International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 2099
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 06722-I-87-00155
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 2099
AAA No.: 75 300 0025 87
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO.
2099 James H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 2099
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator was selected by the parties with the
assistance
of the American Arbitration Association, and in
accordance
with RCW 41.56.450. RCW 41.56.450 provides for
hearings
to be held before an arbitration panel consisting of
three
persons. The parties stipulated that this matter would
be
heard by a single arbitrator, rather than the three person
panel
described in the statute. A hearing was held in
represented
by Jerald L. Osterman, City Manager.
International Association of
Firefighters, Local No. 2099 was
represented
by James H. Webster of the law firm Webster, Mrak
and
Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath
and the parties presented documentary evidence. There
was
no reporter present, and, therefore, the Arbitrator tape
recorded
the proceedings for the sole purpose of supplementing
his
personal notes.
The parties agreed upon the submission of post hearing
briefs.
The briefs of the parties were received by the
Arbitrator on
ISSUES
The
firefighting
personnel, including 22 firefighters, 6
lieutenants,
and 2 captains. The
parties
to a collective bargaining agreement which expired on
a
new agreement despite their efforts in negotiations and the
efforts
of a mediator. In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, the
Executive Director of the
Relations Commission certified
that the parties were at
impasse,
specifically, with regard to wage rates and longevity
pay.
With the exception of these two issues, the parties have
agreed
to all contract provisions for a two-year agreement,
effective from
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed
personnel
are unable to reach agreement on new contract terms
by
means of negotiations and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls
for
the interest arbitration of their disputes. In interest
arbitration,
an arbitrator or arbitration panel adjudicates a
resolution
to contract issues which are at impasse following
collective
bargaining negotiations. RCW 41.56.030 defines
"uniformed
personnel," for whom interest arbitration are
available,
as encompassing firefighters. The parties agree
that
RCW 41.56.450 is applicable here.
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which
must be considered by an arbitrator in deciding the
controversy.
This statute has been amended, effective July
26,
1987. Thus, the negotiations and the hearing in
the
instant
matter were conducted before the effective date of the
amended
statute. This Decision is being issued after that
effective
date. The old language reads as follows:
41.56.460 Uniformed personnel-
Arbitration panel-Basis for
determination.
In making its
determination,
the panel shall be mindful
of
the legislative purpose enumerated in
RCW 41.56.430 and as
additional standards
or
guidelines to aid it in reaching a
decision,
it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer.
(b) Stipulation 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 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.
The recent amendment to RCW
41.56.460 changed only subsection
(c). The
newly revised subsection (c) is quoted below, with
the
new subsection (c) language underlined:
(c)(i) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(6) (a) and (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
(c)(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(6)(b), 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 public fire
departments
of similar size on the west
coast
of the
an
adequate number of comparable employers
exists
within the state of
other
west coast employers shall not be
considered;
Subsection (c) (ii) is
applicable to firefighters since
firefighters
are referenced in RCW 41.56.030(6)(b).1
1 My analysis of the instant controversy
would be no
different
whether the old or the revised version of the
statute
is applied.
_____
RCW 41.56.430, which is referred to in RCW 41.56.460,
reads
as follows:
41.56.430 Uniformed personnel-
Legislative
declaration. The intent and
purpose
of this 1973 amendatory act is to
recognize
that there exists a public policy
in
the state of
by
uniformed personnel as a means of
settling
their labor disputes; that the
uninterrupted
and dedicated service of
these
classes of employees is vital to the
welfare
and public safety of the state of
and
uninterrupted public service there
should
exist an effective and adequate
alternative
means of settling disputes.
Proposals
The City proposes that all members of the bargaining unit
should
receive a 2 percent wage increase effective January 1,
1987 and an additional 2
percent wage increase effective
longevity
pay should be inserted into the Agreement. The City
asserts
that such a compensation increase is more than fair
considering
the consumer price index and the settlements
reached
with other City employees. The compensation paid to
bargaining
unit members is very close to the average of the
jurisdictions
suggested by the City as comparable.
The
percent
increase in total compensation effective January 1,
1987, and a wage increase effective
increases
in the CPI during 1987. The
part
of its total compensation increase, it be awarded
longevity
pay of 2 percent of monthly salary after 5 years, 4
percent
after 10 years, and 6 percent after 15 years. The
employees
to "catch up" with their peers employed by
comparable
fire departments.
Comparables
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which an
arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision
is a comparison of wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with those
of
like personnel in comparable employers of similar size. In
order
to make such a comparison, one must first determine
which
comparable employers should be selected.
The parties were unable to agree upon a list of comparable
employers.
The City proposes that the Arbitrator consider two
cities
and four fire districts as appropriate for comparison.
The cities are Issaquah and
Marysville. The fire districts
are
King County Fire Districts Nos. 16 and 36, and Snohomish
County
Fire Districts Nos. 7 and 12. The
comparable
jurisdictions. Two are cities:
Districts Nos. 2, 11, 24, 36,
and 40; Snohomish Fire Districts
Nos.
7 and 12; and Pierce County Fire Districts Nos. 3 and 5.
In selecting comparables, both
the City and the
on
comparing the population and assessed property valuation of
the
employing entity here with those of other public employers
located
nearby.
The City of
and
falls within both
has a
population of about 9,500. The City's fire department
provides
fire protection and emergency medical service not
only
within the geographic confines of the City of
but
also to two neighboring fire districts. King County Fire
Protection District No. 42 and
Snohomish
Protection District No. 10
each have had contractual
relationships
with the City for a number of years. It is not
clear
when these relationships began, though they existed in
1983 when the parties were
last involved in an interest
arbitration
proceeding. Three of the four fire stations
operated
by the City are situated outside of the City's
geographic
boundaries. In return, the City receives a major
share
of its funding for its fire department from the two fire
districts.
The City's fire department budget for 1987 is
$1,350,349, of which the
contracting fire districts provide
$978,500.
A significant preponderance of the population served by
the
City's fire department live within the confines of the
contracting
fire districts. Within the service area of Fire
District No. 42 are about
12,000 residents. Within Fire
District No. 10 are about
13,500 residents.
The City limited its choice of comparable jurisdictions to
cities
and fire districts located within King and Snohomish
Counties.
It chose Issaquah and Marysville because they are
the
only two cities within King and
have a
population between 5,000 and 15,000 and also operate
fire
departments with paid staff. It chose the four fire
districts
that it did because they were close in population to
the
combined population total of the two fire districts which
the
City serviced (25,500).
The
to
cities and fire districts situated in King, Snohomish, and
Pierce
Counties.
south.
King, Snohomish, and
constitute
the labor market that is recognized by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for
its Consumer Price Index for
the
comparables
to those located within the three county area, the
departments
that had a population and an assessed valuation
which
each were between 70 percent and 140 percent of the
total
for the City of
districts
which it services. The Union points out that in its
1983 interest arbitration with
the City, Arbitrator Michael
Beck had selected comparable
jurisdictions which had fallen
within a
population range of 70 percent and 140 percent of the
population
serviced by the City's fire department.2
2 The
jurisdictions
selected by Arbitrator Beck should not be used
in
the instant proceeding. The City disagrees with the method
by
which Arbitrator Beck selected comparators. The
asserts
that changed circumstances require that new
comparators
be used. Since the time of the 1983 interest
arbitration,
the population of the area for which the City
provides
fire services has grown. While Arbitrator Beck based
his
selection of comparators on a population served amounting
to
25,000, the parties agree that the population for the same
service
area now totals 35,000. Thus, both parties agree,
though
for differing reasons, that it is appropriate to select
new
comparators.
_____
The combined population of the City and the two fire
districts
which it services is about 35,000. It is that
figure
which shall be used as a basis for comparison. The
City argues that consideration
must be given to the fact that
the
City has less than 10,000 residents. Comparing it to much
larger
jurisdictions would result in higher salaries for its
fire
department employees in relation to that received by
those
employed in other departments of the City. I view it as
more
unfair to compare the salaries of City's firefighters
with
the two cities proposed for comparison by the City.
Those two cities have a
population of 6,000 and 7,000
respectively.
It is unlikely that their fire departments are
similar
to that of the City. The City operates a fire
department
which services a population five or six times
greater.
The number of alarm responses made by the City's
fire
department approximates the average of those made by the
comparators
proposed by the
the
Bothell Fire Department's manpower, number of stations,
response
time, equipment, and type and quantity of duties, all
are
more akin to that of much larger jurisdictions than the
two
small cities proposed by the City as comparators.
Moreover, there is a
distinction between the City's fire
department
and the fire departments of similarly sized cities,
which
lessens the significance of a salary comparison between
them.
Most of the fire department's budget here is derived
not
from taxes and fees collected by the City, but rather from
payments
made by the two contracting fire districts. Thus,
with
regard to its fire department, the City is very different
from
other small cities, such as the City's proposed
comparators,
which have no contractual relationship to provide
fire
service to surrounding fire districts.
Also, the recently amended language in RCW 41.56.460
(e) (ii)
makes it clear that the legislature recognizes the
significance
of the size of fire departments for selecting
comparators.
It is unlikely that the size of the Bothell fire
department
is similar in size to that of Issaquah and
Marysville.
The City emphasizes in its argument that future contracts
with
the two fire districts cannot be assured. The
relationship
has existed for a number of years, and there is
no
evidence that it will soon end. The current circumstance
is
that the City operates a fire department commensurate with
the
size of its service area. Should those circumstances
change,
then presumably the new situation would be recognized
in
collective bargaining, and, if necessary, interest
arbitration.
In the same manner as Arbitrator Beck, I find that only
jurisdictions
located in King and Snohomish Counties shall be
used
as comparators. It would not be unreasonable to include
jurisdictions
from
urges,
particularly since the
considers
Pierce, King, and
market
area for the purpose of establishing its metropolitan
sufficient
comparators available from King and Snohomish
Counties, and those counties
are more significant since the
City and the contracting fire
districts fall within their
boundaries.
Also, the City has reciprocal agreements for
services
with various cities and fire districts located in
King
and
employment
of similarly sized jurisdictions situated in
relative
proximity to, and thus the same labor market as, the
City
are particularly relevant in establishing the
appropriate
comparators
for the City.
As suggested by the
determination
made by Arbitrator Beck in his 1983 Award
involving
these parties, that it would be appropriate to
consider
as comparators those jurisdictions in King and
Snohomish Counties which have
a population between 70 percent
and
140 percent of the combined population of the City and its
two
contracting fire districts. Unlike Arbitrator Beck, I
have
also considered assessed value, since both parties are in
agreement
that this is a relevant factor. Thus, I have
selected
as appropriate comparators, those cities and fire
districts
in King and
and
assessed value each which are within 70 percent and 140
percent
of those of the combined totals of the City and the
two
contracting fire districts. Such a range permits the
selection
of an adequate number of comparators, with serviced
populations
and assessed values, in some cases above and in
some
below, that of the City.
I find that nine jurisdictions are appropriate for
comparison
with the City. The figures below are those
supplied
by the
_____________________________________________________
Serviced Assessed
Emloyer Population Value
Snohomish County F.D. No. 7 40,000 757,936,081
Snohomish County F.D. No. 12 30,000 637,201,739
Average of Comparators 32,377 840,890,991
Bothell F.D. 35,000 886,453,027
_____________________________________________________
Cost of Living
RCW 41.56.460(d) requires that the arbitrator take into
consideration
"[t]he average consumer prices for goods and
services,
commonly known as the cost of living." The
Everett consumer price index
for all urban consumers,
published
by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, rose by 0.6
percent between November 1985
and
November 1986. According to the City, that is the most
recent
published figure for the Seattle-Everett area. Also,
the
City points out that in recent years, wage settlements
with
the firefighters have exceeded the cost of living. For
the
past four years, bargaining unit members have received
wage
increases totalling 15.9 percent, while the annual
increases
for the consumer price index has risen a total of
less
than 10 percent.
Other Considerations
RCW 41.56.460(f) requires that the arbitrator also shall
consider
"[s]uch other factors, . . which
are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours
and conditions of employment." The City points
out
that there is a very low turnover rate among firefighters
and
that there is a flood of applicants whenever positions
become
available. Only one firefighter has resigned from the
fire
department during the past 15 years. Two hundred
applications
for employment were received when the City last
accepted
applications for firefighter positions. The City
argues
that the terms and conditions of employment offered by
the
City are sufficient to attract and retain qualified
employees,
and therefore are competitive.
The City also points out that all other City employees,
including
two groups represented for purposes of collective
bargaining,
have received a 2 percent wage increase for 1987,
and
an additional 2 percent wage increase for 1988. Terms and
conditions
of employment enjoyed by other employees of an
employer
are often raised and considered in collective
bargaining.
The significance of this factor is somewhat
reduced
here because the fire department is significantly
different
from all other departments of the City. Only the
fire
department operates in large part outside the City and
only
the fire department receives most of its budget from
sources
outside the City. Therefore, there is less reason
here,
than normally is the case, to tie the firefighters'
compensation
to that received by other City employees.
The City does not contend that it is undergoing special
financial
difficulties. Rather, it asserts that as a
responsible
local government, it has distributed available
funds
in order to provide the proper balance of services to
the
community.
Longevity Pay
The
monthly
salary after 5 years, 4 percent after 10 years and 6
percent
after 15 years. The City asserts there should be no
longevity
pay.
The following reflects the selected comparators treatment
of
longevity pay:
_____________________________________________________
King County Fire District No.
2
5-9 years - 1%
10-14 years - 2%
15-19 years - 3%
20-24 years - 4%
25 + - 5%
King County Fire District No.
11
5-9 years - $15 per mo. [equivalent to 0.55%]
10-14 years - $30 per mo. [equivalent to 1.1%
15-19 years - $45 per mo. [equivalent to 1.65%]
20-24 years - $60 per mo. [equivalent to 2.2%]
25 + - $75 per mo. [equivalent to 2.7%]
King County Fire District No.
24
None
King County Fire District No.
36
None
King County Fire District No.
40
None
Snohomish County Fire District
No. 7
None
Snohomish County Fire District
No. 12
5-10 years - 1.5%
10-15 years - 3%
15 + - 4.5%
6-12 years - 2%
12-18 years - 4%
18 + - 6%
4-7 years - $20 per mo. [equivalent to 0.77%]
7-10 years - $40 per mo. [equivalent to 1.55%]
10 + - $60 per mo. [equivalent to 2.33%]
_____________________________________________________
I have considered the City's argument that it would create
an
inequity to establish longevity pay for firefighters when
other
City employees do not receive it. Nevertheless, I
conclude
that it would be appropriate for the City to provide
longevity
pay to the firefighters. First of all, and most
importantly,
a majority of the comparators provide for
longevity
pay. Moreover, it is not unreasonable for the City
to
reward long years of service. With the virtually
nonexistent
turnover in the fire department, promotional
opportunities
are limited. It is likely that over the course
of
years of employment, a firefighter obtains some additional
competency
or experience which is of some benefit to the
City.
Indeed, the City appears to recognize this principle
since
it pays an additional amount to its volunteers who have
over
ten years of experience.
I conclude that longevity pay of 1 percent of base monthly
salary
is appropriate for employees with 5 to 10 years of
experience,
2 percent for those with 10 to 15 years, and 3
percent
for those with more than 15 years. These figures
reflect
the approximate average of the five comparators which
offer
longevity pay. The effective date of the new longevity
provision
shall be
wage
increase which shall be awarded for 1987.
Wages
The City proposes that, effective
monthly
rates of pay for bargaining unit members should be
increased
by 2 percent, and that effective
that
the monthly rates should be increased by an additional 2
percent.
The
increase
in total compensation effective
the
increased compensation apportioned between longevity pay
and a
monthly salary increase, and that there be a cost of
living
increase for the second year of the Agreement.
Both parties agree that in establishing wage comparability
between
differing jurisdictions, it is most appropriate to
look
at the entire compensation situation. It is unrealistic
to
look at wages in isolation, since wages are only one aspect
of
compensation. Thus, in comparing compensation levels, I
have
considered such compensation items as salary, longevity
pay,
education incentive, emergency medical technician
(E.M.T.) pay, insurance items,
and other such financial
benefits.
Since by statute all of the comparators pay the
same
percentage for retirement contributions, I have not
considered
that factor. On the other hand, I have considered
social
security contributions, since the comparators differ
with
regard to whether such contributions are made. The City
argues
that social security should not be considered since
many
years ago, the firefighters elected to withdraw from the
system.
Nevertheless, a jurisdiction's social security
payments
on behalf of an employee are a benefit cost. That
benefit
cost varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some
of
the comparators offer their employees a benefit trust
rather
than social security. Others, such as the City here,
offer
neither. It is appropriate that these items be
considered
when comparing total compensation levels. I have
disregarded
matters related to holiday pay and overtime since
there
was insufficient evidence presented to properly make a
comparison
The
compensation
of an employer is calculated, then the hourly
wage
should be determined by dividing the gross monthly
compensation
by the number of hours worked in a month,
adjusting
for holiday and vacation leave. Agreeing with the
City's position in this
regard, I have determined not to
consider
hours worked, holidays or vacations for purposes of
compensation
comparisons. Of course, these matters have a
direct
financial impact on the employer. The employer may
incur
additional personnel costs in order to replace the
absent
employee or else accept diminished productivity. The
number
of hours worked directly relates to the level of hourly
compensation.
However, it would be misleading to factor hours
worked,
holidays and vacations into the compensation equation
for
comparative purposes and ignore a host of other issues
related
to hours. For instance, in this bargaining unit, the
number
of hours worked is affected by labor agreement
provisions
relating to sick leave and bereavement leave. The
related
items as jury leave, military leave, education leave,
overtime,
meal periods, sleep time, standby time, and other
issues
which may significantly affect a comparison of the
"hourly"
compensation.
The 1987 base monthly compensation in the comparable
jurisdictions
for a top-grade firefighter with six years in
service,
an A.A. degree in fire science or other related
field,
an E.M.T. certification, a spouse and one dependent is
reflected
below:3
3 These figures are derived from Union
Exhibit No. 27,
which
is a summary of the compensation levels of the
suggested
comparators. The collective bargaining agreements
for
the City's and the
introduced
into evidence.
_____________________________________________________
King County Fire District No.
2
base monthly salary $2,721.88
longevity 27.21
health/life benefits 242.60
social security 194.61
$3,186.30
King County Fire District No.
11
base monthly salary $2,711.34
longevity 15.00
education incentive 20.00
E.M.T. pay 50.00
health/life benefits 242.60
$3,038.94
King County Fire District No.
24
base monthly salary $2,625.00
health/life benefits 230.77
social security 187.68
$3,043.45
King County Fire District No.
36
base monthly salary $2,400.00
health/life benefits 323.46
$2,723.46
King County Fire District No.
40
base monthly salary $2,640.00
education incentive 52.80
health/life benefits 250.22
$2,943.02
Snohomish County Fire District
No. 7
base monthly salary $2,348.00
health/life benefits 276.60
$2,624.60
Snohomish County Fire District
No. 12
base monthly salary $2,555.00
longevity 38.33
education incentive 50.00
health/life benefits 299.48
$2,942.81
base monthly salary $2,747.00
longevity 54.94
physical fitness4 41.20
mutual employees benefit
trust 196.41
health/life benefits 229.65
$3,269.20
base monthly salary $2,575.00
longevity 20.00
education incentive 154.50
health/life benefits 246.63
$2,996.13
_____
4 1.5 percent of base pay for passing a
physical agility
test.
All but two personnel qualified for the premium in
1986.
_____________________________________________________
The average total compensation
for the firefighters in these
nine
comparable jurisdictions is $2,974. The average base
monthly
salary is $2,591.
In 1986, the City's total compensation for a top-grade
firefighter
with six years in service, an E.M.T.
certification,
an A.A. degree, a spouse and one dependent was
as
follows:
_____________________________________________________
Bothell
base monthly salary $2,396.00
health/life benefits 289.91
$2,685.91
_____________________________________________________
Thus, the Bothell firefighter
in 1986 received about 10.7
percent
less in total compensation than the average received
by
the firefighters in the comparators during 1987. The 1986
base
monthly salary of the Bothell firefighters is about 8.1
percent
less than the average of the comparators during 1987.
No evidence was submitted with regard to the 1987
compensation
increases implemented by the comparators. The
were
available. The 1988 wage increases for the four
comparators for
which there is information are as follows:
_____________________________________________________
King County Fire District No.
11 - 100
percent
of the increase in the C.P.I. with
a
minimum of 3 percent and a maximum of 9
percent.
King County Fire District No.
36 - 4
percent
increase.
C.P.I., with a minimum of 2.5
percent and a
maximum
of 5.5 percent.
$35.65
and $48 per month for E.M.T.
certification.
(The total increase amounts
to
about 4 percent.)
_____________________________________________________
I conclude that the appropriate salary increase for all
bargaining
unit members, based on the statutory criteria is 6
percent
effective
the
employees with total compensation which is below the
average
of the comparators. It places the City's firefighters
ahead
of only two of the nine comparators. On the other hand,
it
is much higher than the 0.7 percent increase in the cost of
living.
It is considerably higher than the compensation
increases
for 1988 among the comparators. It is also three
times
higher than the increases received by other City
employees.
For 1988, I conclude that an appropriate increase is 100
percent
of the cost of living increase, with a minimum of 2
percent
and a maximum of 6 percent. The parties agree that
the
appropriate cost of living index, if one is to be used,
is
the January 1987 to January 1988 metropolitan
consumer
price index (CPI-U). For the most part, the cost of
living
formula which I have utilized is similar to the one
which
the parties agreed to use for the second year of their
agreement
during collective bargaining negotiations for their
1985-86
agreement. Such a wage increase more than likely will
result
in increased compensation which is above the cost of
living,
since the City is already committed to paying any
increase
in health, dental, and disability insurance. The
employees'
real compensation for 1988 will further be
increased
by the implementation of longevity pay. The actual
1988 compensation increase is
likely to be higher than that of
the
four comparators which have as yet settled for the 1988
year.
The 1987 and 1988 increases which are awarded here will
each
serve to move the compensation levels of the City's
firefighters
closer to the average received by firefighters in
the
comparable jurisdictions. I have not fashioned an award
which
would cause the total compensation level of the City's
firefighters
to equate with the average of that of the
comparators
because the statutory criteria is more complex
than
that. The statute calls for a consideration of changes
in
the cost of living, and of other factors traditionally
taken
into consideration. Thus, consideration has been given
to
the very small change in the cost of living, the
compensation
settlements reached among the comparators for
1988, the more modest
compensation increases received by other
City employees, the low
turnover, and the intense competition
for
positions when they become available. These other
factors,
when considered together, tend to moderate the level
of
increase which could be derived from a consideration of the
comparability
factor alone.
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
It is the determination of your Arbitrator that the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the City of
and
the International Association of Firefighters, Local No.
2099 shall be amended to
include the following:
A. Effective January 1, 1987, the monthly rates of pay
for
all employees covered by the Agreement shall be
increased
by 6 percent.
B. Effective January 1, 1988, the monthly rates of pay
for
all employees covered by the Agreement shall be
increased
by 1/10 of 1 percent for each 1/10 of 1
percent
rise in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI-U)
for the period from
January 1987 to January 1988,
as published by the
United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
The minimum of such increase shall be 2
percent.
The maximum increase shall be 6 percent.
C. Effective January 1, 1988, an employee covered by the
Agreement shall be entitled to
longevity pay in the
amount
of 1 percent of monthly base wages beginning
with
the month after the employee reaches the fifth
anniversary
of employment, and thereafter. For each
month
after the tenth anniversary of employment, an
employee
shall receive an additional 1 percent of
monthly
base wages (for a total of 2 percent). For
each
month after reaching the fifteenth anniversary
of
employment, an employee shall receive an
additional 1
percent of monthly base wages (for a
total
of 3 percent).
Dated:
Alan
R. Krebs, Arbitrator