City
of
And
Fact
Findings
Arbitrator: Albert E. Stephan
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Stephan; Albert E.
Case #: 01089-F-77-00052
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
STATE OF
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATION COMMISSION
In the Matter of Fact Finding )
)
Between ) NO. PERC 1089-F-77-52
)
)
and ) FINDINGS OF FACT
) AND RECOMMENDATIONS
________________________________ )
REPORT OF FACT FINDING PANEL
Albert E. Stephan, Chairman
1300
(206) 623-6700
Michael Glenn Sharon
T. Green
for
(206) 235-2600
Home - 255-8351 (206)
235-2556
Date of Hearing: Date
of Report:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. GUILD be allowed maximum of 80 hours compensated time
for fact finding, etc.
2. Non-civil service status of certain employees referred
to Civil Service Commission.
3. Two weeks separation pay disallowed in view of CITY
employees' new coverage for
unemployment compensation.
4. Hours of duty for all personnel on six days on three
days off schedule.
5. Five hours overtime allowed within nine hours of
normal end of graveyard shift.
6. Shift differentials eliminated.
7. Existing practice of relieving officer from assigned
shift following day of training
found reasonable and
implementing language proposed.
8. Quartermaster or voucher system for uniforms approved,
with provision for
"maintenance", i.e, "cleaning and
repair" at CITY's expense.
9. Double pay for January 1 and July 4 disapproved.
10. Existing educational allowance retained.
11. Full medical/dental benefits for dependents retained.
12. Double indemnity life insurance, if available, retained.
13. Salary increase to be measured by cost of living increase.
14. Two per cent bonus for passing repeated physical fitness
tests proposed.
15. Change to bi-weekly pay declined.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Preliminary
Statement
The
of
and
exhausted mediation. Accordingly this fact finding panel
was
created under RCW 41.46.440. The parties
did not agree
on a
neutral chairman of the panel, and therefore the State
Public Employees Relation
Commission (PERC), pursuant to said
Act,
appointed the above named chairman. The parties agreed
that the
fact finding hearing be on
CITY filed its brief, termed
"Documentation". The GUILD
filed
its
Summary after the hearing and a Rebuttal.
The CITY, though
requesting
leave to file a Rebuttal, later elected not to do so.
Both sides agreed to waive the
statutory time limits.
The chairman took the oath of office to decide this
dispute
to
the best of his ability on the evidence presented by both
sides
and under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act,
RCW
Chapter 41.56.
Some time before the hearing a representative of the
would
be public. The chairman called the
Assistant Attorney
General assigned to PERC who
advised that both are under the
chairman's
discretion and the wishes of the parties.
The CITY
agreed
to public hearing but not the GUILD.
Accordingly the
hearing
was private. The GUILD employed a court
reporter and
each
of the three panel members used tape recorders.
As to
publication,
the Assistant Attorney General suggested that it
might
be deferred because the findings may give the parties
a
basis to negotiate further. But both
sides decided that
when
the report is final it will be made public.
Since the two fellow panel members represent,
respectively,
the CITY
and the GUILD, it is apparent that each may concur in
findings
favorable to its side and dissent as to those which
are
unfavorable. Accordingly the chairman
prepared a draft report,
then
conferred jointly with his two fellow panel members, and
made
several changes, and then served and filed this final report.
Oral and documentary evidence was presented by both sides
through
Sergeant Michael Magula for the GUILD and Mr. Larry
Tom
Yok for the CITY. The chairman, his fellow panel members,
and
others in attendance participated to a limited extent in
making
the record.
Fifteen issues were presented, some initiated by the
GUILD
and others by the CITY. The GUILD's exhibits included
comparable
statistics on wages (GUILD Exhibits 3 - 10) and
some
data on other issues (GUILD Exhibit 2, 11
18). The
CITY's
exhibits included a "spread sheet" (CITY Exhibit 2)
showing
comparable data on wages and nine of the other fringe
issues,
plus additional data on other issues (CITY Exhibits
3
- 6B).
CITY Exhibit 2 consists of three pages. Page 1 shows
Seattle and Bellevue for
illustrative purposes, and then five
smaller
cities in the
able
size ranging between approximately 21,000 and 28,000.
Page 2 and 3 list other
independent economic areas,
West
Coast.
These cities range in population from approximately
23,000
to 52,000. CITY
Exhibit 2 tabulates for comparative
purposes
most of the disputed issues; that is salaries, holiday
premium,
dependent life insurance, court time allowance, shift
benefits,
physical fitness bonus, separation pay for layoff,
and
work schedules for patrol officers.
These comparisons
will
be noted in the successive sections of issues.
It does
not
compare educational benefits. It is
confined to
cities
and does not list any
cities
whereas GUILD Exhibit 5 on the salary issue lists four
compares
medical and dental premium payments, but not other
fringe
issues.
All witnesses were duly sworn. Both sides were heard as
to
each issue consecutively. The chairman
has reviewed the
stenographic
transcript furnished by the GUILD, the exhibits
and
the "Documentation", Summary and 'Rebuttal" in preparing
his
draft, and this final report of findings and recommenda-
tions. The
issues will be considered consecutively in the
same
sequence as the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement
(AGREEMENT) (Joint
Exhibit 1). The caption of each isse re-
fers to the appropriate section of the
AGREEMENT.
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.460(a) both sides stipulated to the
constitutional
and statutory authority of the CITY and that its
population
is 15,000 or more , as required by RCW 41.56.030(6);
and
that the GUILD is the authorized representative of the
Police
Department.
Issues
in Dispute
I
Compensated Time for GUILD
Negotiators
(Article II, Section 3)
This is a new proposal to allow up to eighty hours of
compensatory
time per year for each bargaining representative
to
participate in proceedings such as this, and arbitrations,
and
other matters not covered by Section 3.
It provides:
"Official representatives of the bargaining unit
shall be given time off with pay
to attend meetings
with the (CITY) or governing
body of the GUILD in-
cluding
the official bargaining representatives
during working hours provided
reasonable notifica-
tion
is given and the time is mutually agreed upon. . ."
Preliminary negotiations and
mediation are generally done during
the CITY's day time work week.
The GUILD has five negotiators.. The proposed eighty hours
additional
compensatory time is based on an estimate of at
least
ten eight hour days of time for each negotiator required
for
participating in fact finding and arbitration, as distin-
guished from preliminary bargainings,
mediation or grievance
steps,
which has been construed to be within the phrase in
Section 3 ". . .to attend meetings. . .". It does not cover
participation
by the GUILD in this fact finding proceeding or
in
arbitration or preparation of exhibits.
The GUILD witness
testified
that he does not receive compensation for his attend-
ance at this fact finding hearing or at any
future arbitration.
It was done in his furlough or
leave time. There was no evi-
dence as to whether the GUILD panel member was
being compensated
for
his attendance.
The CITY personnel involved in collective bargaining are
compensated
for their time in all phases of collective bargain-
mg
including preparation for hearing and participation by its
panel
member. This is normally done during the
regular CITY
work
week of five days on and two days off.
But the GUILD personnel work a seven day week which has
in
the past led them to negotiate during the five working day
hours
of the CITY. Similarly this fact finding
hearing was
conducted
on a Tuesday work day and presumably GUILD prepara-
tion was done during off-hours.
The CITY testified it was not aware of such a compensated
time
allowance in other cities of comparable size.
The GUILD
testified
that in Seattle its GUILD president is allowed full
time
during his tenure to attend GUILD matters.
Presumably
the CITY's labor relations consultant was compensated to pre-
pare
and present its evidence.
The CITY seeks to distinguish its employees from the
GUILD on the ground that the
GUILD has a self-interest in
working
improvements while the CITY 45 only defending its
position. But this is at variance with the intent of
RCW
41.56.430:
". . . to recognize that
there exists a public
policy . . . against strikes by
uniformed per-
sonnel
. . . (and) that . . . there shold ex-
ist an
effective and adequate alternative means
of settling disputes."
Also the agreed preamble to
the pending new contract declares
that
it is:
"intended that this
agreement achieved through
the process of collective
bargaining will serve
to maintain good relations
between the (CITY)
and the GUILD, to promote
efficient and courteous
police service to the public and
to protect the
public interest."
Both sides have an equal
public interest in adequate prepara-
tion and presentation of their divergent views
and in the
public
policy of promoting this means of settling disputes
without
strikes. This makes it imperative that
each side be
able
to advance its position without unequal personal time
sacrifice.
The amount of time required is another matter. For ex-
ample,
this fact finding hearing took only one day, although
both
sides and the chairman expected it to take longer. Un-
doubtedly considerable time was spent by both sides
in prepar-
mg
their respective exhibits and oral testimony.
But eighty
hours
or ten days for each of five representatives, or a maxi-
mum
of 50 compensated days to participate in such proceedings
as
fact finding and arbitration each year
is excessive. The
time
spent in negotiations through the impasse situation should
be
compensated under Section 3. The present
dispute involves a
projected
new two year agreement, It seems likely
that few,
if
any, additional impasse situations will arise during the
coming
year and a half or so of the new contract
or until a
new
contract is negotiated, There could be
isolated other dis-
putes but generally past experience shows they
are brief and
infrequent. Article I, Section 3 of the AGREEMENT limits
the
number
of negotiations to three on each side.
Under these circumstances a total of eighty hours or 10
days
for all five GUILD representatives to participate in fu-
ture fact findings, arbitration or other
negotiations not
covered
by the existing Article II, Section 3, or an average
of
two days per man is reasonable, It
should be verified by
reports
to the CITY of actual number of hours spent by each
GUILD
representative. The
total eighty maximum hours may be
allocated
to one or more representatives in the discretion of
the GUILD's governing body.
This is intended to be a just
effort
to put the GUILD and the CITY on an even basis for
promoting
the purposes of the PERC laws.
The panel recommends that the contract include a maximum
of
eighty verified hours per year of compensated time actually
spent
in preparation, presentation, and briefing of issues
that
go to fact finding or arbitration and related matters
that
are not compensated under the current Article II, Section 3
II
Civil Service Coverage
(Article III, Section lA)
The GUILD requests that all positions in the police
depart-
ment be covered by the civil service commission
and subject to
this
section. While the section refers to
civil service com-
mission
registers for filling positions due to vacancy or pro-
motion,
it does not state which positions are or are not covered
by
civil service. The GUILD states that
while police officers
and
clerks are under civil service certain other employees such
as
the jailer, the laboratory technician, and the animal con-
trol officer are not certified, and claims this
is contrary to
RCW
Chapter 41.06.
The CITY declined to negotiate with the GUILD on this
matter
in the belief that the Renton Civil Service Commission
is
the proper entity to deal with the issue of who should or
should
not be covered under its rules. It
relies on RCW
41.56,100 which
provides in part:
". . .nothing contained
herein shall require
any public employer to bargain
collectively
with any bargaining
representative concerning
any matter which by ordinance,
resolution or
charter of said public employer
has been dele-
gated to any civil service
commission or per-
sonnel
board . . ."
The Renton Civil Service
Commission was established by Ordinance
1255.
The rationale, if any, for the exclusion of the
designated
employees
should be the subject of action by the Renton Civil
Service Commission and is not
the subject of collective bar-
gaining
under RCW 41.56.100.
The panel recommends that this issue of civil service
coverage
be excluded from the collective bargaining agreement
and
instead be referred to the Renton Civil Service Commission
for
its determination.
III
Separation Pay
(Article III, Section lE)
This section provides for two weeks' separation pay in
event
of a layoff. The CITY proposes to delete
this, The
GUILD seeks to retain it.
The CITY advances four reasons:
First, since the current agreement was adopted, the state
legislature
has passed an unemployment compensation amendment
making
CITY police employees eligible for benefits in event
of
layoff. The CITY will be assessed by the
state an amount
equal
to 1.25% of gross payroll for each employee.
This new
tax
was not a cost for which the CITY was liable when it agreed
to
the existing language.
Second, the CITY claims that layoffs were relatively rare
in
the public sector when the language was accepted and that
the
picture has changed radically since then,
Five CITY em-
ployees were laid off in 1976 and seven were terminated in
1977, The GUILD replies that the 1977
layoffs were due to con-
solidation of a new "Valley" fire and police
communication cen-
ter in the area and that the laid off employees
were offered
jobs
in the new center.
Third
the CITY contends that separation pay is rare in
the
private sector,
Fourth, CITY Exhibit 2 shows none of the comparable West
Coast cities have separation
pay. Richland does, but the
panel
does not consider it a "West Coast" city under RCW
41. 56.460(c).
In view of these factors, the panel recommends that the
existing
provisions for severance pay be deleted.
IV
Hours of Duty
(Article IV, Section
1)
The AGREEMENT now provides that patrol personnel work ten
consecutive
days with five days off known as the 10-5 schedule
This has been in effect for
some sixteen years. It results in
a
team of officers with a supervisor working continuously as
rotated. The team work concept promotes efficient
police
duties. The Technical Service Bureau or civilian
personnel
work
five days on and two days off, known as the 5-2 schedule.
The CITY proposes to change the patrol schedule to a 10-4
schedule
for patrol officers and a 6-3 schedule for civilian
personnel
assigned to the swing and graveyard shifts,
The
GUILD objects to the 10-4
schedule for patrol personnel. It
has
no objection to the 6-3 schedule for other personnel work-
mg
the swing and graveyard shifts.
Currently 27 officers and three supervisors are used to
man
the patrol division. Under the 5-2
concept, the CITY
would
only need 26 officers, but it would need five sergeants
to
cover the relief periods.
The GUILD's Rebuttal (Page 8)
challenges the CITY's Docu-
mentation (Page 10) that the 10-4 schedule is a
"matter of pro-
ductivity".
But it does not challenge the CITY's
arithmetic
that
such a schedule "would increase the hours worked in a
year
to 2,088" as contrasted with 1,968 hours currently, Or
that "officers
would continue to work 40 hour work weeks, but
the
CITY would gain 16 additional shifts per man",
(i.e. 2,088 hours
-1,968 hours
=120 hours + 8 hours = 16 shifts)
CITY Exhibit 2, Column 14, shows the 6-3 shift is worked
for
all
personnel, both uniformed and civilian
in Edmonds, Mercer
Island,
Lynnwood, Olympia and partially in Everett. The
GUILD has no objection. The CITY proposes it for Technical
Services
employees.
Auburn is the only city tabulated in
CITY
Exhibit 2 that works a 10-4 shift. If a 5-2 or 10-4
shift
is worked, it equals a total of seven or fourteen days
In that event, there is no
rotation towards weekends off. A
6-3 shift for all personnel
would accomplish such a rotation,
Renton is the only city
tabulated, in CITY Exhibit 2, that
works a
10-5 shift.
The panel recommends the hours of duty for all department
personnel
except day clerks and secretaries and the lab tech-
nician be changed to a 6-3 schedule.
V
Overtime Pay
(Article IV, Section 4)
The current contract provides that "any employee
required
to
attend any court within eight hours of the end of a grave-
yard
shift shall receive four hours at the time and a half
rate".
The GUILD proposes to increase the minimum payment for
court
appearances and any other overtime within nine hours of
a
graveyard shift to five hours at the time and a half rate.
Its proposal is intended to
make it financially punitive to
the
CITY to schedule overtime duties for graveyard shift of-
ficers by requiring a minimum of nine hours off
before having
to
report again.
The graveyard shift for patrolmen is 11:00 P.M. to 7:00
A.M.
The ninth hour would enable
the officer to have time to get
home
and go to sleep by 8:00 A.M. until the time that he had
to
be in court or perform other overtime duties and then to
go
back home and go to sleep again in preparation for going
to
work at 11:00 P.M. that night. The GUILD's proposal to
make
this practice punitive is to eliminate this stress by
proposing
that if there is overtime, the minimum be increased
from
four to five hours.
The CITY takes the position that the GUILD proposal is
essentially
one of a minimum call back time' that is, after
the
officer has returned home from his duty there should be
a
two, three or four hour interval to get some sleep. It
desires
to submit supplemental information as to the prac-
tice in other cities with respect to call back
time. The
Renton Police Court does not
have a night session. To do
so
would require the CITY to pay overtime to its staff. It
can
arrange for officers to be heard at convenient hours.
The GUILD contends that night
court would be beneficial to
citizens
who otherwise have to take a day off of work to ap-
pear
in court
The panel recommends that the GUILD's
proposal for a
minimum
of five hours overtime pay within nine hours of the
normal
end of a graveyard shift should be adopted.
VI
Shift
Differentials
(Article IV, Section 7)
The CITY proposed to eliminate the shift differential.
The GUILD countered by a proposal
to apply it to all personnel
with
one half hours pay for swing shift officers and one hours
pay
for graveyard shift employees.
This section provides that civilian employees in the
Technical Services Bureau
shall receive differential or
added
pay of $.15 per hour and $.25 per hour respectively
for
the swing and graveyard shifts. It was
intended to com-
pensate these employees who work on a five and two
basis for
the
separation from their family during normal evening hours.
It does not apply to commissioned
officers. If the parties
accept
the CITY's proposal to switch the Technical Bureau
personnel
to a 6-3 schedule, the need for such a differential
is
less. Similarly if the fact finding recommenda
tion for a 6-3 schedule for all personnel is
adopted, the
reason
would be eliminated Shift differentials
are not a
prevailing
practice for this occupational group. Of
all of
the
cities listed in CITY Exhibit 2 only Renton and Vancouver
have
them. Note that Pullman also has but it
is not considered
by the
panel to be "on the West Coast of the United States",
within
the intent of RCW 41.56.460(c).
The panel recommends the shift differential be
eliminated.
VII
Compensation for Training
(Article IV, Section 8)
This section provides for employees to waive overtime
when
they are attending state or federally sponsored training
classes
provided the employees are released of all police re-
lated duties during the days training is
given. Overtime was
paid
if the officer subsequently worked in excess of the eight
hours
spent in class. The provision was
intended to discourage
the
scheduling of officers for training who had already put
in a
full day of work.
The GUILD has proposed that overtime compensation be
waived
only if the officer is relieved from normal duties
for a
period of eight hours before the scheduled training and
sixteen
hours after training.. It is addressed
to the situation
where a
graveyard shift officer works from 11:00 P.M. to
7:00 A.M..
then goes to school from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. then
works
another graveyard shift. It contends
that this means he
does
not sleep at all and that if an officer is sent to school
after a
graveyard shift he should be entitled to overtime and
not
waive it..
But as the time table is understood, during the period
between
5:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. he could sleep.
If a day
shift
officer worked from 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. and was noti-
fied that he was to go to school the following
day for a like
period
he would not claim overtime because he recognizes the
value
of the training.
The CITY gives an example an officer who normally works
the
graveyard shift is assigned to a school which runs from
8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Tuesday
under the existing language he
does
not work Monday night but does work Tuesday night. In
other
words he has a time lapse between say 5:00 P.M. and
10:00 P.M. for sleep but if
the GUILD's proposal were imple-
mented the officer would not work either Monday
night or Tuesday
night
which in essence would be an additional day off. The CITY
fails
to see the necessity for such a long recuperative period.
The GUILD on the other hand contends that it is very
difficult
to turn a pattern around. The man
normally works a
graveyard
shift but if off that night and goes to school the
next
day he should have an additional day off to recuperate.
The GUILD points out that with a 10-5 scheduling the
CITY should be able to
accomplish its training sessions during
the
day shifts and that there are enough training sessions to
make
this possible. The CITY counters that
some of the train-
mg
sessions are arranged by the federal government or other
agencies
and it is difficult to attain an assured flexibility
to
accomplish this But the proposed 6-3
schedule for all
personnel shold make this even more practicable.
The practice has been that the officer is relieved of
graveyard
shift if he has to go to school the next day or if
he
goes to school during the day that he does not have to work
swing
shift nor does he have to work graveyard shift.
The
GUILD member of the panel just
finished training and he attend-
ed
school on Friday and did not have to work the graveyard
shift
because he had worked all day at school.
The GUILD has
no
problem with waiving overtime if they don't have to work
the
following shift.
The CITY is in basic agreement with what the GUILD
desires
but
there seems to be some difference as to how the new lan-
guage would read.
The chairman requested that the parties
stipulate
as to agreed language but this was not accomplished
during
the hearing.
The panel recommends that the existing practice is rea-
sonable and should be retained with modifications
to implement
existing
practice by specifically providing that an officer as-
signed
to a graveyard shift who attends a day's training class
should
be relieved of his next assigned shift.
VIII
Clothing Allowance
(Article VI, Section 2)
This section has a schedule of annual cash clothing
allow-
ances "to buy, maintain and repair"
uniforms and requires that
the
CITY pay the full amount for one full uniform set if the
department
should change styles. The CITY proposes
to sub-
stitute a quartermaster system for uniform supply
to achieve
economies
or alternatively a voucher system in which the CITY
would
be billed directly by each vendor..
The GUILD proposed an increase in the noncommissioned
employee's
allowance, and that the CITY make available three
complete
sets of uniforms should it prescribe a uniform change.
The voucher system would provide cost control, It would
not
be received in cash, but in a more tangible form. The
GUILD countered that it would
accept the voucher system if
it
would also provide for cleaning the uniforms.
Column 10 of CITY Exhibit 2 shows the practice in other
cities. Most of the cities provide for a
quartermaster or
voucher system. The term "all issue" in that
exhibit means
that, The GUILD points out that the term does not
explain
whether
or not cleaning is included. The GUILD testified that in
the
City of Bellevue cleaning and pickup of uniforms is included.
The public appearance of police officers is important
for
public prestige and for self-esteem.
It is recommended that a quartermaster or voucher system
be
authorized with the provision in the new contract for
"maintenance"
that is "cleaning and repair" at CITY's
expense.
IX
Family Holidays
(Article VIII, Section 2)
For most holidays, employees receive their regular pay
plus
a
day off in lieu of the holiday. However,
for Thanksgiving
and
Christmas the employees receive double their base rate and
a
day off in lieu of the holiday.
The GUILD seeks to increase the number of holidays for
which
double pay is received to include New Year's Day and
Independence
Day. The
CITY currently provides double time
for
its employees for work on holidays' except the police and
fire
departments.
The CITY's view is that the GUILD's proposal amounts to
triple
time because there is double time for the holiday worked
plus
an extra day off, The CITY's view is that Thanksgiving
Day and Christmas Day are
notable family days together, where-
as
New Year's Day is generally considered an adult day and the
Fourth of July, coming as it
does in the summer when school is
out,
permits families to be together on a nearby day, CITY's
Exhibit 2, Column 6 shows that
there is a wide latitude in other
cities. In several there is no holiday premium, In some there
is
overtime at time and one half. In none
is there double time
plus
another day off except in Renton.
The panel recommends that the existing contract language
be
retained.
X
Educational Allowance
(Article IX)
The AGREEMENT provides that
the CITY will reimburse
employees
for the costs of book, tuition and fees paid to
an
accredited college or university in the course of obtain
mg a
police related degree. The CITY seeks to
eliminate this
benefit. It argues that it is paying for an education
incentive
twice,
first for the classes and then an increase in pay for the
resulting
degree under Article X. The CITY
proposes to delete
Sections 1 and 2 which provide
for reimbursement of the "cost
of
all books, tuitions, and fees",
Under Article X of the
AGREEMENT, the CITY pays a
bonus of $15,000 per month for having
completed
45 credits in law enforcement courses and $30.00 a
month
for having attained an applied science degree in law en
forcement.
The GUILD contends the payment of tuition and so forth
is
to meet the expense of going to school while you are work-
mg
which is a difficult task and that the bonus is an incen-
tive for acquiring the degree.
The panel is impressed by the increasingly high
educational
attainments
of police officers which reflects in their improved
competency,
efficiency, presence and public relation.
These
are
important contributions to law enforcement.
The panel recommends that the existing practice be con-
tinued and that the CITY's
proposal to delete Article IX,
Sections 1 and 2 be denied.
XI
Medical and Dental Coverage for Dependents
(Article XIV)
This article provides full medical and dental coverage
for
all employees and their dependents. The
CITY proposes to
"lid"
this benefit for dependents to the amount of coverage
current
premiums will buy. Thus, if it falls
short of full
coverage,
the employees would contribute the difference if
they
desire full coverage. The GUILD opposes.
The CITY's rationale is that
this benefit is one of
bargaining,
and that shared coverage may make the employees
more
judicious in medical calls, and that such has been re-
cently recommended in Seattle.
The GUILD points out that existing deductible and
non-coverage
of prescriptions restrain abuse. It
relies
on
CITY Exhibit 2, Column 11 which shows 100% coverage in
most
of the compared cities.
The panel recommends that the existing provisions of
Article XIV of the agreement
be retained.
XII
Life Insurance - Double Indemnity
(Article XV)
The current contract requires the CITY to provide double
indemnity
for all employees and their dependents,
The CITY
seeks
to remove the double indemnity coverage.
The GUILD
opposes
this.
The CITY contends that until
this year state law had
prohibited
the writing of double indemnity insurance and that
even
under the new law such coverage is not available from the
CITY's
current insurance carrier and its broker states he is
unable
to locate any carriers willing to write such coverage.
On this basis the CITY desires
to be released from this obli
gation due to its inability to fulfill it. The CITY's panel
member
stated that the CITY's finance officer had been able
to
obtain double indemnity insurance for employees only, and
had
been unable to obtain double indemnity coverage for depen-
dents. It also stated that the provisions of the
AGREEMENT
for
double indemnity for dependents has not been fulfilled.
The GUILD provides its members with insurance coverage
through
Manufacturers Life and states it will also provide
double
indemnity for members and their dependents.
The panel recommends that the parties mutually ascertain
whether
coverage is available to continue the double indemnity
provisions
of Article XV, and if so, that its provisions be.
retained.
XIII
Salary Increase
(Attachment A to AGREEMENT)
This is addressed to cost of living increase only and not
to
any pay raise. RCW 41.56.460(c) and (d)
provides that fac-
tors to be considered with respect to salaries
shall include
comparisons
with other cities of similar size on the West
Coast and average consumer
prices commonly known as the cost
of
living.
The CITY proposes a flat 4% increase of salaries. It
shows
in CITY Exhibit 2, Columns 2 and 3 that Renton's basic
rate
for police officers ranging between $1,243 and $1,451
per
month is highest in the state whereas Renton is seventh
in
size among the cities selected; and on its Exhibit 4 that
the
cumulative salary increases exceeds the CPI increases
since
1965. It contends that the cost of
living index is
only
one of the factors governing the matter.
The GUILD objects to the CITY tracing increases from 1965
because
there was. no collective bargaining for the police
until
enactment of the 1973 amendment to the Public Employees
Relations Act. It is the GUILD's
position that the earlier
salaries
were far too low. The GUILD believes the
proper
focus
should be the current cost of living increase over
the
previous year and not to trace back over many past years
The GUILD proposes a salary increase of 1.3% for each 1%
in
the consumer price index for Seattle to accomodate
the time
lag
which would result in an 11.9% increase in annual salary.
The GUILD supports its proposal by Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and
6.
Exhibit 3 shows the increase
in consumer price index from 167.9
in
November, 1976 to 180.2 in August, 1977 with a projected
increase
based upon the increments during the prior quarters
to
184.5 in November, 1977. It contends
that because of the
time
lag in recognizing cost of living increase that each
quarter
actual earnings resulted in loss from cost of living
increases
aggregating annually $609. GUILD Exhibit
4 extends
the
computations. GUILD Exhibit 5 compares
four California
cities
of Irvine, Colver City, Covnia,
and Arcadia, having
populations
ranging from 33,000 to 44,000 with Washington
cities
of Auburn, Bellevue, Everett and Renton whose popula
tions range between 28,000 and 67,000. It shows the salary
range
of the Washington cities is between $1,350 for the
lowest,
Everett, and $1,450 for the highest, Renton,
The
California cities are higher
ranging between $1,581 and $1,746.
It also shows the portion of
the municipal budget allocated
to
police with Renton at 11% as contrasted with Bellevue at
9%, Everett at 13%, and Auburn
at 33% contrasted with the
California
cities ranging from 17 to 29%. Then to demonstrate
the
efficiency of the Renton Police Department it shows that
Renton is leading in the
number of index crime arrests, or
violent
felonies, per officer. These figures do
not seem
to
the panel to be correlated to the question of salary.
The CITY counters that California cities have more
flexible
taxing
rates. Its case is based upon comparison
with other
Washington cities where the
Renton salary is the highest of
those
compared.
The primary current factor is keeping up with the cost
of
living. This is recognized in the
current AGREEMENT. Article
V provided salaries in accordance
with its attached Schedule A.
Schedule A,
Page 1 fixed salaries effective June 1, 1975.
Its
Page 2 increased salaries
effective January 1, 1976 by the
cost
of living increase of 6 1/2% determined
from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index for urban wage earners
and
clerical workers for the Seattle area measured from
November, 1974 to November,
1975. And thereafter ,
effective
January 1, 1977 it made a
similar wage increase based on the
consumer
price index.
Based on all comparisons offered in evidence, the panel
finds
that current salaries are fair and reasonable, subject
to
the necessary adjustment to meet what appears to be a con-
stantly increasing cost of living. It therefore declines
the
proposals of both sides.
The panel recommends that salary increases be computed
by
the same cost of living yardstick as done in Appendix A
for
the coming two years of the proposed Agreement,
XIV
Physical Fitness Bonus
This is a new proposal.
The GUILD requests a 4% bonus
or
premium for officers who meet a set of physical fitness
standards
as an incentive for officers to stay "in shape".
The CITY opposes this.
The GUILD supports its position by GUILD Exhibits 11
is, GUILD Exhibit 15 consists of a proposed
physical fitness
test
consisting of running, push ups, sit ups, squat thrusts,
and
points awarded on the number accomplished, graded retro-
gressively according to age between 21 and 55
years. It points
out
that with officers spending so much time seated in squad
cars
yet called upon, without notice, to perform arrest duties,
chase,
and other strenuous physical acts requires excellent
fitness. Most police disabilities are caused by heart
and
back
conditions, When an officer is given a
disability dis
charge
for physical condition he receives 60% of his salary.
Excellent physical fitness
should reduce these expenses to
the
CITY.
The CITY opposes on the ground that it should not be
required
to pay a bonus to assure that its police employees
remain
in physical condition to do the job for which they
were
employed. It points out that such a
physical fitness
bonus
program does not exist in any of the compared cities,
However, the panel believes that a physical fitness
bonus
is analagous to the educational training
support, No
figures
were furnished to the panel as to the financial im-
pact
of such a bonus. The GUILD claims that
the longevity
pay
provided in Article XII is lower than in most cities,
It ranges from $15.00 per
month after five years to $60,00
per
month after twenty years,
For per cent of the current monthly base pay of $1,451
shown
on GUILD Exhibit 3 and CITY Exhibit 2 would be approxi-
mately $58.00 per month, In view of the recommended cost of
living
increase and other recommendations by the panel this
seems disproportionately high.
However, 2% or $29.00 per
month
or $348.00 per year seems reasonable.
The panel recommends that the physical fitness program
be
implemented by a 2% bonus payable monthly so long as the
officer
continues to qualify on a quarterly basis on furlough
time
and that the value of benefits or detriments of this
suggestion
be reappraised in the light of two years' impend
ing experience during the new contract.
XV
Bi-Weekly
Pay
The GUILD requests that the current CITY practice of
paying
employees on the 5th and 20th of each month be changed
to a
straight bi-weekly schedule. It claims
this would bene-
fit
family budgeting. The CITY objects on
the grounds that
the
GUILD comprises only 69 of 325 people employed by the
CITY and that it would be a
considerable accounting incon-
venience to make this change.
The panel adopts the CITY's
view and recommends that no
change
be made in the current payroll practice.
Dated at Seattle, Washington, November
3, 1977.
_______________________
Albert E. Stephan
Chairman, Fact Finding Panel
I concur in Recommendation I concur in Recommendation
Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7,
10, 11, 12, 13, , 9, 10, 15, and reserve on
and
Reserve on 4, and 8; 4, 8, 12,
and ,
and
dissent as to the and dissent as to the
remaining
issues. remaining issues.
________________________ _________________________
Michael Glen Sharon
T
for
Renton Police Officers' Guild for
City of Renton
My reasons are as follows: My reasons are as
follows:
________________________ ______________________
________________________ ______________________
________________________ ______________________
________________________ ______________________
________________________ ______________________
(Use added page if desired.) (Use added page if desired.)