International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 2099
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 04370-I-82-00099
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL NO. 2099
AAA
No. 75-39-0283-82
PERC
No. 4370-I-82-99
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION
AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
Appearances:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL NO. 2099 James H. Webster
CITY OF
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION OF THE
ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of
disputes when
collective
bargaining negotiations have resulted in impasse.
The undersiqned
was selected by the parties to serve as
Arbitrator with the assistance
of the American Arbitration
Association. The parties waived the tripartite panel and
agreed
instead to present the issues in dispute to the
undersigned
for resolution in accordance with statutory
criteria
with the decision to have the same force and effect
as if
it were rendered by a tripartite panel.
A hearing was held before the undersigned on
May 17,
1983,
in
Bothell, was represented by jerald L. Osterman, City
Manager. The
Association of Firefighters,
was represented by James H.
Webster,
of the law firm of Durning, Webster, and Lonnquist.
In accordance with the agreement of the
parties,
posthearing briefs were submitted and have been
considered
by
the Arbitrator. The last such brief was
received by the
Arbitrator on
Arbitrator, the parties agreed
to waive the statutory
requirement
that a decision issue within thirty days
thereafter,
and, instead, granted the Arbitrator an
additional
week, specifically until
to
issue his Opinion and Award in this matter.
ROW 41.56.450 provides that the Arbitrator
"make written
findings of
fact and a written determination of the issues
in
dispute, based on the evidence presented."
This document
is
submitted in accordance with that statutory requirement.
I have labeled it an Interest
Arbitration Opinion and Award
because
that is the manner in which arbitrators generally
label
their decisions.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The parties agree that the following issues
are in
dispute:
1. Wages
2. Longevity
3. Non-standard shift
4. Overtime: callback alarms
5.
The Employer addressed the question of
medical insur-
ance and dental insurance in its evidentiary
presentation at
the
hearing. However, the Employer has made
clear that it
does
agree to retain a one hundred per cent contribution
toward
the medical and dental insurance programs presently
in
effect. It merely wants to make clear to
the
the
Arbitrator that, due to a raise in premiums in 1983, this
will
result in a 1.3% increase in payroll costs for 1983.
The parties have agreed that the term of the
Agreement
subject to
this arbitration will be from
thru
Agreement would apply
retroactively to January 1, 1983.
1. WAGES
Employer proposal
The Employer proposes a wage increase of what
it corn-
putes to be 3.2% above the 1982 wage costs for the
contract
year
1983. The Employer further indicates
that 1.1% of the
3.2% would come from step
increases employees would be
entitled to
by moving up, for example, from Firefighter 2
(FF
2) to Firefighter 3 (FF 3). Thus the Employer proposes
to
raise the probationary Firefighter from $1,332 per month
to
$1,632 a month, a raise of $300 a month and 22.5%. The
Employer further proposes to
raise the Firefighter 1 (FF 1)
from
$1,562 per month to $1,729 per month, a raise of $167
and
l0.7%. Further, the Employer proposes to
raise the
Firefighter 2 (FF 2) from
$1,731 to $1,845, a raise of $114
and
6.8%.
As of
Collective Bargaining
Agreement, the Employer had in its
employ
fifteen bargaining unit members of which there were
no
Probationary Firefighters, three employees classified as
FF 1, one employee classified
as FF 2, six employees
classified as
FF 3, four employees classified as
Lieutenants,
and one employee classified as Captain.
The Employer proposes no increase in wages in
1983 for
the
following classifications: FF 3,
Lieutenant, and
Captain. Thus under the Employer's proposal for 1983,
eleven of
the fifteen employees would receive no increase in
wages.
For 1984, the Employer proposes a 5% increase
in wages
over
1983 for each of the six job classifications.
Union Proposal
For 1983 the Union proposes a monthly base
salary of
$2,276
for an FF 3. This
would be a raise of $260 per
month,
or about 12.9% over what a FF 3 is currently paid.
The Union has informed the
Arbitrator that its total wage
proposal
for 1983 would result in an increase of 15.4%.
With respect to the other five
job classifications, the
Union proposes for 1983 that
the Probationary classification
be
raised form $1,332 per month to $1,593, a raise of $261
per month. With respect to FF 1, the Union would propose
to
raise
the base monthly salary from $1,562 to $1,821, a raise
of
$259 per month. With respect to FF 2,
the Union proposal
is a
raise from $1,731 to $2,G48, a raise of $317 per month.
With respect to Lieutenant, the
Union proposal is a raise
from
$2,162 to $2,504, a raise of $342. With
respect to
Captain, the proposed raise is
from $2,390 to $2,731, a
raise of
$341 per month.
Finally, the Union believes that it would be
appropriate to
set the salaries of bargaining unit employees
as a
percentage of what is paid the FF 3, also referred to
as
the Senior Firefighter. Thus the Union
would set the FF
3 as the 100% figure, and,
thereafter, provide an amount of
70% for probationary employees,
80% for FF 1, 90% for FF 2,
110% for Lieutenants,
and 120% for Captains.
With respect to the year 1984, the Union
proposes that
the FF
3 classification be raised an additional 8% above the
$2,276 figure proposed for
1983. Further, the Union
proposes
that the other five classifications be raised a
commensurate
amount so that the percentage relationships
between
the job classifications would remain standardized as
described
with respect to the Union's 1983 position.
Arbitrator Discussion
A review of the foregoing makes clear that
the parties
have
vastly different positions as to the appropriate amount
of
wages to be paid for the firefighters in the City of
Bothell
for 1983 and 1984. A
review of the parties conten-
tions regarding the question of wages indicates that
the
reason
for the disparity is that the parties have selected
vastly
different cities and fire districts to be used as
comparables. Reliance on comparables is based upon the
statutory
direction to the Arbitration Panel contained in
RCW 41.56.460, which provides
that:
In making its determination,
the panel shall
be
mindful of the legislative Purpose
enumerated in
ROW 41.56.430 and as additional
standards or
guidelines to aid in reaching a
decision,
it shall take into consideration
the
following factors: . .
(c) Comparison of wages, hours and con-
ditions of employment of the uni-
formed
personnel of cities and coun-
ties
involved in the proceedings
with
the wages, hours, and condi-
tions of employment of uniformed
personnel of
cities and counties
respectively of
similar size on the
west
coast of the United States.
The legislative purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.30,
which
ROW 4l.56.460 directs the Arbitration Panel to be
mindful of
is set forth below:
The intent and purpose of this
1973
ammendatory act is to recognize that there
exists a
Public policy in the state of
Washington against strikes by
uniformed
personnel as
a means of settling their labor
disputes;
that the uninterrupted and
dedicated
service of these classes of
employees is
vital to the welfare and public
safety of
the state of Washington; that to
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted
public
service there should exist in effect
an
adequate means of settling disputes.
Bothell is a somewhat unique city with respect to the
provision of
fire suppression services. This is
because
Bothell is apparently the only
city in western Washington
which
contracts out such service to other fire districts.
Bothell is a city of
approximately 7,500 population, but due
to
the contracting out of fire suppression services, it
actually
serves a population somewhere between 25,000 to
30,000 people living in King
and Snohomish counties in
western
Washington.
Lieutenant Clarence Ashe testified on behalf of the
Union. He testified that he used as comparables all
cities
and
fire districts in western Washington which had popula-
tions either within 70% of 25,000 or more than
25,000 but no
more
than l40% of 25,000. This came to a total of 23.
However, three localities were
not included by Lieutenant -
Ashe,
because they did not provide 24 hour fire protection.
The Employer agreed that
failure to provide 24 hour
protection
rendered such a locality significantly different
from
that of Bothell.
The Employer, believes it appropriate to consider fire
districts
which serve populations in the neighborhood of
25,000 people and has listed
three such fire districts in
its
comparables. These three comparables are
King County
Fire District No. 16, King
County Fire District No. 40, and
Snohomish County Fire District
No. 7. However the Employer
believes,
that an additional and equal factor in thecompar-
ables should be cities of similar population to
that of
Bothell, which also contain
certain other relevant simi-
larities in the Employer's view. The cities the Employer
selected
are Hoquiam, Tumwater, and Mt. Vernon.
These
cities,
as I understand it, do not contract out fire suppression
services to
citizens located outside their city limits.
After carefully studying the contentions of the
parties, I
find that the appropriate comparables to use in
this
case are the seven fire districts which are located
in
King or Snohomish counties. In this
regard, I note that
the
Employer here provides fire suppression services in King
and
Snohomish counties, and, therefore, what other fire-
fighters
are being paid by fire districts serving similar
populations in
the same two county area are highly relevant
in
establishing comparables for the City of Bothell. Here,
of
course, we are not looking at a major metropolitan city,
such as
Seattle, and, therefore, need not look to communi-
ties
located far from the community involved in order to
find
appropriate comparables. Here, the
statutory criteria
are
well served by looking at comparables in the same labor
market. Additionally, not only are the parties in
agreement
that
three of the seven King County or Snohomish County
fire
districts are appropriate comparables, but the rela-
tionship between Bothell and some of these other
district's
is
enhanced beyond mere proximity by the fact that Bothell
engages in
mutual response to alarms, and, at least in one
case,
King County Fire District No. 26, it contracts out
fire
suppression service to a city (Des Moines) in much the
same
manner as Bothell contracts out suppression service to
fire
districts.
I have eliminated from the list of
comparables the
cities
with populations between 70% and l40% of 25,000
presented by
the Union. I agree with the Employer
that
these
cities are different in kind from a small city such as
Bothell, which is a city of 25,000
to 30,000 only for the
purpose of
providing fire suppression services. In
that
way,
Bothell is much more like a fire district of 25,000
people
than of a city of 25,000 people. It must
be remem-
bered that a city of 25,000 people will generally
have a
larger
tax base and greater budgetary flexibility than a
smaller
city of 7,500 people. This same
flexibility is not
present in
a fire district which generally may tax only at a
fixed
rate for the specific purpose of providing for fire
department
type services. Further, most of the
cities list-
ed by
the Union in its comparison are located outside of
King
and Snohomish counties.
I agree with the Union that a city with a population of
7,500 or 10,000 is not
comparable to a fire district with a
population in
the neighborhood of 25,000 with respect to
determining
firefighter wages. It must remembered
that it
was
and is the City of Bothell that has determined to expand
its
fire department by providing fire services to fire
districts. Presumably Bothell chose to do this in order
to
take
advantage of the economies of scale and other benefits -
which
flow from being able to maintain a full time profes-
sional fire department for its residents; such as,
more -
available
manpower, more and better equipment, and better
response
time. In any event, Bothell's fire
department
provides
service to an additional group of people three to
four
times larger than the population of Bothell.
This
makes
Bothell very different from other small cities with
respect to
its fire department. Further, the three
small
cities
for which the Employer provided data for 1983 are all
located
outside of King and Snohomish Counties.
Union Exhibit No. 9 sets forth, among other
things, the
monthly
base salary paid in 1983 for FF 3's for the seven
fire
districts I have deemed to be the applicable compar-
ables.
These districts are King County No. 2 (Burien), King
County No. 16 (Kenmore), King
County No. 26 (Des Moines),
King County No. 36
(Woodinville), King County No. 40 (Spring
Glen), King County No. 43
(Maple Valley), and Snohomish
County
No. 7 (Clearview). When one adds the figures appear-
mg on
Union Exhibit No. 9 for the FF 3 for these seven fire
districts
the average monthly base salary is $2,192.
Thus
if
the FF 3 were raised to the average of the comparables,
the
raise would amount to a $176 raise in the monthly base
salary,
which works out to a percentage of 8.73%.
A reasonable argument can be made that a
raise of 8.73%
in
these economic times is too high.
However, such a raise
would
place the Bothell FF 3, only at the average level of
the
seven comparables, and at a monthly base salary above
only
two of the comparables, Snohomish County District No. 7
and
just barely above King County District No. 16.
At the
same
time, the Bothell FF 3 would remain below, and in some
cases
substantially below, the monthly base salary for the
other
five comparables. Therefore, I conclude
that an
appropriate
monthly base salary for the FF 3 in Bothell for
the
first year of the contract, namely the year 1983, is
$2,192.
The question then remains as to what should
be the
appropriate
figures for the other five job classifications.
To have a system by which the
wages of other job classifi-
cations are pegged to that of the Senior Firefighter
has
merit. It will allow the parties to negotiate the
rate for
the
job classification that generally has the largest number
of
employees in the bargaining unit, the FF 3, and then set
the
rate for the other five classifications without having
to
negotiate each contract term an appropriate rate for each
of
the job classifications. Such a system
would also meet
the
intent and purpose of the statutory scheme here as it
would
tend to reduce conflict between the classifications of
workers,
thus removing an additional difficulty otherwise
present
when a collective bargaining agreement is nego-
tiated.
The figures of 70% for the Probationary
Firefighter,
80% for the FF 1, and 90% for
the FF 2, are appropriate
percentages. In this regard I note that 70% of $2,192
equals
$1,535, which is $97 less a month than the Employer
proposes. Further, 80% of $2,l92
equals $1,754, placing the
FF 1 at a base monthly salary
of only $25 above what the
Employer has offered. Ninety percent of $2,192 equals
$1,972. Nineteen hundred and seventy-two dollars is
$127
above
what the employer has offered for 1983 for the FF 2,
but it
is $45 less than the $2,017 average for the FF 2 for
the
seven comparables based on the figures appearing on
Union
Exhibit No. 9. While
I realize that $1,972 is approx-
imately 14% more than what the FF 2 was making in
1982, I
will
grant this increase in view of the strong case made for
it by
the comparables. Furthermore, a review
of City
Exhibit No. 19 indicates that
no firefighter will be an FF 2
for an
entire year during 1983 or 1984.
Further, I note
that
the Employer realizes substantial raises may be neces-
sary as its proposal for the probationary
employee amounts
to a
22.5% increase, and its proposal for the FF 1 amounts
to a
10.7% increase.
I next move to a consideration of the
Lieutenants
monthly
base salary. One hundred ten percent of
$2,192, the
FF 3 rate, would provide a
salary of $2,411 for a Lieu-
tenant. This salary would be an 11.5% increase over
the
$2,162 earned by the Lieutenant
in 1982. In my view, such a
salary
increase for the Lieutenant is not warranted by the
comparables. Thus the average for the Lieutenant for the
seven
comparables comes to $2,380. This
amounts to about a
10% increase over the $2,162
amount earned by the Lieutenant
in
1982. I believe this amount to be
appropriate based upon
the
comparables. If one looks at Exhibit No.
9 and examines
the
seven comparables, only the Snohomish County District
No. 7 actually provides a
lesser amount for the Lieutenant
than
$2,380.
I next turn to the Captain
classification. One Hundred
and
twenty percent of the FF 3 base salary of $2,192 amounts
to
$2,630, resulting in an increase of $240 a month. There
are
only four comparables available for the Captain, which
includes
the $2,343 figure that a Captain makes in the
Snohomish County No. 7 Fire
District after he has served one
year. The Captain in Bothell has served more than
one year.
The average for the four
Captain comparables is $2,575.
Twenty-five hundred and
seventy-five dollars would place the
Bothell Captain at a point
where he would be receiving a
salary
greater than that of only the Captain in the Snoho-
mish
County Fire District, which only recently instituted a
Captain job
classification. Additionally this raise
is not
excessive,
as it would provide for a raise of about 7.7%,
and
would be in line with the comparables.
The next question that must be resolved is
what would
be
the appropriate salary figures for 1984.
The raises granted for 1983 are
substantial. However,
they
have been granted based on a careful examination of the
comparables in
accordance with the statutory criteria.
The
Employer admits it could have
paid the full Union proposal
although it
may well have meant not providing other ser-
vices. However, the arbitration panel is also
directed to
consider:
The average consumer prices for
goods and
services,
commonly known as the cost of
living.
I have relied on the comparables in reaching
the raises
for
1983. The statute does not tell the
arbitration panel
what
weight to give the Consumer Price Index vis a vis the
other
factors listed in the statute. I do
note, however,
that
the "Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers Revised",
for Seattle, has actually de-
creased
between January 1982 and March 1983, the last date
for
which figures are available. Further,
although the
Index did increase slightly for
a period of time during - --
1982, it has been going down
since November of 1982. These
facts
speak in favor of a very small raise or no raise at
all. Rather than try to mix in one year two major
com-
ponents of the statutory criteria, I have determined
to
apply
the CPI criteria to the 1984 contract year.
Thus I
have
determined that no raise is appropriate in 1984 in view
of
the CPI and in view of the substantial raise provided
employees in
1983. This conclusion is further based
on the
fact
that I will reduce the work week for 1984 which has an
economic
cost.
However, to protect employees against an
unanticipated
substantial
rise in the Consumer Price Index during the
remainder of
this year, I have determined to provide that if
the
BLS "Consumer Price Index for 1983 for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers
Revised" goes up by 7% or more
during
the period November 1982 through November 1983 for
Seattle, employees shall
receive a cost of living increase
of
1/10 of 1% for each 1/10 of 1% rise in the afore men-
tioned index above 7%, thus for example, if the
index were
to
rise 7.1% during the period November 1982 through
November 1983 the employees
would be entitled to a 1/10 of
1%
cost of living increase.
2. LONGEVITY
Employer Proposal
The Employer proposes not to add any
longevity
provisions to
the Agreement.
Union Proposal
The Union proposes that a longevity premium
be added to
the
Agreement which would provide an additional 2% to
employees
after five years, 4% after ten years, 6% after
fifteen
years, and 8% after twenty years.
Arbitrator's Decision
I have carefully considered the arguments of
the
parties and
the evidence presented. The evidence is
far
from
conclusive. Union Exhibit No. 16 shows
that with
respect to
the seven comparables, four provide some sort of
longevity
while three do not. In view of the
substantial
increases in
wages provided by this Arbitration Award, the
addition of
any longevity premium at this time would be
inappropriate.
3. NON-STANDARD SHIFT
Employer Position
The Employer would retain the fifty-six hour
non-
standard
shift.
Union Position
The Union wants a non-standard shift which
would result
in a
reduction from fifty-six hours to 52.308 hours.
Arbitrator's Decision
A review of the evidence with respect to the compar-
ables (Union Exhibit No. 11) shows only six of the
seven
comparables as
it does not contain any information regarding
King
County District No. 36, Woodinville. However, of the
six
comparables only one, Snohomish County District No. 7,
has a
fifty-six hour shift. Two others have a
fifty-four
hour
shift, while the other three have a forty-two and one
half,
forty-eight and forty-nine hour shift.
Based on these
comparables, a
reduction in hours in the non-standard shift
is
appropriate. Further, I note the
comments of the City
Manager
that these firefighters are highly productive workers.
Thus it would appear that the
Union's request for a 52.308
hour
non-standard shift is appropriate.
However, in order
to
provide time for the smooth implementation of this shift, it
shall be
ordered effective January 1, 1984.
Further, as
described
previously, since hours are being reduced by
approximately
7%, I set the cost-of-living required increase
at 7%
before any raise in salary would be required in 1984.
4. OVERTIME: CALLBACK
ALARMS
Employer Position
The Employer proposes a two hour minimum.
Union Proposal
The
Union proposes a four hour minimum.
Arbitrator's Decision
Presently the minimum payment as set forth in
Article
10, Section 6 of the 1981-1982
Agreement is one half-hour.
Based on the evidence presented
and in view of the
substantial
increase in the minimum callback provision
offered by
the Employer, I find the Employer's proposal
appropriate,
and, therefore, shall order a two hour minimum
be
inserted in the Agreemen.
5. HOLIDAY PAY DIFFERENTIAL
Employer Proposal
The Employer proposes $40 for each shift that
begins on
any of
the six holidays set forth in Article 12, Section 6.
Union Proposal
The Union D time
and a half for each shift
than
begins on one of the aforementioned holidays.
Arbitrator's Decision
Presently Article 12 Section
6 of the Agreement
provides
for $30 for a shift worked in connection with one
of
the six holidays. The evidence presented
does not
provide
support for a substantial raise in holiday pay
differential. Therefore I have determined that the
Employer's offer of $40 is
appropriate and it shall be
ordered.
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
Your Arbitrator renders this Final Award on
the five
issues
described in the attached Opinion.
Wages
1/1/83 - 12/31/83
Firefighter, Probationary: $1,535 per month
Firefighter 1: $1,754 per month
Firefighter 2: $1,972 per month
Firefighter 3: $2,192 per month
Lieutenant: $2,380 per month
Captain: $2,575 per month
1/1/84 12/31/84
Same as 1983, unless the BLS
"Consumer Price Index
for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers Revised" for
Seattle goes up by 7% or more
during the period of
November 1982 through November
1983. If such should
occur,
employees shall receive a cost of living
increase of
1/10 of 1% for each 1/10 of 1% rise in the
aforementioned
Index above 7%. For example, if the
Index were to rise 7.1% during
the period November 1982
to
November 1983, the employees would be entitled to a
1/10
of 1% cost of living increase for 1984.
Longevity
No longevity provision shall be added to the
Agreement.
Non-Standard Shift
Effective 1/1/84, the non-standard shift
shall be no
longer
than 52.308 hours.
Overtime: Callback Alarms
Article l0, Section 6 shall have substituted
the words
"two
hours" for the words "one-half hour" appearing at line
4.
Holiday Pay Differential
Article 12, Section 6 shall have substituted
the amount
$40.00
for the amount $30.00 appearing at line 3.
July 14, 1983
Seattle, Washington _____________________________
Michael
H. Beck, Arbitrator