And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 05059-I-84-00114
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
PERC No. 5059-I-84-114
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
OPINION OF THE NEUTRAL
CHAIRMAN
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A three person arbitration panel was selected by the
parties
in accordance with RCW 41.56.450 in order to resolve
certain
bargaining issues which remained at impasse fol-
lowing
negotiations and mediation. The
Employer, City of
tration Panel.
The Association,
Association, named Captain
William Taylor as its Arbitrator
on
the Panel. Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs was
selected as the
Neutral Chairman. A hearing was held in
on
May 15 and 16, June 25, 26, and 27, 1984.
The City was
represented
by Gordon Campbell,
The Association was
represented by James Webster, of the law
firm, Durning, Webster & Lonnquist.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence.
A reporter was present during
the proceedings, and a
transcript
was prepared and made available to the Neutral
Chairman
for his use in reaching a decision.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
posthearing briefs.
The briefs were postmarked in a timely
manner
and were received by the Neutral Chairman on
facts
were stipulated into evidence on August 30,
September 5, and
ISSUES
The City and the Association are parties to a
collective
bargaining agreement which expired on August 31,
1983. The parties were unable to reach agreement on
a
successor
agreement despite their efforts in negotiations
and
the efforts of a mediator. In accordance
with RCW
41.56.450, the Executive
Director of the Public Employment
Relations Commission certified
that a number of issues were
at
impasse. Since that certification, the
efforts of the
parties
in collective bargaining negotiations have resulted
in a
substantial reduction in the number of issues out-
standing. The parties agree that the issues remaining
un-
resolved
relate to salaries, clothing allowance, and work
outside
of classification.
Applicable Principles
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which must be considered by this Panel.
It
provides:
41.56.460 Uniformed personnel-Arbitration
panel-Basis for determination.
In making its
determination, the panel shall
be mindful of
the legislative purpose
enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and as additional standards or
guidelines to aid it in reaching
a decision,
it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer.
(b) Stipulations
of the parties.
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings with
the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods
and services, commonly known as
the cost of
living.
(e) Changes
in any of the foregoing
circumstances during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to
the foregoing, which are
normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in the
determination of wages, hours
and conditions
of employment.
RCW 41.56.430, which is
referred to in the above quoted
language,
provides as follows:
41.56.30 Uniformed personnel-Legislative
declaration. The intent and
purpose of this
1973 amendatory act is to recognize that
there exists a public policy in
the state of
sonnel
as a means of settling their labor
disputes; that the uninterrupted
and dedi-
cated
service of these classes of employees
is vital to the welfare and
public safety of
the state of
dedicated and uninterrupted
public service
there should exist an effective
and adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
Background
The bargaining unit is comprised of 57 police
management
employees, including 37 lieutenants, 14 captains,
5 majors,
and 1 police communications director who is paid
at
the captains rate. The average length of
service among
the
bargaining unit employees is about 20 years.
The
expired
agreement, the third between the parties, was
achieved
last year following an interest arbitration award
issued
by Arbitrator Michael H. Beck.
Comparable Cities
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated
in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which the panel must rely in making
its
determination is:
***
(c) Comparison
of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings with
the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
***
In order to make such a
comparison, one must first determine
which
cities on the west coast should be selected as similar
in
size to
Arbitrator Beck, last year, selected five cities to be
used
for comparison with Seattle, those being
ciation argues that since there has been no change
in cir-
cumstances which would invalidate that determination
of
comparison
cities, it should be reaffirmed in order to
increase
the likelihood that future settlements can result
from
negotiations rather than litigation.
The City agrees that the five cities advocated by the
Association
are appropriate for comparison. However, it
would
also add the cities of Sacramento and San Diego. The
City reasons that a larger
sampling than five cities is
needed
to meet the needs of the parties. The
City points
out
that the comparable cities which it proposes are the
same
ones which have been used in past negotiations and
interest
arbitration with both the Seattle Police Officers
Guild and the Seattle Fire
Fighters Association, and are the same
cities
which it has used for the past ten years, except for
the
deletion of Tacoma.
Set forth below are the population figures for the
cities
suggested as comparable:
__________
Population
City figures Association figures
Long Beach, Ca. 361,334 356,906
Oakland, Ca. 339,288 338,721
Portland, Or. 366,383 366,383
San Francisco, Ca. 678,974 674,150
San Jose, Ca. 636,550 628,106
Sacramento, Ca. 275,741 -
San Diego, Ca. 875,5~4 -
__________
There is much to be said for the Association's argument
that
consistency in the selection of comparable cities would
be
beneficial to the negotiations process.
Nevertheless, I
am
persuaded by the City's argument that five comparables
are
just too small a sample. This dispute
involves rela-
tively few issues.
Yet, the difficulties caused by a sample
of
only five cities are still apparent. As
will be seen in
the
later discussion of each of the disputed bargaining
subjects,
frequently the information from one or more of the
five
comparable cities suggested by the Association are
either
not available or not applicable. For
example, re-
garding the issue of clothing allowance, Long
Beach,
Portland, and San Francisco
have quartermaster systems, and
thus
cannot serve as a basis for comparison.
This leaves
only
two cities that can be used for comparison.
Similar
difficulties
in establishing a trend for comparison purposes
can
be seen when one examines the divergent approaches taken
by
the suggested comparison cities with regard to the issues
relating
to pay steps and work out of classification.
If,
as
the Association argues, having a stable set of comparable
cities
would be beneficial to future negotiations between
the
parties, then I am convinced that a broader sampling
than
five cities would add a better measure of dependability
and
reliability for comparison of the variety of issues
which
are raised in negotiations.
If additional cities are to be added to the five
suggested
by the Association, then the two suggested by the
City
are the best candidates. The seven cities suggested
by
the City represent all the west coast cities with no less
than
half, nor more than twice Seattle's population.
Moreover, it is significant
that the Association suggested
the
inclusion of Sacramento and San Diego, among others, as
comparable
cities in the interest arbitration proceedings
before
Arbitrator Beck.
1) Salaries
The parties agree that the duration of the collective
bargaining
agreement should be three years. The
City
proposes
that all bargaining unit members receive a 1.5%
increase
effective September 1, 1983. It proposes
additional
increases effective September 1, 1984, and
September 1, 1985, each in an
amount equal to 80% of the
Seattle-Everett CPI-W, July to
July, with a minimum increase
of
1.5% and a maximum increase of 6%. The
City argues that
its
proposal is comparable to wage increases received by
other
city employees, and maintains the bargaining unit's
ranking
above the average among the west coast comparable
cities.
The Association proposes a 10.3% increase effective
September 1, 1983. It proposes that effective September 1,
1984, there be a 10% increase
plus a cost of living
adjustment
equal to the change in the CPI-W between July
1983 and July 1984. It proposes that effective September 1,
1985, there be a 5% increase
plus a cost of living increase
equal
to the change in the CPI-W between July 1984 and July
1985. In the alternative it proposes for
1983, an 8.2%
increase
which would restore the unit's total compensation
rates
to the relative levels of 1979, compared to the cities
which
it contends are comparable. Also in the
alternative,
it
proposes a wage increase of at least 6% for the second
year
of the settlement, based upon the average settlements
for
1984 in the suggested comparable cities.
Arbitrator Beck, in his Award, determined that a 15%
differential
in pay is appropriate between the pay of
lieutenants
and captains, and between the pay of captains
and
majors. Neither party has disputed that
formula.
Therefore, in the same manner
as Arbitrator Beck, I shall
set
the base monthly salary (top step) for a lieutenant and
add
15% to determine the rate of pay for captains, and add
15% above the captain rate for
the majors. Since the 15%
pay
differential is already in effect, this means that the
same
percentage pay increase awarded to the lieutenants
shall
also be awarded to the captains and majors.
The base monthly salaries (top step) for police
lieutenants
in the comparable west coast cities as of
January 1, 1984, and January
1, 1985, are reflected below:
__________
1984 1985
Long Beach 3635 3817
San Jose 3525 3713
Oakland 3383 3611
San Francisco 3347 3651
Portland 3073 Not Available
Sacramento 2952 3117
San Diego 2950 3098
Average 3266 3501
__________
The current base monthly salary
(top step) for lieutenants
in
Seattle is $3,372.
The delay in the settlement of the parties' collective
bargaining
dispute has had the effect of permitting the
panel
to be presented with all of the contract settlements
for
1983 and most for 1984, for the comparable cities. The
salary
increases granted in the comparable cities during
1983 are listed below:
__________
Long Beach, Ca. 4.0%
Oakland, Ca. 5.75%
Portland, Or. -0-
San Francisco, Ca. 5.4%
San Jose, Ca. 6.0%
(4% - 7/1; 2% - 8/1)
Sacramento, Ca. 8.0%
San Diego, Ca. 4.25%
__________
The average salary increase
for the comparable cities in
1983 was 4.77%.
All of the comparable cities except for Portland have
already
agreed upon contract settlements for 1984, and these
are
listed below:
__________
Long Beach 5%
Oakland 6.7%
Portland Not
Available
San Francisco 9.08%
San Jose 6%
(4% - 7/1; 2% - 11/1)
Sacramento 5.6%
San Diego 5%
__________
The average salary increase
for the comparable cities in
1984 was 6.23%.
Only two of the comparable cities have, as yet, reached
a
settlement to become effective during 1985.
Long Beach
agreed
to a wage increase equivalent to 90% of the CPI-U,
with a
minimum increase of 5% and a maximum increase of
7.5%. Oakland has agreed to a 5% wage increase for 1985.
Both parties agree that total compensation including
benefits
should also be considered. However, they
differ to
some
extent with regard to the specific benefits which
should
be considered. In the figures below, I
have added to
the
January 1984 base monthly salaries all the direct
monetary
reimbursements to the employees, such as,
marksmanship
pay, educational and training incentives,
holiday
pay, and longevity. I have also added
the costs
that
the cities have assumed for medical and dental
benefits. Finally, I have deducted the amount of
pension
contributions
that the employee is required to make:
__________
Long Beach
base monthly salary 3635
medical/dental benefits + 224
marksmanship pay + 12
3871
employee pension contribution - 73
3798
San Jose
base monthly salary 3525
medical/dental benefits + 207
POST pay 1 + 265
holiday pay + 198
4195
employee pension contribution - 296
3899
Oakland
base monthly salary 3383
medical/dental benefits + 227
POST pay + 135
longevity + 133
3878
employee pension contribution - 359
3519
San Francisco
base monthly salary 3347
medical/dental benefits + 65
3412
employee pension contribution - 234
3178
Portland
base monthly salary 3073
medical/dental benefits + 258
educational incentive + 65
3396
employee pension contribution - 215
3181
Sacramento
base monthly salary 2952
medical/dental benefits + 198
longevity + 8
POST pay + 443
educational incentive + 147
3748
employee pension contribution - 292
3456
San Diego
base monthly salary 2950
medical/dental benefits + 64
POST pay + 105
3119
employee pension contribution - 142
2977
_____
1 POST pay is an abbreviation of "police
officer
standards and training".
__________
The average total compensation
less employee pension
contributions
for the seven comparable cities, taking into
account
the increases for 1983, is $3,429.
Seattle's current total compensation less employee
pension
contributions is reflected below:
__________
Seattle
base monthly salary 3372
medical/dental benefits + 251
3623
employee pension contribution - 202
3421
__________
Each party suggested an alternative method for
calculating
hourly wages for Seattle and the comparable
cities. The Association argues that the hourly wage
should
be
determined by dividing the annual total compensation by
the
number of hours actually worked in a year.
It
calculates
the number of hours actually worked by
subtracting
holidays and vacations from the total number of
scheduled
hours. The Association argues that this
method
gives
appropriate economic value to paid leave.
The City argues that the hourly wage should be
calculated
by dividing the annual total compensation by the
total
number of scheduled hours. It argues
that vacations
and
holidays do not add to the actual pay that an employee
receives,
but instead should be viewed as part of the
benefit
proportion of the employee's total compensation.
I have determined not to consider holidays or vacations
for
purposes of compensation comparisons. Of
course, the
number
of holidays and vacations to which an employee is
entitled
has a direct financial impact on the employer.
The employer may incur
additional personnel costs in order
to
replace the absent employee or else accept diminished
productivity. However, it would be misleading to factor
holidays
and vacations into the compensation equation for
comparative
purposes and ignore a host of other issues
related
to hours. Captains and majors in this
bargaining
unit
received 40 hours of executive leave each year in lieu
of
overtime and off-duty standby.
Lieutenants receive time
and a
half, either in pay or in compensatory time off, for
each
hour worked in excess of the normal work week.
No
evidence
was presented with regard to whether police
management
employees in the comparable cities receive time
off
in a similar manner. It must be
remembered that we are
dealing
with supervisory or managerial employees, and that
the
treatment of such employees with regard to overtime may
vary
substantially from employer to employer.
Also, police
management
employees of the City who are not assigned to the
patrol
division are entitled to have a half hour off-duty
lunch
break each day. While there was
testimony that not
all
employees entitled to the benefit actually use it,
nevertheless,
it is a substantial benefit which serves to
reduce
the number of hours actually worked. Of
the seven
comparable
cities, only three have a similar benefit.
In
sum,
a consideration of holidays and vacations without
regard
to the treatment of overtime or lunch hours, will not
supply
an accurate picture of the hours actually worked by
an
employee.
The City argues that in each of the west coast
comparison
cities the cost of living is higher than Seattle,
and
that this difference in the cost of living must be
considered
when comparing salaries. The City
retained
Runzheimer
and Company, Inc., a respected management
consulting
firm, to compare the living costs in Seattle with
the
living costs in the seven comparable cities.
Runzheimer
followed
an assumption that it was dealing with a family of
four
with an income level of $40,500, that owned a house
which
it purchased within the past six years. Runzheimer's
report
reflected that the average cost of living in the
comparable
cities is 8% higher than the cost of living in
Seattle.
Both sides argued at length regarding the reliability
of
the Runzheimer data.
Even assuming that the data
presented
is accurate, I do not believe that it conclusively
establishes
that there is a higher cost of living for
currently
employed police management employees in the
comparable
cities than there is for those employed in
Seattle.
As the City recognized in its brief, housing is the
most
significant variable in the cost of living.
In the
Runzheimer
report, higher housing costs in the California
cities
was the principle reason that Seattle had a lower
cost
of living. Dr. David Knowles, Associate
Professor of
Economics at Seattle
University, testified on behalf of the
Association, and conceded that
California housing prices are
higher
than in Seattle. This was confirmed by a
number of
other
exhibits introduced into evidence, including statistics
published
by the United States Bureau of the Census.
Dr.
Knowles attributed the high
California housing costs to a
steep
run up in prices during the past eight or nine years.
Richard Schneider, Runzheimer's vice president for living
costs
services, testified that there was a rapid increase in
California housing costs
between three and eight years ago.
While the present high California housing costs may
arguably
be relevant with regard to comparing employees who
are
about to or have recently purchased housing, their
relevance
to employees who have been homeowners for ten or
more
years is questionable. Since the
average police
management
employee is well over 40 years of age, it is not
unlikely
that he or she has owned a house for a considerable
number
of years. There is no explanation in the
record for
the Runzheimer Report's assumption that the employee has
purchased a
home within the past six years. If one
were to
assume a
10 or 15 year home ownership tenure, there is no
basis
in the record for comparing living costs.
Moreover,
as
Dr. Knowles testified, the run up in housing costs in
California in recent years,
can be viewed as a financial
advantage
for individuals who were already homeowners and
have
experienced a substantial increase in the value of
their
homes. For these reasons, it just cannot be said
that
in this particular bargaining unit, the employees enjoy
the
advantage of lower living costs than employees similarly
situated
in the comparable cities.
The Association contends that since 1979 its salaries
have
steadily eroded in relation to the comparable cities.
It relies on the fact that in
1979, the base monthly
salaries
of Seattle police lieutenants was 6.5% above the
average
of the five cities which it contends are comparable.
By 1982, the advantage enjoyed
by Seattle lieutenants had
slipped
to 3.7%. The Association contends that
it needs a
7.1% pay increase "to
establish parity" with its relative
1979
advantage. On
the other hand, the City presented
evidence
which reflected that between 1967 and 1973, the
City's police lieutenants were
paid considerably below the
average
of the comparable cities. I see no more
reason for
restoring
an historical pay advantage than for restoring
such a
disadvantage. In either case, such
historical com-
parisons will be disregarded.
The Association argues that cost of living information,
such
as provided by the consumer price index, should only be
considered
for the third year of the settlement because
actual
compensation data relating to the comparable cities
is
available for the first two years of the contract term.
However, RCW 41.56.460 does
not restrict the application of
the
cost of living criteria as suggested by the Association.
Rather, the cost of living is
listed as a primary standard
for
the panel in the same manner as comparability.
Therefore, the cost of living
figures will be given
significant
weight for the purpose of determining wage
adjustments
in all three years at issue.
In their respective proposals for the second and third
years
of the agreement, both sides refer to the Seattle-
Everett consumer price index
for urban wage earners and
clerical workers
(CPI-W) from July to July. Thus, it
appears
that there is agreement that the July to July CPI-W
is
the appropriate application of RCW 41.56.460(d). The
CPI-W for July 1982 to July
1983 was minus .2%. The CPI-W
for
July 1983 to July 1984 was plus 3.8%.
RCW 41.56.460(f) directs the panel to consider such
other
factors "which are normally or traditionally taken
into
consideration in the determination of wages, hours and
conditions
of employment." Based on this
criteria the City
contends
that several other factors should also be
considered.
The City points out that its wage offer is consistent
with
settlements reached with other unions in the City,
including
the Fire Fighters Association and the Fire Chiefs
Association. In this regard, it should also be noted that
the
Police Guild received a 3.5% increase, effective Septem-
ber 1, 1983, as a result of an interest
arbitration award.
The City asserts that this
3.5% increase moves the salaries
of
the Guild members closer to the 15% differential between
a
sergeant's and a lieutenant's salary, which, in close
approximation,
had been in existence for six years prior to
Arbitrator
Beck's Award.
In addition, the City points to the fact that the
salaries
paid to comparable ranking officers employed in
other
cities located near Seattle with a population of more
than
20,000, are significantly below that which are paid to
Association
members.
These "other factors" which the City urges the panel
to
consider,
are such that are traditionally considered in the
determination
of wages, hours and conditions of employment.
It is safe to say that they
are not infrequently raised at
the
bargaining table by one side or the other to justify
bargaining
demands. Therefore, they have been
considered,
but
with lesser weight than that which is given to the
specifically
enumerated criteria of west coast comparability
and
cost of living.
I conclude that the appropriate salary increases, based
on
the statutory criteria, are 2.4% effective September 1,
1983, 4.8% effective September
1, 1984, and effective Sep-
tember 1, 1985, a percentage increase equal to 90%
of the
cost
of living increase for the preceding year (CPI-W, July
to
July).
The 2.4% increase for 1983 reflects equal weighting to
the
virtually unchanged cost of living in the applicable
period
and to the 4.77% average increase in the comparable
cities. This formula for determining the salary
increase is
similar
to that used by Arbitrator Beck in his Award last
year. It is particularly appropriate here in view
of the
bargaining
unit's favorable compensation levels relative to
the
comparable cities. For 1983, the top
step base monthly
salary
for a lieutenant would be $3,453. This
figure main-
tains Seattle's ranking of third out of eight
among the
comparable
west coast cities in terms of base monthly sala-
ries.
Moreover, it is still 5.7% above the average. The
total
compensation figure less employee pension contribu-
tions for top step Seattle lieutenants is
$3,496. This
places
Seattle fourth out of eight among the comparable
cities,
but still about 2% above the average. On
the other
hand,
the 2.4% increase awarded to the Association is less
than
the 1983 increases implemented in any of the comparable
cities,
except for Portland.
The 4.8% increase also reflects equal weighting
between
the applicable cost of living increase and the
average
increase for 1984 in the comparable cities.
The
cost
of living figure that I have used is 3.42% which is 90%
of
the 3.8% increase in the cost of living during the
applicable
period. This takes into account the fact
that
the
City will absorb additional medical and dental costs
during
1984. Thus, the City, in effect, is
absorbing,
separate
from the base salary increase, part of the poten-
tial cost of living increase which the employees
may face.
The increase awarded for 1984, while less than the
increase
implemented in the six comparable cities which have
as
yet settled, will still mean that Seattle's total compen-
sation levels are very close to the average. Seattle will
be
in fourth place among the eight comparable cities in base
monthly
salaries (top step) for Police lieutenants.
Also,
the
salary levels awarded here reflect real gains for bar-
gaining
unit members in relation to the cost of living, both
for
1983 and 1984, and will roughly maintain their real
income
levels in 1985. At the same time the pay
increases
awarded
here are within roughly one and two percentage
points,
respectively, of the pay increases achieved by other
City
employees for 1983 and 1984.
The City's assertion that an 80% increase in the cost
of
living is appropriate, with a minimum 1.5% increase and a
maximum
6% increase, is supported only on the basis that it
is
equivalent to the settlements reached with other City
unions. There is not an ample basis in the record for
such
a
significant reduction in the real earnings of the City's
police
management employees. Moreover, the two
comparable
cities
that have thus far settled for 1985, have settled on
significantly
higher increases than the City here has
offered.
Given that we are already some months into the third
year
of the disputed contract, I see little reason to
protect
the parties from unforeseen future fluctuation in
the
cost of living by setting a floor and ceiling on the
increase
for the third year.
The expired Agreement provides for three pay steps for
lieutenants
and captains and two pay steps for majors, with
step
movements occurring at six month intervals.
The
Association argues that there
is no justification for these
pay
steps, because employees are required to perform all
duties
satisfactorily at all times. Assistant
Chief Roy
Skagen
testified that in his experience, an employee new to
a
position cannot be expected to perform in the same manner
as
an experienced employee. In relation to
the comparable
cities,
Seattle's use of pay steps is close to the average.
Therefore, I conclude that the
number of steps called for in
the
expired Agreement shall be retained.
Arbitrator Award Salaries
Appendix A - Salaries shall read as follows:
Section 1. The classifications and
corresponding rates of pay
covered by this
Agreement are as follows. Said rates of pay
are effective September 1, 1983,
through
August 31, 1984.
Police Lieutenant $3183 $3315 $3453
Police Captain $3660 $3812 $3971
Police Major $4385 $4567
Section 2. The following rates
of pay are
effective September 1, 1984,
through
August 31, 1985.
Police Lieutenant $3336 $3474 $3619
Police Captain $3836 $3995 $4162
Police Major $4595 $4786
Section 3. Effective September
1, 1985, the
base wage rates enumerated in
Section 2,
shall be increased 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 (CPI)
for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers, all items (Revised Series)
(CPI-W) (1967=100) covering the period from
July 1984 through July 1985 as published by
the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The
percentage increase in the Consumer
Price
Index shall be based upon the July Index
points as computed by the Bureau
of Labor
Statistics under the following formula:
July 1985 Index Pts.
July 1984 Index Pts. X 100=
July 1984 Index Points
The resulting percentage increase shall be
rounded to the nearest tenth of
a percent
Section 4. The term
"Consumer Price Index" as
used herein shall mean the
Consumer Price
Index 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 United States
Department of Labor for the Seattle-Everett
Metropolitan area.
Section 5. In the event the "Consumer Price
Index" becomes unavailable, the parties
shall jointly request the Bureau
of Labor
Statistics to provide a comparable Index for
the purposes of computing such
increase, and
if that is not satisfactory, the
parties
shall promptly undertake
negotiations solely
with respect to agreeing upon a
substitute
formula for determining a
comparable
adjustment
2) Clothing Allowance
Bargaining unit members currently receive a $325
clothing
allowance. The Association Proposes that
the
clothing
allowance be raised to $500 annually and that an
additional
clothing allowance in the amount of $300 be paid
upon
promotion to lieutenant. The City
proposes a clothing
allowance
of $350.
Lieutenant Jerald Taylor testified that upon promotion
to
the lieutenant position, an officer must spend $405 for
his
uniform. He further testified that
during the past
year,
he has spent $210 for uniform expenses and about $350
for
cleaning expenses. Lieutenant Taylor
testified that the
carrying
of a gun accelerates the wear and tear on a police
officer's
jacket.
Assistant Chief Roy Skagen testified
that a majority of
the
bargaining unit employees do not regularly wear their
uniforms
to work, but instead wear civilian clothes.
He
stated
that during the current year, he, himself, has spent
nothing
on his uniform, and a total of seven or eight
dollars
on cleaning. He further stated that
these
expenditures
were about the same as he had incurred when he
was a
major.
The evidence presented regarding clothing expenditures
is
conflicting. The expenditures appear to
vary
significantly
among the employees. A review of the
comparable
west coast cities indicates that three of the
seven
comparables, Long Beach, Portland, and San Francisco,
do
not offer any clothing allowance, but rather have a
quartermaster
system. Sacramento's allowance is $510,
Oakland's is $450, San Jose's
is $400, and San Diego's is
$350. None of the comparable cities provide
additional
uniform
allowances upon promotion to the lieutenant's
position. Seattle police officers within the Police
Guild
bargaining
unit receive an allowance of $300.
Based on the above, I believe that the City's offer of
$350 for clothing allowance is
reasonable for 1983. This
would
bring the clothing allowance on a par with San Diego
which
is lowest among the comparable cities. I
conclude
that
additional increases of $25 for each of the following
two
years is appropriate. Thus, by 1985, the
bargaining
unit
employees will receive a clothing allowance of $400,
which
would place the City in third position among the
comparable
cities, on a par with San Jose. The
practice
followed
by the comparable cities supports the City's
position
that a special clothing allowance upon promotion to
the
lieutenant Position is not supportable.
Arbitrator Award - Clothing
Allowance
Article III.14 of the Agreement shall read as follows:
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
Section 14. Clothing Allowance
Employees shall purchase clothing and
equipment in accordance with
department
standards. Effective September 1, 1983, each
employee shall be paid $350.00
annually to
cover the cost of replacement of
said items.
Effective September 1, 1984, this amount
shall be increased to $375. Effective
September 1, 1985, this amount shall be
further increased to $400. The anniversary
date for payment of the annual
clothing
allowance shall be based upon
one-year
intervals beginning with
eighteen (18) months
service from the employee's date
of hire as a
sworn police officer with the
Seattle Police
Department. The Employer agrees
to provide a
fund to repair or replace
clothes or
equipment damaged in the line of
duty.
3) Work Outside of Classification
The current Agreement requires that a unit employee
must
work two consecutive weeks performing the duties of a
higher
ranking position, before being entitled to payment at
the
first step of the higher rank. Once the
threshold is
reached,
such higher pay is retroactive to the first hour
worked
out of class.
The Association proposes that its members be
compensated
for all hours worked in a higher classification.
It reasons that when an
employee must perform the duties and
accept
the responsibilities of the higher paid position,
that
employee should be paid accordingly.
Lieutenant Taylor and Major A. W. Terry both testified
that
officers temporarily assigned to a higher ranking
position,
perform all of the duties of that higher rank.
On
the
other hand, Assistant Chief Skagen testified that an
officer
who is assigned to the duties of a higher ranking
position
for a few days or a week would not perform all the
functions
of the higher ranking position. He
explained that
if
an officer is going to be gone for a short period, then
such
matters as important meetings and community speeches
are
rescheduled, and personnel and policy issues are held in
abeyance.
With regard to the comparable cities, San Jose follows
the
same out-of-class pay procedure as does Seattle. Long
Beach does not provide
out-of-class pay. Sacramento does
provide
out-of-class pay for all hours worked out of classi-
fication.
Oakland, San Francisco, and San Diego have an
eight
hour threshold period, with retroactivity back to the
first
hour worked. Portland provides out of
class pay after
three
days in the higher paid Position, but offers no
retroactivity. Seattle's current treatment of its police
management
employees with regard to out-of-class pay, is
consistent
with its treatment of its other supervisory
employees.
I am in agreement with Arbitrator Beck, who last year
concluded
that the available evidence does not establish
that
any change in this provision is appropriate.
Arbitrator Award - Work out of
Classification
Article III, Section 6 of the expired Agreement shall
be
retained without change.
Seattle, Washington
Dated: October 2, 1984
Alan R. Krebs, Arbitrator