with respect to
budgeted revenue that there was an apparent
"$400,000 typographical
error" in County Exhibit 42. The error changes the 1995 budget