And
Teamsters
Local Union No. 763
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 11976-I-95-00260
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 11976-1-95-260
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD
)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
)
and )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
County. )
HEARING SITE: County
Administrative Building
HEARING DATES: May
25, 26, 1996
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Davies
Roberts and Reid
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Thomas E.
Platt
Perkins
Cole
40th
Floor
1201
ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ISSUE Page
Introduction 2
1 - Wages 6
2 - Pension 40
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to
the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The parties to
this
dispute are Teamsters Local 763
(hereinafter "Union") and
the
County are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement which
covered
the period from
The parties entered
into negotiations to
reach a successor
Agreement
to the 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The
parties
were successful in resolving most of the issues that
divided
them in contract negotiations. Three
fundamental issues
were
certified by the Public Employee Relations Coxnmission
for
interest arbitration. The issues
certified for interest
arbitration
were wages, shift differential and pension. During the
course
of the interest arbitration proceeding, the parties were
able
to reach agreement on the shift differential issue.
Snohomish County, Washington, stretches from
on
the west to the crest of the
Skagit County is located
immediately to the north, with
immediately
to the south, and Kitsap and Island Counties to the
west. The County is located on the I-5
corridor. The County
serves a
resident population of 525,600. The
largest city in the
County is
services
to all municipalities as well as unincorporated areas
within
its boundaries. All persons charged with
serious crimes and
misdemeanor
violations under the state code are booked and detained
at
the County jail. The arrestees sentenced
to one year or less
are
also by law housed at the
period
of their sentence. William Harper has
served as Department
Director
since 1982.
During 1995 the average daily population at
the
correctional facilities was 548. Over
16,000 persons were
booked
and processed through the facilities during 1995. The
majority
of the persons were detained for four days or less. In
1995 the average length of
stay for all bookings was 12.3 days.
The Corrections Department employs 195 staff. The
represents
105 employees in the Corrections Department in the
classifications of custody and corrections officers
that are
subject
to this interest arbitration.
Approximately 58 support
personnel, 5
corrections supervisors, 10
corrections support
supervisors
and 45 sheriff's support personnel are also represented
by
the
The hearing in this case took two days for the parties to
present a
substantial amount of testimony, and
extensive and
comprehensive
documentary evidence. The parties were
unable to
agree
on the appropriate jurisdictions with which to compare
the
members of this bargaining unit. A
considerable amount of
hearing
time was devoted to receiving evidence on the issue of
comparability. The hearing was recorded by a court reporter
and a
transcript
was made available to the parties and the Arbitrator for
the
purpose of preparing the post-hearing briefs and the Award.
Testimony of 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 along
with interest
arbitration
awards previously issued by arbitrators in the state of
This Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the
evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established
by RCW 41.56.460. This is the first year
that interest
arbitration
has been available to corrections officers.
RCW
41.56.030(7) (C) . The approach of
your Arbitrator in writing this
Award will be to summarize the
major and most persuasive evidence
and
argument presented by the parties on each issue. After the
introduction
of the issue and positions of the parties, I will then
state
the basic findings and rationale which caused the Arbitrator
to
make the award on the individual issue.
The Arbitrator is directed by the statute to take into
consideration a
number of standards or guidelines to assist in
making
an Award to resolve this dispute. 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
(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
A. BackGround
The 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement for custody
and
corrections officers provides for a six-step salary schedule.
The final year of the 1992-94 contract provided a salary range as
follows:
CLASS Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
2283.25 2396.58 2516.17 2643.00 2776.42 2913.25
The parties have agreed to retain the existing six-step
schedule
for three years with agreed on cost of living wage
increases. The parties agreed to adjust the salary
schedule
effective
increase
on
controlled
by a CPI formula. Effective
schedule
would be increased by an amount equal to 90% of the CPI-W.
The agreed on adjustments for the first two years will
result
in a salary schedule providing wages as follows:
CLASS Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step
6
CO 1995 2355.17 2472.07 2595.43 2726.25 2863.88 3005.02
CO 1996 2423.00 2543.27 2670.18 2804.77 2946.36 3091.56
CO 1997 COLA COLA COLA COLA COLA COLA
Jt. Ex. 9.
The dispute before the Arbitrator on the wage issue is a
Union proposal to add another
5% increase to the agreed on wage
adjustment
for both 1995 and 1996. The County takes
the position
the
agreed on COThA adjustments establishes the
appropriate levels
of
compensation for the 1995-97 contract years.
The only remaining
issue
for the Arbitrator is whether there will be further wage
adjustments
for 1995 and 1996 in addition to the COLA.
B. The
The
custody
officers are entitled to a substantial wage increase in
addition
to COLA increases. According to the
the
statutorily required adjustments for cost of living, the data
from
the comparable jurisdictions indicates a substantial increase
is
necessary to "narrow the gap" between the under compensated
jurisdictions. The
raise
for 1995 and 1996, in addition to the COLA adjustments is in
accord
with the statutory standards.
The
and
methodology are adopted by the Arbitrator, the evidence shows
the
custody officers are clearly entitled to a substantial raise.
In the view of the
arbitrator to take
"cost of living" into consideration when
formulating
an award. Arbitrators have
traditionally adjusted
comparison
studies to reflect different costs of living among the
comparison
jurisdictions. The
agreement
that the
basis for determining
differences in cost
of living among
considers
the cost of living data, he need not resolve all of the
parties
methodological sub-disputes, because a substantial raise is
clearly due
even if one
adopts the County's
comparison
jurisdictions
and methodology. The
shows
the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Metropolitan Area having by far
the
highest cost of living among the
The
1995 shows the following
composite cost of living comparisons:
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett 120.3
The
of
living differences, as further evidence
lowest
paid corrections officers of any county in the state, after
the reguired adjustment for cost of living is calculated. Employer
Exhibit 32 shows that
Snohomish County officers lag fully 22%
behind
Pierce County officers.
Employer Exhibit 32 is extremely persuasive of the need
for a
raise above COLA adjustments. First, the
Union asserts that
the
Arbitrator must evaluate the County's economic exhibits by
keeping
in mind they make no adjustments for differences in the
cost
of living among the jurisdictions cited by the County. Since
Snohomish County is part of a
metropolitan area, it defies logic to
fail
to take into account differences in the cost of living with
such
communities as Yakima and Spokane.
Second, Employer Exhibit
4D assumes the County's
position on every methodological dispute.
Even if the Arbitrator accepts
the County's skewed data, their own
evidence
still demonstrates a need to award custody officers a
substantial
raise in addition to COLA increases.
Turning to the factor of comparability, the Union submits
that
Pierce County and King County are the most directly comparable
jurisdictions. Pierce County is uniquely probative because
it is
the
County's southern twin. Pierce County is
a densely populated
part
of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett megalopolis centered around a
large
second-tier city (Tacoma, Everett) .
Pierce and Snohomish
Counties play similar roles in
the Seattle Metropolitan Area by
providing
commuter employees to Seattle and at the same time act as
their