And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Thomas F. Levak
Date
issued:
Arbitrator: Levak; Thomas F.
Case #: 06213-I-86-00139
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
BEFORE THOMAS F. LEVAK,
NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL
ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Interest
Arbitration Between: FINDINGS OF FACT,
CITY OF
THE
"CITY" OF THE NEUTRAL AND
and IMPARTIAL ARBITRATOR
WALLA WALLA POLICE
GUILD
THE
"GUILD" PERC # 6213-I-86-139
I. INTRODUCTION.
This case is an interest arbitration under the terms of RCW
41.56.030(6) and RCW 41.56.450
et. seq.
The City and the Guild are signatory to a written collective
bargaining agreement in effect
for the period of December 26,
1983 through
Agreement" or "Expired Agreement"). Following negotiations and
mediation for a new Agreement,
the parties remained at impasse
and proceeded to binding
interest arbitration.
An interest arbitration was held on
offices of the City,
represented by C. Akin Blitz
of the law firm of Spears, Lubersky,
Campbell, Bledsoe, Anderson
& Young. The Guild was represented by
Will Aitchison
and Jeff Mapes of the law firm of Aitchison,
Imperati,
Barnett & Sherwood.
At the commencement of the proceedings, the parties informed
the Neutral and Impartial
Arbitrator (herein the "Arbitrator")
that they jointly waived the
statutory provisions concerning the
appointment of advocate
arbitrators, and that they stipulated and
agreed that the Arbitrator was authorized and empowered to
hear
and resolve their dispute in
place of a full Arbitration Panel.
In accordance with the statutory mandate concerning the
preservation of a record of
the hearing, the proceedings were
tape-recorded by a
representative of the City. However, it
was
stipulated and agreed by the
parties that their oral and written
arguments would be presented
to the Arbitrator without benefit of
a transcript, and that the Arbitrator was to
render his
Findings of Fact,
Determination and Award on the basis of the
oral and written submissions
without reference to the tape-
recorded record.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties stipulated and
agreed that post-hearing
briefs would be filed with the
Arbitrator, post-marked
received by the Arbitrator on
evidence, the arguments of the
parties, and an application of the
statutory criteria thereto,
the Arbitrator hereby renders the
following Findings,
Determination and Award.
II. BACKGROUND.
The City is located in the southeastern corner of
State on Highway 12, approximately 60 miles east of
Washington, 70 miles north of Pendelton,
of
of approximately 25,600
persons, and serves a predominantly
agricultural community. The City also serves 3 relatively small
colleges. The City has a 1985 Assessed Value of
$457,500,000.00.
The City's 1985 budget was
$1,614,085.
The City's Police Department employs 30 sworn officers, of
whom some 23 sergeants and
officers are employed within the
bargaining unit covered by the
Agreement.
For a number of years, the Guild has served as the exclusive
bargaining representative of
the Police Department's sergeants
and officers; and since that
time, the parties have been
signatory to a continuous
succession of written collective
bargaining agreements,
culminating in the Current Agreement.
III. EXHIBITS.
City Exhibits.
A. Current Labor Agreement
B-1. Fiscal Impact of Wage Increase
B-2. Employee Distribution
B-3. Employee Length of Service
B-4. Employee Compensation
C. Summary of Parties' Management Rights Contentions
D. Summary of Parties' Maintenance of Membership Contentions
E-1. Comparator Standby Clauses
E-2 . Comparator Call-back Clauses
E-3. Comparator Court Time Clauses
F. Summary of Sick Leave Contentions
F-1. Sick Leave Balances
G. Summary of Safety and Health Committee Contentions
H. Summary of Longevity and Educational Incentive Contentions
H-1. Comparator Education Incentive plans
H-2. Cost Impact of Education Incentive
H-3. Employees With Acquired Degrees
H-4. Comparator Contract Clauses
I. Summary of Hazardous Duty Pay Contentions
J. Summary of Reserves Contentions
J-1. Comparator Reserve Restrictions
J-2. Comparator Policies on Use of Reserves
K. City Argument on Selection of Comparators
K-1. Home Address of Employees Hired
K-2. Employees Terminated and Reason for Termination
K-3. Personnel Profile of Comparator Police Departments
L. Summary of City' s Contentions Regarding Interest and
Welfare of the Public
L-1. Population
L-2. Sales Tax Option and Revenues for Comparators
L-3. Local Sales Tax Option Defeat
L-4. City Property Tax Rate/$1000
L-5. Police Agency Composition Comparison and Officers Per
Capita
L-6. BNA Daily Labor Report
L-7. Oregonian Regional Economy
M. Summary of City Contentions Concerning the Appropriate
Wage Adjustment
M-1. 1986 Wage Increases in Comparator Cities
M-2. Top Step Wage Comparison, 1983-1985 for Police Officers
M-3. Top Step Wage Comparison, 1983-1985 for Firefighters
N-1 . CPI - WWPG Comparison
N-2. Upward Bias of CPI as a Measure of Inflation
O-1. Time-Off Comparison, Total Time Off
O-2. Time-Off Comparison, Vacation
O-3. Time-Off Comparison, Holiday
P. Guild Data Base Comparison
Q. Factfinding Between the City of
Ontario, Oregon
and the Ontario Police Officers' Association, Factfinder
Hugh G. Lovell, October 24, 1985
R. Interest Arbitration Between Eugene Police Employees
Association and the City of Eugene, Arbitrator Carlton
Snow, June 28, 1985
S. Regional Map
S-1. Highlighted Highway Map of the City's Comparables, Guild's
Comparables and Guild's Washington Comparables
Guild Exhibits.
1. Current
Agreement
2. Guild
Proposal on Management Rights
3. Guild
Proposal on Union Security
4. Guild
Proposal on Hours of Work
5. Guild
Proposal on Sick Leave
6. Guild
Proposal on Safety and Health Committee
7. Guild
Proposal on Salaries
8. Guild
Proposal on Longevity and Incentive Premium
9. Guild
Proposal on Hazardous Duty Pay
10. Guild
Proposal on Reserves
11. City
Proposal Dated September 10, 1985
12. City
Proposal Dated October 9, 1985
Packet B: Materials
Relating to the Selection of True Comparable
Jurisdictions
by Utilization of Demographic Data
Packet C: Wage
and Benefit Data from the City's True Comparable
Jurisdictions
Packet D: Wage
and Benefit Data from Non-Puget Sound, Washington
Cities
Packet E: Cost
of Living Analysis and Application to the City
Packet F: Workload
Analysis of the City's Police Department and
1985
Department Annual Report
Packet G: The
Relationship of Education to Performance as a Law
Enforcement
Officer
Packet H: Comparison
Tables on Various Outstanding Issues
Guild Supplemental Exhibit Packet 1: Information on Cities Which
the
City May Proffer as Comparable
Guild Supplemental Exhibit Packet 2: Demographic Analysis on the
City's
Proffered Comparables
IV. COPIES OF INTEREST ARBITRATIONS PROVIDED THE ARBITRATOR
WITH THE PARTIES' POST-HEARING BRIEFS ON COMPARABILITY.
A. Awards Provided the
Arbitrator by the Guild.
1. City of Renton, Washington and Renton Police Officers' Guild,
Carlton Snow, June 1978.
2. City of Kent, Washington and Kent Police Officers' Guild,
Charles LaCugna, October 6, 1980.
3. City of Everett, Washington and Everett Police Officers'
Association, John H. Abernathy, February 11, 1981.
4. City of Seattle, Washington and Seattle Police Management
Association, Michael H. Beck, September 11, 1983.
5. City of Olympia, Washington and Olympia Police Guild, Michael
E. deGrasse, July 5, 1984.
6. City of Portland, Oregon and Portland Police Association,
Thomas F. Levak, February 18, 1985.
7. King County, Washington and Public Safety Employees Local
519, S.E.I.U., William H. Dorsey, May 13, 1985.
B. Awards Provided the
Arbitrator by the City.
1. City of Kennewick, Washington and Kennewick
Police Officers'
Benefit Association, Charles S. LaCugna,
February 27, 1985.
2. City of Edmonds, Washington and Teamsters Local 763, Eric B.
Lindauer, April 15, 1983.
3. City of Bellevue,
Washington and Bellevue Firefighters
Association, Howard S. Block, June 30, 1982.
4. City of Pullman, Washington and Teamsters Local 551, Zane
Lumbley, June 4, 1981.
5. City of Seattle, Washington and Seattle Police Officers'
Guild, Phillip Kienast, February 24,
1984.
6. City of Clarkston, Washington and International Association
of Firefighters, Timothy Williams, May 3, 1982.
7. City of Bothell, Washington and International Association of
Firefighters, Michael H. Beck, July 14, 1983.
8. City of Kent, Washington and Kent Police Officers Guild,
Charles LaCugna, October 6, 1980.
9. King County Fire Protection District #39 and International
Association of Firefighters, Thomas F. Levak,
July 24, 1983.
10. Kenny, Compensating Differentials in Teachers' Salaries
(1980).
11. Demographic Analysis on Cities proffered Comparables with
Annotations.
12. City of Puyallup, Washington and International Association
of Firefighters, R. A. Sutermeister,
September 18, 1980.
13. Extract from the City of Eugene, Oregon's Post-hearing
Brief in the Case of City of Eugene and Eugene Police Employees
Association.
V. WITNESSES.
Guild Witnesses.
Randy Sandvig, City Police
Officer and Guild President
City Witnesses.
Tom Steele, Assistant City Manager
VI. THE ISSUES.
Issue No. 1: Article 24, Salaries.
Issue No. 2: Article 25, Longevity and Incentive Premium.
Issue No. 3: Article 15, Sick Leave.
Issue No. 4: Article 19, Safety and Health Committee.
Issue No. 5: Article 3, Management Rights.
Issue No. 6: Article 4, Union Security.
Issue No. 7: New Article, Reserves.
VII. ISSUE NO 1: SALARIES,
ARTICLE 24.
Salaries in effect under the Current Agreement are as
follows:
__________
A B C D E F
CLASSIFICATION RANGE
-6Mo. -1Yr. -1Yr. -1Yr. -1Yr.
PATROLMAN 100 1612 1693 1778 1867 1960 2058
SERGEANT 114 1855 1948 2045 2147 2254 2367
__________
At the time of the arbitration hearing, two patrol officers
were at the $1,778 level, five
were at the $1,867 level and
thirteen were at the $2,058
level. One sergeant was at the
$1,855 level; one was at the
$1,948 level and three were at the
$2,367 level.
Both parties propose a two-year agreement.
The Guild proposes a 12% across-the-board wage increase
effective January 1, 1986, and
a second across-the-board 12% wage
increase effective January 1,
1987.
The City proposes a 2.4% across-the-board increase for 1985-
86, including the cost of any
fringe benefit increases, and a
second-year wage adjustment
equal to 80% of the June 1985 to June
1986 Seattle CPI-W, effective
January 1, 1987.
The parties stipulate that each 1% increase for 1985-86 equals
a cost to the City of
approximately $7,592.
Guild Contentions at the Arbitration Hearing.
The Guild presented some one hundred thirty-five pages of
basic materials in support of
its wage proposal and an additional
ten pages of supplemental
materials. The following is a summary
of the Guild's argument at the
arbitration hearing.
Interest arbitrators have established that the term "West
Coast" means the states
of Washington, Oregon and California, and
that the term "size"
does not mean just population, but refers to
relevant demographics. Interest arbitrators have also
established that because the
statute only covers cities of a
population of 15,000,
comparisons to cities of less than 15,000
are inappropriate.
The appropriate method of determining relevant demographics is
to utilize a "cut off
analysis," a system that has been
recognized as valid by every
arbitrator who has considered the
system in Washington State
police interest arbitrations. The
Guild "asked the
computer" to consider all cities in the three-
state jurisdictional area of
15,000 to 50,000 population, a total
list of over
two hundred forty cities.
The following
demographics were identified
as relevant: (1) number of
officers, (2) 1983 census, (3)
the crime index, (4) the crime
index per capita, (5) number
of officers per 1,000, (6) the crime
index per officer, (7) per capita income, (8) the assessed
valuation, (9) the assessed valuation per capita and
(10)
percentage of population below the poverty level. The
computer was then asked to
eliminate all cities that showed a cut
off in any one of the ten
demographic factors of 50% greater than
the City of Walla Walla or 50% lower than the City. The cities
that met all of the
demographic factors for comparative purposes
are as follows:
Three Washington Cities:
Aberdeen, Pasco, Wenatchee
Two Oregon Cities:
Albany, Klamath Falls
Eleven California Cities:
Colton, Eureka, Hanford, Lompoc, Manteca, Montclair,
Porterville, Seaside, Turlock, Watsonville, Yuba City
All of the resultant cities
are "stand alone" rural cities.
The
Guild has compared the City's
top step wage to the top step wages
paid in each of the
comparators, with an adjustment made for
pension pick-up, since pension
pick-up is not authorized under
Washington law. The City's top step adjusted wage is $2,058.
The average top step adjusted
wage of the comparators is $2,292.
Accordingly, an 11.39%
increase is necessary to "catch up" to the
average of the
comparators. It is noted that while four
of the
cities have not settled their
wages for 1986, the average
California 1986 settlement is
5% and the average Washington
settlement is 3.9%. Not enough Oregon jurisdictions have settled
in 1986 to compile an average,
however Portland was 5% and Eugene
and Salem were both 10%.
Should the Arbitrator
consider Washington as an overall
labor market under the
criteria of "other factors traditionally
considered by
arbitrators," the Guild's study demonstrates that
among the twenty-three cities
within the State of Washington of
populations of 15,000 to
50,000, Walla Walla ranks 22nd. The
average salary among those
cities is $2,475, while the City's top
step salary is $2,058. Accordingly, under that comparative
analysis of 20.29% would be
appropriate.
However, the Guild does not propose that it would be
appropriate to consider Puget
Sound cities in a Washington labor
market comparative analysis
test. When the twelve non-Puget
Sound jurisdictions of 15,000
to 50,000 population in the State
are considered, the City would
still require a 14.25% increase to
catch up with the average wage
$2,351 for those cities. It
should be noted by the
Arbitrator that the most comparable cities
on the list because of
geographical proximity are Kennewick,
Richland and Pasco, while
Bremerton should be eliminated as a
Navy town anomaly and Pullman
should be eliminated because it is
essentially a college town.
Regarding the factor of cost of living, the CPI-W is the
most appropriate. On a December-to-December basis the cost of
living rose 3% since 1984. A time lag analysis adds 1.89% to
that cost of living
factor. Projections from the Oregon and
Washington's governors offices
indicate that this CPI in those
states will rise 3.8% in 1986
and 4.5% in 1987.
As one of the "other factors," the Arbitrator should
also
consider the workload of City
officers. Part I crimes cleared
has almost tripled since 1981. There has been a 10% increase in
the number of calls for
service since 1980. The number of
traffic citations has
increased 12% since 1981. The number of
adult arrests has increased
46% since 1980. The population has
risen 8% since 1980, while the
bargaining unit has decreased by
one officer. The crime rate has gone down over 5% since
1980.
Overall, our graphs
demonstrate that crimes and arrests cleared
have increased over the past
five years, the number of crimes
have decreased, demonstrating
a high level of workload by City
officers.
The Arbitrator should also consider the 1985 annual report
from Chief of Police Chuck
Fulton to City Manager Ed Ivey. That
report indicates that Walla Walla is one of the nation's top five
departments, but that while
Washington cities with population
bases of 25,000 to 50,000
spend an average of $99 per part 1
offense, the City has
maintained an average expenditure of only
$37.45. The Chief's report also demonstrates that
among
Washington cities of 25,000 to
50,000, the City is 3rd from the
bottom in officers per 1,000
population and is at the bottom in
cost per capita; however,
the City is above the average in
serious crimes. The key to the Chief's report is that the
reason
the City's costs are so low is
because of the low wages paid its
officers.
Regarding the City's case, the City ignores arbitration
decisions of the past three
years and also ignores the fact that
under the Oregon cases it
cites, the statute is different than
the Washington statute. Also, numerous factual errors exist in
the City's case.
The City uses Oregon and Idaho assessed valuations for 1984
in comparison to Washington
1985 figures. Some of the figures
are too low: Kennewick by $30
million and Richland by $40
million. Lewiston and Coeur
d'Alene are 50% less than the
figures used by the City.
Regarding the City's comparables, the City is 30% larger
than the average population of
those comparables, has 20% more
police officers, has twice the
amount of crime and 75% of the
crime-per-officer. What the City has done is produce a non-
comparable set of cities. The fact that the City's arbitration
list utilizes only two cities
cited by the Chief of Police
suggests "results
orientation."
The City's analysis fails to utilize all of the Oregon wage
adjustments available on July
1, 1986 and also ignores the Oregon
PERS 6% pick-up. Further, by not including Richland as
artificially unsettled, the
City changes the average.
Historically, over the years the Guild has accepted the
City's representations that if
the Guild would wait, the City
would catch up to comparable
jurisdictions. Last year the City
had $570,000 over its
projected year-end figure yet failed to
honor its catch-up
promise. The City has made no inability
to
pay argument, so now is the
time to catch up.
The City's assertion that internal parity is relevant should
be rejected. Arbitrators do not accept the concept that
wages
paid other employees
within a city is relevant to an interest
wage determination.
Regarding the City's Davis Bacon Act figures, it would be
more relevant to cite the
hourly rate presently paid than
percentage increases.
The City's CPI figures are four months old. Further, the
City's argument that the CPI
should be discounted has been
uniformly rejected by interest
arbitrators.
Finally, all funds in the City are at 6% this year. But the
City has threatened a RIF for
any increase over 2.4%. The Guild
is willing to accept such
action.
City Contentions at the Arbitration Hearing.
The City's list of comparators is based upon the common
labor market of Washington
cities located east of the Cascades
and within a reasonable
distance of Walla Walla having a
population of plus or minus
15,000 to the City's population
(10,000 - 40,000
population). Interest arbitrators have
held
such a method to be more valid
than the arbitrary cut-off method
chosen by the Guild.
Concerning the factor of interest and welfare of the public,
the City has not raised an
inability to pay; what the Guild has
perceived as an unwillingness
to pay is the City's concern that
public employees not be paid a
wage in excess of the local labor
market. The following jurisdictions are within the City's
labor
market:
Oregon
Pendleton, La Grande, The Dalles,
Ontario
Washington
Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, Pullman, Moses Lake,
Ellensburg , Wenatchee
Idaho
Lewiston, Coeur d'Alene
The local economy and revenues available to fund police
wages are not without
limitation. Among the comparators, Walla
Walla has the second lowest
assessed value per capita. The
City's municipal revenue
stream is further limited by its
inability to receive the
optional .5% sales tax receipts. The
City's per capita sales tax
revenues exceed only Pullman and
Richland among the
comparators. The City's ratio of police
to
other expenditures exceeds the
average of comparators and exceeds
that of nine of the set of
twelve. The City's property tax rate
per 1,000 assessed value
exceeds that of six of the twelve
comparators. On a percentage basis, the City devotes a
greater
share of its available funds
to police than most comparators.
A primary purpose of government is not to pay wages and
benefits to public employees,
and the public interest is not
served by altering the ratio
of existing services in order to pay
increased wages. Any salary in excess of 2.4% cannot be funded
from the police budget for the
year 1986, and will necessitate
reductions in police service.
Public sector wage increases should bear a reasonable
relation to the local economy,
the CPI and private sector wages,
and the wage needed to attract
and retain police officers.
Police wages have been
adequate to retain police officers. The
Department has exceptionally
low turnover and high retention.
Police wages have kept pace with the CPI since 1981. Even
with a wage freeze for 1986,
the Guild would still lead Seattle
and Portland CPI adjustments
for the period. The City agrees
that the CPI-W is the appropriate
index, however the Arbitrator
should consider the upward
bias in the CPI in reaching his
decision. The Arbitrator should also consider the fact
that
historically the City has
utilized only 80% of the Seattle CPI to
set wage increases within City
bargaining units. A second year
wage adjustment should be
equal to 80% of the Seattle CPI to
discount the upward bias of
medical coverage and the cost of
homes.
City exhibits reflect that Oregon and Washington comparators
received wage adjustments for
1986 which average 4% to 4.8%.
However, more importantly, and the focal point of arbitral
consideration in this case,
the City has led the average of its
comparators by 9.5% in 1985,
9.6% in 1984 and 8.4% in 1983. The
Arbitrator should preserve the
existing differential on the basis
that the Guild cannot
demonstrate that the traditional wage
relationships between these
comparators should not be preserved.
In other words, the City has
maintained a consistent relationship
between its wage level and the
average of the comparators, and
that relationship should be
preserved.
If the historic relationship among comparators is
maintained, the City wages
should be increased by 3.3% based upon
the all-comparator
average. Such was the approach utilized
by
arbitrator Snow in the Eugene
1985 interest arbitration.
Further, utilizing the 100-mile computing distance utilized
by arbitrator Snow, the City
has led the average of comparators
by 5.9% in 1983, 7.5% in 1984
and 6.8% in 1985. The point is
that City police are now paid
a local labor market wage.
Considering the private sector, City exhibits reflect that
the Guild has done better than
Davis Bacon wage adjustments
within the construction trades
in the region. similarly, the
increase in the City's private
sector wages from 1982 to 1986 is
14.6%, while the police
received 17.4% during the same period.
Concerning internal parity,
non-represented employees
received a 2.4% increase and
AFSCME accepted 2.4% in the form of
fringe benefits.
Assistant City Manager Tom Steele noted that the Police
Department allocation equals
26% of the total City budget and
that personnel costs within
the police Department equal 80% of
the 26%. He further noted that the total
appropriation as
against police appropriations
increased to $1 of every $3.85.
Steele further noted that while the City has received
$300,000 to $400,000 in
federal revenue sharing each year, the
last payment is due this
quarter, and no additional funds have
been approved.
In the City's response to the Guild's presentation, the City
noted that the Police Chief's
report to the City Council is not a
formal report but merely a
submission to the City Manager. The
report has not been adopted by
the Council and basically is no
more than a self-serving type
of report.
Police officers should not be paid based on the number of
citations issued or cases
closed. They are expected to work hard
and do a good job.
The ending balance on the budget decreased about $90,000.
The contingency fund was
$165,000, but $133,000 of that amount
has already been used for
insurance. In addition, the balance
has been allocated to other
needs.
The Guild's Post-Hearing Argument on Comparability.
In a post-hearing brief limited to the question of
comparability, the Guild
submitted the following argument.
The City took two approaches to the question of
comparability. Its first comparator list was composed of
cities
within a population range of
10,000 to 40,000; its second list
was composed of similarly
populated cities east of the Cascades
and "within a distance of
the City," at least one of which is
located 190 miles from the
City. The City also identified a
second set of comparable
jurisdictions which consisted of cities
within the first two sets
which were located within 100 miles of
the City.
The Guild's methodology was to utilize demographics to
locate like employers of
similar size on the West Coast. Each of
the demographic criteria
mentioned at the hearing were utilized.
For the information of the
Arbitrator, the Guild also offered the
second set of cities within
the State of Washington, not as
"comparable"
jurisdictions, but simply to apprise the
Arbitrator
of the wages and benefits
provided by jurisdictions in non-urban
cities in Washington.
The term "West Coast" has been defined in a number of
cases
as the coastal states of
Washington, Oregon, California and
Alaska. See, e.g., Everett, Abernathy, 1981. Only where the
parties have, through
stipulation, defined West Coast in a
different fashion has the
result been any different. See, Kent,
LaCugna,
1980; Renton, Snow, 1978.
The requirement that a potential jurisdiction lie on the
eastside of the Cascades conflicts with the statute's
requirement that an arbitrator
consider West Coast jurisdictions.
Further, many cities east of
the Cascades within the State of
Washington are comparable to
the City.
The City's criteria of utilizing cities under 15,000
conflicts with the 15,000
population threshold established by the
statute. See, Tukwila, Teather,
1983. Further, five of the
thirteen cities proffered as
comparable by the City have
populations which are less
than 50% of the City's population:
Ellensburg, La Grande, Moses
Lake, Ontario and The Dalles. Only
one of the cities, Pullman,
has a population that is even within
10% of the City's. Arbitrator Michael Beck has rejected such an
approach. Seattle, Beck, 1983.
The City's proximity argument must fail, if for no other
reason than it has picked the
City of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, which
is a full 190 miles from the City and has no economic
relationship with the City,
and is not even on the West Coast of
the United States.
The Guild's supplemental exhibit no. 2 demonstrates that the
City's comparable
jurisdictions have a greater than 50%
divergence from the City in
many of its demographic categories
which are relevant to a proper
determination of comparability.
One of the City's proposed
comparators, Ontario, has a population
so low that the FBI does not
even tally crime statistics with
the City's. Two of the City's
proposed comparators, La Grande and
Pullman, have crime index
figures that do not even reach to 25%
of the City's. Five of the City's proposed comparators,
Moses Lake, Pendleton,
Richland, and The Dalles have
crime index figures which do
not reach to 50% of the City's.
The Guild imposed no artificial geographical limitations on
the locations of cities which
could be potentially considered as
comparable to the City, and
the Guild engaged in extensive use of
demographic
characteristics. The City attempted to
claim that
the Guild's use of demographic
characteristics was either
inappropriate or had been
disapproved by arbitrators in the past.
Nothing could be further from
the truth. See, Renton, Snow,
1978; Everett,
Abernathy, 1981; King
County, Dorsey, 1985;
Olympia, deGrasse,
1984. All of the demographics
utilized by
the Guild bear a direct
relationship to the job of a police
officer. See, Renton, Snow, 1983.
The City's criticism of the Guild's methodology based upon
the lack of comparative cost
of living data should be rejected.
In the first place, the City
did not produce any evidence on the
comparative cost of living among
its own comparable
jurisdictions. Second, interest arbitrators have held that
there
is no available means of
measuring relative costs of living.
See, King County, Dorsey, 1985
and Seattle, Krebs, 1984. In any
event, the party objecting to
potential comparators on the basis
of cost of living has the
burden of showing that the comparative
costs of living are greatly
disparate. See, Renton, Snow, 1978.
The City has failed to sustain
its burden in this case.
The Guild is not claiming that its method for determining
comparable jurisdictions is
the only appropriate method for doing
so. However, its method is rational, specifically
relates to the
PECBR and is
in accordance with decisions of interest
arbitrators. The City's approach meets none of those
criteria.
The City's Post-Hearing Argument on Comparability.
The Guild's assertion that arbitrators have uniformly looked
to the states of California,
Oregon and Washington is incorrect;
and arbitrators have not
consistently adopted the Guild cut-off
methodology. See, Kennewick, LaCugna,
1985.
Arbitrator Block has written the definitive interpretation
of the Washington
statute. See,Bellelvue,
Block, 1982, in which
he determined that the
legislature intended a flexible
application of the statutory
criteria. Block also noted that for
the rural Washington city of
Yakima, a separate and distinct
basis of comparison is
indicated.
The Guild's reliance on Renton, Snow, 1983 and Olympia,
deGrasse,
1984 is misplaced. In the Renton case, Snow utilized
local labor market
factors. Further, the Guild neglects to
point
out that in an later City of
Eugene case, Snow by implication
reversed his own Renton
decision. In the Olympia case, deGrasse
specifically acknowledged that
the local labor market could
properly affect the
comparability analysis. The fact is that
the
Renton and Olympia cases do
not express the well-established
precedent that the Guild
claims. Both those cases, as well as
all cases in which the Guild
methodology developed by Dr. Richard
O. Zerbe
is used, involved the "hub" theory, a theory which is
not a part of the Guild model
in this case.
Interest arbitrators have consistently recognized
the
significance of the local
labor market. See, Portland, Levak,
1985; Eugene, Snow,
1985; and Kennewick, LaCugna, 1985 and
Bellevue, Block, 1982.
The extract from the City of Eugene post-hearing brief
demonstrates that Oregon
arbitrators have followed the same
methodology as Washington
arbitrators.
The approach of Washington arbitrators is demonstrated in
Pullman, Lumbley,
1981, wherein the arbitrator recognized the
tendency of arbitrators to
attach greater weight to comparability
evidence from Washington
cities and found that doing so was
reasonable based upon
differences from cities outside Washington.
Similarly, in Seattle, Keinast, 1984,
the arbitrator
determined that the most
important "other factor" to consider is
the labor market conditions in
the Seattle area, both in the
public and private
sectors. He noted that Seattle cities
are
more similarly situated than
other West Coast cities, that they
operate under the Washington
statute and are in the same living
areas and labor market.
In Clarkston, Williams, 1982, the arbitration panel
established a set of
comparable cities, which included Washington
and Oregon cities east of the
Cascades, as well as geographically
proximate Idaho cities since
they constituted the immediate
neighbors to Clarkston and
also to comprise the marketplace
within which Clarkston city
employees purchased their goods and
services.
In Bothell, Beck, 1983, the arbitrator utilized only the
local labor market of
comparable fire districts within the Puget
Sound area, and held that it
was unnecessary to look outside of
that labor market to find
comparable jurisdictions on the West
Coast.
The Guild's methodology is unreliable and its comparators
should be disregarded. Zerbe's cut-off
criteria have been
discredited by several
arbitrators. See, e.g., Eugene, Snow.
Further, the Guild's methodology ignores cost of
living
differences among out-of-state
jurisdictions and is critically
flawed by the Guild's
repudiation of professor Zerbe's hub
theory.
There is no rational basis for using number of officers,
crime index, officers per
1,000, or other demographic factors as
factors which are
determinative of comparability. These
are
indicative of the degree to
which a particular city is more or
less comparable, but this is
much different from factors which
are appropriate in the
selection of a particular city from the
rest.
The Guild's methodology presumes that the selected variables
give a true picture of like
employers of similar size from
Vancouver, British Columbia to
San Diego, but nothing could be
fruther
from the truth. The criteria do not
reflect the number
of critical factors such as
the overall service system, the total
revenue streams, the quality
of life, the policing environment,
the population density, the
geographic areas served, population
patterns within the
jurisdiction, and local economic trends.
The California communities and most of the Washington
communities selected by the
Guild are not comparable to the City
for one or more of the
following reasons: (1) proximity to a
large metropolitan
area, (2) local
cost of living
and
particularly the cost of
housing and land, (3) local economic
conditions, (4) variance of working conditions of police
officers, (5) differences in
lifestyle and quality of life, (6)
distance from
residence to central business district,
(7)
differences in commuting
patterns, (8) cost of access to
commercial areas for shopping,
(9) the relative wealth of the
communities, (10) structure of the unit of
government, (11)
municipal budget, (12) the
compensation structure, including
benefit programs.
Further, the Guild's data is not current. The City obtained
its demographic data directly
from each of the cities and did not
rely on outdated data. The City's data was verified before and
after the arbitration
proceedings by telephonic survey.
The Guild ignores the local
economy of the Walla Walla
region. For example, the Tri-Cities areas is closely
linked to
the City and has suffered a
major economic reversal as a result
of the cancellation of two
WPSS power plants. The City is
dependent upon
agriculture. The Arbitrator can take
notice of
the fact that agriculture is
an American industry in extremis.
The Guild's population data is not reasonably current since
it utilizes 1983 census data
as its criterium.
The Guild's methodology and the theories it incorporates
have been rejected and are not
worthy of reliance. See, e.g.,
Kennewick, LaCugna,
1985. Dr. Zerbe's
methods also conflict with
those of Dr. Knowles, cited in
King County, Levak, 1983.
It is also noteworthy that in Kent, LaCugna,
1980, Zerbe
acted as a Guild advocate, but
that in that case he espoused the
local labor market theory
asserted by the City in this case and
recognized by Knowles in the King County case. Zerbe's approach
for the Guild is certainly
diametrically opposed to the way his
cut-off approach has been
asserted by the Guild in the instant
case.
The Arbitrator should consider the cities east of the
Cascades as the most
comparable. Several cases speak to the
east/west of the Cascades
argument. See, Tukwila, Levak, 1985;
Puyallup, Sutermeister,
1980; Pullman, Lumbley, 1981.
Western Washington and California cities selected by the
Guild should be rejected
because of their close proximity to
metropolitan areas. Cities close to Long Beach, Sacramento,
Santa Barbara, Seattle and
other such cities have nothing in
common with the cost of living
or labor market in the Walla
Walla region.
The Arbitrator should adopt the City's over-time approach to
comparability. See, Olympia, deGrasse. The converse is that no
compelling rationale exists
for a catch up. The Guild has
produced no evidence from
which the Arbitrator can discern that
California and Western
Washington cities have not always led the
City with a higher wage and by
a differential that has remained
constant over time.
The wage adjustment should be based on top step wages, not
an adjusted wage. A number of Washington jurisdictions do not
pick up an employee's share of
retirement. Beyond that, the City
notes that retirement pick-up
is not an issue before the
Arbitrator, and should not
therefore be considered under the
mandate of WAC 391-55-220.
The City's wage proposal
should be adopted by the
Arbitrator. Its proposal is fair, consistent with
adjustments in
the local market and also
within the private market. The City
pays a local labor market
wage. CPI data substantiates the
reasonableness of the City's
approach. The City's wage is
adequate to attract and retain
police officers. It is not in the
public interest to award the
double-digit increase claimed by the
Guild. The City exists for the service and benefit
of its
residents and not for the
benefit of its employees. Gresham,
Clark, 1984.
The Arbitrator's Summary of General Approaches Taken by
Interest Arbitrators on the Subject of Comparability.
The Arbitrator has analyzed those interest arbitration
awards provided him by the
parties, as listed above. The
Arbitrator has not conducted
independent research on other
interest arbitration decisions
cited by the parties, but not
actually provided him. The following are general "headnote" type
summaries of principles, findings or observations made by
interest arbitrations in those
awards. The Arbitrator has not
attempted to summarize every
aspect of those cases, nor do these
summaries purport to speak for
the arbitrators cited.
1. Renton, Snow, 1978.
(Cited by the Guild.)
This is a police case.
Snow stated that the Washington
statute requires a comparison
based on size with comparable West
Coast jurisdictions, and that
the statute does not restrict out-
of-state comparisons to larger
cities such as Seattle. He held
that a party who objects to
California jurisdictions on the
ground that the cost of living
is higher in those jurisdictions,
or on the ground that the labor market is different in those
areas, must come forward with
evidence to establish those
assertions. Snow utilized the following demographics to
establish comparability: (a) actual daytime populations served;
(b) the City's status as a
"hub" city to Seattle; (c) the size of
the police force; and (d) the
size of the Police Department
budget. Snow ultimately found the following
jurisdictions to be
comparable to Renton: (a) four Washington cities agreed as
comparable by the parties; (b)
four California cities cited by
the Guild. He
utilized no Oregon cities, since no Oregon hub"
cities were cited by either
party.
2. Kent, LaCugna, 1980.
(Cited by the Guild and by the
City.)
This is a police case. LaCugna found that the statute
provides for West Coast
cities, so any study that eliminates
California and Oregon violates
the statute. He noted that
proximity does not equal
comparability, but proximity could not
be dismissed by him because police officers in the Renton-Kent-
Auburn corridor live
together. He held that an award must
reflect the bargaining
strength of the parties, and that the
effect of a very high wage
increase on a city cannot be
dismissed. He found that a serious defect existed in the
Guild's
case because it failed to
utilize California and Oregon cities
and it excluded cities in the
Olympic Peninsula. He felt that
the Guild's elimination of
Bremerton as a maritime city was
arbitrary. LaCugna ultimately
utilized the City's list of
comparables which was made up
of eleven Washington cities, nine
Oregon cities and nine
California cities.
3. Everett, Abernathy,
1981. (Cited by the Guild.)
This is a police case.
Abernathy concluded that the
Washington statute means the
states of Oregon, Washington,
California and Alaska. Abernathy adopted the city's approach,
which was to utilize five
Washington and three Oregon cities of
plus or minus 20,000 within
the population of Everett, together
with six California cities plus or minus 5,000 of
Everett's
population and within 30% of
Everett's assessed property
evaluation.
4. Seattle, Beck, 1983.
(Cited by the Guild.)
This is a police case decided September 11, 1983. Both sides
offered Oregon, Washington and
California cities, with the Guild
also offering Anchorage. Beck selected the five closest in
population to Seattle, two
greater and three lower. Seattle was
the only Washington city cited
by the other side, so the area
labor market was not an
issue. The cut-off point was a jump from
36% to 77% greater population
and 46% to 80% lesser population.
Comparables and the CPI were
the major factors utilized by Beck
in establishing the new salary
rate. The parties agreed that
"size" equal
"population."
5. Bothell, Beck, 1983.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a fire district case decided July 14, 1983, two
months before Beck decided his
Seattle police case. Beck first
noted that Bothell was unique
in that the city had a population
of 7,500, but contracted out
to a population of over 25,000, so
was comparable to many county
fire districts. Beck utilized the
common labor market theory,
noting that because he was not
dealing with a major city,
such as Seattle, there was need to
look to communities located
far from the city in the states of
Oregon and California. Beck utilized as comparable seven fire
districts serving a population
of 25,000 persons within King and
Snohomish Counties.
Beck applied only
the factor of
comparability to give a
substantial wage increase in 1983, and
only the CPI, with a high floor, to give no raise in 1984.
Comparing the Seattle and
Bothell cases, Beck appears to be
saying that absent the
stipulation of the parties, with other
than major metropolitan cities the local labor market is the
primary factor to consider.
6. Olympia, deGrasse, 1984. (Cited by the Guild.)
This is a police case. The City proposed both cities and
counties as comparable, while
the Guild proposed only cities.
The arbitrator utilized
cities, stating that counties are not
"like" cities even
under the recent statute amendment. deGrasse
rejected the "hub"
test. The City proposed as comparators
three
Washington, three Oregon and
four California employers, utilizing
the demographic criteria of
population, assessed valuation,
assessed valuation per capita
and number of officers employed.
The Guild proposed eight
demographic criteria which the
arbitrator felt were similar
to the four utilized by the City.
The arbitrator selected the
City's four criteria. The arbitrator
accepted the Guild's
contention that population trends was a
valid factor.
The arbitrator ultimately used the Guild's
factors, except for the hub
test, and found that four Washington,
one Oregon and eleven
California cities were comparable to
Olympia, noting that there was
no statutory warrant for excluding
California cities simply
because they were in the State of
California.
7. King County, Dorsey,
1985. (Cited by the Guild.)
This is a police case. Each side proposed three California
counties, all different. Neither side proposed any Oregon,
Washington or Alaska
counties. Dorsey found that the most
appropriate method was to
select comparables on the West Coast
using demographic
characteristics. Using demographic
characteristics he picked four
counties, two from each list of
three proposed by the
parties. Dorsey specifically noted that
it
was not appropriate for him to
select any other jurisdictions not
proposed and stipulated to by
the parties. Dorsey also accepted
the Guild's argument that
cost-of-living adjustment tests are
flawed and not to be
used. Dorsey considered the effect of
pension pick-ups and rejected
the use of total pension costs. He
also considered CPI
increases. As an "other
factor," Dorsey also
considered the latest pay
increase paid to police officers
employed by the City of
Seattle.
8. Puyallup, Sutermeister, 1980.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a fire case.
During negotiations, the city utilized
a list of twenty-four of the
largest cities in Washington. At
the arbitration hearing, the
city proposed a different list
comprised of all cities in the
states of Washington, Oregon and
California With a population
of 10-30,000. The union proposed
those Washington cities west
of the Cascades on the city's first
proposed list. The arbitrator selected fifteen Western
Washington cities from the
lists submitted by the parties at
arbitration. The arbitrator did not expressly explain his
rationale for selection. The arbitrator based his wages increase
on a finding that the city's
offer was reasonable when the
comparators were considered.
9. Pullman, Lumbley, 1981.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a police case.
The arbitrator stated that as a
general rule, size equals
population, although other factors
properly may be
considered. He noted that the West
Coast
generally meant Washington,
Oregon and California with a
"tendency" to give
greater weight to Washington jurisdictions.
The city proposed nine
Washington, three Idaho, fifteen Oregon
and twelve California
cities; the guild proposed only nine
Washington cities. The arbitrator selected eighteen cities from
Oregon, Washington and
California. He also selected Moscow,
Idaho under the "other
factors" criteria based upon close
proximity. The arbitrator rejected cities that were
within 50
miles of a major population
center. Cities selected by the
arbitrator in the State of
Washington ranged form one-half the
city's size to twice the
city's size. Cities selected by the
arbitrator from outside the
State of Washington ranged from plus
or minus 10% of the city's population,
to take into consideration
different constitutional and
statutory authorities in outside
states. So the arbitrator ultimately utilized nine
Washington,
three California, five Oregon
and one Idaho cities. The
arbitrator considered that the
city was one of the poorest in the
State and also considered the
CPI. The arbitrator finally
decided that even though the
city was poor, it had an obligation
under the comparability factor
to find the money, and awarded a
13% wage increase based
upon comparability and the CPI.
10. Bellevue, Block,
1982. (Cited by the City.)
This is a fire case. The
arbitrator stated that "size" does
not just mean population, but
must be construed flexibly. He
cited the Bernstein article
for the principle that the local
labor market is the primary
consideration of an interest
arbitrator, but he stated that
to implement the statutory
mandate, a comparison must
also be made to other West Coast
cities outside the local labor
market. However, he stated that
local labor market cities are
entitled to "much more weight."
He
also stated that intra-city
wage comparisons are entitled to
"significant
weight." However, finally Block did
not utilize
West Coast cities outside
Washington at all and only utilized the
local labor market, noting
that while he evaluated and weighed
West Coast cities' data, he
found that the most relevant and
persuasive data to be on the
Puget Sound cities, so he utilized
only Puget Sound cities as
comparators.
11. Clarkston, Williams,
1982. (Cited by the City.)
This is a fire case. The
arbitrator first noted the West
Coast standard, however he
actually utilized only three Oregon
and three Washington cities
east of the mountains of comparable
size, stating that the
mountains provided a physical boundary and
a socio-political
boundary. He also considered two Idaho
cities
because they were the city's
immediate neighbors and because they
comprised the marketplace in
which city employees shop. The
arbitrator also considered the
CPI. The arbitrator rejected
intra-city wage comparisons,
stating that the Washington statute
does not establish such
comparison as a "critical variable."
The
arbitrator awarded a 9%
increase which placed the city 3rd from
the bottom on the comparator
list.
12. Edmonds, Lindauer, 1983.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a police case.
The city proposed Washington, Oregon
and California jurisdictions,
while the union proposed only
Washington, and particularly
Washington jurisdictions within the
Puget Sound area. The arbitrator stated that the
"traditional
approach" is to first
consider similar size cities within
geogrphical
proximity to a city, next to consider similar size
cities throughout the State of
Washington, and only next to
consider similar size cities
in Oregon and California. He stated
that the concept is based upon
the rationale that most employees
measure their income against
other employees within the
employees' geographical
area. He cited the Block and Bellevue
interest arbitration cases, as
well as the Bernstein article.
The arbitrator utilized as
comparators four cities that both
sides agreed were comparable
and other Puget Sound cities. The
arbitrator also considered
intra-city wages.
13. Seattle, Kienast, 1981.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a police case.
The city proposed one Oregon and
five California cities that
had been historically used by the
parties, but did not propose
the one Washington city, Tacoma,
that historically had been
used because it purportedly did not
meet the size standard. The guild utilized the Zerbe
regression
analysis method to pick one
Oregon, one Washington and seven
California cities. The arbitrator selected two Los Angeles area
cities, two San Francisco area
cities, Portland and Tacoma, using
both historical comparables
and Zerbe's analysis, but rejecting a
larger number of California
cities, so as not to give "undue
weight" to California
over the Northwest. The arbitrator also
considered the net effect of
pension pick-ups and a health and
welfare costs. The arbitrator considered cost-of-living
comparisons to out-of-state
cities to be valid. The arbitrator
also considered as the most
important "other factor" labor market
conditions in the public and
private sectors within the Seattle
area. He utilized recent salary settlements in the
fourteen
highest paying cities in the
Seattle area, stating that those
recent salary settlements were
more important than similar
settlements on the West
Coast. Finally, the arbitrator stated
that Seattle did not need to
continue as the comparable wage
leader in light of economic
conditions in the area, and that it
was alright for Seattle to be
in the mid-range of the
comparators
14. Kennewick, LaCugna, 1985.
(Cited by the City.)
This is a police case. LaCugna took the approach that an
interest arbitrator should
consider what he termed the
"ultimate
political-economic reality of labor relations," namely
what would "the
probable" agreement between the parties be in a
"free" collective
bargaining situation outside of binding
interest arbitration. He opined that such political economic
reality must take precedent
over statistical data concerning
comparability. He noted that the concept of
"catch-up" is not a
viable principle, and he
further noted that it is his practice to
retain the status quo whenever
possible. LaCugna
gave no weight
to either the city's approach
or to the association's Zerbe
approach for several stated
reasons. He stated that the city's
approach was inconsistent and
that the approaches of both parties
were " result
oriented." He noted that while
statistically a city
may compare to Kennewick, it
may actually not be "like" Kennewick
at all. He also gave no weight to the parties' CPI
arguments or
to the parties' arguments
concerning productivity, turnover rate
or ability to pay. LaCugna gave
decisive weight to two local
conditions: the financial condition of the city, and recent
wage settlements in the
Tri-Cities area and within the city. He
stated that those local
conditions, more than statistical
analysis, directly affect and
ultimately determine a collective
bargaining agreement. He cited poor economic conditions in the
city. Finally, he noted that his implemented
settlement
maintained the historical
police/fire differential.
Comparator Principles Adopted by the Arbitrator.
This is the first Washington interest arbitration case heard
by the Arbitrator in which
parties have submitted a large number
of actual interest arbitration
decisions, complete citations and
extensive argument on the
question of comparability. Based upon
the Arbitrator's study of the
above-summarized interest
arbitration awards, and the arguments of the parties, the
Arbitrator hereby adopts the
following principles relative to
comparability.
First, Washington
interest arbitration cases must be
resolved under the Washington
statute; the Arbitrator cannot
ignore that statute and apply some form of
"general" interest
arbitration test, or some personally developed standard or test.
It must be conclusively
presumed that the Washington legislature
intended interest arbitrators
to apply the terms of the statute.
in that regard, it necessarily
follows that because the Oregon
statute differs drastically
from the Washington statute, Oregon
interest arbitration awards on
the subject of comparability are
of no value in a Washington
interest arbitration proceeding.
Second, the reference in the Washington statute to "West
Coast" jurisdictions
means jurisdictions of similar size within
the states of Washington,
Oregon, California and Alaska.
Comparable jurisdictions
within the states of Oregon, California
and Alaska cannot be summarily
rejected simply because they are
out of state. However, it is
proper to give lesser weight or
apply more stringent standards
to out-of-state jurisdictions
under the circumstances of a
particular case in the interest of
ensuring that "true"
comparability, or as close as possible
thereto, is achieved.
Third, where a police jurisdiction is close to the $15,000
jurisdictional limit, an
arbitrator properly may consider as
comparators police
jurisdictions under that $15,000 standard,
since to do otherwise would be
to ignore patently comparable
jurisdictions. Indeed, to do so in a particular case might
result in comparing a subject
jurisdiction only to jurisdictions
greater in population.
Fourth, jurisdictions
properly cannot be ignored simply
because the employees in those
jurisdictions are not represented
by a labor organization or
because employees in that jurisdiction
are not covered by a
collective bargaining law. Again, to do
so
would oft times result in the
elimination of patently comparable
jurisdictions. Perhaps more importantly, the statute does
not
exclude unrepresented
employees or employees from jurisdictions
that have different collective
bargaining laws. Indeed, the
State of Washington has no
control over the form and scope of the
bargaining laws in the states
of Washington and California, yet
decrees that jurisdictions in
those states are to be considered
as West Coast comparators.
Fifth, cities, counties and districts are different forms of
government and therefore
ordinarily are not "like employers"
within the meaning of the
statute. However, under the facts of a
particular case, compelling evidence may demonstrate that
different forms of government
should be treated as like
employers. See, for example, arbitrator deGrasse's analysis in
the City of Olympia case, PERC
No. 4941-I-83-108, 7/5/84.
Sixth, historical comparators are normally entitled to
recognition, and the party who
proposes the discontinuance of an
historical comparator bears
the burden of establishing that the
historical comparator is not
truly comparable.
Seventh, because the statute requires an interest arbitrator
to honor the stipulations of
the parties, an arbitrator should
properly accept, without reservation, jointly agreed upon
definitions, principles and
comparators submitted by both sides.
For example, if the parties
stipulate and agree that "size"
equals daytime
population, an arbitrator should accept
that
agreement. If the parties jointly agree that
jurisdictions
within the states of Alaska
and California should be considered,
the Arbitrator should honor
that submission, and not use his own
comparators from other
states. See, King County, PERC Case No.
550-1-84-125, Dorsey, 5/13/85,
wherein the arbitrator set aside
his own personal preferences
regarding comparability in favor of
the parties'
stipulations. An arbitrator should also
honor
specific demographics or
jurisdictions submitted by the parties,
even if the parties' full
demographics lists and full
jurisdictions list do not
agree. For example, if both sides
agree that the City of Tacoma
is comparable, but the remainder of
their lists are in conflict,
an arbitrator should use Tacoma as a
"stipulated"
comparator. Similarly, an arbitrator properly
should consider jurisdictions
from outside of the West Coast
when stipulated and agreed to
by the parties, since such would
also fall under the
Arbitrator's authority under paragraph (f) of
the statute.
Eighth, where a readily and easily identifiable labor market
exists based upon a very close
geographical proximity with
patently similar
characteristics, that labor market
should
receive primary, and perhaps
sole, consideration. As noted by
arbitrator Beck, under such
circumstances, there is no need to
look to communities located
far from the subject employer. See,
City of Bothell, PERC Case No.
4370-1-82-99, Michael H. Beck,
7/14/83.
Ninth, where there
is no easily
identifiable and
geographically proximate labor
market, it is inappropriate for an
arbitrator to disregard
comparable Oregon, California and Alaska
employers. However, primary consideration should be
given to a
more generally ascertainable
geo-political Washington labor
market, such "as
isolated, agriculturally based cities east of
the Cascades" or
"hub cities to a larger metropolitan city."
When the subject city is an
Eastern Washington isolated
agricultural community, it is
appropriate to consider similar
cities in the states of
Oregon, California and Alaska; however,
to avoid giving undue weight
to California jurisdictions,
demographic criteria should be
applied more strictly and the
number of California
jurisdictions should be limited. See,
e.g.,
City of Seattle, Phillip Kienast, 2/24/84; City of Everett, John
Abernathy, 2/11/81.
Tenth, demographics, such as those utilized by Zerbe and
others, are patently sound
indicators of comparability. However,
greater weight should be given
to more traditional demographics,
such as population and
assessed valuation, rather than more
esoteric demographics such as
the number of felony cases closed
in a year. The more esoteric demographics simply are
not
acceptable to either the
public as a whole or to elected
officials. It is proper for an arbitrator to utilize his
general
expertise and experience to
select demographics that both
objectively and intuitively
will be more readily acceptable to
the citizens of a particular
jurisdiction.
Eleventh, in determining
comparators, it is proper to
consider the effect of pension
pick-ups. See,
Dorsey, 1985.
Twelth, when considering comparators, cost-of-living
adjustments should not be made
for other states, since such
adjustment studies are
patently flawed. See,
Dorsey, 1985.
Thirteenth, recent salary settlements within the general
geographical area of the
subject employer may properly be
considered as a section (f)
"other factor" even if those
jurisdictions are not like
employers, of comparable size or
within the four West Coast
states. Thus, an arbitrator dealing
with a city police department
located on the East Coast of the
State of
settlements given to adjacent
local
as well as to a nearby
settlements relate to economic
conditions concerning the interest
and welfare of the public and
are a factor generally considered
by labor negotiators in
collective bargaining. See,
Dorsey, 1985 and City of
Fourteenth, the
maintenance of the subject employer's
position within a list of
comparables is more important than a
"catch up" to a
higher position on the list. However,
where
overall economic conditions
within the employer will allow for a
catch up, it is reasonable for
an interest arbitrator to raise
the salary level of the
subject employer to at least the average
salary within the list of
comparators.
Fifteenth, where a
salary range is relatively short in
duration - no more than five
years - and the turnover rate within
the employer is relatively
low, comparison should be based upon
the top salary range.
Sixteenth, where a multi-service employer is involved, such
as city or county, as opposed
to a single-service employer, such
as a fire district, an arbitrator
must consider the need of the
employer to fund and operate
all of its services.
Seventeenth, an arbitrator should consider the effect his
award may have on the ability
of the employer to maintain the
existing employee complement
covered by the subject bargaining
agreement. However,
an arbitrator cannot simply bow to a
threatened reduction in force
simply because the employer has the
political power to carry that
threat out. To do so would be to
ignore the statute
itself.
Eighteenth, after an arbitrator has developed a list of
comparable employers, he
should give somewhat less consideration
to those comparators that pay
a disproportionatly high or low
wage.
Finally, the weight to be given the comparability criteria,
in reference to other criteria
such as interest and welfare of
the public or the local labor
market, is one that must be
determined under the facts of
each case with due regard to the
general economic conditions of
the subject employer and the
community in which the
employer is located.
Determination and Award.
Based upon the evidence and an application of the statutory
factors thereto, the
Arbitrator determines that the New Agreement
between the parties shall be
in effect for the period of December
26, 1985 through December 25, 1987;
that effective and
retroactive to December 26,
1985 the City shall implement an
across-the-board increase of
5.5%; and that for the period of
December 26, 1986 through
December 25, 1987, the City shall
implement an additional
across-the-board increase on 1985-86
salaries of 4.5%. The following is the reasoning of the
Arbitirator.
(a) The Constitutional
and Statutory Authority of the
Employer.
This factor was not made an issue by either party is not
relevant to the Arbitrator's
Determination and Award.
(b) Stipulations of the
Parties.
Both of the parties have proposed the following employers as
comparators: Pasco and Wenatchee, Washington. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator deems the parties
to have stipulated to those cities
as appropriate comparators. The Arbitrator also has only
selected his comparators from
the lists of comparators proposed
by 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
United
States.
The first point is that the City is not part of a
"hub" of
cities surrounding a
metropolitan area; it is not part of an
interstate highway corridor
group of like size cities; and it is
not part of a recognized, economically similar and easily
defined labor market composed
of nearby cities of similar size.
While the City is generally grouped geographically with the
cities of Pendleton, Milton-Freewater, Dayton and the Tri-Cities
of Pasco-Kennewick-Richland,
it is not generally comparable to
all of those cities under the
statute.
Absent a true common labor market, the logical approach is
to select from the parties'
lists of proposed comparators the
following types of
cities: Eastern state, relatively arid, and
agriculturally based
"stand alone" West Coast cities within a
plus/minus 10,000 population
to the City, within a reasonable
assessed valuation range of
the City, and within a reasonable
range of the number of police
officers employed by the City. The
Arbitrator's approach is based
upon commonly accepted,
traditional demographics which
he believes will intuitively be
easily understood by and
generally acceptable to the citizens and
elected officials of the City.
The basic defect in the Guild's approach is that its
demographic factors allocate
no priority weight to those
traditional factors, but
rather give undue weight to secondary
and somewhat esoteric
factors. The result is that the patently
dissimilar and uncomparable
Guild's approach also gives
undue weight to
The three basic defects in the City's list of comparators
are: It includes two
by the statute. It fails to include any easily determinable
and
comparable
patently too small.
Ontario, The Dalles, Ellensburg, Moses Lake
and La Grande simply do not
have the population to be compared to
the City.
Utilizing the aforementioned more traditional geographic
factors, and giving the
greatest weight to Washington cities, the
next greatest weight to Oregon cities, and the
least weight to
California cities, the Arbitrator has developed the following
list of comparators from the
parties' proposed lists:
Washington
Pasco
Kennewick
Richland
Wenatchee
Pullman
Oregon
Pendleton
Klamath Falls
Albany
California
Hanford
Turlock
Based on 1985 top step adjusted wage rates, the City ranks
as follows with the
Arbitrator's comparables:
1. Turlock $2,495
2. Wenatchee $2,404
3. Richland $2,310
4. Kennewick $2,272
5. Pasco $2,183
6. Albany $2,160
7. Hanford $2,153
8. Walla Walla $2,058
9. Klamath Falls $1,968
10. Pullman $1,967
11. Pendleton $1,784
The City ranks 8th among those comparators, and its 1985 top
step adjusted wage was $112
less than the all-cities average of
$2,170. Thus a 5.5% raise would take the City in 1986
only to
the average of the 1985
wage. The Arbitrator has also been
influenced by the fact that
Pendleton's top step wage is
disproportionatly
low, and therefore is entitled to less
consideration.
(d) The Average Consumer
Prices for Goods and Services
Commonly Known as the Cost of Living.
Both parties agree that the CPI-W is appropriate. Based
upon his numerous studies of
the question, the Arbitrator
concludes that the United
States CPI-W is a much more reliable
indicator than either the
Seattle or Portland CPI-W. In interest
arbitration cases and factfindings the Arbitrator takes the
approach that the best test is
to compare wage increases at the
subject employer over a
reasonable number of years, usually four
to five years, with the
performance of the CPI over that same
period of years.
The City's own figures demonstrate that from 1981 through
1986 the United States CPI-W
rose 29.3%, while salaries of City
police officers rose
25.4%. projections for 1986 and 1987 are
in
the 4% range. Accordingly, wage increases of 4% in both
1986 and
1987 would allow City police
officers to keep pace with increases
in the cost of living.
The Arbitrator cannot agree with the City's contention that
its employees' wage increases should be limited to a
percentage
of any index utilized.
(e) Changes in Any of the
Foregoing Circumstances During
the Pendency of the
Proceedings.
This factor has no bearing on the Arbitrator' s Determination
and Award.
(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 primary traditional factor relates to an employer's
ability to pay a requested
wage increase. In the case at hand,
the City does not assert that
it does not possess the financial
ability to implement the
Guild's proposal. However, ability to
pay is viewed by the
Arbitrator more as a condition precedent to
consideration of the other
statutory factors, rather than as a
separate independent basis for
a wage increase. In addition,
ability to pay is generally
considered a relative, rather than an
absolute, factor because of
the many obligations of a multi-
faceted public employer such
as the City. In any event, this
factor is not directly
relevant to the Arbitrator's Determination
and Award since the City
possesses both the actual and relative
ability to pay the awarded
increase.
In that regard, the
City's threat to reduce the police
complement to "fund"
any increase over 2.4%, has not been
considered by the
Arbitrator. The City presented no
compelling
evidence that it did not
possess the funds within the general
budget to implement the
awarded increase without affecting its
overall ability to fund its
other programs and services. More
significantly, it offered no argument at all as to why an
implemented award in either
the area of fire or police should
automatically result in a
"knee-jerk" reduction of the subject
services without due
consideration first being given to the needs
of the citizenry. Frankly,
the City's position strikes the
Arbitrator as retaliatory,
rather than one concerned with overall
City needs.
A second traditional factor might be to consider wage levels
in otherwise comparable
non-comparable
proximate to the subject
employer. In the case at hand, neither
of the two
of common labor market of
which the City is a part, and neither
are geographically proximate
to the City. Accordingly, the
Arbitrator has not considered
wage levels in those two
cities.
A third traditional factor is to consider recent wage
increases in geographically proximate
comparable and non-
comparable communities. As close as the Arbitrator is able to
determine from the parties'
exhibits, wage increases in the
geographically proximate
communities of
5% in 1986.
To the extent that intra-employer comparisons are valid, the
Arbitrator rejects the City's contention that such comparisons
are valid in the instant
case. The Arbitrator's conclusion might
be different had there been
any evidence that the 2.4% increases
already implemented were the
result of any type of free
collective bargaining. However, the evidence demonstrates that
the 2.4% increases were
predetermined and essentially non-
bargainable
without regard to individual needs or conditions
within each employee group,
and without any regard to an
application of the statutory
criteria to any one group.
Further, the City's 2.4% offer
to the Guild was clearly both
its first and final
offer. Accordingly, the Arbitrator has
disregarded the City's
evidence concerning intra-city parity.
The Arbitrator has also considered the traditional factor of
the "interest and welfare
of the public." The Arbitrator has
determined that it will serve
those interests to pay a wage that
is at least the average of the
comparators. Payment of a lesser
wage, in the face of a
demonstrated ability to pay, can only
have a significant effect on
morale and a resultant decrease in
the quality of police
services. However, a greater wage is not
merited due to the general
economic climate within the area and
the overall current public
opposition to wage increases that
elevate public employees to a
higher than average status.
No other traditional factors are applicable to this case.
In summary, the statutory factors of comparability, cost of
living, recent wage increases
within the general area of the
City , and other traditional
factors, mandate the Arbitrator's
Award. It is again noted that the overriding factor
under the
facts of this case is the
factor of comparability.
AWARD
The New Agreement between the parties shall be in effect for
the period of
that effective and retroactive
to
shall implement an
across-the-board increase of 5.5% and for the
period of
shall implement an additional
across-the-board increase on 1985-
86 salaries of 4.5%.
VIII. ISSUE NO. 2: ARTICLE 25,
LONGEVITY AND INCENTIVE
PREMIUM.
Article 25 of the Current Agreement provides:
The City agrees to pay longevity to the
members of the Police Guild covered by this
agreement in the following manner:
_____
Five years of continuous service ---$17.00/mo.
Ten years of continuous service ---$25.00/mo.
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---$32.00/mo.
_____
The City proposes the following new substitute language:
The City will pay longevity and educational
incentive as follows:
A. High School
diploma only:
Five years of continuous service ---$17.00/mo.
Ten years of continuous service ---$25.00/mo.
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---$32.00/mo.
B. Approved
associate degree:
Five years of continous
service ---1%
of base salary
Ten years of continuous
service ---2%
of base salary
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---3%
of base salary
C. Approved
bachelor degree:
Five years of continuous
service ---2%
of base salary
Ten years of continuous
service ---4%
of base salary
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---6%
of base salary
The Guild proposes the following new substitute language:
The City agrees to pay longevity and incentive
pay as follows:
A. High
school diploma:
5 years -
1%
10 years -
2%
15 years -
3%
20 years -
4%
B. Associate
degree:
5 years -
4%
10 years -
5%
15 years -
6%
20 years -
7%
C. Bachelor
degree:
5 years -
6%
10 years -
7%
15 years -
8%
20 years -
9%
Guild Contentions.
The Guild proposal is consistent with arbitrator Snow's
1982 Renton decision in which
he modified dollar amounts to
percentages of wage rates.
Currently, the City's maximum benefit is only $32, the next
to the lowest of all
Washington cities. Thus the City suffers
drastically under the factor
of comparability.
City officers have daily contact with students of the three
City colleges, so higher
education is very relevant to their job
performance.
City Contentions.
The City initiated the concept of tying longevity pay to
educational incentive, and
understands and embraces the notion
that an increased education
level on the police force improves
the quality of law
enforcement. The City has offered a
substantial increase over the
Current Agreement in this area.
Determining what constitutes a comparable education
incentive is impossible since
the characteristics of these
programs vary so significantly
from city to city. Five of the
City's comparators have no
education incentive at all.
jurisdictions have no
corresponding program to the
certifications, so comparisons
to
Any increase in longevity and incentive pay should be part
of the overall 2.4% increase
proposed by the City.
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that the City's proposal shall be
made a part of the new
Agreement.
Implementation of the City's proposal will bring the City's
police officers into a much
more comparable position with
officers employed by the
Arbitrator's comparators. Any
additional increase would have
the effect of raising City
officers to a
disproportionately high ranking among those
comparators. In addition, even the increase proposed by
the City
will, as its own exhibits
demonstrate, have an immediate cost
impact on the City.
The Arbitrator is aware that the City made its
longevity/educational
incentive proposal as a part of its overall
increase proposal. However, absent a demonstrated inability to
pay, and in the face of strong
evidence on the factor of
comparability, the circumstances of this case mandate the
implementation of the
Arbitrator's Award.
AWARD
The current Article 25 is hereby deleted; and the following
language shall be implemented
into the New Agreement:
The City will pay longevity and educational
incentive as follows:
A. High School
diploma only:
Five years of continuous service ---$17.00/mo.
Ten years of continuous service ---$25.00/mo.
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---$32.00/mo.
B. Approved
associate degree:
Five years of continuous
service ---1% of
base salary
Ten years of continuous
service ---2%
of base salary
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---3%
of base salary
C. Approved
bachelor degree:
Five years of continuous
service ---2%
of base salary
Ten years of continuous
service ---4%
of base salary
Fifteen years of continuous
service ---6%
of base salary
IX. ISSUE NO. 3: ARTICLE 15, SICK LEAVE.
The Current Article 15 provides in relevant part:
1. A. Newly hired employees will be credited
with twelve (12) days sick leave as of their
date of hire. No
additional sick leave will
be accrued during the first twelve months of
employment. During
the probationary period,
sick leave above six days must be approved by
the police Chief.
B. Following
the initial twelve months of
employment, employees will accumulate sick
leave at the rate of one day per month.
Maximum sick leave benefits which can be
accumulated is 960 hours.
However, exception
to the maximum will be granted for Leonard
sick leave as of
considered his limit of maximum accumulation.
2. Personal
illness or physical incapacity
resulting from causes beyond the employee's
control as well as forced quarantine of
employee in accordance with state or community
health regulations are approved grounds for
sick leave.
The Guild proposes that those provisions be modified as
follows:
1. A. Retain current contract language.
B. (Delete
all after first sentence)
2. (After
"Personal illness or physical
incapacity" insert)
"of the employee or the employee's
family."
The City proposes to retain the current language.
Guild Contentions.
The Guild is supported both by the factor of comparability
and by a comparison to
Comparable jurisdictions, as
well as other
jurisdictions of similar size,
also provide sick leave usage for
illness in the immediate
family. Cash-outs are of considerable
value at retirement.
Because the City operates a small, "bear bones"
Police
Department, there is no
probable cause to believe that abuse of a
maximum accrual or an abuse of
family illness usage will occur.
City Contentions.
The City opposes any additional liability by virtue of an
unlimited ceiling on
accumulated hours. Many officers now
enjoying the current high pay
out benefits are LEOFF I employees,
for whom the sick leave
program is a significant monetary give at
retirement. Every illness is covered by LEOFF and there
is no
requirement that any LEOFF I
police employee utilize the
contractual sick leave
benefit. There is no basis under the
statutory criteria for
applying sick leave to family members.
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that the current language should
remain unchanged in the New
Agreement.
First of all, so far as the Arbitrator is able to determine
from both of the parties'
exhibits, the Guild is not supported by
the factor of comparability. Second, the increase sought by the
Guild might very well result
in increased costs to the City not
merited in light of the
Arbitrator's overall Award concerning
wages and
longevity/educational incentive. Third,
the City's
argument concerning LEOFF I employees
is well taken.
AWARD
Current language shall be carried over to the New Agreement.
X. ISSUE NO. 4: ARTICLE 19, SAFETY AND HEALTH COMMITTEE.
Article 19 of the Current Agreement provides:
The City agrees to have a departmental
safety committee composed of up to three
representatives appointed by management. It
shall be the purpose of this committee to
establish a written safety code with regard to
all employees and to examine all situations
brought to their attention either by
management or the employees which may affect
the safe and competent operations within the
Police Department.
It shall also be the duty
of this committee to review all accident
reports involving employees and to make
recommendations with regard to the actions of
the employee involved.
A copy of all minutes,
recommendations, actions taken and requests
submitted by either individuals or groups
shall be sent to the City Manager and the
Police Guild.
If, after exhausting reasonable means of
resolving a perceived safety problem at the
departmental level, the problem remains
unresolved, either side may refer the matter
to the City Manager for final disposition.
The City agrees to recognize an advisory
panel established by the Guild to provide
advice and recommendations to the City on
police-related equipment purchases.
The Guild proposes to add the following language to the
current language:
If the City
fails to
implement the
recommendations of the departmental Safety
Committee, then
all employees shall be
entitled to hazardous duty pay of 5%.
The City proposes to retain the current language.
Guild Contentions.
The Guild's proposed language is necessary to ensure that
the City will not ignore
recommendations of the safety committee.
City Contentions.
The City's proposal would impinge upon management rights and
serve to transform an
otherwise serious committee effort into
outside officer desires framed as safety issues in
hope of
initiating a 5% wage increase. A police department involves per
se hazardous duty, in which
every matter is related to the safety
of employees. The Guild's proposal is problematic and
counter-
productive. The law and rationale explained by the
Oregon
Employment Relations Board is
applicable to the safety proposal
of the Guild. See, Salem, 8 PECBR 6642 (1984).
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that the Guild's proposal should
not be implemented. Each and every one of the City's arguments
are patently valid.
AWARD
The language of the current Article 19 shall be carried over
to the New Agreement.
XI. ISSUE NO 5: ARTICLE 3,
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.
Article 3 of the Current Agreement provides:
The management of the City and direction of
the working forces, including the right to
hire, retire, suspend or discharge for just
cause, to assign jobs, to transfer employees
within the bargaining unit, to increase and
decrease the work
force, to establish
standards, to determine work to be
accomplished, the schedules of operations, and
the methods, process, and means of operation
of handling, are vested exclusively in the
City provided this will not be used for the
purposes of discrimination against any
employee or to avoid any of the provisions of
this agreement.
Exclusive rights:
The City has the
exclusive right under this agreement, without
prior negotiations with the Police Guild, to
discontinue any part of its operations,
transfer work from the bargaining unit and
close down an operation, establish new jobs,
eliminate or modify any job classification in
accordance with the provisions of this
agreement,
provided employees displaced from
jobs as a result of the City's exercise of
such right shall be laid off in accordance
with the seniority provisions of this
agreement, and adopt and enforce reasonable
rules governing the conduct of the employees.
Disputes: In
the event any disputes arise
in connection with the exercise of the above
rights, and disputes are submitted to
arbitration, the only issue which the
Arbitration Board may decide is whether or not
the affected employees were laid off or
terminated in accordance with the provisions
of this agreement.
In no case shall the
Arbitration Board have authority to vacate,
modify or change the City's exercise of its
rights, or require the City to do such (except
as otherwise provided for in this agrement),
or where a rule is involved, the Arbitration
Board may require
the City's recision of a
rule which it finds is unreasonable or
contrary to the express provision of this
agreement.
Where any part of this article comes in
conflict with current or future civil service
laws or regulations, such law or regulation
shall apply.
The Guild proposes to delete the current language and
substitute therefor
the following language:
The City retains the usual and customary
functions of management including the right to
determine the methods, equipment, uniforms,
processes, and manner of performing work; the
determination of the duties, qualification of
job classifications, the right to hire,
promote, train, evaluate performance, and
retain employees; the right to discipline or
discharge for just cause; the right to lay off
for lack of work or funds; the right to
abolish positions or reorganize the Department
or work; the right to purchase, dispose and
assign equipment or supplies.
Nothing
in this Article
shall be
interpreted to restrict
the Guild's right to
bargain the decision and impact of mandatory
subjects of bargaining or the impact of
permissive subjects of bargaining where the
employer is compelled to negotiate over the
matter by State law.
Guild Contentions.
The current language would allow a decrease in the
bargaining unit through
sub-contracting. The Guild seeks a
restriction on such a
decrease.
The Guild is supported by the factor of comparability. Many
of the Guild's comparators do
not have an unrestricted right to
sub-contract, and only two of
the population comparable
departments cited by the Guild
have an unrestricted right to sub-
contract.
City Contentions.
The currrent language has been in the
Agreement for a number
of years, and the rights
specified reserve reasonable management
prerogatives. The Guild has not explained to the City's
satisfaction why the existing
language should be changed and why
a longstanding clause relating
to arbitrable remedies should be
deleted.
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that the current language should
be carried over to the New
Agreement.
While the Guild has submitted some evidence concerning the
comparability of the
subcontractor portion of the clause, it
has
presented no broader evidence
that would justify the more
sweeping changes that would
result from the overall modification
of the clause. Even with regard to contracting out, the
Guild
has not provided the
Arbitrator with copies of the bargaining
unit provisions in effect
within its lists of comparators and
Washington cities. Therefore, the Arbitrator has no way to weigh
the overall scope and effect
of the provisions in effect in those
cities.
Further, the Arbitrator is not satisfied that the Guild has
advanced compelling reasons for
the alteration of a longstanding
provision. There is no reason at this time to conclude
that its
concerns are valid.
AWARD
The current Article 3 shall be carried over to the New
Agreement.
XII. ISSUE NO 6: ARTICLE 4,
MAINTENANCE OF MEMBERSHIP.
Article 4 of the Current Agreement provides:
Employees who are members or become members
of the
their membership or normal dues for the life
of the contract.
If a member desires to
terminate his membership, he must so inform
the Guild and the City in writing signed by
the employee of their intention to withdraw at
least 15 days and not (5) days prior to the
termination of the contract. New employees
will not be required to join the police Guild
as a condition of employment.
The Guild proposes to replace the existing language with the
following;
It shall be a condition of employment that
all employees of the employer covered by this
agreement who are members of the Guild in good
standing on the execution date of this
agreement shall remain members in good
standing, and those who are not members on
the execution date of this agreement, shall on
or before the 31st day following the execution
date of this agreement become members in good
standing and remain members in good standing
in the Guild, or, in lieu thereof pay a
service charge equivalent to the regular Guild
dues to the Guild as a contribution towards
the admdinistration of this
agreement. It
shall also be a condition of employment that
all employees covered by this agreement and
hired on or after its execution date shall, on
the 31st day following the beginning of such
employment, begin and remain members in good
standing in the Guild or pay the service fee
set forth above.
Religious objections to the
payments described herein shall be governed by
State law.
The City proposes to retain the current language.
Guild Contentions.
The Guild presently has a 100% membership of bargaining unit
officers and wishes to
maintain that 100% figure. Further, the
Guild has a strong duty of
fair representation, so officers
seeking that representation
should be willing to pay their fair
share.
Union security clauses exist in both the AFSCME and Fire
Association bargaining
agreements with the City.
Approximately half of the
comparable by size have
clauses similar to that proposed by the
Guild. Such clauses are prohibited by law in the
state of
California.
City Contentions.
Since the apparent intention of the Guild proposal is to
solicit a contribution towards
the administration of the
Agreement, the requirement
that the service charge be equivalent
to the regular dues appears
contradictory and is illegal to the
extent that the regular dues
may at times be used for other
purposes, such as political
activities.
The City has agreed to agency shop language with AFSCME, but
the importance of the issue to
that union was demonstrated by
corresponding economic
concessions, including a 0% wage increase.
for 1986. A change in language of Article 4 should be
mutually
agreed upon, and heretofor the Guild has not offered an economic
concession or a trade off the
language the Guild considers
desirable.
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that current language shall be
carried over to the New
Agreement.
The Arbitrator is not satisfied that the Guild's proposal is
supported by the factor of
comparability. The Guild submitted no
evidence concerning the
existence or non-existence of fair share
provisions in Oregon
comparables, and did not restrict the State
of Washington to its proposed
Washington comparables. The Guild
utilized its list of
size to the City, and it is
significant that on that list four
comparators chosen by the
Arbitrator - Wenatchee, Pullman, Pasco
and
provisions.
In light of the fact that 100% of the bargaining unit are
already members of the Guild,
the Arbitrator has also been
influenced in part by the
City's argument that the Guild has
offered no concession in
exchange for its proposal. Such
concessions are a traditional
part of collective bargaining,
particularly in the private
sector.
AWARD
The current language shall be carried over into the New
Agreement.
XIII. ISSUE NO. 7: NEW ARTICLE,
RESERVES.
The Guild proposes that the following new language be added
to the New Agreement:
Before the City may assign work normally
performed by bargaining unit members to
employees who are not members of the
bargaining unit, it must first make such work
available to members of the bargaining unit at
whatever wage rates are otherwise called for
by this agreement.
Any officer assigned to work in the same
patrol vehicle as a reserve officer shall
receive assignment pay of 5.0%.
The City opposes the proposal.
Guild Contentions.
Bargaining work assigned to reserves should first be offered
to police officers, and
officers who are assigned to work with
reserves should receive a 5%
premium. Since about six months
ago reserves have been used
for regular duties and reserves often
now work alone in cars. A safety factor exists when reserves
must be used as partners or as
back-ups. Reserves in other
jurisdictions, such as The Dalles and in Richland do not perform
traditional police officer
duties. The concern of the Guild is
that a reserve may be used on
a solo basis to displace a regular
officer.
City Contentions.
The City started a reserve program this year with six
community volunteers. The volunteers are not used to replace
regular officers or displace
any current officers. The Guild's
attempt to create an economic
issue is not based on any
legitimate work preservation
concern and ignores the basic
responsibility and function of
government to provide a public
service.
The City is supported by the factor of comparability. None
of the comparator
jurisdictions proposed by the City are party to
a labor contract which
restricts the use of reserves.
The Guild's testimony relating to this issue came as a
complete surprise to the
City. Prior to the arbitration hearing
the City was unaware of any
alleged problems concerning a reserve
program.
Arbitrator's Determination and Award.
The Arbitrator determines that the Guild's proposal should
not be implemented in the New
Agreement.
First, the proposal finds no support whatsoever in the factor
of comparability. Second, the Arbitrator is not satisfied from
the evidence that the City has
or will utilize reserves to
deprive police officers of
bargaining unit work. The Arbitrator
agrees with the City that many
of the concerns voiced by the
Guild at the arbitration
hearing appeared to be ones never before
raised in bargaining.
AWARD
The Guild's proposal shall not be added to the New
Agreement.
DATED this 18th day of August,
1986.
Thomas F. Levak,
Arbitrator.