International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 876
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Timothy D.W. Williams
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Williams; Timothy D.W.
Case #: 04328-I-82-00096
Employer:
Spokane County Fire District 1
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DECISION AND AWARD
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) OF ARBITRATION PANEL
)
BETWEEN )
)
DISTRICT #1 )
)
"THE DISTRICT" )
)
AND )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 876 )
)
"THE
) Interest Arbitration
HEARING SITE:
SeaFirst
Financial Center
HEARING DATE:
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator For
the For the
and Chairman Association Fire
District
Timothy D.W. Williams Bill
Anderson Paul
Allison
APPEARING FOR THE ASSOCIATION:
Mr. Lannie
Ulrick, Spokesperson
Mr. Clyde Wisenor
Mr. Buck Haney
APPEARING FOR THE FIRE
DISTRICT:
Mr. Richard Johnson,
Spokesperson
Mr. Rod Tedrow
Mr. Dale Haye
Mr. L. Bruce Eggleston
EXHIBITS
Fire District
1. Copy of collective bargaining statute 41.56
2. Comparable department data
3. Comparability data
4. Spokane Department data
5. Spokane Department practices
6. Persons contact at comparable departments
7. Wage increase for City of
8. Auditor's letter to Dale Haye
9.
10. Financial projection
11. Wage settlements
12. October 1982 monthly labor review
13. CPI comparative data
14. Reduced workweek cost
15. Mediator's notes
Fire Fighters
1. Notebook
2. Budget document
3. Investment vouchers
4. Budget documents, 1982
5. Budget documents, 1981
6. Budget documents, 1980
7. Budget documents, 1979
8. Comparison of 1982 budget with 1983
The
IAFF have not reached
agreement on their labor contract for
1983. Eight issues remain in
dispute. Arbitration was initiated
according
to the RCW 41.56.450. Accordingly, Mr. Paul Allison
was
selected by the Fire District as its partisan and Mr. Bill
Williams was selected as the
neutral chairman of the Arbitration
Panel.
Hearing was held on 5th day of January 1983 in the office
of
Mr. Paul Allison. The Fire District elected to file a post
hearing
brief and it was received by the chairman on January 21,
1983. The response brief of
Local 876 was received on January 26,
1983. The neutral chairperson
made a taped record of the hearing
as
required by RCW 41.56.450.
The following issues were submitted to the Arbitration
Panel
for
review and recommendation:
1. Wages
2. Workweek Hourly Reduction
3. Fire Fighters Out of Classification Pay
4. Disability Insurance L.E.O.F.F. II Personnel
5. Sick Leave Accumulation for L.E.O.F.F. II Pension
New Hires
6. Grievance Procedure
7. Hours for Day Personnel
8. Hours for New Hires
The Arbitration Panel met to discuss and formulate the
award
on
was
discussed separately from the others with both partisans given
a
full opportunity to provide comment and analysis. The discus-
sion of each issue led to the formulation of an
award for that
issue.
The neutral chairperson provided each partisan the oppor-
tunity to react to the award. The following report
does not con-
stitute a complete outline of the panel's
proceedings, but rather
is a
summary of the essential analysis with the statement of the
award.
During the hearing the District introduced a letter
addressed
to
the panel which protested the alleged non-compliance of Local
876 with the statutory
requirements covering interest arbitra-
tion proceedings. The District contended that
Local 876 had not
submitted
it a copy of their written proposals on the issues
still
in dispute. Specifically, the District wrote:
Pursuant to WAC 391-55-215
Protection District No. 1 does
hereby object to
Local #876 of the I.A.F.F. and
its noncompliance
with
WAC 391-55-220. Local #876 has failed to
submit
to Fire District No. 1, as well as to
our
partisan arbitrator, a copy of their written
proposals
on the issues they intend to submit
to
arbitration. Our willingness to proceed with
the
interest arbitration as scheduled should in
no
way be considered as a waiver of our right
to
object on the basis of this noncompliance
in
any appeal that could result from the arbi-
tration award.
The District did not enter a specific motion on this
matter
and
therefore the chairman accepted the letter without discussion
or
action. Both parties went forward with the presentation of
their
cases during the conduct of the hearing.
ISSUES, DISCUSSION AND AWARD
ISSUE
1. WAGES
A. Proposals:
Local 876 propbsed a 13.5% across-the-board wage
increase.
This proposal would give the Fire Fighters approxi-
mate parity with Spokane City Fire
Fighters. While the Union
did not advance a specific
multi-year wage proposal, they did
indicate
that a multi-year agreement would be acceptable if
it were tied to increases in the
cost of living.
The
District offered a 6% across-the-board wage increase
with a wage reopener
provision the second year of a two-year
agreement.
B. Discussion:
The parties submitted considerable written evi-
dence,
oral argument, and testimony on this issue to the
Arbitration Panel.
Also, the parties submitted additional
summary
argument in their briefs. In carefully reviewing
this information, the Arbitration
Panel was particularly
mindful
of the requirements of RCW 41.56.460 that the Panel
follow six guidelines in framing an
award. The award will
not attempt to outline all of the
evidence and arguments
presented
to the Panel or to summarize all of its discussion.
Rather, this award will provide an overview
of the major fac-
tors
leading to the award with emphasis on the statutory
guidelines.
The
Panel found four of these guidelines to be particu-
larly
applicable to the issue of wages. First is the require-
ment
that the Arbitration Panel compare compensation of
employees
working for the Spokane Fire District with those
working for similar public bodies on the west coast of the
United States. Both parties submitted a list
of comparable
jurisdictions.
Unfortunately, the Panel found fault with
both lists. The District's list
was carefully culled from
communities
in Washington, Oregon, and California but con-
tained
two major problems. First, the list did not indicate
the actual salaries paid fire
fighters in the jurisdictions
chosen, only the percentage wage
increase for the current
year. The statutory guidelines
require the Panel to compare
not wage increases but actual
wages and other forms of compen-
sation.
Providing information on a percentage increase does
not give the Arbitration Panel
the information necessary to
comply with RCW 41.56.460.
Second,
the District's list of comparables is internally
inconsistent.
On one hand, the District argued against compar-
ing
city fire departments and county fire districts in the
state of Washington, noting
language in the statute that
speaks to a respective comparison of
cities to cities and
counties
to counties. Therefore, the Fire District would
compare
itself with other county fire districts, such as
Pierce County #2, Clark County #5, and King
County #39 in the
state of Washington. On the other
hand, in presenting "com
parable"
jurisdictions outside the state of Washington, the
District included two Oregon cities and two
California cities.
The District
acknowledged this inconsistency but argued that in order to
meet the requirement to choose
"west coast" comparable
communities, it was necessary to use cities in other states.
While the Panel could understand the dilemma
the District
faced in assembling its list of
comparables, this inconsis-
tency
of using cities outside the state of Washington but
no Washington cities is clearly
a weakness in the District's
comparability
data.
The
list of comparable communities supplied by the Union
also was flawed. This list was
made up exclusively of Wash-
ington
cities (with the exception of Pierce County #2). In
limiting
their comparables to Washington cities, the Union
failed to recognize the statutory
requirement of comparison
to west coast jurisdictions. The
Panel also noted the Dis-
trict's
claim that the list was unrepresentative and care-
fully selected to make the Union's
case.
While
the Arbitration Panel would have desired a more com-
plete
and accurate comparability picture than the parties pre-
sented,
certain tentative conclusions could be drawn from the
evidence
in the record. First, the information presented by
the Union clearly indicates that
the Spokane Fire District
lags behind in salaries paid to
fire fighters. While the
Panel would have liked to utilize the
District's list of
comparable
communities, the absence of specific salary data
precludes
that possibility.* Because the Washington statute
requires
the Panel to consider comparable wages, because the
________________
*The Panel is fully aware that
the Union in its rebuttal brief sup-
plied
salary information for the District's list of comparables.
However, salary information
constitutes new evidence and was not
properly
placed before the Panel. Therefore the Panel did not con-
sider this data.
only comparable wage information
before of the Panel is that
supplied
by the Union, and because the jurisdictions chosen
by the Union were not
unreasonable (the Union's list is not
as comprehensive as it should be
but certainly is not unreason-
able given the statutory
requirement); the Panel concludes on
the basis of the Union's data
that some catch-up is justified
in setting wages for 1983.
Increases
in cost of living is a second guideline con-
sidered
by the Arbitration Panel. The evidence presented by
both parties clearly indicated
that current increases in the
cost of living do not justify a
major wage increase. The
fire fighters estimated the annual
increase in cost of living
at 5% (FF Ex. 1). The District
introduced evidence to demon-
strate
that fire fighter salary salaries have kept pace with
increases
in cost of living since December 1977 (Dist. Ex. 13).
Based on this data and the fact that the
most recent cost of
living data shows increases to be
less than the District's
offer, the District concluded that
there was no basis to
give an increase greater than the
6% offered by the District.
The
Panel reviewed the information on cost of living and
concluded
that the cost of living data does support the posi-
tion
of the District. The District's 6% offer more than off-
sets increases in the cost of
living.
The
third statutory guideline that the Arbitration Panel
considered
concerns the ability of the District to pay for
increased
wages. The guidelines require that the panel con-
sider
the "constitutional and statutory authority" of the
public body. Included in this requirement is the authority
of the jurisdiction to raise
sufficient funds to pay for in-
creased
wages. The District argued that it had a severe cash
flow problem. All of the
District's monies come from property
taxes. These monies arrive on the
first of May and the first
of November. The District
asserted that it would have to
operate
on borrowed money until it receives its May tax
monies, and argued that excessive
wage increase would exacer-
bate the problem and increase the
amount of interest that
they would have to pay.
The
Union countered the District's argument by claiming
that the District had more than
sufficient money to pay the
cost of its 13.5% wage proposal as
well as the additional
costs of other benefits. The Union
found this additional
money in the areas of a 1982 budget
surplus and the increased
amounts
of monies budgeted for salaries in 1983. The Union
claimed
that there was some $480,000 dollars available to
the District during 1983 to pay
for increased costs of wages
and other benefits (FF Ex. 1).
The
Panel reviewed the data as provided and in general
found the District's arguments the
more persuasive. The
District's cash flow problem was clearly
established through
District Exhibits 8 and 10. Moreover, the
Union's claim of
a budget surplus for 1982 is
somewhat misleading. The budget
surplus
becomes part of the fund balance at the end of the
year. Since the District receives
no monies in a new year
until May, it must carry over a
large fund balance for
operating expenses. That fund balance does not necessarily
provide
additional revenues for salary increases. The Panel
concluded
that based on the District's ability to pay, the
wage settlement award should not
greatly exceed the amount
offered
by the District.
The
final major factor considered by the Panel was guide-
line (f) which reads:
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the
foregoing,
which are normally or tradi-
tionally
taken into consideration in
the
determination of wages, hours and
conditions
of employment.
The
Fire Fighters argued that parity with the city of
Spokane is one such factor that should be
considered by the
Arbitration Panel.
The Fire Fighters emphasized that they
share a common boundary with the
city of Spokane and also
share a mutual aid pact. The Fire
Fighters noted a prior
arbitration
award in which the arbitrator encouraged the Dis-
trict
to attempt to narrow the wage gap between the city of
Spokane fire fighters and Spokane Fire
District fire fighters
(FF Ex. 1).
The
District argued that the question of parity did not
meet the requirements of state
statute. Specifically, the
District contended that the city of Spokane
was in no way
comparable
to the Spokane Fire District. The city of Spokane
has "over twice the
population, nearly four times the budget,
twice the assessed valuation, and
nearly four times the
employees
to handle suppression duties," and therefore simply
is not a comparable
jurisdiction.
The
Panel did not have a unanimous reaction to this issue.
The partisan members of the panel clearly
were split in their
views on the question of parity.
The neutral chairman deter-
mined that the question of parity
for the city of Spokane was
improper
given the requirements of comparability as found in
state statute.
However,
the neutral chairman also believes that there
is a good basis to include the
city of Spokane as a comparable
jurisdiction.
While Spokane Fire District is smaller than
that in the city of Spokane and,
of course, is a county juris-
diction
rather than a city, many other factors encourage the
inclusion
of the city of Spokane in any kind of comparable
analysis.
One important factor is that the employees of
both the Spokane City Fire
Department and the Spokane Fire
District purchase their goods and services
in the same market-
place. As such a fire fighter in
the Spokane Fire District
who makes significantly less
money than his counterpart in
the city would be able to
purchase significantly fewer goods
and services.
Conversely,
different areas in the state of Washington have
a different marketplace. Goods
and services in the Spokane
area are priced differently than
those in the Seattle or
Vancouver areas.* The Chairman emphasizes
that if the city
________________
*The Chairman notes that it is
for this reason that fire protection
jurisdictions
in the state of Alaska are excluded from the com-
parability data of both parties even though Washington
code
refers
to west coast states, which would include Alaska. The
fact
is that wages of an Alaskan fire fighter reflect the market-
place
within which he buys his goods and services.
of Spokane is excluded as a comparable (as per the argument
of the District), then all
comparable communities included
in the data considered by the
Arbitration Panel would be
west of the mountains. The
Chairman concludes that while
the Spokane Fire District is
somewhat unique, the tenets of
state statute are better met by
including the Spokane City
Fire Department than by excluding it.
Based
on the above analysis the panel awards a 3.95%
increase
effective January 1, 1983 and a second 3.95% increase
on July 1, 1983. This award also
includes a wage reopener
for 1984. The split increase is
given specifically to help
overcome
the cash flow problem of the District. The overall
8.06%
increase includes some "catch up" pay to help with the
comparability
issue. The Chairman notes that the total
increased
cost of this award for the 1983 year is equal to the
offer of the District.
C. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following contract language:
APPENDIX "A"
Wage Schedule
The
following wage schedule is for the year
1983. It is agreed the negotiations can be
reopened
by petition of either party on wages
for 1984.
Rank January 1, July 1,
1983 1983
1st year firefighter $1506 $1566
2nd year firefighter $1678 $1744
Top firefighter $1874 $1948
Driver $1977 $2055
Alarm Operator $2066 $2148
Inspector $2066 $2148
Para Medic $2161 $2246
Lieutenant $2253 $2342
Lieutenant of Inspectors $2443 $2540
Captain $2633 $2737
Mechanic (Adjust
current (Adjust January 1,
wage upward by 1983
wage upward
.0395) by .0395)
ARTICLE XVI
Term of Agreement
Section 1. Effective Dates: This agreement,
after being signed by both parties,
shall be
effective
retroactive to January 1, 1983, and
shall remain in full force and
effect until
December 31, 1984 (subject to the conditions
hereinafter
stated) and thereafter from year to
year unless otherwise terminated.
Section 2. Retain
current contract language.
ISSUE
2. WORKWEEK, HOURLY REDUCTION
A. Proposals: Currently a fire fighter works a 56 hour week
based on what is called a "Kelly Day". A Kelly Day
con-
sists
of a 24 hour shift on, followed by 48 hours off, on a
repeated cycle. The Fire Fighters propose a 52 hour week.
This change would mean that each fire
fighter would receive
eight shifts off per year.
Currently each fire fighter
works 121 shifts each year minus
vacation days and minus any
other days off. If the Fire
Fighters' proposal was accepted,
each fire fighter would work only
113 days minus vacation
days and other days off.
The
District proposed retaining the current provision of
a 56 hour week.
B. Discussion: The
hour workweek to a 52 hour
workweek did not have to occur all
in one year. Rather, the
parity with the city of
Department currently has a 52 hour week. The
noted that its list of comparable communities in the state
of
hours per week. The
justified
both on the count of parity with the city of
and on the basis of comparabil4ty
with other jurisdictions.
Therefore the
should award a provision by which
the workweek could be
gradually
lowered to meet the 52 hour proposal.
The
District advanced a two-fold argument against the
the District argued that all of
the jurisdictions included
in its list had a 56 hour
workweek. The District concluded
that the 56 hour workweek was the
normal workweek for a fire
fighter.
Second,
the District strongly argued that the question
of a shorter workweek was a
financial question and that the
District simply could not afford to pay the
increased costs
associated
with a shorter workweek. A shorter workweek would
mean that the District either
would have to reduce services
or hire additional personnel. Since
there was no money for
additional
personnel, the shorter workweek would necessarily
lead to reduced services.
The
Arbitration Panel was deeply divided on this particular
issue. The partisans strongly
argued the positions of their
respective
parties. The Neutral Chairman found that the com-
parability
data in part did support the position of the
Union, but that the financial condition of
the District is a
strong factor mitigating against a
reduced hour workweek. Of
particular
concern to the Chairman is the potential impact on
the number of employees in the
Fire District. Evidence pre-
sented
by the District shows that the population served by
the Spokane Fire District is
increasing (Dist. Ex. 9). This
fact would require an increase in
the number of employees, not
a decrease. The Chairman's
decision to award a 55 hour work-
week (two shifts off per year) is
based on the attempt to deal
both with the comparability
factors as well as the budgetary
concerns
of the District. The decision to implement the 55
hour week in 1984 reflects the
fact that 1983 is already two
months old and because it will give
the District time to
adequately schedule the change.
C. Recommendation:
The Arbitrator directs the parties to change
Article V, Hours, by adding a new section 2
and renumbering
the existing Sections 2 and 3.
The new Section 2 should read
as follows:
ARTICLE V
Hours
Section 1. Retain current contract language.
Section 2. Beginning
January 1, 1984, those
employees
on a 56 hour week will
be reduced to a 55 hour week by
changing
their annual number of
shifts
from 121 to 119. This
reduction
will be scheduled at
the
District's discretion.
Section 3. Renumber existing Section 2.
Section 4. Renumber existing Section 3.
ISSUE
3. FIRE FIGHTERS OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY
A. Proposals:
Currently there is a contract provision, Arti-
cle
XI, which provides that positions vacant for more than
30 days will be filled by "acting"
personnel. The Union pro-
poses to add to this provision so
that if an employee works
out of classification for more
than 10 shifts the employee
would receive $10 per shift for
working as a driver and $20
per shift for working as an
officer. The District offered
a flat $10 per shift for an
employee who works out of classi-
fication
for more than 15 shifts.
B. Discussion:
The parties are not far apart on this issue.
After a review of the evidence the Panel
agreed to accept
the Union's language on money but
the District's language on
the waiting period. Since an
officer receives more money
than a driver, the Panel found
that a fire fighter working
out of classification as an
officer should receive more money
than when working as a driver.
Since this provision is new,
the Panel decided to adopt the
more conservative approach of
the District with regard to the
number of shifts an employee
can work out of classification
before the District is obli-
gated to pay the premium.
C. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following contract language:
ARTICLE XI
Working out of Classification
Section 1. All vacancies created by vaca-
tions
and all vacancies due to sickness, injury,
military
leave or any other legitimate reason
for periods up to 30 days, shall
be filled by
acting personnel, such acting
personnel to
receive
their own compensation, but in the
event that a position is reasonably
expected
to be vacant for a period
greater than 30
days, except for vacancies due to
vacations,
then a request for temporary
employee will
be submitted to the Civil
Service Commission,
and the position filled with a
temporary
employee.
Section 2. An employee working more than
15 shifts per year in a higher
classification
will receive an out of
classification premium
of $10 per shift for a driver
and $20 per
shift for an officer.
ISSUE
4. DISABILITY INSURANCE (LEOFF II PERSONNEL)
A. Proposals:
An employee hired after September 30, 1977 is
called a LEOFF II employee. As
required by statute, these
employees
receive a different pension and disability program
from those hired prior to
September 30, 1977. Currently
the LEOFF II employee pays $12
per month for a disability
insurance
program. The Union proposes to have the District
assume this cost. At the present
time there are 21 LEOFF II
employees
in the District, which means that the cost of this
assumption
would be $3024 per year. The District opposed
assuming
this cost.
B. Discussion:
The District argued that the Union's proposal
was an attempt to subvert the
intent of the statutory change
in LEOFF insurance and pension
benefits passed by the legis-
lature
in 1977. During that year the legislature signifi-
cantly
altered the pension and insurance program. The Dis-
trict
contends that the Union's proposal "amounts to an end
run around the legislature and an
attempt to reinstitute a
system that was found to be exorbitant,
expensive and subject
to abuse" (Brief, p. 15).
The Union counter-argued that it
was an important, inexpensive
benefit that restored a degree
of equality in the disability
programs between LEOFF I and
LEOFF II employees.
The
Panel carefully reviewed the above arguments and
evidence.
A majority of the Panel found the District's case
to be persuasive. Of particular
importance to the Panel
members
were the past arbitration awards reproduced as Appen-
dix B
of the District's brief. The Neutral Arbitrator found
the rationale presented in these
awards to be applicable to
this case and clearly supportive
of the District's position
on this issue.
C. Award:
The Arbitrator directs the parties to not include
the Union's proposal on
disability insurance in the labor
agreement.
ISSUE
5. SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATION FOR LEOFF II
PENSION NEW HIRES
A. Proposals:
Currently a new hire under LEOFF II accumulates
one-half
shift of sick leave for each month of work commenc-
ing
with the seventh month of employment. The Union is pro-
posing a change such that a new hire
receives ten shifts of
sick leave credit on his first day
of employment and begins
to accumulate one shift per
month starting the second year
of employment; total
accumulation to 60 shifts. The District
offers to give each new hire one
shift of sick leave credit
on entry with the remainder of
the provision to remain as is.
B. Discussion:
The Union proposes a significant upgrading of the
sick leave provision for new
hires. As such, the Union car-
ries a
burden of proof. The Panel members were unable to
find a convincing case for the
changes proposed. No evidence
was presented to show that new
hires had problems with the
existing
sick leave provision. The comparability evidence
presented
by the Union and that of the District did not sup-
port the Union's proposal. The
panel therefore found for the
District.
C. Award:
The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the cur-
rent supplemental agreement
covering sick leave for new hires
into the labor agreement under a
new "Article" as follows:
ARTICLE ____
Sick Leave
Section 1. Each new hire will receive credit
for one (1) shift of sick leave
upon their date
of hire.
Section 2. After the completion of six (6)
months with the District, fire
fighters shall
accrue sick leave at the rate of one
half
(1/2) shift per month to a maximum of sixty
(60) shifts.
Section 3. Accrued sick leave shall be
payable
at the rate of one shift's pay for
each shift off.
Section 4. Sick leave benefits shall apply
only to bona fide cases of
sickness and accidents
verified
in writing by a licensed physician,
excluding
injuries to personnel while working
outside
the Department for pay.
Section 5. Sick
leave benefits are not con-
vertible
to cash.
Section 6. This provision shall only apply to
Fire fighters hired after September 30, 1977
and
who have not transferred from
another LEOFF
System.
Section 7. An employee shall not be credited
with any illness leave in a
particular month
unless that employee has been in pay
status for
80% or more of the hours in that month.
Section 8. If an employee becomes ill and
leaves work during a shift, the
remaining hours
of the shift shall be deducted
from the employee
sick leave bank.
ISSUE
6. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
A. Proposals:
The District proposed changing the current langu-
age in Article IX so that
probationary employees would be
denied access to the grievance
procedure. The Fire Fighters
opposed
any changes in the current language.
B. Discussion:
The District argued that the decision to termi-
nate
or not to terminate a probationary employee should be
the sole, unrefuted
right of management. Granting the pro-
bationary
employee the right to grieve management's actions
would unnecessarily restrict this
important management right,
the District argued. The Union
did not advance a strong
case against the arguments of the
District.
The
Panel was persuaded that some change was justified.
The
Panel concluded that by making small alterations in the
language of Section 1, probationary employees would no
longer
be permitted to use the
grievance procedure for matters involv-
ing
suspension or permanent suspension. However, by retain-
ing
the current language of Section 2, probationary employee
still would be able to use the
grievance procedure for matters
involving
the application or interpretation of the agreement.
The Panel felt that this approach would meet
the needs of
the District while offering some
protection to the proba-
tionary
employee.
C. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following contract language:
ARTICLE IX
Grievance Procedure
Section 1. Suspensions:
a)
The Board, before giving a permanent
suspension
to any permanent employee who is a
member of the Union, pursuant to
Rule 12 of the
Civil Service Rules, shall give at least
five
days prior notice to the Union
that discipli-
nary action is contemplated
against said employee.
The Union, thereupon, may,
in its discretion,
submit its recommended action to the
Board, and
the Board agrees to consider such
recommenda-
tions
before reaching its decision in the
matter. PROVIDED, however, that the
fore-
going shall not be applicable to
temporary
suspensions
pursuant to Rule 10 of the Civil
Service Rules.
b)
The Board, before suspending a permanent
employee,
except in an emergency, shall give
five days notice in writing to
such employee
that disciplinary action is to be
considered
by the Board and advising him of
the date and
time of the Board meeting at which
such dis-
ciplinary
action is to be considered and
further
advising him that if he wishes, he may
appear at such meeting and may
present any
evidence
to the Board bearing upon the
anticipated
disciplinary action which he wishes
the Board to consider in making
its decision.
Section 2. Retain current
contract language.
ISSUE
7. HOURS FOR DAY PERSONNEL
A. Proposals: Article V currently reads as follows:
ARTICLE V
Hours
Section 1. Hours of Duty: Hours of duty for
all personnel, except those who
work a five day,
40 hour week, and except for emergencies in
which personnel are summoned to
return to duty,
shall be on the basis of 24 hours
on duty and
48 hours off, subject to change or
modification.
Personnel called back for emergencies shall
be
given a minimum of two (2) hours
pay at time
and one half his hourly rate,
when requested
by the Executive Director,
Chief, Assistant
Chief or a Battalion Chief.
Section 2. Overtime at Shift Change: If a
fire fighter works more than
forty-five minutes
past his shift, he will be paid
overtime at
his straight time rate for the
time actually
worked, with the exception of
writing up appro-
priate
log books. This section not to be con-
fused with call back.
Section 3. Change of Hours, Procedure: The
District reserves the right to change said
hours
of duty but no such change shall
be made except
upon compliance with the notice
and discussion
procedure
specified in Article IV.
The
District proposes changing this language by adding
a sentence to the end of
Section 1. That sentence would
exempt Day Personnel from call back
pay. The Union opposed
any change of the language in
this section.
B. Discussion:
At the core of this dispute is the relationship
between
the mechanic and the District. Currently the mech-
anic
has an informal arrangement with the District where he
receives no call back pay but does receive compensatory time
off. The District's proposal
would formalize the fact that
the mechanic and any other day
time employee would be exempt
from call back pay. However, the
District's proposal is
silent as to the right of these
employees to comp time. The
Panel believes that if the District desires
to formalize
part of its informal relationship
with the mechanic, it
should formalize both parts.
Moreover,
the Panel further finds that the absence of
call back pay is appropriate for
day time personnel as long
as it does not become excessive.
Therefore, the Panel is
setting a
ceiling on the amount of comp time that can be
accumulated
before call back pay becomes effective. The
Panel notes that the Union did not raise a
strong objection
to change and that the award
appears to answer most of its
concerns.
D. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following contract language:
ARTICLE V
Hours
Section 1. Retain
current language.
Section 2. Day personnel are exempt from the
above call back provision except
that they
shall receive one hour of comp time
for each
hour of time actually worked on
call back. If
day personnel accumulate more
than forty (40)
hours of call back comp time, then
they shall be
given one and one half hours of
comp time for
each hour worked on call back. At
the discre-
tion
of the District, call back hours worked in
excess of the forty hours
accumulation ceiling,
can be compensated at one and one
half times the
employee's
regular rate of pay.
Section 3. Retain
language currently found as
Section 2.
Section 4. Retain
language currently found as
Section 3.
ISSUE
8. HOURS FOR NEW HIRES
A. Proposals: The District proposes adding a new s6ction to
Article
V which reads as follows:
The
Union acknowledges and agrees that any
and
all training offered by the Fire District
to
any new hires during their probation
period
without any cost to the new hires, that
then
the new hires do not and will not expect
or
receive any additional compensation or
comp
time from the District for any of the
time
which they spend training during their
regularly
scheduled off duty time, provided,
the
District will make every reasonable attempt
to
train new hires within normal work hours.
The
Fire Fighters oppose the addition of this new
section.
B. Discussion:
The District argued convincingly that it needed
greater
freedom for the scheduling of training for new hires.
Moreover, the District emphasized that it
needed this free-
dom
without the danger of incurring the financial penalty of
paying overtime. The Union did not
strongly object but did
voice a concern for potential
abuses. The Arbitrator shared
that concern and therefore grants
the District its proposal
but with a 48 hour limit.
C. Award:
The Arbitrator directs the parties to add the follow-
ing
language as Section 5 under Article V:
Section 5. The Union
acknowledges and agrees
that, for training
purposes during an employee's
probationary period, the District will not owe
any
additional compensation or comp time for
hours
spent in training during the employee's
regularly
scheduled off duty time. However, if
the
number of hours exceeds 48 in a workweek,
then
the employee will be paid time and one
half
his straight time rate for all hours in
excess
of 48. The District will make every
reasonable
attempt to train new hires within
normal
work hours.
Respectfully submitted on this
the 3rd day of March 1983 by
Timothy D.W. Williams
Neutral Chairman and
Arbitrator