City
of
And
International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2053
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator:
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Snow;
Case #: 08474-I-90-00195
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2053
AND
CITY OF
(PERC. NO. 8474-I-90-00195)
Arbitration Panel Members:
Danny Downs
Arbitrator Appointed by the Association:
Arbitrator Appointed by Employer:
Professor Carlton J. Snow
Neutral Arbitrator and Chairman of the
Panel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
1
II. THE COMMUNITY OF
III. NEGOTIATION HISTORY 4
IV. THE ISSUE OF COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS 5
V. THE ISSUE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE 18
VI. HOLIDAY PAY 24
VII. SALARIES 29
VIII. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION COMPENSATION 33
IX. LONGEVITY PAY 37
X. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT 40
XI. SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL 45
XII. CONCLUSION 50
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION )
)
BETWEEN ) PANEL MEMBERS
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) Danny Downs
FIREFIGHTERS, Local 2052 )
)
AND )
) Professor
CITY OF
(PERC No. 8471-1-90-00195 ) Chairman
of the Panel
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, this interest arbitration pro-
ceeded
to hearing before panel members Danny Downs, Executive
Board Member of the
Gary persons, Division
Director of Employee Relations for the
the
The arbitration panel proceeded in accordance with
requirements set forth in RCW 41.56.450-460 as well
as
WAC 391-55-250-255 in
resolving this dispute. Professor
panel. There were no challenges to the jurisdiction
of the
arbitrators, and the parties
stipulated that the matter pro-
perly
had been submitted to the panel for a decision.
A hearing in the matter occurred on
a conference room of the
Hallmark Inn located in
There was a full opportunity
for the parties to submit evi-
dence,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to argue
the matter. All witnesses testified under oath as
administered
by the arbitrator. The advocates fully and fairly represented
their respective parties. Mr. Alex J. Skalbania
of the
Critchlow,
Williams & Schuster law firm in Richland,
represented Local 2052 of the
International Association of
Firefighters. Mr. James A. Whitaker, City Attorney,
represented
the City of
recorded the proceeding as an
extension of his personal notes.
The parties elected to submit post-hearing briefs in the
matter, and the arbitrator
officially closed the hearing on
Illness and a surgery in the
arbitrator's family delayed issu-
mg a report in the
matter. The arbitration panel gave approp-
riate
weight to relevant statutory criteria in order to make
determinations in this matter. Although all statutory criteria
to be used in interest
arbitration were considered, the legis-
lation
has not set forth the weight to be accorded any parti-
cular
criterion; and no single statutory factor has been
dispositive
in the case.
The chairman of the panel submitted a tentative report to
his arbitrator colleagues in
December, 1990. Scheduling
problems made it impossible
for them to confer until January
10, 1991 on which date they
held an executive session by tele-
phone. The arbitrators discussed a range of issues,
and the
chairman submitted a modified
version of the report to the
party-appointed arbitrators at
which time they concurred with
the result. On
returned signature pages to
the chairman of the panel
indicating that he concurred
with the result, and the
Employer's arbitrator had
stated his concurrence and that he,
too, intended to return his
signature pages.
On
that the reference in the
draft to "
be deleted, and the panel
agreed to do so. The arbitrator
submitted a copy of that
revised draft to the panel members,
and they approved it. Then, on February 27, the Association's
arbitrator requested that
language with regard to the "sick
leave" proposal be
revised; and the panel adopted the revi-
sion. The panel also adopted the Employer's
proposal that
language with regard to the 'tcap" on sick leave be clarified.
Mr. Downs had been concerned
with the accrual rate, and
Mr. Persons had been concerned
with the limitation on the
total number of hours to be
accrued, and the panel reached
a mediated settlement with
regard to this matter.
On
for the
inquired about the status of
the report. The chairman of
the panel indicated to him
that the report had not been
finalized and that the
chairman was mediating refinements
in the report because it
appeared highly likely that the
panel would be able to issue a
unanimous decision. All con-
versations
had been unduly cordial, and all panel members had
shown considerable flexibility
and cooperativeness in an
effort to issue a report
consistent with the needs of the
parties.
At the end of the conversation on April 5, 1991,
Mr. Persons again indicated
his intent to forward concurring
signature pages for the report
to the chairman of the panel.
Then, on April 16, 1991, the Employer's party-appointed
arbitrator sent the chairman the
following letter:
Gentlemen:
First of all, let me apologize causing [sic] a
delay in finalizing the arbitration award as well
as an error in my judgement and
recommendation to
the panel.
I find that I erred, in a fairly substantive way,
in the recommendation in my February 1, 1991
letter to Professor Snow.
My intention was to both personally apologize to
you gentlemen as well as discuss the situation in
a conference call.
However, in finding that Mr.
Downs is not available until Friday, April 19 to
even schedule a conference call, I am reducing it
to writing in an effort to not delay the process
any further.
You will note that in my letter of February 1,
1991, in an effort to clarify the language in the
award concerning "salaries," I urged the panel
to
consider striking "U.S. City Average" from the
method of providing salary increases based on
changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index. The
error that I found quite accidentally since our
last telephone
conversation, was that the urging
should have been to strike the reference to
"Seattle-Tacoma, WA" instead.
Throughout this proceeding, the union has proposed
that the U.S. All-Cities Index be used. On review
I can find no evidence either in the bargaining
history, the proposals to arbitration, post-
hearing briefs, nor analysis in Professor Snow's
award that would suggest that the 1992 and 1993
salary increases be based on an other than U.S.
Consumer Price Index U.S. City Average. Frankly,
I simply made a mistake in suggesting otherwise.
This conclusion is based on the following:
A. Current
Contract Language - The existing
contract between the firefighters and the
city of Moses Lake, in addressing how to
determine future salaries, says in part
"...
the CPI, all U.S. Index (W September to
September..."
B. Union
Proposal - A letter of August 20,
1990 to Professor Snow from Alex J. Skalbania
details of [sic] the union's proposal to the
arbitration process for future adjustments
to firefighters salary. Their proposal
states in part ". . salaries. . . shall
be
increased by an amount equal to the percen-
tage change in the
U.S. Consumer Price Index
Urban Wage Earners, All-Cities as measured
for the preceding year from July to July. .
."
It appears the only deviation from the exis-
ting contract and past practice was to
suggest
using the month of July rather than the month
of September as a basis point for determining
what percentage salaries would be increased.
C. Union's
Post Hearing Brief: On page 15 of
the brief it states in part, "Members of
Local 2052 should receive an increase in
their base salary of 5.1 percent during 1990
an amount which is equal to the U.S. Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage Earners, All-
Cities, for the period between July 1988 and
July of 1989..."
D. City's
Post Hearing Brief - On page 11 of the
brief, under IV, Salaries, it states in
part, ". . the 3.5 percent increase
proposed
by the city was calculated by taking the
September 1988 to September 1989 CPI of 4.1
percent and reducing it...."
It further states that ". . the city
argues
using a July to July CPI is unfair and unwar-
ranted.
The September to September CPI
figure has been used in negotiations with
the union for years, going back to at least
1980 (city exhibit No. 15). For consistency
sake a September to September CPI should
continue to be used." Since the Seattle-
Tacoma Index is not published in September
(it only comes out in January and July),
this reference was clearly intended to be for
the All-Cities Index.
E. Arbitrator's
Award - In the draft award
submitted by Professor Snow under X, Duration
of the Agreement, B. Discussion, page 43,
reads in part ". . .in contrast with the
CPI-W,
the CPI-U is based on expenditures reported
by all consumer units in urban areas with
an exception not relevant in this case. It
seems appropriate to use a more broadly
based Index in the parties agreement."
While changing from the use of the
"W" Index
to the "U" is a deviation from the
data
previously mentioned, it is not as a substan-
tive issue as would
be a change from the use
of the "U.S. City Average to a use of
"Seattle-Tacoma."
F. Conclusion
- Based on the above, I would
suggest that the award be returned to its
original state by providing that salaries
for Moses Lake Firefighters be adjusted on
January 1, 1992 and 1993 by the increase in
the U.S. Consumer Price Index U.S. City
Average for all urban consumers from July
1989 to July 1990 for 1991 and July 1991 to
July 1992 for 1993.
This in essence would:
1 . follow
past practice and current con-
tract language
2. address
the union's proposal and desires;
and
3. be
in concert with the information
contained in its post hearing
brief.
Obviously, the only difference of opinion between
the city and the Firefighters is what months
would be used for comparison purposes. The
union's wishes being July and the city's September.
No where in any of the documentation or testi-
mony, to the best of my
knowledge, has there been
any discussion or proposal concerning a change in
the Index which is used.
The change resulted
solely from my error: without checking first, I
erroneously assumed the parties had historically
been using the Seattle-Tacoma Index. Since the
parties practice, and all evidence introduced at
the hearing supports the use of the All-Cities
Index, I request that we agree to remedy my
error and that the award use the All-Cities Index.
Again, I apologize for suggesting the February 20,
1991 change to the panel.
It appears that in my
efforts to clarify an issue, I unintentionally may
have completely "muddied the waters."
I would be happy to discuss this with you at
your convenience.
Sincerely,
Gary Persons
Division Director
The issue raised in Mr. Persons's
letter never had been
discussed by the panel.
In response to Mr. Persons's
letter of April 16, Mr.
Downs submitted the following
letter on April 23, 1991:
Gentlemen:
It was with some dismay that I received Mr.
Persons's letter requesting
additional changes
to the Moses Lake arbitration award as I was of
the understanding at the completion of our last
conference call that we were in agreement, after
considerable review of the award drafts, and that
Mr. Persons was going to submit his signature
page to finalize the award.
In view of my understanding of the finalized
status of the Award, and the following, I find
I cannot concur with Mr. Persons request.
A. I believe
the award as finalized during our
last conference call constitutes a fair and
equitable award for the parties.
B. It is my
belief that the Seattle area index
more closely reflects the economic climate
in the State of Washington than does the
All Cities index, as is indicated and recog-
nized by the fact
that the State did not
experience the recent recession felt by much
of the U.S.
C. Finally, a
change at this late date, of the
magnitude suggested by Mr. Persons, would
require considerable change in the award
resulting in the need for further draft
review and additional delay in submission
of the award to the parties. While delay of
the award may be beneficial to the employer,
who is earning interest on monies budgeted
for pay increases but not paid out, it most
certainly is not beneficial to the Fire
Fighters who have not had a pay increase
since January of 1989.
D. The City
of Moses Lake did not produce evi-
dence of inability
to meet the salary increases
agreed to in the award draft as finalized
at
our last conference call, but only a reluc-
tance to do so.
As everyone has had considerable time to review
the award draft prior to our last conference call
and in consideration of the fact that it is
approximately eight months since the hearing date
of this arbitration and the parties are well into
the second year of the term of the agreement as
set by this award.
I urge the award be submitted
as determined and agreed during our last confer-
ence call.
Sincerely,
Dan Downs
IAFF Rep.
It is inaccurate to describe the measurement set forth
in the report as a
"mistake," for the chairman selected it
deliberately and
thoughtfully. The matter was never a
focal
point of the parties'
attention either at the hearing or in
their post-hearing
briefs. The measurement selected by the
chairman is the one most
highly recommended by economists
for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Negotiations within the
arbitration panel had dragged
on for months, and the proposed
revision was a significant one
with the sort of substantive
content that signalled a major change in the nature of the
discussion by the arbitration
panel. Even though the parties
had waived all relevant time
constraints with regard to issu-
mg the report, there is an
appropriate time to call a halt
to further revisions; and that
time has been reached in this
case.
II. THE COMMUNITY OF MOSES LAKE
Moses Lake, Washington is a community in the central
part of the state east of the
Cascade Mountain range. It is
a community of approximately
11,000 citizens with an economy
based primarily on
agriculture. There-are a number of food
processing plants in the
area and conventional
"support"
industries to nourish any
community of this size. A shopping
mall is under construction in
the community.
The Moses Lake Fire Department has a total personnel
complement of thirteen
individuals. The Chief and Assistant
Chief are not in the
bargaining unit, and the eleven member
bargaining unit includes three
captains. There is one fire
station equipped with three
Class A, 1500 gallon a minute
pumpers. The Department operates a rescue boat and
salvage
equipment. The hospital district owns an ambulance, and
the
Fire Department staffs it. All members of the bargaining
unit are EMT certified,
and number have earned Advanced Life
Support certification.
The population of the community has remained relatively
stable since 1955 experiencing a growth of
approximately
1000 people in that time. There are approximately 26,000
citizens in the Greater Moses
Lake area, and there have been
two annexations during the
past five years that added approxi-
mately
one square mile of land to the City of Moses Lake.
The annexations has added
approximately fifteen to sixteen
dwelling units to the
city. The Fire Department provides
fire suppression protection
only for the City of Moses Lake,
but the ambulance service
provided by the Department covers
Hospital District No. 1, an
area that is larger than that of
Moses Lake.
III. NEGOTIATION HISTORY
This is not the parties' first agreement, and they have
successfully negotiated a
number of collective bargaining
agreements with each other
over the years. In May of 1989,
the Association sent the
Employer a Letter of Intent indicating
its desire to negotiate a new
agreement between the parties.
The parties first met on
September 8, 1989 and discussed pro-
posals,
but the Employer requested not to make a wage proposal
until later. The parties met again on September 19, 1989
at
which time management offered
a two percent wage increase.
A third meeting was held. on
November 1, 1989, and the Employer
increased its wage offer to
three percent. Their last regular
bargaining session occurred on
November 21, 1989.
There followed two to three mediation sessions between
the parties, but they proved
to be unproductive. The parties,
then, sought interest
arbitration, and the matter came for
hearing in late August,
1990. The parties submitted five
issues to the arbitration
panel, namely, (1 ) health and wel-
fare insurance; (2) holiday
pay; (3) salaries; (4) length of
the agreement; and (5) sick
leave.
IV. THE ISSUE OF COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
RCW 41.56.460 lists statutory criteria to be used as
standards and guidelines in
reaching an interest arbitration
decision. In this case, it has not been necessary to
evaluate
the Employer's ability to fund
the economic program sought by
the Association because
management never alleged inability
to pay. The debate between the parties has been about
which
communities ought to be
compared with Moses Lake, Washington.
Arbitrators long have
recognized comparisons among jurisdic-
tions
as "preeminent in wage determination" because such com-
parisons
off "a presumptive test of the fairness of a wage.
(See, Feis,
Principles of Wage Settlement, 339 (1924)).
As
Arvid
Anderson, past President of the National Academy of
Arbitrators, has stated,
"The most significant statutory
standard for arbitration in
the public sector is comparability."
(See, 56 Fordham L. Rev. 153,
161 (1987)). The parties, how-
ever, did not challenge the
importance of comparisons as much
as they disagreed about an
appropriate methodology for selec
ting a list of comparable
jurisdictions.
In explaining the basis for comparable jurisdictions
selected by the City, Mr. Gavinski, City Manager, testified
that the Employer (1) used a
range covering cities half as
small to those half again as
large as Moses Lake; (2) only
cities east of the Cascade
Mountains; (3) all full-time fire
departments; and (4) only fire
departments not funded as a
fire district. The Association, on the other hand, used a
methodology that
"attempted to identify all of the public fire
departments in the State of
Washington that were within plus
or minus fifty percent in size
of Moses Lake's Fire Department
in terms of: the number of employes
that were within the
bargaining unit of the
Department; the number of employes
that were within the fire
department as a whole; and the
department budget
size." (See, Association's
Post-hearing
Brief, p. 6).
The objective, of course, of seeking comparable juris-
dictions is to establish a
test of fairness for proposals
parties seek to place in a
collective bargaining agreement.
The objective is not to
produce a "result oriented" list of
comparable cities. The purpose is to avoid the scenario
described by one scholar as
follows:
Pick the criterion you want to show that you're
worse off compared to your neighbor: rates in "X"
community, rates in the average of neighboring
communities, closing the gap between you and the
competitor, the cost-of-living increases, rates
of increase in past years compared to this year,
keeping at a fixed position in the scale of sala-
ries, starting or top, of
"X" communities within
"Y" miles.
And the list goes on. (See, Zack,
"Arbitration and the Public Interest,"
Proceedings
of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the National
Academy of Arbitrators, 161, 189 (1971)).
The purpose of comparisons is
to provide a rational standard
and not to create a method for
splitting the difference in inter-
est
arbitration. Parties do not seek the
weighted average
of an arbitrator's notion of
equity but, rather, a principled
basis for resolving their
impasse.
Neither list of comparable jurisdictions selected by the
parties is consistent with the
stated methodology used by either
of them. Some jurisdictions included on the parties'
list
are simply incompatible with
the criteria supposed to have
been used. Other jurisdictions on a list were included
by
a party inadvertently or by
mistake.
Jurisdictions chosen by the parties are as follows:
City's List Association's List
Cheney Centralia
Clarkston Clarkston
Ellensburg Ellensburg
Pasco Kitsap Co. Fire Dist. No. 1
Pullman Mountlake
Terrace
Sunnyside Pullman
Toppenish Shelton
Walla Walla Snohomish Co. Fire
Dist. No. 4
Wenatchee
There are significant problems with some entries on each
list Pasco, Washington, for example, has a
bargaining unit
twice the size of Moses Lake
with a wage and benefit budget
that is only two-thirds larger
than Moses Lake. (Pasco data
were not made available to the
arbitration panel for the 1990
agreement). Walla Walla has a
bargaining unit almost four times
Moses Lake with 41 members in
the unit as compared with 11 in
Moses Lake. Wenatchee has an
assessed valuation of $608,000,000
in contrast with $239,000,000
in Moses Lake. Mountlake Terrace,
on the other hand, has a
bargaining unit only four employes
larger than the one in Moses Lake
with a total departmental
budget almost twice the size
of that in Moses Lake. With
only four additional fire
fighters, Mountlake Terrace serves a
population that is
approximately 145% greater than the popu-
lation
served by the Moses Lake Fire Department.
Snohomish
County Fire District No. 4 and
Kitsap County Fire District
No. 1 enjoy departmental
budgets that range from 45% to 15%
greater than that of Moses
Lake. All these disparities make
for difficult comparisons.
There is also the dilemma of inconsistent data. For
example, which is the correct
departmental budget size,
$699,911 as set forth by the
Association or $584,902 set
forth in the survey produced
by the Washington State Council
of Firefighters? (See, Association's Exhibit No. 2). Is a
firefighter in Toppenish paid
$1,999 monthly or $2,079? (See,
City's Exhibit No. 10). In fairness, the Employer changed
this figure in Appendix C of
its Post-hearing Brief. Is the
assessed valuation of Moses
Lake $295,000,000, $269,000,000,
$291,000,000, or
$239,000,000? (See, Association's
Hearing
Handbook, p.3; Association's
Exhibit No. 3; City's Exhibit
No. 10; and City's
Post-hearing Brief, App. B).
There is also the issue of fire districts. The Associ-
ation
argued that fire districts are appropriate comparable
jurisdictions with which to
measure a fair wage in Moses Lake.
The Employer argued just as
vigorously that it is highly
inappropriate to include fire
districts in the list of com-
parable jurisdictions.
Mr. Gavinski, City Manager,
testified that a fire dis-
trict
is a "junior taxing district" which is an entirely
different animal" from a
municipal organization such as a city.
He testified as follows:
A fire district is different because the taxes it
receives fall in a lower category, if you want to
put it that way, from taxes that a city like Moses
Lake receives. In
other words, there are priori-
ties which are given to taxes which are assessed
and collected; and if, in fact, under the system
we have, certain taxing authority by the cities,
counties, state, etc., used by whatever taxing
authority is available, junior taxing districts
such as fire districts will have its tax collec-
tion shaved or reduced in
proportion to the other
junior taxing districts in order to come up with
the total amount of money which is equal to what-
ever statutory and constitutional limits exist.
He testified without rebuttal
that a fire district uses its
funds solely for fire
suppression and fire prevention pur-
poses and that a special
assessment exists only for that use.
By contrast, a fire department
is funded from general tax
revenues along with other city
departments such as police,
finance, parks and recreation,
library, airport, and engineering.
Mr. Penrose, President of the Association, testified
that the Washington
Legislature had amended the public
employes collective bargaining law to permit employes in
city fire departments to
compare themselves with fire
districts. In 1985, RCW 41.56.460(c) instructed an arbi-
tration
panel to be guided by:
Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the proceed-
ings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment of like personnel of like employers of
similar size on the West Coast of the United States.
(See, Association's Exhibit No. 2, emphasis added).
In 1987, the Washington Legislature amended RCW
41.56.460(c)
to state:
(c)(i) For employees listed in *RCW
41.56.030(6)(a) and (c), comparison of the wages,
hours and conditions of employment of personnel
involved in the
proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions
of employment of
like
personnel of like
employers of similar
size
on the west coast of the United States;
(ii) For
employees listed in *RCW
41.56.030(6)(b), 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; . . .
(See,
Association's Exhibit No. 1
, emphasis
added).
Mr. Penrose testified he had
been told that the legislative
intent was to permit a
comparison of wages and employment
conditions between cities and
fire districts. It was unclear
whether the Employer failed to
rebut the testimony because it
assumed the hearsay nature of
the evidence would cause it to
be disregarded or because
there was no rebuttal available for
presentation.
There is also the "labor market" problem with
respect to
an appropriate selection of
comparable jurisdictions. A
"labor market"
theory is concerned with how a system employs
the available labor force and
how workers are allocated to
alternative types of
employment. Although there might be much
debate about their nature,
systematic forces are believed to
be at work guiding the
operation of the labor market. While
there are many, one
traditional conceptual framework of a
labor market involves a supply
and demand analysis. The
objective is to understand the
pricing of labor based on an
understanding of the supply
and demand for labor.
The Association's desire to use a statewide list of
comparable entities is based
not only on statutory language
but on an underlying
assumption that there is a perfect labor
market from which workers are
drawn who should receive the
same compensation for doing
essentially the same work. Impli-
cit in this model of the labor
market is an unspoken assump-
tion
that potential employes for Moses Lake have perfect
information about
opportunities and wage rates in the city;
that workers respond to
differences in wage rates and move
toward the higher rate; that
workers are able to move when a
higher paying opportunity
arises; and that each employer is
attempting to maximize the
best use of resources for that
particular entity.
It, however, is not accurate to view the State of
Washington as one giant labor
pool from which employers may.
pull prospective
firefighters. As one scholar noted many
years ago:
At any time in any labor market one finds a great
diversity of rates for identically defined jobs
. . . .There are vast differences in the rates
paid for comparable work in a given industry in a
given labor market area.
Cross-sectionally, one
finds that large firms tend to pay higher wages
than small firms.
(See, Reynolds, "Research on
Wages," Social Science Research Council, 27 (1947)).
Modern labor market theory has
refined markets for a parti-
cular
occupation and has become increasingly conscious of
primary labor markets that might be more regional
than
statewide. (See, Freeman, "What Do Unions Do?"
(1984)).
Some educational systems, for
example, are now being viewed
as central labor market
institutions.
The comparability data put forth by the Association
implicitly were premised on an
equilibrium in the competition
for similar workers with the
theory being that an employer
paying a smaller wage than the
"going rate" would lose workers
because they would move to the
higher wage rates. Likewise,
the unspoken assumption was
that no municipality would be
willing to pay more than the
"going rate" because of its
desire to maximize the use of
its resources. Theoretically,
this model would produce the
most efficient use of labor.
But the model implicit in the
Association's data failed to
take into account an imperfect
world.
Employers sometimes fail to maximize the use of their-autho-
rity. Potential employes
often have imperfect information
about the availability of
positions. Even if they have the
information, they may not be
able to move. They might be
sufficiently satisfied with
their present employment not to
pay attention to an
opportunity with a higher wage, and it
would be necessary for the
higher wage tooff set the cost of
moving. In other words, it is not clear that wage
rates for
firefighters in Washington
truly are set by the impersonal
forces of supply and
demand. While the wage rates probably
are not immune to labor market
forces, one suspects that they
respond very slowly and only
gradually to competitive conditions.
Data submitted to the panel of arbitrators in this case
suggested that a significant proportion
of the labor force
used by the Employer as well
as the labor pool from which
the Employer draws job
applicants are far more immobile than
a competitive model of labor
market theory would suggest. In
other words, the immobility of
the labor force undermines any
theory that there is a
competition for workers. Since 1984,
a majority of job applicants
for Moses Lake have been drawn
from Eastern Washington
applicants. The data reveal the fol-
lowing pattern:
1984 -- 53.7% from Eastern Washington
1986 -- 55.6% from Eastern Washington
1989 -- 63% from Eastern Washington.
In actuality, 66.7% of fire
fighters hired by Moses Lake
since 1975 have been drawn
from Eastern Washington job appli-
cants. (See, City's Exhibit No. 5). Nor has the "turnover"
rate of the existing work
force revealed a different pattern.
During the past fifteen years,
the Employer has lost seventeen
employes;
but only four of those have been lured away by
other fire departments. (See, City's Exhibit No. 11).
Labor market theory is concerned with the
efficient
allocation of resources based
on appropriate wage rates.
Another guiding force in
determining an appropriate wage
rate is the equity with which
the labor market functions. In
other words, fairness is a
legitimate consideration in evalu-
ating
the impact of the labor market on the wage rate. Fire
fighters are hired to serve
the public in various capacities,
and it is logical to assume
that poorly rewarded fire fighters
who are subjected to arbitrary
treatment will not be as moti-
vated
to perform most effectively. It is
reasonable to conclude
that an inequitable wage rate
will gradually poison relation-
ships in the work place and
cause the emergence of antisocial
activity. It is appropriate to demand that the labor
market
operate in such a way that it
encourages workers to perform
effectively and to develop
their skills- and abilities for the
benefit of the public.
A final consideration with respect to selecting an ap-
propriate
list of comparable jurisdictions involves the City
of Sunnyside. Sunnyside is what was characterized as a
"non-
union shop." The Employer argued that the nonunion status
of the bargaining unit at
Sunnyside did not make it less com-
parable in terms of duties and
responsibilities. One interest
arbitrator has agreed with
this analysis, stating:
Jurisdictions properly cannot be ignored simply
because the employees in those jurisdictions are
not represented by a labor organization or because
employees in that jurisdiction are not covered by
a collective bargaining law. (See, City of Walla
Walla, Washington, PERC No. 6213-1-86-139).
At the arbitration hearing,
the Association suggested that it
was inappropriate to compare
union and nonunion operations.
No less an authority than
former U.S. Secretary of Labor John
Dunlop and now a Professor of
Economics at Harvard University
has agreed. He stated:
The simple fact is that workplaces operating under
collective agreements are different from those with-
out formal organization, and they operate differ-
ently and they are typically
managed in quite
different ways. No
simple comparison or general-
ization or statistical estimate
is likely to be very
fruitful. (See,
"Policy Problems," Wages, Prices,
Profits, and Productivity, 137 (1959)).
The eminent economist Richard
A. Lester has explained that
such a comparison is not
appropriate because of the impact of
unions on benefit
packages. He stated:
Labor unions have played a major part in the shap-
ing and growth of company
benefit plans, especially
since the Supreme Court ruled in 1949 that pensions
and group health insurance are mandatory bargaining
subjects under the National Labor-Relations Act.
(See, Lester, Economics of Labor, 2nd ed. 343 (1964)).
The considerations set forth in the report make it
reasonable to draw from each
list of comparable jurisdictions
submitted by the parties
without relying totally on either.
The parties are in agreement
that Clarkston, Ellensburg, and
Pullman are comparable
entities. Two other jurisdictions
have been drawn from each
list, namely Cheney and Toppenish
from the City's list and
Centralia and Shelton from the
Association's list. Accordingly, comparable jurisdictions
used by the arbitration panel
in this case are as follows:
Centralia
Cheney
Clarkston
Ellensburg
Pullman
Shelton
Toppenish
Looking at selective criteria of comparability used by
the parties, the following
pattern emerges:
Cities Population Assessed Wage and Bargaining
Served Valuation Benefit Unit
For Fire Budget Size
Cheney 10,000 106 457,219(T) 5
Clarkston 6,700 104 533,203 10
Ellensburg 11,500 229 812,313 16
Pullman 17,000 266 487,232 12
Toppenish 6,560 78 151,640 5
Averages 10,197 183 480,646 10
________________________________________________________________
( Excluding
Moses Lake)
__________________________________________________
MOSES LAKE 10,600 269 496,684 11
__________________________________________________
It should be noted that there are some differences in
data for individual
jurisdictions. For example, there are
population differences for
Cheney, Ellensburg, Clarkston, and
Pullman. There are assessed valuation differences for
Ellensburg, Centralia,
Clarkston, Pullman, Toppenish and
Shelton. There are differences in the size of the
bargaining
unit for Pullman, Centralia,
Clarkston, Cheney and Ellensburg.
The arbitrator has elected to
rely more heavily on data found
in Association Exhibit No. 3
than on material set forth in
Appendices B, C, and D in the
Employer's Post-hearing Brief
because Association Exhibit
No. 3 was the focus of cross-
examination while the
appendices were not. It should also be
recognized that Mr. Penrose
testified that Cheney has a bar-
gaining unit size of four
members and Clarkston a size of six
members, but data in
Association Exhibit No. 3 differed
from this testimony. Mr. Penrose testified that his infor-
mation
had been obtained either from a 1988 document or from
hearsay sources, and the data in
Association Exhibit No. 3 is from
1990. It should also be noted that the total
departmental
budget for Cheney has been
used instead of the wage and bene-.
fit budget due to its
unavailability.
There was discussion at one point during the arbitration
hearing about the Public
Employment Relations Commission's
decision in City of
Clarkston. (See, City's Exhibit No. 6).
Moses Lake contended that the
City of Clarkston decision was
relevant in this case because
the Association had changed its
list of comparable
jurisdictions during negotiations between
the parties. There, however, was unrebutted
evidence that
the Association gave
management considerable notice of the
change, and the Employer never
established any prejudice to
its case which had been caused
by the change. In City of
Clarkston, the Hearings
Officer stated:
It is clear that the Union changed its set of pro-
posed comparables without notifying the Employer..
While the record indicates that the change was
made in response to changes in RCW 41.56.460, the
record is equally clear that the Union never com-
municated its intentions to the
Employer. (See,
Decision 3246(PECB), p. 12 (1989)).
Evidence submitted to the
arbitration panel established that
the Employer had sufficient
notice of the Association's changed
list of comparable
jurisdictions to prepare its case for
negotiation, mediation, and
interest arbitration. There was
no assertion that the panel is
without jurisdiction to rely
on a set of comparable
jurisdictions different from either
party but on jurisdictions
used by at least one of the parties.
In fact, the Employer itself
proposed such a methodology.
(See, Employer's Post-hearing
Brief, p. 5).
V. THE ISSUE OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
A. Position
of the Parties
1. The
Union's Proposal
The Union makes the following proposal:
The City will continue to provide its current
level of dental and
vision coverage for the mem-
bers of Local 2052; the City
will increase the
medical insurance coverage which it provides to
its LEOFF II members and to the dependents of its
LEOFF I and LEOFF II members so that the City is
paying an amount for the coverage that is at least
equal to 100% of the premiums for the A.W.C. Medi-
cal Plan "B" insurance coverage that is
available
to those individuals; the City will otherwise main-
tain the current system that is in place for
deter-
mining which medical insurance plans the members
of the bargaining unit will choose to accept in a
particular instance.
(See, Association's Post-
hearing Brief, p. 23).
2. The
City
As its proposal on this issue, the City takes
the fol-
bowing position:
The City proposes remaining with the insurance plans
that the city currently provides. The city would pay
1.00% of the premiums for the employee and his/her pay
dependents. (See,
City's Post-hearing Brief, p. 7).
B. Discussion
In accordance with RCW 41.26.005, the state legislature
has divided fire fighters into
LEOFF I and LEOFF II classifi-
cations. Employes who joined
the department before October,
1977 enjoy a LEOFF I
classification, and these employes enjoy
coverage for basic medical
services when there is an on-duty
or off-duty accident. Employes classified
as LEOFF II use
the benefits of the Workers
Compensation System for duty-
related injuries, and an employe's available sick leave account
must be used for any off-duty
injuries.
The LEOFF I system provides an employe
with 100% cover-
age for six months, whether an
on-duty or off-duty accident.
At the end of six months, a
LEOFF I employe may apply for
disability retirement; and the
individual receives as much as
60% of his or her compensation
with the City paying for medi-
cal benefits. Such protection is not under state worker
com-
pensation
law. But LEOFF II employes
are covered by worker
compensation laws, and they
are permitted to use one fourth
of their sick leave
accumulation, one fourth of their
disability payment from the
City, and the State Industrial
payment in order to fill out
their disability benefit for the
first six months. If the LEOFF II employe's
injury is not
related to duty, the
individual is required to use all of his
or her sick leave and is
granted no retirement option.
LEOFF I employes enjoy the
benefit of Plan A, a high
quality benefit made available
by the Associated Washington
Cities insurance
division. The Employer also has
available Plan B and the
Guardian Plan from the Associated
Washington Cities as well as
an HMO arrangement. Although
LEOFF I employes
receive the benefit of Plan A, LEOFF II
employes
receive only the Guardian Plan from the Employer.
It provides the least benefits
of Plan A, Plan B, or the
Guardian Plan.
Each year members of the bargaining unit, knowing that
the Employer will pay 100% of
the premium for the Guardian
Plan, vote on which plan to
adopt. If they adopt anything
other than the Guardian Plan,
all LEOFF II employes must make
up the difference between
premium costs for the Guardian Plan
and the higher costing Plan B
or Plan A. They may always opt
for the HMO. Dependents are covered under the plan
selected
by a majority of the group,
whether they are dependents of
LEOFF I or LEOFF II employes.
The Association maintains that the Employer ought to pay
100% of the premium for Plan
B, instead of 100% of the lower
costing Guardian Plan for not
only employes but also depen-
dents of both LEOFF I and
LEOFF II employes.
(Dental and vision
insurance are not an issue
before the arbitration panel
because the City pays 100% for
these benefits). Plan B
currently has been selected by
the Association, and members
of the bargaining unit are now
paying $23.86 a month beyond
premium costs being funded by
the Employer. Six members of
the bargaining unit plus all
dependents would be affected by
the Association's proposal, as
five bargaining unit members
are LEOFF I employes. It was unrebutted that there has been
at least one LEOFF II employe who was injured on duty and was
compelled to exhaust all sick
leave for benefits.
The topic of insurance has been the subject of extensive
negotiation between the
parties. The current system has been
in place at least for the last
three collective bargaining
agreements. The City provides LEOFF I employes
with Plan A
coverage in order to meet its
statutory obligation to make
available medical services for
on- and off-duty injuries.
In other words, the Employer
must insure against this contin-
gency
or be prepared to absorb costs on an individual basis -
from its general fund.
A review of data from comparable jurisdictions with
respect to health insurance
premiums shows the following
pattern:
Cities Amount
of Premium
Paid by Employer
Centralia $ 314
Cheney 342
Clarkston 381
Ellensburg 316
Pullman 355
Shelton 357
Toppenish 373
_________________________________________
Average excluding
Moses Lake 348
_________________________________________
MOSES LAKE 332
It should be noted that there are some minor dissimi-
larities
in figures used by the parties for this topic, but
the only significant one
involved the City of Pullman and
whether or not the employer
pays a monthly premium of $324
or $355.18. The higher figure from the Association's
material
has been used because the
figure of $324 was presented in the
Employer's Post-hearing Brief
where no cross-examination
could take place. The data show that Moses Lake pays $16
below the average for health
care coverage it provides mem-
bers
of the bargaining unit. Accordingly, it
is reasonable
for the Employer to retain the
Guardian Plan while also mak-
mg a monthly $1 6 payment to the
insurance company in order
to defray the $23.86 payment
now being made by employes in
order for them to enjoy
benefits of Associated Washington
Cities Medical Plan B.
C. Award
Article 10 of the next agreement between the parties
will state:
Article 10 - Health and Welfare
10.01 Effective
January 5, 1990, the City will
provide fully paid medical, dental, and vision
insurance coverage for employees and their depen-
dents. Coverage
will be paid for those employees
who were paid for the full pay period and were
employed on the last regular day for which pay was
due and payable within the month.
10.02
The City will pay 100% of the insur-
ance premiums for the
Associated Washington Cities
benefit trust's Guardian Plan, Washington Dental
Service (Plan B), and Western Vision Plan vision
insurance during the term of this agreement. If an
employee selects an optional health and welfare
package, the difference in premium costs beyond
the $16 will be paid by the employee as a miscel-
laneous payroll deduction. The Employer, however,
will pay to the insurer the first $16 for any
optional coverage costing more than the Guardian
Plan.
10.03
If agreed to by the Labor/Management
Committee that the level of benefits will remain
substantially the same, the benefits provided by
this article may be provided through a self-insured
plan or under group insurance policy or policies
issued by an insurance company or companies selec-
ted by the City.
10.04 This
provision of Article 10 was not
in contention before the arbitration panel.
VI. HOLIDAY PAY
A. Proposal
1 . Association's
Proposal
The Association proposed to amend current contract
language as follows:
Employees shall be paid One Hundred and Twenty-
four (124) hours of straight time pay compensation
for holidays (including the personal floating holiday).
2. Employer's
Position
The Employer seeks current contract language with respect
to holiday pay.
B. Discussion
A review of the comparable jurisdictions has provided
the following information
about holiday pay:
Cities Employer's Data Association's
Data
Centralia 88 holiday hours $2164 value
Cheney 88 holiday hours N/A
Clarkston 0 holiday hours $1476 value
3 floating holidays
$95 if holiday worked
$70 if holiday not worked
Ellensburg 0 holiday hours $2428.80
value
Comp time as a holiday (264 hours)
is earned
Pullman 88 holiday hours $930.23 value
Receive pay for 3-2/3 shifts (88 hours)
Shelton 0 holiday hours $3808 value
(366
hours)
Toppenish
0 holiday hours N/A
CBA is silent on the issue
_______________________________________________________________
MOSES LAKE 100 holiday hours $1,044.23 value
(264
hours)
_______________________________________________________________
Cities Collective Bargaining Agreements
Centralia 11 paid holidays; time and
a half pay if
holiday is worked, otherwise,
8 hours of straight time pay.
Cheney 11 paid holidays; time and a half pay if
holiday is worked, otherwise 8
hours of
straight time pay.
Clarkston 12 paid holidays; $95 of pay
if holiday
is worked, otherwise $70 of pay.
Ellensburg 11 paid holidays. The holidays "are
earned as they come in the
year." The
contract
also states that "personnel
on regular duty during a holiday
will
not be eligible to receive extra
pay
for that shift."
Pullman "Holiday pay equivalent to 3-2/3
twenty-four hour shifts in lieu
of
paid holidays."
Shelton 12 paid holidays. Time and a half pay
if holiday is worked; an earned
holiday
equals one shift off.
Toppenish There is no reference to
holidays or
holiday pay in the 1989-91
Toppenish
labor contract.
_______________________________________________
MOSES LAKE 100 hours straight time as
compensation
________________for
holidays____________
The Association sought to increase the hours of paid
holiday compensation from 100
to 124 hours. The Employer
argued that there was no justification
for such an increase
and that, alterilatively,
if holiday pay were to be in-
creased, it would be fairer
'to eliminate holiday pay entirely
and to require the city to
give an employee working a holi-
day a day off because of
working the holiday or requiring
the city to pay time and a
half or double time to every
employee working on a
holiday." (See, Employer 5
post-hearing
Brief, P 10).
The parties vigorously disagreed about the meaning of
comparability data with
respect to the topic of holiday pay,
and it is no wonder. Jurisdictions approach this topic dif-
ferently,
and a comparison of practices produces more of a
holiday hash than an orderly
picture. One comparable juris-
diction (Toppenish) makes no
mention at all of holiday pay
in the parties collective bargaining agreement, but it is
difficult to believe that the
matter is not covered by employ-
ment
practices between those parties.
In Moses Lake, an employe's 100
hours is accumulated in
increments of 3.85 hours a
month and paid out in 26 equal pay
periods. The Association attempted to place a dollar
value
on time worked and not worked
in an effort to compare holiday
pay practices. The dilemma with the methodology is that it
is difficult to compare a
payment of money for holidays with
providing compensatory time
off or even noncompensatory time
off for holidays worked. Additionally, some jurisdictions
use a payment formula based on
time and a half premium pay,
while it is higher in other
jurisdictions. Nor is it accurate
to compare the impact of this
benefit on various departmental
budgets by using the top fire
fighter rate for assessing the
"value" of the
holiday without also submitting data about
the number of fire fighters at
the top rate in each depart-
ment. The picture of comparability is also blurred
to some
extent by the fact that the
Association based its formula on
twenty-four hour shifts, but a
seventeen/seven schedule is
used in Moses Lake.
The Association did not join issue with the Employer's
contention that the application
of the holiday schedule in
Moses Lake has been less
intrusive than in other cities
because of the way shifts have
been scheduled. Unrebutted
data submitted by the Employer
established that the follow-
mg average number of holiday
hours has been worked by each
shift from 1986 to 1989:
A Shift
-- 70.25 hours
B Shift
-- 79.75 hours
C Shift
-- 66 hours.
Moreover, during an actual
holiday, there is a change in the
duties routine; and the
parties follow a holiday routine"
which includes checking
trucks, cleaning the station, and
then enjoying free. time. It is recognized that this time is
not authentically
"free," but in some minimal way the "holiday
routine" mitigates the
intrusiveness of working on the holiday.
Some better methodology needs
to be devised for compar-
mg jurisdictions that provide
time off with those that make
a lump sum payment for
holidays that are worked. The answer
may lie in refining and
clarifying the methodology used by
the Association, but it is
unrealistic to argue that compen-
satory
time off is the same sort of benefit as is a lump sum
payment for holidays. The Association, however, compared
days off with straight time
holiday pay with time and a half
holiday pay. In order to give clearer guidance, the data
need to flow from a better
methodology.
C. Award
The next agreement between the parties shall contain
Article 15 -- Holiday Pay as
it appeared in the last collec-
tive
bargaining agreement between the parties, with the
following addition:
The parties shall form a Study Committee consist-
ing of one individual appointed
by the Fire Chief
and another by the President of the Association
whose mission shall be studying holiday pay in
order to present a proposal on the subject for
consideration by the parties when they next nego-
tiate after the expiration of
this agreement and
no later than December 31, 1992. The Study Com-
mittee shall base its study and
any pro-
posal on the same comparable
jurisdictions used
by the arbitration panel in this report.
VII. SALARIES
A. Position
of the Parties
1 . The
Association
The Association proposed to
modify Article 19 as follows:
19.01 Beginning
January 1st of each year,
1990, 1991, 1992, the salaries
of all positions
shall be increased by an
amount equal to the per-
centage
change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index
Urban Wage Earners, All
Cities, as measured for
the preceding year from July
to July, as identi-
fied
by the U.S. Department of Labor.
The above-described CPI for the period
between July of 1988 and July
of 1989 is 5.1%.
Therefore, salaries for
members of the bargaining
unit for 1990 would be
increased by 5.1% during
1990 over and above what each
member of the bar-
gaining unit received as a
salary as of December
31, 1989. Subsequent wage increases for 1991
and 1992 will be based upon
the appropriate CPIs
as described above.
2. The
Employer
The Employer proposed to increase salaries for members
of the bargaining unit by 3.5%
in 1990.
B. Discussion
The parties disagreed about the relative ranking of bar-
gaining unit members with
respect to salary, but the underly-
ing
disagreement was with the list of comparable jurisdictions
used by each party. As previously explained, the Association
used communities such as
Mountlake Terrace, Washington which
has experienced some of the
dramatic growth of the Puget
Sound basin. The Employer argued that such a comparison
failed completely to take into
account differences in the
appreciation of residential
real estate between the two
regions. From approximately 1980 to 1990, overall appreci-
ation
in Moses Lake has approximated 12%. The
average increase
in assessed valuation for the
period from 1980 to 1990 due
to inflation and annexations
has averaged 2.9% a year. (See,
City's Exhibit Nos. 16 and
17). The Employer's data caused
it to conclude that members of
the bargaining unit are only
3.5% behind wages paid in
comparable jurisdictions, but the
Association's data supported
its conclusion that it is 13.7%
behind comparable
jurisdictions.
The Association also justified its proposed wage increase
of 5.1% by pointing to the
average increase of 7.18% as the
wage increase granted nonunion
employes for 1990, as well as
to the fact that wages for
people such as the City Manager or
the Municipal Services
Director had increased by 5.84% and
5.37% respectively this
year. The Employer responded by
pointing out that from 1977 to
1989, the increase for the City
Manager had been 66.96% and
the Municipal Services Director
69.39% as contrasted with a
wage increase for fire fighters
during this period of
102.33%. (See, City's Exhibit No. 12).
Information submitted to the arbitration panel failed to
justify as large an increase
as the one sought by the Asso-
ciation,
but the data, nevertheless, justify an increase
larger than the one proposed
by the Employer. Justification
is found in the increased
productivity of bargaining unit
members. For example, there has been the same size
work
force from 1983 to the
present. During that time, there has
been a 49% increase in the
number of alarms processed by the
bargaining unit. In the last five years, there has been a
25% increase in the workload
and an 11.6% increase in 1988-89.
Even isolating the number of
calls devoted only to fires,
there has been a 20% increase in
the workload since 1983 with
no commensurate increase in
the size of the work force.
Equity also dictates a larger increase than 3.5%. Mr.
Gavinski,
City Manager, testified at the arbitration hearing
that there is an effort made
to maintain relative parity be-
tween
the police and fire departments. Yet,
from 1977 to
1989, police officers realized
a wage increase of 108.72%
compared with 102.33% for fire
fighters. This included an
increase of 16.1% during the
last five years for police
department employes
compared with 12.2% during the same period
for fire fighters. (See, Association's Post-hearing Brief,
p. 17).
The comparability data justify a wage increase of 4.79%.
A review of those data show
the following pattern:
Cities Salaries
Centralia $2,494
Cheney 2,222
Clarkston 2,061
Ellensburg 2,233
Pullman 2,241
Shelton 2,605
Toppenish 2,079
Averages 2,276
Excluding Moses Lake
MOSES LAKE $2,172
A wage increase of 4.79% would produce a dollar increase
of $104 on average for a top
fire fighter wage of $2,276.
This increase would produce
the following rank order for
jurisdictions comparable with
Moses Lake:
Shelton $2,605
Centralia 2,494
Moses Lake 2,276
Pullman 2,241
Ellensburg 2,233
Cheney 2,222
Toppenish 2,079
Clarkston 2,061
C. Award
The next agreement between the parties shall state:
Article 19.01 Effective January 1, 1990, salaries
far members of the bargaining unit will be increased
by 4.79% as applied to "A" Step for Fire
Fighter
and Captain.
VIII. MEDICAL CERTIFICATIONS
A. Position of the Parties
1 . The
Association
The Association proposed as Article 19.02 the
following
provision:
Beginning January 1, 1990, members of the bargain-
ing unit obtaining and
maintaining the following
medical certifications shall be compensated at the
rate of $25.00 per month for each certification
held up to a maximum of $75.00 per month: EMT,
Airway; IV; and Defibrilation
Technician.
2. The Employer
The Employer proposed the status quo with
regard to
medical certification
compensation.
B. Discussion
The arbitration panel received unrebutted
evidence that
there were approximately 1500
alarms turned in to the Moses
Lake Fire Department in 1989
and that approximately 1200 of
those alarms required a fire
fighter to: use knowledge gained
from a medical certification
training program. A fundamental
program is the Emergency
Medical Technician certification
which trains fire fighters to
provide basic life support
services. An individual invests 110 hours to obtain the
cer-
tification,
including hospital training. The
Employer cur-
rently
requires its job applicants already to have earned the EMT
certification. There is also a continuing education require-
ment
of ten hours a year for three years, but the arbitrators
received no evidence with
respect to whether or not this
training is conducted
internally by departmental staff, and
if done externally, whether or
not members of the bargaining
unit must pay for it.
There are other advanced life support certifications.
For example, one can obtain a
certification in Intravenous
transfusions to assist trauma
patients. This program requires
approximately 80 hours beyond
the EMT certification to obtain
it It
requires an individual to maintain 20 hours a year of
continuing education course
work. There is also a Defibrilation
certification which certifies
an individual as a Defibrilation
Technician. Such training enables a fire fighter to
assist
heart attack victims more effectively. Finally, there is an
Airway certification which
trains fire fighters in various
ways of opening respiratory
passages.
Although the comparability data for this topic contains
a mixed message, they do
provide valuable guidance. They show
the following pattern:
Cities Pay for Emergency Pay for Advanced
Medical Technician Life Support
Compensation Certification.
Centralia $65 monthly No added pay
Cheney No added pay No added pay
Clarkston No added pay $35
monthly
Ellensburg Paramedics No
added pay
Pullman $22.40 monthly $75
monthly
Shelton $40 monthly No
added pay
Toppenish No added pay No added pay
MOSES LAKE No added pay No added pay
The Employer argued that medical certification compensa-
tion
is not appropriate because it has been
considered when
establishing basic
salaries. (See, Employer's Post-hearing
Brief, p. 14). It, however, is reasonable to conclude from
the data that medical
certification pay has not been equitably
considered by the Employer
when setting its basic wage rate. If
so, it is difficult to explain
why Shelton provides a salary
that is 14% higher while also
providing an additional $40 for
EMT certification. Likewise, Centralia provides a basic
salary that is 10% higher than
Moses Lake while also provid-
ing
$65 a month for EMT certification pay.
Pullman, with a
salary behind the 1990 salary
for Moses Lake, still pays
$2240 a month as EMT
certification pay and $75 a month for
other advanced life support
certification.
At the same time, EMT certification is a basic job
requirement in Moses
Lake. The arbitration panel received no
evidence with respect to
whether or not EMT certification is
an entry level requirement in
Shelton, Centralia, or Pullman.
Guidance drawn from the comparative data suggests that
municipalities with a higher
basic wage than Moses Lake also
provide medical certification
pay. Since, however, the EMT
certification is a basic
requirement of entry level employes,
there is some logic in the
Employer's contention that this
basic certification does not
merit additional compensation.
In an effort, however, to
provide a: financial incentive for
members of the bargaining unit
to obtain further training in
an area involving 80% of the
alarms received by the Department,
it is reasonable for the
Employer to make available some
level of certification pay.
C. Award
Article 19.02 of the
parties next agreement shall state:
Beginning January 1, 1991,
members of the bar-
gaining unit who have
obtained, are obtaining,
and who maintain the following
medical certifica-
tions shall be compensated at the rate of $20.00
a month for each certification
held to a maximum
of $60.00 a month. Airways; IV; and Defibrilation
Technician.
Article 27 of the 1988-89 agreement between the parties
shall be deleted from their
next collective bargaining
agreement.
IX. LONGEVITY PAY
A. Position
of the Parties
1 . The Association
The Association submitted the following proposal with
regard to longevity pay:
19.03 Beginning
January 1, 1991, members
of the bargaining unit shall
have their base sal-
ary
increased by the following amounts per tenure
of service:
Completed Years of Service Percent Increase
5 2%
10 4%
15 6%
2. The Employer
The Employer proposed that the Association's proposal
with regard to longevity pay
not be made a part of the next
agreement between the parties.
B. Discussion
A review of data from comparable jurisdictions with
respect to longevity pay
reveals the following pattern:
Cities Longevity
Pay
Centralia No pay
Cheney No pay
Clarkston 1st yr.--$3 mo.;
2nd yr.--$6 mo.; 3rd yr.--$9 mo.;
4th yr.--$12 mo.; 5th
yr.--$lSTh'o.
Ellensburg No pay
Pullman No pay
Shelton 6-10 yrs.--$50 mo.; 11-15
yrs.--$100 mo.;
16-20 yrs.--$150 mo.; 21-25 yrs.--$200 mo.;
26 yrs.--$250 mo.
Toppenish 2-5 yrs.--$10
mo.; 5-10 yrs.--$15 mo.;
10-15 yrs.--$20 mo.; 15-20 yrs.--$25 mo.;
21 yrs.--$30 mo.
MOSES LAKE No
pay
Three of the seven comparable jurisdictions make use of
the concept of longevity pay,
and the Association concluded
that "this is not
surprising in light of the benefits to the
departments involved that are
provided by 'longevity pay.'"
(See, Association's
post-hearing Brief, p. 20). What the
arbitration panel failed to
receive, however, was any kind of
empirical evidence detailing
the benefits to fire departments
from longevity pay. This is not to suggest that such bene-
fits do not exist but only
that the panel received no evidence
of any benefits. The Employer submitted evidence showing
that, from 1975 to 1990,
seventeen workers have left the
department. Three retired. Six took disability retirements.
Management fired one
worker. Three left fire suppression
work entirely. Only four employes
went to other fire depart-
ments. The arbitration panel received no objective
evidence
showing that longevity pay
would have had any significant
impact on the employment
status of these former employes.
(See, City's Exhibit No. 11). Nor should it be overlooked
that none of the comparable
jurisdictions use the sort of
percentage formula set forth
in the Association's proposal.
C. Award
The next collective bargaining agreement between the
parties should not contain the
Association's longevity pay
proposal.
X. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT
A. Position
of the Parties
1 . The
Association
The Association proposed that the term of the Agreement
be effective from January 1,
1990 to December 31, 1992 with a
July to July CPI wage increase
in 1991 and 1992.
2. The
Employer
The Employer proposed a one year agreement expiring in
December, 1990 or,
alternatively, a multi-year agreement with
a wage reopener
provision.
B. Discussion
The parties have disagreed about the duration of their
next agreement as well as
about the nature of any negotia-
tions
during the term of their agreement. If
the parties
entered into a one-year
agreement, they would already be late
in entering negotiations for a
successor agreement. Negoti-
ations
for this collective bargaining agreement officially
began in May of 1989 and only
now are coming to fruition. It
was evident from relationships
at the hearing that the parties
need a respite from
negotiations and time to heal tensions
caused by such an experience
in a smaller community.
The Employer sought a multi-year agreement with wage
reopener
provisions, but there was no indication in the
relationship between the
parties that resolution 6f a
reopener '
provision would be accomplished any easier than
have been these
negotiations. A multi-year agreement
tied to
a relative CPI wage rate is
beneficial to the parties and
should permit both of them to
reduce the expense, the amount
of staff time, and the
relational difficulties of frequent
negotiations. A longer term agreement should give the
parties
more time for research and
more of an opportunity to plan
their objectives so that the
quality of negotiations and
the results to be reached will
be better.
To protect the expectations of both parties, it is pru-
dent to include a "floor" and a
"ceiling" in a wage provi-
sion
tied to changes in an index of consumer prices.
Such
provisions are not at all new
and have been used routinely in
the United States since 1948
when the management staff at
General Motors originated the
idea. When a "ceiling" exists
in the provision, it
"caps" any wage increase; and a "floor"
provides an assurance of some
basic wage increase. It, of
course, is easier to devise a
self-actuating wage proposal
tied to changes in costs of
living than it is to predict the
nature of that price behavior
itself.
There, however, is some evidence to suggest that the
impact of CPI fluctuations is
less severe in smaller cities.
There is substantial evidence
to show that some costs, such
as life insurance, will not
change appreciably. Other costs,
for example, housing and
housing expenses, cost considerably
more to buy the same real
estate and services in large metro-
politan
areas. Testimony from Mr. West, Human
Resources
Director, about assessed valuations
in Washington confirmed
this conclusion.
Moreover, Mr. Gavinski
testified that, while growth in
Moses Lake has occurred, it
has not been statistically signi-
ficant. He is active in the City Managers Association
of
the State of Washington, the
Association of Washington Cities
Legislative Committee and
Trust Users Committee, as well as
serving on the State of
Washington Public Works Board. That
background has given him
considerable insight into the growth
of communities in the Puget
Sound Basin, and he maintained
that an individual can expect
to experience significant
savings by moving to a smaller
town. Housing and transpor-
tation
costs are 50 much less in a smaller city that it is
not unusual for overall
expenses to be reduced.
The Association has proposed that any wage adjustments
for future agreements be based
on the United States Consumer
Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners, All Cities, using
September to September
figures. The Consumer Price Index
measures average changes in
consumer prices over time when
consumers purchase a fixed
market basket of goods and ser-
vices. The CPI is the most widely used measure of
inflation
in the United States and is an
important tool in effectuating
economic policies of the
federal government. The Index has
a direct impact on the income
of millions of people in the
United States, some as a
direct result of legislative enactments.
The Consumer Price Index is divided into the All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U) or the Urban
Wage Earners and Clerical
Workers (CPI-W). The CPI-W came into use during World War I.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics
has indicated that, in 1982-84,
the CPI-W included 28% of the
U.S. population. It, however,
is the CPI-U which is the more
broadly based index, represen-
ting 81% of the population in
1990. In contrast with the
CPI-W, the CPI-U is based on
expenditures reported by all
consumer units in urban areas
with an exception not relevant
in this case. It seems appropriate to use the more broadly
based index in the parties'
agreement.
There was considerable debate about whether or not to
use September to September or
July to July CPI dates, but the
arbitration panel received
inconclusive evidence about precisely which
schedule the parties had
followed over the years, and the
Bureau of Labor Statistics
modified the Consumer Price Index
in 1987, causing some CPI
schedules to be published on a new
time table. The CPI for
Seattle-Tacoma, Washington is now
published only on a
semi-annual basis. The schedule for the
Western Region of the United
States is published monthly but
includes the volatile Los
Angeles Basin market. Although the
Seattle-Tacoma, Washington
average covers a six month period
from January through June, it
is not released until August
and well may be the September
to September schedule used by
the parties for at least the
last two years.
C. Award
The next agreement between the parties shall be in full
force and effect on January 1,
1990 and shall remain in full
force and effect through
December 31, 1992.
On January 1, 1991 and again on January 1, 1992, salaries
for members of the bargaining
unit will be increased by the
amount of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U), U.S. City Average
for Seattle-Tacoma,
Washington, covering all items in the
Index using 1982-1984 as the
standard reference base period.
Should the Bureau of Labor
Statistics change the Index base
during the term of this
agreement, the parties agree to use
the new measure used by
BLS. For the wage adjustments to be
made on January 1, 1991 and
January 1, 1992, the percentage
increase using the CPI-U
guideline as applied to the "A"
Step for firefighter and
captains shall not be less than four
percent nor more than six
percent. Although the wage adjust-
ments
will be computed from January 1, they will not be
implemented until the second
pay period in March because the
relevant CPI schedule will not
be released by BLS until then.
XI. SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL
A. Position
of the Parties
1 . The
Association
The Association proposed current contract language for
Article 24 as well as the
following modification of the "sick
leave" provision:
24.01 Beginning
January 1, 1990, LEOFF II
members shall receive sick
leave at the rate of
11.08 hours per bi-weekly pay
period. Bargaining
unit members having a total
sick leave accrual in
excess of 1 ,552 hours shall
accrue sick leave at
the rate of 2.8 hours per
bi-weekly pay period.
2. The
Employer
The Employer proposed that sick leave be accrued at 5.4
hours per bi-weekly payroll
period or 144 hours a year.
C. Discussion
Currently, a fire fighter in Moses Lake accrues 5.08
hours of sick leave per pay
period, or approximately 11 hours a
month. On January 1 of each
year, a LEOFF I employe receives six
24-hour shifts of sick leave
or 144 hours to begin the calen-
dar
year. LEOFF II employes,
on the other hand, accrue
approximately 11 hours a
month, or 132 hours by the end
of each year. The Association maintains that those most
needing sick leave are at a
disadvantage in terms of accruing
it because LEOFF I employes are covered by state statutes
which assure them of six
months of disability leave and the
opportunity to apply for
disability requirements; while LEOFF II
enjoy no such benefits.
What the Association wants as much as anything is the
opportunity for employes to accrue at least a shift of sick
leave a month instead of using
the "hours formula now used
by management. In other words, if an individual is sick, the
Association believes it is
more realistic to view the illness
in terms of lost shifts more
than in terms of hours away from
the job. Other city employes,
according to the Association,
receive at least one shift of
sick leave per month." (See,
Association's Post-hearing
Brief, p. 22). But, as Mr. Penrose
testified, if members of the
Association are ill, "it takes
us two and a half months to
get the sick leave back. But
other city employees miss a
day of work and get it back by
the end of the month."
Comparability data with regard to sick leave accrual show
the following pattern:
Cities Sick Leave Hours Sick Leave "Cap"
Cheney 144 960
Clarkston 288 1440
Ellensburg 288 0
Pullman 288 1120
Toppenish 288 1440
Average, excluding
Moses Lake and Ellensburg 247 1507
Comparability data submitted to the arbitrators suggest
that the Employer is not equal
to comparable jurisdictions
with regard to this benefit
for LEOFF II employes. They
receive fewer sick leave hours
than any comparable juris-
diction by a considerable
amount, and the absence of a sick
leave "cap" is of no
benefit to members of the bargaining
unit. The accrual rate is simply
too slow to turn the
absence of a "cap"
into a significant benefit, assuming no
cash out" value to the
benefit.
If it is assumed that (1) an employe
receives 11 hours
of sick leave a month; (2) the
individual accumulated sick
leave for every month
throughout every year being considered;
and (3) during the time being
considered, the employe never
used any sick leave at all, it
would require 11.4 years for
an employe
in
for those comparable
jurisdictions making use of a cap. If
one assumes the same
hypothetical facts except that an occa-
sional
illness caused an individual to use two days of sick
leave a year, it would require
almost 14 years for an employe
to reach the sick leave cap.
The Association's proposal provides more symmetry in
the Employer's treatment of
LEOFF I and LEOFF II employes by
allowing an individual to
accumulate sick leave at a quicker
rate for use in the event of a
major accident to which fire-
fighters are more routinely
exposed than are most other
workers. By increasing the accrual rate while also "capping"
the total amount of sick leave
accrual, the Employer is more
similar to its comparable
jurisdictions. Nor did the arbi-
trators
receive any evidence indicating that this approach to
the issue of sick leave
accrual would expose the Employer to
any financial risk, in view of
the absence of a "cash out"
provision for sick leave.
C. Award
Article 24 as it appeared in the last agreement between
the parties shall remain the
same in the parties' next labor
contract except for the
following modification to Article 24.01:
Beginning January 1, 1990, LEOFF II members shall
receive sick leave at the rate of 11.08 hours per
bi-weekly pay period, with a limit of 1507 hours
on the total accrual of sick leave.
XII. CONCLUSION
Interest arbitration is a unique dispute resolution
process that has distinctly a
legislative cast to it, and
statutory criteria have been
designed so that the arbitral
results should advance a more
productive relationship between
the parties. The theme sounded by the Employer in its
open-
mg statement at the
arbitration hearing was one of desiring
to provide equitable wages and
working conditions as measured
by comparable
jurisdictions. The Association presented
the
following theme, stating:
All the Association is asking for in this inter-
est arbitration is to be brought
closer to the
level of wages and benefits that are being received
by members of comparable departments. The Local
is not asking to be brought even with benefits
being received by those other departments, but rather
just to be brought closer. That's the primary
issue.
These themes have been heeded
in the arbitrator's study of
the evidence and in this
award. It is the belief of the
arbitration panel that the
values espoused by the parties are
consistent with the following
award:
AWARD
Article 10 of the next agreement between the parties
will state:
Article 10 - Health and Welfare
10.01 Effective
will provide fully paid medical, dental, and vision
insurance coverage for employees and their depen-
dents. Coverage
will be paid for those employees
who were paid for the full pay period and were
employed on the last regular day for which pay
was due and payable within the month.
10.02 The
City will pay 100% of the insur-
ance premiums for the
Associated Washington Cities
benefit trust's Guardian Plan,
Service (Plan B), and Western Vision Plan vision
insurance during the term of this agreement. If
an employee selects an optional health and welfare
package, the difference in premium costs beyond
$16 will be paid by the employee as a miscellane-
ous payroll deduction. The Employer, however, will
pay to the insurer the first $16 for any optional
coverage costing more than the Guardian Plan.
10.03 If
agreed to by the Labor/Management
Committee that the level of benefits will remain
substantially the same, the benefits provided by
this article may be provided through a self-
insured plan or under group insurance policy or
policies issued by an insurance company or corn-
panies selected by the City.
10.04 This
provision of Article 10 was
not in contention before the arbitration panel.
The next agreement between the parties shall contain
Article 15--Holiday Pay as it
appeared in the last collective
bargaining agreement between
the parties, with the following
addition:
The parties shall form a Study Committee consist-
ing of one individual appointed
by the Fire Chief
and another by the President of the Association
whose mission shall be studying holiday pay in
order to present a proposal on the
subject for
consideration by the parties when they next nego-
tiate after the expiration of
this agreement and
no later than
mittee shall base its study and
any
proposal on the same comparable jurisdictions
used by the arbitration panel in this report.
The next agreement between the parties shall state:
Article 19.01 --
Effective
salaries for members of the bargaining unit will
be increased by 4.79% as applied to "A" Step
for
Fire Fighter and Captain.
Article 19.02 of the parties' next agreement shall state:
Beginning
ing unit who have obtained, are
obtaining, and who
maintain the following medical certifications
shall be compensated at the rate of $20.00 a month
for each certification held to a maximum of $60.00
a month. Airways; IV; and Defibrilation
Technician.
Article 24 as it appeared in the last agreement between
the parties shall remain the
same in the parties next labor
contract except for the
following modification to Article 24.01:
Beginning January 1, 1990, LEOFF II members shall
receive sick leave at the rate of 11.08 hours per
bi-weekly pay period, with a limit of 1507 hours
on the total accrual of sick leave.
Article 27 of the 1988-89 agreement between the parties
shall be deleted from their
next collective bargaining
agreement.
The next collective bargaining agreement between the
parties should not contain the
Association's longevity pay
proposal .
The next agreement between the parties shall be in full
force and effect on
force and effect through
On
for members of the bargaining
unit will be increased by the
amount of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U)
for
Index using 1982-1984 as the
standard reference base period.
Should the Bureau of Labor
Statistics change the Index base
during the term of this
agreement, the parties agree to use
the new measure used by
BLS. For the wage adjustments to be
made on
increase using the CPI-U
guideline as applied to the "A" Step
for firefighter and captains
shall not be less than four per-
cent nor more than six
percent. Although the wage adjustments
will be computed from January
1 , they will not be implemented
until the second pay period in
March because the relevant CPI
schedule will not be released
by BLS until then.
Pursuant to authority from the parties, the arbitration
panel shall retain
jurisdiction in this matter for sixy days
from the date of this
report. It is so ordered and awarded.
Respectfully
submitted,
________________________________
Danny Downs
Fire Fighters
Date:____________________________
________________________________
Employee Relations,
City of
Date:
___________________________
_______________________________
Professor of Law
Date:___________________________
Should the Bureau of Labor
Statistics change the Index base
during the term of this
agreement, the parties agree to use
the new measure used by
BLS. For the wage adjustments to be
made on
increase using the CPI-U
guideline as applied to the "A" Step
for firefighter and captains
shall not be less than four per-
cent nor more than six percent. Although the wage adjustments
will be computed from January
1 , they will not be implemented
until the second pay period in
March because the relevant CPI
schedule will not be released
by BLS until then.
Pursuant to authority from the parties, the arbitration
panel shall retain
jurisdiction in this matter for sixy days
from the date of this
report. It is so ordered and awarded.
Respectfully
submitted,
_______________________
Fire Fighters
Date:____January
28, 1991_
_______________________
Employee Relations,
City of
Date:__________________
_______________________
Professor of Law
Date:
DISSENTING OPINION
I dissent from the opinion of the panel to the extent
that it applies the
to support use of that index.
Use of the Seattle-Tacoma rather than
resulted solely from an
inadvertent error made during the panel discussions, and inclusion
of the local index in the
final award is factually inappropriate and legally improper.
The basis for my dissent is best understood through an
understanding of the
chronology. The neutral
chairperson sent a draft of his award to each of the partisan
arbiters. Upon review of the
award, [ noticed that the draft award referred to the
City Average Seattle-Tacoma Index. There is no such index.
In previous bargaining
agreements, the parties have
used the U.S. All Cities Index. In all
of the evidence
presented at the hearing, the
U.S. All Cities Index was the only index ever proposed by
either the
On February 1, 1991, I wrote a letter to my fellow panel
members seeking
clarification of the language.
I pointed out that the draft language needed to be corrected.
Inadvertently I proposed
striking "
suggestion was adopted.
Over the next couple of months, but prior to the time the
final award had been
issued, I discovered my error.
I wrote a letter to the other members of the panel and
requested that the error be
corrected. A copy of that letter is attached hereto. Without
explanation, the neutral
chairperson has refused to have the error corrected.
The record at the hearing is devoid of any evidence upon
which to support a change
in the use of the
to "The CPI, All
interest arbitration, the
Union stated that, "Salaries. . . shall be increased by an amount
equal to the percentage change
in the U.S. Consumer Price Index, Urban Wage Earners, All
Cities as measured for the for
the preceding year from July to July..."
See letter of August 20,
1990. The Unions post hearing
brief proposed a wage increase of 5.1 percent, which was
equal to the
between July 1988 and July of
1989. The City's post hearing brief also referred to the All
Cities Index and not the
Seattle-Tacoma Index.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics cautions against use of
local indexes and rather
suggests that a broader index
such as the All Cities Index is more appropriate for purposes
of setting wage increases in a collective bargaining
agreement. There was no evidence in
the record to support a change
from the party's established past practice. Neither party
ever proposed such a change.
It is well established that an interest arbiter has no authority
to change established practice
without the party who is proposing a change establishing
it by preponderance of the
evidence. Here, there has been absolutely no evidence put
forward to support a change.
Only through an inadvertent error made by the City's
partisan arbiter, corrected
prior to the time that a decision had been issued, has the
practice of using the
Index.
As the City's partisan arbiter, I fully recognize that an
interest arbitration award
should be final and binding.
In most cases, although I might not agree with parts of a
decision on which I am a panel
member, I would not dissent. Here, however, there is
absolutely no basis whatsoever
for the award as it is written. A collective bargaining
agreement should be created
through reasoned discussion and persuasive evidence, not
through mistake. I
respectfully dissent.
DATED this 9th day of May, 1991.
___________________________
attachment: 1