International Association of
Firefighters
And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator: Beck;
Michael H.
Case #: 14037-I-98-00309
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION
AND AWARD
) PERC
NO. 14037-1-98-309
and )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) Date:
OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL NO. 1604 )
OPINION AND AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
Interest Arbitrator
Michel H. Beck
Appearances
Siona D.
International association of Firefighters
James H. Webster
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
And
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL
NO.1604
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
OPINION OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 1.
Procedural Matters 1.
Issues in Dispute 2.
Background 2.
Statutory Framework 3.
Comparables 5.
Basis for Comparison 17.
Wages 19.
Longevity 24.
Vacation Accrual 26.
Workweek 29.
Hourly Compensation 31.
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 33.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION AND AWARD
) PERC NO. 14037-1-98-309
and )
) Date:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL NO.1604 )
________________________________ )
OPINION OF THE
INTEREST ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator, Michael H. Beck, was selected by the
parties to conduct an
interest arbitration pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450. The parties waived their right to appoint
panel members, and, thus, the
matter was submitted to the undersigned as the sole
arbitrator.
A hearing in this matter was held at
1999. The Employer, City of
Bellevue, Washington, was represented by
Hannah of the law firm of
Perkins Coie, LLP and Siona
D. Windsor,
Attorney. The
was represented by James H.
Webster of the law firm of Webster Mrak &
Blumberg.
At the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and the parties
presented substantial
documentary evidence. A reporter was present at the hearing and a
transcript of the proceedings
was made available to the Arbitrator for his use in reaching
a determination in this case.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
post hearing briefs which
were timely filed and received
by the Arbitrator on
parties agreed to waive the
statutory requirement that the Arbitrator issue his decision
within 30 days following the
conclusion of the hearing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Four issues were litigated at the hearing and submitted
to the Arbitrator for
determination. These four
issues are:
1. Wages
2. Longevity Pay
3 . Vacation Accrual
4. Length of Workweek
BACKGROUND
The
response area includes, in
addition to the City of
the City on a contract basis.
The
separate pay classifications.
Additionally, premium pay is provided for those employees
who perform the duty of
firefighter/paramedic.
The
staffing various engine and
aid units, an aerial ladder truck, and medic unit. The
Department has earned a Class
II Insurance Service Rating, the highest attained by any
fire department in the State
of
Commission on Fire
Accreditation International an accredited status based on a
comprehensive review of over
200 performance standards. Such accreditation has only
been received by seven other
departments internationally. The assessed value of the
property protected by the
the State of
thoroughly professional
organization.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Chapter 41.56 RCW provides for collective bargaining
between various public
employers and certain
employees employed by those public employers. Chapter 41.56
RCW, beginning with RCW
41.56.430, provides a separate set of requirements in
connection with the collective
bargaining process between certain public employers
employing uniformed personnel
and the uniformed personnel. Neither
party disputes that
the provisions of Chapter
41.56 RCW apply to the instant interest dispute.
RCW 41.56.430 provides as follows:
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
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
uninterrupted public service
there should exist an effective and
adequate alternative means of
settling disputes. [Revisor's
note omitted.]
RCW 41.56.440 Uniformed personnel-Negotiation-Declaration
of an
impass-Appointment
of mediator, provides that if the parties are unable to reach
agreement after negotiations
for a specified period of time, either party may declare an
impasse and submit the dispute
to the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC)
for mediation. The mediator is
authorized to take such steps as he or she may deem
appropriate in order to
persuade the parties to resolve their differences and effect an
agreement.
RCW 41.56.450 Uniformed personnel-Interest arbitration
panel-Powers
and duties-Hearings-Findings
and determination, provides that if agreement has
not been reached following a
reasonable period of negotiations and mediation, and the
Executive Director of PERC,
upon recommendation of the assigned mediator, finds that
the parties remain at impasse,
then an interest arbitration panel shall be created to resolve
the dispute. This statute
further provides that the issues for determination by the
Arbitration Panel shall be
limited to those issues certified by the Executive Director.
RCW 41.56.465 provides in relevant part as follows:
(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)
***
(ii) For . . . [firefighters], 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
when an adequate number of comparable employers exists
within the state of
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....
COMPARABLES
The factor listed as Subsection (c)(ii) of RCW 41.56.465
(1) has traditionally been
a significant factor relied
upon by interest arbitrators in making determinations of
appropriate wage rates, as
well as other conditions of employment. This factor is
commonly referred to as the
"comparables."
The Employer has selected six fire departments as
comparable to
namely Central Pierce;
Snohomish #1-11, referred to by the
(Alderwood);
Kent;
#10, referred to by the
the
taking the population served
by the City's fire department and going up 30% and down
30%, resulting in the six fire
departments with the population range of 100,000 to
140,000.
In support of its position, the City contends that the
method it used to select
comparables is a "pure
statutory approach." (Employer brief, pg. 29.) In this regard, the
Employer takes the position
that the phrase "similar size" appearing in RCW
41.56.465(1)(c)(ii) refers to
population, and that the six comparables chosen by the
Employer have an average
population of 116,666 which is just less than 10% of
adequate number of comparable
employers, and thus all are within the State of
The
the "agreed
comparators."1 The agreed comparators, according to the
King #39 (
_________________________
1The
Employer has used the term comparables and the
throughout in order to
avoid confusion with the term agreed comparators.
The
that the 11 comparables it
seeks to have the Arbitrator adopt were, in fact, agreed to by
the Employer. The Employer,
admits that it did agree to use the 11 comparables as a
basis for negotiating a new
agreement, and in fact continued to rely on those comparables
during mediation. However, the
Employer points out that it never stipulated to their use
in interest arbitration.
After carefully reviewing the record, I find that the 11
comparables contended for
by the
parties' collective bargaining
history will be helpful to an understanding of my decision
on this matter.
The record indicates that the parties' bargaining history
dates back at least to the
1970's. During the nine year
period between 1980 and 1988 the parties executed four
separate collective bargaining
agreements, three of which were concluded as a result
of interest arbitration.
Arbitrator John J. Champagne arbitrated the 1980-81 agreement,
while Arbitrator Howard S.
Block arbitrated the 1982-83 agreement. The 1984-86
agreement was concluded
without interest arbitration, but the 1987-88 agreement resulted
from the interest arbitration
conducted by Arbitrator Janet L. Gaunt.
Each of the three arbitrators noted that the question of
appropriate comparables
was heavily litigated in the
proceedings before them. Furthermore, each of the three
arbitrators noted the inherent
ambiguity in the statute making it difficult for an arbitrator
to reach a determination on
the most appropriate set of comparables. In this regard,
Arbitrator
determination on each of the
issues before him, he would make "suitable adjustments for
varying degrees of comparability
or lack of comparability. . . ." (Employer Exhibit No.
9, pg. 5.)
In noting the difficulty in selecting comparables,
Arbitrator Block pointed out:
The range of alternatives available [under
the
statutory criteria] for comparison is nowhere more apparent
than in the record of this proceeding. The City and the
have both offered plausible contentions for sharply
conflicting
interpretations of the statutory criteria. (Union Exhibit
No.9,
pg. 4.)
Arbitrator Block determined that the
economic area with a common
labor market and therefore determined that cities in the
No. 9, pg.8.) He also found
that his determination in this regard was fully sanctioned by
the "such other
factors" language in Subsection (f) of the statute. At the time of the
Block Award, the statutory
criteria were set forth at RCW 41.56.460, and Subsection (c)
of that statue referred only
to "like employers." A city and fire district were not
considered like employers.
Thus, no fire districts were included in the list of
comparables selected by
Arbitrator Block. He selected eight comparables which he
described as "
or more population."
(Exhibit A, pg. 54.) At that time, according to Arbitrator Block
the
cities he selected were
and
As discussed above the parties concluded a collective
bargaining agreement for
the years 1984 -1986 without
going to interest arbitration. The record does not indicate
what, if any, comparables were
used by the parties in negotiating this agreement.
However, the parties were
unable to conclude a successor agreement without going to
interest arbitration. The
1987-88 agreement was concluded by interest arbitration before
Arbitrator Gaunt. That
interest arbitration required seven days of hearing, involved 15
certified issues, and
Arbitrator Gaunt issued a 126 page Opinion and Award.
With respect the question of comparable employers,
Arbitrator Gaunt began her
discussion by noting the
appropriateness of giving deference to the comparables selected
by Arbitrator Block in the
prior interest arbitration award. In this regard, she stated:
The record certainly indicates that the
parties could
benefit from some degree of consistency and
predictability in
their bargaining relationship. (Union Exhibit No. 10, pg.
11.)
Arbitrator Gaunt recognized that she faced a different
statutory framework than
did Arbitrator Block as at the
time of her Award the relevant statute had been changed to
require consideration of
public fire departments. Additionally, the new statute, with
respect to firefighters,
required the comparable employers to be within the State of
Washington, rather than on the
west coast as had the prior statute, if an adequate number
of employer comparables
existed within the State of
The Employer, following the same process it has in the
matter before me,
determined to look at public
fire departments which had a population of 30% more than