INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

Decision Information

Decision Content

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 1997

And

Snohomish County Fire Protection Employment

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      Paul D. Jackson

Date Issued:   05/23/1984

 

 

Arbitrator:         Jackson; Paul D.

Case #:              04910-I-83-00106

Employer:          Snohomish County Fire Dist.

Union:                IAFF; Local 1997

Date Issued:     05/23/1984

 

 

            In the Matter of the Arbitration                                )

                                                                                                )          

                                                            of                                 )          

                                                                                                )          

                                                                                                )

            SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION    )           WASHINGTON PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

                                                            DISTRICT NO. 1,     )           RELATIONS COMMISSION

                                                                                                )

            Employer,                                                                   )           Interest Arbitration

                                                                                                )           Case No. 4910-1-83-106

                        and                                                                  )          

            INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF                )

            FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL #1997,                           )

                                                                                                )

                                                            Union.                         )

___________________________________________          )

 

                        Place of Hearing:                               Lynnwood, Washington

 

                        Dates of Hearing:                              March 29, 30 and

                                                                                    April 6, 1984

 

                        Representing Union:                          W. Mitchell Cogdill, Esg.

                                                                                    Cogdill, Deno, Millikan &

Carter

Attorneys at Law

3232 Rockefeller Avenue

Everett, Washington  98201-4389

 

                       Representing Employer:                   Richard N. Burt

                                                                                   Donworth, Taylor & Co.

                                                                                   1111 Third Avenue

                                                                                   Seattle, Washington  98101

 

                        Board of Arbitration:             Paul D. Jackson, Esq.

                                                                                    Neutral Member

                                                                                    926 Lakeside Avenue South

                                                                                    Seattle, Washington  98144

                                                                                    (206) 325-0650

 

                                                                                    Merlin Halverson

Union Member

Douglas Albright

District Member

 

            This matter comes to interest arbitration before a

Board of Arbitrators pursuant to RCW 41.56.450 and involves the

impasse reached in collective bargaining issues between the

parties on a reopener provision in the present three year agree-

ment, which terminates December 31, 1984.  The issues submitted

to the Board are changes in wages and shift schedule.  The

undersigned was selected by the parties to be the impartial

chairman of the Arbitration Board.  The partial members are

Merlin Halverson for the union and Douglas Albright for the

District.

 

            The union's unresolved demands in negotiations are as

follows:

 

      1.         Wages.  The union proposed a basic wage increase

                  of 6.5 percent effective January 1, 1984, plus a

                  cost of living adjustment to be added to the base

                  increase to be equal to 100 percent of the CPI

                  for the Seattle/Everett area from May 1983 to

                  November 1983 with the minimum COLA of 3 percent,

                  also to be effective January 1, 1984.  Additionally,

                  another COLA would be made effective July 1, 1984

                  to reflect 100 percent of the CPI for the area from

                  November 1983 to May 1984 with a minimum increase

                  of 3 percent.

 

      2.         Shift Schedule.  A change in the present schedule

                  based upon the Detroit System.  From the beginning

                  of the present contract the working hours have

                  declined by agreement from 56 to 52.  Beginning

                  January 1, 1984, in accordance with the original

                  agreement, working hours declined additionally,

                  from 52 to 48.  There has been a Kelly day assign-

                  ment practice from the beginning of the present

                  contract.  The union proposes a 48 hour shift

                  schedule based upon the Detroit schedule which

                  would consist of three platoons, each working 24

                  hours on and 24 hours off for two consecutive

                  periods and 24 hours on and 96 hours off for

                  third period.  On January 11 1984 every person

                  on the shift would have to take every seventh day

                  off.  If there were more than seven people on the

                  shift, more than one person would be off on the

                  seventh day.  By preassignment each person would

                  take a specific day off depending upon his assigned

                  number, which days are known as Kelly days.

 

            Hearings were held on March 29, March 30, and April 6,

1984.  Briefs were agreed to be filed May 8, 1984 and the partial

members of the Board of Arbitrators submitted their opinions to

the neutral arbitrator on May 18, 1984.

 

                                                DECISION

 

            An examination of economic and demographic statistics

of comparable municipalities having fire protection departments

employing full-time firemen is the principal tool used in

interest arbitration cases and its importance is underlined by

the fact that the use of such information is enjoined upon the

board by statute, RCW 41.56.460.  The most important values of

this information, and the matters upon which greatest emphasis is

placed by the parties, all other matters being equal, are the

comparative wages, hours and working conditions, including other

benefits which have monetary value, to the extent that they

have direct relevance to the instant dispute.

 

            As is usual in cases of this kind, however, the parties

were unable to agree upon a joint list of comparable municipalities.

In the absence of agreement, the Board must decide as best they

can, from the divergent lists advanced by the parties and from

the huge mass of submitted economic, and demographic material,

charts and other statistics, which of the municipalities proposed

by the parties should be considered comparable to the Fire

District involved herein.  In this case, the task was simplified

by the coincidental circumstances that the parties each selected

among their divergent lists six municipalities upon which they

were in agreement as having comparability.  These municipalities

are Lakewood, Shoreline, Federal Way, Edmonds, Lynnwood and

Mountlake Terrace.  Accordingly, the Board has placed reliance

upon the information derived from these municipalities.

 

            There were no important difficulties in using the

statistical, economic, demographic and other information from

these comparable municipalities.  The districts are all in

Western Washington and relatively near to each other and to

populated areas.  The question, in the opinion of the Board, of

what wages should be paid by the District, boils down to what

increase would create substantial equality between the Snohomish

County Fire Protection District No. 1 and the comparable

jurisdictions.  No persuasive reason was advanced why the

District ought not to be placed on the same plane, vis-a-vis

basic compensation, with the comparable cities which had already

received compensation adjustments and increases effective January

1, 1984 as a result of bargaining which concluded at an earlier

time than the negotiations of the instant parties.

 

            Although the union made strong argument for special

consideration based upon a time lag in its receiving wage in-

creases for the year 1984 as compared to the other municipalities,

it is the panel's opinion that such discrepancies are inevitable

when there are numerous negotiations going on at different

times which involve differing historical and other considerations

so that an absolute equality of contractual benefits throughout

all time is impossible to achieve.  To grant special considera-

tion to compensate the employees here for benefits lost during

previous months by granting greater increases now then would

place them on the same current relative salary plane as the com-

parable municipalities would only cause a continuing cycle of

disparities between the comparable municipalities to continue

ad infinitum in future negotiations among the now comparable

jurisdictions.  Nor was it shown that the comparable municipalities

are required to give COLAs during 1984.

 

            The majority of the Board finds that the average monthly

salary for a top firefighter employed by the comparable municipali-

ties, beginning January 1, 1984, was $2,356.33.  This is $186.33

more than the salary of a top firefighter of the District as of

December 31, 1983.  The District will be ordered to increase the

monthly salary of its top firefighters to $2,356.33.  This amounts

to a .086 percent basic increase.  Such increase is 2.1 percent

more than was asked for by the union; however, this is granted,

partially, in lieu of any cost of living adjustments as demanded

by the union, which, according to the employer, would have

amounted to a gross increase of 12.5 percent in 1984 without

counting an additional cost of living increase of a minimum of

3 percent.

 

            The salaries of starting, second year and third year

firefighters and company officers, should be adjusted so as to

maintain the same percentage differential between those positions

and that of the top firefighter as existed on December 31, 1983.

 

                                    SHIFT SCHEDULE

 

            The union proposal of scheduled Kelly days separate

and distinct from the vacation schedule, in the majority opinion of

the Board, would necessarily impact other provisions of the

current agreement which are not open to negotiations by changing,

substantively, their application and administration.  These

provisions include Article D-II, Vacations and Holidays and

Article E-I, Hours.

 

            The Board is convinced that the language in Article

H-Ill permitting the parties to negotiate concerning shift cycle

changes to be effective January 1, 1984, was proposed by manage-

ment in the negotiations of 1981 to allow for a change in 1984

to a 24-hour schedule and cycle compatible with neighboring

comparable jurisdictions (then working a 48-hour average week

with a cycle of days on and days off different from the Detroit

schedule) which would have allowed for joint training schedules

based on similar cycles.  Moreover, the union's proposal consti-

tutes a fundamental change in several other, unrelated working

conditions of a kind not contemplated by the parties when the

amendatory provision pertaining to shift schedule changes were

proposed by management in 1981.

 

            The ultimate effects of changing the shift schedule as

demanded by the union are extremely difficult to prognosticate

because of the complexity of their effects.  It is believed, for

example, that the change proposed could substantially increase

the District's costs and could result in restricting the manning

of the department.  Nor is the Board completely satisfied that

the union proposal would satisfy the grievances of its members,

vis-a-vis maldistribution of leave which is said to be a

principal reason for the demand.  It is probable also that the

buy-back provisions of the contract provided for elsewhere therein

might turn out to be illusory with particular regard for the

adjustment for manpower shortages which could be created by the

change.  Only two of the comparable jurisdictions schedule their

Kelly days, and these districts have been working with 48-hour

work schedules for some time, nor are their schedules based upon

the Detroit schedule as in this District's.

 

            Because of the ramifications, complexity and importance

of the union 5 demand and the fact that substantial difficulty

is involved in implementing it in midyear, as well as for the

other reasons mentioned herein, it is believed that this matter

should be left to the present negotiations for the new contract

which will go into effect January 1, 1985, in which all of the

provisions of the agreement are open for study and change by

those who will be most affected thereby.  Accordingly, this

demand will be denied.

 

 

                                                AWARD

 

            1.         Effective January 1, 1984 the monthly salary of a

top firefighter shall be increased to $2,356.33 and other

classifications increased accordingly so as to maintain their

relative percentage differential in effect as of December 31,

1983.

 

            2.         Changes in the shift schedule are denied.

 

 

Dated_5/23/84

                                                            PAUL D. JACKSON , Neutral  Arbitrator

                                                            DOUGLAS    RIGHT, Employer Arbitrator

                                                            MERLIN HAVERSON, Union Arbitrator

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.