Teamsters, Local 589
And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Sandra Smith Gangle
Date Issued:
Arbitrator: Gangle; Sandra Smith
Case #: 16226-I-02-00377
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
THE
COMMISSION
BEFORE SANDRA SMITH GANGLE, ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Interest
Arbitration )
between )
)
CITY OF
)
Public Employer, )
)
)
OPINION AND AWARD
and )
)
TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 589 )
)
Bargaining Representative. )
)
__________________________________________)
Hearing Conducted:
Representing the Employer: Michael
and Bette Meglemre
Representing the
DAVIES,
ROBERTS & REID
Arbitration
and Mediation
Arbitrator: Sandra
Smith Gangle, J.D.
*SANDRA
SMITH GANGLE, P.C.
Date of Decision:
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I . BACKGROUND............................................................................................3
II. RELEVANT STATUTORY
PROVISIONS.................................................5
III. STATEMENT OF
FACTS.............................................................................7
IV. RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR
AWARD..................... ...............................11
V. DETERMINING THE
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS.....................13
VI . THE
ISSUES.................................................................................................19
VII. WAGES...........................................................................................................20
VIII. CALLBACK....................................................................................................24
IX. DETECTIVE
PREMIUM...............................................................................26
X . RESERVE
OFFICERS.................................................................................27
XI . AWARD............................................................................................................30
I. BACKGROUND
This matter comes before the arbitrator pursuant to the
Employees’ Collective
Bargaining Act, RCW Chapter 41.56 (“the Act”). The public
policy of the State of
personnel from engaging in a
strike to settle a labor dispute with a public employer.
RCW 41.56.430. When the
process of collective bargaining between the parties reaches
impasse, the Act provides that
the disputed issues, as certified by the Executive Director
of the Public Employment
Relations Commission (“PERC”), will be resolved through
interest arbitration. RCW
41.56.450.
Teamsters Local No. 589 (“the
of the Police Officers
employed by the City of
Employer”). The parties began
bargaining for a successor contract to their January 1,
1998 -
reached impasse and requested
mediation. Then, when they were unable to resolve the
impasse with the help of a
State mediator, the following issues were certified for interest
arbitration by Order of Marvin
L. Schurke, Executive Director of PERC, on February 1
1,
2002: (1) Wages for 2001, 2002
and 2003; (2) Detective Pay; (3) Call-Back; and (4)
Reserve Officer Working
Language.
The parties mutually’selected
Sandra Smith Gangle, J.D., of
through PERC appointment.procedures and pursuant to RCW 41.56.450 and
WAC 391-
55-210, as the neutral
arbitrator who would conduct a hearing and render a decision in the
matter. The parties waived the
appointment of partisan arbitrators, electing to proceed
with Arbitrator Gangle as sole interest arbitrator.
A hearing was conducted on
City Hall in
represented by their
respective representatives throughout the hearing. The City was
represented by Michael and
Bette Meglemre, of the labor relations firm of
Public Employers,
McCarthy, Attorney at Law, of
the Seattle law firm of Davies, Roberts & Reid.
The parties were each afforded a full and fair
opportunity to present testimony
and documentary evidence in
support of their respective positions. A record was
produced, consisting of three
volumes of Union documentary exhibits (Economic
Exhibits A through GG,
Negotiations Exhibits 1-1 5 , and collective bargaining
agreements from 29
Exhibits 1 through 23 and
labor contracts from the City’s ten proposed comparables).2
The parties also offered as
joint exhibits copies of the last four collective bargaining
agreements between the City of
________________________________
1 Union Exhibits are referenced herein
as U-Econ-# and U-Neg-#.
2 City Exhibits are referenced herein
as C-#.
All witnesses who appeared at the hearing,
including the parties’ representatives,
were sworn by the arbitrator
and were subject to cross-examination by the opposing
party. The City’s witnesses
were Michael Meglemre, Labor Relations Negotiator;
Donna
Bjorkman,
City Finance Director; Jeff Doran, Police Chief; and Deanna Kingery,
Human
Resources Analyst. The
Bush, Secretary-Treasurer,
Local 589; Dan La France, Police Officer; and Roger
Brubaker, Police Officer.
The arbitrator tape-recorded the testimony of all
witnesses as an adjunct to her
personal notes. It was agreed
that the arbitrator’s tapes were not an official record of the
hearing. They are the
arbitrator’s private property and are not subject to subpoena by any
party. The City assigned a
clerical employee to tape-record the hearing and those tapes
will be preserved by the parties
as the official taped record of the hearing.
Written briefs of final argument were submitted by both
parties on August 23,
2001, pursuant to their mutual
agreement. Upon receipt of the parties’ briefs, the
arbitrator officially closed
the hearing and took the matter under advisement.
The arbitrator has considered all of the testimony and
evidence that the parties
offered at the hearing. She
has weighed all the evidence, in the context of the legislative
purpose set forth in RCW 41
56.430 and the relevant factors established in RCW
41 56.465. She has carefully
considered the argument of both parties in reaching her
findings and conclusions.
II. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
RCW
41.56.030. Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) “Public Employer’’ means any officer,
board, commission, council, or other person or
body acting on behalf of any public body
governed by this chapter, or any subdivision of
such public body * * * * *
(2) “Public employee” means any employee of a
public employer except any person (a)
elected by popular vote, or
(b) appointed to office pursuant to statute, ordinance or
resolution * * * or (c) whose
duties as deputy, administrative assistant or secretary
necessarily imply a
confidential relationship * * * or (d) who is a court commissioner or a
court magistrate * * * or (e)
who is a personal assistant to a * * *judge * * * or (f)
excluded from a bargaining
unit under RCW 41.56.201(2)(a). * * * *
(3) “Bargaining representative’’ means any
lawful organization which has as one of its
primary purposes the representation of
employees in their employment relations with
employers.
(4) “Collective bargaining” means the
performance of the mutual obligations of the
public employer and the
exclusive bargaining representative to meet at reasonable times, to confer and
negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written agreement with respect to
grievance procedures and collective negotiations on personnel matters,
including wages, hours and working conditions, which may be peculiar to an
appropriate bargaining unit of such public employer, except that by such
obligation neither party shall be compelled to agree to a proposal or be
required to make a concession unless otherwise provided in this chapter.
*****
(7) “Uniformed personnel” means: (a) Law
enforcement officers as defined in RCW
41.26.030 employed by the governing body of
any city or town with a population of two
thousand five hundred or more * * * * *.
RCW
41.56.430. Uniformed personnel-Legislative declaration.
The intent and purpose of chapter 13 1, Laws
of 1973 is to recognize that there exists a
public policy of the state of
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
Washington; that to promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should exist an effective
and adequate alternative means of settling disputes.
RCW
41.56.450. Uniformed personnel-Interest arbitration panel-Powers
and
duties-Hearings-Findings and determination.
* * * * * The issues for determination by the
arbitration panel shall be limited to the
issues certified by the executive
director. * * * * * [T]he fees and expenses of the neutral
[arbitrator] shall be shared
equally between the parties. * * * * * [Within thirty days
following conclusion of the
hearing, the neutral [arbitrator] shall make findings of fact
and a written determination of
the issues in dispute, based on the evidence presented. A
copy thereof shall be served
on the Commission, * * * * * and on each of the parties to
the dispute. That
determination shall be final and binding on both parties, subject to
review by the superior court
upon the application of either party solely on the question of
whether the decision of the
[arbitrator] was arbitrary or capricious.
RCW 41.56.465. Uniformed personnel--Interest arbitration panel-
Determinations-Factors to be considered.
(1) In making its determination, the
[arbitrator] 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, [she] 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;
(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, * * * consideration must also be given to
regional differences in the
cost of living.
III.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The following facts are undisputed by the parties:
The City of Poulsbo is located in Kitsap County,
Washington, on the western
shores of
management is organized in
several departments, one of which is the Police Department.
The Police Chief, who is
appointed as Director of the Department, is responsible for day-
to-day operations. At the time
of the hearing herein, there were twelve officers and three
sergeants in the police
bargaining unit.
The City has constitutional and statutory authority to
employ the police officers
and sergeants who provide law
enforcement officer services to the City. The officers are
represented by Teamsters Local
589 and the unit has enjoyed a stable and cordial
bargaining relationship with
the City for many years, at least as far back as the 1980’s.
This is the parties’ first
interest arbitration.
In bargaining for their past two labor contracts, in 1994
and 1998 respectively, the
parties relied on a list of
eight cities that the City had used in conducting its own police.wage
surveys as the list of jurisdictions that would be considered comparable to
Poulsbo.
Those cities were the
following: Chehalis,
When the parties began negotiating for a successor to
their 1998-2000 agreement,
in October of 2000, the City’s
chief negotiator, Michael Meglemre, proposed that
they
collaborate in gathering and
looking at a number of labor contracts of police bargaining
units in small western
population estimates at the
time were close to the population estimate for Poulsbo,
according to a list prepared
by the State of
(OFM) that showed such
estimates as of
considering the five cities
that were listed immediately above Poulsbo and the five cities
immediately below Poulsbo,
excepting Steilacoom, which did not have a separate police
bargaining unit. Exhibit C-l ;
U-Neg-9. Those cities, and the population estimates that
were available at the time,
according to OFM, were as follows:
Port Orchard 7,270
Chehalis 7,020
Poulsbo 6,500
Brier 6,365
Fircrest 5,955
The
would be the “comparables”
that the parties would use throughout the bargaining for their
new contract.3 The
collective bargaining
agreements from those ten cities and using the agreements for
discussion purposes during
their bargaining sessions. Also, there is no evidence that the
Union bargainers suggested
adding the police labor contracts of Arlington, Monroe,
Ferndale or Fife, or any other
cities, to the mix of agreements that would be studied.
______________
3 No written memorandum was signed by
the parties evidencing that they had “TA’d” the list
of proposed comparables,
though such writings were produced with respect to other agreements that the
parties reached during bargaining. See, e.g., Exhibit C-23, p. 4,6,7.
The parties had four negotiating sessions, for a total of
approximately sixteen
hours of bargaining. During
those negotiations, they reached tentative agreements (TA’s)
on approximately four issues,
including a Union Security clause. See Exhibit U-Neg-2,
C-23. Meanwhile, as the labor
contracts were gathered from other cities, Mr. Meglemre
prepared documents that
summarized the provisions of those agreements, on each of the
issues in dispute. See Exhibit
C-5; U-Neg-11 (except cover page, which was added at the
mediation stage). He shared
those documents with his Union counterpart, Doug Bush, as
he prepared them. There is no
evidence Mr. Bush raised any objection to the summaries.
Upon reaching impasse after
four meetings, the parties proceeded to mediation on
February 9, 2001. Paul Schwendiman was the assigned mediator. At the first
mediation
session, the City relied on
the same ten cities it had proposed during bargaining as the
jurisdictions that should be
considered “comparables” to Poulsbo. Mr. Meglemre
submitted the documents he had
prepared during bargaining to the mediator, with a cover
page attached that referred to
them as “Joint Labor-Management Position Papers”. See
Exhibit C-5; U-Neg-l l. The Union objected strenuously to the City’s
proposed list of
cities and denied that the
position papers were “joint” documents. The Union relied on
the following list of ten
“comparable” cities, which it considered more appropriate, based
on factors of population and
revenue:
Harbor,