DECISIONS

Decision Information

Decision Content

WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES, DECISION 762 (PECB, 1979)

OPEIU, Local 8 v. Washington State Ferries

                FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

 

On September 5, 1978, Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 8, AFL-CIO filed a notice of labor dispute with the Public Employ­ment Relations Commission.  The dispute involves terms of a collective bargaining agreement to replace an agreement between the parties which expired on June 30, 1978.  Rex L. Lacy of the Commission staff was assigned to serve as Hearing Officer on behalf of the Commission.

 

The Hearing Officer met with the parties on October 23, 1978 to determine the nature and scope of the issues in dispute.  At that time, the parties submitted to the Hearing Officer a document entitled "Items Agreed Upon October 23, 1978", and the remaining disputed issues were identified as economic issues.

 

On November 28, 1978, the Labor Relations Manager of Washington State Ferries, T. D. Hardcastle, notified the union that the management team at the Depart­ment of Transportation in Olympia had rejected the October 23, 1978 list of "agreed" items and, further, had instructed him to present the union with proposed changes to items previously negotiated to agreement by the parties.  The union rejected the newly proposed changes, and requested that the rejected items be consolidated with the unresolved economic issues to be argued before the Hearing Officer.

 

A formal hearing was conducted on January 25 and 26, 1979.  The parties sub­mitted briefs on all disputed items.  Some comment is necessary to explain the Commission's findings on "wages" and "fringe benefits".

 

The employer's argument that the employees involved in these proceedings are entitled only to a 5 wage increase in 1978 is based on the concept that the general wage increase for Merit System employees of the State of Washington on July 1, 1978 was 5%.  However, the Washington State Ferries clerical employees involved here are not civil service employees as defined in RCW 41.06 and the Merit System Rules.

 

The office clerical employees of Washington State Ferries are subject to the provisions of RCW 47.64, which sets forth the procedures for resolving disputes between the employer and the representative of its employees, as follows:

 

"RCW 47.64.030 Duties of the commission in general.

 

The Commission shall make such surveys of wages, hours and working conditions as it deems necessary, shall consider the prevailing practices for similarly skilled trades in the area in which the employee is employed."

 

The union's argument for an across-the-board increase of $140.00 per month is based upon a survey limited to unionized employees in the greater Seattle area, and does not include all employees within its survey of prevailing practices for similarly skilled employees.

 

The employer produced additional wage surveys not limited to organized employees, and produced C. Carey Donworth and Matt Durham of the firm of Donworth, Taylor & Co., Management Consultants, of Seattle as witnesses.  They were the only expert witnesses called, and they gave credible testi­mony which has not been controverted.  While the survey produced in their office cannot be regarded as conclusive against the union, because of its failure to identify fully all survey participants, that survey and their testimony can be used in evaluating the position of the ferry system.  Their testimony establishes a historical pattern of two-year collective bargaining agreements, and shows that the ferry system's wages were slight­ly low.  In making its determination on wages, the Commission thus has before it the union's survey, the Donworth, Taylor & Co. survey, the "Endicott Report of 1978", the "Seattle-Everett Washington, Metropolitan Area Wage Survey, January, 1977", the "Administrative Management Society Clerical Salary Survey, 1978" and the "Executive Compensation Service, Office Personnel Report, 1977-78".  We also note that employees of the Washington State Ferries have historically enjoyed a 5% to 8% differential above comparable State Merit System employees.

 

The employer's position of continuing the $67.14 contribution rate for hospital/surgical/medical/dental insurance and $2700 of life insurance for employee-only coverage is viable for the period up to this date only in the respect that insurance trusts such as the one involved do not accept retroactive contributions for coverage not provided by the carrier.  The union's position requesting additional insurance contribution amounts is based on comparison with other employees of the ferry system.

 

The State of Washington now provides full family health insurance and dental insurance for its Merit System employees and for the employees of the ferry system other than those employed in this bargaining unit.  A $5,000.00 life insurance benefit is provided to Merit System employees.  The State is able to provide those benefits for its Merit System employees at a con­tribution level of $72.50 per employee per month in 1978-79 and $85.00 per employee per month in 1979-80 because of pooling of contributions for thou­sands of employees.  Ferry system employees represented by Local 8 have historically been participants in an insurance trust group smaller than the Merit System employee group.  This may result in a higher cost than $85.00 per month to provide full family coverage in the same manner as is provided for other ferry system or State employees.  Neither party has suggested a change of insurance groups, and such matters require considerable time and study.  The contribution rate adopted by the Commission here is the $116.00 per month per employee rate applied to provide full family coverage for most of the ferry system's employees.

 

The union's request for interest on back pay amounts has been noted, but is rejected based on the finding of a genuine impasse on economic issues.

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

 

     1.   The employer is the successor to the Washington Toll Bridge Authority.

 

     2.   Office and Professional Employees International Union Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, is the recognized collective bargaining representative for office clerical employees of Washington State Ferries.

 

     3.   The employees affected are employees within the meaning of RCW 47.64.010(4); and are all employed in Seattle.

 

     4.   Office and Professional Employees International Union Local No. 8, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the union, and Washington State Ferries, hereinafter called the employer, were parties to a collective bargaining agreement which contained a June 30, 1978 expiration date.  The expiration date was extended by agreement until August 31, 1978.

 

     5.   The parties opened negotiations for a successor agreement in accordance with the terms of the agreement.  Negotiations were conducted until August 31, 1978 when impasse was declared by the union.  On September 5, 1978 the union requested the Public Employ­ment Relations Commission to resolve the dispute in accordance with the provisions of RCW 47.64.040 and WAC 391-70-030(2).

     6.   The parties have historically negotiated agreements having 2 year durations and no evidence was adduced to show why the practice of 2 year agreements should not be continued.

 

     7.   All other unionized Washington State Ferry System employee groups have Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements.

 

     8.   Prevailing practice for similarly skilled trades for the employees involved means clerical employees in the Seattle area with respect to wages, and means all employees of the employer with respect to other conditions of employment.

 

     9.   The wage surveys indicate that the appropriate wage rates for affected employees in these proceedings requires application of a 6.5% increase to all classifications plus a 3% cost-of-living increase on July 1, 1978; a 3% cost-of-living increase on January 1, 1979; and a 6% increase plus a 3% cost-of-living increase to all classifications on July 1, 1979.  The cost-of-living adjustment language in the previous agreement should be continued in the parties new agreement.

 

     10.  The affected employees should each be provided up to $116.00 per month in order to fully provide themselves and their dependents with health insurance, dental insurance, prescription drug insurance and life insurance.

 

     11.  Historically, the employer has permitted the Labor Relations Manager of the Washington State Ferries to negotiate agreements on non-economic matters, while agreements on economic issues were nego­tiated subject to approval by the Department of Transportation in Olympia.  The negotiations in 1978 proceeded on the assumption that the historical practice would be followed.  Consequently, the docu­ment entitled "Items Agreed Upon October 23, 1978" represented concessions both parties had made in order to reach agreement.  The subsequent rejection of those agreements by the employer polarized the positions of the parties regarding all the issues at impasse, made further negotiations pointless and, in part, caused this labor dispute.  The parties were genuinely at impasse only on wages and fringe benefits.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

 

     1.   The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with RCW 47-64.030.

 

     2.   A dispute exists involving wages, hours and working conditions of employees covered by RCW 47.64.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

 

     1.   The parties to this dispute shall immediately adopt and implement the attached collective bargaining agreement for the period of time July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1980.

 

     2.   The parties shall immediately upon implementation of the attached collective bargaining agreement notify the Commission of its implementation.

 

 

 

 

DATED November 6,  1979.

 

 

 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Don E. Olson, Jr. did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

 

PAUL A. ROBERTS, Commissioner

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.