Public,
Professional & Office-Clerical Employees and Drivers, Local Union No. 763
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 06360-I-86-00146
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION NO.
763
PERC No.: 6360-I-86-146
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
J. David Andrews and
Nancy Williams
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS, LOCAL
NO. 763
Heal L. Wacker
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL &
OFFICE-CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
AND DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION
NO.763
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator was selected by the parties in accordance
with RCW 41.56.450 and Article
XVI, Section 16.2.1 of their
1985-87 collective Bargaining
Agreement. The first day of
hearing was held in
1986. The second day of
hearing was held in Everett,
represented by J. David
Andrews and Nancy Williams of the law
firm, Perkins Coie. Public,
Professional & Office-Clerical
Employees and Drivers, Local
Union No. 763 was represented by
Herman L. Wacker of the law
firm, Davies, Roberts, Reid &
Wacker.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and the parties presented
documentary evidence. A
reporter was present during
the proceedings, and a transcript
was prepared and made
available to the Arbitrator for his use
in reaching a decision.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
post hearing briefs. The
briefs were received by the
Arbitrator on
BACKGROUND
The County and the
bargaining agreement which
expires on
bargaining unit is comprised
of 120 law enforcement officers
of the
sergeants, and 5 lieutenants.
The median length of service is
about 7 years for deputies,
and considerably longer for
sergeants and lieutenants.
Article XVI, Section 16.2 of the
labor agreement permits either
party to reopen the agreement
as of
relating to wages, educational
incentive pay, longevity pay,
and health and welfare.
Article XVI, Section 16.2.1 provides
that in the event that the
parties are unable to reach
agreement on these issues, the
dispute shall be submitted for
interest arbitration in
accordance with RCW 41.56.
ISSUES
The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the
reopened issues despite their
efforts in negotiations and the
efforts of a mediator. In
accordance with RCW 41.56.450, the
Executive Director of the
Public Employment Relations
Commission certified that the
parties were at impasse with
regard to wages, educational
incentive pay, longevity pay, and
health and welfare. Since that
certification, the efforts of
the parties in collective
bargaining negotiations have
resulted in an agreement with
regard to health and welfare.
The parties agree that the
issues remaining unresolved relate
to wages, educational
incentive pay, and longevity pay.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PRINCIPLES
Where certain cities and counties and their uniformed
personnel are unable to reach
agreement on new contract terms
through negotiations and
mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for
the interest arbitration of
their disputes. RCW 41.56.030
defines "uniformed
personnel" for whom interest arbitration is
available as encompassing law
enforcement officers of cities
with a population of at least
15,000, or of counties of the
second class or larger. The
parties agree that Snohomish
County, with a population of
366,700, meets the statutory
standard for interest
arbitration.
RCW 41.56.460 sets forth certain "basis for
determination"
which must be considered by
this Arbitrator. It provides:
41.56.460 Uniformed personnel-
Arbitration panel-Basis for
determination. 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) Comparison of the wages, hours and
conditions of employment of
personnel
involved in the proceedings
with the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly
known as the
cost of living.
(e) Changes in any of the foregoing
circumstances during the
pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined
to the foregoing, which are
normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in
the determination of wages,
hours and
conditions of employment.
RCW 41.56.430, which is
referred to in the above-quoted
language, provides as follows:
41.56.30 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
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
and uninterrupted public
service there
should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
Comparables
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.460 upon which the
Arbitrator must rely in making
his determination is:
***
(c) Comparison of the wages, hours
and conditions of employment
of personnel
involved in the proceedings
with the wages,
hours, and conditions of like
personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west
coast of the
***
In order to make such a
comparison, one must first determine
which like employers on the
west coast should be selected as
similar in size to
proceeding.
The parties were unable to agree upon a list of like
employers. The County proposes
that the Arbitrator consider
the following three counties
as appropriate for comparison:
from among all the counties in
the three west coast states,
Washington, Oregon, and
California, based on an examination of
each county's total
population, population in nonincorporated
areas, total square miles,
nonincorporated square miles, and
miles of county-maintained
roads. A county was considered
similar to
was within 25 percent of that
for
county came within the similar
range on nonincorporated
population and on at least two
of the other size criteria, it
became one of the County's
comparators.
The
three types of employers as
comparable jurisdictions. It
urges that all ten of the
to statutory interest
arbitration be considered. It also
asserts that all 17 counties
in
are comparable. As additional
comparable employers, the
to statutory interest
arbitration and which are situated
within counties which are
subject to interest arbitration.
Whatever the merits of the County's methodology, the
sample that it came up with is
just too small. With only
three comparators, any one of
them will have an enormous
influence on the conclusions
reached. One or two of them may
have unusual contract terms
reflecting unique circumstances or
an atypical labor relations
relationship. A larger sample is
necessary in order to reflect
a meaningful norm of like-sized
jurisdictions. No larger
sample can be gleaned from the
information supplied by the
County.
The
broad. First, its suggestion
to use all counties subject to
interest arbitration would
result in using comparators that
are not of similar size. That
would not comply with the
requirement of RCW
41.56.460(c) that "similar size" employers
be compared. Counties such as
79,000, and King, with a
population of 1,326,600, cannot be
considered to be of similar
size to
population of 366,700.
The same reasoning can be applied to the
on
cities are not of like size to
is
officers, whereas
statute calls for a comparison
of "like employers." While
there are many similarities in
the nature of law enforcement
supplied by counties and
cities, counties and cities are
distinguishable entities. They
generally serve different
purposes and have different
taxing authorities. An adequate
sample can be obtained by
using counties alone, and counties,
after all, are more like
counties than they are like
cities.1
__________________
1 The
County cited several interest arbitration
decisions in which the
arbitrator declined to find that cities
and counties are like
employers, including City of
and
(Carlton J. Snow, 1986).
The
cities have added significance
because that compensation has
been influenced by the
statutory interest arbitration
procedure, whereas, interest
arbitration is new for most
counties. Thus, the Union
argues, the compensation paid by
cities reflects the product of
impartial dispute resolution,
while compensation paid by
counties reflects a former
bargaining process which favored
the employer. The statute
does not indicate that any
special weight should be given to
those employers who are
subject to interest arbitration. The
nature of their labor
relations does not determine whether two
employers are alike for the
purpose of the statute. Rather,
the statute focuses the
selection of comparators on "like
employers of similar size on
the west coast."
Your Arbitrator has selected seven counties to serve as
comparators. They are as
follows:
_____________________________________________________
Washington State Population
Clark County 201,700
Pierce County 514,600
Spokane County 349,400
Oregon
Marion County 210,000
Washington County 260,000
California
San Joaquin County 390,600
Stanislaus County 292,350
_____________________________________________________
The three Washington State counties reflect all of the
counties in Washington,
besides Snohomish County, which have a
population between 200,000 and
525,000. Oregon and California
have more counties falling
within this population band than
does Washington. Only two
counties were selected from each of
those west coast states, so
that the experience of California
counties would not dominate.
Oregon has four counties with a population of between
200,000 and 525,000. Those
four counties each have a
population of between 210,000
and 268,500. Marion County and
Washington County were
selected because their ratio of
reported part one criminal
offenses to law enforcement
officers is very similar to
that of Snohomish County. D.P.
Van Blaricom, former police
chief of the Bellevue Police
Department, testified that
such a ratio reflects the way that
he would measure work load.
Since the populations of the four
Oregon Counties are fairly
close, using the work load is the
most rational basis in the
record to select the two most
comparable Oregon counties.
According to the Union, California has ten counties with a
population of between 200,000
and 525,000. That number was
reduced to seven by
considering only those counties which had
a population within 25 percent
of the population of Snohomish
County. That eliminated
Tulare, Mann, and Santa Cruz
Counties from consideration.
Of the remaining seven counties,
San Joaquin and Stanislaus
were significantly closest to
Snohomish County in the work
load of their officers according
to the crime statistics. The
following chart reflects all the
counties in Oregon and
California with a population of between
200,000 and 525,000, as well
as their rate of crimes per
officer:2
_____________________________________________________
Crime
Rate
Population Per Officer
Oregon Counties
Lane 268,500 33.9
Washington* 260,200 50.0
Clackamas 246,300 82.7
Marion* 210,000 56.6
California Counties
Kern 400,506 27.9
San
Joaquin* 390,600 44.5
Santa
Barbara 320,362 26.7
Monterey 316,179 24.6
Sonoma 305,000 37.2
Stanislaus* 292,350 53.3
Solano 282,350 71.1
Tulare 249,000 25.5
Mann 223,000 30.1
Santa
Cruz 200,300 46.0
Snohomish County 366,700 52.6
_____
*reflects the counties
selected
_____________________________________________________
2 This chart is derived from Union exhibits
25 and
26. The Union indicated that
the crime statistics come from
the 1985-86 Personnel and
Budget Study of Oregon Law
Enforcement Agency published
by the Board on Police
Standards And Training, the
1985 Oregon Report of Criminal
Offenses and Arrests published
by the Board on Police
Systems, and the 1984
California Criminal Justice Profile
published by the California
Department of Justice. Union
Business Representative
Richard Basarab testified that these
data sources indicated that
uniform FBI reporting procedures
were used. Mr. Basarab further
testified that the crime
figures used were those for
part 1 crimes, such as homicide,
rape, aggravated assault, etc.
The Union argues that in order to make a meaningful
comparison between the
compensation of County personnel and
the compensation of personnel
in other jurisdictions, each
element of compensation must
be valued and the total in each
jurisdiction reduced to a
single statistic. The Union
asserts that it is meaningless
to compare only wages and to
ignore other nonwage
compensation, such as health and
welfare benefits, longevity
pay, educational incentive pay,
medical, dental, vision and
life insurance contributions,
social security and/or benefit
trust contributions,
retirement contributions,
holiday and vacation pay, and
uniform allowances. Under the
Union's model, the various
elements of compensation are
each translated into a dollars
and cents cost per hour to the
employer. All such itemized
costs are then totaled to
determine the total hourly cost to
the employer for compensation
for the law enforcement
officers.
The County argues that the compilation and presentation
of compensation data in the
manner proposed by the Union
improperly expands and
distorts the focus of the issues
before the Arbitrator. The
County points out that the
Arbitrator's jurisdiction is
limited to wages, educational
incentive pay and longevity
pay. The County asserts that it
would be an improper expansion
of the scope of the
arbitration if the Arbitrator
were to consider other items,
and, indirectly, make
adjustments to those through an award
on the limited items properly
before him. The County argues
that the Union's analysis
ignores the possibility that in
collective bargaining,
monetary components often are
subordinated to nonmonetary
issues. Further, the County
argues, the Union's focus on
monetary cost to the employer
ignores the actual benefits
received by the employees. The
County points out that the same
costs can supply differing
levels of insurance or
retirement benefits. The County argues
that it would be inappropriate
to reduce all compensation to
an hourly rate because the
parties have historically
negotiated for benefits on a
monthly basis. Finally, the
County argues that the Union's
compilation of information is
untrustworthy because it
relied heavily on telephone
conversations with
representatives of the other jurisdictions,
particularly with regard to
such issues as retirement plan and
insurance contributions, which
information may not be
reflected in the collective
bargaining agreements.
Generally, I am in agreement with the Union that in
establishing wage
comparability between differing
jurisdictions, it is most
appropriate to look at the entire
compensation situation. It is
unrealistic to look at wages in
isolation, since wages are
only one aspect of compensation.
For instance, when comparing
the wages of two employers, one
of whom paid high wages, but
no health benefits, longevity
pay, uniform allowance, or
education incentive pay, while the
other employer provided lower
wages but very generous
benefits, it would be unfair
to ignore the entire compensation
picture. Surely, if such a
comparison was raised during
negotiations, the differences
in benefits would be stressed,
even where there was a limited
reopener as here. Your
Arbitrator may directly affect
only those elements of
compensation which were
submitted to him for determination.
However, it is reasonable to
consider the entire compensation
package in order to place the
designated elements of
compensation in the proper
perspective.
Your Arbitrator recognizes that there is a possibility
that in collective bargaining,
monetary components can be
subordinated to nonmonetary
issues, and also that identical
employer outlays in two
different jurisdictions may result in
differing levels of benefits.
Nevertheless, there is no
evidence that such was the
case here and considering wages in
isolation does not make the
process any fairer. With regard
to the county's argument
regarding the trustworthiness of the
information, much of the
evidence presented by both parties
was hearsay in nature and was
derived from collective
bargaining agreements. The
statute's requirement that west
coast jurisdictions be used as
comparators, necessitates the
use of collective bargaining
information which in a courtroom
could be challenged as
excludable hearsay. However, in
calculating the amount of
compensation, I have not considered
the amount of employer
contributions to the retirement pension
systems, FICA, or employee
municipal employee benefit trusts.
Such figures are not included
in the labor agreement for
Snohomish County, and I
presume the same is true of the
agreements of the comparable
counties. The use of such
figures, obtained over the
phone from various sources, may
create verification
difficulties. Moreover, I have no basis
for comparing the retirement
systems of the west coast states
or their funding sources.
Comparisons become more difficult
inasmuch as in Washington
State, there are two distinct
retirement plans, and
employees are assigned to one or the
other depending on their hire
date. Nevertheless, your
Arbitrator may very well have
considered the impact of
retirement benefits on
compensation, if more comprehensible
information regarding the
retirement plans of the comparators
been made available.
The Union argues that once the total gross monthly
compensation of an employer is
calculated, then the hourly
wage should be determined by
dividing the gross monthly
compensation by the number of
hours worked in a month,
adjusting for holiday and
vacation leave. I have determined
not to consider holidays or
vacations for purposes of
compensation comparisons. Of
course, the number of holidays
and vacations to which an
employee is entitled has a direct
financial impact on the
employer. The employer may incur
additional personnel costs in
order to replace the absent
employee or else accept
diminished productivity. The number
of hours worked directly
relates to the level of hourly
compensation. However, it
would be misleading to factor
holidays and vacations into
the compensation equation for
comparative purposes and
ignore a host of other issues related
to hours. For instance, in
this bargaining unit, the number
of hours worked is affected by
labor agreement provisions
relating to sick leave,
bereavement leave, jury leave,
military leave, and education
leave. Moreover, the Union's
suggested formula regarding
hours does not deal with the
intertwined issues of
overtime, shift differentials, and lunch
hours. Yet each of these
issues may significantly affect the
"hourly"
compensation.
Cost of Living
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
Seattle-Everett Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers
Consumer Price Index rose by
1.7 percent between November 1984
and November 1985. That is the
last figure available prior to
the effective date of the
reopener, and both parties agree
that this is the appropriate
period to consider. RCW
41.56.460(e) requires that the
Arbitrator also take into
account "[c]hanges . . .
during the pendency of the
proceedings." The
consumer price index rose by 1.1 percent
between September 1985 and
September 1986.
Other Considerations
RCW 41.56.460(f) requires that the arbitrator also shall
consider "[s]uch other
factors, . . . which are normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in the determination of
wages, hours and conditions of
employment." In this regard,
your Arbitrator has considered
the County's ability to pay,
the salary increases given to
other County employees, and the
rate of turnover among the
County law enforcement officers.
The County asserts that it
would be appropriate to consider
comparative data from all
Western Washington counties because
of their relative proximity to
Snohomish County and their
common link on the major
north-south transportation route
through the state. As the
County recognizes, these counties
do not meet the statutory
requirement of similar size. Given
the statutory directions
relating to the selection of
comparable jurisdictions, I
have not considered as relevant
jurisdictions those which
obviously are not of like size to
Snohomish County.
Educational Incentive Pay and
Longevity
The County's proposal for educational incentive pay is as
follows:
Educational Incentive: The County
proposes that the following be
included in
the arbitrator's award in this
matter:
A. This is a new provision in the
parties' contract and shall
become
effective January 1, 1987.
B. Educational incentive pay shall be
a sum paid as a premium in
addition to the
employee's base salary. It
shall not be
included in the base pay for
purposes of
computing call back, court
time, overtime,
standby time, holiday pay
and/or any other
premium or increment
calculated by
reference to base pay.
C. Each deputy, sergeant or
lieutenant who has or is
awarded an
associate degree from an
accredited
institution of higher
education shall
receive an educational
incentive payment of
$25 per month in addition to
his or her
base pay.
D. Each deputy, sergeant or
lieutenant who has or is
awarded a
bachelor's degree from an
accredited
institution of higher
education shall
receive an educational
incentive payment of
$50 per month in addition to
his or her
base pay.
E. Each deputy, sergeant or
lieutenant who has or who is
awarded a
master's degree from an
accredited
institution of higher
education shall
receive an educational
incentive payment of
$75 per month in addition to
his or her
base pay.
F. The incentive pay for each degree
shall not be cumulative. Thus,
an employee
who has both an associate
degree and a
bachelor's degree shall
receive $50 per
month as incentive pay, not
$75 per month.
G. No employee shall receive
educational incentive pay
until he or she
has had three years of law
enforcement
experience with Snohomish
County with
satisfactory performance. In
the case of
employees who have had law
enforcement
experience other than with Snohomish
County, the Sheriff in the
reasonable
exercise of his or her
discretion may
reduce the foregoing
qualifying period to
one year.
H. To continue to receive educational
incentive pay after qualifying
initially,
the eligible employee must
continue to have
satisfactory performance.
I. To continue to receive educational
incentive pay after qualifying
initially,
the eligible employee must
maintain a
program of continuing
education in police
science where the employee
completes at
least 3 college hours (or the
equivalent)
of course work in police
science (or an
equivalent field) at an
accredited
institution of higher
education (or its
equivalent). This minimum
continuing
education requirement must be
satisfied
within two years after the
employee
initially qualifies for
educational
incentive pay; it must be
satisfied during
each two-year period
thereafter. The
parties are directed to meet
and confer to
develop standards for
determining that
which is equivalent to: three
hours of
course work; a police science curriculum;
an accredited institution of
higher
education.
The County makes no proposal
for longevity pay and opposes the
Union's proposal on the
subject.
The Union's proposal for longevity pay and educational
incentive pay is intertwined.
That proposal reads as follows:
***
Effective January 1, 1986, a
Deputy,
Sergeant, or Lieutenant who
has completed
the following years of service
as a fully
commissioned law enforcement
officer with
the Snohomish County Sheriffs
Department
and/or who has attained the following
number of credits from an
accredited
university shall, commencing
with the first
of the month following
completion or
attainment thereof, be
compensated above
and beyond the monthly rates
of pay set
forth within Appendix
"A" the following
corresponding monthly premium
pay:
_____________________________________________________
Completed Years of Service 5 7 8-1/2 10
Attained College credits 45 90/AA 135 180/BA
Premium Pay $25.00 $100.00 $130.00 $165.00
_____________________________________________________
For several reasons, I have concluded that no longevity
pay is appropriate. First of
all, of the seven comparator
counties, only one, Clark
County, has provision for longevity
pay. Moreover, the parties
have only recently agreed to
remove a longevity plan from
the labor agreement. The 1980-82
agreement contained a
longevity program. The 1983-84
agreement provides for the
removal of that benefit, except for
those employees already
receiving the premium. Mr. Cheeseman
testified that in exchange for
the concession on longevity,
the County agreed to insert
additional pay steps into the
contract. The Agreement's step
plan calls for compensation
increases on an annual basis
for the first five years of
employment, and to that extent
still rewards longevity. In
view of this recently
bargained removal of longevity from the
labor agreement and of the
lack of support from the
comparators, it would not be
appropriate at this time for your
Arbitrator to reinsert
longevity pay into the agreement.
Both the County and the Union agree that educational
incentive pay should be added
to the agreement. Their
proposals in this regard
differ as to the amount of such a
premium and as to the details
of its implementation. The
following list represents the
amount of premium pay which the
comparable counties pay to a
deputy with a bachelor's degree.
_____________________________________________________
Counties
Clark 107
Marion 0
Pierce 0
San Joaquin 76
Spokane 0
Stanislaus 75
Washington 135
_____________________________________________________
Of the four comparators
offering educational incentive pay,
the average amount of such
premium is $98.25, and the median
amount is $91.50. Based
largely on these figures I have
concluded that an appropriate
amount of premium for a
bachelor's degree is $100 per
month. An associate's degree
generally represents about
half the credit hours of a
bachelor's degree. The same
ratio shall be applied in setting
the appropriate level of
compensation for an associate's
degree. Thus, the premium for
an associate's degree shall be
set at $50 per month.
For those top-step deputies with an associate's degree,
the $50 premium, in itself,
reflects a 2.045 percent increase
in pay. The $100 premium paid
to such employees with a
bachelor's degree reflects a
4.09 percent increase in pay.
With the exception of the amount of the premium for a
bachelor's degree and the
contract language from Clark County,
the record is devoid of
information on the details of the
educational incentive plans of
the comparators. The
educational incentive plan
which I shall order to be included
in the Agreement shall be
relatively simple and shall omit the
controversial aspects of the
proposals of the parties. The
Union's position appears to
reflect that educational incentive
pay should have four steps,
based on the number of credits
earned, whether or not a
degree is earned. The Award shall
simply pay a premium for
having obtained an associate's degree
or a bachelor's degree. The
Arbitrator rejects the County's
positions that three years of
experience and "satisfactory
performance" are
necessary to obtain the education premium.
The Arbitrator also rejects
the County's position that an
eligible officer must maintain
a program of continuing
education in order to continue
to receive educational
incentive pay. There is not
ample basis in the record to
support such qualifications to
the receipt of an educational
premium. The County proposes
that the educational incentive
pay not be effective until
January 1, 1987. The premium shall
be effective on January 1,
1986, since that is the effective
date of the reopener.
Arbitrator Award
Educational Incentive Pay and Longevity Pay
The contract language for educational incentive pay shall read
as follows:
A. Educational incentive pay shall be
a sum paid as a premium in
addition to the
employee's base salary. It
shall not be
included in the base pay for
purposes of
computing call back, court
time, overtime,
standby time, holiday pay
and/or any other
premium or increment
calculated by
reference to base pay.
B. Each deputy, sergeant or
lieutenant who has or is
awarded an
associate degree from an
accredited
institution of higher
education shall
receive an educational
incentive payment of
$50 per month in addition to
his or her
base pay.
C. Each deputy, sergeant or
lieutenant who has or is
awarded a
bachelor's degree from an
accredited
institution of higher
education shall
receive an educational
incentive payment of
$100 per month in addition to
his or her
base pay.
D. The incentive pay for each degree
shall not be cumulative. Thus,
an employee
who has both an associate
degree and a
bachelor's degree shall
receive $100 per
month as incentive pay, not
$150 per month.
There shall be no additional
language relating to longevity
pay.
Wages
The County proposes that, effective January 1, 1986, the
monthly rates of pay for
deputy should be increased by 2.0
percent, that the rates for
sergeant should be increased by
3.5 percent effective January
1, 1986 and by a second equal
increment of 3.5 percent effective
July 1, 1986, and that the
rates for lieutenant should be
increased by 6.5 percent
effective January 1, 1986 and
by a second equal increment of
6.5 percent on July 1, 1986.
The Union proposes that
effective January 1, 1986, the
monthly rates of pay for deputy
should be increased by 3.4
percent, and that the monthly rates
for sergeant and lieutenant
should be increased to $2885 and
$3270 respectively, which
correspond to increases of 11.35
percent and 19.3 percent.
The County correctly points out that ability to pay is
traditionally taken into
consideration in interest
arbitration. The County
asserts that its financial position
is a limiting factor which
should be taken into account.
According to Budget and
Finance Director Thomas Carlson, the
County is currently at the
legal limits of its fund-raising
capacity, and recently the
County has managed to maintain the
constitutionally-required
balanced budget by tapping reserve
funds, one-time revenues, fund
closeouts and other temporary
sources. Mr. Carlson testified
that if the County incurred
more expense than was budgeted
for its Sheriff's Department,
then the County would have to
change its priorities.
In deciding upon an appropriate award, I have taken into
account the County's financial
situation. While the County
has undergone some financial
difficulties, I am not convinced
that it is in such dire
straits that it could not afford a
reasonable pay increase for
the employees of its Sheriff's
Department. There was no
evidence that any employees have
been laid off or that
extraordinary measures have been taken.
Most other County employees
have received a 2.5 percent wage
increase. Mr. Carlson
testified that some employees received
a pay increase larger than 2.5
percent based on salary surveys
which indicated that a larger
increase was appropriate.
similarly, the wage increase
which shall be awarded here,
shall be as a result of
evidence which indicates that a
specific increase is
appropriate. While it may be difficult
for the County to have to
adjust its budget to deal with the
results of an interest
arbitration award, such adjustments
are, in effect, mandated by
the statute.
The County asserts that the wages which it offers are
sufficient to attract and
retain qualified employees. Joseph
Cheeseman, senior employee
relations specialist for the
County, testified that only
one or two deputies resigned in
the past year and that the
turnover rate for the bargaining
unit is roughly one third of
the rate for other County
employees. Mr. Cheeseman
further testified that the County's
last announcement for openings
in the Sheriff's Department
drew over 300 applicants for
entry-level deputies and 29
applications from experienced
law enforcement officers. I
have taken the low turnover
rate into account in fashioning
the Award, but have not viewed
this with the same significance
as the factors spelled out in
the statute, such as
comparability and cost of
living.
The delay in the settlement of the parties' collective
bargaining dispute has had the
effect of permitting the panel
to be presented with some of
the 1986 wage settlements for the
comparable counties. The Union
supplied these figures for the
Washington State counties, but
not for the counties in Oregon
and California. The wage
increases for the three comparable
Washington counties are
reflected below:
_____________________________________________________
Clark 4.8%
Pierce 5.5%
Spokane 7.0%
Average 5.8%
_____________________________________________________
The impact of these figures
are diminished by the lack of
information from the four
other comparable counties. Also, in
fairness, it must be observed
that evidence was presented of
the 1986 wage increases in 9
Washington counties and 22
Washington cities, which are
subject to statutory interest
arbitration. Of those 31
employers, the wage increases in
Clark, Pierce, and Spokane
Counties were the first, third and
fourth highest. The average
increase for the counties was 4.6
percent and the average for
the cities was 3.4 percent. Thus,
I hesitate to conclude that the
wage increases in Clark,
Pierce, and Spokane Counties
are fairly representative of the
comparators as a whole.
Moreover, as will be seen, the
compensation level in
Snohomish County for deputies is
considerably above the level
in the three comparators listed
above.
The base monthly compensation for a deputy with ten years'
experience and a bachelor's
degree in the comparable west
coast counties is reflected
below:
_____________________________________________________
Clark
base
monthly salary 2047
longevity 03
education 107
health/life
benefits 246
uniform
allowance 35
2535
Marion
base
monthly salary 2396
longevity 0
education 0
health/life
benefits 118
uniform
allowance 35
2549
Pierce
base
monthly salary 2366
longevity 0
education 0
health/life
benefits 207
uniform
allowance 26
2599
San Joaquin
base
monthly salary 2454
longevity 0
education 76
health/life
benefits 192
uniform
allowance 36
2758
Spokane
base
monthly salary 2288
longevity 0
education 0
health/life
benefits 233
uniform
allowance 45
2566
Stanislaus
base
monthly salary 2486
longevity 0
education 75
health/life
benefits 255
uniform
allowance 50
2866
Washington
base
monthly salary 2257
longevity 0
education 135
health/life
benefits 187
uniform
allowance 35
2614
_____
3 The compensation figures are derived from
Union
Exhibit 26. This exhibit
indicates that Clark County officers
receive $107.35 for longevity
and an equal amount for
educational incentive pay.
County Exhibits 11 and 12 indicate
that Clark County officers
receive educational incentive pay
but no longevity. Attached to
County Exhibit 12 is a portion
of the Clark County collective
bargaining agreement which
appears to indicate that
either work experience or education
may qualify an employee for
incentive pay, but that an officer
does not receive separate
incentive pay for each. Therefore,
it would be inappropriate to
include in the Clark County
compensation totals, both
longevity pay and educational
incentive pay. I have modified
the figures provided by the
Union to reflect no longevity
pay, so that the compensation
total does not reflect that
both longevity pay and educational
incentive pay may be paid to
the same individual.
_____________________________________________________
The average total compensation
for the deputies in these seven
comparable counties is $2641.
Snohomish County's total compensation for a deputy with
ten years' experience and a
college degree is reflected below:
_____________________________________________________
Snohomish
base
monthly salary 2445
longevity 04
education 0
health/life
benefits 239
uniform
allowance 53
2737
_____
4 Less than half of the members of the
bargaining unit
do receive between $5 and $20
per month in longevity pay since
such benefits were
grandfathered when longevity pay was
otherwise removed from the
collective bargaining agreement for
the 1983-84 agreement.
_____________________________________________________
Thus, Snohomish County
deputies with ten years' experience and
a college degree receive
approximately 4 percent more in
compensation than the average
of the comparable counties.
The base monthly compensation for sergeants and
lieutenants with ten years'
experience and a bachelor's degree
in the comparable west coast
counties is reflected below:
_____________________________________________________
Sergeants Lieutenants
Clark
base monthly salary 2485 2893
longevity 0 0
education 124 0
health/life benefits 246 246
uniform allowance 35 35
2890 3174
Marion
base monthly salary 2652 2924
longevity 0 0
education 0 0
health/life benefits 118 118
uniform allowance 35 35
2805 3077
Pierce
base monthly salary 2723 3159
longevity 0 0
education 0 0
health/life benefits 206 206
uniform allowance 26 26
2955 3391
San Joaquin
base monthly salary 2840 3288
longevity 0 0
education 76 76
health/life benefits 192 196
uniform allowance 34 34
3142 3594
Spokane
base monthly salary 2908 3551
longevity 0 0
education 0 0
health/life benefits 233 233
uniform allowance 45 45
3186 3829
Stanislaus
base monthly salary 2943 3283
longevity 0 0
education 75 75
health/life benefits 255 235
uniform allowance 50 50
3323 3643
Washington
base monthly salary 2922 3215
longevity 0 0
education 175 0
health/life benefits 187 209
uniform allowance 35 35
3319 3459
_____________________________________________________
In these seven comparable
counties, the average total
compensation for sergeants is
$3088 and for the lieutenants is
$3452.
Snohomish County's total compensation for a deputy and a
lieutenant with ten years'
experience and a college degree is
reflected below:
_____________________________________________________
Sergeants Lieutenants
Snohomish
base monthly salary 2591 2741
longevity 0 0
education 0 0
health/life benefits 230 239
uniform allowance 53 53
2883 3033
_____________________________________________________
Thus, Snohomish County
sergeants with ten years' experience
and a college degree earn
about 7 percent less than the
average received in the
comparable counties, while the
Snohomish County lieutenants
receive about 12 percent less.
In Snohomish County sergeants receive 6 percent more in
base salary than do deputies.
Snohomish County lieutenants
receive 5.8 percent more than
sergeants. This differential
between the ranks is
significantly out of line with the
differential which exists in
the comparable jurisdictions.
The differential in these
counties are as follows:
_____________________________________________________
deputy/sergeant sergeant/lieutenant
differential differential
Clark 15.7% 16.4%
Marion 10.7% 10.3%
Pierce 15.1% 16.0%
San Joaguin 15.7% 15.8%
Spokane 27.1% 22.1%
Stanislaus 18.3% 11.6%
Washington 29.5% 10.0%
_____________________________________________________
The average pay differential
between sergeants and deputies in
the comparable counties is
18.8 percent. The median
differential is 15.7 percent.
With regard to the differential
between sergeants and
lieutenants in the comparable counties,
the average differential is
14.6 percent and the median
differential is 15.8 percent.
Charles Dibble, the County's chief spokesman in
negotiations during the past
several years, testified that the
County recognizes that there
is a problem with the
differential between ranks.
The County, in its brief,
indicated that its proposal
"goes a long way to closing the
gap" with the pay
differential for sergeants and lieutenants
in comparable jurisdictions.
I have determined that for 1986 a 12 percent differential
in pay is appropriate between
the pay of deputies and
sergeants, and between the pay
of sergeants and lieutenants.
While a 12 percent
differential would no longer place the
County at the bottom of the
list in differentials it still
leaves the County behind the
average. However, as will be
seen, the implementation of a
12 percent differential results
in pay increases for the
sergeants and lieutenants, which are
quite large when compared with
the cost of living or with the
pay increases which have been
recently given to other law
enforcement officers. In view
of this and also of the
evidence regarding the
County's ability to pay, the pay
increases for sergeants and
lieutenants shall be phased in in
two equal increments effective
January 1, 1986 and July 1,
1986. In their current agreement
the parties negotiated such
a split compensation increase,
so they are no strangers to the
concept. The compensation
increase for deputies, discussed
below, shall be implemented in
its entirety as of January 1,
1986. I shall set the base
monthly salary (top step) for a
deputy and add 12 percent to
determine the rate for sergeants,
and add 12 percent above the
sergeant rate for lieutenants.
Half of the monetary increases
for sergeants and lieutenants
only, will be implemented on
January 1, 1986 and half on July
1, 1986. Step 1 on the pay
schedule for sergeants and
lieutenants shall be
maintained at a rate which is 2 percent
below these rates.
I conclude that the appropriate salary increases for
deputies, based on the
statutory criteria, is 2.5 percent
effective January 1, 1986.
That increase is above the cost of
living and is identical to the
wage increase given to other
County employees. The wage
increase for the sergeants and
lieutenants are much higher,
reflecting the new 12 percent
differential between ranks.
The wage increase for sergeants
is 8 percent, with 4 percent
implemented on January 1, and 4
percent on July 1. The wage
increase for lieutenants is 15
percent, with 7.5 percent
implemented on January 1, and 7.5
percent on July 1. The top
step base wages for 1986 are
reflected below:
_____________________________________________________
January
1, 1986 July 1, 1986
deputies 2506 2506
sergeants 2695 2798
lieutenants 2947 3152
_____________________________________________________
Based on the newly awarded
educational incentive pay, many
deputies will actually receive
total wage increases amounting
to over 4.5 percent or over
6.5 percent. The educational
incentive pay will also add to
the 8 and 15 percent pay
increases of most of the
sergeants and lieutenants. With the
increases, deputies will
maintain a compensation level above
the average of the
comparators, and sergeants and lieutenants
will attain a level close to
the average.
Arbitrator Award - Wages
Appendix A to the agreement shall be amended to include
the following:
_____________________________________________________
Effective January 1, 1986, the
monthly rates of pay for
employees covered by this
Agreement shall be as follows:
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP
5
CLASSIFICATION 00-12m 13-24m 25-36m 37-48m 49m +
Lieutenant . . . . 2889 2947 2947 2947 2947
Sergeant . . . . . 2642 2695 2695 2695 2695
Deputy . . . . . . 1731 1914 2120 2328 2506
Effective July 1, 1986, the
monthly rate of pay for
employees covered by this
Agreement shall be as follows:
STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP
5
CLASSIFICATION 00-12m 13-24m 25-36m 37-48m 49m +
Lieutenant . . . . 3090 3152 3152 3152 3152
Sergeant . . . . . 2743 2798 2798 2798 2798
Deputy . . . . . . 1731 1914 2120 2328 2506
_____________________________________________________
Bellevue, Washington
Dated: January 26, 1987 /s/ ALAN R. KREBS
Alan
R. Krebs, Arbitrator