International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No.
58
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06151-I-85-00135
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 58
Date Issued:
PERC No. 6151-I-85-135
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR
THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael
H. Beck Neutral Chairman
Barbara
Revo Employer
Representative
John
Komar Union
Representative
Appearances:
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS,
LOCAL
UNION NO. 58 Herman
L. Wacker
IN THE MATTER OF
and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS
, CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN
AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 58
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for the arbitration of disputes
when
collective bargaining negotiations involving uniformed
personnel
have resulted in impasse. The parties
agree that
the
deputy sheriffs and sergeants employed by
are
subject to the aforementioned arbitration procedures.
The undersigned was selected by
the parties to serve as the
Neutral
Chairman of the tripartite arbitration panel. The
Arbitrator selected by the
Employer,
Barbara Revo,
of the management consulting firm of Cabot Dow
&
Associates. The
Arbitrator selected by the
national
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and
Helpers, Local Union No. 58, is John Komar, Administra
tive Assistant for the public, Professional &
Office-
Clerical Employees and Drivers
Local Union No. 763, affi-
liated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters
Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers.
A hearing was held before the Arbitration panel on
represented by
Coie. The
law
firm, Davies, Roberts, Reid & Wacker. At the hearing
the
testimony of witnesses was taken under oath and the
parties
presented extensive documentary evidence which
measured
almost a foot in height. A court
reporter was
present
and a verbatim transcript was prepared and provided
to
the Neutral Chairman (hereinafter Chairman) for his use
in
reaching a decision in this matter.
The parties agreed to file simultaneous posthearing
briefs. The Employer's brief was timely postmarked
and
received on
postmarked
but was mailed to the wrong address and thus was
not
received until 0, 1987
Chairman, the parties agreed to
an extension of the statut-
ory requirement that a decision issue within
thirty days.
Instead, the Chairman was given
until
his
decision. On
other
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
By letter of
of
the public Employment Relations Commission certified a
number of
issues to be submitted to interest arbitration.
Subsequent to such
certification, the parties were able to
settle a
large number of the outstanding issues.
Pursuant
to
the parties'
the
following issues remain:
Holidays
Uniforms and Uniform Equipment
List
Salary Schedule
Salaries - Step Advancement
DISCUSSION
Comparables
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 consider-
ation the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of
the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and
conditions of
employment of personnel
involved in
the proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of employ-
ment of like personnel of like
employers of
similar size on the west
coast of
the
(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.
The legislative purpose for enactment of the interest
arbitration
statute is set forth in RCW 4l.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of this . .
act is
to recognize that there exists a
public
policy in the state of
ington against strikes by 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
cated and uninterrupted public service
there
should exist an effective and
adequate
alternativeness of settling
disputes.
The parties involved here are deputy sheriffs and
sergeants
employed by a county. They provide
service to a
population
base of approximately 79,600. I have
used the
Employer's population figure
for
rather
than the
of
the Employer's population figure appears to be slightly
more
recent and because I have generally determined to use
the
Employer comparators, as will be explained later in
this
Opinion.
The parties are not agreed upon which comparators are
appropriate to
use in reviewing the matters at issue here.
The
and
counties in the State of
the
statutory interest arbitration procedures.
According to
the
''like employers" refers
only to other counties. The
contends
that cities and counties are appropriately con-
sidered like employers since there are few
significant
differences
between the law enforcement activities of city
police
officers and those of county sheriffs.
Further, the
cities
and counties not to be like employers, i.e.,
different
revenue-raising devices, does not address the
issue of
comparability but only the relative ability of
cities
and counties to pay for personnel costs.
Finally,
the
subject to
interest arbitration reflect the effects of in-
terest arbitration whereas compensation levels in
counties
not
subject to interest arbitration reflect compensation
amounts
which tend to favor employers.
Whatever merit there may be in the
interpretation of
the statutory requirement that comparisons
be
made between "like personnel of like employers", it is
clear
that the statutory interpretation urged by the
cannot be
adopted since it conflicts with another specific
statutory
requirement. Here, use of the
would
require that the Chairman ignore the statutory
requirement
that comparators be of "similar size".
The
Exhibit No. 44 (Counties) and
The
from
107,700 to 1,326,600. The
cities
range in population from 16,02 to 490,300
Thus,
the
below to
more than 1566% above the population of
County. In my view such wide variances in population
cannot
be
considered to meet the statutory requirement that the
comparators be
of similar size. As the Employer points
out
in
its brief, there is ample arbitral support for the con-
clusion that population variances of such magnitude
do not
comport
with the statutory requirement that comparators be
of
similar size. Finally, in this regard,
if your Chairman
were to
accept the
statutory
requirement that the comparators selected are to
be
"west coast" jurisdictions and not simply jurisdictions
from
the State of
The Employer has proposed a set of twenty comparators.
The Employer arrived at these
by selecting all counties in
lation range of plus or minus 50% of the population
of
Washington, one in Alaska, ten
in Oregon, and twelve in
Star Borough, was eliminated
because it does not provide any
police
services. The Employer reduced the
number of
counties In
counties in
each state closest to
The Employer made no further
reduction in the counties
selected
for
For
comparators
range in population from a low of 61,500
(
which is
a range of from 23% below to 27% above
County. For
range
from a low of 48,400 (
116,000 (
to
46% above
disparities
and the fact that the statute does not indicate
that
weighted
than other jurisdictions on the west coast, I have
determined to
select only five
decision is
consistent with the method used by the Employer
to
select counties in
chosen
the five counties in
population to
use as
a
sample of fifteen comparators, five each from
selected
comparators is almost exactly plus or minus 33%
I also reviewed the comparators provided by the
to
determine whether any of the
fell
within this population range. Only one
of the
proposed
counties,
for
use as a comparator from the Employer's proposed list)
and
two cities,
or
minus 33% range. These three comparators
taken alone
would be
an insufficient number of comparators to make any
meaningful
comparison with
chosen
not to include
comparators
because the wage and benefit information pro-
vided by
the
the
information provided by the Employer reflects 1986
compensation
levels. Here the dispute between the
parties
does
not involve 1985, it involves compensation levels for
1986
and 1987.
The following chart sets forth the selected
comparator
counties with their respective populations:
Grays Harbor 63,900
Lewis 56,500
Clallam 52,600 Josephine 65,500
Salary Schedule
The parties have agreed upon a three year
term for the
Agreement. The
1985,
5% for 1986 and 5% for 1987. The Employer proposes no
wage
increase for the term of the Agreement.
The parties
are
not agreed on the appropriate basis to use in comparing
the
wages of the comparators with those of the Employer.
The Employer urges that only
salaries be considered in
comparing
reduced to
a dollar value and that a total compensation
figure be
used for comparison. For the following
reasons I
have
decided not to use the net hourly compensation analysis
urged by
the
The
benefits
and sets forth as their value to the employee the
cost of
such benefits to the Employer. The cost
to the
Employer of benefits such as a
pension plan, health in-
surance or life insurance does not represent direct compen-
sation paid to employees. Furthermore, such benefits may
have
widely differing values to employees depending on the
specific
terms of such benefits and an employee's individual
situation. For example, health insurance may be of sub-
stantially greater value to an employee whose spouse is
not
receiving
health benefits at his or her place of employment
than to
an employee whose spouse is receiving broad health
insurance
coverage at his or her place of employment.
Thus,
to
the extent that benefit figures reflect cost to the
Employer, rather than
compensation paid to the employee, it
is
very difficult to calculate the value of such benefits to
employees. Additionally, the
net
hourly compensation figures certain other benefits, such
as
holiday pay and uniform allowances, which are matters to
be
separately resolved in this case.
I agree, however, with the
monthly
salaries to evaluate the relative monthly compen-
sation in wages among the comparators will not give
an
accurate
comparison. The approach I have selected
is a
compromise
between that urged by the
the
Employer. I have included in my analysis
those elements
of
compensation that are readily ascertainable and that
reflect
real wage compensation paid to employees each month.
I have, therefore, included
longevity and educational
premium
pay since these are amounts paid directly to
employees
and really are an integral part of the salary
schedule. Additionally, I have included pension pick-up
since,
as I understand this benefit, the amounts paid by the
Counties in
those
states are amounts the employee would be required to
pay if
the employer involved was not "picking up" the
pension
contribution.
The following chart indicates the position of
County
relative to that of the selected comparators. The
total
salary figure represents the maximum monthly total of
wages,
longevity pay (based on 20 years of service), edu-
cational premium pay, and pension pick-up payments
made by
each
comparator to its deputies. Maximum
amounts have been
used
since almost all members of the bargaining unit here
are at
top step. I have not attempted to
separately compare
sergeants
since the
proposal
for those employees and because the deputies
constitute a
large majority of the unit. The figures
pro-
vided by
the Employer on Employer Exhibit Nos. 15, 16, 17
and 26
have been used except where obvious errors or
apparent
inconsistencies between 1986 and 1987 figures
resulted in
a recalculation of the figures. Any
changes
made in
the Employer's figures are noted and explained in
the
relevant footnotes attached to this Opinion.
In addi-
tion, because of the difficulty of comparing the
1986 total
monthly
wage of the comparator employees, who work 2080
hours
per year, with the monthly wage of the
employees
who worked 1950 hours in 1986, I have calculated
the
hourly rate for each comparator and
on
their respective scheduled hours of work.
1986 WAGE AND BENEFIT
ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction Wages
Longevity Education Pension Total Hourly
Benton-WA 2201 100 40 - 2341 13.51
Clallam 2003 60
- - 2063 11.90
Grays Harbor 19901
40 - - 2030 11.71
Lewis 1926 100 12.50 - 2039 11.76
Josephine7 - - - - - -
Linn
2039 - 45 122.34 2206 12.73
El Dorado-CA 2415 - 120.75 60.38 2596 14.98
Kings 2212 - - 121.668 2334 13.46
Mendocino 214410 - 160.00 - 2305 13.30
AVERAGE 2249 12.98
PERCENT
The foregoing chart shows that for 1986, the average
hourly
wage and benefit rate for the comparators was $12.98.
The total hourly rate for
average
total hourly compensation of the comparators and
ranked
third behind
1986 indicates that no wage
increase is warranted for 1986.
Even without an increase for
1986 the Employer is still in a
position as
a 'I wage leader" among the selected comparators,
as
the
For 1987, the Employer provided in its brief a revised
copy of
Employer Exhibit No. 19, showing the comparators'
salaries
for 1987. In reviewing this revised
exhibit, I
have
determined based on the evidence in the record that,
except
for the changes noted, the revised exhibit more
accurately
reflects the salaries of the comparators for
1987. For six of the comparators, wage and
benefit figures
are
not available for 1987. In certain
instances
corrections
were indicated and any such corrections which I
have
made in the Employer's figures are noted and explained
in
the footnotes attached to this Opinion.
The following
chart
indicates the position of
relative to
that of the comparators. I have used the
same
methodology in
assembling this chart as was used for the
1986 wage chart above. To do so, I have had to calculate
the
appropriate longevity, education, and pension amounts
since
such figures were not provided by the Employer for
1987
in its revised Employer Exhibit No. 19. The term INA"
means
information not available.
1987
WAGE AND BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction Wages Longevity Education
Pension Total Hourly
Benton-WA 2306 100 40 - 2446 14.11
Clallam INA -
- -
- -
Grays Harbor 19701
40 - - 2010
11.60
Lewis INA -
- -
- -
Josephine INA - - - - -
Linn INA -
- -
- -
El Dorado-CA 24156 - 120.75 60.38 2596 14.98
Kings 2256 - - 124.09 2380 13.73
Mendocino INA - -
- - -
AVERAGE 2359 13.61
Percent Difference +5.1%
The foregoing chart shows that the average hourly com-
pensation for the available comparators for 1987 is
$13.61.
The hourly rate of compensation
for Cowlitz County is
$14.30. As can be seen from the chart, although
Cowlitz
County is 5.1% ahead of the
average of the comparators, it
has
lost more than 5% in relation to its position in 1986
relative to
the average of the comparators.
It is also clear that the cost of living has increased
from
the time of the last wage increase given to Cowlitz
County
bargaining unit employees in July, 1984. The
Consumer price Index for Urban
and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)
for
All U.S. Cities increased 5.8%, for Portland 3.9%, and
for
Seatt1e-Everett 2.8% between July, 1984 and November,
1986. November, 1986 was selected because it is the
latest
date
for which figures are available for the foregoing
indices. Since there is not agreement by the parties
as to
which of
these three indices should be used for comparison
purposes, I
find it appropriate to average the three indices
in
order to arrive at a figure which is reflective of the
increase in
the cost of living for Cowlitz County.
The
average
increase in the cost of living represented by the
three
indices is 4.2% for the period from July, 1984 to
November, 1986.
In addition to the statistical factors discussed above,
I note that the stated intent
of the Legislature, in
adopting
the interest arbitration provision for uniformed
personnel,
was to insure the dedicated and uninterrupted
vital
public service provided by such personnel.
Your
Chairman is specifically
directed by statute to be mindful
of
this legislative purpose in reaching a decision. To the
extent
that attention to this statutory purpose may result
in a
wage or benefit increase beyond that obtained by other
public
employees not subject to such procedure, such
difference is
inherent in the legislative establishment of
differing
collective bargaining rights for uniformed per-
sonnel and other public employees.
As noted above, the bargaining unit here has not had a
wage
increase since July, 1984. Although it
is true that
bargaining
unit members received a 6.7% increase in monthly
salary
for 1987, such increase merely reflects a 6.7% in-
crease in
the monthly hours of work. As was clear
at the
hearing,
such increase could also be viewed as a decrease in
compensation
since employees will work 2 1/2 more hours per
week at
the same hourly rate and will lose the overtime pay
which
would previously have accompanied such extra hours.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I find that some
wage
increase for 1987 is warranted. To adopt
the
Employer's salary proposal for
1987 would not be appropriate
since it
would result in a decrease in real wages in the
face of
a rising cost of living. In such
circumstances, a
lack of
any wage increase over 3.5 year period cannot be
expected to
meet the statutory purpose discussed above.
An
appropriate
increase for 1987 is 4.2%. This increase
reflects
the average increase in the cost of living since
the
last prior wage increase. While such
increase will
compensate
employees for the increased cost of living, such
increase
will not wholly maintain the Cowlitz County
employees'
1986 position relative to the other comparators.
Nonetheless, they will remain
well-compensated in relation
to
the other comparators.
Salary - Step Advancement
The parties' prior Agreement established a salary step
advancement
schedule based on length of employment.
The
Employer proposes to make
advancement on the salary step
schedule
contingent upon a satisfactory job evaluation.
The
Union proposes no changes in
the prior contract language.
In support of its position, the
Employer relies upon the
fact
that a majority of the selected comparators provide for
step
advancement based on satisfactory job performance.
After reviewing the Employer's proposal to establish
satisfactory
performance as a criteria for salary step
advancement I
find, in agreement with the Union, that it is
vague in
content. Neither personnel Director,
Richard
Anderson, nor Undersheriff, Gary Lee, could explain how the
evaluation
form which the Employer had developed would be
used to
determine whether employees would be denied a step
increase. Neither witness could explain whether a point
system or
some other grading system would be used, and, if
points
were used, how points would be allocated to particu-
lar levels of performance by category or what
total number
of
points would be required for a satisfactory evaluation.
In addition to the lack of specific content in the
Employer's proposed evaluation
system, the Employer did not
offer a
particular reason why such an evaluation system
should be
implemented in this bargaining unit. It
was clear
from
the testimony of Anderson that the present disciplinary
system
permits the Employer to discipline employees for poor
job
performance. There was no claim by the
Employer that
the
present system is somehow inadequate or unworkable.
I note that the term of the Agreement at issue here is
scheduled to
expire December 31, 1987. Negotiations
for a
new
Agreement will soon begin. Both the
issue of imple-
mentation of a salary step system based on
satisfactory
performance
and the content of any such evaluation system
are
clearly amenable to the bargaining process.
Should such
bargaining
process not result in agreement on this issue and
were
the Employer to offer a definite evaluation system and
a
rationale for implementing the system in this bargaining
unit,
then it would certainly be appropriate at that time to
consider
such a change. Here, however, where the
Employer
has
offered neither, it is not appropriate to order any
change in
the prior Agreement.
Holidays
The parties are agreed that if a holiday falls on an
employee's
regularly scheduled work day, the employee will
receive
his regular straight-time pay plus pay at time and
one-half. They are also agreed that if a holiday occurs
on
an
employee's regularly scheduled day off, such employee
will be
paid for the holiday at his regular straight time
rate
or, at the employee's option, receive an extra day off
with
pay.
At issue here is what should be the appropriate compen-
sation when a holiday occurs on an employee's
regularly
scheduled
work day, but the Employer decides to reduce the
level of
staff and the employee is not required to work.
The Employer contends that the
employee should receive the
day
off with regular straight-time pay. The
Union contends
that
the employee should be treated similarly to the
employee
whose regular day off occurs on the holiday and
receive an
additional day's pay or an additional day off.
An additional issue involves
the Union's assertion that
seniority
should be the primary criteria used to determine
which
employees will work on a holiday when there is not
full
staffing.
The Employer contends that because no other comparator
pays a
holiday premium when an employee is taking a holiday
off,
the Employer should not be required to do so either.
Further, during discussions
with the other members on the
Arbitration panel, the
Employer's representative on the
panel
contended that awarding an additional day's pay or an
additional
day off in the circumstances at issue here would
not
result in similar treatment of employees whose day off
falls on
a holiday and those whose day off does not fall on a
holiday
but are given the day off. The Union
relies on the
language of
the prior Agreement in support of its position.
However, as the Employer points
out this matter is not in
the
posture of a grievance but is before an interest arbi-
tration panel.
After careful consideration of this matter, I find that
it is
not appropriate to award an extra day's pay or an
extra
day off to an employee scheduled to work but given the
holiday
off with pay. To do so would result in
such
employee
receiving an even greater holiday benefit than that
received by
an employee who actually works on the holiday.
For example, assume a standard working month contains
22 work days. Assume further, for ease of calculation, that
employees
are paid a salary equivalent to $100 per day.
Under the agreed upon terms of
the Agreement, an employee
who
must work on a designated holiday will receive his
regular
monthly salary for 22 days of work ($2,200) and in
addition
will receive time and one-half in holiday pay
($150)
for a total of $2,350. This
is the equivalent of
working 22
days and receiving pay for 23.5 days. On
a daily
basis,
the employee's effective daily rate would be
$2,350/22
or $106.82.
An employee whose day off falls on a holiday has the
option of
receiving an additional day off or an additional
day's
pay. If the employee elects an
additional day off,
he
will be paid for 22 days but work only 21 for an
effective
daily rate of $2,200/21 or $104.76. If
the
employee
elects to receive an additional day's pay, he will
be
paid for 23 days and work 22, for an effective daily rate
of
$2,300/22 or $104.55.
Under the Union I proposal, an employee who was
scheduled to
work on a holiday but was given the day off
with
pay could elect to receive an additional day off or an
additional
day's pay. If the employee chose to
receive an
additional
day's pay, he would be paid for 23 days ($2,300)
but
only work 21 days. This is an effective
daily rate of
$2,300/21
or $109.53. This
is a higher rate of compensation
than is
received by the employee who must work on the holi-
day
($109.53 compared to $106.82).
Similarly, if the
employee
elects to receive an additional day off, he will be
paid
for 22 days but only work 20. This is an
effective
daily
rate of $2,200/20 or $110, which is even higher than
the
$109.53 rate provided the employee who chose to receive
an
additional day's pay.
Under the Employer's proposal an employee given a
holiday
off with pay would work 21 days and receive pay for
22
for an effective daily rate of $2,200/21 or $104.76.
Thus, in terms of effective
rate of compensation, the
Employer's proposal compensates
an employee who is given a
holiday
off with pay identically to an employee whose
regular
day off falls on a holiday and elects an additional
day
off, and almost identically to the same employee who
chooses
instead, an additional day's pay ($104.76 compared
to
$104.55). In these circumstances, it is
not appropriate
to
order the Employer to provide an extra day off or an
additional
day's pay to an employee scheduled to work a
holiday
but who is given the day off.
On the issue of holiday staffing by seniority, the
Employer introduced substantial
evidence at the hearing that
it
would be dysfunctional to the Sheriff's department to
staff
holidays based on employee seniority.
The Employer's
proposed
language on scheduling (Employer brief, page 32) is
reasonable
and consistent with the provisions for staffing
already
set forth and agreed to by the parties in Article 7,
Section
7.1.
Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, I find it is
appropriate to
order that the following language to be added
to
the parties Agreement:
5.3 When a holiday occurs on an
employee's
scheduled work day,
staffing
needs will be determined
by
the Sheriff based upon the man-
power
needs, experience and abil-
ity.
After the Sheriff determines
manpower
needs, then preference for
staffing
those needs on the holiday
may be
exercised by qualified
senior
deputies, using the staffing
guidelines
set forth in Article 7.1
of
this Agreement. In this event,
those
deputies not working the
holiday
shall receive the holiday
off
with pay and the employees
working
the holiday will receive
premium
pay for the holiday worked
as
set forth in Section 5.1
Uniforms And Uniform Equipment List
The parties are in agreement
that the prior uniform
allowance
system is in need of change. Both
parties have
proposed
numerous changes to the former system.
The Union
proposes
that new employees be given two complete uniforms
and
equipment. Each year thereafter,
employees will be paid
$200.00
to cover the cost of cleaning such uniforms.
Further, the Union proposes
that each employee will be
entitled to
receive an additional $200.00 each year for
purchase of
uniform and equipment items. The Union
also
wants to
retain a procedure whereby the Employer would
replace
uniform and equipment items on a fair wear and tear
basis. The Union proposes an additional $300.000
purchase
allowance
for detectives and other officers required to wear
special
apparel. Finally, the Union seeks to
retain the
joint
uniforms and equipment committee and to limit the
uniform
and equipment items that must be returned to the
Employer upon termination to
those purchased within the
preceding
twelve months.
The Employer has proposed that new hires be furnished
with
the uniforms and equipment set forth in the equipment
list. Each year thereafter, employees will be
entitled to
reimbursement
for up to $350.00 for purchase of uniform and
equipment
items, cleaning and maintenance. The
Employer
seeks to
abolish the joint uniforms and equipment committee
and to
require that all uniforms and equipment purchased by
the
Employer be returned to the Employer upon termination.
The Employer agrees to bear the
burden of proof on this
issue. In its brief, the Employer has also suggested
an
alternative
proposal to that already set forth in Employer
Exhibit No. 73 (position of
Cowlitz County Re: Uniforms)
should it
be found that the provision would benefit from an
entire
rewrite.
After a careful review of the evidence and the briefs
of
the parties, it is my understanding that the parties are
generally in
agreement as to the following items:
Returns. In the event a probationary
employee is
not retained beyond the
probationary
period, all uniforms and
equipment
shall be returned to the
County.
Non-Cumulative Allowances.
Accounts
shall
not be cumulative from year to
year.
Bulletproof vests.
Bulletproof vests
shall be
issued and replaced on an as
needed"
basis when approved by the
Sheriff and such issue and/or
replace-
ment shall not be charged to the
allowance
provided by this Article.
Uniforms and Equipment Damaged In The
Line of Duty. Items damaged in the
line of
duty outside of reasonable wear
and
tear will be replaced by the
County.
Such items shall not be
charged to
the allowance provided by
this
Article.
Non-Abuse. Employees agree to maintain
all
clothing, uniforms and equipment in
good
condition and not subject such
items to
abuse.
On the remaining items in dispute, I have determined
for
the following reasons, to adopt the Employer's approach
with
certain modifications. First, it is
apparent that the
present
uniform allowance procedure has been difficult to
administer. The evidence indicates that the Union has
been
unhappy
with the Employer's administration of the fair wear
and
tear policy. The Employer has proposed a
simpler system
which
will give each employee a set uniform allowance each
year
which can be spent as the employee chooses to purchase,
clean
and maintain uniform and equipment items.
Such system
would
eliminate the fair wear provision, but a review of the
comparators
shows that those comparators that provide a
straight
dollar allowance do not also provide for replace-
ment of uniform and equipment items on the basis
of fair
wear.
The evidence presented indicates that the $350 proposed
by
the Employer is a sufficient amount to adequately provide
for
the uniform and equipment needs of employees.
In this
regard, I
note that the actual cost to the Employer to
provide
all uniforms, equipment and cleaning to bargaining
unit
members was an annual average of $220.35 in 1985 and
$168.33
in 1986 per employee.
The Employer also seeks to eliminate certain items from
the
Uniform and Equipment List. However, as
was noted
above,
the Employer has been able to provide on average all
of
the items on the list to new employees and needed re-
placement
items for all employees for significantly less
than
the allowance it is proposing. Thus, I
find no justi-
fication for reducing the Uniform and Equipment List
as
suggested by
the Employer.
On the issue of allowances for detectives and other
employees
required to wear special apparel, the Union wants
a
$300 purchase allowance. The Employer
proposes that the
$350 uniform allowance may also
be used by detectives for
cleaning
plainclothes. The Employer's proposal
provides for
the
replacement of items damaged in the line of duty appar-
ently for detectives as well as other
employees. Although a
review of
the evidence presented does not support providing
detectives
with an allowance beyond that provided uniformed
officers,
it does support making such allowance available to
detectives
and others required to wear special apparel.
Therefore, I shall order that
these employees receive the
same
annual allowance as uniformed officers which may be
used
for purchase, repair and cleaning of clothing and
equipment.
Both parties are agreed that upon termination,
employees
should be required to return uniform and equipment
items to
the Employer. The Union, however,
proposes
limiting
such return to those items purchased within the
twelve
months prior to termination. The evidence
indicates
that
every comparator requires its employees to return uni-
forms
and equipment at the time of termination.
The twelve
month
limitation proposed by the Union would permit the
Employer to recover only a
small portion of the uniform and
equipment
items provided and is not supported by any sub-
stantial justification. Therefore, I find it appropriate to
order
that employees be required upon termination to return
to
the Employer uniform and equipment items provided by the
Employer. I will not however, make the application of
this
section
retroactive. Thus, the requirement to
return uni-
form
and equipment items applies only to those items
acquired
pursuant to this Article of the Agreement effective
January 1, 1987.
During discussions with the other members of the Arbi-
tration panel, it became apparent that neither the
Union nor
the
Employer proposal made adequate provision for the
cleaning of
uniform and equipment items provided to first
year
employees. Further, neither proposal
specifically
addressed
how to implement a new uniform allowance system so
as to
insure that all employees will receive the benefits of
such
new system in 1987.
The Employer's alternate proposal set forth in its
brief
does recognize that by eliminating the Employer
provided
cleaning service, first year employees would not be
compensated
for uniform cleaning costs. To remedy
this
problem,
the Employer proposes awarding first year employees
a
reduced uniform and equipment allowance to be used for
cleaning
only. The Employer suggests that $156
per year up
to a
maximum of $13 per month is an appropriate amount. The
evidence
indicates that the average cost to the Employer to
provide
cleaning for each employee has been $107 per year.
The Employer's increased
cleaning allowance may constitute a
recognition
that first year employees may have higher
cleaning
costs as a result of having fewer uniform changes.
In view of the foregoing, I
will order that first year
employees be
allocated up to $156 for cleaning. I
will not
order
such reimbursement limited to $13 per month since to
do so
would place an unwarranted restriction on an
employee's
ability to be reimbursed for actual cleaning
costs
incurred.
Based on my discussion with the other members of the
Arbitration panel, I also find
that it is reasonable to
implement
the uniform and equipment allowance provisions in
such a
manner so as to insure that employees will receive
the
benefit of such provisions during 1987.
In drafting
such a
system, I have attempted to incorporate the very
helpful
suggestions of both panel members on this issue.
Finally, I think it is clear that when new contract
provisions
are implemented, issues may arise which were not
anticipated. Here it would seem particularly appropriate
to
continue
the joint uniform and equipment committee as a
means to
joint resolution of any problems which may develop
regarding
the new system embodied in my Award.
Therefore, I
will
order that the joint committee provisions be retained.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I find it appro-
priate to order the following provisions be
incorporated
into
the parties' Agreement:
Article 9 Uniforms and
Equipment
9.1 Effective January 1, 1987, for any
newly hired commissioned
officer,
the County shall furnish two (2)
complete uniforms and equipment
listed in Appendix A of this
Agree-
ment. During such employee's first
year of employment, he shall be
entitled to receive
reimbursement
for up to $156 for the cleaning
of
such uniforms and equipment.
9.2 In the event a probationary
employee is not retained beyond
the
probationary period, all
uniforms
and equipment shall be returned
to
the County.
9.3 Effective January 1, 1987, all
commissioned
officers who have com-
pleted their first year of employ-
ment shall be entitled to receive,
during
each calendar year, rein-
bursement for up to $350 for the
purchase,
replacement, repair or
cleaning of
uniforms (or plain-
clothes in
the case of detectives
or
others required to wear special
apparel)
and equipment listed in
Appendix
A to this Agreement.
Those commissioned officers who
complete
their first year of
employment
after January 1 of a
calendar
year shall be allocated a
pro
rata portion of this uniform
and
equipment allowance based on
the
number of scheduled work days
remaining in
the calendar year.
9.4 The uniform and equipment allowance
shall not be cumulative from
year
to year.
9.5 Reimbursement for the purchase,
repair or cleaning of uniforms
(or
plainclothes in the case of
detectives or others required to
wear special apparel) and
equipment shall be processed
using
forms approved by the Sheriff.
Employees may purchase items or
obtain cleaning services from
the
vendor of their choice and have
the vendor submit invoices to pur-
chasing for direct payment to the
vendor (if the vendor allows it)
or
pay the vendor for purchase or
service and submit a receipt to
purchasing for reimbursement
until
the uniform and equipment
allowance
is exhausted.
9.6 Items damaged in the line of duty
outside of reasonable wear and
tear
will be replaced by the County.
Such items shall not be charged
against the employee's uniform
and
equipment allowance.
9.7 Employees agree to maintain all
clothing, uniforms and equipment
in
good condition and not subject
such
items to abuse.
9.8 Bulletproof vests shall be issued
and replaced on an "as
needed"
basis when approved by the
Sheriff.
Such issue and/or replacement shall
not be charged against the
employee's uniform and equipment
allowance.
9.9 In the event of a dispute concerned
with methods, problems place of
purchase, or items of purchase,
a
committee composed of two
members
appointed by the Union, and two
members appointed by the
Employer
shall meet and confer and make
appropriate recommendations to
the
Sheriff.
9.10 At time of termination, all uni-
forms and equipment purchased
after January 1, 1987 pursuant
to the terms of this Article,
shall be returned to the County.
The burden of proof shall be on the
County.
APPENDIX A
Uniform and Equipment List
3 pair pants (wash and wear)
3 long sleeve shirts (wash and wear)
3 short sleeve shirts (wash and wear)
1 dress hat and hat cover
1 wash and wear jumpsuit (K-9
handlers wear a better quality
jumpsuit and normally have
three)
1 coat (short tuffy jacket or long
sportscaster)
1 tie
1 winter cap
1 baseball cap (for S.A.R.)
22 shoulder patches
2 badge patches (4 for K-9 handlers)
1 bullet proof vest
1 hat badge
1 shirt badge
1 set brass buttons
1 set C.C.S. collar insignia
2 name plates
1 I.D. case
1 pair shoes or boots
1 dress belt (basketweave)
1 gun belt (basketweave)
4 belt keepers (basketweave)
1 cuff case (basketweave)
1 set speedloaders and case (basketweave)
1 key holder (basketweave)
1 uniform holster (basketweave)
1 concealable holster (pancake style)
1 baton ring (basketweave)
1 flashlight ring (basketweave)
1 buck knife and case (basketweave)
1 baton
1 Kell light (5 or 6 cell)
1 pair handcuffs
1 clipboard
1 pair uniform gloves
Retroactivity
The interest arbitration statute requires that the
constitutional
authority of the employer be considered in
arriving at
a decision. The Employer contends that
certain
provisions of
the Washington State Constitution make any
retroactive
award of wages and benefits an unconstitutional
gift of
the Employer's resources. The Employer
maintains
that a
retroactive award is only permissible if there was a
prior
agreement between the parties in which such retro-
active
application of a future award was agreed upon.
According to the Employer it
has entered into no such agree-
ment here, accordingly, any award can be
effective only from
the
date of issuance of this Opinion and Award.
I have carefully considered the Employer's contention
and
for the following reasons conclude that a retroactive
award of
wages and benefits is not precluded in this case.
I note that the case
predominately relied upon by the
Employer,
Christie v. The port of Olympia, 27 Wn.2d 534
(1947) was decided many years
prior to the passage of the
public
employee collective bargaining laws. Thus,
Christie
does
not address the integrated statutory scheme established
by
the Legislature. This statutory scheme
specifically
provides in
RCW 41.56.950 for the retroactive application of
collectively
bargained wages and other benefits for the
period of
time between the expiration of a collective
bargaining
agreement and the execution of a successor agree-
ment. It
is also clear that to the extent Chapter 41.56 RCW
permits
the Employer to agree to retroactive compensation,
it
also permits an interest arbitration panel to award such
retroactive
benefits as part of the balancing of interests
accomplished by
the statute.
Additionally, since the time of the court's decision in
Christie and the Opinion of
Attorney General's Office inter-
preting that decision cited by the Employer, AGO
1974 No.
19, the court has seriously
questioned its prior decisions
interpreting
the constitutional provisions relied upon here.
See, City of Marysville v.
State, 101 Wn.2d 50 (1984).where
the
court upheld a public entity's payments to the state
retirement
system pursuant to RCW 41.40.160(2) for service
credit
earned by employees before their private employer was
purchased by
the public entity as not constituting gifts of
public
funds to a private party prohibited by Article VIII,
Section
7 of the State Constitution. In view of the fore-
going,
and recognizing the principle that enactments of the
legislature
are entitled to a strong presumption of consti-
tutionality, I do not find my Award to be in violation
of
either
Article II, Section 25 or Article VIII, Section 7 of
the
State Constitution.
FOOTNOTES TO 1986 WAGES AND
BENEFITS CHART
1. The
Employer's 1986 salary figure for Grays Harbor
is
$1961. However, the applicable agreement
provides that
beginning
January 1, 1986, each employee will receive a lump
sum
payment equal to his or her annual base salary times 80% of
the
increase in the Seattle-Everett CPI-U for the previous
year
ending November. This equals $348.20 on
an annual
basis
and $29 on a monthly basis. Thus, I have
used a
figure of
$1990 to reflect the value of the lump sum payment
for
1986, however, the actual base salary for 1986 does not
increase.
2. The
Employer's longevity figure for Lewis is $385.
The Lewis County agreement
clearly provides for payment of
$5.00
per month for each year of service. Based on 20 years
of
service, $100.00 is used to reflect a more accurate
maximum
longevity figure.
3. The Employer's 1986 salary for Skagit is
$2304,
however,
the amount reported by the Employer for Skagit in
1987 is only $2226. The Skagit County agreement indicates
that
employees are to receive a raise of 3.25% for 1986
based on
the salary shown in the salary schedule.
It
is
unclear whether deputies are to be paid according to
Salary
Range 11 or Salary Range 12. Because the information
about
the comparables was provided by the Employer, doubts
as to
the accuracy of such information should be resolved in
favor of
the Union. Thus, I have chosen to use
Salary Range
12
which is 2010.39. 2010.39 x 1.0325 2075.73. In addi-
tion, I have included the $152.50 per month merit
pay
reported by
the Employer to arrive at a total monthly wage
of
$2228.
4. The Employer's 1986 salary figure for
Douglas on
Exhibit No. 26 is $1854. The Employer's questionnaire
completed by
Douglas indicates the 1986 salary to be $2045.
5. The Employer lists a separate educational
premium
of
$191 for a deputy with advanced certification.
However,
the
salary schedule in the collective bargaining agreement
appears to
include such premium as a part of the base salary.
6. Calculation of the pension pick up is
based on the
salary
revision above, i.e. 6% of $2045.
7. The collective bargaining agreement for
Josephine
expired
June 30, 1985. The Employer's
questionnaire mdi-
cates that the parties are still negotiating a
successor
agreement. To the extent there could be a retroactive
application of
agreed wage and benefit amounts, it would be
inappropriate to
use the 1985 figures to reflect 1986 wages
and
benefits.
8. The Employer lists no pension pick up for
Kings
County, however, Article 17 -
Retirement clearly indicates
that
Kings County shall contribute 5.5% of the employee's
contribution.
9-10. Although the agreements for both Madera and
Mendocino expired in 1985, the
salary figures reported by
the
Employer for 1986 do reflect an increase over the 1985
salary
figures. Thus, although the figures
cannot be inde-
pendently verified, there is no indication they are in
error.
FOOTNOTES FOR 1987 WAGES AND
BENEFITS CHART
1. The
Employer's 1987 salary figure for Grays Harbor
is
$1990. As indicated in footnote No. 1 to
the 1986 Wage
and
Benefit Chart, the base salary in 1985 was $1961. It
did
not increase in 1986. However, employees
in 1986 did
receive a
lump sum payment equal to their base annual salary
times
80% of the previous year's increase in the appropriate
CPI
index. For
1987 that amount was $111.05. On a
monthly
basis
this reflects an additional $9.25 per month.
Thus, the
salary
figure of $1970 ($1961 + $9) is used to reflect the
value of
the lump sum payment.
2. The
salary used reflects the corrections indicated
in
Footnote 3 to the 1986 Wage and Benefit Chart and the
3.5% increase in base salary
provided in the Skagit County
agreement in
1987.
3. Salary used reflects the average of the
Employer
figures to
more accurately represent the average monthly
salary
for 1987. pension
pick up amounts reflect these
adjusted
salary figures.
4. Same as
above.
5. Same as
above.
6. Although
the Resolution setting forth the terms of
employment
for El Dorado County expired December 31, 1986,
the
questionnaire provided by the Employer and answered by
El Dorado County indicates that
no salary increase is
scheduled
for 1987, nor does the questionnaire indicate that
there are
any ongoing negotiations regarding salary.
Thus,
it is
appropriate to consider El Dorado in calculating 1987
wages
for the comparators.
AWARD OF YOUR CHAIRMAN
It is the Award of your Chairman that:
A. There
shall be no wage increase for bargaining unit
employees in 1986.
B. There shall be a
4.2% wage increase effective
January 1, 1987 for all
bargaining unit employees.
This increase shall be applied to the base salary
earned by employees after
computing the 6.7% in-
crease received effective
January 1, 1987.
C. There
shall be no change in the Step Advancement
language from that
contained in the prior
collective
bargaining agreement.
D. There
shall be added to the Agreement a new pro-
vision on holidays
which shall read as set forth
at page 25 of the
attached opinion.
E. There
shall be substituted for the provision in
the prior Agreement,
a new provision on Uniforms
and Equipment as set
forth beginning at page
32 of the attached Opinion.
Seattle, Washington
April 7, 1987
Michael
H. Beck, Arbitrator