WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL OF COUNTY AND CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 2, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 492

WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL OF COUNTY AND CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 2, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 492

And

Spokane County

HEARING SITE: Spokane County Offices

Spokane, Washington

HEARING DATE: May 3, 2000

POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked June 26, 2000

RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS: June 29, 2000

REPRESENTING THE UNION: Audrey B. Eide

WSCCCE General Counsel

AFSCME AFL-CIO

3305 Oakes Avenue

P.O. Box 750

Everett, WA 98206-0750

REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Otto G. Klein, III

Summit Law Group Suite 300

1505 Westlake Ave., North

Seattle, WA 98109

INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary L. Axon

P.O. Box 190

Ashland, OR 97520

(541) 488-1573

PERC CASE 14916-I-99-329

I. INTRODUCTION

Spokane County, Washington (County) and WSCCCE Local 492 (Union) are signatories to a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998. The parties engaged in bargaining for a successor Agreement in an attempt to resolve the contract dispute. After mediation efforts proved unsuccessful, the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) declared an impasse and certified the case for interest arbitration. The parties were able to reach agreement on several issues. Both sides concur, the new Agreement should be effective from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001. In a letter dated December 9, 1999, PERC certified three issues for interest arbitration under RCW 41.56.450. The three issues were identified as follows: (1) Wages; (2) Shared Leave; and (3) Uniform

Allowance/Quartermaster System. This Arbitrator was selected to decide the case and a hearing was held on May 3, 2000.

Spokane County is located in eastern Washington adjacent to the Idaho border. With a 1999 population of 414,500, the County is by far the largest county in eastern Washington and the fourth largest in the state of Washington. The County maintains a jail facility. The Sheriff of Spokane County, Mark E. Sterk, is charged with the duty to maintain the jail. Dick Collins, Jail Commander, has the direct responsibility for the daily management of the correctional program. The number of correctional officers employed by the County on March 3, 2000 was approximately 141. The Union holds the bargaining rights for correctional officers employed in the Spokane County jail system. The parties went to arbitration in 1995 before arbitrator Thomas Levak. The Levak award was entered into the record of this case. Co. Ex. 1.

Two threshold issues developed at the commencement of the hearing. First, the parties offered widely different opinions over how the list of comparators should be developed. Second, the parties disagreed over the precedential value which should be accorded to the 1995 Levak award between Spokane County and the Union. The Arbitrator was also provided with a recent interest arbitration award by arbitrator Alan Krebs between Spokane County and Spokane County Deputy Sheriffs Association issued on July 12, 1999. While this was a different bargaining unit, arbitrator Krebs did address the issue of comparability for Spokane County in his decision.

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 comparability issue at the beginning of their post-hearing briefs. The Arbitrator also advised counsel he would decide the comparability issue at the commencement of the Award.

The hearing in this case required one day for the parties 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 contract issues certified for interest arbitration. Both the Union and the County provided the Arbitrator with substantial written documentation in support of their respective positions. Counsel also submitted comprehensive and detailed post-hearing briefs in further support of their arguments offered 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 three separate 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 was comprehensive, it would be impractical for the Arbitrator in the discussion and Award to restate and refer to each and every item of evidence, and testimony presented. However, when formulating the decision, the Arbitrator gave careful attention 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 United States. However, when an adequate number of comparable employers exists within the state of Washington, other 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 this case, the parties waived the thirty (30) day period an arbitrator would normally have to publish an award under the statute.

II. COMPARABILITY

A. Background

In establishing the comparables in this case, the uniqueness of the eastern Washington labor market cannot be ignored. This uniqueness is recognized in numerous arbitration awards cited by the parties. City of Pasco, (Wilkinson, 1994) at 11; City of Richland, (Lehleitner, 1984) at 15-16; City of Pullman, (Lumbley, 1981) at 10; City of Ellensburg, (Snow, 1992) at 9; City of Ellensburg, (Snow, 1992) at 27; City of Moses Lake, (Snow, 1991) at 6; City of Pasco, (Levak, 1990) at 12; Spokane Fire District No. 9, (Auble, 1993) at 2-4; City of Pullman, (Gaunt, 1997); City of Kennewick, (Krebs, 1997) at 14. Interest arbitrators have repeatedly had to struggle with the so-called "Cascade Curtain" in determining the appropriate comparators for east-side jurisdictions and west-side jurisdictions.

The problem in this case is further complicated by the undisputed fact there are no other eastern Washington counties that have a population even close to Spokane County's population of 414,500. The nearest eastern Washington county is Yakima County with a population of 212,000 or some 202,500 fewer than Spokane County.

The parties agree that five Washington counties should be used as comparables for determining wages and benefits for County correction officers. The five jurisdictions are as follows:

County

Population

Clark

337,000

Kitsap

229,700

Pierce

700,000

Snohomish

583,300

Yakima

212,300

Un. Ex. 2.

The difference between the parties is whether Thurston County or Benton County should be used as a comparator. The County relies on the 1995 Levak award to justify the use of Benton County as a comparator in the 2000 case. In the view of the Union, Benton County is not comparable in size and should be discarded in favor of Thurston County. The initial task of the Arbitrator is to formulate a list of comparable jurisdictions which is consistent with the statutory mandate.

B. The Union

The Union takes the position that Thurston County should be added to the list of five agreed‑on comparators. The Union offered the testimony of WSCCCE Director of Staff Services, John Cole, who explained the Union's methodology in determining comparable jurisdictions. Cole's goal was to come up with a methodology consistent with that used and adopted by other arbitrators. Cole began his analysis with the proposition that population is the single best criteria to measure similar size. Arbitrators have ruled population must be the determining factor for size. Cole used a population band of 50‑100% down and 50‑100% up in Spokane County to yield its band of comparators ranging from a low of 202,700 in Thurston County to 700,000 in Pierce County. In addition, Cole ranked the jurisdictions by revenues and real property valuations which yielded the same ranking in a 50-100% up and 50-100% down from Spokane County's revenue and real property valuation. Benton County has a population of 138,900. Thus, the Union submits Benton County simply does not pass the test of a similar size jurisdiction for purposes of establishing comparability.

Turning to the Levak award, the Union was harshly reprimanded in that case by the arbitrator for going outside of Washington state for comparables. In light of the Union's position, arbitrator Levak accepted the comparables offered by the County. The comparables offered by the County in that case would now be contrary to the population criteria used by Levak to determine comparables. The Washington statutes explicitly require that jurisdictions which are compared with each other must be of similar size. The County did not meet this criteria but arbitrarily passed over Thurston County with a population of 202,700 and Whatcom County with a population of 163,300 to include Benton County with a population of 138,900 in its proposed list.

Pointing to the recent decision by arbitrator Krebs in the Deputy Sheriffs Association interest arbitration, the arbitrator found that with Spokane County's population being three times that of Benton County, it did not meet the statutory criteria of similar size. Thus, the arbitrator in the July 1999 Deputy Sheriffs Association case rejected the County's attempt to include Benton County as a comparator.

This Arbitrator should follow the holding of arbitrator Krebs and reject the County's arguments for the inclusion of Benton County on a list of comparators in the same manner as arbitrator Krebs rejected the similar arguments in the Deputy Sheriffs Association case. The Union added Thurston County because it was next in population on the list of comparators. In addition, the Union also relied on generally accepted variables of population and geography in coming up with its list of comparables. The County offered no evidence suggesting the idea of comparables could be more probative of demographic comparability than the Union's proposed jurisdictions.

C. The County

In order to avoid the charade of comparability, the County selected its comparables in a straightforward manner. The County's methodology is supported by two separate and distinct important factors. First, the statutory criteria is clear that jurisdictions are only comparable if they are of "similar size." Many arbitrators have held that the focal point of this determination is resident population.

The second factor regularly considered by interest arbitrators is geographical location. A review of the arbitral authority reveals that geography has played a significant role in the selection of comparables. Arbitrators resolving disputes centered in the greater Seattle metropolitan area generally rely on jurisdictions within the Seattle metropolitan area for determining comparators. The same is true when arbitrators selected comparables for western Washington jurisdictions or outside the Seattle area and sought a balanced list that is not overweighed with metropolitan jurisdictions. The most important factor in resolving disputes in eastern Washington is the authority which shows interest arbitrators have weighted their list with other eastern Washington jurisdictions.

Gary Carlson, Labor Relations Manager, testified Spokane County was concerned that only one of the five jurisdictions arrived at through the use of population band is from east of the mountains. As such, the County determined it is appropriate to add one more eastern Washington jurisdiction. Benton County is the next largest of the eastern Washington counties. While Benton County is one-third the size of Spokane County, arbitrator Levak ruled that it was patently reasonable to compare Benton County with Spokane County because it matched up in terms of core area population, education, per capita income and average wage pay. The evidence presented at the hearing by the County verified that Benton County is a good point for comparison.

Moreover, Carlson reiterated the importance of the County's ability to provide predictability and continuity in labor relations. A good labor relationship requires predictability. The County's approach in this proceeding is grounded in the tenet that the 1995 Levak award should be followed in this interest arbitration.

Turning to the Union's methodology, the County avers that the Union's methodology is flawed. The Union totally ignored the Levak decision between these same parties in setting the terms of the 1994-96 contract. Union witness Cole did not apply the 50% down test for population frequently adopted by arbitrators which would exclude Thurston County. Finally, in a recent interest arbitration case involving Thurston County Corrections, this same Union did not propose that Thurston County be compared with Spokane County. Therefore, the Arbitrator should conclude Thurston County is not an appropriate comparator for Spokane County and continue the "Levak list" in making this Award.

D. Discussion and Findings

The parties agree to five Washington counties as appropriate comparators. In this case, the dispute between the parties is whether to add Benton County or Thurston County to the list of five counties which are mutually acceptable to the parties. The Arbitrator rejects the Union's proposal to add Thurston County. If Thurston County were added to the list of six, this would yield five counties from western Washington and one from eastern Washington. In the judgment of this Arbitrator, the use of five western Washington counties would give too much weight to western Washington jurisdictions in setting wages and working conditions for Spokane County which is located in eastern Washington. A closely related reason for excluding Thurston County is that it falls outside the recognized 50% down for population criteria. Thurston County has a population of 202,700. The Arbitrator finds the Union offered no persuasive evidence as to why the two primary principles of population and assessed valuation for establishing comparability should be overridden in this case in order to add Thurston County, located in western Washington, to the list of comparators.

The County's position does not fare much better on examination of the similar size test. In order to get to Benton County, the County had to jump over higher populated Thurston and Whatcom Counties to reach Benton County with a population of 138,900. The County made a stronger case for ignoring the population factor with evidence of demographic data from Benton County. However, I was not convinced there was sufficient justification to skip over the two higher populated counties of Thurston and Benton in order to include one with a population 275,600 less than Spokane County. As the fifth largest county in Washington, Spokane County stands in a unique position from other jurisdictions located in eastern Washington where similarly sized cities or counties cannot be found.

A careful examination of the 1995 Levak award reveals he rejected what he believed was the Union's "artificially contrived" list and accepted the County's proposal. In the recent award by arbitrator Krebs, he rejected the reasoning of the County for including Benton County on a list of comparators. Specifically, arbitrator Krebs held Benton County is not a "like employer of similar size" when compared to Spokane County. Arbitrator Krebs also found the two respective sheriffs departments are even more disparate in size which argued for the exclusion of Benton County from the list.

This Arbitrator concurs with the analysis offered by arbitrator Krebs that Benton County should not be a "primary comparator" because it does not meet the "similar size" criteria. In the judgment of this Arbitrator, the interests of both parties will be well served by using the same list of comparators adopted July 1999, in the Spokane County Deputy Sheriffs Association interest arbitration award, in the present case. By using the same jurisdictions for two groups of County employees involved in law enforcement functions, the consistency and stability the County seeks will be achieved.

The Arbitrator remains unconvinced that dropping Benton County from the list of comparators would damage the "predictability" of future bargaining. As arbitrator Krebs noted, five comparables is on the low side. The fact remains the five agreed-on jurisdictions provide a meaningful list of comparators. This Arbitrator prefers the range of five to ten comparators. The higher the number of comparators grow, the more difficult it becomes to collect and maintain reliable data, and draw accurate conclusions from that data. By using the same list of five comparators in the case at bar, as adopted by arbitrator Krebs in the Deputy Sheriffs Association award, both parties will benefit from the standpoint of consistency and in the ability to maintain reliable data.

Based on all of the above-stated reasons, the Arbitrator concludes the appropriate list of comparators should be confined to the five Washington counties mutually agreed on by the parties. The counties are listed as follows:

County

Population

Clark

337,000

Kitsap

229,700

Pierce

700,000

Snohomish

583,300

Yakima

212,300

Spokane

414,500

ISSUE 1 - WAGES

A. Background

The 1998 salary schedule provides for a seven-step progression through the wage schedule. The 1998 wages were as follows:

Spokane County Correctional Officer

Monthly Salaries

1998

$2,393.72

$2,516.30

$2,645.14

$2,780.60

$2,922.98

$3,072.64

$3,229.98

Un. Ex. B.

On completion of ten years of service, correction officers receive the additional step on the salary schedule (Step 7) as longevity. (Section 9.1.15). Neither party is proposing a change in the structure of the salary schedule.

The Union proposed the following wage increases:

January 1, 1999

January 1, 2000

January 1, 2001

The County proposed the following:

January 1, 1999

2.0%

January 1, 2000

2.0%

January 1, 2001

1.5%

July 1, 2001

1.5%

B. The Union

The Union constructed its wage proposal based on the proposed comparables. The Union calculated the actual employer paid benefits and total compensation of Spokane correction officers and the comparables and determined their proposal.

The Union calculated that the adoption of its proposal would leave Spokane correction officers 1.5% behind the average of the comparables at the ten-year level, 4.5% behind at the five-year level and 2% below at the starting wage. Un. Ex. 10. If the Arbitrator were to adopt the County's proposal, the members of this unit would be 3.2% lower than the average top-step wage in the comparables, 6.5% less at the five-year level, and 1.9% below at the starting wage.

In all of the charts created by the Union, correction officers in this unit are paid less than their counterparts in the five other counties. The same can be said by examining the wage study prepared by the County which includes Benton County, which still leaves the members of this unit behind the compensation paid to correction officers in the comparable jurisdictions.

The Union next calculated that if the comparables used in the Deputy Sheriffs Association case are used, the County's proposal places officers 9.5% behind in the year 2000 at the top salary. The Union proposal would leave officers 5.3% behind. The charts demonstrated the Union has been reasonable in its proposed comparables and reasonable in its proposed increase in an attempt to play some catch-up with the other jurisdictions.