And
International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 876
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Kenneth M. McCaffree
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: McCaffree; Kenneth M.
Case #: 07233-I-88-00171
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN INTEREST ARBITRATION
BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) OPINION AND AWARD
OF FIREFIGHTERS )
Local 876 ) OF
(
AND ) Kenneth M. McCaffree*
(District) )
) PERC Case No. 07233-I-88-0171
RE: Wages )
) Date of Award:
REPRESENTATIVES: ) Date of Hearing:
For the
Barry E. Ryan** )
For the District: )
James FOX*** )
_____
* Neutral Chairman of the Arbitration Panel consisting of:
Paul J. Allison, District member
Randall & Danskin
1500 Seafirst Financial Center
Dr. Shik C. Young, Professor of
Economics, Union member
Department of Economics
Eastern
** Attorney at Law, East 1017
(509) 484-1104.
*** Commissioner,
_____
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF
PROCEEDING
These proceedings arose as a consequence of the failure of the
District to agree on an
amendment to their 1987 Agreement (hereinafter
Agreement), with regard to an
appropriate increase in wages for 1988.
After
attempting to resolve the
matter on their own, the parties sought and used
mediation to no avail (Un. Ex.
2). In January 1988, the mediator
referred
the parties to the Public
Employees Relations Commission (PERC) for
certification of the disputed
item to interest arbitration, pursuant to
RCW 41.56.450. Accordingly, by letter dated
Schurke,
Executive Director of PERC, so advised the parties, and certified
the issue for interest
arbitration as "wages for 1988" (Un. Ex. 3). At the
same time, Mr. Schurke advised the parties to proceed in accordance with
WAC 391-55-220, et seq.
At the hearing, the
. . . that the proceeding . . . is timely, that it is
done
according to procedures, . . . that the arbitrators have
been
properly approved, that you are, Dr. McCaffree,
the neutral
arbitrator, and so agreed upon by both parties, . . .
that both
Dr. Young and Paul Allison at any breaks could confer
with the
individual parties
. . . that copies of the exhibits
will be
acceptable to the proceedings (in lieu of originals), . .
.
that the results of the arbitration will become
retroactive to
_____
* "Tr." refers to
the transcript with pages and lines indicated by numbers.
The second half on volume 2 of
the transcript will be cited as "Tr. II."
Also, the neutral chairman is
referred to hereafter as chairman.
_____
Accordingly, both
advance of presentation of
their respective cases (Tr. 17ff; Tr.II, p.21ff).
Those who presented testimony
under oath, and subject to cross-examination
were Larry Rider, firefighter;
Dave Lobdell, firefighter; George Orr,
firefighter; Dr. Wolfgang
Franz, Professor of Economics,
University; Karl Bold,
Assistant Fire Chief; and Dr. Melvin Ott, Professor,
and related materials. The Employer provided one exhibit of some 230
pages,
which included an outline of theDistrict's position (argument, not evidence),
materials in support of Mr. Bold's testimony on comparable fire departments
and a comparative salary
analysis, the report of Dr. Ott in support of his
testimony, information and
data on the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers
Association (
Guide for Comparing Home
Prices Across the Nation by Coldwell Banker Realtors,
the
by a group from
Analysis of Salary Trends,
1988, by the American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO (pp. 157-230).
The materials supplied by the
__________
Union Exhibit 1 1987
Labor Agreement
2 Request
to PERC for Mediation Assistance,
3 Letter
Schurke to Allen and Orr, dated
2 pages
4 Employer
Submission to Panel Chairman,
2 pages
5 Union
Wage Proposal for 1988
6 Union-Proposed
Comparable Districts to
7 Rank
of Fire Districts by Population
8 Rank
of Fire Districts by Salary of "Top"
Firefighters, 1984, 1986 and 1987
9 Table
of Monthly Salaries for Various Classifications
by Years for Firefighter
Classifications
10 Top
Firefighter Wages for 1987 for Comparable
Districts
11 Top
Firefighter Wages for 1988 for Comparable
Districts
11A Revised
Union Exhibit 11, with Average Salary
Computed
12 Table
of Selected Duties of Firefighters by
Comparable Districts
13 Map
of
Districts
14 Chart
of Trends in Budget, Wages, Runs, and
Manpower,
15 1987
Survey of Fully-Paid Departments, by Total
Budget and Wages &
Benefits
16 Resume
of Dr. Wolfgang W. Franz
17 Report
of Dr. Franz, "An Appraisal of Comparative
Purchasing Powers of the
Salaries of Top
Firefighters in the
District Relative to
Comparable Fire Districts,
18 1988
Agreements between Firefighters and their
Employers for Eight Selected
Districts*
_____
* Although included in Union Exhibit 18,
were supplied by the District.
__________
In addition to the above, included as Joint Exhibit 1, was a
copy of
RCW 41.56.450 Uniformed Personnel - Interest
Arbitration Panel - Basis for
Determination. Joint Ehixibt 2 was a section of Substitute House Bill
No. 498, covering RCW 41.56.460, as amended. Included in materials supplied
by the parties was a copy of
the Impasse Resolution Rules, Chapter 391-55,
WAC.
The transcript of the proceedings on
volumes, the first covering
the morning session, and the second, the record
for the afternoon. These two volumes were 147 and 187 pages in
length,
respectively.
Following questions by the chairman if the parties had
additional
witnesses or documents to
present, and hearing a "no" response from both
Union and District
representatives, the chairman closed the hearing for
receipt of further evidence**
(Tr. 141:1-10). Both parties were
afforded
the opportunity to make
closing oral arguments and/or written post-hearing
briefs. Mr. Ryan spoke for the
Mr. Fox declined to make an
oral closing statement (Tr. 186:19-22).
Although
written briefs were originally
due on September 27, for good cause and at the
request of the District, the
due date was extended by the chairman until
telephone messages). The arbitration panel members conferred in a
one hour
and fifteen minute conference
call on October 10. In these discussions
it
became evident that certain
hand-written sheets added to the agreements in
Union Exhibit 18 required
explanation. By notice to the parties
via each's
panel member, confirmed by
letter from the chairman to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Fox,
dated
order for the hand-written
sheets to be explained. Subsequent
communications
from both
and they have been by the
chairman.
_____
** Agreements for 1988 from
August 30. Hence those were supplied to the chairman
following August 30,
along with current agreements
from
and
cities were used in Dr. Ott's report and testimony, and the chairman
requested that agreements from
those locations be a part of the record.
All were delivered prior to
the due dates for briefs.
_____
Post-hearing briefs were filed in a timely manner by both
parties and
reached the panel chairman on
or about
rebuttal brief, dated
at the hearing on August 30
(Tr. 160). The District raised no
objection.
The
closed on
to Mr. Ryan and Mr. Fox on
The arbitration panel conferred again on
call of some 30 minutes in
length. Dr. Young and Mr. Allison had
access to
all information then available
to the chairman. Each sent a letter in
support
of the points each had raised
and discussed with the chairman. These
arrived
on October 26 from Mr. Allison
and on October 27 from Dr. Young.
Having examined the above record of testimony and other
evidence, the
arguments of the parties on
that evidence in both oral statements and written
briefs, and through the
discussions with the
the arbitration panel, the
chairman reached the following opinion and award
concerning the issue of wages
in 1988 for the parties herein involved.
CONCLUSION, DECISION AND
AWARD
The neutral chairman concluded, decided and awards that a two
percent
increase in wages for 1988 for
all calssifications set forth in Appendix A -
Wage Schedule of the Agreement
shall be made, effective
considerations and reasons
which led to this conclusion, decision and award
are set forth, as follows.
STANDARDS FOR DECISIONS AND
OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following standards or
guidelines shall
be considered by an
arbitration panel in making its determination on issues
in dispute. It states:
. . . 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 constitutionaland statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulation
of the parties;
(c) . . .
(ii) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030
(6) (b)
(firefighters), 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
However, when an adequate number of
comparable employers
exists within the state of
employers shall not be considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and
services,
commonly known as the cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the foregoing circumstances during
the pendency of 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 (Jt. Ex. 1 and
2).*
_____
*As the code reviser's note indicates on Joint Exhibit 1, a
portion of
Chapter 521 (Engrossed
Substitute House Bill No. 498, Joint Exhibit 2),
which was passed by the
Legislature during the 1987 legislative session and
which made certain changes in
RCW 41.56.460, was partially vetoed by the
Governor. However, Section 2 of that bill, which made
certain changes,
with respect to how
comparables are to be selected in cases involving
firefighters, was not vetoed
and appears as 41.56.460 (c) (ii).
_____
The legislative purpose which the chairman and panel are
directed to
be mindful of in applying the standards and
guidelines in reaching his
(their) decision is set forth
in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and prupose of this
. . . act is to recognize there
exists a public policy in the state of
by uniformed personnel as a means of settling their labor
disputes;
that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of
the state
of
public service there should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling disputes.
Two further statutory provisions are noted. First, the interest
arbitration panel is a state
agency in the performance of its duties under
Chapter 41.56 RCW. Although selected by the parties, it is
guided by the
statutes and the
the parties under their
collective bargaining agreement (RCW 41.56.452).
Furthermore, under the
procedures for the panel as set forth in RCW 41.56.450,
it provides, in part:
The rules of evidence prevailing in judicial proceedings
may be
considered, but are not binding, and any oral testimony
or
documentary evidence or other data deemed relevant by the
chairman of the arbitration panel may be received in
evidence.
. . . The arbitration panel has the power . . . to
require the
production of such books, papers, contracts, agreements,
and
documents as may be deemed by the panel to be material to
a joint
determination of the issues in dispute. . . . Within
thirty days
following the conclusion of the hearing, the neutral
chairman
shall make written findings of fact and a written
determination
of the issues in dispute, based on the evidence
presented. . . .
That determination shall be final and binding upon both
parties,
subject to review by the superior court upon application
of either
party solely upon the question whether the decision of
the panel
was arbitrary and capricious.
COMPARABLES TO SPOKANE COUNTY
FIRE DISTRICT
The District proposed seven fire districts or departments as
ones
comparable to
(Er.
Ex. p. 9; Tr. 45:20-21). These seven
were selected on the basis that
estimated population and
manpower in those departments were no less than
50 percent nor more than 150
percent of both population and manpower in
Clark County
District #5
Pierce County Fire District #2
_____
* "
Fire Protection District
#1, the employer in this case.
_____
During negotiations, the District had used Snohomish County
District #1
(Un. Ex. 6). The District dropped Snohomish at the
arbitration because in
48 personnel was less than 50
percent of the number employed in
County (Tr. 45:12-16).
Although no major issue arose between the parties, the chairman
and
other panel members have
relied upon the above seven districts plus
Snohomish.* Since the effective date of any change in
wages shall be
January 1, 1988, changes in
manpower which affected the comparable group
since then have been
overlooked. In addition, the ratio of
manpower at 97 to Snohoinish at 48 personnel is less than 50 percent by only
one person in
nearness to the 50 percent
criteria, the use of Snohomish was justifiable.
The
_____
* For each District, the above names have abbreviated to the
location
for easy reference. Thus,
#39, etc., is used.
_____
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Proposals
With respect to the Wage Schedule in Appendix A of the
Agreement, the
District proposed no increase
in salaries. The
percent increase in wages. These proposals are set forth below.
__________
APPENDIX
A
WAGE SCHEDULE
The following wage schedule is
for the year 1988.
RANK WAGE
PROPOSED
District(a) Union(b)
1st Year Firefighter 1875 1993
2nd Year Firefighter 2089 2221
Top Firefighter 2334 2481
Driver (Equipment Operator) 2517 2676
Paramedic Trainee*(c) 2462 2617
Alarm Operator 2574 2736
Probationary Inspector 2617 2782
Paramedic 2691 2861
Lieutenant 2806 2983
Inspector 2849 3028
Lieutenant of Paramedics 2806 2983
Inspector II 3130 3327
Sr. Lieutenant of Paramedics 3043 3385
Captain 3278 3485
Mechanic 3697 3930
_____
a
dated
b
c The paragraph at the bottom of the Wage Schedule pertains to
this classification and is not reproduced from the Agreement
(Un. Ex. 1, p. 17)
___________
B. Union Contentions
for Proposal
The
justified by and supported by
three factors. First was a two percent
increase based on
productivity. Second, the cost of
living, as represented
by the
last year. Third, within the comparable districts, the
wages of
County firefighters lag
"substantially behind their fellow firefighters" in
other districts (Tr.
19:3-20:25). In brief, the
that they were requesting
"a cost of living increase of 4.3%, a productivity
increase of 2%, and an equity
adjustment of 15%" at the beginning of
mediation efforts (U.B. p.
1:22-24).* Although substantial attention was
focused on the relevancy, or
lack thereof, of the District's position and
contentions, regarding wage
levels in the comparable districts and
County, the
salary adjustment was focused
on other than a 6.3% increase in wages, supported
by the annual increase in the
consumer price index and the 2% increase in
wages as a result of increased
productivity (U.B. 7:4-7; U.L. p. 1;
Tr. 33:8-17).*
_____
* "U.B." refers to
and rebuttal, dated
_____
The
Table 1 in support of the 2%
adjustment in wages because of increased
productivity (Un. Ex.
14). Noted specifically was an increase
of 88 percent
in the number of runs but only
a rise of 72.8 percent in wages, and 12.3
percent increase in manpower.*
The discrepancy between increase in runs
and the rise in wages
justified the requested two percent wage increase for
increased productivity in 1988
over 1987, according to the
8:1; U.L. p. 1; Tr. 83-87,
91:5-92:24; Tr. II 175:4-176:8).
_____
* Budget data were presented as well, both in Union Exhibits 14 and
15,
to show changes over time, and
the ratio of wages and benefits to total
budget.
__________
TABLE 1
Wage Escalation, Runs and
Manpower,
Monthly
Year Salary(a) Runs(a) Mannpower(a) Runs Per Man(b)
1979 1356 2233 73 30.6
1980 1532 2458 70 35.1
1981 1685 2376 74 32.1
1982 1803 2785 82 33.9
1983 1874 2862 81 35.3
1984 2065 3328 84 39.6
1985 2168 3876 84 46.1
1986 2266 3885 84 46.3
1987 2344 4205 82 51.3
Percent 72.8 88.0 12.3 67.6(c)
Increase
_____
(a)Data from Union Exhibit 14,
p. 2.
(b)Computed.
(c)See footnote, p. 23.
__________
The
for Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
between July 1987 and July 1988, as reported
by Dr. Franz (Tr.
129:16-131:12). This increase in the
CPI-U was 4.1
percent. Data developed by the chairman from the
published materials of
the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, which produces the CPI, indicated an
increase of 4.4 percent in the
CPI-U, between December 1986 and December
1987. The change from January 1987 to January 1988 was only 4.1
percent.
Other data on cost of living
indices are found in Table 2.**
_____
** Aside from the testimony of Dr. Franz, the chairman could find no
other
Table 2 included data received
from Dr. Young and as provided by the
District at page 22A of its
exhibit.
__________
TABLE 2
Change in the Monthly Salary
of the Firefighter Classification in
Changes in the Consumer Price Indeces for Seattle-Everett Area and for the United States,
1979-88.
Year or Monthly Salary(a) CPI-W CPI-W CPI-U
Other Period Amount Jan.
- Jan. Index % Change(b) Index % Change(b) Index % Change(b)
1979 1356 - 72.59(c)
1980 1532 13.0 84.20
16.0 - - - 13.5
1981 1685 10.0 93.19
10.8 - - - 10.4
1982 1803 7.0 99.15 6.4 - - - 6.1
1983 1174 4.0 98.95
-0.2 - - -
3.2
1984 2065 10.2 102.1(d) 3.2 - - - 4.3
1985 2168 5.0 104.2 2.1 - - - 3.6
1986 2266 4.5 105.0
0.8 - - - 1.9
1987 2344 3.5 107.4
2.3 - - - 3.6
1988 - - - - - - - -
Compounded 8 57.2 41.4 46.60
Year total
Avg. per year 7.15 5.17 5.82
Simple 8 72.86 48.00
Year Total
Avg. per year 9.11 6.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd half 1986 105.0 ¬
2nd half 1987 108.4
3.23(f)
1st half 1987 106.4 ¬
1st half 1988 109.9
3.28(f)
Dec. 86 - - 109.3 ¬ 110.5 ¬
Dec. 87 - - 114.2 4.48 115.4 4.43
Jan. 87 - - 110.0 ¬ 111.2 ¬
Jan. 88 - - 114.5 4.09 115.7 4.04
Aug. 87 - - 113.3 ¬ 114.4 ¬
Aug. 88 - - 117.7 3.88 119.0 4.02
_____
(a) Salary of top firefighter classification, from Union Exhibit 14
(b) Data provided by Dr. Young in his letter, dated
(c) Data obtained by computing the index from annual percent changes as
provided by Dr. Young.
(d) Data obtained by computing the index from annual percent changes as
provided by Dr. Young
and from Employer Exhibit p. 00224
(e) The CPI base became 100 on the basis of new data collected in
1982-84.
(f) The CPI-U for Seattle-Everett showed an increase of 3.4 and 3.41
respectively.
__________
C. District
Contentions for Proposal
The District contended that its proposal of no increase was
justified
on the basis of comparisons in
wages paid to like personnel doing comparable
tasks, given the difference in
the level of prices employees must pay in the
districts compared (E.B. p.
14). In the first instance, the District argued
that the best approach
"is to take a position that is comparable in all fire
departments, compare the wages
for that position and then have the wages for
all other positions
established in accordance with their proportions"
(E.B. pp. 11-12). "What must be compared is wages for
actual positions with
like job duties," the
District argued, rather than rely solely upon job
title, as the
that wages, adjusted for
comparable levels of service (longevity), should
be included (E.B. pp. 12-14).
On the above bases, the District contended that the appropriate
personnel to compare were
those in each District who, among other duties,
drove and operated
apparatuses. In this case, the highest wage for fire-
fighters in other districts
should be compared to those in
who are
firefighters/drivers/equipment operators. In addition, since several
studies indicated a cost of
living differential between
of the comparable districts
were located,and
adjusted accordingly (E.B. p.
17). On this basis, when monthly wages are
adjusted for the cost of
living differences, in accordance with the
methodology of Dr. Franz, the
the average of those districts
in the Seattle-Tacoma area, and no wage
increase is justified for 1988
(E.B. p. 18).
As shown in Union Exhibit 17, page 2, given adjustments on the
basis
of cost of living differences
among the comparators using
23 percent, according to Dr.
Franz.* However, the District was critical of
Dr. Franz 's analysis on two
points: it compares firefighters by
title only
rather than by actual job
duties; and, second, ". . . Dr. Franz inflates the
wages paid in other fire
departments by . . . using an adjustment for hours
worked weekly in
comparators" (E.B. p.
18). Work hours have been brought into
the arbitration,
these were excluded by
stipulation, the District argued.
According
to the District here, only
wages are a subject before the panel.
Further,
if hours are introduced, other
pay issues will need to be included, which
places the panel far beyond
the issue at hand, the District stated (E.B. p.22).
_____
* At the same time, Dr. Franz testified that the
(price indices) were unreliable and changes in them over time
should not
be used to support wage increases (Tr. 127:1-129:15).
_____
Further, according to the report of Dr. Ott,
using the
adjust wages across the state
by use of a regression of cost of living
indices on levels of wages of
firefighters, for all ten
District wages are 4.95% above
the average for other comparators," the
District argued (E.B. p.
19). In any event, the District
contended that
Dr. Franz stated in testimony
that "it's quite plain that the cost of living
in this area is quite a bit
lower than it is in the
Table 2; and Er. Ex. p. 22A). Thus, according to the District, the issue
is
how to measure the difference
and how to apply the difference to the issue
of "wages." The District states, "the logical
conclusion is that first you
must see what the cost of
living differences are by using
wages using the calculated
differential, and determine the appropriate
adjustment to establish parity
between different areas" (E. B. p. 24).
Although the District believes its employees are productive,
the failure
to show comparable data in
other districts makes data on number of runs, etc.,
meaningless. Nor, according to the District, did the
more engine companies were
added to the department. Finally,
"being good,
productive firefighters is not
something new in the District. It is no
change. It is no basis for an increase in
wages," according to the District.
Wage increases have never been
based on productivity, and the Union argument
should be disregarded (E.B.
pp. 24-25).
D.
The
to the fictitious "model
firefighter" in the computation of wages.
So far
as the chairman could find in
its brief, the
was based alone on its concern
over willingness of the chairman to accept
the testimony of Mr. Bold and
data of the District regarding use of length
of service. In closing arguments, the
not at issue, and should be
set aside by the panel (Tr. II 183:4-6).
Relative
to the "model
firefighter," the
identify a single fire
department in the state of
a "model
firefighter" (U.B. 9:5-7). Further,
in all of the history of
bargaining, the District
relied upon ''top firefighter,'' and never on a
fictitious "model
firefighter" (U.B. 9:7-12; Tr. II 177:11-178:15). This
"model" was for the
sole purpose to support the analysis of Dr. Ott
(Tr. II 176:18-20).
In its rebuttal letter, the
studies of Dr. Ott and Dr. Franz may not be "worth the effort to analyze
them (U.L. p. 2). Here the
Michael Beck in which he chose
to disregard consideration of differences in
cost of living among
comparators as contrary to the guidelines of RCW 41.56
cited above. Furthermore, Mr. Beck concluded that the
evidence presented to
him did not provide a reliable
basis upon which to make inter-city cost
comparisons* (U.L. p.
2-3). The
position, as evidenced by the
testimony of Dr. Franz, is that the report is
not applicable but, if this
employer insists that this panel consider the
report, then it must be
adjusted so that it is relevant and meaningful.
. . . In this case,
in error for ever attempting
to compare cost of living differences.
That
was not, and is not, intended
and . . . should not be considered," the
stated. Also, after the testimony of statistician Ott, this employer can
not make a serious contention
that "a 'reliable' basis has been provided
upon which to make inter-city
cost of living comparisons," according to the
_____
* City of
Fire Chiefs Association,
IAFF Local 2898 (PERC Case Nos. 6576-I-86-150,
and 6590-I-86-151), Michael H.
Beck, Chairman,
_____
In response to Employer contentions on hours, the
never considered hours an
issue. No change has been requested by
Local 876.
Dr. Franz made the hours
adjustment only to make the
applicable and
meaningful," the
that the
never accepted or agreed
to," the
the
hearing brief "in an
attempt to avoid the effect of their obvious faux pas
by raising, at the eleventh
hour, issues that had not been certified for
mediation or interest
arbitration . . ." (U.L. p. 3).
Also the
dependent on court decisions was
different than wages under RCW 41.56.
None of the cases cited by the
District involved a collective bargaining
agreement, and, thus,
according to the
found in Appendix A; this does
not include longevity or even refer to
longevity (U.L. p. 4). These subjects, wages and longevity, are
separate
subjects and in separate
provisions of the Agreement.
Further, with regard to the issue of "model
firefighter," the
pointed out that not one of
the 1987 agreements of the comparators contains
any "reference to the
'model firefighter' nor is there any reference to the
number of years on the job,
nor is there (any) reference to the fact that
the position utilized for
negotiating base wage was driver or equipment
operator. In all, some form of top firefighter, Class A
firefighter, Step
One firefighter or senior
firefighter is utilized." The
consideration should be given
to the fictitious and most recently created
position of "model
firefighter" (U.L. p. 5).
Finally, the
regarding the "model
firefighter" violated WAC 391-55-220, and specifically
further consideration of it
would do so (U.L. p. 6). "It is the
position
of Local 876 that
consideration of the use of model firefighter is . . . not
warranted . . . because . . .
one cannot give careful consideration to a
fictitious position created
for the benefit of a fictitious person, especially
where that position and person
do not exist, not only in this particular fire
department, but do not exist
in any other fire department. . . . The District
failed to name one single fire
department or fire district that could supply
a person who can be described
along the definitions of 'model firefighter.'"
Consequently, the District is
hard-pressed to convince this arbitrator or
any forum that such a position
can be compared, as required by RCW 41.56
et seq. On the other hand, whether or not you call an
individual a top
firefighter, senior
firefighter, or Class A firefighter, there can be no
question that such employees
exist, . . . that the classification exists and
can
be compared" (U.L. p. 6). Also, the
very purpose of providing contracts
for comparable districts was
because they "have just such positions and can
provide comparables," the
E. Other
Considerations
Both
tangentially related to the
above arguments. These are introduced
below,
as appropriate and
necessary. Also, the chairman obtained a
full copy
of the Beck Opinion and
Award, cited above, as well as a decision by
Arbitration Panel Chairman
Carlton J. Snow, in
Association and City of
Seattle (PERC No. 6502-J-86-148),
The Chairman has at hand a
copy of Local 1805, IAFF, and Clark County District
No. 6
(PERC No. 6733-I-87-160), Kenneth M. McCaffree,
Arbitration Panel
Chairman,
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND
CONCLUSIONS ON PROPOSALS,
SUPPORTING DATA AND
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Interpretation and
Application of Guidelines
The provisions of the statute regarding the basis for
arbitrator
decision-making in interest
arbitration are less than precise. In
RCW
41.56.460, the terms used are
"standards and guidelines," which arbitrators
"shall take into
consideration" in the arbitration process. Further this
section of the statutes
directs that the arbitrators "shall be mindful of
the legislature purpose"
which in RCW 41.56.430 affirms that the arbitration
processes "exist (as) an effective and adequate
alternative means of
settling disputes" to
"strikes by uniformed personnel as a means of settling
their labor disputes."
Finally, the general purpose of the act stated in
RCW 41.56.014 is "to promote
the continued improvement of the relationship
between public employers and
their employees . . ." (underlinings added).
Without belaboring the points raised by the underlining above,
the
statutory provisions are
called standards or guidelines. As such,
they
allow substantial discretion
by arbitrators in applying them. No
precise
instruction on what shall be
done arises out of this language. In
addition,
the generality of the
guidelines are reinforced further by the expression
"shall take into
consideration." This phrase, as well as the direction to
be "mindful of the
legislative purpose," make mandatory that arbitrators are
cognizant of the statutorily
listed factors, but these provisions require
only that the guidelines be
"considered," or that arbitrators be mindful
(take into account) the
specific and general purposes of the arbitration
process and the Act. These provisions are not to be blindly
followed, or
given any specific relative
weight among the listed factors and determinants
in arriving at a judgment or
an appropriate decision vis-a-vis a given issue
or set of issues in dispute
between an employer and its union employees.
Further, arbitrators are made mindful and required to give
consideration
to all factors, in addition to
those listed in RCW 41.56.460 (a) through
(e), "which are normally
and traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wages, hours,
and conditions of employment." In
the
"ideal world" this
directs arbitrators to examine those factors and to seek
that solution that most likely
would have resulted had the parties been free
to bargain in an unregulated
labor market environment. Obviously,
such a
goal is difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve in any exact sense in
public employment. But such a goal does point to the fundamental issues
between the parties and the
factors they rely upon in determining the
relative positions of each in
the hiring of workers by the employer and in
the acceptance of jobs under
conditions acceptable to both.
Those factors
identified in and referred to
in RCW 41.56.460 are those considered and
evaluated by unions and
employers in arriving at mutually acceptable terms
of employment when both are
free to act in their own economic interest.
At the same time, both the general purposes of this legislation
at
RCW 41.56.014 and RCW
41.56.430 and especially paragraph (f) of RCW 41.56.460
make clear that reasoned
judgment must be exercised in accordance with
generally accepted practices
in the field of union-employer relations.
Since
public policy is against
strikes of uniformed personnel in public employment,
uninterrupted and dedicated
services of firefighters and others must be
properly recognized and the
arbitration process, among others, used as an
"effective and adequate
alternative means of settling disputes." Arbitrators
may not be "arbitrary and
capricious" in their decision making.*
_____
* The parties are referred to Arbitrator Snow's discussion of the
history, nature, and factors
involved in interest arbitration, as these
may apply under
_____
The issue of wages and the arguments of the parties on the
factors and
data related thereto are
discussed below.
B. Employer Authority
and Stipulations
No issue arose over the District's statutory authority in this
case.
Relevant to wages, and as set
forth above, the parties stipulated that any
wage increase would be
effective on
C. Productivity**
The
productivity, specifically on
the basis of the greater rate of growth in
emergency runs than wages or
manpower since 1979. The District denied
this
basis, as indeterminable, even
though it considered its employees both
dedicated and productive.
_____
** Nowhere in RCW 41.56.460 does the word "productivity"
occur. But both
unions and employers recognize
this factor as one, in the ordinary course
of events, that has been
"normally and traditionally" considered in the
bargaining process by unions
and employers.
_____
The chairman rejected the argument of the
found no basis in
percent increase in
wages. The Union argument was defective
both on the
concept of productivity and on
its specifications of the District's product.
The data are shown in Table 1.
The
"runs" as
productivity, when in fact it is output alone.
Rather productivity
is measured by the ratio of
output to input. This is proper, since
wages
are paid on the basis of
individual units of manpower (an employee), not on
the basis of aggregate or
total manpower, or total output. Thus,
even if
"runs" are considered a proper measure of output
(which they are not),
productivity is the ratio of
runs to manpower, or mathematically, the
result of dividing total runs
in each year by the number of employees for
that year. The results of these computations appear in
the right hand column
of Table 1. Although per employee productivity has
increased since 1979,
it has done so at less than
the increase in wages, 68% for productivity,
73% for wages.*
_____
* Since the District has added some 15 more employees in 1988, the
productivity increase per
employee, as measured by runs, would fall in 1988,
unless the number of runs rose
to over 4800, an increase greater than an
annual increase in runs, as
shown by the
would be unlikely.
Also, Dr. Young pointed out that the runs per man should be
compared to
"real" wages, not
money wages. In this event, the growth in real wages since
1979 would be less than the
percent change in runs per man. However,
time
series data are subject to the
period selected and should be used with caution,
even if reliable measures of
output and input are used. A comparison
of the
1983-87 period between
"real" wages and runs per man give a much different
result than for 1979-87. Were the 15 new employees in 1988 included,
the
results become even more
cloudy, due essentially to poor specifications of
output and input.
_____
In addition to the above basis for rejection of the
proposal, substantial defects
and imperfections appear in the
output (runs) and input
(manpower) measures. As for output, all
runs were
assumed the same. Manifestly, this was not the case. Some were false alarms,
some trashcan fires, other
major catastrophes. Summing these
diverse
"products"
constituted an agglomeration of unlikes that made the
"runs"
data rather meaningless.
Further, there is the issue of exactly what is the "product"
of a
fire district. Certainly, the residents of the district do
not regard a
large number of fires,
accidents, and other emergencies as products of the
fire department. Consumers seek services with positive
results. Mr. Allison
suggested looking at loss per
$1000 of property value, and the more this
goes down, the more productive
the fire department (A.L. p. 3).*
Alternatively,
attempts have been made to use
anticipated services of inputs as a measure of
output. But this too raises an issue in determining
what are the services of
the firefighter. Clearly, one is simple availability, and many
consumers
are willing to pay to have
someone stand by "in case." But when the "in
case" arises, employees
only change duties from stand-by availability
to
activities in responding to
and handling the emergency. These
changes in
duties of the firefighter
(input) represent no change in output, as measured
by the total of 24 hours of
service (duties) each day.
_____
* Letter, Allison to McCaffree, dated
Allison letter. In one of the arbitration discussions, Dr.
Young suggested
comparing population served
per man among the districts, as a comparative
measure for productivity. Per data in Union Exhibit 7, not reproduced
here,
Spokane Valley groups with
Bellevue, Pierce Co. #2, and Clark with about 850
persons served per man in
1988. Kent, Bellingham and Yakima, and
especially
the latter two are low at
about 500 persons per man.
Snohomish were at 963 and 1145
per man, respectively. The average
served in
the 8 comparators was 805
compared to 876 in
standing alone suggest
lack of any positive
correlation between population served per man and money
wages raises doubts on the
usefulness of this measure.
_____
Admittedly, no very good measure of output exists, at least as
suggested
by anyone in these
proceedings. This fact underlines
further the
justification for disregarding
the two percent increase in wages requested
by the
_____
* As set out by the
represented employees on duty
at one time, or the total number on the
payroll during the year. Additionally, the actual hours on duty may be
more relevant than number of
employees. No such data are in the
record
in this case.
In addition, productivity measurements in a single firm are
exceedingly
difficult to make under the
best of circumstances. Usually an industry
develops new techniques,
processes, or organizations which lead to
increased output. Manpower is required, and wages are bid
up. Workers in
other industries leave for the
higher paying jobs. Thus the industry
where
little or no technological change
and productivity increases occurred is
faced with a dwindling labor
supply, which results in higher wages.
Although this process is a
long-term one, eventually all workers share in
the increased productivity,
which accounts in part for the data issued by
the
Such a process seldom can be
observed to occur with regard to a single firm,
such as
augment their wages and salary. Here no such argument was made to justify
the requested wage increase of
two percent for productivity changes.
Also, recent data from government sources suggest no
"real" wage increase
for wage earners in recent
years even though per capita real income did rise.
This appears to be a
consequence of real economic growth from increased
employment and labor force
participation of women, resulting in a rise in
"real" family
income, but not "real" wages per employee.
_____
D. Average Consumer
Prices
The statute refers expressly to average consumer prices for
goods
and services at RCW 41.56.460
(d). The statute defines this as the
"cost
of living," but states
nothing about how such factors shall be used by the
panel or what index of average
consumer prices should be used. However,
average consumer prices may be
utilized by different indices in one of
two
ways: (1) to determine changes in average
consumer prices, related to a
specific and defined basket of
goods and services in a particular place or
area over a specified
period of time; (2) to determine differences in
average
consumer prices, related to a
specific and defined basket of goods and
services, between two
designated places or areas at a specific time. These
two concepts are similar to a
motion picture showing change in the first
case, while the second is more
like a single still photo. As in the financial
world, a comparison of the net
worth on a balance sheet of Company A on
January 1 in one year with the
company 's net worth on January 1 of the next
year shows the change
in net worth. On the other hand, a
comparison of the
net worth of Company A with
the net worth of Company B on January 1 of year
one shows the difference
in the worth of the two companies at a specific
time. This latter comparison could be repeated, if
desired, on January 1 of
year two.
The significance of the first way average consumer prices may
be used
arises out of the concept of
inflation. Inflation refers to the rise
in
average consumer prices over a
period of time. As used in collective
bargaining, and argued by the
rate as the upward change in
average consumer prices. If such does
not
occur, then the wage earner
loses purchasing power, and, in economic terms,
is confronted with a fall in
"real wages."
Average consumer prices are measured by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics
of the
price of gasoline, cars,
houses, suits, shoes, and so forth differ markedly,
BLS devised a scheme by which
these various prices can be weighted to arrive
at an index of average
consumer prices. The weights come from
studies made
on how typical families spend
their income. Thus, BLS weights prices
of
food and beverages at 18.813 of
its index, housing, including shelter, fuel and
utilities and household
furnishings at 43.911 of its index, and so on, which
represent the proportion of
income that the typical urban family consumer or
household spends on those
products and services.* Currently, the BLS uses
prices in the 1982-84 period,
weighted by the appropriate consumption
pattern, as a base, and now
measures changes in average consumer prices
against that base. BLS has two basic indices, one for "all
urban consumers"
and one for "urban wage
earners and clerical workers," referred to as the
Consumer Price Index - urban
consumer (CPI-U) and as the Consumer Price
Index - wage earners and clerical workers
(CPI-W). These indices get
published for the United
States as a whole, and for certain large
metropolitan areas as
Seattle-Everett, Tacoma, among many others.**
_____
* These sample weights were taken from "The Consumer Price
Index
Revision - 1978," U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
1978 (Revised).
** Although the index is referred to as the Seattle-Everett index,
technicians in the regional
BLS office in San Francisco told the chairman
that prices are collected from
the counties of Snohomish (Everett), King
(Seattle), and Pierce
(Tacoma).
_____
The Union argued for a 4.3 percent increase in wages to meet
the rise
in average consumer prices of
1988 over 1987, or between July 1987 and
July 1988, the latter being
the latest available at the time of the August 30
hearing. Table 2 sets forth the average consumer
prices, as measured by the
Consumer Price Index for
various periods of time and both for the United
States and for the
Seattle-Everett-Tacoma area. Per the
testimony of
Dr. Franz, the Union relied on
the CPI-U for the U.S., which shows a 4.43
percent increase in average
prices in December 1987 over December 1986.
The
annual rate of change
moderated by mid-year to four percent.
The Union
offered no further evidence or
argument on changes in average prices to
support the request of 4.3
percent increase in wages in 1988.
The Union argument has some merit. An increase in prices reduced the
purchasing power of consumers
(and firefighters), and some upward adjustment
in wages on that basis would
be justified. The issue concerned
whether the
full 4.3 percent would be
appropriate.
Dr. Franz justified his use of the U.S. CPI-U on the grounds
that it
was "the most common one
used" (Tr. 131:9 -12). He did not
explain what he
meant by "common
use." Clearly, it showed the
largest increase in average
consumer prices than others in
this case. But reasons exist to question
the useof
the U.S. CPI-U for wage adjustments in Spokane.
In the first place, the parties and the panel selected a group
of
"comparable" fire
districts, where each has an agreement with a local in
the IAFF. In every one of the five of eight agreements
which rely upon a
wage-price index relationship,
a CPI-W (wage earner and clerical worker) was
used, not the index for urban
consumers. Furthermore, the chairman
asked
for copies of eight additional
agreements for districts used by Dr. Ott in
his analysis and/or referred
to by the District. In the only two of
those
to rely upon CPI changes in
setting future wage levels, both used a CPI-W.*
Thus, whatever common useage Dr. Franz referred to, no basis existed on the
evidence in this proceeding to
use other than a wage earner and clerical
worker index for firefighters.
_____
*Renton and King County Fire District #11.
_____
Second, the CPI-W for Seattle-Everett-Tacoma (Seattle) is a
preferred
index to the U.S. CPI-W for
use in Spokane County. Aside from the
fact that
four of the five comparator
districts and the two other districts noted above
use the Seattle CPI-W (all of
which are in the Seattle area), the general
similarity of consumption
patterns and economic changes in Washington State
relative to the wide
differences reflected across the nation allow greater
reliance upon the
applicability of the Seattle CPI-W than
the U.S. CPI-W
to Spokane County. In addition, the Seattle CPI-W data in Table
2 refer to
six months accumulated data,
rather than data based on a single month at
an annualized rate. These six-month averages compare reasonably
to the 1987
datum for the CPI-U at 3.6
percent change, and a somewhat greater increase
than the 1987 annual rate for
Seattle CPI-W, 3.23 compared to a 2.3 percent
annual change.
A further consideration represented the average change in
monthly
salaries among the comparator
districts in 1988 over 1987, the majority of
whom made adjustments solely
in accordance with changes in average consumer
prices. The average increase in monthly wages,
exclusive of Clark County,
was 3.5 percent, per data in
the three right-hand columns in Table 3.
No
one could produce an index of
average consumer prices applicable to the
Spokane, Washington, area
specifically and a reasonable judgment must be
cautious on what change to
effect in Spokane County, and, therefore, provide
a basis for a wage
adjustment. However, on the above
considerations, the
chairman concluded that a 4.3
percent wage increase was not justified by
the change (increase)
in the average consumer prices, commonly called the
cost of living. On the other hand, the lowest datum would
indicate a 3.2
or 3.3 percent increase, per
the data of the Seattle CPI-W. At the
same time,
the average percent change in
wages, among comparators, as generally based
on changes in the average
consumer prices, was 3.5 percent in 1988 over 1987.
Finally, the price indices
whose rates of change were in excess of 4 percent
at the start of the year
declined substantially and were moving below a 4 per-
cent change for the year.*
Thus, on balance, the chairman considered a wage
adjustment of 3.6 percent for
firefighters in Spokane County to be reasonable in
1988, if only this factor of
change in average consumer prices was involved.
_____
* Specifically, the U.S. CPI-W fell from an annual rate of change
in
December 1987 of 4.5 to less
than 3.9 percent in August 1988 (Table 2).
__________
TABLE 3
"Top" Firefighter
Salaries in Selected Districts, 1987 and 1988,
With Percent Increase Between
Two Years
Monthly
Salary
First Month Salary
on January 1 Salary Increase
88/87
District Paid (a) 1987(b) 1988(d) Percent
Bellevue 43 2630 2708 3.0
Bellingham 37 2405 2525 5.0
Clark Co. #5 37 2427 2787 15.0
Kent 37 2691 2765 2.75
Federal Way (KC#39) 37 2726 2807 3.0
Pierce Co. #2 49 2801 2871 2.5
Snohomixh
Co. #1 37 2683 2790 4.0
Yakima 43 2444(c) 2544 4.0
Manpower Weighted Not
Computed(g) 3.5(f)
Average(e)
Spokane County 25 2334 ------ ---.---
_____
a Taken from the agreements from each district as supplied by
parties.
b Union Exhibits 10 and lIA.
c Represents the salary on 1/1/87 rather than on 7/1/87. The latter
was $2519.
d Union Exhibit 11 and by calculation. Yakima was taken from the
1988 agreement.
e Weighted by manpower data in Union Exhibit 6.
f Excludes Clark Co. #5 as an unusual outlier, not representative
of
bargaining over 1988 salaries.
With Clark included, the average is
4.67.
g Since these salary data represent personnel at different stages
in
their careers, an average is meaningless. See Table 4 for
appropriate comparisons.
__________
E. Wage Comparisons
The District contended that no wage increase was justified,
even on
the basis of the above
analysis.* Rather an examination of the monthly
salaries of comparable
personnel and job classifications, adjusted for the
difference
in the average consumer prices among the comparator districts,
showed that the "real
wages of Spokane County firefighters were equal to or
exceeded those in the other
districts (D.B. pp. 18-19). Thus no
salary
adjustment was appropriate in
1988. The Union objected strenuously,
and
countered by a study by Dr.
Franz purporting to show that monthly salaries
adjusted for average hours
worked per week for top firefighters in Spokane,
after adjustment for
differences in average consumer prices, were 12 to 13
percent below those in the
comparator districts (Un. Ex. 17).
______
* Mr. Allison acknowledged an increase of at least 3.29 percent in
average consumer prices which
might justify a wage increase, but quickly
pointed out the data in Table
2. These show that the monthly salary of
the
top firefighter classification
rose 57 percent since 1979, where average
consumer prices were up about
47 percent (A.L. pp. 1-2). Allison
relied on
1983-1987 data; Dist. Ex. p.
224) and his actual percentage changes were
different.
_____
As indicated above in
the recitation of the central arguments of the
parties, several issues
emerged over what constituted proper wage comparison
among districts. These are (1) the legality of using
"cost of living"
indices to explain differences
in wages; (2) the reasonableness and
reliability of using available
"cost of living" indices to explain
differences in wages; (3) top
firefighter vs. firefighter who drives an
apparatus; (4) length of
service (longevity) vs. salary schedules and top
firefighters; (5) monthly
salary vs. hourly wage; and (6) what the
comparisons of wages among the
comparator districts show, if anything.
1. Legality of Using
Cost of Living Indices to
Explain Differences in Wages Between Areas
The Union raised this issue of the legality of using cost of
living indices to explain wage
differences most directly in its rebuttal
letter, and based its argument
primarily on a decision by Arbitrator Beck,
noted above. Since the main
burden of this contention fell in the rebuttal
letter, the District made no
response directly.
This contention of the Union was set aside. As noted above, the
statute refers expressly to
average consumer prices for goods and services
at RCW 41.56.460 (d). This citation says nothing about what index
shall be
used, nor does it state that
an index of average consumer prices may be
applied only to the group of
employees who seek an adjustment in wages.
This statutory provision makes
no statement on how indices of average consumer
prices must be used, although
the implication is clear that its use refers to
the determination of
purchasing power, and thus "real wages" of employees.
If the Union was not cognizant
of "real wages," no basis existed for its
contention regarding a
justified dollar wage increase in Spokane County wages
because of the rise in the
"cost of living" (average consumer prices) for
the United States
"typical" consumer.
Further, the reference to "comparison of the wages . .
." in RCW
41.56.460 (c) (ii) in no sense
precludes that such a comparison must be made
on the basis of "money
wages," rather than "real wages." The clear implication
of the need to account for
what happens to "the average consumer prices," as
set out in RCW 41.56.460 (d)
reinforces the legality of using "real wages"
for comparison under (c) (ii)
of the same statutory section.
Also, RCW 41.56.460
(f) directs the panel to examine "such other factors
. . . which are normally or
traditionally taken into consideration."
Manifestly
"real wages," and
comparison of "real wages" between and among locations and
bargaining units have been and
are a part of collective bargaining negotations.
The panel chairman has
participated in several arbitrations within the last
four or five years where
explicitly the issue of variations in purchasing
power and "real wages
" across a bargaining unit and among bargaining units
in different locations was a
part of negotiations. In fact, he was asked
to and did arbitrate the difference between the Alaska Public
Employees
Association and the State of
Alaska over salary differentials for the same
classifications in over 25
different locations, from Nome and Barrow in the
north, to Ketchikan and Juneau
in the south. Manifestly, the salary
differentials were based on differences
in the average consumer prices in
the various locations.* The comparison of "real wages" is
a commonplace practice,
"normally and traditionally taken into consideration
in the determination of wages.
. ."
_____
* Alaska Public Employees Association vs. State of Alaska
(Geographic
Wage Differentials), Kenneth
M. McCaffree, Arbitrator, October 20, 1986
(unpublished, but a public
document).
_____
The chairman has at hand the recent decision of Arbitrator
Carlton
Snow, Professor of Law, and
experienced arbitrator, in a parallel case to
the Beck decision cited by the
Union.** Professor Snow stated:
_____
** Arbitrator Snow's decision involved police rather than
firefighters,
but is based on the same
statutory section, as used herein, and on
essentially the same data
provided Arbitrator Beck.
_____
It is reasonable to conclude that, if dollars have
greater
purchasing power in one city than in another, this fact
ought to be taken into account in determining an
appropriate
wage. . . . The CPI and other inter-city ''cost of
living''
comparisons could have relevance and have been used in
determining the appropriate wage to be paid members of
the
bargaining unit (Snow, p. 46).
After examination of the Runzheimer Report and testimony of its
author,
Arbitrator Snow concluded:
Cost of living factors unquestionably are relevant . .
. and
the only substantial question is to what extent (p. 49).
He went on to examine the arguments
of the parties on this report and others,
including that of the American
Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association, of
the Associates for
International Research, Inc., as well as budget studies
of the BLS. Arbitrator Snow
stated clearly "that the 'fixed market basket'
approach was a traditional
method of gathering data and one of the few
available methods for making
inter-city 'cost of living' comparisons"
(Snow, p. 53). After further examination of these reports,
and others,
including one from Coldwell
Banker Residential Group, Arbitrator Snow
asserted:
While these data were of varying degrees of usefulness
and
reliability, they served as an indicator that costs of
living in comparative cities are higher than in Seattle
(p. 57; see also pp. 60-61).
Finally, the attention of the
parties is called to the discussion of the
guidelines and the statutory
mandate to the panel as set forth above, page 20.
2. Reasonable and
Reliable Cost of Living Indices
No question exists that cost of living data must be judged as
to
their reliability and
reasonableness. In the case of cost of
living indices,
specifically, economists and
statisticians, among others, point repeatedly to
the fact that use of a common
basket of goods and services in different areas
is defective, since people do
not buy the same items in the same proportions
in every area. Thus, how useful a particular index of prices
may be may well
depend upon how representative
those items are within each of several areas.
Further, the number of pricing
samples taken, or the time when taken, and
under what circumstances can
affect results. These factors influence
the
weight to be given a
particular observation or set of observations.
In the case at hand, the chairman does not intend to examine
the reports
of Dr. Ott
and Dr. Franz. Both can be, and have
been, critized by the parties
in brief, generally with
significant points. The chairman notes
here
specifically the finding that
Dr. Young made by reducing by two of the ten
observations of Dr. Ott. The coefficient
of determination dropped to .27
without statistical
significance in the coefficients (Y.L. pp. l-2).* At
the same time, the report of
Dr. Franz raised questions regarding use of
both the hours worked to
adjust monthly salaries and what constituted the
top firefighter salary.
_____
* "Y.L." is the Young letter to McCaffree,
dated October 26, 1988.
_____
Although both Dr. Ott and Dr. Franz
used data provided by their
respective clients, the
adjustment made of wages for cost of living
differences by the District at
page 19 of its brief was more straightforward.
But it depends also upon the
relevance of the monthly salary of ten-year
firefighters who drive the
apparatus.
p. 35
3. Top Firefighters
Versus Firefighters
Who Drive an Apparatus
The Union relied upon top firefighter wages for
comparison. The
data cited have been
reproduced in Table 4, and consists of those figures
for each comparator which lie
on the line in the middle of that table.**
The salary data were augmented
by what the Spokane County personnel in the
top firefighter classification
do compared to tasks or skills in the
comparator districts for
persons at the top step of the firefighter
classification. Examination of Union Exhibit 12 indicates
that only three
items are not generally done
by firefighters in other districts - rope
rescue, mechanic and alarm
operator.*** Noted here, however, by the
District
was the fact that personnel in
the top firefighter classification in Spokane
County are paid a premium
whenever an employee in the firefighter
classification serves either
as a mechanic, an alarm operator, or driver of
a fire apparatus (Un. Ex. 1, p. 18, Appendix B of the
Agreement). The average
monthly salary of the
"top" firefighters in the comparator districts was
16 percent higher than in
Spokane County, $2724 to $2334, on the basis of the
Union comparisons.
_____
** Data for Yakima were unavilable for the
completion of Union Exhibit 11A,
but the January 1, 1988, rate
has been inserted in Table 4.
*** Two other items with some such duties designated in other
districts
were fire investigator and
public CPR classes.
__________
Table 4
Monthly Salary of the
Firefighter Classification at Various Periods of
Service for Selected Fire
Districts, Washington State, January 1, 1988(a)
Firefighter Bellevue Bellingham Clark Kent Federal
Way Snohomish Yakima Spokane
Classification (King
Co. Pierce #1 County
Monthly Salary 7 - 6 mo. #39) #2 1987
At/On 5 steps steps 4 steps 4
steps 4 steps 5 steps 4 steps 5 steps 3
steps
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 month 2130 2115 1956 2074 2246 2045 2034 1911 1875
7 months 2234 2179 2044
13 months 2244 2593 2323 2386 2272 2514 2089
19 months 2394 2311 2141
25 months 2380 2685 2530 2597 2456 2654 2334
31 months 2551 2452 2271
27 months 2525 2787 2765 2807 2656 2790
43 months 2708 2544
49 months 2805 2871 2427
5 yr - 61
months 2823 2820 2832 2582
6 yr - 73
months 2841
7 yr - 85
months 2859
8 yr - 97
months 2545 2877 2474
10 yr - 121 months 2876 2857 2620
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[**Originally, a connected line ran underneath each underlined
value in the chart above**]
_____
(a) Above the line, all
salaries are set forth in a schedule in the agreements. Salaries below the line were
computed from other provisions
in the districts' 1988 agreements, except for the Kent district. Only length
of service has been considered
in reproducing these data. Data for
Spokane County are for 1987.
__________
The District claimed that the comparison should be made between
firefighters who drive apparatuses,
not dependent upon the highest wage rate
paid to an employee in a
firefighter classification. The bases
for this
comparison was that in six of
the comparator districts, the personnel in the
firefighter classification
drive apparatuses, which is not the case in Spokane
County, and that, since the
average length of service of personnel who drive
apparatuses was 11.8 years, in
Spokane County, firefighter drivers of 10 years
service in all districts
should be compared.* These data are in Table 5,
column 4. They show an arithmetic average salary of
$2796 for the comparators
relative to $2657 in Spokane
County, or a difference of 5.23 percent.** But
the District argued, the
difference in the ''cost of living'' (average consumer
prices) between the Seattle
area and the Spokane area is over 12 percent, such
that the real wages in Spokane
County exceed those in the comparators, and no
salary increase is justified
for 1988 (E.B. pp. 18-19).
_____
* Bellevue and Bellingham have firefighter driver identified
classifications. See Union Exhibit 18. The Spokane County classification
is Driver (Equipment
Operator).
** The District data at page 13 of its exhibit leaves out Snohomish
and used
July 1 salary in Yakima rather
than January 1, 1988. Table 5 includes
Snohomish and uses the January
1, 1988, salary rates for all comparator
districts.
_____
The District characterized its use of a
firefighter apparatus driver as
a "model
firefighter." Here the Union objected that no such classification
__________
TABLE 5
The Monthly Salary in
Classifications for Firefighters and for Firefighters Who Drive An Apparatus
At Various Months of Service,
For Selected Fire Districts, Washington State, January 1, 1988
Salary
Firefighter
Salary(e) Firefighter
Who Drives
Districts, Averages, Etc. At 25th month at 49th month at 37th
month at 121st month Manpower(d)
Bellevue 2473(a) 2708 2680(c) 2844(c) 124
Bellingham 2416(a) 2525 2575(c) 2595(c) 98
Clark Co. #5 2685 2805(b) 2787 2919 69
Kent 2530 2765 2765 2876 97
Federal Way 2597 2807 2808 2858 81
Pierce Co. #2 2456 2871 2656 2871 80
Snohomish 2654 2790 2790 2790 48
Yakima 2206(a) 2544 2544 2620 85
Arithmetic Average 2502 2726 2700 2796
Manpower Weighted Average 2486 2715 2690 2793
Spokane County 2334 2427(f) 2517(c) 2657(c)
Arithmetic Mean as a
Percent of Spokane Valley 107.2 112.31 107.3 105.2
Weighted Mean as a
Percent of Spokane Valley 106.5 111.86 106.87 105.1
Total 682
_____
(a) Salary at 19th and 31st months added and divided by two. Also used 25th month and 31st month. See Table 4.
(b) One and one-half percent over salary at 37th month.
(c) These districts show a separate firefighter/driver
classification. For other districts, the
salary
is for a firefighter who drives an apparatus.
(d) Taken from Union Exhibit 6.
(e) Salary taken from agreements in districts without regard to
specific duties performed by personnel
in the classification.
(f) Salary is 4 percent over monthly salary in 25th month.
Source:
Agreements of nine districts listed.
Also see Table 4.
__________
***************
Note:
PERC's
original missing page 39
***************
statutory guideline of
"comparison of the wages . . . of
personnel involved
in (Spokane County) with the
wages . . . of like personnel of public fire
departments of similar size .
. ." (underlining added).
Every one of the firefighter salaries and classifications used
by the
Union were for personnel whose
experience was half again or double that
required in Spokane
County. A Spokane County "top"
firefighter, whose duties
do not include driving, gets
$2334 per month, and does so after only 24 months
of experience. The Union compared this salary to the top
paid person in the
firefighter classification in
Pierce County #2 at a salary of $2871, who is
required to drive a vehicle. However, the firefighters in Pierce must have
four years of experience
contrasted to the two years in Spokane County.
Employers are willing to pay
senior employees more, and the labor market
only allows those with more
experience to be paid more, because of greater
skill, knowledge and expertise
of longer term employees than those with less
experience. Clearly the Union has compared unlike
personnel in unlike
classifications and its
comparison must be considered with substantially
reduced weight as to its
relevance.
On the other hand, the District has demonstrated salary among
personnel
who do similar duties and have
comparable experience. This related both
to
driving duties and to
experience, per se. As for comparison of
duties of
personnel across comparators,
the chairman concluded that the driver
firefighter classifcation represented a more exact and less imperfect
substantive description of a
classification and what the personnel do in it
than the case of the
firefighter classification and duties offered by the
Union. The chairman regarded the District's
selection of the basis for
comparison among fire
districts more reliable than that of the Union.
Set forth in Table 5 are salaries among firefighters who drive
apparatuses. These have been compared on the basis of
experience both
at 37 months, and at 121
months (which the District used). At 37
months, the
salary of Spokane County
driver firefighters was 7 percent, and, at 121 months,
5 percent less than the
arithmetic or manpower-weighted average salary for the
eight comparators,
respectively.
Finally, the Union's assertion, that acceptance of evidence and
testimony
on the "model"
firefighters was violative of this Statute, requires
little
further comment. The parties are reminded again to examine the
authority of
the chairman and panel to
accept evidence and testimony, as set out above.
As Arvid
Anderson, President of the National Academy of Arbitrators, has
pointed out, "lawyers are
very skillful at raising objections as to the
admissibility or to the
relevance of particular data, however, in interest
arbitration what is really
important is the persuasiveness and relevance of
what is presented."*
_____
* See Anderson, "Public Sector Interest Arbitration Lessons
from Recent
Experience," Address to
the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution
in Boston, Massachusetts,
October 1985.
_____
4. Length of Service
(Longevity) Versus
The Firefighter Salary Schedule
The Union objected to the use of longevity or length of service
in wage comparisons made by
the District, and did so on the basis that
longevity was not an issue
before the panel. So far as the chairman
observed,
neither he nor either panel
member regarded longevity an issue before the
panel, and as acknowledged so
by the District.
The issue in dispute is the extent to which, not
whether, length of service
should be accounted for in
comparing wages among the comparators.
Here the
Union used wage levels at
three, three and one-half, and four years, as set
forth in wage schedules in the
various agreements to compare to a wage level
at two years for the top
firefighter classification in Spokane County.
The
Union's selection of wages to
compare across districts was the highest rate
paid in the general
classification of firefighter, without regard to either
duties or length of
service. The District chose a single
length of service
of members in the driver
firefighter classification, as descriptive of like
personnel, at ten years. The ten years was used because it represented
slightly less than the average
length of service of Spokane County personnel
in that category (Er. Ex. p. 12).* In
both cases, the parties relied upon
length of service, either
implicitly or explicitly. Thus, for the
most part,
the Union's objection to
longevity was a non-issue.
_____
* In Spokane County, 24 employees were in the Driver Equipment
Operator
classification compared to
only 11 in the "top firefighter classification, "
whose salary was $2334
compared to the Driver's rate at $2517.
_____
On the other hand, the methodologies of the Union and the
District do
raise a question on the
appropriate application of the statutory guidelines
on comparable wages. The neutral chairman cannot read into RCW
41.56.460
(c) (ii) that the Legislature
intended that wages of personnel in similar
districts were to be compared
on how much unlike personnel get at the same
time, or the same personnel
get at different times. Rather a fair
straight-
forward reading of this
section implies that comparisons are made among likes,
not dislikes, at a point in
time. As noted above, a person in a
classification
with two years experience
brings less to the job than a person at four, or ten,
years, in terms of knowledge,
skill and expertise. Obviously, there is
a
learning curve, wherein the
beginning wages progress rather rapidly, and then
tend to level off because
experience alone on the job decreases the rate of
change and increases in skill
and so forth acquired simply by years on the job.
These considerations led the chairman to conclude that reliable
comparisons must be made at
comparable levels of experience, and, therefore,
comparisons of wages of
classifications at various terms or longevity levels
were in order. Such comparisons do not affect the longevity
terms of the
Agreement, but add to the
completeness and accuracy of salary comparisons
among like personnel
performing similar duties.
Table 5 sets forth four comparisons. The first two represent the
firefighter classification, as
used by the Union, but wages are set forth
at 25 and 47 months of
service. Note that this comparison makes
no adjustment
for actual duties
performed. Here, however, the
firefighter salary at 27
months in Spokane County was 7
percent below the average for personnel in the
firefighter classification in
the comparator districts. When the
length of
service is extended to 47
months, the Spokane County personnel were about
12 percent below similar
personnel in the comparators.
Table
5 shows also what is the comparative wages of firefighter drivers
at 37 and 121 months. In the former case, the Spokane firefighters
who drive
apparatuses are about 7
percent behind, whereas those at 10 years of service
had salaries only 5 percent
below the average among firefighter drivers with
a similar experience record.
5. Hourly Rates
Versus Monthly Salary
Although throughout its presentation the Union contended for
only
an adjustment in monthly
wages, the presentation by Dr. Franz relied upon
monthly rates adjusted for
average hours worked per week, and then adjusted
for differences in cost of
living statistics for some of the districts.
The
District maintained that
monthly wages unadjusted for average weekly hours
worked were historically and
universally used in bargaining, and that hours
of work were a separate matter
outside the issues before the panel.
The neutral chairman rejected the District's position
here. Hourly rates
or monthly salaries adjusted
for average hours worked represent another
measure of wages, and
comparability among like personnel doing like work was a
legitimate comparison. At the same time, the weight placed on the
results of
such a comparison is affected
both by the classification and like personnel
used, as well as statutory
recognition that "hours" are a separate comparison
subject listed under RCW
41.56.430 (c) (ii). Also, the practices
in the
industry and in Spokane County
were that monthly wages were the negotiated
item, not monthly salaries
adjusted for average hours worked per week.*
_____
* The neutral arbitrator noted that Arbitrator Beck dismissed
reliance by
the Employer
upon hourly wage rate comparisons and in that case cited above
agreed with the Union
that only monthly wages should be compared under the
applicable statutory
guidelines (Beck, p. 17). Average hours worked per week
reflect the number of da 5 not worked during the year. In the most part,
districts used the Detroit
system of 24 hours on, 24 off, 24 on, and 48 hours
off, when personnel were on
duty. Vacations, Kelly days, and leaves
for
various purposes differ among
the districts, represent separate bargainable
issues, and thus affect the
usefulness of the monthly salaries adjusted for
average
hours worked.
_____
The data in Table 5 have been adjusted for the differences in
the average
numbers of hours per week on
duty in the eight comparators and Spokane County.
The hours data used were those
set out by Dr. Franz in his Exhibit V.
For all
eight comparators the average
hours per week was 50.9. For Spokane
County,
the average hours per week was
53. Thus the average monthly salaries
shown
for the four columns on
firefighter were adjusted upward by the ratio of 53
to 50.9, as Dr. Franz had done
(Exhibit I, Franz Report, Un. Ex. 17).
The
results are these:
__________
Monthly Monthly Salary of
Firefighter
Salary Firefighter Who Drives
at 25th at 49th at 37th at
121st
Month Month Month Month
Eight Comparator
Arithmetic 2502 2726 2700 2796
Average Salary**
Spokane County Salary** 2334 2427 2517 2657
Hourly Adjusted Average 2605 2838 2811 2911
Salary for Comparators
Hourly Adjusted Average 111.61 116.95 111.69 109.57
Salary as Percent of
Spokane County Salary
_____
**Data reproduced from Table 5
above.
__________
From the table above, the adjustment for average length of the
work week
increased the percentage
difference between the average monthly salaries in
the comparators relative to
Spokane County salaries by about 4 percentage
points, and ranged between 9.8
percent higher for 10 year employees who drive
to 17 percent for the four
year person in the Spokane County top firefighter
classification.
6. Average Consumer
Prices in Seattle and
Spokane, Relative to Wage Differences
Three sources of data on the average consumer prices in
Spokane,
Eastern Washington, Seattle
and its area were offered by the District and the
Union. First, Dr. Ott
cited the Eastern Washington University study in 1981,
which showed average consumer
prices in Seattle to be 11.2 percent higher than
in Spokane. This study paralleled the BLS methodology and
range of products
and services included in the
survey. Second, Coldwell Banker Realtors
estimated Seattle housing
costs to be 40 percent over those in Spokane in
1988. The Eastern Washington University study found
the ratio on housing
to be 1.20 to 1.00, Seattle
over Spokane.
The main source of information was the Inter-City Cost of
Living Thdex
produced by ACCRA. This index relies on prices of only 59
products and
services, as contrasted to
over 300 in a certain month (or quarter) throughout
the United States. Since the cities that participate may vary,
or prices
obtained for some but not all
products, the index cannot be used to measure
changes in average consumer
prices in any location over time. Rather
the
validity of the index arises
only for comparison among cities or areas at a
point in time, and each
month's, or quarter's, computation has meaning only
for that point in time.
Table 6 summarizes the
arithmetic averages for the
areas involved. In
including other locales was to
lower the combined index below
indices. In Eastern Washington, the more rural areas
raised the combined index
relative to Spokane. This accounts for the difference between the
8177 in
column 3 and 12.35 in column
6, both of which indicate a higher cost of
living in Seattle or its areas
than in Spokane and Eastern Washington.
The ACCRA data may not be the
best, and thus most reliable, index that
could be devised, but the
closeness of its results to those obtained in a very
methodologically rigorous
study in 1981 by the Eastern Washington University
staff, must be given some
weight. Further, common knowledge and
experience
support the fact that consumer
prices are higher in Seattle and Western
Washington metropolitan areas
relative to Spokane and Eastern Washington.
Since the panel relied on the
record before it, and, without access to other
studies, a fair and reasonable
summary of the average consumer price data
indicated that the Seattle
area has a higher "cost of living" than Spokane
County by some 10 or 11
percent in 1987-88.* In arriving at this summary, the
neutral chairman placed more
weight on the 1987 ACCRA data than did Dr. Franz,
who used the two year average
of quarterly indices in his report. Nor
did he
believe Dr. Ott acted properly in using only the fourth quarterly data,
which
showed the greatest
differences between Seattle and Spokane at any time in the
two years. The 1987 average annual data eliminated
random variation by quarter,
and represented a more proximate
basis for examining 1988 money wages among
the comparators and Spokane
County than did 1986-87 price data.
_____
* Some concern existed over the weights given to housing costs in
the ACCRA
studies and to the relatively
much higher prices of health care in Seattle
than Spokane. Dr. Franz proposed a small reduction in the
differences in
average prices when medical
care prices were eliminated, since the employees
in all (most) fire districts
have no direct medical or health care expenses.
This adjustment reduced price
differences between the Seattle area and Spokane
by about 1.5 percentage
points. He made no adjustment for known
higher housing
costs in Spokane, which, given
the relative weight used by ACCRA, would seem to
offset the health price difference
(Un. Ex. 17, Ex. II and III).
__________
TABLE 6
Differecnes
in Average Consumer Prices (Cost of Living) Between
Seattle, Eastern Washington,
and Spokane, By Quarter, 1986-87
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Eastern
Wash. Percent Percent
Year/Quarter Seattle Area(a) Area (a) (1)
over (2) Seattle Area Spokane (4)
over (5)
1987
4th Quarter 105.96 96.85(b) 9.4(e) 105.96(e) 93.7 13.1(e)
3rd Quarter 102.73 95.38 7.7 102.73 92.3 11.3
2nd Quarter 105.33 97.00 8.59 105.53 94.1 12.15
1st Quarter 105.76 96.77 9.39 105.76 93.7 12.87
1986
4th Quarter 106.20(d) 98.73(d) 7.57 106.20 96.5 10.05
3rd Quarter 104.93 97.33 7.80 104.93 95.6 9.76
2nd Quarter 105.00 97.91(c) 7.24 105.00 96.1 9.26
1st Quarter 107.28 97.45 10.01 107.28 98.2 9.24
Average 4 8.77 12.35
1987 Quarters
Average 8 8.21 10.96
Quarters
_____
(a) Seattle area is an arithmetic average of Renton, Seattle and
Tacoma. Eastern Washington
area used Richland, Wenatchee, Walla Walls and Spokane.
(b) Yakima substituted for unavailable Walla Walla
data.
(c) Only data for Yakima, Spokae, and
Richland available.
(d) Seattle and Tacoma data only.
Spokane, Wenatchee and Yakima only.
(e) With the addition of Portland, (Clark) and Yakima to the comparattors, weighting Seattle twice
for Bellevue and Snohomish, and Tacoma index twice for Federal
Way and Pierce County #2, these
locations yield an average index of 104.35, which, when
compared to Spokane, gives a percent
differential at 11.36.
Only fourth quarter data were available (Un. Ex. 17; Er.
Ex. pp. 31, 33).
Source: Inter-City Cost of Living Index, ACCRA, Un. Ex. 17.
__________
The wage data for comparison are those set out in the text
above. Monthly
money wages in the comparators
for the two classifications shown on two
different lengths of service
each are between 7 and 12 percent higher than
in Spokane (Table 5). When monthly money wages are adjusted for
average
hours worked per week, the
excess of comparator salaries over Spokane County
salary is between 9.6 and 17
percent, the latter percent identified with the
Spokane top firefighter
classification at 49 months of service (Text, p. 44).
Other comparisons fall in a
narrow range between 9.5 and 11.7 percent higher
money wages in the comparators
relative to Spokane County. These data
are to
be compared with the 10 to 11
percent higher "cost of living" in Seattle
relative to Spokane.*
_____
* After discussing these data with my panel member colleagues, I
have
added below in the final
summary section, a comparison of monthly wages in
the five Seattle area
districts, rather than in all eight comparators, with
Spokane, adjusted for average
weekly hours worked, as well as the monthly
salaries. Some small "real" wage difference
in the Seattle area over Spokane
can be seen. See Table 7.
_____
A preliminary judgment on these data indicates no substantial,
if any,
differences, on balance,
between the "real wages" of Spokane firefighters
compared to their counterparts
in the eight comparable districts. For
the
most part, this conclusion
supports the District's position that no salary
increase is appropriate for
1988.
7. Conclusions
In summary, the neutral chairman concluded on the basis of the
above discussion that:
(1) The use of "cost
of living" indices (or average consumer prices)
to explain differences in money wages between areas, as
Seattle
and Spokane, is permitted by the statutes, and provides a
factor
"normally or traditionally" relied upon in
comparing wages in
collective bargaining.
"Real wages" are a factor for comparison
among like personnel in the employment of like employers.
(2) The usefulness, and
therefore reasonableness and reliability, of
cost of living indices depends upon the nature of the
data as
well as the methodologies used. Such matters go to the weight
to be placed upon the indices used.
(3) Salaries of
comparable personnel who perform comparable tasks,
provide the most reliable basis for comparisons among
similar
districts. The
firefighter classification where the employee
drives an apparatus represented the more reliable
classification
to use, in this case, than the catch-all title of top
fire-
fighter which represented an amalgam of different duties
and
levels of skill, knowledge and expertise attributed to
different lengths of experience as firefighters.
(4) Any change in
longevity provisions of the Agreement lies outside
the issues before the panel. Length of service of an employee
and classification salary constituted essential
ingredients in
comparing wages among personnel in the comparators and
Spokane
County.
(5) Hourly rates, or
monthly salaries adjusted for the average
length of the work week, constitute a legitimate basis
for
comparison of wages across the comparators and Spokane
County.
Industry practice particularly and past practices in
Spokane
County, in part, support greater reliance upon
comparisons
based on monthly salaries than those based on monthly
salaries
adjusted for average lengths of the work week.
(6) Average consumer
prices in the Seattle area are 10 or 11 percent
higher than prices in the Spokane County area.
Accordingly, on a
"real wages"
basis, money salaries 10 or 11 percent higher on the
average in the comparators than in Spokane County
represent a real
wage equivalent to the lower money salaries in Spokane
County.
Money wages in the comparators were 5 to 17 percent
higher than in
Spokane County, with most comparisons in the range of 8
to 12 percent,
among eight different comparisons. Relying more heavily on
comparisons based on monthly salaries, including length
of service,
and classification for personnel who drive apparatuses,
the range
of difference in money wages narrows to 5 to 12 percent,
with the
other two differences at 7.3 and 9.5 percent.
F. Other Considerations
The Union pointed out in several places that the District
offered a three
percent salary increase for
1988 in mediation and that the Union reduced its
demand for a wage increase
from 21 percent to 6.3 percent. The
Union entered
this arbitration with a
proposed 6.3 percent wage increase, whereas the
District withdrew its prior
offer, and argued that no increase was justified.
The implication of the Union argument, along with comments
about the
"model"
firefighters, was that the employer had no basis for changing its
position between mediation and
arbitration. The chairman disagrees, and
believes these arguments
represent a misconception of interest arbitration
as construed generally and in
the Washington statute specifically.
In the first place, the statute places no requirements on
either party
to go into arbitration on the
same basis that they left mediation. No
place
in the statute is any
reference made to "last offer" arbitration. Not only
may the employer or union
change its position on a specific issue in interest
arbitration, but the panel is
not required by the guidelines to examine or
rationalize settlement only
within the range of the last offers of the
parties prior to
arbitration. The panel examines the
proposals of the
parties at the arbitration,
not what they have been or might have been or
should be in the judgment of
one party or the other with regard to the
other's proposal.* The
function of the party in arbitration is to convince
the panel and the neutral
chairman specifically that its position in
arbitration is meritorious,
whatever its position at that time.
_____
* Clearly, a panel would be at substantial risk to reach a decision
and award on wages, for
example, either lower than the employer's arbitration
proposal or higher than the
union's proposal at arbitration.
_____
In addition, the purpose of interest arbitration is a means to
replace
the strike among public
uniformed personnel, per RCW 41.56.430.
Certainly
in the course of a strike, an
employer seldom leaves on the negotiating
table what was there
before. A strike is a new "ball
game," with a different
set of rules than the usual
course of negotiations.
Such, also, is the case with interest arbitration under the
Washington
statutes. The panel of arbitrators is an agency of the
state, not of the
parties, and its functions are
set by the statute, not by the parties.
The
process of interest
arbitration brings uncertainty into the settlement
possibilities. Since interest arbitration is a last resort
effort (in
lieu of a strike), and a
recognition of the failure of the parties to reach
a mutually acceptable
agreement, this uncertainty provides a valuable
incentive to the parties to
reach their own settlement. If interest
arbitration was approached
with the concept that what the employer had
offered is certain, or the
employer knows its maximum liability from the
union's last offer, neither
has any reason to settle, but can spend a little
effort, and hope to improve
its situation. Nothing gained is only
a small loss. Interest arbitration is the last resort for
settlement under
a different set of rules and
guidelines, and with an element of uncertainty.
It is directed towards
providing the parties with an incentive to exercise
their greatest effort to reach
agreement on their own, and, in doing so, to
strengthen and improve the
relationship between union, employees and employer.
SUMMARY AND AWARD
The neutral chairman arrived at a two percent increase
in wages for all
classifications in the Spokane
County Fire Protection District by placing
more weight upon monthly
salary comparisons among personnel in firefighter
classifications who drive
apparatuses and who have equal length of services
than upon other
comparisons. The summary decision data
are set out in
Table 7, which repeats some
prior data.
__________
TABLE 7
Salary Comparisons between
Selected Fire Districts and Spokane County
By Monthly Salary and by
Monthly Salary Adjusted for Hours Worked
For Personnel at Different
Lengths of service in two Classifications
In Relation to Cost of Living
Differentials, Washington State, 1988
Firefighters Firefighters Who Drive
Apparatuses
Length of
Service Length of Service
Salaries and Percent In Months In
Months
25 49 37 49(c) 121
All Comparator Districts
Avg. Mo. Salary '88 2502 2726 2700 2752 2796
Spokane Mo. Salary '87 2334 2427 2517 2618 2657
Percent Comp. over
Hours Adj. Avg. Mo. 2605 2838 2811 2889 2911
Salary. '88(a)
Spokane Mo. Salary '87 2334 2427 2517 2618 2657
Percent Comp. over Spokane 11.61 16.95 11.68 10.35 9.57
__________________________________________________________________
Seattle Area Districts(b)
Avg. Mo. Salary '88 2542 2788 2739 2815 2847
Spokane Mo. Salary '87 2334 2427 2517 2618 2657
Percent Sea. Districts 8.91 14.87 8.82 7.52 7.15
Over Spokane
Hours Adj. Avg. Mo. 2668 2926 2875 2955 2988
Salary '88(d)
Spokane Mo. Salary '87 2334 2427 2517 2618 2657
Percent Sea. Districts 14.31 20.56 14.22 12.87 12.45
Over Spokane
__________________________________________________________________
Cost of Living
Differentials(e)
Seattle over East. Wa. 8.77 8.77 8.77 8.77 8.77
Seattle over Spokane 12.35 12.35 12.35 12.35 12.35
_____
(a) Adjusted by ratio of 53 to 50.9 (Un. Ex. 17, Ex. V).
(b) Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way, Pierce Co. #2, and Snohomish.
(c) Computed from data in Table 3.
(d) Adjusted by ratio of 53 to 50.49 (Un. Ex. 17, Ex. V).
(e) Data from Table 6.
__________
The first relevant data constituted a comparison between the
"real wages"
of firefighters who drive in
the eight comparator districts with those of
similar personnel in Spokane
County. The money wages in Spokane were
7.3,
5.1 and 5.2 percent lower than
average monthly salaries in the eight
comparators for employees at
the 37th, 49th and 121st months of service,
respectively.* The differences
in money wages are offset by a "cost of
living" difference
estimated at 10 to 11 percent. This
comparison indicated
no basis for a salary increase
if the estimated cost of living differential
between comparators and
Spokane County was valid.
_____
* The 49th month comparison was added here, since in Spokane County
no
employee of only 37 months in
service is a driver firefighter. Four
years
is the shortest tenure of any,
and thus the four year summary figure was
added here (Er. Ex. p. 12).
_____
The second set of data involved adjusting monthly salaries of
all eight
comparators for average hours
worked per week, relative to Spokane County.
On the same bases as above,
for firefighters who drive apparatuses, money
wage differences were 11.7,
10.3 and 9.6, respectively for the personnel at
37, 49, and 121 months of
service. Again, this comparison overall
does not
justify much wage increase, if
any, when compared on a "real" wage basis,
against the 10 or 11 percent
differential in the cost of living between
Seattle and Spokane.
However, five of the comparators represent districts for which
cost
of living data and differences
with Spokane can be readily compared.** Here
in the mid-section of Table 7,
a comparison of firefighters who drive at
the 37th, 49th and 121st
months between these five districts and Spokane show
money wages 8.8, 7.5 and 7.2
percent lower, respectively, in Spokane County
relative to the
comparators. A direct comparison on real
wages using the
ACCRA cost of living data show
Spokane to be two to three percent higher
than the comparators.
_____
** These districts are Bellevue, Kent, Federal Way, Pierce and
Snohomish.
The other three were Yakima,
Clark and Bellingham. These three lower
the
"real" wage average
among the eight comparators, and the cost of living data
were not available for one of
the areas. The ACCRA data show a higher
cost
of living in Yakima than
Spokane, but firefighter money wages on January 1,
1988, were about the same as
the 1987 Spokane County salaries.
_____
When monthly salaries of the five Seattle districts are adopted
for
differences in hours worked
per week, the money wages in Spokane lag the
Seattle districts by 14.2,
12.9 and 12.5 percent for the firefighters who
drive at 37, 49 and 121 months
of service, respectively. These money
wage
differences are greater than
the estimated cost of living differential, by
one to two percentage points,
which would thus support a small salary
increase.
The other two columns in Table 7 relate to the firefighter
classification,
where in some districts the
personnel drive apparatuses, and in others do not.
But without going through the
above step-by-step comparisons, the
relation-
ships are not much different
among comparators and
than above, except for the
firefighters at 49 months. When monthly
salaries
are adjusted for average hours
worked, personnel in this classification fall
below comparator salaries by
several percentage points. In examining
the
wage pattern as a whole, this
fact, plus that the 10 year driver firefighter
in
in other districts, indicates
that the "bottom" part of the salary schedule
in
the comparators with regard to
real wages. Any increase in salaries
across
the board will move the
in this case the "top
firefighter" of the Union arguments, and to push the
"long-termers"
farther ahead, as argued by the District, for the average
driver of ten years service.*
Some balance was required here across salary
classifications, since the
panel was confined to the same percentage salary
increase for all employees.
_____
* This structural difference in salaries in relation to length of
service
was marked for
salary schedule in Table 4
will indicate.
beginner, whereas five other
comparator districts have four, and one with
eight, and two with five,
steps in the salary schedule for firefighters.
_____
Two final matters were relevant. Although the above analyses suggest
a clear cost of living differential
between Spokane and Seattle, the
exactness of it can be
challenged realistically. As Dr. Franz
testified
and as Dr. Young pointed out
in panel discussions, too much confidence in
the
index is a narrow range of
products. Only the consistancy
of the data over
several quarters suggested
some level of confidence can be placed in them.
Adjustments in the case of
health care prices and/or housing prices across
the two areas, as discussed in
the footnote on page 46, make for some
uncertainty in precisely how
accurate and reliable the indices may be.
Some further conservatism may
be in order to reduce the estimated cost of
living differential to
above.
Finally, although the
chairman argued against a specific productivity
increase, as presented by the
more than consumer
prices. Thus, it was not surprising that
Table 2 shows
wages moving up about two
percent per year more rapidly than prices (cost
of living) in
have a real wage advantage
over their comparator employees in like districts,
the chairman concluded that
any difference should not be made up at once,
and some increase in wages
should be granted in 1988, which reduces the real
wage differences between
Spokane County and its comparators.
Thus, given the general relationship between productivity
growth and
money wages, and some
conservatism in the reliability of the ACCRA cost of
living differentials, the
chairman concluded that an increase of four percent
to no increase might well be
reached by a reasonable man on the basis of the
above data and analyses. In this case, the two percent wage
increase for
1988 represented a compromise
between these extremes. This increase in
wages
will allow all personnel
nearly a $600 (or more) annual increase.
Under the
above factual circumstances,
the two percent across the board represented a
reasonable increase in wages
for all classifications in the bargaining unit
in
ARBITRATOR' S AWARD
After study of the testimony and evidence produced at the
hearing by
the parties, and of the
arguments of the parties on that evidence in oral
statements and written briefs,
and of the comments of Union and District
panel members, and on the
bases of the above analyses, discussion, conclusions
and decision, the neutral
chairman makes the following award.
Two percent increase in wages for all classifications set
forth
in Appendix A -
Wage Schedule of the Agreement shall be effective
January 1, 1988.
Respectfully
submitted,
/s/
Kenneth
M. McCaffree
Neutral
Chairman, Arbitration Panel
I do ---- concur in the
above award, and have not attached a
statement to this decision and
award.
/s/
Paul
J. allison
District
Arbitration Panel Member
I do not concur in the above award, and have ____
attached a
statement to this decision and
award.
/s/
Shik C. Young
Union
Arbitration Panel Member
____________________
Dissenting Statement
I do not concur with the neutral arbitrator's conclusions
(
productivity and cost of
living adjustments and that a two percent
wage increase represents a
fair compromise.
1. Productivity. Just as in "cost of living",
"job duties" and
other comparative yardsticks,
there is no precise measure on produc-
tivity. However, based on the information presented
to the panel, a
reasonable judgment on
productivity can be formed. The evidence
of
productivity can be seen over
time as well as at a specific time:
(a) Over time, the "runs per man-year" can be used as a
rough indicator of productivity.
__________
Money wage
Real Wage Runs/Man Runs/Man
Period Increase Increase Increase* Increase+
1979-87 73% 25% 68% 44%
1983-87 25 16 45 25
_____
* Based on 82 firefighters
+ Based on 15 additional firefighters
__________
The money wage and real wage data are taken from the neutral
arbitrator's final report,
p.14, while the runs per man from p. 12.
The above data clearly show that the runs per man rose at
least 14 percentage points
faster than real wage increase. (It is
the real wage, not money wage,
to be compared with productivity.)
(b) At a specific time, the "population per
man-year" can
be used to gauge productivity
among comparable districts.
__________
Population/Man
Eight Comparators 806
_____
* Based on 95 manpower
+ Based on 15 additional manpower
__________
The above data, based on Union Ex. #6, show that
Valley, on a per manpower
basis, serves 15 percent more people than
the average of the
comparators. This number is changed to 4
percent,
under the extreme condition
that the
are included but no change in
population in the
no change in the conditions in
the comparative districts are assumed.
Although both the "runs per man" and the
"population per
man" are not ideal
measures of productivity, the evidence strongly
suggests that the
productivity adjustment is
amply justified.
2. Cost of Living. In addition to the acknowledged shortcomings
of the
calculated in the neutral
arbitrator's final report. (Final
Report,
p.52)
(a) The differential base is the "
the "eight
districts," leaving out the three districts--
Clark, and
the "
(b) The data include the medical cost portion of the cost
of living index. As Dr. Franz has pointed out, the medical
cost
is accounted for in the
workers' fringe benefits.
Both of these factors tend to exaggerate the cost-of-living
differentials between
properly adjusted, the
cost-of-living differentials would be in the
neighborhood of eight percent. Therefore a 1.5-2.0 percent wage
increase would be reasonable,
even if one considers the "firefighters
who drive apparatuses"
category.
On the other hand, if comparison is based on the "top
fire-
fighter, or if the most recent
CPI's cost of living increase (less
medical cost) is taken into
account, the
wage increase is apparently
justifiable.
In my opinion, the minimum of a fair settlement in this case is
a 1988 wage increase of 3.5 to
4 percent, with 2 percent on the
ground of productivity and
1.5-2.0 percent on the ground of cost-of-
living adjustment.