International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 106
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 08420-I-90-00191
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
)
BETWEEN )
)
CITY OF
) PERC Case No.: 08420-I-90-191
and ) Date Issued:
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 106 )
________________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Otto G. Klein, III Employer
Member
Merlin
Halverson Union Member
Appearances:
Employer:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL NO. 106 James H. Webster
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION 1
Procedural Matters 1
Issues in Dispute 4
Statutory Criteria 5
Comparable Employers 6
Wages 24
Longevity 41
Driver Engineer Premium 42
Ambulance Driver Premium 43
Paramedic Premium/Longevity 45
Education Incentive 48
Parental Leave 49
Rescheduling of Holidays 51
Personnel Reduction 53
Paramedic Reassignment 54
II. INTEREST
ARBITRATION AWARD 55
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
BETWEEN )
CITY OF
)
and ) PERC Case No.: 8420-1-90-191
) Date Issued:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL )
NO. 106 )
_____________________________________ )
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, City of
Otto G. Klein, III, as its member of the
Panel and the
106, appointed Merlin Halverson 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 June 11 through 14,
1990 at
sented
by Bruce L. Disend,
Webster, Mrak and
Blumberg.
At
the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under oath and the parties
presented a substantial amount of
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.
After
the hearing, the parties held discussions in an
attempt
to reach settlement of some or all of the matters at
issue. At the parties' request, the Chairman met
with the
parties
in September in an attempt to help the parties to
settle some or all of the
issues. Thereafter, the parties
continued
discussions in an attempt to reach settlement.
Unfortunately, the parties were unable to
reach settlement
with respect to any of the issues
before the Arbitration
Panel, and, therefore, final posthearing briefs were
submitted
which were received by the Arbitrator on January
14, 1990. The parties agreed to waive the statutory
requirement
that the Chairman issue his decision within
thirty days following the conclusion
of the hearing.
The
Chairman reviewed the complete record in this case
(a stack of
documents over fourteen inches in height
consisting
of several thousand pages) and prepared a Draft
Decision which was mailed to each of the
other Panel Members
on
Panel Members met and had a full discussion
of the issues
which was very helpful to your
Chairman. Eased on the
record and my consultation with the
Panel, the following
constitutes
my findings of fact and determination of the
issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The
following issues were presented to the Panel for
arbitration:
1. Wages;
2. Longevity;
3. Driver/Engineer
Premium;
4. Ambulance
Driver Premium;
5. Paramedic
Premium/Longevity;
6. Education
Incentive;
7. Parental
Leave;
8. Rescheduling
of Holidays;
9. Personnel
Reduction; and
10. Paramedic
Reassignment.
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-
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 an~
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 United States.
However, when an
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 Washington against strikes by uniformed per-
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 Washington; that to promote such
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, hereinafter also
referred
to as comparators. Here, the Employer
and Union
have employed different methods in
selecting comparators
resulting
in different lists of comparable employers.
Unfortunately, the parties bargaining
history does not pro-
vide the Arbitration Panel with
assistance regarding appro-
priate
method for selecting comparators. Both
parties
agree, however, that during their
negotiations for the
Agreement submitted to arbitration here,
they did discuss
comparable
employers and determined that the range of compa-
rability
should be no greater than 100% above Bellingham nor
lower than 50% below
Bellingham. However, it does not
appear from the evidence or the
briefs of the parties that
the parties ever reached
agreement on the particular
criteria
to be employed in connection with the range limita-
tions
they had agreed upon.
The
Union proposes two separate sets or groups of
comparators. The Group 1 comparators were obtained by
using
the population of the City of
Bellingham for fire suppres-
sion
services, which population the parties agree at the
time of hearing was 47,290. A second criterion applied by
the Union relates to fire
department size based on the
number of full time paid employees
working in the fire
department,
which was 108. Thus, the Union, as I
understand
it, looked at all of the fire
departments in the State of
Washington and selected out those that came
within 100%
above and 50% below the population
of Bellingham and also
came within 100% above and 50%
below the number of full-time
paid employees working in the fire
department. This left a
list of twelve comparators, seven
of which are located in
King, Snohomish and Pierce counties.
The
Union also proposes what it refers to as a Group 2
set of comparators using again
population and number of
employees
in the fire department, but using a different
population
figure for Bellingham than was used in connection
with Group 1 employees. In this regard, the City of
Bellingham provides paramedic service not
only within the
City of Bellingham, as it does in connection
with fire
suppression
service, but also provides paramedic services
throughout
Whatcom County. Thus, what the Union did
in
connection
with selecting its Group 2 comparators was to
take the population of Whatcom
County, listed as 122,200,
subtract
the population of Bellingham, 47,290, leaving a
population
of 74,910. Because emergency medical
service
(EMS) responses amounted to 75% of the
department's response
activity,
the Union took 75% of the 74,910 population
located
outside the City of Bellingham which came to 56,182
as the effective service
population in the County. The
Union then added back the resident
population in Bellingham
to come up with a population for
comparison purposes of
103,472.
When
the same 100% plus and 50% minus range is applied
to population served in the
other comparators based on a
population
of 103,472 and to the number of employees in the
fire department, a list of seven
comparators remain. These
seven, Bellevue, Spokane Fire
District No. 1, King County
Fire District No. 39 (Federal Way), Clark
County Fire
District No. 5, Kent, Pierce County Fire
District No.2
(Lakewood) , and
Everett also appear as Group 1 comparators.
Of the seven comparators in Group 2, five
are located in
King, Snohomish or Pierce counties. The five comparators
which are included as a part of
Group 1 and not included as
part of Group 2 are Yakima,
Vancouver, Renton, Auburn and
Olympia.
The
Union takes the view that either Group 1 or Group 2
would satisfactorily serve as
comparators. However, the
Employer strongly objects to the use of
either group on
several
grounds. I find myself in agreement with
the
Employer that the comparators proposed by
the Union, whether
Group 1 or Group 2, are not appropriate
comparators pursuant
to the statutory criteria. Thus, RCW 41.56.460(c) (ii) pro-
vides for a comparison based on
"similar size." Similar
size has most frequently been
interpreted by arbitrators to
mean population served and not the
number of employees
employed
in the fire department. 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 department 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 United
States. There was no decision
or attempt by 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.
The
Union recognizes that the purpose for changing the
law in 1987 was, as I have
described in the paragraph
immediately
above, however, the Union takes the position
that number of employees in the
fire department was an
appropriate
parameter of employer size prior to 1987.
How-
ever, the Union has not supplied
evidence of the extent to
which such a parameter of employer
size was found to be
appropriate
by arbitrators. However, the Employer's
position
as set forth in 18 ARB 3-4 and the testimony of
Cabot Dow that number of personnel in the
fire department is
an infrequently used criterion
by arbitrators in connection
with "similar size"
comparisons is in accord with my
research
and experience as an Arbitrator.
Furthermore,
as a result of the Union using number of
employees
in the department as a criterion, a large number
of employers much closer in size
by population to Bellingham
than the ones selected by the
Union are eliminated from
consideration
as a comparator. Thus, if one reviews
the
Group 1 comparators, Bellingham is ninth out
of thirteen in
population
and the average population using the Union's
population
figures is approximately 31% higher than the
population
in Bellingham. The foregoing analysis is
based
on population served for fire
suppression. If population
served is based on fire suppression
plus the 75% formula
employed
by the Employer regarding EMS calls throughout
Whatcom County, then Bellingham has a higher
population than
all of the seven Group 2
comparators.
The
Employer objects to the use of any comparators
located
in the counties of King, Snohomish or Pierce on the
theory that those counties
constitute a separate and
distinct
labor market with a higher wage structure than is
found in Bellingham. The question of labor markets and its
applicability
to comparators is complex. It is true,
how-
ever, that arbitrators have looked
to considerations of
labor market either in helping to
shape the appropriate
comparators
or as an additional factor, "normally or tradi-
tionally
taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours and conditions of
employment," pursuant to
Subsection (f) of RCW 41.56.460.
The
Union recognizes considerations of labor market,
but points out that Bellingham,
located as it is in Whatcom
County, is not part of a labor market where
other firefight-
are employed. Thus, necessarily the Union points out,
Bellingham must be compared with comparators
located in
other labor markets in other parts
of the State. The Union
placed in evidence through the
testimony of its expert
witness
James J. Kilgallon certain evidence regarding the
comparability
of wages paid in Bellingham and Whatcom County
with those paid in King, Snohomish
and Pierce counties. The
Employer countered with the testimony of its
expert witness
David R. Knowles who put in substantial
evidence indicating
that the wage structure in King,
Snohomish and Pierce
counties
is higher than that paid in Bellingham and Whatcom
County.
It
is my conclusion after reviewing all of the testi-
mony
and documentary evidence discussed above, that it would
be improper to select a set of
comparators for Bellingham, a
majority
of which are located in King, Snohomish and Pierce
counties. Furthermore, I note that there are a
substantial
number of comparable employers much
closer in population
size to Bellingham than six of the
seven comparators
selected
by the Union which are located in King, Snohomish
or Pierce counties.
I
now turn to a consideration of the Employer proposed
comparators. The Employer selects five comparators as
appropriate,
namely, Clark County Fire District No. 5,
Olympia, Spokane Fire District No. 1,
Vancouver and Yakima.
The Employer selected these five comparators
because during
bargaining
these five comparators were both on the Union's
proposed
list of comparators and the Employer's proposed
list of comparators. The Union is correct in pointing out
that these five comparators were
not agreed upon by the
Union and the Employer but rather just
happened to be on the
list of comparators compiled by
each of the parties. The
Union further points out that the five
comparators on its
list which were also on the
Employer's list are the five
lowest paying employers of the
twelve comparators selected
by the Union in connection with
its Group 1 list, and,
therefore,
there clearly was no intent by the Union to reach
agreement
on these five as the appropriate comparators.
While
it is possible that five comparators may be
sufficient
in a situation where it is difficult to come up
with appropriate comparators,
there is no reason to limit
the comparators in this case to
only five. Furthermore, the
average
population of the five comparators for fire suppres-
sion
purposes, using the Employer's population figures, is
25.2% above that of Bellingham.
The
Employer appears to recognize that it is unlikely
that the Arbitrator would select
only five comparators as
most of its testimonial and
documentary evidence regarding
comparators
relates to the manner in which it chose addi-
tional
comparators. First, the Employer took
all compara-
tors
by population size with respect to population served
for fire suppression services
which met the 100% plus, 50%
minus range and came up with
forty-one comparators not
counting
the five comparators which appeared on both the
Employer and Union lists for a total of
forty-six compara-
tors. Clearly forty-six comparators
is too many.
Cabot
Dow testified that in his experience as a consul-
tant
representing public employers in Washington State in
labor relations matters, assessed
valuation was the second
most frequently used criterion in
determining comparators.
The testimony of Cabot Dow accords with my
experience as an
interest
arbitrator. Furthermore, the use of
assessed valu-
ation
as a secondary factor in determining comparability
simply makes sense in the context of
firefighter interest
arbitrations. The twin duties of a firefighter are to pro-
tect
persons and property. Thus, employers of
similar size
with respect to population and
assessed value may clearly be
said to be meeting the statutory
criteria of similar size as
it relates to firefighters.
When
the test of 100% plus and 50% minus with respect
to assessed valuation is applied
to the forty-six employers
that are within this range with
respect to fire suppression
population,
thirty-three comparators remain including the
five comparators which the
Employer considers to be the
appropriate
comparators. The Employer takes the
position
that thirty-three comparators are
too many and, thus, the
Employer determined to remove those
comparators located in
the King, Snohomish, Pierce
county labor market which left
eight comparators plus the
Employer's initial five for a
total of thirteen comparators. The Employer determined that
thirteen
comparators was still too many and, therefore, the
Employer determined to eliminate those
employers with fire
departments
that did not supply paramedic services.
When
this was accomplished, one
comparator was eliminated.
At
12 ARB 12, the twelve remaining comparators were
described
by the Employer as the addition of seven compara-
tors
to the five the parties "agreed to use" for a total of
twelve comparators which are:
Richland, Bremerton,
Kennewick, Clark County Fire District No. 6,
Kitsap County
Fire District No. 7, Spokane County Fire
District No. 9,
Thurston Fire County Fire District No. 3, as
well as the
original
five which are Olympia, Yakima, Vancouver, Clark
County Fire District No. 5 and Spokane
County Fire District
No. 1.
I
have previously concluded that the evidence does not
establish
an agreement between the Employer and Union to use
the five comparators as claimed
by the Employer. The Union
strongly
objects to the Employer's method of limiting addi-
tional
comparators by removing from consideration compara-
tors
otherwise appropriate except for the fact that they are
located
in King, Snohomish or Pierce counties.
While it may
be proper in appropriate
circumstances to limit considera-
tion
of comparators to those within the same labor market as
the employer at issue, Bellingham
is not located in a geo-
graphic
area that contains other potential comparators in
what might be described as a labor
market. Nor was the evi-
dence
presented sufficient to lump Bellingham in a sort of
"Washington State labor market,"
which takes in the entire
State but excludes King, Snohomish and
Pierce counties. The
fact that economists can track
common factors which impact a
work force in a particular
geographic area, such as, King,
Snohomish and Pierce counties, does not mean
that the
remainder
of the State should be considered as a separate
labor market with common economic
stimuli impacting in a
similar
fashion workers throughout the state.
While
it is true that Dr. Knowles' testimony indicates
that the wage structure in King
and Snohomish counties, and
to a lesser extent in Pierce
County, is higher than the wage
structure
in the rest of the State, there was also evidence
presented
by Union expert witness, Mr. Kilgallon, that both
the federal government and the
State of Washington for vari-
ous
purposes in connection with wages consider Bellingham
and Whatcom County to be
comparable to King, Snohomish and
Pierce counties. However, even leaving this evidence aside,
the evidence presented by Dr.
Knowles and the Employer
demonstrate
that there are differences between Bellingham
and Whatcom County on the one
hand and other areas of the
State, excluding King, Snohomish and Pierce
counties on the
other. Thus, for example, the Washington City and
County
Employee Salary and Benefit Survey for 1989
prepared by the
Washington Local Government Personnel
Institute lists the
monthly
salary for Fire Chief in Bellingham of $4,551 per
month which is approximately 5%
higher than the average of
seven employers listed under the
heading, "Other Labor
Markets." These employers are Bremerton, Kennewick,
Longview, Olympia, Richland, Vancouver and
Yakima.
Additionally,
a review of the Employer exhibit contain-
mg a map of the State of
Washington and entitled,
"Firefighter Top Step Salary As of December 31, 1989" shows,
for example, that while the top
step firefighter receives
$2,651 per month in Bellingham, the two
Spokane employers
listed, namely, Spokane Fire Districts
Nos. 1 and 9, pay an
average
of $2,466 per month to its top step firefighters,
leaving
Bellingham 7.5% above the average paid in those two
Eastern Washington fire districts. Furthermore, the same
exhibit
lists two fire districts in the Tri-Cities area,
namely, Richland and Kennewick, who
have an average top step
salary of $2,581 per month leaving
Bellingham with a top
step firefighter wage 2.7% above
that paid those Tri-Cities
comparators
in 1989.
Based
on all of the foregoing, I find in agreement with
the Union that elimination of all
comparators in King,
Snohomish and Pierce counties is
not appropriate. Since
your Chairman cannot accept either
the Union's method or the
Employer's method for producing appropriate
comparators,
your Chairman has determined to
arrive at appropriate
comparators
by the following method.
It
is clear that population served is generally consid-
ered
to be the most appropriate factor to employ in select-
mg comparators pursuant to the
statutory criteria laid out
in RCW 41.56.460(c)(ii). I determined to use population
served based on fire suppression
since less than one of four
of bargaining unit members are
involved in providing
paramedic service outside the City of Bellingham, and these
same fire fighters/paramedics provide
paramedic service
within the City of Bellingham. Furthermore, neither party
has provided figures for
population served including
paramedic
service for potential comparators, except for the
Union, which provided population served figures which
include
paramedic service in connection with its Group 2
comparators. As indicated previously, I rejected these
comparators
because of those within the range of 100% plus
and 50% minus, Bellingham has the
highest population served.
Recognizing
the parties' joint view implemented during
bargaining
that the range of 100% plus and 50% minus was
appropriate
for use in determining comparables, I used this
range in connection with population
served for fire suppres-
sion
services to begin the task of selecting appropriate
comparators. When the 100% plus and 50% minus range is
applied
to all of the comparators for which the parties pro-
vided wage and benefit data,
nineteen comparators remain.
Nineteen comparators appear to your
Arbitrator to be an
unduly burdensome number with
respect to data collection and
analysis
regarding wages and other terms and conditions of
employment.
Furthermore,
nineteen comparators, of course, repre-
sents
all of the comparators selected by either the Employer
or the Union. If I were to determine to use all of the
comparators
offered
by either party in absence of any agree-
ment
between the parties, I would, in effect, be encouraging
the parties to provide
comparators which favorably support
their view regarding the nature of
wages and benefits to be
ordered
pursuant to the arbitration. In view of
the forego-
mg, I determined then to employ
the second most used
criterion
in reducing the number of comparators, namely,
assessed
valuation. When this criterion is
applied, fifteen
potential
comparators remain and four, all of which have an
assessed
value in excess of 100% of Bellingham, are elimi-
nated,
namely, Bellevue, Kent, King No. 39 (Federal Way) and
Everett.
Fifteen
comparators is still too large a number of
comparators
for efficient data collection and analysis.
In
order to reduce the number of
comparators, I returned to the
primary
method of selecting comparators, namely, population
size and found that five of the
comparators had a greater
population
than Bellingham, while ten had a lower population
than Bellingham. I then determined that if I selected the
five comparators above Bellingham
in population and the five
comparators
below Bellingham in population, I would have a
list of ten comparators which
seems to me an appropriate
number and Bellingham would
constitute the median of the ten
comparators
plus Bellingham. The five above
Bellingham
(using the Employer
population figures) are: Spokane No. 1
(90~000), Pierce No. 2 (65,000), Clark No. 5
(80,000),
Yakima (50,610) and Kitsap No. 7 (50,000). While the five
immediately
below Bellingham are: Clark No. 6
(45,000),
Thurston No. 3 (45,000), Vancouver (44,450),
Renton (38,480)
and Bremerton (37,080).
When
one takes an average of the population of each of
these ten comparators one finds
that the average population
is 54,562 which is 15.4% above
the population in Bellingham.
Such a large difference in the average
population between
potential
comparators and Bellingham seems inappropriate.
This is particularly the case here where by
removing the
comparator
with the highest population, namely, Spokane No.
1, which has a population 90.3% above that
of Bellingham,
and substituting Kennewick
(36,880), the comparator with the
next highest population below that
of the tenth comparator,
Bremerton, the average population of the ten
comparators is
now only 4.1% above that of
Bellingham. Bellingham, now
although
no longer the median comparator, is still pretty
close to the middle as it jumps
from sixth out of eleven to
fifth out of eleven. Furthermore, a look at the secondary
criterion
of assessed value reveals that Bellingham is
within an appropriate range of the
ten selected comparators
with respect to this secondary
criterion. Thus, Bellingham
is fourth of eleven comparators
at 1,496,000,000 assessed
value which is only 7.1% above the
average assessed value of
the ten comparators, which is
1,397,000,000.
It
is also significant that the ten selected compara-
tors
are not unevenly weighted either toward the generally
higher paid areas, such as, King,
Snohomish and Pierce
counties
nor to the generally lower paid areas in Eastern
Washington.
Thus, of the ten comparators, two are located
in the King, Snohomish, Pierce
County area (Renton and
Pierce No. 2) , two
are located in Eastern Washington (Yakima
and Kennewick), and the remaining
six (Kitsap No. 7, Clark
No. 6, Thurston No. 3, Vancouver, Bremerton
and Clark No. 5)
are located in Western Washington
but outside King,
Snohomish or Pierce counties as is
Bellingham.
WAGES
The
parties agree on a three year term for the Agree-
ment
subject to this arbitration, which term shall run from
January 1, 1990 through December 31,
1992. The Union
proposes
across the board wage increases of 5% plus the
previous
year increase in the C?I All Cities West All Urban
Consumers Index effective at the beginning
of each year of
the three year Agreement. The Employer proposes that all
bargaining
unit employees be increased 6% effective January
1, 1990, 3% effective January 1, 1991, and
an additional 3%
effective
January 1, 1992. The Employer, assuming
an
increase
in the applicable CPI Index of approximately 4 to
4.5%, contends that the Union's request will
result in a 9
to 9.5% increase in each year of
the Agreement contrasted
with the Employer's proposed increase
of 6% in 1990 followed
by an additional 3% in 1991 and
again in 1992.
From
the foregoing, it is clear that the parties are
widely apart on what constitutes an
appropriate wage
increase. To a great extent this occurs due to the
parties
differences in
selecting appropriate comparators. I
have
already
explained in great detail the basis for my rejection
of each of the parties' selected
comparators and provided
the basis upon which I selected
comparators. The next ques-
tion
that must be answered is what is the appropriate basis
upon which to compare Bellingham
to the comparators with
respect
to the issue of wages. The parties have
supplied an
almost overwhelming amount of
data. After carefully review-
ing
all of this material, it seems to me that the most
appropriate
basis upon which to compare Bellingham to the
comparators
for purposes of determining the appropriate wage
increase
is to take the base salary of top step firefighter,
and then divide that salary by
the scheduled work hours less
the basic vacation time earned
and the holiday time off,
which leaves a figure representing
actual hours worked. The
top step firefighter in
Bellingham is a five year fire-
fighter
and the parties have provided the Arbitrator with
information
sufficient to compute actual hours worked
pursuant
to the above-described formula for a five year
firefighter
It
does not seem appropriate to me to mix benefits and
wages when reviewing comparators
for purposes of a wage
increase. For example, how much a particular employer pays
in premium for insurance
coverage has really only marginal
relevance,
if any, to a determination of an appropriate wage
increase. Furthermore it does not seem appropriate in
attempting
to ascertain a wage increase to include various
premiums
such as EMT pay or longevity when reviewing the
comparators. These are separate and additional benefits
and, in fact, both longevity and
paramedic longevity were
separately
certified as issues to be determined by the arbi-
tration
panel. I do not mean to imply that when
a particu-
lar
benefit is reviewed, an arbitrator is prohibited from
reviewing
other premiums and benefits provided in each of
the comparators. All I am saying here is that when
considering
the comparators in connection with a wage
increase an
~'apples to apples" comparison is most helpful.
It
could reasonably be argued that only base salary
should be compared since that is
what is at issue here.
However, such a comparison would ignore the
fact that a very
significant
aspect of monthly earnings is the number of
hours one has to work to earn that
monthly salary. Base
salary stays the same for all
journeyman firefighters as
does holiday time off. Vacation benefits do vary based on
longevity,
and, therefore, in computing actual hours.worked,
I have selected the five year firefighter
who earns, gener-
ally speaking, the basic vacation
benefit. Set forth below
is a chart listing the
comparators selected for this pro-
ceeding
along with their hourly rate from highest to lowest:
Chart
No. 1 Hourly Rate
Renton $16.47
Clark
No. 5 $14.57
Thurston
No. 3
$14.47
Vancouver $14.44
Pierce
No. 2 $14.36
Yakima $13.59
Bellingham $13.24
Bremerton $12.96
Kennewick $12.82
Kitsap
No. 7 $12.49
Clark
No. 6 $12.08
Average
Hourly Rate: $13.83
Percent
above
In
compiling the figures set forth in the chart above,
I reviewed the updated Employer data
appearing at Tab 15 and
Tab 16 of the Union's brief which material
listed the rele-
vant
information for both the Employer and Union proposed
comparators. I then made the same computations using the
updated
Union data appearing at Tab 1 of the Union brief
with respect to the five
comparators for which the Union had
provided
information. The difference with respect
to four
of the five comparators for
which the Union had figures was
only one or two cents. This difference was apparently based
on the manner in which each
party determined to round
fractions
in determining hours worked.
The
only difference of any significance related to
Clark No. 5 where the Union showed the top
firefighter pay
as $2,986 and the Employer at
both Tab 15 and Tab 16 showed
the base salary for five year
firefighters as $3,031. When
one adds to $2,986 the EMT pay of
$44.79 and rounds that off
to $45, the resulting figure is
$3,031. Since I had deter-
mined to use base salary without
any premiums in making a
wage comparison, I used the $2,986
figure for Clark No. 5
other than the change regarding
Clark No. 5, described
above, all computations were based
on the information
provided
by the Employer at Tab 15 and Tab 16 of the Union
brief in order that a consistent
methodology with respect to
rounding
would be followed.
It
should also be pointed out that in compiling the
actual hours worked figure for use
in my hourly rate compu-
tation,
I did not use the weighted averaged suggested by the
Employer. In this regard, I note that Bellingham is
unique
among both the Employer and Union
suggested comparators
regarding
providing for a different number of hours worked
for firefighters on the one hand
and paramedics on the
other. Furthermore, in 1989, the year used for
comparing
hourly rates for this arbitration,
Bellingham, with a
bargaining
unit of approximately 94 employees, employed only
twenty-one
on the shorter work schedule.
Additionally, I
note the testimony of Fire Chief
Jay Gunsauls who testified
that the firefighters performing
paramedic work were
provided
with a shorter work week because, in the Employer's
view, it was necessary to reduce their
work week in order to
"extend their
ability to continue to perform." (Tr.,
p. 650.)
The same reasoning caused the Employer, beginning
in 1990, to similarly reduce the
hours of each of the eight
firefighters
who were assigned as permanent ambulance
drivers
and, who in that position, were assigned to
accompany a
paramedic on the same ambulance and thus were
exposed
to the same workload.
Finally,
I note the testimony of Chief Gunsauls regard-
mg a change that was agreed upon
during the current negoti-
ations
which will provide a $280 premium to paramedics in
each of the five contractual pay
steps for the purpose of
enhancing
recruitment into the paramedic program.
Thus, as
I understand it, the parties have agreed
that all paramedics
will receive a $280 a month
premium over what is earned by
firefighters
in the same step on the pay scale and will only
have to work a 47 hour week rather
than a 51.5 hour week
worked by firefighters. Thus, although the reduced work
schedule
provided paramedics constitutes a significant
benefit,
the final base wage to be paid paramedics has been
left by the parties to a
determination of the appropriate
base wage for firefighters. I also note that the Union is
seeking
an increased premium for those firefighters assigned
as ambulance drivers on a
permanent basis. In view of all
of the foregoing, it is
appropriate to use the hours worked
by firefighters with respect to
a comparison of the hourly
rate paid in Bellingham vis-a-vis the hourly rate paid in
the comparators.
A
review of the appropriate comparators reveals that
although
Bellingham is fifth of eleven including Bellingham
in population and fourth of
eleven with respect to assessed
value, it is seventh of eleven in
base hourly wage.
Furthermore, the average hourly rate paid by
the comparators
of $13.83 is 4.5% above the
$13.24 paid in Bellingham.
Furthermore, the median paid among the
comparators is $13.98
which is 5.6% above the $13.24 paid
in Bellingham.
As
both parties recognize, one of the statutory
criterion
to be examined by the Arbitration Panel is set
forth in RCW 41.56.460(d) regarding
the average consumer
prices for goods and services
commonly known as the cost of
living. The Union takes the view that the appropriate
index
is the Consumer Price Index for
Pacific Cities All Urban
Consumers, Class Size A, which covers cities
1,250,000 and
over. The Union presents at Tab 18 of its brief a
table
showing
that between July 1990 and July 1989 and between
June 1990 and June 1989, that Index
increased 5%. The
Employer's position, as I understand it, is
that if the
Pacific Cities Index is to be considered,
then the appropri-
ate class size is West Size Class
C which covers cities
between
50,000 to 330,000. The table supplied by
the Union
at Tab 18 also shows a 5% increase
between July 1990 and
July 1989 in this class size but only 4.3%
increase between
June 1989 and June 1990.
Neither
party has supplied sufficient information
regarding
the Pacific Cities Index for your Arbitrator to
make relevant historical comparisons
which are appropriate
in connection with the various
arguments of the parties
regarding
the significance to be accorded various changes in
the CPI. Therefore, your Arbitrator has relied on the
index
often used in interest arbitrations
in the State of
Washington, namely, the Seattle area
CPI-U. These figures
are readily attainable in the BNA
service subscribed to by
your Arbitrator.
The
Employer makes two major arguments regarding the
effect of the CPI. First, that wages paid to Employer fire-
fighters
have historically exceeded the rate of inflation as
measured
by the CPI. The first question that must
be asked
in connection with this
contention by the Employer is, what
date should be used as the
beginning date when making an
historical
comparison. I note that the only
interest arbi-
tration
between the parties covered the years 1977 and 1978.
That arbitration award mandated certain
salary increases for
the years 1977 and 1978. Thus, it has been since 1979 that
the parties have established wage
rates based on collective
bargaining
free of any mandated settlement. The
yearly
average
for the Seattle area CPI-U for 1979 was 216.3.
When
that figure is converted to
the.1982-84 base, the resulting
index figure 71.0. Comparing that figure to the 1989 year
average
for the Seattle area CPI-U, which was 118.1, the
difference
is 66.3%. However, the top step base
salary in
Bellingham in 1989 of $2,651 is 81.9% above
the 1979 top
step in base in Bellingham of
$1,457. Thus, during a
relevant
historical period in Bellingham, firefighters have
received
raises in excess of the cost of living as measured
by the CPI.
Secondly,
the wage increases provided firefighters dur-
mg the 1987-89 contract period
just about kept pace with
the CPI. Thus, the base salary in 1986 for a top step
fire-
fighter
was $2,405 and by 1989 it had risen to $2,651 for a
10.2% increase. The increase in the Seattle area CPI-U
between
1986 and 1989, using the year average figures again
and adjusting for the 1982-84
base which was imposed in
1987, is 10.7% (325.2 times 0.3280421 equals 106.7
compared
to year average 1989 of 118.1.)
The
Employer also contends and your Chairman agrees
that is appropriate to consider
internal equity with other
bargaining
unit workers, particularly police. The
base
salary for a police officer in 1989
was $2,788 which is
83.2% above the base salary for a police
officer in 1979
which was $1,522. since, as indicated
earlier, firefighter
base salary has increased 81.9%
during that period, the
historical
trend indicates similar increases for police
officers
and firefighters. This trend is
confirmed by the
increases
police received during the period 1987 through
1989.
Thus, in 1986, police officers received a base
monthly
wage of $2,540 and their base of $2,788 in 1989 is
an increase of 9.8% which is
very close to the 10.2%
increase
in base earned by firefighters during the same
period.
The
Employer placed in evidence an Exhibit entitled,
"City of Bellingham 1990 Fire
Arbitration, increas2 (sic)
June 8, 1990" which lists the top step
firefighter base wage
in 1989 and 1990 for various
comparators. of
the ten
comparators
selected by your Chairman, there is a 1990
figure for all but Clark No. 6,
Thurston No. 3 and Yakima.
I checked the base salaries for 1989 against
the information
supplied
in Tab 15 and Tab 16 of the Union's brief and found
that two of the three are
different. Renton is listed as
$2,977 but the updated base salary in 1989
as listed at Tab
15 is $2,963, and Clark No. 5 is listed as
$2,898 but the
actual base salary figure as d&scribed earlier in this
Opinion for Clark County No. 5 is
$2,986. These are small
differences,
however, there is a large difference with
respect
to Kitsap No. 7 which is listed as $2,702, but is
listed in Tab 16 as having a base
salary of $2,573. Thus,
in computing the average raise
between 1989 and 1990, I did
not count Kitsap No. 7. The average increase for the six
remaining
comparators using the updated and corrected
figures
for Renton and Clark No. 5 is 4.3% with the range of
raises running from 4% in Kennewick
to 6.6% in Vancouver.
The
evidence indicates that the Bellingham firefighters
have the respect and goodwill of
the community they serve in
handling
an increasing volume of work. These
firefighters
are entitled to receive pay which
is on a par with the
comparators. In this regard, it is not contended that such
a raise is beyond the
Employer's ability to pay.
If
one takes the 1990 top step base salary figure for
each of the six comparators that I
used in compiling the
average
increase of 4.3%, namely, Pierce No. 2, Renton,
Bremerton, Clark No. 5, Kennewick and
Vancouver, and then
applies a
4.3% increase to the 1989 top step base salary
figure for the remaining four
comparators, Clark No. 6.,
Kitsap No. 7, Thurston No. 3 and Yakima, one
finds that the
average
top step base salary for the ten comparators is
$2,868. A chart listing the top step base salary for
the
ten comparators for 1990 computed
in the manner described
above appears below:
Chart
No. 2 -
Top
Step Base Salary of Comparators for 1990
Pierce
No. 2 $3,111
Renton $3,108
Clark
No. 5 $3,019
Vancouver $2,930
Yakima ($2,791 x 4.3%) $2,911
Bremerton $2,814
Kennewick $2,747
Kitsap
No. 7 ($2,573 X 4.3%) $2,684
Thurston
No.3 ($2,572 x 4.3%) $2,683
Clark No. 6 ($2,561 x 4.3%) $2,671
Average
salary of comparators for 1990: $2,868
When
one takes into account that Bellingham was approx-
imately
4.5% behind the comparators in 1989 and that the
comparators
had an average increase of approximately 4.3%
between
1989 and 1990, then a raise in the neighborhood of 8
to 9% would bring Bellingham in
line with the average of the
comparators. Since a raise of 8 to 9% is a considerable
raise and larger than any provided
to the six comparators
for which we have information
with respect to 1990, it
appears
to me appropriate to provide a raise at the low end
of the range, namely, eight
percent (8%) A raise of 8%
would provide a top step Bellingham
firefighter with a
monthly salary
of $2,863 which is only five (5) dollars
below the average salary for 1990
of $2,868. Furthermore,
it would place Bellingham sixth
of the eleven comparators
including
Bellingham and just about at the mid point between
fifth place Yakima (assuming a 4.3%
raise in 1990) and
seventh
place Bremerton. I also note that by the
end of
1990, the base salary for a top step police
officer will be
$2,955 which is 3.2% above the $2,863
monthly salary I
propose
for by the top step firefighter during 1990.
With
respect to 1991, it does seem appropriate to
provide
the firefighters with an increase in line with the
cost of living in order to
maintain their salary vis-a-vis
the comparators. However, the Employer strongly objects to
the placement of a cost of living
clause in the agreement
pointing
out that at least since one was ordered by the
Arbitration panel in 1978, no such clause
has appeared in
the parties' agreements. The reason that cost of living
clauses
are ordered by arbitration panels is that often
there is precious little other
evidence to use in determin-
mg the wages to be paid in the
second and third year of a
collective
bargaining agreement. In the instant
case, there
appears
to be sufficient evidence regarding the cost of
living during the 1989-90 period
which would ordinarily be
looked at in determining an
appropriate wage increase for
the following year, namely, 1991.
From
the evidence regarding the applicable consumer
price indexes, it appears that a
raise in 1991 in the 4 to
5% neighborhood would be sufficient to
maintain the status
of Bellingham firefighters vis-a-vis the comparators.
In
light of the fact that raises
provided firefighters in
Bellingham have historically been greater
than the increase
in the cost of living, it seems
appropriate to provide a
raise in 1991 at the low end of the
relevant cost of living
figures. Therefore, the raise for 1991 shall be four
percent
(4%) . A 4% increase on the base wage of
$2,863 for
1990 equals $2,978. According to an Employer supplied
exhibit,
"Pay Grade 29 Comparison," the
top step police
officer
will receive a monthly base of $3,103 in 1991 and,
thus, the police officers will be
4.2% ahead of the fire-
fighters
in 1991. This is a very similar
percentage differ-
ence
to that in effect in 1979 which was the year I selected
as the appropriate year to begin
the historical comparison.
In 1979, the police officers were 4.5% ahead
of the fire-
fighters.
With
respect to the third year of the Agreement, 1992,
one might ordinarily order a cost
of living increase based
on the semi-annual average year
to year percentage change
between
1990 and 1991 in the Seattle area.
However, I am
sympathetic
to the Employer's desire not to have a CPI
clause in the Agreement in view of
the bargaining history
between the
parties excluding such a clause.
Furthermore,
the BNA service does have year to
year comparisons for the
All Cities Index as current as between April
of 1991 and
April of 1990. The CPI-U had increased 4.9% during that
period while the CPI-W has increased
4.7%. The percentage
increase
for both indexes has been on a downward trend over
the past six months. In these circumstances and recognizing
that on a compound basis,
firefighters during the first two
years of the Agreement received a
12.3% increase, it appears
appropriate
to me to order an additional four percent (4%)
in the third year bringing
firefighter top step base salary
to $3,097.
As
I understand the proposals of both parties, the
percentage
increases determined appropriate by the Panel
would be applied to each step on
the salary schedule with
respect
to firefighters. Drivers/Engineers are
subject to a
separate
premium which would then be added to the wage rate
at each step to determine the
wage for the Driver/Engineer.
With respect to the Firefighter/Paramedic,
it is my under-
standing
that the parties have agreed upon a $280 premium
which would be added to the
firefighter wage at each step of
the salary schedule. Finally, with respect to Captains,
Inspectors and paramedic Supervisors, it is
my understanding
that both parties agree that the
same percentage increase
that is applied to firefighters is
to be applied to these
employees
at each step of the salary schedule.
LONGEVITY
The
Union proposal, as I understand it, is twofold.
First, the Union proposes to eliminate the
grandfather
longevity
provisions contained at Section 2 of Article 33 of
the 1987-89 agreement so that all
firefighters with twenty
years of service would receive the
same longevity premium of
$175 per month. Secondly, the Union proposes that two
additional
longevity steps be added to the Agreement so
that a firefighter will receive
$275 per month longevity
premium
at twenty-five years and $400 per month longevity
premium
at thirty years.
After
a discussion of this matter by the Panel in which
your Chairman indicated his
inclination to reject the
Union's additional longevity steps proposal,
the Panel
agreed that the Chairman's
determination should be current
contract
language with respect to both Union proposals.
DRIVER/
ENGINEER PREMIUM
Presently
firefighters performing the work of and
classified
as Driver/Engineers receive a $50 premium above
the applicable firefighter
pay. The Union wishes to
increase
this premium so that it will rise to $60 in 1990,
$80 in 1991 and $100 per month in 1992. Additionally, fire-
fighters
assigned on per shift basis to work out of classi-
fication
as a Driver/Engineer presently receive a premium of
$2 per shift. The Union proposes to raise this premium to
$3 per shift in 1990, $4 per shift in 1991
and $5 per shift
in 1992.
The
Union points to certain increased responsibilities
of firefighter performing the
work of a Driver/Engineer as
well as the fact that the $50
premium has been eroded by
increases
in the cost of living since it was last adjusted
in 1979.
The
Employer opposes any increase in Driver/Engineer
premium
pointing out that the Driver/Engineer is not a civil
service
position but is a position which is awarded to fire-
fighters
on the basis of seniority rather than on the basis
of a competitive examination or
distinct set of qualifica-
tions. Furthermore, none of ten comparators provides
a
Driver/Engineer premium.
In
view of the foregoing, I find that there is a
insufficient
basis upon which to recommend the Union's
proposal
and, therefore, it is rejected.
AMBULANCE DRIVER PREMIUM
Presently
employees other than paramedics assigned to
ambulance
duty receive a premium of $2 per twelve hour
shift. The Union proposes that those firefighters
filling
in as acting EMT drivers should
receive $5 per twelve hour
shift. Furthermore, the Union proposes that a
firefighter
who is regularly assigned as a
firefighter EMT driver should
receive a
$100 per month premium pay. In support
of its
position,
the Union points to the testimony Jerry Stougard
who serves as a firefighter EMT
driver. According to
Stougard,
an ambulance driver (EMT) in Bellingham is differ-
ent
from an ambulance driver in "other jurisdictions" in
that in "most places medic
units operate with two paramedics
on board." (Transcript, p. 143.) As I understand the
situation,
since January 1, 1990, the Employer has
determined
to assign on a permanent basis particular
firefighters
to work alongside a paramedic on an ambulance
because
of an increase in workload and the difficulty the
Employer has had in recruiting
paramedics. Prior to January
1, 1990, firefighters were assigned as
ambulance drivers
only on a temporary basis.
The
Employer opposes any increase in the ambulance
driver premium and also objects to
the monthly premium for a
firefighter
regularly assigned as an ambulance driver since
this proposal was not among those
Union's proposals certi-
fied
by the public Employment Relations Commission for arbi-
tration. In response, the Union points out that it did
not
learn that firefighters were being
permanently assigned as
ambulance
driver until after mediation had concluded.
In
opposing the Union proposal on its merits, the
Employer points to the fact that
firefighters who are
regularly
assigned as ambulance drivers will be provided
with the same 47 hour work week as
paramedics instead of the
51.5 hour work week assigned to firefighters
and that
firefighters
who fill in for permanently assigned ambulance
drivers
will continue to receive compensatory time at one
hour per twelve hour shift, which
compensatory time is
subject
to a cash out at the end of the year.
Furthermore,
the Employer points to the fact
that none of the ten
comparators
pays any premium for ambulance drivers.
I
note that the extent to which ambulance drivers are
required
to accompany a paramedic in Bellingham vis-a-vis in
other jurisdictions is not clear
from the record. While
your Chairman was very impressed
with the testimony of Jerry
Stougard
regarding the importance of the work of the EMT, I
do not feel that at the present
time an additional premium
structure
or amount should be imposed. In this
regard, I
note in particular the fact that
the assignment of fire-
fighters
on a permanent basis as ambulance drivers was only
recently
begun and a significant new benefit was provided,
namely, a reduction in hours
worked. However, if it turns
out the Employer continues on a
regular basis to operate its
ambulances
with one paramedic and one permanently assigned
ambulance
driver, then it would be appropriate for the
parties
to consider whether the nature of the work being
performed
warrants an addition premium.
Based
on all the foregoing, the Union's proposal is
rejected.
PARAMEDIC
PREMIUM/LONGEVITY
The
Union makes three proposals under this subject
heading. First, that paramedics be allowed to retain
their
premium
pay regardless of the position they are filling
after leaving that assignment as
long as they maintain their
certification. secondly, that
paramedics retain paramedic
longevity
pay after ten year certification regardless of the
position
they are filling or whether or not they retain
their certification. Finally, the Union proposes various
increases
to the Article 31 Longevity Pay Schedule.
The
Employer opposes any change in paramedic premium or
longevity
as none of the comparators provide a separate
paramedic
longevity schedule or provide that a paramedic may
retain premium pay after
reassignment. However, the
Employer admits that paramedics are busier
during their duty
shifts than fire suppression
personnel, but the Employer
contends
that paramedics are sufficiently compensated for
this difference. The Employer does admit that it is had
difficulty
recruiting paramedics, but points out that it has
recently
hired eight new people and placed them in the
paramedic
program with the hope that at least four of the
eight will complete training and
become paramedics.
Chief
Gunsauls testified that he believes some middle
ground could be worked out with
respect to the Union's
longevity
benefit increase proposal provided that the
employee
continues to perform paramedic work and is not
returned
to firefighter status. While Chief Gunsauls made
clear, as he had in connection with
several other Union pro-
posals,
that any middle ground had to be taken in the
context
of an overall proposal, it is my view that although
a substantial increase was
provided fire suppression people
by this Award, the Employer
would be well served to provide
paramedics
with an increased longevity premium in order to
encourage
both recruitment of paramedics and paramedic
longevity. As the Employer recognizes, paramedics have
been
performing a
large volume of work with significant stress.
I
have determined to provide an increase in the
paramedic
longevity schedule equal to one fifth of that
proposed
by the Union with respect to each longevity step
included
in the Union's proposal. The Union made
no
specific
request for a separate increase to the longevity
step "after 8 years. I have left this step at $60, which
fits appropriately between the $41
figure for "after 5
years" and the $91 figure for
"after 10 years. While I
realize
that the setting of this wage rate is somewhat
arbitrary,
I do believe that the Union has presented suffi
cient
evidence to require some increase in the paramedic
compensation. A chart setting forth the new paramedic
longevity
schedule is set forth below:
AFTER FROM TO
2
years $16 $18
3
years $26 $29
4
years $32 $37
5
years $32 $41
8
years $60 $60
10
years $82 $91
15
years $82 $101
The
proposals
are rejected.
EDUCATION
INCENTIVE
This
issue relates to the
of 1% of base pay for employees
who are certified to perform
cardiac
defibrillation. The
of 2% of base pay for employees
holding intravenous airway
certification. At the time of the hearing, The Employer had
not implemented either a cardiac
defibrillation program or
an intravenous airway
certification program, and, therefore,
it appears premature to consider
these premiums at this
time. The Union proposal is rejected.
PARENTAL LEAVE
The
current Agreement does not contain a parental leave
provision. The City's policy regarding parental leave
permits
six weeks disability leave in the postpartum period
plus three calendar months leave
using accrued vacation
leave, compensatory time and then
leave without pay for a
total of four and one-half months
leave. As I understand
the Employer's policy, any
additional leave is discre-
tionary. The four and one-half months of leave is also
available
for paternity leave as well as maternity leave,
but the sick leave usage is
limited to one week.
The
the use of sick leave, vacation
leave and compensatory time
followed
by a ninety day unpaid leave of absence with the
right to an immediate return to
work. The
that the parental leave provision
provide that a female
firefighter
be allowed up to two years of unpaid leave of
absence
with the right to return to duty when there is a
vacancy.
Although
the
of female firefighters, it has
expanded its proposal to
include
male firefighters because of the Employer's position
which, as I understand it, is that
the City is prohibited by
law from allowing parental leave
for females only. Clearly,
the impact on the department
would be much greater if a
parental
leave provision of the type suggested by the
were applied to male firefighters
as well as female fire-
fighters. I note that the evidence presented indicates
that
the parties engaged in very
little collective bargaining
regarding
the subject of parental leave. A review
of the
comparators
provided by the Employer reveals a myriad of
parental
leave provisions.
In
my view, the concerns of the Union regarding the
ability
of female firefighters to choose to have children
and resume their career as
firefighters are significant.
Furthermore, the concerns of the Employer
regarding schedul-
ing
if the
ers
is also a legitimate concern. I also
note the testimony
of personnel Director Kathryn Hanowell which revealed that
there are ambiguities related to
the application of the
Employer parental leave policy.
In
view of all of the foregoing and the fact that the
to date regarding the pregnancy
leave provision, I have
determined
to order the following:
1. A rejection of the Union proposal; and
2. The establishment of a high level joint
labor-
management
committee to review parental leave policy and
devise recommendations for
appropriate contract language for
inclusion
in the agreement which will commence January 1,
1993.
RESCHEDULING OF HOLIDAYS
Presently
Article 24 of the Agreement provides that
holiday
time off will be rescheduled if an employee becomes
sick or injured while off on
holiday time and that holiday
time off will also be rescheduled
for sickness and injuries
which occur before and extend into
previously scheduled
holiday
time off. The Employer proposes to
remove these
provisions
from the Agreement and have the Agreement provide
instead
that holiday time off shall not be rescheduled for
sickness
or injury. The
proposed
change.
In
support of its provision, the Employer points to the
fact that no other employees
working for
opportunity
to reschedule their holidays if they are sick or
injured
on a holiday including police officers.
The
Employer also contends that a review of the
comparators will
support
its position. However, my review of the
Employer
Exhibit entitled, "Department Policies:
Rescheduling of
Holidays for Illness leads me to conclude that with respect
to the ten comparators I have
selected, four comparators do
not have applicable holiday
provisions, three have provi-
sions
somewhat similar to the current provision in
holidays.
Additionally,
there was disputed testimony regarding
the cost to the Employer of
rescheduling holidays, particu-
larly
as to whether the Employer is required to pay overtime
as a result of holiday
rescheduling. In any event, it is
clear that some cost either in time
off or money, or both
results
from the holiday rescheduling provision.
In
the view of your Chairman, it simply does not make
sense to allow employees the
opportunity to reschedule
holidays
off due to illness or injury, particularly in view
of the fact that no other
employees at the Employer have
such a privilege.
Based
on all of the foregoing, I see no basis upon
which to continue the holiday
rescheduling provision, and,
therefore,
the Employer's proposal shall be adopted.
PERSONNEL REDUCTION
Presently
Article 19 provides that in the event the
City decides to reduce fire department
personnel, the
employee
with the least seniority shall be laid off first or
reduced
in rank first in accordance with civil service
procedures. The Employer proposes to change Article 19 to
provide
an exception, "that the City shall be allowed to
retain, out of seniority order,.sufficient numbers of
paramedics
to meet the needs of its emergency medical
services
program."
The
Employer also takes the position that prior to the
Washington Supreme Court's ruling in Rose v.
Erickson, 106
Wn.2d 420 (1986) it in effect could lay off
out of seniority
order to protect paramedics in
accordance with Civil Service
Rules pursuant to the language of Article
19.
The
Employer admits that it has not found a situation
where it was required to layoff
paramedics pursuant to
Article 19. Furthermore, the Employer admits that a
review
of the comparators does not
support its position. Should a
situation
arise where layoffs become necessary, there is
nothing
in the record to suggest that the
work collaboratively with the
Employer to ensure the
continuing
operation of the paramedic program. In
this
regard, the evidence indicated that
the
with the Employer during bad
economic times, most recently
accepting a
wage freeze in 1987 rather than facing layoffs.
Based
on all of the foregoing, I find that the Employer
has not established a sufficient
basis upon which its
proposal
should be adopted, and, therefore, it is rejected.
PARAMEDIC
REASSIGNMENT
Presently
the Agreement does not contain any language
regarding
paramedic reassignment. The Employer
proposes the
following
language:
Except
for emergency situations involving serious
medical
condition or other circumstances deemed appro-
priate
by the Chief, employees must give six months
notice
of intent to request reassignment out of
paramedic
duties.
The
Employer states that under present practice
paramedics
have no contractual obligation to give advance
notice of reassignment
requests. However, neither party has
pointed
to any provision in the Agreement which requires the
Employer to reassign paramedics to fire
suppression upon
request. Furthermore, the Employer has not submitted
any
evidence
indicating that the absence of the type of
provision
it here proposes has caused it any problem in the
past.
A
review of provisions regarding paramedic request for
reassignment
at the comparators is inconclusive as there are
a variety of provisions.
Based
on all of the foregoing, your Chairman finds that
the Employer has not established
a sufficient basis upon
which its proposal should be
granted, and, therefore, it is
rejected.
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
It
is the award of your Chairman that:
I. Wages
A. Effective January 1, 1990, firefighters
shall
receive
an eight percent (8%) increase in monthly base
salary. Such increase to be applied to Steps A
through E
for firefighters and to Steps A
through E for Captain,
Inspector,
and Paramedic Supervisor.
B. Effective January 1, 1991, firefighters
shall
receive a
four percent (4%) increase in monthly base salary
to be applied in the manner as
described in Subparagraph A,
above.
C. Effective January 1, 1992, firefighters
shall
receive a
four percent (4%) increase in monthly base salary
to be applied as described in
Subparagraph A, above.
II. Paramedic
Premium/Longevity
A. Paramedic longevity increases shall be
granted
as reflected at page 48 of the
attached Opinion.
B. The
proposals
are rejected.
III. Parental
Leave
A. The
B. The parties shall establish a high level
joint
labor-management
committee to review parental leave policy
and devise recommendations for
appropriate contract language
for inclusion in the Agreement to
commence
IV. Union
Proposals Rejected
The
following
four issues are rejected:
a. Ambulance Driver Premium;
b. Driver/Engineer Premium;
c. Education Incentive; and
d. Longevity.
V. Rescheduling of Holidays
The
Employer's proposal to remove from the Agreement
the provisions of the Article 24
relating to the reschedul-
ing
of holidays when an employee is sick or injured during
holiday
time off is accepted.
VI. Employer Proposals Rejected
The
Employer proposals in connection with the
following
two issues are hereby rejected.
a. Personnel Reduction; and
b. Paramedic Reassignment.
Dated:
Michael
H. Beck
Neutral
Chairman