City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 03159-I-80-00074
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DECISION
AND AWARD
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
) OF ARBITRATION PANEL
BETWEEN )
)
)
"EPOA" OR "THE
ASSOCIATION" )
AND )
)
)
"THE CITY" ) Interest
Arbitration
HEARING SITE: Holiday Inn
HEARING DATE: January 2 and 3, 1981
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator
and For the
Chairman Association For
the City
John H. Abernathy Michael Campbell
City
Attorney
APPEARING FOR THE ASSOCIATION
Lt. Donald Pratt
Mr. Norm Lecours, President
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Mr. Lawrence Hannah, Attorney at Law
Mr. Cabot Dow, Labor Relations Consultant
Mr. Larry Foster, Personnel Analyst
Mr. William Cushman, Finance Director
EXHIBITS
Assn. Exhibit 1 Chart
of Comparable Cities
Assn. Exhibit 2 Association
Position Statement for Article VII -
Wages
Assn. Exhibit 3 Labor
Agreement for 1980
Assn. Exhibit 4 Crime
Index
Assn. Exhibit 5 Assault
on Officers
Assn. Exhibit 6 Memorandum
from Mr. Pratt re Failure of Dis
patchers to Number Police Responses and Events
Assn. Exhibit 7 Snohomish
Assn. Exhibit 8 Association
Position Statement for Article XI -
Hours of Duty
Assn. Exhibit 9 Association
Position Statement for Article XII -
Holidays
Assn. Exhibit 10 Association
Position Statement for Article XVI -
Prevailing Rights
Assn. Exhibit 11 Association
Position Statement for Article XVII -
Management Rights
Assn. Exhibit 12 Association
Position Statement for Article XVIII -
Overtime and Callback Pay
Assn. Exhibit 13 Association
Position Statement for LEOFF II -
Insurance Benefits
Assn. Exhibit 14 Association
Position Statement for Article XXXII -
Compensatory Time
Assn. Exhibit 15 Association
Position Statement for Article XXIV -
Duration
Assn. Exhibit 16 City
Position Statement for Election of
Remedies (New Article)
City Exhibit 1 Statement
of Mr. Langus
City Exhibit 2 Statement
of Mr. Doughty
City Exhibit 3 Chart
of Comparable Cities
City
Exhibit 4 City Position Statement. for Article VII -
Salary Schedule
City Exhibit 5 City
Position Statement for Article XI -
Hours
of Duty
City Exhibit 6 City
Position Statement for Article XII -
Holidays
City Exhibit 7 City
Position Statement for Article XVI -
Prevailing Rights
City Exhibit 8 City
Position Statement for Article XVII -
City Exhibit 9 City
Position Statement for Article XVIII -
Overtime and Callback Pay
City Exhibit 10 Last
Offer of
Article XVIII - Overtime and Callback Pay
City Exhibit 11 City
Position Statement for Article XXVII -
Insurance Benefits
City Exhibit 12 City
Position Statement for Article XXXII -
Compensatory Time
City Exhibit 13 City
Position Statement for Article XXXIV -
Duration
City Exhibit 14 City
Position Statement re Election of
Remedies New Article
BACKGROUND
Everett, Washington, is a city of approximately 56,000
population
located 25 miles north of
is
approximately 40 square miles in area, is classified as a
first
class city, and is operated under the mayor-council form
of
government. The Everett Police
Department consists of approxi-
mately 95 officers and 22 full-time civilian
employees. The
organization
which serves as the sole bargaining agent for all
commissioned
members of the Everett Police Department, excluding
the
Chief of Police and Deputy Chief. The
Association repre
sents, therefore, approximately 93 uniformed officers. The
parties
have had previous labor agreements.
In June, 1980, the city of
tions for a successor collective bargaining
agreement. After
some
twelve negotiation meetings and five mediation sessions,
the
Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission by letter of
parties
were at impasse and that interest arbitration should
proceed
as provided in RCW 41.56.450 on the following issues:
Compensation and Salary Overtime/Callback
Hours of Duty Insurance
Holidays Compensatory
Time
Prevailing Rights Duration
Management Rights Election
of Remedies
Consequently, the EPOA chose Michael Campbell to serve as
their
advocate arbitrator on the arbitration panel and the City
chose
Mr. Bradford N. Cattle, City Attorney, to serve as the
City
advocate. Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Cattle then chose Mr. John
H. Abernathy, neutral
arbitrator, to serve as Chairman. In
accordance
with the procedures set forth in RCW 41.56.450,
the
arbitration panel established a date, time and place for the
hearing
and provided reasonable notice thereof to the parties
of
the dispute. An arbitration hearing was
held on January 2,
and
3, 1981, at the Holiday Inn,
The parties stipulated at the hearing that the
arbitration
panel
was properly constituted and that the statutory time
lines
for the setting of a meeting had been met or waived. The
parties
also agreed to the waiving of post hearing briefs. The
Association arranged that the
hearing be recorded by a court
reporter
and agreed to be responsible for the cost of transcripts
for
the panel. The chairman ruled that the
hearing would be
closed
and deliberations would commence upon receipt of the
transcript.
At the arbitration hearing each party was given the oppor-
tunity to present arguments, evidence and
testimony in support
of
its position and arguments, evidence and testimony in rebut-
tal of the position of the other party. All witnesses were
sworn
and subject to cross examination.
At the completion of the arbitration hearing on January
3rd,
and
receipt of the transcript of the hearing on January 20th,
the
neutral arbitrator convened the arbitration panel in Seat-
tle, Washington, on
ing the facts, evidence and arguments on each
issue.
The report that follows will set forth a preliminary
ruling
and
then, in summary fashion, the positions of the parties, the
major
arguments on each issue followed by the panel's analysis,
findings,
and decision.
PRELIMINARY RULING
RCW 41.56.460 requires the arbitration panel, in making
its
determination, to be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 which is as follows:
"To recognize that there exists
a public policy
in the State of
uniformed personnel as a means
of settling
their labor disputes: That the uninterrupted
and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the
welfare and public
safety of the State of
Washington: That to
promote such dedicated and
uninterrupted public
service there should exist an
effective and ade-
quate
alternative means of settling disputes."
The statute further provides
that the alternative means of
settling
disputes established is interest arbitration.
However,
in
making its determination, the interest arbitration panel is
required
by RCW 41.56.460 to take into consideration the follow-
mg
factors:
"(a) The constitutional
and statutory authority
of the employer.
"(b)
Stipulations
of the parties.
"(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and condi-
tions
of employment of the uniformed person-
nel of
cities and counties involved in the
proceedings with the wages,
hours and
conditions of employment of
uniformed
personnel of cities and counties
respec-
tively
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 circum-
stances during the pendency of the preceding;
and
"(f) Such other factors not confined to the
fore-
going which are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in the determina-
tion
of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment . "
Throughout the course of the hearing, there was
considerable
dispute
between the City and the Police Officers Association
with
regard to the selection of cities to be used as comparable
cities
in comparing of wages, hours and conditions of employment.
The Police Officers Association
chose to use cities in the Puget
Sound area or in the State of
Washington generally, while the
City used cities in
Washington, Oregon and California, arguing
that
these were cities of similar size on the west coast of
the
United States. In rebuttal, the Police
Officers Association
argued
that some of the comparative cities chosen by the City of
Everett were not coastal
cities because they did not appear on
coastal
waters and consequently did not meet the concept of
cities
on the west coast of the United States.
On the other hand,
the
City argued that the language of RCW 41.56.460(c) was clear.
It requires comparisons with
cities of similar size on the west
coast
of the United States. As the term
"west coast of the United
States" is normally used, it does not mean that they have to be
on
the coastal salt waters to be considered a city on the west
coast
of the United States. The City also
objected to the
EPOA's
choice of cities to be used for comparison purposes because
they
were not of similar size, ranging in size from 156,000 to
17,200. The EPOA defended its choice of cities
as being in the
Seattle-Tacoma
area covered by the CPI.
After due consideration of the arguments of both parties,
this
Arbitration Panel ruled that the language of RCW 41.56.460(c)
controls
in this case and that such language is clear and un-
ambiguous
and will be given its ordinary meaning.
This language
requires
comparisons of cities and counties respectively of similar
size
on the west coast of the United States, and as normally used,
the
term "west coast of the United States" does not require the
strained
interpretation of being on coastal waters as the
Association so argued, but
applies to cities of comparable size
in
Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska.
The City of Everett utilized the 1980 U.S. Census to
identify
cities
in Washington, Oregon and California that had populations
between
20,000 more and 20,000 less than the City of Everett.
The range in population,
therefore, was between 34,300 and
74,300. This process led to the identification
of five
Washington cities, three
Oregon cities and 52 California cities.
To reduce the number of
California cities to a manageable
size,
the City of Everett applied two other selection criteria
to
the 52 California cities. California
cities had to have
populations
within 5,000 and assessed property valuation within
30%
of that of Everett.
After these criteria were applied, only
six
California cities remained in the comparison.
Thus, five
Washington cities, three
Oregon cities and six California
cities,
or a total of 14 cities were used by the City of
Everett
in their comparisons.
The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds the
methodology
used
by the City of Everett to select cities of similar size
to
be more consistent with statutory requirements.
The EPOA
argument
that only cities in the Seattle-Tacoma CPI area should
be
used is not required by statute and, in fact, confuses two
statutory
criteria - comparability and cost of living.
For these reasons the Arbitration Panel finds the 14
cities
selected
by the City of Everett to be more in accordance with
the
requirements of RCW 41.56.460(c), namely cities "of similar
size
on the west coast of tile United States." The majority of
the
Arbitration Panel will, therefore, place greater weight
to
the comparisons presented by the City in this respect than
those
presented by the Association.
ISSUES AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
ISSUE 1 - COMPENSATION AND SALARIES
The EPOA is seeking a 19.5% increase in the salaries of
all
Positions in the bargaining unit. The
EPOA argued that
the
May, 1979 to May, 1980 Consumer Price Index for the Seattle-
Tacoma
area increased by 17.5 percent. Since May, the CPI
has
increased an additional 3.4%. Based on
the CPI increase
alone,
the EPOA argued its demand for a 19.5% salary increase
is
reasonable and realistic. Furthermore,
the City's last
salary
offer of 8.5%. to EPOA was lower than the 12% the City
offered
the Everett Fire Department and would further increase
the
disparity between police and fire department salaries in
the
City. EPOA also argued on the basis of
their selection
of
cities for comparison the 19.5% increase was justified.
The City has proposed an 8.5% salary increase to be effec-
tive January 1, 1981 (the day after the current contract
expired -
Association Exhibit #3). The City's
proposal
would
generate a minimum of $117 per month at Step A (Police
Officer step)
of the salary schedule up to $201 per month for
the
Captain rate. Taking into account the
movement between
steps
in the schedule, the City argued, would result in an
average
increase of 10.35% for the 93 employees in the bargain
ing unit.
This compares favorably with the salaries in effect
on
January 1, 1981 in the 14 cities in the City's comparable
cities.
The City of Everett also argued that the CPI is not a
cost
of
living index; rather it is a measure of changes in the prices
of a
given market basket of goods over time.
Furthermore, the
City argued, the CPI
overstates the cost of living particularly
the
housing component (especially the home purchase and home
financing
elements). In addition, where the
Employer pays a
substantial
portion of medical-dental insurance, as here, then
a
substantial portion of the medical component should be
factored
out of the CPI. The City also argued the
CPI does
not
accurately measure a consumer's substitution of products
for
those in the market basket, nor the quality improvements
that
mean the market basket of goods is not truly a fixed market
basket. For these reasons, the City argued, the CPI
over-
states
the cost of living by 3 to 6%. Thus, the
CPI should not
be
used to justify a percentage increase in wages for each per-
centage increase in CPI.
The City also argued that its proposal was fiscally responsi-
ble and in the best interests of the taxpayers
of the community.
Analysis and Award
The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds that the
evidence
will not justify the 19.5% wage increase requested
by
the Association. The City's attack on
the validity of the
CPI was not refuted by EPOA
and the City's comparative salaries
approach
was afforded greater weight in light of the Panel's
preliminary
ruling. On the other hand, the majority
of the
Panel finds the 8.5% direct
wage increase offered by the City
to
be insufficient to allow the City to remain comparable, given
the
wage settlements for the current year.
Therefore, a majority
of
the Panel awards a direct wage increase of 11% to be applied
to
the salary schedule in accordance with the City proposal.
ISSUE II - HOURS
The Patrol Officers of the City park their cars at the
City Service Center, pick up a
police car and drive the police
car
to City Hall for the beginning of the shift briefing. The
reverse
procedure is followed when going off shift.
This pro-
cedure requires approximately 15 minutes per day
for some 50
patrol
officers, i.e., 7 1/2 minutes at the beginning and end of
the
shift.
The Association has contended that this
15 minutes should
be
eliminated or should be paid for at the overtime rate. The
City's position is that this
time should remain as an unpaid
period. The City argued that this change would cost
$40,000 a
year.
Analysis
While the Arbitration Panel recognizes that this is an
issue
that is highly emotional with EPOA members, it is not a
benefit
that is commonly enjoyed by other police organizations.
The Chairman of the Panel is
aware of industries where the
employees
do not get paid for changing into work clothes, wash-
ing up or walking from the employee parking lot
to the time
clock. These activities are all similar in nature to
that
being
discussed here - getting ready to work.
The Association
has
suggested changing the site of the briefing to that of the
City
Service Center. That
suggestion would perhaps eliminate
the
problem, but the majority of the Panel does not feel
that
it was fully discussed by the parties nor is there
sufficient
evidence to justify awarding this alternative or
the
EPOA proposal.
Award
The majority of the Panel would award the City's position
and
deny the EPOA Position.
ISSUE III - HOLIDAYS
Article XII of the current agreement governs holidays as
follows:
The following days are designated to be paid holi-
days for those persons in pay
status on the day
before and the day after the
holiday:
New Year's Day January
1
Lincoln's Birthday February
12
Washington's Birthday Third
Monday in February
Memorial Day Last
Monday in May
Independence Day July
4
Labor Day First
Monday in September
Veteran's Day November
11
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Day After Thanksgiving Fourth
Friday in November
Day
Christmas December
25
One Floating Holiday At
employee's choice subject
to concurrence with employer.
An employee who is required to work one of the fore-
going holidays shall be paid in
addition to his regular
pay for that day, an additional
hour's pay for each
hour worked on said
holiday. The hourly rate will be
determined by dividing the
annual rate by 2080 hours.
When a holiday falls on a regularly scheduled day off,
a compensatory day off will be
provided in a manner
consistent with the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1974.
A regularly scheduled day off is defined as those days
not covered in a regularly
scheduled work week.
The position of EPOA is that instead of receiving time
off
for
holidays, they should be paid for them.
That is, there
should
be payout for holidays at the rate of 1/25th of the
annual
salary for all members of the bargaining unit.
EPOA
aruged that such a practice would be consistent
with what the
City is doing in the Everett
Fire Department.
The Position of the City is that the EPOA proposal is a
radical
change in holiday pay that was made in the waining
hours
of mediation and that was never fully discussed or negoti-
ated. The
current holiday provision cost the City $46,152 in
1980. If the Association's proposal was
implemented, holiday
costs
would increase by 38.9% to $64,105 based on 1980 salary
rates. The increase would, of course, be higher
because it would
be
tied to 1981 salaries. The City argued
that no other City in
the
state has a holiday payout for police.
The City argued
that
the current holiday compensation arrangement compares
favorably
with other cities and should not be changed.
Analysis
The Panel finds that the existing number of holidays to
be
comparable. The dispute really involves the
administration of
holidays.
The majority of the Arbitration Panel held that the
moving
party
has the burden of proof. That is, EPOA
had the responsi-
bility of proving to the Panel that the current
contractual
provisions
governing Holidays created a problem that required
changing
and that the change proposed would, in fact, correct
the
problem. The majority of the Panel finds
the evidence sub-
mitted by EPOA to be deficient on both counts.
Award
The majority of the Arbitration Panel denies the EPOA's
proposal
and awards that the language of the previous contract
be
continued in the future agreement between the parties.
ISSUE IV - PREVAILING RIGHTS
The present contract includes a clause that says:
"The rights and privileges prevailing at
the present time
which are not mentioned
or included in this
agreement shall remain
in force, unchanged
and unaffected in any
manner by this
agreement."
It is the City's Position that this language should be
either
deleted or made specific and administerable. The City
argued
that this clause causes the City to commit to maintain-
ing unnamed rights and privileges. The City argued that if the
Association has definable
rights and privileges that it wants
memorialized
in the agreement, it could negotiate those into the
labor
agreement. Under current language, the
City argued, this
clause
is like a bomb that's going to go off sooner or later.
The City also argued that this
language is vague and ambiguous.
The Association's Position is to retain this clause in
any
successor
agreement. The EPOA argued that this
clause had been
discussed
during the past two negotiations but no specific
problems
had been identified. Half of the cities
in the compara-
ble cities used by the City of Everett have
such clauses.
Analysis
Provisions of this type are usually sought in the first
negotiations
between the parties because first contracts tend
to
be short documents and such provisions provide protection
against
the elimination of benefits. The
continuation of such
provisions
beyond the first few contracts often creates opera-
tional and management problems, particularly when
changes in
management
and operations are contemplated. The
parties have
had
at least two previous contracts.
Award
The majority of the Arbitration Panel finds this
statement
of
prevailing rights to be broad and vague and a source of poten-
tial problems.
Therefore, the majority of the Panel would award
the
City's proposal for the elimination of this language from
any
successor agreements.
ISSUE V - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The present contract contains what is known as a
"general"
management
rights clause as follows:
"Any and all rights concerned witht
he (sic)
management and operation of the
Police Depart-
ment
are exclusively that of the City unless
otherwise provided by the terms
of this agree-
ment. The City has the authority to adopt
rules for the operation of the
Department and
conduct of its employees,
provided such rules
are not in conflict with the
provisions of this
agreement or with applicable
law.
The City has proposed a larger "specific"
clause that
lists
some 18 areas of management rights. The
Association pro-
posed
to retain current language.
Analysis
Expanded management rights clauses as proposed by the
City
are
commonly found in collective bargaining agreements. It is
one
of the few "management' clauses in labor agreements. The
dispute
in this case is not whether the collective bargaining
agreement
should contain a management rights clause -- it does.
The dispute is over the form -
expanded or shortened. Management
has
expressed dissatisfaction with the shortened form and
preference
for the expanded form. Even by the evidence
sub-
mitted by EPOA, about half of the contracts that
EPOA surveyed
had
one form, and half the other.
Award
The majority of the Panel awards the City's management
rights
clause.
ISSUE VI - OVERTIME/CALLBACK
Bargaining unit members presently get minimum callback
pay
only
for attending court - 2 hours of overtime pay for court
appearances
on duty days and 4 hours of overtime for court
appearances
on non-duty days. The Association wants
a guarantee
of
four (4) hours of inconvenience pay for any callback from
scheduled
time off, plus the overtime rate for the time actually
worked.
The City objected to the Panel's hearing this Association
position
as being a change in the position taken in bargaining
and
as bad faith bargaining. The Panel
denied this objection.
The City then argued that this
proposal was costly and not
comparable
to that found in other cities.
Analysis
The majority of the Panel does not find the evidence suf-
ficient to justify this Association proposal. When found in the
private
sector, callback guarantees are usually either the
callback
guarantee or pay for time actually worked, whichever
is
greater, but not both.
Award
The majority of the Panel would deny the Association's
Position.
ISSUE VII - INSURANCE
Article XXVII of the current agreement provides that:
The City agrees to sponsor and administer
a disability
insurance program through
Standard Insurance Company for all LEOFF II
members. Premiums for this coverage will be
the responsibility
of LEOFF II officers with
the requirement that
all LEOFF II officers
participate.
The issue in dispute is the long term disability program
for
the 13 LEOFF officers currently in the department. EPOA
wants
long term disability coverage equal to that provided for
LEOFF
I officers. The
City proposes no change.
Analysis
LEOFF II officers are those employed after October, 1977.
Thus, while there are only 13
such officers in the department
now
and the Association figures the current cost of their pro-
posal at $18.70 per LEOFF II officer per month or
$3907.20 per
year,
future costs cannot be calculated. The
Panel notes that all
present
and future hires are LEOFF II officers.
Consequently,
future
costs cannot be determined. Because of
this uncertainty,
the
majority of the Panel rejects the Association's proposal.
Award
Continue present contract language.
ISSUE VIII - COMPENSATORY TIME
Existing contract language is as follows:
An employee, subject to the approval of the
Chief of Police, may receive compensable time
off in lieu of overtime pay at
the rate of one
hour and one-half for each hour
worked.
On January 10, 1979, the Chief of Police issued a
directive
saying
that by January 1, 1980, all officers were prohibited
from
accumulating more than 40 hours of compensatory time
without
the approval of the Chief of Police.
This 40 hour lid
was
subsequently raised to 60 hours. The
Association's fear
that
officers may lose compensatory time hours over the 60 maxi-
mum
allowed led them to propose the following:
An officer has the option of receiving
compensable time off in lieu of
overtime
pay at the rate of one-hour and
one-half
for each hour worked. There will be no
limit on the amount of
compensatory time
an employee may accumulate. Compensatory
time shall be repaid at a time
mutually
convenient between the Police
Department
and the employee.
The City has proposed to continue present contract
language
and
the continue of the 60 hour maximum accumulation established
by
the Police Chief. The City argued that
the present contract
language
allowed employees to choose between overtime pay and
compensatory
time off at overtime equivalents. This
choice
permits
the accumulation of an unfunded liability that must be
controlled. The 60-hour maximum is a control device that
is
necessary
and comparable.
Analysis and Award
The majority of the Panel recognizes both the employees'
fears
and management's need to manage. The
60-hour maximum
accumulation
for compensatory time is both necessary and
competitive. Unlimited accumulation of compensatory time
would
not
only create a large unfunded liability, but also would serve
to
make future scheduling difficult. The
evidence is insufficient
to
justify unlimited accumulation. The
City's proposal does not
address
the problem of accumulation of hours over the maximum.
Consequently, the majority of
the Panel would award:
1. the continuation of current language; and
2. the addition of the following:
The maximum accumulation of compensatory
time is 60 hours. Compensatory time
earned over the
maximum must be taken
within 30 days of
the time it was earned
or it will be paid
out at the overtime
rate at the pay
period immediately follow-
ing
this 30-day period.
ISSUE IX - DURATION
The Association has proposed three alternatives, namely:
a one year
agreement;
or a two year agreement with a full CPI wage
increase the first
year and parity with the
Everett Fire Department the second year;
or a two year agreement with parity with the
Everett Fire Department the first year
and full CPI
increase the second year.
The City has proposed a two year agreement with a wage
reopener for the second year of the agreement. The City
objected
to EPOA options two and three on the grounds that they
had
never been advanced in bargaining and represents, in the
City's opinion, bad faith
bargaining.
Analysis
Both parties recognized by statements at the hearing that
if a
one-year agreement were awarded by the Arbitration Panel,
the
parties would be back in full scale negotiations within four
months
of the arbitration award. Neither party
expressed
opposition
to the principle of a two year agreement; thus the
dispute
was to the form of wages in the second year - open for
negotiations
or closed.
Award
The majority of the Arbitration Panel awards a two year
contract
with wages in the second year being determined as fol-
lows:
Wages to be based on the percentage increase in the
Seattle, Washington, Consumer
Price Index for all urban consumers
for
the period May, 1980 to May, 1981 applied as follows:
For each percentage increase in this index in
the period up to 8% in equal
increase in wages;
for each increase in this index
between 8.01% and
12%, an increase in wages of .75% for each 1%
increase in the index; and
for each increase from 12.1% to
16% in the index,
a .5% increase in salary to a
maximum salary
increase of 13.2%.
ARTICLE X - ELECTION OF REMEDIES
There is no provision in the current contract governing
this
matter. The City has proposed adding the
following pro-
vision
to a successor agreement:
Election of Remedies. The following limita-
tions
shall be applicable to this agreement.
In the event an employee elects to file a
Civil Service appeal concerning his or her
employment status or working
conditions, no
grievance under this agreement
by or on
behalf of the employee shall be
filed or
pursued to the extent the
subject matter of
the Civil Service appeal
overlaps with any
actual or potential grievance
under this
agreement.
The Association opposed this additional provision on the
grounds
that it denies due process rights to police officers,
limits
choices of appeal routes and would open the possibility
that
the Association would be liable to suit by members for
violating
the duty of fair representation.
The City argued that there is no constitutional or
statutory
right
to grievance arbitration, rather it is a creation of the
parties
through collective bargaining.
Analysis
The majority of the Panel does not find the evidence to
be
sufficient to justify the addition of this provision.
Award
The City's proposal is denied.
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
AWARD
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
OF
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATION
PANEL
)
EVERETT POLICE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION )
)
"EPOA" OR "THE
ASSOCIATION" )
)
AND )
)
)
"THE CITY" Interest Arbitration )
After careful consideration of all oral and written argu-
ments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth
above, it is
awarded
that:
1. Issue 1 - Compensation and Salaries
A direct wage increase of 11% is to be
applied to the
salary schedule as per the
City's method for the first year of the
agreement.
2. Issue 2 - Hours
Retain current contract language.
3. Issue 3 - Holidays
The EPOA's proposal
is denied. Retain cur-
ent
contract language.
4. Issue 4 - Prevailing Rights
The language of the current contract is to
be eliminated from
any successor agreement.
5. Issue 5 - Management Rights
The expanded management rights clause as
requested by the
City is approved.
6. Issue 6 - Overtime/Callback
The Association's request for increased
overtime/callback
pay is denied.
7. Issue 7 - Insurance
Continue present contract language.
8. Issue 8 - Compensatory Time
1. Continue
current language; and
2. Add
the following:
The maximum accumulation of
compensatory
time is
60 hours. Compensatory time
earned
over the maximum must be taken
within
30 days of the time it was earned
or it
will be paid out at the overtime
rate at
the pay period immediately follow-
ing this 30-day period.
9. Issue 9 - Duration
A two year contract is awarded with wages in
the second year
being determined as follows:
Wages to be based on the
percentage
increase
in the Seattle , Washington,
Consumer Price Index for all urban con-
sumers for the period May, 1980 to May,
1981 applied as follows:
For each percentage
increase in this
index
in the period up to 8% an equal
increase
in wages;
for
each increase in this index between
8.01% and 12%, an
increase in wages of
.75% for each 1%
increase in the index;
and
for
each increase from 12.1% to 16% in
the
index, a .5% increase in salary to
a
maximum salary increase of 13.2%.
10. Issue 10 - Election of Remedies
The City's proposal is denied.
Respectfully submitted on this
the 11th day of February, 1981
by
John H. Abernathy
Chairman, Arbitration Panel