City
of
And
International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2299
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Timothy D.W. Williams
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Williams; Timothy D.W.
Case #: 03766-I-81-00086
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ) DECISION AND AWARD
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) OF THE ARBITRATOR
)
BETWEEN )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2299 )
)
"THE
)
AND )
)
)
"THE CITY" OR
"THE EMPLOYER" )
HEARING:
Nendels
Motel
BRIEFS: None
PANEL MET:
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator For the
and
Chairman Fire
Fighters For the City
Timothy D. W. Williams Mr. Ken Strong Mr. Scott Broyles
REPRESENTING THE FIRE
FIGHTERS:
Mr. Dan Downs,
Spokesperson
REPRESENTING THE CITY:
Mr. Roy Wesley,
Spokesperson
WITNESSES FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS:
Mr. Dave McConnell,
President, Local 2299
Mr. Rolin Heytvelt,
Secretary/Treasurer,
Local
2299
Mr. Steve Heninger, Captain
WITNESSES FOR THE CITY:
Mr. Robert Berreman
Mr. Leonard Burrell
Ms. Betty Erikson
Mr. Robert Andersen
Mr. Al Kruger
Mr. Niel Ausmann
EXHIBITS:
Joint
1 1980-81 Agreement
2 1982 Budget
3
4 Tentative Agreement
Firefighters
1 Civil Service Ordinance
2 1973 Budget Document
3 Annual Fire Report for 1981
4 Job Descriptions for Firefighters (not official)
5 Potlatch Corporation
6 Cleaning Receipts
7 Medical Insurance Figures
8 Firefighters' Time Cards for Vacation
City
1 Legal Problems with the Agency Shop Provision
2
3 Teamsters &
4 City of
5 Elkouri & Elkouri,
pp. 391-392
6 Average Firefighters Hours Worked
7 Article VIII from Current Agreement
8 Association's Proposed Language
9 Unique Features of Clarkston
10 Comparable Cities
11 Association of Washington Cities, pp. 40-41
12 Salary Analysis,
13 Salary Analysis, Toppenish
City Exhibits (Continued)
14 Salary Analysis,
15 Salary Analysis, LeGrande
16 Salary Analysis, Pendleton
17 Salary Analysis, Susanville
18 Salaries, City Employees, Clarkston
19 Overview of Increases for Fire Department
20 Wage Comparison for Six Cities
21 1982 Wage Increases,
22 Hospital Wages
23 Labor Relations Report, January 1982
24 Effect on Wages of Proximity to Major Urban Area
25 CPI Data 1975-1982
26 Cost of Living Study, March 1981
27 City Budget Discussion
28 Picture of City Roads
29 Great Slow Down of Fiscal Growth
30 Management Rights Proposal
31 Dave McConnell Letter,
32 Fire Chief Letter,
33 Dave McConnell Letter,
34 Fire Chief Letter,
35 Dave McConnell Letter,
36 Fire Chief Letter,
37 Prior Interest Arbitration Awards
38 Elkouri & Elkouri,
pp. 416-417
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Article IV Union Security
Article VII Prevailing Rights
Article VIII Hours of Duty
Article XIII Advanced Life Support
Article IX Wages
Article XIV Clothing Allowance
Article XIX Life Insurance
Article XXI Holidays
Article XXII Medical Coverage Plan
Article XXV Vacation
Article XXXII Management Rights
INTRODUCTION
During prehearing conference
the parties stipulated that they
had
accepted the language from the expired agreement on Duration
and
had agreed on a two year contract (
of
living data they used is the May to May CPI-W All Cities. The
Arbitrator received from the
parties after the hearing a copy
of
the tentative agreements for the new contract. The Arbitrator
listed
that document as Joint Exhibit 4.
RCW 41.56.450 provides that:
The neutral chairman shall consult with the
other members of the arbitration
panel and,
within thirty days following the
conclusion
of the hearing, the neutral chairman
shall
make written findings of fact
and a written
determination of the issues in
dispute, based
on the evidence presented. A
copy thereof
shall be served on the
commission, on each
of the other members of the
arbitration
panel, and on each of the
parties to the
dispute.
The neutral chairman consulted with the other members in
a
day-long
conference held in a meeting at City Hall in
and
evidence presented by the parties, the discussions of the
arbitration
panel, and the application of the criteria which
RCW 41.56.460 requires the
Arbitrator to use when rendering an
award.
ISSUES, DISCUSSION AND AWARD
ISSUE
1. UNION SECURITY
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters proposed an agency shop provi-
sion
which requires that each member of the bargaining unit
who is not a member of the union
pay a fee equal to the
union dues. Union membership is
not a requirement. The
proposed language provides a
protection for those with bona-
fide religious tenets on
non-association.
The City argued against including this
proposal in the
labor agreement.
B. Discussion: This issue would currently have no impact on
either the City or the
of the bargaining unit are also
members of the
provision could have an impact
on future employees who would
choose not to join the
both parties focused on the
potential future problems that
could be encountered if the
labor agreement did or did not
have a union security provision.
The Arbitrator is convinced by the arguments
of the
the contract. Simply put, the
agency shop requires that each
member of the bargaining unit
contribute an equal amount
towards the purchase of the
services provided those members by
the
of fair representation,"
that the
equally to all members of the bargaining
unit regardless of
union membership. Fairness
dictates that the members of
the unit share equally these
costs. City Exhibit 1 pro-
vides an analysis of the court's
reaction to an agency shop
in public employment. The courts
have clearly upheld the
agency shop. Moreover, evidence
presented indicated that an
agency shop provision is found
in a large number of public
sector labor contracts.
The City argued that it did not want to be
placed in the
position of having to make union
membership or union fees
a condition of employment. The
City expressed concern over
the potential for litigation of
an agency shop provision. The
Arbitrator has some sympathy for these arguments but
notes again
the court decisions which have
upheld the agency shop. More-
over, the problem of potential
litigation does not sway the
Arbitrator. The potential for
litigation is widespread
throughout a labor agreement and
that fact does not address
the fundamental question of
appropriateness or fairness.
C. Award: The Arbitrator is awarding the agency shop provision
as proposed by the
redundancy. This provision
reads:
ARTICLE IV - UNION SECURITY
Any permanent employee who is not a member of
the union, shall as a condition
of employment,
pay the union a monthly service
charge equal
to the monthly union dues as a
contribution
towards the administration of
this agreement.
The right of non-association of employees, based
on bonafide
religious tenets or teachings of a
church or religious body of
which such employee
is a member, are safeguarded.
Such employee
shall pay an amount of money
equivalent to
regular union dues and
initiation fee to a
non-religious charity or to
another charitable
organization mutually agreed
upon by the
employee affected and the union.
The employee shall furnish written proof that
such payment has been made by
the 15th of each
month.
If the employee and the union do not reach
agreement on such matter, the
Public Employment
Relations Commission shall designate the
charitable organization.
ISSUE
2. PREVAILING RIGHTS
A. Proposals. The expired agreement contained the following
prevailing rights:
PREVAILING RIGHTS
All rights, privileges and working conditions
enjoyed by the Employees at the
present time,
which are not included in the
Agreement shall
remain in full force, unchanged
and unaffected
in any manner, during the term
of this Agree-
ment,
unless changed by mutual consent.
The City proposes deleting this provision and the
Fire Fighters argued to retain
it.
B. Discussion: The Arbitrator is awarding language which pro-
vides a "prevailing"
rights to monetary benefits and provides
for discussion of any proposed
changes of working conditions.
The Arbitrator was convinced by the City arguments that
the
existing language was
unnecessarily vague, broad, and had
great potential for unnecessary
conflict. The Arbitrator's
awarded language protects
existing monetary benefits with the
requirement of mutual consent
for change. This language is
consistent with the mandatory
nature of any item involving
compensation. While the
Arbitrator's language removes the
restriction of "mutual
consent" from attempted changes to
working conditions, the language
does require discussion
prior to any implementation.
Clearly the employees through
their union should be allowed to
provide input into any
proposed change prior to the
finalization of that change.
C. Award. The Arbitrator awards the following contract langu-
age:
ARTICLE VII - PREVAILING RIGHTS
Monetary benefits enjoyed by members of the bar-
gaining unit at the time of the
execution of
this agreement which are not
included in the
agreement shall remain in full
force, unchanged
and unaffected in any manner,
during the term
of this agreement, unless
changed by mutual
consent. The City agrees to
discuss with the
union any changes in working
conditions prior
to implementing those changes.
ISSUE
3. HOURS OF DUTY
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters propose a reduction in hours
of duty for those firefighters
with a 24 hour duty shift
from 56 hours per week to a
55.538 hour week. This would
be accomplished by giving each
fire fighter one 24 hour shift
off each year, scheduled by the
Fire Chief at his conven-
ience.
The City argued for the retention of current langu-
age.
B. Discussion: The Arbitrator is persuaded by City arguments
to retain existing language.
Union contention that the
Assistant Fire Chief could fill in on shifts was not per-
Chief already spends a large portion of his time filling
in
on shifts and is therefore
unavailable during this time for
administrative duties. The Union
proposal would result in
an even greater loss from the
administrative duties.
More importantly, the
Arbitrator carefully reviewed
comparable cities and could find
no support for a change from
those comparable. The
Arbitration Panel, during its meeting
on April 19, agreed upon the
following list of comparable
which are presented along with
their hours of work.
Toppenish, WA 54
Pullman, WA 56
(46)
Lewiston, ID 56
LaGrande, OR 56
Pendleton, OR 56
Ontario, OR 56
Cheney, WA 56
Moses Lake, WA 54
Pullman, Washington, according to testimony presented
at
the hearing, has recently gone through a change, but the
information
on that change was not clear and so the Arbitra-
tor excludes Pullman from the analysis on the
issue. The
average
of the above data (less Pullman) is 55.42 hours per
week
which would appear to justify the proposal of the Union.
However, the Arbitrator finds
that the norm (the figure that
occurs
most often) is the more appropriate statistical measure
in
this case. Fifty-six appears five times and fifty-four
appears
twice. Clearly fifty-six hours is the general
standard
for these cities and therefore the Arbitrator will
not
provide any change.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to retain the
language on this issue from the
most recently expired labor
agreement.
ISSUE
4. ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters request the following contract
language:
A. Employees
who obtain and maintain
certification as a State of
Washington
"Physician's Trained Mobile Intravenous
Therapy Technician" shall receive thirty
dollars ($30.00) per month.
B. Employees
who obtain and maintain
certification as a State of
Washington
"Airway Management Technician ,
shall
receive thirty dollars ($30.00)
per month.
The City argued to retain the current provision which
provides
$25 per month benefit for each of the above.
B. Discussion: The City position, if
implemented, would trans-
late into a "freeze on the
level of this stipend for a four
year period. The $25 stipend
went into effect in January of
1980, remained the same in 1981 and, as proposed by the
City,
the same in 1982 and 1983. Meanwhile
the salary schedule has
increased each year. The result
is that compared to salary,
this stipend has decreased
(calculated as a percentage of
salary). The Arbitrator is
convinced by Fire Fighter argu-
ments
on this issue. The City pays, with this stipend, for
a valuable skill and for the
same reasons that the salary is
adjusted upward, the
compensation for these unique skills
ought also to be adjusted.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the fol-
lowing language in their labor
agreement:
A. Employees
who obtain and maintain certi-
fication
as a State of Washington "Physician's
Trained Mobile Intravenous Therapy Technician
shall receive $27.50 per month
commencing with
the month of May 1982 and $30.00
per month begin
ning
with the month of January 1983.
B. Employes who obtain and maintain certi-
fication
as a State of Washington "Airway Manage-
ment
Technician," shall receive $27.50 per month
commencing with the month of May
1982 and $30.00
per month beginning with the
month of January 1983.
ISSUE
5. WAGES
A. Propsoals: The City offers to
increase wages by 7% in 1982
and by a figure which is 80% of
CPI-W All Cities 1981-82,
not to exceed 7%. The City also
proposes to provide 3% for
increases in medical insurance
in 1982 and no increase in
1983.
The Fire Fighters outlined their wage proposal as
follows:
January 1, 1982 the wges for
all positions
listed in the 1982 wage schedule
shall be
increased by an amount equal to
90% of the
increase in the "all cities"
consumer price
index for urban wage earners as
measured
from May 1980 to May 1981.
The above amount shall be increased $75.00 on
January 1, 1982, $50.00 on July 1, 1982 and
$25.00 on October 1, 1982.
January 1, 1983 the wages for all positions
listed in the 1982 wage
schedule, as modified
last on October 1982, shall be
increased by an
amount equal to 90% of increase
in the "all
cities" consumer price
index for urban wage
earners as measured from May
1981 to May 1982.
The above amount shall be increased $50.00 January
1983 and $25.00 on July 1, 1983.
C. Discussion: RCW 41.56.460 provides the criteria by which
the Arbitration panel must reach
its decision. The criteria
which are directly applicable to
the issue of wages are the
following:
(c) Comparison
of wages, hours and condi-
tions
of employment of the uniformed personnel
of cities and counties involved
in the proceed-
ings
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.
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods
and services, commonly known as
the cost of
living.
(e) Changes
in any of the foregoing cir-
cumstances
during the pendency of the proceed-
ings.
(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.
The arguments of the parties focused almost entirely on
the
above
criteria. The Arbitrator used those criteria, the argu-
ments of the parties and the input of the
Arbitration Panel
members
to determine the final award on this issue.
Comparability is a key criteria
which the Arbitrator is
required
to use. The cities which the panel established for
basis
comparability are listed under the discussion of
Issue
4. The panel chose those cities for several
reasons.
Size was a key factor and most
of these cities are closely
related
in size. RCW 41.56.460.C refers to cities on the west
coast
and does not limit the comparison to the state of Wash-
ington. Therefore, the comparisons included three
Oregon
cities
of similar size in the eastern part of the state. The
panel
also limited its comparables to cities east of the
mountains
finding that in both Oregon and Washington the
mountains
provide not only a physical boundary but also a
socio-political
boundary. Finally, the panel included Lewis-
ton
and Pullman because they constitute the immediate neigh-
bors to Clarkston and also comprise the
marketplace within
which
the Clarkston City employees purchase their goods and
services.
The comparables and their current salaries for the top
Fire Fighters class in 1972 are listed below.
Moses Lake 1703
Cheney 1599
Pullman 1529
Pendleton 1523
LaGrande 1469
Toppenish 1433
Lewiston 1413
Ontario 1065
Average $1467
Currently the top fire fighter in Clarkston is making
$1283.
The parties have agreed to eliminate the $30 EMT
stipend
because all firefighters are now required to be EMT.
The $30 is to be added into
the salary schedule which gives
a
current salary figure of $1313 for a First Class Fire
Fighter The panel is awarding
a 9% across-the-board
increase
which provides a salary of $1431. $1431 places
Clarkston
third from the bottom of the eight cities.
It
also
places Clarkston just below Toppenish and just above
Lewiston.
Increase in cost of living is a second factor that the
Arbitrator is required to use.
The parties stipulated that
they
use the May to May CPI-W as their measure of increase in
the
cost of living. May 1980 to May 1981 CPI-W All Cities
was
9.8%. The City argued that this figure ought to be
reduced
because the CPI overstates the increases and the
Arbitrator would agree.
However, the Arbitrator notes that
the
cost of living data combined with the comparability
data
fully justifies the 9% increase.
The City offers for the second year of the agreement 80%
of
CPI-W May 1981 to May 1982, with a limit of 7%. The
Arbitrator feels that 80% is
too low, primarily because
recent
CPI data indicates an actual drop in cost of living.*
That drop however is directly
related, among other factors,
to a
dramatic decline in home prices and home mortgage rates.
The City, in its brief,
indicates that rising home and home
mortgage
costs are a major contributor to overstatement. How-
ever,
likewise, declines in home and home mortgage costs result
in
an understatement of the increases in the cost of living.
* Bureau of Labor Statistics Pacific Cities and U.S. City
Average, March 1982. Released April 23, 1982
The Union uses a figure of 90%
of CPI-W which the Arbitrator
projects
to be a more accurate figure. Therefore, for the year
beginning
January of 1983 the Arbitrator directs the parties
to
give the salaries an across-the-board adjustment equal to
90%
of CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical workers) U.S.
city
average.
The final criteria that the Arbitrator is required to use
is
the catch all category of "such other factors . . . normally
taken
into consideration. Two such factors are important in
this
dispute. First is the concern of the City over its
ability
to pay. The panel was very mindful of that factor
during
its considerations. The comparability data and cost
of
living data would both support a greater increase than
that
provided. Yet the financial condition of the City
tempered
those factors with the resulting award.
Second, the City also expressed the need to keep a
balance
between the increases granted to the different employee
groups.
While the Arbitration Panel took note of that con-
cern, Washington statute does not establish as a
critical
variable
the salaries provided all other employee groups.
The fact that the employee
groups are separate bargaining
units
requires that they be treated individually.
C. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following salary increase:
Retroactive to January 1, 1982 the wages for
all positions listed in the 1981
wage schedule
shall be increased by thirty
dollars ($30) and
then increased again by nine
percent (9%).
January 1, 1983 the wages for all positions
listed in the 1982 wage schedule
shall be
increased by an amount equal to
90% of the
increase in the "all
cities" consumer price
index for urban wage earners as
measured from
May 1981 to May 1982. This increase is limited
to a maximum of 7%.
ISSUE
6. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
A. Proposals: The only portion of this article that is in
dispute is the cleaning
allowance. The Fire Fighters propose
that the following new paragraph
be added to the old Article:
All bedding, uniforms, protective clothing
and devices required
of employees in perform-
ance
of their duties, and cleaning thereof
shall be furnished
by the employer.
The City argued that the cleaning provision in the letter
of
understanding signed by the parties December 22, 1980,
should
now be included as a single sentence addition to
Article XIV. That cleaning
provision provided $15.03 per
man
per month for cleaning.
B. Discussion: Evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated
that the current cleaning
allowance was not being fully
utilized. The Union believed
that the City was holding back
on some of the allowance. Yet
the evidence established that
the Fire Chief had not refused
to clean any item requested.
Since the Fire Fighters are not fully utilizing their
current
allowance, the Arbitrator cannot
award an increase or an
open-ended provision.
C. Award: The new agreement should contain a paragraph B for
Article XIV - Clothing Allowance. Paragraph B will read:
B. Employer shall provide a cleaning allow-
ance
for the cleaning of duty uniforms in
the sum of $15.03 per month per
man. Said
cleaning allowance is to be
administered by
the Fire Chief, at his
discretion.
ISSUE
7. LIFE INSURANCE
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters propose an increase in City
paid life insurance from $10,000
to $20,000. The City argued
to retain the existing benefit.
B. Discussion: Comparability is the critical question on this
issue. How does the City's life
insurance benefit compare
with the comparable cities as
established by the Arbitration
Panel? That comparison is as
follows:
Pendleton $10,000
Lewiston 5,000
Toppenish 5,000
Ontario 10,000
LaGrande 10,000
Pullman 10,000
Moses Lake 10,000
Cheney None
The above data clearly shows that the City is comparable
with
its current program and therefore the Arbitrator will
not
order a change.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to retain the
exist-
ing
life insurance benefit.
ISSUE
8. HOLIDAYS
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters propose raising the holiday pay
from $55 to $65 for 1982 and
from $65 to $75 for 1983. The
City argued to retain the current stipend of $55.
B. Discussion: A careful review of the data presented by the
parties to the Arbitration Panel
was inconclusive. The data
demonstrated that each city in
the list of comparables has
its own unique holiday plan. An
accurate comparison based
on the limited data available
for those eight cities is just
not possible.
The Arbitrator does find that this issue can
be evaluated
in the same manner as the salary
schedule. Increases in
holiday pay ought to reflect
increases in the salary schedule.
This would clearly happen for a regular employee who
would
receive time and a half on a
holiday. As this employee's
basic salary goes up, so will
his holiday pay. The Arbitra-
tor
will therefore direct an increase of $5 in 1982 and
another $5 in 1983. The $5 in
1982 is roughty 9% - the
same as the increase in salary.
The $5 in 1983 is greater
than the increase in salary for
that year, but still justi-
fied
on the basis that while salary went up in 1981 by 7%,
holiday pay did not.
The Arbitrator was not persuaded by the Fire
Fighters
claim of discrimination. Clearly
when the mayor gives the
secretarial staff or other forty
hour per week employees
Friday afternoon off (which certainly does not happen
often)
but does not provide a similar
time off to the Fire Fighters,
the Fire Fighters lose out on a
benefit enjoyed by other
employees. However, the
fifty-six hour week has its own
special pluses which would not
necessarily be enjoyed by
the other City employees. In
this case the minuses need
to be accepted with the pluses.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to change
Article XXI - Holidays to read as follows:
All members of the Clarkston Fire Department,
Local 2299, shall be entitled to twelve (12)
paid holidays. Each
member shall receive
sixty dollars
($60.00) per holiday pay, payable
on the first pay
period following the holiday.
This increase to take
effect May of 1982.
Beginning January 1983, holiday pay will be
sixty-five dollars
($65.00). Designated
holidays shall be as
follows:
1. New Years Day
2. Lincoln's Birthday
3. Washington's Birthday
4. Memorial Day
5. Columbus Day
6. Independence Day
7. Labor Day
8. Veterans Day
9. Thanksgiving Day
10. Day after Thanksgiving
11. Christmas Day
12. Floating Holiday of Employee's Choice,
and any day
designated by the public proclama-
tion
of the Chief Executive of the State or the
Mayor of
the City of Clarkston, as a legal holi-
day or a day of
Thanksgiving.
ISSUE
9. MEDICAL COVERAGE PLAN
A. Proposals: Currently the City provides employee medical for
Fire Fighters, along with employee and dependent dental
with
orthodontia. Dependent medical
is available at the
employee's expense. The Fire
Fighters propose maintaining
the same medical/dental program
but having the City pick up
67% of the premium for full family medical in 1982 and
all of
full family medical in 1983. The
City proposes to maintain
current programs but to pick up
33% of dependent medical in
1982 with no additional increase in
1983.
B. Discussion: Comparability is again a critical question on
this issue. The comparable
cities and their medical/dental
programs are as follows:
Employer pays full family
coverage
Medical Dental
Toppenish 100% 100%
Lewiston 100% 0%
Pendleton 100% 0%
Ontario 100% 0%
LaGrande 100% 100%
Pullman 100% 100%
Cheney 70% 100%
(95%
in 1983) (employee
only)
Moses Lake 100% 100%
Clearly Clarkston is not comparable to these
other
cities.
However, the City argued that comparison should be
made
between the costs of programs because the cost re-
flected the quality of the programs. The City's
programs
are
high quality and costly. The data available on cost
is
one year old but shows Clarkston paying a total premium
of
$75.35, Toppenish $145.19, Pullman $114.00, Cheney $97.48,
and
Moses Lake $155.50.* Data on the other cities is not
available.
The 1982 data would undoubtedly show an increase
in
the above data.
*From 1981 Salary Survey,
Washington Local Government
Personnel Institute
Based on this comparability
data the Arbitrator will
award a
two step increase in medical benefits. To soften
the
financial impact on the City, the Arbitrator's award
will
take effect on July 1, 1982 and July 1, 1983. The
Arbitrator's award is a flat
sum amount that should bring
the
City into comparability with the dollar amount paid for
benefits
by the other cities by 1983.
C. Award: The Arbitrator awards the following changes in the
medical/dental program:
The Employer agrees to keep in
force and con-
tinue
full payment for the present Fire Fighter
Medical/Dental program, Medical plan to be
in accordance with
R.C.W.
Beginning July 1, 1982, the Employer will
pay $40 towards the
premiums of medical
insurance for
dependents of employees who wish
to participate in
the medical coverage plan.
Beginning July 1, 1983, the Employer shall
pay $80 towards the
premiums for medical
insurance for
dependents.
ISSUE
10. VACATION
A. Proposals: The Fire Fighters propose the following vacation
schedule:
Paid vacation leave accrual per year shall be
as follows:
Years of Employment Vacation Accrued
1 year 4 shifts
2 years 6 shifts
3 years 8 shifts
6 years 10 shifts
8 years 12 shifts
15 years 15 shifts
Vacation time may not be accumulated beyond the
calendar year in which it is
earned except for
the first year, and except by
the employee
securing advance permission from
the employer,
or when the employee cancels or
postpones his
vacation at the request of the
employer.
The City accepts the changes in language but argued for
the
following
accrual:
Years of Employment Vacation Accrual
1 year 3 shifts
2 years 5 shifts
7 years 8 shifts
15 years 10 shifts
B. Discussion: Two factors are important with this issue.
First is the translation from the existing contract langu-
age which uses weeks of vacation
as opposed to shifts. Both
parties agree to change to shifts.
A guiding principle for
this change is the fact that a
firefighter's workweek is 40%
longer than other City employees
(40 hours vs. 56 hours).
Therefore one week of vacation should also provide for a
Fire
Fighter 40% more hours.
Currently Fire Fighters receive:
Duration Current Translated
of Employment Benefit to Hours
1 year one
week 56 hours
2 years two
weeks 112 hours
7 years three
weeks 168 hours
15 years four
weeks 224 hours
The proposals of the two parties are as follows:
City 's Fire
Fighters
Duration Proposed Duration Proposed
of Employment Benefit of Employment Benefit
1 year 72
hours 1 year 96 hours
2 years 120
hours 2 years 144 hours
7 years 192
hours 3 years 192 hours
15 years 240
hours 6 years 240 hours
8
years 288 hours
15
years 360 hours
Clearly the City's proposal is
more comparable and superior
than
the existing benefit. (The Arbitrator does distinguish
between
the existing contractual benefit and the existing
practice
which often provides actual hours off greater
than
the benefit. He can find no basis in fact for this
increased
benefit.)
The second important factor concerns the question of
comparability.
Is the actual amount of vacation comparable
to
the other cities used for comparison purposes. The Arbi-
trator carefully reviewed the comparative data and
found
great
diversity. He concluded after careful study that at
the
low end there is a lack of comparability but not at the
high
end. Adjustments are therefore made.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to place the fol-
lowing vacation article in the
contract:
ARTICLE XXV VACATION
Years of Employment Vacation
Accrual
1 year (minimum 1600 hours) 4 shifts
2 years 6
shifts
7 years 8
shifts
15 years 10
shifts
Vacation time may not be
accumulated beyond the
calendar
year in which it is earned except for the
first
year, and except by the employee securing
advance
permission from the employer, or when
the
employee cancels or postpones his vacation
at
the request for the employer.
ISSUE
11. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
A. Proposals: The City proposes the following management
rights provision:
The City reserves exclusively all rights
whether heretofore
exercised or not which
are concerned with
the operation of the
Department including its mission and deci-
sions
related thereto, service efficiency,
and any and all
policy decisions.
The City retains exclusive authority to
manage the
Department in accordance with
past practice; adopt
operating rules and
establish employee
conduct and performance
standards,
discipline, layoff, discharge
for cause, assign
work, promote or demote,
schedule hours of
work, determine the number
of personnel to be
assigned to duty at any
time.
These management rights may be exercised
without prior
negotiations with the union
and shall not be
subject to the grievance or
arbitration
procedure contained herein.
This proposal constitutes a rewrite of existing language
and a strengthening of
management's rights.
The Fire Fighters argued against any change.
B. Discussion: The Arbitrator cannot support the City's pro-
posed changes in the Article for
three important reasons.
First, the changes delete the language which reads,
"unless
otherwise provided by the terms
of this Agreement." That
phrase recognizes that the terms
of the Agreement do limit
some of management's rights and
that recognition is impor-
tant.
Second, the phrase "shall not be subject to the
grievance
or
arbitration procedure contained herein," potentially con-
flicts with the definition of the grievance found
in the
grievance
procedure. That definition states that a griev-
ance is a dispute over the interpretation of the
agreement.
Since some if not all of the provisions
of the agreement limit
management
rights, are the interpretations of the provisions
grievable or not? The grievance procedure says yes
but the
proposed
management rights clause would say no. The grievance
procedure
spells out what is grievable (interpretations of the
provisions
of the Agreement) and that restriction should
remain
uncontested by the management's rights clause.
Finally, assuming that the grievance procedure remains
in
force for provisions of the agreement, then the specific
problem
identified by the City (City Exhibits 31-38) would
not
be resolved even under the proposed language. The claim
by
the Fire Fighters, found in City Exhibit #33, is that the
City violated Article III -
Recognition, and Article IX -
Wages, when they hired a
volunteer fire fighter as a full-
time
temporary without paying a full-time wage. That claim
is grievable under the definition of a grievance found in the
labor
agreement. The City might prevail in arbitration, but
nevertheless
the issue is grievable. The proposed language
would
add a question about its grievability but then that ques-
tion would itself be a matter for arbitration.
C. Award: The Arbitrator directs the parties to retainn the
recently expired contract
language on management rights.
Respectfully submitted on the the third day of May 1982 by
Timothy D. W. Williams
Arbitrator