IAFF,
Local 2088
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Jonathan S. Monat
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Monat; Jonathan S.
Case #: 01214-I-77-00044
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of Arbitration )
) ARBITRATOR'S
OPINION
Between )
) AND
AWARD
City of
and )
IAFF, Local 2088 )
A hearing was held in Tukwila on
Cabot Dow represented the City
of
Chairman; Dave Green,
appointed by the
by
the City. Mr. Green and Mr. McFarland
filed written opinions to the Chairman
prior
to the writing of this award.
ISSUE
The parties stipulated that
the sole issue before the arbitration panel was
Article XVIII: Longevity, an interest matter to be decided as
terms of a new
collective
bargaining agreement. This issue reaches
the arbitration panel under
RCW 41:56.
EXHIBITS
Joint Exhibit 1: 197601977 Collective Bargaining
Agreement
Joint Exhibit 2:
Employer
Ex. 1: Employer Proposal of the Issue
Employer Ex. 2a: Employer Prehearing
Statement
Employer Ex. 2b: August 29 letter, attachments
Employer Ex. 2c: 1978-1979 Agreement
Employer Ex. 2d: LaCugna Award
Employer Ex. 2e: Certification of City Clerk,
Agreement-Longevity of other
City employees
Employer Ex. 2f: Graph-Longevity Practices
Employer Ex. 2g: Association of Washington Cities Survey
Other documents received per
request of the arbitration panel
Union Exhibit 1: 1973 Collective Bargaining Agreement,
page 3, longevity
Union Exhibit 2: 1974 Collective Bargaining Agreement
Union Exhibit 3: City of
Union Exhibit 4: 1975 Collective Bargaining Agreement
Union Exhibit 5: City of
Union Exhibit 6:
Union Exhibit 7: Comparable Cities - Longevity
Union Exhibit 8: Proposed Salary Plan, Resolution
Union Exhibit 9: City Ordinance No. 1019
Union Exhibit l0: Longevity Cost Projections
OPINION
The chairman has carefully
reviewed the evidence and testimony presented
at
the hearing, and the positions of other members of the arbitration panel
concerning
the longevity clause at issue.
Both parties rely to some
degree on the "comparable cities" argument, a
position
reasonably justified on the basis of the statutes. The position of
both
parties is plausible and reasonable when looking at comparable cities,
notably
of
Tukwila were also reasonable. Neither
party 5 comparison is perfectfly con-
sistent and the choice the arbitration panel is
asked to make is frankly arbi-
trary when relying on the comparable cities
criterion.
Secondly, the concept that
longevity is dealt with elsewhere in the agree-
ment presents problems. The chairman excluded testimony at the
hearing that
there
were other clauses negotiated and settled in relation to the longevity
issue. Yet the position of the City points to other
clauses and a new ordinance
as
bearing on the longevity issue.
The bargaining history with
respect to longevity is reasonably clear.
The
City did not agree with the
union on longevity. There was no tying
of longevity
to
any other issue, settled or unsettled.
In essence, the City said that the
Council passed Ordinance 997
effective
the
scope of bargaining as a matter of fiat.
Arbitrator LaCugna was cited as
having
so ruledin an earlier decision involving the parties.
From the chairman's
dispassionate view of the record, the real differences
on
longevity turn on whether or not it has been foreclosed by the City Council
and
the Mayor by legislative action. The
contract in force between the parties
contains
two clauses of interest, Article VI - Management Rights and Article
XXIII - Supplemental
Agreements, a so-called zipper clause.
In the latter case, the
parties have had a longevity clause in the agreement
for
many years. It has always been
discussed, bargained, and, until this year,
agreed
upon. So until 1977, longevity was
considered by both parties a bar-
gainable issue.
In the meantime, the City Council, outside the agreement,
passes
an ordinance which radically changes working conditions agreed upon in
the
written agreement.
The
the
Ordinance, initially within the timeframe of Artivle
VI. Beyond that, it
protested
throughout bargaining that the specific language of the previous
ordinance
incorporated in the collective bargaining agreement was acceptable,
agreed
upon, and long-term benefits were derived and expected from that language
in
the agreement. Any change in language
was an intent to change the meaning of
the
provision. In this case, the
City position would change
that agreed upon meaning and intent, and even reduce
the
monetary value of the benefit unilaterally.
Can the City propose a fiat, nonegotiable right?
The fiat right is well-
established
certainly but with some clearly emerging limitations. The limitation
concern
the legislative body's role in bargaining and in legislation. Under
present
to
be preserved if,the legislative body delegates such ordiance authority to any
civil
service commission or personnel board....
There is no such board in this
instance. The collective bargaining
agree-
ment is negotiated by an agent of the Council
and the written agreement is signed
by
the President of the Council and the Mayor.
It is the City Council which
passes
all ordinances. So, in effect, the City
may bargain or not bargain as
chooses
to pass ordinances. It should not hide
from the duty to bargain over
an
issue it has previously bargained by passing an ordinace. There is an in-
herent conflict in such a system.
The fiat right would have
preserved had the City had a legally established
body
as defined in 41.56 or had the particular issue been defined by a dis
interested
legislative body such as a state legislature or county council.
This is not to say that the
City's intent to create a uniform set of personnel
policies
is wrong. There would be many advantages
to such a practice. But the
establishment
of uniform policies must not be at the expense of existing con-
tractual rights.
Thus, the Chairman would
conclude that the language of the longevity clause
in
the new agreement be as the
AWARD
1. The longevity clause of the 1977-1978 agreement shall read:
"After five years of continuous
full-time employment with
the City, the
eligible employee shall receive an additional
$5.00 per month ($60.00 per
year). And for each additional
year of continuous
full-time employment thereafter, the
elibible
employee shall receive an additional sum of $5.00
per month ($60.00
per year).
2. Benefits accrued since the signing of this agreement shall
be paid from the date the
1977-1979 agreement went into
effect.
Impartial
Chairman