International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2595
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06299-I-86-00143
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS)
Date Issued:
PERC No. 6299-I-86-143
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR
THE ARBITRATION PANEL
Michael H. Beck Neutral Chairman
Randy Bellon Union
Representative
Albert G. Ross Employer Representative
Appearances:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS) James
H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2595
(PARAMEDICS)
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes when
collective
bargaining negotiations involving uniformed
personnel
have resulted in impasse. In 1985 a new
section
was
added to chapter 41.56 RCW which brought certain life
support
technicians within the arbitration procedures called
for
in RCW 41.56.450. The parties agree that
the 32
paramedics
employed by
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,
Albert G. Ross, Personnel
Manager. The Arbitrator selected
by
the
Local 2595, is Randy Bellon, Paramedic.
A hearing was held before the Arbitration panel on July
29 and
S. Smolen,
Labor/Employee Relations Specialist. The
was
represented by James H. Webster of the law firm,
Webster,
Mrak & Blumberg.
At the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence.
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. Timely postmarked briefs were received by the
Chairman on December 16 and
request
of the Chairman, the parties agreed to waive the
statutory
requirement that a decision issue within thirty
days. On
members
of the Arbitration Panel. A discussion
of the
issues
occurred which was very helpful to the Chairman. In
accordance with
the statutory mandate, I set forth herein my
findings
of fact and determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
On
Employment Relations
Commission certified five issues to be
submitted
to interest arbitration. Those issues
are:
WAGES
FURLOUGH (VACATION//
DURATION ON
HEALTH AND WELFARE PACKAGE
LONGEVITY
DISCUSSION
Comparables
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria
should
be taken into consideration as relevant factors in
reaching a
decision:
(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
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods
and services, commonly known as the cost of
living.
***
(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 parties involved here are civilian paramedics
employed
by a county. They provide service to a
population
base
of approximately 384,000 people according to the
Employer (Exhibit No. 57) or
430,000 people according to the
used,
the evidence presented at the hearing by the Employer
indicated
that there are no counties on the west coast of
the
United States that employ paramedics to serve a popula-
tion of similar size. This evidence was unrebutted. The
Union contends that the cities
of Seattle, Everett and
(Shoreline), and King County
Public Hospital District No. 2
(Evergreen) should be
considered comparable to
because
they are the only jurisdictions to employ paramedics
specially
trained at
ther party is contending that there are
Comparables that
fully
fleet the statutory criteria. However,
the
contending
that by limiting the comparables to jurisdictions
where
the paramedics are Harborview trained, those parame-
dics will at least constitute "like
personnel" within the
meaning
of RCW 41.56.460(c) even if they cannot be said to
be
employed by "like employers of similar size".
Both parties agree, however, that pursuant to RCW
41.56.460 (f) the Chairman can
consider the wages, hours and
conditions
of employment which exist for similarly employed
individuals
in the relevant labor market. The
the
Arbitrator to consider only the jurisdictions noted
above
based on the common Harborview training. The
Employer, in addition to those
jurisdictions offered by the
Pierce
County Fire Districts 2, 3, 9; Sno-Com.
It is the Employer's position that in order to properly
compare
the wages, hours and conditions of employment among
these
labor market jurisdictions, an adjustment must be made
for
the fact that in most of the jurisdictions, the parame-
dics also function as firefighters. This was referred to as
being
"dual function" employees.
According to the Employer,
because
the paramedics employed by
dual
function skills, their wages cannot be directly com-
pared
to the wages of a dual function firefighter/paramedic
in
other jurisdictions. In order to account
for the lack of
dual
function skills, the Employer proposes using reduced
wage
rates for the labor market jurisdictions employing dual
function
employees. According to the Employer,
the appro-
priate reduction is that amount (generally about
10%) which
is
paid as a wage premium to firefighters when they are
assigned
to work as paramedics.
I have carefully considered the Employer's position
regarding
its dual function employee adjustment and find
that
it would be inappropriate to make the adjustment urged
by
the Employer. First, here we are seeking
to compare King
County paramedics
wages, hours and conditions of employment
with
those of other individuals employed as paramedics in
other
relevant jurisdictions. By eliminating
from compari-
son
the premium paid by these jurisdictions to firefighters
while
working as paramedics, the Employer's proposal would
essentially
result in a comparison of King County paramedics
wages
to the wages received by firefighters, rather than
paramedics. The job of a paramedic is a very different
job
involving
very different skills and training than that of a
firefighter. Additionally, the Employer's proposal does
not
address
the fact that by paying firefighters a premium for
working
as paramedics, the relevant jurisdictions are recog-
nizing that the job of paramedic should be
compensated at a
higher
level than that of firefighters. In view
of all of
the
foregoing, I must find that to reduce the wages in the
comparable
jurisdictions by the amount of the paramedic
premium
as the Employer suggests, does not result in a
meaningful
comparison.
In submitting evidence regarding the labor market com-
parators it selected, the Employer provided wage
rates
adjusted
to reflect the dual function argument discussed and
rejected
above. The Employer did not provide the
actual
paramedic
wage rates for these proposed labor market compar-
ators.
According to the Employer, the paramedic premium was
generally
about 10%. I have compared the actual
wage rates
supplied
by the Union for Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, Shore-
line
and Evergreen, with those rates set forth by the Em-
ployer.
Evergreen provides only paramedic services. Of the
four
remaining, only Seattle and Everett match the Union
provided
paramedic salary figure when one adds 10% to the
Employer
figure. The
figures for Bellevue and Shoreline
cone
out above those provided by the Union.
The differences
are
in the one to 1.4 percent range.
Since it is not possible to determine from the evidence
in
the record exactly how much the wages for Tacoma and
Pierce County Fire Districts
2, 3 and 9 were adjusted by the
Employer, I have decided not
to include them in the labor
market
comparators. As has already been
discussed an
adjustment
of 10% would, at best, be an approximation.
Here, where a difference of
even one percentage point could
mean
thousands of dollars over the term of the collective
bargaining
agreement, it would be inappropriate to engage in
such
guesswork.
Sno-Com and Evergreen are
civilian paramedic providers
that
do not employ firefighters. Thus, no
adjustment has
been
made in their wage rates by the Employer.
Because
accurate
wage rates can be determined for both jurisdic-
tions, they will be included as labor market
comparators
along
with Seattle, Everett, Bellevue and Shoreline.
Selecting these six
jurisdictions to use as comparators will
insure
that accurate wage rates are used. Further,
using
these
comparators is also consistent with the consumer price
index
employed by the parties in their negotiations to
evaluate
the cost of living, namely the CPI-W calculated
based
on the Seattle-Everett area. Thus, the six jurisdic-
tions I have selected include all the paramedic
service
providers
suggested by either party located in Snohomish and
King
Counties.
Further, Sno-Com is a public provider of
paramedic
services which includes the area adjacent to
Shoreline
to the south and Everett to the north.
The evidence does not support the Union's contention
that
only Harborview trained paramedics are appropriate
comparators. In this regard, Dr. Michael Copass, founder
and
presently Director of Training for the Harborview Medi-
cal
Center Paramedic Program, testified that although Sno-
Com uses paramedics trained in
a variety of different pro-
grams,
that organization has "done a very good job of mold-
mg a
variety of people into a common theme and their
paramedics
are "all well trained". (Tr.
pages 24-25.) Al-
though
the Harborview program is clearly an excellent pro-
gram,
the evidence presented was not sufficient to justify
excluding a
jurisdiction which, although not employing only
Harborview
trained paramedics, did ensure that all its para-
medics
were well trained. Further, Sno-Com is a "like
employer"
to King County in the sense that it is also a
civilian
provider of paramedic services. The only
other
civilian
provider, Evergreen, is also included.
Finally
Sno-Con's
relatively low net total hourly wage will offset
the
disproportionately high net total hourly wage paid by
Everett, thereby providing a
more balanced range of wages
and
benefits among the comparators.
Health and Welfare
Turning first to the issue of Health and Welfare, it is
my
understanding that the Union is agreeable to language
which
would permit the Employer, "to incorporate changes to
employee
insurance benefits agreed on by the Joint Labor-
Management Insurance Committee
to the extent that no benefit
is
in any way diminished." (Union Brief at page 43.)
The
Employer's proposal is to
retain language requiring it "to
maintain
the level of benefits currently provided by {its
group
medical, dental and life insurance plans} for the
duration
of this Agreement." In addition,
the Employer
seeks
to incorporate changes in employee insurance benefits
agreed
on by the Joint Labor-Management Insurance Committee.
It does appear that by adding the language sought by
the
employer regarding the Joint Labor-Management Insurance
Committee while retaining the
maintenance of benefits provi-
sion, both parties will substantially achieve
their objec-
tives.
Additionally, as I understand the Union's position,
it
is currently satisfied with the revised mental health
coverage
described in the October 3, 1986 letter from Em-
ployer Labor Relations Specialist Stephen Robinson
to Union
Counsel Jim Webster,
copied to the Chairman. In view of all
of
the foregoing, I find that Article X of the Agreement
should
be modified to read as proposed by the Employer as
follows:
King County presently
participates in group
medical,
dental and life insurance programs.
The County agrees to maintain
the level of
benefits
currently provided by these plans
for
the duration of this Agreement, provided
that
the Union and County agree to incorpor-
ate
changes to employee insurance benefits
which
the County may implement as a result of
the
agreement of the Joint Labor-Managment
Insurance
Committee.
Duration
The Union proposes a two year term for the Agreement
beginning
January 1, 1986 and ending December 31, 1987.
The
Employer proposes a three year
term to begin January 1, 1986
and
end December 31, 1988. In addition, the
Employer would
retain
the language in the present Agreement requiring that
written
notice of a party's desire to modify the Agreement
be
served on the other party no later than October 31 of the
year
in which the Agreement expires.
I have carefully considered the arguments of the par-
ties
with regard to the duration of the Agreement.
I am
persuaded
for the following reasons that the term of the
Agreement should be three
years as set forth in the Employ-
er's proposal.
A two year term would cause the Agreement to
expire
less than eleven months from the date of this Arbi-
tration Award.
Thus, with virtually no experience under the
new
terms of the Agreement and only a few months after
Interest Arbitration, the
parties would be required to begin
negotiations
for a new collective bargaining agreement.
It
will
better serve the negotiating process and thus the
interests
of the parties to accord them a reasonable period
of
time under the new Agreement before requiring them to
begin
negotiations. Setting the term at three
years would
provide
such a reasonable period.
Additionally, a three year term would be consistent
with
the new provisions of the Health and Welfare plan agreed
to
by the Joint Labor-Management Insurance Committee. Accord-
mg
to the information on the plan which was provided to the
Arbitrator by copy of a letter
dated August 25, 1986, from
personnel
Manager, Al Ross to Union Counsel Jim Webster, the
plan
provisions are effective through December 31, 1988, and
thereafter
they are subject to negotiations.
Setting the
tern
of the Agreement at three years would permit the par-
ties
to negotiate wages and other benefits contemporaneously
with
negotiations concerning health and welfare benefits.
Based on the foregoing I find that the language of
Article XX: Duration should read as proposed by the
Employer as follows:
This agreement shall become
effective
January 1, 1986 and shall
continue in effect
through
and including December 31, 1988.
Written notice of desire to
modify this
agreement
shall be served by either party
upon
the other at least sixty (60) days prior
to
the date of expiration, namely October 31,
1988.
Wage Issues - Wages and Longevity
The Union proposes to increase wage rates by 6% for
1986
and an additional 4% for 1987. Because the Union
sought
only a two year term, it did not make a proposal for
1988. In addition, the Union proposes to add
longevity pay
of
1% for each year of service after five years up to a
maximum
of 10%. The Employer proposes a 2%
increase in wage
rates
for 1986, and an increase of 90% the
September 1985
to
September 1986 increase in the CPI-W, Seattle-Everett
area,
for 1987 up to a maximum of 5%. For
1988, the Employ-
er proposes an increase of 90% of the July
1986 to July 1987
increase
in the CPI-W, Seattle-Everett area, up to a maximum
of
6%. The Employer opposes any longevity
pay.
The parties are in general agreement regarding the
appropriate
basis for comparing the wage rates of the com-
parators selected by the Chairman to the wage rates
of King
County. In all of their calculations, the parties
have used
a
hypothetical paramedic with six years of seniority, an
Associate of Arts degree, and
who is married with two depen-
dents. Each party calculated the net monthly hours
worked
by
subtracting annual holiday and vacation hours earned from
annual
hours scheduled and then dividing by twelve.
The
next
calculation required was to find the total monthly wage
by
multiplying the current contractual hourly rate times the
number
of scheduled monthly hours and then adding to that
figure
the monthly cost of benefits for the hypothetical
paramedic. Next, the net total hourly wage was computed
by
dividing
the total monthly wage by the net monthly hours
worked. Thus, each party produced a figure I have
called
the
net hourly wage rate, which reflects the value per hour
worked
of all wages and benefits for each of its comparators.
There are some differences in the parties
calculations.
The Union included in its
calculation of the cost of bene-
fits,
the contribution paid by the State of Washington to
the
retirement system for uniformed personnel.
According to
the
parties, at the hearing, this was the only difference of
any
consequence between the Union and Employer benefit
figures. However, my analysis of the Union's
retirement
benefits
figures reveals that subtracting the additional
2.97% of salary which the
Union included as the state's
contribution
does not result in the figures reported by the
Employer. At the meeting with the other members of the
Arbitration panel, indicated that due
to these disparities
I had decided to use the
Employer's benefit figures. How-
ever,
I have subsequently determined that the disparity
between
the Union and Employer retirement figures results
from
the Employer's calculating the retirement on the fire-
fighter
wage absent the paramedic premium.
In view of the foregoing, I have decided to use the
Union's benefits figures less
the 2.97% retirement contribute-
tions made by the state. Although these contributions do
represent a
benefit to the worker, they are not payments
made
by the comparator jurisdictions. If I were
to include
these
payments, I would, in effect, be requiring a civilian
employer
of paramedics to provide monies not provided by or
required
of fire department employers of paramedics.
This
would
be particularly unfair in the circumstances here where
the
retirement system in question is not even open to civil-
ian paramedics.
There are a few other small unexplainable
differences
in benefit amounts provided by the Employer and
the
union. However they do not involve
amounts of signifi-
cance.
Therefore, for the sake of consistency, I have
resolved
these differences by using the Union's figures.
The Employer's figures were
used for Sno-Com.
The following chart sets forth the results of
my
analysis
of the comparative wages and benefits for King
County
and the selected comparators.
NET WAGE RATE
ANALYSIS
Jurisdiction Net Monthly Hrs. Wages Benefits
Total Net Hrly Wage
Everett 168.00 3089.00
571.74 3660.74 21.7901
Shoreline 190.66 2909.00 491.60 3400.60 17.8359
Evergreen 196.00 2864.16 606.50 3470.66 17.7074
Bellevue 196.75 2740.00 652.70 3392.70 17.2437
KING CO.. 186.00 2641.26 541.72 3182.98 17.1128
Sno-Com 196.00 2379.99 517.19 2897.18 14.7815
Total
Average Hourly Net Wage of Comparators (Excluding King Co.) 17.8429
King County Rank: 6th of 7
Percent Difference Between
King Co. and Average Hourly Net Wage 4.27%
This chart illustrates the position of King County with
respect
to the wages and benefits paid by the comparators in
total
net hourly wage. Although the Employer
serves the
second
largest population base, its total compensation is
4.27% behind the average paid
by the comparators and it is
sixth
of seven based on 1986 compensation.
The Employer takes the position that no increase beyond
what
it offers is warranted because a comparison of the
Consumer Price Index increases
with the wage increases pro-
vided
by King County indicates that from 1979 to 1985 wages
increased
87.3% while the CPI-W increased approximately
37.8% or 39.8%, depending on
what months are used in the
calculations. (Employer brief, page 6.)
The Employer's calculations of the wage increase for
paramedics
is based on the top step average wage paid in
1979 by the individual paramedic
service providers prior to
King County assuming
responsibility for the service and
prior
to existence of a collective bargaining agreement
between
the parties. This wage was then compared
to the top
step
wage paid in 1985 pursuant to the 1984-1985 Agreement
between
the parties. It is simply not
appropriate to com-
pare
current wage rates with the wages paid by other employ-
ers prior to a collective bargaining
relationship between
the
parties here. A more appropriate
comparison is that
between
the initial top step wage of $8.87 per hr. agreed
upon
by the Employer effective July 1, 1979 in the first
collective
bargaining agreement and the top step wage of
$12.6984 effective January 1,
1985 under the last collective
bargaining
agreement, the 1984-1985 Agreement. The
wage
increase
between July 1, 1979 and December 31, 1985 was a
total
of $3.8284 which is a 43.16% increase.
The CPI-W
increased
during the same period of time from 215.9 to 313.5
for a
total of 97.6 points. This represents an
increase of
45.21%. Thus, the wage increases negotiated under the
par-
ties I
collective bargaining agreements stood at slightly
less
than the increases in the cost of living as of January
1986, imnediately
following the expiration of the last col-
lective bargaining agreement.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I have concluded
that
the King County paramedics should be brought up to the
average
of the comparators. The average is based
on 1986
figures. The Seattle agreement expired August 31,
1986.
The Shoreline agreement has
wage re-opener clauses for 1987
and
1988. The agreements for the other
comparators were not
placed
in evidence. The foregoing indicates
that at least
several
of the comparators may negotiate increases for 1987.
The King County paramedics have
been receiving 1985 wage
rates
all through 1986. In view of the
foregoing, I deem it
appropriate
to give them a 4.27% increase For the
1987 term of the Agreement,
wages shall be increased by the
actual
cost of living increase from September 1985 to
September 1986. During this period the CPI-W, Seattle-
Everett area, increased from
308.9 to 312.3 for a total
increase
of 3.4 points or 1.1%. The result is a
wage in-
crease
of 5.37% over two years.
Assuming that the Employer's contribution to retirement
and
social security will continue in the same proportion as
is
represented by the figures on Union Exhibit No. 28(G), a
wage
increase of 4.27% in 1986 and an additional wage in-
crease
of 1.1% in 1987, with a corresponding increase in
retirement
benefits, should result in a net hourly wage rate
of
$17.9980. In making this calculation I
have increased the
wage
rate by 4.27% for 1986 and taken 7.15% of that in-
creased
figure for social security and 7.92% of that in-
creased
figure for retirement. In calculating
the increase
for
1987, I used the 1986 wage rate (increased by 4.27%) and
increased
it by 1.1%. I have then taken 7.15% of
that
increased
figure for social security and 7.92% for retire-
ment. I
have not increased any other benefit figure for
either
1986 or 1987.
The foregoing raise will place King County in second
place
in total compensation in 1987 in comparison to the
1986 net wage rate of the
comparators. However, as indi-
cated above, the wage rates of at least some of
the compara-
tors are open for negotiation in 1987 and thus
subject to
increase. Whether such increases will occur and their
amount,
if any, cannot be predicted. However, my
calcula-
tions indicate that only a 2% increase (an amount
the Em-
ployer here was willing to give in 1986) in the
comparators
wages
in 1987 would result in King County dropping back to
fifth
place even with the present increase.
The foregoing
demonstrates
that the increase I have provided is necessary
to
make King County paramedic wages comparable to those of
the
comparators selected and to retain a level of compara-
bility throughout the term of this Agreement. On the other
hand,
no additional increase for 1986 and 1987 appears
appropriate. Thus, although a 2% increase in the compara-
tors for 1987 would place King County in fifth
place among
the
comparators, King County would be considerably closer to
the
second ranked jurisdiction, Shoreline, than it is now. My
calculations
indicate that King County would only be about
$.16 per hour behind Shoreline,
while presently it is about
$.72
behind Shoreline.
Furthermore, King County would be
less
than one percent behind the average of the comparators
instead
of its present 4.27% behind the average of the
comparators. Thus, for 1988, it would appear that an
increase
based on the CPI would be sufficient to keep King
County's paramedics within an
appropriate range of the com-
parables. Therefore, I shall order that 1988 wages be
in-
creased
over 1987 wages by the percentage increase in the
CPI-W for the Seattle-Everett
area from September 1986 to
September 1987.
The Union contends that longevity pay is appropriate
for
several reasons. First, the Union argues
that longevity
pay
is necessary to compensate for the lack of opportunities
for
career advancement available to civilian paramedics as
opposed
to paramedics who work within fire departments.
A
firefighter/paramedic
has opportunities to advance within
the
fire department. Secondly, the Union
argues that its
evidence
suggests that the Employer is overly optimistic in
its
view that it can sustain its low turnover rate without
longevity
pay.
In response to these contentions, I note that in calcu-
lating the net hourly wage rates of the
comparators, longe-
vity pay was included. Thus, to the extent that the payment
of a
longevity rate has increased the average wage of the
comparators,
the wage increase granted here includes a fac-
tor which effectively compensates for the lack
of longevity
pay. To add a separate longevity premium would
provide
duplicate compensation. Further, while the evidence estab
lished that at least one other comparator has
experienced
some
problems with employee retention and there is some
evidence
such problems night similarly affect the Employer
at
some time, clearly no such problem presently exists.
Finally, only two of the six
comparators provide longevity
pay
similar to that proposed by the Union and only three of
the
six provide any longevity pay. In view
of all of the
foregoing,
no longevity pay is appropriate at this time.
Furlough
The Union's position is that there should be no changes
in
the furlough provisions contained in the 1984-1985 Agree-
ment.
Further, the Union has objected to the Arbitrator
considering
on the merits the Employer's proposal on fur-
lough.
However, if the Employer's proposal is addressed on
the
merits, the Union set forth, at the hearing, an alter-
native
proposal to reduce the maximum number of furloughs
granted
per shift from three to two during the period be-
tween Memorial Day and Labor Day.
The Employer's proposal on furlough is set forth in
Exhibit No. 70. It would make major changes in the way
furlough
is scheduled and granted to employees.
Essential-
ly, the Employer proposes establishing fixed
trimesters.
Employees would then be assigned
by lot to one of the tri-
mesters.
Each employee would be required to take all of his
or
her furlough during the assigned trimester.
Each year
thereafter
the employee would rotate to the next trimester.
Theoretically this would allow
each employee to take fur-
lough in the popular summer months once every
three years.
Under the Employer's plan,
furlough use would be evenly
distributed
throughout the year rather than having a peak
furlough
period in the summer months. The purpose
of the
Employer's proposal is to
reduce the overtime costs asso-
ciated with having peak furlough use in the
summer.
The Union contends that the Arbitrator should not
consider
the Employer's proposal because it represents an
impermissible
regression of the Employer's position from the
close
of mediation. The Union relies on WAC
391-55-220
(Exhibit No. 75) which
provides:
WAC 391-55-220
UNIFORMED PERSONNEL -- SUB-
MISSION OF PROPOSALS FOR ARBITRATION.
At least seven days before the
date of the
hearing,
each party shall submit to the
members
of the panel and to the other party
written
proposals on all of the issues it
intends
to submit to arbitration. Parties
shall not be entitled to submit issues
which were not among the issues before the
mediator under WAC 391-55-070 and before the
executive director under WAC 391-50-200.
(Emphasis Added)
The Employer contends that whether or not its proposal
is a
regression from the issue before the mediator and
executive
director, the Union has waived its right to object
pursuant
to WAC 391-55-215 (Exhibit No. 75) which provides
as
follows:
WAC 391-55-215
UNIFORMED PERSONNEL--CONDUCT
OF INTEREST ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.
Proceedings shall be conducted
as provided in
WAC
391-55-200 through 391-55-260. The
neutral
chairman shall interpret and apply
these
rules insofar as they relate to the
powers
and duties of the neutral chairman.
Any party who proceeds with
arbitration after
knowledge
that any provision or requirement
of
these rules has not been complied with and
who
fails to state its objection thereto in
writing,
shall be deemed to have waived its
right
to object. (Emphasis added.)
The Union contends that its failure to object to the
Employer's proposal prior to
the arbitration hearing only
waives
its right to object to the Employer's proposal before
the
Commission. According to the Union, the
Arbitrator may
still
consider whether the Employer's proposal is an impro-
per
expansion of the issues that were before the mediator.
The evidence is clear that the issues certified for
arbitration
included, "Furlough (vacation/Holiday)." The
Employer's proposal directly
addresses the issue of fur-
lough.
Thus, on its face, the Employer's proposal would not
appear
to be contrary to WAC 391-55-220. The
Union main-
tains, however, that the word "issue"
in the WAC refers to
more
than the general issue, such as, furlough, rather it
refers
to each parties' final position on each issue at the
time
of certification of impasse by the Executive Director.
According to the Union, the
Executive Director does not
permit
parties to regress from a position taken in media-
tion.
The Union has not cited any document indicating that
the
policy of the Executive Director is as the Union con-
tends. However, if it is, in fact, the policy of the
Execu-
tive Director to prohibit parties from expanding
the scope
of
the issues as discussed in mediation and certified as
impasse
issues, violation of such policy is more properly
addressed
to the Executive Director or the Commission.
Thus, I cannot find that I am
precluded by the WAC provision
cited
by the Union from considering the Employer's proposal
on
furlough.
There are currently 32 paramedics in the bargaining
unit. One has been detailed by the Employer to an adminis-
trative position.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1984-1985
Agreement, each paramedic is
required to work four extra
shifts
in addition to their regularly scheduled shifts dur-
mg
each 18 week rotation. This results in
124 extra shifts
available
to be scheduled each 18 week period. Out
of those
124 shifts, 32 are used to
cover open shifts which result
because
of the paramedic detailed to administrative duties.
This leaves 92 shifts
available to cover for furlough in
each
18 week period.
During the period from July 11, 1986 to November 13,
1986, there were 171 furlough
shifts which were requested
and
the Employer was required to grant.
Under the terms of
the
agreement, as interpreted by the parties, the Employer
is
required to grant three furlough requests per shift if
requested. In addition, due to the complexities of the
scheduling
process, the Employer was also unable to effec-
tively utilize four of the available extra
shifts. The
result,
as can be seen from Exhibit No. 71, is that 83
furlough
shifts had to be covered by scheduling overtime.
The total cost to the Employer
was $45,150.
I have carefully reviewed the proposals of both parties
with
regard to furlough. For the reasons set
forth below I
have
decided to adopt the Union's proposal to reduce from
three
to two the number of furlough shifts the Employer is
required
to grant during the peak period from Memorial Day
to
Labor Day.
At the hearing, the Union introduced substantial evi-
dence of the high level of stress which can be
produced by
the
paramedic job. The paramedics who testified
made clear
that
one way each handles this stress is to take time off
from
the job when needed. The flexibility to
schedule time
off
was very important to these paramedics.
The Employer's
proposal
would substantially restrict the ability of employ-
ees to schedule time off. In fact, employees would be
unable
to schedule any furlough days for two-thirds of each
year
and would be required to take all of their furlough in
the
remaining one-third. The employees choice is even
further
restricted by the following language of the Em-
ployer's proposal at Section 3.D, "To meet
operational needs
and
avoid overtime, individual furlough dates may be
assigned
at the sole discretion of management."
The Employer contends that its proposal would benefit
employees by
insuring that they had the opportunity to take
furlough
in the popular summer months at least once every
three
years. I have carefully examined the
Employer's pro-
posed
furlough schedule as set forth in Exhibit No. 70. It
does
appear possible, pursuant to this schedule, for an
employee
to be required to take furlough in Year No. 1,
Trimester
No. 1 in March or April; Year No. 2, Trimester No.
2 in November or December;
Year No. 3, Trimester No. 3 in
January or February; and Year
No. 4, Trimester No. 1 in
April
or May.
Thus, it is entirely possible for an employee
not
to receive a furlough during the summer months.
This
possibility
does not appear unlikely when one examines the
specifics
of the Employer's proposal carefully. In
this
regard,
I note that employees are assigned to a particular
trimester
by lot without regard for seniority.
Then, as I
understand
it, the employees would rotate as a group from
one
trimester to the next annually. Furlough
schedules
within
each trimester would be done on the basis of senior-
ity.
Thus, the employees in each trimester grouping with
the
lowest seniority would always have lowest priority for
furlough
in every trimester period. Thus, the
possibility
that
an employee might never get to take vacation in the
summer
is made more likely by the Employer's system.
Additionally the Employer's proposal could result in a
situation
were an employee with only moderate seniority
could
be assigned to a trimester group where he or she
ranked
relatively high in priority for vacation due to
generally
lower seniority levels in the trimester grouping
as a
whole. Similarly an employee with
relatively high
seniority
could be assigned to a trimester group with other
employees
having even greater seniority and thus the employ-
ee would have low priority for furlough within
his or her
trimester
group. The result is that a mid-level
seniority
employee
could have consistently superior choices for vaca-
tion than an employee with higher seniority in
another
trimester
grouping. This is simply an inequitable
result.
The Employer maintains, however, that this system is
similar
to ones used by Seattle, Bellevue and Shoreline.
However, the Bellevue and
Seattle vacation provisions were
not
put in evidence. I have carefully
reviewed the copy of
the
current Agreement in effect at Shoreline which was
introduced
at the hearing. It simply provides that schedul-
mg
of vacations "shall be based upon the needs of the work
force
and will be done in an equitable manner for the em-
ployees concerned." (See Exhibit No. 53, Article XVI.) No
similar
system to that proposed by the Employer appears to
be
established in the Shoreline Agreement.
The Union's proposal addresses the legitimate concern
of
the Employer to reduce overtime costs without the major
impact
on the ability of the employees to schedule and use
furlough
contained in the Employer's proposal.
Exhibit No.
36 indicates that reducing the
number of furloughs the
Employer is required to grant
from three to two during the
18 week period from July 11
through November 12, 1986, would
save
31 shifts of overtime. Using the
Employer's estimate
of
$526 per shift overtime cost, that comes to a savings of
$16,306. That amount represent
a 36% reduction in overtime
costs
to the Employer. Although the Union
proposal does not
include
the same period of time as is outlined on Exhibit
No. 36, an examination of
Exhibit No. 69 indicates that the
peak
period for furlough shifts is between Memorial Day and
Labor
Day.
Thus, it appears that a 31 shift savings is
representative
of the number of overtime shifts likely to be
saved
by the Union's proposal.
In view of all of the foregoing, I shall order that
Article IV.5.b of the 1984-85
Agreement be amended to read
as
set forth below:
Section 5.
Furlough requests shall be
approved on the
following basis:
***
b. There
shall be a maximum limit of
three
(3) furlough shifts granted for the
same
work shift, provided, however, that
during
the period from Memorial Day to Labor
Day, there shall be a maximum
limit of two
(2) furlough
shifts granted for the same work
shift.
Individual requests shall be granted
on a
first choice basis provided the requests
do
not exceed the limits set forth herein.
AWARD OF THE CHAIRMAN
I. It is
the Award of your Chairman that the parties'
1986-1988 Collective
Bargaining Agreement shall contain
the following
language:
A. Article
X, Medical, Dental and Life Insurance
Programs, shall read as set forth
on page 10 of the
attached
Opinion.
B. Article
XX, Duration, shall read as set forth on
page 12
of the attached Opinion.
C. Article
IV, Furlough Day, shall read at Section 5.b
as set
forth on page 29 of the attached Opinion.
II. It is
further the Award of your Chairman that:
A. The
1986-1988 Collective Bargaining Agreement shall
not
contain a longevity pay provision.
B. Article
VII, Wage Rates, of the 1984-1985 Agreement
shall be
amended so as to provide each paramedic
with a
4.27% wage rate increase, effective January
1, 1986, and an additional
increase of 1.1% above
1986 wage rates effective January
1, 1987. Article
VII shall be further amended to
provide, effective
January 1, 1988, for an
additional increase in wage
rates
above 1987 wage rates which shall be equal to
the
percentage increase in the CPI-W, Seattle-
Everett area, from September 1986
to September
1987.
Dated: February 6, 1987
Seattle, Washington
Michael
H. Beck, Neutral Chairman