International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2903
And
Thurston
County Fire District No. 3
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Kenneth J. Latsch
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Latsch; Kenneth J.
Case #: 05212-I-84-00120
Employer:
Thurston County Fire District 3
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
THURSTON COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 3
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS,
LOCAL 2903
OPINION AND AWARD
KENNETH J LATSCH
Neutral Chairman
In the matter of interest )
arbitration )
)
between )
)
THURSTON
COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 3 ) OPINION
)
and )
AND
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) AWARD
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2903 )
)
_____________________________________ )
Perkins,
Coie, Stone, Olsen and Williams, by
Hannah, attorney at
law, appeared on
behalf of the
employer.
Durning, Webster and Lonnquist, by James H.
Webster,
attorney
at law, appeared on behalf of the union.
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On
"district") and
International Association of
Firefighters, Local 2903
("union")
notified the Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations
Commission that
an impasse existed
in negotiations and
requested that.
outstanding
issues be submitted to interest arbitration in accordance with
RCW
41.56.450 and WAC 391-55-220. The Executive Director concurred in the
request
and certified 20 issues for resolution in that forum. The matter was
docketed
as Case No. 5212-I-84-120. The union
chose Michael McGovern as its
representative
on the arbitration panel. For its part,
the employer selected
Cabot
Dow as its appointed panel member. The parties requested that Kenneth
J. Latsch
serve as neutral chairman of the arbitration
panel. Prior to the
formal
hearing, the parties and the neutral chairman engaged in a protracted
mediation
effort to resolve remaining issues.
Eleven issues were resolved
during
mediation. In addition, the issue
relating to "call-back-pay" was
resolved
during the course of hearing. It should
also be noted that issues
involving
"chain of command" and "safety", as it relates to manpower
levels,
have
been removed from consideration in this forum by the Executive Director
based
on the filing of an unfair labor practice by the employer (Case No.
5522-U-84-1004).
The arbitration hearing was
conducted on December 6 and 23, 1984, and January
11,
1985. The
hearing proceeded in an orderly manner.
The parties had a
full
opportunity to submit evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and
to argue the matter before the arbitration panel. The neutral chairman
placed
all witnesses under oath, and, as an extension of personal notes, the
neutral chairman
tape-recorded the proceeding. The advocates fully and
fairly
represented their respective parties with diligence and thoroughness.
The parties submitted
post-hearing briefs on
the
neutral chairman closed the hearing.
The parties did not challenge
the statutory authority of the arbitration
panel to hear
the outstanding issues.
The neutral chairman
followed
procedures
set forth by law for conducting the interest arbitration hearing.
Although the neutral chairman
took an active role in attempts to settle the
dispute
through mediation, the following opinion and award is based solely
upon application
to the evidence of statutory criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.460 as follows:
In making its determination,
the panel shall be mindful
of
the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430
and
as additional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a
decision, it shall take into
considerate~
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 personnel involved in the proceedings with
the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like
personnel
of like employers of similar size on the west
coast
of the
(
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; and
(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.
II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The parties submitted the
following issues for determination:
1. Hours of work
2. Wages
3. Education Incentive
4. Overtime
5. Insurance
6. Union Right to Grieve
7. Safety
8. Duration
III. BACKGROUND
Thurston County Fire District
No. 3 was created in 1949 as an all-volunteer
fire
fighting service. Increased service
demands required the initiation of
full-time
firefighting operations with a paid firefighting staff, but the
district still
relies on a large volunteer
force to provide
essential
services
for its coverage area. That area encompasses approximately 60
square
miles and a population of approximately 45,000. The district has
seven "satellite" stations
in addition to the central office/main fire
station
to provide timely response throughout its area of responsibility.
The City of
Lacking its own fire
department, the city has contracted with the district to
provide
fire suppression, fire inspection and other emergency services. The
district
has similar contractual arrangements with the Washington Department
of
Natural Resources (for the protection of large areas of undeveloped forest
land) and
with the Nisqually Indian
Reservation. Under terms
of an
intergovernmental agreement
between the fire district and
an
emergency medical services contract provides that the county shall pay the
fire
district specific sums for paramedic services and will also provide
necessary
vehicles and equipment for emergency medical services. In return,
the
fire district provides facilities for the paramedics and is responsible
for
their daily activities. Apart from the
service contracts, the fire
district
derives its primary revenue source from property tax assessments.
At the time of hearing, the
fire district's coverage area had an assessed
valuation
in excess of $900,000,000.
The district is considered to
be a political subdivision of the State of
Washington, operating under
provisions of Title
52, Revised Code
of
retains
overall budget authority. An appointed
fire chief is responsible for
daily
operations. A deputy chief directs the district's administrative
operation in such
areas as training,
facilities maintenance, office
operations, and coordination of volunteer services. An assistant chief
supervises routine training for fire suppression
personnel and monitors
equipment
maintenance. The "
paramedics working in
the district. A fire
marshal directs the
fire
prevention
operation and deals with such areas as fire suppression, public
education
and water system maintenance.
The command structure
changes, to some
degree, in emergency
response
situations. Under the general supervision of the fire
chief and assistant
chief,
seven "command officers" assign necessary equipment and manpower to a
particular
incident. Four command officers are
full-time employees of the
district and three
are volunteer officers.
The command officer
responsibility
is rotated among the seven officers mentioned above. In
addition,
selected members of the fire suppression company serve as "duty
officers"
at the central fire station. Working on
a rotating schedule, the
duty
officers assume responsibility for the station complex as well as the
residents
who work there. Duty officers also
direct volunteers who respond
to
emergency calls until a command officer arrives on the scene.
As noted above, the fire
district relies upon a large volunteer force to
provide
necessary services. Primarily
responsible for the district's fire
suppression
activities, the volunteers respond to the nearest fire station
and are
expected to operate
the district's vehicles
and firefighting
apparatus. Effective January 1, 1984, the volunteers
received $7.00 for each
emergency call answered
and each training
session attended. Regular
training
sessions are conducted each Monday night at the district's main
station. Members of the professional firefighting
staff are expected to
assist in the training exercises. At the time of hearing, there were
approximately
70 volunteers serving
in the fire
district. An average
volunteer
remains active with the district for five years, but it is not
unusual
to find volunteers with over fifteen years of service.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. The Issue of Comparability
In their closing briefs, both
parties correctly reminded the arbitration
panel
that its deliberations must be made within the guidelines set forth in
RCW
41.56.460. Of
particular importance to this case, the parties disagreed
over the
interpretation of that
section of the
statute which requires
comparison
of affected employees' wages, hours and conditions of employment
with
those of employees of "like employers of similar size on the west coast
of
the United~States" (RCW 41.56.460(c)).
The fire district has selected
a number of "comparators" by adopting a "50
percent
factor". In other words, the
district chose comparative jurisdic-
tions within a range from 50 percent less to 50
percent greater than Thurston
County Fire District No. 3
with respect to population, coverage area, and
assessed
valuation. Applying the "50
percent" standard, the fire district
selected
six fire districts in Washington, one fire district in Oregon and
four fire
protection districts in
California as comparatives.1
_________
1 The district's proposed comparators
are:
Washington: Clark
County No.. 6, King County No. 43,
Pierce County No.
5, Pierce County No. 9, Snohomish
County No. 7, and Snohomish County No.
12.
Oregon: Mason
County No. 1
California: Barstow
FPD, Lakeside FPD, Florin FPD, and San Marcos FPD.
The fire district's
analysis established the
following ranges for
consideration:
Population served: 22,500 - 57,500
Area covered: 30 - 90 square miles
Property Assessment: $500 million - $1.5 billion
(in area
of coverage)
The fire district maintains
that it is a rural jurisdiction, and its proposed
comparators reflect that
contention. Of the
jurisdictions selected,
Thurston County Fire District
No. 3 ranks third in total assessed value and
in
coverage area and the district is tied for second in population. The
district stresses
that assessed valuation
is a primary
factor in
establishing
realistic comparisons. Using that
criteria, the fire district
compares
well with the selected jurisdictions in terms of wages and other
conditions
of employment.
The union presented a
different approach on the comparability issue.
As part
of
its presentation, the union called Dr. David Knowles, labor economist, as
a
witness. Knowles testified that the
fire district's comparators were
suspect
because of the emphasis on assessed valuation.
According to Knowles'
studies,
such a standard distorts economic factors having direct impact on
wages and working
conditions in the
immediate area. To correct this
discrepancy, Knowles
recommends emphasis on
population in the
fire
district's
coverage area. Population affects
regional wage rates,
local
cost
of living factors, and the availability of similar employment.
Apart from its emphasis on
population, the union's approach differs from the
district's
in that the union relies upon comparators in and around the Puget
Sound
area. 2 Relying upon earlier arbitration awards, the
union stresses
that local
comparisons provide a realistic
basis for analysis
and that
"remote"
comparisons made with jurisdictions in other states are important
only
if local comparators are not available.
To support this contention, the
union
refers to the award issued by Arbitrator Howard S. Block in City of
Bellevue (PERC Case No.
3642-1-31-83) where Arbitrator Block wrote:
In interest arbitration,
we usually look
first for
relevant local and regional
comparisons because area
peer
parity is most meaningful to all those involved.
Arbitrator Block went on the
hold that Puget Sound cities should be given far
greater
weight than more remote jurisdictions in Oregon and Washington.
_____________
2 The unions comparators are: White Center, Vancouver, Pierce County No.
9, Snohomish County No. 7, Renton, Longview, Kitsap
County No. 7, King
County No. 10, Clark County No. 5, King County No. 3
(Burien), Bremerton,
Bellingham, and Auburn.
The comparability issue
is not simply
a mathematical exercise
whereby
several comparators
can be selected on the basis of size, population, or
assessed
value. In like manner, mere geographic
location is not enough to
assure comparability. Rather, a
combination of these factors
must be
analyzed while
keeping in mind
the nature of
the employer's business
operation. Such analysis in this case lends itself to
several observations.
First, it must be remembered
that Thurston County Fire District No. 3 is a
jurisdiction
which contains large rural areas as
well as developed urban
centers. Second, labor market trends are more meaningful to
affected
employees
in this matter if the trends are local phenomena. Taking these
considerations into account, the lists of
comparators presented by both
parties
are flawed.
The district would suggest that
fire districts in the southern part of
California are comparable without demonstrating
that traditional labor
market
factors there are similar to those found in the immediate vicinity.
More statistical comparability
concerning size and assessed valuation cannot
draw
the California jurisdictions closer in terms of prevailing wage rates,
working
conditions and methods of operation.
Absent complete evidence that
such
labor market conditions are similar, the California comparators cannot
be
used.
The union's list of
comparators includes several cities of significant size
in
the Puget Sound region. The neutral
chairman cannot rule that the fire
district
is similar to the cities listed. This is not to say that fire
districts
cannot be compared to cities for interest arbitration. However,
those cities selected
in this matter do not share the
unique operating
challenges
faced by the fire district.
Given all of these factors,
the neutral chairman concludes that, absent the
California jurisdictions, the
fire district has presented a reasonable set
of
comparators. For the most part, the jurisdictions
selected are near
incorporated
cities, but retain large rural coverage areas.
Several have
partial
responsibility for the cities they are near.
The Oregon comparator,
Marion County Fire District
No. 1, is particularly similar in that it has
primary coverage responsibility for
a large developed
business and
residential
community just north of Salem, Oregon while retaining a rural
coverage
area as well.
The choice of comparable
jurisdictions in this matter was made only after
careful deliberation
over the jurisdictions
presented as well
as the
statutory
requirement that the "west coast" of the United States provide the
geographic
area for consideration. Although the
final list of comparators
seems
stilted in favor of Washington jurisdictions, such a result does not
violate
the spirit of the law. While the
Washington legislature undoubtedly
wanted
to establish a range of choice, there is no requirement that each
coastal state provide a comparator. Rather, the
statutory requirement
allows
careful consideration of a wide range of economic and labor market
situations before the most
comparable jurisdictions can be determined.
Those final comparators arise
without regard to state boundaries.
2. Issues
A. Hours of
Work
Employer position:
Retain existing shift schedule
Union position:
Implement a "24/48"
shift schedule
The work shift issue is central to this arbitration proceeding, and both
parties made well-reasoned, persuasive
arguments in support
of their
respective
positions. The existing work schedule is complex,
and it is
apparent
that three separate work shifts are now in use by the fire district.
The fire district utilizes a
full complement of paid firefighters from 8:00
a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. After 5:00
p.m. and on weekends, one paid
firefighter
serves as "duty officer" to supervise residents and volunteers
responding to fire
suppression calls. In practice, the
duty officer
responsibility
is rotated, and each affected employee serves as duty officer
once a
week. With the use of the duty officer
program considered as part of
the
formula, fire suppression personnel work an average 53-hour week. Fire
prevention
employees work a 40-hour week, and paramedics work a 24/48 shift,
similar
to that requested by the union for all employees. The paramedic
shift
is required under terms of the contract between Thurston County and the
fire
district for emergency medical services.
The union maintains that a
24/48 shift would be
desirable for the affected
employees
as well as the fire district. Under the
union's proposal, fire
suppression
employees would work 24 hours and have 48 hours off duty, with a
total
56-hour work week. On its face, this
proposal would give the district
an additional
three hours per
week and would
provide professional
firefighters
for all emergency calls. In addition,
the union maintains that
the
existing shift schedule is inefficient and destroys employee morale..
Determination of a work shift
depends, in large part, on analysis of the fire
district's
operation. Undisputed testimony
presented during the course of
the
hearing established that the district views
its paid personnel in a
different
manner than most fire departments. The
fire district emphasizes
fire
prevention activities and stresses its "proactive" role in the local
community. Further, testimony presented by the district
indicates that it
uses
the professional firefighters as a
training force for its volunteer
force. As the district notes in its closing brief,
the existence of the
volunteer
firefighters is a crucial, if unstated, issue coloring the course
of proceedings. Those volunteers assume
primary fire suppression
responsibilities
during evening hours and on weekends.
Evidence presented
indicates
that the paid firefighting personnel are
dissatisfied with the
district's
emphasis on its volunteers, but the neutral chairman cannot order
the
type of change requested in shift schedules.
In this case, Thurston County
Fire District No. 3 has made a conscious
decision
to retain, and rely upon, a volunteer firefighting force. While
implementation
of a new work shift would not, in
itself, do away with the
volunteers, it would undoubtedly be expensive because new
employees would
eventually
be needed, and it would not accomplish the goals established by
the
employer. In fact, the union's proposal
would lead to a
complete
realignment
of employee work schedules, and
the district would lose a
substantial part of its fire suppression
service during normal business
hours. The fire district has determined that it
is most productive by
maintaining a
professional fire suppression and fire inspection force during
regular
business hours and retaining a volunteer group to respond to fire
suppression
calls at other times. The neutral
chairman cannot order a new
shift
structure that would have such a pervasive effect on the employer's
operation.
B. Wages
Employer position:
- no
increase for calendar year 1984
- 3.6% increase on the base
wage rate~for calendar year 1985,
- retain existing paramedic
differential
- modify longevity to include
consideration of merit
- 4% increase on the base wage
rate, effective January 1, 1986
Union position:
- modify wage structure to
determine wage rates on the basis of a
percentage of the
"Top Firefighter" position
- 12% increase on base of
"Top Firefighter" position effective January
1, 1984
- retain current longevity
program
- add a 5~ premium for Fire
Inspector
- Add a 10% premium for
paramedics
- 10% increase on base
"Top Firefighter" position effective January 1,
1985
While the work shift issue
proved to be the most emotional issue presented
before
the arbitration panel it is obvious from
the various proposals put
forth,
that the wage issue is the most detailed.
It must be emphasized that
analysis
of the wage issue excludes
discussion of education
incentive,
overtime
and insurance. While these issues
undoubtedly have effect on a
total compensation package,
they will be addressed
separately in this
analysis. In considering the final wage figure to be
awarded, those factors
have
been carefully considered.
The district presents
its wage proposals
as part of a "total
economic
package" meant to
include a wide range of monetary
items. Within the
framework
of the comparable jurisdictions set forth by the employer, the
existing
wage structure appears to be well above average. In fact, very few
of
the district comparables can compete with the wages paid.
The union seeks a sizable
increase in base salaries. In addition,
the union
desires to
implement a new salary
schedule, basing all
wage increase
calculations
on the "top firefighter"
classification. The union seeks
further changes by
implementing premium rates for
paramedics and fire
inspectors. The union reasons that the substantial
pay increases are
necessary
because of "retaliatory" measures taken by the fire district.
Since the firefighters' union
was certified as bargaining representative, in
August, 1983,
the affected employees have not received a pay increase.
During the same
period, non-represented employees
and volunteers have
received
increases in compensation.
The parties are almost
diametrically opposed on the issue of wage increases.
While the employer seeks retention of
the status quo,
in addition to
restrictions
on existing longevity pay provisions, the union seeks a new wage
formula,
new premiums and a large increase in base wage rates.
While the comparable
jurisdictions in this case indicate that a base wage
increase
of approximately three percent is justified, the neutral chairman
must consider
other statutory criteria. As stated in
RCW 41.56.460, the
arbitration
panel must be aware
of cost of living
factors, changes in
circumstances
during the pendency of arbitration proceedings and
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. See: RCW 41.56.460(f).
The record indicates that the
parties are in arbitration because they were
unable
to conclude an initial collective bargaining agreement. Undisputed
testimony
establishes that affected employees have not had a wage increase in
well
over a year. However, the absence of an
increase does not demonstrate a
"retaliatory"
intent. While engaged in negotiations,
the employer was not
obliged
to make a unilateral wage increase.
Indeed, such action could have
amounted
to an unfair labor practice within the meaning of RCW 41.56.140(1)
and
(4). At the same time, increases of
consumer prices have been low.
Taken together, these
factors, in conjunction
with the comparable
jurisdictions'
wage rates, demonstrate that the union's base wage increase
request
cannot be implemented. Careful
analysis of the comparators' wage
rates
as well as the prevailing rates within the fire district's union
organization
leads to the conclusion that a wage increase of four per cent is
appropriate.
The next issues to be
addressed deal with changes in the existing wage
structure. While the union seeks to "benchmark"
wage increases on the "Top
Firefighter" rate, the
district desires to retain existing wage structures.
Conversely, the employer
desires to restrict the use of so-called "longevity
steps"
by imposing a merit evaluation while the union desires retention of
the
existing longevity program. Both
proposed changes must be rejected.
Within the context of a first
contract, it must be concluded that both
parties have made
significant movement to
reach settlement. It is
unfortunate
that their efforts ended in the arbitration forum. While it is
appropriate to
discuss wage increases,
it is inappropriate
to change
fundamental
wage structures in such drastic ways.
In a
related issue, the
union seeks initiation
of premium rates
for
paramedics
and fire inspectors. The fire district
resists this proposal.
However, some additional pay
increase seems reasonable within the context of
the
employer's stated mission as a fire district.
Throughout the course of
the
hearing, the employer stressed that it was a "proactive" fire
district
designed
to prevent fires and other catastrophes before they.could
occur. As
a
"first line of defense" in
such an organization fire inspectors must
evaluate
business entities and report their findings in a timely, urgent
manner. Paramedics are expected to conduct public
safety courses and provide
a
number of educational services to community members. Given the nature of
their
respective positions, it is concluded
that the fire inspector and
paramedic
positions deserve a premium for their work performed. However, the
record
does not indicate that a five percent premium for fire inspectors and
a
ten percent premium increase for paramedics is necessarily accurate. Given
the
record presented, and after due deliberation, it is appropriate to grant
a
two and one-half percent premium for the fire inspector and a five percent
premium
for paramedics. Such premiums shall be
applied on the wage rates the
affected
employees would normally receive.
The employer has also
suggested a form of premium itself by its duty officer
proposal. The district proposes that duty officers
receive a twenty-five
(25) dollar premium for
shifts they cover.
The union resists
the
implementation
of such a plan since the union stressed a work shift proposal
that
would eliminate the position. Given the resolution of the shift
schedule,
the employer's proposal concerning premium pay for duty officers
shall
be incorporated in the final award.
The final issue to be
addressed in this section of analysis relates to the
application
of retroactivity. The union seeks
retroactive wage increases
dating
to January 1, 1984. Such a result would mitigate the alleged
"retaliatory"
proposals set forth by the district during the long course of
negotiations. The employer maintains that retroactivity is
beyond the scope
of
the arbitration panel to consider. The
fire district points to Article
II, Section 25 of the
Washington State Constitution which provides:
The legislature shall never grant
any extra compensation
to
any public officer, agent, servant, or contractor,
after
the services shall
have been rendered, or the
contract
entered into, nor shall the compensation of any
public officer be increased or diminished
during his
term in
office.
The district also
points to Article
VIII, Section . 7 of the
State
Constitution:
No county, city, town, or
other municipal corporation
shall
hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its
money, or
credit to, or
in aid of any
individual,
association,
company or corporation...
These constitutional
provisions have been interpreted by the State Supreme
Court
in Christie v. Port of Olympia, 27 Wn.2d 534, 179 P.2d 294 (1947). The
Christie decision stands for
the proposition that retroactive payments may
be
possible in the context of a prior contract under which certain services
were
performed.
It is undisputed
that retroactivity is a common element in
collective
bargaining
agreements. However, there must be some
fixed point from which
retroactivity
can be calculated. The selection of a
calendar date does not
qualify
for such purposes. Only the expiration
date of a prior agreement
gives
such a standard for retroactive payments.
See: RCW 41.56.950. The
neutral
chairman is cognizant that the parties have been engaged in a long
negotiation
process, but it must be re-emphasized that this is an initial
contract.
There is no starting point
from which retroactivity can be granted.
Absent
such a
fixed point, the wage increases awarded in this matter shall take
effect
on the date the award is issued.
C. Education Incentive
Employer position:
- increase monthly salary by $50.00 for a one year
certificate
- increase monthly salary by $100.00 for an Associate of
Arts degree
-
both increases
conditioned on participation by employee in 48
hours of teaching per year.
Union position:
- maintenance of specific
certificates compensated at rate of 1 - 3.5%
of base salary paid
as monthly premiums
- alternatively, the achievement
of specific academic credentials with
rates of 1.5 - of
base salary paid as monthly premiums.
The parties conceptually agree
that an educational incentive program would
be beneficial. Apart from
this broad outline,
the parties maintain
fundamental
differences over the underlying purpose behind an educational
program. The employer anticipates
the creation of new training
opportunities
for its volunteer force by paid firefighters with particular
expertise
in fire suppression and emergency services.
The union proposes an
educational
program that initially benefits the professional firefighting
personnel. With a well-educated cadre of professionals,
the union maintains
that
the district's entire operation necessarily benefits. To some degree,
both
parties are correct.
A public employer certainly
benefits from a well-educated work force.
If its
employees
are specifically trained in complex operations, the normal work
schedule
progresses smoothly and a better quality work product results.. In
this
case, the normal work schedule involves regular contact with volunteer
firefighters. The district expects its professional staff to assist in
volunteer
training. With these factors in mind,
the district's proposal is
reasonable. Established premiums are set forth and the
employee is aware of
the
standards required to achieve the educational incentive payments. The
rates
are indicative of a true incentive in
a situation where no such
provision
existed previously. Finally, the
district's qualification on the
payment
of such incentives reflects the nature of the employer's business
entity. The educational incentive allows additional
compensation and the
training requirement satisfies
the union's desire
to work with better
trained
volunteers as well as the
employer's need to maximize training
opportunities
for volunteer firefighters.
D. Overtime
Employer position:
- Retain existing schedule
of compensating overtime only
after 240
hours are worked in a 28-day period
Union position:
- Compensate all work beyond regular shift schedule at
the rate of time
and one-half, either in wages or in compensatory time.
The existing overtime policy
provides that an employee is eligible to receive
overtime
compensation only if the employee works more than 240 hours in a 28-
day
cycle. Work performed up to the 240
hour limit is compensated at
straight
time rates of pay. The union's proposal
would modify existing
practice
by requiring payment of time and one-half regular rates for any work
performed
beyond the regular shift. Evidence
presented by the employer
indicates
that nearly all of the comparable jurisdiction pay overtime for
hours
spent beyond normal work shifts.
It appears that the employer seeks
to gain an unnecessary advantage through
limitations on the
use of overtime.
While seeking to
maintain its
professional
firefighters on a limited work schedule, the district prohibits
overtime
payment for a number of "after hours" activities. This is not to
imply that regularly
scheduled duty officer
assignments should be
compensated
at overtime rates. Rather, overtime
should be paid for those
other
activities requiring work after the end of the regular work day. Such
a
requirement maintains existing shift schedules but recognizes realistic
compensation
for additional work performed.
E. Insurance
Employer position:
- full payment of employee
medical and dental insurance premiums
and
freeze dependent medical and dental premiums at current
rates
- discontinue "trial" LEOFF II disability
insurance plan
- remove non-volunteers from a life insurance plan
offered to volunteer
firefighters
- reject union request to add vision care
Union position:
- full payment for dependent
medical and dental premiums in a "mutually
agreeable" insurance plan.
- retain LEOFF II disability insurance benefit under
terms of a new
insurance plan
- add vision care benefit
- continue
to include professional firefighters in volunteer
firefighter life insurance plan
As in the case of the wage issue,
the insurance issue has a number of
components. For its part, the district seeks to reduce
insurance costs by
"capping"
dependent medical and dental premium
costs at existing payment
levels. Any added premium costs would be passed on to
employees who would be
responsible
for increases as they came due. Such a
proposal would terminate
full
premium coverage in effect since' 1980.
In addition, the district seeks
termination of a life
insurance plan designed originally for volunteer
firefighters
and the discontinuance of the existing LEOFF II disability
insurance
benefit.
The union seeks retention of
existing benefits and premium payments and asks
for
two significant changes as well. The
union seeks participation in the
selection
of an insurance carrier, and it desires the addition of vision care
benefits. The union also desires to change the
insurance carrier for LEOFF
II
disability coverage.
In its presentation, the fire
district stressed the increases in insurance
payments
it has incurred as a result of its present premium coverage. To
remedy
this problem, the district seeks a flat restriction on future payments
for
dependent premiums. While the neutral
chairman is aware that insurance
rates are escalating, the district's proposal
is extreme. It must be
remembered
that the full premium payment began in
1980, and, while
an
employer is not to be bound forever by past actions,
a more reasonable
approach
seems to be available. Rather than
restricting premium payments at
existing
rates, the district shall be obligated
to pay one-half of all
premium
increases beyond existing dependent medical and dental premiums, and
the
other half of the premium cost shall be borne by the affected employees
for
the duration of this contract.
It is the neutral chairman's
considered opinion that unions have legitimate
concerns over the
benefits made available
through particular insurance
plans. Those benefits, and their resulting costs,
must be fully negotiated
between
the parties. Typically, an employer
which provides full payments
should
have the right to select an insurance plan.
However, with the burden
of insurance
premiums being transferred, in
part, to employees,
is it
appropriate
to allow the employer in this case to retain full~control
over
insurance
plan selection? Since the employees now
have a direct interest in
the
cost of insurance, the plan to be offered should be mutually agreeable by
the parties. To that end, the union's proposal concerning
the requirement
that
insurance plan be negotiable is adopted.
The employer seeks further
insurance restrictions by removal of the existing
LEOFF
II disability insurance plan. It is clear that the Washington State
Legislature sought to modify
LEOFF disability insurance by replacing the
inclusive
LEOFF I plan with the more restrictive LEOFF II. While it is
ultimately
up to the legislature to provide a new insurance program to
increase existing disability
coverage, the parties
to a collective
bargaining
agreement can provide for the payment of supplemental disability
insurance
for those firefighters covered by LEOFF II.
Such insurance of two
LEOFF insurance
plans does not preclude
the negotiation of a form
of
supplemental
disability insurance coverage. The
employer cannot demonstrate
that
maintenance of the existing supplemental plan is burdensome or costly.
A more unique situation arises
from the fire district's proposal to eliminate
the
volunteer life insurance plan currently provided to bargaining unit
employees. Paid firefighters are eligible for
accidental death insurance
coverage
if they also serve as volunteers. As
the practice developed,
insurance
benefits were retained although most paid personnel quit their
volunteer
work. The union does not dispute that
the benefit was originally
intended
for volunteers only, but strenuously objects to its removal. While
the
insurance plan may be unique to the
district, the neutral chairman
concludes
that it should only apply for volunteers.
If a paid employee
serves as
a volunteer, that
employee can enjoy
the accidental death
insurance
policy. This conclusion does not end
analysis of this issue.
While the insurance policy is
offered as an incentive for volunteer service,
a
member of professional
firefighters rely upon
that plan for family
security. Given the
inherent costs associated
with accidental death
insurance
for firefighters, it would be unfair to simply remove the affected
employees
from insurance coverage. Rather, the
affected employees' should be
offered
the opportunity to maintain insurance at their own expense. Such a
result
re-establishes the real incentive nature
of the accidental death
insurance
policy and provides continued coverage for those professional
employees
desiring to maintain it personally.
The union seeks to add a new
vision plan to the list of existing insurance
benefits. Examination of the record indicates that the
proposal does not
contain
certainty in cost and that the type of coverage could be disputed
when
benefits are requested. Given these
circumstances, the record does not
support
the addition of vision care to the other insurance benefits offered.
F. Union Right to Grieve
Employer position:
- union allowed to grieve
violation of union rights only
Union position:
- union
allowed to grieve any
alleged violation of the collective
bargaining agreement
The parties have a fundamental
difference of opinion over the role of the
union
in a grievance procedure. The employer
insists that the union has a
right
to grieve "union rights" issues (such as union security) in its own
name
but cannot grieve matters concerning individual employees unless those
employees initiate
the grievance. The union maintains that
it must have the
unlimited
right to grieve if the resulting collective bargaining agreement
is
to be enforced properly.
It is a fundamental tenet of
labor law that a collective bargaining agreement
is
"owned" by the employer and the union serving as exclusive bargaining
representative. Bargaining unit employees stand in the
position of third
party
beneficiaries 'to enjoy the rights and privileges secured for them by
the
contract. As a primary party to the
contract, the union does have a
right
to grieve issues in its own name, and such a ruling shall be included
in
the instant award.
The employer expresses a
concern that the union will interject itself where
employees
do not wish to grieve a particular issue.
Admittedly, such action
is
possible. But it seems highly
unlikely. Unless the affected employee
notifies
the union that a situation exists, the union will not be in a
position
to "invent" grievable disputes. A collective bargaining agreement
is only
as good as the parties desire it to be.
Without active enforcement,
a
contract becomes a meaningless document.
The union must be given the
opportunity
to enforce the contract for the benefit of the bargaining unit
employees.
G. Safety
Employer' position:
- district to 'assign qualified
personnel, either professional
or
volunteer, to operate and drive equipment
- district to establish driver
training programs
Union position:
- establish specific training
criteria for volunteer
drivers and
equipment operators, based
on criteria found
in current IFSTA
manual.
As noted in the Statement of
the Case, one aspect of the safety issue has
been
removed from consideration because of the filing of an unfair labor
practice
complaint. The remaining issue relates
to the conflicts which have
arisen
between professional and volunteer
firefighting forces serving in
this
jurisdiction.
The employer maintains that it
has adequate training programs to assure that
all
equipment and vehicle operators are properly qualified. The union argues
that
volunteer personnel have committed a number of serious mistakes in the
operation
of district fire trucks and water pumping apparatus.
It is clear that accidents
have occurred in the fire district. The
union
presented
compelling testimony that volunteers and student residents do not
receive
adequate training. However, the
district presented a strong case
that
paid firefighters are responsible for as many equipment and vehicle
accidents as are
the volunteers. The professional firefighters
who
testified
on the safety matter reflected a genuine concern for their personal
well being as well
as their ability to perform
effectively in critical
situations
if volunteers are on an emergency scene.
The fire district admits
that
it did not have a regular training officer for approximately one year,
and
if nothing else, this absence had a
perceptible impact on employee
personnel.
Testimony presented indicates that this particular issue
is shrouded in
emotion. The record indicates that the employee has a
safety program in
place,
and while the sufficiency of the training offered is disputed, the
neutral chairman
is satisfied that
the existing structure
provides a
framework
for meaningful training exercises.
The employer
has chosen to
rely upon volunteers
as its primary fire
suppression
force. The district must realize its
responsibility to provide
all of its
firefighting personnel necessary training to maintain
safe
operation.
H. Duration
Employer position:
- the contract should extend
through December 31, 1986
Union position:
- the agreement should extend
through December 31, 1985
The parties have engaged in a
long negotiation process. In most cases,
the
resulting
agreement should be of longer duration to establish a sense of
stability
in the relationship. In this case,
however, a longer duration
would not serve the parties' best
interests. As stated several times
throughout
the preceding analysis, this is a first contract. That the
parties
have entered interest arbitration proceedings is an indication of
the
difficulties encountered in the negotiations.
It is appropriate to set
the
terms of a contract and then permit the parties another opportunity to
negotiate a
successor agreement. Neither party can
be totally satisfied with
the
results of this arbitration process.
Satisfaction was not guaranteed
when
the choice to go to arbitration was made.
The contract shall
be
effective
from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1985.
V. AWARD
1. The existing hours of work and work shift structure shall be
retained.
2. Effective on the date of this award, the following
adjustments in wage
rates shall be implemented:
A. The
monthly base wage shall be increased four percent (4%)
B. Retain
existing wage structure
C. Retain
existing longevity schedule
D. Implement
a two and one-half (2 1/2) percent monthly premium for fire
inspectors.
E. Implement
a five (5) percent monthly premium for paramedics
F. Implement
employer's proposed $25.00 premium for duty officers
3. Implement the employer's proposal concerning education
incentive
4. The union's overtime proposal shall be implemented.
5. The following insurance modifications shall be made:
A. Full payment
for employee dental and medical insurance premiums.
B. Full
payment for existing dependent dental and medical insurance
premiums with future
premium increases shared equally between the
fire district and
the employees for the term of the agreement.
D. Present
health and dental insurance plans shall remain in effect.
All future health and dental insurance plans
must be mutually agreed
upon by the parties.
E. Retain
existing LEOFF II disability insurance supplement.
F. Remove
non-volunteer professional firefighters from the volunteer
accidental death
insurance policy coverage. Allow
non-volunteer
professional
firefighters to continue coverage under the insurance
plan at their own
expense.
6. The union has the right to grieve in its own name
7. The existing safety program shall be retained.
8. The contract shall be effective from January 1, 1984 through
December 31,
1985.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 1985.
KENNETH
J. LATCH, Neutral Chairman