International
Association of Fire Fighters Union Local No 1747
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Robert A. Sutermeister
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Sutermeister; Robert A.
Case #: 02678-I-80-00070
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
Interest Arbitration
City of
and
International Association of
Firefighters
Union Local No. 1747
Date of Hearing:
Place of Hearing:
Date Post-Hearing Briefs
Received:
Representing the City: Mr.
Donald E. Mirk
City
Attorney
220
Representing the
Attorney
at Law
Box
C 90016
Arbitration Panel: City
Representative
Mr.
Mike Webby
Union
Representative
Mr.
Dale Robertson
Chairman
Mr.
R.A. Sutermeister
Background
Negotiations for a 1980-1981 collective bargaining
agreement took
place
from September 9 through
employed
to try to resolve the remaining issues.
Issues
The parties stipulated the remaining issues at
arbitration are:
1. Article
III - Non Discrimination Clause
2. Article
XIV and XV - Discipline and Grievance Clauses
3. Article
XI, Sections 2 and 3 - Medical Insurance
4. Article
VI - Overtime
5. Appendix
A, Section 2 -
Longevity
6. Appendix
A - Wages
Non-Discrimination Clause
The City proposed a "memorandum of
understanding" outside the
present
contract as follows:
Notwithstanding the national or statewide policies of the
unit and the employer are
obligated both legally and morally
to adopt and implement a
nondiscrimination posture with
respect to the rights and
positions of any and all persons
performing City services. This posture shall apply to
persons working in both paid and
volunteer capacities. The
employees agree not to
discriminate against such persons
on the basis of membership or
non-membership in the bar-
gaining unit as well as on the
basis of volunteer or non-
volunteer status. The employees agree to cooperate with
the Employer in the active
support and recruitment of
volunteers in the furtherance of
rendering professional fire
services to the community, to
insure the proficiency and
morale of the volunteer work
force, and to refrain from any
reference to volunteers,
individually or collectively, which
would undermine their position
or status in the community.
The arbitration panel is not persuaded that such a
memorandum
of
understanding should be mandated because of the following reasons:
1. Article II, Section 1 already forbids discrimination against
any
employee or applicant for
employment on account of membership
or non-membership in any labor
union or other employee organi-
zation.
2. Relations between regular firefighters and volunteer
firefighters
do not appear to present a
continuing problem of a serious nature
because
a. It was 3
years ago that the Chief was told some applicants
for volunteer
firefighting jobs were treated "coolly" when
they visited fire
stations.
b. In 1979, the Chief received only two complaints from some
50 volunteers.
c. The
problem has not been discussed with union officers
since 1977 and 1978.
d. There
appear to be other methods of improving relations
between regulars and
volunteers. There was a committee of
union and volunteer
firefighters which met in 1978 and 1979
and presumably could
be reestablished to deal with problems
of cooperation
between regulars and volunteers.
Possible
other options would
be a memorandum from the Chief, or
discussions between
the Chief and union representatives.
Disciplinary
Article XIV - Disciplinary, Section 4, currently reads as
follows:
Section 4 - Agreement - Application Grievances
No action by the Employer shall be considered cause
for grievance unless it is
specifically alleged that
such action represents an
incorrect application of the
terms of this agreement, or
rights, allowed by law.
The City proposed the section
be changed as follows:
No action by the Employer shall be considered cause for
grievance unless it is
specifically alleged that such action
represents an incorrect
application of the terms of this
agreement or rights not
otherwise protected by RCW 41.56,
Civil Service Rules and Regulations or
City Ordinances.
The
The Employer shall discipline employees only for just
cause,
defined as a violation of the
department's Rules and Regulations
or Policies and Procedures,
which are expressly incorporated
herein. Disciplinary action shall be subject to the
procedures
of Article XV below.
The Panel is not receptive to the
1. The
negotiations.
2. The
just cause is
already contained in Article XVIII (the employer
retains the right. .
. to discipline. . . for cause) and in
Article 10 of Department
Rules and Regulations.
Neither is the panel receptive to the Employer's proposal
because:
1. There was
no evidence of problems presented by the current
wording of Article
XIV, Section 4.
2. There was
no evidence that the parties have negotiated
whether or not they
wish disputes or grievances arising under
Civil Service regulations to be resolved
solely through Civil
Service channels, disputes under RCW 41.56 to
be resolved
only through the
Public Employment Relations Commission, and
only disputes
arising under the collective bargaining agree-
ment
to be resolved through the grievance procedure.
Thus the panel believes there should be no change in
Article XIV
Section 4 until such change is
negotiated by the parties themselves.
Article XV - Grievance
Procedures
This article in the 1979 agreement reads in part as
follows:
Grievance is hereby defined as the question
or challenge
raised by an
employee or the
interpretation or
application of this agreement by the
Employer....
The
Grievance is hereby defined as a question or challenge
raised
by an employee or the
applying or interpreting this
agreement or violating rights
allowed by law (except, as to
rights covered by Civil Service
Rules and Regulations)....
The parties seem to be in agreement that grievances
involving
rights
under Civil Service Rules and Regulations shall be resolved through
that
machinery and not through the collective bargaining agreement. If
so,
the parties may wish to execute a memorandum of understanding to that
effect. It appears to the panel as if there has been
little or no effort
by
the parties to negotiate on this issue and there should be no change
in
Article XV until such change is negotiated by the parties themselves.
Medical Insurance
Under the 1979 agreement, LEOFF 1 employees
received fully paid
health
and accident and dental insurance with no deductibles, and LEOFF
II employees had an option of
selecting between health care plans with
deductibles. Also, under the 1979 agreement, the City paid
up to $72.78
for
dependent coverage.
The Union proposal is that the City pay
the deductibles for LEOFF
II employees,
and pay full dependent medical premiums.
The City proposes no change for LEOFF II employees, and
that the
City pay premiums to provide
existing coverage levels based on rates in
effect
on
by
the
1981 based on the rate
schedule in effect
The panel finds the City's argument for not paying
medical
deductibles
for LEOFF II employees more persuasive, and consistent with
practice
in comparable cities.
Since the
the
City's offer to pay full medical coverage for dependents was automati-
cally withdrawn.
The City's offer in arbitration is to continue to pay up
to
$72.78 per month toward dependent coverage in 1980; and for 1981, if
premiums
increase above $72.78, the City and the employee each pay one
half
of the excess over $72.78. The present
premium has dropped by
$9.85 for 1980 and may well
remain under $72.78 for 1981. The panel
believes
this
offer is fair and reasonable and should be included in the 1980-1981
agreement.
Overtime
Article VI, Section 1 in the 1979 agreement reads as
follows:
. . .The overtime
rate of pay shall be determined from a
straight time hourly rate which
shall be computed by
dividing annual salary by 2080
hours...
The
agreement.
The City proposes a distinction between
"scheduled" and "unscheduled"
overtime. Unscheduled (emergency) overtime would use
the 2080 hour base,
but
scheduled overtime (non-emergency) would use a 2808 hours per year
base. (
year.)
Data presented to the panel at the hearing showed 4549
hours of non-
emergency
overtime worked between
On the basis of 2808 hours per
year, this would translate into a little
less
than two additional firefighters for each shift. In 1980 two addi-
tional firefighters for each shift have already
been added, yet no data
were
given to the panel to show the effect of these 6 additional fire-
fighters
on overtime. There was testimony,
however, that overtime would
be
reduced appreciably as a result of the added personnel.
The City has some degree of flexibility to balance the
number of fire-
fighters
and the amount of overtime worked. Since
it appears that over-
time
costs in 1980-81 are likely to diminish greatly with added personnel,
the
panel believes there should be no change in the overtime provision
in
the 1979 agreement
Longevity
The 1979 contract calls for 2% longevity after 5 years
and 4% after
10 years of service. The City proposes no change, and the
6%
after 15 years and 8% after 20 years of service. Three
will
reach their 15 years service in 1980 and
one more in 1981.
The panel feels any longevity provision for 20 years service should
be
negotiated between the parties since it will be at least 5 more years
before
any firefighter has completed 20 years' service.
As for 15 years service, of seven cities on the
comparable
cities)
years;
after
15 years.
Of the five cities on the City's list of comparable
cities, no
information
was furnished on
no
longevity provision;
Comparing
concludes
that there should be no change in longevity.
Wages
The following table shows the 1979 wage scale, the City's
offer for
1980 in dollars and percentage
increase, and the
dollars
and percentage increase.
__________
City
Offer Union
Request
1980 1980
1979 Wage Dollars
% Dollars %
Probationary 1204 1330 10.5 1388 15.3
Third Class 1313 1450 10.5 1527 16.3
Second Class 1433 1583 10.5 1640 14.4
First Class 1566 1730 10.5 1768 12.9
Lieutenant 1686 1875 11.2 1949 15.6
Captain 1807 2009 11.2 2145 18.7
__________
The panel agrees with both parties that
determining
"cities of comparable size" is difficult at best. The
parties
have not agreed on a list of cities which can be used for comparison
purposes. Each party presented its own list.
only
cities on both lists.
Among the guidelines set forth in RCW 41.56.460, the
panel has placed
major
emphasis on (1) wages, hours and conditions of employment in the
comparable
cities listed by the parties, and (2) cost of living.
The present relationship among salaries of firefighters
at different
ranks
is the result of past bargaining by the parties. The Union s wage
proposal
would drastically alter the current relationship, increasing one
rank
as much as 45% above another rank1 .
The panel feels that if major
adjustments
are to be made to the present relationship among ranks, such
adjustments
should result from negotiations and not from an arbitration
award.
The panel further believes that CPI figures introduced
for 1980 should
not
be considered. If negotiations had been
concluded on time, before
the
end of 1979, the parties would have used cost of living figures
available
in 1979. The panel believes it should
encourage the parties to
settle
the wage issue themselves in future years, and that using 1980
cost
of living figures for an arbitration award would only encourage one or
the
other part to delay future settlements until figures more favorable
to
their side became available.
An increase of 18.7% for Captains is 45% more than an
increase of
12.9% for first class
firefighters.
Wages for 1980. lt
is the judgment of the panel that an increase
of
12% is proper for probationary, third class, second class and first
class
firefighters, and an increase of 12.7% for Lieutenants and Captains.
We recognize that 12% is
slightly higher than the increase in cost of
living
from November 1978 to November 1979.
However, it seems fair and
reasonable
in relation to what cities on the two lists of comparable cities
are
paying, as indicated below:
__________
Median
salary Median salary
calculated calculated
from
Average salary for from City's
Panel
decision (on both lists) parable cities cities
Probationary 1348 1369 (not supplied)1 1370
Third Class 1471 1531 (not supplied) 1563
Second Class 1605 1649 (not supplied) 1670
First Class 1754 1774 1688 1795
Lieutenant 1900 1988 1883 2023
Captain 2036 2177 2066 2251
Wage increases are retroactive to
January 1, 1980.
_____
1 City exhibit 27 listed 1980 wage
settlements only for first
class
firefighters, Lieutenants and Captains.
__________
Wages for 1981. The
average
salaries paid firefighters in 1981 in the seven cities on the
80% of the change in the
Consumer's Price Index from July 1979 to July 1980,
with a
minimum of 8% increase and a maximum of 10% increase, for firefighters
below
the rank of Lieutenant. Lieutenants and
Captains would receive 1/2 of
1%
additional.
The panel agrees with the City that the actual increase
in "cost
of
living" is likely to be less than the increase in "CPI" and that
the
City's offer to pay 80% of the increase in CPI is reasonable.
However, we believe the
maximum on the City's offer should be 12%
rather
than 10%, consistent with the agreements between the City and
the
police clerks, and between the City and public works and parks
employees. In our judgment, this would provide the
firefighters with
reasonable
protection against the ravages of inflation, and provide
the
City with a reasonable limit to runaway costs.
Summary
The panel has come to the following conclusions for the
1980-1981
agreement
between the City of
1. There
should be no change in Article III - Non discrimination
clause.
2. There
should be no change in Article XIV, Section 4.
If the
parties agree that
grievances involving rights under Civil
Service Rules and Regulations should be
resolved through Civil
Service machinery and not through the
contract grievance pro-
cedure,
they may wish to work out a memorandum of understanding
to that effect.
There should be no change in Article XV.
3. The City
is to pay up to $72.78 per month toward dependent
medical coverage in
1980. In 1981 the City is to pay up to
$72.78 per month toward dependent medical
coverage, plus one
half of the premium
cost above $72.78.
4. There
should be no change in Article VI, Section 1 - Overtime.
5. There
should be no change in Appendix A, Section 2 -
Longevity.
6. For 1980 wage increases are 12% for probationary, third
class,
second class, and
first class firefighters; and 12.7% for
Lieutenants and Captains. These increases are retroactive to
January 1, 1980.
For 1981, wage increases will be 80% of the
change in the CPI
(Wage Earners) between July 1, 1979 and July
1, 1980, with a
minimum of 8% and a
maximum of 12% for probationary, third
class, second class
and first class firefighters.
Lieutenants
and Captains are to
receive 1/2 of 1% additional increase.
Seattle, Washington ______________________
August 5, 1980 R.
A. Sutermeister, Chairman
_____________________________
Dale
Robertson, Union Representative
__________________________
Mike
Webby, City Representative