Public,
Professional & Office Clerical Employees and Drivers Teamsters Local Union
No. 763
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Eric B. Lindauer
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Lindauer; Eric B.
Case #: 04135-I-82-00091
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION )
)
BETWEEN )
) ARBITRATION -
CITY OF
and ) OPINION AND AWARD
)
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL & OFFICE )
CLERICAL EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS ) RE: TERMS OF 1982
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
NO. 763. ) POLICE OFFICERS
BEFORE
ERIC
B. LINDAUER
ARBITRATOR
ARBITRATION
PANEL
Employer Member: Union
Member:
Douglas E. Albright Jon
L. Rabine
Attorney at Law Secretary
Treasurer
2300
2001 Sixth Avenue 553
John Street
REPRESENTATION
For the Employer: For
the
Cabot Dow Herman
L. Wacker
Cabot, Down & Associates Attorney
at Law
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This
arbitration proceeding
was instituted pursuant to RCW
41.56.460 as a result of an
impasse in negotiations between the
City of
Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union 763
(
representing the Uniformed
Police Officers of
the City of
31, 1981, and since that time the parties
have been attempting to
negotiate the terms of
the 1982 contract. The parties, through
negotiations and mediation reached agreement
on all of the terms
and
conditions of the contract with the exception of five issues
which
were unresolved and
submitted to binding
arbitration for
resolution. The issues submitted to arbitration are as
follows:
1. Wages.
(Appendix A)
2. Health and Welfare.
(Article X)
3 Vacation Leave.
(Article VIII)
4. Physical Fitness.
(Addendum)
5. Uniform Allowance.
(Article XI)
In accordance with RCW 41.56.460 the arbitration hearing
was
convened
on January 11 and 12, 1983, in
arbitration panel consisted
of Douglas E.
Albright,
Employer
Member, and Jon L. Rabine,
Union Member. The parties appointed
Eric B. Lindauer to serve
as the neutral
chairman. At the
hearing the
Employer was represented by
Cabot Dow. That during the course of
the two day hearing each party was given full opportunity to
submit evidence
bearing on the issues under consideration.
That
following
the submission of testimony and receipt of exhibits the
parties
waived oral argument and agreed to submit post hearing
briefs
which were received by the arbitration panel on March 3,
1983.
At
the commencement of the hearing,
the parties agreed that
the
Arbitrator would retain
jurisdiction in this
matter for a
period
of sixty
(60) days following the issuance of the opinion
and award
for purposes of
assisting the parties
in connection
with the interpretation, clarification or enforcement
of the
orders
should such a request be made by the parties.
That
following receipt of
the post-hearing briefs, and in
accordance with RCW 41.56.460
the neutral chairman
convened a
joint
meeting of the arbitration panel on
purpose
of consulting with the
panel members regarding
the
respective positions of the
parties. At the conclusion of the
joint conference, the panel
agreed that the neutral
arbitrator,
prior to
the final award,
would submit to the
panel members a
preliminary determination of the issues
for their review
and
comment
. The preliminary determination
was submitted to the
panel on April
5, 1983, and
their comments considered
by the
Arbitrator. Thereafter, the
parties mutually agreed
that the
thirty day statutory
time for submission
of the Arbitrator's
final award would be waived and the time
limit extended to April
15,
1983. The
following constitutes the Arbitrator's findings of
fact
and final determination of the issues in dispute.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
At
the commencement of the
arbitration hearing, the parties
submitted
to the Arbitrator the stipulated issues in dispute and
the respective proposals
of the parties on each of the
issues.
The stipulation is as follows:
ISSUE
NO. 1
WAGES
(Appendix A)
Position of the Parties:
City Position - As a part of a
total economic
package
the City proposes
that the 1982
wage schedule be
increased
by six percent (6.0) over 1981 levels
effective
May 1, 1982. The City proposes no change in
the
existing Step Plan.
Union Position
- Effective January
1, 1982, the
1981
monthly rates of
pay for employees
shall be increased
by
eight point three percent (8.3%).
Effective January
1, 1982,
the present Step Plan shall be
reduced from
sixty-seven
(67) months of service to fifty-five
(55)
months
of service.
ISSUE
NO. 2
HEALTH & WELFARE
(Article X)
Position of the Parties:
City Position -
As a part
of the total
economic
package, the City proposes that the City pay 80 percent
of the employee and
dependent(s) premium based on the
January 1, 1982 rate schedules
for the various
insurance
plans for the remainder of 1982 after May 1,
1982, unless otherwise provided by state law (RCW
41.26) for those employees
hired prior to October
1,
1977.
Union Position -
Effective January 1,
1982, the
Employer shall pay one hundred percent (100%)
of those
premiums necessary to maintain the existing level of
benefits
for the various insurance plans for all
employees
and their dependents.
ISSUE
NO. 3
VACATION LEAVE
(Article VIII)
Position of the Parties:
City Position -
As a part
of the total
economic
package, employer would agree
to one additional vaca-
tion day added to the existing vacation schedule,
with
maximum
carryover from one ( 1 ) calendar year to another
limited
to the equivalent of twelve (12) months accumu-
lated leave for the employee unless the employee
is not
able to take scheduled vacation due to police
depart-
ment workload.
Union Position -
Effective January 1,
1982, the
existing
vacation schedule shall be improved to reflect
one
(1 ) additional day at each increment accrual
level
with
no other changes in the article.
ISSUE
NO. 4
PHYSICAL FITNESS
(Addendum)
Position of Parties:
City Position -
The City proposes
to maintain the
existing
Physical Fitness Standards and to update the
current agreement to
provide for a
qualified medical
authority, i.e.,
qualified local physician.
The City
will
continue to offer available facilities for
employee
physical exercise.
Union Position -
Not withstanding any other
provision
to
the contrary, employee participation in the Physical
Fitness Program as set forth within
Addendum "A shall
be
voluntary.
ISSUE
NO. 5
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
(Article XI)
Position of the Parties:
City Position -
As a part
of the total
economic
package, the
City proposes to
increase the three
hundred thirty dollar
($330.00) uniform allowance
to
three
hundred sixty dollars ($360.00) per year.
Union Position - It shall
be the Employer's responsi-
bility to provide each employee covered
by this Agree-
ment with a clothing allowance for
uniform and equip-
ment as necessary
to properly maintain
the employee
uniform in a
presentable manner as
required by the
Department. Effective January 1,
1982, the Employer
shall pay an
amount equal to
three hundred sixty
dollars
($360.00) per year per commissioned officer for
maintenance of
such uniform and equipment. The
employee may select
the place for
purchase provided
color , material ,
quality and other
standards of the
Department are maintained.
INTRODUCTION
This
interest arbitration
involves the City of Edmonds and
the
thirty uniformed officers of the City's Police Department who
are represented
by Teamsters Local Union No. 763. The City of
Edmonds, Washington, is located in what
is regarded as the "Puget
Sound" area and is uniquely situated midway between Seattle
and
Everett; 15 miles North of Seattle and 15 miles
South of Everett,
Washington. The City is
predominately residential in
character
and
has a population of approximately 27,000 people. The City is
basically comprised of
a downtown shopping
area, a marina and
ferry terminal and
numerous small neighborhood
shopping areas.
There are no regional shopping centers, nor
large manufacturing
interests located in
or adjacent to the
City of Edmonds. The
City is financially
supported by its
property tax and
sales
tax. The assessed valuation of the City for
taxes in 1982 was
$761,000,000 or
approximately $27,000 per capita.
The City of
Edmonds employees approximately
165 full time
employees in 11
different City departments. In addition to
the Uniformed
Officers Bargaining Unit, the
Teamsters Local 763 also represents
the
Support Service Personnel of the
Police Department and the
Public Works Maintenance
personnel . The firefighters are
represented by the
International Association of
Firefighters
Local 1828 and
the City's Clerical,
Technical and Professional
employees are represented
by Service Employees
International
Union
Local 6. With
the exception of the Uniformed Officers, all
of the
bargaining units within
tile City had
negotiated
settlements
on the terms of their respective 1982 contracts prior
to
this matter proceeding to arbitration.
The City of Edmonds and Teamsters Local 763,
representing
the
Uniformed Officers, had previously
entered into a three year
labor
agreement covering 1978, '79 and
'80. That agreement was
extended
an additional year and expired on December 31,
1981.
That
commencing in 1981
the parties entered into extensive
negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement on the terms of
the
1982 labor agreement. In January, 1982, the Union requested
the
services of a mediator in an attempt to assist the parties in
reaching a settlement.
In July, 1982,
after five mediation
sessions
, the
Public Employment Relations Commission recommended
that the
unresolved issues between
the parties be
submitted to
binding
interest arbitration in accordance with RCW 41.56.450.
The Arbitrator was notified of his appointment on October
2, 1982 , and
the arbitration hearing was subsequently convened
January 11 and 12, 1983, in Edmonds, Washington.
STATUTORY CRITERIA -
COMPARABLE CITIES
The
Washington State Legislature
has set forth
in RCW
41.56.460 the statutory
criteria which the
Arbitrator must
consider
in rendering a decision in interest arbitrations
involving uniformed personnel .
The statutory
language mandates
that
the arbitration 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 the uniformed personnel of cities
and counties involved in the proceedings with the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of
uniformed personnel of cities and counties
respectively of
similar size on the West Coast of
the United States
(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.
(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 City and the Union during the course of the
arbitration
hearing
and in the post hearing briefs, have
placed considerable
emphasis
on the language of paragraph (c) of the statute relating
to
what has been characterized as
"comparable cities" of similar
size
on the West Coast of the United States.
The Arbitrator has reviewed the respective positions of
the
parties
as it relates to the extensive evidence submitted on the
issue of
what constitutes "comparable cities"
as a basis
for
comparison in
deciding the issues of wages and benefits submitted
in
this arbitration.
The
City argues that
the statutory criteria
set forth in
Section (c) of the statute should be
strictly adhered to and the
Arbitrator must take into
consideration "comparable cities" on
the
West Coast of the United States. In this regard the Union
has
emphasized for comparison purposes,
wages and benefits in
cities
of similar size in California, Oregon and Washington.
The
Union, contends that
the Arbitrator must
temper the
statutory language relating
to the West Coast
cities with the
provisions set forth
in paragraph (f)
of RCW 41.56.460 which
specifically provides that
the Arbitrator shall also
take into
consideration:
. . . "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 Union requests that
the Arbitrator reject the evidence
offered
by the City regarding wages and
conditions in cities of
similar size in California
and Oregon on the
basis that such
evidence is
not relevant to the economic
and statutory factors
under
consideration in the State of Washington and in the City of
Edmonds. The Union contends that the more relevant evidence for
the
Arbitrator to consider are
the comparable cities located
the
State of Washington and more specifically those in the Puget
Sound
area.
It is clear
that both parties
regard the selection
of
"comparable
cities" as the key issue underlying this dispute and
as such,
each side has
advanced a list
of cities which
it
considers to be
"comparable" to the City of
Edmonds, as a basis
for
comparison.
The
broad guidelines set
forth in paragraph
(c) of the
statute lend
no assistance to
either the parties
or the
Arbitrator in arriving
at what constitutes
a "comparable city"
for
purposes of determining which of the various proposals is the
more reasonable. There is
no magic formula
and neither the
parties nor
the Arbitrator are left
with any specific
criteria
against which one
can measure whether or not a particular
city
Is, or
is not, "comparable". The additional language of Section
(f) of the
statute relating to
"such other factors" which are
normally
or traditional taken
into consideration only further
serves
to broaden the spectrum as to what evidence the Arbitrator
should consider
as relevant in making this decision.
The wide range
of interpretation of
the legislative
"guidelines" of
what constitutes comparable
cities was clearly
evident
by the geographic and economic range of cities submitted
for
consideration in this
proceeding as a basis for
comparison.
The City
and the Union
have each submitted
extensive
documentation
of comparable cities and have advanced well
reason
arguments in justification
of their divergent
views as to why
they
have selected the cities used for comparison purposes.
The Arbitrator, in
reviewing all of
the evidence on
this
issue and
having taken into
consideration the respective
arguments of
counsel as applied
to the statutory
criteria set
forth in RCW
41.56.460, is of
the opinion that
the more
traditional
and accepted approach should be followed in
determining
what constitutes a comparable city. That approach,
in the Arbitrator's opinion
is to consider
first, those cities
similar in size which are in geographic
proximity to the City of
Edmonds, second, those cities similar in size located within
the
State of Washington, and third, those cities which
are similar in
size and
which are located
on the West
Coast of the
United
States. Although the Arbitrator has considered West
Coast cities
of similar size as
required by the statute, the
principal basis
for
the following decision is predicated on the more traditional
approach
which takes into consideration those cities which are of
similar size
and are located
in geographical proximity
to the
City
of Edmonds. This approach, takes
into consideration that
most employees
measure their level
of income and benefits with
other
employees similarly situated in communities of similar size
in his or
her immediate geographic
area. In the Arbitrator's
opinion, this
is consistent with
the legislative intent
of
paragraph (f)
of RCW 41.56.460,
and in accordance
with the
decisions
of other Arbitrators who have considered this issue.
The Union in its post hearing brief cites the
Arbitrator to
the
excellent opinion of Arbitrator Howard
S. Block in the 1982
interest
arbitration decision involving the City
of Bellevue and
its firefighters. Arbitrator Block, when considering the issue
of
comparable cities, offered this opinion:
The comparative data offered by both the City and Union
are useful and
illuminating, but both
are flawed in
significant
respects. For example, in the selection of
its 15 comparative
cities from Washington, Oregon
and
California (5 from each
state) , Bellevue has
ignored
one crucial
fact , namely , that
it is located in the
midst
of a large metropolitan area. It is clear from
the record of
this proceeding and
undisputed by the
parties that compensation levels in large metropolitan
cities
and their environs are higher than those in less
densely populated areas.1 On
the other hand,
the
comparative cities selected
by the Union
are more
relevant,
but the population spread of those cities (up
to
249,999) is overbroad; furthermore, there is
considerable
merit to
the City's arguments
that the
comparative data
presented by the
Union do not
represent a
true picture. A further analysis of
these
comparative data is
presented in the
discussion of
"Monthly
Salaries."
What then
constitutes an appropriate
basis for
selecting
comparative cities bearing in mind that exact
comparisons are
rarely, if ever,
possible?
Understandably, the parties
were faced with a dilemma
in
attempting to select cities of "similar size" within
Washington that are
truly comparable. No matter how
loosely
the "similar size" criterion is construed, few
Washington cities
other than Everett
are truly
comparable to Bellevue. Almost all Oregon cities
of
similar size are
located outside of major
population
centers
and, therefore, lack an important
ingredient of
comparability.
In interest arbitration,
we usually look
first for
relevant local and
regional comparisons because
area
Mr. Dow, the
City's negotiator, concurred
with Professor
Knowles, the Union's economist, that higher wages generally
prevail in metropolitan areas. (Tr. 353:19-21).
peer
parity is most meaningful to all those involved."
Arbitrator Block
then refers to
an article published
by
Professor Irving Bernstein, from his Publication on Arbitration
of
Wages, in which Arbitrator Bernstein
notes:
"Comparisons are
pre-eminent in wage
determination
because all parties
at interest derive
benefit from
adequacy
of his income. He feels no discrimination if
he
stays abreast of other workers in his
industry, his
locality, his
neighborhood . .
. awards
based thereon
are apt to
satisfy the normal
expectations of the
parties
and to appear just to the public."
Arbitrator Block then
goes on to
conclude in the City of
Bellevue decision:
"In short, area
comparisons of like jobs is a criterion
of fundamental importance
in interest arbitration.
Bellevue, it must be noted, is located centrally in the
Puget Sound area, immediately
east of Seattle. Puget
Sound is an integrated economic area
in a common labor
market
.
Therefore,
applying the above
rationale to
Bellevue, the Arbitrator concludes that
comparison with
cities in
the Puget Sound
area offer the
most
persuasive basis for
comparison and a criterion fully
sanctioned
by RCW 41.56.460(f)."
As
previously noted by the
Arbitrator, the City of Edmonds
is centrally located
in the Puget Sound area and therefore,
in
the
opinion of the Arbitrator, a comparison with similar cities
in the
Puget Sound area
provides the more relevant
basis for
comparison. This is
not to say
that the Arbitrator has
not
considered
cities of similar size on the West Coast of the United
States, as required by the statute, it is
only to state that the
more persuasive
evidence, in the
Arbitrator's opinion, is to
measure the wages
and benefits offered
by the City of Edmonds
against those provided
to uniformed personnel in cities of
similar size in
the Puget Sound area.
With these criteria
in
mind the Arbitrator will now address
the specific issues which
have
been submitted for determination.
1982 WAGES
(Appendix A)
Position of the Parties:
City Position - As a part
of a total economic package
the
City proposes that
the 1982 wage
schedule be
increased by six percent (6.0) over 1981 levels
effective May 1, 1982.
The City proposes no change in
the existing Step-Plan.
Union
Position - Effective
January 1, 1982,
the 1981
monthly
rates of pay for
employees shall be
increased
by eight point three percent
(8.3%). Effective January
1,
1982, the present Step
Plan shall be
reduced from
sixty-seven (67) months
of service to
fifty-five (55)
months of service.
Arbitrator's Opinion
(a) Comparable
Cities - As
previously noted, the City and
the
Union have taken
divergent views on
which cites should be
considered
as comparable to Edmonds by the Arbitrator.
As might
be expected,
the City requests
the Arbitrator to
consider as
comparables
those West Coast cities of similar size which reflect
lower
wage levels; and the Union advances those cities of similar
size in the State of Washington which demonstrate a
higher wage
scale
for its uniformed officers.
The Arbitrator has reviewed all the evidence and respective
arguments of
the parties on the issue
of wages. In the
Arbitrator's opinion, it would serve no
constructive purposes to
enumerate in this
opinion, the specific
contentions of the
parties, nor
would it be
of assistance to
the parties to set
forth
the conflicting evidence that was submitted on which cities
should
be regarded as comparable cites when compared to the City
of
Edmonds.
The Arbitrator, in reviewing the evidence submitted by
both
parties, finds
that there are
four cities which
both parties
agree
are comparable cities of similar size and which may be used
as
basis for comparison to the City of Edmonds.
Those cities are
Longview,
Lynnwood, Olympia and Puyallup. Although these cities
are
not all located in the Puget Sound geographic area, they are
nevertheless
cities of similar size and are generally
representative
of the economic conditions which currently prevail
in the City of Edmonds.
More
importantly, both parties
agree
that these
cities may be
used as comparable
to the City
of
Edmonds. The evidence, as
reflected in City
Exhibit 11,
demonstrates that the uniformed officers of the City of
Edmonds,
in comparison with
their counterparts in the four
comparison
cities,
would, under the City's proposal, receive wages which are
above the
average wage of the uniformed
officers in the
four
comparable
cities.
In the opinion of the Arbitrator, in evaluating all of the
evidence
that was submitted during the course of the hearing, the
Arbitrator finds that
the more persuasive evidence on the
issue
of
wages and benefits is to
be found
first in the cities which
both
parties agree are comparable and in those cities of similar
size
that are located in the Puget Sound area.
(b) Internal
Parity - The City contends that the Arbitrator
in formulating an award in this case, should
take into
consideration
the need for internal parity between the uniformed
officers and
the other bargaining
units within the
City of
Edmonds, two
of which are
represented by Teamsters Local
763.
The City offered in evidence the negotiated settlements for the
Police Support Services;
Public Works; Clerical, Professional,
Technical and Service Employees
and the Firefighters, all
reflecting a
1982 wage increase of 6.0% or 6.08%.
The Arbitrator finds,
consistent with Section
(f) of the
statute, that
internal parity within the
respective bargaining
units
of the City, is a factor which is
traditionally taken into
consideration
by Arbitrators in interest arbitrations.
Accordingly, internal parity has been taken into
consideration in
arriving
at the level of the 1982 wage increase for the uniformed
personnel
of this bargaining unit.
(c) Effective Date of
Wage Increase and
Benefits - The
parties
are in arbitration over the wages, benefits and terms of
the
provisions of the
1982 labor agreement, as specifically set
forth in the
stipulated issues in
dispute. Accordingly, in
response to
those stipulated issues,
it is understood
that the
Arbitrator's award will
necessarily have retroactive effect. The
parties
disagrees to the date the award should
become
effective. The City
contends that May
1, 1982, is
the
appropriate
date, the Union, January 1, 1982.
The Arbitrator has reviewed the arguments of both parties
on
this issue
and finds that the Union's
position is the
more
persuasive
for the following reasons. First, that
to adopt the
City proposal is to break the continuity of the
labor agreements
which
have been in existence since 1968. The
previous agreement
expired on December 31,
1981. The City offered no persuasive
reason
why the members of
the bargaining unit should be denied
wage
and benefit increases for the first four months of 1982. If
the
uniformed officers are entitled to wage and benefit increase,
then
that increase should be retroactively applied on
an annual
basis commencing on
January 1, 1982.
The members of the
bargaining unit should
not be financially
penalized simply
because the
parties have not
been able to
reach an agreement.
Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds that the
effective date of the
wage
increase and all benefits awarded by the Arbitrator in this
matter
shall have an effective date of January 1,
1982.
(d) Step
Schedule - In
addition to the requested
increase
in
the uniformed officers basic wage rate,
the Union proposes a
reduction
of the present salary step plan from 67. months to 55
months
of service. This proposal is rejected by the City.
The step plan sets forth the length of service required
to
move from a entry level position
to a maximum pay scale, which
for the City of Edmonds is 67 months,
or 5 years and 7 months.
The Union contends that
the present salary step schedule
of 67
months is unreasonable
in length of time and inconsistent with
comparable
cities of similar size. The Union
introduced evidence
which
demonstrated that the average time for
uniformed officers
in
the Union's comparable cities to move through the step plan is
44 months, or nearly 2 years
longer than under the step schedule
currently
governing the pay scale for uniformed
officers in the
City
of Edmonds.
The City contends that
the Union's proposal results
in an
accelerated
advancement through the step plan. The City further
objects to its
retroactive application. The
City also contends
that the method
of how the plan
is to be
implemented as never
been
advanced by the Union.
The Arbitrator finds
that the current
salary schedule or
step plan
for the City
of Edmonds uniformed
officers is not
consistent
with comparable cities of similar size and accordingly
the step plan shall be
reduced from 67 months to 55
months of
service as
proposed by the
Union with an
effective date of
January 1, 1982.
The City brings to the Arbitrator's attention that the
Union
has never set forth a specific schedule of how the
reduced plan
shall
be implemented by the parties. While it is true that
the
Union did not
introduce a specific step plan setting forth the
method of accomplishing
the Union's proposal,
the Arbitrator
would anticipate
that an acceptable
step plan could
be
satisfactorily
agreed upon by the parties. The
Arbitrator shall
retain
jurisdiction in the event the parties are unable to reach
an agreement as
to the method of
implementing the Arbitrator's
award
on this issue.
(d) Monthly Wage Increase - The Union
is requesting that
effective January
1, 1982, the
1981 monthly rates
of pay for
uniformed personnel shall
be increased by 8.3
percent whereas
the
City contends that the wage increase should be limited to 6.0
percent. The Arbitrator in arriving at a decision on
the rate of
increase
has taken into consideration the statutory criteria, the
comparable
cities as previously discussed, the consideration of
internal parity within the city bargaining
units, the effective
date of
the increase, the adjustment of
the step plan
and the
award
on the balance of the issues hereinafter set forth. On the
basis
of these considerations, the Arbitrator is of
the opinion
that
the evidence supports a finding that the 1981 wage schedule
for uniformed officers
be increased by
6 percent effective
January 1, 1982.
Arbitrator Award:
It will
be the order of the Arbitrator that
the 1982 wage
schedule be
increased by six
(6) percent over
the 1981 level,
effective
January 1, 1982. It will be the further order of the
Arbitrator that effective
January 1, 1982,
the present 1981
salary
step plan shall be reduced from sixty-seven (67) months of
service
to fifty-five (55) months of service.
ISSUE
NO. 2
HEALTH AND WELFARE
Article X
Position of the Parties:
City Position - As a part of the total economic package, the
City proposes that
the City pay eighty (80) percent of the
employee and
dependents premium based
on the January
1,
1982,
rate schedules for the
various insurance plans for the
remainder of
1982 after May
1, 1982, unless
otherwise
provided by state law (RCW
41.26) for those employees hired
prior to October 1, 1977.
Union
Position - Effective
January 1, 1982,
the Employer
shall
pay one hundred
(100) percent of
those premiums
necessary to maintain the existing
level of benefits for the
various insurance
plans for all
employees and their
dependents.
Arbitrator's Opinion
The
parties are in
basic disagreement on
the amount of
health and
welfare benefits to be paid
by the City
and the
effective date of
when the premium should be paid. The Union
also
contends that the distinguishment
between LEOFF I and LEOFF
II position
should be set
aside and that
one hundred (100)
percent
of premiums should be paid by the City for both LEOFF I
and
II employees.
The current level of health and welfare benefits of
seventy
(70) percent of LEOFF I and
fifty-three (53) percent of LEOFF II
employees has remained
unchanged since February 1,1978.
The
Union submits that cities throughout the State of
Washington pay
one
hundred (100) percent of medical and dental coverage for both
the employees and
their dependents. The Union's comparable
cities reflect
that in all
but two of
the cities cited
the
employer
paid one hundred (100) percent of the
medical
benefits. (Union Exhibit 11)
The City contends that
the increase in
health and welfare
benefits
proposed by the Union results in a substantial
increase
in
the dollar contribution to the total economic package offered
to
the uniformed personnel. The City
further argues that
Union
Exhibit 11 is
based upon 1981
data and is
therefore outdated.
The City refers the Arbitrator
to City Exhibit 26 which reflects
that in
previous years the
cities did in
fact pay one
hundred
(100) percent of
employee and dependent premiums.
However, the
current
practice and the trend is for employees to pay a portion
of the insurance
premium. The City
further resists the
equalization of benefits
between LEOFF I and II officers on the
basis
that such a decision by the Arbitrator would be contrary to
the expressed intent
of the Washington
State Legislature to
segregate the benefits
between the two
categories of uniformed
personnel
which is based on their date of
hire, i.e. before and
after
October 1, 1977.
The
Arbitrator concludes that
the health and
welfare
benefits
received in 1981 by the uniformed officers
is below the
level of
benefits provided by
comparable cities in
the Puget
Sound
area.
The City has recognized this
inequity in benefits and has
agreed to increase
the level of premium contribution to
eighty
(80) percent of employee and
dependent premiums for all benefits
provided. The Arbitrator is of the opinion that the
City did not
go
far enough in
increasing the level of benefits
in order that
they
would be comparable to cities of similar size
in the Puget
Sound area. Employee health and welfare benefits are
areas where
the employer
has an opportunity
to offset lower
wages brought
about
by a depressed economy and to do so at minimal
cost to the
employer. In view
of the limited
wage increase previously
awarded and
in consideration of the evidence
of health and
welfare
benefits of comparable cities, the Arbitrator finds that
the
City should pay one hundred (100) percent of those premiums
necessary to
maintain the existing
level of benefits
for the
various insurance plans presently provided
for employees and
eighty (80)
percent of the
premiums for the
employees'
dependents.
The City urges that
the Arbitrator resist the Union's plea
to
abolish the distinguishment between LEOFF I and II
officers as
it relates to health and welfare benefits. It is clear that an
inequity exist
between the LEOFF
I and II
employees and that
inequity
exists only by virtue, or lack thereof, of the employees
date
of hire. The City offered no persuasive
evidence other than
referring
to the intent of the legislature, to
indicate why this
inequity
should continue. The Arbitrator is of
the opinion that
the
health and welfare benefits should be equalized for uniformed
officers
regardless of their date of hire.
For
the reasons previously set forth
in this Opinion, the
Arbitrator is of the opinion
that the health and welfare benefits
ordered
in this Award shall have an effective date of January 1,
1982.
Arbitrator's Award:
It
will be the
order of the
Arbitrator that effective
January 1, 1982, the employer
shall pay one hundred (100) percent
of those premiums
necessary to maintain the
existing level of
benefits for the
various insurance plans
for all employees and
eighty
(80) percent of the premiums for the employees' dependents
irrespective
of whether such employees are classified as LEOFF I
or
LEOFF II officers.
VACATION LEAVE
Article VII
Position of the Parties:
City Position - As a part
of the total
economic package,
employer
would agree to one additional vacation day added to
the
existing vacation schedule, with maximum carry over from
one (1) calendar year
to another limited to the
equivalent
of twelve (12)
months accumulated leave
for the employee
unless the employee is
not able to take scheduled vacation
due
to pol ice department workload.
Union Position Effective
January 1, 1982,
the existing
vacation schedule shall
be improved to
reflect one (1)
additional
day at each increment accrual level with no other
changes
in the article.
Arbitrator's Opinion
The
parties are in
disagreement as to whether
or not the
employer
should be entitled to consider the additional one day of
vacation
as part of the total economic package.
The
Arbitrator finds that with the additional day of
vacation, as
conceded by the City, the City of Edmonds will be
comparable if not
higher in its
vacation benefits to cities of
similar
size in the Puget Sound area.
The parties are
in dispute as to whether there
should be a
limitation
on the carry over of accrued vacation from one year to
the next. Chief of Police Foster testified as
to the need
to
limit the amount of total vacation
carried over from one year to
the next. There is
also evidence that
other bargaining units
within
the City have agreed to the one year limitation on accrued
,vacation carry over.
The Union argues
that the employees with
anniversary dates
in a latter
part of the
year stand to lose
their accrued vacation
on the basis
that such vacation was not
taken during
the earlier part
of the year
that they would in
effect lose those accrued days of vacation by virtue
of the one
year 1
imitation of carry over.
The Arbitrator is
of the opinion
that the City's position
has merit and
is consistent with
labor agreements previously
reached
with other bargaining units within
the City. However,
the
Arbitrator rejects the City's contention that the cost of the
additional day of vacation should be
included as part of the six
(6) percent wage
increase or a
part of the
total economic
package". The additional day of vacation is an
additional fringe
benefit
for the uniformed officers and should not be included as
part
of the six (6) percent increase in wage compensation.
Arbitrator' s Award:
It
will be the
order of the
Arbitrator that effective
January 1, 1982,
the vacation schedule
shall be improved
to
reflect one additional
vacation day added
to the existing
vacation
schedule and that such benefits shall not be included as
part of the six
(6) percent wage increase
previously awarded by
the
Arbitrator. It is the further order of the Arbitrator that
the
maximum carry over from one calendar year to the next shall
be limited to the
equivalent of twelve
(12) months accumulated
leave for the employee,
unless the employee is not able to take
scheduled
vacation due to police department workload.
PHYSICAL FITNESS
(ADDENDUM)
Position of Parties:
City Position - The City proposes to maintain
the existing
Physical Fitness Standards
and to update
the current
agreement to provide
for a qualified
medical authority,
i.e., qualified local physician. The City will continue to
offer
available facilities for employee physical exercise.
Union Position - Not
withstanding any other provision to he
contrary, employee
participation in the
Physical Fitness
Program as set forth within
Addendum "A" shall be voluntary.
Arbitrator's Opinion
The parties have
agreed by the terms of
their contract to
establish
and maintain a physical fitness
program. Article 14.2
of
the Labor Agreement provides:
"Physical Fitness. The Employer and
the
Union
agree that satisfactory
performance
of Police Department duties
requires that
employees maintain physical
fitness, and
that meaningful and
reasonable standards
should
be established and achieved in order
to assist employees
in maintaining the
required
physical fitness."
The City and the Union are in disagreement as to the
methods
and standards
which are to
be applied for
purposes of
implementing the language
set forth in
the contract. The
evidence before the Arbitrator
on this issue
is extensive and
conflicting.
This
provision has been a
part of
the contract since 1980
and
both parties agree that a
modification of the standards of
physical fitness are
required. The Union
contends that the
present
provision contains the implication that
an employee would
be
subject to discipline for failing to
comply with the physical
fitness program. Although there
has been no
evidence of any
disciplinary
action taken against a uniformed officer for failure
to comply with the
program, the Union argues
that the program
should nevertheless be
voluntary, rather than
mandatory, in
nature. The basis
for the Union's
contention is that
the
physical
fitness standards have not been established as being job
related
nor realistic. Finally, the Union maintains that none of
the
comparable cities cited by the Union have required that their
physical fitness program
be made mandatory
in nature (Union
Exhibit 44). For these
reasons, the Union requests
that the
Arbitrator modify the
current language of the contract
by
establishing
the employee's participation in the physical fitness
program
be voluntary in nature.
The City in response to the Union's Position
contends that
the
physical fitness program is definitely
job related and the
current language
of the contract should be maintained; and only
the physical fitness
standards need to be
modified. Chief of
Police Foster testified as to the
importance of the program and
the need
to retain the
current language of the
contract. The
Chief further recommended
that the parties
adopt the physical
fitness standards established
by the Washington
State Police
Academy as standards
which were reasonable in nature
and more
related to the
physical on-the-job requirements
of uniformed
officers.
On
the basis of the
evidence submitted on this issue,
the
Arbitrator finds that
the physical fitness
program should be
included in
the contract with
the current language
being
maintained. The Arbitrator further
finds that the
current
physical fitness standards should be modified
to be more in line
with the physical
on-the-job requirements of
the uniformed
officers. Accordingly, the Arbitrator finds
that the City and
the
Union should adopt those physical fitness standards which are
currently
utilized by the Washington State Police Academy.
It
is the Arbitrator's
view that the
maintenance of a
physical
fitness program for uniformed police officers is neither
unreasonable nor burdensome
for the members of the bargaining
unit. To adopt such a program on a voluntary basis
would only
result
in the deterioration of the overall program.
The evidence
supports a finding that the City has not abused the
"mandatory"
nature
of the provision and in the opinion of the Arbitrator, is
unlikely to do
so. The continuation of
the physical fitness
program benefits
not only the
individual employee, but
ultimately, the
citizens of the City
of Edmonds as well. The
continuation of the
physical fitness program
should, in the
Arbitrator's opinion, remain
as an integral part
of the labor
agreement
with a modification of the physical fitness standards
which are to be incorporated into the
program.
Arbitrator's Award:
It is the order of the Arbitrator that the existing
physical
fitness program shall
be maintained in the
contract with an
adoption of
standards of physical
fitness that are
consistent
with the standards
currently utilized by the
Washington State
Police Academy and further, to modify the
current agreement to
provide for
a qualified medical
physician to assist
in the
administration
of the program. On the basis of the
inclusion of
the physical fitness
program in the
contract, the City will
continue to offer
available facilities for
employee physical
exercise.
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
ARTICLE XI
Position of the Parties:
City Position - As a part of the
total economic package, the
City proposes to
increase the three hundred thirty
dollar
($330.00) uniform allowance to
three hundred sixty dollars
($360.00)
per year.
Union Position - It
shall be the Employer's responsibility
to
provide each employee
covered by this Agreement with a
clothing
allowance for uniform form and equipment
as necessary to
properly maintain the
employee uniform in
a presentable
manner
as required by the department.
Effective January 1,
1982, the
Employer shall pay
an amount equal
to three
hundred sixty dollars
($360.00) per year
per commissioned
officer
for maintenance of such uniform and equipment. The
employee
may select the place for purchase
provided color,
material, quality and other standards of the Department
are
maintained.
Arbitrator's Opinion
The City has agreed to increase the uniform allowance from
$330 per
year to $360
per year. The only
issue before the
Arbitrator is whether such allowance should be
considered as part
of
the "total economic package" proposed by the City.
The
evidence submitted on
this issue indicates
that the
agreed
upon increase places the uniformed
personnel for the City
of Edmonds
in a comparable
position with employees
of other
cities
of similar size in the Puget Sound area.
The issue before
the Arbitrator
is whether or not this
annual allowance for
maintenance and replacement
of employees' uniform and equipment
should come out
of the employees'
- six (6) percent
wage
increase. For the
reasons previously indicated
in this Award,
and
as determined for other benefits allowed,
the Arbitrator is
of
the opinion that the uniform allowance should not be included
as
part of the six (6) percent wage increase.
Accordingly,
the
Union's position on
the uniform allowance
shall be accepted
without
modification.
Arbitrator's Award:
It shall be the order of the
Arbitrator that the City shall
increase
the uniform allowance from $330.00 per
year to $360.00
per
year and that such increase shall not be considered as part
of the City's total
economic package. That such increase shall
be
effective January 1, 1982, and
further, that the employees may
select the place for purchase provided
color, material, quality
and
other standards of the department are maintained.
AWARD SUMMARY
The
Arbitrator has considered
all of the
evidence and
arguments
of the parties in connection with the issues submitted
for determination and
on the basis
of said evidence,
the
Arbitrator makes the following
award:
1. Wages: It will be the order of the
Arbitrator that the
1982 wage schedule be
increased by six (6) percent over the 1981
level, effective January 1, 1982.
It will be the further order
of the Arbitrator that
effective January 1, 1982,
the present
1981 salary
step plan shall
be reduced from
sixty-seven (67)
months
of service to fifty-five (55) months of service.
2. Health and Welfare:
It will be
the order of the
Arbitrator that effective
January 1, 1982, the employer shall pay
one
hundred (100) percent of those premiums necessary to maintain
the existing level
of benefits for
the various insurance plans
for
all employees and eight (80) percent of the premiums for the
employees' dependents
irrespective of whether such employees are
classified
as LEOFF I or LEOFF II officers.
3. Vacation
Leave: It will be the order of the
Arbitrator
that effective
January 1, 1982,
the vacation schedule
shall be
improved to
reflect one additional
vacation day added
to the
existing vacation
schedule and that such
benefits shall not be
included
as part of the six (6) percent wage increase previously
awarded by the
Arbitrator. It is
the further order
of the
Arbitrator that the maximum
carry over from one calendar year to
the
next shall be limited to he equivalent of twelve (12) months
accumulated leave for
the employee, unless the
employee is not
able to
take scheduled vacation
due to the
police department
workload.
4. Physical Fitness: It
is the order of the
Arbitrator
that
the existing physical fitness program shall be maintained in
the contract
with an adoption of
standards of physical
fitness
that
are consistent with the standards currently utilized by the
Washington State Police
Academy and further,
to modify the
current
agreement to provide for a qualified medical physician to
assist
in the administration of the program. On
the basis of the
inclusion
of the physical fitness
program in the contract,
the
City will continue to offer
available facilities for employee
physical
exercises.
5. Uniform Allowance: It
shall be the
order of the
Arbitrator that the
City shall increase
the uniform allowance
from
$330.00 per year to $360.00 per year and that such increase
shall not
be considered as
part of the City's
total economic
package. That such increase shall be effective
January 1, 1982,
and
further, that the employees may select
the place for purchase
provided color,
material , quality and
other standards of the
department are maintained.
Eric B. Lindauer
April 15, 1983
Salem, Oregon