FACT FINDING AND INTEREST ARBITRATION
|
Coupeville Education Association |
Findings of Fact |
|
-and- |
|
|
Coupeville School District |
by |
|
|
Kenneth M. McCaffree |
|
Re: Contract Issues: |
|
|
(1) Base Salary Increase |
|
|
(2) Insurance Benefits |
Case No. 2965-F-80-126 |
|
(3) Substitute Pay |
|
|
Representatives: |
|
|
Ass'n: Wilbert Bond |
|
|
Dist.: Richard Smith |
October 27, 1980 |
Introduction
The Coupeville Education Association (Association) and the Coupeville School District (District) began bargaining to determine the terms of a 1980-81 agreement between them in early May 1980. After substantial progress in arriving at agreement on most provisions of the new Agreement, the parties reached impasse and requested mediation services in early July. No progress was made in resolving four remaining issues between them, and a request for fact finding was made. In agreeing to this process, the parties resolved one item among the four remaining, and in doing so agreed to accept the recommendations of the fact finder as final and binding on both the District and the Association.
The fact finder was appointed by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) pursuant to RCW Chap. 41.59, and the regulations promulgated by the Commission. Subsequent to his appointment, he was advised by the parties that his recommendations on the three remaining issues would be accepted by both as final and binding.
Both reaffirmed this agreement at a hearing held at Coupeville, Washington on October 1, 1980. The hearing was held in accordance with RCW Chap. 41-59 and appropriate WAC regulations of PERC, as if the proceedings were a fact-finding process only. The fact finder, however, affirmed, because the recommendations were to be final and binding, that he would not contact one party without simultaneously contacting the other, and would provide a written findings of fact and decision consistent with interest arbitration.
Extended presentations of fact and argument were made by both the District and the Association. By agreement the parties presented their data and argument through written and oral statements of their respective representatives. Full opportunity was afforded by each to cross-examine the representative of the other and/or to offer rebuttal to both and argument as presented. Only three other persons offered Information. Don Swezey, Financial Services Coordinator for the Educational Service District #189 testified for the District. Don Sorte, Coordinator of Government Research, and Ben Barbarie, Research Director, both with the Washington Education Association, gave testimony for the District. In addition, a brief closing statement was made by Kathleen Anderson, President of the District School Board. Others present included three other School Board members, Association officers and contract negotiators, most members of the classroom certificated staff, a few citizens, and sore support staff of the District and Superintendent's office.
In addition to the written statements of the representatives of the parties, the Association offered one exhibit, the District four, and there were two joint exhibits. The fact finder/arbitrator also received a letter of October 3, 1980 from Dr. Smith with supplemental information requested at the hearing. This has been identified as District Ex. #5. Further, a letter of October 8, 1980 was also received from Mr. Bond, that also provided supplemental information and comment on the data in District Ex. #5. The letter from Mr. Bond and its attachments have been marked as Association Ex. #2. The fact finder/arbitrator also tape-recorded the proceedings for his sole use.
Issues and Final Proposals
The three Issues were stated as follows:
1. Salary Increase
The District proposed a 10.34 percent increase in the salary schedule, or a base salary rate of $12,800 and a maximum without doctorate of $24,512.
The Association proposed a 14 percent increase in the salary schedule, or a base salary rate of $13,224 and a maximum without doctorate of $25,324.
Both proposals recognize that salaries will increase as employees move in the salary rows and columns. The estimated increase, on average, was 2.65 percent of the base salary rate.
2. Insurance Benefits
The District proposed $70.00 per month per employee for insurance selected by the Association, plus $24.95 per month per employee for a full-funded family dental plan.
The Association proposed $85.00 per month per employee for insurance selected by the Association, allowing any employee not utilizing the $85.00 per month to deposit the unused amount, if exceeding $10 per month, into a Career Termination Fund Program, plus a fully funded family dental program, estimated to cost about $24.95 per month per employee.
3. Substitutes' Salary
The District proposed $35.00 per day plus mandatory fringe benefits.
The Association proposal was .31 percent of the base salary and "shall continue to be .31 percent of the base from year-to-year unless changed in negotiations." This percentage equals $39.68 on a base salary of $12,800 and $40.99 on a base salary of $13,224. Mandatory fringe benefits would be an additional amount.
Facts regarding each of these issues will be set forth below, and consideration given to the arguments of the Association and District in the Discussion that follows. The fact finder/arbitrator's recommendations and binding decision will then be given.
Salary Increase
A. Findings of Fact
The following data appear relevant to the determination of an appropriate salary increase for 1980-81:
1. Using the same 43 Class IIM Districts in the State of Washington for which data were available in both years, excluding Lakewood, the B.A. minimum in 1979-80 averaged $11,552, and was increased to an average of $12,712 in 1980-81, or a 10.04% increase (Ass'n Ex. #2, p. 3 and 4). The Coupeville rate was $11,600 in 1979-80, or .42% above the average of its group. The 14 districts excluded because 1980-81 or 1979-80 data were unavailable averaged $11,460 for base B.A. minimum salary in 1979-80 (Ass'n Ex. #2, Dist. Ex. #5, p. 7 and 8). (These data are not substantially different than those reported by the District in its statement on statewide comparable school districts.)
2. Using the same 35 Class IIM Districts in the State of Washington for which data were available in both years, excluding Lakewood, the average maximum salary without doctorate was $21,439 in 1979-80 and was increased to an average of $23,942 in 1980-81, or an 11.60% increase (Ass'n Ex. #2, p. 5 and 6). The Coupeville rate was $22,214 or 3.61% above the average in its group in 1979-80.
3. The following average percent increases in base salary, between 1979-80 and 1980-81, were reported by the Washington State School Directors Association, by District class for data available July 25 and August 19.
|
District Class |
No. of Districts Reported |
Average Percent Increase |
|
I |
34 |
10.17 |
|
II L |
16 |
10.04 |
|
II M |
21 |
9.72 |
|
II S |
22 |
10.95 |
|
August 19 Report |
19 |
9.9 |
|
Total |
112 |
10.17 |
The number reported is about one-third of the Districts in the state (District Ex. #5, p. 4 ff).
4. Data were presented for both all School Districts and for only Class II M Districts in the Fourth Corner's area of the State. These data are as follows.
a. For the same 18 districts in 1968-69 and 1978-79 the minimum B.A. salary in Coupeville had dropped from 100.42% to 96.79% of the average of the group over the 10 years. In 1978-79, the Coupeville salary was $350 per year below the average of the 18 Districts (excluded were Darrington, Lakewood, Lopez, and Orcas). For maximum salary without doctorate, the 1968-69 Coupeville rate was 93.89 percent of the 18 District average, and in 1978-79 was 96.34 percent of the comparison group average (LaConner was excluded in 1978-79 for lack of data). The maximum salary in Coupeville was $758 below the average in 1978-79 (computed from Ass'n Ex. #'s 1,2 and 3 in statement).
b. For the same 20 Districts in 1978-79, the B.A. minimum salary in Coupeville was 97.10% of the average and was 94.41% of the group's average in 1979-80. The Coupeville rate was $309 below the average in 1979-80. (Excluded from these comparisons were Lopez and Upper Skagit.) The average salary for the comparison group in 1980-81 was $13,138, or a 10.32% over the average 1979-80 salary. For the maximum salary without doctorate, the 1978-79 Coupeville rate was 96.58% of the average of 17 Districts. (Excluded were Upper Skagit, Orcas, Lopez, Lakewood and LaConner.) In 1979-80, the Coupeville rate was 98.17% of the average of the same 17 Districts. These Districts have an average of $25,526 for the non-doctoral maximum salary in 1980-81, or an increase of 12.8% over the average in 1979-80. For all Districts for which data were available in 1980-81, this comparison group average was $25,735 (19 Districts, excluding Lakewood, Lopez and Upper Skagit). (Computed from Ass'n Ex. #2 and 3 in statement.)
c. The five class II M Districts in the Four Corner areas for which data were available from 1978-79 through 1980-81, had an average B.A. minimum salary of $10,694, $11,729 and $12,943 for each successive year respectively, an average increase of 10.35% in the last year. The Coupeville rate was 98.89% and 98.90% of the average in 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. These data include Lakewood, but excluded Sulton and Concrete. Excluding Lakewood raises the Coupeville rate in relation to the average of the remaining four districts to 98.95% and 99.18% (Ass'n Ex. #5, statement). Similar data were computed for non-doctoral maximum salary comparisons with the averages of the four districts of South Whidby, Granite Falls, San Juan and Darrington. These results show Coupeville's rate in 1978-79 at 101.5% of the average, and 101.34% in 1979-80. The average for the four districts in 1980-81 was $24,869, an increase in the average of 16.2%. (Ass'n Ex. #5, statement).
5. Increases for local groups were cited. Teamsters received 8.5 percent increase in May 1980. Island County employees obtained a 9.0 percent increase plus 2-1/2 percent longevity increase for each period of service at five, ten and 15 years of service. Non-classified employees in the District obtained a 10.0 percent increase plus increments (Dist. statement).
6. A 24 percent increase in the 1979-80 base salary rate would be required to make the 1980-81 rate as large as the 1967-68 bases increased by the percentage change in the Seattle-Everett consumer price index (Ass'n Ex. B, statement). The July 1979 to July 1980 percent change in the all urban consumer price index of Seattle-Everett was 17.3 percent. The May-July 1980 change was at the rate of 13.2 percent (BLS Report).
B. Discussion of Wage Issues
Both the District and the Association agrued with salary changes and levels for comparable groups. The issue was whether to use state-wide data by district class size comparable to Coupeville versus data from the region in which the Coupeville District is found. Although both contended this made a difference, the data do not seem to support that contention. Although the fact finder/arbitrator has relied primarily on the data and sources of the Association in presentation of the "facts" above, any differences in averages, rankings and percentage changes resulted primarily in the selection of districts with which to compare Coupeville. The findings of fact above are an attempt to distil from all data, and to set forth the most relevant for consideration in determining an appropriate salary increase.
There are several matters that require clarification before looking at most of the facts above. In the first place, the fact finder/arbitrator has set aside considerations of cost-of-living adjustments as such. There is no question but that teachers and the "education industry" as a whole have not fared well over the last ten to fifteen years in relation to inflation. Even though this is the case, Coupeville staff have fared no differently than other teachers in other districts, and thus an examination of comparable standings and levels across districts will implicitly adjust for the consequences of inflation and the rise in the "cost-of-living." Further, inflation arguments frequently run in terms of general price and salary increases, rather than what happens to the "standard of living" of employees. Although its accuracy has not been checked, the illustration given by the District in its statement at Appendix A goes to the point. Individual teachers have fared some better than the increase in the cost-of-living, and real standards of income have gone up.
Second, the fact finder/arbitrator concurs with the argument that average salaries for certificated personnel and/or for certificated classroom teachers for districts are only useful data when the mix of personnel by educational level and years of experience are the same. An expanding district will likely have relatively more new and inexperienced teachers than a district that has been contracting its enrollment. The latter will be more likely to have teachers at the bottoms of the experience column and at the right hand end of the rows in the salary schedule. Accordingly, in the absence of these data, discussion concentrated on base salaries. Even the maximum non-doctoral salary rate is both a function of the across-the-board increases and the number of cells in the schedule as well as the amount of the salary increase from cell to cell. Since extending or revising the structure of the salary schedule is outside the issues given to the fact finder/arbitrator in this case, change in the maximum non-doctorate salary rate assumes less importance than the beginning base rate of a B.A. minimum.
Finally, the fact finder/arbitrator is cognizant of the argument made by the District that Coupeville has experienced no difficulty in finding new high-quality teachers when openings occur, and furthermore that there has been no turnover of teaching staff that could in any way be attributed to low salaries. This is a strong and persuasive argument in relation to the labor market and the level of salaries for teachers. If there are no quits and/or there is a plentiful supply of similar persons ready to work and less than fully employed, relative wages and salary would not be expected to rise. This situation for Coupeville argues meaningfully for a minimum salary increase only sufficient to prevent teachers from quitting or from discouraging others from applying for openings.
On the basis of the above preliminary considerations, and on examination of comparable salary levels and changes in those levels, there is insufficient evidence to support an across-the-board increase of 14 percent as proposed by the Association. There are no increases in base salaries in the last year in any comparison group that approach this figure. All districts that had settled by August 19, 1980 (over one-third in the state) averaged only 10.17 percent increase over the previous year. Those that had settled most recently averaged even less, some 9.9 percent for 19 districts of all classes. Further, among Class II M districts, the early settlments were 9.72%, and by September 30, 1980 among 44 of 59 districts, the increase averaged only 10.04 percent. Although among some 20 districts in the Fourth Corners region, the increase was slightly higher, the percentage change was then only 10.37% over last year. This datum was also found among the five Class II M districts included in the Association data. Only with respect to the maximum non-doctorate salary level in the latter small group was there an average percentage to support the Association proposal. The changes in this rate and with this small a group of districts, along with the above facts, does not adequately or persuasively support the Associaton's proposal.
There is little additional data to support the Association's proposal. The position of the base salary at Coupeville relative to other districts has changed very little. This is indicated in the first place by the consistency of rank of Coupeville relative to Fourth Corner districts. With the District's current proposal, the rank among these districts may even increase from 20th to 18th, and cannot fall below 20th, where it has been for two years. This relative position is seen in the percentage the Coupeville base rate is of the average base rate in these Fourth Corner Districts: 97.10% in 1978-79; 97.41% in 1979-80 and 97.43% in 1980-81 on the basis of the District proposal. The Association proposal would raise this relationship to 100.65%, a substantial upward jump in relative position among these districts. Although such a change may well be justified on equity grounds in the beliefs of Association members, this fact finder/arbitrator has found no basic reasons to order a major upward shift in the relative position of the Coupeville base rate and salary schedule relative to those in surrounding districts.
There is some merit to the argument of the Association that a long-term trend of attrition in relative salary positions of Coupeville among districts in the region has taken place. The examination of 1968-69 and 1978-79 relative positions seems to support this in part. The Coupeville base rate was 100.42% of the average base rate among 18 districts in the Fourth Corner in 1968-69 and had dropped to 96.79% ten years later. However, some shift in the salary structure took place during this period in which more experienced personnel gained, and apparently at the expense of the base rate. The maximum non-doctorate salary rate rose from 93.89% of the average of that rate among Fourth Corner districts in 1968-69 to 96.34% of the group's average maximum non-doctorate rate ten years later. Thus, on balance, it is difficult to argue strongly and persuasively that the staff as a whole appeared to lose its relative position among this comparison group of districts. It is clear that no major deterioration in relative salary position for either base rate or maximum non-doctorate rate has occurred in the last three years, although the proposed District increase will lower the relative position of those in the higher levels of the salary schedule by a slight amount and return the Coupeville maximum non-doctorate salary rate to just below its relative position in 1978-79 at 95.25% of the average of such rates among the Fourth Corner Districts.
The alternative query is in order: Should the increase in the base rate exceed the proposal of 10.34% of the District? The proposal of the District at 10.34% of the base rate is a reasonable one and adequately supported by the data. Most of the facts discussed above indicate an average among comparison groups no greater than 10.34% for the base rate. Although those in the upper salary levels will fare somewhat less well than their counterparts in some other districts, this fact is as much a factor of the salary schedule structure than too low an across-the-board increase. The Coupeville increase on balance compares favorably with increases in other districts and accordingly should be made effective for the 1980-81 school year. Accordingly, the fact finder/arbitrator determines that the percent increase in the base rate of the salary schedule and each cell in it shall be 10.34 percent over the 1979-80 level. The base rate shall then be $12,800 for 1980-81, effective as of September 1, 1980 per Article XXI Duration of Agreement (Jt. Ex. #2).
Other Issues
The issues of insurance benefits and substitute pay are considered in turn. The findings of fact are examined simultaneously with arguments in the discussion below.
A. Insurance Benefits
Again, both the Association and the District rely in part on comparison groups of school districts to support their respective positions. The District claims that the total proposed package of medical and dental benefits costs about $95 per employee per month which is the most frequently found amount paid by districts across the state and/or in the geographic area around Coupeville. The source of these data was the Washington State School Directors Association reports through August 19, 1980 for 127 districts. Data provided by the Association (Ex. #13, statement) provide essentially the same information.
The points to note with respect to the insurance benefit payments are not only that $95.00 per month per employee is the most frequently made payment, it is also, with one exception, the lowest amount among 20 districts in the Fourth Corner area (Ass'n Ex. #13, statement). Furthermore, with the District data, less than five percent of the districts state-wide paid less, and two-thirds of the districts paid more per month per employee. On the basis of Association data for Fourth Corner schools, only one district failed to increase the monthly payment in 1980-81 over 1979-80.
The above data and findings of fact strongly support some adjustment in the insurance benefits. Although the payment in Coupeville in 1979-80 was high among the regional schools, the difference in total cost to the District per employee under the proposed Association change and dollars per employee in other districts in the Fourth Corner area would remain unchanged. The addition of pooled benefits in several districts, even though the relative amount per employee changed little in relation to Coupeville, would appear to have improved the overall package of benefits for employees in those districts.
The increase to a maximum of $85.00 per employee per month for insurance, excluding the dental program, as proposed by the Association, does not seem out of line with changes in other districts nor does this change Coupeville's position on fringe benefits payments relative to other schools. Furthermore, health care costs have been rising and more rapidly than prices generally. Some increase seems justified on this basis. Accordingly, the fact finder/arbitrator determines that Article IV - Insurance Benefits, Section A, should provide that "the district agrees to contribute for each certificated employee $85.00 per month for insurance, to be chosen by the membership and as determined within the capability of the payroll system."
The Association also proposed that any eligible employee would be able to direct the District to send any unused balance ($10 or more) of the per month allowance provided for in Section A, above, after allocation to the approved or required fringe benefit programs, to the W.E.A. Career Termination Fund Program. This proposal does not appear to be in place in other nearby districts, or established for many schools about the state. Although there may be some merit on equity grounds among employees for adopting the Career Termination Fund Program, this fact finder/arbitrator is most reluctant, in the absence of a strong case, to introduce a new fringe benefit into the Coupeville situation. The fringe benefits payment on behalf of the employee does currently cover full medical and dental benefits and allows the opportunity to buy some life insurance or other benefits. The current arrangement is adequate and appropriate. Accordingly, the fact finder/arbitrator determines that Section B of Article IV - Insurance Benefits as proposed by the Association, shall not be a part of the Agreement, and thus Section C as proposed by the Association becomes Section B of Article IV.
B. Substitute Pay
The District proposed continuation of the flat $35.00 per day for substitute pay, whereas the Association argued for following a constant .31% of the base salary, effective on September 2, 1980. Although there has apparently been little difficulty in getting substitutes at the current rate, per District information and letters from two principals, there is a strong equity argument that substitutes should not be treated differently than other teachers. The difficulty in getting substitutes could change quickly if their relative compensation dropped. Furthermore, the surplus of teachers argues as much for some dollar increase rather than for none at all, and thus recognition that the real wage was dropping simultaneously. Finally, the competing districts, South Whidby and Oak Harbor, pay $40 and $41 per day. These latter comparisons are compelling to modify the District's proposal upwards.
The .31% of the base salary per day as proposed by the Association, would provide just less than $40 per day on the basis of the salary increase determined above. This seems like a modest enough increase for substitutes. Accordingly, on the basis of the considerations set forth above, the fact finder/arbitrator determines that Article IX - Salary Schedule, Section C shall provide.
Substitute Salary - The full day substitute salary shall be .31% of the base effective September 2, 1980 and shall continue to be .31% of the base from year to year, unless modified by these negotiations.
Ability to Pay
Substantial discussion took place over the ability of the District to pay additional salary or insurance costs. Although the bulk of the difference in expected total expenditures between the District and the Association arose from the difference in salary increases proposed, the potential increase is estimated to be about $7,000 (Ass'n Ex's #14 and 17, statement), from the above determined additional insurance benefits and substitutes' salary. The fact finder/arbitrator concluded that this sum was within the revenues and funds available to the District.
A great deal of attention was directed at cash and investment balances. The fact finder/arbitrator, however, was impressed with the success of the District in predicting revenues consistently. The variation in cash balances arises from variations in expenditures over the last three years, since the differences in revenues budgeted to actual expenditures appear to be less than the differences between budgeted and actual expenditures. Prudent budgeting leads to some slight underestimation of actual revenues and some overestimate of actual expenditures.
The District prepared a supplemental adjustment to the adopted budget (Appendix B and C, statement). Some additional expenditures are listed in Appendix C, indicating revisions with greater knowledge than at the time the original budget was adopted. About $45,000 of these expenditures are those kinds of items that fall generally in the area of unplanned and unexpected expenditures. Accordingly, these factors at this date substantially reduce the risk that expenditures have been underestimated and leaves the District in a position to accommodate the above additional costs determined by this Decision. Furthermore, there can be some modest savings obtained, if necessary, by reduced overtime or other reductions in temporary or part-time staff. Although the fact finder/arbitrator was impressed with the thoroughness and in-depth consideration of all aspects of the budget and the process in arriving at the adopted budget, all facts were not in--namely, the cost of certificated salaries and fringe benefits. A $7,000 increase in this item is surely not large to accommodate now in a total expenditure budget of $1,698,258.
Conclusion
On the basis of the above findings of fact, arguments and discussion, the fact finder as arbitrator decided and determined the following:
1. Salary Increase. The base salary for B.A. minimum shall be $12,800 and the salary schedule increased by 10.34%.
2. Insurance Benefits. The amount per employee per month shall be $85.00 for insurance selected by the Association, plus a fully-funded family dental insurance program. The WEA Career Termination Fund Program shall not be included in the Agreement.
3. Substitute Salary. The salary of substitutes for a full day shall be .31% of the base salary.
Per the stipulated agreement of the parties, the above conditions are to be incorporated in the Agreement. The language proposed is that set forth in the text, and the conclusions indicate a summary only.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNED]
Kenneth M. McCaffree
KMM:bjl