And
Local
876, International Association of Fire Fighters
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John J. Ripple
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Ripple; John J.
Case #: 00388-I-76-00028
Employer:
Spokane County Fire District 1
Date Issued:
)
Local 876, International )
Association of Firefighters ) Binding Arbitration
) proceedings pursuant to
-and- ) RCW 41.56
)
DISTRICT NO. 1 )
_______________________________ )
REPORT AND DECISION
JOHN J. RIPPLE, Chairman
************************
Panel Members
Chairman: John J. Ripple,
Attorney at Law,
Panel Member:
Panel Member: William
Donahue, of Associated Industries, Inc.,
of
ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL AND
PROCEDURES
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.440 of the Laws of the
State of
was
appointed Chairman of the Arbitration Panel in
this
matter, verbally and confirmed by letter dated
Director,
of the Public Employment Relations Commission.
Other Panel Members had
been previously selected,
Wisener,
for the Firefighters Local 876, and William
Donahue,
for the
PURPOSE OF THIS PROCEEDING
This proceeding is held pursuant to
statutory authority
pertaining
to uniformed personnel. Prior to his
appointment
the
Chairman was informed that both sides had agreed to waive
fact-finding
and go directly to binding arbitration.
This
announcement
was made by the Chairman to both sides at the
start
of the hearing on September 2nd, and both sides agreed.
It was also agreed by both sides, that this
proceeding
was
governed by the provisions of RCW 41.56, and the basis
for
determination set forth in Section 5 thereof (RCW 41.56.460).
SUMMARY OF THE ISSUES
Briefly stated the matters brought before
the
Panel
are based on the following issues:
1. The Firefighters Local 876 has requested
a
16.4% wage increase for 1977. The Fire District has
offered
a 7% increase in wages, plus 1% increase in
fringe
benefits.
2. The Firefighters have requested a change
in the
wording
of the Article concerning shift trades within the
department. The District has requested that the Article
remain
the same.
3. The Fire District has requested a change
in the
Contract (Article VI,
Section 1(B). The Firefighters
opposed
changing the wording and policy on earned vacations.
This issue has to do with
the additional vacation awarded to
each
firefighter who has qualified by a four year increment
of
service.
In discussion of these matters and issues
throughout
this
report, Local 876 will be referred to as "The Firefighters",
and
the
to
as "The District". Throughout
this report references will
be
made to the exhibits which are part of this record. A summary
of
the exhibits is attached to this record as an appendix.
HEARINGS
The first meeting of the Panel was held on
September 2,
1976, at
members
of the Panel were present, together with represent-
atives of both sides.
It was agreed that hearings would be
informally
conducted
and the initial presentation on the three issues
involved
was made by the Firefighters. The
Chairman
requested
that in addition to all testimony the parties
present
as much as possible, by way of written arguments
and
written materials to support their positions.
Panel
Members, as well as
Representatives of the parties, were
permitted
to question and cross examine witnesses.
No
tape
recordings were made of the proceedings.
The hearing on September 2nd concluded at
approximately
necessary
to get additional information concerning an
alleged
surplus from the
He offered, at that time,
to set up an appointment with the
Deputy
Auditor, to include the other two Panel Members. The
consensus
of both sides was that the Chairman should contact
the
Auditor's Office, personally, and on his own without the
other
Panel Members, and it was agreed that this would be
done.
On September 7th, at
contacted
Anthony Cabading, Deputy County Auditor, in charge
of
the accounting for
the
purpose of getting further explanation of computer read-
outs,
which were obtained and presented to the Panel, allegedly
covering
expenditures on the 1976 budget, through
The purpose of this contact
was to determine the accuracy
and
validity of contentions by the Firefighters that a
projection
of expenditures through
a
substantial surplus would be realized by end of the fiscal
year
closing December 31st.
Following this meeting, the Panel Chairman
informed
both
sides that the Auditor's Office had indicated that the
July 31st computer read-out
statements did not include
the
2nd payroll for the month of July, and that approximately
$48,OOO.OO,
plus, in additional payroll and related expenses
was
not shown on that read-out. Both sides
were invited
to
confirm this information by contacting the
Office
themselves and reporting back to the Panel Chairman.
Subsequently, new figures were obtained by
the Firefighters,
which
purported to indicate a surplus in the salary portion
of
the budget amounting to approximately $79,579.00. Because
of
the apparent conflict in figures, an additional meeting
was
called by the Chairman with both parties present on
the
morning of October 14th. At that time it
was conceded
that
additional adjustments needed to be made off the
$79,000.00 surplus figure,
the most important one being a
deduction
for holiday pay which would be debited in December,
amounting
to more than $34,000.00. After
discussion with
the
parties and testimony by the Deputy Auditor, it appeared
that
the District was willing to concede that there might be
a
surplus of approximately $25,000.00, with the Firefighters
still
contending that the surplus would be closer to $45,000.00.
This difference was not
resolved.
ISSUE - WAGES
At the outset it was stipulated that the
District
Board had made available
for salary increases for the
year
1977, the sum of $105,000.00, and by its offer of
7% increase had used up
this item. It was contended that
a
rather substantial surplus existed (see Exhibit 5
produced
by the Firefighters) amounting to almost $115,000.00,
which
would make a total available for 1977 increases in the
sum
of $220,000.00. The Firefighters in
effect conceded that
in
the absence of such a surplus, there simply was no place
to
get the money for 1977, and a fire district levy which
is
on the ballot for the fall of 1976, would not produce
funds
until 1978. Please note the reference
made at the
outset
of this report as to the Panel Chairman's conferences
with
the
Some of the items given for the use of the
Arbitrator
involved
the following:
1. Cost of living differences.
2. Settlement trends.
3. Conditions of employment, as related to
per
capita
number of Firefighters available.
4. Comparison of other districts and cities
within
the
state.
5. National and regional pay trends.
6. Comparison with the City of
7. Comparison with other trades and
occupations.
8. Ability to pay.
9. Cost of living information determined
from
Consumer Price Indexes and
information concerning current
rates
of inflation.
Some discussion was had concerning parity
with the
Spokane City Fire Department, and indications were that
six
years ago the two departments were on equal terms
as
far as wages were concerned.
Subsequently, the Valley
Firefighters obtained some
extra increases in fringe benefits,
such
as medical and dental, but fell behind on wages. It is
difficult
to put an exact percentage difference on the
overall
comparison of the two departments. It
would appear
that
at the present time the
is
paying approximately 8.13% more than the Valley Fire
Department on spendable wages, and the City has just
negotiated
an additional wage to its Firefighters of 8.5%,
meaning
that settlement at the rate of increase proposed by
the
District would further widen the gap between the two
departments.
Other comparisons indicate that the Valley
Fire
District is spending
approximately 87% of its budget on
personnel. This figure is comparable to other
departments,
with
the percentage increasing in the larger departments
and
falling below that figure in smaller departments. Many
factors
appear to enter into this percentage.
However, it
is
safe to say that the Valley Fire Department is not
unduly
diverting its funds into capital expenditures and
other
improvements at the expense of its personnel.
There is a great deal of difference between
positions
of
the
which
the funds are raised. The City Fire
Department is
not
nearly so dependent upon special levies as the Valley
District. Testimony showed that more than 60% of the
Valley
Fire District's annual
budget comes from special levies.
This means that wage
increases must be projected almost two
years
ahead of time in order to have the funds included in
levy
elections currently being held. What
this means in
terms
of the current arbitration issue on wages is that 1977
wages
must be governed by elections previously held, setting
up
the tax rates and special levy rates.
Increases in wages
beyond
funds already provided for by special levy elections,
leave
the District with the choice of either shifting funds
from
other parts of the budget, and this is very limited, or
cutting
down the number of personnel. Neither of
these is
a
very desirable step to be forced to take.
The District
is
obviously interested in maintaining the very best and
most
efficient fire service that it is able.
Perhaps it is not out of order for this
Arbitrator to
suggest
that the Firefighters be given an opportunity to
give
some input concerning the size of special levies for
which
approval is sought, even though these may have to be
effected
well in advance of the normal negotiating period.
Since the Firefighters have
such a large stake in the success
of
the levies it seems that their opinions and advice should
be
cranked into the overall formula for determining the size
of
special levies.
Be that as it may, it does appear to this
Arbitrator
that
there is justification for the Firefighters' request for
a
larger increase than the 7% currently being offered for
1977. Funds simply are not available to make the
increase
to
16.4% as requested, and as a matter of fact, in the
negotiating
sessions it was conceded that there probably
was
no way this large a jump could be made all at once.
Three things impressed the Arbitrator most
in the
evidence
presented:
1. The Consumer Price Indexes indicate that
the cost
of
living has risen approximately 6% in the past year, with
the
largest increases being in transportation and medical
expense.
2. Settlement trends being effected in both
the
public
and private sector throughout 1976 range from
approximately
7.0% to 7.5% increase.
3. Current increases rendered by the City of
will
further widen the gap between the two Departments.
DECISION:
Having in mind all of these things,and being fully
cognizant
of the difficult position in which uniformed
personnel
are placed by virtue of the public nature of their
jobs,
and the limited economic control that they can exercise,
it
is the judgment of the Arbitrator that the Firefighters
shall
receive an 8.5% increase in their 1977 contract wages,
along
with the approximately 1% fringe benefit increase
in
dental and medical coverage already agreed to.
It is a recommendation of the Arbitrator
that Fire
District take a further
look at the wages being paid its
firemen
and try to project ahead sufficient funds over the
next
two or three years to grant increases that will narrow
the
gap in wages between the City and Valley Fire District.
It is impossible to predict
accurately the rate of inflation
ahead,
but some effort must be done along this line.
The
District should try to
provide some additional allowance, say in
three
increments, to provide "catch-up" pay to the Valley
Firefighters,
in addition to cost of living increases.
ISSUE - SHIFT TRADES
This issue seemed to the Arbitrator to be
almost
more
vigorously contested than the issue of wages.
Inquiry on the part of the
Arbitrator indicates that
it
is a most important part of a fireman's existence
and
a privilege which he jealously seeks to protect.
It is also a privilege
which is found in very few types
of
employment. Two lengthy discussions were had with
the
parties and the Arbitrator on this issue.
It appeared to the Arbitrator that the
arrangement
has
worked fairly well, with a minimum of difficulty, for
many
years. Some incidents have arisen which
have created
differences,
but apparently these have been relatively few
and
relatively minor. Some observations
should be borne
in
mind:
1. It is absolutely necessary that the
District retain
control,
through its Officers and Administrators.
2. While continuing the premise that refusals to
grant
shift trades must be for "cause", there appears to
be
no sound reason why the "cause" cannot be stated in writing.
DECISION:
The following provisions shall be
incorporated in
the
contract between these parties:
Article VI, Section 3, shall be changed to
read as
follows:
"Section 3. Shift Trades.
(A) All permanent personnel shall be allowed
to
trade
time when the trade does not interfere with the
efficiency
of the Fire Department.
(B) All requests for time trades shall be
submitted
on
the appropriate Department form to the shift officer in
charge
of the shift on which the trade is taking place.
(C) Denial of a time trade by a shift officer
shall
be
made when the trade interferes with the efficient operation
of
the Department, or when there exists other sufficient
good
cause. When a denial occurs, the reason
for the
denial
shall be stated in writing on the time trade request
form
and signed by the responsible officer.
(D) In order to maintain the efficiency of
the Department,
only
equally qualified personnel shall be allowed to trade
time. Officers shall trade with officers, drivers
with drivers,
and
firefighters with firefighters.
(E) All time traded shall be paid back
within 12 months
of
the original trade. The Fire Department
shall not be held
accountable
in any way for time not paid back by an employee.
(F) In addition to the criteria stated in
this
Article, the number of
partial or full shift trades,
or
total hours traded during a 12 month period shall be
subject
to the procedures of department rule 87.
(G) Personnel utilizing a traded shift to
work outside
the
department for pay or compensation will receive a
3-shift
suspension."
ISSUE - VACATION POLICY
Present longevity policy of the District
provides
for
one additional shift of paid vacation for each
longevity
pay step, to-wit: every four years.
Practice
in
the District has been to grant the extra shift of
vacation
in the year that the employee becomes eligible for
the
extra shift, even though it may occur before the extra
longevity
is actually earned. Apparently vacation
policy
requires
that employee to take his vacation within a 12 month
period,
the calendar. Therefore, the person
becoming eligible
for
one extra shift of vacation at a December anniversary
date,
would have almost no chance of getting the extra
vacation
that year. It would simply come the following year.
The question arises as to what is a proper
interpretation
of
the contract and whether or not it is actually legal and
proper
to grant the extra vacation period (paid) prior to
the
time it is actually earned.
DECISION:
The Arbitrator feels that it is not proper
to grant
it
prior to the time it is actually earned and accrued, and
the
District is directed to make an appropriate change in
its
vacation policy.
John J. Ripple, Panel
Chairman
and
Arbitrator
I accept and agree with the
above and foregoing report and
panel
decision.
____________ ____________
Panel Member Panel Member
I reject and disagree with
the above and foregoing report and
panel
decision.
____________ ____________
Panel Member Panel Member
APPENDIX
List of Exhibits Submitted
Exhibit No. Document
1. Local 876 Arbitration brief.
2. Memo of November 11, l974
3. Correspondence between the parties relative
to shift
trading, covering
period from August, l975 into 1976,
and including
arbitrator's findings on limitations of
trades.
4. Tacoma department contract Section XI
relative to
accrual of
vacations
5. Budget comparisons presented by
Firefighters relative to
alleged surplus
6. Copy of l975-l976 contract between the
parties.
7. Computer sheet from Spokane County auditor,
red-lined
by Firefighters,
to show figures relative to alleged
surplus
8. Statement of issues by the District
9. Statement by District relative to
comparability of the
District with other fire departments
10. District resolution
dated August 2, 1976, relative to
internal transfer
of budgeted funds.
11. 1976 Salary recap sheet
12. Salary adjustment
sheets
13. Sept. 1, 1976 letter
from county auditor suggesting the
need for a cash
reserve fund within the district
l4. August 21, 1976 Labor
Law Report, reflecting inflation
rate and cost of
living increases
l4b
Consumer price index summary
l5. Cost of living study,
February, 1976, relative to
comparison between
Spokane and Seattle
16. Comparison with Yakima
department
17. Comparison with Everett
department
18. Comparison with South
County (Alderwood) department
19. 1976 Labor Contract
settlements - private industry -
Spokane county area
20. 1976 Labor Contract
settlements - counties
21. District Memo on issue
of vacations
22. District Memo on issue
of Shift trades
23. July 24, 1976
Spokesman-Review article concerning
Spokane City Fire Department wage
settlement.