International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 876
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Clay S. Bleck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Bleck; Clay S.
Case #: 05540-I-84-00126
Employer: Spokane
County Fire District 1
Date Issued: 04/29/1985
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
BETWEEN )
)
DISTRICT #1 )
"THE DISTRICT" )
) DECISION
AND AWARD
AND ) OF
ARBITRATION PANEL
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL #876 )
"THE
) INTEREST
ARBITRATION
HEARING SITE: Ridpath Motel
West
515 Sprague
HEARING DATE:
ARBITRATION PANEL:
Impartial Arbitrator For the For the
and
Chairman Association Fire District
Clay
W
APPEARING FOR THE DISTRICT:
Mr. Dale Haye
Mr. L. Bruce Eggelston
APPEARING FOR THE ASSOCIATION:
Mr. Lanne
Ulrick
Mr. D. Lobdell
Mr. Larry Rider
Mr. George Orr
Mr. H. Kellams
Mr. Don Ellis
Mr. Dave Hughes
Mr. Bill Anderson
EXHIBITS
1. Where
the District Gets Its' Money
2. Estimated
Resources 1984 Budget
3. Typical
City Functions
4. Comparable
Dept. Data
5. Comparable
Dept. Practices
6.u. Memorandum of Authority
7.u. Arbitration Statement
8.u. Chart - Wages, Etc.
9. Comparison:
Firefighter to Chief
10. Statute
41.56.420
11.
12. Newspaper
Clipping: VH
13. Newspaper
Clipping: VH "Pay"
14. Newspaper
Clipping: VH "4.5 M"
15. Newspaper
Clipping: VH "Fire"
16. Comparable
5-City Data
17. Financial
Projection
18. Wm.
Donahue Letter
19. Labor
Statistics - "Wage Change"
20. Wage
Settlements - 1985
21. Weekly
Earnings by Industry
22. Consumer
Price Index
23. Comparison
Index and Salaries
24. Comparable
Dept. Pay Scales
25. 1964
Worker Compensation Rates by Class
26. Disability
Comparison
27. District
Rules
28.a. Job Descriptions
29.b. Paramedical Trainee Description
29. (Missing)
30. Reduced
Work Week Costs
31. Non-Washington
Departments
32. Letter
from Barry Ryan Addressed to Each Party
33. Barry
Ryan's Brief
The
reached
an impasse in negotiations on eight issues which remain in
dispute, the basis for this Hearing. Arbitration was initiated
according
to RCW 41.56.450. The
"District" was represented by Larry
Barnes. The Impartial Arbitrator and Chairman was
Clay S. Bleck.
Both the Fire District and the
brief
which were received by the Chairman on
hearing
was tape recorded as required by RCW 41.56.450.
The following
issues
were submitted for review, recommendation, and decision and
award:
1. Appendix A Wages
2. ARTICLE V Hours
3. ARTICLE XI Out of Class Pay
4. ARTICLE XII Holidays
ARTICLE XII Paid
Holidays
5. ARTICLE XXIV Sick Leave Accrual for LEOFF II
Employees
6. ARTICLE XV Prevailing Rights
7. ARTICLE XV ARTICLE XVI - Term of Agreement
8. New Provision Disability Insurance For LEOFF II Employees
ISSUES, PROPOSALS, AND AWARD
The Arbitration Panel met to discuss and formulate the award on
the
basis for their position. A full
discussion on each issue was
undertaken
separately from the others with both partisans given an
opportunity
to provide comment and argument. The
discussion led to
the
formulation of an award for that issue.
The decision and award as
to
each particular issue is as follows:
1. WAGES: (Appendix A to Agreement)
PROPOSALS:
The Local has proposed an 8.5% increase, based on employees
base
salary.
The District has proposed a 3-1/2% increase for each con-
tract
classification.
DISCUSSION:
The panel held that although the
ers' wages were below those of most
Union's presentation, their
wages did compare more favorably to fire
fighters'
wages in other cities and districts identified by the Dis-
trict in its testimony. While both sides made strong arguments in
support
of their respective position on wages, the panel felt that the
Firefighters. It also held that the District's offer was
below that
necessary
to compensate for a reasonable cost of living and equity
adjustment.
AWARD:
The panel agreed to a five (5) percent wage increase effec-
tive
equally
to all job classifications within the bargaining unit. The
(
2. HOURS: (ARTICLE V, Section
2)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes 4 (four) additional Kelly Days, for a
total
of 6 per year.
The District proposes that the current contract language be
maintained.
DISCUSSION:
The
increase
the number of Kelly Days by four (4) .
The work week in the
14
shows the
average work week ranges between 42 and 56 hours. The
District's summary (Exhibit 5)
shows 11 of the 16 comparables had a 56
hour
work week and 3 had a 55 hour work week.
Both Exhibits
illustrate
that in many cases where a shorter work week exists
firefighters
in those communities received fewer paid holidays than
the 9
provided to
Exhibit indicated that where
fewer hours were worked, the shift
schedule
was more complex than that of the
fighters' 24/48 shift.
On this evidence, the panel felt that a
reduction
of the 55 hour work week by additional Kelly Days was not
warranted.
AWARD:
No additional Kelly Days awarded to
main
as it stands in current contract.
ARTICLE V
Hours
Section 2. Beginning
personnel,
except those who work a five day, forty hour week, will be
reduced
by having two shifts off (Kelly days) during each calendar
year. These days off will be scheduled at the
District's discretion.
3. OUT OF CLASS PAY: (ARTICLE
XI, Section 2)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that the qualifying shifts for out of
class
pay be reduced from 15 to 10 shifts, that E.M.T.'s
filling a
vacant
position on the Paramedic Truck be added to the out-of-class
schedule, and that captains, when working as the
shift-Battalion
Chief, be added to the
out-of-class schedule.
The District has proposed that this ARTICLE be deleted.
DISCUSSION:
The
reduce
the number of shifts to ten (10).
Evidence was introduced by
both
the
15 out of class shifts before
compensation was excessive. Testimony
at
the hearing gave further evidence of the frustration Firefighters
experienced
over this condition of employment.
AWARD:
The Bargaining Unit was awarded the reduction from 15 to 10
shifts
to qualify for out of class pay.
4. HOLIDAYS: (ARTICLE XII)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that there should be one additional holi-
day,
making a total of 10 paid holidays.
The District proposes that the number of-holidays recognized
in
the current contract be maintained.
DISCUSSION:
Both parties made reasonable arguments in support of their
position. And both parties presented, by way of
Exhibits, evidence in
support
of their argument. The panel had some
difficulty in determin-
ing the total paid hours from the
trict's Exhibit 5 converted the paid holidays in
paid holiday hours.
The panel feels that the nine
(9) paid holidays currently received is
reasonable. Furthermore, in the opinion of the panel, the
federal
holiday celebrating the
death of Dr. Martin Luther King to be
officially
recognized in January, 1986 is an issue that may be ad-
dressed
at a later time.
AWARD:
No additional holidays were awarded; number of holidays re-
cognized
in the current contract is to be maintained.
PAID HOLIDAYS: (ARTICLE XII)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that Section 2 of the current contract
apply
to all Union personnel.
The District proposes that Section 2 of the current contract
apply
only to shift personnel.
DISCUSSION:
The panel felt that a reduction in holiday premiums among
day
personnel to accommodate the District's position would be inequit-
able
to those two positions affected. Taking
any holiday premiums
which
have been paid for a number of years would require greater
justification
than was offered in the District's argument.
AWARD:
ARTICLE XII, Section 2 of the contract is to remain the un-
changed.
ARTICLE XII
Paid Holidays
Section
2. All personnnel shall
receive
holiday
pay in the amount of 1/20th of a fourth
year
firefighter's monthly salary for each of the
days
hereinafter noted as holidays and shall be
paid
whether or not said holiday falls on a work-
ing day, day off or within a vacation period.
Said holiddays
shall be; New
Year's Day, Washing-
ton's
Birthday, Easter, Memorial Day,
Day, Labor Day, Verteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day
and
Christmas.
yearly
on December 5th.
5. SICK LEAVE: (ARTICLE XXIV,
Section 1)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that the rate at which sick leave is
accrued
by L.E.O.F.F. II employees be raised from 12 hours per month
to
24 hours per month.
The District proposed that this ARTICLE remain unchanged.
DISCUSSION: Evidence was presented by the
mony and through Exhibit 8 supporting their
request to increase the
rate
by which sick leave is to accrue for L.E.O.F.F. II employees from
12 hours per month to 24 hours
per month. The panel found the weight
of
the
unable
to accummulate sick leave protection at the rate
comparable to
that
of L.E.O.F.F. I employees. The concerns regarding the potential
financial
burden voiced by the District were considered.
Yet, the
panel
found for the
AWARD:
The Local was awarded one full shift (24 hours per month)
sick
leave for L.E.O.F.F. II employees.
6. PREVAILING RIGHTS: (ARTICLE
XV, Section 1)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that ARTICLE XV, Section 1 of the current
contract
remain as is.
The District has proposed that Section 1 of this ARTICLE be
deleted.
DISCUSSION:
The District argued that Section 1 of ARTICLE XV which was
valuable
in the declaration and protection of employee rights in years
past
has lost its useful purpose and should therefor be
deleted from
the
contract. The District further felt that
employees' rights and
privileges
were addressed through other parts of the labor agreement.
The panel in its deliberations
found that removal of Section 1 may
lead
to confusion and misunderstanding regarding the rights and
privileges
of employees.
AWARD:
It was awarded that the language in ARTICLE XV, Section 1 of
the
current contract remain.
ARTICLE XV
Prevailing Rights and Management Rights
Section 1. Rights Retained Unaffected: All
rights
and privileges for personnel of the Dis-
trict at the present time which are not included
in
this agreement shall remain in force, unchanged
and
unaffected in any manner by this agreement.
7. TERM OF AGREEMENT: (ARTICLE
XVI)
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes the new contract be for a term of one
year.
The District has proposed that the new contract be for a
term
of 3 years, with negotiations allowed for wage increases only to
apply
to the 2nd and 3rd year of the agreement.
DISCUSSION:
The panel found this issue to be complex and frustrating.
The parties must have been
aware of their differences over the term of
the
agreement. Testimony by both parties
indicated an awareness of
the
District's interest in negotiating a three-year contract. Yet, no
evidence
beyond a wage proposal offering a 3% increase in the first
year
to reopen in years 2 and 3 on wages was presented.
The
tract
was never presented beyond the District's request for a three-
year
contract.
This leaves the panel with much confusion and some debate as
to
whether a three-year contract covering the issues was ever negoti-
ated.
Without evidence to substantiate the District's basis for
imposing a
three-year contract on the parties, the panel felt it was
not
at liberty to fashion a contract for more than one-year.
However, the panel recognizes the frustration experienced by
the
District in its effort to receive a multi-year agreement. The
panel
further feels that the parties have a primary obligation to con-
duct
their negotiations with a mutual and common understanding as to
the
term under which the contract is to be negotiated. For one party
to
negotiate on multi-year terms while the other party considers only
a
single year agreement can only lead to the deterioration of the
collective
bargaining process. Respect for the
bilateral process that
negotiations
foster as well as respect for each other behooves the
parties
to come to agreement on the length of the contract early in
their
negotiations and not defer such discussion to the arbitration
board.
We feel that a multi-year labor agreement is in the best
interest
of both the District and the
and
emotional, associated with annual collective bargaining and impass
are a
burden that neither party should have to bear.
Thus, we
encourage
the parties to make known, at the outset of negotiations,
the
terms of the agreement.
AWARD:
The Arbitrator stipulates that the term of the contract in
question
be limited to one-year
8. DISABILITY:
PROPOSALS:
The Local proposes that the District pay the $12.00 per
month
Disability Insurance Premiums, for all L.E.O.F.F. II employees.
The District has proposed that this new benefit should not
be
added to the contract.
DISCUSSION:
The panel carefully reviewed the arguments presented by both
parties
in this part of their testimony. The
District's argument that
L.E.O.F.F. II employees are
covered under the
ment's Compensation plan while L.E.O.F.F. I
employees were exempt has
merit. The District has incurred a significant
financial burden pro-
viding
Workmen's Compensation for L.E.O.F.F. II employees. Yet, the
exposure
for L.E.O.F.F. II employees is much greater than L.E.O.F.F. I
employees
evidenced by the testimony and accompanying Exhibit 26 of
Local
#676. In
our opinion, the differences between disability cover-
age
for L.E.O.F.F. I and L.E.O.F.F. II employees should be narrowed
with
the employee and the employer sharing the disability insurance
premium
cost.
AWARD:
The panel agreed that the District pay 1/2 (one-half) of the
Disability Insurance Premium,
up to and not exceeding $6.00 for all
L.E.O.F.F.
II employees. This
language to appear in a new ARTICLE
incorporated
into the agreement.
All eight issues being decided and awarded by the Arbitrator,
the
Hearing was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of
April, 1985.
/s/
Clay
S. Bleck
Impartial
Arbitrator and Chairman