International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local No. 29
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 07150-I-87-00166
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS,
LOCAL
NO. 29
PERC
No. : 7150-I-87-166
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
ARBITRATION PANEL
NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN: ALAN R. KREBS
CITY APPOINTED MEMBER: PAT DALTON
Appearances:
CITY OF
Bruce
L. Schroeder
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE
FIGHTERS,
LOCAL NO. 29 James
H. Webster
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 2
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS 3
ISSUES 5
PROPOSALS 6
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS 6
COST OF LIVING 15
A. Change in Consumer Price Index 15
B. Cost of Living Difference Between
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 23
A. Ability to Pay 23
B. Settlements With Other City
Bargaining Units 28
C. Productivity 29
D. Comparison by Statewide Ranking 30
E. Turnover 30
FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
POSITION 30
MEDICAL BENEFITS 37
WAGES 40
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS,
LOCAL
NO. 29
OPINION OF THE NEUTRAL
CHAIRMAN
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an interest arbitration
hearing
involving certain uniformed personnel of the city of
three
persons. City of
its
designee on the Panel. International
Association of Fire
Fighters, Local No. 29 appointed Michael
J. McGovern as its
designee on
the Panel. Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs was
selected
as
the Neutral Chairman of the Panel. The
hearing was held in
represented
by Otto G. Klein, III and Bruce L. Schroeder of
the
law firm Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe. The
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, subsequent to the hearing, a copy
of
the transcript was submitted to the Neutral Chairman. In
view
of the lengthy record, the parties agreed to waive the
statutory
requirement that the interest arbitration award be
issued
within 30 days following the conclusion of the hearing.
The parties agreed upon the submission of post-hearing
briefs. The briefs of the parties were received by
the
Neutral
Chairman on July 21 and 22, 1988. On July 25, the
Neutral Chairman received an
attachment to the Union's brief,
which,
the
when
it had mailed its brief. On August 26,
the Neutral
Chairman met and consulted
with the other members of the
Arbitration
Panel.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed
personnel
are unable to reach agreement on new
contract terms
by
means of negotiations and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls
for
interest arbitration to resolve their disputes.
In
interest
arbitration, an arbitrator or arbitration panel
adjudicates a
resolution to contract issues regarding terms
and
conditions of employment, which are at impasse following
collective
bargaining negotiations. RCW 41.56.030
defines
"uniformed
personnel," for whom interest arbitration are
available,
as encompassing fire fighters. The
parties agree
that
RCW 41.56.450 is applicable to the bargaining unit of
fire
fighters involved here.
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain criteria which must
be
considered by an arbitrator in deciding the controversy:
41.56.60 Determination of bargaining
unit--Bargaining
representative. In
making its determination, the
panel shall
be mindful of the legislative
purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and
as
additional standards or
guidelines to aid
it in reaching a decision, it
shall take
into consideration the following
factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) *
* *
(ii) For
employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(6)(b), comparison of
the wages,
hours, and conditions of
employment of
personnel involved in the
proceedings with
the wages, hours, and conditions
of
employment of like personnel of
public fire
departments of similar size on
the west
coast of the United States. However, when
an adequate number of comparable
employers
exists within the state of
Washington,
other west coast employers shall
not be
considered:
(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
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.
RCW 41.56.430, which is referred to in RCW 41.56.460,
reads
as follows:
41.56.430 Uniformed personnel--
Legislative declaration. The intent and
purpose of this 1973 amendatory
act is to
recognize that there exists a
public policy
in the state of Washington
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
Washington; that to promote such dedicated
and uninterrupted public service
there should exist an effective
and adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
ISSUES
The Union represents 295 of the uniformed employees in the
City's fire department, up to
and including the rank of
captain. The Union and the City are parties to a
collective
bargaining
agreement which expired on December 31,
1987. They
were
unable to reach an agreement on a new contract despite
their
efforts in negotiations and the efforts of a mediator.
In accordance with RCW
41.56.450, the executive director of
the
Washington State Public Employment Commission certified
that
the parties were at impasse on a number of issues. The
statutory
interest arbitration procedures were invoked.
Additional negotiations
reduced the number of unresolved
issues
to four:
1. Wages
2. Hours
3. Medical Benefits
4. Maintenance of the fire equipment operator position
With the exception of these
four issues, the parties have
agreed
to all contract provisions for a
one-year agreement,
effective
from January 1, 1988.
PROPOSALS
The City proposes that the base wage for all bargaining
unit
employees, other than fire equipment operators, be
increased
by 2 percent. The City proposes deletion of the
fire
equipment operator position and suggests that all money
saved
from this position's deletion be utilized to increase
the
base fire fighter wages. These
additional monies would be
provided
to the bargaining unit employees in addition to the
proposed 2
percent wage increase. The City proposes
retaining
current
contract language on hours. Finally, the
City
proposes
that its contribution rate for medical benefits be
established
at 108 percent of the level paid in 1987.
All
additional
amounts necessary would be paid by the
employee.
The Union proposes that all base pay rates be increased by
7.25 percent. The Union opposes the City's proposal to
abolish
the position of fire equipment operator.
The Union
proposes
that the number of hours worked be modified in order
to
reduce the average workweek from 52 to 50 hours. The Union
further
proposes that the city continue to pay 100 percent of
the
premiums for medical coverage under its current medical
plan.
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which an
arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision
is a "comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions
of employment
of personnel involved in the proceeding with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of like personnel
of
public fire departments of similar size . . ." The
statute
specifies that the comparable jurisdictions should be
selected
from within the state of Washington unless this
results
in an inadequate number of comparable employers, in
which
case, comparable employers should be selected from the
west
coast of the United States.
The parties stipulated that the following ten
jurisdictions
should be considered as comparable for the
purpose
of RCW 41.56.460(c)(ii):
Tacoma
Bellevue
Kent
Everett
Bellingham
Vancouver
Clark County Fire District No. 5
Spokane County Fire District No. 1
King County Fire District No. 39
Pierce County Fire District No. 2.
The parties have opposing
positions regarding whether the
following
cities should be considered as comparable
jurisdictions:
Seattle
Yakima
The parties further stipulated
that they would argue the
relative
weight that should be given to any particular
comparable
or group of comparables.
The statute was amended in 1987 so as to require the
selection
or comparable employers by choosing "public fire
departments
of similar size." Based on this language, one can
look
primarily at either the population of the service area or
the
number of department employee in order to determine
similarly
sized jurisdictions. Listed below are the
stipulated
and contested comparable jurisdictions along with
the
figures representing their population and total fire
department
personnel. The figures for the city of Spokane are
included
and are highlighted, as are the two contested
jurisdictions.
__________
Total
Population F. D. Personnel
Seattle 500,000 970
Spokane 172,000 313
Tacoma 160,000 375
Bellevue 100,655 141
CCFD #5 87,000 69
SCFD #1 85,000 98
Kent 85,000 110
KCFD #39 81,000 94
PCFD #1 65,000 80
Everett 60,100 147
Yakima 50,000 82
Bellingham 46,000 111
Vancouver 45,000 76
__________
The City argues that Yakima must be included as a
comparable
employer because it is larger in both population
and
number of department employees than are other
jurisdictions
which the Union stipulated as being comparable
with
Spokane. As additional justification, the City points
out that
there is only one other jurisdiction located in
eastern
Washington on the list of comparables. Thus,
according
to the City, Yakima should be included to ensure
some
semblance of geographic balance.
The City argues that Seattle is not comparable to
Spokane. Seattle's population
is 328,000 more than that of
Spokane. The smallest
jurisdiction which the parties agreed
to
as comparable was only 127,000 below the population of
Spokane. Thus, including
Seattle on the list of comparators
results
in an upward population band compared with Spokane
which
is three times greater than the lower band. The City
further
points out that Seattle has more than three times the
number
of fire department personnel than does Spokane. Unlike
Spokane, Seattle's fire department
has fire boats and an
emergency
medical transport capability. Seattle also has many
more
high-rise buildings than does Spokane. In other interest
arbitrations
involving the City of Seattle, Spokane has never
been
deemed comparable to Seattle.
The City argues that it would be inappropriate to give
special
status to any one comparable jurisdiction. It asserts
that
it is well recognized that the Arbitrator should select
an
adequate number of comparables for a fair comparison. The
City contends that if the
Arbitrator is inclined to give a
certain
comparable jurisdiction greater weight, then Spokane
County Fire District No. 1
should be the only one accorded
such
status, inasmuch as it is the only one located in the
same
local labor market as Spokane.
The Union argues that Seattle should be considered as a
comparable
jurisdiction since it falls within the population
range
of a third to three times that of Spokane. The Union
further
points out that Seattle and Spokane are the state's
two
largest cities. Each is the hub of economic activity for
a
large part of the state. They are two of only four Class
II
cities
recognized in the state by the fire insurance
industry.
The other two Class II departments in the state are
included
on the list of comparators. All the other stipulated
comparators
have lower ratings, meaning that they have been
rated
as providing a lesser level of fire protection. The
Union argues that Yakima
should not be considered to be an
appropriate
comparable jurisdiction because it falls below
one-third
the size of Spokane in the number of employees in
the
fire department, assessed evaluation, and the number of
emergency
responses.
The Union argues that comparative data concerning Tacoma
deserves
the greatest weight. It points out that Tacoma is by
far
the closest in size to Spokane when measured by
population,
assessed value, size of bargaining unit, and
number
of responses. The Union points out that in the only
other
interest arbitration award in a proceeding involving the
city
of Spokane, Tacoma served as the only comparable
jurisdiction
utilized by the arbitrator. The Union contends
that
after Tacoma, the Panel should consider those departments
that
fall within the population range of one third to three
times
the size of Spokane. The Union asserts that since the
cities
of Bellingham and Vancouver are substantially smaller
than
one third the size of Spokane, these departments should
not
weigh in the economic comparisons.
It is the finding of your Neutral Chairman that Yakima and
Spokane shall both be
considered as jurisdictions comparable
to
Spokane. The list of stipulated comparators includes only
one
eastern Washington jurisdiction. Spokane is in eastern
Washington. In view of the
dominance of Puget Sound
jurisdictions
on the stipulated list, the inclusion of another
eastern
Washington fire department seems appropriate, so long
as
the inclusion of the proposed department is defensible on
the
basis of size. Given the parties' stipulation that
Bellingham and Vancouver
should be on the list, there is no
reason
to exclude Yakima on the basis that Yakima is too
small.
Yakima services a larger population than either
Bellingham or Vancouver, and
its fire department has more
personnel
than Vancouver, Pierce County Fire District No. 1,
or
Clark County Fire District No. 5.
Spokane is little more than one-third the size of
Seattle. Generally,
Arbitrators would view such a disparity
in
size as too large to be considered "similar in size."
Moreover, the differences
between Seattle and Spokane are even
more
pronounced when comparing number of department employees
and
assessed value. However, here, among the ten
jurisdictions
which the parties have agreed should be on the
list
of comparators, are one that is only one-fourth the size
of
Spokane, two that are close to one-third in size, four that
are
less than one-half the size, one that is barely half the
size,
and one that is about 60 percent of the size of
Spokane. The stipulated list
contains only one jurisdiction
that
is close in size to Spokane and none that are larger. It
would
not be fair to compare Spokane only with smaller
jurisdictions,
most of which are much smaller, when a larger
one
is available and is arguably comparable. If it can be
said
that Spokane may be three times the size of a particular
jurisdiction
and still be comparable, then it would seem that
a
jurisdiction which is three times the size of Spokane should
also
be considered comparable. The parties' stipulation of
comparable
jurisdictions serves to compare Spokane with
jurisdictions
which would ordinarily be considered as too
small
to be considered as comparable with Spokane. Seattle,
though
significantly larger than Spokane, should not be
disqualified
from comparison if the smaller jurisdictions are
not.
RCW 41.56.060(c)(ii) indicates that
"an adequate number of
comparable
employers" must be selected. This implies that
there
should be a sufficient number of comparable
jurisdictions
selected such that the Panel can determine terms
and
conditions of employment which are usually negotiated by
similar
bargaining units. Trends and commonly negotiated
terms
cannot be ascertained by viewing a single jurisdiction.
Many factors can influence a
particular jurisdiction to agree
upon
contract terms which would be very different from those
which
other similarly sized jurisdictions would generally
agree
upon. This is why an "adequate" sample is necessary.
Relying on a single
jurisdiction as a lone comparator is
inappropriate
in view of the language of the statute.
Arbitrator Richard J. Ennis, in a 1978 interest
arbitration
decision involving the City of Spokane and Spokane
Police Guild, Washington State
Public Employment Relations
Reporter, FA 125, did compare
Spokane to a single
jurisdiction:
Tacoma. For the reasons stated above, I
disagree
with Arbitrator Ennis' use of only one comparator.
Moreover, as can be seen from
the other interest arbitration awards
submitted
by the parties, Arbitrator Ennis' approach
has
not been followed by other arbitrators. City of Seattle
and
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 27, et.
al., PERC Nos. 6576-I-86-150
and 151 (Michael H. Beck, 1988)
(7 comparators used) ; City of Walla Walla and Walla Walla
Police Guild, PERC No.
6213-I-86-139 (Thomas F. Levak, 1986)
(10 comparators used); City of
Seattle and Seattle Police
Management Association, PERC
No. 5059-I-84-114 (Alan R. Krebs,
1984) (7 comparators used);
King County and Public Safety
Employees,
Local 5l9, SEIU, PERC No. 5500-I-84-125 (William H.
Dorsey, Jr., 1985) (4
comparators used); City of Bellevue and
Bellevue Firefighters, Local
1604, PERC No. 6811-I-87-162
(Janet L. Gaunt, 1988) (11
comparators used).
In each of the above-cited cases, the arbitrator compared
the
average situation of the comparators with that of the
jurisdiction
there at issue. Greater or lesser weight was not
given
to particular comparators based on how close in size the
comparator
was to the jurisdiction in dispute. Once deemed
"similar
in size" each of the comparators was given equal
weight.
I cannot agree with the Union's argument that of the
stipulated
comparable employers, special weight should be
given
to Tacoma and no weight should be given to Vancouver and
Bellingham. Once the parties
stipulated to a list of
comparable
employers within the meaning of RCW
41.56.060(c)(ii),
they, in effect, agreed that they were all
"similarly
sized" to Spokane. Therefore, they should all be
utilized
in order to calculate the average situation of the
comparable
jurisdictions.
The City's argument that Spokane County Fire District
No. 1 should be given special
consideration because it is in
the
same labor market area as the city of Spokane has some
merit.
Arbitrators frequently consider the situation in the
local
labor market as one of the "other factors" which may be
considered
pursuant to RCW 41.56.060(f). City of Walla Walla,
supra;
City of Seattle and Seattle Police Management
Association,
supra; City of Bellevue, supra. It is safe to
say
that during negotiations, the parties will pay special
attention
to the wages and benefits received by employees of
neighboring
fire departments. However, there are a number of
reasons
that limit the significance of the local labor market
here.
First, there is only one other paid fire fighting
entity
in the local labor market area. As previously
discussed,
there are reasons not to place too much emphasis on
any
single jurisdiction. Moreover, that particular
jurisdiction
is already receiving consideration as one of the
comparable
jurisdictions. Also, Spokane Fire District No. 1
services
only about half the population, with about one-third
of
the personnel, than does the city of Spokane's fire
department.
Other arbitrators have held that a disparity in
size
serves to reduce or eliminate the special consideration
which
may be given to a neighboring jurisdiction. City of
Seattle and IAFF, supra; City
of Bellevue, supra.
COST OF LIVING
(A) Change in Consumer Price Index
RCW 41.56.460(d) requires that the arbitrator take into
consideration
"[t]he average consumer prices for goods and
services,
commonly known as the cost of living." The City
asserts
that the Panel should focus on the change in the
Seattle-Everett consumer price
index for urban wage earners
and
clerical workers (CPI-W), published by the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for the
period
between July 1986 and July 1987. The City contends
that
this is the most relevant time period for considering the
change
in the cost of living because the statistics are put
out
semiannually and the July figures would be used during
bargaining
for a new contract, since such bargaining will
occur
in the summer and fall. The Union argues that the Panel
should
disregard the consumer price index because one of the
primary
utilities of such data in interest arbitration
proceedings
is to serve as a proxy for future compensation
changes
in comparison cities during the term of the collective
bargaining
agreement. The Union asserts that sufficient
comparative
data is available from the comparable employers,
and
that that data, not the CPI, should be used to judge the
size
of the appropriate compensation increase. In any event,
the
Union points to the 5.2 percent increase in the CPI-W for
"all
cities" which occurred between December 1985 and December
1987. The Union asserts that
it is appropriate to look at
this
two-year period since the last wage increase for
bargaining
unit members occurred in January 1986.
The Union's view that changes in the cost of living
criteria
should be disregarded where comparative data is
available
from the comparable jurisdictions is not supported
by
the applicable statute. RCW 41.56.460 does not make
comparability a
superior criteria to cost of living such that
cost
of living data will be insignificant if comparability
data
is available. Rather, the cost of living is listed as a
primary
standard for the Panel in the same manner as
comparability.
Therefore, the cost of living figures will be
given
significant weight for the purpose of determining the
appropriate
compensation increase.
Consideration will be given to the change in cost of
living
during the period suggested by the City, since that is
the
period that would most likely have been used during
collective
bargaining. Consideration will also be given to
the
change in the cost of living during the 1987 calendar
year,
since that corresponds to the duration of the expired
agreement,
and since RCW 41.56.060(e) requires the
consideration
of changes which occur during the pendency of
the
proceedings. No consideration shall be
given to the
change
in cost of living prior to July 1986, since,
presumably,
that data was already utilized in reaching the
wage
and benefit packages for the 1986 and 1987 contracts.
The parties disagree as to whether to utilize the CPI-W
index
for "all cities" or the index for the Seattle-Tacoma
area. Each has its advantages. Dr. David Knowles, a
labor
economist,
testified on behalf of the Union that the
Department of Labor has
advised that the "all cities" index is
less
volatile than the local indexes. He
testified that,
historically,
the local index has usually been used for
purposes
of collective bargaining, though he senses that there
has
been some switching to the all cities index.
Of course
the
benefit of using the Seattle-Everett index is that it is
closer
geographically to Spokane, and most of the comparables
are
located in western Washington as well. On the other hand,
it
is not necessarily the case that the change in the cost of
living
in Spokane is closer to the Seattle-Everett experience
that
it is to the rest of the country. The record does not
establish
whether the parties have, in past collective
bargaining negotiations
relied on one cost of living index as
opposed
to the other. Included below are figures using both
indexes:
__________
Avg.
of all
CPI-W CPI-W cities &
(All Cities) (Seattle~Everett) Sea.-Ev.
July-86 July 87 3.9% 1.4% 2.65%
1987 4.1% 3.4%
(avg. for year) 3.75%
__________
(B) Cost of Living Difference Between
Spokane and the Comparators
The City argues that the difference in the cost of living
between
Spokane and the comparators must be considered. It
points
out that seven of the comparators are located in the
Seattle-Tacoma
metropolitan area. The City asserts that when
comparing
Spokane with these comparators, which are Tacoma,
Seattle, Bellevue, Kent,
Everett, King County Fire District
No. 39 and Pierce County Fire
District No. 2, an adjustment
should
be made to reflect a 10 percent difference in the cost
of
living. The Union responds that the data presented
suggests
that there is merely a 2 percent difference in
earnings
between workers in Spokane and those in western
Washington
urban areas.
If it can be shown that the wages and cost of living in
Spokane are
generally lower than in the comparable
jurisdictions,
the differences should be considered. Such
differences
are generally recognized in collective bargaining
to
justify differing compensation levels between localities.
Moreover, Professor Knowles
testified that economists
generally
recognize that differences in the Cost of living
between
localities will often correlate to differences in wage
levels.
The City justifies its contention that there is a
10 percent differential in
cost of living between Spokane and
the
Seattle metropolitan area on reported differences in wages
and
per capita income. The City provided data on all cities
in
the state with a population of between 15,000 and 250,000.
Those cities located within 50
miles of Seattle or Portland
had a
per capita income which was 23.7 percent greater, on
average,
than other Washington cities. The cities on the west
side
of the state had a per capita income which was 21.4
percent
greater than those on the east side. Fire fighters in
metropolitan
areas and those on the west side of the state
received
over 9 percent higher wages than other fire fighters
in
the state. Relying on the Washington City and County
Employee Salary and Benefit
survey for 1987, the City also
pointed
out that for public employees in 11 selected
occupations,
there were substantially higher salaries on the
west
side of the state and in metropolitan areas.
These statistics are not particularly helpful here. As
Professor Knowles explained in
his testimony, it is not
reasonable
to group Spokane with all other non-metropolitan or
east
side cities in the state. Spokane's situation in eastern
Washington is unique. Spokane
has a population of 172,000.
There are no other cities in
Washington which lie outside of a
metropolitan
area and have a population over 50,000. There
are
no cities of more than 15,000 people within 75 miles of
Spokane,
and only one within 130 miles. Nothing is to be
gained
by comparing Spokane with cities between one-third and
one-twelfth
its size and located at considerable distance.
On the other hand, even Professor Knowles concedes that
the
cost of living in the Seattle metropolitan area is higher
than in
Spokane. The city of Spokane and Spokane County Fire
Department No. 1 are both
situated in Spokane County.
According to statistics
collected by the United States Bureau
of
the Census, the per capita income of Spokane County for
1985 is 16.5 percent less than
the average for King, Pierce
and
Snohomish Counties. King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties
are
in the Seattle metropolitan area. Seven of the twelve
comparators
are situated in these three counties. Clark
County which contains two of
the comparators, has a per capita
income
which is 3.2 percent higher than Spokane County.
Whatcom County, in which
Bellingham is located, has a per
capita
income which is 1.0 percent less than Spokane County.
Yakima County per capita
income is 13.75 percent less than
Spokane
County.
Professor Knowles also provided data collected from area
wage
surveys produced by the Washington State Employment
Security
Department. The Department provides wage surveys, by
locality,
for various categories of occupations. Professor
Knowles testified that he is
familiar with the data collection
procedures
of the Department, and that the data is reliable.
Professor Knowles compared all
occupations contained in the
area
wage surveys for Spokane, Pierce and Yakima Counties,
Seattle,
and the Vancouver area. A few occupations were
omitted
because they were not included in each of the
surveys.
However, between 70 and 80 occupations were used.
They were divided into three
categories of occupations in the
same
manner as the state categorizes the jobs: clerical,
managerial-professional-technical,
and general. Inasmuch as
the
individual surveys were issued at different times,
Professor Knowles adjusted the
figures to reflect the changes
in
the cost of living. Compared to Spokane, the area wage
surveys
reflect the following, with a "+" reflecting a higher
average
monthly wage than that of Spokane County, and a "-"
reflecting a
lower figure:
__________
Managerial,
Professional
Clerical & Technical General
Seattle +2.7% +2.2% +4.1%
Pierce County +3.7% +1.1% +8.7%(1)
Vancouver Area +0.6% +1.4 +2.1%
Yakima County -2.4% -3.2% -3.3%
_____
(1) The Union contends that this 8.7% figure should be
disregarded
since it appears to be significantly greater than
all
other comparisons. I have chosen to give consideration to
this
figure since its effect has been diminished by
considering
the average of the various employment categories
and
also because the Union's own expert witness submitted this
figure
and offered no reason why it would be inaccurate.
__________
If the six figures from Pierce
County and Seattle are
averaged,
the result reflects wages which are 3.75 percent
higher
than that of Spokane County. while this may not
accurately
reflect the precise difference in the cost of
living
between the Seattle metropolitan area and Spokane, it
is
the best information available to the Panel. If the
majority
of comparators are to be taken from the Seattle
metropolitan
area, then consideration must be given to that
region's
higher wages and cost of living. The differences
between
Spokane, on the one hand, and Vancouver, Yakima,
Bellingham and Clark County on the other, tend
to balance out
and
will be disregarded. Viewed as a whole, the 12 comparators
have
an average cost of living which is about 2 percent higher
than
that of Spokane.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.060(a)-(e), RCW
41.56.060(f) directs the Panel to
consider
"such other factors . . . which are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in the determination of
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment." Such factors,
which
are discussed below, have been considered, but with
lesser
weight than that which is given to the specifically
enumerated criteria
of comparability and cost of living.
(A) Ability to Pay
A factor frequently raised in contract negotiations and
also
considered by arbitrators is the ability of the employer
to
pay wage and benefit increases. The City asserts that it
faces a
very real financial crisis and that it is unable to pay
the
Union's demands. The City points to its declining
reserves,
its borrowings to meet payroll, its reduction in the
number
of its employees, its declining bond rating, its high
rate
of taxation and its limited ability to raise more. The
Union argues that the City is
able to pay for its wage and
benefit
demands. It contends that the City maintains
substantial
unrestricted fund balances in its annual budget,
enjoys
an extremely low level of bond indebtedness, has
excellent
bond ratings, and has not tapped a significant
revenue
source, namely, the business and occupation tax.
It is evident that the City is experiencing financial
difficulties.
This Union as well as others appear to have
recognized
this in the recent past since there was a virtual
city-wide
wage and benefit freeze in 1987. The City has
reduced
its total work force in each of the past three years.
Revenues for the City were
lower in 1987 than they were in
1986. The 1988 budget reflects
projected revenues which are
less
than 1 percent higher than they were in 1986.
The City's year-end general fund balance has declined each
year
since 1986. The Union suggests that the drop in the
general
fund in 1987 can be attributed to expenditures for the
construction
of an agricultural trade center. Half the cost of
that
trade center was paid for by the state. The City paid its
share
from general fund monies. That may very well have
contributed
to the decline in the year-end general fund balance
during
1987.
The Union points to the substantial balance in the City's
internal
service fund. However, that fund is used, for the
most
part, to fund the City's various self-insured insurance
programs.
In this regard, there was no evidence presented
which
would indicate that the amount contained in the internal
service
fund was more than was necessary.
The City had to borrow almost four million dollars in 1987
in
order to meet its payroll. In the first five months of
1988, it has had to borrow
four million dollars already. Peter
Fortin, the City's finance
director, testified that since he
was
hired in 1981, the City never had to borrow to meet payroll
until
1987.
Mr. Fortin testified that the three largest current sources
of
City revenue are the sales tax, the property tax, and taxes
on
private utilities. The state legislature has set maximum
rates
on these taxes that municipalities may impose, and the
City is at the maximum rate
allowable for each of these sources
of
revenue. The only potential revenue available to the City,
besides
additional borrowings, would be a business and
occupation
tax (B and O tax). Mr. Fortin testified that no
city
in eastern Washington levies a B and O tax and that such a
tax
was just not politically feasible.
It would have been helpful to know how the tax structure of
Spokane compared with that of
the comparable jurisdictions.
For instance, do all or most
of the comparable cities located
in
western Washington impose a B and O tax? If so, how do the
total
taxes paid compare? Without this information it is
difficult
to assess Spokane's tax burden as compared to that of
the
comparable jurisdictions. If the B and O tax were not
considered,
then it would appear that the tax burden imposed by
Spokane was among the highest.
However, the B and O tax must
be
considered in evaluating the tax burden and that information
was
not presented to the Panel. If Spokane were unusual among
the
larger cities of Washington State in not imposing a B and O
tax,
and if such a tax could produce substantial revenue, then
it
is the decision of the Spokane political establishment and
citizenry
that its taxes be kept down. Such lower taxes
necessarily
result in lesser government services. However,
under
the statutory criteria, that does not dictate that
individual
fire fighters should be denied fair compensation
comparable
to other similarly sized fire departments.
The Union emphasizes the City's
favorable bond ratings.
Moody's Credit Report rates
the City's general obligation bonds as
Aa. Its report says:
The city's importance as a regional
economic center and moderate
debt burden
contribute to the high quality
security.
Continued ability to expand revenue sources
and maintenance of adequate
financial
reserves are essential to future
credit
quality
* * *
Financial strain is evidenced in declining
reserves.
Moody's Credit Report also indicates that as of September
1987, the unemployment rate in
the City is 6.2 percent, the
same
as the state figure. Standard and Poor recently
downgraded
the City's bond rating for bonds requiring only
city
council approval from AA to AA-, while continuing the AA
rating
for bonds with voter approval. The following was
reported
in Standard and Poor's Credit Week:
The downgrades are based on reduced
financial flexibility that
results from
issuers approaching their
statutory
property tax rate limit, coupled
with lower
operating fund balances and
slower tax base
growth.
The lower bond rating may
cause borrowing to be more expensive
for
the City. Nevertheless, as Mr. Fortin concedes, the
City's bond ratings remain
good.
The foregoing information does not indicate that the
City's economy is booming. The
slow growth in tax revenue
raises
some question about the health of the economy.
However, the rate of
unemployment in the City does not suggest
an
economy that is severely depressed. The City does appear
to
have some difficulty in raising enough revenues to pay for
the
government services which it has decided to offer. As a
result,
as Assistant Fire Chief Ronald Payton testified, a
number
of desirable capital expenditures have been put off.
The
number of. City employees has
declined. Nevertheless, it
has
not been shown that this has been caused by a severe
economic
downturn. The City's current budget difficulties
result
from tax revenues which are insufficient to pay for the
level
of services it has decided to provide and which are also
insufficient
to maintain its fund balances at the level which
it
finds prudent. However, in order to prove that it is
unable
to afford what otherwise would be considered a fair
compensation
increase, the City must show that it is in
economic
difficulty and cannot be expected to raise additional
revenues
or shift funds. Not only has it not been shown that
the
City is in a severe economic slump, it has also not been
shown
how the total level of taxes imposed in the City
compares
with that of other similarly sized jurisdictions in
the state.
It has not been shown that Spokane cannot raise
more
revenues, or shift funds, or should not be expected to,
given
its economic situation when compared with other
similarly
sized jurisdictions. Therefore, I am unable to
conclude
that the City is without the financial means to pay
compensation
which is comparable with similarly sized
jurisdictions.
(B) Settlements With Other City Bargaining Units
From the standpoint of both the Employer and the Union,
the
settlements reached by the Employer with other bargaining
units
are significant. While those settlements are affected
by
the peculiar situation of each individual bargaining unit,
still
there is an understandable desire by the Employer to
achieve
consistency. From the Union's standpoint, it wants to
do
at least as well for its membership as the other unions
have
already done. At the bargaining table, the settlements
reached
by the Employer with other unions are likely to be
brought
up by one side or the other. Thus, it is a factor
which
should be considered by the Panel.
Four other bargaining units of City employees settled for
wage
and benefit increases in each case totaling between 2.8
and
2.9 percent for 1988. Three of these bargaining units
represented
bargaining units of police or fire department
employees
who were entitled to, but did not utilize, interest
arbitration.
These included a bargaining unit of fire
department
battalion chiefs who settled for a compensation
increase
of 2.8 percent.
(C) Productivity
The Union argues that consideration must be given to the
increased
productivity of Spokane fire fighters over the past
decade.
The Union asserts that the City's cost per fire call
has
significantly decreased during this period, much more so
than
the cost per police department call. The Union asserts
that
the increase in fire fighter productivity has not been
reflected
in the relative salaries between police and fire
employees.
The increase in the total of fire department calls over
the
past decade is mostly the result of a much larger number
of
emergency medical response (EMS) calls. The number of EMS
responses
have likewise increased among the comparable
jurisdictions
as they have taken on this new role, so that
Spokane does not appear to be
unusual in this respect.
Comparing the actual present
productivity of fire fighters and
police
officers is not possible based on the evidence
presented,
inasmuch as the nature of their work is so
different.
(D) Comparison by
Statewide Ranking
The Union points out that there are 28 fire departments in
the
state which pay a higher monthly wage than does Spokane.
Many are much smaller than
Spokane. None of these departments
are
in eastern Washington. The statute calls for comparison
of
similarly sized jurisdictions. Negotiators and arbitrators
sometimes
consider jurisdictions which are not similarly sized
if
they are situated nearby. There is no basis in the
statutory
criteria for considering jurisdictions which the
parties
agree are not similarly sized and which have no
connection
except that they are situated on opposite sides of
the
same state.
(E) Turnover
During the past six years, the Department has experienced
only
one non-retirement resignation. During the last
recruitment,
in 1986, there were 641 applicants for fire
fighter
positions in the city of Spokane. These statistics
indicate
that the compensation package paid by the City is
more
than sufficient to attract and retain employees.
FIRE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR
POSITION
The City proposes deletion of the fire equipment operator
position.
Fire equipment operators now receive a monthly
salary
which is 5.1 percent higher than that of a fire
fighter.
The City proposes that the bulk of the money that it
saves
would be utilized to increase the base wages for all
fire
fighters. The City reasons that only a very small number
of
the comparable jurisdictions have a separate fire equipment
operator
position, that the duties of the fire equipment
operator
are routinely performed by employees classified as
fire
fighters, and that those duties do not warrant more pay
than
is paid to fire fighters.
The Union argues that the fire equipment operator
classification
should be retained. It asserts that the City's
proposal
is illegal, since the City's civil service rules
require
that it first seek permission from the Civil Service
Commission
before proposing reclassification in bargaining.
The Union further argues that
the fire equipment operators
have
responsibilities which are deserving of extra recognition
and
compensation. The Union asserts that elimination of this
classification
is not justified by a comparison with the
comparable
jurisdictions.
The City is not legally precluded from negotiating the
removal
of a particular classification before the matter is
acted
upon by the City's Civil Service Commission. The Union
points
to civil service rules that require reclassification
"by
order of the Civil Service Commission subject to final
action
by the City Council." The Union states in its brief
that
the City is internally bound by the procedures set forth
in
the city charter, and accordingly, must first seek
permission
from the Civil Service Commission before proposing
the
elimination of a classification. However, in Rose v.
Erickson, 106 Wn.2d 420
(1986), the Washington Supreme Court
held
that the state's collective bargaining laws are dominant
over
local civil services laws where there is a conflict
between
the two. RCW 41.56.030(4) sanctions "collective
negotiations
on personnel matters" and the execution of a
written
agreement on such matters. Classifications and wage
scales
are personnel matters within the meaning of RCW
41.56.030(4).
Thus, the parties are free to negotiate with
regard
to the fire equipment operator classification. Any
resulting
agreement would prevail over the local civil service
rules.
Even if this were not the case, I know of no reason
why
the City could not negotiate the elimination of a
classification,
subject to the later approval of the Civil
Service
Commission.
The fire equipment operator position has existed in the
City
since 1969. In view of the existence of such a
longstanding
practice, the City must bear the burden of
proving
that a change is in order. The evidence presented was
not
sufficient to prove that the fire equipment operator
position
should be eliminated.
It is not unreasonable for the fire equipment operators to
be
classified separately from fire fighters and to receive a
higher
wage. In recognition of the special skills required of
the
job, an applicant for the position of fire equipment
operator
must pass an examination. Then every three years,
recertification
is required on each type of apparatus that
might
be driven. The fire equipment operator serves as lead
man
over fire fighters with regard to the care and maintenance
of
equipment, and usually becomes acting company officer when
the
officer is absent. The fire equipment officer is
responsible
for the inspection, maintenance, and operation of
vehicles
costing as much as $150,000 in the case of pumpers,
and
often considerably more than that for ladder trucks. They
are
required to have knowledge of hydraulics, pumps, and
aerial
ladders. They must be skilled in the operation and
maintenance
of various types of fire apparatus. They must
maneuver
their apparatus through traffic at high speeds,
position
the apparatus at the fire scene, and then perform the
complicated
task of setting up the equipment. Thus, the fire
equipment
operators operate as lead persons, are responsible
for
very expensive and complicated equipment, and in general
have
special responsibilities for which special recognition is
not
out of order. That fire fighters fill in for absent
fire
equipment
operators more than one-third of the time does not
mean
that the fire equipment operator does not perform work
justifying
additional compensation. The parties have
heretofore
agreed upon extra pay for fire fighters who
fill
in for the equipment operator, just as extra pay is paid
to
employees who fill in for the company officer.
Of the stipulated 12 comparable
jurisdictions, four
currently
employ fire equipment operators, and one other,
Tacoma,
will do so in 1989. The City asserts that the
implementation
of the fire equipment operation position in
Tacoma is irrelevant, since
this Panel should not be concerned
with
the practice of the comparators in 1989. However, the
situation
in Tacoma, following the implementation of the
equipment
operator position in Bellevue this year, indicates
an expanding
trend to recognize that position, not to
eliminate
it. Thus, while in 1987, only 3 of 12 comparators
gave
recognition to the fire equipment operator position, by
1989, 5 of 12 will. Thus, the
City's practice of recognizing
that
position does not stand out as significantly different
from
that of the comparators. There is insufficient reason to
delete
the fire equipment operator position and thereby
decrease
the wages of a significant number of the bargaining
unit
employees.
HOURS
The Union proposes to reduce the weekly hours of duty for
24-hour shift personnel from
52 to 50 by increasing the number
of
"Kelly" shifts off from one every six weeks to one every
four
weeks. The Union asserts that this is justified because
personnel
in the comparable fire departments generally work
fewer
hours than in Spokane.
The City argues that the current 52-hour workweek should
be
maintained. It asserts that this workweek keeps Spokane in
line
with its comparables, is less than that of others in the
local
market, and is fair to employees. The City also asserts
that
the costs associated with the Union's proposal are
exorbitant.
The bargaining unit members work a schedule of 24 hours on
duty,
followed by 48 hours off duty. During the 24 hours on
duty,
in addition to their assigned work, employees have
periods
for meals, rest and recreation, and sleep. Every six
weeks,
each employee is entitled to one Kelly day, i.e., one
shift
off. This schedule results in each employee working an
average
of 52 hours per week.
All of the comparable jurisdictions but one also work
24-hour schedules, with Kelly
day adjustments. The lone
exception
is Everett, which works, alternately, 10 or 14 hours
at a
stretch. Thus, Everett fire fighters must report for
more
shifts than do the fire fighters in Spokane or any of the
comparable
jurisdictions. Inasmuch as Everett fire fighters
do
not work the 24-hour shift worked by Spokane and the other
11 comparable jurisdictions,
and since no evidence was
presented
which would establish the extent of the significance
of
this variable, I have decided to disregard Everett's
situation
with regard to hours. In City of Bellevue, supra,
Everett's situation was
similarly disregarded.
Listed below are the average weekly hours scheduled by the
comparators
other than Everett:
__________
Seattle 45.20
Tacoma 46.60
Bellevue 50.48
CCFD #5 52.00
SCFP #1 53.05
Kent 52.32
KCFD #39 48.00
PCFD #2 51.84
Yakima 52.00
Bellingham 51.50
Vancouver 49.00
Average 50.18
Median 51.50
__________
The hours worked by the Spokane fire fighters are less
than
two hours higher than the average, but only one half hour
above
the median number of hours worked in the comparators.
In the majority of the
utilized comparators, the hours worked
are
within about one hour, plus or minus, of the hours worked
in
Spokane. Spokane County Fire Department No. 1, which is in
the same labor market
area as the city of Spokane, is one of
these.
Overall, there has been no showing with regard to
hours
worked, that the situation of the Spokane fire fighters
compared
with the situation among the comparators is such that
it
requires correction.
MEDICAL BENEFITS
In the expired agreement, for each employee, the City
committed
to pay a designated amount which covered the
insurance
premium for the Washington State Council of
Firefighters/Blue
Cross Plan. In that agreement, the parties
provided
that any premium increase during the term of the
Agreement would be paid by the
employee, but would be subject
to
negotiation for the next contract year.
The City asserts that its proposal to cap its contribution
rate
for medical benefits for 1988 at 108 percent of the level
paid
in 1987 is reasonable as a cost containment mechanism.
The City points to two very
large premium increases which
resulted
in medical premiums for the latter half of 1988 which
were
54.8 percent higher than they were during 1987. This was
for a
medical plan which the Union insisted upon utilizing
during
negotiations for the expired agreement. These
increases
occurred on January 1 and July 1, 1988. The City
also
points out that other City employees had no premium.
increase,
with the exception of police LEOFF I employees who
had a
premium increase of 13.9 percent.
The Union proposes that the City continue to pay 100
percent
of the medical premium, as it has in the past. The
Union asserts that medical
insurance costs for fire fighters
have
increased throughout the state. The Union recognizes
that
the increased premium for medical insurance must be
factored
into the total economic package.
The following chart lists the costs for Spokane and the
comparable
jurisdictions of monthly premiums for health
benefits
for a fire fighter with ten years of experience and
with a
wife and children. These figures encompass such items
as
premiums for medical, dental, life, and disability
insurance.
__________
Seattle 200
Tacoma 313
Bellevue 341
CCFD #5 301
SCFP #1 313
Kent 242
KCFD #39 331
PCFD #2 345
Everett 230
Yakima 231
Bellingham 195
Vancouver 259
Average (1988) 275
Median (1988) 280
Spokane (1987) 256
Spokane (1st half - 1988) 313
Spokane (2nd half - 1988) 367
Spokane (avg. - 1988) 340
__________
These figures reflect that
while Spokane's current
contribution
would rank eighth out of 13 if grouped with the
comparators,
the current cost of health premiums for Spokane
fire
fighters if paid entirely by the City would be 6 percent
higher
than the highest paid by a comparator. The current
premium
for insurance is 33 percent higher in Spokane than is
the
average among the comparables. Considering the lower
premiums
paid by Spokane fire fighters during the first half
of
1988, still the average premiums for the year for Spokane
fire
fighters would still be within five dollars of the
highest
health insurance costs paid by a comparator, and 24
percent
higher than the average.
The cost of health premiums for Spokane fire fighters rose
a
total of 43 percent during 1988. Medical premiums were 54.8
percent
higher on July 1, 1988, than they had been at the end
of
1987. The Union points to several examples of other
insurance
plans in the state which have had substantial
insurance
premium increases during 1988. However, there has
been
no showing that such increases were common among the
comparators.
Such increases were not common for insurance
plans
utilized by other bargaining units representing City
employees.
In the expired contract, the parties had agreed
upon
the concept of cost sharing for future premium increases
which
occurred during 1987. Given the unusually large
increase
in premiums during 1988 which is out of proportion to
the
change in the cost of living or the increase in health
costs
among the comparators, it is appropriate that the
employees
pay a portion of that increase.
A 10 percent increase in monthly medical benefits to
$222.20 shall be granted here.
Total monthly health benefits
will
amount to $276.20. This would place health benefits in
Spokane at a level which is
very close to the average and the
median
of the comparators. The amount required to pay the
remainder
of the medical premium after the City has made its
contribution
shall be paid by the employee. In view of the
substantial
wage increase which is awarded, and the fact that
most
of the benefit year has passed, the Panel has unanimously
agreed
that the City's increase in medical premium
contributions
shall not be retroactive, but rather shall be
effective
as of October 1, 1988.
WAGES
The City and the Union agree that a comparison of the
wages
of Spokane and the comparators must take into account
the
monetary premium which Spokane and four of the comparable
jurisdictions
pay for the fire equipment operator. For
instance,
in Spokane, since 38 percent of the fire fighters
are
equipment operators, that percentage of the premium for
equipment
operators was added to the base monthly wage in
order
to arrive at the weighted base wage. Since the average
Spokane fire fighter has over
13 years of service, I have
based
my comparisons on the basis of a fire fighter with 10
years
of experience. Both parties agree that any wage
increase
should be the same percentage for all ranks.
Listed below are the 1987 monthly weighted base wages for
a
fire fighter with ten years of service in Spokane and the
comparators:
__________
Seattle 2668
Tacoma 2756
Bellevue 2629
CCFD #5 2427
SCFP #1 2427
Kent 2691
KCFD #39 2725
PCFD #2 2801
Everett 2857
Yakima 2519
Bellingham 2423
Vancouver 2559
Average 2623
Spokane 2530
__________
This reflects that in 1987, a
Spokane fire fighter with ten
years
of experience received a monthly wage which was 3.7
percent
less than the average of the comparators.
All of the comparable jurisdictions have already reached
collective
bargaining agreements for 1988. Listed below are
the
1988 monthly weighted base wages for a fire fighter with
ten
years of service in the comparators:
__________
Seattle 2756
Tacoma 2852
Bellevue 2736
CCFD #5 2787
SCFD #1 2427
Kent 2765
KCFD #39 2808
PCFD #2 2871
Everett 2942
Yakima 2519
Bellingham 2543
Vancouver 2654
Average 2721
__________
The wage increase required to
bring the weighted base wages of
a
Spokane fire fighter to the average of that of the
comparators
in 1988 is 7.5 percent.
The 1988 weighted base wage increases for each of the
comparable
jurisdictions are as follows:
__________
Seattle 3.0%
Tacoma 3.0%
Bellevue 4.0%
CCFD #5 15.0%(2)
SCFD #1 0.0%
Kent 3.0%
KCFD #39 3.0%
PCFD #2 2.5%
Everett 3.0%
Yakima 0.0%
Bellingham 5.0%
Vancouver 4.0%
Average 3.79%
Median 3.16%
_____
2The City asserts in its brief
that the large wage
increase
in Clark C9unty Fire District No. 5 was attributable
to
its merger with another fire district. No evidence was
presented
which would substantiate or explain this assertion.
__________
The parties agree that a comparison of compensation levels
requires
more than a mere comparison of base wage levels. The
City argues that longevity pay
and education premiums, in
addition
to driver premiums, should be considered. The City
asserts
that the plethora of other premiums that exist in
certain
collective bargaining agreements should be disregarded
because
there are just too many individualized premiums that
differ
from jurisdiction to jurisdictjon. The City points
out
that
this was the approach taken in the recent City of
Bellevue
decision. The City asserts that insurance premiums
should
not be lumped together with wages for purposes of
comparison,
but rather that insurance programs should be
separately
compared. The City argues that the level of
insurance
premiums does not necessarily indicate the level of
benefits
offered. It also points out that, by statute,
employees
hired before October 1, 1977 (LEOFF I employees) are
treated
differently with respect to medical coverage than
those
who were hired afterwards. (LEOFF II employees). All
LEOFF I employees are
statutorily entitled to broad medical
coverage
paid for by the Employer. LEOFF I dependents and
LEOFF II employees and
dependents receive the level of
benefits
which are established as a result of collective
bargaining.
The City argues that there is no evidence in the
record
with regard to the cost of health insurance for LEOFF I
employees,
and that therefore it is not possible to make a
proper
overall comparison of health benefits.
The Union argues that a proper compensation comparison
should
include all fringe benefits, including longevity,
holiday
pay, insurance, federally mandated overtime,
retirement
(other than LEOFF), and all forms of premium pay.
I have determined to compare the entire compensation
packages,
with the exception of a few items which are either
insignificant
or difficult to compare. Generally, in
negotiations,
the parties consider the entire compensation
package.
The cost of items are generally discussed at the
bargaining
table. One party or the other may request that
money
be shifted from wages to benefits or vice versa. Some
jurisdictions
may agree upon lower base wages, and a higher
level
of benefits. Others may take the opposite approach.
The fairest comparison of
compensation requires an examination
of
the entire compensation package.
Insurance costs are included, though the costs of
insurance
for LEOFF I employees and for social security are
omitted,
since those items were not placed into evidence.
Insurance benefits may vary
from program to program, as the
City asserts. In my view, this
does not provide sufficient
justification
for disregarding the cost of insurance, when
comparing
compensation levels. First of all, the parties are
free
to negotiate different plans. Moreover, the amount of
insurance
premiums paid by the employer is a very significant
aspect
of compensation.
I have not considered holiday pay inasmuch as it is paid
in
lieu of compensatory time off which other jurisdictions
offer.
EMT premiums are considered on a weighted basis since
it
is significant in amount and application. I view it in the
same
manner as the premium for the fire equipment operator
which
the parties have agreed should be considered. Bellevue
and
Pierce County Fire District No. 2 each have supplementary
retirement
plans. The cost of those has been considered.
Finally, there are a number of
premiums which are given to
relatively
few employees and are insignificant in the totals.
They shall be disregarded.
Federally mandated overtime is
also
insignificant and shall be disregarded.
Listed below are the total 1988 compensation figures for
fire
fighters with ten years of experience in the comparable
jurisdictions.
The wage figures are again weighted for the
fire
equipment operator premium. Where there are differences
between
the figures supplied by the City and the Union, I have
taken
the average of the two figures. These differences were
not
significant.
__________
Wages 2756
Longevity 110
Medical 155
Dental 45
Total 3066
Wages 2852
Longevity 114
Medical 259
Dental 44
Life 9
3278
Wages 2736
Education 46
Supp. Retirement 205
Medical 278
Dental 57
Life 5
3327
CCFD #5
Wages 2787
Longevity 90
Medical 268
Dental 33
3178
SCFD #1
Wages 2427
Longevity 140
Cleaning Allowance 10
Medical 268
Dental 33
Disability 12
2890
Wages 2765
Longevity 111
Medical 239
Life 3
3118
KCFD #39
Wages 2808
Longevity 50
Medical 268
Dental 60
Life 3
3189
PCFD #2
Wages 2871
Education 14
Supp. Retirement 50
Medical 268
Dental 58
Disability 18
3279
Wages 2942
Longevity 101
Medical 230
3273
Wages 2519
Longevity 76
Medical 179
Dental 47
Life 5
2826
Wages 2543
Longevity 20
Medical 155
Dental 40
2758
Wages 2654
EMT Premium 25
Medical 205
Dental 45
Life 5
2934
__________
The average total wages and
benefits of the comparable
jurisdictions iB $3093. The following reflects the total
wages
and benefits for
premium
increases awarded here:
__________
Wages 2530
Longevity 99
Medical 202
Dental 37
Life 5
Disability 12
2885
__________
The total wages and benefits
received by
is
7.2 percent less than the average of the comparable
jurisdictions
for 1988.
The
compared.
It calculates hourly compensation by dividing the
annual
compensation figure in each jurisdiction by the number
of
hours scheduled in a year, adjusted for the number of hours
corresponding
to the allotted Kelly days, holidays, and
vacations.
I have determined to compare monthly compensation
figures,
rather than hourly figures. First of all, there is
no
evidence that the parties have ever negotiated wages based
on
an hourly figure. At least since 1981, all collective
bargaining
agreements between the parties have listed wages on
a
monthly basis and an annual basis, but not on an hourly
basis.
Further, as I previously stated in a decision
involving
the City of
Firefighters, Local No. 2099,
(1987), while the number of
hours
worked directly relates to the level of hourly
compensation,
it would be misleading to factor hours worked,
holidays
and vacations into the compensation equation for
comparative
purposes, and to ignore a host of other issues
related
to hours. For instance in this bargaining unit,
compensation
is affected by provisions relating to call back
and
holdover pay, overtime, and court time. The
suggested
hourly wage comparison also disregards such related
items
as military leave, education leave, as well as meal
periods,
sleep time, and other nonactive work time which
significantly
affect what may be considered the "hourly"
compensation
paid by
As previously discussed,
total
monthly compensation which is 7.2 percent less than that
received,
on the average, by the comparators. Items already
agreed
to during negotiations, when added to the medical
benefit
increase which is being awarded for the last three
months
of 1988, amount to a compensation increase of about 0.4
percent.
This reduces the difference to 6.8 percent. The
best
estimate of the cost of living among the comparators,
compared
with that of
the
comparators. That leaves a 4.8 percent difference in
effective
compensation. A 4.8 percent wage increase would be
significantly
higher than the median 3.16 percent or average
3.79 percent wage increase
among the comparators for 1988. It
is
about two percentage points higher than the compensation
increases
negotiated with other City bargaining units. It is
also
higher that the cost of living increase, no matter which
index
or time period is relied upon. For these reasons, and
in
view of the statutory criteria that requires consideration
of
not only comparability, but also cost of living, and other
factors
normally taken into consideration in the determination
of
wages, I find that a wage increase of 4.5 percent is
appropriate.
That will result in a total compensation
increase
of about 4.9 percent.
A 4.5 percent wage increase would be a higher percentage
increase
than that which was received in all but two of the
comparable
jurisdictions. As a result of the 15 percent wage
increase
which occurred in
Spokane's base wage ranking
will drop one notch, from ninth
out
of thirteen, to tenth among the comparators. Still, the
larger
than average increase which is awarded here, will serve
to
narrow the compensation gap between
comparable
jurisdictions.
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
It is the determination of your Neutral Chairman that the
1988 Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the City of
Local No. 29 shall include the
the following:
A. The Fire Equipment operator classification shall be
retained in the Agreement.
B. Current contract language reflecting a 52-hour
workweek shall be retained.
C. Effective October 1, 1988, the City's contribution
for medical insurance premiums shall
be increased by
10 percent.
D. Effective January 1, 1988, the monthly rates of pay
for all employees covered by the
Agreement shall be
increased by 4.5 percent.
Dated:
Alan R.
Krebs, Neutral Chairman