The
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael E. de Grasse
Date
Issued: 07/05/1984
Arbitrator:
de Grasse; Michael E.
Case #: 04941-I-83-00108
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
BEORE THE ARBITRATION PANEL CONSISTING
OF MICHAEL E. de GRASSE, ALICE DALE AND
CABOT DOW
In the Matter of )
the
Interest Arbitration )
between )
)
THE CITY OF
) PERC
No. 4941-1-83-108
Employer, ) AWARD
)
and )
)
THE
)
)
This matter having been submitted to the arbitration
panel
following a
hearing, briefs of counsel, extensive consideration of
the
issues by the panel and the chairman haying made written findings
of
fact, the chairman now makes the following written determination
of
the issues in dispute, based on the evidence presented.
1. SALARIES: The base salaries established in Appendix A
of
the parties' 1983 contract shall be increased 5.40%, effective
2. EDUCATIONAL
INCENTIVE AND PREMIUM PAY:
A. This is a
new provision in the parties' contract and shall
become
effective
B. Educational
incentive and premium pay shall be a sum
paid
as a premium in addition to the officer's base salary. It
shall
not be included in the base salary for purposes of computing
call
back, court time, overtime, the cost of living increase,
holiday
pay, sick leave, vacation leave or other premiums.
C. Each
officer who has or is awarded an associate degree
from
an accredited institution of higher education shall receive
2%
of his or her base salary.
D. Each
officer who has or who is awarded a bachelor's
degree
from an accredited institution of higher education shall
receive
4% of his or her base salary.
E. Each
officer who has or who is awarded a master's
degree
from an accredited institution of higher education shall
receive
6% of his or her base salary.
F. The
incentive and premium pay for each degree shall not
be
cumulative. Thus, an officer who has an
associate degree and
a
bachelor's degree shall receive 4% of his or her base salary,
and
not 6%.
G. No officer
shall receive educational incentive and
premium
pay until he or she has had three years of experience on
the
In the case of officers who
have had Police experience other than
with
the
exercise
of his or her discretion may reduce the foregoing
qualifying
period to one year.
H. To
continue to receive educational incentive and premium
pay
after qualifying initially, the eligible officer must continue
to
receive satisfactory performance evaluations.
I. To
continue to receive educational incentive and premium
pay
after qualifying initially, the eligible officer must maintain
a
program of continuing education in police science where the
officer
completes at least 3 college hours or the equivalent of
course
work in police science or an equivalent field at an
accredited
institution of higher education or its equivalent
This minimum continuing
education requirement must be satisfied
within
two years after the officer initially qualifies for
educational
incentive and premium pay; it must be satisfied during
each
2-year period thereafter. The parties
are directed to meet
and
confer to develop standards for determining that which is
equivalent
to: 3 hours of course work; a police science
curriculum;
an accredited institution of higher education.
3. INSURANCE: There shall be no change in the provisions
for
insurance currently contained in the parties' 1983 agreement,
provided
that the parties are directed to meet and confer to
develop a
cost containment program incorporating some or all of
the
following: (1) a requirement for
mandatory second opinions
for
particular surgical procedures, including hysterectomies,
hernia
repair, cataract removal, heart bypass and heart valve
repair;
(2) encouragement of out-patient treatment by structuring
benefits
provided employees or by structuring funds paid
physicians;
(3) negotiation of fixed fees for all major surgical
procedures
with health care providers; (4) introduction of
fitness
or wellness programs in the employee's daily activity;
(5) consideration
of premium pay for nonsmokers or for particular
levels
of fitness or wellness; (6) preventive care for cardio
vascular
victims, or for those employees whose family backgrounds
make
them higher risks for particular types of diseases; (7)
payment
to employees of incentives if they are able to secure
health
insurance through their spouses' place of employment;
(8) encouragement
of home care or day care alternatives to
inpatient
care; (9) increase in insurance deductibles; (10) re-
vision
of coinsurance.
4. COURT
AND CALL BACK OVERTIME: The parties
shall
continue
the arrangement contained in their 1983 contract.
5. OVERTIME
AVERAGING FOR DETECTIVES: The
parties shall
continue
the arrangement contained in their 1983 contract.
6. SICK
LEAVE CONVERSION: The parties shall
continue the
arrangement
contained in their 1983 contract.
7. MAXIMUM
SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATION: There shall
be an
increase
in maximum sick leave accumulation for officers covered
by
LEOFF II to 960 hours.
8. HOLIDAYS: The arrangement contained in the parties'
1983 contract will be
retained, unless an additional legal
holiday
in honor of Martin Luther King is established resulting
in
an additional paid holiday for federal or state employees,
in
which case the number of holidays will be increased to twelve.
9. CANINE
PREMIUM: The current arrangement of one training
day
per month for canine officers shall become a part of the
parties '
contract.
10. CALCULATION
OF PREMIUMS: Calculation of premiums
shall
be
based on a percentage. Motorcycle
officers shall receive a
premium
monthly of 2.5 percent of their base salary.
Detectives
shall
receive a premium of 3.3 percent per month of their base
salary,
except for those detectives covered by Article IX, para-
graph B
(1)(a) of the parties' 1983 contract.
Senior patrol
officers
shall receive a monthly premium of 3.3 percent of their
base
salary.
11. CALCULATION
OF OVERTIME: The arrangement
contained in
the
parties' 1983 agreement shall be retained.
12. TERM OF
AGREEMENT: The parties' agreement
shall be two
years
in duration from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1985.
All provisions of the
agreement shall remain as stated in the 1983
agreement
of the parties, except as modified above, unless other-
wise
agreed. The general salary increase
shall be effective
January 1, 1984. Effective January 1, 1955, wages set forth in
the
parties' new agreement will be increased by a percentage
equal
to the average rate of increase in the Seattle, CPI-W
between
1983 and 1984 for the following months:
July-July,
September-September,
and November-November.
13. CONTINUING
JURISDICTION : The panel of
arbitrators
shall
retain jurisdiction of this matter for forty-five days
following
this decision to resolve any difficulties presented
in
implementing this award. This continuing
jurisdiction is
made a part of this award pursuant to the parties'
stipulation.
Dated
this 5th day of July, 1984.
Michael E. de Grasse
Neutral/Chairman, Arbitration
Panel
BEFORE THE ARBITRATION PANEL CONSISTING
OF MICHAEL E. de GRASSE, ALICE DALE AND
CABOT DOW
In the Matter of the )
Interest
Arbitration between ) PERC.
No. 494l-I-83~l08
)
THE CITY OF
) OPINION AND FINDINGS
Employer, )
)
and )
)
THE
)
Union. )
)
NATURE OF PROCEEDING
This matter arose from the parties' inability to
negotiate a
collective bargaining agreement to succeed
their
agreement that was effective through December 31,
1983. After the Executive
Director of the Washington
State Public Employment
Relations Commission concluded
that
an impasse had been reached, the panel of arbitrators
composed
of Michael E. de Grasse (neutral chairman), Alice
Dale (partisan arbitrator for
the Olympia Police Guild)
and
Cabot Dow (partisan arbitrator for the City of Olympia)
was
formed. The chairman was furnished with
a statement
of
the issues to be resolved.
A hearing was held in Olympia, Washington on April
18 and April 19, 1954. The above-named panel of arbitrators
presided
at that hearing where the Guild was represented
by
Will Aitchison and the City was represented by Otto
G.
Klein, III. A verbatim transcript of the hearing was
prepared
by Aitchison Court Reporting. The reporter at
the hearing
was Peggy Aitchison, Will Aitchison's
Spouse.
The parties stipulated to the
acceptability of Peggy
Aitchison as the reporter in this
proceeding.
Following
the
hearing, extensive briefs were submitted by both
parties,
and the matter has been deemed submitted on May
29,
1984, for a final decision by the panel.
A proposed decision was drafted by the chairman
and
mailed to the partisan arbitrators. The
entire panel
then
met in Portland, Oregon to discuss the proposed
decision
on June 14, 1984. Following this meeting, a
proposed
opinion, findings and award were prepared by
the
chairman. The proposed opinion, findings
and award
were
discussed by the chairman and the partisan arbitrators
telephonically
before this matter was formally determined.
To the extent that the final
determination of this matter
has
absorbed more than the statutory period of thirty
days
following submission, the parties have stipulated
to
that additional period of time necessary to resolve
this
case.
STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. This
matter is arbitrable under RCW 41.56.
2. This
matter is properly before the hearing
panel
composed of Michael E. de Grasse, Alice Dale and
Cabot Dow.
3. All
procedural objections to arbitration of
this
matter pursuant to RCW 41.56 are waived, including
the
timetables set forth in RCW 41.56.450.
At the hearing,
the
thirty-day time limit for rendering a decision was
not
waived. This waiver occurred after the
hearing.
4. The
partisan arbitrators may have contact with
their
respective principals during the course of the
hearing
and before the decision is rendered.
5. Any
contact or communication with the chairman
of
the arbitration panel by the other members of the panel
or
by the parties will be a joint communication, or will
be
with prior notice to the other party or panel member,
which
party or panel member will have the option of
participating
in the communication or contact.
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether
base salaries should be increased,
and,
if so, how much of an increase should be awarded.
2. Whether
officers should receive incentive and
premium
pay for educational attainment or for longevity,
or
both.
3. Whether
the health insurance benefits should
be
increased by the City's assumption of 100% of the
premiums
for dependents' coverage, or decreased by the
officers'
assumption of those premiums
4. Whether
court and call back overtime benefits
should
be increased.
5. Whether
detectives should continue to be paid
for
overtime as worked or whether detectives should receive
a
fixed, monthly premium of $100.00 in lieu of overtime.
6. Whether
officers should be permitted to convert
accumulated
sick leave at the rate of 50% to cash upon
retirement.
7. Whether
maximum sick leave accumulation should
be
unlimited or increased to 960 hours for officers covered
by
the Law Enforcement Officers' and Firefighters' Retire-
ment System after October 1, 1977 (LEOFF II).
8. Whether
the number of holidays and the method
of
holiday compensation should be changed.
9. Whether
canine officers should receive a
monthly
premium of 8 hours of compensatory time.
10. Whether
premiums for motorcycle officers,
senior
patrol officers and certain detectives should be
changed
from a fixed dollar sum to a percentage of base
pay.
These premiums will be effective January 1, 1984.
11. Whether
overtime should be averaged or con-
tinued to be paid as worked.
12. Whether
the agreement should be for one or
two
years, and, if the latter, what salary increase should
be
granted during the second year.
OPINION AND FINDINGS
I. SALARIES
A. The
City's Selection of Comnarable Employers
The City offered criteria composed of cities,
counties
and the local labor market. In selecting
com-
parable
cities, five factors were used:
Factor Range
(1) population 15,000 to
50,000
(2) assessed valuation $500
mil. to $1.5 bil.
(3) assessed valuation per capita 20,000 to 60,000
(4) number of officers 25
to 75
(5) geographical distance from 26-100
miles
major metropolitan
area
By revising the use of the assessed
valuation factor, the
city
narrowed its selection of comparable cities to avoid
the
"unmanageable size of the sample of California
cities .
. . . " (City
Brief at 14) The statute speaks
only
in terms of "like employers of similar size on the
west
coast." RCW
41.56.460(c). Thus, there seems
little
statutory
warrant for rejecting cities simply because
they
are in California. Nonetheless, I do not
find the
City's use of this narrowing
device to affect adversely
its
choice of comparable cities. The City
thus concluded
that
the following cities were comparable to Olympia:
Bellingham, Longview,
Puyallup, Washington; Albany, Cor-
vallis, and Springfield, Oregon; Corona,
Livermore,
Pleasanton,
and Redlands, California. Factors 1, 2,
3
and 4
have become generally accepted in the increasingly
sophisticated
analysis of comparable employers. Factor
5 is
somewhat novel.
In using the last factor shown above, the City
selected
as cities comparable to Olympia those that are
26 to 100 miles from a
"hub city" A
"hub city" was
defined
as one with a population equal to or greater
than
300,000. That police salaries decline as
the dis-
tance from a hub city increases is well supported
by the
evidence.
("A Selection of Comparable Cities by Statistical
Methods,"
by Richard 0. Zerbe, Jr., PhD., Ex. L-22) How-
ever,
there is a dearth of evidence indicating whether
or
how this distance factor should be delimited.
In the
words
of Dr. Zerbe:
"All of the variables have 'natural'
cutoff
points except distance." I find
that the use of
the
26 to 100 mile cutoff points is a serious deficiency
in
the City's method of selecting comparable employers.
There are no mathematical or
empirical grounds for this
26 to 100 mile range, and,
indeed, there is no evidence
of
an accepted method for measuring such a distance.
Therefore, I have rejected
this factor as an appropriate
means
of selecting comparable employers.
The City next developed a list of comparable
counties
on the grounds that the recent amendment of RCW
41.56.460 now permits cities
to be compared to counties.
In selecting comparable
counties, the City used these
factors:
Factor Range
(1) number of officers 25 to
75
(2) distance between countv
seat 26 to 100
miles
and hub city
Only Washington counties were
subjected to the selection
factors. Three counties were chosen as
comparable: Lewis,
Thurston
and Whatcom.
Putting aside the Guild's argument
that
counties may not be compared to cities, I find insuf-
ficient grounds for concluding that the counties chosen
by
the City are truly comparable employers.
There is no
evidence
indicating that these counties and Olympia are
"like
employers." Clearly, law
enforcement in a county
may
differ from that in a city. There is no
evidence
showing
sufficient similarity in function to justify
treating
the counties proffered by the City as employers
"like"
the City. Additionally, I find no basis
for con-
sidering only Washington counties. The statute clearly
directs
the parties to consider employers on the west
coast of
the United States, and provides no basis for
limiting
employers to agencies within one state.
Finally,
the
second factor of distance from a hub city, I find
to
have the same deficiencies that are described in my
discussion
of the City's choice of comparable cities.
The City has urged consideration of the local labor
market
as an aid in determining the salary issue.
Thus,
the
City has proffered the police departments of the
cities
of Lacey and Tumwater, the Thurston County Sheriff's
department
and the Washington State Patrol as composing
the
local labor market. Certainly, the local
labor
market
may properly affect this analysis, but there must
be
an evidentiary basis for defining the "local labor
market." I find insufficient evidence supporting these
law
enforcement agencies as composing the local labor
market.
On the basis of its choice of comparable employers,
its
view of the local labor market and its method of
computing
the value of pension contributions by the
employer,
the City contends that an appropriate base
salary
increase would be 1.5 percent for the year 1984
and a
3 percent increase for the year 1985.
B. The
Guild's Selection of Comparable Employers
The Guild chose comparable employers using the
following
factors:
Factor Range
(1) number of police officers Olympia
times 2 and
Olympia
divided by 2
(2) population "
(3) crime index "
(4) assessed valuation per capita "
(5) retail sales per capita "
(6) crime index per capita "
(7) retail trade per capita "
(8) number of officers per 1,000 Olympia
times 2 and
population Olympia
divided by 2
(9) population trends "
(10) hub city "
Based on the uniform
application of these factors, the
Guild proposed as cities
comparable to Olympia: Auburn,
Lynnwood, and Renton,
Washington; and Campbell, Covina,
Gardena, La Mesa, Los Gatos,
San Bruno, San Rafael, and
Walnut Creek, California. On the basis of these com-
parable
employers, the Guild contends for a general
salary
increase of 10 percent for the year 1984.
Factors 1 through 8 are reasonable and are similar
to
those used by the City. The factor based
on population
trends
and the hub city or "mini-hub"
factor are new.
Both are resisted Strongly by the City.
I find use of population trends to be appropriate
in
selecting comparable employers given the statute's
clear
requirement that comparisons be to "like employers
of
similar size." RCW
41.46.460(c). Reasonably applied,
"similar
size" should not be limited to cities of a
similar size
at only a particular moment in time.
Whether
the
proposed comparable city is increasing or decreasing
in
population at a rate significantly different from the
city
in question is useful in any rational consideration
of
whether a given city is truly comparable to another.
Inarguably, a city's
population and number of police
officers
are indicators of comparability. Using
the
factor
of population trends will avoid skewing those
two
factors (as well as others) by eliminating cities
where
police departments are understaffed or overstaffed
as a
result of population change that is different from
the
city in question. The population trend
factor also
refines
the use of gross population by eliminating cities
where
the similarity in size to the city in question is
purely
transitory.
I find use of the hub city criterion by the Guild
to
be inappropriate. Essentially, the
proposal that
Olympia is a hub city flows
from studies showing a great
daily
influx of automobiles into Olympia and an inter-
pretation of the statistical work of Richard 0. Zerbe,
Jr.,
Ph.D. (Ex. L-22).
Traffic studies and the fact
that
Olympia is the capital of Washington may well be
significant,
however, I find no evidence showing how
these
characteristics are used in choosing comparable
cities
as "hubs." Moreover, these
characteristics should
be
reflected in the other factors used by the Guild in
selecting
comparable cities.
Dr. Zerbe's analysis of Seattle
does not compel
the
finding that Olympia is a hub city. Dr. Zerbe did
not
testify in support of the Guild position.
Rather,
the
Guild argued from his written work that concerned
Seattle. Yet Seattle is clearly not comparable to
Olympia. Dr. Zerbe's
analysis proceeded from the assump-
tion that the "hub city" is one with a
population equal
to
or greater than 300,000. Nothing in his
work presented
at
the hearing clearly defines a hub city as other than
one
with a population of 300,000 or more. No
permissible
inference
from Dr. Zerbe's work shows Olympia to be a
hub
city. Defining a "hub city"
and articulating a method
for
determining whether a given city is a "hub city" is
crucial
to using this concept as an additional factor in
selecting
comparable cities. The record gives
neither a
definition
nor a determining method. Therefore, the
Guild's
use
of a hub city factor in selecting comparable employers
is
rejected.
C. The
Appropriate Salary Increase
I find that modifying the Guild's method of
selecting
comparable cities by eliminating the hub city
factor
results in the following comparable employers:
Auburn, Bellingham, Lynnwood,
and Renton, Washington;
Corvallis, Oregon; Campbell,
Covina, Gardena, La Mesa,
Los Gatos, San Bruno, San
Rafael, Walnut Creek, San
Luis
Obispo, Lodi and Santa Maria, California. I find
these
employers to be comparable to the City of Olympia.
The factors used in selecting
these cities are rational
and
have an empirical relationship to police salaries and
work. They have been selected through the
application
of
consistent and uniform ranges.
Therefore, they sat-
isfy the statutory requirement to compare
"like employers
of
similar size on the west coast of the United States."
RCW
41.56.460(c).
An Olympia police officer's base salary is
approximately
5.4 percent lower than the average base
salary
of the employers I find to be comparable.
Because
of
this difference between Olympia and the comparable
employers,
as well as other facts described below, I find
that
Olympia police officers' base salaries as set forth
in
Appendix A of the parties' 1983 contract should be in-
creased
5.4 percent effective January 1, 1984.
In determining the amount of the salary increase
I am guided by two facts in
addition to the foregoing
analysis
of comparable employers. First, there is
no
contention
that the City is unable to pay the 10 percent
increase
sought by the Guild.
Second, the
Their productivity was proven
at the hearing without cavil
by
the City, through the use of data showing an increase
in
the clearance rate by arrest for crimes against persons
and
property. The clearance rate by arrest
for crimes
against
persons increased from 43% in 1979 to 83% in 1983.
The clearance rate by arrests
for crimes against property
increased
during the same period from 17% to 34%.
The
raw
number of these crimes had declined during this period,
as
well. Evidence submitted by the Guild
showed the
exceed
the national average by a substantial percentage.
I find that the City's police
department is
remarkably
well managed. Unquestionably, the
effective
police
work shown by the evidence is a result of sound
management,
but it is also a result of consistently pro-
fessional and conscientious performance by members of
the
bargaining unit. This work should not go
uncompensated.
I find that a 5.4 percent increase during 1984
and
an increase equal to the rise in cost of living for
1985 to be appropriate in view
of the City's position
with
respect to comparable employers, the City's ability
to
pay and the productivity of the
With this increased
productivity, raising salaries beyond
that
indicated by cost of living figures for 1984 does
not
misapply wage market principles. This
salary increase
is
not awarded simply because it is fair, though it is
certainly
fair. It is awarded in great part
because it
has
been earned. Thus, the increase is
consonant with
the
controlling statutory standards of RCW 41.56.460(f).
The City has contended that
any increase in salary
should
incorporate its method of computing the value of
pension
contributions as opposed to the Guild's method.
The City proposes a net salary
analysis like that used
by
Arbitrator Kienast in a recent
case. Following the Kienast
method, the base wage is
reduced
by the amount of pension contribution actually
paid
by the employee. Contrarily, the Guild's
analysis
adds
the employer's payment of the employee's "share"
of
the pension cost to the base wage. If
the City's
method
is used in conjunction with the comparability
analysis
followed above, then base salaries should be
increased
3.77 percent instead of 5.4 percent.
I find the Guild's evaluation of pension contri-
butions on the basis of wage costs preferable to
the City's
method. In this case, the other factors composing
total
compensation
have been derived using a wage cost analysis.
To use a net benefit analysis in considering one
item
of
the compensation package is inconsistent and may dis-
tort
the total compensation package's value.
Before such
an
approach may be used it should be applied to every
element
of the compensation package to ascertain how that
approach
affects other items of compensation such as
insurance
benefits. No such comprehensive analysis
has
been
suggested or performed here. Thus, I
find no reason
to
depart from the wage cost methodology in the area of
pension
contribution except that it could reduce the
awarded
salary increase. I find that increase to
be
justified
by comparison to similar employers and by
factors
normally or traditionally considered in deter-
mining
compensation. Therefore, the Guild's
approach
is
accepted.
In summary, the bargaining unit members should
have a
salary increase of 5.4 percent effective January
1,
1984. This
increase is justified by comparison to
"like
employers of similar size on the west coast of
the
the
rise in cost of living during the past
year, it is,
nevertheless,
justified by increased productivity and
the
City's ability to pay. I find that to
preserve this
salary
increase the base salary should be increased,
effective
increases
during 1983-1984 for the periods of July-July,
September-September
and November-November. I find
the
CPI-W to be the appropriate
index because it includes
only
wage earners and has been used by these parties in
the
past.
II. EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE AND PREMIUM PAY: LONGEVITY PAY
The Guild has urged adoption of a new contractual
provision
to compensate officers for education and
longevity. The proposal is similar to that awarded
in
the 1983
City argues against this
proposal contending that there
is
no correlation between performance and education
or
longevity. The City also contends that its discretionary
tuition
reimbursement plan and ample opportunities for
training
adequately satisfy any need perceived by the
Guild.
Concerning longevity, there is no substantial
evidence
supporting a correlation between time on the
job
and increased effectiveness. Although it
makes
sense
that this be so, the record is bereft of any
factual
support for this position. To the
contrary,
the
City persuasively contended that, at least in
individual
cases, there can be no positive correlation
seen
between longevity and good police work.
Therefore,
I find that a premium or
incentive on the basis of
longevity
alone is not warranted in this case.
Concerning educational attainment, the Guild intro-
duced evidence that compels the conclusion that
increased
education
contributes to good police work. Not
only does
education
make an officer more effective in dealing with
the
public, but it also makes the officer a better
employee
by reducing absenteeism. I do not find
that
educational
attainment in and of itself will insure
better
police work or that an officer without a college
degree
cannot be an effective police officer. Nonethe-
less,
I find that educational attainment is sufficiently
correlated
to good police work, that it should be encouraged
and
rewarded. Therefore, the award will
contain provisions
for
incentive and premium pay for educational attainment,
subject
to certain constraints. This education
incentive
and
premium pay will become effective
It shall be paid as a premium
in addition to the officer's
base
salary. It shall not be included in the
base salary
for
purposes of computing call back, court time, overtime,
cost
of living increase, holiday pay, sick leave, vacation
leave
or other premiums.
Education does not make, ipso facto, a good
police
officer. Therefore, no officer should receive
educational
incentive
and premium pay until he or she has demonstrated
general
fitness as an officer. Thus, I find that
the
educational
incentive and premium pay should not be due
until
an officer has had three years of experience on
the
evaluations. In the case of officers who have had
police
experience other than with the
force,
the Chief of Police in the reasonable exercise
of
his or her discretion may reduce the foregoing
qualifying
period to one year. Competent conduct as
an
officer should continue as a condition of educational
incentive
and premium pay. Therefore, I find that
the
continuation
of educational incentive and premium pay
must
be conditioned on the eligible officer's satisfactory
performance.
As educational incentive and premium pay, each officer
who
has or who is awarded an associate degree from an
accredited
institution of higher education shall receive
2%
of his or her base salary. Each officer who has or
who
is awarded a bachelor's degree from an accredited
institution
of higher education shall receive 4% of his
or
her base salary. Each officer who has or
who is
awarded a
master's degree from an accredited institution
of
higher education shall receive 6% of his or her base
salary. The incentive and premium pay for each degree
shall
not be cumulative. Thus, an officer who
has an
associate
degree and a bachelor's degree shall receive
4% of his or her base salary, and not 6%.
To see that the City benefits from one of the
advantages
of educational attainment, namely, the desire
and
ability to learn even more, I find that the new
agreement
should contain a requirement for continuing
education. To continue to receive educational incentive
and
premium pay after qualifying initially, the eligible
officer
must maintain a program of continuing education
in
police science. The officer should
complete at least
3 college hours or the
equivalent of course work in police
science
or an equivalent field at an accredited institution
of
higher education or its equivalent. This
minimum
continuing
education requirement must be satisfied within
two
years after the officer initially qualifies for
educational
incentive and premium pay. It must be
satisfied
during each two-year period thereafter.
It
is
within the competence of the parties to develop
particular
standards for determining how this continuing
education
requirement may be satisfied at other than an
accredited
institution of higher education, or, perhaps,
in a
field other than "police science."
Officers should
not
be handicapped by the scarcity of "institutions of
higher
education," or by catalogues that do not use the
rubric
"police science." The parties
shall be directed
to
meet and confer to develop standards for determining
that
which is equivalent to 3 hours of course work; a
police
science curriculum; an accredited institution of
higher
education.
III. INSURANCE
The Guild proposed that the City pay 100% of the
premium
for dependents' health insurance coverage.
The
City now pays 85%. The City contended that as a cost
containment
measure, the bargaining unit members should
bear
100% of the cost of dependents' health insurance
coverage. It is important to distinquish
between cost
shifting
and cost containment. To some extent
shifting
costs
causes containment . An individual who
has to pay
a
greater portion of his medical expense may become more
prudent
in spending for medical services. The
City's
objective
of cost containment is laudable, but I do not
find
that simply shifting premium costs to the employees
is
an appropriate cost containment mechanism.
I also
do
not find that increasing the City's share of de-
pendents' health insurance coverage is appropriate
given
the already rather substantial compensation
increases
that will be awarded here.
There shall be no change in the provisions for
insurance
currently contained in the parties' 1983
agreement,
provided that the parties are directed to
meet
and confer to develop a cost containment program
incorporating
some or all of the following: (1) a
requirement
for mandatory second opinions for particular
surgical
procedures, including hysterectomies, hernia
repair,
cataract removal, heart bypass and heart valve
repair;
(2) encouragement of out-patient treatment by
structuring
benefits provided employees or by structuring
funds
paid physicians; (3) negotiation of fixed fees for
all
major surgical procedures with health care providers;
(4) introduction
of fitness or wellness programs in the
employee's
daily activity; (5) consideration of premium
pay
for nonsmokers or for particular levels of fitness
or
wellness; (6) preventive care for cardiovascular victims,
or
for those employees whose family backgrounds make them
high
risks for particular types of diseases; (7) payment
to
employees of incentives if they are able to secure
health
insurance through their spouses' place of employment;
(8) encouragement
of home care or day care alternatives to
inpatient
care; (9) increase in insurance deductibles;
(10) revision of coinsurance.
IV. COURT AND CALL BACK OVERTIME
The Guild wishes to increase court and call back
overtime
to a minimum of 4 hours. The current
agreement
provides 2
hours. The City resists this
proposal. I
find
that comparable employers do not depart significantly
from
the parties' current arrangement. The
increase
proposed
by the Guild has not been justified by the
evidence
of the actual experience of Olympia police of-
ficers.
Therefore, I find that the new agreement
should
retain the arrangement contained in the parties'
1983
contract.
V. OVERTIME AVERAGING FOR DETECTlVES
The City proposes that detectives be paid a
flat
$100.00
per month premium in lieu of all overtime.
The Guild urges that the
parties' present arrangement
be
retained. Under the current plan,
detectives are
paid
for overtime as worked. The City argues that certain
detectives
exhaust budgeting funds for overtime early
in a
fiscal period. By adopting the flat
monthly pre-
mium, this problem would be solved by giving
detectives
a
disincentive to "overdo"
overtime. I find that the
City's proposal should be
rejected because it shifts
the burden of management to nonmanagerial employees.
The evidence shows that the
Olympia Police Department
is
well managed, and, thus, it seems that the problem
described
by the City should be handled in other ways.
VI. SICK LEAVE CONVERSION
I am persuaded that permitting cash conversion of
accumulated
sick leave at retirement would constitute
nothing
other than a form of severance pay. Sick
leave
is
not severance pay. The present
compensation and retire-
ment scheme does not indicate the need for
severance pay.
Finally, I do not find
evidence that use of sick leave
has
been, is or will be abused. I also do
not find that
the
Guild's proposal effectively corrects such abuse.
Therefore, the arrangement
contained in the parties'
1983 agreement should be
retained.
VII. MAXIMUM SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATION
The Guild seeks unlimited sick leave accumulation
for
all employees. Currently, the major
portion of the
sick
leave benefit for employees hired before October 1,
1977 is handled through the
Law Enforcement Officers'
and
Firefighters' System. Those officers hired
after
October 1, 1977 are covered by
a more limited disabilitv
benefit
program created by amendments to the Law Enforcement
Officers' and Firefighters'
Retirement Act (LEOFF II).
LEOFF II officers may now
accumulate a maximum of 720
hours. The City resists the unlimited sick leave accumu-
lation proposal, but concedes that LEOFF II
officers
may
accumulate 960 hours. In view of the parties current
and
awarded compensation arrangements, I find the City's
position
to be appropriate. Therefore, the new agreement
will
increase sick leave for Leoff II officers to a
maximum
of 960 hours.
VIII. HOLIDAYS
Each party submitted proposals to change the present
holiday
compensation structure. Essentially, the
Guild
wishes
to increase the number of holidays by one per year
to
twelve paid holidays. The City wishes to
revise the
way
in which holidays are compensated by obtaining control
over
when certain officers or whether certain ofticers
may
work a holiday. I find that the evidence
does not
warrant
changing the parties' present arrangement.
There
was
some controversy as to whether there will be a
mandated
additional holiday in honor of Martin Luther King.
If such an additional holiday
is established resulting in
an
additional paid holiday for federal or state employees,
then
the number of holidays accorded members of the bar-
gaining
unit shall be increased to twelve.
IX. CANINE PREMIUM
The Guild has proposed an additional day of compen-
satory time per month for canine officers. Canine officers
now
receive a training day per month during which time
they
may work with their dogs. I do not find
the evidence
supports
an increase in compensation for canine officers.
Therefore, the current
arrangement of one training day
per
month for canine officers shall become a part of the
parties'
contract.
X. CALCULATION OF PREMIUMS
Currently motorcycle officers, certain detectives
and
senior patrol officers receive a fixed dollar premium
each
month. The Guild proposes changing to a
percentage
rate
based on 1979 dollars. I am persuaded
that a percentage
method
of computing these premiums is appropriate.
This
method
preserves the value of the premium and eliminates
the
need to renegotiate these premium items on a case
by
case basis. Such negotiation may be an
advantage to
the
employer, but it is only a tactical one.
Indeed,
it
places a burden on the employee to negotiate an
increased
provision to retain that employee's same position.
Therefore, the method of
computing premiums will be changed
to a
percentage as reflected by the relationship between
those
premiums and the 1983 base salary. The
parties'
awarded
compensation structure does not indicate a need
to
revise those percentages upward by using l979 dollars.
Senior patrol officers and
detectives described in Article
IX paragraph B(l)(b) shall receive, effective January 1,
1984,
a monthly premium of 3.3 percent of base pay. Motor-
cycle
officers shall receive effective January 1, 1984 a
monthly
premium of 2.5 percent of base pay.
XI. CALCULATION OF OVERTIME
The City proposes averaging overtime to simplify the
administration
of overtime compensation. I find that
the
present arrangement of compensating overtime as worked
should
be retained. The City's method would
sacrifice
equity
to efficiency. I do not find such a
change war-
ranted,
especially in the sensitive area of overtime
compensation.
XII. TERM OF AGREEMENT
In order to provide a period during which the parties may
operate
with the new agreement without the necessity of having
to
formulate positions to bargain a new agreement, I accept the
City's
proposal of a two-year contract. The parties' new agree-
ment shall be two years in duration from January
1, 1984 through
December 31, 1985. All provisions of the agreement shall remain
as
stated in the 1983 agreement of the parties, except as modi-
fied or created by this award, or as agreed by
the parties. The
general
salary increase shall be effective January 1, 1984.
Effective January 1, 1985,
salaries set forth in the parties'
new
agreement will be increased by a percentage equal to the
average
rate of increase in the Seattle, CPI-W between 1983
and
1984 for the following months:
July-July, September-
September,
and November-November.
CONCLUSION
An award shall be rendered in accordance with the fore-
going
opinion and findings. The panel of
arbitrators shall
retain
jurisdiction of this matter for forty-five days fol-
lowing
this decision to resolve any difficulties presented
in
implementing this award. This continuing
jurisdiction is
made a
part of this decision pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
Dated this 5th day of July, 1984
Michael E. de Grasse
Neutral/Chairman, Arbitration
Panel