INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

Public Safety Employees, Local 519 Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO

And

King County

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      J.B. Gillingham

Date Issued:   02/18/1983

 

 

Arbitrator:         Gillingham; J. B.

Case #:              04309-I-82-00094

Employer:          King County

Union:                SEIU; Local 519

Date Issued:     02/18/1983

 

 

In Interest Arbitration pursuant to

RCW 41.56

between

COUNTY OF KING, WASHINGTON

                                                                                                Arbitration

and                                                                                          Opinion and

                                                                                                Award

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 519

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,

AFL-CIO

 

Hearing: Seattle Washington

January 12, 1983

                                                                                                J. B. Gillingham

Appearances:                                                                         Arbitrator

For the County

      J. Wes Moore

      Administrative Assistant

      Labor/Employee Relations

For the Union

      Dustin N. Frederick

      Business Representative

 

 

Background

      These parties negotiated a collective bargaining Agreement

effective January 1, 1982 to December 31, 1983 which was approved

by the King County Executive on March 8, 1982.  This Agreement

established wage rates for the year 1982 and further provided in

Article VII as follows:

Section 1. (b)  Effective January 1, 1983, the base wage rates

as set forth in the 1982 wage addendum shall be adjusted by an

amount as negotiated between the parties during 1982 or as

established through binding arbitration as provided in

R.C.W. 41.56.

      As expiration of the first year of that Agreement approached,

the parties bargained to an impasse on wage adjustments for 1983,

an impasse which was not resolved in mediation.  The parties

thereupon submitted the matter to arbitration, pursuant to RCW

41.56, by the following stipulation dated November 30, 1982.

NOW COMES the Public Safety Employees, Local 519 by and through

their representative Dustin N. Frederick AND the County of King

through their representative Albert G. Ross to agree and

stipulate:

1.   To waive their right to name one person to serve as

their partisan arbiter on the arbitration panel and

empower J. Benton Gillingham to serve as sole arbitrator

with all the power, authority, rights and responsibilities

assigned to the Arbitration Panel under RCW 41.56.

2.   That the issues in dispute to be submitted to the

arbitrator are limited to:  general wage increase for

Commissioned officers.

      A duly scheduled hearing was held in the County Personnel

Offices on January 12, 1983 at which both parties had full

opportunity to present witnesses, evidence and argument.  Both

parties submitted substantial and detailed data relating to wage

rates and fringe benefits in comparison jurisdictions, changes in

the BLS Consumer Price Index, and other data relevant to the

criteria set forth in R.C.W. 41.56.  Subsequently, at the request

of the Arbitrator, the parties submitted brief written summaries

of their respective positions.

 

Positions of the Parties

      The County summarized its position as follows:

      1. The County had offered to increase the base wage rates in

effect on December 31, 1982 by three and four tenths of one

percent (3.4%).  The effective date of said increase was to

have been January 1, 1983 and the resulting wage rates would

have remained in effect through December 31, 1983.

      2. Premiums, including those set forth in Article VII,

Sections 2-6 and Addendum "A", Section 2 of the current

agreement were to remain at 1982 levels rather than benefit

from the increases as set forth in item one (1) above.

      The County, during the mediation process, had attempted to

support its offer through arguments based upon the language

of RCW 41.56.460; specifically, that portion of the statute

relating to comparisons of the wages, hours and conditions of

employment of the uniformed personnel of West Coast cities

and counties of similar size.

      Wage and benefit information for selected jurisdictions

demonstrated that 1982 King County salaries were well above

the averages for not only Washington jurisdictions, but those

of Oregon and California as well.  With a 3.4% increase to the

1982 King County rate of $2,256.00/month, the resulting rate

of $2,332.00/month would have left King County trailing only

Santa Clara County at $2,475.00/month, the City of Oakland at

$2,420.00/month, the City of Portland at $2,349.00/month and

the City of Seattle at $2,336.00/month for two months with the

Seattle rate being increased to $2,366.00/month effective

March 1, 1983.  It was the County's position that there existed

no compelling reason for it to maintain its relative standing

with the City of Seattle rate; that is to say, the County saw

no justification for continuing to pay its Police Officers at

a rate which was sixteen dollars ($16.00) per month more than

that paid to Seattle Police Officers.

      The County's position relative to the second issue was based

upon the literal interpretation of the language contained in

Article VII, Section 1(b) of the current agreement which

arguably limits any adjustments to those made to "base wage

rates".

• • • • •

 

The Union summarized its position as follows:

      The Union is requesting an eight percent general wage increase

which will raise our current monthly salary for top grade

police officers from $2256.00 to $2436.48.  This is a one

percent drop in our request from our final position in

mediation and we made this adjustment primarily due to the

recent drop in the Seattle-Everett Consumer Price Index.

Our present salary level and our relative position among the

comparable jurisdictions cited in Union Exhibit One has been

established through ten years of negotiations.  After five

arbitration awards, i.e., 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, and

innumerable exhibits regarding the relative efficiency and

productivity of King County Police Officers we finally managed

to place ourselves in the top twenty percent of comparable

West Coast jurisdictions and approximately sixteen dollars

above the City of Seattle.  In recent years we have managed

to maintain that position without the assistance of arbitration.

The primary reason that we avoided arbitration was the fact that

the County offered salary and benefit increases equivalent to

those negotiated by Seattle Police and the Union accepted these

proposals primarily because they preserved our relative position

among the comparable jurisdictions.  In 1980, 1981 and 1982

we settled for exactly the same increase as Seattle Police.

However, 1983 is a different situation because if we received

an increase identical to that negotiated by Seattle Police,

i.e. 4.3% plus thirty dollars at mid-term (see Union Exhibit

Four), we would not maintain or preserve our relative position

among all comparable West Coast jurisdictions.  It is true that

we would maintain our position relative to Seattle but Seattle

is not the only comparable jurisdiction.  In addition, the City

of Seattle is in a more difficult financial position than King

County.  Also, the statistics that have consistently justified

and documented our superior productivity and excessive workload

vis-a-vis other jurisdictions are still operative, and thus our

salary position relative to all other West Coast jurisdictions

should remain essentially unchanged.

 

JUSTIFICATION

      As a result of prior negotiations and pursuant to the guidelines

set forth in RCW 41.56.460 several factors have been commonly

and traditionally used to justify requested wage increases.

With respect to our present wage request I will address in

outline form each of the factors listed in RCW 41.56.460:

      (a)  The constitutional and statutory authority of the

employer:

King County has full authority to negotiate the

collective bargaining agreement and the ability to pay.

      (b)  Stipulation of the parties - The parties have

stipulated that the only issue at impasse is the

amount of the general wage increase for Commissioned

personnel for 1983.  In addition, the parties have

stipulated that the arbitrator has all rights,

responsibilities, powers and authority assigned

to the tri-partite arbitration panel under RCW 41.56.

      (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:

- Union Exhibit One lists the sixteen comparable

jurisdictions and the monthly salary for a top grade

officer.  Since these negotiations are limited to a

"wage reopener" it is the Union position that hours,

conditions of employment and other items of compensation

are not relevant to these negotiations.  If the parties

had wanted to open the entire compensation package for

negotiations, then and only then would comparisons in

these other areas be valid.  However, the parties

expressly limited the negotiations to "wages" and the

salary for top grade officer has been our traditional

measure in comparing wage rates.  Union Exhibit One is

self-explanatory and illustrates that King County's

salary is currently only slightly above the average

salaries in Washington, Oregon and California and not

in the top twenty percent.  This is due primarily to

the fiscal year vs. calendar year difference between

California, Oregon and Washington respectively, i.e.,

Oregon and California are always six months ahead of

Washington in salary increases.  As Exhibit One

illustrates, an eight percent increase would restore

King County to a position within the top twenty percent,

a position which has been amply justified to the County

in prior negotiations.

      (d) The average consumer prices for goods and services,

commonly known as the cost-of-living -

      1. The percentage increase in the Nov 81-Nov 82

CPI-W was 2.9%.  However, we believe this is

an aberration and not fully indicative of the

real increase in the cost-of-living to King

County Police Officers.  Even at 2.9% Seattle

had the highest CPI increase on the West Coast.

(See Union Exhibit 6a).  In addition, if the

"shelter" component is extracted from the index,

as many economists and labor relations pro-

fessionals believe it should be, then the increase

is 4.9%.  (See Union Exhibit 6b, page 3 Special

Index "All items less shelter").

      2. In addition, the increase in the CPI-W is

only one factor in arriving at a fair wage

increase and we have often negotiated increases

in excess of the CPI.  (See Union Exhibit Two).

      (e)  Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during

the pendency of the proceedings -

      1. The CPI-W has dropped considerably but it is

an aberration and due primarily to the slump

in housing in Washington.  As the economy

recovers the CPI-W will rise rapidly and this

should be considered in evaluating an increase

for 1983.

      2. Three local jurisdictions have completed

negotiations during the pendency of our

negotiations and the average increase was

5.96%, (i.e., Seattle - 5.6%; Tacoma - 6%;

Everett - 6.3%).

      (f)  Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing,

which are normally and traditionally taken into

consideration in the determination of wages, hours

and conditions of employment -

      1. As documented in prior years' negotiations,

King County has excellent productivity

( i.e., crime clearance rates) vis-a-vis

other jurisdictions.

      2. King County Police serve approximately the

same number of people as Seattle Police and

have an equal level of requests for service

yet King County has only 475 officers and

Seattle has over 900.  King County Police

have essentially twice the workload and are

much more efficient than their counterparts

in the City of Seattle.

      3. King County has an extremely low recruiting

salary and an extended salary range, i.e.,

60 months.  Thus King County hires its

employees at a cheaper rate and takes much

longer to pay them the top rate, thereby

enjoying a considerable long range cost

advantage vis-a-vis other jurisdictions.

      4. With regard to the City of Seattle, which has

been established through prior arbitration

awards and negotiations as the most comparable

jurisdiction; King County enjoys several

significant savings in police salary costs:

a.   The overtime rate for Seattle Police

includes all premium pay, e.g., longevity,

detective pay, etc.

In King County the overtime rate has been

interpreted to be 1½ times the base rate

only and it does not include premium pay.

This represents a tremendous cost savings

for King County vis-a-vis Seattle because

overtime is extensive for police officers.

b.   Seattle pays pension contribution on the

basis of an hourly rate which includes all

premium pay.

King County does not include premium pay

for pension contribution.  Once again this

is a considerable cost saving for King

County.

c.   Seattle pays approximately $22.00 per officer

per month for professional liability insurance

which includes both civil and criminal

liability.

King County pays nothing for insurance; they

provide civil liability protection through

the King County Prosecutor but do not provide

criminal liability protection.  King County

Officers pay for their own criminal liability

through the Union at a cost of $7.50 per

officer per month.

In conclusion, when all the factors specified in RCW 4.56.460

are reviewed and given their appropriate weight, our wage request

of eight percent is extremely well justified.

 

Arbitrator's Analysis and Decision

1. Adjustment of base wage rates.

      There is no significant dispute between the parties with

respect to the appropriate comparison jurisdictions, existing

wage levels and recent wage adjustment in those jurisdictions,

changes in the BLS Consumer Price Index and other relevant data.

The primary dispute boils down to the question of what adjustment

is appropriate for King County Police Officers in relation to

their counterparts in comparison jurisdictions, most significantly,

in my opinion, the City of Seattle, where a two step adjustment

was negotiated effective September 1, 1982, providing a general

increase of 4.3 percent effective September 1, 1982, with a second

increment of $30 per month effective March 1, 1983.  The parties

agree that this amounts to an average increase of 5.2 percent over

the entire twelve month period, and will result in a total increase

of 5.6 percent in the base rate over that period.  (By mutual

understanding and established practice, the parties use the top

step for Police Officer as the "base rate" for purposes of dis-

cussion and negotiation.  Under the present Agreement, for officers

hired after January 1, 1981, this step is reached in five annual

increments over a period of five years service).

      In analyzing the wage history for King County Police Officers

in relation to the various comparison jurisdictions, the salient

and undisputed fact for present purposes is the long-standing,

precise and consistent tandem relationship between King County

and the City of Seattle.  It is undisputed that this close re-

lationship was established or maintained in a series of five

arbitration proceedings in the years 1975 through 1979; and of

even greater significance in the opinion of your present Arbitrator,

in each of the years 1980, 1981 and 1982, these parties freely

negotiated Agreements in which they settled upon exactly the same

wage increase negotiated by the Seattle Police Officers Guild and

the City of Seattle.

      This close relationship is not surprising, in view of the

potent underlying labor market factors at play.  Officers in these

two jurisdictions must meet similar qualifications; they have similar

if not identical job duties and responsibilities; they work in

immediately contiguous, largely similar and even overlapping

socio-geographic areas; they are recruited from the same labor

force pool; both groups are well represented vis-a-vis their

respective employers; and both departments have been striving, under

public pressure, to upgrade the quality and effectiveness of their

operations.

      Given this wage history and the continuing labor market forces

which underlie it, my judgment is that the burden is heavily on

either party who proposes that the Arbitrator make an award

significantly different in principle from that which the parties

themselves saw fit to agree upon in the preceding three years when

they freely negotiated their own agreement, i.e., the adjustment

negotiated by the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Officers.

It is my further judgment, after careful review of the evidence

and argument submitted, that neither party has successfully carried

this burden.  There was no showing or even any contention by either

party that the Seattle settlement was in any way abnormal, distorted,

unreasonable or otherwise incompatible with the criteria set forth

in RCW 41.56.  Nor did the Union make any convincing showing that

an equivalent settlement would significantly disturb the present

position of King County Police Officers relative to the various

comparison jurisdictions other than Seattle.  With reference to the

rather surprising phenonemon of the decline in the CPI-W for the

Seattle-Everett area between September and November 1982, subsequent

to the Seattle settlement, it is my opinion that there is considerable

merit in the Union's arguments quoted above, although in part

speculative.  In this context it might be noted in passing that the

annual increase in the area CPI-W for "All Items less Shelter" was

reported as 4.9 for the period November 1981 to November 1982; and

the "Seattle-equivalent" base wage increase for County Police

Officers averaged over the year January through December 1983

happens to work out to 4.9 percent.  In any event, however, it is

my judgment that this particular decline in the CPI in this two-

month period does not merit and should not be accorded sufficient

weight to override the very strong reasons for preserving the well

established wage relationship already discussed above.

      In summary, it is my considered opinion and decision that the

most reasonable, well grounded and appropriate wage adjustment

for King County Police Officers for the calendar year 1983 is

an amount equivalent to that received by Seattle Police Officers

for the year running from September 1, 1982 through August 31, 1983.

Based upon the data and calculations jointly submitted by the

parties, this equivalent adjustment would be achieved by an increase

of 4.25 percent in the 1982 rates, effective January 1, 1983; and

an additional increase of 1.27 percent on the 1983 rates effective

July 1, 1983.

 

2. The County proposal to freeze wage premiums at 1982 dollar

amounts.

      Your Arbitrator rejects this proposal on two grounds.  First,

in my opinion this proposal falls outside the proper scope of the

stipulated issue in the joint arbitration Submission Agreement

based upon Article VII, Section 1(b) of the collective bargaining

Agreement.  In brief, it is my judgment that in the absence of

express exclusionary language, the term "general wage increase"

is most accurately and properly interpreted to include those various

wage premiums which are explicitly and organically tied to the base

wage rate by the express terms of the collective bargaining Agreement.

Second, quite apart from this procedural consideration, on substantive

grounds the proposed freeze would run contrary to and defeat the

intent of the basic decision as set forth above, to wit, to award an

increase equivalent to that received by Seattle Police Officers.

      After careful review of all the evidence and argument

presented, with due regard to the provisions of RCW 41.56, and

based upon the considerations set forth above, I hereby make the

following award.

 

Arbitration Award

The wage rate schedules as set forth in ADDENDUM A of the

present Agreement shall be increased by 4.25 percent effective

January 1, 1983; and an additional increase of 1.27 percent

on then existing rates shall be made effective July 1, 1983.

 

Seattle, Washington               J. B. Gillingham

February 18, 1983                  Arbitrator