And
Woodworkers Local Lodge W536
International Association of Machinists
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Gary L. Axon
Case #: 15793-I-01-361
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
ARBITRATOR‘S OPINION
)
BETWEEN ) AND AWARD
)
WOODWORKERS LOCAL LODGE W536 ) 2000 INSURANCE REOPENER
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF MACHINISTS, )
)
)
and )
)
)
County. )
________________________________________________)
HEARING SITE: Union
Hall
HEARING DATE:
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Faxed
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Grand
Lodge Representative
Woodworkers
District Lodge 1, IAM
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Mike E. Clift
Chief
Deputy Prosecutor
Prosecuting
Office
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
(541)
488-1573
I. INTRODUCTION
The County of
Woodworkers Lodge W536 IAM (
Bargaining Agreement effective
2001.
is
Article XVII which states:
This agreement shall be
effective from January
1, 2000 and shall remain in
full force and
effect
to and including the 31st day of
December, 2001. Either party
may commence
negotiations
by filing written notice to the
other
party pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter
41.56 RCW. By mutual agreement, the
agreement
may be extended for a period of one
year.
This agreement may be reopened no
earlier
than
purpose
of negotiating changes to Article VII,
Section 13, Employee Group
Insurance, with any
changes
being effective
a
different effective date is agreed upon.
Pursuant to the reopener,
the parties attempted to
negotiate a
revised insurance contribution level. The parties were
unable
to resolve the insurance dispute through negotiation and
mediation.
The insurance reopener
issue was certified for interest
arbitration
under RCW 41.56.450. The case was scheduled for
hearing
before this Arbitrator for a final and binding resolution.
In Article XVII, the parties
have agreed that the insurance
increase
awarded shall be effective January 1 unless a different
date
is agreed upon.
western
approximately
8,442. The County is located in a sparsely populated
rural
area of
The
members
employed in the Mason County Sheriff's Department. The
bargaining
unit consists of correction officers and support staff.
The majority of the members
are assigned to work at the jail.
At the commencement of the arbitration
hearing, the
opening
statements from the parties revealed a sharp difference of
opinion
over the issue of comparability. While the parties
stipulated
the number of comparators should be five, and four
counties
were agreed on to use as comparators, the fifth county to
be
used as a comparator was a matter of considerable disagreement.
A significant amount of
hearing time was devoted to presentation of
evidence
and argument on the statutory factor of comparability.
The Arbitrator directed the
parties to address the issue of
comparability
at the beginning of their post-hearing briefs. The
Arbitrator will address the
comparability issue at the commencement
of
his discussion and findings in this Award.
The hearing in this case required one day for
each side
to
present their evidence and testimony. The hearing was tape
recorded
by the Arbitrator as an extension of his personal notes
and
the tapes were not made available to the parties. Testimony of
witnesses
was received under oath. At the arbitration hearing the
2.parties
were given the full opportunity to present written
evidence,
oral testimony, and argument regarding the insurance
issue
in dispute. Both the
Arbitrator with substantial
written documentation in support of
their
respective positions taken on the insurance issue.
Moreover, counsel also submitted
comprehensive and
detailed
post-hearing briefs in support of the 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 the insurance
reopener issue. After the introduction of the issue
and position
of
the parties, I will state the basic findings and rationale which
caused
your Arbitrator to make the award on the insurance issue.
The overall context for review of this case
is under the
terms
of Article XVII providing for a reopener of the
agreement on
the
subject of the insurance contribution. The insurance issue is
the
only issue before this Arbitrator. The number and level of
insurance
benefits are not an issue in this dispute. Article XVII,
Section 13, is the insurance
benefit language setting forth the
amount
of the insurance contribution to be made by the County for
each
employee. The agreed amount is currently set at $425 per
month
for each eligible employee. The $425 per month payment
purchases
medical, dental, vision, and life insurance coverage
through
the Machinist Trust. This is an interest arbitration
to
determine
the amount of the monthly contribution the County shall
pay
for the calendar year beginning 2001.
This Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and
evaluated all
of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established
by RCW 41.56.465. The Arbitrator has given
consideration
to all of the evidence and argument placed in the
record
by the parties and measured it against the relevant
statutory
factors.
The statutory criteria are set out in RCW
41.56.465 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
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.
II. COMPARABILITY
A. Background
The parties to this contract have no history
on the
subject
of jurisdictions with which to compare
utilize
as a guideline for establishing wages and benefits for
correction
officers and support staff employed in the Sheriff's
Department.
Without this history, the parties are starting fresh
in
the development of a list of comparable jurisdictions to assist
in
the resolution of this contract dispute.
To the credit of the parties, they agree that
five
counties
is a reasonable number of comparators to use as a guide to
settle
this dispute. Further, the parties stipulated the following
four
counties are comparable to
Island County
Grays Harbor County
Lewis County
Clallam County
The County proposed
county
on the list of comparators. The Union countered that
Cowlitz County should
constitute the fifth county on the list of
comparators.
The Union representing the Mason County
Deputy Sheriffs
went
to interest arbitration in 1999 before arbitrator Michael
Beck.
In that dispute, the parties stipulated to the same four
counties
that are agreed should be on the list of comparators in
the
case at bar. The County proposed Jefferson and the Union
proposed
arbitration.
Arbitrator Beck selected
county
to be on the list of comparators. However, the Beck
decision
is not strong precedent because the
County in its post-hearing
brief and sought to add two others to
the
list of comparators. Beck rejected the
adopted
comparators
for resolution of the Deputy Sheriffs' dispute.
The initial task of this Arbitrator is to
select a fifth
county
which will comport with the statutory mandate of "like
employers
of similar size on the west coast of the
Since there are an adequate
number of comparators in the state of
sides
recognize the difficulty of identifying a fifth county in
6.western
pointed
out in the parties' respective arguments. The Arbitrator
accepts
the stipulation of the parties and will include the four
agreed-upon
counties on the list of comparators.
B. The
The
conditions
of employment and is of similar size, while
County does not. In unrefuted testimony, three senior correction
officers
testified that the current staffing and inmate population
of
the
work
similar to the
conditions
of work in the