And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Roger Buchanan
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Buchanan; Roger
Case #: 13261-I-97-00283
Employer:
Date Issued:
Interest Arbitration
Before Roger Buchanan, Impartial Arbitrator
Deputies Bargaining Unit
Kitsap County, Washington
(Employer)
and
Conclusions
Decisions and Awards In
Sheriffs Guild
(
Case No. 13261-I-97-283
Appearance for
and
Cabot Dow of Cabot Dow and
Associates,
Appearance for Kitsap
Hearing and Post Hearing Briefs
Hearings were held in Port Orchard,
September 1, 2, 3, 1998.
Witnesses were sworn and each party presented proposals, testimony,
exhibits and arguments.
The County and the Guild filed post-hearing briefs which
were received by the Arbitrator on
or before
Representation
Representing the Employer,
Washington and Cabot Dow of
Cabot Dow and Associates,
Representing the
Located in Kitsap County are
the incorporated cities of
Island which have their own
police departments which work closely with the
Sheriffs Department.
13 collective bargaining units
which include approximately 630 County employees. The
this case,
Sheriffs Department
supervisory employees who are involved in a second Interest Arbitration
case.
The average seniority of the 79 non-supervisory deputies
is 7.7 years. The average seniority
for the
"supervisory" unit is 15.9 years.
History
of Bargaining
There is no history of Interest Arbitration between the
parties concerning the two Sheriffs
Department bargaining units
involved in these cases.
The contracts for the two bargaining units expired
Guild bargained from late 1996
through 1997 without successfully reaching an agreement.
The dispute was then submitted to Mediation by the
Relations Commission (PERC).
With the failure to reach a settlement in Mediation, the PERC
Certified the cases to
Interest Arbitration on
1998 for the supervisors unit.
There are thirty-four (34) issues in dispute in this
Interest Arbitration case.
Bargaining Units
One bargaining unit includes
non-supervisory Sheriff Deputy Officers. This bargaining unit is
defined:
"Uniformed Employees.
All regular full-time and regular part-time
fully commissioned deputy
sheriffs of the
Department excluding the
Sheriff, Undersheriff, supervisors,
confidential employees and all
other employees.
The second bargaining unit for uniformed officers of
bargaining unit which is
composed of "Uniformed corporals and sergeants employed by the Kitsap
County Sheriffs
Department".
Statutory Criteria
This matter came to Interest Arbitration under the
Collective Bargaining Act. The
Act specifies that the Arbitrator is required to follow the
following standards and
criteria which are set out in RCW 41.56.200:
(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
(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
adequate number of comparable employers exists
within the state of
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.
A fundamental principle of
interest arbitration is that an arbiter must view the total
package, and not just isolated
or individual proposals and issues. An arbiter's task is
to render an award that constitutes
an extension of the bargaining process. if
arbitration is allowed to
become a separate and distinct proceeding in and of itself,
collective bargaining will
become little more than a meaningless warm-up for the real
game. Parties must not be allowed
to view arbitration as a panacea for unrealistic
and ill-conceived bargaining
proposals.
Arbiter
a 1988
"The goal of interest
arbitration is to produce a final decision that
will, as nearly as possible,
approximate what the parties themselves
would have reached if they had
continued to bargain with determination
and good faith."
In a somewhat longer passage
predicated on the same principle, Arbiter
Charles S. LaCugna
stated as follows in a City of
The Arbitrator must interpret
and apply the legislative criteria in RCW
41.56.460. The Arbitrator must
not only interpret each guideline, but he
must determine what weight he
will give to each guideline in order to
arrive at a 'total package',
because only the 'total package' concept can
measure the real effect of the
Arbitrator's decisions. The task is not easy.
He must attempt to fashion an
acceptable and workable bargain, one that
the parties would have struck by
themselves as objective and disinterested
neutrals. This point is
crucial. Dispute settlement procedures that culminate
in binding arbitration make it
easy to bypass negotiations, mediation and fact
finding in the hope that an
Arbitrator might award to one party what it
could not gain through the
process of free and robust negotiations. The
award must reflect the
relative bargaining strength of the parties. The
award cannot be a
'compromise', much less 'splitting of the difference',
because such an award would
favor the party that advances extreme
demands and takes an
intransigent position.
An issue that will have a major impact on this case is
the one concerning the determination of
which governmental
jurisdictions will be used as "comparable jurisdictions". Since the
"comparable
jurisdictions" chosen will be used as a guide by the arbitrator in finding
equitable
solutions to the issues in
this case, the choice of "comparables" is of importance.
Comparables and comparisons
are preeminent in wage determination
because all parties at
interest derive benefit from them. To the worker
they permit a decision on the
adequacy of his income. He feels no
discrimination if he stays
abreast of other workers in his industry,
his locality, his
neighborhood. They are vital to the
they provide guidance to its
officials upon what must be insisted
upon and a yardstick for
measuring their bargaining skill. In the
presence of internal
factionalism or a rival union, the power of
comparisons is enhanced. The
employer is drawn to them because
they assure him that
competitors will not gain a wage-cost
advantage and that he will be
able to recruit in the local labor
market. Small firms (and
unions) profit administratively by
accepting a ready-made
solution; they avoid the expenditure of
time and money needed for
working out one themselves
Arbitrators benefit no less
from comparisons. They have "the
appeal of precedent and.
" awards based thereon are apt to
satisfy the normal
expectations of the parties and to appear just
to the public
The Intent of the 1973
The intent and purpose of this 1973 mandatory act is to
recognize that there exists a public
policy in the state of
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
uninterrupted public service
there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling disputes. This stated
public policy is carried out through the processes of mediation and
Interest Arbitration.
Issues
1. Determination of "Comparable"
Jurisdictions.
2.
Contract Provisions. (Listed in accordance with the
existing contract).
Article I
Section 1- Rights of
Management.
Article II
Section A- Salaries
-Pay Increases,
-1997
-1998
-1999
Section B- Experienced
Based Pay Incentives.
-Length of Service Pay
Increases.
-Length of Service Based on
Compensable hours.
-Experience steps to conform
to market conditions.
Section B-Longevity Bonus.
-Removal of 1% increase at 5
years service.
Section E-Shift
Differential Pay.
-Removal of Shift Differential
Pay provision.
Section F- Assignment Pay.
-Raise "Assignment
Pay" from $120.00 to 5%.
-Add classifications to
"Assignment Pay".
f. Traffic Officer
g. Field Training Officer
h. Crisis Intervention Response Team (CIRT)
Section G- Uniform
Allowance.
-Increase of Uniform
Allowances.
Section 1- Health and
Welfare Benefits.
-Increase coverage of
dependants from 50% to 100%.
Change from Blue Cross and
Kitsap Physicians Service to
Group Health, Virginia Mason Alliant Plan.
-Supplemental disability
insurance for LEOFF II Employees.
Section K- Hours of Work.
-County's authority to assign
shifts.
-Call in during emergency
while off duty.
-Proposal to institute a ten
(10) hour day, four (4)
day week, work week.
-Shift configuration parameter
to be determined by
joint labor-management committee.
-Compensation for call in to
testify in "civil trials".
-Increase in minimum pay for
call in from two (2)
hours overtime to three (3) hours overtime.
-Overtime for non mandatory
training.
Section L- Overtime.
-Remove exclusion of
"civil cases" from overtime pay for
work related court appearances.
-The County questions the
types of "call back" and objects
to Guild's proposal to increase call back
minimum hours
from two to three.
-Call back when off duty, such
as in emergencies.
-Call back when scheduled,
such as court appearances.
Article III
Section B- Annual Leave.
-County's proposal to reduce
annual leave benefits.
Section C- Sick Leave.
County's proposal to reduce
sick leave benefits.
Article V- Term (of agreement)
-Two year agreement as opposed
to three year agreement.
Comparables
1 . Determination of "comparable"
jurisdictions.
A basic issue in this case is the determination of the
questions concerning the comparables
from which the measurements
are taken for determining some of the contents of the Decision and
Award of this case. The
listing of the statutory requirements that must be considered are
contained in RCW 41.56.465
which states in part:
The arbitration award should be based upon a reasoned
assessment of the evidence with an
application of the statutory
data. Those criteria are set out in RCW 41.56.465(1); see above.
(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)