And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Carol J. Teather
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Teather; Carol J.
Case #: 02027-I-79-00059
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of the
Arbitration )
)
between )
)
CITY OF
)
and )
)
ASSOCIATION )
____________________
OPINION
AND AWARD
____________________
Arbitrator:
Carol
J. Teather
3822
National
Bank Bldg.
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
I Procedural Matters
This Proceeding involves an impasse
arbitration between
the
City of
Association. The City of
as
the "City") was represented by Mr. C. Carey Donworth
of
Donworth,
Taylor and Company. The
Association (hereinafter
referred to as the "Association")
was
represented by a wage panel consisting of Mr. R. Wes
Henry, Jr., Chairman of the
Wage Panel, Mr. Joseph Hatfield,
Mr.
Robert Peck, Mr. Larry Foster and Mr. Ted Johnson.
Ms. Carol J. Teather was
appointed to act as Chairman
of
the Arbitration Panel (hereinafter referred to as the
"Arbitrator"). The other members of the panel were Mayor
Glenn
K. Jarstad and Detective Rainie
Woods.
Hearings were held in the City of
13,
1979. At
the hearings, the testimony of witnesses was
taken
under oath and the parties presented argument and
documentary
evidence. Post-hearing briefs were filed
by
both
parties on
II_____Issues
At the hearings, the parties presented the following
issues
for determination by the panel:
(1) Salary increase;
(2) Length of the collective bargaining agreement;
(3) Parity pay;
(4) Cost of living increase;
(5) Shift differential;
(6) Increase in longevity pay;
(7) Double time for court appearances;
(8) Vacation increase;
(9) Medical benefit increase for families;
(10) Increase in clothing allowance;
(11) Increase in cleaning allowance;
(12) Definition of work day-week;
(13) Retention of existing benefits;
(14) Clarification of paid holidays;
(15) Parking for officers who drive their cars to
work;
(16) Parking for officers when they make court
appearances; and
(17) Compensatory time off (at time and one-half
with a two-hour minimum) when
off-duty
officers are called in for
training.
In making its decision on the
issues presented by the parties,
the
panel carefully considered all of the testimony, documen-
tary evidence and arguments of the parties,
keeping in mind
the
legislative purpose set forth in RCW 41.56.430.
The panel
also
took into consideration the following factors:
(a) The
constitutional authority of the City;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and condi-
tions
of employment of the uniformed per-
sonnel
of the City and County involved in
the
proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment of uniformed per-
sonnel
of cities and counties, respectively,
of
similar size on the west coast of the
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly
known as the cost of
living;
(e) Changes in any of the foregoing
circumstances
during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the
fore-
going,
which are normally or traditionally
taken
into consideration in the determination
of
wages, hours and conditions of employment.
In addition, the panel took into consideration the
findings
of fact made by the Fact-Finding Panel.
In order that this report might not be unduly long, each
contention
or argument of the parties will not be separately
set
forth, but instead dealt with only to the extent necessary
in
rendering a decision on each of the issues.
III_____Background
The City and the Association began negotiations in May
of
1978. In October 1978, the Association
and the City met
with
mediator Jack Cowan in an attempt to reach agreement.
When agreement was not reached
following negotiations and
mediation,
the parties submitted the matter to a fact-finding
panel
consisting of Mr. R. A. Sutermeister, Chairman, Mayor
Glenn
Jarstad and Detective R. Wes Henry, Jr. The recommenda-
tions of the fact-finding panel were not accepted
by the
parties
wherein the matter was submitted to Arbitration pur-
suant to RCW 41.56.450.
IV____Motion
to Dismiss
At the beginning of the hearing, the City moved to have
the
panel disregard all evidence and argument pertaining to
issues
other than those presented by the City on the basis
that
the Association did not provide the Arbitrator and the
City with its list of issues
prior to the hearing as required
by
WAC 391-21-750. The Arbitrator reserved
her ruling on the
City's motion to the present
time in order properly to con-
sider the matter.
The Arbitrator finds that the Association submitted a
list
containing the same issues which the Association desires
to
be determined by the Arbitration panel to the City on
May 31, 1978 and that the same
list of issues was submitted
to
the fact-finding panel. The Arbitrator
further finds that
the
City was aware of the issues the Association intended to
submit
to interest arbitration and was prepared to present its
case
on each and every issue. The ability of
the panel to
comprehend
the material presented at the hearing and render a
decision
was not altered in any way by the Association's delay
in
providing its list of issues.
The intent and purpose of the Act governing impasse pro-
cedures for uniformed personnel is to provide an
effective and
adeguate alternative to strikes as a means of
settling labor
disputes. This purpose would not be well-served by the Arbi-
trator's refusing to consider the list of issues
submitted by
the
Association on a technicality. Inasmuch
as the Association's
delay
in submitting its list of issues did not prejudice the
City in any way nor hinder the
ability of the arbitration panel
to
render a decision, the City's motion is denied.
V____ Position of the Parties
The position of the City is to deny issues 2 through 17
and
to grant a 5.5% wage increase to be applied to each
bargaining
unit classification effective January 1, 1979.
The Association requests a 14% wage increase to be
applied
to
each bargaining unit classification effective January 1,
1979 and to have the pay of
police officers assigned to the
patrol
and traffic divisions raised to an amount equal to that
of
officers assigned to the detective division.
In addition,
the
Association requests the following: That
each officer
receive a
cost of living increase; that additional compen-
sation be given to those uniformed police officers
working
shifts
other than 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; that the longevity
pay
be doubled; that police officers making court appearances
on
off-duty hours be compensated at the rate of two times his
or
her base wages with a two hour minimum; that the number
of
vacation days be increased; the medical benefits for
dependents
be increased to provide for payment of one-half
the
cost of maternity care, well and routine baby care and
circumcision
of a male child along with one-half the cost
of
all dependent office calls and the entire cost of a
vasectomy
for male members of the bargaining unit.
The
Association also requests that
the clothing allowance pro-
vided
to detectives be increased from the current $235.00
to
$350.00 per year; that the annual uniform cleaning
allowance
be increased from $150.00 to $200.00 per year;
that a
definition of work day - work week be included in
the
bargaining agreement to provide that the normal work
day
shall be 8 hours with the shift change being 15 min-
utes prior to the assigned shifts and that the
officers'
work
week be five consecutive days' work with two days
off;
that a clause be added to the collective bargaining
agreement
to provide for the retention of existing benefits;
that
double time be paid to bargaining unit members who
work
on any of the eleven designated holidays; that parking
be
provided for officers who drive to and from work and for
officers
when they make court appearances during their off-
duty
hours; and that officers be given compensatory time
off
for attending required training on off-duty hours at
the
rate of one hour off for every hour of training attended
up
to two hours and one and one-half hours off for every
hour
of attendance at training over two hours.
VI____Discussion
Salary Increase
The parties presented numerous exhibits comparing
the
wages paid to Bremerton police officers with the wages
paid
to police officers in cities they considered to be
comparable. However, the parties were unable to agree
on
which cities should be used for purposes of comparison.
The Association claimed the
cities of Bellevue, Edmonds,
Everett and Renton were
comparable with Bremerton; whereas,
the
City used the cities of Vancouver, Richland, Renton,
Olympia, Longview, Everett,
Edmonds, Bellingham, Yakima,
and
Bellevue for purposes of comparison.
Neither party
introduced
any data with respect to cities on the west coast
outside
the state of Washington which might be considered
to
be comparable to Bremerton.
Upon examination of the statistics presented by the
parties
it becomes clear that the greatest disparity between
the
wages of Bremerton police officers and the wages of
police
officers in comparable cities is in the wages paid
to
police officers with five or more years of experience.
Of the ten cities suggested by
the City as being comparable
with
Bremerton, Bremerton ranked fifth with respect to
starting
salaries paid to police officers in 1978, but ninth
with
respect to salaries paid to senior patrolmen.
In order
to
reduce the disparity between salaries paid to Bremerton
senior
patrolmen and the salaries paid to senior patrolmen
in
comparable cities, it would be appropriate to give a
greater
increase to Bremerton police officers with five
years
or more experience than is given to police officers
with
less than five years experience.
In making a determination as to the amount of any in-
crease
in wages and benefits to be given to members of the
collective
bargaining unit, the ability of the City to pay
is
an important factor to be considered.
The City is pro-
hibited by statute from adopting a budget which is
not in
balance
or from amending a budget so that it falls out of
balance. All expenditures by the City must be covered
by
revenues
or by reserves within any given budget year, in
which
case, the City cannot grant increased to police
officers
in excess of its ability to pay for such increases
out
of revenues, reserves, or reallocation of expenditures
away
from one or other purposes presently budgeted.
The evidence presented sustained the City's contention
that
is is under considerable financial pressure and that
it
has
reached the practical limits of its taxing authority. The
City's largest employer is the
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
which,
as a federal entity, pays no taxes other than water and
sewer. The City has practically no other industry
and has
experienced a
decrease in the funds available to it from rev-
enue sharing from the federal government. The City Treasurer
and
several City Commissioners testified that any substantial
reallocation
of funds away from the purposes for which they
are
presently budgeted is likely to result in certain City
departments
having to reduce staff and/or services.
Thus,
the
funds available for providing increases to police officers
appear
to be severely limited. This fact was
also recognized
by
the fact-finding panel in rendering its opinion.
An examination of the increases in wages and benefits
given
other employees of the City for 1979 supports the Associa-
tion's contention that the City's offer of a 5.5%
increase in
the
base wage for police officers is too low.
Elected officials
and
supervisors of the City of Bremerton received a 7% wage
increase
for 1979, non-uniformed personnel received a 7.6%
wage
increase and the Bremerton Fire Fighters
received an
average
wage increase of 8.55%. In addition, the
fact-
finding
panel in the instant case recommended that police
officers
receive an initial 7% increase in January of 1979
with
an additional cost of living increase in June of 1979
in
the amount of any increase in the Consumer's Price Index
for
all urban consumers greater than 7% with part of this
increase
to be used to provide parity pay between police
officers
and detectives.
The City's budget for 1979 includes a 5.5% wage increase
for
police officers. There was also evidence
presented at
the
hearings that the City's budget includes $100,000.00
for
the reserve account which could be used for wages.
Thus, it appears that the City
has the ability to provide
for a
reasonable increase in the wages of police officers
greater
than 5.5%.
Based on the 1979 settlement of the comparable cities
and
in order to bring the salaries paid to Bremerton police
officers
closer to the average salary paid to police officers
in
the comparable cities, the panel determined that a minimum
increase
of 5% be given to police officers having less than
five
years experience and a minimum increase of 7.5% be given
to
police officers having five years or more experience.
The Association expressed justifiable concern regarding
the
effect of inflation on police officers' salaries. The
Consumer's Price Index
(Seattle-Everett) for the period from
January 1979 to March 1979 for
urban wage earners showed an
increase
of 2.7% and for all urban consumers an increase of
2.5% For the period from March 1979 to May
1979, the Con-
sumer's Price Index showed an increase of 2.6% for
all urban
consumers
and 2.5% for urban wage earners. In
order to reduce
to a
certain extent the effect of such inflationary increases
on
police officers salaries, the panel
determined that a 3%
cost
of living increase effective June 1, 1979 would be appro-
priate for all police officers.
Parity Pay
The Association proposed that the wages of police
officers
assigned
to the Patrol and Traffic Divisions be increased to
equal
the wages of officers assigned to the Detective Division.
The evidence presented by the
parties indicated that officers
assigned
to the Detective Division receive higher pay than
officers
in the Patrol and Traffic Division in order to com-
pensate them for having to be on call nights and
weekends and
having
to wear and maintain their own clothing on the job.
Officers assigned to the
Patrol and Traffic Division are not
on
call and are provided with uniforms by the City.
Both the Association and the City appeared to agree that
some
compensation should be provided to detectives because of
their
extra clothing costs and the on-call element.
However,
the
parties disagreed as to the method by which this might be
accomplished. The Association suggested an increase in the
clothing
allowance and some form of overtime pay for being on
call. However, the City argued that the State
Auditor had
made
the statement that no clothing allowance could be given
to
the detectives.
Neither party presented any evidence as to whether or not
there
is parity of pay between senior patrol officers and
detectives
in comparable cities.
Officers assigned to the Traffic Division receive slightly
higher
pay than officers assigned to the Patrol Division. This
difference
in pay is apparently for the purpose of compensating
traffic
officers for their large cleaning bills which result
from
their riding a motorcycle on the job.
In view of the questionability of the City's being able
to
compensate detectives and traffic officers for their clothing
and
cleaning costs by means of an adequate allowance and the
fact
that any money spent in providing parity pay would reduce
the
amount of money available for wage increases, the panel
determined
that parity pay would be inappropriate.
Cost of Living Increase and
Length of Contract
The parties agree that the length of the contract should
be
one year.
The impact of the rise in the cost of living between the
termination
of the 1978 contract between the parties and this
decision
was taken into account in the panel's determination of
the
wage increase.
Shift Differential
The Association proposed that an officer working the eve-
ning shift receive additional compensation at
the rate of
4-1/2% of the fourth-year
patrolman's wage and that an officer
working
the graveyard shift be compensated at the rate of
6-1/4%
of the fourth-year patrolman's wage. The City sub-
mitted evidence showing that shift differentials
are not
common
among police departments and that fire fighters in the
City of Bremerton receive no shift differentials. The parties
agreed
that each uniformed police officer rotates his shift
every
two months so that the burden of having to work during
the
evening and at night is evenly spread among all personnel.
In view of the limited funds available to the City and
the
fact that the evidence presented did not show there to be
any
great need for shift differential pay inasmuch as the
burden
was evenly distributed among the uniformed officers, the
panel
determined that shift differential pay is inappropriate.
Increase in Longevity Pay
Police officers receive the same longevity pay as do all
other
employees of the City and there was nothing to indicate
that
there was any great disparity between the longevity pay
received
by Bremerton police officers and that received by
other
police officers. On the contrary, the
evidence indicated
that
the longevity pay provided by the City appears to be com-
parable
with that provided by other comparable cities.
In view
of
the fact that any money spent on increasing the longevity
pay
would reduce the money available for salaries where, as
previously
indicated, there is a disparity, the panel determined
that an
increase in longevity pay is inappropriate.
Double Time for Court
Appearances
The City submitted an exhibit which showed that none of
the
other cities considered to be comparable to Bremerton
paid
double time for court appearances. The
parties agreed
that
for an officer to have to attend court during his time
off
was a great burden both to himself and to his family;
however,
neither party could show where the City would be
able
definitely to find the funds with which to pay officers
double
time for court appearances. The
fact-finding panel
recommended
that there be no change in the compensation for
off-duty
court appearances. Under the
circumstances, the
panel
determined that double time for court appearances
would
not be appropriate.
Vacation Increases
The number of vacation days earned by Bremerton police
officers
compares favorably with the number of vacation days
earned
by police officers in comparable cities.
An examina-
tion of the statistics on comparable cities
presented by
the
parties shows that Bremerton ranks second or third in
the
number of vacation days earned by police officers having
eleven
years or less experience and ranks first with respect
to
the number of vacation days earned by police officers
having
twelve or more years with the department.
The panel
concurred
with the fact-finding panel's recommendation and
determined
that a vacation increase is inappropriate.
Medical Benefit Increase
for Families
The Association's request that the City assist with the
increased
costs associated with medical care is certainly
understandable. The City now provides for medical coverage
for
dependants through the Association of Washington Cities
and
the parties agreed that in order to implement the changes
requested
by the Association, the City of Bremerton would
have
to petition the other members of the Association of
Washington Cities to change
its medical plan or find another
means
of providing medical insurance. From the
evidence sub-
mitted to the panel it appears that the City would
not be
able
to handle the cost of providing the requested coverage
itself
as the City simply does not have sufficient funds.
The City agreed that it would get together with the
other
members of the Association of Washington Cities for
the
purpose of discussing the possibility of improving the
amount
of dependent medical benefits provided by its medical
plan. However, the City could not guarantee that it
would be
successful
in obtaining the increase in the amount of benefits
provided
dependents requested by the Association as it had
no
control over the decisions made by the other members of
the
Association of Washington Cities.
With respect to whether or not the City could provide the
requested
benefits by obtaining other insurance, the City
argued
that it needs the advantage of multi-employer purchasing
power
and now participates in the largest group buying medical
insurance
available. Neither party submitted any
evidence
that
the City would be able to purchase other medical in-
surance providing the existing coverage plus the
additional
coverage
requested by the Association for approximately the
same
amount as the City pays for the existing coverage.
The panel determined that the increased medical benefits
for
families and vasectomies for male employees shall not be
provided
unless the Association of Washington Cities changes
its
medical coverage to provide these benefits.
The panel
further
determined that the City shall request the Association
of
Washington Cities to change its medical plan to incorporate
the
benefits requested by the Association to the extent
possible
at the earliest opportunity.
Increase in Clothing and
Cleaning Allowance
One of the reasons for denying parity pay was the desire
on
the part of the panel to compensate detectives for their
clothing
and cleaning costs and traffic patrol officers for
their
increased cleaning costs. In view of the
fact that
detectives
are already receiving an increase associated with
clothing,
the panel determined that an increase in the clothing
allowance
would be inappropriate.
The evidence submitted by the parties with respect-to
cleaning
allowances provided to police officers in comparable
cities
was inconclusive and the Consumer's Price Index for
the
Seattle-Everett area does not support the Association's
contention
that cleaning costs have gone up 25% to 50%.
The
Consumer's Price Index for
urban wage earners indicates that
costs
of apparel and upkeep have experienced a minus 0.1%
change
from January 1978 to January 1979, a 3.5% increase
from January
1979 to March 1979 and an increase of 2.3% from
March 1979 to May 1979.
The fact-finding panel recommended that no change be
made
in the cleaning allowance.
In view of the fact that police officers will be receiv-
ing a cost of living increase to help with the
rise in the
cost
of living and the fact that any amount paid to provide
other
benefits would only reduce the amount of money avail-
able
for wages, the panel determined that an increase in the
cleaning
allowance would be inappropriate.
Definition of Work Day -
Work Week
The parties agreed that there was no issue here for the
arbitration
panel to decide.
Retention of Existing
Benefits
The parties agreed that there was no issue here for the
arbitration
panel to decide.
Clarification of Paid
Holidays
The fact-finding panel recommended no increase in holiday
compensation
(pay or compensatory vacation time).
There was no evidence submitted to indicate that
Bremerton
was
out of line with other comparable cities with respect to
the
rate of compensation it pays its employees for working on
holidays. Therefore, the panel determined that an
increase
in
holiday compensation would be inappropriate.
Parking for Officers Who
Drive Their Cars to Work
The Police Department provides transportation to and from
work
for those officers living within the Bremerton city limits
and
provides transportation to and from the cars of officers
living
outside the city limits. The Association
requested that
the
City provide parking for those police officers living
outside
the city limits on the basis that officers living
outside
the city limits must leave their cars in unattended
lots
where there is a danger that their cars will be vandalized.
Apparently, in the past, three
police officers' private vehicles
have
been stolen and completely stripped during the time the
officers
were on duty. All three of these
incidents occurred
while
the police officer was working the graveyard shift.
The City took the position that no other City employee is
furnished
with free parking and it would be inappropriate to
provide
parking for police officers and not other City employees,
particularly
where police officers already have a special
benefit
in the chauffeuring arrangement. The
City further
maintained
that it does not have sufficient funds in its budget
with
which to provide free parking for employees.
The evidence
supported
the City's contention that it could not provide free
parking
for police officers' private vehicles during normal
working
hours except at considerable expense to the City.
In view of the City's tight budget and the chauffeuring
system
already in existence for police officers, the added
expense
of providing free parking for police officers at the
present
time does not appear to be justified.
However, the
evidence
showed that the City can provide parking for police
officers'
private vehicles during the graveyard shift at very
little,
if any, cost to the City. As it appears
to be the
graveyard
shift which provides the greatest security problem
for
police officers vehicles, the panel
determined that free
parking
be provided for police officers' private vehicles
during
the graveyard shift only and that the chauffeuring
arrangement
now in existence be continued.
Parking for Officers When
They Make Court Appearances
Officers who are required to attend court during their
off-duty
hours should not be required to spend time looking
for
parking places or be subjected to the added expense of
having
to pay for parking. Therefore, the panel
finds it
appropriate
that the City provide free parking for police
officers
attending court during their off-duty time.
Compensatory Time Off (At
Time and One-Half With a Two Hour
Minimum) When
Off-Duty Officers are Called in for Training
It is becoming increasingly common for professional
persons
to have imposed on them the requirement of obtaining a
minimum
number of hours of instruction and training per year.
Such an arrangement is very
much in the public interest as it
forces
professionals to keep abreast of current developments.
In the Bremerton Police Department it apparently has been
a
departmental policy for officers to receive compensatory
time
off for the time in which they must attend required
training
during their off-duty hours. The City
maintains
that
this matter should be left as a matter of departmental
policy
and not put in the employees' labor contract.
The
Association, on the other
hand, pointed out that officers
can
incur penalties for failure to attend a required school
and
that some officers never received any compensatory time
off
for the time they spent attending required training
during
their off-duty hours.
In view of the fact that it is already a departmental
policy
to provide compensatory time off to officers who must
attend
required training during their off-duty time, the
panel
determined that it is appropriate that an officer
receive
compensatory time off at straight time for his or
her
attendance at required training during off-duty time. As
required
training benefits both the police officer and the
citizens
of Bremerton, the panel determined that it is not
appropriate
to compensate an officer for attending required
training-at
time and one-half with a two hour minimum.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after thoroughly examining the testimony
of
the parties, exhibits presented by both the City and the
Association, the
recommendations of the fact-finder and the
recommendations
and opinions of the other members of the
arbitration
panel, the Arbitrator, pursuant to RCW 41.56.450
directs:
(1) That each
member of the collective bargaining unit
with
less than five years experience is to receive a 5%
increase
in salary effective January 1, 1979.
(2) That each
member of the collective bargaining
unit
with five years or more experience is to receive a
7.5% increase in salary,
effective January 1, 1979.
(3) That each
member of the collective bargaining
unit,
regardless of his or her experience, is to receive a
3% cost of living increase in
salary effective June 1, 1979.
(4) That parity
pay not be paid.
(5) That the
length of the contract be one year.
(6) That
members of the collective bargaining unit
not
receive shift differential pay.
(7) The
longevity pay will remain unchanged.
(8) The
overtime computation will remain unchanged.
(9) The
vacation computation will remain unchanged.
(10) Medical benefits for dependents will remain
un-
changed
unless the Association of Washington Cities changes
its
group medical insurance coverage to provide the benefits
requested
by the Association. The City shall
request the
Association of Washington
Cities to change its group medical
insurance
coverage to incorporate the benefits requested by
the
Association at the earliest opportunity.
(11) The
clothing and cleaning allowances will remain
unchanged.
(12) Paid holidays
remain unchanged.
(13) That free
parking be provided for police officers'
private
vehicles during the graveyard shift but not during
the
day and swing shifts.
(14) That free
parking be provided for a police officer's
private
vehicle while that officer is attending court during
his
or her off-duty time.
(15) That an
officer is to receive compensatory time off
at
straight time for his or attendance at required training
during
off-duty time.
Rendered and prepared at Seattle, Washington August 14,
1979.
Carol
J. Teather Arbitrator
Mayor Glen K. Jarstad X Concurs_____Dissents
For the City
Detective Ranie
Woods Concurs_____X
Dissents
For the Union