Teamsters
Local 763 Representing
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Robert A. Sutermeister
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Sutermeister; Robert A.
Case #: 01469-I-78-00050
Employer: City
of
Date Issued:
Interest Arbitration
City of
and
Teamsters Local 763
Representing
Case Number 1469-1-78-50
Date of Hearing:
Place of Hearing:
Date Post-Hearing Briefs
Received:
Representing the City: Mr. Cabot Dow
Cabot
Dow Associates
Representing the
Secretary-Treasurer
Teamsters
Local 763
Arbitration Panel: Mr.
Cabot Dow
Mr.
Jon L. Rabine
Mr.
R. A. Sutermeister, Chairman
Under Auspices of: Public
Employment Relations Commission
603
Evergreen Plaza
Mr.
Marvin Schurke, Executive Director
Background
The last contract between the parties covered the
calendar years of
1976
and 1977.
Following are the highlights of developments toward a new
contract:
new
contract
ship
without recommendation. Membership
rejected.
recommend
proposal (hereafter referred to as The Proposal)
provided,
in the event the proposal is rejected, the
question
of retroactivity will not be an additional issue.
arbitration
panel.
Issues Previously Agreed
Upon by the Parties
To be included in the new contract are the issues upon
which the parties
have
agreed. They are outlined in the
Stipulations of the Parties in Fact-
Finding, and include:
A. Renumbering
sections and calling them "Articles" in accordance
with Employer's
August 29 proposal to the
B. Working
out of class as agreed
C. Grievance
procedure as agreed
D. Overtime
as agreed
E. Holidays
(10 designated holidays plus the Employee's Birthday
in lieu of the
statutory floating holiday)
F. Sick
Leave
G. Maintenance
of Standards
H. Entire
Agreement with mutual re-opener clause added
I. Drop War
Clause
J. Definitions
K. All the
following articles will remain (with the exception of
numerical order) the
same as in the 1976-1977 labor agreement.
Bargaining Unit
Payroll Deductions
Work Week
Off Duty Time
Lunch Breaks
Vacat ions
Emergency Leave
Uniform Allowance
Management's Rights
Police Officers' Bill of Rights
Discrimination
Savings Clause
Issues Raised in
Arbitration
1. Union Membership
2. Department Meetings and/or Training Sessions
3. Health and Welfare
4. Duration
5. Wages
6. Performance of Duty (No-Strike Clause)
General Positions of the
Parties
in
Arbitration
The City of
on
the
the
Union Negotiating Committee to the membership, and why the Fact Finders
recommendation
to accept that Proposal, should now be altered by the Arbitration
Panel.
The
accept The
Proposal, but in deference to the mediator did agree to recommend
it
to the membership. Union witnesses
testified they told the mediator it
was a
waste of time to take The Proposal to the membership but the mediator
told
them (1) the City doubts if you presented the city's position accurately
and
it will remove all doubt if you present this Proposal, (2) retroactivity
is
safeguarded if the membership rejects the Proposal, (3) you have nothing to
lose;
you will still have all your rights of fact finding and arbitration.
Union witnesses further
testified they were willing to follow the mediator's
suggestion
and take The Proposal to the membership in an effort to try to
settle
the contract before expiration of the 1976-1977 agreement, but that they
told
the mediator "We're not going to ratify, but to reaffirm the position of
the memebership, we will submit The Proposal." In retrospect, the
spokesman
stated he would not have recommended acceptance.
I have no reason whatsoever to question this testimony as
representing
the
perception of the Union officials of their conversations with the
mediator. The mediator was not present at the
arbitration hearing, to testify
whether
or not this also represented his perception of what was said. The
Company representatives were
not present when these discussions took place
between
the mediator and the Union officials.
Thus I have no way of confirming
whether
the perceptions of the
In my opinion, the
the
arbitration panel should change provisions of The Proposal recommended
to
the union membership by the union negotiating committee, and why the
arbitration
panel should alter the recommendations of the Fact-Finder.
Comparable Cities
At the fact-finding hearing the parties had stipulated
that the cities
to
be used for comparative purposes were:
but they
added a note that "The parties did reserve the right to present evidence
pertaining
to
could
not be reached on these cities."
The
list
of comparable cities, and included data from those cities in many of its
exhibits. In some union exhibits it also included data
from other cities
besides
those included in the preceding paragraph.
As one example,
Exhibit 12 B included data
from:
Bothell
Issaquah
Pullman
It will be noted that
comparable
cities; that
list
of other cities for which the parties had reserved the right to present
evidence. But
County are not included in any
of the cities mentioned in the first para-
graph
above. I would naturally expect the
introduced
additional cities for the first time at arbitration, I would
expect
the City to include cities which would make
possible
by comparison. Thus I cannot attach much
weight to exhibits which
include
cities that have not been agreed upon by the parties or even listed
under
"right to present evidence."
The
It has a right to present
evidence on these cities under paragraph 1 above.
How much weight should the
arbitration panel attach to the data from
and
to
impose on the parties a list of cities the panel feels are comparable, or
to
add cities to the list the parties have already agreed upon. Any changes
in
that list should be made by the parties themselves. Therefore the panel
will
not consider
consider
the data on those two cities introduced for the first time at the
arbitration.
Basic Philosophical
Differences
Between the Parties
The City pointed out that (1) there had been numerous
proposals and
counter-proposals
during negotiations and mediation, with concessions on both
sides,
resulting in The Proposal, (2) this represented a complete
"package,"
(3) it
is inappropriate at the arbitration stage to regress to earlier
positions
and start negotiating all over again.
The
the
membership to adopt The Proposal must be considered irrelevant, because
not
until negotiations reach the arbitration stage does the
collect
appropriate data to support its position.
I find the City's position the more persuasive.
Philosophy of Chairman of
Arbitration Panel
RCW 41-56.460 states that "In making its
determination, the panel...
shall
take into consideration the following factors:
a. The
constitutional and statutory authority of the employer
b. Stipulations
of the parties
c. Comparison of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment
of
the uniformed personnel of cities and counties involved
in
the proceedings with the wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of uniformed personnel of cities and counties
respectively
of similar size on the west coast of the United
States.
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.
f. Such other factors not confined to the
foregoing which are
normally
or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination
of wages, hours and conditions of employment.
g. Findings
of fact made by the fact-finder pursuant to
RCW 41.56.440.
The Fact Finder stressed the importance of
"motivation of both parties
in
future negotiations to put forth their best offers in an effort to reach
agreement
during negotiations." I agree with
this philosophy and disagree
with
what appears to be the Union philosophy to carry negotiations on each
year
through the mediation, fact finding and arbitration stages in the hope
of
gaining greater concessions the longer the negotiations are prolonged. I
believe
it would be a disservice to both parties to encourage them to proceed
to
fact finding and arbitration each year
instead of trying their best to
work
out an agreement by themselves.
On the other hand, RCW 41,56.460
does state the arbitration panel "shall
take
into consideration changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during
the pendency of the proceedings." Thus either party has the right to introduce
at
the arbitration hearing new evidence which was not available for negotiations,
mediation,
or fact finding. If the new evidence
indicates that the factors
in
RCW 41,56.460 have not been given proper consideration and that there is
gross
unfairness in The Proposal, the arbitrator should give the new evidence
considerable
weight. In the absence of any such
indications, however, I
believe
the arbitrator should give the new
evidence little weight. He must
be
alert to the danger of encouraging the parties not to settle contracts
by
themselves,
but to stall as long as possible, hoping information from settlements
in
other cities will strengthen their cases and that they can gain greater
benefits
with each additional delay in settlement.
Issue of Union Membership
As early as
the
option to join the union within 31 days.
By November 29 the parties had
agreed
to change the language to permit employees who choose not to join the
union
to pay fees to the United Good Neighbors instead of the scholarhsip
fund,
but
to retain the l2 months probationary period in the l976-l977 agreement.
On
and
made no mention of a 31 day period. At
the arbitration hearing, the
areas
including 10 areas or cities not agreed to as comparable. The
Chairman of the arbitration
panel finds unpersuasive the reasons advanced
for
changing the provision in The Proposal.
Issue of Department Meetings
and/or
Training Sessions
The previous agreement specified up to 18 hours per year
for general
meetings
without pay. On
pay
for training of any kind. The
Proposal called for 2 firearm meetings
totalling 3 hours, 1 general meeting of 1 1/2 hours,
and 1 breathanalyzer
session
of 3 hours each year without pay, and additional training time at
straight
time pay. At fact-finding the
firearm
sessions and 1 general department meeting each year be with pay
and
additional training time at straight time pay.
At arbitration the
Provisions in the contracts of
comparable cities range widely from no pay
for
18 hours training per year (as in
compensatory
time off, straight time pay, and some 1 1/2 times regular pay.
Provisions also vary widely on
whether all training is covered or only
certain
types of training. All in all the panel finds that provisions in
The Proposal
are reasonably comparable with those of comparable cities and
should
be adopted in the new contract.
Issue of Health and Welfare
The previous contract called for maintaining the level of
medical and
dental
benefits, with no increase in premiums to employees. On May 16,
1977 the
benefits,
while the City countered on
to
pay a fixed dollar amount with no guarantee of what benefits that would
provide. A compromise was reached in The Proposal
which called for the City
to
pay 100% of the benefits in 1978, but after 1978 the employees bear any
increases
in costs. At Fact-Finding the
position
and requested the city to pay 100% of any increases in 1978 and1979
to
retain the level of benefits.
At the arbitration hearing, the
and
Welfare costs for 1977 and, where known, for 1978. Excluding
and
for
paying
100% of the costs after 1978, the monthly contribution by the city
of
$129 seems to be reasonably in line with what the average costs will be
for
the comparable cities. Therefore, the
health and welfare provision in
The Proposal
should be adopted.
Terms of Agreement
The Proposal called for a two-year contract. At fact-finding,
Appendix "A"
attached to the Fact Finder's Report indicated the City wanted
a
2-year contract and the
acceptable." At arbitration the
a
one-year contract.
Of the comparable cities, two have a one-year contract,
three have a
two-year
contract, and two have a three-year contract.
Thus, a two-year
contract
is a reasonable average and should be adopted.
Wages
The Proposal called for a wage increase in 1978 of
8%; and in 1979 a
further
wage increase of 6%, (based on 1977 schedule) plus any increases in
the
Consumer's Price Index of over 8%; with a $175 limit on education and
longevity
payments.
On
further
increases in 1979 to match increases in the Consumers Price Index,
and
no change in education and longevity payments.
At arbitration the
base
salary, defined as monthly wage rate plus the Educational Incentive
plus
the Longevity rates. Union Exhibit 8
listed 32 law enforcement agencies
(seven
of which are on the list of comparable cities) with their 1978 wage
settlements
at an average of 9.39%. The average for
comparable cities is
8.75%. The City is increasing its health and welfare
contributions in 1978
by
over .7%, bringing the overall cost to the City of very close to the
average
for comparable cities. This is also
supported by the City Exhibit
E16
(in fact finding). Thus
I believe the wage provisions for 1978 in
The Proposal are reasonable.
Union Exhibit 12 B lists 1979 wage settlements for eleven law
enforcement
agencies,
two of which are on the list of comparable cities.
fdr CPI plus 1% and
The
latest
figures, published since the arbitration hearing, indicate an
increase
in CPI from May 1977 to May 1978 of approximately 9.4%. The Proposal
provides
for an increase of 6% for 1979 plus any additional amounts above an
8% increase in CPI. This would indicate the 6% plus 1.4% or
approximately
7.4% guaranteed for 1979. One never knows what the future will bring,
but
it
may be that
be
better off than the average increases for police in comparable cities.
Thus, the provisions of The
Proposal should be adopted.
Performance of Duty (No
Strike)
The previous agreement had a no-strike clause. The Proposal added a
sentence
that violators would be subject to discipline or discharge.
At Fact Finding the
from
the previous agreement, while the City requested that the added sentence
remain. The parties took the same positions on
arbitration as they had in
fact
finding.
Since the City had made concessions in The Proposal
from its July 26,
1977 proposal, and since
tentative agreement was reached by the negotiating
committees,
the wording in the new contract should remain as it is in The
Proposal.
Summary
The Proposal agreed upon by the negotiating
committees on November 29,
1977 as a result of mediation,
and upheld by the Fact Finder on April 5,
1978, has taken into
consideration the factors outlined in RCW 41.56.460
and
shall be adopted by the parties,
retroactive to