City
of
And
Teamsters
Local Union No. 763
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 02566-I-80-00066
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) ARBITRATOR'S
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) OPINION
)
) AND
BETWEEN )
) AWARD
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
)
"THE
AND )
THE CITY OF
)
"THE CITY" OF "THE
EMPLOYER" )
HEARING SITE: HoIiday Inn
HEARING DATES: May 27, 28 and
ARBITRATOR: Mr. John H. Abernathy
APPEARING FOR THE
Mr. John Rabine Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. Michael J. Meglemre, Business Representative
Ms. Lois Eaden, Research
Analyst, Snohomish
Justice Planning
Mr. Scott Crichton,
Sergeant for City Police
Mr. Mark
C. Endresen, Research and Economics Advisor,
Joint Council of Teamsters #28
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Mr. Lawrence B. Hannah, Attorney at Law
of the
of Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen and Williams
Mr. Cabot Dow, City Negotiator
Mr. M. J. Hrdlicha, Mayor, City of
Mr. John Paddoch, Police Chief
Mr. Marvin Listoe,
Executive Administrative Assistant to
the Mayor.
EXHIBITS
Joint Exhibit #1 1978-79 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #2 1976-78 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #3 1975 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #4 1973-74 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #5 1971-72 Police Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #6 . 1970 Police
Agreement, City of
Joint Exhibit #7 1980-83 Agreement, City of
Support Service Employees Local 763
Joint Exhibit #8 1979-81 Agreement, City of
Works Local 763
Joint Exhibit #9 1980-82 Agreement; City of
Local 1984
Union Exhibit #1 Black Notebook - Labor Agreements from
Cities
Selected by
Union Exhibit #2 Proposals and Counterproposals by
Parties in
(A-E) Negotiations .
City Exhibit #1 Arbitration Booklet
City Exhibit #2 Letter Schurke to Hannah and Rabine,
June 2,
1980
City Exhibit #3 Unfair Labor Practice Complaint and Cover
Letter,
BACKGROUND
Teamsters Local #763 (the
Police Officers,
and the City of
were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement which expired on
representatives
met several times to negotiate a successor agree-
ment. On
agreed
that (in whole or in part) twenty-two articles of the
contract
would remain unchanged or amended as agreed upon to date
(Union Exhibit 2D) . Following further
negotiations and mediation
in
the fall and winter, the parties were unable to reach agree-
ment on several remaining issues and sought
interest arbitration
to
resolve the issues in dispute. Pursuant
to RCW 41.56.450,
John H. Abernathy was selected
as impartial arbitrator on April 14
1980 and hearing dates. of May 27 and 28 were set.
The parties
subsequently
waived the requirement for a three-person arbitra-
tion board and agreed to submit the remaining
items in dispute to
a
single arbitrator.
Prior to the arbitration hearing, the City filed an
unfair labor
practice
complaint against the
Employee
Relations Commission. The City charged that the
had
insisted on bargaining to the point of impasse over its
proposes
minimum crew requirement in the new contract.
The
City asserted that minimum
manning is a non-mandatory subject of
bargaining
and that therefore the
provision
to the point of impasse and its unilateral submission
of
such a subject to interest arbitration constituted a viola-
tion of its duty to bargain in good faith. When the arbitration
hearing
began on Nay 27, 1980, the Executive Secretary of the
by
letter on June. 2, 1980 - City Exhibit 2) that the minimum man-
ning issue was not arbitrable
and that no record should be made on
that
issue pending the outcome of the unfair labor practice charge.
The remaining issues properly before the arbitrator at
the
hearing
were:
1. Management Rights and Entire Agreement .
2. Wages
With respect to these two issues, at the hearings held
May 27,
May 28 and continued on
tunity to make opening statements, introduce
documents, examine
and
cross-examine sworn witnesses, and make arguments in sup-.
port
of their positions. The parties agreed
to waive post hearing
briefs.
RULINGS ON MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS
During the second day of the hearing,
presented a
summary of its wage proposal (Union Exhibit 1-U10) .
The City strenuously objected
to the admission of this document
into
evidence. The City asserted that the
an
escalation of bargaining demands and as such constituted bad
faith
bargaining. The Arbitrator denied the
City's objection
as. to admissibility of the document on the grounds that it
did
represent. the Union's current position but indicated
he would
consider
the objection as to weight, when reviewing all the
evidence. The City then made a motion for a continuance
on
the
grounds of surprise and lack of opportunity to study and
prepare
to respond to the Union's proposal. The
Arbitrator
found
that the City had shown good cause for continuance and
therefore
granted the City's motion with the understanding that
the
City would present its case in chief on May 28 and that the
continuance
would be solely for purposes of rebuttal of each
party's
case in chief. The hearing was continued
and completed
on
June 17, 1980 in accordance with this understanding
During the interim between May 28 and June 17, the City
filed
a
second unfair labor practice complaint against the Union with
the
Washington PERC. The City charged that
the Union's wage
proposals
in arbitration constituted bad faith bargaining in
that
they escalated or materially altered the Union's prior
proposals
and positions. At the June 17th hearing,
the Arbi-
trator admitted an amended Union wage proposal. The City again
objected
and the Arbitrator again ruled the same as previously.
The City subsequently amended
its second unfair labor practice
complaint
to include this further amended Union proposal.
Deter-
mination of the unfair labor practice charge is
outside the
Arbitrator's authority and
jurisdiction Therefore, pending
the
Washington PERC's determination of the charge, the Arbitra-
tor's position, consistent with his rulings at
the hearings, is
that
the Union's wage proposals were properly admitted and that
the
City's objection to the proposals will be considered by the
Arbitrator
in weighing the evidence.
The City's other major objection was to admission of the
comparability
data used by the Union to support its wage pro-
posals. The
Arbitrator admitted the Union's data at the hearings
but
agreed to consider the City's objection in weighing the
evidence. The applicable State statute, RCW 41.56.460,
requires
the
Arbitrator to consider, among other factors, the wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment of uniformed personnel in
the
affected city with those of other cities of similar size
on
the west coast of the U.S. The Union
used seven cities in
the
State of Washington for comparison purposes.
While Wash-
ington cities are "west coast" cities,
the clear implication
of
the statute is that Oregon and California cities will be
considered
as well. Thus, while it is valid to
consider the
seven
Washington cities proposed by the Union because they
clearly
are west coast cities, they are not sufficient to
provide a
valid comparison that meets statutory requirements.
lt is valid to include the seven Washington
cities, but compari-
sons
will not be limited to those cities. The
Arbitrator, there-
fore
concludes that the Union did not meet the statutory require-
ment of "cities of similar size on the west
coast of the United
States" and will give
greater weight to the west coast compari-
sons
provided by the City.
The statute also requires the Arbitrator to consider
"stipulations
of the parties." The Union argued
that since the
City had not objected to the
use of the seven Washington compari-
son
cities in prior negotiations, they could properly be used
in
arbitration. The City, however, denied
having agreed to use
these
cities in arbitration and instead had prepared supporting
data
for its own proposal drawn from Oregon, Washington and
California cities whose
population ranged from 20% less to
20% greater than that of Lynnwood.1 Also,
the statutory require-
ments of comparisons with west coast cities came
after the
negotiations
for the previous agreement when the seven Washing
ton
cities were used. Furthermore, the
statute does not require
the
use of west coast cities. The Arbitrator
therefore must
conclude
that the parties had not stipulated to the seven Washing-
ton
cities for comparison purposes in arbitration.
In light of the foregoing, the Arbitrator finds that the
comparative
data provided by the Union should be given little
weight
in the Arbitrator's review of the evidence.
1 The City identified all Washington,
Oregon and California cities
whose
population ranged from 20% less to 20%, greater than Lynn-
wood's,
then reduced the resulting number of California cities
(29) to
a more manageable size by factoring out California cities
that
did not have a total assessed property valuation similar
to
Lynnwood's. While the statute does not
set forth a method-
ology for identifying comparable cities, the
Arbitrator finds
the
City's methodology reasonable and appropriate.
RELEVANT CONTRACT LANGUAGE
ISSUE #1 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT
ARTICLE XVIII MANAGEMENT
RIGHTS
18.1 The Union recognizes the prerogative of the
Employer to operate and manage its affairs
in all respects in accordance
with its responsi-
bilities,
and the powers and authority which
the Employer possesses.
18.2 The Union recognizes the exclusive right of the
Employer to establish reasonable work
rules.
18.3 The Employer has the right to schedule overtime
work as required in a manner
most advantageous
to the Employer and consistent
with the
requirements of municipal
employment and
public interest.
18.4 It is understood by the parties that every
incidental duty connected with
operations
enumerated in job descriptions
is not always
specifically described. Nevertheless, it
is intended that all such duties
shall be
performed by the employee.
18.5 The Employer reserves the right to discipline
or discharge for cause as
defined by the Civil
Service Laws and Rules of the City of Lynn-
wood. The Employer reserves the right to lay
off for lack of work or funds,
or the occurrence
of conditions beyond the control
of the
Employer or where such continuation of work
would be wasteful and
unproductive. The
Employer shall have the right to determine
reasonable schedules of work and
to establish
the methods and processes by
which such work
is performed.
18.6 There shall exist at the option of the Employer
a reserve unit of commissioned
law enforcement
officers to which the provisions
of this Agree-
ment
shall not apply.
18.7 This reserve unit of commissioned law enforce-
ment
officers may be utilized in an emergency
situation or, to supplement the
regular patrol
force on a limited basis and/or
when manpower
is restricted by vacations or
short term ill-
ness for performing those duties
normally per-
formed by bargaining unit
personnel; provided
however, in no event shall this
reserve unit
be more than ten (10) in number
or thirty (30)
percent of the recognized
bargaining unit,
whichever is greater.
ARTICLE XXII ENTIRE AGREEMENT
22.1 The Agreement expressed herein in writing con-
stitutes
the entire Agreement between the
parties and no oral statement
shall add to or
supersede any of its provisions.
ISSUE #2 - WAGES
ARTICLE XVI - WAGES
16.1 All employees covered by this Agreement shall
receive wages during the term of
this Agreement
in accordance with the
following:
16.2 POLICE OFFICER
A. Rate at which a police officer shall be
hired and paid during his one
year proba-
tionary
period shall be as shown on the
attached pay schedule.
B. Upon satisfactory completion of the first
year's service, after
determination that
the employee has demonstrated
capability to
perform and has performed the
requirements
of the position as stated in the
job descrip-
tion,
the base pay shall be as shown on the
pay schedule.
C. Upon satisfactory completion of the second
year's service in the position;
after deter-
mination
that the employee has demonstrated
capability to perform and has
performed the
requirements of the position as
stated in
the job description, the base
pay shall be
as shown on the pay schedule.
D. When the police officer has satisfactorily
completed his third year's
service he shall
be expected to be fully
qualified and pro-
ficient
in individual and group requirements
of the position as stated in the
job descrip-
tion. After full evaluation by the Police
Chief to determine that these requirements
have been met and approval by
the Mayor,
the base rate of pay shall be as
shown on
the pay schedule.
16.3 SERGEANT
C. Rate at which a sergeant shall be paid during
his one year probationary period
shall be
as shown on the pay schedule.
D. Upon satisfactory completion of the first
year's service in the position;
after deter-
mination
that the employee has demonstrated
capability to perform and has
performed the
requirements of the position as
stated
in the job description, the base
rate
of pay shall be as shown on the
pay
schedule.
E. This step has been provided as an additional
incentive intended to encourage
sergeants
to become more proficient in
their super
visory
role through availing themselves of
formal educational courses in
their field.
16.3.1 Certain criteria are required for eligibility:
(1) Satisfactory
completion of a minimum of two
(2) years in Step D, and after
satisfactory
completion of a course or
courses totaling forty-
five (45) credit hours relating
to Police
Science, Political Science, or Sociology, Super-
vision and related courses; or
(2) Four (4)
years of satisfactory service as
a Sergeant in Step D; or
(3) Six (6)
or more years of satisfactory
total service as a Sergeant with
the Lynnwood
Police Department, the most recent of which
must be in Step D. This provision will apply
only to those personnel hired prior to December 31,
1969.
16.3.2 Proficiency - To
qualify under any of items (1),
above, it is expected that The
Ser-
geant
will be above average in his supervisory
abilities, his knowledge of the
most current
police methods and demonstrate a
desire for
continual self-improvement
in his profession.
16.3.3 After full evaluation by the Police Chief to
determine that these
requirements have been
met, and after approval by the
Mayor, the base
rate of pay shall be as shown on
the pay
schedule.
16.4 Signed off
on August 21, 1979
16.5 Upon the
promotion of any Police Officer to the
position of Sergeant, his salary
shall be the
beginning Sergeant salary,
Sergeant C. Further
advancement in salary shall be
subject to the
years of service in position and
other achieve-
ment
requirements as described above for a Ser-
geant.
SALARY SCHEDULE
16.6 WAGE: Effective January
1, 1978: 108% of 1977
schedule
Police Regular Bi- Hourly
Officer Hourly
Rate Weekly Overtime Rate
Step A 6.94 555.55 10.42
B 7.54 603.07 11.31
C 7.83 626.40 11.75
D 8.18 654.05 12.27
Sergeant
C 8.53 682.56 12.80
D 8.78 702.43 13.18
E 9.02 721.44 13.53
16.6.1 WAGE:
Effective January 1, 1979: 114% of 1977
schedule
Police Regular Bi- Hourly
Officer Hourly
Rate Weekly Overtime Rate
Step A 7.33 586.42 11.00
B 7.96 636.58 11.94
C 8.27 661.20 12.40
D 8.63 690.38 12.95
Sergeant
C 9.01 720.48 13.51
D 9.27 741.46 13.91
E 9.52 761.52 14.28
In addition, any percent increase in CPI, Seattle
Area, May 1977 to Nay 1973 in excess of 8.0%
shall be added to the above
schedule.
16.7 LONGEVITY - A longevity schedule for all employees
covered by the agreement shall
be as follows:
16.7.1 Longevity shall be based on employee's date of
hire on a full-time status, to
become effective
with the beginning of the pay
period following
completion of the required time
period.
16.7.2 Longevity shall be paid as per the following
schedule:
LONGEVITY SCHEDULE
Regular hourly Bi-Weekfy Rate
Rate Per Pay Period
Beginning 5th Year $.115 $9.23
Beginning 8th Year .231 18.46
Beginning 11th Year .346 27.69
16.8 Signed off August 21, 1979
16.9 COORDINATION OF EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE AND
LONGEVITY - In no event shall educational
incentive pay and longevity pay
exceed a total
of One Hundred Seventy-five
Dollars ($175.00)
per month when one is added to
the other.
Any employee who is at present receiving greater
than One Hundred Seventy-five
Dollars ($175.00) per
month shall continue to receive
such amount.
__________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
AND
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 763
(Representing Law Enforcement Officers)
THIS SUPPLEMENT is
supplemental to that Agreement by
and
between the CITY OF LYNNWOOD and TEAMSTERS LOCAL
UNION
NO. 763, representing the City's Law Enforce-
ment Officers , covering that period from
January 1,
1979 through December 31,
1979.
I. Effective January 1, 1979, pursuant to ARTICLE XV
of the current Labor Agreement
between the parties
signatory hereto, the Basic Pay
Plan for employees
within the bargaining unit shall
be amended to
provide as set forth below:
POLICE OFFICER Regular Bi-Weekly Hourly
Overtime
Step A $ 7.43 $ 594.63 $11.15
B 3.07 645.49 12.11
C 8.39 670.46 12.59
D 8.75 700.05 13.13
SERGEANT Regular Bi-Weekly Hourly Overtime
Step C $ 9.14 $ 730.5T $13 71
D 9.40 751.84 14.10
E 9.65 772.18 14.43
___________________________________________________________
ISSUE #1 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
(ARTICLE XVIII),
AND
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
(ARTICLE XXII)
UNION
PROPOSAL
Delete both articles in their entirety.
CITY
PROPOSAL
Retain present contract language in both articles.
UNION
POSITION
The Union argued that the incorporation into the labor agree-
ment of any language similar in nature to that
of the "Entire
Agreement" clause and/or
the Management Rights clause would
negate
the Union's right to arbitrate any unreasonable action
by
the Employer which might otherwise have been considered
unilateral
in nature.
According to the Union , all
concerns and issues relating to
wages,
hours and working conditions have not and could not have
been
thoroughly discussed or even introduced during the course
of
these negotiations with any realistic hope for reaching a
final
conclusion to the bargaining process. It
is not reasonable
to
expect that all benefits of employment presently existing for
the
employees, despite. how seemingly minor in nature,
could pos-
sibly have been raised and thoroughly discussed
by both parties
during
the negotiation process. Many existing
terms and condi-
tions of employment are not that obvious or
conspicuous until
they
are taken away by the Employer, the Union argues.
Issues of this type might involve the availability of or
access
to lunch room facilities; free coffee; free parking
facilities;
retention of an established pay period; taking of
meal
breaks during working hours, etc.
The Union further asserts that the Employer should not
have
the
right to unilaterally withdraw a past established and long
existing
practice or benefit. It is the position
of the Union
that
it is neither reasonable nor fair for the Employer to be
permitted
the right to exercise this type of unilateral authority,
and
any provision affording that degree of latitude to the
Employer should be completely
stricken from the labor agreement.
Finally, should the Arbitrator determine that consideration
should
be given to Management Rights; such a consideration should
not
overlook the retention of existing benefits for employees
through
the inclusion of language which would read.
"All conditions of employment relating to wages,
hours of work and general
working conditions shall
be maintained at not less than the highest standards
in effect at the time of the
signing of this Agree-
ment."
POSITION OF THE CITY
According to the City, the Management Rights provision is
a
modest
clause wherein the Union acknowledges certain rights of
the
City and the overall (and legal) responsibilities of the
City
to operate as a local government. The clause serves, too,
as a
quid pro quo for the vast array of rights accorded the
Union
and employees.
Specifically, the Union's bargaining rights are affirmed
in
the
contract (Article II).. The Union enjoys membership and
financial
security (Article III). It enjoys a dues
deduction
system
(Article IV). It can make independent
use of the griev-
ance procedure (Article XVII). Employees, meanwhile, have all
manner
of rights and benefits under the contract:
overtime pay
(Article VII).; report time pay (Article VIII); lunch and coffee
breaks
(Article IX) ; holidays (Article X) ; vacations (Article
XI); sick leave (Article XII) ; emergency leave (Article XIII) ;
health
and welfare (Article XIV) ; a uniform allowance (Article
XV); guaranteed wages (Article
XVI); a grievance procedure
(Article XVIII); maintenance
of standards guarantees (Article
XIX); a "bill of
rights" (Article XX); and protection against
discrimination
(Article XXI).
The City states that, in contrast, all it receives from
the
contract
is a measure of certainty and predictability, a no-
strike
commitment (Article XXIII), and a statement of manage
ment rights.
Dating back to 1971, all agreements between the City and
the
Union for this bargaining unit
have contained a management
rights
clause. Such clauses appear in all the City's present
labor
contracts, including the other two contracts with this
Union--Teamsters Local
763. Such clauses are uniformly included
in
the contracts of the comparable cities in Washington and
Oregon. In California, where a unique practice
obtains of
having
brief skeletal agreements labeled "Memorandum of Under-
standing,"
all but two of the comparable cities have the clause.
The present Management Rights clause, consistent with
sound
labor-management
relations, serves to affirm and express the
City's right to operate under
the law. It further serves to
make
the contract more understandable to all persons and parties
affected
by it, including those who must administer it.
Finally,
the
clause minimizes disputes over the responsibilities of the
City
and attendant grievances.
In short, the City argued if the Union is serious about
elimination
of the clause, it should correspondingly be prepared
to
surrender its rights and security under the contract.
Turning to the Entire Agreement clause, the City asserts
that
this clause was added to the 1978-79 contract so that the
parties
would know what their mutual and respective rights,
obligations,
and responsibilities are; they are only
those set
forth
in the contract. There can thus be no
confusing about any
side
deals, and no basis for destabilizing disputes about commit-
ments one side may think the other has made apart
from the
contract. Stated differently, the clause constitutes
certainty
and
solemnity in the parties' obligations to one another.
The Union cannot complain, the City argued, that the
clause
precludes
amendment of the contract, for Section 25.2 specifi-
cally contemplates amendment by mutual agreement:
"This Agreement may be subject to such change or
modification as may be initially
agreed upon by
both parties hereto.
Nor can the Union complain
that the Entire Agreement clause wipes
out
benefits possessed in the past but unmentioned in the contract.
Article XIX contains a
maintenance of standards requirement as
follows:
The Employer agrees that any and all wages, hours,
and other economic items shall
be maintained at
not less than the highest
standards in effect at
the time of Signing this
Agreement.
The
and
other economic items", according to the City.
Entire Agreement clauses are routinely included in labor
contracts. All the City's labor contracts have such a
clause.
This includes the two other
labor contracts the City has with
this
comparative
cities similarly use such clauses. In
inclusion
of an Entire Agreement clause is almost universal.
In short, the City concludes, the
fication for elimination of the clause. Good sense dictated
that
it be retained.
ANALYSIS
Regarding the Managements Right clause, the Arbitrator
agrees
with
the City that the present provision is a modest one that
merely
affirms the City's right to perform normal management
functions
and carry out its governmental responsibilities. More-
over,
the
arising
under the present provision.
Furthermore, the grievance
procedure
allows grievances over the "application" of terms
and
provisions of the agreement as well as grievances over the
"interpretation"
and "violation" of the agreement.
Thus, the
applications
of the Employer's exercise of the rights specified
in
the Management Rights clause. The
language of 18.2 gives
management
the right to establish work rules, but such work rules
must
be "reasonable". If the
able",
it has the right to grieve. As to the
that
many terms and conditions of employment are not obvious or
conspicuous,
the Arbitrator notes that the
blem providing numerous examples of
"hidden" benefits.
Regarding the Entire Agreement clause, the Arbitrator
also
agrees
with the City that the present provision is a reasonable
one
designed to prevent problems with oral or written side agree-
ments.
Again, the
the
current language that would justify deletion of the clause
Further, the
to
preserve past practices , which the
if
the Entire Agreement clause is retained.
Presumably, the
means'
to preserve past practices is through the maintenance of
standards
provision rather than the Entire Agreement provision.
And in act, the
of
standards provision (which now is limited to wages, hours, and
economic
items) to include "general working conditions." But
the
on
the
what
it could have sought through revision of the maintenance
of
standards provision.
In summary, the Arbitrator finds that the
justified
deletion of either the Management Rights or the Entire
Agreement
clauses in the present contract. Therefore, both
should
be retained.
ISSUE #2 - WAGES
UNION PROPOSAL
Delete Sections 16.1 through 16.6 and substitute the
follow-
ing:
16.1 The classification of work and wage scales and
administration of the pay plan
for employees
covered by this Agreement shall
be as set forth
within Appendix "A" to
this Agreement and by
this reference is incorporated
herein as if set
forth in full.
_______________________________________________________
APPENDIX "A"
to the
AGREEMENT
By and Between
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO.
763
(Representing the City's Law Enforcement
Officers)
__________________________________________________________
THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the
AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
(hereinafter referred to as the Employer) and PUBLIC,
PROFESSIONAL
& OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 763,
affiliated with the
International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of
America (hereinafter referred to as the Union)
representing the City's
Law Enforcement Officers, for that
period from
January 1, 1980 through
December 31, 1982.
A.1 Effective January 1, 1980, the classifications of work and
monthly
rates of pay for each
classification covered by this Agreement shall
be as follows:
|
Pay Group |
|
Classification And Tenure |
Pay Step A Base |
Pay Step B 45 cr. |
Pay Step C 90 cr. |
Pay Step D 135 cr. |
Pay Step E 180 cr. |
|
|
|
Police Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
POP |
|
0-12 months |
$8.64 |
$8.64 |
$8.64 |
$8.54 |
$8.64 |
|
PO1 |
|
13-24 months |
9.18 |
9.18 |
9.18 |
9.18 |
9.28 |
|
PO2 |
|
25-36 months |
9.73 |
9.73 |
9.73 |
9.82 |
9.92 |
|
PO3 |
|
37-48 months |
10.28 |
10.28 |
10.37 |
10.46 |
10.56 |
|
PO4 |
|
49-60 months |
10.83 |
10.92 |
11.01 |
11.10 |
11.20 |
|
PO5 |
|
61 months + |
11.40 |
11.51 |
11.62 |
11.73 |
11.84 |
|
|
|
SERGEANT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SP |
0-12 months |
$9.65 |
$9.65 |
$9.65 |
$9.65 |
$9.65 |
|
|
S1 |
13-24 months |
10.26 |
10.26 |
10.26 |
10.26 |
10.38 |
|
|
S2 |
25-36 months |
10.88 |
10.88 |
10.88 |
10.98 |
- |
|
|
S3 |
37-48 months |
11.49 |
11.49 |
11.59 |
11.69 |
11.81 |
|
|
S4 |
49-60 months |
12.11 |
12.21 |
12.31 |
12.41 |
12.52 |
|
|
S5 |
61 months + |
12.76 |
12.87 |
12.99 |
13.11 |
13.24 |
A.1.1 All present employees shall be placed into the appropriate PAY
GROUP
and PAY STEP of their specific
classification based upon their
tenure of employment with the
Employer as a Police Officer and/or a
Sergeant and their accumulated college
credits.
A.2 EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENT - Advancement from one "PAY
GROUP" to the
next "PAY GROUP"
within a classification shall automatically become
effective with the pay period
following the employee's anniversary
date of appointment.
A.3 EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT - Advancement from one "STEP"
to the next
"STEP" within a pay group shall become
effective with the pay period
following the date that the
employee has demonstrated proof that the
college credits have been
earned.
A.4 PROMOTIONS An employee
who is promoted from one classification to
a higher classification shall
commence receiving the wage scale in
the
same "PAY
STEP" of the lowest
"PAY GROUP" of the
higher
classification which still
provides for an increase higher than that
currently being received by the
promoted employee.
A.5 Effective January 1, 1981, all pay
scales within each
of the
respective "PAY
GROUPS" as is set forth in the schedule of wages for
1980, (Section A.1) shall be increased by that amount
determined by
multiplying the
hourly wage rate
contained in Step E of each
respective PAY GROUP times the
percentage increase in the Consumer
Price Index for the Seattle-Everett Area, recognized as
the revised
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1967 =
100) for
that period from
September 1979 to September 1980,
plus an
additional one percent (1%).
A.6 Effective
January 1, 1982,
all pay scales within each
of the
respective "PAY
GROUPS" as is set forth in the schedule of wages for
1981,
(Section A.1 as further revised by Section A.5), shall be
increased by that amount
determined by multiplying the hourly wage
rate contained in Step E of each
respective PAY GROUP times the
percentage increase in
the Consumer Price
Index for the
Seattle-Everett Area, recognized as the revised Index for
Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers (1967 =
100) for that period
from
September 1980 to September 1981, plus an additional one
percent
(1%).
CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION NO. 763,
affiliated with the International Brother
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America
By
_____________________________ By _____________________________________
JON
L. RABINE, Secretary-Treasurer
Date
___________________________ Date
___________________________________
NOTE: At the June 17, 1980 continuation of the arbitration
hear-
ing,
the Union submitted an amended version of Appendix A
as follows:
APPENDIX
"A"
to the
A G R E E M E
N T
By and Between
CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON
and
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763
(Representing the City's Law Enforcement
Officers)
THIS APPENDIX is
supplemental to the AGREEMENT
by and between
the CITY OF
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON (hereinafter
referred to as the Employer)
and PUBLIC,
PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 763,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(hereinafter referred to as the
Union)
representing the
City's Law Enforcement
Officers, for that
period from
January 1, 1980 through
December 31, 1932.
A.1 Effective
January 1, 1980,
the classifications of work and hourly
rates of pay for each
classification covered by this Agreement shall
be as follows:
HOURLY
RATES
PAY GROUP CLASSIFICATION AND TENURE OF
PAY
POLICE OFFICER
POA 0-12 months $9.40
POB 13-24 months $10.06
POC 25-36 months $10.40
POD 37-48 months $10;
77
POD-5 49-84 months $10.89
POD-8 85-120
months $11.01
POD-11 121 months + $11.13
SERGEANT
SC 0-12
months as Sergeant $11.25
SC-5 49-84 months with department $11.37
SC-8 85-120 months with department $11.49
SC-11 121 months or more with department $11.61
SD 13-36 months as Sergeant $11.63
SD-5 49-84 months with department $11.75
SD-8 85-120 months with department $11.87
SD-11 121 months or more with
department $11.99
SE 37 months or more as
Sergeant $12.04
SE-S 49-84 months with department $12.16
SE-8 85-120 months with department $12.28
SE-11 121
months or more with department $12.40
A.1.1 All present employees shall be placed into the appropriate PAY
GROUP
of
their specific classification based
upon their tenure
of
employment with the Employer as
a Police Officer and/or a Sergeant.
A.2 EXPERIENCE ACHIEVEMENT - Advancement from one "PAY
GROUP" to the
next
"PAY GROUP"
within a classification shall automatically become
effective with the pay period
following the employee's anniversary
date of appointment.
A.3 EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT - Employees shall be eligible for
receipt of
additional compensation for educational achievement
based upon the
provisions set forth within
Sections 16.8; 16.8.1; 16.8.2; 16.8.3;
16.8.4 and 16.8.5; provided
however, such additional compensation
shall
continue to be administered on the same basis as in the past
(i.e. 45 credits equals
$.164 per hour; Associate's Degree
equals
$.493 per hour; Bachelor's Degree
equals $.822 per hour).
A.4 PROMOTIONS
- An employee who is
promoted from Police Officer to
Sergeant shall
commence receiving the
hourly rate of pay in PAY
GROUP SC; SC-5; SC-8 or SC-11 dependent upon his months of service
with the Lynnwood Police
Department.
A.5 Effective January 1, 1981; all hourly rates
of pay within each of
the respective 'PAY GROUPS" as is set forth in Section
A.1 shall be
increased by that amount
determined by multiplying each hourly rate
of pay times the percentage
increase in the Consumer Price Index for
the Seattle-Everett Area, recognized
as the revised Index for Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (1967 = 100) for that
period from
September 1979 to September 1980,
plus an additional
one percent
(1%).
A.6 Effective January 1, 1982, all hourly rates of pay within each
of
the respective "PAY
GROUPS" as is set forth in Section A.1 as
further revised by Section
A.5, shall be increased by that amount
determined by multiplying each
hourly rate of pay times
the per-
centage
increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Seattle-Everett
Area, recognized as the revised Index for Urban Wage
Earners and
Clerical Workers (1967 = 100) for that period from
September 1980 to
September 1981, plus an additional one
percent (1%).
CITY OF LYNWOOD, WASHINGTON PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION
NO. 763,
affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America
By __________________________ By
_____________________________________
JON
L. RABINE, Secretary-Treasurer
Date ________________________ Date
_________________________________________
CITY PROPOSAL
1. a. 1980 Base Salaries.
Effective January 1, 1980
(retroactive)
all base salaries in effect on December 31,
1979
shall
be increased by 10.2%.
b. 1981
Base Salaries. Effective January 1, 1981, all
base
salaries in effect on December 31, 1980 shall be increased
by
ninety per cent (90%) of the percentage increase in the
Consumer
Price Index for the Seattle-Everett Metropolitan Area.
The "Index" used
shall be the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers,
All Items (Revised Series (CPI-W)
(1967 = 100), covering the period May 1979 - May 1930.
The percentage increase in the CPI is to be based upon
the
May index points measured
against the previous May index points
as
co d by the of Labor Statistics under the follow-
ing f a:
, 1980 ts - May,
1979 Index Points x 100 - _____
_____________________________________
May, 1979 Index Points
the resulting
percentage increase shall be rounded to the nearest
tenth
of percent. However, it is agreed that in no event shall
the
1981 wage increase exceed 12.0% under the above formula.
c. 1982 Base
Salaries. Effective January 1, 1982,
base
wage rates in effect on December 31, 1981 shall be in-
creased
by ninety percent (90%) of the percentage increase in
the
Consumer Price Index for the Seattle-Everett Metropolitan
Area. The "Index" used shall be the
Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers, All Items (Revised
Series) (CPI - W) (1967 =
100), covering the period May, 1980 -
May, 1981.
The percentage increase in the CPI is to be based upon
the
May index points measured
against the previous May index points
as
computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the follow-
ing formula:
May, 1981 Index Points - May, 1980 Index Points x 100 -
_____
May, 1980 lndex
Points
The resulting percentage increase
shall be rounded to the nearest
tenth
of a percent. However, it is agreed that
in no event shall
the
1982 wage increase be less than 7.07% nor shall it exceed
12.0% when the CPI (90%)
formula is applied as set forth herein.
The term "Consumer Price Index" as used herein
shall mean
the
CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, All Items
(Revised Series) (CPI-W) (1967
= 100) as published by the Bureau
of
Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor for the
Seattle-Everett
Metropolitan Area.
In the event the "CPI" becomes unavailable for
purposes of
computing
the aforementioned percentage increases, the parties
agree
to jointly request the Bureau of Labor Statistics to pro-
vide a
comparable index for purposes of computing the January,
1981, or January, 1982, salary
increases, and if that is not
satisfactory,
the parties further agree to promptly undertake
negotiations
solely with respect to agreeing upon a substitute
formula
for determining a comparable wage adjustment.
2. Police
officers and sergeants should continue to
receive
wages in accordance with the existing criteria estab-
lished through past collective bargaining as set
forth in
Articles 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 16.5 of the 1978-79 contract.
3. The
longevity schedule should be continued as in the
1978-79 contract,
and the coordination of educational incentive
and
longevity pay should be continued as in the 1978-79 con-
tract.
POSITION OF THE UNION
The Union's argument in support of its wage proposal is
in
four
parts: abnormal safety conditions and work loads, wage
disparity
between Lynnwood and seven other Washington cities,
average
1980 wage settlement for those same seven comparison
cities,
and the proper means for determining increases in compensa-
tion for 1981 and 1982.
The Union presented evidence regarding the high
percentages
of
calls dispatched to the Lynnwood Police from the county's
central
dispatch agency, as well as evidence of an increase in
reported
crimes in the city. A city police
sergeant testified
that
the policy of the officers is to "back-up" each other on
certain
types of calls, but these back-ups are not always avail-
able
because of the shortage of police officers.
As a result,
the
witness testified, police officers often deliberately
respond
slowly to calls to attempt assurance of adequate man-
power. The Union maintains that these unfortunate
events are
the
by-product of an understaffed police department As a
result,
officers are subject to increased safety hazards and
work
loads for which they should receive
the
Union contends.
The Union also argued that there is a significant
disparity
between
the wages received by Lynnwood police and that of their
counterparts
in seven comparison cities in the Seattle area whose
hourly
wage, according to the Union, average 5.5% higher than
that
of Lynnwood police. Moreover, in
examining 1980 wage
settlements
in the seven comparison cities, the Union found an
11% average percentage
increase for those cities, significantly
higher
than the 7% proposed by the City during negotiations.
The Union contends that its wage proposal would deal with
these
problems. The Union's proposal ties the
core economic
issues
(wages, educational incentive and longevity) into a
"single
multi-dimensional wage scale." For
1981 and 1982, the
hourly
wage rates in the multi-dimensional wage scale would be
increased
each year by an amount equal to the percentage increase
in
the Consumer Price Index plus 1%.
According to the Union,
adoption
of this proposal would:
-Bring the Lynnwood police officer up to an
average of the wage standard
being enjoyed by
the police officers employed in
the other seven
comparison cities;
-Re-align the Lynnwood sergeants wages so that they
maintained the average
percentage differential
between patrolman and sergeant
wage scales existing
in the other seven comparison
cities;
-Allow the Lynnwood police officer to have the bene-
fit of longevity and
educational: incentive being
subject to the base wage
increases in future years,
a benefit being enjoyed by
police officers employed
in the other seven comparison
cities;
-Increase the Lynnwood police officer's contribution
to his retirement plan, a
benefit being enjoyed by
police officers employed in the
other seven comparison -
cities;
-Eliminate the four-step pay plan, exclusive to the
Lynnwood police officers (all of the other seven
comparison cities have five or
more pay steps) ; and
-Establish a 1981 and 1982 cost of living increase
that would protect the Lynnwood
police officer from
inflation and possibly assist in
the recovery of
losses suffered in past years
due to the imposition
of sub-standard wage
settlements.
For these reasons, the Union contended, the entire Union
wage
proposal should be awarded by the Arbitrator.
POSITION OF THE CITY
The City contends that its wage proposal is a reasonable
one
that takes into consideration the criteria as set forth in
RCW 41.56.460, the President's
wage price guidelines, the City's
compensation
philosophy and ability to pay, and other factors.
The Council on Wage and Price Stability recommended that
increases
be confined to a range of 7.5 to 9.5% as part of the
effort
to curb inflation. The City argues that
in collective
bargaining
both labor and management should endeavor to reach
settlements
within or near this range. The City's
proposed
increase
of 10.2% for 1980 accomplishes this, while the Union's
does
not.
The City maintains that its proposal reflects its compensa-
tion philosophy for its police officers and
sergeants, embodying
a
formal "Career Development
plan. The objective of the plan
has
been to reward performance and to improve the quality of
employees
by providing pay premiums as a reward for length of
service
(experience) and continuing educational efforts.
Longevity as a form of compensation has been part of the
City's plan ever since
collective bargaining began. Longevity
pay
provides an incentive for employees to stay in the City.
At no point has educational incentive pay been provided
or
computed
as part of base pay. In the 1978-79
agreement,
educational
incentive pay and longevity pay were coordinated,
with a
total maximum per employee of $175 per month.
An illustration of the pay plan as it currently exists is
provided
in matrix form as City Exhibits II-A and Il-B.
The
City's base wage proposal thus
should be viewed in light of the
multi-dimensional
compensation plan. As critical
components
of
that plan, longevity pay and educational incentive pay must
be
considered in assessing the fairness of the City's wage
offer,
according to the City.
Further, the City believes an officer should be
performing
satisfactorily
(as outlined by the employee's job description)
before
becoming eligible for advancement to the next step in the
pay
plan. As with longevity and educational
premium pay, this
provides
additional incentive to the officer.
During bargain-
ing, the Union presented no justification for
such a change in
this
system, the City contends.
The City also argues that, due to the effect of current
economic
conditions on the City's sources of revenue (especially
property
tax, sales tax, and federal revenue sharing funds) , the
City must be careful in the
commitments it makes as far as.
expenditures
are concerned, especially those which require
recurring
year-after-year commitments such as employee wages
and
benefits.
The City further maintains that, when compared to wages
of
employees
in other bargaining units in the City of Lynnwood
(particularly
firefighters) and wages of uniformed personnel in
west
coast cities of similar size, the City's wage proposal for
Lynnwood police is more than
fair.
Finally, the City contends that, while the Consumer Price
Index has some utility as an
indicator, it is not synonymous
with
or equivalent to the "cost of living." It is a measure of
price
change, not the actual cost incurred in purchasing goods
and
services. According to the City, it is
widely recognized
by
economists, government officials and others that the CPI
actually
overstates the cost of living in several significant
respects. Specifically, the CPI exaggerates the cost of
living
by
(1) assuming that an individual buys a house every month;
(2) assuming
that an individual pays for all his or her medical
costs;
(3) failing to account for substitution of lower-priced
goods
and services; (4) failing to account for changes in the
quality
of goods which are produced.
Consequently, the City
argues,
the CPI is significantly overstated and should be
adjusted
accordingly if it is to be given weight as a cost of
living
index. An employer should not be
expected to pay for
costs
its employees are not actually incurring.
The City concludes that its wage offer for 1980-82 should
be
adopted by the Arbitrator in light of the following con-
siderations:
- It is extremely
fair and reasonable to the employees.
- It compares
favorably to wages in the comparable
cities.
- In comports with
the settlements reached with the
other city bargaining units , including the other two
units represented by Local 763.
- It maintains the
incentive features of the Compre-
hensive Pay Plan.
- It fully takes
into account increases in living costs.
It reflects good
faith on the part of the City in the
face of the Union's unjustified attempt to strip the
existing pay plan of any performance or proficiency
criteria.
ANALYSIS
RCW 41.56.460 requires the Arbitrator to take the
following
factors
into consideration in rendering an opinion and award:
1. The constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer.
2. Stipulations of the parties.
3. Comparisons 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.
4. The average consumer prices for
goods and services,
commonly known as the cost of
living.
5. Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances dur-
ing
the pendency of the proceedings.
6. 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.
Having considered all of these factors, the Arbitrator
finds
that
the most useful criteria-for purposes of this case are: (1)
comparison
of wages, hours and conditions of employment in west
coast
cities of similar size; and (2) the average consumer prices
for
goods and services. Turning first to the
comparison of
similar
cities, as discussed earlier in this opinion
the
seven
Washington cities utilized by the Union are of little value
given
the statutory requirement that "west coast" cities be examined.
Nonetheless, even the data
from the seven Washington cities lends
more
support to the City's proposal than to the Union's, in the
opinion
of the Arbitrator.
The Union evaluated 1980 wage settlements in its seven compari-
son
cities and found an average increase of 11%.
But, as noted
by
the City in its rebuttal to Union Exhibit 1-U10, the Union's
wage
proposal would result in percentage increases substantially
greater
than 11% for all classifications except the first two
steps
for sergeants. Moreover, although the
Union compared the
1170 increase in the seven
cities to the 7% proposed by the City
in
negotiations, the City's proposal in mediation and arbitration
was
10.2% for 1980, a figure not inconsistent with the 11% average.
Further, the City's own
comparative data also lends support to its
proposal. See City Exhibit # V-H In summary, the Arbitrator finds
that
comparison of the parties' proposals to wages in west coast
cities
of similar size tends to justify the City's proposal and not
the
Union's.
Turning to an evaluation of the proposals in light of the
average
consumer prices for goods and services, both parties relied
on
the CPI in making their proposals for 1981 and 1982. The
Union has proposed tying wage
increases for those years to the
CPI plus 1%, whereas the City
proposes tying the wage increase
to
90% of the CPI with a ceiling of 12% for 1981 and 1982, and
adding a
floor of 7% for 1982 only.
The Arbitrator agrees with the City that absolute
reliance
on
the CPI for determining wage increases is inappropriate
when
the employees involved already receive as benefits some
of
the items that make up the CPI, such as medical coverage.
This is the case with Lynnwood
police officers who will continue
to
receive medical and dental insurance during the life of the
contract. The Arbitrator also believes that tying wage
increases
to
CPI increases without limitation is ill-advised where public
funds
are involved. For these reasons, the
Union's proposal
is
not acceptable to the Arbitrator. The
City's proposal, on
the
other hand, seems to be a responsible method of assuring that
employees
will have at least some opportunity to keep up with
the
cost of living increases while at the same time assuring
that
public funds are not totally dependent on a fluctuating
index.
Finally, it should be noted that in rendering an opinion
and
award on this issue, the Arbitrator gave due consideration
to
the City's objection to the Union's wage proposal (Union
Exhibit #-U10, modified by
Union Exhibit #1-U22);
Apart from
the
City's charge that the Union had improperly escalated its
demands
during the interest arbitration, the Arbitrator found
persuasive
the fact that the Union had already signed off on
the
educational incentive provision of the contract (Section 16.8)
when
it sought to build educational incentive into the proposal
in
arbitration. When combined with the
Union s heavy reliance
on
an unacceptable set of comparison cities, this severely
undermined
the Union's ability to persuade the Arbitrator of the
credibility
of its proposal.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Arbitrator
concludes
that
the City's wage proposal should be adopted, with the modi-
fication noted below.
STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES
DATE: July 23, 1980
BILL TO:
Mr. Cabot Dow Mr.
Jon L. Rabine
Seattle Trust Building, Suite
400 Secretary-Treasurer
10655 N.E. Fourth Street Teamsters
Local Union 763
Bellevue, Washington 98004 553 John
Street
Seattle,
Washington 98109
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
Teamsters Local Union No. 763 and the City of Lynnwood,
Washington
PROFESSIONAL FEES:
3 Days Travel and Arrangements
3 Days Hearing Time
6 Days Research and Writing
12 Days @ $280/day $3360.00
EXPENSES:
Air fare Portland to Seattle
and
return $98.00
Airport parking and rental car 105.00
Transportation (round trip
Portland
to
Meals and Lodging 176.77
Typing, Duplication, Tape,
Mail 189.00
$627.76
TOTAL OF FEES AND EXPENSES: $3987.76
EACH PARTY'S SHARE: $1993.88
PLEASE REMIT WITHIN 30 DAYS
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) AWARD
)
BETWEEN )
)
TEAMSTERS
LOCAL UNION NO. 763 )
)
"THE UNION"
)
)
)
)
THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD,
WASHINGTON )
)
"THE
CITY" OR "THE EMPLOYER" )
After careful consideration of all oral and written argu-
ments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth
above, it
is
awarded that:
1. Issue #1
- Management Rights (Article XVIII) and
Entire Agreement (Article XXII)
Retain current contract language.
2. Issue #2 - Wages (Article XVI)
First year: Adopt City proposal of 10.2%
increase.
Second and third years: Use City's
CPI
formula of 90% of the
CPI for
the Seattle-Everett
Metropolitan
area (CPI-W)
for the period of September
to September with a minimum
of 8% and a maximum of 12% to
be effective January 1, 1981
and January 1, 1982 respectively.
Respectfully submitted on this
the 23rd day of July, 1980 by
John H. Abernathy
Arbitrator