International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local 2459
And
King County Fire Protection
District No. 16
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06970-I-87-00164
Employer:
King County Fire Protection District #16
Date Issued:
In the Matter of Arbitration )
between )
)
KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT )
NO. 16 )
) PERC Case No.
and ) 6970-I-87-164
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE )
FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 )
___________________________________________ )
Dated Issued:
INTEREST
ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael
H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Rex
H. Lindquist Union
Member
Cabot
Dow Employer
Member
Appearances:
KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
NO. 16 W.
Mitchell Cogdill
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE
FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 William
L. Williams
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION......................................................................1
PROCEDURAL
MATTERS............................................................................1
ISSUES IN
DISPUTE.....................................................................................3
STATUTORY
CRITERIA.................................................................................3
COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS........................................................................5
TERM OF AGREEMENT..
.............................................................................15
WAGES............................................................................................................16
Union
Proposal.....................................................................................16
Employer
Proposal...............................................................................17
PREMIUM
PAY................................................................................................30
HOLIDAYS........................................................................................................31
HOURS OF DUTY............................................................................................32
OVERTIME.......................................................................................................33
II. AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN................................................................36
In the Matter of Arbitration )
between )
)
KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT )
NO. 16 )
) PERC Case No.
and ) 6970-I-87-164
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE )
FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2459 )
)
___________________________________________ )
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, King County Fire
Protection
District No. 16, (
of
the panel, and the
Fire Fighters, Local 2459,
appointed Rex Lindquist as its
member of
the panel. In turn, these two members
selected
the
undersigned to serve as Neutral Chairman of the panel.
A hearing in this matter was held on March 15 and 16,
1988
in
by
William L. Williams, Attorney at Law, and the
represented by
W. Mitchell Cogdill of the law firm Cogdill,
Deno, Millikan
& Carter. At
the hearing the testimony of
witnesses
was taken under oath and the parties presented
documentary
evidence. A court reporter was present
and made
a
record of the proceedings, but the record was not
transcribed
for use by the Neutral Chairman (hereinafter
Chairman). By letter dated
informed
the Chairman that the parties would submit
posthearing briefs.
The last such brief was received by the
Chairman on
required to
rule on a posthearing motion. The record in
this
matter was closed on the date of that ruling, May 31,
1988.
At the request of the Chairman, the parties have agreed
to
extend the time for issuance of a decision until July 15,
1988. On
members of
the Arbitration Panel. A discussion of
the
issues
occurred which was very helpful to the Chairman. In
accordance
with the statutory mandate, I set forth herein my
findings of
fact and determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Pursuant to letters to the Chairman from both parties
dated
arbitration by
the panel:
Term of Agreement
Wages
Premium Pay
Holidays
Hours of Duty
Overtime
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 legislative
purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and as
additional
standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a
decision it shall take into
consideration
the following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory author-
ity
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of
the parties;
(c)(i) For employees listed in *RCW
41.54.030(6) (a) and (c),
[uniformed personnel
other
than fire fighters] comparison of the
wages,
hours and conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of
like
personnel of like employers of similar
size on
the west coast of the
(ii) For employees
listed in *RCW
41.54.030(6)(b),
[fire fighters] comparison of
the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment
of
personnel involved in the proceedings with
the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment
of
like personnel of 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
services
, 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
foregoing,
which are normally or traditionally
taken into
consideration in the determination
of
wages, hours and conditions of employment.
As the code revisors
I note indicates, a portion of Chapter
521 {Engrossed Substitute House
Bill No. 498] which was
passed by
the Legislature during the 1987 Legislative
Session and which made certain
changes in RCW 41.56.460 was
partially
vetoed by the Governor. However, Section
2 of
that
Bill, which made certain changes with respect to how
comparables
are to be selected in cases involving fire
fighters
was not vetoed and appears as 41.56.460(c) (ii).
The Legislative purpose which your Chairman is directed
to be
mindful of in applying the standards and guidelines in
reaching
his decision 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
uniformed
personnel as a means of settling
their
labor disputes; that the uninterrupted
and
dedicated service of these classes of
employees is
vital to the welfare and public
safety of
the state of
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted public
service
there should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS
Prior to the passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill
No. 498 during the 1987
Legislative Session, fire fighters
were
subject to the same requirements as those presently set
forth in
RCW 41.56.460 (c)(i).
The changes with respect to
fire
fighters are twofold. First, the phrase
"public fire
departments"
was substituted for the phrase "like
employers." Secondly, the last sentence of RCW 41.56.460
(c)(ii) did
not appear in the statute prior to the 1987
Legislative
change.
Both parties are in agreement that the substitution of
the
phrase "public fire departments" for the phrase "like
employers"
with respect to fire fighters was taken by the
Legislature in order to make
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.
However, the Employer
takes
the position that the above-discussed change in the
statute
along with the addition of the last sentence of RCW
41.56.460 (c)(ii)
made clear that the only geographic
limitation
was the State of Washington. Thus, as I
under-
stand
the Employer's argument it is that if there are an
adequate
number of comparable employers within the State of
Washington, then not only shall
west coast employers not be
considered,
but all such employers within the State of
Washington must be
considered. That is, the Arbitration
Panel would be precluded from
limiting its consideration to
a particular
labor market within the State of Washington,
even
though such comparison would yield an adequate number
of
comparable employers.
Additionally, the Employer contends that population is
the
only appropriate measure of similar size.
Both the
Employer and the Union agree
that the relevant population
figure
for the Employer is 24,000. They also
both agree
that
the population range should be from thirty percent
below
24,000 (16,800) to thirty percent above 0
(31,200). Using the 30% plus or minus approach,
the
Employer determined that there
were twenty-four comparable
jurisdictions
within the State of Washington.
The Union does not agree with the Employer's contention
that
population is the only appropriate basis upon which to
measure
size. In the Union's view, population is
only one
of
the three most relevant measures of size, the other two
being
the size of the geographic area served by a public
fire
department and the number of personnel in the appro-
priate bargaining unit of the public fire department. Of
secondary
relevance, but still worthy of consideration
according to
the Union, are a fire department's budget and
the
assessed valuation of property within the area served by
the
fire department.
In addition to size, the Union urges the Panel to
consider
the geographic proximity of other public fire
departments to
the Employer here. In this regard, the
Union
did
place in the record evidence which established that the
parties,
to some extent, had used nearby jurisdictions for
purposes of
making wage and benefit comparisons during the
bargaining
process, both with respect to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement before the
Panel here, as well as
several
prior agreements. Additionally, the
evidence indi-
cated that the Employer here used these same
"traditional"
comparators
when establishing wage levels for the newly
created
position of Battalion Chief in early 1986.
These
five
jurisdictions are Snohomish County Fire Protection
District No. 1 (SCFPD, No. 1),
King County Fire Protection
District No. 36 (Woodinville),
King County Fire Protection
District No. 4 (Shoreline),
Kirkland, and Bothell. The
evidence
indicates that Redmond has also been used by the
parties as
a "traditional" comparator to some extent. How-
ever,
the record does not contain information regarding the
size or
wages structure of Redmond. Therefore, I
have not
included it
as a "traditional" comparator.
None of the "traditional" comparators, with two
exceptions,
meet the Union's criteria of being of similar
size
with respect to what the Union considers to be the
three
major factors of comparability, namely, population,
square
miles and number of bargaining unit personnel.
The
exceptions
are KCFPD No. 36 (Woodinville), which is within
the
plus or minus 30% range regarding population and number
of
bargaining Unit personnel, and Bothell, which is within
the
plus or minus 30% range with respect to number of bar-
gaining
unit personnel.
Apparently in recognition of the fact that the tradi-
tional comparators lack size comparability to the
Employer,
the
Union has selected the following public fire departments
as
comparable: Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mercer
Island, Puyallup,
and
KCFPD No. 24 (Angle Lake). These five
jurisdictions are
within a
range of thirty percent below to thirty percent
above
the Employer here with respect to population, square
miles,
and number of bargaining unit personnel, with one
exception. The only exception relates to bargaining unit
personnel in
the case of Lynnwood, which has a bargaining
unit
compliment of employees slightly in excess of thirty
percent of
those employed by the Employer here.
Further,
all
five jurisdictions, which the Union refers to as
"Category I" comparators, are in close geographic proximity
to
the Employer here.
Recognizing that the Panel may conclude that the five
Category I jurisdictions may
not be deemed to constitute a
sufficient
number of comparators, the Union proposes a
second
group of comparators identified as "Category II"
comparators. There are fourteen of these comparators
located in
Snohomish, King or Pierce counties.
These four-
teen
are Pierce County Fire Protection District (PCFPD) Nos.
3, 5, 6 and 7; King County Fire
Protection Districts (KCFPD)
Nos. 2, 11, 25, 26, 36, 40 and
43; Snohomish County Fire
Protection District (SCFPD) No.
12; Bothell; and Mountlake
Terrace. With the exception of Mountlake Terrace, all
Category II jurisdictions are
within the plus or minus
thirty
percent range with respect to at least one of the
Union's
five measures of size as of 1987. Although
Mountlake Terrace did not fall
within this range with
respect to
any of the five measures, it did come fairly
close to
that range with respect to several of the five
measures of
size.
Finally, with respect to comparators the Union takes
the
position that the traditional comparators, discussed
above,
are also acceptable as comparators to the Union. In
fact,
two of the traditional comparators, Bothell and KCFPD
No. 36 (Woodinville) are also included among the Category II
comparators.
Even if your Chairman were to assume that population is
the
only appropriate measure of size (an assumption I am not
prepared to
make), I find that twenty-four comparators is
simply
too many. If the Panel were to find that
twenty-four
comparators
are an appropriate number of comparators, then
it is
likely that the parties in their future negotiations
would
feel compelled to use these comparators.
The effort
and
expense involved in accumulating and analyzing wage and
benefit
information with respect to twenty-four comparators
seems
unnecessarily burdensome.
Furthermore, I cannot accept what I understand to be
the
Employer's conclusion under the present statute that if
there is
an adequate number of comparable employers within
the
State of Washington, then the statute requires that in
such a
situation all employers within the State of
Washington who may be said to
be comparable must be included
as
comparators. The statute, as I read it,
requires no such
result. All it requires is that if there are an adequate
number of
comparable employers within the State of
Washington, other west coast
employers shall not be con-
sidered.
It should also be pointed out that the criteria for
determining
comparable employers are simply too broad to
ascertain
with any certainty the exact number of comparable
employers
within the State of Washington. It is
perhaps in
recognition of
this fact that the Employer suggests that
only
population can be considered as a measure of size. In
any
event, there is no dispute between the parties that
population is
a major relevant factor and I have determined
to
give it considerable weight. However, in
order to limit
the
number of comparators, I think it appropriate to con-
sider seriously the Union's contention regarding geographi-
cal
proximity.
With respect to the question of geographical proximity,
I note the testimony of the
Union's expert witness,
Professor David Knowles, an
economist with the Albers School
of
Business at Seattle University. He
testified regarding
the
use of labor markets in connection with economic
decision
making. Thus, he testified that a labor
market is
a
geographic area where common factors impact a workforce.
In this regard, he testified
that economists take the view
that it
is helpful to look at specific labor markets in
making
economic determinations, such markets generally have
common
housing as well as supply and demand patterns.
In
this
regard, he pointed out that changes in wage rates and
unemployment
figures will vary by labor market. It
was also
his
testimony that the King/Snohomish County area consti-
tuted a labor market. As I understand Professor Knowles'
testimony,
he did indicate that Pierce County could be
included
within the same labor market as includes the
Snohomish/King County area, but
that there are various labor
and
employment factors which did distinguish Pierce County
from
the King/Snohomish County labor market.
The use of labor markets as a means of selecting among
comparable
employers of similar size has been used by arbi-
tration panels many times in the past. Contrary to the
Employer's position, I do not
find that the substitution of
the
phrase "public fire departments" for "like employers" in
RCW 41.56.460 indicates any
intent by the Legislature to
change
that practice. As already indicated, the
substi-
tution of the term "public fire
departments" for "like
employers"
had to do with a desire by the Legislature to
remove
any possible implication that the word "like"
referred to
the political status of the jurisdiction
operating a
fire department, such as a city, county or fire
protection
district. Further, in the last sentence
of RCW
41.56.460 (c)(ii),
the Legislature placed the phrase
comparable
employers in discussing an adequate
number of
comparators,
rather than repeating the phrase "public fire
departments." This fact clearly indicates that the Legis-
lature was not attempting to change the practice,
freely
employed by
arbitration panels in the past, of employing
labor
market as a consideration in selecting comparators in
appropriate
circumstances.
In the instant case, as Dr. Knowles testimony
indicated,
the Employer, King County Fire Protection
District No. 16 (Kenmore), is
located pretty much in the
middle of
the King/Snohomish County labor market.
As such,
employees
who work for the Employer are subject to the same
economic
stimuli as are employees who work for other public
fire
departments located in the King/Snohomish County labor
market.
The question which now faces your Chairman is how to
select an
appropriate number of comparators from those
suggested by
the Employer and the Union. Based on all
of
the
foregoing, it does appear appropriate, in the instant
case,
to consider similar size, based on population, but
limited to
those jurisdictions in a common labor market,
namely,
the King/Snohomish County labor market.
When one
does
this, one finds that there are at least ten comparators
which
have been suggested by both the Employer and the
Union. These include four of the five Category I com-
parators suggested by the Union, namely, Edmonds,
Lynnwood,
Mercer Island, and KCFPD No. 24
(Angle Lake); and six corn-
parators listed by Union as Category II comparators,
namely,
KCFPD No. 25 (Kennydale), No. 26 (Des Moines), No. 36
(Woodinville), No. 40 (Spring
Glen), No. 43 (Maple Valley),
and
SCFPD No. 12. I also note that the six
Category II
comparators,
listed above, also come within a plus or minus
thirty
percent range for at least one of the four Union's
measure of
size other than population for 1987, except KCFPD
No.
25.
The Employer's list of twenty-four comparators indi-
cates that there are two jurisdictions within King
and
Snohomish County which meet the
plus or minus thirty percent
criteria
and are not listed by the Union in any category.
These jurisdictions are: KCPFD No. 20 and SCFPD No. 4. I
have
determined not to include KCFPD No. 20, as a comparator
since
the Employer exhibits indicate that the contract for
1988 has not been settled and,
therefore, figures are not
available. With respect to SCFPD No. 4, the Employer has
provided
the figures for 1988, and since the Employer's
evidence
indicates that this jurisdiction meets the popu-
lation criteria, I have included it as a
comparator. Thus,
there
are eleven comparators: King Nos. 24, 25, 26, 36, 40,
43, Snohomish Nos. 4, 12,
Edmonds, Mercer Island, and
Lynnwood. Considering all of the facts and
circumstances of
this
case, your Chairman believes these eleven comparators
constitutes an
adequate number of comparators without being
too
burdensome a number of comparators.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
The Employer seeks a two year agreement effective
January 1, 1987 through
December 31, 1988, while the Union
proposes a
three year agreement effective January 1, 1987
through
December 31, 1989.
A major concern of the Employer in seeking an agreement
with
the term of two years is the possibility that a planned
additional
fire station will be opened sometime in 1989.
Thus, it is the Employer's
contention that to award a three
year
agreement would tie the Employer's hands in negotiating
new
provisions necessary to better utilize personnel and
resources. However, several Union witnesses testified
that
it
was unlikely that the new fire station would be opened
prior to
1990. Further, Chief Leslie Eaton
testified that
no
architectural or engineering plans for the new station
exist at
present, nor have any permits necessary to begin
construction
been obtained.
A two year term would cause the Agreement to expire
less
than six months after the date of this Arbitration
Award, thus placing the parties
almost immediately back in
negotiations. Considering that the parties have been in
negotiations
since 1986, such a state of affairs would, as
even
Chief Eaton admitted, have a negative impact on the
morale of
the fire fighters, and certainly could not be said
to
promote collective bargaining as an effective means of
resolving
disputes, as is contemplated by the statute.
WAGES
Union Proposal
1987: Increase
monthly salaries by 8.51% effective
January 1, 1987.
1988: Increase
monthly salaries by 2.7% over the 1987
salary
effective January 1, 1988.
1989: Increase
monthly salaries effective January 1,
1989 by same percentage as the
increase in the Consumer
Price Index for urban consumers
(CPI-U) Seattle area from
January 1987 to January 1988.
Employer Proposal
1987: Increase
monthly salaries effective January 1,
1987 by same percentage as the
increase in the Consumer
Price Index for urban wage
earners and clerical workers
(CPI-W) Seattle area during the
period November 1985 through
November 1986, which the
Employer states would result in a
.3% wage increase.
1988: Effective
January 1, 1988 an increase in base
monthly
salary equal to 90% of the increase in the CPI-W
Seattle area during the period
midyear 1986 through midyear
1987, resulting, according to
the Employer, in an increase
of
1.26% above the 1987 monthly salary.
1989: No proposal
since Employer seeks a two year
agreement.
The vast difference in what the parties consider to be
an
appropriate wage increase pursuant to the statute results
in
significant part from two factors.
First, their
differing
views as to the method of selecting appropriate
comparators. With respect to this matter, I have earlier
in
this
Opinion fully discussed the basis upon which the
appropriate
comparators have been selected.
The second major area of dispute between the parties
regards
the determination of the basis upon which wages are
to be
compared among the comparators selected.
The Union
contends
that the comparison should be made on a total
hourly
compensation basis taking into account virtually all
aspects of
wages and other benefits received by fire
fighters
including, for example, social security
contributions
made by the Employer as well as the cost of
various
insurance benefits. These figures are
all added
together on
a monthly basis to come up with a total monthly
wage. The Union then would divide this figure by
what it
calls
total monthly hours, which is a figure reached by
taking
scheduled hours per month and subtracting on a
monthly
basis vacation and holidays.
The Employer agrees that an hourly rather than a
monthly
wage figure is appropriate for comparison purposes
among
the comparators. A review of the various
exhibits
submitted by
the Employer indicates that the Employer would
accept
several methods of computing an hourly pay rate. In
its posthearing brief at page 12, the Employer sets forth
the
following formula for computing what it refers to as a
net
hourly rate:
monthly
salary + longevity + EMT/Driver Prem. net hrly
monthly sched. hours - vacations -
holidays # rate
As indicated above, the Union
would agree to the following
formula as
far as it goes, but would add to the numerator of
the
formula virtually all aspects of compensation including
such
items as the Employer's contribution to social security
as
well as various insurance programs.
Since both parties are of the view that making compari-
sons
based on hourly rate is appropriate, the Panel deems it
appropriate to
comply with the wishes of the parties.
How-
ever, a
choice must be made between the methods of computing
hourly
pay contended for by each party. It is
the opinion
of
the Chairman that the Employer's method for computing
hourly
pay is the preferable method. In this
regard it must
noted
that the cost to the Employer of benefits such as
health
insurance or life insurance does not represent direct
compensation
paid to employees. Furthermore, such
benefits
may
have widely differing values to employees depending on
the
specific terms of such benefits and an employee , 5 in-
dividual situation.
For example, health insurance may be of
substantially
greater value to an employee whose spouse is
not
receiving health benefits at his or her place of employ-
ment than to an employee whose spouse is
receiving broad
health
insurance coverage at his or her place of employment.
In the chart set forth below, I have listed the hourly
net
wage in 1988 for each of the eleven comparators rank
order
from the highest hourly net wage to the lowest:
HOURLY WAGE FOR 1988
Comparator Net Hourly Wage
Snohomish No. 12 $17.42
Snohomish
No. 4 $14.74
King No. 26 $14.70
Mercer Island $14.67
King No. 25 $14.40
King No. 24 $14.17
King No. 40 $13.07
King No. 36 $12.95
King No. 43 $12.12
Average $14.28
King No. 16 $13.23
Amount King No. 16
below
the average $ 1.05
Percentage Increase
necessary to
bring
King No. 16 to the
average 7.9%
Before beginning to draw conclusions from the foregoing
chart, a
few further words about the source of the figures
used in
this chart should be set out. The
figures set
forth
above come from Attachment B to Exhibit No. 62 which
was
placed in evidence by the Employer. That
document sets
forth
the net hourly wage for a top step six year fire
fighter at
each comparator based on the Employer formula,
which,
as discussed above, has been approved as the
appropriate
way of computing hourly wage. However, I
have
also
carefully reviewed each of the Union exhibits which set
forth by
comparator for a six year top step fire fighter the
information
necessary to make the computation pursuant to
the
formula which I have determined appropriate for
computing
hourly wage. Of the eleven comparators,
the Union
has
provided information with respect to all except
Snohomish No. 4.
My review of the Union's information indicates that
with
respect to seven of the ten for which the Union has
information,
the Union supplied figures reveal either the
same or
a very insignificant difference in the hourly wage
with
that set forth on Attachment B of Exhibit No. 62.
There are three exceptions, these are set forth in the chart
below:
RECONCILIATION OF
EMPLOYER/UNION
DIFFERENCES IN COMPUTING HOURLY
WAGE
Computation
Employer Union From Union
Exhibit No.
Snohomish No. 12 17.42 13.01 14j
King No. 26 14.70 16.42 14f
King No. 43 12.12 12.58 14k
Average 14.75 14.00
As can be seen from the foregoing chart, the hourly
wage
differences between the figures set forth by the
Employer on Attachment B,
Exhibit No. 62 and the figures I
have
computed based on using the relevant Union exhibits
shows
that the difference actually favors the Union here.
This is because the Employer
figures for these three
comparators is
higher than those obtained by using the
Union's figures, thereby
placing the fire fighters in
District No. 16 further behind
the average then if the Union
figures
were used. However, my decision to use
the Employer
figures
for these three cases was not based on the fact that
to do
so benefits the Union, but on the fact that my review
of
the relevant collective bargaining agreements contained
in
Exhibit No. 48 indicates that the Union used an incorrect
gross
monthly hours figure in each of the three cases on its
exhibits.
As the chart on page 20 indicates, the Employer fire
fighters
would need a raise of 7.9% over two years to reach
the
average paid by the eleven comparators.
Two questions
remain,
however. First, how should the statute's
directive
that
the Panel take into account the cost of living be
applied in
this case, and, secondly, whatever raise is
provided,
how should it be distributed over the two year
period,
1987 and 1988? In support of its
position, the
Employer stresses the
relatively low increase in the cost of
living as
measured by the CPI-W for the Seattle area between
November of 1985 and midyear
1987, which was 1.5%. Further,
the
Employer points to the fact that since November of 1979,
the
increase in the cost of living as measured by the
Seattle area CPI-W was
substantially less than the increase
in
top step fire fighter base monthly wage during that
period. A review of Exhibit No. 51 submitted by the
Employer indicates that the
Seattle area CPI-W stood at
225.5 as
of November 1979. That index was at
310.8 as of
the
end of 1986, (Nov. 86) when the prior contract came to
an
end, which is an increase of 37.8%. The
same exhibit
indicates
that the top step fire fighter base monthly salary
was
$18,134 as of November 1979 and $29,857 as of the end of
1986 an
increase of 64.7%.
The Employer contends that using the November 1979
period as
a base is appropriate in order to gain a proper
perspective as
to how the Kenmore fire fighters have
advanced in
salary as compared to the increase in the cost
of
living as measured by the Seattle area CPI-W.
In this
regard,
the Employer points to the fact that the only prior
interest
arbitration between the parties resulted in the
panel
there providing a wage increase to Kenmore fire
fighters
effective November 1, 1979 that placed them in a
position of
parity with the comparators used at that time.
Therefore, the Employer argues
if the fire fighters were at
parity
with the relevant comparators as of November 1, 1979,
then a
comparison of their increase in base wage vis-a-vis
the
increase in the cost of living during the same period of
time
would be relevant in determining how Kenmore fire
fighters
have fared with respect to wage increases.
While I find that in general this argument of the
Employer has merit, it should
be noted that Arbitrator
Gillingham,
who was the Neutral Chairman in the prior
interest
arbitration, pointed out at Exhibit No. 51A, page
2, that the comparators in that
case were a group of twelve
fire
protection districts. Arbitrator Gillingham then went
on to
state regarding this group of comparators:
[T]his is a relatively
conservative comparison
group
because as a group the fire protection
districts
generally rank somewhat below the
prevailing
salary and fringe benefit levels in
nearby
city and county jurisdictions.
Exactly how the comparators
were chosen at the time of the
Gillingham
arbitration decision is not clear from the
record. In any event, even the Employer here does not
dispute
that an appropriate set of comparators would include
cities in
addition to fire protection districts.
The
foregoing
leads to the conclusion that if the comparators
used in
1979 were the same as those considered appropriate
here,
the salary to be provided to Kenmore fire fighters in
order to
achieve parity would have been greater than the
$18,134 paid fire fighters
effective November 1979. If this
were
the case, then the percentage represented by the in-
crease
that fire fighters have received to date would be
lower
than is presently the case and, thus, closer to the
rise in
the cost of living as measured by the Seattle area
CPI-W.
The figures necessary to compute an average for the
comparators
considered appropriate here as of November 1979
are
not before the Panel. In any event, it
is clear that
the
cost of living in the Seattle area has been extremely
low in
the two years immediately preceding the contract term
here. Thus, Seattle area CPI-W advanced only 2%
between
November 1984 and November 1986
while Seattle area CPI-U
advanced
only 2.5% during the same period. On the
other
hand
the base annual wage for a top step fire fighter went
from
$27,960 at the end of 1984 to $29,857 at the end of
1986,
which is an increase of 6.8%. It does appear that
based on
the relatively low rise in the Seattle area cost of
living in
the past several years and the fact that since the
last
interest arbitration between the parties the base wage
of
Kenmore fire fighters has out paced the Seattle area CPI
by a
substantial margin, the full 7.9% necessary to bring
the
Kenmore fire fighters to the average of the comparators
based on
hourly wage is not appropriate pursuant to the
statutory
criteria.
After carefully reviewing all of the foregoing, it is
the
opinion of your Chairman that an increase which would
bring
the Kenmore fire fighters to within 80% of the average
within
two years would be appropriate. Such a
raise would
be
substantial, and would allow Kenmore fire fighters to
make
significant progress toward the average net hourly
wage,
but also would give due weight to the statutory
requirement
that the Panel also consider the cost of living.
A 7.9% raise on the current base salary of $2,488.10
comes to
$2,684.66. When one subtracts the
present monthly
base of
$2,488.10 from $2,684.66, one comes up with a figure
of
$196.56, representing the dollar amount of the 7.9% raise
over
two years. Eighty percent of that figure
is $157.25,
and
$157.25 plus the present monthly base of $2,488.10
equals
$2,645.35 which amounts to a 6.3% raise over the
salary of
$2,488.10.
The next question that must asked is how should the
$157.25 raise be applied over
the two years 1987 and 1988?
My review of all of the
evidence presented does not indicate
that a
major portion of the raise should be applied to one
year
while a minor portion is applied to the other.
Rather,
a
relatively equal distribution of the raise over the two
year
period is indicated. Thus, approximately
one half of
the
$157.25 raise shall be applied to each year.
Therefore,
I shall award a $79.00 per
month increase for the year 1987,
making
the base monthly salary for 1987 $2,567.10, which is
a
3.2% increase. For 1988, fire fighters
shall receive an
increase of
$78.25 per month giving the top step fire
fighter a
1988 base monthly salary of $2,645.35, which is an
increase of
3.1% over 1987.
With a base salary of $2,645.35 in 1988, Kenmore fire
fighters
will be within 0 per month of $2,654.01 which
is
the average base salary of the eleven comparators in
1988. The percentage difference is only .3%. (Average
computed
from base salary figures appearing on Exhibit No.
47,
Attachment B-l.) A
base salary at or near the average
of
the comparators is in the opinion of your Chairman
sufficient in
all the circumstances here to meet the
statutory
purpose set forth in RCW 41.56.430 of promoting
the
dedicated performance of the vital public service
engaged in
by fire fighters, while giving due weight to the
various
statutory considerations contained in RCW 41.56.460.
With respect to the other ranks in the fire department,
neither
party has suggested that the percentage levels vis-
a-vis the fire fighter III contained in the
1985-86
agreement be
changed. Therefore, the wages of these other
ranks
shall be increased based on the same percentage levels
as is
set forth in "Appendix 13, Wages" of the prior agree-
ment (Exhibit No. 41).
With respect to the third year of the Agreement, the
Union proposes that the base
monthly salary be increased
effective
January 1, 1989 by the same percentage as the
increase in
the CPI-U for the Seattle area from January 1987
to
January of 1988. The Employer indicates
in its brief, at
page
14, that if a three year agreement is deemed
appropriate,
salaries for that year should be increased by
1.71 percent. The Employer bases this increase on the
percentage
change from midyear 1987 to year end 1987 of the
Seattle
area CPI-W. This
percentage increase was 1.9% and
90 percent of that is 1.71
percent.
I agree with both the Employer and the Union that in
the
absence of information regarding what the wages of the
comparators
will be for the year 1989, the appropriate
measure of
increase, if any, should be based on the change
in
the cost of living as measured by the CPI.
The diffi-
culty with following the Union's suggested method
is that
the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department
of
Labor, which produces the CPI, is no longer providing CPI
information on
a January to January basis for the Seattle
area. With respect to the Employer proposal, it
does not
seem
appropriate to base an annual increase on only a change
in
the CPI over half a year as suggested by the Employer.
Further, there is a question as
to which CPI index should be
relied on
in this matter. The Employer seeks
reliance on
the
Seattle area CPI-W, while the Union suggests that the
Seattle area CPI-U be utilized.
Recently the BLS has issued a statement in which it
recommends
that users of the CPI adopt the U.S. City Average
CPI for use in escalator
clauses as opposed to the local
indices
due to a larger number of what it terms "sampling
and
other measurement errors in the local
indices. (Using
the
Consumer Price Index for Escalation, U.S. Dep't. of
Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, October, 1986.)
However,
since
both parties suggest use of a Seattle area CPI index,
I have determined that it would
not be appropriate for your
Chairman to impose upon the
parties the U.S. City Average
CPI. Instead, in order to provide the broadest
sampling,
and
yet meet the parties' desire for the use of a Seattle
area
index, I have determined that the increase for 1989
should be
based on the average percentage increase of the
Seattle
area CPI-W and the Seattle area CPI-U.
The final question in this regard is what should be the
period
employed for measuring these indices. It
would seem
to me
that the most appropriate period would be the period
most
immediately before the increase is to go into effect.
For Seattle that would be the
period December 1987 to
December 1988. However, it is unlikely that the BLS will be
able to
provide the December 1988 figures in a fashion
sufficiently
timely for the parties to place into effect as
of
January 1, 1989 any increase called for by the increase
in
the Seattle area CPI. Therefore, I have
determined that
the
increase should be based on the period immediately
preceding
the December to December figures which would be
the
figures from June to June. Thus, the
increase in the
third
year of the Agreement, namely, 1989, should be equal
to an
average of the percentage increase from June 1987 to
June
1988 of the Seattle area CPI-W and Seattle area CPI-U.
PREMIUM PAY
The Union proposes a premium of one percent of base
monthly
salary for fire fighters in ranks of Fire Fighter
II, Fire Fighter III, and
Lieutenant who are certified
through
the King County Defibrillation Program.
The
Employer proposes that no such
premium be paid. A review of
the
comparators does support implementation
of the
Union's requested premium and,
therefore, the request is
denied.
HOLIDAYS
The Union proposes that the annual holiday hours be
increased
from seventy-two to ninety-six, and the Employer
proposes
that no such increase be granted. The
holiday data
submitted
does indicate that Kenmore fire fighters receive
fewer
holiday hours or less holiday pay than any of the
eleven
comparators. However, a majority of the
comparators
work a larger.number of net hours per month than do Kenmore
fire
fighters. The relatively low number of
net hours
worked
per month by Kenmore fire fighters was factored into
the
wage comparisons made in this case.
Therefore, the fact
that
Kenmore fire fighters have one of the least attractive
holiday
packages of any of the comparators was, in effect,
taken
into account in determining the wage structure.
It also should be noted, as the Union admits, that
implementation of
a new holiday schedule at this point in a
three
year collective bargaining agreement would be quite
disruptive to
the work schedule.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Union's holiday
proposal is
rejected. It is, however, the
recommendation of
the
Panel that the question of holidays be addressed by the
parties in
bargaining along with the question of hours of
duty as
will more fully be explained below.
HOURS OF DUTY
In order to work the number of hours per year required
by
the Agreement, members of the Kenmore bargaining unit
must
work approximately a dozen "debit days" per year. At
present
the Employer is permitted to schedule debit days
only on
Monday through Friday. The Employer
proposes that
it be
permitted to schedule debit days on any day of the
week
including Saturday or Sunday and the Union proposes
that
the present schedule and procedure be maintained.
The parties do agree that the issue is moot with
respect to
both 1987 and 1988. In this regard, it
appears
that
the Employer's primary concern in generating this
proposal
was that its scheduling flexibility be increased in
the
event that an additional facility becomes operational
during
1989. However, as discussed in the
"Term of
Agreement" section of this
Opinion, it is quite unlikely
that a
new station will become operational before 1990.
In the view of the Panel, the issue of hours of duty
and
the issue of holiday hours are related in that they both
involve
scheduling. It is the opinion of the
Panel that
the
parties in bargaining should address these two issues of
holiday hours
and hours of duty so that whatever arrange-
ments are made in these two areas they are made by
the
parties
who know best the scheduling needs of the Kenmore
Fire Department and the
intricacies of fire fighter
scheduling. It does not appear to the Panel that these
matters
have been fully explored by the parties.
These two
issues
should be addressed by the parties when they commence
bargaining
for a new agreement. Of course, the
parties are
also
free to negotiate new proposals regarding holidays and
hours of
duty to commence prior to January 1, 1990, if they
so
desire.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Employer's hours of
duty
proposal is rejected.
OVERTIME
Presently all overtime work is paid in thirty minute
increments,
except for off duty time spent by an employee
honoring an
official court subpoena resulting from an
employee's
affiliation with the Employer. In that
situation,
the employee receives a two hour minimum at the
overtime
rate and thereafter is paid overtime in thirty
minute
increments. The Employer proposes no
change in the
current
overtime provision.
The Union, in its attachment to its March 9, 1988 letter
to
the Chairman setting forth its proposals, describes its
proposal on
overtime at paragraph 4 as follows:
All overtime to be based on a
one hour
minimum
whether on duty or off duty with 15
minute
increments (see attached Exhibit B, a
copy of
the current contract language, and
attached
Exhibit C, a copy of the proposed
language by
Union.)
My review of Exhibit C, the newly proposed language,
indicates
that the one hour minimum is only to be applied to
overtime
work as a result of a full-tone or callback, or to
off
duty time spent by an employee honoring an official
court
subpoena resulting from an employee's affiliation with
the
District. Both the Union's prehearing and posthearing
briefs
state that the Union proposes that all overtime,
whether
called from on duty or off duty, other than that for
honoring a
court subpoena, should provide for a one hour
minimum at
time and one-half with fifteen minute increments.
Additionally, Exhibit C to the
attachment to the March 9,
1988 letter from the Union to
the Chairman also indicates
that
the Union is seeking a change in language by deleting
the
phrase "for the purpose of accomplishing unscheduled or
emergency
work beyond the capacity of part-time personnel."
This language presently appears
after the word "delegate' , in
the
first sentence of the overtime provision.
The foregoing indicates five possible changes: (1) a
one
hour minimum for a full-tone or callback; (2) reducing
the
increment period for the payment of all overtime from
thirty
minutes to fifteen minutes; (3) granting a one hour
minimum
for overtime other than callback or full-tone;
(4) a
change in
the minimum and increment period with respect to
an
employee's honoring an official court subpoena resulting
from an
employee's affiliation with the District; and (5)
the
deletion of the language appearing after the word
"delegate"
in the first sentence of the overtime provision.
I also note that several of the
matters were either not
discussed or
only briefly mentioned during the hearing.
The
same is
true of the posthearing briefs.
The foregoing indicates to your Chairman a lack of
serious
bargaining on this issue leaving the areas of
dispute
not clearly defined. Therefore, based on
all
of
the foregoing, it would not appear appropriate to change
the
overtime provision at this time.
AWARD OF THE
CHAIRMAN
It is the Award of your Chairman that:
A. The term of the
Agreement shall be from January 1,
1987 through December 31, 1989.
B. Top step
fire fighters (Fire Fighter III) shall
receive
the following base monthly salary:
Effective
January 1, 1987: $2,567.10 per month.
Effective
January 1, 1988: $2,645.35 per month.
Effective January 1, 1989: An increase equal
to
the average of the percentage increase of
Seattle area CPI-W and CPI-U
between June 1987
and
June 1988.
C. The
Employer's Hours of Duty proposal is denied.
D. The
Union's Premium Pay, Holidays, and Overtime
proposals
are denied.
July 6, 1988
Seattle, Washington
s/ Michael H. Beck
Michael H. Beck
Neutral Chairman