IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 17497-1-03-0403
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
) AND AWARD
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2597, ) 2003-2005
)
Union, ) COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
) AGREEMENT
and )
)
SNOHOMISH COUNTY )
PAINE FIELD AIRPORT, )
)
Employer. )
_____________________________________)
HEARING SITE: Fleet Management Center
Everett, Washington
HEARING DATES: December 8-9, 2004
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked February 8, 2005
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS: February 12,2005
REPRESENTING THE UNION: W. Mitchell Cogdill
COGDILL NICHOLS REIN WARTELLE
Thirty-Two Square
3232 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201-4398
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER: Thomas E. Platt
PERKINS COlE
1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98101
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary L. Axon
P.O. Box 190
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-1573
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II . Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
III . Issues in Dispute . . . . . . . . . . 18
Issue l- Wages . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Issue 2 - Medical Insurance . . . . . 35
Issue 3 - Vacation . . . . . . . . . . 48
Issue 4 - Management Rights . . . . . 52
1. INTRODUCTION
The International Association of Firefighters, Local 2597 (Union)
and Snohomish County, Washington, Paine Field Airport (Employer or
Airport) are signatories to a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective January
1, 2000 through December 31, 2002. The 2000-2002 agreement continued in effect
during the negotiations for a successor agreement. The parties were unable to
resolve all of the issues in dispute through negotiation and mediation.
In a letter dated May 8, 2003, Marvin L. Schurke, Executive
Director, Public Employment Relations Commission, certified for interest
arbitration as provided in RCW 41 56.450 twelve issues as follows:
Article 4.1 Protection of Rights
Article 8 Vacation
Article 13.2 Health Insurance
Article 18.1 Miscellaneous Provisions
Appendix A A.1 - 2003 Salary Schedule
A.2 - 2004 and 2005 Salary Schedule
A.4 - Deferred Compensation
A.5 - Longevity
Appendix B Educational Certification Incentives
B.1 - Educational Incentive Pay
B.2 - Stipend Pay
B.3 - EMT Stipend
The interest arbitration case was scheduled for hearing before this
Arbitrator for a final and binding resolution.
Prior to the arbitration hearing, the Employer filed an unfairlabor practice
(ULP) charge against the Union alleging that the Union's proposal on a deferred
compensation program was a permissive subject of bargaining. The ULP charge was
filed on September 4, 2003 with the Public Employment Relations Commission.
Executive Director Schurke issued a preliminary ruling suspending the interest
arbitration proceedings on September 18, 2003. Er. Ex. B. By letter dated February 20,
2004, the Union unconditionally withdrew from consideration in interest arbitration its
deferred compensation proposal. The Employer also withdrew its proposal concerning
Article 18.1, Miscellaneous Provisions. This left four issues to be submitted to the
Arbitrator for resolution.
Paine Field is an employer-owned and run airport. Paine Field is located
in Snohomish County, southwest of Everett, east of Mukilteo, and west-northwest of
Snohomish King County Fire Protection District No. 1. Paine Field is a self-sustaining
entrepreneurial, government-regulated operation owned entirely by Snohomish County.
The Airport fire department is totally funded by Airport revenue sources. There are no
local or state taxes supporting the Airport fire department or the Airport enterprise fund.
The Airport has no taxing authority. All expenses and programs at the Airport are
dependent on Airport-generated revenue.
The Airport fire department is small. It has six paid firefighters, plus four
captains, two firefighter mechanics, and one public safety manager. There are currently
eleven employees represented by the Union, as one position is vacant.
The primary mission of the Airport fire department is aircraft rescue and
firefighting. Structural response, emergency medical services, Airport security, building
inspections and runway safety checks are also performed. Firefighters are trained to
provide a minimum level of first aid, and nine of the firefighters are certified as
Emergency Medical Technicians. Firefighter suppression personnel work a four-platoon
system. The schedule is 24 hours on, 48 hours off, 24 hours on, 96 hours off. This
equates to a 2,190-hour work year, or 42.1 hours per week. The labor agreement
provides for a 48-hour workweek, which is accomplished by scheduling 13 "debit days"
for firefighters throughout the year.
Paine Field is 2.5 square miles in geographical size and has an assessed
valuation not counting the 568 fixed aircraft on the premises of $366 million.
Approximately 200 people live on the Airport property full time.
The FAA has designated Paine Field as a reliever airport. If planes
cannot fly into Sea-Tac, they are able to land at Paine Field. There are approximately
400 hangars located on the site. General aviation planes are housed in these hangars
and on the field. There are approximately 50 businesses that employ 3,250 employees,
which service the aviation industry at Paine Field.
Paine Field is located adjacent to Boeing's Everett plant. Large military
transports, as well as 747s, 757s, 737s, 727s, take off and land at Paine Field. Paine
Field firefighters do not provide fire protection for the Boeing facility. When Boeing
aircraft are on the Paine Field runways, they are the responsibility of Paine Field
firefighters.
Because the primary mission of the fire department is aircraft rescue and
firefighting, firefighters are strictly confined to the Airport property, except in a rare
emergency. Bargaining unit members also provide fire and building code inspections
and security checks on the Airport property. Paine Field firefighters are trained in the
normal skills required of firefighters in the state of Washington. In addition, Paine Field
firefighters are trained in the specialty areas relating to Airport firefighting, NFPA
standards, and ARFF standards.
Negotiations for a successor to the 2000-2002 labor contract have been
long and difficult. As of the date of the arbitration hearing, 28 months had passed since
bargaining began on the new contract. Labor Relations Consultant, Cabot Dow, led the
Employer's negotiating team. Captain Dennis Hill was the lead negotiator for the Union.
The parties met in traditional bilateral negotiations seven times before
impasse was declared on November 21, 2002. Even with the help of a mediator, the
parties were unable to reach a final agreement. The last mediation session was held on
April 9, 2003.
A major stumbling block in these negotiations was the medical insurance
plan. The Airport firefighters have enjoyed the Employer's low co-pay, 100% County
paid health insurance for firefighters and dependents for several years. The Employer
proposed to modify the insurance plan, which would increase the co-pays and require a
firefighter contribution to the health insurance plan. The Union rejected this proposal
and would continue the current 100% contribution by the Employer toward the health
insurance plan for firefighters and dependents.
At the commencement of the arbitration hearing, a major dispute arose
over the comparables to be used as a guide for the Arbitrator in formulating the Award
on the issues submitted. Prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties had traditionally
used Snohomish No. I, Snohomish No. 7, Snohomish No. 12, Edmonds, Lynnwood,
and Mount Lake Terrace as comparables. The Employer proposed a new list of
comparables, which would increase the number of jurisdictions to compare Paine Field
with to ten. The list included new comparators and deleted some from those
traditionally used by the parties in bargaining. The Employer's new list of comparators
generated a considerable amount of conflict at the hearing, which resulted in extensive
testimony and evidence regarding the comparability issue. The Arbitrator will discuss
this dispute in greater detail in the comparability section of this Award.
Moreover, the parties also disagreed over the methodology and means by
which to compare wages and contract benefits of Paine Field firefighters with their
counterparts in other jurisdictions. Both parties challenged the accuracy of the
calculations made by the other side in costing proposals and computing the wages and
benefits enjoyed by firefighters in other jurisdictions.
The hearing in this case required two days for each side to present their
evidence and testimony. The hearing was recorded by a court reporter and transcripts
were made available to the parties for use in preparation of post-hearing briefs and to
the Arbitrator for the development of the Award. 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 Union and the Employer provided the Arbitrator with substantial written
documentation in support of their respective positions on the four issues.
The parties also submitted comprehensive and detailed post-hearing
briefs in further support of their positions taken at arbitration. The approach of the
Arbitrator in writing this Award will be to summarize the major, most persuasive
evidence, and arguments presented by the parties on the four issues. After the
introduction of the issues and the positions of the parties, I will state the basic findings
and reasoning which caused your Arbitrator to make an Award on the issues.
This Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and evaluated all of the evidence
and argument submitted pursuant to the statutory criteria. 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, testimony, and
argument 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, as follows:
41.56.465 Uniformed personnel-Interest arbitration
panel-Determinations-Factors to be considered.
(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 and the extensive arguments in this
case, the parties waived the thirty (30) day period an arbitrator would normally have to
publish an interest arbitration award under the statute.
II. COMPARABILITY
A. The Employer
The Employer offered the following nine fire districts and cities that it
believed were appropriate comparables in this proceeding:
Similar Size No. of
Fire Departments LEOFF Personnel
Paine Field 12
Spokane Airport 11
Kitsap 10 22
Snohomish 4 18
City of Mukilteo 15
Pierce 16 17
Kitsap 2 12
King 45 10
City of Oak Harbor 8
Snohomish 17 6
Personnel Average 14
The Employer contends that the chosen comparables are based on the
criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.465. According to the Employer, the Airport properly
applied the statutory requirements for comparable fire departments--the likeness to the
Airport fire department as a public fire department--and size similar to the Airport fire
department. The Employer established its comparators measured by the number of
paid personnel in the range of the number of firefighters employed by the Airport. The
Employer acknowledged that it would not be instructive in this case to make
comparisons to other fire departments based upon resident population and assessed
valuation due to the unique nature of the Airport fire department.
A review of the Airport's comparators reveals that the range in size is from
8 (33% below its 12 uniformed personnel) to 22 (100% or two times larger than the
Airport's 11 uniformed personnel).
Moreover, the Employer used geography as a criterion for screening the
comparators by selecting small fire departments in the Puget Sound area. Using this
screening, Negotiator Dow selected small fire departments serving resident populations
in the nearby counties of King, Kitsap, Island, Skagit, and Pierce, as well as Snohomish
County. The Airport eliminated rural, eastern Washington, non Puget Sound area
counties from its list of comparators.
The Employer submits the core sample of its comparators is a well-
balanced group of fire departments of similar size, the selection of which is consistent
with statutory, judicial and arbitral direction, common sense and objectivity. There is a
balance in size in that the average number of paid firefighter personnel is 14, compared
to 12 at Paine Field. Eight of the fire departments selected are located within the
economic sphere of influence of the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton area as designated by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics for CPI purposes.
The Employer attacks the Union's position on comparables as
fundamentally flawed in three respects. First, the Union mistakenly argues that its
interpretation of bargaining history should establish the comparables. According to the
Employer, the Union is seeking to prove from the bargaining sessions that there was an
agreement on comparables. The Employer rejects the notion that there was an
agreement on comparables. During negotiations, Dow advised the Union in writing that
the Airport reserved the right to go outside Snohomish County to find fire departments
of similar size, in accordance with the statute. The Employer submits Dow's memo to
the Union constituted an express disagreement with the Union's comparables.
Second, the Union takes the position that the similar size directive in the
statute should be ignored by the Arbitrator and he should be limited to fire departments
it claims the Airport agreed to in negotiations. According to the Employer, to adopt this
approach would have the Arbitrator ignore the fact that the Airport's fire department is a
small fire department. The Union would have the Arbitrator re-write the interest
arbitration statute to limit comparisons to fire departments of a much larger size.
Third, the Employer contends the Union invoked the wrong statutory
language to select its own comparators. The Union uses the term "employer size" from
the part of the statute that applies to law enforcement officers rather than "similar size"
from the part of the statute applicable to firefighters.
The Arbitrator should reject the temptation to superimpose the non-
statutory approach to comparables sought by the Union. The Employer gave the Union
plenty of notice during negotiations and in the mediation process that they would follow
the directive of the statute and guidelines historically established by arbitrators. The
Union has failed to do this by detouring around fire departments more similar in size to a
results-oriented selection limited to appreciably larger fire departments confined
exclusively to Snohomish County. The Employer submits the Union has gone way
beyond the pale in selecting comparators that are much larger than the Airport fire
department, and are in no way similar in size.
Based on all of the above-stated reasons, the Arbitrator should reject the
Union's proposed comparators and adopt the list submitted by the Employer as the
benchmark for establishing wages and working conditions for Airport firefighters.
B. The Union
The Union proposes to use the comparators that have guided the parties
over the past several contract negotiations. The six fire departments relied on by the
Union are as follows:
Snohomish No. 1
Snohomish No. 7
Snohomish No. 12
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Mount Lake Terrace
The Union did consider that while its bargaining unit members are
employed at a reliever airport, the County of Snohomish is the actual employer. It is
significant that the labor market area of Paine Field is the Everett/Lynnwood/Snohomish
County/l-5 corridor where the Union members not only work but also live. The
firefighters in every sense of the word including training and specialty knowledge are
urban/industrial firefighters.
In arriving at its appropriate comparables in this case, the Union relies
primarily on the Union and Employer's use of historical cornparables in contract
negotiations over the last several years. At no time during negotiations before
mediation, did the Employer propose comparables other than the historical
comparables. Only in mediation, for the very first time, did the Employer propose
modification of the historical comparables. For years the Employer recognized the size
component between Paine Field and the other traditional comparators has not always
matched. The parties have known this over a period of years and still used the historical
comparables. Arbitrators have almost uniformly held that a standing practice of using a
particular set of comparables in bargaining will cause the arbitrator to find these
comparable departments as appropriate for the purpose of interest arbitration.
At the outset of bargaining for this contract, the Union presented the same
comparables that had been historically used by the parties. Prior to mediation,
Negotiator Dow did not advance any comparables to the Union different than the
historical comparables. At the arbitration hearing, the Employer abandoned the
comparables historically used by the Union and the Employer, and even added to the
list in a transparent way. The Spokane Airport clearly is not in the Paine Field labor
market. Oak Harbor, Pier 16, Kitsap I0, Kingston, Kitsap 2, King 45, and Snohomish 17
have a substantial number of volunteers as part of their departments. The number of
volunteers utilized by these new fire departments provides a full complement of
firefighters to fight major fires. Three of the departments do not run 24-hour shifts for all
personnel. Granite Falls is only into its second contract and Oak Harbor is in its first
contract. The International Association of Firefighters does not represent Oak Harbor.
The Arbitrator should reject these new Employer-proposed comparables. They are so
dissimilar to Paine Field that they should not be considered.
The Arbitrator should view the interest arbitration process as a
continuation of the collective bargaining format created by the statute. The Arbitrator
should hold the bargaining history of these parties as the grounds for appropriate
comparables in this case. For the parties to suddenly veer in the continuation of the
bargaining process, as interest arbitration is, from the use of the historical comparables,
is not the intended consequence of interest arbitration. The parties have made their
proposals in bargaining based on the historical comparables. To change the
comparables, changes the posture of the parties, if as here, a lower wage and benefit
picture is created with the new comparables. To allow this would set bargaining on its
head and surely not lead to agreements. The Arbitrator should adopt the traditional
comparators used by the parties in bargaining for previous contracts to serve as an aid
in resolving this dispute.
C. Discussion and Findings
The Employer submitted a list of nine fire departments, which it
considered of comparable size to the Airport fire department. The Union presented the
six fire departments that have been traditionally used with which to compare Paine Field
firefighters. There are no common jurisdictions included on the lists provided the
Arbitrator. The failure of the parties to reach any agreement regarding jurisdictions with
which Paine Field should be compared is contrary to the legislative purpose of providing
"an effective and adequate alternative means of settling disputes." RCW 41 56.430.
There was some dispute over whether the parties had stipulated to the
use of the historical comparators for the interest arbitration. The Union does not argue
that there was an agreement between the parties to use the six historical comparators.
The Union does not argue that the parties agreed to use the historical comparators in
this interest arbitration. The record shows that for several years the parties have used a
group of comparators that each has relied upon in establishing wage and benefit rates
for the members of this bargaining unit. The use of the same group of comparators
existed for the three contracts predating October 1999. The record shows that the
historical comparators were used for bargaining of the predecessor contract to the one
in dispute before this Arbitrator. At the outset of bargaining for the 2003-2005 contract,
the parties utilized the historical comparators as the basis for bargaining.
During mediation, Employer Negotiator Dow indicated that the Employer
wanted to eliminate Snohomish 1 and Mount Lake Terrace from the historical mix
because the departments were too big with 132 bargaining unit members. The
Employer offered for discussion a new list of comparators during mediation. At interest
arbitration, the Employer introduced a different list of proposed comparators.
When the lack of any common fire departments from the parties' two lists
of comparables is combined with the unique mission of this fire department, I conclude
that a rigid application of the statutory standards would not serve the parties well in the
resolution of this contract dispute. RCW 41.56.465(1) counsels interest arbitrators to
use the statutory factors as "guidelines to aid in reaching a decision" in developing an
award on a contract dispute. The Employer's staunch adherence to the size of the fire
department as the exclusive determiner of like fire departments ignores the fact that
other elements may give insight into the meaning of a "like" public fire department.
Further, the Employer's narrow reading of the statutory reference to like fire
departments runs counter to the stated legislative purpose of utilizing the statutory
factors as "guidelines to aid" in reaching a decision. The statute instructs interest
arbitrators to be mindful of the statutory purpose and factors, not to be shackled by
them in the development of an award.
Moreover, the "other factors" section specifically acknowledges there are
additional elements, which may be taken into consideration in the "determination of
wages, hours, and conditions of employment." Arbitral authority has long recognized
that geographic proximity, similar labor markets, and bargaining history may play an
important role in determining which employers shall be considered comparable. The
primary mission of the Airport fire department is aircraft rescue and firefighting. Er. Ex.
B. With the exception of the Spokane Airport fire department, the Arbitrator can safely
conclude that none of the proposed fire department comparables has as their stated
primary mission, aircraft rescue and firefighting. While it is true the Airport firefighters
perform many of the same functions as other firefighters, the members of this
bargaining unit are specially trained and certified in aircraft rescue and firefighting.
The Arbitrator concurs with the Union that even though this fire
department is small, it should be viewed as an urban and industrial fire department.
Present at Paine Field are several large employers who perform aircraft maintenance
work on airplanes. Paine Field is located in the heart of the Everett urban area along
the 1-5 corridor. Firefighters provide fire protection services for large planes landing and
departing from the Everett Boeing plant, in addition to general aviation traffic. As
previousty stated, there are not many fire departments where their firefighters provide
aircraft rescue and fire protection service for 747s and other large aircraft on a normal
and routine basis.
The parties also recognize that due to the fact this fire department stands
alone in its characteristics, making comparisons based on resident population and
assessed valuation is not helpful. The Employer in this case is Snohomish County.
However, Paine Field operates as an enterprise funded by on-Airport charges. No local
or state taxes support the Airport fire department. Unlike fire departments that are
funded out of tax revenues, all of the expenses and programs of the Airport are
dependent on Airport-generated revenues.
The Airport fire department is part of a countywide mutual aid agreement.
Paine Field is surrounded by three fire departments. They are the City of Everett,
Mulkiteo and Snohomish 1.
I concur with the Union that the interest arbitration process should be
viewed as a continuation of the collective bargaining process under the statute. For
many years the parties have used historical comparators as an aid to determine wages
and benefits for this group of employees. During the negotiations for this Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the historical comparators were used for the purpose of
justifying proposals made by the Employer. Later, in mediation, the Employer
presented a list of comparator fire departments, which included ten Snohomish County
fire departments. Four of the six traditional comparators were included in the list
discussed during mediation.
At the commencement of the interest arbitration hearing, the Employer
presented an entirely new list of nine comparators, none of which were the historical
comparators used by the parties in this and prior negotiations. I find the Employer's
reliance on historical comparators during negotiations, ten fire departments in
mediation, and then at interest arbitration, offering a totally new set of comparables
involving nine fire departments, to be contrary to the intended purpose of interest
arbitration. The parties developed their proposals and discussed counterproposals
during negotiation based on the historical comparables. In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, the adoption of the Employer's proposal of an entirely new list of fire
departments as comparators in interest arbitration does not serve either the parties or
the process well. While the Employer did reserve the right to go outside Snohomish
County to identify fire departments of similar size in interest arbitration, I conclude the
substitution of an entirely new list of comparators is not an appropriate guideline, to
assist in the resolution of this contract dispute.
The parties have previously used the historical comparators even though
they knew the jurisdictions have not always matched the size component set forth in the
statute. RCW 41.56.465 does not preclude taking into account other factors in
establishing fire departments with which to compare Paine Field firefighters. The
historical comparators are within close proximity to Paine Field and within the local labor
market. Firefighters live in the community surrounding Paine Field.
Based on the unique mission of the Paine Field fire department and the
longstanding use of the historical Comparators, the Arbitrator adopts the Union’s
proposed comparators as a guideline for the resolution of the 2003-2005, contract
dispute. Although I have adopted the historical comparators for the purpose of
deciding the 2003-2005, contract dispute, no inference should be drawn that the
historical comparators are untouchable.
III. ISSUES IN DISPUTE
ISSUE 1 -WAGES
A. Background
The wage issue consists of five related topics. The subjects of general
wage increases, longevity pay, education premium, specialty pay, and EMT premium
are included in this section of the Award. The Union seeks to add three new
compensation elements to the wage schedule. They are longevity pay, education
premium, and a specialty pay premium. The Union would also modify the EMT pay by
changing the method and amount of pay from its current $90 per month to 2% of the top
step firefighters' base wage. The Arbitrator will address the five issues separately in the
Discussion and Findings section of Issue 1.
B. The Union
The wage increase proposed by the Union is a 1.5% increase in base pay,
plus 90% of the CPI-W, for a 2.85% total overall increase for 2003. For 2004, the Union
is proposing 90% of the CPI-W on the base for the second year of the contract, which
equals a .81% increase. For 2005, the Union proposed 90% of the CPI-W on the base
for 2005 or 2.25%. See Attachments A, B and C (Exhibits 8, 9 and 10). In addition, the
Union would add a longevity step at 5 years of 1% of the top step firefighter, at 10
years, 2.25% of the top step firefighter, at 15 years, 3.5% of the top step firefighter, at
20 years, 4.5% of the top step firefighter, and at 25 years, 5% of the top step firefighter.
The Union sees the longevity steps as a reward to firefighters for seniority and loyalty to
the department. All of the historical comparables had a longevity premium for 2004 and
most of them had a longevity premium in 2003. Longevity pay is an appropriate
recognition and reward for good service and training. Longevity pay also serves as a
method to retaining long-term firefighters.
The Union presented to the Arbitrator a "Total Hourly Wage Comparisons"
of the compensation paid to firefighters in the comparator groups. Un. Ex. (2.14, C.12,
and C.13. In computing the total compensation, the Union included not only annual
wage, but other items including the cost of medical insurance for the most expensive
plan, the cost of dental, vision and disability, life insurance, and the value of the EMT
stipend, longevity, fitness, inspection stipend, Hazmat stipend, and other pay, deferred
compensation and educational incentives. By adding the above-derived wage total, a
monthly amount was computed by dividing the total by 12 months. The hours worked
are determined from the comparator contracts. The hours are displayed by hours per
week, as well as annual hours, less Kelly Days, vacation days, holiday and sick leave,
to arrive at net hours. The net hours were then divided into the total wage to obtain a
net hourly wage. Using the traditional comparators, a IO-year Paine Field firefighter in
2002 had a net total hourly wage of $32.33, as compared to $37.17, for the average
comparables. For 2003, the difference for a 10-year firefighter was $32.90 at Paine
Field compared to $38.89 in the comparators. For 2004, the IO-year firefighter was
paid $32.90 versus an average of $41.16 in the comparators. In percentage terms for
2003, the IO-year firefighter is 18.21% behind the traditional comparable firefighters,
and 25.39% behind for 2004. The Union submits in light of the comparators its proposal
is reasonable and should be adopted.
Regarding the Employer's wage proposal, the Union alleges it is illusory.
The Employer's wage proposal is no increase for 2003, a 2.2% increase for 2004
commencing January 1, 2004, and a 2.25% increase effective January 1, 2005. The
main difference between the Employers and the Union's proposals is retroactivity for
2003. The Union's proposal on the base wages for a 5.9% increase over the three
years, compared to a 4.45% increase on the base proposed by the Employer shows the
Union's proposal is reasonable and justified.
The primary difference between the funding of the two proposals is that
the Employer wants to fund its proposal on the backs of the firefighters by saving money
for the Employer in medical insurance costs, through redesign, while increasing for the
firefighters the cost of medical insurance. On cross-examination, Employer Negotiator
Dow admitted the Employer's medical proposal would cause a firefighter at Paine Field
to pay a total of $196 per month to cover a spouse and two dependents under the
Regence Selections Option. In the view of the Union, what the Employer really wants to
do is take the money saved on the medical plan in 2004 and give it as a wage increase,
thus netting the Employer out at the status quo. There is no equity or reasonableness
in the Employer's proposal.
The Employer has the money to pay for all of the demands of the Union.
Union Exhibit C.5 contains in graphic detail the dollar cost difference between the
Union's proposal and the Employer's offer. Using the cost figures provided to the Union
by the Employer before this arbitration, the cost difference was $132,603 between the
two proposals. In the post-hearing brief, the Union recalculated its graphic on total cost
of the proposals to include the revised figures provided by the Employer at arbitration.
The Union concluded the difference between the Union's proposed cost and the
Employer's was $113,687. The Union submits the real reason the Employer is pursuing
its medical insurance plan is not based on money or ability to pay, but simply a desire to
do as much as possible to leverage the Snohomish County Deputy Sheriffs into a plan
where the County would save substantial revenue from its general fund.
Turning to the issue of education pay, the Union is proposing a 2%
premium based on a top step firefighter for an A.A. degree and a 3% premium based on
a top step firefighter for a B.A. degree. All but two of the historical comparators provide
an education incentive at the A.A. level and all but three of the blended comparators
provide an educational incentive at the B.A. level. The rationale for the educational
incentive is not only found in the comparator jurisdictions, but also in the extra training
required to meet FAA and ARF requirements. Finally, an educational incentive is
another way of providing incentives for well-qualified firefighters to stay at Paine Field.
On the issue of specialty pay, the Union proposes specialty pay for the
Fire Code Inspector based on .5% of the top step firefighter, and 1.5% based on the top
step firefighter for Uniform Fire Code Inspector, certified. While none of the historical
comparators have specialty pay for Fire Code Inspector, none of the comparators
inspect to the degree a Paine Field firefighter does. Paine Field firefighters inspect
buildings, alarm systems, sprinkler systems and will shortly assume the duty of
inspecting some 600 fire extinguishers on the premises. These are routine and
necessary duties for the environment that the firefighters work in to alleviate the danger
presented by defective systems. Thus, the firefighters should be provided premium pay
for code inspections.
The Union proposed the EMT stipend should be changed from the $90 flat
rate per month now paid to 2% of the top step firefighters’ wage. The difference for a 5-
year firefighter would be about $2 a month. The 2% proposed, as opposed to the flat
rate, was to make the methodology of the proposal consistent by percentage of pay.
This is more of a consistency argument than a real money argument.
For all of the above-stated reasons, the Arbitrator should find the Union's
wage proposals are reasonable and fair, and award them in their entirety.
C. The Employer
The Employer begins by asserting that the essence of this case is about a
dispute over basic wages and insurance. According to the Employer, the case is not a
total cost compensation dispute. The parties have voluntarily agreed to each and every
other issue in bargaining, economic and non-economic, except for wages, insurance,
vacations, and management rights. The Employer submits this dispute primarily comes
down to the inability of the parties to agree on an equation that balances the economic
impacts of insurance changes and wage changes. Management is feeling the pain of
the status quo on medical insurance and the employees have had no increase in their
base salary schedule since the present contract expired. The Airport submits this is the
core of the dispute before the Arbitrator.
The Employer is proposing no wage increases for 2003. According to the
Employer, it is not proposing any wage adjustment because of the Union's failure to
consider any medical insurance changes. The increase in costs of insurance items has
risen to nearly the equivalent of a 4% wage increase versus the Union's proposed wage
increase of 2.85% for 2003.
The Employer is proposing a 2.2% increase in base wages, retroactive to
January I, 2004 for the second year of the contract. The 2.2% increase is 90% of the
CPI-W for the period ending June 2002-2003. The Employer's third year proposal
includes a 2.25% increase in base wages retroactive to January I , 2005. See
Attachment D (Er. Brief, p. 40).
The Employer maintains the Arbitrator should reject the Union's "Total
Hourly Wage Comparisons" as evidence to adopt the Union's wage demands.
According to the Employer, the Union has given no explanation whatsoever as to why it
is necessary or appropriate to put some 17 components of compensation into play in
applying the statute in making an award on wages and insurance. The Union offered no
testimony or evidence to explain why the Arbitrator should adopt such a confusing,
misleading, and novel model. The Employer submits there is no justification for
expanding the present dispute to include a host of other economic issues, which are not
only not at issue, but confuse and obscure those items that are at issue.
The Employer has done a traditional analysis of wage comparisons
utilizing base salaries. This format allows the Arbitrator to evaluate the Airport's wage
offer without distortion. The evidence shows that Paine Field firefighters and captains
will be compensated at very competitive levels under the Employer's offer, in
comparison to other Puget Sound area fire departments of similar size. Based on the
Employer's comparators, firefighters would rank sixth out of ten comparators, and
captains would rank fourth out of ten fire departments. Airport Notebook Tab E, p. 5.
The Airport's proposal is also supported by the undisputed fact that smaller fire
departments pay lower wages.
Since 1997, bargaining unit members have received wage increases
substantially ahead of the CPI. The 5-year increase for a firefighter has been 21.6%, or
$816 per month. During that same period, the increase in the captains' rate was 25% or
$1,077 per month. During the term of the 2000 agreement? firefighters' pay rates
increased by 12% and captains' pay rates increased by 15.2%.
The 5-year increase in the CPI has been 18.6%, whereas the increase in
the firefighters' rate has been 21.6%. During the same period, the increase in the
captains' rate has been 25%. The Union makes no mention of this significant factor in
its presentation to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator should find the Airport's proposal keeps
salaries well ahead of CPI trends.
Moreover, adoption of the Employer's proposal would increase base
wages from $55,275 in 2003 to $57,762 in 2005. If EMT pay, holiday pay, and medical
insurance are included, the cumulative increase over the 3-year period is 7.88% for a
firefighter.
The Employer's offer is supported by other traditional factors. In the view
of the Employer, the Airport is an excellent place to work, as measured by great job
security, plenty of opportunities for advancement, very modest workload (a total of 240
calls in each of the last two years), low turnover rate and comprehensive training. The
Employer has been able to retain the services of its firefighters as evidenced by a low
turnover rate. The Employer next argues that the wages for firefighters and captains
compares even more favorably to other fire departments of similar size when their hours
of work are taken into consideration. Paine Field firefighters work 2,496 hours per year.
The average work year of the Employer's comparators is 2,604 hours. Only three of the
comparators had a work schedule with fewer work hours than that of Paine Field
firefighters.
Most of the cost increases associated with the issues before this Arbitrator
are related to wages and insurance. The Employer submits the dispute should be
analyzed as such to avoid needless confusion and misleading conclusions. This is
especially true in a first interest arbitration between the parties. In this case, the parties
are at loggerheads over the proper equation that balances the economic impact of
insurance changes and wage changes.
The methodology used by the Union in this proceeding is flawed, as well
as the Union's non-statutory approach to comparables would leave the parties to sort
through difficult and controversial disputes in future negotiations. The Arbitrator should
find Airport firefighters have been compensated in excess of the CPI historically and will
continue to be so compensated under the Airport's offer.
Regarding the Union's proposal on longevity pay, the Employer submits
there is no need for such pay. The Employer has no difficulty in attracting or retaining
firefighters. Longevity pay is simply not needed to maintain a stable workforce. Half of
the employees in the bargaining unit have more than 10 years of service.
It is also the position of the Employer that promotional opportunities are
available with more years of senior service. Given the relatively small size of the
bargaining unit, there is a small supervisor to employee ratio. Due to the four-platoon
system, which requires four captains for a small bargaining group, there is a significant
opportunity to earn additional wages by moving into the higher rank.
The educational pay proposal should not be adopted. Bargaining unit
members are not required to hold either an A.A. or B.A. degree in any field of study, nor
would work skills necessarily be enhanced by such a degree. Performance of
bargaining unit work is not a function of the employee's level of education. Only one out
of the eleven bargaining unit members would even benefit from the proposed education
incentive pay proposal. The Union has simply failed to prove a need for a new wage
benefit in the form of education incentive pay.
The Employer maintains the speciaIty/certification pay for obtaining certain
certifications appears to be a way that five of the eleven members of the bargaining unit
would receive an additional wage increase ranging from -5% to 1.5%. Airport
firefighters do not need such certifications to do inspections. Although all Paine Field
firefighters do routine inspections and all firefighters in comparable jurisdictions enforce
fire codes and building codes, only one fire department has any kind of extra pay for
being certified to do inspections. Fire code inspections are simply part of a firefighter's
regular job duties. Therefore, the Arbitrator should reject the Union's proposal to add a
new cost to the Employer in the form of premium pay for special certifications.
Turning to the Union's proposal for EMT stipend pay, the Employer
submits it is not supported by comparable fire departments. Adoption of the proposal
would be unjustified and a benefit that is not present among any of the comparables.
Converting a flat dollar stipend to 2% of a top firefighter's wage step is unjustified, as it
will result in added pressure on Airport costs with no corresponding benefit. The EMT
certification is elective with members of the bargaining unit. All but two members of the
bargaining unit have already elected to maintain their EMT certification and are
rewarded in an amount of $90 per month. The Arbitrator should find this proposal
unjustified.
Finally, the Employer's proposal is equitable with what has been agreed to
with other unions representing County employees for 2003 and 2004. The average
wage settlements for five bargaining units were 1.35% in 2003 and 1.29% in 2004. The
2% wage increase for 2004 in corrections was a result of a 90% CPI-W June formula,
with a 2% floor in the contract. The base wage increase proposed by the Employer for
firefighters in 2005 of 2.25% is 90% of the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-W (June).
For all of the above-stated reasons, the Employer concludes the Arbitrator
should award the Airport's proposal on the wage issue.
D. Discussion and Findings
The Arbitrator concurs with the Employer that this case is a fundamental
dispute over wages and insurance. I see no justification for expanding the case to
include a host of some 17 components of comparability to resolve this contract dispute.
The 17 elements used by the Union are not at issue and would require this Arbitrator to
move away from a comparison on base wages to a convoluted and often confusing
comparison offered by the Union. Therefore, I will approach the decision in this case
using a direct wages to wages comparison and a comparison to the range of increases
awarded in the comparator jurisdictions.
1. Salary Schedule
As I have noted in previous interest arbitration awards, the construction of
wage comparisons cannot be done with surgical precision. The record in this case
amply demonstrates this point. The Employer calculated its wage comparison based on
its proposed Comparators, which I rejected. The Union presented historical
comparators by using a total hourly wage comparison that I concluded distorted the
wage picture for the historical comparators. Neither party provided the Arbitrator with a
complete view of the base wages for the traditional comparators.
From what I was able to glean from the exhibits, the 2003 base wages for
the top step firefighters were:
MarysviIle $4,864
Edmonds $4,818
Snohomish 7 $5,104
Lynnwood $4,866
Mount Lake Terrace $5,004
Snohomish 1 $5,004
Average $4,943
Un. Ex. F.13; Un. Ex. 6.8; Un. Ex. C.4.
The wage increases recorded in the historical comparators range from 2.5% to 3% for
2003. The majority of the wage increases agreed to in the comparator group were at
3%. Un. Ex. C.4; Un. Ex. B.8.
Based on the totality of the evidence, I will enter an award granting the
2.85% increase proposed by the Union retroactive to January 1, 2003. The 2.85%
increase fits reasonably within the range of increases agreed to in the traditional group
of comparators. The 2.85% will increase the top step firefighters' pay to $4,737 per
month. While Paine Field firefighters will be at the bottom of the list of comparators in
terms of base wages, this is appropriate given the small size of the Paine Field fire
department when viewed against the larger fire departments. The record is clear that
the wages paid in small fire departments are traditionally less than paid in larger
departments.
The average base wage for a IO-year firefighter in the comparator group
was $4,943 per month for 2003. The top step wage of $4,737 awarded by this
Arbitrator for 2003 is reasonable and competitive with the historical comparator group of
the much larger fire departments. In coming to the award on wages, I have also taken
into account that for the first 30 months of this contract, firefighters have enjoyed 100%
medical, dental, and vision coverage for firefighters and their dependents. All but two of
the firefighters received an additional $90 per month for the EMT certificate.
I rejected the Employer's proposal for a wage freeze in 2003 on two
primary grounds. First, a wage freeze for 2003 would drive the wage gap between
Paine Field firefighters and the historical comparator group to an unacceptable level.
Second, the Arbitrator will respond to the Employer's argument to require employee
participation in the medical insurance plan. During the 28-month delay in moving to
arbitration, the Employer has paid 100% of the medical insurance for firefighters and
their dependents.
Both parties have presented offers to increase the wage for 2005 by 90%
of the CPI-W or 2.25%. The Arbitrator will award a 2.25% increase for 2005. This
leaves open the question of what should be done with the 2004 salary schedule. The
Union proposed a .81% for 2004. The Employer offered a 2.25% increase for 2004,
following its proposed wage freeze for 2003. The Union's .81% proposal for a 2004
increase on base wages was premised, in part, on the longevity proposal, which would
have added another 1% to 1.5% to the salary schedule in the form of longevity pay.
The Arbitrator has rejected the Union's longevity proposal and other premium pay
proposals.
The Employer agreed to a 2% wage increase for 2004 for two of its units
in the corrections department. The 2% increase is moderate when compared to the 3%
increase agreed to by two jurisdictions in the comparator group, and in another fire
department for 100% of the CPI-W plus 1%.
Based on the record evidence, I will enter an award increasing 'the 2004
salary schedule by an additional 2%. The 2% increase applied to the 2003 salary
schedule will move the top paid firefighter to $4,831 per month for 2004.
The Employer's proposed increase on base wages amounted to 4.4%
over the life of the three-year contract. The Union's base wage proposal over the length
of the contract was 5.9%, without the longevity pay. The 2.25% increase awarded for
2005 will elevate the top step firefighter wage $4,940 per month. When the three-year
increase of 7.1 % awarded by the Arbitrator to base wages is coupled with my award to
require medical premium sharing by firefighters, this award strikes a fair balance
between the positions of the parties and what was agreed to on the base wages in the
comparator group during the same 2003-2005 contract period.
Changes in Circumstances During the Pendency of Proceedings
During the 19 months from the date this case was certified for interest
arbitration in May 2003, until the interest arbitration hearing some 19 months later, the
Employer absorbed large increases in the medical insurance plan. Twenty-eight
months have elapsed since the date bargaining started to the date of the arbitration
hearing. The Employer reached settlements with its other bargaining groups, including
two eligible for interest arbitration, all of which included significant levels of premium
sharing and changes in medical insurance plan designs.
________________
The award of a 7.1% increase over the life of this three-year contract is
consistent with the increases recorded in the CPI-W for the same three-year period.
Other Traditional Factors
A host of potential guidelines or suggestions is established by the catchall
of "other factors . . . normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wage, hours, and conditions of employment." RCW 41.56.465( l)(f).
As this case was driven by the comparability factor, the Arbitrator was placed in a
position in which he had to utilize traditional or historical comparators for the purpose of
assisting in formulating this Award. The Arbitrator also kept in mind the issue of internal
comparability in the resolution of this dispute. While the Arbitrator's Award is consistent
with the Employer's treatment of its other employees, I am called upon to publish an
Award that draws its essence from all of the statutory criteria.
The evidence offered by the parties was compelling that the economic
health and vitality of the Paine Field operation is strong. The data is also convincing
that economic and business activity within Paine Field is increasing. Within the
foreseeable future a new hotel and flight center will open, generating additional
business activity for Paine Field. All of the record evidence points to the continued
economic prosperity of Snohomish County's Paine Field.
This is the first interest arbitration between the parties. I concur with the
Employer that modifications in the comparator group need the attention of the parties.
As discussed in the section on comparability, any changes in the selection of a
comparator group are best left to future negotiations.
2. Longevity Pay
I find the Union's proposal to add longevity pay to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement should not become a part of the 2003-2005 contract. While it is
true longevity pay is a part of all of the 2004 contracts in the historical comparators, I
find it would be premature to award this new form of compensation in the 2003-2005
contract. The parties will be negotiating a successor contract in a few months. I have
set the course for change in the way medical insurance is provided by ordering premium
sharing. Longevity pay will be better addressed in the context of future negotiations.
Moreover, I was not convinced there was an immediate need to add
longevity pay to this contract. One-half of the members of the bargaining unit have 10
years or more of service. The record reflects this Employer has no difficulty in attracting
or retaining firefighters. Therefore, I am not convinced longevity pay is needed at this
time in order to maintain the stability of the workforce.
3. EMT Pay
Firefighters with EMT certification currently enjoy a $90 per month stipend.
The EMT certification is elective with the firefighters. Only two of the firefighters do not
receive the $90 premium for EMT certification. I find the Union failed to demonstrate a
need to move from a $90 per month stipend to a formula based on 2% of the top
firefighters' wage to set EMT pay. By using a fixed dollar amount, the parties can easily
determine the value of possessing an EMT certificate. I conclude that the current
contract language should be continued.
4. Educational Incentive Pay
I find the Union failed to prove there was sufficient justification to add a
new benefit in the form of education pay. The Employer as a condition of employment
does not require college degrees. The premium pay for a college degree is not a well-
established benefit in firefighter contracts. Only one firefighter out of the eleven
members of the bargaining unit would benefit by adoption of this proposal. Therefore, I
will not award the Union’s proposal to provide premium pay based on a college degree.
5. Specialty/Certification Pay
The evidence shows firefighters do not need certification to do
inspections. Premium pay for certifications to do inspections is not a benefit enjoyed by
the firefighters in the traditional comparator group. I concur with the Employer’s
assertion fire code inspections are part of the normal and regular duties of a firefighter.
Thus, I will not award the proposal to add a new Specialty/Certification premium pay to
the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
AWARD
Having reviewed all of the evidence and argument I do hereby award as
follows:
1. Effective January 1, 2003, the current salary schedule
shall be adjusted by 2.85%.
2. Effective January 1, 2004, the 2003 salary schedule shall
be increased by 2%.
3. Effective January 1, 2005, the 2004 salary schedule shall
be increased by 2.25%.
4. The Union's proposal to change the method for
calculating EMT premium is rejected, and current contract
language shall be continued.
5. The Union's proposal to add new benefits to the contract
in the form of longevity pay, education premium pay, and
specialtykertification pay are rejected and shall not become
a part of the 2003-2005 contract.
ISSUE 2 - MEDICAL INSURANCE
A. Background
Article 13 of the 2000-2002 Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for
medical, dental, vision, and disability insurance plans. In Article 13.21, the Employer
has agreed to provide and pay the full premiums for the same medical insurance
program for employees and dependents as provided to the Deputy Sheriffs Association
(DSA). The Employer pays the full premium for the disability program for all regular full-
time and regular part-time members of the bargaining unit. The Employer proposed to
delete the language linking this bargaining unit to the DSA, initiate premium sharing,
and change the medical plan design. The Union would continue the status quo.
B. The Employer
The Employer takes the position that the current contract language should
be modified to provide for a more balanced equation and partnership when it comes to
medical insurance utilization, coverage, cost increases, and internal equity. The
Airport’s overall philosophy behind its proposal was stated in the post-hearing brief as
follows:
The context of this dispute should be viewed in light of the
substantial delays the parties have experienced in getting
through negotiations, mediation and now the arbitration
process, creating a unique situation.
* After 28 months of delay in reaching arbitration, the
dispute comes down to the inability of the parties to
agree on an equation that balances the economic
impacts of insurance and wage changes.
* Management is feeling the pain of the long, drawn-out
status quo on medical insurance (where costs have
increased 62.9% in the interim).
* Times have changed and the parties are going to be
back at the bargaining table in less than six months
after this arbitration award is issued to negotiate a
successor contract.
The Airport asks the Arbitrator to establish a new status quo
or base line that will set the table for meaningful labor
negotiations for the next contract. The Airport respectfully
submits that this requires the Arbitrator to address the
interrelated wage and insurance issues that they could not
resolve without his assistance. If these issues are not
resolved, e.g., by an award that would include the retention
of the Most Favored Nation clause, the parties will be back
where they started these fruitless negotiations and/or left
without direction as they await a lengthy delay for an
outcome involving the deputy sheriffs, who are represented
by a different union facing different circumstances and
potential interest arbitration under different statutory
language. This would ill serve these parties, stable labor
relations or the process of good faith negotiations.
The Airport paid loo%, of the medical insurance premiums
for firefighters and their dependents when the County--
historically--was paying 100% of the medical insurance for
all of its employees and their dependents. It also maintained
the same plan designs for all County employees historically,
whether they were affiliated with a labor organization or not.
That is no longer the case. In requesting that the Airport's
firefighters should bear a fair share of escalating insurance
costs, the Employer is seeking no more than it has asked
(and received) from other County employees and their
bargaining representatives.
Er. Brief., pp. 52, 53.
1. Most Favored Nation Clause
The Airport's position is that it no longer makes sense to link coverage and
premium sharing to the DSA. What the Employer termed the Most Favored Nation
clause should be eliminated from the contract. According to the Employer, the linkage
to a wholly different bargaining group is historically anomalous and serves no legitimate
purpose. The Employer submits the medical insurance connection to the DSA contract
36.has actually encouraged the Union to act in derogation of the duty to bargain in good
faith about mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Most Favored Nation clause for
firefighters was consistent with the prior policy of the County when the County paid
100% of the medical insurance for all employees and maintained the same plan designs
for all County employees.
The continuation of the Most Favored Nation clause creates an uneven
playing field, because the Union can elect to avoid putting the escalating costs of health
insurance in play at the bargaining table. The Employer submits the evidence proved
that is exactly what has happened during the 28-month period that started in August
2002 and continued to the day of the interest arbitration held in December 2004.
The Employer argues the Union has utterly avoided bargaining insurance
premium sharing or changes in plan design by hiding behind the Most Favored Nation
clause in the contract. According to the Employer, the firefighters have become
accustomed to taking this provision for granted as an entitlement. Elimination of the
Most Favored Nation clause would encourage bilateral settlements and reduce the need
for interest arbitration, especially where interest arbitration is invoked merely for
strategic advantage. The tactics of the Union in hiding behind the Most Favored Nation
clause is a bad policy and a destabilizing precedent.
There is no support among any of the fire departments whose labor
contracts are in the record for a Most Favored Nation clause. There is no such clause
found in other Snohomish County fire department contracts. For all of these reasons,
the Employer urges the Arbitrator to delete the Most Favored Nation clause from the
2003-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
2. Premium Sharing
The continuing rise in medical costs in this nation is no secret. All of the
other bargaining groups in Snohomish County are already paying approximately 20% of
the medical insurance premium for themselves and their dependents. Only the IAFF
and DSA do not have premium sharing. The Union's comparables show that four out of
the six comparables provide for premium sharing with the employees. Unions
representing other County employees share premiums, which range from $43 per
month to $196 per month in the contract year 2004.
The Employer next argues there are strong policy reasons for premium
sharing making the proposal particularly compelling: Creating a partnership with
employees to contain insurance costs; treating all County employees fairly and
equitably; and reflecting the reality of cost-sharing by firefighters in other fire
departments.
The Airport's proposal is a compromise between what a majority of County
employees are paying and zero, what the firefighters are now paying. Under the
proposal, the following premium amounts would be paid by the seven Airport firefighters
enrolled in the Regence Selections Option, under the modified plan design:
Firefighters/Spouses/Family
Employee Only $29 per month
Employee and Spouse $57 per month
Employee/Spouse/Family $78 per month
The four Airport firefighters who have elected coverage under the more
expensive Regence PPO would pay slightly more--as do other County employees--
because of the higher premiums associated with that plan.
Based on all of the above-stated reasons, the Arbitrator should award the
Employer's premium sharing plan.
3. Plan Design
The other bargaining groups in Snohomish County have employees on
plan designs proposed by the Airport in this proceeding. It is the position of the
Employer that family members of firefighters should not be covered by richer benefits
than family members of other County employees. The Union's position on insurance
simply is out of touch with reality. It amounts to little more than a bald assertion that
nothing must change. Under the proposed Regence PPO plan design; there is a
$2,500 stop loss per individual up to a maximum $7,500 per family per year. It would
only be in extreme cases where the employee would exceed the stop loss provisions.
The $2,500 stop loss applies to the 10% co-insurance under the Regence
PPO for medical services, so the employee is protected there. Under the Regence
Selections Option, very limited co-insurance requirements exist. In extreme cases, the
employee is going to be paying a relatively small part of the total cost of a catastrophic
loss.
The proposed medical plan design changes present in the Employer's
proposal are imminently reasonable and they call for relatively small contributions for
services rendered. It is important to initiate a consumer-driven, pay-as-you-go mentality
that will result in firefighters, like other employees, to be more aware of and sensitive to
escalating health care costs.
The cost of medical coverage for the Airport firefighters is out of control,
escalating at a rate of over 12 times the rate of inflation. By the time the 2003-2005
contract expires, the Airport's cost of medical coverage under the Selections Option per
firefighter will have increased from $503.92 per month in 2002 to $820.69 per month in
2005, a dramatic increase of 62.9%. The current 2004 composite rate for the seven
Airport firefighters enrolled in the Selections Option is $637.67. The 2004 composite
rate for the remaining four firefighters who are enrolled in Regence PPO Option is
$714.32.
The Arbitrator should take note of the fact that the cost of the remaining
insurance benefits for the Airport firefighters, for which the County will pay 100% for the
term of the agreement, is as follows:
Vision $ 17.29
Dental I $ 87.24
Dental II $ 63.98
Long Term Disability $ 46.06
The Airport has seen its costs escalate to $820.69 starting April 1, 2005
for seven firefighters enrolled in the Regence Selections Option and to $870.29 for the
four firefighters enrolled in the Regence PPO. By the Union's own figures, the Airport
absorbed a 23.6% increase in 2003 alone, rising from $7,363.44 in 2002 to $9,104.16 in
2003. The bottom line is that during the lengthy negotiations for the 2003-2005
Collective Bargaining Agreement, the cost paid by the Airport for its firefighters will have
increased by 62.9% for firefighters enrolled in the Regence Selections Option and
72.7% for those enrolled in the Regence PPO. This is largely driven by the status quo
medical plan design and in utilization.
The Employer concludes that these types of increases are not sustainable
and it is unreasonable to expect the Airport to continue to absorb 100% of the
premiums, as the Union demands. The Airport's proposal to establish a cap on its
contractual obligations to pick up rate increases is reasonable. The Airport believes it is
also reasonable to expect the firefighters to pay increases in excess of 20.2% over the
term of the agreement. Overall, this means a firefighter will be paying no more than
20% of their premiums for 2005. The Arbitrator should award the Employer’s proposal
on medical plan design changes.
C. The Union
The Union begins by asserting the medical insurance issue is a very
significant one for this small bargaining unit. Out of eleven members of the bargaining
unit, four have families that are either suffering terminal or life-threatening illnesses,
which require regular access to medical providers and health insurance. The Employer
has always provided the same plan to these firefighters that they have now. There is no
evidence of ever having provided a different plan and there is no evidence of ever
requiring these firefighters to cost-share in the premium. The Employer cannot now
advance a viable rationale for wanting to short change these firefighters by substantially
impacting them by changing the medical plan.
The basis for the Employer wanting to change the plan obviously has its
genesis in attempting to get out from under the plan as the plan relates to DSA. There
are 235 deputies. If the Employer could change the plan for DSA, it would result in
substantial savings to the Employer.
The rationale for changing the DSA plan does not exist for firefighters.
There are only twelve firefighter positions in the bargaining unit so it is much less costly
to provide the current plan to firefighters than to deputies.
The Airport does not get one cent from the County tax revenues, but
instead relies on revenue from Airport operations. The majority of the revenue comes
from the Boeing contract, other income, and tenant revenue. The firefighters are
participants in increasing the revenue available to the Airport by their involvement with
the tenants.
The Union rejects the Employer's argument that its medical proposal is fair
and balanced. The net effect of the proposal is to shift a substantial burden of payment
per month to the firefighters, with more deductibles and less coverage. The only
balance is that the Employer's proposal balances out any alleged pay increase
proposed by the Employer.
Moreover, adoption of the Employer's proposal on medical insurance
makes it clear any small wage increase the firefighters are to receive under the
Employer's proposal is funded on the backs of the firefighters by reducing their medical
benefit plan. Firefighters in the Selections Option will pay $196 out of pocket per month
as a premium for a spouse and two dependents, but the deductibles would be
drastically increased and the coverage provided drastically reduced.
It is also the position of the Union the Employer's figures regarding health
care costs should not be trusted. For the first time at arbitration, the Employer
represented that it really paid less than indicated it paid in prior years. Employer Exhibit
C indicates the Employer paid the sum of $503.92 in 2002 for the majority of its
firefighter employees for medical insurance costs. That is exactly the same amount the
Employer stated in the same exhibit it paid for AFSCME bargaining unit members in
2002. This could not be so since the AFSCME plan is entirely different from the plan
the firefighters are on. The Employer showed in its letter to the Arbitrator that for the
years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, the following costs, respectively, of $503.92,
$608.86, $673.67 and $714.09. The Union had never been presented with these
figures prior to the interest arbitration hearing.
With these proposed figures in place, the Employer's medical insurance
plan would actually show a decrease in cost from 2003 as opposed to the 41.7%
increase argued for by the Employer. Many of the Employer's numbers have been
transposed or are flat out wrong, at least when compared to the testimony where the
Employer argues the current 2004 composite rate for firefighters enrolled in Selections
is $673.67.
The Union next points to the fact that all of the traditional comparators are
paying more than that paid by the Employer for Paine Field firefighters' medical
insurance premiums. The same is true when the premium contributions are examined
from the Employer's new comparator jurisdictions. When the Employer's proposal for
premium sharing and offer of modest wage increases, is combined, the Union submits
the proposal by the Employer to change the medical insurance plan is punitive, and not
equitable or fair.
For all of the above-stated reasons, the Arbitrator should award current
contract language for the 2003-2005 contract.
D. Discussion and Findings
The Arbitrator finds the time has come to establish a base tine that will set
the table for meaningful negotiation for the next contract. In a few short months after
this Award is published, the parties will begin negotiation for the 2006 Collective
Bargaining Agreement. I will award the implementation of premium sharing effective
July 1, 2005. While the Employer's proposal to delete the Most Favored Nation clause
was appealing, I will limit the disconnect to premium sharing only, in this arbitration
Award.
The time is here for this bargaining unit to stand on its own as far as
developing the medical insurance plan. However, with only a few months remaining
until the parties commence negotiations for the 2006 contract, the parties will be better
served by resolving the complex issue of the medical insurance plan through mutual
negotiations. The Arbitrator, by implementing premium sharing, is placing the Union on
notice that the status quo of 100% Employer-paid medical insurance for firefighters and
dependents toward an expensive plan is no longer acceptable.
1. Most Favored Nation Clause
The Most Favored Nation clause linking this bargaining unit to the DSA
contract is a relic of the past. As will be discussed in the premium sharing part of this
Award, 100% Employer-paid coverage for medical, dental, and vision coverage for both
the employee and the dependent cannot continue. If I deleted the Most Favored
Nations clause from the contract, then I would be compelled to award the changes in
plan design for the medical insurance. Working out the intricacies and complicated
insurance questions involved in the design of the medical insurance plan, is better left to
the mutual negotiations of the parties. To the extent the Arbitrator will award premium
sharing, the connection between the DSA contract and the IAFF contract will be
severed
The Employer's proposal to delete the Most Favored Nation clause from
the contract shall not be awarded.
2. Medical Plan Design
For the reasons stated above, I am deferring on the adoption of the
Employer's proposal to substantially revise the medical insurance plan. Parts of the
Employer's proposed medical plan go too far in the one massive change that is
proposed. By applying a percentage figure to the medical premium the Arbitrator has
set the parties on a course in order to resolve this controversial and complex issue. The
Employer's proposal for the modified plan design shall not be adopted.
3. Premium Sharing
The Arbitrator finds that effective July I, 2005, members of this bargaining
unit shall pay 10% of the medical insurance premium. Firefighters and their families will
continue to enjoy fully paid vision and dental coverage. In addition, firefighters will
continue to receive fully paid long-term disability and life insurance. I was persuaded by
the Employer's argument that firefighters should become a partner with the Employer in
order to mutually address ways to contain the cost of rapidly rising health care.
The Union's position to maintain 100% Employer-paid medical insurance
coverage for firefighters and their families is out of touch with reality. Four of the six
historical comparators require premium sharing. I find that internal comparisons with
other County employees in the area of medical insurance are particularly relevant when
it comes to health insurance. The record shows that all but the DSA unit employees
pay approximately 20% of their insurance premium to cover the employee and their
dependents.
The unions representing the other County employees shared premium in
2004 ranged from $43 per month to $196 per month. Continuing 100% paid coverage
for firefighters and their dependents is unrealistic in light of both external and internal
comparators. A wide disparity in the manner by which an employer treats its employees
in the critical area of medical insurance can be highly devisive and disruptive to morale.
In forming an award on the premium sharing, your Arbitrator has taken into account the
award on the wage issue.
The Arbitrator will award that effective July 1, 2005 firefighters shall
contribute 10% toward the cost of medical insurance.
AWARD
I hereby award as follows for the 2003-2005 Collective Bargaining
Agreement:
1. The Employer's proposal to delete the Most Favored
Nation clause from the contract shall not be adopted.
2. The Employer's proposal to revise the medical insurance
plan shall not be adopted.
3. New language shall be added to the contract, which
reads:
Effective July 1, 2005, the members of this
bargaining unit shall contribute 10% toward the
cost of funding the existing employee medical
insurance coverage for bargaining unit
members and dependents. The Employer shall
pay the remaining 90% of the cost of the
medical insurance plan.
ISSUE 3 - VACATION
A. Background
Article 8 establishes a vacation schedule for firefighters, which turns on
the number of years of service. The annual accrual rate starts at 84.12 hours at the end
of the first year of employment. At the top of the vacation schedule, a firefighter
beginning with the 17th year and thereafter accrues 209.9 hours of vacation per year.
The Union proposed to increase the maximum accrued vacation time
beginning with the 25th year to 264 hours. -The Union also proposed to increase the
amount of unused annual leave, which could be accrued and carried over from 240 to
288 hours. The Employer proposed the status quo.
B. The Union
Captain Mike Zimmerman testified concerning the Union's vacation
proposal. He has been employed with the department since 1987. Captain
Zimmerman indicated the Union's rationale in seeking more vacation time for higher
seniority was because vacation flattens out and the Union wants an incentive to reward
people who stay in the department.
The Union points to the historical comparators which have more vacation
than Paine Field firefighters. Further, except for Lynnwood, all of the blended
comparators submitted by the Union have more vacation than Paine Field firefighters.
They also have substantially more sick leave than Paine Field firefighters. Even the
comparators proposed by the Employer on December 9,2004, have more vacation time
than Paine Field firefighters.
C. The Employer
The Employer takes the position that firefighters have ample time off.
They are only scheduled to work 104 24-hour shifts per year, which works out to 8.5
shifts per month. All firefighters receive a paid floating holiday off, as well. The
Employer submits the existing vacation schedule is more than adequate.
Regarding the Union's proposal to increase the amount of vacation time,
which could be carried forward from year to year, the Employer submits there is no
need for an additional amount of carry-over of accrued but unused vacation time.
According to the Employer, current vacation balances of employees are well below 240
hours. These balances fail to demonstrate any need to stockpile more vacation time,
which should be used for the purpose of vacation, and not for the purpose of
accumulating to cash out on resignation or to increase the pension benefit. The Union's
proposal would create an incentive for Airport employees not to use their vacation.
Increasing the carry-over amount would contribute to an ever growing liability to the
Airport that is both costly and hard to anticipate when budgeting. The status quo is also
consistent with other employee groups in the County affiliated with labor unions, none of
which have more carry-over than the firefighters already have.
D. Discussion and Findings
The Arbitrator finds the current level of the vacation benefits set forth in
Article 8 is adequate. Further, the current vacation leave balances fail to establish any
need to increase the vacation entitlement. Firefighters also enjoy a generous holiday
leave benefit and a floating day off. The record also shows the number of hours worked
per year by Paine Field firefighters is less than in the comparator group. The Arbitrator
was not persuaded by the Union's rationale that it seeks to provide an incentive to
reward people who stay in the department. There is no evidence firefighters are leaving
the department because of the vacation schedule currently in existence.
While it is true all of the historical comparators have more vacation time
than Paine Field firefighters, I conclude the members of this bargaining unit enjoy a
competitive and reasonable vacation benefit. In any comparison schedule, one
jurisdiction has to be at the bottom of the list. When the firefighters' vacation, holidays,
and the hours worked per year are considered, this Arbitrator is not convinced there is a
need to expand the number of vacation hours which could be accrued from 209.9 hours
beginning at the end of the 18th year to 232 hours rising to a maximum of 264 hours
beginning with the 25th year of employment.
Regarding the amount of vacation time, which can be carried forward, the
Arbitrator was not persuaded that an increase in the amount of the unused vacation
should be increased from 240 hours to 288 hours. I agree with the Employer that the
Union's proposal would create an incentive for employees not to use their vacation time.
The purpose of a vacation is for rest and relaxation. Unused vacation time should not
be used for the purpose of accumulating to cash out upon resignation, or to increase a
firefighter's pension benefits. The policy in the Washington State Retirement System is
to cap the amount of annual leave at 240 hours. The status quo is also consistent with
other employee groups affiliated with labor unions, none of which had more carry
forward than the firefighters are currently allowed to accrue.
AWARD
The Arbitrator holds the Union's proposal to modify the vacation accrual
rates and the amount of unused vacation time proposal should not be adopted. The
Arbitrator awards that the current contract language shall continue unchanged in the
2003-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ISSUE 4 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
A. Background
Article 4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a provision
entitled "Protection of Rights" or what is commonly referred to as a Management Rights
clause. Section 4.1 reads:
The County has the exclusive right to manage its affairs, to
direct and control its operations, and independently to make,
carry out and execute all plans and decisions deemed
necessary in its judgment for its welfare, advancements, or
best interest. Such management prerogative shall include
all matters not specifically limited by the agreement herein.
The Employer proposed to add a list of eleven specific managerial
prerogatives to Article 4.1. The Union would continue current contract language.
B. The Employer
The rationale for the Airport's position on this article was stated in its
hearing memorandum to be:
1. The Union must acknowledge that the Airport has--or at
least should have--the enumerated rights. Such rights are
best expressed in clear and understandable language.
2. The existing clause is vague and ambiguous. In contrast,
the proposed version specifically identifies Airport
responsibilities so that both parties have a full and mutual
understanding of what these rights are..
3. A definitive Management Rights clause is consistent with
sound labor management relations and serves to make the
contract more understandable to all persons and parties
affected by it, including those who must administer it.
Further, such a clause could minimize the likelihood of
disputes over the responsibilities of the Airport.
4. The proposed clause would serve as a quid pro quo for
the vast array of specifically delineated contractual rights
already afforded the Union and employees.
5. The contract's Management Rights clause would be
brought in line with those in other fire departments of similar
size. All of the nine comparables have Management Rights
clauses. Eight have long form Management Rights clauses
(similar to that proposed by the Airport) and only one has a
short form Management Rights clause (similar to that in the
existing agreement).
Regarding the emerging issue of whether Paine Field or the City of
Mulkiteo is going to provide fire protection to a new national flight interpretative center
and hotel that may be built on Airport property, the Employer submits the Union's
interests are already protected in Article 18.3. Article 18.3 requires any issues
concerning subcontracting shall follow the requirements and procedures under Ch.
41.56 RCW and/or any other law. The Arbitrator should award the Employer's proposal.
C. The Union
The Union takes the position that the goal of the Employer is to broaden
the Management Rights clause to include several subsections that specifically give the
Employer a right of action. In addition, the Employer wants the Union to waive some
right to action concerning those topics, and let management assume more authority
over those particular subject matter areas. While Article 18.3 recites the status of
existing law, the statute does not answer the question of the Union's waiver of topics
and subject matters contained in the broadened Management Rights clause.
The Union argues that in order to change a Management Rights provision
in the contract, one should have to show difficulty in managing a particular workforce.
Here, the same Management Rights clause has existed in each of the contracts
between the Union and the Employer since the inception of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. Over the past 20 or 21 years, there have been only two grievances and
one ULP so the Arbitrator must conclude there is no serious problem between the
parties as it relates to contract interpretation.
It is the position of the Union the Employer already has the right to
manage its affairs exclusively and to direct and control its operations without
interference except as proscribed by law. There is no reason without demonstrable
problems to change an existing contract in this fashion. Mere speculation on the part of
management that something might come up is not substantial enough to outweigh
history, combined with no demonstrable problems with the existing language. The
Union submits there is no reason for this Arbitrator to change the dynamics between the
parties so drastically after 27 years of their being no significant problems under the
current language.
D. Discussion and Findings
I find the Employer has failed to produce evidence, which would justify a
change in contract language, which has existed for 27 years. The Employer presented
no demonstrable problems that existing contract language prevented the Employer from
carrying out its mission and responsibilities to the customers of Paine Field and
Snohomish County.
The historical comparators favor the Employer's position. Four
comparators have a long form Management Rights clause and two have a Management
Rights clause similar to Article 4.1. However, I conclude that the lack of demonstrable
problems with the existing language overrides the comparability evidence. If the
Employer's argument claiming existing language is vague and unambiguous is correct,
the record should reflect the difficulties of applying the language. Absent such
evidence, I am not persuaded to award the Employer's proposal.
AWARD
The Arbitrator holds the Employer's proposal to modify Article 4.1 should
not be adopted. The Arbitrator awards that the current management rights language
shall continue unchanged in the 2003-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Respectfully submitted ,
Gary L. Axon
Interest Arbitrator
Dated: May 6, 2005
To the arbitrator for the issue of IAFF local 2597 wage proposal Attachment A
2003
JOB TITLE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Fire Fighter 3896.68 4088.68 4294.78 4511.27 4737.56
Fire Fighter/Mechanic I 4091.52 4293.12 4509.52 4736.83 4974.44
Captain 4569.30 4799.55 5040.41 5289.85 5551.37
Fire Fighter/Mechanic II 4569.30 4799.55 5040.41 5289.85 5551.37
This chart reflects the 2002 wage increased by 1.5% and 90% of the CPI (1.35%) for a total of 2.85%.
To the arbitrator for the issue of IAFF local 2597 wage proposal. Attachment B
2004
JOB TITLE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Fire Fighter 3928.24 4121.80 4329.57 4547.81 4775.93
Fire Fighter/Mechanic I 4124.66 4327.89 4546.05 4775.20 5014.73
Captain 4606.31 4838.43 5081.24 5332.70 5596.34
Fire Fighter/Mechanic II 4606.31 4838.43 5081.24 5332.70 5596.34
This chart reflects the 2003 wage increased by 90% of the CPI (.81%)
To the arbitrator for the issue of IAFF local 2597 wage proposal. Attachment C
2005
JOB TITLE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5
Fire Fighter 4016.63 4214.54 4426.99 4650.14 4883.39
Fire Fighter/Mechanic I 4217.46 4425.27 4648.34 4882.64 5127.56
Captain 4709.95 4947.29 5195.57 5452.69 5722.26
Fire Fighter/Mechanic II 4709.95 4947.29 5195.57 5452.69 5722.26
This chart reflects the 2004 wage increased by 90% of the CPI (2.25%)
ATTACHMENT D
AIRPORT FIREFIGHTERS
AIRPORT PROPOSAL - SALARY SCHEDULE
| Current 2002 |
| FF |
3788.70 |
3975.38 |
4175.77 |
4386.26 |
4606.28 |
| FF/Mech 1 |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
| Captain |
4442.68 |
4666.56 |
4900.74 |
5143.26 |
5397.54 |
| FF/Mech II |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Status Quo Proposed by Airport |
| 2003 |
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
Step 3 |
Step 4 |
Step 5 |
| FF |
3788.70 |
3975.38 |
4175.77 |
4386.26 |
4606.28 |
| FF/Mech 1 |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
See Att |
| Captain |
4442.68 |
4666.56 |
4900.74 |
5143.26 |
4397.54 |
| FF/Mech II |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| With 2.2% = 90% CPI-W (periods ending June 2002/2003) |
| 2004 |
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
Step 3 |
Step 4 |
Step 5 |
| FF |
3872.05 |
4062.84 |
4267.64 |
4482.76 |
4707.62 |
| FF/Mech 1 |
4065.65 |
4265.98 |
4481.02 |
4706.90 |
4943.00 |
| Captain |
4540.42 |
4769.22 |
5008.56 |
5256.41 |
5516.29 |
| FF/Mech II |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| With 2.25% = 90% CPI-W (period ending June 2004) |
| 2005 |
Step 1 |
Step 2 |
Step 3 |
Step 4 |
Step 5 |
| FF |
3959.17 |
4154.25 |
4363.66 |
4583.62 |
4813.54 |
| FF/Mech I |
4157.13 |
4361.96 |
4581.84 |
4812.80 |
5054.22 |
| Captain |
4642.58 |
4876.53 |
5121.25 |
5374.68 |
5640.40 |
| FF/Mech II |
|
|
|
|
|