City
of
And
Pullman
Police Officers Guild
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Janet L. Gaunt
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Gaunt; Janet L.
Case #: 12399-I-96-00269
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE
ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
_____________________________
THE
GUILD ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION AND AWARD
and )
)
CITY OF
_____________________________ )
PERC Case No 12399-I-96-269
ARBITRATION PANEL
Janet L. Gaunt, Neutral
Chairperson
Officer Michael B. Austin,
Guild Member
Joe Gavinski,
City Member
APPEARANCES;
For the Guild: For the City:
Daryl
Hoag, Garrettson,
Goldberg & Labor Consultant
Fenrich ELMS
INC.
1313 NW 19th P.O.
Box 7164
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1
II. HISTORY OF BARGAINING 2
III. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS 2
A. The Constitutional
Statutory Authority of the Employer 4
B. Stipulations of the
Parties 4
C. Comparable Employers 4
1.
2. Ellensburg and
3.
4. WSU and
5. The List of
Comparable Jurisdictions 13
D. Cost of Living Changes 14
E. Interim Changes 14
F. Traditional Factors 15
1. Ability to Pay 15
2. Wage/Benefit
Packages of Other City Employees 15
3. Local Labor
Market Comparisons 16
IV. THE RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES 16
A. Duration 16
B. Salaries 17
1. Ranking Within Comparables 20
2. Fiscal Impact
on the City 22
3. Internal Parity 24
4. Local Labor
Market Considerations 25
5. 1997/1998
Adjustments 27
C. Health Insurance 28
D. Shift Differential 31
E. Shift Rotation 34
F. Educational
Incentive/Longevity Pay 37
G. Shared Leave 41
WITNESS LIST
For the City:
Jack Tonkovich,
Finance Director, City of
Stan Finkelstein, Executive
Director, Association of Washington Counties
Theodore Weatherly, Police
Chief, City of
Paul Eichenberg,
Human Resource Manager, City of
For the Guild:
Ronald Miller, President,
Daniel Dornes,
Secretary-Treasurer,
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
representative
for a unit of uniformed personnel employed by the City of
("City").
The bargaining unit consists of both police officers and police sergeants. At
the
time of the hearing, there were approximately 23 officers and sergeants in the
bargaining
unit. The Chief of Police is William T. Weatherly.
This interest arbitration was initiated in accord with RCW
41.56.450 to resolve
certain
bargaining issues that remained at impasse in 1996 after the parties tried to
negotiated a
new collective bargaining agreement. As its representative on the three
(3) person
Arbitration Panel, the Guild designated Officer Michael Austin. Mr. Joe
Gavinski,
City Manager for the City of Moses Lake, was selected to serve as the City's
representative.
By mutual consent, Janet L. Gaunt was selected to serve as the
neutral
Chairperson (hereinafter "Arbitrator").
On December 19 and 20, 1996, an arbitration hearing was
conducted in
accordance
with RCW 41.56.450 in
by
labor consultant Roy Wesley Of ELMS, Inc. The Guild was represented by Daryl S.
Garrettson
of Hoag, Garrettson, Goldberg & Fenrich. During the hearing, each
party
had
an opportunity to make opening statements, submit documentary evidence,
examine
and cross-examine witnesses (who testified under oath), and argue the issues
in
dispute. The parties elected to make closing arguments in the form of posthearing
briefs,
the last of which was received on
parties,
the Arbitrator drafted the preliminary text of an Award which was then
circulated
to the other panel members for review and comment. Following that
consultation,
this decision was finalized by the Arbitrator.
II. HISTORY OF BARGAINING
The parties have had a collective bargaining relationship for
the City's
uniformed
personnel since approximately 1989. There has been one prior interest
arbitration.
In 1992, Arbitrator Gary Axon issued an award settling unresolved issues
in
the 1990-1992 collective bargaining agreement The term of the parties' most
recent
contract
was
began
bargaining over the terms of a labor contract to take effect on
The parties bargained to impasse regarding a number of issues
that were then
certified
for interest arbitration by the Executive Director of the Public Employment
Relations Commission (PERC).
Prior to or during the interest arbitration, the parties
resolved
the issues of: funeral leave, overtime, vacations, sick leave, uniforms and
equipment,
and training standards. The unresolved issues were submitted to the
arbitration
panel.
III. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
The Panel's authority arises out of RCW 41.56, which prescribes
binding
arbitration
for public employers and uniformed personnel upon declaration by the
PERC
that an impasse in bargaining exists. Relevant provisions of the
statutes
read as follows:
RCW
41.56.030 Definitions. As used in this chapter:
. . . .
(7) "Uniformed personnel" means (a)(I)
Until
enforcement
officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030 employed by the
governing
body of any city or town with a population of seven thousand
five
hundred or more and law enforcement officers employed by the
governing
body of any county with a population of thirty five thousand or
more;
. . . [1995 c 273 §1.]
RCW
41.56.430 Uniformed personnel- Legislative declaration.
The intent and purpose of this 1973 amendatory act is to
recognize that
there
exists a public policy in the state of
uniformed
personnel as a means of settling their labor disputes; that the
uninterrupted
and dedicated service of these classes of employees is vital
to
the welfare and public safety of the state of
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should
exist
an effective and adequate means of settling disputes.
[1993 c 131 §1]
RCW
41.56.465. Uniformed personnel- Interest arbitration
panel-
Determinations- Factors to be considered.
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of
the
legislative
purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards
or guidelines to aid it in reaching a decision, it shall take into
consideration
the following factors:
(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) through (d),
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 good and services,
known
as the cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances under (a) through
(d) of this
subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the factors under
(a) through (e)
of
this subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into
consideration
in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment.
For those employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) who
are
employed
by the governing body of a city or town with a population of less
than
fifteen thousand, or a county with a population of less than seventy
thousand,
consideration must also be given to regional differences in the
cost
of living.
(2) Subsection (1)(c) of this section may not be construed to authorize
the
panel to require the employer to pay, directly or indirectly, the
increased
employee contributions resulting from chapter 502, Laws of
1993 or chapter 517, Laws of
1993 as required under chapter 41.26 RCW.
[1995
c 273 § 2; 1993 c 398 § 3.]
A. The Constitutional / Statutory Authority of the Employer
Neither party has made any allegation that the proposals of the
other party
exceed
or are otherwise affected by the constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer.
B. Stipulations of the Parties
Because of the timing of posthearing
briefs, the Arbitrator's travel schedule, and
the
desire to allow for adequate consultation with the Panel, the parties agreed to
an
extension
of the statutory requirement that a decision be issued within thirty (30) days
of
the hearing's closure. Further stipulations that relate to particular proposals
are
discussed
in the sections of this decision that deal with those proposals.
C. Comparable Employers
One of the statutory criteria which this Panel must consider is
the comparison
of
wages, hours and conditions "of like personnel of like employers of
similar size on
the
west coast of the United States." Both sides agree that comparators should
be
chosen
from jurisdictions east of the Cascades rather than from West Coast sites. They
also
agree that the following Washington cities are properly used as comparables for
the
purpose of RCW 45.56.465(c)(I):
Pasco
Walla Walla
Wenatchee
The parties disagree over the
other comparables that should be considered.
Guild: The Guild contends the Panel should adopt the same
comparables that
were
found appropriate by Arbitrator Gary Axon for the parties first collective
bargaining
agreement (1990-1992). The Guild would thus add Kennewick and
Richland
to the agreed cities shown above. The Guild notes that
Kennewick and
Richland are
adjacent to the agreed city of Pasco and they form part of Pasco's labor
market.
There is considerable arbitral precedent for the grouping of Pasco, Kennewick,
Richland, Walla Walla and Wenatchee with Pullman, and the Guild contends
there has
not
been any substantial change in either population or the relationship between
these
cities
to justify departure from the Axon precedent.
City: The City objects to the use of Kennewick and Richland as
comparators
because
they are so much bigger than Pullman, have grown at a faster rate, and
possess
greater economic resources due to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, where a
$50 billion dollar nuclear
waste cleanup is now in full swing. In their place, the City
proposes
adding Ellensburg, Moses Lake, WSU Police Services, Whitman County, and
Moscow, Idaho. The cites of
Ellensburg, and Moses Lake, like the agreed cities of
Pasco, Walla Walla and Wenatchee, are the most
similar to Pullman in terms of
population,
assessed valuation, assessed valuation per capita, taxable retail sales,
taxable
retail sales per capita, and per capita state-shared revenues. They are all
located
east of the Cascade Mountains and are rural / agricultural in nature. The City
proposes
the inclusion of WSU Police Services, Whitman County, and Moscow, Idaho
because
they are part of Pullman's local labor market and have close inter-agency
relationship.
The City notes that since the Axon award in 1992, Whitman County's
deputies
and sworn officers in the cities of Ellensburg and Moses Lake have become
eligible
for interest arbitration.
Discussion and Findings: The selection of comparable
jurisdictions is a process
fraught
with imprecision. As one of my colleagues has accurately observed: "The
interest
arbitrator faces the problem of making 'apples to apples' comparisons on the
basis
of imperfect choices and sometimes incomplete data." City of Pasco and
Pasco
Police
Officers Association, 10 (Wilkinson, 1994).
Picking comparables for the City of
Pullman is especially
problematic because Pullman is unique in a number of respects.
The City of Pullman is located approximately 76 miles south of
Spokane, 7
miles
west of the Idaho border, and 100 miles east of the area comprised of Pasco,
Kennewick,
and Richland ("Tri-Cities"). The City is situated in the largely
agricultural
Whitman
County. The major employer in both Pullman and Whitman
County is
Washington State University
(WSU), which occupies 600 acres on the north end of the
City and serves a student body
of approximately 16,000. WSU falls within the
jurisdiction
of the Pullman Police Department, but maintains its own police force.
Pullman officers respond as
needed. The City receives neither property taxes nor
contractual
payments from WSU to support police services.1 Primarily a college
town,
the
City lacks a strong retail or industrial base. In contrast to the Tri-Cities,
Pullman
has a
static economy, slow growth and a largely tax exempt major industry.
1 Because
WSU pays no property tax, the City's assessed value is half the actual value of
property
located within the City of Pullman's jurisdiction. (Tonkovich testimony.) This makes
comparisons
based on assessed value particularly troublesome because although not taxed,
the
property
nevertheless falls within the scope of property interests that City officers
may be
called upon to protect.
When there is a large selection of potential comparators which
must be
narrowed
to a more manageable size, a multi-factor analysis can be a helpful way of
culling
out the most appropriate comparables. In the instant case, the challenge is not
choosing
from among many, it is find enough from among few good choices. In such
circumstances,
the Arbitrator looks for comparables close enough in population and
geographic
location to form a list of at least five (5) comparables and preferably seven
(7) or more. Other demographic
factors used in a multi-factor analysis and statutory
criteria
can then be considered when judging where the subject jurisdiction's wages
should
be placed in relation to the selected list of comparables.
1. Richland and Kennewick Should Be Retained As Comparators.
Richland and Kennewick are clearly much larger than Pullman,
but they were
previously
found appropriate as comparables when the parties' first labor contract was
finalized
in 1992 by Arbitrator Axon. Once appropriate comparators have been
established
through an interest arbitration, it is reasonable to treat those jurisdictions
as
presumptively appropriate in subsequent proceedings; unless and until one party
makes a
compelling case for excluding them. The City failed to do so in the present
case.
The City contends Arbitrator Axon erred in grouping Pullman
with cities as
large
as Kennewick and Richland. If so, he's had plenty of company. Interest
arbitrators
in all of the following cases have found it appropriate to group Pullman
with
Kennewick, Richland and other cities.
See, e.g., Walla Walla and the Walla Walla
Police Guild,
PERC No. 6231-I-86-139 (Levak, 1986); City of
Pasco and Pasco Police
Association,
PERC No. 08062-I-89-00182 (Krebs, 1990); City of Pasco and Pasco Police
Officers
Association (Wilkinson, 1994). The
City did not cite any case in which an
arbitrator
concluded that such a grouping was inconsistent with the "similar
size"
requirement
of RCW 41.56.465(c)(I).
The City contends the Tri-Cities have grown at a faster rate
than Pullman and
possess
greater economic resources due in part to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
There is certainly a disparity
in size and resources. When Arbitrator Axon selected
Richland as a comparable
jurisdiction in 1992, that City's population was
approximately
10,000 greater than Pullman. The present disparity has grown to over
11,000. Exs.
C-2, G-15-11.2 Kennewick's population exceeded Pullman's by
approximately
20,000. The disparity in size is now over 23,000.
2 Exhibits are identified as either City (Ex.
C-_) or Guild (Ex. G-_). Witnesses are
identified
by last name in parentheses. References to exhibits or testimony are intended
to be
illustrative,
not all-inclusive, of evidence in the record that supports a particular
statement.