And
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator, Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Michael H. Beck
Case #: 15174-I-00-341
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
and )
) Date:
SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION )
__________________________________________)
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR
Interest Arbitration Panel
Michael H. Beck, Interest
Arbitrator
Pat J. Dalton, Employer Panel
Member
Mark E. Brennan, Union Panel
Member
Appearances
For the Employer: Otto G.
Klein, III
For the
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
and
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINION OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR 1
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1
ISSUES IN DISPUTE 2
STATUTORY CRITERIA 2
BACKGROUND 3
WAGES AND DEFERRED
COMPENSATION 4
The Proposals 4
Failure to Bargain in Good Faith 5
The Comparables 6
Cost of Living 11
Automobile Commuting 14
Conclusion 15
MEDICAL BENEFITS 20
SPECIALTY PAY 22
PERSONAL HOLIDAYS 24
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 24
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 2
***
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
) INTEREST
ARBITRATION
)
and )
) Date:
SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION )
________________________________ )
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 Arbitration Panel
included
Employer Member Pat J.
Blumberg.
A hearing in this matter was held on January 23 and 24,
2001 at
the
Summit Law Group, PLLC. The
Association, was represented
by Thomas R. Luciani of the law firm of Stamper,
Rubens,
Stocker & Smith, P.S. At
the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken under oath
and
the parties presented a substantial amount of documentary evidence. A court
reporter
was
present at the hearing, however a transcript was not prepared.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous posthearing briefs which
were
filed by both parties and received by the Arbitrator on
also
agreed at my request to waive the statutory time requirement for issuance of a
decision.
On
the
issues before the panel. This discussion was very helpful to me and I thank my
fellow
panel
members for their efforts in this regard.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues before the Arbitration Panel are set forth
below:
1. Wages
and Deferred Compensation
2. Medical Benefits
3. Specialty Pay
4. Personal Holidays
5. Uniform
Allowance
STATUTORY CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.465 directs the Arbitrator, in making his
decision, to be mindful of
the legislative
purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and to “take into consideration the
following
factors:”
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the
employer,
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c)(i) For [law
enforcement officers] 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
***
(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 (e) 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. . . .
The legislative purpose your Arbitrator is directed to
mindful of in making his
determination
is set for in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of [this chapter] is to
recognize
that there exists a public policy in the state of
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
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there
should
exist an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes. (Reviser’s note omitted.)
BACKGROUND
The
Employer Labor Relations
Manager Gary A. Carlsen testified that there are
approximately
194 employees in the bargaining unit of which about 140 are in the job
classification
of Deputy Sheriff about 32 in the job classification of Detective/Corporal,
and
about 22 in the job classification of Sergeant. The parties agree that the
Collective
Bargaining Agreement should be
for the three year period
The parties are also in agreement that the appropriate
comparables are those
determined
by Arbitrator Krebs in his
wage
issue for the parties’1997-99 Agreement. These comparables are the following
five
counties:
1.
2. Kitsap
3. Pierce
4. Snohomish
5
.
WAGES AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION
The Proposals
The
2001, the
compensation
program; and for the year 2002, the
for
all ranks plus a 1% matching deferred compensation program.
The Employer proposes a wage increase of 2% for all ranks
for each year of the
three
year Agreement. The Employer opposes establishing a matching deferred
compensation
program.
This arbitration was quite unusual in one respect, the Sheriff,
Mark Sterk
supported
not only the implementation of the Union wage proposal but several other
Union
proposals. While I have certainly considered the
Sheriffs testimony, I have relied
on
Mr. Carlsen and Employer counsel for the County’s
position.
Failure to Bargain in Good Faith
The
on
its contention that the Employer has not bargained in good faith in the manner
in
which
it conducted negotiations leading up to this Interest Arbitration. In
particular, the
through
December 2000 for the calculations used by the Employer to substantiate its 2%
per
year wage offer. However, the
the
Employer, through its counsel, stated that its offer was not based on precise
calculations
but was supported by the statutory factors and the lower cost of living in the
The
“hide-and-seek”
that the
practice
in City of
119
Wn. 2d. 373 (1992).
This case does hold that the duty to bargain, including the duty
to
provide relevant information needed to carry out collective bargaining
responsibilities,
continues
after PERC certifies unresolved collective bargaining issues to Interest
Arbitration.
However, the case also holds that the unfair labor practice determinations
are
within the jurisdiction of PERC. Here, as the Employer points out, the
file
an unfair labor practice complaint with PERC.
Additionally, I note that the
apply
for the Employer’s alleged failure to bargain in good faith is that the
Arbitrator
should
begin his analysis of the appropriate wage increase at 3% as that is the lowest
percentage
increase for the year 2000 granted to any comparable, Since it is not for the
Arbitration Panel to determine
if the Employer bargained in bad faith in violation of state
law,
the Arbitration Panel cannot adopt the remedy sought by the
The Comparables
As both parties recognize, pursuant to RCW 41.56.465 (c)(i), a major factor to be
considered
is a comparison of wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the
employees
involved in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of like
personnel
of like employers of similar size on the west coast. Here, as already
indicated,
the
parties have agreed on five such comparable employers.
All of the comparables have settled their contracts for
the year 2000
Approximately 72 % of the
bargaining unit employees are classified as Deputy Sheriffs.
Therefore, the first
appropriate comparison is that of the Top Step Deputy Sheriff in
relied
on Union Exhibit E and Attachment D to the Employer’s brief. Where there are
differences
between those exhibits, I have explained my resolution of the matter in an
accompanying
footnote. Also some figures varied by one dollar, apparently due to
rounding.
However, a one dollar difference had no effect on the overall percentages.
CHART No. 1
TOP STEP DEPUTY SHERIFF MONTHLY RATE
Monthly Rate
1999 2000 PERCENT INCREASE
KITSAP $3,946 $4,0841 3.5%
PIERCE $4,173 $4,298 3.0%
SNOHOMISH $4,002 $4,1222 3.0%
AVERAGE $3,956 $4,082 3.2%
AVERAGE VERSUS
1. For
2. With
respect to
3. The 1999
rate is used here for
Detective Dan Blashill
testified that the average length of service unit wide, that is
taking
in all three classifications, was between 10 and 11 years. The Employer placed
in
evidence a
chart compiled as of
196 employees in the unit of
which 106, or about 54%, had less than 11 years of service
in
the unit. Additionally, Arbitrator Krebs, in his July 1999 Interest Arbitration
also
considered
the 10 year Top Step Deputy an appropriate comparison point, Finally, in this
regard,
both parties provided exhibits which made a comparison for the 10 year Top Step
Deputy
Sheriff with longevity. Following the same system I used with
respect to Chart
No. 1, in resolving
differences between Employer Attachment D and Union Exhibit E, I
have
set forth below Chart No. 2 comparing the 10 year Deputy Sheriff with longevity
in