And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Phillip Kienast
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Kienast; Philip
Case #: 04777-I-83-00104
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
ARBITRATION
CITY OF
)
of
) Arbitration Panel
-and- )
) Richard Rovig
)
GUILD )
________________________________ ) RE: Wage/Benefit Reopener
APPEARANCES
For the Guild:
Wil Aitchigon
of Aitchison and Sherwood, attorneys for the Guild.
For the City:
Marilyn Sherron, assistant City
attorney.
OPINION
This proceeding is pursuant to RCW 41.56. A hearing in this matter
was
held on December 12, 13, 14 and 15. The
issues in dispute were
salaries
and features of the medical and dental benefit package.
This Opinion and Award has been prepared by the Chairman
of the Panel
as
directed by RCW 41.56. It represents the
Chairman's conclusions based
upon
the Panel's lengthy deliberations. The
signatures of the partisan
Panel members attests solely
to the fact that each was offered full and
ample
opportunity to participate and comment on the conclusions made
hereinunder and that the Panel carefully considered all
relevant factors as
specifically
enumerated in RCW 41.56 and set out below:
41.56.460 Uniformed
personnel Arbitration
panel Basis
for
determination. In making its
determination, the panel shall
be
mindful of the legislative purpose enumerated in section 1 of
this
1973 amendatory act and an as additional standards or guide-
lines
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.
Contentions
The Guild contends a 12.0% across the board salary
adjustment is
warranted
when statutory criteria are considered.
By contrast, the City
argues a
1.5% salary increase represents an adequate and fair increase in
light
of the standards in RCW 41.56. The
parties agree that the City
should
continue to pay 100% of the medical and dental insurance. They
disagree
on whether the major medical deductible should be increased from
$50
to $100 per person. They
disagree on whether vision care improvements
should
be made in the medical services provided.
They also disagree
regarding
the eligibility of retired police officers to continue group
coverage
while paying their own premiums.
Estimates indicate the cost of
adding
the features sought by the Guild would be equal to approximately a
.5%
additional increase in salaries.
Pay Comparability
The parties differed somewhat in their approach to pay
comparability.
The City's analysis focused on
a set of West Coast cities that have been
utilized
by the parties in previous negotiations and arbitrations, with the
exception
of
mento,
argued
one-half
that of
less
than twice
negotiating
wages.
It notes that as of
for
these cities was $2,293 compared to
that
since 1971
average
rate of increase for the other cities was only 133% (CC-4). The
City argues that as of
these
cities was $2,401. It notes that the
salary in
$2,401 if a 1.5% increase was
awarded (CC-11). Moreover, the City
argues
that
when fringe benefits are considered that
favorably
to these other cities (CC-15).
The Guild took a different approach to the issue of
comparable cities.
It had an economist) Dr. Zerbe, empirically select comparable West Coast
cities
using population and ten other variables (retail sales, assessed
valuation,
crime rate) number of officers, each of the foregoing on a per
capita
basis plus crime rate per officer).
Utilizing a regression analysis
Dr. Zerby
concluded on a set of nine comparable cities:
Santa Ana,
and
The Guild's salary analysis (G-5)discloses
that the average police
officer's
base monthly salary in the nine cities selected by Dr. Zerby
was
$2,524
as compared to $2,461 for
adjustment
in cities that pay all or part of employee's contribution to a
pension
plan. It also includes longevity
increments where applicable. For
example,
in
bution. On
a base monthly top step salary of $2,377 the Guild calculates
it
would take an increase of 8.8% or a salary of $2,543 to equal the
disposable
income realized by the officer because of the 7% pension pickup
by
the City.
The Chairman has examined in great detail both the cities
chosen by
the
two parties and their methods for comparing compensation for officers
among
those cities. As regards the former,
five of the cities were common
to
the sets offered by both parties, namely:
Francisco,
of
comparables this year, but was in previous police interest arbitrations
dating
back to 1976 and including the most recent in September 1983
(Seattle Police Management
interest arbitration, Panel Chairman, Mike
Beck). Moreover,
as a
comparable city during this same period.
The City offered no persua-
sive argument as to why a city that has been
found a reasonable comparison
in
the past should now be excluded from use.
By contrast, the Guild's set of cities includes three
cities not found
in
the set it has in recent years agreed formed a reasonable comparison
group,
namely: Santa Ana, Anaheim and
Riverside. Its set also excludes
two
cities included in the cities and agreed comparables in previous nego-
tiations and arbitrations, namely: Sacramento and San Diego. However, the
Guild offered the expert
opinion and analysis of Dr. Zerbe to justify this
new
set. The Chairman finds considerable
merit in the empirical approach
used
by Dr. Zerbe.
Interestingly, his analysis disclosed Tacoma as the
most
comparable city under any formulation of his regression equation.
Joining Tacoma as most
comparable cities were Santa Ana, San Francisco, and
Oakland. Three of the most comparable cities in Dr. Zerbe's analy-
sis
were ones also adjudged by the parties in the past to be comparables.
Cities found to be slightly less comparable in Dr. Zerbe's analysis to
this
first group were Portland, Anaheim and Long Beach. Once again, two of
three
of these are ones traditionally used by the parties in negotiations
and
arbitrations. Dr. Zerbe's
analysis disclosed two other cities that
formed a
third and slightly less comparable set of cities: San Jose and
Riverside. His analysis did not find Sacramento and San
Diego, two of the
traditional
set of comparables used by œhe parties, to be
comparable.
In light of the foregoing analysis the Chairman has selected
a set of
six
comparable West Coast cities to be used.
The list is headed by Tacoma.
It is a city used historically
by the parties in negotiations and arbi-
trations. It
is the most comparable city uncovered by Dr. Zerbe's
analysis. Moreover, being in Washington, it operates
under the same
statutory
authority as does the City of Seattle. Also, like Seattle,
it
operates in the same regional labor market with comparable cost of
living
features, e.g. taxes.
Next on the list are Santa Ana, San Francisco and
Oakland. The latter
two
are both historical comparison cities and in the most comparable group
found
by Dr. Zerbe.
Santa Ana is included because, like San Francisco and
Oakland, it was in Dr. Zerbe's most comparable group and also because the
Chairman finds that a set of
comparables should be constructed that in-
cludes at least two data points for each area in
which all of Dr. Zerbe's
comparables
fall, namely, Los Angeles area) Bay area and Northwest area:
Los Angeles Area
Long Beach
Santa Ana
Bay Area
San Francisco
Oakland
Northwest Area
Tacoma
Portland
Portland is used as the other Northwest
comparable because it has been
used
historically by the parties as a comparable and is the only other
Northwest city found to be
comparable in Dr. Zerbe's analysis.
The Chairman has concluded that San Jose, Riverside and
Anaheim should
not
be used as comparables. First, because
it would result in a set of
cities
that was not proportionate, i.e. it would give the Los Angeles Area
and
Bay Area undue weight in comparison to the Northwest Area with four and
three
cities respectively as compared to two for the Northwest. Moreover,
San Jose and Riverside were
not in the two highest groups of comparable
cities
found by Dr. Zerbe.
And while San Jose has been a traditional
comparable
city used by the parties, its retention would unduly weight Bay
Area compensation patterns in
the comparability analysis. Anaheim is
not
used
for similar reasons, but also because it has not traditionally been
used as
a comparable city.
Regarding the methods for comparing compensation among
this set of
cities,
the Chairman believes pension pickups in the comparable cities must
be
factored into the analysis. However, he
finds the Guild's method
inflates
the impact of this practice. He finds a
more realistic approach
in a
method based on the concept of net salary.
For example, in Long Beach
the
effect of the pension pickup is to leave an officer with a net salary
after
his pension contribution of $2,329. By
contrast, a Tacoma officer's
comparable
net salary after his pension contribution of 6.5% is $2,315. In
light
of the parties stipulation for purposes of this hearing that pension
benefits
are comparable across jurisdictions, it is clear that considera-
tion of the employer's agreement to pick up all
or part of the employee
pension
costs makes a significant difference in actual monthly
compensation.
Monthly compensation is also increased by employer
payments for health
care
insurance. Since there are variations
among cities as the amount paid
on
behalf of an officer, the Chairman believes they should also be factored
into
the compensation comparison. For
example, currently Seattle pays an
average
of $224 per month per officer for health care insurance. By
contrast,
San Francisco pays only $65. The net
effect is that an officer
in
San Francisco must either pick up non-covered health expenses or pay the
additional
premium to get comprehensive coverage.
The Chairman has added
employer
paid health premiums to net salary after pension pickup to get an
approximate
idea of net monthly compensation. This
assumes that officers
would
purchase health coverage on the open market comparable to coverage
provided
by the Employer. This assumption appears
realistic since police
officers
through their associations exert considerable control over how
their
compensation is split between salary and benefits.
Table 1 discloses data on minimum or base monthly
compensation for the
six
cities in the comparability set determined by the Chairman. It shows
that
Seattle's base monthly compensation is 3.6% less than the average of
the
six comparable cities. It also discloses
that a higher percentage of
Seattle s compensation is
comprised of health payments as compared to the
average. This suggests that salaries could be made
more comparable simply
by
lowering the health care premiums in Seattle.
Hours of Work
Seattle's compensation compares more unfavorably when
hours of work
are
considered. The Guild argued that a more
proper comparison is made if
Table 1
Minimum of Base Monthly Compensation of a
Top Step Police Officer
in the Chairman Set of Six
Comparable Cities After Employer
Pickup of Some or All of Officers Pension
Contributions
and Health Insurance Costs,
January, 1984
_____________________________________________________________________________
(A) (B) (C) (D)
Net
Monthly Employer Monthly Monthly
Base Monthly Salary After Health Payment Compensation
Salary Pension Pickup
Pickup (C + B)
______________________________________________________________________________
Los Angeles Area
Long Beach
$2,377 $2,329 $224 $2,553
Santa Ana
2,463 2,438 168 2,606
Bay Area
San Francisco 2,525
2,342 65
2,407
Oakland
2,559 2,335 162 2,497
Northwest Area
Average 2,483 2,347 177 2,524
% of Difference
(-4.9%) (6.1%) (+2.7%) (-3.6%)
of
Seattle from
Average
_________________________________________________________________________________
both
hourly compensation and education/training incentives are considered.
It notes that officers in Seattle
assigned to patrol duty work a 8-1/4 hour
day
(due to a 15 minute required roll call) whereas patrol officers in
other
jurisdictions work only an 8 hour day.
This results in a Seattle
patrol
officer working approximately 5 hours extra per month. However,
this
figure must, in the chairman's view, be adjusted by the fact that only
60% of the bargaining unit are assigned to patrol.
The adjustment results
in
the average unit member working roughly 3 hours per month more than
their
counterparts in the comparable jurisdictions.
For the sake of comparison if one assumes a 160 hour work
month is the
average
for the comparable cities then the average officer's hourly compen-
sation would be $15.78 per hour. Seattle's comparable average work month
of
163 hours results in an hourly compensation rate of $14.94, 5.6% less
than
the average hourly rate.
Contingent Pay
In all the comparable cities police officers can increase
their
monthly
pay by meeting certain contingencies.
Seattle and Tacoma are
unique
in providing salary increments based on employment anniversary
dates: 2, 4, 6 and 8% respectively at 5, 10, 15 and
20 years of service.
By contrast, all other cities
have contingent pay based on a combination of
education
(AA, BA or Masters degree) and/or training and police experience
(Intermediate and Advanced
POST-Police Officer Standard Training--certifi-
cates).
For instance, the best is Santa Ana where an AA degree plus 5
years
experience gets an officer an increase in his monthly pay of $l80--in
four more
years he gets $360/month without any further educational attain-
ment. By
contrast an AA degree in Oakland gets an officer only $26 per
month
more regardless of years of experience (Oakland does have a small
longevity
increment that the Chairman has estimated at the $20 figure for
an
officer at the ten years experience level).
In Long Beach an Inter-
mediate
POST certificate earns an officer $1O5 per month additional pay, an
advanced
POST earns him a maximum monthly increment of $189.
Table 2 discloses the minimum and maximum monthly
contingent pay that
officers
can earn in the six comparable West Coast cities. It shows that
at
the minimum Seattle compares unfavorably and at the maximum it compares
favorably. In the absence of evidence regarding the
numbers of officers in
the
comparable cities who earn what level of contingent pay, any further
analysis
or conclusions are impossible.
The Guild noted its membership survey (U-D) disclosed 7%
of their
members
had Masters degrees, 30% Bachelors degrees and 39% had at least an
AA
degree. It
argued that virtually three quarters of its members would be
eligible
for the various education based contingent pay in the comparable
cities. By contrast, the City argued that in the past
it has been willing
to
institute education based contingent pay, but the Guild was disinclined
to
do so. Moreover, the City argued it
required only a high school degree
for
hire and continued employment and therefore should not have to pay for
something
it does not require.
The Chairman is not persuaded by the Guild's
position. Effectively it
wants
an educational increment folded into base salary. In every other
jurisdiction
the evidence shows recognition of education is contingent on
an
individual officer's level of attainment.
The parties have considered
the
matter of education incentives in previous negotiations and agreed not
Table 2
Minimum and Maximum Monthly Contingent Pay In
the
Six Comparable Cities, 1983-84
______________________________________________________________________________
City Monthly Minimum Monthly
Maximum
______________________________________________________________________________
Long Beach $lO5 $l89
Santa Ana
180
360
San Francisco 0 0
Oakland 46
148
Tacoma 52
210
Portland
60
60
Average $
74 $
l6l
________________________________________________________________________________
to
institute one. The Chairman declines to
factor in education incentives
in
other jurisdictions to base salary comparisons.
Cost of Living
The Guild argues that the salary of a police officer with
an average
13.2 years of service has been
eroded by changes in the cost of living as
measured
by the CPI, regardless of whether the urban wage earners (W) or
all
urban consumers (U) series is used (U-B).
The city argues the oppo-
site. The difference is largely attributable to
whether longevity pay and
paid
health premiums are considered. Table 3
discloses the changes since
1967 and 1971 in cost of
living and changes in compensation for unit
members
and the average U.S. worker.
The data in the table show, regardless of which base year
or which CPI
index
is used, that unit members compensation has increased faster than the
cost
of living. It is only when one focuses
on base salary and uses the
base
year of 1971 that the CPI rises faster than pay. However, the chair-
man
believes that focus is too narrow. A
significant factor in the CPI
increases
has been the dramatic increase in health care costs. Since unit
members
are provided an excellent health care package they are virtually
unaffected
by this increase. Accordingly, it is
appropriate to add the
monthly
health premium paid by the employer to their salary to get a
balanced
picture of how unit members have fared in relation to inflation.
Also, longevity premiums
should be factored into the picture in the
chairman's
view since they increase as a percentage of base pay.
The City presented evidence regarding the dollars needed
to support
a
predetermined pattern of purchases in its comparable cities. It had a
consultant, Runzheimer and Co., Inc. do an empirical analysis of the
costs
Table 3
Trends Monthly Compensation of 10 Year
Officer in Seattle in
Relation to EPI and Compensation Index
____________________________________________________________________________
Percentage Percentage
Increase
Increase
Consumer Price 1971 Since
1971 Since
1967
_ Index_________1967___________(W)______1983__________________________________________
CPI-W 100.0 117.6 299.0 154% 199%
CPI-u 100.0 121.2 304.5 155% 210%
Compensation Index*
Comp. Index 50.8 61.5 164.4 167% 222%
Seattle Monthly
Compensation
Base Salary $670 $975 $2,366 143%
Plus Longevity $670 $984 $2,461 150%
Plus Health $695 $1,016 $2,697 165% 288%
Insurance
___________________________________________________________________________________________
*Nonfarm
business sector, all persons: hourly
compensation includes employer expenditures
for
hourly wages, pay supplements and payments to pension and health plans and
other
employee
benefits, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Productivity
and
Cost Series.
to
provide a typical middle income expenditure pattern for a family of
four:
earning $28,400 with one car and a three bedroom, 1-1/2 bath, 1600
sq.
ft. house in December 1983. Table 4
discloses the index of expendi-
tures needed to support this assumed lifestyle in
four of the six com-
parable
cities (Runzheimer did not survey Tacoma or Santa
Ana). Table 4
suggests
Table 4
Runzheimer
Indices of Expenditures in Four
Comparable Cities, December, 1983
City Cost
Index (a)
San Francisco 116.0
long Beach 113.2
Oakland 105.9
Portland 104.7
109.9
Seattle 99.2
Standard City, USA 100.0
________________________________
(a) Table 1, p. Ic
that
on average a person in Seattle spends 10.7% less to support the
assumed
standard of living than the average person in the four cities
shown.
Now the City argues that since it cost less to live in
Seattle, that
salaries
should be adjusted accordingly. while the Chairman sees some
merit
in this argument, he is hesitant to give too much weight to this one
factor. First, the Runzheimer
analysis was done at a single point in time.
whether
these cost differences are stable over even the short run is
questionable. For example, a similar study of living cost done
by the
American Chamber of Commerce
Researcher Association (Area Cost-of-Living
Index for Metro Cities, First
Charter 1983; Inter-City Cost of Living
Indicators) supports this
point. It surveyed a different set of
cities in
California, but two were in
common with Runzheimer: San Jose and Sacra-
mento. Th San Jose the Chamber index was 117.1 in the first
quarter of
1983. Runzheimer's survey nine months later
results in an index of
107.2-nearly
a 10% difference.
Similarly in Sacramento Runzheimer's index
was
101.0 while the Chambers was 107.1--a 7% difference in the opposite
direction
from that found in San Jose. The Chamber
surveyed Tacoma and
found
its index to be 103.0. Nine months later
Runzheimer finds Seattle's
index
at 99.2-a 4% difference. while one would expect some difference
between
the two studies due to different assumptions about expenditure
patterns,
the size of the difference suggests other sources, e.g. sample
size,
statistical error and/or actual fluctuation in real cost
expenditures.
In addition, the Runzheimer
survey discloses that one can drastically
change
one's living expenditures by simply moving a short distance. For
instance,
if a person chooses to live in San Francisco rather than Oakland
his
expenditures rise by 10%. If he chooses
the other way his living costs
decrease
by 10%.
Other Factors
In the Chairman's view the most important other factor to
consider is
labor
market conditions in the Seattle area, both in the public and private
sectors. Table 5 shows 1983 base monthly salaries for
police officers in
the
fourteen highest paying cities in the Seattle area labor market. Table
4 reveals
that Seattle's 1983 base monthly salary of $2,366 is only $1 more
Table 5
Base Salary Changes in the Twelve Highest
Paid Cities in 1983
_________________________________________________________________________________
Base
Salary
1983
for Percentage
Top
Step Increase
for
Police
Officer 1984
__________________________________________________________________________________
Renton $2,485
0
Auburn
2,463
3.0
Kirkland
2,462
4.0
Tacoma
2,406
6.0
Mercer Island
2,391
4.6
Bellevue
2,371 In
Arbitration
Everett
2,347
4.0
Mountlake Terrace 2,342
3.0
Kent
2,325
4.3
Lynnwood
2,233
5.0
Edmonds
2,178
3.0
Average
2,365
3.3%
1984 Average $2,465
__________________________________________________________________________________
than
the average salary of the twelve other cities of $2,365. If only the
three
largest cities (Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett) are considered then
Seattle Salary is $8 below
average. Table 5 also discloses that the
average
salary settlement for 1984 in these twelve Seattle area cities was
3.3% resulting in base salary
average of $2,465.
In the private sector, wage settlements in 1983 in and
around Seattle
were
characterized by wage freezes or modest first year increases averaging
roughly
3%. Nationwide, private sector,
negotiated first year increases
averaged
only 1.7% during the first nine months of 1983.
Seattle settle-
ments appear on average to be in line with this
national pattern.
The Guild argues that increase in officer productivity in
recent years
also
support its salary position (U-E). This
argument is difficult to
evaluate
without the same information from comparable cities. By contrast,
the
City provides some analysis of workload/productivity in Seattle and its
8
comparable jurisdictions.
Seattle is second only to San Francisco in
officers
per thousand population and has the fourth highest crime rate per
100,000 population,
and ranks five Out of 8 in terms of number of crimes
per
officer (WL 3-5).
The Chairman finds that, on balance, the Guild and City
evidence
regarding
productivity/workload discloses that Seattle is not different
enough,
either compared to its past or other cities, to warrant a
"productivity
increase" over and above an increase indicated by other
factors.
Salary Determination
The foregoing consideration of the factors set out in RCW
41.56 sets
the
stage for the salary decision. While the
law instructs the Panel to
consider
these factors, it does not indicate how much each factor should be
weighed
in the final analysis. In the Chairman's
view it is a reasonable
assumption
that the various factors discussed above were also considered by
city
and police officer negotiators in arriving at recent salary settle-
ments in the Seattle area. Why?
Because if those parties had reached
impasse
they also would have had their salaries determined under RCW 41.56.
In his opinion the best single
guide to what constitutes an equitable
salary
increase in this proceeding is what other parties similarly situated
have
found reasonable to agree upon regarding salary levels--all other
things
being relatively equal. Seattle area
cities are more similarly
situated
than other West Coast cities. They
operate under Washington
statute
and are in the same living areas and labor market.
Recent area settlements have averaged 3.3%. The discussion now turns
to a
consideration of whether other things warrant an adjustment of this
figure
in the case of Seattle.
If we consider the West Coast comparables, Seattle lags
in base
monthly
compensation by 3.6% or in terms of hourly compensation by 5.6%.
Given cost of living differences among these cities
and Seattle, the
Chairman does not believe
Seattle should be the compensation leader of this
group
of West Coast comparables. In his
opinion, and in light of the
evidence
in this proceeding, Seattle should remain in the mid range in
terms
of base monthly compensation, a position Seattle has held in recent
years
in relation to the old set of comparables used by the parties.
By contrast until 1978, Seattle was among the
compensation leaders of
larger
area cities and traditionally near parity with Tacoma. In recent
years
its position has slipped considerably.
In the Chairman's opinion
historical
patterns deserve some weight in the salary decision. Accord-
ingly, he adjusts the beginning 3.3% upward to
3.5%. This increase will
begin
to reverse the downward slide of Seattle among its local comparables.
The Chairman understands the
desire of the Guild to "catch up" faster to
its
local comparables, especially Tacoma.
However, the Chairman believes a
speedier catchup would be imprudent because of the severe fiscal and
labor
relations
strain any larger increase would place on the City. Also, if
historic
patterns are based on factors that continue to the present the
Seattle police officers will
probably find themselves once again compen-
sation leaders as a result of increases over the
next few years.
The parties have already agreed to a continuation of 100%
payment of
health
care premiums by the City in the second year of the contract. This
increase
is equivalent of an additional salary increase of 0.7% (CA-i
pp.
2&3). Accordingly, an increase of 3.5% on salaries
represents a 4.2%
increase
in total compensation. The size of this
increase will also keep
Seattle compensation near the
average for the West Coast comparables, a
position
the Chairman determines to be appropriate in light of all the
evidence.
Health Insurance
The City contends that an increase in the major medical
deductible
from
$50 to $100 is justified by inflation and prior agreements. It argues
that
the CPI and salaries have more than doubled since the $50 deductible
was
set in 1971. Moreover, it notes that the
parties agreed in Article 11,
Section 6 of the prior
agreement that the deductible would increase when it
did
for other employees. It has increased to
$100 for other City
employees. Accordingly, the Chairman will order an
increase to $100 for
unit
employees.
The Guild proposes to add coverage for glasses to the
current vision
care
program. However, it did not present
persuasive evidence and argument
as
to why this proposal should be adopted.
By contrast, the City intro-
duces evidence that provision of glasses in other
West Coast cities was the
exception
rather than the rule. The Chairman
therefore rejects the
proposal.
The Guild also proposed that a plan be devised so that
retired
officers
can purchase continued health insurance coverage through a City
sponsored
group plan. The Chairman finds this
proposal reasonable. The
City is currently reviewing
its plan through which other retired City
employees
can maintain group coverage at their own expense. The Chairman
believes
that retired police officers should be eligible for the group
insurance
plan for retirees that results from this review. The agreement
reached
between the City and the fire fighters union provides a model for
language
to be placed in the agreement to achieve the desired result.
AWARD
1. Salaries: 3.5%
increase in base monthly salaries retroactive to
September 1, 1983.
2. Major medical deductible:
increase from $50 to $100 effective
March 1, 1984.
3. City, and Union representatives will meet within 60 days
after the
date of this Award to explore
the possibility of group medical
insurance coverage through the
City for spouses and eligible
dependents of members of the
bargaining unit who have retired. Said
group coverage would be the same
in terms of medical benefits,
eligibility rules , and carriers
as now made available to City
employees who are members of the
City of Seattle Retirement System and
would be implemented as soon as
possible.
4. All other demands are summarily denied.
Philip Kienast
Panel Chairman
February 24, 1984
Seattle, Washington