And
Local
1805, International Association of Fire Fighters
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Kenneth M. McCaffree
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: McCaffree; Kenneth M.
Case #: 06773-I-87-00160
Employer:
Clark County Fire District 6
Date Issued:
IN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
LOCAL 1805, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION DECISION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS
(Union) by
AND Arbitration
Panel
Kenneth
M. McCaffree, Chair
DISTRICT NO. 6 Bud
Seifert, District Rep.
(District, Employer)
RE: Contract Terms
REPRESENTATIVES:
For the
James J. Hill*
For the District: Interest
Arbitration
Al K. Baird**
* Vice President, 7th District,
International Association of Fire Fighters,
** Staff Representative, Allied Employees,
Inc., Koll Business
Center, Building 17,
(206) 883-3022.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
These proceedings followed a declaration of impasse regarding
new contract
terms,
pursuant to RCW 41.56 and Chapter 391-55 WAC. Mediator William A. Lang
reported
impasse. On
of
the Public Employment Relations Commission, notified the parties to proceed
to
interest arbitration pursuant to the statute and the
tive Code (Er. Ex. 1 and 2).
Accordingly, the arbitration panel, constituted as above,
convened these
proceedings
on July 20 and 21, 1987, and conducted a hearing on the issues
in
dispute, in accordance with the statutory requirements and the rules and
regulations
set forth in WAC 391-55-200 ff (Er. Ex. 4). Prior to a formal
arbitration
procedure, the neutral chairman of the panel acted in a mediator
role
in a further attempt to reconcile differences in positions and complete
an
agreement. Since all items of the contract were not agreed upon by the
parties,
on July 21, the parties offered testimony and exhibits on the
unresolved
issues. Each
to
be relevant to the remaining issues in dispute. Closing oral arguments
were
waived, although pertinent points were made as each issue was considered
by
each party. Post-hearing written briefs reached the neutral arbitrator
in
a timely manner on or about the 24th of August. The neutral arbitrator,
who
chaired the panel and hearing, tape-recorded parts of the proceedings to
supplement
his written notes.*
* The neutral chairman is the author of the Decision. Unless
otherwise
shown
by an attached signed amendment or other written statement, other members
of
the arbitration panel only concur or nonconcur in the
conclusion regarding a specific
provision
of the new Agreement. Also see WAC 391-55-245.
ISSUES
The list of unresolved issues were certified in Mr. Schurke's letter,
dated
ISSUE # ARTICLE TITLE
OF ARTICLE
1. Article 8 - Prevailing
Rights
2. Article
12 - Medical Insurance
3. Article
13 - Vacations
4. Article
20/21 - Overtime
and Callback Pay
5. Article
24 - Salaries
A. Exhibit A - Salary
B. Exhibit B - Longevity
(Article 25)
C. Exhibit C - Educational
Incentive (Article 32)
D Exhibit D - EMT
Incentive
F. Exhibit F - Paramedic
G. Exhibit G - (New)-Fire
Fighter/Mechanic Pa&
6. Article
26 - Terms of Agreement
7. New
Section - Hours of Work
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
At the beginning of the hearing, the District noted that the
failed
to comply with WAC 391-55-220. In accordance with WAC 391-55-215, the
District objected, and
proceeded at the hearing, both in mediation and in
arbitration,
without having waived its rights under WAC 391-55-220, and other
applicable
rules, regulations and statutory provisions.
WAC 391-55-220 is as follows.
WAC 391-55-220 UNIFORMED
PERSONNEL--SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS FOR
ARBITRATION.
At least seven days before the date of the hearing, each
party
shall submit to the members of the panel and to the other party
written
proposals on all of the issues it intends to submit to arbi-
tration. Parties shall not be entitled to submit
issues which were
not
among the issues before the mediator under WAC 391-55-070 and
before
the executive director under WAC 391-55-220. (Statutory
Authority: RCW 28B.52.080,
41.56.040, 41.58.050, 41.59.110, and
47.64.040. 80-14-049 (Order
80-8), 391-55-220, filed
effective
The
members
of the panel and to the other party written proposals on all of the
issues
. . . at least seven days before the date of the hearing." The
neutral
chairman of the arbitration panel received such written proposals
by
letter dated
arbitrator
nor to a representative of the District involved in preparing
its
case before the arbitrators. The
lists
of issues, which had been certified by the mediator for impasse, and
by PERC's Executive Director for interest arbitration. The
written proposals
of
the
of
the scheduled hearing.
The District contends now that the failure of the
written
proposals in accordance with the WAC disadvantages the District.
According to the District,
"the only appropriate conclusion . . is to
renew
the contract based on the
District (Er.
Ex. 5 - Letter, dated July 13, 1987, Baird to McCaffree,
with
copies
to arbitrators and the
In response, the
Neither party was timely and
the procedure which is identified in
WAC 391-55-220 is only a
guideline. By not following the time
guidelines,
neither party waives their right for arbitration. In
addition,
neither party could show that they were prejudiced by
the
late receipt of each other's arbitration position(
30-3:4).
In addition, the
Public Employment Relations
Commission on this exact issue (City of
vs.
2735-PECB, dated July 31,
1987).
At the hearing, the neutral chairman recognized the contention
of the
District and afforded a full
review of the District's request to set aside
the
terms
in post-hearing briefs. He noted at the time that he found no part of
the
regulations expressly to provide a sanction for submitting a proposal
within
the seven-day period called for in WAC 391-55-220. Thus, any remedy
for
failure to meet the seven-day period requirement for submission of
proposals
to the other party rested upon any prejudice that accrued to the
party
receiving the late proposals.
The declaratory ruling of PERC affirmed the above conclusions
of the
neutral
chairman in this case. PERC wrote as follows:
The question before us
concerns the late submission of proposals,
as
opposed to issues. The regulation does not expressly provide
a
sanction for submitting a proposal within the seven-day period.
. . .
For any sanction for a late
proposal to be appropriate), there
must
be demonstrable prejudice to the party receiving it. . .
Under circumstances where
there has been demonstrable harm to a
party's
ability to prepare its case, the neutral chairman may
fashion
an appropriate remedy. . .
We scarcely can conceive of
any circumstance under which a
default
or a broad suspension order would be warranted. . .
. . . We recommend that the
arbitration panel first inquire as to
the
actual prejudice suffered by the (complainant), and, if such
prejudice
is found, issue an appropriate sanction consistent with
this
opinion (Ibid., p. 4-5).
The neutral chairman concluded that the position of the
District on
this
procedural issue should be set aside, and the panel examine the merits
of
the proposals before it. No demonstrable harm occurred to the District
in
this case, nor did the District claim prejudice and harm to its position,
fact
accumulation and arguments regarding Union proposals on specific clauses
and
Articles of the proposed Agreement. Clearly, the District knew the
issues,
inasmuch as these were identified nearly four months prior to the
arbitration
hearing. Further, the actual Union proposals submitted to the
neutral
chairman by letter on
efforts
in February 1987, at which agreement between the parties was not
reached.
In addition, at the time the procedural question arose, the
neutral
chairman afforded the District an opportunity to request a
continuance.
Neither the District nor the neutral chairman expressed a
need
to continue the hearing. Also, during a day and half of mediation
effort,
only major money issues remained. Here the failure to know the
Union's exact wage offer
prior to arbitration would alter little, if at all,
what
the District would choose to present to document its wages and fringe
cost
proposal. The District demonstrated a competence on and understanding
of
the law, the facts, and their relevance to the issues remaining for
arbitration
following mediation efforts.
In this case, under the circumstances here, the neutral
chairman
concluded
and ruled that the issues remaining after mediation efforts on
July 20 and 21 should be
resolved in accordance with the standards and
practices
of interest arbitration per RCW 41.56. and its
accompanying
sections,
rather than suppress the Union proposals and arguments here
in
favor of the District proposals for the new agreement.
MEDIATION RESULTS
During mediation efforts, the parties agreed to the following,
which
are
incorporated in and made a part of this Decision.
A. Issue 1 - Prevailing Rights
Article 8 - Prevailing Rights
All rights and privileges concerning wages, hours and working
conditions
(a) which
are represented by established past practices,
(b) which are held by employees
at the effective date of
this
Agreement, and
(c) which are not expressly
included in this Agreement
shall
remain in force, unchanged and unaffected.
B. Issue 2 - Medical Insurance
Article 12 - Medical Insurance, as set forth below, is agreed
to
with regard to type, extent, and increases over the term
of
the Agreement, subject to wage and total cost considerations
in
the total settlement. See the District Proposal in letter to
McCaffree
from Baird, dated July 13, 1987, which affirmed that:
Fire District #6 agrees to
renew the existing medical plan
for
the term of the new agreement, in addition to paying
cost
of maintenance of benefit increases during the term
of
the new Agreement (Er. Ex. 5).
C. Issue 3 - Vacations
The following parts of the issues over Article 13 - Vacations
were
agreed to by the parties:
1. Delete Sections A.1
and B.1 in the current Agreement.
2. Any employee on
probation on the effective date of the
1987 Agreement shall be
grandfathered with regard to vacations
provided
for in the current agreement for employees on
probation.
3. Section D. of Article
13 shall read as follows:
1) All employees
shall be entitled to take their vacation
at
periods throughout the fiscal year. Requests for vacation
time
shall be filed on or before January 15th of each year.
Not more than two (2)
employees from each shift shall be
granted
vacation at any given time nor shall more than one
(1) officer from each shift be granted vacation
at any given
time
unless express permission is granted by the Chief.
2) In the event
three or more employees select the same
vacation
period, the employees with the greatest seniority
shall
be entitled to first choice. If three or more employees
select
the same vacation period and all have equal seniority,
then
the priority shall be determined by lot.
3) Those employees
that wish to split their vacation period
shall
be entitled to a priority on the first section of the
split
vacation, but the remaining section(s) of the split
vacation
shall be deferred until all employees have been
granted
a choice of vacation time.
4) Vacations shall
be approved by the Chief or his
designee
and shall be posted for employee's reference
(Un.
Ex. 16, p. 3).
D. Issue 4 - Overtime and
Callback Pay
Article 20 and 21 - Overtime and Callback
Section A - Current Agreement
Section B - Compensation
for overtime shall be paid at the rate
of
time and one-half (1½) the employee's regular straight time
rate
or one and one-half (1½) in time off. (Overtime will not
be
paid for shift traders.)
Section C - A minimum of two (2) hours overtime shall be paid
to
employees
when specifically called back by the District. Employees
shall
not respond from off-duty unless specifically called back by
the
District.
Section D - Current Agreement
E. Issue 5.C, 5.D and 5.G relative to Article 24 - Salaries
At the hearing the
Incentive and Issue 5.D - EMT
Incentive, which it confirmed in
Brief
at page 2, lines 19-22.
Also, the parties announced at the hearing that the matter in
dispute
with regard to Issue 5.G Fire Fighter/Mechanic had
been
resolved, and no longer was an issue for either mediation
or
arbitration.
INTEREST ARBITRATION ISSUES
Following the mediation efforts, the remaining issues for the
arbitrators
to decide concerned these Articles and Sections.
Issue 3- Article 13 - Vacations, Sections A.3 and A.4, B.3 and
B.4,
and
Union-Proposed New Sections A.5 and B.5.
Issues 5.A, 5.B and 5.F - Articles 24/25 - Salaries, longevity
and,
Paramedic
Pay.
Issue 6 - Article 26 - Terms (Effective Date and Length) of the
Agreement.
Issue 7 - Article 16 - Work Week - New
Section on Hours of Work.
These issues are considered below. Inasmuch as the basic salary
increase
was fundamental to the decision on the remaining issues, salary
changes
were considered first.
A. General Salary Changes
1. Guidelines for
Arbitration of Salary Changes
RCW
41.56.460. Uniformed personnel - Interest arbitration
panel -
Basis
for determination. In making its determination, the panel
shall
be mindful of the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and as additional
standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching
a decision, it shall take into consideration the following
factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the
parties;
(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with
the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like
personnel
of like employers of similar size on the west
coast
of the
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and services,
commonly
known as the cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during
pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing,
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consideration
in
the determination of wages, hours and conditions of
employment.
(1983 c 287 §4; 1979 ex. 5. c 184 §3; 1973 c
131
§5.)
Legislative purpose appears
in RCW 41.56.340, as follows:
RCW 41.56.430. Uniformed
Personnel - Legislative Declaration.
The intent and purpose of
*this 1973 amendatory act is to recognize
that
there exists a public policy in the state of
strikes
by uniformed personnel as a means of settling their labor
disputes;
that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these
classes
of employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of
the
state of
uninterrupted
public service there should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling disputes. (1973 c 131 §1.)
* Reviser's note:
"this 1973 amendatory act" (1973 c 131)
consists
of RCW 41.56.430 through 41.56.490, 41.56.905, 41.56.910,
and
the 1973 c 131 amendments to RCW 41.56.030 and 41.56.420.
2. Interpretation and
Application of Guidelines
As the parties themselves indicated, the provisions of the
statute
are
less than precise, and use the terms of "standards or guidelines"
which
arbitrators
"shall take into consideration" in the arbitration process. Two
points
should be noted. First, the statutory provisions are called guide-
lines
or standards. As such, they allow substantial discretion by arbitrators
in
applying them. No precise instruction on what shall be done arises out of
this
language. But, second, the generality of guidelines was reenforced
further
by the expression "shall take into consideration." This phrase makes
mandatory
that arbitrators are cognizant of statutorily listed factors, but
requires
only that the guideline be "considered," not that it shall be blindly
followed
or given any specific relative weight among listed factors and
determinants
in arriving at a judgment or an appropriate decision vis
a vis
given
set of issues, as these in this case.
At the same time, both the general purpose of this legislation
and
paragraph
(f) of RCW 41.56.460 make clear that reasoned judgement
must be
exercised
in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of
labor
relations. Since public policy is against strikes of personnel in
public
employment, uninterrupted and dedicated services of fire fighters and
others
must be properly recognized and the arbitration process, among others,
used
as an "effective and adequate alternative means of settling
disputes."
Further, arbitrators are made
mindful of all factors, which "normally and
traditionally"
are taken into consideration in the determination of wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment. In the "ideal world" this directs
arbitrators
to seek that solution that most likely would have resulted had
the
parties been free to bargain in an unrestricted labor market. Obviously,
such
a goal is hard, if not impossible, to achieve in any exact sense in
public
employment. But, the goal does point to fundamental issues of the
relative
positions of the union and the employer in the hiring of workers
and
in the acceptance of jobs under conditions acceptable to both. Those
factors
listed in RCW 41.56.460 are those evaluated by union and employees
in
arriving at mutually acceptable terms of employment when both are free
to
act in their own economic best interest.
3. Position of the
Parties on Basic Salaries
The salary proposals by classification are set out in Table 1.
TABLE 1___________________________________________________
Salary Proposals of
1987-1989,
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Position 1986 1/1/87 Increase
Captain, shift leader $2567 $2725 6.1 $2800 2.75 $2890 3.2 $2975 2.94
Lieutenant 2438 2600 6.6 2675 2.88 2765 3.36 2850 3.07
1st Class FF(36+
mo) 2332 2425 3.98 2500 3.1 2590 3.6 2675 3.28
2nd Class FF(25-36
mo) 2190 2250 2.7 2300 2.22 2375 3.26 2425 2.1
3rd Class FF(13-24
mo) 1997 2025 1.4 2075 2.47 2125 2.4 2175 2.35
Probation(7-12
mo) 1868 1868 0 1900 1.7 1934 1.79 1967 1.7
Probation(0-6
mo) 1738 1738 0 1771 1.9 1804 1.86 1837 1.83
DISTRICT
Captain, shift leader $2567 2567 0 2644 3.0 2697 2.0 2751 2.0
Lieutenant 2438 2438 0 2511 3.0 2561 2.0 2612 2.0
1st Class FF(36+
mo) 2332 2332 0 2402 3.0 2450 2.0 2499 2.0
2nd Class FF(25-36
mo) 2190 2190 0 2190 0 2234 2.0 2279 2.0
3rd Class FF(13-24
mo) 1997 1997 0 1997 0 2037 2.0 2078 2.0
Probation(7-12
mo) 1868 1868 0 1868 0 1905 2.0 1943 2.0
Probation(0-6
mo) 1738 1738 0 1738 0 1773 2.0 1808 2.0
________________________________________________________________
Basically, the
3 percent on
three
year agreement. The cumulative increase for fire fighter first class
was
13.96 percent.
The District proposed general increases of 2 percent effective
when
the
Agreement was signed, and 2 percent each January 1 for 1988 and 1989,
for
a three year agreement.
4. Factual Information
a. No issue arose regarding the statutory authority of
the
District to enter into an
agreement, or to meet reasonable conditions of
such
an agreement. Further, the parties made no specific stipulations
regarding
wage issues, other than agreement on the aspects of salary
increases
that are before the arbitrators.
b. The major arguments and most of the facts related to
the
comparisons
on wages, hours and conditions of employment and how these may
be
examined among "like personnel of like employers of similar size. .
."
Differences arose regarding
measures of size, such as over number of employees
in
the fire department or district, number of employees in the bargaining unit,
number
of employees by classification or position, budget, taxation base,
number
of aid personnel, geographic dispersion of facilities, population
size,
nature of industry served, rural and urban locations, and so forth.
Although size is noted in the
statute, as pointed out above, the guidelines
include
"such other factors, which are normally and traditionally taken into
consideration in wage determination. These include the
relative
difficulty
in hiring new employees, turnover and quit rates, quality,
competence
and congeniality of employees and management, including the
policy
makers, age and conditions of facilities and equipment, and the
general
atmosphere of the employment relationship. More general economic
conditions,
such as unemployment rate, general level of living standards and
personal
income, are not irrelevant. The statute notes, also, that, changes
in
cost of living may be relevant.
Here the parties offered several tables of salary rates,
presumably
among
comparables." As prepared by the arbitrators, Table 2 includes the
first
class fire fighter salaries as of
the
fire departments and districts used by the
Washington areas referenced
by the District, and Part III are neighboring
districts
and areas in
Table
2_____________________________________________________
Monthly Salaries for First
Class (Top) Fire Fighters in
26 Selected Fire Districts, on
Size of District and
Organization Selecting Districts
Fire Department Size of Monthly Weighted
or
District Unit Salaryb Average Salary
Union List - Part I
Pierce Co Dist No. 7 17 $2845
Shoreline King Co. 45 2735
Burien King Co. 27 2722
Spring Glen 23 2640
Kitsap Co. Dist No. 7 25 2474
Clark Co. Dist. No. 4 15 2450
Clark Co. Dist. No. 5 54 2427
Lacey 33 2421 $2560
District
Clark Co. No. 4 15 (12) 2450
Chehalis NA (12) 2078
Hoquium 19a (19) 2066
Oregon Districts - Part III
Clackamas Co. 23 2305d
_____
a Number
of employees in category of fire fighters. Other are
employees
in the unit. See Union Exhibit 4; Employer Exhibits 14, 15,
17,
and 18.
b Salary
data from Union Exhibit 6 and salary data requested by
arbitrator (Jt. Ex. 1).
c Weights
used for numbers in bargaining unit when number in fire
fighter
class not known. Some small inaccuracy
may exist here for those
units
identified with footnote "a."
d Includes
premium for paramedic qualifications
_____
Source:
Union Exhibit 6, Employer Exhibits 13, 14, 15, and 17; and
Joint Exhibit 1 (the latter
was table of data submitted by Mr. Hill
on
Data for all tables come from these sources, unless otherwise
stated.
_________________________________________________________________
Those districts selected by the
fire
fighter salary of $2560, the District group was $2484 and the
District salary was $2332, or
just 10% below the Union comparison group,
6% below the District group, and 1.8% above the nearby districts across
the
without
the EMT premium. If the six districts closest geographically to
Clark County District No. 6
are examined above) excluding the Oregon districts,
the
weighted monthly salary was $2364 on
the
District salary for first class fire fighters.
* Averages were determined by weighting each district salary by the
number
of employees in the department in bargaining unit, as the data would
permit.
Arithmatic averages, which give equal weight to a
district salary
with
only 15 or 16 employees compared to a district salary with 45 or 54
employees,
distort the true or actual picture of salaries in the comparable.
groups.
The neutral arbitrator asked for certain historical data which
were
relatively
sparse (material sent by the
marked
here Jt. Ex. 1). From those data and others, Table 3
sets forth
the
1983 and 1987 monthly salary rates of top fire fighters for 15 districts
plus
the instant one. The number of bargaining unit members was estimated,
for
the most part, by subtracting an estimated number of paid employees
not
under the collective bargaining agreements from the totals of employees
reported.**
Again average salaries, weighted by the number of employees in
the
districts, were used for these 15 districts.
** Roughly two employees in each 10 reported for a
district were excluded.
Any nominal errors here
affected the weighted averages by very little. For
example;
among the eight districts offered by the
weights
of the number of employees reported in Union Exhibit 6 and the
arbitrator's
estimate in Table 3 left the weighted average salary essentially
unchanged
from $2591 to $2588. See Table 3.
TABLE 3___________________________________________________________
Monthly Salaries of First
Class (Top) Fire Fighters in Fifteen
Selected Districts on
by
Rank and Changes over the Four Year Period
1987 1983-87 1987 Estimated
Department Size of 1983 1987 Rank Clark Co.
or
District a Unit Salary Rank Salary Rank Change No. 6 Salary
1. Spring
Glen 18 $2004 13 $2640 4 +9
2.
3. Pierce
Co. 7 14 2289 3 2845 1 +2
4.
5. Shoreline 36 2293 2 2735 2 0
(King Co. 4)
6. Burien 22 2233 5 2722 3 +2
(King Co. 2)
7.
8. Clark
Co. 5 44 2128 6 2427 10 -4
9. Hoquium 19 1855 15 2066 15 0
10.
11. Mt.Vernon 11 1767 16 2047 16 0
12.
13.
14.
15.
Districts 1-8b weighted 2194 2588 17.95% $2357
Districts 9-15b
weighted 2046 2352 14.73% $2292
All Districts weighted 2124 2479 16.71% $2332
Clark Co. No. 6 26 1998 14 (2362) 14 0 $2362
_____
Notes:
a See text for explanation
b Districts 1-8 come from Union list, and
Districts 9-15 come
from
District or arbitrators lists. See Union Exhibit 6; Employer
Exhibits 13, 15, and 17; and
Joint Exhibit 1.
______________________________________________________________________
Using
the eight districts proposed by the
percentage
change in four years was 17.95%. If the District's salary for
top
fire fighters increased accordingly, the monthly rate would be only
$2357
on
group,
and for all districts, indicated that no change in salary in, 1987
would
show an increase in the District's top fire fighter salary comparable
to
the comparison districts between 1983 and 1987. Further, if one examined
salary
level rank among these districts in Table 3, a constant rank for
Clark County District No.6,
relative to other districts , would set the salary
of
first class fire fighter at $2362, a move upward by four in rank order,
the
most of any district but one achieved between 1983 and 1987, would
suggest
a salary level at about $2420, or a 1987 increase of 3.8%.* The
annual
percentage increase for the District's employees were 10 percent in
1984, three percent in 1985,
and 2½ percent in 1986, or 16.7 percent by
1986
on the base 1983 salary. (Er. Ex. 13).
* The 30 percent increase at Spring Glen is an anomaly. This
increase
represents
such a difference from all others that some unusual circumstances
must
account for that increase. The salary was used in all weighted averages.
Table 4 contains the percentage change in weighted average top
fire
fighter
salaries for five districts where data were available both in
1982
and 1987. The increase was 26 percentage points,
which, if applied to
Clark County District No. 6,
would indicate a
i.e.
26 percent higher than what was paid on
increase
in 1987 over 1986.
TABLE 4__________________________________________________________________
Monthly Salaries of First
Class (Top) Fire Fighters in Five
Selected Districts on
by
Rank and Changes Over the Five Year Period
1987
ESTIMATED
1987 1982 1987 1982-87 CLARK CO.
DISTRICT SIZE SALARY RANK SALARY RANK CHANGE DISTRICT NO.
6
Pierce Co. 44 $2081 1 $2845 1 0
District No. 7
Clark Co. 44 1970 3 2427 4 -1
District No.5
All Districts 150 1981 2515 26%
Clark Co. 26 1933 6 (2362) (6) $2436
District No.6
________________
Source: See Table 2
_____________________________________________________________________________
A similar calculation was made from data in Table 5 for the
year 1986
to
1987. Here data were available for only nine districts, by combining
information
from Joint Exhibit 1, Union Exhibit 6 and Employer Exhibits 15
and
17.* Again, the numbers in the bargaining unit were estimated and used as
weights
on the monthly salary. For these nine districts, the weighted
salary
increases for top fire fighter was 4.93 percentage points for 1987
over
1986. When this percentage is applied to the
District No.6 1986 monthly
salary, the amount was $2447. In addition,
Joint Exhibit 1 indicated a
4.35% increase for top fire fighters on
increase
appeared to represent more than a single year increase.
* Because data were combined from different sources, and errors
were
known
to exist of some magnitude, these data in Table 5 are the least
reliable
of those reported in Tables 2 through 4, although a measure of
consistency
appeared in these data with other verified information.
TABLE
5____________________________________________________________________
Percentage Change in Weighted
Average Salaries of
Top Fire Fighters For Nine Selected Districts
for
Between
1987
ESTIMATED
SALARY SALARY SALARY PERCENTAGE CLARK CO.
DISTRICT WEIGHTS 1986 1987 CHANGE DISTRICT NO. 6
Hoquium 19 2066 2066
Weighted Salary 2354 2470 4.93%
Clark Co. No. 6 26 2332 (4.93%) $2447
_____________________
Notes:
a. These data may have
errors, since some interpretation of
Employer Exhibits and Joint
Exhibit 1 was necessary, such as for
Hoquium.
Source: See Table 2
______________________________________________________________________________
c. The remaining specific factor noted in the statute as
a
guideline
for arbitrators and others in determining wages and other cost
items
was the "cost of living," normally measured by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI). Here the
Employer reported a 3.2% increase in the CPI over
the
term of the current contract, or a 1.6% annual increase (Er.
Ex. 7).
These data contrasted to an
annual average salary increase of 3% (Er. Ex. 8).
Between 1978 and 1986, prices
rose 69%, but
class
fire fighter monthly salary rate rose 94%, according to the District,
or
about an average of 3% per year more than the cost of living rose over
these
eight years.
d. Lastly the
District contended that the economy of the
Vancouver, Washington, and
Portland, Oregon, area was depressed relative
to
other areas, especially the
cited
such things as the Alcoa plant closing, loss of jobs, and new plants
opened
only with much lower wages (Er. Ex.
10). Note was made also that
regular
another
three percent in 1989, and public school teachers a comparable
amount
(Er. Ex. 11). Some private
employers settled without any wage
increases
(Er. Ex. 19). On the other
hand, the
rapid
rise in administrative salaries in the District compared to the first
class
fire fighter salary rate (Un. Ex. 19).
Data similar in most respects regarding salary for lieutenants
and
captains
were introduced by both parties (Un. Ex. 8, 9, 10 and 11; Er. Ex. .
14,
16, and 18). The details of these data are set forth
below as
necessary.
5. Analysis of Data and
Conclusions
Two conclusions arise from the above data. Substantial evidence
indicated
that some increase would be appropriate, and, simultaneously, that
a
first year seven percent increase for first class fire fighter could not
be
justified. With the exception of the level of salaries across the
Columbia to the south, the
current raw data of monthly salary level exceeded
the
current rate of $2332 for first class fire fighter in most cases. But
outside
the urban and metropolitan area of
the
Union-proposed seven percent 1987 increase. Thus here the issue
rested
on selecting an increase somewhere between two percent, as proposed
by
the District, and a four to five percent increase represented by the
salary
level of other Washington Districts compared directly to the
County
District No. 6 level.
* This analysis uses the first class fire fighter rate as the key
rate. The
discussion
below addresses the structure of rates about the top fire fighter
salary
level. See page 25, subsections c and d.
The
districts,
claiming these districts were comparable by number of employees,
population,
and budget. However, these criteria are highly intercorrelated,
and
exclude other factors relevant to salary comparisons. Location, for one,
as
noted above is relevant. In addition, every labor market has a structure
of
rates around the same job titles or classifications. This is so because
management
varies, equipment is different, population density and geography
affect
response time and ease or difficulty in carrying out duties. As the
list
noted above, a whole host of factors affect salaries, even though in a
functioning
market rates tends toward a central level. High wage firms get
more
highly productive workers, and some managers drive away good workers,
or
good ones may attract high quality workers at lower wages than other
supervisors
could do. Further, salary varies in accordance with most
nonpecuniary conditions of employment, as
some of the above factors
would
suggest.
Thus, use of a single criterion, as size, although relevant,
obscures
other factors not always so readily measurable, but nevertheless
important. Thus, some
basis for comparison other than a comparison of
salary
amount by size of unit at a point in time is necessary. Here,
trend
through time, as the market structure of wage forms and moves,
indicates
and captures the complex of factors that makes up the wage level.
An important factor will push
one firm (district) up or down in the market
structure
as it reflects how the
the
factor. And the relevance of each such factor will vary from time to time
and
place to place over time, even though, on balance, the pressures of a
market,
and/or a union-management relationship, will tend to move towards
standardization
and uniformity of wages and conditions.
Here the salary level of Clark County District No. 6 has
traditionally
been
lower than others for whatever reasons. Using the comparison groups in
Table 3, proposed by the
position
in that market structure would require less than a two percent
increase
in 1987. However, to allow some central tendency, a 3.8% increase
would
move the District's salary level rank up by two ranks in Table 3. The
limited
data in Tables 4 and 5 support an increase somewhat more than 4 percent
in
January 1987. Both the modest change in the CPI and the relatively less
booming
economy around the District militate against the 4 percent increase.
The arbitrators propose a 3½ percent increase for
the
first class fire fighter. This represents about a 2 percent increase
over
the CPI change, which represents a reasonable rate of growth in real
income.
Further such an increase would raise the District salary level upwards
more
towards the central tendency of the comparable market area. Finally, this
increase
of 3½ percent would provide the first class fire fighter with a salary
of
$2414 per month, compared to $2427 in
at
higher
than for the cases of Chehalis at $2078 and Hoquium
at $2066. The
latter
with a 6 percent increase on
cited
by the parties, these districts are the ones geographically the closest
to
the District in the state of
of
salaries just across the
as
the District ameliorated further the claim for an increase in 1987
in
excess of 3½ percent over the 1986 first class fire fighter salary.
6. Other Salary Schedule
Issues
a. Although the
District contended that any change in salary
should
be effective after signing, the tradition of an effective date of
January 1 was well
established and should be continued. No persuasive
factor
existed to suggest any different determination. Thus, the panel
sets
the effective date of the salary change for 1987 at January 1.
b. Both parties presented proposals for agreements of
three years
in
length. No arguments were made for wage reopeners,
and, accordingly,
salary
increases over the term of the Agreement were appropriate, although
none
during 1987 beyond the 3½ percent effective on
A paucity of data existed for use to determine wage changes for
1988
and
1989. Both parties proposed changes on
January 1, 1989, by
differences of 1.6% and 1.28% in each year respectively
(Table
1). No data were presented by either to
support these proposals
directly.
Examination of the Agreements in Union Exhibit 13 showed six
of
twelve to have salary changes agreed to for
under
negotiation. These settlements were at about 2½ percent with some
possible
upward CPI adjustments, except for the unusual wage adjustment in
thus
supported some increase over the 2 percent offered by the District.
Washington State employees
will receive 3 percent on both January 14 1988,
and
again on
increases
no greater than those, nor were other salary increases indicated
to
suggest any amount much above three percent per year.
On the basis of these data, the panel sets the first class fire
fighter
salary increases at three percent each year on January 1. Then
the
monthly
salary will be $2561 for first class fire fighter.
c. With regard to those on probation and lower class fire fighters
both
parties recognized that the entry level salary scales were relatively
high.
Clearly, the most convincing evidence of this was the ratio of nearly
twenty
to one in applicants for jobs to be filled in the District during the
early
part of 1987. In addition, both parties proposed a downward modification
in
the percentage the salary of each lower classification should represent of
the
first class fire fighter salary. Ease of administration and the above
facts
indicated some simplification of the structure, as well as a much
smaller
increase, if any, for the lower classification.
The arbitrators adopted the following for the next three years.
January
1
Position 1986 1987 1988 1989 % %Increase
First Class (over 36 months) $2332 $2414 $2486 $2561 100 9.81
Second Class (25-36 months) 2190 2190 2247 2305 90 5.25
Third Class (13-24 months) 1997 1997 2023 2049 80 2.60
Probation (7-12 months) 1868 1868 1894 1921 75 2.83
Probation (0-6 months) 1738 1738 1765 1793 70 3.16
The percentages used to adjust the salaries of the lower
classification
represented
approximately an averaging of those proposed. For example, in
the
case of the new employee in 1989, the
68.7 percent of the first
class fire fighter salary. The Employer's
percent
was 72.3. Further, the actual dollar increases are larger the
higher
the classification, even though the percentage change was lower. Also,
with
regard to employees in all of the lower classifications, say for a third
class
fire fighter, the salary change from 1988 to 1989 will represent a
movement
from a salary of $2023 to $2305 as the employee moves up in position,
or
an increase of over 13 percent, not one of 2.60 percent.
d. With regard to
lieutenants and captains the data presented in
both
lieutenants
and captains as well as in the ratios of these salaries to top
fire
fighters. Such variations should exist by reason of the wide variation
in
responsibilities assigned to these personnel.* Here little data came
forth
exactly on what the supervisor duties were and how these compared
among
districts. Thus, less reliance was placed upon comparisons of the
salary
level per se because of this fact as well as for the reasons discussed
above for
fire fighter salary levels.
* For example,
positions,
whereas
agreement
and have no captain classification (Un. Ex. 13).
An analysis of the ratio of salaries of lieutenants and
captains to
the
top fire fighters varied from as much as 25 percent differential for a
captain
to as low as 10 percent or so. For lieutenant salaries in relation
to
fire fighter salaries, the ratio ranged from over 18 percent to only four
percent.
In most cases, the data in the District's exhibits and those in the
low
among districts in Table 2 (Un. Ex. 8, 10; Er. Ex. 14, 16, 18).
Further,
the
ratio of lieutenant to fire fighter salaries in the
average
over 8%, higher than for the District.
The District had a very low ratio of lieutenant and captain
salaries to
the
top fire fighter salary when compared to other districts in Table 2.
Therefore, some adjustment
seemed appropriate. The arbitrators adopted the
Union-proposed percent salary
differentials for captains and for lieutenant's
over
that of the top fire fighter salary, 12 percent for captain and 6 percent
for
lieutenants in 1989.
The following represented the salaries for lieutenants and
captains
over
the next three years.
January
1
Position 1986 1987 1988 1989 %
Increase
Captain, Shift Leader $2567 $2668 $2768 $2868 11.72
Lieutenant 2438 2532 2624 2715 11.36
First Class Fire Fighter 2332 2414 2486 2561 9.81
B. Longevity and Paramedic Pay
1. Longevity
The District proposed to eliminate longevity pay, except to
grandfather
those employees already eligible. The
the
monthly allowance, which begins with ten years of service.
Longevity pay is not universal, although paid in many
districts.
One-third of the
two
of the four districts geographically nearest the District. Further,
among
the districts, although some variation existed among districts in the
amount
of longevity pay, none had made changes in their current contracts,
which
overlapped 1987 and subsequent years. In most instances, where
districts
had longevity pay, the amounts equalled or exceeded
the current
payments
in the District (Un. Ex. 13, 14 and 17).
Longevity pay is interrelated with other elements of
compensation, as
well
as the character and make-up of the work force. Given no clear picture
here
regarding the prevailing practice nor the relationship of longevity to
salary
level and work force characteristics, no firm basis existed for a
change
in the longevity pay. Accordingly, the arbitrators leave this
element
of the salary system undisturbed and incorporate the current
longevity
pay rates in the Agreement.
2. Paramedic Pay
The current paramedic premium is $30.00 per month up to 12
months
of
service, and $100.00 per month thereafter. The Union seeks an increase
to
$150.00 per month, whereas the District offered a seven percent increase
for
paramedics.*
* The exact intent of the increase was somewhat unclear, but is
interpreted
to mean $107, not 7 percent of the fire fighter monthly salary.
Again, only a few comparison
districts, as in Union Exhibit 12, pay a
specific premium
for the paramedic. In these cases, the payment was
incorporated
in a fire fighter salary schedule. Eight of the twelve
districts
in Union Exhibit 12 make no specific separate provision for
paramedic
pay, although the amounts incorporated in salaries in these cases
represent
amounts substantially in excess of the amounts in the District.
Data were unavailable to
examine specifically what special qualifications
were
demanded of fire fighters in high salary districts cited by the Union.
They may be required to have
more than the "normal" emergency medical training
and
paramedic qualifications.
From the various available paramedic salary levels and premiums
added in
other
cases, a general average for paramedic indicated that the $100.00 per
month
in the District was low. Accordingly, the arbitrators set the paramedic
scale
at $50.00 per month for 0 to 12 months, and $125.00 per month, after
months.
C. Vacations
The differences between the Union and District regarding
vacations were
(1) whether
15 year employees should now receive 11 shifts vacation per year
rather
than the current 10, and (2) whether 20 year employees should now
receive
12 shift vacation per year rather than the current 10. The District
proposed
the current provision in the Agreement.
The direct data came from Union Exhibit 16, which shows that
the twelve
districts
used by the Union averaged only .6 shift more vacation shifts than
the
District for 15 year employees and 1.1 shifts more vacation shifts than
the
District for 20 year employees. Clearly, the number of off-duty days
and
the normal work schedule of fire fighters raise no great issue over the
need
for longer vacations, as breaks from the rigor, routine, and monotony
of
the job. What is at issue here is the same pay with less on-duty status,
and
the extent and uniformity of days off among districts, fire departments
and
bargaining units. As such, this issue combines with the proposed hours
reduction
proposal of the Union.
The data indicated a rather clear pattern that the 10 shift
vacation of
Clark County District No. 6
is now a full shift behind comparison groups on
vacation
days per se. This is most clear for the four near districts
(Longview,
Clark County No. 4, Clark County No. 5 and Lacey).
Thus, the
arbitrators
set the vacation at 11 days after 20 years service. The vacation
provision
would read as follows.
Article 13 - Vacations
Section A
4) Employees who have completed ten (10) years but
less
than twenty (20) years of continuous service shall
be
entitled to ten (10) consecutive working shifts per
year
of vacation.
5) Employees who have completed twenty (20) years or
more
of continuous service shall be entitled to eleven
(11) consecutive
working shifts per year.
An appropriate revision of Section B shall also be made to
coincide with
Section
A.4 and A.5. The vacation changes shall be effective on
January 1, 1988.
D. Hours Per
Week
The District proposed that the hours worked per week and the
current
provisions
of the Agreement be maintained. The Union proposed a reduction
in
hours, from the current scheduled 56 per week system to 55. The reduction
would
occur through a "Kelly day," such that after 24 shifts had been
worked,
the
employee would take a shift off to account for the reduction in the work
week
from 56 to 55 hours. Thus in a year's time, the employee would work
two
days less, but receive the same salary.* The Union proposed that the
workweek
reduction begin on January 1, 1989.
* The comment above indicated the similarity between the vacation
proposal
and the hours reduction proposal of the Union.
The work week reduction has taken the form, in a three shift
platoon
system,
of days off at regular intervals, called Kelly days. These days
reduce
the total number of days on duty in the same manner as a holiday or
vacation
day. Thus the basis for comparison is the number of days off work,
not
the length of the work week. Further the number of days off is
complicated
by the practice in some districts of paying for holidays worked,
thus
more pay and more work, at an overtime rate, whereas work week reduction
implies
less work and the same pay.
On the above basis, some variation in days off for all reasons
do vary
among
districts, and for the same reasons as salaries may vary. Here, the
four
near districts. to Clark County District No. 6 have
about the same number
of
days off, Kelly, holiday and vacation. On that basis, the arbitrators
found
no justification at this time to reduce the work week and award
employees
more days off or Kelly days. No change is made in the hours of
work
as set out in Article 16.
E. Term of Agreement
Based on the above analyses, and the positions of the parties,
the
arbitrators
set the term of the Agreement for January 1, 1987, to
December 31, 1989, or three
full years, without reopeners, except by
mutual
consent.
CONCLUSIONS
No specific attention was directed at the health and insurance
costs.
These have been noted.
Specifically in the summary table of the Union in
its
Exhibit No. 18, the insurance costs to the District rank almost the
highest
of those districts used by the Union, and do ameliorate over all
upward
changes in costs to the District. Based on the 3½ percent general
increase
afforded the first class fire fighters, an adjustment of the total
of
$36,733 by such a percentage in Union Exhibit 18 makes the position of
the
District's total package cost rather comparable with those districts
nearby,
as Clark County District No. 4, Longview, Lacey, and even Clark
County District No. 5, over
the next two years.* The overall package is
a
reasonable one. It was designed to move the District slightly nearer the
central
set of conditions of comparable districts. The decision of the
arbitrators
does not depend upon a single district or those whose geographic
distance,
internal organization, and other factors may make them appear with
conditions
substantially better than Clark County District No. 6.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth N. McCaffree. a
Neutral Chairman
KMM/jj
October 12, 1987
Hansville,
Washington
* As the neutral chairman indicated at the hearing, this table has
some
double counting, and treats Kelly days differently than holiday or
vacation
days. How those factors affect the comparison was not entirely
clear.