International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local No. 1805
And
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 08346-I-90-00188
Employer: Clark
County Fire Protection District #6
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 6 ) PERC NO.: 8346-1-90-188
)
and ) Date
Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 1805 )
)
______________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Bud Seifert Employer
Member
Frank Spickelmire Union Member
Appearances:
DISTRICT NO. 6 A.
K. Baird
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE
FIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 1805 James
H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
PROTECTION
DISTRICT NO. 6 ) PERC NO.: 8346-1-90-188
)
and ) Date Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 1805 )
)
________________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes
involving
uniformed personnel when collective bargaining
negotiations
have resulted in impasse. Accordingly, a
tripartite
arbitration panel was formed with respect to the
instant
matter. The Employer,
District No. 6, appointed Bud
Seifert as its member of the
Panel and the
Fighters, Local 1805,
appointed Frank Spickelmire as its
member
of the Panel. The undersigned was
selected to serve
as
Neutral Chairman of the Panel.
A hearing in this matter was held on
K. Baird of Allied Employers,
Inc. and the
sented by James H. Webster of the law firm of
Webster, Mrak
and
Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented substantial documentary
evidence. A court reporter was present at the hearing
and a
verbatim
transcript of the proceedings was made available to
the
Chairman for his use in reaching his determination in
this
case.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
posthearing briefs which were filed by each party and
received
by the Neutral Chairman on
parties
agreed to waive the statutory requirement that the
Chairman issue his decision
within thirty days following the
conclusion
of the hearing.
The Panel agreed that the Chairman would prepare a
draft
Decision and provide a copy to each of the other panel
Members
for comment. A
draft Decision was mailed to each of
the
other Panel Members on
the
chairman received a letter from Panel Member Seifert.
Additionally, the Panel
Members agreed that the Chairman
should
meet with counsel to further discuss this matter.
This meeting,
held
Baird,
Mr. Webster and myself. I
have carefully considered
all
of the comments I received in response to the Draft
Decision. What follows, based on the record and after
consultation
as described above, is my findings of fact and
determination
of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The following issues were presented to the Panel for
arbitration:
Salaries
Workweek
Holidays
Sick Leave
Medical Insurance
One remaining issue, Prevailing Rights, was not
resolved
by the parties prior to the hearing in this matter.
However, as explained in my letter
to counsel dated October
18, 1990, the Arbitration
Panel does not have authority to
consider
the Prevailing Rights issue at the present time.
STATUTORY CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria shall
be
taken into consideration as relevant factors in reaching
a
decision:
...(T]he panel shall be mindful
of the leg-
islative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and as
ad-
ditional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching
a
decision, it shall take into consideration the fol-
lowing
factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of
the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
* *
(c)(ii) For
employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(b),
comparison of the wages, hours,
and conditions of em-
ployment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and conditions
of employment of like
personnel of public fire
departments of similar size on
the west coast of the
adequate number of comparable
employers exists within
the state of Washington, other
west coast employers
shall not be considered;
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and ser-
vices, commonly known as the
cost of living;
(e) changes in any of the foregoing circumstances
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to the forego-
ing,
which are normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in the
determination of wages, hours and
conditions of
employment. . .
The legislative purpose which your Chairman is directed
to
be mindful of in applying the statutory criteria is set
forth
in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of this . . . act is to
recognize
that there exists a public policy in the
state
of
sonnel as a means of settling their labor
disputes;
that
the uninterrupted and dedicated services of these
classes
of employees is vital to the welfare and public
safety
of the state of
dedicated
and uninterrupted public service there should
exist
an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes. . .
COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.460(c)(ii),
it is common in these
proceedings
for the arbitration panel to select an appropri-
ate
number of comparable employers. On
parties
executed a document entitled, "Ground Rules Meeting
for
1990 Contract Negotiations Between the Clark Co. Fire
Dist.
#6 and IAFF Local 1805."
Paragraph No. 9 of that document provided as follows:
If comparables are to be used,
criteria for the compa-
rables must not exceed 200%, or be less than 50%
of
that
of Fire District I 6.
The record does not indicate the extent to which compa-
rables were discussed during negotiations. Furthermore,
although
the outer limits of the comparables were defined by
the
parties, nothing in the record indicates whether the
parties
discussed the basis upon which the comparables were
to
be selected.
The
four were:
population served, assessed value, total depart-
ment manpower (paid) , and department
budget. Next the
reviewed
all of the Employers in
operate
fire departments and found that twenty-one employers
maintain
fire departments, which, with respect to popula-
tion, assessed value, number of employees and
budget were
within
the agreed upon range, that is, none of these twenty-
one
exceeded the Employer here by 200% or was less than the
Employer
here by 50%.
By letter dated
the
comparable
employers during the upcoming interest arbitra-
tion. The
Employer's list included fourteen employers
located
in Washington and four employers located in
This list was substantially
similar to that presented by the
Employer to the Arbitration
Panel chaired by Arbitrator
Kenneth M. McCaffree
with respect to the interest arbitra-
tion between the parties regarding the 1987-89
agreement.
Mr. McCaffree's
decision is in the record in this case but
it
does not indicate the basis upon which the Employer
selected
its comparables in that case.
In response to a letter from the Union dated January
27, 1990 requesting that the
Employer provide the
the
criteria it used in establishing its list of compara-
bles, the Employer on
a
new list of eighteen comparable employers.
This list
contained
only three
fifteen
being located in
As the Union points out, RCW 41.56.460(c) (ii) makes
clear
that when an adequate number of comparable employers
exist
within the State of
employers
shall not be considered." Here, the
provided
for an adequate number of comparable employers in
the
State of
fashion
in that it has, using four different size-related
criteria,
included each of the employers located in
agreed
upon by the parties at the beginning of negotiations
in
June of 1989. Therefore, I agree with
the
Arbitration Panel is precluded
from including as comparators
employers
located in the State of
The Employer contends that even if
cannot
be included as comparators pursuant to
41.56.460(c)(ii),
those employers may be considered pursuant
to
subsection (f) of RCW 41.56.460.
However, subsection (f)
refers
to:
Such other factors, not
confined to the foregoing,
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consid-
eration in the determination of wages, hours and condi-
tions of employment.
Thus, the language of RCW 421.56.460(f) is clear in
that
it refers to the consideration of factors other than
comparable
employers. It would make no sense to
construe
the
statute so as to preclude the consideration of
employers
in one subsection, but permitting them to be
brought
in the backdoor, so to speak, through another
subsection.
However, considerations of labor market raised by the
Employer are appropriately
considered by the Arbitration
Panel
pursuant to RCW 41.56.460. This is because labor
market
considerations have traditionally been taken into
consideration
in the determination of wages, hours and
conditions
of employment and, in fact, have been raised by
numerous
unions and employers before arbitration panels in
the
State of
to
the fact that the Employer comparables selected by the
tively as the "Seattle-King/Snohomish
County" area or the
"Seattle/Puget Sound
Basin area." It is not clear from
the
Employer's brief exactly which
the
Employer considers to be within the area described.
No testimony or other evidence was presented regarding
a
specific
understanding
that data used in compiling the Consumer Price
Index for the Seattle area
includes data from Snohomish,
King
and Pierce counties.
Therefore, I have determined to
consider
the
as
including the three county area of King, Snohomish and
Pierce counties. A review of the
comparables
reveals that fifteen of these are located in the
three
county area of King, Snohomish and Pierce counties
while
four others are located in western Washington and two
are
located in eastern
correct
in pointing out that a substantial majority of the
Union proposed comparators are
located in the three county
The Employer submitted data prepared by the American
Chamber of Commerce
Researchers Association (
support
of its contention that any
selected
by the Arbitration Panel should be reduced by 8%.
No one from
presented
indicates that
that
staff functions are carried on by volunteer members.
The
INTERPRETING THE INDEX: The
measures
relative price levels for consumer goods and
services
in participating areas. The average for
all
participating
places, both metropolitan and non-
metropolitan,
equals 100, and each participant's index
is
read as a percentage of the average for all places.
The
figures
for the third quarter of 1989:
Tacoma 99.9
Richland-Kennewick 97.4
Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater 94.8
It is not clear from the
Furthermore, the
differentials
for a mid-management standard of living, how-
ever,
firefighters are not mid-management employees.
I also
note
the following statement contained in the
material:
Because the number of items
priced is limited, it is
not
valid to treat percentage differences between areas
as
exact measures. Since judgment sampling
is used in
this
survey, no confidence interval can be determined.
Small differences, however,
should not be construed as
significant
-- or even as indicating correctly which
area
is the more expensive.
Based on the foregoing, I cannot consider the
data
sufficiently reliable to reduce the wages paid in the
posed
by the Employer. Furthermore, I note
that the
data
lists
figure
of 99.9 thereby placing
The Employer makes no
contention that the wages paid in the
differential
between
Kennewick and Lacey, three
comparators proposed by the
Kennewick is 97.4 placing
Portland, at 103.0, about 5.7%
above
those two cities, while the
Lacey is 94.8 placing
Lacey. However, no suggestion has been made by the
Employer
that
the
or
Lacey should be adjusted upward so as to be in accord
with
the index figure for
One of the main purposes for the setting of a list of
comparable
employers in an interest arbitration is not only
to
meet the statutory requirement to consider comparable
employers,
but also to provide a basis pursuant to which the
parties
can proceed in future negotiations to reach an
agreement
without the necessity for interest arbitration.
In my view, twenty-one
comparators are simply too many since
the
effort and expense involved in accumulating and analyz-
mg
wage and benefit information with respect to twenty-one
comparators
is unnecessarily burdensome. Therefore,
I have
reduced
the number of comparators suggested by
doing
so have taken into account the concerns raised by the
Employer with respect to
overweighting the list of compara-
tors with
Traditionally, the principal criteria used by arbitra-
tors with respect to "similar size"
has been population
served. In fact, prior to 1987, RCW 41.56.460(c)
referred
to
"like employers" instead of "public fire departments."
It is clear that this change
was made by the Legislature
merely
for the purpose of making clear that all employers
operating a
public fire department whether it be a depart-
ment maintained by a city, a county or a fire
protection
district
would be considered a comparable employer as long
as
such employer was of similar size and on the west coast
of
the
the
Legislature to change the requirement that comparators
be
based on similar size of like employers.
In this regard,
I note that the last sentence
of RCW 41.56.460(c)(ii), added
in
1987, refers to comparable employers and not to public
fire
departments.
In order to reduce the number of comparators to a rea-
sonable number, I reviewed the criteria of
population
served. If one lists in order of population served,
the
twenty-one
comparators established by the
the
following:
TABLE NO. 1
UNION
COMPARATORS LISTED IN ORDER
OF
POPULATION SERVED
Employer Population Served
King Co. No. 10 65 , 000
Shoreline 60 , 000
Lacey 50,980
Snohomish Co. No. 7 50 ,
000
Kitsap Co. No. 7 50 , 000
Pierce Co. No. 6 50,000
Clark Co. No. 6 45,000
Burien 35,000
Pierce Co. No. 7 34 000
Spring Glen 33,000
Auburn 32,000
University Place 32,000
Mercer Island 20,300
Ten to twelve comparators are a sufficient number to
provide
the parties with a reasonable number of comparable
employers
to look to in assessing wages and other terms and
conditions
of employment while at the same time not being so
many
as to be unduly burdensome with respect to data
collection
and analysis. If one reviews the five compara-
tors immediately above the Employer here in
population and
the
five comparators immediately below the Employer here in
population,
a band of ten comparators is established all
within a
very close population range to that of the Employer
here. Thus, White Center with a population served
of
55,000, is five places higher
on the population list than
the
Employer and 55,000 is only 22.2% higher in population
served
than that of the Employer. Spring Glen,
with a popu-
lation of 33,000, is five places below the
Employer here on
the
population list and 33,000 is 26.7% below the population
served
that of the Employer here.
The ten employers, the five above Clark Co. No. 6 in
population
served and the five below Clark Co. No. 6 in
population
served, are the closest on a percentage basis to
Clark Co. No. 6. These ten are: White Center, Lacey,
Snohomish Co. No. 7, Kitsap
Co. No. 7, Pierce Co. No. 6,
Bremerton, Kennewick, Burien,
Pierce Co. No. 7 and Spring
Glen.
I agree with the Employer that since Clark Co. No. 6 is
not
located in the Seattle area, it is appropriate to select
a list
of comparators which takes into account the
Employer's
location outside the Seattle area. However, in
doing
so the statutory criteria of similar size must also be
followed.
When one looks at the ten comparators selected on the
basis
of population served, one finds that six of those are
located
in the Seattle area (King, Snohomish or Pierce
counties)
. Therefore, I have determined to add to
the list
the
two remaining comparators which fall within the similar
size
stipulation of the parties and are located outside the
Seattle
area, namely, Longview and Richland. This will pro-
vide
the parties with a list of twelve comparators, six of
those
in the Seattle area and six outside the Seattle area
with
two of those in eastern Washington.
SALARIES
The parties agree on a three year contract term,
January 1, 1990 - December 31,
1992. The Union proposes to
raise
firefighters' wages by 7.7% effective January 1, 1990
and
for each of the next two years an additional 3% plus the
percentage
increase in CPI-W for Seattle from July to July
1990
and 1991, respectively. The
Union proposes to increase
officer
differential premium to 8% above First Class Fire-
fighter
for Lieutenant and 8% above Lieutenant for Captain.
The Employer proposes to add a 3% salary increase to
First Class Firefighters and
above effective January 1, of
each
contract year.
Both parties agree that the relevant monthly salary
figure
is that of First Class (top step) firefighter.
I
have
listed below the twelve comparators in order of the
monthly
salary paid to top step firefighters.
TABLE NO. 2
1990 TOP STEP FIREFIGHTER
MONTH SALARY
Employer Monthly
Salary
Pierce Co. No. 6 $3125
Pierce County No. 7
3019
Burien 3011
White Center 3001
Bremerton 2955
Spring Glen 2935
Longview 2776
Snohomish Co. No. 7
2750
Kennewick 2747
Richland 2722
Kitsap Co. No. 7 2702
Lacey 2688
Clark Co. No. 6 2561
Average of 12 Comparators:
$2869
Average of 12 comparators
is 12.0% higher than
Clark Co. No. 6.
The information listed in Table No. 2 is based on the
exhibits
provided by the Union, which, I understand, pro-
vides
top step firefighters salaries paid in 1990.
It
should
also be pointed out that I checked the figures
supplied
by the Employer for the Union comparators and I
find a
discrepancy with respect to four comparators, namely,
Pierce County No. 6,
Bremerton, Richland and Lacey. When
one
adds the monthly salary for the twelve comparators based
on
the Union's figures, one comes up with a total of $34,431
whereas
when one adds the twelve comparators using the
Employer's figures one comes
up with a total of $34,332 or a
difference
of $99. The $99 difference only amounts
to an $8
difference
in the average of the twelve comparators.
I have
used
the Union's figures since it was the Union that put to-
gether the comparators and since the individual
who worked
on
putting together these comparators actually testified
about
the process at the hearing.
The foregoing chart demonstrates that the salary paid
to
top step firefighters is substantially below that paid
the
average of the comparators.
Additionally, the $2,561
monthly
salary paid by the Employer to top step firefighters
is
less than that paid by any of the twelve comparators.
The statute also directs the Arbitration Panel to con-
sider the average consumer prices for goods and
services
commonly
known as the cost of living. If one
reviews the
broader
CPI index called the "All Urban Consumers Index" or
"CPI-U" for the area
closest to the Employer, namely,
Portland, one finds that
during the term of the prior con-
tract
that index went up 10.7%. To reach the
10.7% figure,
I compared the semiannual
average represented by the index
figure
indicated for June of 1987 with the semiannual aver-
age
represented by the figure indicated for December of
1989. The 10.7% rise in the CPI-U during the term
of the
prior
contract is a percentage similar in amount to the 12%
that
the Employer trails the average of the comparators.
I also note that the percentage increase in wages paid
to
top step firefighters during the term of the prior con-
tract
was only 6.1% ($2,561 in 1989 compared to $2,414 in
1987) . Thus, the cost of living in the Portland area
during
the
term of the prior contract increased at an approximately
75% faster rate than did the
wages of top step firefighters
(10.7% compared to 6.1%).
Based on all of the foregoing, it appears that the
Union's request for an
increase in the neighborhood of 10 to
11% for the first two years of
the Agreement is reasonable.
The amount of increase as
requested by the Union for the
first
year, namely, 7.7%, is an extraordinarily large raise
and,
therefore, I have determined to provide the raise in
equal
increments over the first two years of the Agreement.
In this regard, I shall order
that the base salary for top
step
firefighter be raised 5% to $2,689 per month effective
January 1, 1990 and an
additional 5% to $2,823 effective
January 1, 1991. The wage rate of $2,823 is 10.2% more than
the
base salary of $2,561 presently received by the top step
firefighter
at the Employer here.
A top step wage of $2689 which I shall order for the
year
1990, will still leave the top step firefighter at the
Employer behind all of the
comparators with one exception,
Lacey. However, by the second year, the monthly wage
of
$2,823 will place the top step
firefighter at Clark Co. No.
6 directly in the middle, with
six comparators having a
higher
base salary and six having a lower base salary,
although
average base salary of $2,869 will be slightly
higher
(1.6%) than the 1991 firefighter base wage of $2823.
The parties did not present any figures indicating what
raises,
if any, are scheduled for the comparators in 1991.
It is likely that some form of
raise will be provided to
some
or all of the comparators for 1991.
Therefore, the
Union is seeking the addition
of a cost of living increase
for
the second year of the Agreement.
However, I have
determined
not to provide this additional increase since at
$2,823 the top step
firefighter will have received a sub-
stantial increase over the two-year period, namely,
10.2%,
and
because I shall order a reduction in the workweek begin-
ning in the second year of the Agreement as
explained below.
With respect to the third year of the Agreement,
namely,
for the year effective January 1, 1992, neither
party
has placed in the record any figures indicating what
will
be received in the comparators.
Therefore, it seems
appropriate
to order a cost of living increase for the third
year. Based on the Employer's location close to
Portland,
the
appropriate index is the one for Portland.
With respect
to
the time frame to use, it does not appear that the
Federal government will have
available prior to January 1,
1992 the cost of living index figures
for the second half of
1991. Therefore, I have determined that the
increase in
1992 should be equal to the
percentage increase in the
Portland CPI-U (1982-84 base) between the first half of 1990
and
the first half of 1991.
With respect to the four classes of firefighters below
First Class firefighter, the
Union contends that each class
should
receive the same percentage increase as a First Class
firefighter. The Employer, on the other hand, contends
that
no
raise is appropriate for these four firefighter classifi-
cations.
Very little evidence regarding this matter was placed
in
the record by the parties. However, I
note that
Arbitrator McCaffree
dealt with this matter in substantial
detail
in his arbitration decision dated October 12, 1987
regarding
the parties' 1987-89 agreement. In that
decision,
Arbitrator McCaffree
for 1989 established a salary for each
of
the four firefighter classifications below First Class
firefighter
based on a percentage of the wage rate the First
Class
firefighter.
Those percentages were as follows:
Second Class FF (25-36
months) : 90%
Third Class FF (13-24
months): 80%
Probation FF (7-12
months) : 75%
Probation FF (0-6
months) : 70%
The evidence is not sufficient to establish a need to
change
the percentages which were created by the McCaffree
arbitration
decision in connection with the prior agreement.
Therefore, I shall order that
the four classes of firefight-
ers below the First Class firefighter receive
raises so that
the
percentage differential will stay the same as that
reflected
in 1989 pursuant to Arbitrator McCaf free's
decision. This will result in the firefighters in the
lower
four
classifications receiving substantially similar percent
increases
to those received by First Class firefighters.
With respect to the Lieutenant and Captain premium
differential,
those differentials are at approximately 6%.
The Union seeks an increase so
that the Lieutenant differen-
tial will be 8% above First Class Firefighter
and the
Captain differential will be 8%
above Lieutenant. The aver-
age
for the twelve comparators with respect to the
Lieutenant differential is
10.7% above First Class Fire-
fighter
while average differential for Captain is 18.4%
above
First Class Firefighter. Therefore, an
increase in
differential
premium appears appropriate.
In view of the rather large lump sum the Employer will
have
to provide to the bargaining unit for the contract year
effective
January 1, 1990, I have determined to implement a
shift
differential raise effective the second year of the
contract,
namely, January 1, 1991. Additionally,
although
an
8% differential premium appears appropriate in both
cases,
in view of the substantial raise and reduction in
hours,
I believe an increase to 7% is appropriate.
Top step
firefighter
will receive a wage of $2,823 effective January
1,
1991.
Seven percent of that is $3,021 which shall be the
monthly
salary for the Lieutenant. Seven percent
of $3021
is
$3232 which shall constitute the monthly salary for the
Captain
effective January 1, 1991. The monthly salary of a
Captain at $3232 is 14.5% more
than the $2823 that will be
paid
to a First Class Firefighter effective January 1, 1991.
WORKWEEK AND HOLIDAYS
I have determined to consider these two provisions
together
since the Employer's proposal touches upon both
provisions.
The Employer proposes to delete the present provision
which
provides that employees working a platoon shift of
twenty-four
hours on duty and forty-eight hours off duty
shall
receive in lieu of holidays six shifts per year to be
taken
off at the employee's convenience with the approval of
the
Chief or his designee. Instead, the
Employer proposes
to
provide the employee who works on a holiday compensation
at
time and one half and to provide the employees with four
Kelly days in 1990, five Kelly
days in 1991, and six Kelly
days
in 1992. The Employer makes no proposal
for any addi-
tional Kelly days.
The Union proposes to decrease the average scheduled
workweek
from the current 56 hours to 54.16 for 1990, 52.78
for
1991, and 51.40 for 1992. This would
amount to provid-
mg
the employees with four Kelly days in 1990, three addi-
tional Kelly days for a total of seven in 1991,
and three
additional
Kelly days for a total of ten in 1992. I
have
set
forth below the actual hours worked per year for a ten
year
firefighters in each of the twelve comparators.
These
figures
represent the annual scheduled workdays, less both
paid
time off in lieu of holidays and paid annual leave
(vacations).
TABLE NO. 3
ANNUAL HOURS
WORKED
Employer Annual
Hrs. Worked
Snohomish Co. No. 7 2680
Lacey 2529
Pierce Co. No. 6 2523
Kennewick 2479
Richland 2462
Pierce Co. No. 7 2451
Kitsap Co. No. 7 2439
Longview 2388
Bremerton 2380
Spring Glen 2372
Burien 2309
White Center 1940
Clark Co. No. 6 2536
Average of the 12 Comparators:
2413 annual hours worked.
Average of 12 Comparators is
5.1% higher than
Clark
County No. 6.
In addition to the fact that on annualized basis, Clark
County No. 6 firefighters work 5.1%
more than does the
average
of the comparators, the 2536 hours worked by Clark
County No. 6 firefighters
annually is more hours worked than
by
any of the comparators except Snohomish County No. 7.
Based on the foregoing, a
reduction of four shifts or 96
hours
on an annual basis seems appropriate. If
96 hours are
subtracted
from the 2536 hours worked annually by Clark Co.
No. 6 firefighters, the
resulting total is 2440 hours, which
still
leaves the Clark Co. No. 6 firefighters above the
average,
but only by 1.1%. Additionally, 2440
worked annu-
ally
places the Clark Co. No. 6 firefighters directly in the
middle
with six comparators working more hours on an annual
basis
and six working less.
I have determined not to adopt the Employer's holiday
provision
because I have taken holidays into account in
determining
actual hours worked on an annual basis.
Furthermore, the Employer's
proposal would result in addi-
tional hours being worked by firefighters in Clark
Co. No. 6
for
the first and second year of the Agreement.
In view of the relatively large raises provided the
entire
bargaining unit, I shall not order a change in hours
worked
until the second and third years of the contract,
that
is, a reduction of two shifts (48 hours) effective
January 1, 1991, and an
additional two shift reduction (48
hours)
effective January 1, 1992.
SICK LEAVE
The Employer proposes that a sick leave incentive sys-
tem
be imposed. Thus, the Employer proposes
that effective
January 1, 1991, employees
working a platoon shift shall
receive
one additional Kelly day provided that during the
calendar
year 1990 all platoon shift employees average two
or
less missed shifts due to illness or injury.
Further,
the
Employer proposes that in the event the average is one
or
less, the employees shall receive two Kelly days. The
Union seeks no change in the
current sick leave system.
In support of its proposal, the Employer points to the
fact
that sick leave increased from an average of 50.93
hours
in 1987 to an average of 74.16 hours in 1989, which is
an
increase of 45.6%. Clearly, this is a
large increase in
sick
leave use. However, since sick leave use
on an
historic
basis was not provided to the Panel, one cannot
ascertain
if the average of 50.93 hours in 1987 was repre-
sentative of sick leave use over the years or,
perhaps,
actually
constituted a dip in sick leave usage.
The only
other
year for which sick leave data is provided is 1988
where
the average was 61.59 hours.
I note that 74.16 hours is only 2.9% of the scheduled
hours
worked on an annual basis by a Clark County No. 6
firefighter. Additionally, there is no evidence in the
record
regarding sick leave use in the comparators or by
firefighters
in general. In these circumstances, I
cannot
find
that the Employer has established the appropriateness
of
implementing the type of sick leave incentive plan it
seeks. If the Employer believes that individual
firefight-
ers are abusing sick leave, then the Employer
should imple-
ment procedures to correct any such abuse.
MEDICAL INSURANCE
Presently the Employer pays the entire cost of the
medical
plan for employees and their dependents.
The
Employer proposes that
beginning with the calendar year
1991, the Employer should be
responsible for no more than a
5% increase in premium until
the expiration of the Agree-
ment, that is, any increase in monthly premium
above 5% over
the
amount paid prior to December 31, 1990 would be paid by
the
individual employee.
The Union proposes that the District continue its
current
benefit levels and continue to pay 100% of the
employee
and dependent premiums. In the
alternative, the
Union proposes to accept the
cap for premiums for dependent
coverage
of 115%, 130% and 145% of the 1989 premiums for the
calendar
years 1990, 1991, and 1992 if the employees are
permitted
to choose to obtain coverage through the medical
and
dental benefit plan sponsored through Blue Cross by the
Washington
State Council of Firefighters.
The total monthly premium paid by the Employer for a
LOEFF II firefighter is
$434. If one reviews the Union's
individual
sheets for each of the twelve comparators and
rounds
off to the nearest dollar, one finds that the average
premium
paid by the twelve employers is $386.
Thus, the
Employer pays approximately
12.4% more in medical insurance
premiums
than does the average comparator.
In its brief at page 19, the Employer states that the
average
contribution rate for the twenty-one comparators it
selected
is $369.03 per month. The Union also
states at
page
19 of its brief that the record does not contain com-
parative data showing the share of premiums, if any,
that is
borne
by employees in comparable fire departments in
Washington. However, I note when one reviews the Union's
fact
sheets for each comparator, three of the twelve
_comparators I have selected
indicate some form of co-payment
by
the employee. These are Pierce County
No. 6, Pierce
County
No. 7 and Kitsap County No. 7. Thus, since the Union
apparently
did not make a particularized effort to find out
if
each of the comparators provided for a co-payment by
employees,
there may well be others of the comparators that
have
such a co-payment. In any event, it
appears that a
proposal
such as that sought by the Employer is appropriate.
With respect to the Union's alternative proposal that
the
employees be permitted to obtain coverage through the
benefit
plan sponsored by the Washington State Council of
Firefighters, I reject this
proposal. If the Employer is to
pay
the major share of the premium, it seems appropriate
that
the Employer should be allowed to choose the carrier,
provided
benefit levels are not reduced.
Moreover, I note
the
testimony of Union witness David West that only about
12% of the firefighters in
Washington State are covered
under
the plan sponsored by the Washington State Council of
Firefighters.
It seems inappropriate to me to place the Employer pro-
posal into effect as of January 1, 1991 as
proposed by the
Employer. All other terms of the contract for 1991 will
have
either been agreed to by the parties or specifically
set
by the Arbitration Panel. However, for
1992, the Chair-
man
will order a cost of living increase in salaries for the
employees. Therefore, it seems appropriate to delay imposi-
tion of the Employer medical insurance proposal
until the
third
year of the Agreement since, as with the cost of liv-
mg
increase, the Employer's medical insurance proposal does
not
contain any limit on the premium amount employees may
have
to pay. Additionally, implementation in
the third year
of the
contract will allow the parties time to evaluate
premium
costs and determine if perhaps the firefighters
would
prefer reduced benefits rather than paying a portion
of
the premium.
Thus, I shall order that effective January 1, 1992, the
Employer shall not be required
to pay any increase in
medical
insurance premium beyond a 5% increase in premium
over
that paid by the Employer in 1991.
However, the
Employer shall pay the full
medical insurance premium in
1991.
INTEREST ARBITRATION
AWARD
It is the award of your
Chairman that:
I. Salaries:
A. Effective
January 1, 1990:
1. Bargaining
unit employees employed in
the
classification of First Class
firefighter
and above shall receive an
increase of
five percent (5%) in monthly
base salary.
2. The monthly base salary of the Second
Class firefighter shall be set
at 90% of
that
of the First Class firefighter. The
base
monthly salary of the Third Class
firefighter
shall be set at 80% of that of
the
First Class firefighter. The base
monthly
salary of Probationary firefighter
(7-12 months) shall be set at
75% of that of
the
First Class firefighter, and the base
monthly
salary of Probationary firefighter
(0-6 months) shall be set at
70% of that of
the
First Class firefighter.
3. Thus,
the monthly pay scale for each
bargaining unit
classification pursuant to
the Award shall be
as follows, effective
January 1, 1990:
Percentage
of
Position Pay Scale First Class FF
Captain $3011 -
Lieutenant $2851 -
First Class FF $2689 -
Second Class FF $2420 90%
Third Class FF $2151 80%
Probation
(7-12 mos.) $2017 75%
Probation
(0-6 mos.) $1882 70%
B. Effective January 1, 1991:
1. First
Class firefighters shall
receive an increase of five
percent (5%)
in monthly base salary over that
received
during 1990.
2. Second
Class firefighter, Third
Class firefighter, Probationary
Firefighter (7-12 months) and Probationary
Firefighter (0-6 months) shall receive
increases based on the same
differential
employed in 1990.
3. With
respect to Lieutenants, they
shall be paid a base monthly
salary seven
percent (7%) above that paid
First Class
firefighter.
4. With
respect to Captains, they shall
be paid a base monthly salary
seven
percent (7%) above that paid
Lieutenants.
Thus, the pay scale effective January 1,
1991 is as follows:
Percentage
of
Position Pay
Scale First Class FF
Captain $3232 107% *
Lieutenant $3021 107%
First Class FF $2823
Second Class FF $2541 90%
Third Class FF $2258 80%
Probation (7-12 mos.) $2117 75%
Probation (0-6 mos.) $1976 70%
* 107% above Lieutenant
C. Effective
January 1, 1992: First Class
firefighters
shall receive an increase in the base monthly
salary
equal to the percentage increase in the cost of
living
as reflected by the Portland CPI-U (1982-84 base)
between
the first half of 1990 and the first half of 1991.
The six other classes of
firefighters shall receive
increases
based on the increase provided to First Class
firefighters
in accordance with the percentage appropriate
to
their classification as described in Paragraph I.B.,
above.
II.
Work Week.
Effective January 1, 1991, all
bargaining
unit employees shall have their annual hours
worked
reduced by two shifts (48 hours) and effective
January 1, 1992, all
bargaining unit employees shall have
their
annual hours worked reduced by an additional two
shifts
(48 hours).
III.
Medical Insurance. Effective January 1, 1992,
the
Employer shall not be required to pay an increase in
medical
insurance premium beyond a five percent (5%)
increase
in premium over that paid by the Employer in 1991.
However, the Employer shall
pay the full medical insurance
premiums
in 1990 and 1991.
IV.
No change shall be made to the holiday or sick
leave
provisions.
Dated: December 14, 1990
Seattle, Washington
Michael H. Beck, Neutral Chairman