Office
and Professional Employees International
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Eaton H. Conant
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Conant; Eaton H.
Case #: 10841-I-93-00229
Employer:
Date Issued:
In The Matter of The
Arbitration )
) PERC CASE
between )
) 10841-I-93-229
)
and ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES )
INTERNATIONAL
AFL-CIO )
_____________________________________ )
OPINION AND AWARD
OF ARBITRATOR
Eaton H. Conant
Arbitrator
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
This interest arbitration matter came on for hearing
before
Arbitrator Eaton H. Conant on June 1 and 2, 1994 at
Port Orchard,
to
RCW 41.56.030 which was amended in the 1993 Regular Session
by
the
corrections
officers are eligible for interest arbitration.
The Personnel relevant to this
hearing, then, are the
approximately
forty-five nonsupervisory corrections officers
employed
by
Local
11 of OPEIU, AFL-CIO. There are ten units in the County.
Representing Local 11 was Mr. David C. Winders, Labor
Relations
Specialist, of the
the
County was Mr. Lawrence B. Hannah of Perkins Coie,
the
attorney
for
sworn.
The proceedings were transcribed by
Reporting.
The parties agreed to submit Post-hearing briefs.
The arbitrator closed the
hearing on
receipt
of the briefs.
ISSUES
Prior to the hearing the parties submitted to the neutral
arbitrator a
list of their outstanding Proposals in bargaining,
as
required by WAC 391-55-220. Several of these issues were
resolved
by the parties before the hearing took place. The
remaining
issues for the hearing were: (1) Salary
Schedule,
(2) Longevity Bonus, and (3) Health and Welfare.
At the hearing the parties discussed the question if
shift
differential should be an issue that is before the neutral
arbitrator.
The employer contended that this issue was not one
appropriately
before the arbitrator because it had not been
identified
to PERC and processed through PERC as an issue
outstanding The Union position was that the
arbitrator could
consider
the issue within the context of the general package
for
compensation. It is the ruling of the arbitrator that the
employer's
position will prevail for this hearing. Shift
differential
will not be an identified issue for this matter.
PUBLIC POLICY AND STATUTORY MATTERS
The statutory basis for public employee collective
bargaining
in the State Of
her
determinations of issues presented by the bargaining parties
this
law directs an arbitrator to consider a number of
standards
or guidelines. Specifically RCW 41.56.460 cites
these
factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the Parties;
(c) (i) .....comparison
of the wages,
hours and conditions of
employment of Personnel
involved in the Proceedings with
the wages, hours,
and conditions of employment of
like personnel of
like employers of similar size
on the west coast
of the
(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.
Such a list, of course, provides enough range for the
discretion
of arbitrators so that they should hardly strangle
in
the Stockade of comparators. Even so, arbitrators have
given
careful consideration for the use of wage and benefit
criteria
cited in (c), (i). And in the instant hearing, the
parties,
as discussion will indicate, centered much of their
issue
presentations around these criteria of (c). Prior to
appearing
at this interest arbitration the Parties had largely
concluded
negotiations for a three year agreement to cover
1994
through 1996. The agreement for this period would, in
effect,
be concluded by the award of the interest arbitrator
The arbitrator would note here
that it is his perspective
that
the statutory criteria, especially in (c), dictate that
an
award should favor the presentation of that party that most
fairly,
reasonably and carefully employs the criteria in their
wages
and benefits presentations.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The parties position on the
issues will be stated here.
Arguments and evidence
pertaining to these positions will be
more
completely examined subsequently in the opinion section
of
this document.
Accordingly, then, the
Wages:
Effective
Effective
Effective
Health and Welfare: Add dependent medical/dental/vision
coverage
at 100% coverage effective
this
coverage for the life of the agreement.
Longevity Bonus: Maintain current contract language.
The positions of
to
proposed 1994 to 1996 agreement are these, Wages:
Effective
Effective
percent
change in
determined
by BLS, based on 2nd half
semi-annual
index published in month
of
February, 1995. The increase not
to be
less than 2.0% nor exceed 4.0%.
Effective
percent
change in
determined
by the same source of BLS
data as
for
published
in February, 1996. The 1996
increase
also not to be less than
2.0% nor
more than 4.0%.
Longevity Bonus: Effective
shall be
amended to read as follows
for all
employees
5-9 years 1.5%
10-14 years 2.0%
15-19 years 2.5%
20+
years 3.0%
Health & Welfare: The County proposes no change.
DISCUSSION OF THE ARBITRATOR
First, some comments will be useful at the outset
concerning
how
this exposition will be conducted. The hearing produced many
exhibits,
extensive transcripts and briefs which the arbitrator
has
poured over for hours. It has never been the ambition of
this
arbitrator to produce ninety page award documents at the
expense
of the parties. The result is that brevity will be the
order
here. For each issue area the determination of the neutral
arbitrator
will be cited. Concise remarks will then follow to
explain
the determination reached. Some more general remarks
will
be offered first that pertain to the over-all perception
of
the arbitrator of the parties
presentations.
For the wages issue area, the parties argued extensively
about
appropriate and relevant comparable data and sources. The
Employer had much the better
of the argument and the evidence.
The Employer, in general,
followed the comparability criteria
and
logic of the statute more carefully and reasonably. The
data
gathered were appropriate to criteria of geography, size,
similar
employers, and so forth. Also, the employer followed
the
results of the counties selected, favorable or not, to
their
conclusion. This entire empirical exercise proved greatly
superior
to the union's efforts in conformity with statutory
criteria
as well as in general sensible handling of data sets.
The
labored
to produce a partisan, favorable result.
Government
units
of greatly unlike Size were included in data. The
geographical
dispersion of counties selected was limited.
Moreover, the
a
'total compensation" set of variables that included wages, longevity
pay,
incentives and other phenomena. The
believed
that the more variables that could be entertained as
total
compensation, the worse the County would appear. The
hour
statistic where the hourly figure was a compound of
various
figures for averages of hours employed
This attempt
by
the
arbitrator
to perform. Even when, as
out
King and
figures
for average wages in salary structures, the picture
did
not improve much. The comparables base selected, and the
complex,
additive averages for "total compensation" left the
analyst
with uneasy feelings that the data were not useful
for
determining the more limited issue questions that were
before
the arbitrator. This arbitrator likes to solve complex
problems.
But this comment comes with the caveat that solutions
are
derivable only when basic data are immediately useful.
These more general comments are directed at the parties'
positions
on the issues of longevity bonus and
health and
welfare:
The positions had in common that both parties sought
to
obtain from interest arbitration changes in practices that
have
long standing in the history of give and take in the
bargaining
history of the parties. In the longevity area, the
County seeks to have this
transient, one-time interest
neutral
fundamentally change the terms of the longevity provision that
has
existed in the agreement The arbitrator
appreciates this
signal
of trust that, Perhaps, the County has assigned to his
discretion.
But the arbitrator is less easy himself with a
conclusion
that he should shake up Potentially years of
bargaining
results and impose his own particular brand of choice -
on
the Parties. Note that these remarks are made in a context
where
the Parties ask the neutral arbitrator to have
a
major impact on existing agreement terms.
Nor is the
sounding
like a scold, the arbitrator will only say that the
those
of the County's above described performance: We are
asked
at one swoop of interest arbitration to intervene and
overturn
bargaining equilibria of years, and dictate our own
and
different result. And these are major demands, not just
requests
for pennies per hour. Below the arbitrator will remark
less
generally and more Pointedly on reasons for the award
determinations
in these areas. Here, we thought these more
general
comments might be useful Preliminaries.
The Wages Award
It is the determination of the arbitrator that wages
for
the agreement will be the wages as proposed by the County.
This means that the
document
on page 5 above will be implemented: Effective
there
will be implemented a 2% increase with increases to
follow
on
percent
change in the
as
identified by County proposal.
The arbitrator wishes to clearly point out that these
increases
per year will surely result in annual increases that
are
more, and probably much more, than the
2% and CPI-U figures
imply
on the surface. First, it is clear from the data that the
corrections
employees, in addition to those scheduled January
increases,
will get increases exceeding 1% per year from their
movements
in the salary structure. While the figures are not
in
evidence before the arbitrator to calculate total gains
precisely,
it is the arbitrator's estimate that most employees
in
the bargaining unit would receive about 3.5%
increases per
year
from the combination of structure movement and raises.
In the text above the arbitrator has already commented on
the
parties' presentations concerning wages. In some major
degree
the wages award has been influenced by the relative
quality
of these presentations. If a finder-of-facts has to
begin
by disassembling compounded data that has been put
together
by uncertain criteria, then the presenter has tripped
at
the start. To be sure, the Counties' data presentation was not
without
faults and some arbitrary conventions. But it was hardly
an
impediment to decision-making.
The Longevity Bonus Award
It is the determination of the arbitrator that the County
proposal
for revision of the Longevity schedule is rejected.
The determination is that the
existing schedule of the past
agreement
shall remain in effect.
The County remarked in its presentations that the
should
not obtain in interest arbitration, in effect, what it
could
not get at the bargaining table. These were words of
some
value for the system and for the
parties. The best of
the
agreements are the ones that they obtain for themselves.
We would only note that this
value statement may require some
revisions
for the public sector where bargaining power is
constrained.
But the point relevant is that the arbitrator
was
not convinced by the Employer's presentation that the merits
reached
to require an overturn of bargained status quo by a
decision
of an arbitrator. The
context,
that the parties had earlier modified applications
of a
previous longevity schedule in ways that favored the
County.
There was no
compelling case made that efficiency
and
economic reasons were imperative enough to justify the
County
position.
Health and Welfare Award
The Union position was entirely concerned with obtaining
???????dent
100% coverage effective
????????sion. At times the
????????only
on obtaining medical coverage. The
which
was unsigned and undated, does not serve to clarify
the
matter. Following the details of the hearing transcript
and
the
we
assume the proposal is for medical-dental-vision coverage
for
dependants at 100% coverage
In their presentations the Parties sought advantage where
the
that
omitted/included data to show that the County, since
bargaining
in 1992, paid employees wages in lieu of payments
for
dependent medical. The amount in question was identified
as $
75.00 per month with a total employer payment monthly
per
employee at $ 313.17 for both employee and dependents.
Inspection of the amounts that the County pays per
employee
for health and welfare in its numerous other units
for
bargaining indicates that this figure is not out-of-line
for
most other units, or for the average for all units. It
seems
clear that the
may
be trying to reach a break-through that would make it a
pace
setter among county units for health benefits. The
Employer, in this context,
cautions the arbitrator that any
substantial
response to the Union Proposal by the arbitrator
will
cause considerable problems with and between the many
County bargaining units where
historically packages bargained
may
differ, but an objective has been to equitably equalize
costs
of bargains between units.
To be sure, granting the
apparently
have a major cost impact. The
interesting
data suggesting that many employees' dependents
would
not utilize County medical benefits. But even with an
allowance
for this fact costs appear
substantial. At the
hearing
the
County would be approximately
9 percent of wages if the benefit
were
applied across the bargaining unit. This figure was
offered
to rebut what the
estimate
of 11 to 14 percent wages equivalent for the health
benefit
cost.
The
proposed
that the arbitrator make a very high dollar cost
award.
The
for a
9 percent wage-increase would come from.
If the
the
that
the cost impact of year one alone of Union proposals
would
be at least 15%, including allowance for schedule
increases.
This interest arbitrator does not chose to regard
proposals
of this nature. The award statement that follows
just
below reflects this determination.
At the hearing the parties were concerned with the matter
of
how employees recently retired might be affected by the
award
terms. The focus was on wages and where retroactivity
was a
consideration. For this reason the parties stipulated
that
the arbitrator was to retain authority and jurisdiction
in
the post-award period only for purposes of resolving
any
dispute the parties cannot themselves resolve when they
move
to consider how a recent retiree, and any retiree who
may
have retired in the period up to the date of the award,
should
be treated according to the award that the arbitrator
gives
in this matter.
Having studied and carefully considered the statutory
criteria,
the evidence and party positions, the arbitrator
makes
the following final determination of the issues in dispute.
AWARD
The following award terms will apply to the labor
agreement
for the period 1994 through 1996:
(1) The proposal of
schedule for 1994 (retroactive),
1995 and 1996 will
be implemented. This proposal is
reproduced at page 5
of this document.
(2) The proposal of the
(no change) will be implemented
in the new agreement
(3) The proposal of
(no change) will be implemented
for the new
agreement
Respectfully
submitted,
Eaton H. Conant
Arbitrator