And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Jane R. Wilkinson
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Wilkinson; Jane R.
Case #: 10526-I-93-00225
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
BEFORE THE ARBITRATION BOARD
In the Matter of the Interest )
Arbitration Between )
The City of
) ARBITRATORS'
the Employer )
) AWARD
and )
)
)
the
__________________________________________)
Appearances:
For the City: For the
Association:
Greg Rubstello Jim
Cline, Attorney
City Attorney Patrick Emmal, Labor Consultant
City of
P.O. Box
Interest Arbitration Panel
Members
Neutral Arbitrator:
Jane Wilkinson, Attorney
City Panel Member: Association Panel Member:
James W. Chase, Assistant Finance Michael D. Aldridge, PPOA
Representative
Director
Date of Award:
WITNESS LIST
For the City:
Donald J. Francis, Chief of
Police,
Daniel Underwood, Finance
Director
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
Jeff Ballie,
Economic Development Specialist
For the
Charles B. Cook,
Cliff Nelson,
Michael D. Aldridge,
Brian McCullough, Insurance
consultant
EXHIBIT LIST
City Exhibits
C-1. 1991 - 1992 Collective Bargaining Agreement
C-2. Krebs 1990 Interest Arbitration Opinion and Award In The Matter
Of City Of
Association
C-3. City of
C-4. Memorandum to City Manager reporting first collective bargaining
session with PPOA held on August
27,1992
C-5. PPOA's lnitial
Bargaining Proposals - August 7, 1992.
C-6. Notes of initial bargaining session held
C-7. Tentative Agreements (TAs) on several economic issues improving
the benefits of PPOA members in
the new CBA.
C-8.
city negotiating team. See 1992 CBAs
from the jurisdictions referenced in Exhibit 8. for backup data to
comparison chart data. Charts numbered 8-1 through 8-11.
C-9. Open.
C-10. Open.
C-11. June 29, 1993 and August 25, 1993 letter from PERC Executive
Director Marvin Schurke withdrawing
the issues of Management Rights (conditionally), Hours of
Work, and Grievance Procedure from the
Interest Abitration.
C-12.
Management Rights issue from interest arbitration.
C-13.
C-14. August 30, letter from James M. Cline to Greg A. Rubstello concerning Arbitrators.
C-15. Employer Proposals on Open Issues.
C-16. PPOA Proposals on Open issues.
C-17. Meet the People of the PPOA
C-18. Officers That Have Left the Dept. w/i
last 5 years.
C-19.
C-20. 1994 WA
C-21. WA State CHAS Report.
C-22. 1993 Data Book, State of
C-23. WA STATE Economic Forecast 1993, OFM.
C-24. 1992 Demographic Info for Area IX, ESD,
C-25. 1990 Census Data for WA State.
C-26. 1990 Census Snapshot for all
C-27. 1993 Ed. of Place, Towns, and Townships with Census Data on pop.,
housing, income, poverty, and
ethnic demographics.
C-28.
C-29.
C-30.
C-30A
C-31. Levak ARB. re: Local Labor Market.
C-32. Snow ARB. re: Local Labor Market.
C-33. Police Dept. Questionnaires for all proposed Wa.,
Or., and
C-34. Market Feasibility Analysis.
C-35. City of
C-36. City of
C-37. City of
C-38.
C-39.
C-40. Pasco Police Department's Annual Report to the City Manager.
C-41. Comparison Chart of Additional Criminal Justice Revenue to Additional
Criminal Justice
Expenditures.
C-42. Statistical Chart showing Population and Rank of Large
Metropolitan Areas between 1980 and 1985.
C-43. Consumer Price Indexes.
C-44. Interest Abitration Between City of
C-45. Employer Proposal Concerning Overtime.
C-46. Current Comparable Time Balances.
C-47. City of
C-48. Employer Proposal Concerning Medical, Dental and Life Insurance.
C49. Memorandum to City Manager regarding Health Benefit Changes.
C-50. Interest Arbitration between the City of
Costs.
C-51. Interest Arbitration between the City of
C-52. Agreement between the City of
C-53. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
Association.
C-54. Memorandum to Jim Cline regarding
C-55. All City and PPOA Proposed Comparators.
C-56. Property Tax, Sales Tax and Population Data.
C-57. (No exhibit 57).
C-58. Levak's down weighing of
C-59.
C-60. City of
C-61. Criminal Justice Budget Comparisons between
C-62. Questionnaire regarding financial information on
C-63. All City and PPOA Proposed Comparators.
C-64. Medical/Dental Premium History.
C-65. LEOFF Member Handbook.
C-66. Group Insurance Plans Booklet.
C-A. City of
C-B. Community Profile.
C-C. 1994 CHAS
C-D. Memorandum To Tom Burdett regarding Draft Housing Element for
C-E.
C-F.
C-G. Pullman Housing Availability Affordability, Condition Assessment
and Strategy
C-H.
C-I. Open.
C-J. Memorandum to City and
C-K. Labor Contract between the City of
C-L. Agreement between City of
C-M. Agreement between City of
C-N. Agreement between City of
C-O. Agreement between City of
C-P. Letter from Acting Chief of Police - Calexico, CA., Job
Announcement, Memorandum of Understanding
between City of
C-Q. Agreement between City of
C-R. Agreement between City of
C-S. Agreement between City of
C-T. Agreement between City of
C-U. Amendment to 1990-1992 Agreement between
C-V. Agreement between Franklin County Sheriff and
C-W. Opinion and Award in Interest Arbitration between
C-X. Opinion and Award in Interest Arbitration between City of
C-Y. Guild's Post-Hearing Arbitration Brief in Interest Arbitration
between City of
C-Z. Neutral Arbitrator's Opinion and Award 1993 Wage Reopener in Interest Arbitration between Mount
Association Exhibits
A-1
A-2 Employer proposal concerning Article II - Term & Scope of
Agreement
A-3 West Coast Maps
A-4 Association's ln-State Comparables
A-5 Association's West Coast Comparables
A-6 City's West Coast Comparables
A-7 City's Local Labor Market
A-8 1991-1992 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
"Uniformed" Employee Bargaining Unit
A-9 1989-1990 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
"Uniformed" Employee Bargaining Unit
A-10 1987-1988 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
"Uniformed" Employee Bargaining Unit
A-11 1984-1988 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
A-12 1981-1983 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
A-
A-14
A-15 Agreement No. 1992-15, January 1992-June 1993 Agreement between
City of
Police Association
A-16 1991-1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement between The Sheriff of
A-17 Collective Bargaining Agreement between The
of
A-18 Collective Bargaining Agreement between The City of
Association, Expiration
A-19 Collective Bargaining Agreement between
Expires
A-20 Agreement between the City of
1993-
A-21 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Keizer, Oregon and the Keizer
Police Association, July 1,
1993
through
A-22 Agreement between City of Lacey and Lacey Police Officers' Guild
dated August 28, 1990
A-23 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of
Services Guild,
A-24 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the
A-25 Agreement between the City of
1991
-
A-26 City of
Employees
A-27 Labor Agreement and the City of
A-28 1992-1993 Agreement between
A-29 1993-1994 Agreement between City of
A-30 1992-1993 Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of
Association of Firefighters
A-31 City of
A-32 City of
Arbitrator's Opinion and Award, Thomas F. Levak, Arbitrator,
A-33 A Cross-Sectional Model of Public Safety, Wage Determination, The
Case of Police Salaries Across Cities
in the
A-34 Managerial Responses to Perceived Labor Shortages, The Case of
Police
A-35 The City of Olympia and the Olympia Police Guild Interest
Arbitration Award, Michael E. deGrasse, Neutral
Chairman,
A-36 City of
CLC, Interest Arbitration Opinion and Award of Janet L.
Gaunt
A-37 West Coast Comparable Jurisdiction Selection for
A-38 West Coast Comparable Jurisdiction Selection for
A-39 West Coast Comparable Jurisdiction Selection for
A-40 West Coast Comparable Jurisdiction Selection for
A-41 West Coast Comparable Jurisdiction Selection for
A-42
A-43 City of
A-44 Association's Comparables 1993 Population
A-45 Association's West Coast Comparables 1992 Population
A-46 City's Comparables 1992 Population
A-47 Tri-City Herald Newspaper article "
A-48 Association's Comparables 1992 Assessed Valuation
A-49 Association's West Coast Comparables 1992 Assessed Valuation
A-50 City's Comparables 1992 Assessed Valuation
A-51 Letter of Shirley A. Morrow, Franklin County Assessor to Jim
Cline, Attorney, March 29, 1994
A-52 Association's Comparables Assessed Valuation Per Capita
A-53 Association's West Coast Comparables Assessed Valuation Per
Capita
A-54 City's Comparables Assessed Valuation Per Capita
A-55 Association's Comparables Number of Officers (1992)
A-56 Association's West Coast Comparables Number of Officers (1992)
A-57 City's Comparables Number of Officers (1992)
A-58 Association's Comparable Number of Crimes (1992)
A-59 Association's West Coast Comparables Number of Crimes (1992)
A-60 City's Comparables Number of Crimes (1992)
A-61 Association's West Coast Comparables Crimes Per Officer
A-63 City's Comparables Crimes Per Officer
A-64 Association's Comparables Total Retail Sales
A-65 Association's West Coast Comparables Total Retail Sales
A-66 City's Comparables Total Retail Sales
A-67 Association's Comparables Retail Sales Per Capita
A-68 Association's West Coast Comparables Retail Sales Per capita
A-69 City's Comparables Retail Sales Per Capita
A-70 State of
A-71 Guild's ln-State Comparable
Jurisdictions Mileage Between Jurisdictions
A-72 Guild's West Coast Comparable Jurisdictions Mileage Between Jurisdictions
A-73 City's Proposed Comparables Mileage Between Jurisdictions
A-74 Office of Management and Budget, Federal Register, Part VI,
A-75 State of
A-76 State of
A-77 State of
A-78 Association's ln-State Comparables
A-79 Association's West Coast Comparables
A-80 City's West Coast Comparables
A-81
15,000 or Greater
A-82
A-83
A-84
A-85
A-86
A-87
A-88
A-89
A-90 Police Officer
A-91 Police Officer
A-92 Police Officer
A-93 Police Sergeant Pasco,
A-94 Police Sergeant Pasco, Washington 1994 lnterest
Arbitration Overall Summary, March 14, 1994
A-95 Police Sergeant Pasco,
A-96 Association's ln-State Comparables
5-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-97 Association's West Coast Comparables Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-98 City's West Coast Comparables 5-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-99 Association's In-State Comparables 5-Year Top Step Patrol
A-100 Association's In-State Comparables 10-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-101 Association's In-State Comparables 15-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-102 Association's In-State Comparables 20-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-103 Association's In-State Comparables 5-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-104 Association's In-State Comparables 10-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-105 Association's In-State Comparables 15-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-105 Association's ln-State Comparables
20-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-106 Association's West Coast Comparables 5-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-107 Association's West Coast Comparables 10-Year Top Step Patrol
Officer
A-108 Association's West Coast Comparables 15-Year Top Step Patrol
Officer
A-109 Association's West Coast Comparables 20-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-110 Association's West Coast Comparables 5-Year Top Step Police
Sergeant
A-111 Association's West Coast Comparables 10-Year Top Step Police
Sergeant
A-112 (No Exhibit A-112)
A-113 (No Exhibit A-113)
A-114 Association's West Coast Comparables 15-Year Top Step Police
Sergeant
A-115 Association's West Coast Comparables 20-Year Top Step Police
Sergeant
A-116 City's West Coast Comparables 5-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-117 City's West Coast Comparables 10-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-118 City's West Coast Comparables 15-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-119 City's West Coast Comparables 20-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-120 City's West Coast Comparables 5-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-121 City's West Coast Comparables 10-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-122 City's West Coast Comparables 15-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-123 City's West Coast Comparables 20-Year Top Step Police Sergeant
A-124 City's West Coast Comparables Premiums and Specialty Pay
A-125 Article on Wage Differentials and Risk of Death; An Empirical
Analysis by Stuart A. Low and Lee R.
McPheters
A-126 Article on Emotional Exhaustion in a High Stress Organization by
Jeannie Gaines and John M. Jermier
A-127 Society's Victim - The Policeman, An Analysis of Job Stress in
Policing by William H. Kroes, Ph.D
A-128 Crime and Violence, A Spatial and Ecological Perspective by D.E.
Georges
A-129a Association's Comparables Violent Crimes Per Year
A-129b Association's West Coast Comparables Violent Crimes Per Year
A-129c City's West Coast Comparables Violent Crimes Per Year
A-129d Association's In-State Comparables Violent Crimes Per Officer
Per Year
A-129e Association's West Coast Comparables Violent Crimes Per Officer
Per Year
A-129f City's West Coast Comparables Violent Crimes Per Officer Per Year
A-129g Association's In-State Comparables Violent Crimes Per Capita
A-129h Association's West Coast Comparables Violent Crimes Per Capita
A-129i City's West Coast Comparables Violent Crime Per Capita
A-130 Tri-City Herald Newspaper article "Sewer lines, road, crime
top
A-131 Article "
A-132 Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 1991 Year-End Report, Leutenant Don Smith
A-133 Association's West Coast Comparables Percentage of Population Under
18
A-134 Association's West Coast Comparables Percentage White/Non-Hispanic
A-135 Association's West Coast Comparables Percent Foreign Born
A-136 Association's West Coast Comparables % in Different State or Home
in 1985
A-137 Association's West Coast Comparables % Do Not Speak English at Home
A-138 Association's West Coast Comparables Percentage Do Not Speak
English Well
A-139 Association's West Coast Comparables Median Family Income 1989
A-140 Association's West Coast Comparables Per Capital Income 1989
A-141 Association's ln-State Comparables
Percentage of Population under 18
A-142 Association's In-State Comparables Percentage White/Non-Hispanic
A-143 Association's ln-State Comparables
Percentage Foreign Born
A-144 Association's In-State Comparables % in Different State in 1985
A-145 Association's ln-State Comparables % Non-EngIish Speaking at Home
A-146 Association's ln-State Comparables
Percentage Do Not Speak English Well
A-147 Association's In-State Comparables Median Family Income 1989
A-148 Association's In-State Comparables Per Capital Income 1989
A-149 City's West Coast Comparables Percentage of Population under 18
A-150 City's West Coast Comparables Percentage White/Non-Hispanic
A-151 City's West Coast Comparables Percentage Foreign Born
A-152 City's West Coast Comparables % in Different State or Home in 1985
A-153 City's West Coast Comparables Percentage Non-English Speaking
A-154 City's West Coast Comparables Percentage Do Not Speak English Well
A-155 City's West Coast Comparables Median Family Income 1989
A-156 City's West Coast Comparables Per Capita Income 1989
A-157 Article "
A-158 Article "
A-159 Article "Diversity defines
A-160 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "
A-161 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "Tri-Cities have rich ethnic
minority resources",
A-162 Article by Apolonio Coronado
A-163 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "Bridging the cultural
gap",
A-164
A-165
A-166
A-167 Washington State Employment Security Department i
993 Review and Prospects for 1994
A-168 Washington State Employment Security Department SDA XI Overview
A-169
A-170
A-171
A-172
A-173
A-174
A-175
A-176
A-177
A-178 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "Tri-Cities cashing in on
tourism",
A-179 Newspaper Article "Personal income grows for Tri-Citians
A-180 Newspaper Article "High rise in building"
A-181 Newspaper Article "Price Chopper plans new
A-182 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "
A-183 Newspaper Article "
A-184 Newspaper Article "400-acre development proposed for
A-185 Newspaper Article "On Trac Pasco,
A-186 Newspaper Article "
A-187
A-188 Memo to Mayor and Council Members, November 1, 1989, preliminary
and balanced budget for calendar
year 1990
A-189 Memo to Mayor and Council Members from City Manager,
A-190 City of
A-191 Ordinance No. 2906, Ordinance Adopting the City of
A-192 Memo to Honorable Mayor and Council Members, November 1, 1993,
preliminary and balanced budget for
calendar year 1994.
A-193 Newspaper Article "Capitol projects raise
A-194 Newspaper Article "Baseball stadium on
A-195 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "League wants to play ball
in
A-196 Utility Taxes
A-197 Region -
A-198 Article on Measuring Cost of Living Variation
A-199 Newspaper Article "Tri-City home values leap 20%"
A-200 Newspaper Article "Tri-City house prices lead
A-201 Tri-City Herald Newspaper Article "A solid foundation",
A-202 Newspaper Article "
A-203 ACCFA Cost of Living Index First Quarter 1991
A-204
A-205
A-206
A-207
A-208
A-209
A-210 Article on Wage Parity and the Supply of Police and Firemen by David
Lewin
A-211 ICMA Baseline Data Report
A-212 Washington State Cities with Populations over 15,000 Top Step
Patrol Officer Wages
A-213 Summary of Employee Questionnaire Responses
A-214 Police Officer
A-215 Police Sergeant Pasco,
A-216 City's Local Labor Market 1992 Population
A-217 City's Local Labor Market 1992 Assessed Valuation
A-218 City's Local Labor Market Assessed Valuation Per Capita
A-219 City's Local Labor Market Number of Officers (1992)
A-220 City's Local Labor Market Number of Crimes (1992)
A-221 City's Local Labor Market Crimes Per Officer
A-222 City's Local Labor Market Total Retail Sales
A-223 City's Local Labor Market Retail Sales Per Capita
A-224 City's Local Labor Market 5-Year Top Step Patrol Officer
A-225
A-226
A-227
A-228 Pasco Police Department Instruction, Chief of Police, Compensatory
Time,
A-229
A-230 (No Exhibit A-230)
A-231 1993 Annual Report - Police Department
A-232 1992 Annual Report
A-233 City of
A-234 Demographic data
PROCEEDINGS
This dispute, between the City
of
Officers' Association (the
Association) concerns certain terms of a labor agreement to take
effect on
unit of approximately 39 sworn
police employees. The parties reached an impasse in their
negotiations on several
issues. Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, those issues were certified for
interest arbitration by the
Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) and submitted to
a panel of Arbitrators chaired
by neutral Arbitrator Jane R. Wilkinson for resolution.
Evidentiary hearings were held
in
party had the opportunity to
present evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and
argue its case. The neutral Arbitrator
received the parties' post-hearing briefs on or about
panel members' comment on
occurred on
STATUTORY CRITERIA
The relevant provisions of the
RCW 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
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
dedicated and uninterrupted
public service there should exist an effective and adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes. [1973 c 131 sec. 1.]
RCW 41.56.460 Uniformed
personnel--Interest 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)(i) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(a) and 41.56.495, comparison of the
wages, hours and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like personnel of like employers of
similar size on the west coast
of the
41.56.030(7)(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
exists within the state of
(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. [1988 c 110 sec.
1; 1987 c 521 sec. 2; 1983 c 287 sec. 4; 1979 ex.s. c
184 sec. 3; 1973 c 131
sec. 5.]
In resolving the issues before
me, whether or not fully articulated herein, I have been mindful
of these criteria and have
given consideration to all of the evidence and arguments presented
by the parties. Additional
considerations which guide my findings are as follows. As to
proposed language on
non-economic items, I place the burden on the proponent to show an
overriding need for new provisions
or the abrogation of previously negotiated provisions.
Elements of proof include a
showing that 1) a problem exists; 2) the proposed language
reasonably solves the problem
without creating unintended adverse consequences; and 3) the
benefit to the interests of
the proponent outweighs any detriment to the interests of the
opponent. It also is helpful
for the proponent to show that language similar to that proposed
appears in other relevant
collective bargaining agreements.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of
in a Bureau of Census'
"Small Metropolitan Statistical Area" (SMSA) (regionally known as the
"Tri-Cities) because it
lies adjacent to Richland, Washington (population 34,100) and
organizations associated with
it are the economic backbone of the Tri-Cities. According to the
Washington State Labor Area
Summary for the Tri-Cities, a newsletter published by the
Washington State Employment
Security Department, 1988 was the low point in the Tri-Cities'
economy due to nuclear reactor
shutdowns.
years, however, population has
sharply increased. The newsletter describes a "new record" of
local employment "due to
the fevered pace of employment growth at the
Reservation for environmental
restoration and waste management purposes."
(December, 1993). The May,
1993 edition, at 22, described the increase in (mostly seasonal)
farm employment as even
"more spectacular" than the non-farm sector. "Tri-Cities housing
values increase faster this
year than anywhere else in the
ago, the median home price in
bi-county region was $61,000. For the third quarter of 1993,
the figure was $102,900.
The City of
income or per capita assessed
valuation. (
than
has the highest crime rate of
the three cities. The Association presented evidence at hearing
that
areas. The City has succeeded
in reducing its overall crime rate by 44% in the past five years.
However, despite this decrease,
the number of certain violent crimes (rape and aggravated
assault) has risen 33% and
27.7% respectively.
PROPOSALS, ARGUMENTS,
DISCUSSION AND AWARD
I. ISSUE: WAGES
A. Proposals and
Arguments:
1. Association's
Proposal and Argument:
a) The
Association proposes an 11.1% wage increase for 1993, the contract's
first year, and an additional "CPI + 1
%" increase for the contract's second year
(1994), with a minimum of 3% and a maximum of
6%.
b) As
comparators, the Association proposes the following:
c) The
Association maintains that its comparator proposal is appropriate
because:
1. The
Factors which relate to the size, function, wealth, and location of the
comparator jurisdictions are most
likely to produce comparators most
"like" the jurisdiction at
issue. Therefore, the Association's multi-factor
approach, which took these factors into
consideration, is more fair and
rational than the City's dual-factor
approach.
2. The
City's dual-factor approach is particularly inappropriate for
highly variable source of revenue that
differs from city to city. The City's
nearly sole reliance on population and
assessed value fails to satisfy the
statutory requirement that comparisons
be made to "like employers."
While assessed valuation is probably
the best measure of a city's tax
base and, therefore, its ability to
pay, relying on assessed valuation
without considering retail sales
distorts the data, since a retail sales tax
generates a significant share of local
income. The number of officers
employed by a jurisdiction and the
number of crimes per officer are
factors that, when taken into
consideration, result in more accurate
comparisons of "like
employers." The number of officers employed is
both an alternative means of measuring
the size of a city, and of
determining whether the city is a
"like employer," because as
departments grow in size, they
generally also grow in sophistication and
specialization.
3. Proximity
to metropolitan areas should be a factor in selecting
comparators because of the effect that
such proximity has on labor
markets and cost of living. The
Association's list of comparators includes
both isolated rural cities and cities
more proximate to
Interstate 5. The City, on the other
hand, includes only jurisdictions
located more than 50 miles from a
metropolitan area, except for the
other two Tri-Cities.
4. The
Association's method of selecting jurisdictions that fall within half as
much and twice as much on the
demographic factors leads to a more
balanced and fair list of comparators.
This variance range was approved
both in principle and in logic by
Arbitrator Gaunt. The City's plus or
minus thirty percent variance range is
too narrow and leads to a skewed
result.
5. The
City's use of
rejected by the Arbitrator. Arbitrators
have repeatedly held that cities
and counties should not be compared to
each other.
6. Selection
of comparators should take into account expected trends, as
well as current data. For instance, it
should be noted that
sales tax revenue will be significantly
higher than the sales tax reported
for 1992, and
rapid rate.
7. The
comparators should be adopted from an in-state list. Too many
differences exist between
reasonable and fair comparators,
including: different government
structures; varying sources of revenue
and revenue structures; different
collective bargaining laws; different
labor markets; different retirement
systems; and differences in cost of
living. There are more than enough
jurisdictions in
in a fair pool of comparators. However,
the pool should not be limited to
comparators, since there are only a few
cities that are
that region. Further, except for
jurisdictions of like size and tax base
in
d) The
comparators and other statutory considerations support the Association's
proposal.
1. Where
general economic conditions allow, a jurisdiction's wages should
be brought up to at least the average
of the comparable jurisdictions. In
1990, Arbitrator Krebs did not award
increase because the City's financial
condition was poor and because
the economy was depressed. However, the
Krebs award was a
response to temporal conditions which
have since passed. Since 1990,
the City has gotten its financial house
in order, and now has the
resources to pay
There is no valid reason under the
statutory criteria why the City should
not be directed to do so. The entire
Tri-City economy is in a near boom
and, as the industrial center for the
Tri-Cities,
future economic growth. Further,
rising and will continue to rise, given
the lag time inherent in the
assessment process, and the retail
sales activity is deemed by city
officials to be "astounding."
Therefore, the City is well situated to sustain
the Association's wage proposal.
Tri-City cost of living is growing at a
faster rate than the national cost of
living, so the CPI indexes fail to
capture these cost of living increases.
2. Pasco
officers are far behind the market, even when they qualify for
incentive pay.
wage, and the average officer is 14.77%
behind when the total
compensation package is considered. The
comparators indicate that,
regardless of what classification, what
education level, or how many
years of service
behind the comparators' wages. There is
no reason that
should receive lower wages than those
awarded in
Angeles, and Wenatchee, because these
jurisdictions are all similar size
and have a similar ability to pay, yet
the officers in the comparator
jurisdictions have a lower cost of
living and a lighter workload.
3. An
empirical relationship between compensation and workplace danger
for police officers has been established
in comparable jurisdictions. The
marketplace generally compensates
employees at a higher rate when
their workload, danger, and stress are
greater than those in similar
positions elsewhere. The marketplace
therefore responds to the need to
retain employees and to maintain
employee morale. Because
officers face greater stress, a higher
workload, and greater on-the-job
danger than officers in comparable
jurisdictions, if an adequate wage
increase is not granted,
the department. This will even further
aggravate the working conditions
of those officers who remain.
4. The
Association should not have to sacrifice any of its proposed wage
increase in order to acquire its health
insurance proposal, because the
City's health care costs are so low
that granting the Association's wage
proposal would not alter total
compensation.
2. Employer's
Proposal and Argument:
a) The City
proposes a wage increase of 3.5% for the first year of the contract
and 3.25% for the second year. These
increases are equivalent to 90% of the
CPI for the year preceding the increase.
b) The City
also proposes that the following jurisdictions be considered
comparators
to
c) Regarding
the selection of comparators, the City argues that
1. Comparable
jurisdictions should be selected from the west coast states of
41.56.430(c). Comparable jurisdictions
either should be in the local labor
market for
population and assessed valuation.
2. Qualifying
jurisdictions due to their proximity to Pasco are Richland,
Department; and
3. Qualifying
jurisdictions based on population and assessed valuation are
4. The
Arbitrator should reject the Association's comparators because the
Association used a
"result-oriented" methodology in compiling its list.
5. The
Association's use of "theoretical" comparison factors, in addition to
population and assessed valuation,
should be rejected.
6. The
Association's allowance for comparators within a range of fifty percent
below to one hundred percent above
valuation should also be rejected. This
range toploads the Association's
comparators list with cities with a tax
base and corresponding ability to pay
well above that of
arbitration
decision adopting such a range absent a stipulation between the
parties. All arbitrators since
Arbitrator Gaunt's decision have rejected this
type of range.
d) The
comparators, along with the other statutory criteria, support the City's
proposed wage increase.
1. The
methodology for the City's wage increase is ninety percent of the CPI
Index for West Coast cities, Class C
for urban wage workers published in
October of the year preceding the
effective date of the wage increase. This
formula was adopted by both Arbitrator
Krebs and by Arbitrator Levak for the
Pasco firefighters, as well as for
International
department employees.
2. The
proposed wage increase is reasonable. In 1992, when parties were
actively negotiating, the top step
out of the City's fourteen comparators.
The City's proposed increase would
keep the top step officer's wage 2.8%
above the average of the comparators.
3. When
comparators or the Association's
comparators,
the scale. The Association's assumption
that a jurisdiction must "catch up" to
at least the average of the comparators
is false. Some jurisdiction must be
first and another jurisdiction last.
The jurisdictions' tax base and ability to pay
are prime factors in determining that
positioning.
across the board are well below those
of employees in comparable positions
in
should be an exception.
4. The
Association's argument that the City's wage comparison is inaccurate
because it does not include the pension
pick-up that may be paid by
employers in
not an add-on to wages, but merely
another form of benefit paid by an
employer, similar to a vacation or
medical premium benefit. The
Association's desire to compare pension
pick-ups in
should be disregarded because the
pension systems in
and
regarding the three states' pension
systems that would justify the comparison sought by the Association.
B. Discussion and Findings:
Comparability
1. Selection of
Comparables, In General:
Comparability is not defined by statute. It is a
relational concept that cannot be
determined with mathematicaI
precision. The interest arbitrator faces the problem of
making "apples to apples" comparisons on the
basis of imperfect choices and sometimes
incomplete data. The arbitrator's task is to review data
in evidence and devise a
manageable list of employers that more closely resemble
the important attributes of the
subject jurisdiction than those jurisdictions not on the
list.
In determining comparability, arbitrators give the
greatest consideration to population, past
practice, the parties' stipuIations
and geographic proximity or labor market.(1) The size of
the tax base also is important. Similarity of positions
("like personnel") and similarity of
employers ("like employers") are statutory
requirements. RCW 41.56.460(c)(i)
_____
1 In Kaplan, Interest Arbitration and Factfinding,
Some Principles and Perspectives,
Monograph Ser. No. 13, at 29 (1994) (hereafter cited as
"Kaplan"), the author suggests that the two
most important comparability considerations are population and
geography.
indicates that assessed valuation will be an important
consideration in public safety units.
See also, Bomstein & Gosline, Labor and Employment Arbitration, § 63.03[2]
(Matt. Bender 1990).
_____
The selection of appropriate comparators is a significant
item of dispute in this case. The
parties vigorously debate methodologies for selecting
those comparators, and in addition,
disagree on the use of the comparator analysis once a set
of comparators is identified.
There are several basic approaches (or several
permutations on a basic approach) to
utilizing the various demographic factors (such as
assessed valuation, retail sales,
unemployment rates, median family income) that are
frequently advanced by one party or
the other. One approach is to perform a very simple screen
based on population and
geographic location to obtain a list of comparators From
that list, one determines where
the subject jurisdiction's wages should be, relative to
the average, based on a
consideration of the remaining relevant demographic
factors and ultimately, upon a
consideration of the other statutory factors. The
advantage of this approach is that it is
simple and it tends to produce a sufficient number of
comparators for a meaningful
analysis. Also, it is highly subjective requiring the
arbitrator to exercise sound judgment.
A variation on the above approach is to perform the
initial screen, and then use selected
demographic data as a justification for retaining or
removing jurisdictions that appear less
comparable than the others from the list. For example,
jurisdictions with abnormally high
or low assessed values might be removed from the list.
Arbitrator Levak suggests
removing jurisdictions that pay an abnormally high or low
wage. See, City of
(Police Department),
(Levak, 1986).
Another approach is to go beyond population and geography
in the initial screen. The
most frequently used third demographic variable is
assessed valuation. If the potential
comparator universe is large, one might even use a fourth
demographic variable. This
approach has the advantage of being more mathematical. It
arguably removes a level of
subjectivity from the analysis, although one still must
exercise discretion in determining the
screens to utilize. There are several disadvantages to
this approach: 1) the underlying
demographic data may be unavailable or inadequate; 2) the
choice of demographic
characteristics used in the screen may be inappropriate;
(2) and 3) the process may yield an
inadequate number of labor market, in-state or regional
comparators.
_____
2 Kaplan, supra note 1, opines that demographic characteristics
used in he screen must have a
demonstrable nexus to wages. If this correlation is not made,
then compelling reasons should be
offered "as to why such characteristics are more probative
of demographic 'comparability' than
indicators such as average annual rainfall, ... or potato chip
consumption per capital."
_____
The approach utilized in any given case should be geared
to the peculiarities of the case.
The arbitrator's overall objective is to obtain a
sufficient number of balanced comparators.
There are, of course, no prescribed minimum or maximum
number of comparators. I
prefer a minimum of five to about a maximum of twelve. In
addition, no demographic
screen should be considered final or exclusive. For
example, normally, I require all
comparator jurisdictions considered to pass a population
and geographical location
screen. Here, however,
jurisdictions), because of their very close proximity to
As to the method for selecting comparators in this case,
I first compiled a broad
comparator list based solely on population, geography and
stipulation. As will be
explained more fully below, using location and tax base,
I narrowed the Westem
Finally, I reviewed
factors. I found this approach gave me the best balance
for purposes of analysis.
As to the various demographic considerations advanced by
the parties in this case, I find
that they all have their place, although I might differ
with one party or the other as to the
method for using the data or the weight it should be
assigned. I agree with the
Association that arbitrators' past use or non use of such
considerations may have more to
do with what is presented to them than with underlying
theoretical notions. I may vary my
approach somewhat from case to case because of certain
unusual circumstances of a
jurisdiction. I make this last point because the parties
agree that
smaller, but higher-crime, lower-income, community
located in a small, but relatively
isolated metropolitan statistical area, whose currently
heated metropolitan economy is
causing local inflation and growth in assessed values and
retail sales, but is also highly
dependent upon a single employer-Hanford. No.
jurisdiction comes close to this.
2. Selection of
a) Geography
Of the specific demographic factors that are
disputed in this case, geography is the
most important. As I advised the parties at hearing,
I do not favor out-of-state
comparators, particularly
comparators in-state. Although the interest
arbitration statute permits an arbitrator to
consider "west coast" jurisdictions, I
believe the Legislature intended out-of-state
comparisons for larger jurisdictions having an
insufficient number of in-state
comparators.(3)
Several arbitrators have expressed this view or some variation
thereon.(4)
This is not merely a statement of parochial vision. Rather, it is
recognition
that the amount of demographic data presented at an
arbitration hearing can not, as a
practical matter, paint the whole picture.
Differences in assessed valuation cycles,
taxing rates and authority, public retirement
systems, costs of living, regional
economic health and trends, overall service
systems, total revenue streams, the
policing environment, population patterns and
density, service areas and the structure
of local government units make comparison more
difficult. For example, the City
proposes
valuation (plus or minus 30%) screen. While the
City points to demographic
information that shows some similarities with
metropolitan statistical area that is distant from
a larger metropolitan area, both have
high crime rates, low median family income levels,
similar assessed valuations, and a
high Hispanic population), the City does not
compare, among other things, local
government revenue sources, nor does it suggest
that the area in which Calexico is
located is currently enjoying a booming economy.
Finally, Calexico's location right on
the Mexican border suggests an entirely different
regional economy, as compared to
the Tri-Cities'.(5)
As will be set forth below, I find there are a sufficient number of
appropriate in-state comparators to
unnecessary.
_____
3 Contrary to the City's view, the neutral Arbitrator does not
believe the Legislature intended to require
arbitrators to include out-of-state comparators in the final
list of comparators, although arguably
arbitrators must give consideration to any proposed
out-of-state comparators before deciding to
exclude them. The mandatory selection of out-of-state
comparators would be an absurd
construction of the statute. If it were required, then how many
out-state-comparators would have to
be selected? Would one satisfy the statute or would more be
necessary? What if little or no
demographic information was presented to the arbitrator on
proposed out-of-state comparators. It
seems obvious that the Legislature sought to allow discretion
as to the choices. The neutral
Arbitrator did, in fact, consider out-of-state comparators in
reaching a final list. However, after
considering them, she determined to exclude them in this case.
4 E.g., City of
arbitrator stated: "[T]he states of
simply because they are out of state. However, it is proper to
give less weight or apply more
stringent standards to out-of-state jurisdictions under the
circumstances of a particular case in the
interest of ensuring that "true" comparability, or as
close as possible thereto, is achieved.
5 For the record, one should note that the Association proposed a
"faII-back" list of partially out-of-
state comparators that included
as well as the
Association's preferred list, however, includes only
and
_____
I gave serious consideration to the use of
Hermiston and Pendleton
not, however, entertain the notion that Pendleton,
the larger of the two cities, is part of
than is
located in a MSA, and their economies are primarily
agricultural. Hermiston, in fact,
has less than half of
reasonable population criterion. And, of course,
both cities are in a different state. I
could find no arbitration award involving a
southeast
any nearby
Axon in City of
the "other factors" criterion of the
statute.
_____
6 In City of
Oregon cities, including
_____
I specifically note that in the last arbitration
between these parties, Arbitrator Krebs
selected a range of comparators that included both
in-state and out-of-state
comparators. In the interest of continuity and
predictability, I would be inclined to
utilize Arbitrator Kreb's
list, despite my reservations about using out-of-state-
comparators. However, neither party proposes that
list in this proceeding. The City
proposes, in part, a similar list, but makes
modifications based on purported
demographic changes. The City also adds a list of
what it calls "local labor market"
jurisdictions, so that the final City-proposed list
bears little resemblance to the Krebs
list. In
and Pendleton. In
this deviation from the Krebs list, I find it
useful to give only particular consideration to
Arbitrator Kreb's
In sum, I believe an appropriate balance of
comparators can be achieved by using in-
state comparators. The comparator list proposed by
the Association, with the addition
of
concern about using too many
the City stipulated to the use of
Tri-Cities currently share some important economic
characteristics (e.g., healthy
economy, housing price increases that exceed the
CPI), this is not always the case.
Therefore, I will limit my selection of
reasons set forth below at subsection g), I have
selected
will select the remainder of the comparators from
b) The Scope of the Screen
There are two parts to this debate: 1) What should
be the size of the screen (e.g.,
plus or minus 25%, 33%, 50% etc.)? 2) Should the
range on the upside be adjusted
so that the ratio between the largest possible
demographic choice and the subject
jurisdiction equals the ratio between the subject
jurisdiction and the smallest possible
demographic choice? For example, if one is to consider
jurisdictions with a population
(or assessed value) of half of
end of the range be twice
or should it be simply 50% more (the City's
preferred approach)?
In my view, the screen utilized is the one needed
to produce an adequate number of
(usually in-state or local labor market)
comparators. The objective, in addition to a
sufficient number, is balance. One does not
"fine tune" the screen for the sole
purpose of adding or omitting a desirable or
undesirable (in terms of pay) jurisdiction.
In questionable cases, one should initially err on
the side of inclusion. The final list
should be balanced in terms of population, wealth,
degree of rural isolation and the
like. The best argument for using the
Association-preferred approach (-50% to
+100%) for the population screen is that in almost
all cases, there are fewer larger
jurisdictions from which to choose than there are
smaller. Therefore, this approach is
necessary to obtain a population balance. On the
other hand, the debate is academic
when the balance can be obtained without that
approach.
In this case, the debate is academic, at least as
to the population screen. All of the
in-state comparators proposed by either party have
a population within 25% of
and
discussed further below.
c) Like Employers
The City proposes
local labor market. While I have carefully
considered this proposal and find it tempting
because of the unique characteristics of the
Tri-Cities area, I am rejecting it on the
grounds that those comparators do not meet the
statutory requirement of "Iike
employers." I note that other arbitrators have
refused to compare city police
departments with county sheriffs' departments.
E.g., City of
Department), (Axon, 1992),(7)
1987); City of
(Police Department), (Levak,
1986);
1986). In fact, I am not specifically aware of any
awards that have compared county
and city law enforcement wages, at least over the
objection of a party.
_____
7 Arbitrator Axon stated, however, that he would consider the
county wage under the "other factor"
statutory criterion, a view to me that seems reasonable so long
as the evidence shows that
comparison is being made to substantially similar jobs (i.e.,
skills, duties, risks and responsibilities).
_____
d) Assessed Valuation/Retail Sales
The parties debate the use of two measures of a
health: assessed valuation and retail sales.
While both parties agree that assessed valuation is
an appropriate demographic
consideration, the City proposes (and the
Association disputes) an assessed
valuation screen of plus or minus 30%. I find that
the problem with the City's screen is
two-fold: First, its range is narrow, resulting in
the questionable elimination of certain
jurisdictions. I am particularly concerned that it
eliminates
that was on the comparator list approved by
Arbitrator Alan Krebs. Second, it ignores
the retail sales factor, discussed next.
While the City is correct that retail sales are not
widely used as a demographic screen
or significant demographic factor, this probably is
because assessed valuation is
assumed to suffice as a measure of a jurisdiction's
underlying tax base.(8) It also may
be considered a surrogate for other revenue
sources. In
significant source of revenue that on a per capita
basis it eclipses that of most of the
proposed comparators (even though most have higher
per capita assessed
valuations). In fact,
tax revenue. One cannot justifiably ignore sales
tax revenue in this case. Therefore, I
conclude that the Association's preference for
considering both per capita assessed
valuation and retail sales is a fair one.
_____
8 In Oregon, consideration of retail sales is not useful because
tax.
_____
e) Stipulations
The parties
agree on the use of
comparators. The only serious concern with
metropolitan statistical area. Its population is
about 34% higher than
precedent for each of these cities to be considered
a comparator of the other two.
City of
Department), (Beck, 1987); City of
Levak award, the
arbitrator half-weighted
the City urges me to do here. I agree
half-weighting
appropriate because it has over twice the
population as
however, does not significantly affect the outcome,
as will be shown below.
f) Crime Rate
The parties also vigorously debate the use of crime
rate or crimes per officer as a
significant demographic factor. I do not agree with
the City that this is a factor that
arbitrators routinely disregard It is not, however,
an appropriate factor to use in an
initial comparability screen. It is something to
consider after the list of comparators
has been identified to determine the extent to
which the jurisdiction in question
compares.(9)
_____
9 Kaplan, supra note 1, suggests that such demographic factors as
"type of industry, retail sales,
number of employees, poverty rates, and physical area"
along with workload factors should be
considered, if at all, when justifying deviations from the
comparator average. They should not be
considered when compiling a comparator list. The employer in
City of
Department), (Levak, 1986), at 14,
essentially made this argument by maintaining that the number
of officers, crime index, officers per 1000 "are
indicative of the degree to which a particular city is
more or less comparable, but this is much different from
factors which are appropriate in the
selection of a particular city from the rest."
_____
g) Final List of Comparators
Before discussing my final list, I must point out
that there are a number of reasonable
variations on a final list of comparators in this
case. In fact, I tested some variations
for "results" to see whether there is
some characteristic that was overlooked or
improperly included that would produce distorted
results. What I found was that any
reasonable combination of proposed
average wage that supports the Association's 11.1%
proposal. Given the various
combinations before me, all of which lend good
support to the Association's proposal,
it is not absolutely necessary for me to compile a
"preferred" comparator list in order
to decide this case. I recognize, however, that
this exercise could be useful to the
parties in later cases. Therefore, I will make a
selection.
My final list of comparators for this case has some
diverse characteristics, but is
necessary to achieve for balance, considering the
unique circumstances of Pasco.(10)
My list, of course, includes the stipulated
jurisdictions of
circumstances of that community. Finally, I will
include
relatively high assessed valuation, it is an
There is considerable precedent for the inclusion
of both
Arbitrator Axon in the City of
Walla,
that, Arbitrator Levak
selected this same group of cities (including
comparators for
between the parties in this case. Given this
precedent, and given the many similar
characteristics shared by those cities, those
comparators are reasonable Eastern
stipulation. I also am picking
Association's other proposed comparables on per
capita assessed valuation. It is low
on per capita retail sales, but while the revenues
from the retail sales tax can be
significant for some jurisdictions, including in
figure may have more to do with the non-retail
nature of the community than with an
inherent poor financial condition.
area, but is close enough to enjoy some of its
economic benefits. Rejecting Port
Angeles and Mount Vernon, two of the Association's
other three
comparators, was a difficult decision because their
inclusion, in this case, would be
beneficial to the City. However, on a "wage-blind" basis, I
have decided not to include
them because I
believe the regional balance should favor
_____
10 In compiling this list, I considered only jurisdictions that were
proposed as a comparator by one
party or the other.
11 Lacey, which is part of the Olympia-Seattle-Everett corridor is not
appropriate as a comparator
because of this location. Also, its per capita assessed
valuation is 188% of
located along I-5, is close to the above-described corridor,
and has a per capita assessed valuation
that is 201% of
(172 miles from
closer to the
assessed valuation is 189% of
retail sales are only 38% of
balance out.
_____
My final list of comparators is, therefore, as
follows:
__________
Pullman
__________
The average top step base wage of these comparators
is 12.11% ahead of
If
only the
I have selected here, with the
Association-proffered comparators of
_____
12 The parties' expired Collective Bargaining Agreement contains five
steps. The labor agreements of
the comparators are structured more or less similarly. The
parties agree that the appropriate
"benchmark" classification for purposes of comparison
is top step base wage.
_____
Of the jurisdictions on this list, I find
on the various demographic data provided at
hearing. It is in the Tri-Cities' region,
(only about 45 miles away), and it enjoys a
somewhat diversified economy. Its 38-
person police force is nearly the same size as
valuation is 98% of
Pasco's, which is well within a range of reason.
And, like
of a relatively high crime rate. Its most
significant "negative" is the fact that it stands
alone. It is not part of a metropolitan statistical
area and the
not have the economic impact on
situated only 45 miles from the Tri-Cities. Its
1993 top step base police officer wage
was 9.3% higher than
_____
13 One also should note, when comparing
has higher compensation in the categories of holiday and
vacation pay, court time minimum,
training pay, graveyard shift differential and standby pay.
_____
C. Discussion and
Findings: Other Statutory Considerations
1. Total Compensation
The interest arbitration statute directs the arbitrator
to go beyond the base hourly wage.
There are both direct and indirect variables in a
compensation package that paint the true
picture of compensation. The problem for an arbitrator,
however, is determining 1) what
variables most
appropriately apply to the bargaining unit as a whole and 2) how to make
wage premium and benefit comparisons among comparable
bargaining units. As to the
latter, wage premium and benefit packages have numerous
variations, making comparison
difficult.
Since I have already determined that the base wage
comparison between
comparators supports the Association's position, my next
step is to determine whether
there are benefits available to Pasco officers that are not
available to its comparators that
would place Pasco's status quo in a better position
relative to its comparators.
After reviewing the evidence of "total
compensation," I find that Pasco's lag behind the
average of comparators is significantly greater, and not
less, on a total compensation
basis than it is on a base wage basis. Looking at the
number of vacation days, holidays
and resulting total hours worked, along with benefits and
various specialty or premium
pays, Pasco tends to lag in all areas except that its
educational/longevity premium is fairly
competitive. (See discussion under Issue 2, below).
2. Ability to Pay/FiscaI
Considerations
Next to comparability, the City's financial condition is
the most important consideration in
this case. The City portrays itself as a poor community
surrounded by two relatively
affluent cities. While its hard times of a few years ago
have passed, the City maintains it
is not enjoying the surge in prosperity that Richland and
Kennewick are experiencing, and
any unexpected increases in revenues are probably only
temporary. It also maintains it
must prudently uses what revenue it has to develop the
infrastructure needed to promote
the long-term economic health of the City. The
Association, while conceding that Richland
and Kennewick are more prosperous, maintains that Pasco
is, nevertheless, riding on the
coattails of that prosperity. In fact, the City has
experienced such a sharp and
unanticipated growth in revenues that it can well afford
the Association's proposal.
Part of an ability to pay analysis pertains to that
consideration as a stand-alone criterion.
Another part, however, relates to comparability. That is,
financial strength or weakness,
particularly to the extent one is looking at the
community generally, is a relative matter,
and therefore, must be viewed against the communities
comparators.
On a comparative basis, Pasco is clearly the "poor
sister" of the Tri-Cities. It also lags its
comparators on the basis of either assessed valuation or
median family income, and often
both. On the other hand, Pasco has the industrial base
for the Tri-Cities, and, importantly
for City coffers, has a large number of automobile
dealerships. At hearing, its relatively
large (and growing) income from retail sales tax was
attributed to strong vehicle sales.
Pasco is also experiencing a Hanford-induced economic
boom. While not benefiting to
the same extent as Richland and Kennewick, its benefits,
in terms of employment, retail
sales, assessed valuations and other measures, have been
substantial, and the trend is
upward. For example, retail sales within Pasco were
$258.5 million in 1987. The 1993
annualized retail sales figure for the Pasco was about
$396 million, which is a 53%
increase over 1987. The City's retail sales tax revenue
would have increased by the same
ratio. The City's beginning fund balance was $318,000 in
1988. By 1992, its budgeted
beginning fund balance was $1,245,000, a nearly four-fold
increase. The Franklin County
Assessor anticipates assessed values rising by 15% in
1995.(14) (Pasco, but not Richland
or Kennewick, is in Franklin County). And, the City has
enjoyed substantial unanticipated
revenues of late.
_____
14 I note, however, as pointed out by the City, that Pasco's current
assessed values are only now
returning to the level the City enjoyed in the early 1980's.
_____
In sum, I find that the City clearly has the ability to
pay a wage increase up to and
including the amount of the Association's proposal. I
have considered whether a downturn
in the region's economy would allow it to continue to
absorb this increase, and while I
recognize the risks, I believe that the Association's
interest in a fair and competitive wage
is paramount here. I have particularly in mind the fact
that Arbitrator Krebs did not award
the Association a substantial increase in his I 1990
award because the region (and the
City's coffers) were in an economic slump. The timing was
not appropriate. Conditions
have changed markedly since then, making the timing now
very appropriate.
3. Cost of Living
There are three aspects to the cost of living
consideration: 1) whether the increase in
wages over time have kept pace with (or outpaced) changes
in the cost of living; 2) how
the cost of living in the subject jurisdiction compares
to its comparators; and 3) the
appropriate measure of cost of living for computing any
cost of living increases.
As to the first inquiry, the Association presented
evidence that the bargaining unit's
wages, since 1988, has lost significant ground relative
to cost of living increases.
The subject of comparable cost of living is difficult
because of the absence of reliable
data. The Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics does not
compare the cost of living in various geographic areas.
Instead, it measures changes in
the cost of living in metropolitan areas, regions of the
U.S., and nationally. The
Association presented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
ACCRA index as evidence of the
relatively high cost of living in the Tri-Cities. That
index shows that the Tri-Cities' cost of
living is second in the state, ranking only behind the
Seattle PMSA. While keeping in mind
concerns about the ACCRA index's reliability, I find the
information fairly credible based on
the independently produced information concerning the
rapid increase in housing prices in
the Tri-Cities, as previously cited.
As to the cost of living measure for this bargaining
unit, the parties agree that it should be
the CPI-W (West Coast-C). The City, however, proposes
that the 1994 cost-of-living
increase be reduced by 10%. The Association argues that it
should be increased by 1%.
I see no reason to do either. Arbitrator Krebs and Levak awarded a 90% increase in City
of Pasco cases because, at the time, the region was
economically depressed and actual
cost of living increases were less than many cities in
the CPI index, particularly those in
California. That situation has now changed. While local
cost of living figures are not
considered particularly reliable, the evidence is that,
if anything, Pasco's current cost of
living is higher than the CPI-W west coast average,
primarily because of rapidly rising
housing prices. As to cost of living increases, however,
I prefer to keep the matter simple
by awarding a second-year cost of living increase equal
to the CPI.
4. Other Considerations
Evidence pertaining to "internal equity" is
only relevant to the subject jurisdiction's ability to
pay. I find that there is ample evidence that the City
has the ability to pay the
Association's proposal. Therefore, I will not consider
the City's internal equity argument
further. I found the evidence as to turnover to be
inconclusive.
As previously set forth, Pasco's wage lag relative to its
comparators is 11.7%. I have not
as yet addressed the question of whether Pasco wage
should be the average of its
comparators or whether it should be above or below that
average. It is at this point that
the Arbitrator must determine what increase is within a
range of reasonableness relative to
the average, considering the subject jurisdiction's
ability to pay and other factors identified
previously in this discussion. ln
this case, the Association's proposed 11.1% increase will
produce the following 1993 wage ranking for officers with
five years of service (bold-face
type).(15) (For purposes of discussion, this analysis
assumes the entire 11.1% is
implemented the first day of the contract):
__________
Top Step W/5 yr. W/10yr.
Base Wage Longevity Longevity
Kennewick $3247
$3247 $3247
Wenatchee $3207
$3239 $3271
Richland $3236
$3236 $3256
Aberdeen $3227
$3227 $3227
Average* $3089
$3105 $3124
Pasco $3072
$3072 $3072
Oak Harbor $2983
$3043 $3102
Walla Walla $2935 $2952
$2960
Pullman $2864 $2864 $2864
_____
* Average excludes Pasco and weights Kennewick
at one-half.
__________
15 I believe that compensation is most appropriately measured after
factoring in all benefits enjoyed by
either all of the bargaining unit or by those bargaining unit
members whose status is similar to a
substantial number of bargaining unit members in the subject
jurisdiction. In this case, because the
parties agree that the appropriate benchmark is top step,
factoring in the five and ten-year longevity
premiums paid by some comparable jurisdictions is, therefore,
more appropriate than a simple
consideration of base wage.
_____
Given the problematic economic conditions in Pasco, as
well as other considerations
identified previously, such as the higher assessed
valuations of the higher-ranking
comparators and the significantly lower pay in
neighboring Oregon jurisdictions, I conclude
that a somewhat below-average ranking is appropriate.
However, considering Pasco's
crime rate and its current economic climate, this ranking
should not be any lower.
Because of Pasco's metropolitan location and also because
of historical rankings,(16) Pasco
appropriately ranks higher than Walla Walla
and Pullman. When longevity pay is factored
in, Pasco and Oak Harbor pay nearly the same.
_____
16 In 1989, the top step base wage for Walla Walla
was 96.4% of Pasco's. According to the
Association's evidence, this wage differential steadily
narrowed over the intervening years until
Walla Walla's base wage exceeded Pasco's. With an 11.1%
increase for Pasco, the ratio will be
nearly maintained, with the top step base wage for Walla Walla being 95.5% of Pasco's. Similarly,
Pullman's 1988 wage was 91.4% of Pasco's. With Pasco's 11.1%
increase, the ratio will be 93.3%.
_____
D. Award
I conclude that the Association's 11.1% proposal is fair and
reasonable, but, because it is a
sizable amount, I will order it phased in over the first three
quarters of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (which I specifically note is of as much detriment to
the employees as it is an
advantage to the City). Four percent will be effective as of
January 1, 1993. An additional 4%
will take effect on July 1, 1993. The remaining 3.1% will take
effect on January 1, 1994.
These amounts will not be compounded. This increase is in
addition to the cost of living
increase I am awarding for the second year of the contract.
Effective January 1, 1994,
bargaining unit members will receive a cost of living
adjustment that is equal to the pertinent
change in the CPI-W (West Coast-C Index) for the year ending
October, 1993, with a floor of
3% and a ceiling of 6%.
II. ISSUE:
EDUCATIONAL/LONGEVITY INCENTIVE (ARTICLE XVIII)
A. Proposals and
Arguments:
1. Association's Proposal and Argument
The Association proposes to increase the Article XVIII
premium for degree
attainment/longevity by adding a new level of premiums
for officers with 16 or more years
longevity. An employee with 16 or more years and an AA
(AS) degree would receive a 5%
per month wage premium. An employee with 16 or more years
and a BA (or BS) degree
would receive a 10% per month premium. The Association
would eliminate the special
categories for Sergeants and Corporals and for Evidence
Technicians.
The Association contends that its proposal on
professional development is supported by
comparators. Pasco sergeants and corporals receive a
lesser differential than that
awarded in comparable jurisdictions, which consequently
pushes the Pasco officers even
further behind in the market. While redressing the education
schedule will not overcome
that inequity, it will at least remove one factor that
pushes Pasco officers even further
behind the market.
2. Employer's Proposal and Argument:
The Employer would retain the existing contract language.
In support of the current
language, the City argues that current contract language
includes a Career Development
Plan, which serves both as an incentive for officers to
continue their education, and to
provide a monetary award for those officers with two and
four-year degrees. This current
language should remain unchanged. In 1990, Arbitrator
Krebs changed the fixed dollar
amounts to percentage figures. Contrary to Krebs'
expectations, the Association has
continually sought an upward adjustment of the percentage
figures. The Association
presented no substantial evidence to show that a raise in
the percentage figures is
justified. The current percentages are in step with
comparable jurisdictions. Eight of the
thirteen comparators don't pay any sort of straight
longevity, and only two jurisdictions pay
both an education incentive and a straight longevity.
B. Discussion, Findings and Award:
I approach proposals to increase premium and incentive pay
cautiously. I am concerned that
such proposals would substitute the arbitrator's judgment for
management's as to which skills
or work management should place a premium. Second, the cost to
the employer is not easily
measured and can be easily overlooked in future negotiations,
when the focus shifts back to
base wages. As a consequence, I award such proposals only when
they rest upon clear and
strong comparator support.
Here, the Association's proposal lacks strong comparator
support. In fact, viewed as an
educational incentive premium, it goes beyond what is offered
by all of its comparators. I
realize that the proposal, which is based on a current
contractual scheme, is a combination
longevity/educational premium, making comparison difficult.
However, even with comparator
educational and longevity premiums added together, the proposal
goes beyond that which is
offered by the City's comparators, (Oak Harbor is an exception;
it pays a generous longevity
premium and educational incentive). I note that Arbitrator
Krebs rejected a similar proposal in
the prior arbitration between these parties on the grounds it
was not supported by an
examination of comparators. I make the same finding.
Accordingly, I will not award the
Association proposal.
Ill. ISSUE: OVERTIME (ARTICLE VIII, SECTIONS 2 AND 3)
A. Proposals and
Arguments:
1. Association's
Proposal and Argument
The Association proposes to amend Article VIII, Section 2
by:
a) increasing
the three hour caIl-back minimum to four hours (which
is paid the
overtime rate);
b) providing
that time worked as a shift extension will be paid at the overtime rate for
the actual time worked;
c) deleting
all existing language pertaining to court time-induced overtime, with the
effect that court time would be paid the
call-back minimum or the shift extension
overtime rate, whichever is applicable;
d) deleting
language requiring straight-time pay, minimum two hours, for in-service
training outside of the scheduled shift, with
the result that in-service training
would be paid the overtime rate;
e) providing
that straight-time pay would be given for travel time to and from classes.
(The expired contract simply states that
overtime will not be paid for travel time);
and
f) adding
language that employees could opt to receive their overtime pay in cash
or in compensatory time (maximum accumulation
of 160 hours), and that
compensatory time off will be scheduled at
the convenience of the employee and
the Employer.
To support its proposals, the Association contends:
1. Its
proposal to increase callback time from a minimum of three hours to four hours
is supported by comparability, fairness, and
law. Callback produces a great
degree of disruption in officers' lives.
Therefore, interruption to the officers' days
off cannot be measured just by the amount of
time they actually spend working
when called back. A single half-hour callback
can disrupt an entire day off.
2. While it
is true that most of the comparators do not have a four-hour callback
minimum, the proposed increase is justified
due to Pasco's enormous crime
problem and due to the fact that Pasco
officers are the lowest paid police force of
all cities in Washington with a population of
more than 15,000.
3. The
Association's second proposal related to callback would simplify the existing
contract language. The current language is
complicated and wasteful. For
example, if an officer is called back and
spends less than one hour in court, the
officer receives two hours of overtime pay.
However, if the actual time spent in
court is more than one hour, the officer
receives three hours overtime pay.
Therefore, officers believe that they must
spend at least one hour in court each
time they are called back in order to be
properly compensated for the intrusion
into their personal time. Another example is
the fact that officers who spend over
three hours in court are compensated for
their actual time only so long as they
are actually in the courtroom or the public
safety building prior to giving testimony.
This clause produces the ridiculous result of
prohibiting an officer from going
across the street to have lunch while a trial
is in recess, because that time would
not be compensable. No similar provisions are
found in any of the comparable
jurisdictions, and no rational justification
exists for this type of restriction. The
Association's proposal remedies all these
problems with a single sentence, by
drawing a distinction between callback time
that is before or after a shift, and
callback which is beyond a regular shift or
on a day off.
4. The
Association has proposed an amendment dealing with training time because
many of
the current provisions do not comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Current language states that in-service
training that occurs outside of a regular
shift shall be paid at an employee's regular
rate of pay. This language should be
stricken because it does not compensate
officers for the exhaustion and risk
involved. For instance, if an officer's shift
runs from 11:00 p.m. until morning, and
the officer is then required to attend
in-service training all day until 5:00 p.m., and
then must begin his shift again at 11:00 p.m.
that same evening, the officer will be
physically and mentally exhausted.
5. Paying
officers at their regular rate for in-service training is also in violation of
the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires
employees be paid time and one-half
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours
in any workweek. If in-service
training constitutes hours worked, then that
time must be added into the total
hours worked in determining overtime
compensation.
A) It is well-settled under the Fair
Labor Standards Act that training time is
compensable hours worked unless four
criteria are met: 1) attendance
occurs outside the employee's regular
shift; 2) attendance is not required by
the employer; 3) the employee does no
productive work while attending
training; and 4) the training is not
directly related to the employee's job.
B) Because attendance at in-training is
mandatory for Pasco officers and
because
the training is clearly related to the officers' present jobs, the
employees should be paid overtime for
time spent at in-service training if that
training expands an employee's work
week to more than forty hours.
C) The Association proposes
compensating employees at their regular rate
of pay for time spent traveling to
training classes. The Association's proposal
would solve the problem of varying
interpretations by the City for when an
employee will be compensated for travel
time to in-service training. The
Association's proposal is a compromise
between the status quo and the
maximum compensation arguably allowed
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A strong argument could be made that
the Fair Labor Standards Act requires
overtime compensation for travel time
if the time spent traveling pushes the
employee's work week past forty hours.
6. The
Arbitrator should reject the City's proposal concerning compensatory time.
The City is attempting to gain sole
discretion over the use of compensatory time,
and produced no evidence showing that the
current compensatory time system
needs adjusting. Compensatory time is
permitted as a benefit to the City, by
allowing the City to reduce the costs of
overtime by trading time off instead of
paying cash. In exchange, the Fair Labor
Standards Act allows the employee to
select, within certain limits, when to
utilize the accrued time. The current standard
strikes a fair balance between the needs of
the City and the employee, and has
worked well in the past for both parties.
7. The
Arbitrator should adopt the Association's proposed increase of the accrual
cap from 80 hours to 160 hours. The increased
cap would allow the City to save
more money on overtime and it would reduce
the occasions when employees
must take compensatory time off at
inconvenient times to avoid going over the
current cap. In addition, the Association's
proposal protects the City, in that it
considers staffing needs when determining
when compensatory time off is
appropriate.
2. Employer's
proposal and Argument:
The Employer proposes to retain most of the
existing overtime language of Article XIII.
However, the Employer proposes to add language to
Section 3.a. stating that: "Travel
time to and from classes shall not be claimed as
compensable time unless required by the
FLSA. To the extent reasonably practical, the
employer will continue to attempt to adjust
an employee's work shift to cover the time
reasonably required for travel when the training
is more than fifty (50) miles from the City of
Pasco." The Employer also would add a new
Section 4 that permits compensatory time in lieu of
overtime pursuant to the City's
Administrative Order No. 43, dated September 2,
1986.
In support of its proposal, and in opposition to
the Association's, the City argues that:
1. In 1990,
Arbitrator Krebs rejected the Association's proposal to raise two and
three-hour callback minimums to four hours,
finding that there was nothing
inherently unfair about two and three-hour
minimums. Out of fourteen
comparators, only Richland provides a
four-hour minimum at the overtime rate.
2. The
Arbitrator should reject the Association's proposed elimination of the overtime
exception for in-service training. This
provision was negotiated due to a mutual
desire of both the City and the Association
to provide additional training to police
officers and in order to insure officers'
proficiency and job safety. The
Association's proposal would impose a
hardship on the City's training budget.
3. Section
3(a) - travel time overtime: The Arbitrator should reject the Association's
proposal to require the City to pay employees
for all time spent traveling to and
from in-service training. Arbitrators are
usually unwilling to grant compensation for
travel time in the absence of a specific
agreement between the parties to that
effect.
None of the comparators supplied by either party provide for compensated
travel time. The City has made a special
effort to adjust employees' schedules so
that their travel time to out-of-town
in-service training occurs during their regular
work shift. The City is willing to add
language to this provision to formally
recognize this practice.
4. Compensatory
time: Past contract language has permitted police department
employees to accrue and utilize up to eighty
hours of compensatory time. The
City is willing to continue this practice and
will reference Administrative Order No.
43 in the parties' agreement. In the
alternative, the City is willing to place the
pertinent language from Administrative Order
No. 43 directly into the parties'
agreement.
5. The
Arbitrator should reject the Association's proposal to allow accrual of up to
160 hours of compensatory time and to give
the employees complete control over
whether they receive overtime rate pay or
compensatory time accrual for overtime
work. Employee leaves complicate scheduling
and often necessitate calling back
other officers at overtime rates of pay. The
Association's proposal would allow the
employees to manipulate scheduling to their
own individual needs, rather than the
department's needs, and would cause an
increase in departmental overtime
expenditures. The current accrual limit of
eighty hours is similar to the
comparators: seven of thirteen comparators
require both employer and employee
to agree on compensatory time election. The
Association did not meet its burden
of proof by merely introducing the testimony
of one officer who desires additional
compensatory time accrual. The Association is
seeking additional accrual so that
the employees may use compensatory time as an
additional bank account, from
which to obtain payment at a later date after
pay increases have occurred. Only
one officer has already accrued eighty hours
of compensatory time, while
twenty-one officers have below twenty hours
of accrued time.
B. Discussion, Findings
and Award:
1. Call back minimum (including court-induced overtime).
Arbitrator Krebs, in the prior
arbitration between these parties, rejected the
Association's proposal to increase the two
and three hour call-back minimum on the grounds that
there was nothing inherently unfair
about the contract as written and because the proposal
was not supported by the City's
comparators. I will deny this proposal for the same
reasons. While the existing language
may appear cumbersome, it was negotiated and agreed to
willingly by the parties. There
is no reason for the Arbitrator to undo this accord.
2. In-service training outside of the scheduled shift.
The question here is a close one
because Association's evidence indicates that the
Association's proposal has some
support (though not universal support) from its
comparators. But, the current language
was reached by a mutual agreement of the parties and I am
not inclined to change it. To
the extent that an existing practice or existing contract
language violates employee rights
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the FLSA
prevails, and the employees may
pursue their remedy with the appropriate state or federal
agency.
3. Pay for travel
time to training. As cited by the City, Arbitrator Krebs found:
There is insufficient basis for the Association's
request that all travel time to and from
in-service training should be considered as time
worked. Such a request is contrary
to language which has previously been negotiated by
the parties. The Association's
request is unsupported by reference to the
comparable cities or by other evidence.
No change in contract language shall be ordered in
this regard.
The parties have previously agreed that travel time
to and from training classes
cannot be counted as overtime. Even in the absence
of such language, Arbitrators
have usually been unwilling to grant compensation
for travel time in the absence of a
specific agreement to that effect. (Citations
omitted).
Again, the question is a close one because of comparator
support. On the other hand, I
agree with Arbitrator Krebs that provisions that the
parties have specifically negotiated
should not be easily undone. Although the Association
argues that the existing Contract
language is a violation of the FLSA, again, the
Association can pursue its legal remedies if
it is. Therefore, I will deny the Association's proposal.
The City proposes language that would memorialize the
current practice of having an
employee's work shift adjusted to cover the time
reasonably required for travel when the
training is more than 50 miles from Pasco. I find this to
be a reasonable proposal, and I
will award it.
The City also proposes language stating that:
"Travel time to and from classes shall not be
claimed as compensable time unless required by the
FLSA." While this seems fair in
intent, I would quibble with the word "claimed"
which an employee could find inhibiting
because it might be interpreted as putting the onus on
the employee to know whether the
travel time is FLSA compensable. Therefore, I will change
the word "claimed" to "paid," so
that the language reads: "Travel time to and from
classes shall not be paid as
compensable time unless required by the FLSA." With
this modification, the City's
language change on travel time is awarded.
4. Compensatory time. As the City points out, the
Collective Bargaining Agreement
does not spell out the rules on the accrual and use of
compensatory time. The City has
been following rules and procedures set out in an
Administrative Order issued unilaterally
by the City Manager a number of years ago. The City
proposes to memorialize that
practice in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. That
policy basically leaves the accrual
and taking of compensatory time to the supervisor's
discretion, which a maximum of 80
accrued hours. The Association's proposal would give
employees the choice of whether
to take paid overtime or compensatory time and would
allow them to accrue up to 165
hours of compensatory time.
The City particularly opposes the lifting of the ceiling,
because compensatory time creates a
significant liability for the City. Often, when an
officer takes compensatory time off,
another officer needs to be scheduled and may work
overtime. If that officer takes his
overtime in compensatory time off, another officer may
need to work overtime and so forth
in an upward spiral. The City also is concerned that the
compensatory time accrued will
be cashed in later at a higher pay rate. It co mpares compensatory time to a credit card. It
has no present cost to the City, but creates a
significant liability that has to be paid off
sometime.
I agree with the City that compensatory time off can
ultimately be an expensive option for
management. Its use should be managed carefully. I do not
find support for the
Association's proposal in the City's comparators. Nor has
the Association made a
showing of other necessity. Therefore, I will deny its
proposal.
As to the City's proposal, while I believe that
memorializing a current practice in the
contract is a good idea, there are a few parts of the
Administrative Order that I find inimical
to the interests of employees. For example, it gives
Department Heads the unrestricted
discretion to lower the compensatory time accrual limit
"for appropriate management
purposes."
Although the parties are engaged in a fierce debate over
compensatory time, in fact there
have not been problems.
One potential grievance was resolved early. Accordingly, I find
no reason to change the status quo, which seems to be
working well enough. I will not
award either party's proposal.
IV. ISSUE: HEALTH INSURANCE (ARTICLE X)
A. Proposals and
Arguments:
1. Association's Proposal and Argument:
The Association proposes to delete the $302.50 cap on the
Employer's contribution to the
medical and dental insurance premium. In its place, the
Association proposes language to
require the Employer to pay 100% of the monthly premium.
The Association also
proposes improvements to the vision care (from a $200
maximum to full employee and
dependent coverage) and life insurance (from $15,000 to
$25,000 coverage) packages.
The Association argues that the proposed changes are
necessary because:
1. The
City's method for setting its self-insurance rate is flawed. The information
presented by the City revealed that its rate
lumps the LEOFF II and LEOFF I
officers together, despite the fact that
statutory mandate guarantees LEOFF I
officers a more extensive (and therefore a
more expensive) health insurance
plan. Further, the City also included LEOFF I
retirees in its rate calculations.
2. The
effect of the City's methodology is to require LEOFF II officers to subsidize
the City's obligation toward LEOFF I
retirees, because LEOFF II officers will never
be eligible for LEOFF I benefits.
Consequently, the City is imposing on LEOFF II
officers the burden of sharing in a cost that
the Legislature has mandated upon
the City.
3. The
Association met its burden in proving that the City's cap computation was
improper in light of the City's
self-insurance scheme. By using widely varied
contributions and reserve standards, the
City's rate is essentially whatever the
City wants to say it is. The Association has
no objection to the City's freedom to
contrive such a rate, so long as the City
pays for 100% of the cost of its fictional
rate.
4. Neither
internal equity nor comparability support the City's proposal of a cap. An
overwhelming number of in-state comparables
provide 100% health insurance
coverage. The City provides its firefighters
100% coverage.
2. Employer's Proposal and Argument:
The Employer proposes to raise the medical and dental
insurance cap to $332.75, with
50-50 cost sharing between the Employer and each employee
for amounts over $332.75
and up to $387.77 monthly. The Employer would pay 100% of
any excess premiums
above $387.77 per month. The City would retain the right
to maintain a $100/$300
deductible ($25/$75 deductible dental) and an 80%/20%
co-pay. The City also proposes
language permitting it to conform benefits to any state
and federal legislative changes and
allowing a reopener under
certain conditions in the event of such changes.
Explaining its proposal, the City states:
1. By
remaining the current language, the City would retain the right to maintain a
self-insurance program or to select insurance
carriers; maintain a medical
deductible of $100 per person and $300 per
family; maintain an 80/20% co-
insurance applied to all medical and dental
expenses; maintain a maximum $25
dental deductible per person and $75 per
family; maintain LEOFF II Officers'
eligibility for an annual maximum $200
reimbursement for vision care; and
maintain an employer-paid $15,000 face value
term life insurance plan.
2. As noted
by Arbitrator Krebs, it is not unreasonable for employees to bear some
risk in the event of rising health insurance
costs. The Association has failed to
present substantial evidence justifying its
proposal for vision insurance
improvements, elimination of the premium cap,
an increase in life insurance
benefits, and the prohibition of the City's
self-insurance program or selection of
insurance carriers.
3. The
City's self-insurance program is modeled after a private insurance industry
program. The City has maintained good
industry practices and has contracted
with a professional claims administrator and
a local broker to help the City
evaluate on an on-going basis its
self-insurance program, including administration
costs, in order to keep its premium rates
down. The City's program has been
successful, as illustrated by the lack of any
rate increase over the past two and
one-half years.
4. Because
there are so many unknowns concerning the new state health care
program, and because the parties will be
initiating new negotiations later this year
for a successor contract, the parties' current
health care plan should be left alone
at this time. The parties should deal with
this matter when negotiating a
successor agreement, when there will be more
certainty as to the effect of the
new state health care plan.
B. Discussion, Findings and Award:
My experience with other self-insured jurisdictions is that
composite rates are based upon the
entire risk pool, being the entire self-insured unit of
government. Thus all employees of a
single employer are in the same risk pool and are assigned the
same composite rate. In this
case, the City has one composite rate for police officers, and
one or more composite rates for
other employees. This strikes me as unusual. (However, the City
presented evidence that it
simply modeled its composite rate structure on that which was
used by the private carrier from
whom it formerly purchased insurance). On the other hand, what
the Association seeks seems
worse: It seeks two different composite rates for police
employees alone: a LEOFF I rate and a
LEOFF II rate. Despite the Association's expert's testimony, I
am not convinced that this is
an actuarially sound or accepted practice. The composite rate
for police officers does not
strike me as inherently unfair. It is a fairly low figure as
such rates go, and the rate has not
been increased for two-and-a-half years, which is a record many
employers would envy.
I am troubled also by the remedy that the Association seeks.
Instead of a remedy that would
recalculate the composite rate, the Association seeks 100%
coverage. Full coverage,
however, is not the natural and logical consequence of an
improper means of calculating the
composite rate. While such a remedy would certainly get the
City's attention, it would also put
the City to a disadvantage that exceeds its transgression, if
there is one. This is especially
true given the fact that the rates have not exceeded the
specified contractual cap, so that
health insurance premiums continue to cost bargaining unit
employees nothing.
As to the Association's proposals to improve vision insurance
and life insurance, they were not
supported by evidence and will not be awarded.
I find that the Employer's proposed increase to the insurance
cap is reasonable and I will
award it. The Employer's proposal permitting it to conform
benefits to state and federal
legislative changes and allowing a reopener
in the event of such changes does not seem
necessary. The Employer did not provide evidence of, nor have I
seen, other labor
agreements with such language, even though employers both
state-wide and nation-wide
could be affected. Presumably, such legislation will make
allowances as necessary for
collective bargaining agreements.
V. ISSUE: SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 2 AND 3)
A. Proposals and
Arguments:
1. Association's
Proposal and Argument:
Article II, Sections 2 and 3 of the expired Collective
Bargaining Agreement contains a
"zipper" or "entire agreement" clause
that the Association seeks to amend as follows (the
underlined language would be new; the stricken language
deleted):
Section 2. The Agreement expressed herein in
writing constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties arrived at during negotiations and
no oral statement shall add to or supersede any of its
provisions during contract years 1991 through
1992. Provided, however, if the parties hereto have
commenced negotiations for a new contract in
accordance with statutory requirements and such
negotiations are continuing at the termination date
written above, the provisions of this Contract shall
remain in full force and effect until the parties reach
impasse in their negotiations or the effective
date of a new contract, whichever first occurs.
Nothing herein shall be construed to interfere with
any person's ability to initiate a representation
question or election with PERC.
Section 3. The parties acknowledge
that each has had the unlimited right and opportunity to
make proposals with respect to any matter being the
proper subject for collective bargaining. The
results of the exercise of that right are set forth
in this Agreement. Therefore, except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, each voluntarily and
unqualifiedly agree to waive the right to oblige the
other party to bargain with respect to any
subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered by
this agreement.
In support of its proposal, the Association contends that
it is necessitated by previous
interpretation problems between the Association and the
City.
2. Employer's
Proposal and Argument:
The Employer proposes to retain the existing language of
Sections 2 and 3. In support of
the status quo, the Employer argues:
1. The
Association's proposed deletion of language prohibiting oral statements from
"adding to" or
"superseding" provisions of the written agreement is contrary to
law.
RCW 41.56.030(4) requires parties to collective bargaining to
"execute a
written agreement." The Association's
proposal would open the field to disputes
over the content of the agreement. The
Association has introduced no
substantial evidence supporting the need for
the purposed change in contract
language, and therefore has not met its
burden of proof.
2. The
language continuing the provision of the agreement through impasse should
remain unchanged. By preserving the status
quo during negotiations, even if
negotiations continue beyond the agreement's
termination, stable labor relations
are promoted. The Association presented no
substantial evidence to justify the
removal of this language.
3. The
existing language of Section 3 should be preserved because a zipper clause
has continuously existed in the parties'
collective bargaining agreements since at
least 1984. Zipper clauses are found in
comparable jurisdictions, including
burden of proof concerning the need to change
this contract provision.
B. Discussion, Findings and Award:
I have my doubts as to the efficacy of language such as that
found in Article II, Sections 2 and
3. On the other hand, the parties agreed upon this language
voluntarily and I am not inclined
to change it absent a showing of need. (See also my criteria
for evaluating proposed
language changes set forth in the introductory section of this
award). The Association has not
made such a showing in this case. To the extent the City
interprets its rights and obligations in a
manner contrary to law, the Association may pursue its legal
remedies. I note that Arbitrator
Krebs rejected changes to this language in the prior interest
arbitration between these parties.
I will do so also.
SUMMARY OF AWARD
I. WAGES
1993 wages for this bargaining
unit will be increased by 11.1% as follows: Bargaining unit
members will receive a four
percent (4%) increase effective as of
additional four percent (4%)
will take effect on
tenths percent (3.1%) will
take effect on
compounded. This increase is
in addition to the cost of living increase I am awarding for the
second year of the contract:.
Effective
cost of living adjustment that
is equal to the pertinent change in the CPI-W (West Coast-C
Index) for the year ending
October, 1993, with a minimum increase of three percent (3%) and
a maximum increase of six percent
(6%).
I. Educational/Longevity
Incentive (Article XVIII)
There will be no change to the
contract. The Association's proposal is not awarded.
III. Overtime (Article VlIl, Sections 2 and 3)
The Association's proposal is
not awarded. The following (slightly modified) language
proposed by the City will be
added to the contract.
Travel time to and from classes shall not be paid as
compensable time unless
required by the FLSA.
To the extent reasonably practical, the employer will continue
to attempt to adjust an
employee's work shift to cover the time reasonably required for
travel when the
training is more than fifty (50) miles from the City of
Otherwise, the language of the
prior contract will remain unchanged.
IV. Issue: Health Insurance
(Article X)
The Association's proposed
changes to this article are not awarded
The Employer's proposal to
raise the 1993-94 medical and dental insurance cap to $332.75,
with 50-50 cost sharing
between the Employer and each employee for amounts between
$332.75 and $387.77 monthly,
and with the Employer paying 100% of any excess monthly
premiums above $387.77, is
awarded.
The Article X language will
otherwise remain unchanged.
V. Scope of Agreement (Article
II)
The Association's proposed
language changes are not awarded. This Article will remain as it
was written in the parties'
previous Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Dated:
/s/________________
Jane R. Wilkinson
Neutral Arbitrator and
Chairperson
_______________________________ _______________________
James W. Chase, Assistant Finance Michael D. Aldridge, PPOA
Director, City of Pasco Representative
Concurs on Issues: _______________ Concurs on Issues:___________
and dissents on Issues:____________ and dissents on Issues:_______