Fire
Fighters Local No. 1828
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Cornelius J. Peck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Peck; Cornelius J.
Case #: 00626-I76-00037
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
BEFORE THE STATE OF
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
COMMISSION
ARBITRATION PANEL
IN RE: ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) FINDINGS OF
FACT AND DETERMI-
THE CITY OF
FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL NO. 1828 ) CORNELIUS J. PECK, PANEL CHAIRMAN
Appearances:
Douglas Albright, Esq.,
for the City
Donald J. Hagen, Esq.,
Jerome L. Rubin, Esq.,
for the Firefighters
On
Relations Commission of the
State of
to serve as the chairman of a
panel established to arbitrate a dispute
between the City of
dispute concerns issues
remaining unresolved between those parties as to
the terms and conditions of
the collective bargaining agreement they attempted
to negotiate to replace the
collective bargaining agreement in effect between
them for the period from
members of the arbitration
panel are Mr. Karl A. Hofmann, who was selected
from a list of names provided
by the
Murphy, Esq., who was selected
from a list of names provided by the City of
A hearing of the dispute was held in
28, 29, and 30, 1976. Thereafter the parties filed written
post-hearing
briefs setting forth their
arguments upon the evidence introduced at the
hearing. The brief of the City was mailed to the
undersigned on October 1,
1976. Pursuant to an extension of time granted by
the undersigned, the
brief for the Firefighters was
delivered to the office of the undersigned
on
other two members of the panel
to discuss the findings of fact and the de
termination of the dispute
which he proposed to make pursuant to RCW 41.56.450.
Earlier, on
requirement that the chairman
make written findings of fact and a determina-
tion
of the dispute within 15 days after the conclusion of the hearing, and
agreed that instead the
chairman should have a reasonable time after the con-
clusion
of the hearing to prepare the written findings of fact.
The undersigned has given full and deliberate
consideration to the evi-
dence
and arguments thus presented. In
addition, the undersigned has given
careful consideration to the
report and recommendations of a fact-finding
panel, concerning the manner
in which the parties should resolve the issues
then in dispute between
them. The chairman of that panel was
Paul D. Jackson,
Esq.; James A. Murphy, Esq.
was the City member of the panel; and Mr. William
Angel was the Union member of
the panel.
The Minimum Manning Requirement
The
XI of the proposed agreement
between the parties:
3. At least three full paid members will be on duty 24
hours per day at the duty station.
At the present, ninety percent of the time three full
paid members of
the 15-man fire department of
duty station. The ten percent of the time when only two
full paid members
are on duty occurs because of
problems of scheduling vacations and sick leave.
On such occasions a volunteer
serves as the third man in responses to calls.
According to the
occasions substantially
increases the risk of harm to the firefighters respond-
ing
to a call. This increase in risk occurs
in substantial part because when
only two full paid members are
on duty they must await the arrival of the
volunteer fireman before
departing for the scene of the fire It
may take
between one to five minutes
for the volunteer to report and dress for service.
During this time the heat of a
fire might increase significantly. An
enclosed
building which has become
superheated is explosive if a window breaks or in
some other manner a supply of
oxygen gets into the interior, Another
risk
is that volunteer firemen are
not as well trained as full paid firemen, and,
because they do not devote
full time to firefighting, they are not as familiar
with the firefighting
equipment, its location on trucks, and the possibilities
of its use.
On the other hand, it appears that only 30 percent of the
emergency
calls received by the
the Department estimates that
only 30 percent of the fires require a three-
man crew, with the consequence
that it is only with respect to 10 percent of
the calls that the increased
risks with which the
Moreover, the City is
purchasing a new "attack"
fire-fighting unit which may
reduce the manning
requirements for fires to which the department responds.
I realize the deceptive simplicity with which an
arbitrator, seated
at his desk, may proclaim that
the hazards to firefighters of performing work
in a certain manner are not
substantial. Nevertheless, I note that
is primarily a city of single
family residences. It does not have a
large
commercial or manufacturing
area in which flammable or explosive materials
are stored in large
quantities. (I realize that the
Department is under
contract to provide
supplementary fire protection service to an adjacent
terminal for oil
shipments.) Moreover, the City has,
without obligating
contractual obligations, moved
to higher and higher proportions of professional
firefighters and reduced
reliance upon volunteers, and there is no reason to
believe the incentives for
reducing losses will not cause it to adopt a com-
plement
of full paid firefighters if that change would significantly affect
fire losses. Moreover, as I stated in an arbitration
proceeding concerning
the firefighters of the City of
tract provisions fixing
manning requirements in industry generally has been
very unsatisfactory. Changes in technology--perhaps represented in
this case
by the acquisition of the
"attack" unit--may render the previously stated
requirements obsolete, but,
having been incorporated in a collective bargain-
ing
agreement, they remain long after they serve any legitimate purpose.
For these reasons, I conclude that the parties need not
adopt the Union 5
proposed manning requirement.
Shift Exchanges
The
graph 2 of that article would
read as follows:
2. Shift
exchanges: When mutually agreeable, and
for good
reason, any two members of the same rank may
exchange their
day off period, but only with the approval
of their Lieu-
tenants who shall obtain approval of the
Fire Chief. Shift
exchanges are recognized as a privilege not
to be abused
by overuse or for frivolous reasons. They shall be allowed
upon request in writing timely made, by the
Chief or his
designate, provided, however, that such
exchanges may be
denied for good reason which shall be set
forth in writing
and such document given to the persons
involved in the pro-
posed exchange. (Language to be added underscored.)
The
between firefighters for
purposes such as pursuing educational courses or
meeting other pressing
obligations incompatible with a 24 hour shift.
In
many respects the new language
only contractually requires pursuit of the
practices currently followed,
such as the giving of a written statement for
the reasons of denial of a
request. The
for all denials be stated in
writing so as to avoid inconsistency and prevent
any practices of
favoritism. Like the chairman of the
fact finding panel, I
conclude that the addition of
the proposed language to the collective bargain-
mg agreement would be
desirable. Accordingly , it is my determination that it
be added.
Shift Definition
The expiring collective bargaining agreement contains a
definition of
the work week, but does not
contain a definition of a shift. Such
definitions
are common in collective
bargaining agreements, and the
such a definition be added to
the contract between the parties to give addi-
tional
certainty as to the obligations of the parties.
The Chairman of the
fact-finding panel recommended
that a definition be added to the agreement.
The City objects to the
addition for the reason that it would unduly restrict
the needed flexibility of the
operations of the fire department. In
response
to this objection, the
provision recommended in
fact-finding which would permit an averaging of
shifts for shift workers, thus
preserving flexibility in scheduling. I
con-
clude
that the provision recommended by the fact-finding panel, with the
amendment proposed by the
contract without unduly
hampering operations of the fire department.
Accord-
ingly,
the following language shall be added to Article XI, Section A of the
collective bargaining
agreement:
A. The
shift of a day.worker shall be eight hours; for shift
personnel, it shall be twenty-four
hours. A work week for
day workers shall consist of five shifts; an
average work
week for shiftworkers
shall consist of two shifts per week.
The work week of day workers and shift
personnel shall be
regularly scheduled in advance by the
Department and shifts
shall be worked consecutively for each work
week unless the
individual agrees to a change in shift hours
or in case of
an emergency.
Sick Leave
The City proposed a change in Article XIX of the
collective bargaining
agreement to insert the
following language:
All disabling sicknesses and illnesses will
be charged
against accrued sick leave until consumed.
That language would replace the provision of Article XIX
of the expiring
agreement which reads as
follows:
Sick leave and accrued sick leave will be
used during
periods of disability approved by the
Disability Review
Board.
The City has made this proposal as a change responsive to
adoption of
the Law Enforcement and Fire
Fighters Act, pursuant to which an Attorney
General's opinion suggests a fire fighter might receive
disability pay for a
period as short as one day
arising from non-work related causes
Presently,
however, the
80 hours of sick leave have
been used shall a firefighter be placed on dis-
ability pay. When put on disability pay he no longer uses
sick leave for the
period of his disability. The consequence is that if a firefighter
became
permanently disabled he would,
under current practices, be entitled to receive
one half of his accrued sick
leave. This could amount.to
as much as 360
hours of sick leave if the
firefighter had worked over eight years without
taking any sick leave. [A firefighter may accumulate a maximum of
800 hours
of sick leave, of which he
would be required to use 80 hours before going on
disability pay under the
present practices.] The City has
proposed this
change to avoid the
possibility of what it refers to as the double compensa-
tion
caused by the enactment of the Law Enforcement and Fire Fighters Act.
The chairman of the fact
finding panel agreed with the City's proposal and
recommended adoption of the
proposed change in the language.
Of course, the current practice of the Edmonds Disability
Review Board
ensures that there will be no
duplication of benefits during the first 80
working hours of
disability. Moreover, if this
requirement concerning the use
of sick leave is not
sufficient protection against.duplication of
benefits,
the required period for use of
sick leave could be increased. More
important,
however, is the fact that a
fire fighter who retires without disability is
paid one half of his accrued
sick leave. Such a payment at the time
of re-
tirement
is not made because the retired employee will become sick or disabled
after retirement, and thus it
is not a payment which should be considered as
payment for sickness or
disability. If it is not such a payment,
there is
no duplication of benefits
with the new statutory benefits. More
likely, as
suggested by the Union, such a
payment is made to the retiring employee in
recognition that he did not
freely avail himself of available sick leave,
with concomitant interference
with the operation of the Department.
The
possibility of obtaining such
a payment on retirement provides an obvious in-
centive
for fire fighters to use their sick leave only when necessary. It
would seem most unfair to pay
those sums to employees who retire in good
health, but to deny them to
fire fighters whose sparing use of sick leave
resulted in the accumulation
of sick leave prior to a disabling injury.
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed change in
the language
in Article XIX should not be
adopted.
Removal of Limit on Number of
Senior Firefighters
At the present time the City has a limit of five on the
number of fire-
fighters in the Department who
may be classified as senior firefighters, the
highest classification below
the supervisory rank of lieutenant. At
the
hearing the Union proposed
that this limit be removed, but it did not further
argue the issue in its
post-hearing brief. Nor does the issue
seem to have
been presented to the
fact-finding panel, and for that reason the chairman
of the fact-finding panel made
no recommendation on the issue.
The City argues that senior firefighters occasionally
serve as a shift
officer, but the City's job
description for the position expressly states that
a senior firefighter
supervises "no one." The description of the basic func-
tion
of the position does state that a senior firefighter may be delegated a
specific staff and supervisory
responsibility. Such limited supervisory
responsibilities thus do not
appear to be a regular and continuous part of the
duties of the position. These intermittent assignments provide a weak
basis
for the City's contention that
no more than five senior firefighters are needed
because of a lack of need for
additional supervision. The City's
witnesses
gave no other convincing
explanation of what is done by employees who are
senior firefighters and those
who, holding the qualifications for such a
classification, are classified
at a lower rank.
On the other hand, the Union did not present any evidence
indicating that
the lower rank employees do in
fact perform the same services with the same
level of skill as do those
employees classified as senior firefighters.
The
Union, which seeks to make a
change in the existing practices, has thus
failed to persuade me that the
limit on the number of senior firefighters
should be removed in this
collective bargaining agreement.
Accordingly, I shall
not direct the removal of such
a limitation.
The Salary Administration Plan
In the expiring collective bargaining agreement the Union
accepted the
City's salary administration
plan, known as the "Prior Plan" after the name of
the outside consultant who
designed the plan. That plan was made
after ex-
tensive
consultation with City employees, including firefighters. Its objec-
tive
is to establish a compensation system which gives substantial recogni-
tion to
merit, through semi-annual merit reviews.
The relative worth of each
position is determined by job
evaluation methods, giving weight to a variety
of separate and distinct
factors. Salary ranges have been
established for
the various job
classifications which permit a variation of as much as 20% in
the salary or wage received by
an employee in a given classification.
Since
there is normally only a six
percent interval between salary grades in each
salary group, there are
overlapping salaries or wages for persons in different
wage or salary groups. The merit increases given are to be
substantial, and
have not amounted to less than
five percent. Merit increases are based
upon
an appraisal of the
performance of individual employees.
Some problems have developed with the Prior Plan during
its two years of
use by the parties . One of the problems is that not all of the
semi-annual
merit reviews of firefighters
have taken place, but this appears to be, at
least in part, because of the
Union's objections to merit reviews during the
time when the collective
bargaining agreement now subject to arbitration was
being negotiated. Another problem has been that the merit
determinations made
by the Fire Chief have not
been binding upon the Mayor, who has the power to
reject the Chief's
recommendations. An additional problem
has been the lack
of consultation with the Union
at any time prior to final determination of
the merit increases which will
be awarded individual firefighters.
The chairman of the fact-finding panel concluded that,
despite these
difficulties, the Prior Plan
should not be abandoned at this time. He
did
recommend, however, that once
the Fire Chief had recommended a merit increase
that increase should not be
subject to denial by the Mayor. He further
recom-
mended that the Union be
afforded an opportunity to participate in the evalua-
tion
process before final determinations were made as to individual merit
increases and that when merit
increases are given, the Chief should specify in
writing the bases for the
increases.
I agree with the chairman of the fact-finding panel that
the Prior Plan
should not he abandoned at
this early date after its adoption, It
is impor-
tant
to give recognition to merit in public employment, and this plan should
be given an adequate testing
period before the conclusion is reached that
the complications of merit
reviews are such that the plan is unworkable.
Certainly none of the
arguments advanced by the Union establish that proposi-
tion. Those.objections
which the Union has advanced can be dealt with ade-
quately
in the manner suggested by the chairman of the fact-finding panel.
Accordingly, I shall direct the retention of the Prior
Plan for salary
administration during the term
of the collective bargaining agreement.
The
Mayor shall be contractually
obligated to the Union to approve merit increases
determined upon by the Fire
Chief. The Fire Chief shall be obligated
to con-
fer
with a representative selected by the Union prior to making his final
determination of individual
merit increases. The Fire Chief shall
also state
in writing the reason or
reasons for the merit increases which he makes and
furnish a copy of that
statement to both the Union and the employee involved.
The 1976 Wage Increase
The Union's basic proposal concerning wage rates for the
new collective
bargaining agreement was
predicated upon abandonment of the Prior Plan and
its replacement by a
classification system under which predetermined values
would be assigned to factors
such as longevity and education. Its
estimate
was that its plan would result
in an overall increase of 10.69% in labor costs.
Given the determination that
the Prior Plan should be retained for the period
of the next collective
bargaining agreement, there is no purpose to be served
in further discussion of the
Union's basic proposal. The City has
proposed
that the pay increase for 1976
be set at 5.2% for the reason that at the time
of the hearing the latest
consumer price index for the Seattle area, which was
for May 1976, indicated that
the cost of living during the period from May 1975
to May 1976 was 5.24%.
This proposal is at best whimsical, and certainly lacks
merit for reso-
lution
of this dispute. The percentage by which
the cost of living has risen
during the period from May
1975 to May 1976, bears no rational relationship
to what pay increase should be
granted to firefighters to make up for the
much larger increase in the
cost of living known to have occurred between
January 1, 1975 and December
31, 1975. The history of bargaining
between
the parties indicates that pay
increases granted at the beginning of a calen-
dar
year have been designed to make up for the increase in the cost of living
which occurred since the last
pay increase, and not as a prediction of what
the increase in the cost of
living would be in the next year. Thus
the
collective bargaining
agreement for the period from January 1, 1974 to
December 31, 1975, provided
that the pay increase to become effective on
January 1, 1975 would be equal
to the percentage increase in the cost of
living during the year
preceding August 31, 1974. Moreover,
pursuing this
same policy, the City has
proposed that the salary increase for
1977 be set
at the percentage of the
increase in the consumer price index between August
1975 and August 1976. Parties who are interested in providing pay
increases
to compensate for future
increases in the cost of living may, and usually do,
accomplish this by providing
periodic adjustments throughout the year for
monthly or quarterly increases
in the consumer price index. The
proposal that
the pay increase be fixed at
5.2% because that was the annual rate of increase
in May 1976, might serve to
punish the Union for not having accepted the City's
proposal during negotiations
that the cost of living increase be 10% which
was then the rate of increase
in the consumer price index. Obviously,
the
purpose of this arbitration
proceeding is to fix the correct wage rate for
the affected employees and the
city which benefits from their services.
It is
not the function of an
arbitration award to punish the real parties in interest
for delays which occurred in
the negotiation process. Particularly is
this
the case where an assessment
of fault for delay in the negotiation process
would result in attribution of
fault to both parties.
The City has offered an alternative ground for fixing the
wage increase
at 5.2%. It is that effective July 1, 1975; all
firefighters received a merit
increase of 5% or more. Addition of that 5% to the 5.2% now proposed
by the
City would result in a pay
increase of 10.2% more than wages which became
effective on January 1, 1975,
and hence a total increase very close to the
increase which occurred in the
consumer price index for the period between
August 1974, and August
1975. The major defect in the City's
proposal is
that the pay increase which
was made effective as of July 1, 1975, was a
merit increase and not a cost
of living pay increase. More
specifically, it
appears that the minimum
across-the-board merit increase of 5% was given to
department employees in large
part because all department employees had become
certified Emergency Medical
Technicians during 1974. It would hardly
do ser-
vice to the concept of a merit
increase if six months later it were to be con-
verted
into a cost of living increase.
Accordingly, the chairman finds this
suggestion of the City to be
unacceptable.
I find support for these conclusions in the report
prepared by the chair-
man of the fact-finding panel
which previously considered this dispute.
By
the time he prepared his
report the City had adjusted its proposed across-the-
board pay increase down to a
7.98% pay increase because that was the percen-
tage
increase in the consumer price index between November 1974, and November
1975. He recommended that the parties instead use
the 10% increase in the
cost of living between August
1974 and August 1975, since it conformed to the
prior practice in
negotiations. He also observed that
merit increases should
have little relationship to the
economic. arguments presented by the parties in
negotiations upon the
completion of a contract year except insofar as they
affected the overall wage
statistics in comparisons made with other comparable
municipalities.
The massive statistical data presented by the City
establishes that Edmonds
have been well paid in
comparison with firefighters of other cities of approx-
imately
the same size. Thus, as the chairman of
the fact-finding panel noted,
it appears that considering
all wages and fringe benefits paid during 1975,
Edmonds firefighters rank
second on the list of cities with which the parties
agree comparisons may be
made It also appears that during 1975
Edmonds fire-
fighters received at least the
average of wages alone of the cities with which
comparisons are to be
made. The parties have already agreed
upon improvements
in the vacation plan and the
provision governing holiday pay which will add
still more to the labor cost
of the Edmonds Fire Department.
Accordingly, I
conclude that during 1976 the
Union is entitled to a pay increase of no more
than the 10% increase in the
cost of living which occurred between August 1974,
and August 1975, plus a 2%
increase in overall funding for wages or salaries
which will make possible
continued use of merit increases pursuant to the
Prior Salary Administration
Plan.
This determination coincides with the recommendation made
by the chairman
of the fact-finding
panel. It is also in line with the pay
increases which
have been put into effect for
employees in the police department (for whom a
1% bonus above the 10%
increase for cost of living was made effective across-
the-board from January 1, 1976
to July 1, 1976, and administered thereafter
during 1976 pursuant to the
merit system.) Employees in the public works
department have also received
comparable pay increases.
The increase in pay which is to be included in the
collective bargaining
agreement will result on an
overall basis to an increase in labor costs of 12%,
which is 2% more than the
increase in the cost of living during the period
from August 1974 to August
1975. That additional amount is
necessary to permit
the City to continue to use
the Prior Salary Administration Plan, and thus per-
mit
the recognition of meritorious performances by individual firefighters.
An arbitrator may feel
reluctant to grant pay increases in excess of the increase
in the cost of living in the
absence of a demonstrated improvement in productiv-
ity. In this case, the fact that the 2% merit
increase will be awarded to
employees who have established
that they merit an increase does much to ensure
that.the
additional pay increases will be reflective of increased productivity
or efficiency. In addition, the increase in the cost of
living between
August 1975, and January 1, 1976,
was significant. While exact figures for
the Seattle area are not
available for that period, it does appear that the
increase in the consumer price
index between August 1974 and November 1975
was 11.6%, or an additional
1.6% above the cost-of-living increase previously
determined upon. It thus appears that the total pay increase
to be put into
effect in 1976 will not
actually exceed the increase in the cost of living
between the time chosen to fix
the wage rates of the prior contract and the
wage rates of the contract
under consideration in this proceeding.
For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proper
pay increase
for the calendar year of 1976
is a 10% across-the-board pay increase to cover
increases in.the
cost of living. In addition, the
Employer shall award a
total of 2% of the wages paid
under the former collective bargaining agreement
to employees in the department
on the basis of merit, following the principles
of the Prior Plan as
contractually modified by this decision.
Retroactivity of Pay Increases
The City proposes that any pay increase directed as a
result of this
arbitration proceeding should
become effective as of the beginning of the month
in which the award is
made. The reason for thus limiting the
effectiveness of
the award is said to be that
all of the delay in the negotiation and arbitra-
tion
process is due to the Union and the changes it has made in its demands.
It is true, as the City points
out, that the chairman of the fact-finding
panel did criticize the Union
for lateness in the presentation of its wage
proposals in fact
finding. On the other hand, the chairman
of the fact-find-
mg panel also noted that the
unavailability at times of the labor relations
representative for the City
made it impossible to complete the fact-finding
process within the time set by
the statute. The punitive wage proposal
made
by the City did nothing to
eliminate the need for arbitration.
Moreover,
delays in the presentation of
this dispute to arbitration might also be attrib-
uted
to the City, as for example in its presentation of a motion that the
chairman disqualify himself
almost one month after the appointment of the chair-
man, which required the
postponement of a hearing scheduled for June 29, 1976.
Such a motion had previously
been made to the Commission itself, which denied
that motion two weeks prior to
its renewal before the chairman of this panel.
I think it unnecessary, however, to engage in a careful
and precise
determination of which of the
parties is more at fault for the delays which
have attended the negotiation
and ultimate arbitration of disputed provisions
of the proposed collective
bargaining agreement. It seems apparent
that the
purpose of negotiating the
collective bargaining agreement is to set the proper
and correct terms and
conditions of employment for firefighters of the City
of Edmonds from and after
January 1, 1976. Viewed in this light,
it is appa-
rent that the pay increases
found to be appropriate should be made effective
retroactively to January 1,
1976, except insofar as the Fire Chief may decide
to use the 2% merit pay to
provide a larger merit increase during this period
for certain deserving
employees.
The 1977 Wage Increase
The parties are in agreement that there should be a
cost-of-living
pay increase effective January
1, 1977, equal to the percentage increase in
the consumer price index for
the period from August, 1975 to August, 1976.
(According to the City's post-hearing brief, statistics recently
released by
the
statistics were not made a
part of the record in this case.) The
suggests that in addition, if
the Prior Plan is retained, provision should
be made to permit additional
merit payments. The
have required increases in
wages going beyond the cost of living because of
increases for seniority and
educational credits. Since the Employer
has
prevailed upon its contention
that merit system of the Prior Plan be preserved,
it is only equitable to
require it to allocate an additional sum equal to 2%
of the wages paid as of
the calendar year 1977.
Determination of Issues in
Dispute
1. Minimum
shift manning requirements shall not be added to the collec-
tive
bargaining agreement.
2. Paragraph
2 of Article XI of the collective bargaining agreement
shall be revised to read as
follows:
Shift exchanges: When mutually agreeable, and for good
reason, any two members of the same rank may
exchange their
day off period, but only with the approval
of their Lieu-
tenants who shall obtain approval of the
Fire Chief. Shift
exchanges are recognized as a privilege not
to be abused by
overuse or for frivolous reasons. They shall be allowed
upon request in writing timely made, by the
Chief or his
designate, provided, however, that such
exchanges may be
denied for good reason which shall be set
forth in writing
and such document given to the persons
involved in the pro-
posed exchange.
3. Paragraph
1. A. of Article XI shall be revised to read as follows:
A. The
shift of a day worker shall be eight hours; for
shift personnel, it shall be twenty-four
hours. A work
week for day workers shall consist of five
shifts; an
average work week for shift workers shall consist
of two
shifts per week. The work week of day workers and shift
personnel shall be regularly scheduled in
advance by the
Department and shifts shall be worked
consecutively for
each work week unless the individual agrees
to a change in
shift hours or in case of an emergency.
4. No change
shall be made in Article XIX concerning the relationship
between sick leave and
disability pay approved by the Disability Review
Board.
5. No change
shall be made in the collective bargaining agreement con-
cerning
the number of senior firefighters.
6. No change
shall be made in the plan pursuant to which salaries and
wage ranges are determined
other than the following:
a. Recommendations
for merit increases made by the Chief to the
Mayor's Administrative Assistant
will not be denied by the Mayor.
b. In
making personnel merit reviews the Chief shall consult
and confer with a
representative selected by the
prior to the making of his
final determination of the granting or with-
holding of individual merit
increases.
c. Whenever
merit increases are recommended, the Chief shall
state in writing the reason
for the merit increase and furnish a copy
of that statement to both the
7. All
employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a 10% increase
over the rate of pay which
they were receiving for the month of December, 1975.
In addition, the City shall
provide an additional sum of 2% of the annual
salaries computed at the rates
in effect during December, 1975, for use in
paying merit increases to
individual employees pursuant to the City's salary
administration plan as limited
by paragraph 6 of this determination.
8. The
salary or wage increases directed by paragraph 7 of this determ-
ination
shall be made retroactive to
Chief may decide to allocate
the additional sum of 2% of the annual salaries
to provide larger merit
increases for individual employees.
9. The
salaries or wages received by employees in the unit shall be
increased for the year
beginning
increase in the Consumer Price
Index for the
1976. In addition, the City shall provide an
additional sum of 2% of the
annual salaries computed at
the rates in effect in December, 1976, for use
in paying merit increases to
individual employees pursuant to the City's
salary administration plan as
limited by paragraph 6 of this
determination.
Cornelius
J. Peck, Chairman of
Arbitration
Panel