City
of
And
Staff
Officers of I.A.F.F. Local No. 106
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Val D. Spangler
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Spangler; Val D.
Case #: 03430-I-81-00081
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
Arbitration Opinion
and
Award
In the matter of interest
arbitration between Staff Officers of I.A.F.F Local
#
106,
Case. no. 3430-I-81-81. Arbitrator, Val D. Spangler.
I. Background:
On
Employment Relations
Commission seeking clarification of an existing bargaining
unit. Substantial delay occurred in the processing of
the case while the par-
ties
awaited rulings on similar issues on other cases then pending before the
Commission. The City made a request to proceed on May 3,
1978. A hearing was
held
by a P.E.R.C hearing officer on
post-hearing
briefs, the last of which was received by the hearing officer on
October, 1978.
The order clarified the existing bargaining unit of
"all regular full time
uniformed
employees of the
the
Assistant Chief" "to exclude the Battalion Chiefs) the Fire Marshall
and
Medical Services Officer in
addition to the previous exclusion of the Fire Chief
and
Assistant Chief." That order was
dated
This bargaining unit of Staff Officers of I.A.F.F. Local
#106 was formed
in
1980. Present positions in the
bargaining unit include 3 Battalion Chiefs,
one
Fire Marshall, one Medical Services Officer and one Chief Training Officer.
Negotiations for this contract commenced
ations sessions were held through
commencing
Additional efforts were made
to settle but were not successful. The
parties
were
declared to be at impasse and were directed to proceed with interest arbi-
tration in a letter of
P.E.R.C..
The parties agreed to submit the remaining issues in
dispute to this single
arbitrator. A hearing was held on June 24 and
hours. The hearing was formally closed by operation
of the arbitrator's receipt
on
1981, accepting the
Elimination. This issue had remained unsettled because of
the parties' desire
to
obtain legal opinions on the jurisdictional matter raised by the arbitrator
at
the hearing regarding this issue.
II. Issues:
1 . Purpose
2. Union
membership
3. No strike
4. Prevailing
rights
5. Management
rights
6. Position
elimination
7. Bereavement
leave
8. Hours of
work
9. Overtime
10. Vacation
11. Union
management relations
12. Longevity
13. Educational
incentive
14. Wages
15. Duration
III. Positions of the Parties:
Purpose. Agreement reached by the parties at the
hearing.
Union membership. The
modified
to allow non-members of the
and
all collective bargaining matters (but not internal Union functions)."
Provisions
for dues deduction also is requested. The gist of the
argument
for this clause was that of "past practice." The contention being
that
these employees had the right and protection when members of the
regular
firefighters' unit and should not lose that right because of the
clarification
of that unit. Comparison to the
conditions of employment in
other
cities and counties was not made.
The City bases its firm opposition to the institution of
compulsory
union
membership or compulsory service charges in lieu thereof for several
reasons
but particularly because of the management nature of this group and
the
fact that five out of six members of the bargaining unit already have
dues
deductions operating. The City
indicates, "where mandatory membership
exists
in labor agreements in comparable cities, such provisions have been
included
by mutual agreement of the parties," not by interest arbitration.
The vast majority of
management personnel in fire departments in comparable
cities
have no obligations for involvement in union membership whatsoever.
No strike.
Agreement reached by the parties just prior to the hearing.
Prevailing rights. The
broad
protection for the employee as possible while respecting the
need
for a simple agreement that is "management oriented." This language
was
available in the previous bargaining unit agreement and the Union feels
the
employees have been hurt in the two years they have been without cov-
erage by a collective bargaining agreement. The Union wants "at least the
same
protections as the employees they supervise."
The City's position is basically two-fold. First, the ambiguity and
uncertainty
created by such a clause threatens to destabilize the Agree-
ment and the Union-City relationship. Second, the clause is inconsistent
with
the statutory framework for bargaining in that it discourages good
faith
bargaining efforts of the parties to achieve a definitive and
administrable
agreement.
Management rights. The City proposes its detailed and strong
manage-
ment rights clause as being consistent with
sound labor-management rela-
tions, contributing to full and mutual
understanding as an appropriate
quid
pro quo for rights agreed to by the City and not inconsistent with the
clauses
in comparable cities.
The
and
particularly not one that is so strong.
The city's position is viewed
as
impugning the integrity of the employees of the unit who consider them-
selves
to be a part of management and not susceptible to the conflict of
interest
problems the City views as inherent in having supervisory employees
represented
by the same exclusive bargaining representative as that of the
employees
they supervise.
Position Elimination. Proposed article withdrawn by
Bereavement leave. Agreed to by the parties
just prior to the hearing.
Hours of work. Agreed to by the parties
just prior to the hearing.
Overtime. The
worked
in excess of normal hours on the basis of two thousand eighty hours
per
year for all employees in the unit.
Employees shall have a choice
of
receiving a cash compensation or compensatory time. Although not clearly
indicated
by the language of its proposal the
time
pay to be applied to emergency call back not regular (e.g., staff
meetings)
type duties in excess of 40 hours per week.
The
stated
its belief that the benefits available to the staff officers should
be
no less than that of the employees they supervise.
The City presented its position as being a package
proposal including
its
offers on both overtime and vacation.
Unless the City's offer regard-
ing improved overtime pay is coupled with a
change in the vacation benefits
available
to Battalion Chiefs, the City's position is that there can be no
change
in either. The City indicates strong
opposition to the idea of the
Battalion Chiefs having the
best of both worlds by getting time and one
half
for overtime and staying on the comparatively better exempt employee
vacation
plan. Comparability data indicates the
position of the City to
be
better than all but one of the 12 comparable cities used by the City.
Vacation. As explained in the preceding section on
overtime the City
is
seeking to modify downward the benefits available to staff officers on
the
exempt employee plan if they are to be paid overtime according to the
terms
proposed.
The
and
be eligible for time and one half for the overtime.
Union management relations. The
appropriate
notice, the City pay for the replacement of one of the Battalion
Chiefs for each session of
negotiations when that Battalion Chief is work-
mg a
24 hour shift and for no loss of pay for any staff officer attendance
at
any of these sessions during his normal working hours. The small number
of
people in the unit makes such a release imperative for effective repre-
sentation during negotiations.
The City is not opposed to allowing the time off for
negotiations or
other
employee relations matters as long as it does not force the City
into
an overtime situation.
Longevity. The
recognizes
an employee's increased worth through time.
Because these staff
positions
are career positions with limited advancement opportunity within
the
system and less without, longevity provides incentive and reward for
continued
service and loyalty to the City. Three
longevity
plans for their firefighter bargaining units.
The City considers additional pay solely for endurance to
be incon-
sistent with sound management practices in
compensation and particularly
the
underlying principles of the City's pay-for-performance. Reward for
improved
performance is provided for in the City's pay plan. Longevity is
not
the practice for staff officers outside rank-and-file units in comparable
cities. It is not provided any other group of
managerial employees in the
City.
Educational incentive. Agreed to by the parties
during the hearing.
Wages. The
positions
within the bargaining unit are of corresponding responsibility and
rank
and that they should be distinguished
from the positions they super-
vise
by a set minimum differential of 6% between the top Captain's pay and
that
of the minimum of the staff officers' salary range. Steps increments
are
for 6% per year for three years to the "fully competent" level.
Additionally, all appointed to
staff positions are to be paid within the
established
salary range.
The base figure used by the
top
Captain's pay excluding longevity. This
aspect of the plan reflects
a
prime concern of the
pay
spread between staff officer (supervisor) and supervisee.
Opposition to the City's
salary plan focused on the disagreement with
the
relative job values assigned to the positions within the unit, the
failure
to acknowledge factors relevant to staff officers but not to other
management
positions (e.g., risks to health and safety, requirement of
24
hour "pager" use and unusual hours of work). Concern was also stated
about
possible devaluation of job values for pay purposes.
The
different
in size, distribution and rationale from the last one proposed
in
mediation. The mediation salary plan had
been more a reflection of the
City's proposal and underlying
salary plan. The Union hearing proposal
did
not differentiate between staff officer position requirements. It
was
significantly higher. The plan provided
for one year with a reopener
proposed
in 1982.
SALARY PLAN
The positions represented by
the bargaining unit all share levels of rank
and
of corresponding responsibility which distinguish them from the posi-
tions they supervise. Equity within the department salary structure
requires
that
the salary range for these positions should reflect this.
MINIMUM OF THE
ALL APPOINTEES TO STAFF POSITIONS WILL BE PAID WITHIN THE
Normal development within a
staff position will result in the officers'
progressing
to a fully competent level in three years.
THAT PROGRESS WILL BE REFLECTED IN ANNUAL SALARY
INCREMENTS
OF 6
PER YEAR WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S
ADVANCEMENT STRUCTURE AND IS A REASONABLE SALARY
ADJUSTMENT
FOR SATISFACTORILY DEVELOPING
PERFORMANCE IN CAREER POSITIONS.
Entry
pay upon promotion to a Staff Officer
Supervisor & Unit
position
will be: $2,425.00
Utilizing a City plan for
supervisory approval that the
employee
is performing at a fully competent level, the
following
salaries are in effect:
After one year of competent performance $2,570.00
After two years of competent performance $2,724.00
After three years of competent performance $2,888.00
The City made many comparisons between its proposed plan (developed
by
using the Willis Job Evaluation System) and that of the
plan
was characterized as a move forward to a rational performance based
system
away from the traditional "keep ahead of the employees supervised"
approach. The City relied on the statutory criteria
while the
not. The Union proposal was criticized for making
no distinction between
positions
and position holders for pay purposes.
If the
to
be adopted it was alleged that it would be likely to lead to more
impasses
and interest arbitration. The
consideration that was labeled
pivotal
by the City was that the City justified its plan through reason
and a
well organized presentation reflective of the statutory criteria.
Its proposal was identified as
an extension of its good faith bargaining.
The
tion in mediation, not reflective of good faith
bargaining, contrived
for
interest arbitration purposes and not well prepared with reference
to
the statutory criteria in R.C.W. 41.56.
The City considered its offer substantial with an
adjusted (minus
dollar
value of job value upgrade) increase in average salary of 15.3%.
The City's offer was compared
favorably with fire staff officers salaries
in
cities of similar size on the west coast (that average increase being
10.5%). Favorable comparison was made to other
managerial and supervisory
employees
in the City and to the C.P.I. for the last five years.
SALARY PLAN
1. The City proposes that the 1981 salary plan for fire staff
officers
be
as set forth below. This is consistent with
all other management
personnel
in the City.
a.
Range
for 1981
Classification Points Min. Mid-Point Max.
Training Officer 442 $1874 2205 2536
Battalion Chief 446 1879 2211 2543
Fire Marshall 446 1879 2211 2543
Medical Service Officer 562 1929 2269 2609
Note: The Training officer range is a newly established range. The
above
salary ranges were derived by using the Willis Job Evaluation
System.
b. Staff Officer Salary Placement (monthly salaries).
Proposed
Salary 1980 ($) (%)
Classification 1981 Salary Inc. Inc. Inc.
Training Officer $2162 $1688 474 28.1
Battalion Chief 2408 2087 321 15.4
Fire Marshall 2348 2087 261 12.5
Medical Service Officer 2276 1958 318 16.2
Note: The increase for the Training Officer includes an 11% job audit
adjustment.
SALARY PLAN
(continued)
Both the City and
an
effective date of
Union response dated
Accordingly, the effective
date of the City's proposed 1981 salaries
is
The placement of the employees
in the pay range is based upon merit in
accord
with the City's salary administration plan which is applicable to
all
professional and managerial employees of the City.
2. Administration of Salary Plan. According to the City's offer, the
pay for the performance plan
will be administrered as follows:
a. Promotion. When an employee is promoted to a staff
officer unit
position, he/she
shall receive a minimum 5% promotional increase
or the minimum of
the applicable pay range, whichever is greater.
b. Advancement
to Fully Competent Pay. After three
years in a posi-
tion
in the bargaining unit, the employee shall be compensated at
the fully competent
level of pay (mid-point); provided the employee's
performance is fully
competent.
3. The City further proposes that
effective May 1, 1982, the salary ranges
in
effect on
a. Salary/Range
(monthly salaries).
Range Effective
Classification Points Minimum Mid-Point Maxim
Training Officer 442 1986 2337 268
Battalion Chief 446 1992 2344 269
Fire Marshall 446 1992 2211 254
Medical Service Officer 562 2045 2405 276
b. Salary Placement (monthly salaries).
Proposed
1982
Base 1981 ($) (%)
Classification Salary Inc. Inc. Inc.
Training Officer $2292 2162 130 6.0
Battalion Chief 2552 2408 144 6.0
Fire Marshall 2489 2348 141 6.0
Medical Service Officer 2413 2276 137 6.0
c. Administration of Salary Plan. No change is proposed.
Duration. The
1981, with reopener
on
policies. The purpose of the reopener
is to allow comparison with the wage
and
benefits improvement of the regular firefighter unit in the City. The
it Rignts (continued).
While recognizing the need of the City, this arbitrator
is not
prepared
to go as far in this direction as the City desires--that kind of
a
clause should be negotiated. The
Management Rights clause of the City
of
Everett on page 3 of Employer exhibit no. 5ais a better choice under
these
circumstances.
Overtime and vacation. In recognition of the significant differences
between
Battalion Chiefs and other staff officers, between staff/supervisory
employees
and regular, hourly employees, comparability data compiled by the
City favorable to their
position and the financial condition of the City,
the
package offer of the City for the two proposals on overtime and vacation
is
awarded.
Union management relations. Because of the small number of staff
officers
available for negotiations (5), the City
could be faced with
significant
overtime costs due to negotiations.
There would be incentive
to
maintain a high percentage of staff members on the negotiating team
and
to prolong negotiations under the Union proposal. Given this incentive
and
the limited resources of the City it appears reasonable to encourage
participation
as long as it does not involve additional expenditures of
overtime. Thus, the City's proposal is awarded.
Longevity. Although there is considerable merit to the
City's posi-
tion it does not address the points of the
Union's arguments and ignores
the
potential cost to the City of early retirements and increased turnover
that
may result from loss of incentive for continued service. The City
recognized
the value of additional experience in firefighting situations in
its
arguments concerning overtime and callbacks where Battalion Chiefs
might
be more desirable than Captains because of this experience factor.
Without arguing the other
merits of the City's pay plan a longevity provi-
sion would recognize the stress factors and
community value associated with
the
performance of the duties in this unit.
However, the Union's proposal
is
too generous for the present City financial circumstances. Accordingly,
the
longevity pay plan of the City of Bremerton cited by the Union in Union
exhibit
no. 14 is awarded.
Wages. The Union substantially modified its position
on salary taken
during
mediation prior to its interest arbitration presentation. Such a
decision
is risky even when the new plan is a sounder, fairer one substanti-
ated with new information, or better organized
to justify its substance.
Here, the Union made a
dramatic but not well-documented change with little
reference
to the specific statutory criteria of R.C.W. 41.56 or other
rationale
other than wanting to keep a respectable pay spread between staff
officers
and the top paid employees in the rank-and-file unit.
The Union's equating of the positions in the unit for pay
purposes
defies
reason even if it satisfies internal political needs. There are
significant
differences in the responsibilities of the positions, the
salary
relevant characteristics of the incumbents and job market factors.
Realizing comparison with
other cities is difficult because of the different
positions
and conditions present in this unit, little effort was made by
the
Union in this regard. The Union's
position can be summarized by "the
right
to expect a reasonable pay increase through competence, over time"
while
"maintaining a proper spread between the unit and subordinates."
The City, on the other hand, presents a well conceived,
well documented
plan
that is internally defensible and compares well when statutory criteria
are
addressed However, this effort is made
regarding the first year of the
plan
and not duplicated or approached when justifying the second year of the
plan.
Union asserts the necessity for staff officers to get as
much as the rank-
and-file
to prevent supervision problems from arising with the possibly
higher
paid subordinates. Such relative changes
would also cause internal
unit
morale problems.
The City calls for a term of May 1, 1981, through
December 31, 1982--
20 months. That amount of time being considered
necessary to provide a
"shake-down"
of the terms of the new agreement and to promote stability
between
the parties. To initiate a reopener on May 1, 1982, or have a one-
year
contract would require negotiations to begin immediately after this
arbitration
opinion and award. Most comparable
cities have two-year contracts.
IV. Discussion and Award:
Union membership. Generally, the agency shop provision is too funda-
mental
and sensitive to be placed in a collective bargaining agreement
other
than by the direct negotiation and agreement of the parties involved.
In the context of a purely
supervisory unit, this general consideration has
even
greater validity.
The Union position ignores the considerations underlying
the clarifi-
cation of the rank-and-file unit in 1978. The application of the concept
of
"past practice" to this issue is also faulty because this is an
interest
arbitration
for the first collective bargaining agreement between the City
and a
new bargaining unit even though the new unit is represented by the
same
exclusive bargaining representative affiliate as the original one
was. It is not a grievance
arbitration. The agency shop provision is
more a
Union interest as an institution need rather than an individual right
transferred
from one bargaining unit to another with the employee.
For these reasons, the City's proposal, Article 4--Union
Membership,
providing
for dues deduction upon employee request and cited as Employer
exhibit
no. 3 is awarded.
Prevailing rights. No interest arbitration award should
contribute
to
instability between the parties or discourage good faith bargaining efforts
of
the parties to determine wages, hours and conditions of employment.
Part of the trade-off for an
employer when its employees gain collective
bargaining
rights is the prospect of greater stability in union-management
relations
because of the existence of a known agreement for a set period
of
time. A clause such as this would result
in the potentially continuous
demand
for bargaining over even minor matters of policy change. That was
not
the legislative intent behind R.C.W. 41.56.
Such a provision, if it is
to
be included in a collective bargaining agreement, should be there only
as a
result of the negotiations of the parties not an interest arbitrator's
award.
The City's position of no clause is awarded.
Management rights. Generally, the terms of management rights
clauses
should
be determined by the parties through mutual agreement in negotiations.
While the members of this
bargaining unit are considered supervisory and
"management''
by both parties, that status is somewhat clouded by the choice
of
the same Union representative as that of the employees they supervise.
The legitimate exercise of
this right of choice does have implications in
this
context. The concerns of the employer
were made very evident during
the
hearing and, it appears, during negotiations.
Because of this factor
and
the implicit threat of conflict of interest, the City's need for such
a
clause increases. The City would be
remiss in its duties if it did not
protect
its ability to respond to possible manifestations of such conflict.
In comparison with the other 4 Washington cities in the
comparability
documents,
the first year proposal fares well. The
average on the top of
the
salary range is very close but the City proposed bottom of the range
is
significantly lower for each position.
The first year plan compares
favorably
with the average figures of both the Oregon cities (3) and
California cities (5) used for
comparison.
After providing considerable evidence
why the last 5 year C.P.I.
figures
are overstated by from 19-25%, the City makes a proposal for salary
increases
averaging 15.3% (after adjustments for job audit upgrading)
while
the average C.P.I. figure provided for the 1976-1981 period is
about
11%. If this 11% is adjusted to
accommodate the concerns of the
City's chosen economic
experts, the "real" average C.P.I. for the period
ranges
from 8.25% to almost 9%.
In contrast, the City, for the second year of the
proposal, uses a
6% raise figure with no
documentation, no evidence and little explanation.
This 6% figure is considerably
less than even the adjusted or real
C.P.I. averages would tend to indicate.
Also, no comparison figures were
used
to justify these figures.
The substance of the exhibits and testimony and the
quality of the
presentations
leave little choice but to award the City's proposal for the
first
year of the Agreement. For the second
year, adjusted C.P.I. figures
and
the likelihood of continued double-digit or near-double-digit inflation
warrants
an award of an 8% salary increase using the same plan with adjusted
figures
and administrative details of Appendix A of Employer Exhibit no. 14
for
both years.
Duration. The duration of the contract is recommended
to be May 1,
1981, through December 31,
1982.
Salary adjustments are to be awarded effective May 1,
1981, as agreed
to
by the parties as a part of the mediation process on April 27, 1981.
Because there was no such
agreement concerning any other pay matters, the
award of
longevity pay shall be effective as of September 1, 1981.
V. Summary of Award:
1. Union
membership. The
City's proposal.
2. Prevailing
rights. The
City's position of no clause.
3. Management
rights. The clause of the City of
Everett provided in Employer
exhibit 5a.
4/5. Overtime and Vacation.
The City's package proposal improving overtime
and modifying
vacation.
6. Union
management relations. The
City's proposal.
7. Longevity. Longevity pay is awarded of 1% after 5 years,
2% after 10
years, 3% after 15
years and 4% after 20 years. Effective
September 1, 1981.
8. Wages. First year:
The City's proposed plan.
Second year: 8%,
using the City's plan adjusted.
9. Duration. The City's proposal of a 20 month agreement,
May 1, 1981,
through December 31,
1982.
Dated
this 31st day of July, 1981.
_____________________
For the City: Cabot Dow Val D. Spangler,
Arbitrator
For the Union: Stan Snapp