And
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 618-CD
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 14083-I-98-00312
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
)
BETWEEN ) PERC
CASE 14083-1-98-312
)
AND CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 2, ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 618-CD, )
) AND
) 1998-2000
AGREEMENT
and )
)
)
County. )
HEARING SITE:
HEARING DATES: April
20 & 21, 1999
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
General
Counsel
WSCCCE,
AFSCME,
Local 618-CD
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Steven M. Watson
Manager,
Labor Relations
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
Post
Office Box 190
(541)
488-1573
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE Page
Introduction 1
Comparability 6
Issue 1: Article II, Section 5
- Contracting 12
Issue 2: Article IX, Section 1
- Work Schedules 18
Issue 3: Policy 356 - Minimum
Staffing 26
Issue 4: Policy 357 - Vacations and Leaves 33
I. INTRODUCTION
The parties are signatories to a written Collective
Bargaining Agreement in effect
through December 31, 1997. Un.
EX. 2. The parties began preparation for
negotiation of a
successor contract. The parties held several negotiating sessions
in 1997 and 1999,
but were unable to resolve all of their
differences. Subsequent mediation sessions failed to bring
the
parties to an agreement.
On
interest arbitration pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450. Un. Ex. 1. The
case was set for hearing on
April 20 and 21, 1999. Subsequent to
the certification for interest
arbitration and submission to the
Arbitrator, the parties resolved a sub-issue over Article
II,
Section 2.a.8 - Safety and
Health. The parties were also able to
resolve the entire issue on
Article XI, Compensation. After these
negotiations four issues
remained for this Arbitrator to resolve.
referred to as the
by Interstate 5. The largest city in the County is the state
capitol of
approximately 197,600.
The Department of the County involved in this case is the
Gary P. Edwards is the
Bureau is
managed by Karen
Daniels, Chief, Department
of
Corrections. The Corrections Bureau operates a jail which
serves
as a regional facility for all
of
the average daily population
at the TCCF was 397 inmates. The
Corrections Bureau also
maintains several corrections program
options, such as work release
and electronic monitoring.
The
(
and lieutenants employed in
the Corrections Bureau. The bargaining
unit consists of approximately
68 employees in the classifications
of corrections officers and
lieutenants. The corrections officers
unit is a relatively new group
which recently separated from
another
At the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the
opening statements from the
parties revealed a sharp difference of
opinion over the issue of
comparability. In addition, the parties
also disagreed over the
methodology and means by which to compare
the contract benefits of
their counterparts in other
counties. A significant amount of
hearing time was devoted to
the presentation of evidence and
argument on the statutory
factor of comparability. The Arbitrator
directed the parties to
address the issue at the beginning of the
post-hearing briefs. The Arbitrator advised the parties he would
address the comparability
issue at the commencement of the Award.
Bargaining between the parties produced agreement on most
issues, including all of the
economic issues. However, the parties
were unsuccessful in resolving
all of the subjects that divided
them in contract
negotiations. Four fundamental contract
issues
were presented by the parties
for interest arbitration. The
parties stipulated they had
agreed the duration of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement would
cover the period
through
The hearing in this case required two days for each side
to present their evidence and
testimony. 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 regarding the issues
in dispute. Both the
with substantial
written documentation in support
of their
respective positions.
The parties also submitted comprehensive and detailed
post-hearing briefs in
further 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 substantial 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 RCW 41.56.465(1) 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) (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.
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 counties should be the
one adopted by the Arbitrator to
utilize in formulating an
Award for the corrections officers
Collective Bargaining
Agreement in
differences between the
parties on the issue of comparability were
further complicated because
each side used a different methodology
for selecting the purported
comparable jurisdictions to Thurston
County.
The parties agree that
five counties are mutually
comparable as follows:
County Population
Kitsap 229,400
Whatcom 157,500
Thurston 199,700
The difference between the parties over the comparators,
is the County will only agree
to the inclusion of
There was no history of
comparators which had been used in the past
as a guide to determine the
wages and benefits for
corrections officers presented
to this Arbitrator. The initial
task of your Arbitrator will
be to formulate a list of comparable
jurisdictions that is
consistent with the statutory mandate.
B. The
The
comparators should be adopted
by the Arbitrator. The
extensively on the testimony
of Director of Staff Services, John
Cole, who explained the
methodology for determining comparable
jurisdictions. Cole began his
analysis with the proposition that
population is the single best
criteria to measure comparability.
Many arbitrators have held
population must be the determining
factor for size. Cole then used a population band of 50% down
and
50% up from
in the six jurisdictions which
fell within the population band
which the
determining the comparable
jurisdictions.
Moreover, Cole then looked at other factors to compare
these jurisdictions. He ranked each jurisdiction by revenues and
real property values. Again, these jurisdictions ran 50% up and
50% down from
The County has stipulated that Kitsap,
and
over the inclusion of
at the hearing to support
their claim that
comparable jurisdiction. Further,
the County did not offer
evidence as
to why
jurisdiction. The