International
Association of Fire Fighters
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John J. Champagne
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
John J. Champagne
Case #: 02440-I-79-00064
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of an Interest
Arbitration Between
CITY OF
and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS
Appearing for the City of
J. David Andrews
Otto C. Klein III
Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen
& Williams
1900
Appearing for the
Thomas H. Grimm
Inslee,
Best, Chapin, Uhlman & Doezie,
P.S.
10800 Northeast 8th
1.
INTRODUCTION
This proceeding is an interest
arbitration hearing between the
City of
and
International Association of Firefighters
(hereinafter
referred to as "the
with
RCW 41.56.450 (as last amended by sec. 2, ch. 184,
Laws of
1979, 1st Ex. Sess.), the hearing on this matter was conducted on
March 4, 5 and 6, 1980, in
Bellevue, Washington, pursuant to a
submission
agreement (EX. 22) dated
was
represented by J. David Andrews and Otto G. Klein III,
attorneys
at law of the firm of Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen &
Williams, Seattle, and the
Union by Thomas H. Grimm, attorney at
law,
of the firm of Inslee, Best, Chapin, Uhlman & Doezie, of
Pursuant to the submission
agreement, John J. Champagne,
Esquire, of Olympia,
Washington, was selected as the sole arbiter
for
this interest arbitration proceeding.
The entire proceedings were
reported by a qualified court
reporter,
and a transcript consisting of three volumes, containing
a
total of 674 pages, was prepared by the court reporter. There
were a
total of 73 exhibits introduced at the hearing.
Under the submission
agreement, Ex 22, there were a total of
16 issues to be submitted to
the arbiter, to be presented, issue by
issue;
that is, each issue being tried separately. The submission
agreement
also provided that all evidence considered by the arbiter
must
be included in the submission agreement or introduced at the
hearing.
At the outset of the hearing,
it was disclosed that a
complaint
charging unfair labor practices had been filed with the
Public Employment Relations
Commission by the City of
under
date of
No.15 under the submission
agreement entitled "New Section -
Health
and Safety (Minimum Manning)." Under letter dated February
29, 1980, the Executive
Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission notified the
arbiter and the parties that the issue
above
listed was considered to be now in litigation before the
Commission and in said letter
ordered that issue withheld from the
interest
arbitration. The arbiter ruled that no evidence would be
permitted
on this particular issue and ordered that the issue be
excluded
from the interest arbitration.
At the outset of the hearing,
the parties were able to
stipulate
as to issue No. 7 (Holidays) as listed in the submission
agreement,
with the exception that the following paragraph was to
be placed
in the "Hours" section (Article XII) of the existing
collective
bargaining agreement between the parties:
"For clarification, it is
understood that if holiday time
is
worked and straight time pay received in lieu thereof, no
claim
shall be made that the employees' hours of work have been
affected
in any way."
(Joint Ex. 2)
It is extremely important in
this introduction to point out
the
criteria used by the arbiter in arriving at the arbiter's
award.
RCW 41.56.460 directs the arbiter to be cognizant of the
legislative
purpose of ch. 41.56 contained in RCW 41.56.430, and
also
consider the standards listed in RCW 41.56.460. RCW 41.56.430
reads:
Uniformed
personnel -- Legislative declaration. The intent
and
purpose of this is 1973 amendatory act is to recognize that t
there
exists a public policy in the state of
against
strikes by uniformed personnel as a means of settling
their
labor disputes; that the interrupted and dedicated
service
of these class of employees is vital to the welfare
and
public safety of the state of
such
dedicated and uninterrupted public service ice there should
exist
an effective and adequate alternative means of settling
disputes. (1973 c 131 _ l.)
The foregoing general
statement of legislative intent will be
considered
by the arbiter throughout in reaching the arbiter's
decisions
and awards.
The criteria set out in RCW
41.56.460 are as follows:
Uniformed personnel -- Arbitration panel --
Basis for
determination
ion . In making it's determination, the panel shall
be
mindful of the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and as additional
standards or guideline to aid it
in
reaching a decision, it 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 proceeding 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
(d) The average consumer
prices for goods and services
commonly
know 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. [1979 1st ex.s. c 184 § 3; 1973 c 131 §
5.]
The parties in an interest
arbitration have an exceedingly
difficult
task under 41.56.460(c) above. It is an equally
difficult
task for the arbiter to apply the guideline comparable
cities
selected by the parties to arrive at a just and fair award.
In this case the City followed
the literal mandate of the statute
and
selected cities from
cities
selected being of similar size and located on the west coast
of
the
only
in the State of Washington, and only those located in the Puget
Sound region, which cities
were of varying size and which contained
varying
elements of comparability to the City of
as
geographic location, size, assessed valuation, etc. were
concerned.
Both parties introduced extensive testimony and
evidence
concerning the comparability of the cities selected by
each
party, and each party spent considerable time cross-examining
the
opposing party's witnesses regarding the comparability of the
selected
cities, and in criticizing the opposition party's
selection
of the cities.
The cities of similar size
evidence presented by each of the
parties
with their respective elements of comparability, will be
considered
by the arbiter, the City's selection because it was
selected
pursuant to the mandate of the statue and the
selection
because the arbiter must give more weight to the
more
in common with the City of
State
of
comparability
or lack of comparability have been taken into
consideration.
II.
ISSUES
Of the original 16 issues
listed under the submission
agreement,
the parties presented 14 issues to the arbiter which are
as
follows:
1 - Preamble - Retroactivity
2 - Article VII - Reduction
and Recall
3 - Article X and Appendix B -
Education Incentive
4 - Article XI - Overtime
5 - Article XII - Hours
6 - Article XIII - Off Shift
Response
7 - Article XVII - Vacation
Leave
8 - Article XXIII - Savings
Clause
9 - Article XXVII - Medical
Coverage
10 - Article XXVIII - Term of
the Agreement
11 - Article IX and Appendix A - Wages
12 - New Section - LEOFF, II
(Pension)
13 - New Section - No
Pyramiding
14 - New Section - Longevity
DISCUSSION
ISSUE
NO. 1 - PREAMBLE - RETROACTIVITY
It is the Union's position
that the contract should be made
retroactive
to January 1, 1980, and the City's position that it
should
be March 1, 1980. The parties to this dispute began their
negotiations
for a new contract to replace the contract then in
existence
which would expire December 31, 1979, in May of 1979. The
parties
held approximately 16 meetings in an attempt to resolve
their
differences and were unable to do so which resulted in this
arbitration
hearing.
The City is opposed to making
the contract retroactive to
January 1, 1980 because they
feel it probably promotes stalling on
the
part of the Union. On the other hand, the Union wants the
contract
made retroactive to January 1, 1980 because if a later
date
were selected the Union feels this could promote stalling on
behalf
of the City.
DISCUSSION:
It is apparent from a reading
of the record herein that there
is a
potential for either of the parties to engage in stalling
tactics.
However, the potential for stalling perhaps lies more
with
the City. It the City were to engage in stalling tactics, the
the
longer they could stall, the more money they can save if a later
retroactive
date is selected by the arbiter. On the other hand, the
longer
Union stalls and a later retroactive date is selected by the
arbiter,
the longer the Union members are without their pay
increase
and other benefits, if any.
The legislative directive to
be found in RCW 41.56.430 to
prevent
strikes, is, in the opinion of the arbiter, better served
by
encouraging prompt settlement of collective bargaining agreement
negotiations
and the selection of a January 1, 1980 retroactive
date
would also act as reassurance to the uniformed members of the
Union that they would not be
financially penalized - a factor which
could
conceivably result in lesser tensions between the parties.
ARBITER 'S AWARD:
The contract shall be made
retroactive to January 1, 1980.
ISSUE NO. 2 - ARTICLE
VII - REDUCTION AND RECALL
City's position is illustrated
by City's Ex. 16 which is dated
February 28, 1980, one day
following the date of the submission
agreement.
The City desired to add the following final paragraph
to
Article VII placed in the collective bargaining agreement:
"Notwithstanding the
above, in a lay off situation, the
Union and it's
members agree to work with the employer to
preserve
the Department's minority and female hiring level and
its
paramedic capabilities."
The union's position is that
the City's proposal is
unnecessary
and ambiguous and basically unworkable.
DISCUSSION:
The Chief of the Department
testified that in his experience
with
the Bellevue Fire Department beginning back in the mid-
sixties,
the City had never had to lay off any personnel and
repeatedly
testified that he did not anticipate any lay offs over
the
next two years. On the contrary, there was testimony to the
effect
that the City was beginning to hire, commencing March 1,
1980, nine or ten additional
new firemen to man a new station in the
Bellevue
Fire Department. The clause as submitted by the City does
not
have any clear definition of the duty placed upon the Union or
upon
the City, for that matter; and it is ambiguous in this regard
It would be impossible under
the clause as submitted to determine
who
would be laid off, whereas the current reduction and recall
clause
is definite and maintains a strict seniority based reduction
and
recall system. There is ample testimony in the record to the
effect
that both parties are supportive of the affirmative action
and
paramedic program of the City, but to place the City's
suggested
clause in the contract would seriously affect the
existing
relationship, and perhaps morale, where there is at
present
no anticipated need for force reduction.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The contract should not
include a new final paragraph as
proposed
by the City. Article VII of the existing contract shall remain
the
same.
ISSUE
NO. 3 - ARTICLE X AND APPENDIX B - EDUCATION
INCENTIVE
It is the City's position that
educational incentive pay be
amended
to provide for straight dollar amounts rather than a
percentage
of base salary. The Union's position is to retain the
current
percentage of base salary compilation.
Discussion:
The City's position is that
education incentive pay should not
be
automatically increased merely because wages may have been
increased
under a collective bargaining agreement, nor under
arbitration
for that matter. An educational incentive pay plan has
been
in effect for many years, and was proposed by the then Chief of
the
Department in 1970. The training received and education gained
is a
benefit not only to the individual fireman but also to the City
as
well. This is evidenced by the recognition that the Bellevue
Fire Department is one of the
finest, if not the finest, in the
Puget Sound region of the
State of Washington, and perhaps the
entire
State of Washington. There is no doubt in The
arbiter's mind
that
the educational incentive program plays a significant part in
the
high esteem in which the Department is held . The arbiter can
find
nowhere in the record or in the briefs adequate rationale or
substantiation
for this change in the contract as proposed by the
City, other than the fact that
it will in the future, save the City
money
at least for the term of the new contract. To reduce an
incentive
that has proven its value, without adequate rationale, is
not
indicated.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
Article X and Appendix B -
Education Incentive - shall remain
unchanged.
ISSUE NO. 4 - ARTICLE
XI - OVERTIME
The Union's position t ion : The Union proposes that mandatory
overtime
be paid at the rate of two times the regular hourly rate
and
that, in addition, the base for computing overtime pay be
changed
from the present 2,763 hours to 2,080 hours. The Union
proposed
no change in the present contract regarding payment of
time-and-a-half
of the hourly rate for discretionary overtime.
The City's position: The City
believes that overtime should
be
calculated a t the t rate of one-and-a-half times the
firefighter
's base hourly rate.
DISCUSSION:
The City presented
considerable testimony and several exhibits
which
showed that the Union's requested change in overtime pay
rates
would entail a substantial increased cost to the City. For
example,
with regard to the reduction of the computation of
overtime
based upon 2,080 hours rather than the current 2,763
hours,
would amount to a 33 percent increase over current overtime
pay.
The City also presented evidence to the effect that the
proposed
hourly rate of double the ordinary hourly rate for
overtime
work would amount in an increase of approximately 77
percent,
if combined with a reduction of the base rate upon which
the
overtime is based -- in other words, the reduction to the 40 -
hour
week. Various computations by the City show that the Union's
request
as to overtime could amount to an increase in the overall
package
on the collective bargaining agreement of at least 4.83
percent.
Evidence also indicated that all other City employees of
the
City of Bellevue, both uniformed and nonuniformed,
are
presently
receiving time-and-one-half for overtime based upon the
number
of hours actually worked by the employee. None of the cities
used
as comparables by either of the parties paid double time for
overtime,
and that included cities in Washington, Oregon and
California, with the sole
exception of the City of Puyallup which
pays
double time for the first hour of overtime and time-and-a-half
thereafter.
There was some confusion and inaccuracy in some of the
testimony
and exhibits presented to the arbiter regarding the
number
of 1979 overtime hours for the Union's bargaining unit
personnel.
An accurate computation of this item was submitted to
the
arbiter under date of April 15, 1980, computed by the secretary
of
the Bellevue Fire Department. The arbiter has taken into
consideration
the fact that firefighters, including City of
Bellevue firefighters, work an
entirely different type of time
schedule
than other municipal employees. This is mandated by the
type
of work and activities the firefighters are called upon to perform.
The firefighters' working
shift is divided into active
time
and other time in which the firefighter is not actively
engaged
in any type of work for the fire department but really is on
duty
and immediately available on call in the event of a fire
emergency
or other alarm. Other City employees are not so engaged,
and
the hours worked are entirely different. The prevailing area-
wide
practice in this area is to pay not only firefighters but all
municipal
employees on a time-and-a-half basis based upon the
number
of hours worked. There are a couple of exceptions to the
practice
of basing it upon the number of hours worked, but the
prevailing
practice is as stated. Since the overtime pay is based
upon
the hourly rate of the firefighter, and the firefighters are
receiving,
in effect, an hourly wage increase under issue No. 11,
Wages, as set forth
hereinafter in this award, an increase in
overtime
pay is automatically built into the award.
ARBITER'S AWARD
Overtime shall be calculated
at the current rate (1979) , which
is
one-and-a-half times the firefighters' base hourly rate computed
by
dividing monthly salary by actual hours of work.
ISSUE
NO. 5 - HOURS OF DUTY
The City's position: The City
proposed a clause at some time
subsequent
to February 26, 1980, which clause would require the
Union and the City to
collectively bargain regarding possible
changes
in the hours of work and in addition, setting up a procedure
whereby
if an impasse is reached, there would be a method of
resolution
of the impasse.
The Union's position is that
no change should be made in the
existing
contract, Article XII.
DISCUSSION:
The City's proposal as to
hours of work as set fort in Ex. 29
was
proposed at some time subsequent to February 26, 1980. There is
strongly
conflicting testimony between the parties as to what
occurred
on February 26, 1980 with regard to this particular clause
of
the contract, the Union maintaining that the City and the Union
had
agreed on a new Article XII, with amendments, which the Union
had
signed off, and the City maintaining that it had not so agreed.
Exhibit 31 does not show any
signature by the City. Article XII of
the
present contract provides that the regularly scheduled duty
hours
shall be scheduled for periods of 24 consecutive hours
beginning
at 0800 hours. A reading of the entire record herein
would
indicate that these hours of work have been the historical
hours
of work for the Bellevue firefighters, and the arbiter is
extremely
reluctant to eliminate practices which have been
initially
established by collective bargaining in the past. The
arbiter
is hesitant to disturb what has been a stabilized situation
except
on very compelling grounds, and in the arbiter's opinion,
the
City has failed to show such compelling grounds. It is possible
that
in the future, the parties hereto will wish to negotiate on the
hours
of work, but the City's proposal on this clause of the
contract
was made subsequent to the time that the arbitration
proceedings were
scheduled. The Union has submitted no
counterproposal.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
Hours of duty as outlined in
the 1978-79 contract under
Article XII shall remain the
same.
ISSUE NO. 6 - OFF
SHIFT RESPONSE
The Union's position
: The Union seeks to increase the off
shift
response payment from $7 per response to $12 per response. In
addition,
all calls lasting more than one hour would be paid at
overtime
rates under the contract.
The City's position: The City
wishes to retain off shift
response
at $7 per response as provided in the present contract.
DISCUSSION:
The City's proposal that
Article XIII of the present contract
be
amended in a minor way by the addition of the word "voluntarily"
and
the deletion of The word "volunteers" in that clause was agreed
to by
the Union testimony and in representation by their counsel to
the
arbiter. The parties are agreed that the article would read as
follows:
"If an employee voluntarily
responds to alarms while off
duty,
he shall be paid at the rate of $ _______ per response."
The disagreement of the
parties is as to the amount to be paid for
off
duty response on a volunteer basis, the Union contending that
it
should be increased to $12 per off duty response for the first
hour
and over time rates thereafter , and the City contending that
the
present $7 per response be maintained. counsel for the
Union in
its
brief, concedes that if this present system of off duty
response
were to be abandoned, it would increase the need of the
City
to have extra personnel on duty on a full-time basis. it
should
be emphasized that the off duty response is purely on a
voluntary
basis and the record indicates that the $7 per response
was
agreed upon by the parties to assist in compensating the off
duty
volunteer for his costs in responding when on-shift employees
are
answering alarms and other emergency calls and the station is
in
need of manning during their absence. The ever present
inflation
factor has had a definite effect upon the rate paid for
off
duty response. One other factor to be taken into consideration
in
resolving the issue of off duty response, a fact as testified to
by
the City's witness, is that the number of calls is steadily
declining,
which would have an effect upon the financial impact on
the
City were an increase to be granted by the arbiter. Both
parties
testified that off duty response is of considerable benefit
to
the; City and as such, off duty volunteers who respond to that
should
be compensated realistically.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
Article XIII - Off Shift
Response is amended to read as
follows:
"If an employee
voluntarily responds to alarms while off
date,
she shall be paid at the rate of $8 per response."
ISSUE
NO. 7 - VACATION LEAVE
The Union's position: The
Union proposes a change in the rate
of
accrual of vacation leave by the addition of 2 hours per month
per
man for each seniority level. The City's position is that the
vacation
leave be maintained at the same level as presently exists.
DISCUSSlON:
Under cross-examination, the
Union's chief witness testified
that the
Union's position with regard to increasing the vacation
leave
accrual was made because other City employees, not
firefighters,
got a certain vacation rate and that the Union was
desirous
that they be placed in the same category insofar as
vacation
leave is concerned. The effect of the Union proposal as
testified
to by the principal Union witness was that it would
provide
each firefighter with an extra shift of free time. The City
presented
testimony that the granting of an extra shift to each
of
the firefighters would be an increased cost to the City, which
cost
could be estimated as being a minimum of 2/3 of a man-year, or
a
cost of .8 of one percent increase on the total package under
consideration
in this arbitration, if computed as straight time and
1.2 percent on the total
package, if computed at time-and-one-half.
These computations were based
upon the current hourly rate for
firefighters.
The Personnel Director of the City also testified to
the
fact that a firefighter in years on through four is getting the
same
number of hours off for vacations is the police and fire
dispatcher
who has worked one to five years. The parties'
witnesses
were apparently in agreement that the principal reason
for
the granting of vacation time is to provide employees with a
chance
to rest, recuperate from their labors, and as a form of
compensation
for the performance of their tasks. On behalf of the
City, Deputy Chief Wheeler of
the Bellevue Fire Department,
testified
at considerable length, using as an illustration Ex. 37
of
the City which is the Union shift calendar as distributed by the
Union
to their membership and to the public. Chief Wheeler's
testimony
showed how the battalion chiefs computed the vacation
time
for each of the firefighters, with relation to vacation time
earned,
Kelly days off, holidays worked, etc. Chief Wheeler
testified
that vacation schedules are ordinarily put together in
blocks
of 3 shifts and that the normal firefighter has 15 shifts of
vacation
tine coming each year , off of the work schedule as shown on
Ex.
37. By giving the firefighter three shifts off,
it gives the
firefighter
13 days of vacation time. The net effect of this
procedure
is to give each of the firefighters 15 shifts of
vacation
when vacation shifts are lumped together with Kelly days
and
holidays worked a total of five 13-day blocks of vacation time
throughout
the entire year. Even when one takes into consideration
the
fact that the firefighters work a 53+ hour week and are on duty
for
24 hours per shift, nevertheless, the net effect of their
working
schedule is to give the firefighters more than ample
vacation
time in which to recuperate from their labors, and is also
ample
compensation for the labors performed.
ARBITER'S AWARD
Article tide XVII of the
current 1978-79 contract shall remain the
same.
ISSUE
NO. 8 SAVINGS CLAUSE.
The City's Position: The City
wishes to change the savings
clause
in the current contract which would be balanced for
management
the same way it is for labor. The City proposes to
entitle
this clause "Union - Management Savings Clause", rather
than
strictly " Savings Clause " . The Union's position is that no
change
should be made in the 1978-79 contract.
DISCUSSION:
The City's principal witness
on this issue on cross-
examination
testified that there had never been an actual problem
for
this particular bargaining unit with regard to the present
wording
of the savings clause in the contract, and further, that
that
wording had.been in the contract since 1974. In the
course of
the
hearing, the City amended its proposal somewhat and the
proposed
clause of the City now under consideration by the arbiter
is
shown in Ex. 39. The arbiter has been unable to understand the
City's proposal and testimony
as to how it would work to keep the
total
cost to the City the same. There is apparently no real
problem
existing , nor has there been since the adopt ion of this
particular
article in 1974. The city appears to ask the arbiter to
speculate
as to what some future judicial or legislative action
might
be which would be of concern to the parties and perhaps
increase
the cost of the contract. Again, the arbiter is very
hesitant
to disturb a stabilized situation unless on very
compelling
grounds, particularly a clause in a contract that has
been
established by collective bargaining over a period of years
and
there is no showing that the clause is not working nor that it
is
not likely to work.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The present wording of Article
XXIII will remain the same.
ISSUE
NO. 9 - MEDICAL COVERAGE
The City's position: The City
proposes to pay 100 percent on
medical
and 80 percent of the dental premium in effect on January 1,
1980. The
City, in addition proposes that any increases in
premiums
during the term of the agreement being arbitrated, would
be
split between the City and the individual firefighter.
The Union's position: The
Union proposes that the City pay
100 percent of medical and
dental premiums in effect at the
beginning
of each year of the contract. They further propose that
any
increases during each respective calendar year of the contract
would
be split evenly between the City and the employee for the
remainder
of the year in which the increase took effect. At the
beginning
of the succeeding year, the City would be required to
increase
its contribution to the full amount.
DISCUSSION:
The testimony of the parties'
principal witness on this
issue
and an examination of City's Ex. 43 and Union Ex. 40, indicate
(Page No. 20 missing)
ARBITER'S AWARD
Article XXVI shall read as
follows:
"a)
Effective January 1, 1980 The employer shall pay 100
percent
of the cost of medical coverage based upon The Blue
Cross rate schedule in effect
on January 1, 1980. For
employees
who include dependents under Group health, the
employer
shall pay the costs up to and including the rate for
the
employee, spouse and one child based upon the rate
schedule
in effect on January 1, 1980.
b) Effective January 1, 1980
the employer shall pay the
full
premium of the City dental plan based upon the rates in
effect
on January 1, 1980 for the employees who participate in
the
City's dental plan.
c) Any increases in premiums;
in excess of that provided
herein
shall be borne by the employee and employer on a 50-50
cost
sharing basis for the duration of this agreement."
ISSUE
NO. 10 - TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
The City's position: The City
seeks a three-year contract.
The Union's position: The
Union seeks a one-year contract.
DISCUSSION:
The majority of contracts
between firefighters and comparable
Washington cities have terms
of two years. The difficulty with the
Union's position of requesting
a one year contract is that as of
the
date of the arbiter 's award , the Union and the City would again
commence
negotiations for a 1981 contract after having just spent
10 months in fruitless
negotiation on the 1980 contract. On the
other
hand, regarding the City 's proposal for a three-year
contract,
the record in this hearing is replete with testimony
regarding
the effect of inflation and increases in the cost of
living
as it affects both of the parties. In addition, the arbiter
can
take judicial notice of the fact that at the present time the
nation's
economy is in something of a recession, the magnitude and
length
of which is totally unpredictable, even by the experts. For
the
arbiter to attempt to speculate and predict in order to set
reasonable
contract terms for a three-year period would be somewhat
of
an exercise in futility.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
Article XXVIII of the contract
should provide as follows.
"The terms of this
Agreement shall be in full force and
effect on January 1, 1980. Except as
otherwise provided
herein, this agreement shall remain
in full force and effect
through
December 31, 1981, during mg which time no additional
provisions
may be negotiated to become effective prior to
January 1, 1982."
ISSUE
NO. 11 - WAGES
The Union's position: The
Union proposes that wages beginning
January 1, 1980, or whatever
is the beginning date of the contract,
be
increased for all personnel in the bargaining unit 14.6 percent.
To this 14.6 percent, the
Union proposes an additional seven
percent,
for a total of 21.6 percent total wage increase of the
existing
rate. In addition to the 21.6 percent hourly wage
increase
over existing rates, the Union also proposes quarterly
increases
based on increases in the Seattle area cost price index.
The City's position: The City
proposes a 10 percent increase
during
1980 for all levels of firefighters: in 1981 the City
proposes a
wage increase equal to 80 percent of the percentage
increase
in the Seattle cost price index for the period from July,
1979
through July, 1980, with a maximum increase of 12 percent.
DISCUSSlON:
As pointed out in the Union's
brief, the issue of wages is the
most
important issue in any negotiations or arbitration and that is
certainly
true in this instance. The transcript of the evidence in
this
proceeding consisted of 674 pages, of which 207 were devoted
to
the issue of wages, just under one-third of the testimony
presented.
RCW 41.56.460 requires that the arbiter keep in mind
the
legislative purpose set forth in RCW 41.56.430 in reaching a
decision,
and then lists the six standards or guidelines to be
taken
into consideration t ion in reaching such decision. The arbiter is
charged
with the duty of applying these standards and guidelines in
reaching a
decision which must be based upon the evidence submitted
by
the parties as well as the standards and guideline, in order
that
the arbiter arrive at a fair and impartial decision. As the
parties
are aware, this is not a simple or easy task in the field of
interest
arbitration where the arbiter is, in effect, dictating the
terms
of a collective bargaining agreement which the parties will
have
to live with for the term of the contract, which is also to be
determined
by the arbiter.
RCW 41.56.460(c) reads as follows:
(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.
The foregoing is one of the
standards or guidelines used by
the
arbiter to aid the arbiter in reaching a decision on the issues.
As pointed out in the
introduction of this arbiter's decision,
there
was considerable difference between the parties as to
selection
of comparable cities. The City chose. to follow the
statute
and chose cities on the west coast of the United States
which
were comparable or similar in size to the City of Bellevue.
Some were in California, some
in Oregon and some in Washington. The
Union, on the other hand,
selected cities in the State of
Washington, all of which were
in the Puget Sound area and all of
which
were in what they termed the "Seattle labor market." As
pointed out
by counsel for the Union in his brief, the situation is
somewhat
analogous to that found in eminent domain proceedings
wherein
each party selects their own theory of the case and selects
their
own comparable properties to support their theory of value.
It is then up to the trier of the facts to weigh the evidence
presented
and weigh the degree of comparability in all of the
various
interdependent factors affecting comparability. This is
not
an easy task, for either the parties or for the arbiter. From a
practical
standpoint, it would be impossible for the trier of
fact
to
discuss each of the areas of comparability because to do so would
result
in an exhaustive and unduly long decision. All of the cities
presented
by the parties have been considered by the arbiter. No
single
city was used for comparison purposes because no single city
is
identical to the City of Bellevue any more than one piece of
property
is identical to another in the market data approach to
valuation
in eminent domain cases.
Emerging from all of the test imony presented at the hearing
and
all of the exhibits introduced by the parties, several
significant
factors have been given considerable consideration by
the
arbiter. Union Ex. 46 clearly shows that the Bellevue
firefighter
works more duty hours than firefighters in all but two
of
the Union's comparable cities in the Puget Sound area. The
arbiter
has also kept in mind that the City is hiring approximately
9 or 10 new firemen beginning
in the month of March which hirings
will
have an effect upon various Union exhibits relating to
population,
number of alarms, assessed valuation, etc., per
firefighter.
RCW 41.56.460(e) requires the arbiter to keep in mind
changes
in any of the foregoing subsections during the pendency
of
the
proceedings. The arbiter has done so. Changes have occurred in
the
economy, for example, since the hearing on this matter in early
March.
As an example, the country finds itself in a recession with
considerable
unemployment in such industries as wood products, home
building
and allied industries. The prime rate for lending by
banks
has dropped from 20 percent in early March to 16-1/2 percent
as
of the date of this dictation. Collection of taxes in King
County is below predictions,
and the rate of inflation has
decreased.
Another factor to be taken in
to consideration is the unfunded
liability
in the sum of 5 million dollars with regard to the LEOFF
pension,
which the City of Bellevue must spread out over a period of
30 years, and its allocation
for the year 1980 is in the sum of
$117,000.
Balanced against these recent changes in the economy is
the
fact, as testified to, that the Bellevue area economy has
historically
outstripped statewide growth. Bellevue has gained
substantial
additions to its property values in recent years.
Union's Ex. 60 shows that
Bellevue has been in the mid-area of the
comparable
cities submitted by the Union, ranking sixth in 1978 and
1979 out of the 9 cities
selected. The arbiter has also kept in
mind
the contracts negotiated with other elements of the City work
force
in which the police received a total package increase of 11
percent,
police and fire dispatchers, public works employees, and
nonrepresented employee groups each received
a 10.8 percent
package.
City's Ex. 66 shows monthly salary percentage increase
in
the Seattle area cities ranging from approximately 9.6 percent
to a
high of 12 . 3 percent in the City of Redmond and the next high
of
10.4 percent in the City of Auburn, with most of the increases
being
in the 10.0 to 10.2 percent area. For comparison purposes
also,
the City presented testimony as to the relationship over a
five-year
period between the monthly salary paid to firefighters in
the
City of Seattle and those in Bellevue, which showed that
firefighters
in the City of Bellevue were paid on a percentage
basis
compared to Seattle at about 96.4 percent on the average.
Although the length of the
work week, as pointed out
hereinabove,
is relevant, in the absence of a full consideration of
all
of the associated benefits and contract provisions in the
comparable
cities' contracts, in the opinion of the arbiter the
salary
base of firefighters computed on a monthly basis gives a
firmer
base for comparison. Firefighters are employed on a monthly
basis
and not by he hour.
How all of the above
abbreviated summary of the wealth of data
submitted
during the proceedings is to be interpreted will vary
greatly
among reasonable people. There is very little ground,
however,
record herein to support what amounts to a 21.6
percent
increase in wages for the firefighters. Balanced against
this,
it must be kept in mind that the CPI increased during 1979
approximately
13.2 percent, and at an even greater rate during
January, February, and March
of 1980. collective bargaining
agreements
entered into with other City employees in 1979 could
not,
in the arbiter's opinion, have taken into account such a large
increase
in the CPI index.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
All members of the bargaining
unit are awarded a 10.6 percent
increase
in their monthly base salaries for the period January 1,
1980 to December 31, 1981. In
addition thereto, during the period
January 1, 1981 to December
31, 1981 all of the members of the
bargaining
unit shall be granted a wage increase over and above the
10.6 percent of 80 percent of
the percentage increase in the
Seattle-Everett CPI for the
period from July, 1979 through July,
1980,
not to exceed 12 percent.
ISSUE
NO. 12 - NEW SECTION, LEOFF, 11 (PENSION)
The Union's position t ion : The Union proposes changing the sick
leave
provisions for LEOFF II employees by the establishment of a
sick
leave bank for firefighters.
The City's Position: At the
outset of the hearing on this
issue,
the City desired to maintain its present policy with regard
to
sick leave for LEOFF II firefighters. During the course of the
hearing,
the City made a compromise proposal to be inserted in the
contract
where none now exists. The City's 's proposal (Ex .
70)
amends
somewhat the present system of sick leave accrual as
provided
in Bellevue City Code 3.80.100, .200, .210 and .220.
DISCUSSION
LEOFF I I
employees are those who came in to the Department
after
October 1, 1977. The sick leave benefits for the two classes
of
firefighters vary greatly with LEOFF I firefighters receiving
unlimited
sick leave up to six months for any one illness or injury,
whether
duty-related or not. If a LEOFF II employee is disabled
while
on duty and runs out of sick leave, he then receives Workmen's
Compensation
benefits of approximately one-half his regular salary.
The legislature recently amended
the law relating to LEOFF for two
primary
reasons: (1) because of the unfunded liability built into
the
system, and (2) the abuses which had sprung up under the system
wherein
up to 59 percent of the uniformed employees were re-
tiring
under the disability provisions then in effect. In addition, there
were
apparently abuses of the disability leave provisions of the
previous
law. It should be noted that the Union's proposal in this
arbitration
proceeding was related only to the sick leave benefits
and
not to the pension, and that the labeling of this issue is, in
that
respect, misleading. At the present tine under the Bellevue
City Code, the firefighters
receive 12 hours per month for sick
leave.
Under the same code, other City employees accumulate only 8
hours
of sick leave per month. In the event a firefighter exhausts
all
of his sick leave, then the firefighter has the option of using
accrued
vacation time. The arbiter assumes that the discrepancy
between
the firefighter's ability to accumulate 12 hours per month
of
sick leave as contrasted with other City employees accumulating
sick
leave at the rate of 8 hours per month exists because of the
recognition
by the City of the firefighter's exposure to risk of
injury
and illness because of the nature of the firefighter's
duties.
It should be kept in mind that the discrepancy that exists
with
regard to the LEOFF I and LEOFF II firefighters exists because
of
the change made by the legislature in the law relating to this
subject.
City Ex. 71 shows that the majority of the comparable
cities
used by the City in its presentation provide for accrual of
sick
leave at the rate of 12 hours per month for the majority of the
cities
listed. The Union failed to present any evidence to the
arbiter
of the practice in their comparable cities as they used
those
comparable cities with respect to other issues in this
arbitration.
This is perhaps understandable since the action by
the
legislature in the major revision of the LEOFF system occurred
only
so recently. The large discrepancy which exists between the
LEOFF I and LEOFF II
firefighters is one which was specifically and
intentionally
created by the legislature and it is difficult for
the
arbiter to recommend the Union's proposal particularly in view
of
the liberal treatment now given to the firefighters in accruing
sick
leave at the rate of 12 hours per month as contrasted with
other
City employees who accumulate at the rate of 8 hours per
month:
In addition, the City's principal witness in this area
testified
that the City's proposal as shown in Ex. 70 was recently
negotiated
with the police officers who have brought the same issue
to
the bargaining table. There is testimony in the record to
indicate
that the police officers were successful in obtaining this
type
of a clause in their contract. The City's proposal as shown in
Ex. 70 does grant to the brand
new firefighter some relief from the
situation
he finds himself in with regard to sick leave where he
could
be injured on the job.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The City's proposed provision for disability leave as set
forth
in Ex. 70 shall be inserted in the contract. The parties are
reminded
that the second sentence of Ex. 70 was stricken during the
course
of the hearing and shall not be a part of the clause in the
contract.
ISSUE
NO. 13 - NO PYRAMIDING
The City's position: The City
proposes that a no pyramiding
clause
be added to the contract.
The Union's position
: The Union opposes he City's proposal
for a
no pyramiding clause.
DISCUSSION:
The City's proposal with
regard to not pyramiding is not based
upon
any problems which have occurred between the City and the
firefighters
in this area. The City's principal witness with
regard
to this clause as proposed by the City, testified that the
present
practice of the City is not to pyramid pay. In other words,
the
City is paying overtime pay based upon base pay and they do not
include
in their calculations for overtime pay any premium pay into
the
base hourly rate paid to the firefighters. The City's main
witness
also testified to the effect that the present contract
between
these parties as it is presently being administered,
presents
no problem to either of the parties.
To emphasize this current
practice between the parties, the
Union's principal witness
testified that throughout the
negotiations
the firefighters' position was totally in agreement
with
the City with respect to overtime pay not being based upon
anything
other than base pay, and that educational premiums or
educational
incentive pay not be added to the base pay for purposes
of
calculating overtime pay. The witness further testified that
this
has been the historical position of the Union with regard to
this
item . The test imony also revealed that should the
arbiter
rule
in favor of the City with regard to overtime pay, that the
City's proposal for no
pyramiding clause be added to the contract
would
be unnecessary.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The City's request for a no
pyramiding clause in the contract
is
denied.
ISSUE
NO. 14 - NEW SECTION, LONGEVITY
The Union's proposal: The Union
proposes longevity pay of 2
percent
after five years of service, 4 percent after 10 years of
service,
and 6 percent after 15 years of service.
The City's proposal: The City
opposes longevity pay.
DISCUSSION:
This proposal was addressed by
the City's witness, Dow, who
had
an extensive background in negotiating firefighters collective
bargaining
agreement between the City of
going
back over a large number of years in which this witness
testified
that the educational incentive provision in the
collective
bargaining agreement came into that agreement because
the
parties had agreed to reward firefighters through this system
of
educational incentive rather than through a longevity or
seniority
system. This witness also has participated in
negotiations
on many other contracts between various cities in the
Puget Sound area and
firefighters, and testified that the City of
Bellevue's philosophy in this
regard was contrary to the majority
of
the other fire departments in the Puget Sound area and that when
the
educational incentive clause was agreed upon, it was agreed
upon
for the purpose of rewarding the firefighter for improving his
fire-related
education in lieu of longevity pay. This witness also
testified
that for the most part, both longevity and educational
incentive
clauses are not found in contracts in the State of
Washington
between firefighters and cities. This City's witness'
testimony
in this regard was somewhat contradicted by the Union's
principal
witness, but the Union's witness could only testify as to
what
his "understanding" was rather than what the actual historical
fact
background was. Union Ex. 72 shows that their selected
comparable
cities of Seattle, Tacoma, Kent, Renton and Puyallup do
carry
longevity clauses whereas the City's Ex. 73 shows only one
city
in the State of Washington, Everett, which has a longevity
clause,
and all other cities in Washington, Oregon and California
having
no longevity clauses. Bellevue Fire Chief Sterling
testified
that he was adamantly opposed to any longevity program
and
that in his opinion, the educational incentive provided by far
the
greater benefit to the City and the Fire Department. Chief
Sterling felt that a longevity
clause rewards a low performer as
well
as a high performer, whereas the educational incentive clause
is a
reward to the high performer and results in a far more
proficient
department. He further testified that retention of
firefighters
had never been a problem to the Department.
ARBITER'S AWARD:
The Union's request for a
longevity clause is denied.
DATED at Olympia, Washington
this 14th day of May, 1980
JOHN J. CHAMPAGNE
ARBITER