International
Association of Machinists And Aerospace Workers
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 13396-I-97-00285
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ) INTEREST
ARBITRATION ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
BETWEEN ) OPINION
)
THE CITY OF
)
(City) ) AWARD
AND ) ON
THE FOLLOWING
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) SUBMITTED ISSUES:
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, ) 1.
Wages for Police LODGE NO. 160 )
Officers and Sergeants
) 2. Retroactivity of any
(
) 3. Educational Incentives
) 4. Overtime work/7(K)
_____________________________________ ) Exception.
HEARING SITE:
HEARING DATE: May 13 and 14, 1998
ARBITRATOR: John H. Abernathy
207 Enders Alley
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Bruce E. Heller, Attorney at Law
Reed McClure Law Firm, Seattle
APPEARING FOR THE
Don Hersey,
Business Representative
BRIEFS RECEIVED:
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the
Public Employment
Relations Commission for the
State of
negotiations
between The City of
Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, Lodge 160 ("
issues
(wages, retroactivity, education incentives and overtime work/7(k) exception).
The
Executive Director then
directed those four issues be submitted to interest arbitrati
on.
The parties selected John H.
Abernathy to serve as the interest arbitrator.
Arbitrator Abernathy conducted an Interest Arbitration
hearing in this matter on
the
the
conclusion of the hearing that each parry would submit a post-hearing brief
postmarked
no later than
extended
to
declared
this hearing closed upon the timely receipt of those briefs on
Milton Washington is a city of 5,525 population in an
area of 2.2 square miles,
with a
total assessed valuation of $2417258,951. The City is located on the
King-Pierce
County line, about 25 miles
south of
operated
under the Mayor-Council form of government, and has an overall employment
compliment
of 39 full time and 11 part time employees.
The Milton Police Department employs 11 full time
employees. IAM Local 160
is a
labor organization representing two bargaining units within the department: 1)
two
non-commissioned
support: services personnel who are part of a non-uniformed personnel
unit;
and 2) nine commissioned employees in the Police Department - seven police
officers,
one detective and one sergeant. Only these nine commissioned employees are
subject
to interest arbitration, and it is that bargaining unit which is at impasse The
average
length of service of employees in the police commissioned unit as of the date
of
the
hearing was nine years, excluding the one probationary police officer.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS
A labor agreement between the parties covering this unit
of employees was set to
expire
with
District Lodge 160 Business Representative Don Hursey
bargaining for the
and
then-Mayor Leonard Sanderson bargaining for the City. Historically, although
the
parties
had not been eligible for interest arbitration prior to
according
to the union, employed methodology of comparing cities with one-half to twice
the
population and total assessed valuation of the City of
was
an agreement to do so. To further narrow their differences, Don Hursey claimed that
he
and then-Mayor Sanderson agreed to limit their comparables to a four county
area in
Shortly after the
advised
the
on
behalf of the City. Thereafter, negotiations were suspended while the City
selected a
new
negotiator and a new negotiating team; a process which was not completed until
December 1996. The City's new
negotiator, Attorney Bruce Heller, met with Don Hursey
in
December of 1996. Productive bargaining began in earnest at the turn of the
year after
the
then pending labor agreement had expired.
Once negotiations between Hursey
and Heller were underway, the City began
proposing
comparators beyond the four county area agreed to by Don Hursey
and
then-Mayor
Sanderson - including cities in
was
employed by the City for the remainder of the negotiations, including
mediation, and
remained
so until the interest arbitration hearing. At the interest arbitration hearing,
the
City no longer offered
In addition, after HelIer
became the City's chief spokesman, the City began to
utilize a
methodology of 33% plus or minus in population and total assessed valuation to
select
comparable cities.
When the parties were unable to reach agreement through
their own efforts on all
issues,
mediation was requested from PERC and a mediator was assigned. After
mediation
and at the recommendation of PERC Mediator Katrina L Boedecker,
four
issues
were directed to interest arbitration by PERC Executive Director Marvin Schurke
by
letter dated
STATUTORY GUIDELINES
Interest arbitration in
Employment,
Civil Service and Pensions. Relevant portions of Title 41
for this interest
arbitration
are:
RCW 41.56.030 Definitions - which defines public
employees as:
". . .any officer, board,
commission, council, or other person or body acting on
behalf of any public body
governed by this chapter, or any subdivision of such
public body."
and specifics where interest
arbitration for law enforcement officers may be
used as:
"(a)(i)
Until
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
(ii) beginning on
41.26.030 employed by the governing body of any city or
town with a population
of two thousand five hundred or more and law enforcement
officers employed by
the governing body of any county with a population of ten
thousand or more; . . ."1
1 This means that the City of
arbitration
in its law enforcement bargaining unit prior to
date.
RCW 41 .56.465 requires interest arbitrators to consider
the following factors in
making
their determination:
". . . the
legislative purposed enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards
or guidelines to aid it in reacting 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 4156.030(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 public fire departments of similar size on the west coast of
the
exists
within the State of
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.
(2) Subsection
(1)(c) of this section may not 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 paragraph 2; 1993 c 398
paragraph
3.)"
APPLICABLE STATUTORY FACTORS IN THIS CASE
Not all of the statutory factors in RCW 41.56.465 were in
dispute in this case. For
example
the parties agree that the City has the constitutional and statutory authority
to
enter
into negotiations with the Union and since July 1, 1997, has the authority to
submit
unresolved
issues to interest arbitration for a binding decision. Therefore, statutory
factor
(a) is
not in dispute.
Nor is factor (b). The parties stipulated: 1) to waive
the tripartite panel called for
in
RCW 41.56.450; 2) that only the four issues certified for interest arbitration
remain in
dispute;
and 3) that the agreed upon general wage increases for 1997, 1998, and 1999
would
be 3%, 3%, and 4% respectively. This stipulation as to the negotiated wage
increases
for the three contract years largely renders factor (d) cost of living, of
lesser
importance
than under circumstances where the general wage increase is an issue in
interest
arbitration
The remaining factors - (c) comparability, (e) changes in
circumstances, and (f)
other
factors - are the most relevant factors for this dispute. Factors (e) and (f) were
not
relied
upon to any great degree by either party except for the controversy over what
was
the
relevant year for comparative data. The most hotly debated of these three
factors was
comparability.
Each party had a different methodology for arriving at comparable
jurisdiction
and each party was critical of the other's methodology and list of comparables.
The section below summarizes the comparability dispute:
first, by presenting
Methodology (the Union's and
the City's); Supporting Arguments (Union and City); and
Criticisms
(of the other's methodology). Then I shall analyze the
comparability evidence
and
make findings. These findings will later be applied to the four issues in
dispute.
In addition to these statutory factors I have found it
useful in my experience in
factfindings and interest arbitrations
over the past 28 years to place the burden of
proof/persuasion
on the party seeking a change. To prevail, the party seeking change
must
be able to prove that a problem exists and that the proposed change will
correct this
problem.
I shall use this assignment of burden in this case.
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE
COMPARABLE
JURISDICTIONS
Statement of the Issue: What jurisdictions should be
adopted by the Arbitrator for
comparison
to the City of Milton?
Union's MethodoIogy Used in the Selection of ComparabIes
The Union utilized: (1) population; (2) assessed
valuation; and (3) jurisdictions
within
close proximity to Milton to select comparable jurisdictions. The Union
searched
for
all jurisdictions within one-half to twice the population of Milton (-50% to
+200%),
the
same range in assessed valuation and local geographical proximity to Milton,
i.e. cities
within
Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap Counties The following table provides the
Union's
first list of 17 possible comparable jurisdictions.
Rank Jurisdiction County 1995 Assessed Valuation 1995
Population
1 Enumclaw King $453,253,013 10,170
2
3 Sumner Pierce $363,969,796 7,700
4 Snohomish Snohomish $357,876,663 7,495
5 Port Orchard Kitsap $257,629,361 6,240
6 Stellacoom Pierce $424,849,253 6,120
7
8 Brier Snohomish $309,127,765 6,030
9 Poulsbo Kitsap $311,817,476 5,765
10 Fircrest Pierce $263,650,746 5,375
11
12
13
14
15
16 Buckley Pierce $129,322,203 3,870
17 Duvall King $180,383,137 3,490
18 Clyde Hill King $473,081,072 3,000
$324,986,356 5,786
The Union narrowed this list to 12 jurisdictions by
selecting the 6 entries
immediately
greater and the 6 entries immediately smaller than Milton. That resulted in
the
following list of 12 possible comparable cities
Rank Jurisdiction County 1995 Assessed
Valuation 1995 Population
1 Stellacoom Pierce $424,849,253 6,120
2
3 Brier Snohomish $309,127,765 6,030
4 Poulsbo Kitsap $311,817,476 5,765
5 Fircrest Pierce $263,650,746 5,375
6
7
8
9
10
11 Buckley Pierce $129,322,203 3,870
12 Duvail King $180,383,137 3,490
13 Clyde Hill King $473,081,072 3,000
$335,498,707 4,881
The Union further refined this list by deleting Stellacoom (because police officers