City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 12924-I-97-00279
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 12924-I-97-279 )
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S
OPINION
)
Guild, )
) 1997-99
AGREEMENT
)
and )
THE
CITY OF
)
City. )
HEARING SITE: City
Hall
HEARING DATES: April
20 and 21, 1998
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE GUILD: James
M. Cline
Sydney
D. Vinnedge
Cline
& Emmal
Attorneys
at Law
REPRESENTING THE CITY: Glenna
Malanca
City
Attorney
City
of
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: GaryL.
Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
Table of Contents
ISSUE Page
Introduction 1
Comparability 7
1 -
Wages 18
2 - Salary Advancement 40
3 - Longevity Pay 44
4 - Reassignment Non-Probationary Einployees 48
5 - Health and Welfare Medical Co-Pay 49
6 - Non-Uniform Allowance 52
7 - Entire Agreement 55
8 - Deferred Compensation 56
9 - Duration 60
10 - Sick Leave Donation 64
11 - Master Police Officer
I. INTRODUCTION
The
parties are signatory
to a written Collective
Bargaining Agreement in effect for the
period
through
began preparations to negotiate a successor
contract. The parties
held several negotiating sessions- -but were
unable to resolve their
differences.
Subsequent mediation sessions failed to resolve the
dispute.
On
interest arbitration pursuant to RCW
41.56.450. The case was
originally set for hearing on November 3, 4,
and 5, 1997. Due to
health problems of the Guild attorney, the
Guild requested the
hearing postponed. The City objected to the postponement of the
hearing.
In a letter to the parties dated
Arbitrator held the Guild had shown good
cause to postpone the
hearing.
The November 1997 hearing dates were canceled.
A significant
amount of time
elapsed after the
postponement of the November 1997 hearing
dates until new hearing
dates could be agree on. The parties ultimately rescheduled the
hearing for April 20, 21, and 22, 1998. Following negotiations and
mediation, the parties remained at issue
over several key subjects
until the April 1998 hearing dates.
The
City of
relatively water-bound situation,
Washington State Ferry System for direct access
to King, Pierce,
and Snohomish counties. Highway passage to the eastern side of the
at
The
population of
Kitsap County had an estimated population in
1995 of 220,600,
ranking it the 6th largest of
population increased from 189,731 in 1990 to
220,600 in 1995. The
significant role in the economic health cf the area. Guild
Ex.
106. Community
leaders are seeking to expand
base beyond the strong government related
business and employment
opportunities which exist in the
The
Bremerton Police Department is managed by Chief Paul
L. DuFresne. The Guild represents 63 sworn officers in the
rank of
sergeant or below. The parties most recent contract covered a
two-
year period and expired on
At
the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the
opening statements of the parties revealed a
deep division on the
issue of comparability. In addition, the parties also disagreed
over the methodology and means by which to
compare the wages and
benefits of
other cities. A significant amount of hearing time was
devoted to
the statutory factor of comparability. The
Arbitrator directed the
parties to address this issue at the
beginning of their post-2
hearing briefs. The Arbitrator advised the parties he would
address the comparability issue at the
commencement of the Award.
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to the Public Employees Collective
Bargaining Act. The parties to
this dispute are the
the City of
are parties to Collective Bargaining
Agreements dating back to the
1970s.
The parties went to interest arbitration in 1979 The
interest arbitrator issued an award dated
Ex. 3.
Bargaining
between the parties produced agreement on
several
issues. However, the parties were unsuccessful in
resolving all of the
issues that divided them in
contract
negotiations. Eleven fundamental issues were presented by
the
parties for interest arbitration. To the credit of the parties,
they were able to reach agreement on four of
the impasse issues
during the course of the April 1998
arbitration hearing.
The
hearing in this case took two days for each side to
present their evidence and testimony. Because there were few
stipulations by the parties, it was
necessary for the Guild and the
City to present detailed evidence on the
issues for the purpose of
establishing the terms of the successor
Agreement to the 1995-96
contract.
The majority of the hearing time was consumed with
different
attempts by the
parties to make
comparisons of
compensation among the comparator
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. Both the Guild and the City
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. 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 criteria are set out in ROW 41.56.465(1):
(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 United
States;
(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(e)
through (h), 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 public fire departments of
similar
size on the west coast of the
number
of comparable employers exists
within
the state of
west coast
employers may not be
considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods
and services, commonly 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.
Because
of the voluminous record in the case, the parties
waived the thirty-day period an arbitrator
would normally have to
publish an award under the statute. The
parties later accepted the
Arbitrator's need for additional time to
prepare the Award due to
a personal situation in the Arbitrator's
immediate family which
delayed publication of this Award.
II. COMPARABILITY
A . Background
The
threshold issue to be resolved by the Arbitrator
involves the statutory factor of
comparability. Both parties
offered strong and compelling arguments as
to why their respective
list of cities should be the one adopted by
the Arbitrator to
utilize in formulating an Award for police
wages and working
conditions in
the issue of comparability were further
complicated because each
party used a different methodology for
selecting the purported
comparable jurisdictions to
The
disparity between the parties was demonstrated by the
lack of substantial agreement on cities
which should be used as the
comparators. The Guild offered a list of 14
cities drawn from what
it believed to be the
the City presented a list of 11
jurisdictions which it asserted had
historically been applied by the parties in
developing a fair wage
schedule.
The City's list
previously included
population growth in
from the City's list of comparables.
A
review of the 14 comparators presented by the Guild and
11 offered by the City revealed agreement on
only 6 jurisdictions
out of the 25 jurisdictions offered by the
parties as comparators.
The initial task of your Arbitrator is to formulate
a list of
comparable jurisdictions that is consistent
with the statutory
mandate enumerated in RCW 41.56.465(1). The following is the
statement of the positions of the parties
and your Arbitrator's
resolution of the comparability issue.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild takes the position that the Award should be
based on a principled application of the
statute rather than a
compromise between each party's position.
According to the Guild,
the City has engaged in posturing both
through negotiations and in
interest arbitration. The Arbitrator should reject the City's
implicit invitation to compromise and be
rewarded with terms and
conditions they could not otherwise achieve
by voluntary agreement.
The
Guild's approach towards comparability is more
consistent and more reasonable than the
approach taken by the City.
Comparability has long been recognized as
the predominant criteria
used in interest arbitration
proceedings. Arbitral authority
instructs that the reliance on comparability
data is that such a
comparison allows a "presumptive test
to the fairness of a wage."
Because these comparisons carry an aura of
fairness, they create an
opportunity to produce a result acceptable
to the parties to a
labor dispute.
The
Guild asserts its method for selecting comparables is
superior to the method advocated by the
City. The Guild's
arguments with respect to why its
comparables should be adopted are
summarized as follows:
1. The statute specifically mandates that
comparisons
be based on "like personnel of
like
employers of similar size." According to
the
Guild, this requirement has generally been
interpreted
to mean that comparison is made
between commissioned
police officers of
similar
rank in municipal police departments.
"The
requirement that comparisons be made
between employers
of 'similar size'
has
usually
been interpreted to mean population
jurisdictions
at issue." Population provides
a
rational basis to measure comparability
because it
is a good
indicator of the
complexity
of a city and the type of crime
problems
and working conditions an officer
would
face in the jurisdiction.
2. If
demographic factors other
than
population are
to be used
in selecting
comparables,
a wide range of factors should be
used
and not just assessed valuation. It
makes
little sense in Washington State to rely
heavily
on assessed valuation while ignoring
such
measures as sales tax and business and
occupation
tax revenues. The tax base for
Washington
municipalities is much broader than
the
value of
land and buildings.
The
Arbitrator
should reject the City's invitation
to develop
a list of
comparables based
exclusively on
population and assessed
evaluation.
The demographic data introduced by
the
Guild concerning the various proposed
comparables is
available for use as a
screening
device to limit or fine-tune the
comparable
list.
3. The comparables should be selected only
from
the relevant Puget Sound labor market.
Arbitrators have
a long tradition
of
recognizing labor
market and geographic
proximity as
a factor in
selecting
comparables. Jurisdictions which share a
defined labor
market deserve special