And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Paul D. Jackson
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Jackson; Paul D.
Case #: 04920-I-83-00107
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of the
Arbitration )
Between )
)
THE CITY OF
) COMMISSION CASE NO.
Employer, ) 4920-I-83-107
and )
) AWARD
OF ARBITRATION PANEL
ASSOCIATION, )
_______________________________ )
Dates of Hearings: January 9, 11, 1984
Place of Hearings:
Representing Employer: Armond L. Tiberio
Consultant
Representing Association: Captain W. C. Bud Maves,
Jr.
Bremerton
Police Department
Arbitration Panel: David Hiestand,
Personnel
Director
City
of
Lieutenant
Joseph Hatfield
Bremerton
Police Department
Paul
D. Jackson, Neutral
Chairman
(206)
325-0650
DISCUSSION
The matter of a new contract between the City
of
independent
organization representing two police captains and
four
lieutenants within the Police Department of the City of
and
state mediation, was submitted to binding arbitration pur-
suant to the statute of this state. Hearings were held in
January 1984, the parties
submitting testimony and supporting
documentary
evidence including comparative tables of wages,
hours,
and working conditions and various
economic and demo-
graphic
factors existing among certain cities within the State
of
additional
documentary evidence on behalf of their respective
positions.
The demands of the Association and the offers of
the
City on items of disagreement in the negotiations were as
follows:
TABLE OF DEMANDS AND OFFERS
Current Union
Demand City
Proposal
Salaries:
Captain $2,556.00/mo. 1983 6 mos-6% to
$2,709.55/mo.
6 mos-6% to $2,872.17/mo.
1984 6 mos-5% to $3,015.73/mo. $2,684.00/mo
6 mos-3% to $3,106.20/mo.
Lieutenant $2,469.33/mo. 7/1/83-6% to $2,617.00/mo.
1/1/84-5% to $2,747.99/mo. No Change
7/1/84-3% to $2,830.43/mo.
Duration of Contract:
Expires
Longevity:
1% increase for each 2% increase every 5 years. No change
5 years of service to
maximum
of 4%.
College Incentive:
None Specific
program of incentives. Committee
to study
issue - no immediate
change.
The governing statute of this state pertaining to com-
pulsory interest arbitration of collective
bargaining agreements
between
municipalities and employees involved in public safety work,
enjoins
upon the arbitration panel the duty to consider, inter
alia, all relevant factors including comparisons
of wages, hours,
and
conditions of employment of personnel involved in the proceed-
ings with the wages, hours and conditions of
employment of similar
personnel
of like employers on the West Coast of the
average
consumer prices for goods and services commonly known
as
the cost of living; changes in any of the foregoing circum-
stances;
and other factors which are normally and traditionally
taken
into consideration in negotiations in the determination of
wages,
hours and conditions of employment.
These factors include
trends
in wages and benefits among other city employees holding
similar
positions of management responsibility, the ability of
the
employer to fund improvements in wages, hours and conditions
of
employment, the ability of the employer to attract and retain
qualified
personnel represented by the labor organization and
other
historical factors that have been utilized by the parties
in
the past in setting wage and benefit levels.
Voluminous exhibits, statistical compilations of muni-
cipal employment factors, economic and
demographic facts and many
charts
and tables dealing with these matters of so-called
"comparable"
cities within the State of
along
with extensive testimony and oral argument on both sides,
all
of which has been studied and considered.
The inability of
the
parties to agree upon a group of comparable cities with which
to
compare the wages, hours and working conditions of employees
of
the City of
the
other statistical and economic information furnished by
the
opposite side, throws the burden upon the panel to digest
and
evaluate this huge morass of more or less relevant information,
within
the brief limits of time acceptable to the parties to be
spent
thereon by the panel and to determine what should be given
primary
weight in arriving at a decision which is fair and equit-
able
to both sides.
The comparison of cities and bargaining agreements for
purposes
of arriving at salary adjustments and other changes in
benefits
and working conditions in a particular municipal and
contractual
context is a highly arguable exercise.
There are a
multiplicity
of economic and demographic facts which may be
taken
into consideration, each having contentiously different
pertinency and weight.
It is like having to predict interest
rates
for ten years into the future. The two
lists of cities
selected
by the two parties for comparability, as has been men-
tioned, differ in composition, the Association's
list tending,
naturally,
to favor a trend to higher salaries and benefits than
the
City's list minimizing such trends. Thus
in the City's list,
four
cities out of a total of twelve were not found in the
Association's list,
to-wit:
eleven
not found in the City's list. These were
creates
substantial differences in the bottom line of statistical
conclusions
reached for each list.
In view of the different results that can be obtained,
the
fairest approach to reasonable comparability
was to consoli-
date
both lists and to consider all the information contained in
the
exhibits insofar as the above referred to limits of time
permitted.
Thus, it was found that during 1983 an average police
captain
salary was $2,886 per month. In this
regard, at least
the
Association's salary demands were not exorbitant per se.
With regard to the general economic and demographic
factors
contained in the charts and lists such as the tax base
of
cities, population, assessments, square miles covered within
the
municipality, budgetary factors, etc., taking only the
employer's
proposed list of cities, the City of
approximately
in the middle of the 11 cities. If this
fact alone
were
considered controlling, it would be deduced that
reasonably
should be able to pay salaries commensurate with those
paid
by the City which most closely occupies the middle position
of
the 11 cities selected by the City of
to
be the City of
salary
for a police captain in
month
to $2,957.00 per month and a lieutenant's salary ranges
from
$2,252.00 per month to $2,717.00 per month.
This comparison
does
not take into account possible differences in duties, but
little
evidence was elicited in this regard.
Based on the consideration of comparability factors,
and
in particular, the list of cities and factors selected by the
employer
it is the conclusion of the panel that captain's salaries
should
be increased to $2,792.00 per month effective
This figure is the average of
the two amounts demanded by the
Association, but still
substantially less than an average captain's
salary
in comparable cities and $167.00 per month less than a
maximum
captain's salary in
salaries
of captains which is granted herein is a nine percent
increase
overall; however, when consideration is
given to the fact
that
the new salaries shall commence
crease
amounts to 4.5 percent, which is more in line with increases
in
the cost of living and also allows for some approach toward
equalization
of captains' salaries with comparable cities, at
least
for the year 1983. Additionally, it
takes into account
increases
given in 1982 and 1983 to other personnel including captains.
An examination of lieutenants' salaries paid by comparable
cities
shows that the median salary is $2,706.90 per month or
$237.57 per month more than
the present lieutenant salary of
$2,469.23
per month. The
(Exh.
2A, City) .
However, it is believed that it is important
to
maintain a realistic differential between captain and lieutenant
salaries
for obvious reasons, rather than to place total emphasis
on
an attempt at exact comparability with a number of cities
whose
places on the list are subject to argument.
Additionally,
of
course, salary comparisons are only one facet of the panel's
duties
in arriving at a determination. Having
selected what is an
appropriate
increase in salary for captains, the task is to then
determine
what lieutenants' salaries should be on the basis,
primarily,
of an appropriate differential. Analyses
of the com-
parable
city salary tables submitted shows that this differential
is
approximately six percent. Accordingly,
it is determined that
a
lieutenant's salary should be $2,623.50 per month, a differential
of
six percent less than a captain's salary.
Moreover, it is
determined
that the increase in salaries shall go into effect
salaries
received in June 1983 when the present personnel occupy-
ing lieutenant positions were promoted from
sergeants to lieutenants
when
the position of lieutenant was created.
Notwithstanding
this
increase, however, it is felt that the reorganization of the
department
and the greater responsibilities imposed upon lieute-
nants, together with the generally lower pay
scale of the manage-
ment officers of the City of
an
appropriate salary relationship between captains and lieutenants.
The increases awarded herein do not place the employees
represented
by the Association in a precisely comparable position
with
captains and lieutenants of the
invoked
by the parties as comparable, but the increases do narrow
the
alleged gap. The existing gap, if any,
will be further
widened,
undoubtedly, by the statewide negotiations and new con-
tracts
for police officers during 1984, and in which negotiations,
it
is assumed, the City of
As will be seen from these determinations, the panel has
considered
the total additional costs to the 1983 budget of the
City of
position
and limitations, its authority and ability to raise addi-
tional finances and all other relevant and
pertinent factors
pertaining
to ability to pay and concludes without elaboration,
that
the additional costs which will be entailed by the recommended
increases
are within the means of the City as described by the
treasurer
in his testimony considering probable additional
revenues
and existing certain funds of the 1983 budget which were
not
expended.
The panel has limited the contract to the year 1983 and
has
refrained from granting a two year agreement.
Obviously, so
small a
group as the six employees represented by the Association
does
not have the power to move the City of
further
increases which might establish a pattern for other unions
or
other managerial employees of the City for the year 1984. It
is
deemed advantageous to the Association by the panel that it
be
in a position to benefit by the outcome of negotiations by the
larger
and stronger unions of city employees for the wages and
working
conditions for 1984. The Association
contract for 1983
obviously
is now over, but its terms and conditions undoubtedly
will
continue to be in effect during 1984 until the conclusion of
negotiations
between the Association and the City which are pend-
ing.
This lag in negotiations and conclusion of a Contract for
the
year 1984 cannot be overcome at this time, given the general
lag
of other city negotiations and budget determinations.
With regard to longevity benefits, no changes are awarded
by
the panel. An examination of other
police contracts of compara-
ble cities in this regard, shows a broad
spectrum of benefits and
approaches. It cannot be said however, on examination of
this
information,
that the Association members are at a serious dis-
advantage
as compared to the other cities, to any marked degree.
Furthermore, it is believed
that the objective of arriving at
greater
equality of basic salaries with comparable cities is
of
primary importance and in view of the increases awarded for
the
year 1983, further costs to the City of Bremerton with
regard
to longevity benefits should be delayed to a more propi-
tious time.
With regard to a college incentive program, the offer
of
the City to establish a committee to review college incentives
and
then to implement the committee's determinations, is adopted.
AWARD
1. Captain salaries
shall be increased to $2,791.00
per month effective July 1, 1983.
2. Lieutenant salaries
shall be increased to $2,623.50
per
month effective October 1, 1983.
3. The duration of the
contract shall be for one year.
4. There shall be no
change in longevity benefits.
5. The new contract
shall contain the proposal of the
City regarding establishment
of a committee to review the concept
of a
college incentive program.
Dated
PAUL D. JACKSON, Neutral
Chairman
DAVID HIESTAND, Panel Member
LT. JOSEPH HATFIELD, Panel
Member