Office and Professional
Employees International
Law and Justice Division,
AFL-CIO
And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06318-I-86-00145
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL NO. 11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION,
AFL-CIO
Dated Issued:
PERC
No.
6318-1-86-145
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
Appearances:
CITY OF
Nancy Williams
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES David E. Williams
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL NO.
11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION, AFL-CIO
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
and
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL
UNION LOCAL NO. 11,
LAW AND JUSTICE DIVISION,
AFL-CIO
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. The parties
here agreed
upon
the selection of the undersigned to serve as Interest
Arbitrator
Pursuant to Chapter 41.56 RCW. The parties
waived
the tripartite arbitration panel provided for in RCW
41.56.450, and, instead,
determined to submit the matter to
the
undersigned as a single Arbitrator.
A hearing in this matter was held on February 19, 1987
in
land,
was represented by J. David Andrews and Nancy Williams
of
the law firm, Perkins Coie. The
fessional Employees International Union Local No. 11,
Law
and
Justice Division, AFL-CIO, was represented by David E.
Williams
of the law firm of Critchlow and Williams.
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 Arbitrator for his use in
reaching a
decision in this case.
The parties agreed to submit simultaneous posthearing
briefs. Both briefs were received by the Arbitrator
on
ties
agreed to waive the statutory requirement that a deci-
sion issue within thirty days, and instead
allowed him until
statutory
mandate, I set forth herein my findings of fact
and
determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
On
Employment Relations Commission
certified eight issues to be
submitted to
interest arbitration. Prior to the
hearing in
this
matter, the parties stipulated that the issue of line-
up
time compensation had been settled and was not an issue
for
arbitration. The parties further
stipulated that the
issue of
pay for holidays would be settled through the
contractual
grievance/arbitration procedure. The
parties
also
agreed that the issue of the term of the Agreement, not
previously
certified by the Executive Director, was in dis-
pute and was to be decided by the Arbitrator
here. Prior to
the
hearing, the
tion its proposals on the issue of pay for
clothing and
equipment During the hearing, the
Interest Arbitration its
proposal on the issue of education
al
incentive pay.
Thus, the following five issues are before the Arbitrator
Term of the Agreement
Insurance
Seniority
Sick Leave
Wages, Appendix A, Including Special Duty Pay
Therein
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria
should be
taken into consideration as relevant factors in
reaching a
decision:
[T]he panel shall be mindful of
the legisla-
tive purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and
as
additional standards or guidelines to aid
it in
reaching a decision it shall take into
consideration
the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of
the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) Comparison of the wages, hours and con-
ditions 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;
(d) The average consumer prices for goods
and
services, commonly known as the cost of
living;
(e) Changes in any of the foregoing circum-
stances
during the pendency of the proceed-
ings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the
foregoing,
which are normally or traditional
ly taken into consideration in the determina-
tion of wages, hours and conditions of em-
ployment.
The legislative purpose for enactment of the
interest arbitration
statute is set forth in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of
this....act is
to
recognize that there exists a public
policy in
the state of
strikes by
uniformed personnel as a means of
Settling their labor disputes;
that the unin-
terrupted and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the welfare
and
public safety of the state of
that to
promote such dedication and uninter-
rupted public service there should exist an
effective
and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes.
The employees involved here are police officers em-
ployed by the City of
to a
population base of 30,240 according to the Employer or
30,508
according to the
difference in
these figures is less than one percent and
will
not affect a determination regarding appropriate compa-
rables, I find it unnecessary to resolve this
difference.
The parties stipulated. that for
the purposes of RCW
41.56.460(c), the jurisdictions
selected by either party as
comparators
shall be limited to the State of
that no
jurisdiction from outside the State of
shall be
Offered in this arbitration by either party as a
comparator to
the Employer In selecting the appropriate
comparators,
each party considered the cities in the State
of
of
the Employer's population. This produced
the same eight
cities
whether the Employer or
The
priate comparators to the Employer here. The Employer would
include
only
and
would add the cities of
A review of the eight comparators selected by the
reveals
that they all meet the statutory criteria set forth
in
RCW 41.56.460(c), since they employ like personnel, i.e.,
Police Officers; they are like
employers, i.e., Cities; and
they
are all of similar size in terms of their respective
population,
within plus or minus twenty percent.
Further,
they
meet the stipulation of the parties that the compara
tors be cities in the State of
facie
showing of comparability, it seems appropriate to
place
the burden on the party seeking to exclude a city from
consideration to show why the city should not
be considered.
Here, the Employer contends
that the cities of
Edmonds, Kent, Redmond and
Renton, Offered by the Union, are
not
comparable to the Employer because they are located in
close
proximity to a major metropolitan area, namely,
Seattle.
According to the Employer, the Union's selection of com-
parators, "ignores the principles traditionally
recognized
by
interest arbitrators, i.e., that the local labor market
provides
the best basis of comparison and that there are
substantial
differences between jurisdictions within a major
metropolitan area
and those outside it." (Employer's
Brief,
page
7.) The Employer further contends that
in determining
appropriate
wages, the Arbitrator should consider Only
"those
cities closest to the [Employer] which are subject to
similar
trends and influences." (Employer's
Brief, page
11.) These cities according to the Employer are
Kennewick,
Pasco
and Walla Walla.
The Legislature in enacting the interest arbitration
statute
may be assumed to have been aware of the various
regional
differences which exist between eastern and western
Washington. However, the Legislature, in setting forth
the
criteria
for comparators in RCW 41.56.460, did not restrict
the
jurisdiction to be selected to those within the same
local
labor market, but instead authorized comparisons with
employers on
the west coast of the United States, provided
such
employers meet the statutory criteria, as discussed
above. The foregoing makes clear that even if one
assumes
that a
jurisdiction within a local labor market, in some
respects,
may provide greater indicia of comparability with
another
jurisdiction in the same labor market than with a
jurisdiction
outside that local labor market, such fact does
not
indicate that the jurisdiction outside the local labor
market is
not comparable pursuant to RCW 41.56.460(c).
In the present case, there are compelling reasons why
the
Union's comparators should not be excluded from consi-
deration.
First, the Employer is a part of the Tn-Cities
metropolitan
area, which has a population of approximately
85,000
people.
According to the information introduced by
the
Employer in the form of newspaper reports (Employer
Exhibit No. 24), the Tn-Cities area has a workforce heavily
dependent on
employment involving the federal sector at the
Hanford
facility. These
same news reports state that
Hanford workers earn an average
of $34,400 per year. This
heavy
concentration of high paid workers causes Richland, as
a
part of the Tn-Cities, to be distinguishable from a
more
isolated
rural city such as, for example, Walla Walla.
Further, a review of the
various job functions per-
formed by
Richland Police Officers indicate that the Employ
er here is similar in many respects to the
Other Union
suggested
comparators. For example, the Employer
here has a
motorcycle
unit, but only two of the Employer's five sug-
gested comparators have motorcycles The Employer also has
a
bomb squad, but none of the five Employer comparators has
a
bomb squad. The Employer has a SWAT
team, but only one of
the
five Employer comparators has a SWAT team.
The Employer
has a
canine unit but, Only two of the five Employer's
comparators
have canine units. In contrast, all of
the
Union's eight suggested
comparators have motorcycles except
Longview, two have a bomb
squad, five have a SWAT team, and
all
but Walla Walla have canine units. Thus, in terms of
job
functions performed by the Employer's police department,
the
Employer is actually more "like" the eight Union sug-
gested comparators than the five Employer suggested
compara-
tors.
If I were to exclude consideration of the Union's
comparators,
there would be little or no basis for compari-
son
with respect to the special duty wage issues before the
Arbitrator. Thus, as the Employer recognizes, it is neces-
sary to include the Union's comparators in order
to have an
adequate
base from which to make a comparison on
these
issues. However, it does not appear appropriate,
pursuant
to
RCW 41.56.460(c), nor equitable, to choose certain cities
for
comparison on parts of a wage Package, i.e., that having
to do
with wages, and other cities for other parts of the
wage
package, i.e., that having to do with special duty pay
On this basis I also reject the
Employer suggestion that,
for
purposes of wage comparison,. the comparators should
be
limited
solely to those in what the Employer terms "the
local
labor market" of Kennewick, Pasco and Walla.
(Employer's Brief,
page 12.) Further, I note that for 1987,
the
Employer's suggested comparators would actually involve
only
two cities, inasmuch as Pasco is still in negotiations
with
respect to their 1987 collective bargaining agreement.
I have determined to add to the eight comparators
selected by
the Union, the cities of Kennewick and Pasco,
Since those cities comprise the
Tn-Cities area which in-
cludes Richland.
By doing so I am specifically recognizing
the
economic integration of the Tn-Cities area as
contended
for by
the Employer. Although Kennewick and
Pasco are not
within
the plus or minus twenty percent population range,
(Kennewick is more than 21%
above and Pasco is about 38%
below
Richland), this action is appropriate Pursuant to RCW
41.56.460(f), which allows the
Arbitrator to take into
account a
factor such as the substantial economic inte-
gration of an area like the Tn-Cities.
Finally, I have determined to exclude the city of Kent
from
consideration as a comparator. The Union's and the
Employer's figures with regard
to the special duty pay
provisions in
Kent are not in agreement. Furthermore,
neither
the Union nor the Employer provided any source
material
for Kent which could be used to reconcile the
figures. Although the Union provided such data in the
form
of
survey sheets it had completed for each of its other
comparators,
no such sheet was provided for the City of
Kent. Because of the conflicting figures and the
lack of
any
way to reconcile or Otherwise verify the numbers, I have
concluded
that it is appropriate to exclude Kent from consi-
deration.
Thus, the comparators to be used in this case
are: Kennewick, Pasco, Walla Walla,
Olympia, Longview,
Redmond,
Renton, Edmonds and Auburn. This group of compara-
tors includes all five selected by the Employer,
three of
which
were also selected by the Union, plus an additional
four
comparators selected by the Union.
TERM OF THE AGREEMENT
The Union proposes a two year Agreement which would
expire at
the end of 1987. According to the Union,
the
parties
here have always had one or two year agreement and
the
Union wants, "to review the status before agreeing to a
three
year contract that would be in effect until December
31,
1988."
(Union Exhibit No. 1, Term of Agreement.) The
Employer seeks a three year
term, noting that "[t]he parties
have
been in negotiation, mediation or interest arbitration
continuously
since May 1985 for a 1986 collective bargaining
agreement."
(Employer's Brief at page 37.)
A two year term would cause the Agreement to expire
Only six months after the date
of this Arbitration Award. A
three
year term will best serve the interests of both par-
ties,
as it will give the parties a reasonable period of
time to
gather experience under the Agreement before requir-
ing them to begin negotiations for a new
agreement. A two
year
term, on the other had, would place the parties imme-
diately back in negotiations Such a state of affairs would
not
promote collective bargaining as an effective means of
resolving
disputes, as is contemplated by the statute.
WAGES, APPENDIX A, INCLUDING SPECIAL DUTY PAY THEREIN
The Union seeks a 4% wage increase beginning July 1,
1986, a 4% increase effective
January 1, 1987, and a 5%
increase
effective July 1, 1987. The Union made
no proposal
for
1988. In addition, the Union seeks to
add 3% premium
pay
for canine duties and the Tactical Response Team (SWAT
Team). The Union also seeks to have the currently
existing
premium
pay for motorcycle duty and bomb squad increased to
3% of an employee's base
pay. Finally, the Union wants to
revise
the longevity pay provision to provide for 2.5% after
five
years service, 5% after ten years service, and 10%
after
fifteen years service.
The Employer proposes no wage increase for
1986, 2% for
1987, and 80% of the change in
the Seattle/Everett CPI-W,
July
1986-1987 up to a maximum of 3% for 1988. On the
remaining
pay issues the Employer proposes retaining the
status
quo.
Wages
A major factor in resolving
disputed issues in interest
arbitration is
a consideration of comparable jurisdictions
pursuant to
subsection (c) of RCW 41.56.460. In
reviewing
the
jurisdictions, I have determined to be appropriate
comparators, I
have looked at the figures presented by
police
officers at the top step of their respective salary
charts. I have done this for several reasons, which
include
the
fact that most of the information supplied to me by the
parties
relates to top step police Officers.
Further, it is
clear
that top step police officers represent the largest
single
group of employees within the bargaining unit.
Addi-
tionally, both sides propose an across the board wage
in-
crease
rather than a varying wage increases for police
Officers at different steps,
corporals and sergeants
On the next page, I have
prepared a chart showing the
monthly
salary of a top step police officer at each of the
comparators
compared to the monthly salary of a Richland top
step
police officer. In compiling the figures
to be placed
on
the chart, I have reviewed both the Employer and Union
provided
figures. Where any major difference in
those
figures
appears, I have set forth in the accompanying foot
notes
the basis upon which I selected the appropriate
figure.
COMPARABLE
CITIES
POLICE OFFICERS - TOP
STEP
1/1/86 7/1/86 1/1/87 7/1/87
Walla Walla $2171 - $2269 -
Edmonds $2667 - $2747
-
Longview $24551 - $2517
-
Redmond $2601 - $2759
-
Olympia $2534 - $25602 2610
Renton $2654 - $2733 -
Auburn $2692 - $2732 -
Pasco $2251 - N/S3 N/S3
AVERAGE $2484 2490 2595 2609
Percent Average of
Comparators above
__________
1 The
Employer figure from Employer Exhibit No. 10 has been used here as it
appears that the Union figure on
the Union's chart in Union Exhibit No. 1
($2554) is incorrect since the Union's survey for
Longview shows $2454.
2 Figure
taken from Union's wage survey.
3 Collective
Bargaining Agreement for 1987 is not settled.
4 Includes
Employer proposed 2% raise.
A review of the foregoing chart clearly demonstrates
that
the police officers in Richland are underpaid based on
a
comparison with the comparators. Thus,
effective January
1, 1986, Richland and ranks
eighth of ten, ahead of only Pasco
and
Walla Walla and 7.53% behind the average of the compara-
tors. If
the Employer's proposal is placed into effect, the
Richland police officers will
fall further behind the compa-
rators as they will be 10.74% behind the average of
the
comparators by
July 1, 1987. While some of the drop in
percentage
can be attributed to the fact that Pasco cannot
be
considered in the 1987 figures since their wage rate for
1987 has not been settled, this
fact does not account for
all of
the percentage decrease.
If one computed the average increase of the eight
comparators
excluding Pasco between January 1, 1986 and July
1, 1987 the resulting increase
is 3.82%, or almost double
what
the Employer is offering in the same time frame.
Furthermore, if one limits
consideration to only the five
Employer comparables, (less
Pasco) the average increase
between
January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1987 given by the
remaining
four comparators, is an increase from $2372 to
$2476 per month, representing a
4.38% increase or more than
double
the 2% offered by the Employer.
Furthermore, if one
looks at
Employer Exhibit No. 10, one finds that the average
wages
paid by the five comparators in 1985 was $2270 per
month
compared to an average of $2476 for the five compar-
ators (less Pasco) effective July 1, 1987, which is a
percentage
increase of 9.07%.
In view of all the foregoing, a substantial
wage
increase
beyond that suggested by the Employer appears.
warranted
here. However, the Employer maintains
that in
light of
its poor financial situation, its offer is
reasonable. As I understand the Employer's position, it
is
not
that it is unable to pay an increase beyond that which
it
has offered its~police officers, but only that a 2%
wage
increase
over the first two years of the Agreement is
reasonable
given the economic circumstances of the Employer.
In support of its position, the
Employer points to a number
of
indicators it contends shows a "listless and uncertain
future"
with respect to the Employer , 5
economic vitality."
(See Employer's Brief at page
14.) In this regard, the
Employer points to the evidence
it submitted indicating that
both
the number of permits for new construction as well as
the
value of new construction in the City of Richland have
substantially
decreased since 1980. The Employer also
points to
the possibility that the major source of
employment,
the Hanford facility, might be permanently
shutdown. Further, the Employer points to the fact that
from
1980 to 1986 the number of employees has been reduced
by
more than 10%. The Employer also points
to the fact that
in
1987 it will not have available to it approximately one-
quarter of
a million dollars of federal revenue sharing
funds,
which it had available in 1986.
In response to the Employer's contentions regarding
economic
vitality, I note from an examination of Employer's
Exhibits Nos. 22 and 23, that
both the level and value of
new
construction has sh own a significant increase over
the
last
two years, 1985 and 1986. Further, while
the Arbi-
trator recognizes that the Hanford facility is a
major
source of
employment in the Tn-Cities area, the Employer's
reference to
possible permanent shutdown and resulting
economic
harm to the community at this point is no more than
speculation. The Employer has not offered evidence estab-
lishing that Hanford will, in fact, be permanently
shutdown
Furthermore, I note that with
regard to the Employer's
suggested
"local area wage" comparators, namely Kennewick,
Pasco and Walla Walla, each has provided substantial raises
to
its police officers since 1985. Thus,
Kennewick has
increased
its top step police officer 's salary from $2272
per
month in 1985 to $2506 in 1987, an increase of 10.30%.
Walla Walla
has increased its top step police officer's
salary
from $2058 in 1985 to $2269 in 1987, an increase of
10.25%. Although Pasco has not completed negotiations
from
1987, it did provide an
increase from $2164 per month in
1985
to $2251 in 1986, an increase of 4.02%.
The raises described above were provided despite the
fact
that certain economic factors relied on by the Employer
here
apparently also affect the local wage area comparators
suggested by
the Employer. In this regard, I note
that Ron
Musson,
the Employer's Director of Support Services, who in
that
position is in charge of budgeting for the Employer,
testified
that the federal action which resulted in the loss
of
federal revenue sharing funds for Richland in 1987, also
caused
the loss of funds for the other municipalities.
Additionally, it would appear
that Kennewick and Pasco, as
part of
the Tn-Cities area, would equally be affected by
any
changes in employment due to changes at the Hanford
facility. This conclusion is clearly supported by the
news
articles appearing~at Employer Exhibit No. 24,.which, in
discussing
the loss of job Opportunities at Hanford, refer
not
just to Richland, but to the Tn-Cities area in
general.
The increase requested by the Union would result in a
top
step police officer wage of $2623 per month.
Such an
increase
would amount to a 13.55% increase over the wage
rate in
effect at Richland in 1985.
Additionally, such an
increase
would place Richland police officers .54% above the
average of
all of the comparators. Such a large
increase is
not
justified in all the circumstances here.
After carefully considering all of the evidence, it is
my
decision that the employees shall receive an across the
board
increase of 2% effective July 1, 1986, 3% effective
January 1, 1987 and 4%
effective July 1,1987.
Such an
increase
will result in top step Richland police officers
receiving a
monthly salary of $2524 effective July 1, 1987.
This monthly salary is 9.26%
above the $2310 salary Richland
police
officers at the top step were receiving in 1985. A
9.26% increase is commensurate
with the average increase
received by
the Employer comparators between 1985 and July
1, 1987, which
as indicated previously amounted to 9.07%.
Additionally, the increase I
shall order will place Richland
in
sixth place among the comparators as of July 1, 1987,
ahead of
Walla Walla, Longview and Kennewick, while under
the
Employer's proposal, Richland on July 1, 1987 would have
remained in
eighth place.
The increase I shall order does provide a significant
increase,
as is indicated by the comparators.
However, in
reaching
the final figures, I have taken into account
Richland's economic
difficulties and the fact that it is
appropriate to
recognize that there exists some differences
between
communities located -within the economic sphere of
large
urban areas as opposed to those not so located.
I
have
also taken note of the relatively modest increases in
the
Consumer Price Index during the last several years.
Thus, in constructing the
economic increases, I have not
attempted to
bring Richland to the average of all of the
comparators. As of January 1, 1986, Richland's top step
police
officers were 7.53% behind the average of the compar-
ators. The
increase I shall order will still leave them
behind
the average of the comparators by 3.37%, effective
July 1, 1987. Also, although the increase I shall order
will
move the top step Richland police officers, effective
July 1, 1987 to sixth place
among the comparators,
Richland's police officers will
only be slightly ahead of
the
seventh and eighth place cities, Longview and Kennewick,
i.e., $7.00 a month in the case
of Longview and $18.00 a
month in
the case of Kennewick.
With respect to the third year of the Agreement, it
would
appear appropriate to adopt the Employer proposal with
one
modification, removal of the 80% limitation.
Therefore,
I shall order that effective
January 1, 1988, employees
shall
receive an increase equal to the percentage change in
the
Seattle/Everett CPI-W between July 1986 and July 1987.
Longevity
The Union proposes substantially enhancing the longev-
ity pay provision so that police officers will
receive 2.5%
of
base salary for five years service, 5% for ten years
service
and 10% for fifteen years service. The
Employer
opposes
any additional award of longevity pay, noting that
it
currently has an educational incentive pay program which
it
negotiated in the late 1970's as, in effect, a replace-
ment for a longevity pay plan. Only officers hired prior to
October 1, 1977 are presently
entitled to longevity pay,
which is
$20 per month <after ten years, provided the officer
is
not receiving educational incentive pay.
A careful
review of
the comparators does not provide compelling
evidence to
support the reactivation of a longevity plan in
the
circumstances here.
The Employer's purpose in negotiating to limit the
longevity
plan was to promote increased educational attain
ment among its workforce. The Employer's plan has appar-
ently been successful since the Union acknowledges
that only
ten
police officers are not receiving an educational in-
centive.
While it is not entirely clear, it appears that
the
Union is proposing longevity pay only for those
employees
not receiving educational incentive
This pro-
posal, as the Employer suggests, would harm the
educational
incentive
plan by rewarding longevity at a higher rate than
is
currently paid for educational achievement, thus reducing
the
incentive to acquire further education.
Based on the foregoing, I find that no change in the
longevity
pay plan is appropriate.
Special Duty Pay
The Union proposes increasing the special duty pay
provided by
the Employer for motorcycle duty and bomb squad
to 3%
of the employees base salary. In
addition, the Union
proposes
adding special duty pay of 3% for employees
assigned to
the Tactical Response Team (SWAT team) and
canine
duty. The Employer opposes any changes
in the
current
special duty pay provisions.
A review of the comparators reveals no
justification
for
increasing bomb squad pay or instituting SWAT team pay.
While the comparators provide
some justification for in-
creasing
motorcycle pay and for instituting some form of
special
duty pay for canine duty, I have determined to
reject at
this time any additions to special duty pay.
In
this
regard, I rely on the fact that I have ordered a
generous
wage increase. This Agreement will expire
in a
year
and one half and improvements in the areas of
motorcycle
and canine duty pay may well be proper to include
in
the new Agreement commencing in 1989.
SICK LEAVE
The Union proposes that the Employer be
required to
provide a
disability plan that will pay employees covered
under
the state LEOFF II program 80% of their salary after
accrued
sick leave and vacation have been exhausted for a
period of
up to six months in the event of a non-duty
disability. The Employer opposes any changes in the present
coverage
for LEOFF II employees.
The Union has failed to demonstrate that this
provision
is
warranted based on a review of the comparators.
Further,
it
was the uncontradicted testimony of Chief David Lewis
that in
the last several years there has been no instance
where a
LEOFF II employee had insufficient combined sick
leave
and vacation to cover a non-duty disability.
Based
on
the foregoing, I find that the disability plan requested
by
the Union is not warranted.
INSURANCE
The Union proposes that the Employer be
required to pay
the
total contribution for employees' and
their dependents'
medical,
dental and vision insurance. The
Employer seeks to
retain
a "cap" of $201 per month on
the amount it can be
required to
pay for insurance. The prior Agreement
placed a
cap of
$193 on the amount the Employer was required to pay
for
insurance benefits. In the past the cap
has been- high
enough to
accord the employees 100% of their insurance costs
including
dependent coverage. The Employer seeks
to retain
a
cap in order to be able to appropriately budget its
expenses
for this benefit. The Employer has
determined that
the
$201 per month cap it seeks will be sufficient to cover
the
cost of insurance for 1987 and is very likely to cover
the
cost for 1988 as well.
A review of the comparators reveals that only 3 of 9
provide
full coverage for employees and their dependents
without
limitation (Redmond, Auburn, Renton). Edmonds pro-
vides
only 80% coverage for dependents, Kennewick does not
provide
vision coverage for either employees or dependents.
Olympia does not provide vision
coverage for either
employees or
dependents and pays only 85% of the cost of
medical
and dental coverage for dependents.
Walla Walla
pays
only 90% of the cost of medical and dental insurance
for
employees and dependents. Finally, both
Pasco and
Longview have
caps on the amounts they will contribute for
insurance
for employees and dependents. Thus, 6 of
the 9
comparators
provide less coverage than the Employer or have
a
cap on their premiums they will pay or both.
Of the three
that
provide full coverage (Auburn, Renton and Redmond), it
is
not clear if they actually provide dental benefits as the
Union's survey form does not
provide a space to indicate
this
information.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the evidence does
not
support removing a cap on the Employer's obligation to
pay
for insurance coverage for its employees and their
dependents.
SENIORITY
The Union proposes that layoffs and rehiring be done by
classification on
the basis of seniority. Further the
Union
proposes
that no personnel from the "police reserve"' may be
used to
replace laid off bargaining unit members.
Presently -
the
collective bargaining agreement does not specify a
layoff
procedure. Instead the Employer follows a personnel.
ordinance
which requires it to take in account, "length of
service in
the position class, total length of service with
the
[Employer], and documented records of the employee's
performance." (Ordinance No. 2.28.720.)
The Union did not provide evidence of the layoff and
seniority
provisions of the comparators. The
Employer did
provide
such information as to its comparators.
A review of
the
Employer's comparators in and of themselves does not
provide
sufficient evidence to require a change in the
current
layoff procedure.
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
It is the Award of your Arbitrator that:
I. The term
of the Agreement shall be three years
f from January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1988.
II. All
bargaining unit employees shall receive the
following wages
increases:
Effective July 1, 1986: 2%
Effective January 1, 1987: 3%
Effective July 1, 1987: 4%
Effective January 1, 1988: The percent change in
Seattle/Everett CPI-W between July 1986 and
July 1987 up to a maximum
of 3%.
III. There
shall be no change in longevity or special
duty pay provisions
from those contained in the -
1985 collective bargaining
agreement.
IV. The Union proposals regarding Seniority,
Insurance, and Sick
Leave are denied.
Dated: June 8, 1987
Seattle, Washington
Michael
H. Beck, Arbitrator