INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

Washington State Council of County and city Employees, Council 2,

AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 492

And

Spokane County

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      Thomas F. Levak

Date Issued:   03/27/1995

 

 

Arbitrator:         Levak; Thomas F.

Case #:              11059-I-94-00235

Employer:          Spokane County

Union:                WSCCCE; Local 492

Date Issued:      03/27/1995

 

 

BEFORE THE ARBITRATION PANEL

 

THOMAS F. LEVAK, NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR

JOHN COLE, UNION APPOINTED MEMBER

GARY CARLSEN, COUNTY APPOINTED MEMBER

 

In the Matter of the Interest

Arbitration Between

 

SPOKANE COUNTY                                    PERC 11059-I-94-235

      The County

 

and                                                                  NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR'S OPINION

                                                                        AND AWARD

WASHINGTON STATE

COUNCIL OF COUNTY AND

CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL

2, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, LOCAL

492

      The Union

 

      This matter came before hearing on January 18, 1995, Spokane, Washington.

The Union was represented by Audrey B. Eide and the County by Otto G. Klein, III.

Testimony and evidence were received.  Posthearing briefs were received by the

Neutral Arbitrator on February 23, 1995.  Based upon the evidence, the arguments of

the parties, and an application of the statutory criteria thereto, the Neutral

Arbitrator decides and awards as follows.

 

      THE ISSUES.

      This is an interest arbitration convened pursuant to RCW 41.56.¹  The County

is located and Eastern Washington, and is contiguous with the Idaho border; it is

situated midway between the State's north and south borders; and it is the fourth

largest county in the State.

_____

      ¹     This case primarily concerns Correction Officers ("COs).  COs are included within the

            definition of "uniformed personnel" by RCW 41.56.030(7)(c).  The reference to RCW

            41.56.030(7)(a) includes law enforcement officers.

 

      The parties are signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with a term of

January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1993, which covers a unit of Corrections

Officers ("COs"), Communications Officer, a Cook, and Identification Officer I and

a Senior Systems examiner; almost all of the unit personnel are COs.  The Jail,

constructed in 1986, is part of the Sheriff's office, and is a modular "direct

supervision jail," as opposed to a traditional "lock up" jail.  Each unlocked module is

under the supervision of a CO.²  The Jail Commander is a commissioned officer, the

equivalent of a captain.³

_____

      ²     COs, who deal intimately with inmates, were described as "problem solvers" for those

            inmates.  COs are protected only by a radio and a body alarm.

      ³     The Jail chain of command is: Sheriff, Under Sheriff, Jail Commander, Correction

            Lieutenants, Correction Sergeants, COs.

 

      The parties have reached tentative agreement on a new January 1, 1994

through December 31, 1996, agreement, except for two issues, which have been

referred to the Panel for resolution: (1) wages and (2) vacation relief scheduling

during the Jail's in-service training program.

 

THE PARTIES' PROPOSALS.

1) Wages.

      County Proposal.

            Effective 1/1/94: 3%;

            effective 1/1/95: 100% Seattle CPI-W (min 3%, max 6%);

            effective 1/1/96: 100% Seattle CPI-W (min 3%, max 6%).

      Union Proposal.

            Effective 1/1/94:4.5%;

            effective 7/1/94: discontinue current entry level, add new

            top step, and all employees moved up into a new range,

            5.1% across-the-board;

            effective 1/1/95: 4.5%;

            effective 1/1/96: 100% of the West C July to July CPI,

            min 3%, max 6%.

2) Vacation Relief.

      The parties have agreed to add the following new language to Article

VI, Annual Leave, Section G:

            The County shall maintain agent (8) vacation relief positions which shall

            be used to accommodate timely (at least 5 days notice) requests for

            vacation and personal holidays.  Individual requests for vacation, other

            than the primary and secondary vacation bids, will be approved unless

            the vacation relief personnel are not available (working, on vacation,

            and days off).  If any of the eight (8) vacation relief employees goes on a

            long-term leave (maternity, long-term disability, etc.) The County will

            continue to cram vacation and/or personal leave requests as if all eight

            positions were filled.  Management retains the right to cover the

            absences reference herein by other means and to assign vacation relief

            staff to other work if all timely vacation and/or personal holiday

            requests have been met.

      County Proposal.

      The County proposals language to the following effect:⁴

            Provided, however, the during the time in-service training takes place,

            normally during January through March, the County will only be

            required to have available the number of relief officers necessary to

            cover for vacations which were bid during the previous December bid

            period, up to a maximum of eight (8).  During which in-service training,

            County may utilize relief officers to cover for COs who are receiving

            in-service training.

      Union Proposal.

      The Union opposes any such proviso.  It wants all relief

officers to be available solely for vacation relief at all times of the year.

_____

      ⁴     Neither County nor the Union have proposed specific language.

_____

 

ISSUE NO. 1.  WAGES.

      County Evidence, Contentions and Argument

      First, under the statutory criteria, the Impartial Arbitrator must fashion an

award that will, as nearly as possible, approximate with parties themselves would

have reached had they continued to bargain with determination and good faith.⁵

The Union's wage proposal would affect a 14.1% increase over the first two years

and cost the County an additional $800,000 over the term of the new Agreement.

Under the statutory criteria, there's no justification for such increases.

_____

      ⁵     Citing, City of Seattle, Snow, 1988; City of Kent, 1980, LaCugna; City of Bellevue vs. Int'l

            Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 119 Wn.2d 373 (1992).

 

      Second, regarding the comparability criterion, the comparators proposed by

the County should be adopted by the Impartial Arbitrator.  The County selected its

comparators after careful study of many other arbitration awards, including all of

the most recent Eastern Washington awards.  The County's analysis also followed the

past analysis of the Impartial Arbitrator in selecting comparators of "similar size,"

that is, size by resident population.⁶  Further, the County's analysis utilized only

Washington comparators, a method utilized by every arbitrator of Eastern

Washington cases.⁷  In addition, the County's analysis attempted to focus on Eastern

Washington comparators, as has every cited arbitrator.  The County's labor market

analysis is consistent with the fact that the vast majority of applicants for unit

positions come from Eastern Washington.  The counties analysis continued by using

population band of +50% and -50% of population of State-wide Washington

comparators, and method utilized by the Impartial Arbitrator in his City of Pasco

decision, which resulted in the following comparators:

__________

      Snohomish   516,500

      Clark            280, 800

      Kitsap          213,200

      Yakima        202,100

      Spokane       392,000

__________

Recognizing that most arbitrators have utilized more than four comparators, the

County used population band of +100% and -100% of population State-wide,

which added Pierce County.  Since only one of the five comparators was located in

Eastern Washington, the County added Benton County to comparator list, a

county that includes two of the three tri-cities, Richland and Kennewick, is educated,

has a high per capita income, has a large metropolitan core area, and as a county, has

the highest average monthly wage of video for comparators.  The average

population of all six comparators is 331,417, only 15.5% below that of the County.

_____

      ⁶     Citing, City of Tukwila, 1985, Levak; see also City of Pullman, 1981, Lumbley.

      ⁷     Citing particularly, City of Pasco, 1994, Wilkinson.

 

      The Union's comparability list is artificially contrived; no actual parameters

were set.  All California counties with populations even slightly larger than that of

the County were not utilized and larger counties than those selected were not utilized.

California counties with a better population fit were excluded and others that pay

higher wages were included.  The Union simply ignored the statute's mandate that

comparators of similar size be utilized, and its distinction between linear and

modular jails is one not contemplated by the statute.  Similarly, the use of jail size is

also specious, as are staffing decisions.  Moreover, the data used by the Union is

unreliable.  Further, the Union was also inconsistent in treating facility size versus

population.  Moreover, the Union did not take into account rebookings when utilizing

bookings as a factor.  In addition, assessed valuation cannot be considered because of

the different rules and restrictions in California governing the collection of property

taxes.  Another problem is that the Union's list is substantially outweighed toward

California and Oregon jurisdictions.  And it must be noted that in Oregon, COs are

paid the same as deputy sheriff's, a situation that is not existed Washington.  An

additional factor is recent Oregon legislation regarding the pension pickup.  Finally,

the argument that the Union's selected California comparators are in any way

comparable to the County is, at best, problematic.  In summary, it is to be noted that

the recent LERC Monograph points out the two most important comparability

factors are population and geography.⁸

_____

      ⁸     Citing, Kaplan, Interest Arbitration and Factfinding, Some Principles and Perspectives,

            University of Oregon LERC Monograph Series No. 13 (1994).

 

      Union Evidence, Contentions and Argument.

      First, the County has offered no explanation why it has not offered an

acceptable wage increase comparable to the 16% to 19% increase it provided to its

Correction Sergeants.  Neither did it present a coherent argument based upon

County economics.  The Union's proposal would do no more than create internal

parity with the deputies and sergeants.

      Second, the Union's comparability argument should be adopted.  The Union's

list of comparators includes other direct supervision jails -- Marion, San Luis Obispo

and Salano -- and includes jails of similar size, when comparing jail population,

number of COs and average number of bookings.  Of County comparators, only

Snohomish is a direct supervision jail; no others utilize like personnel of like

employers of similar size.  The number of inmates and bookings at the County

comparators is far below that the County.  But its own admission, the County did

not even know what the size of the jails were in their comparator counties.  The only

factor that it used was assessed valuation, and even there, the comparators were far

below the County.  The County-cited arbitration decisions are not supported: They

did not involve jails or corrections officers, and they did not involve situations where

it was necessary to look to out-of-state comparators.

      Third, valid comparators and internal parity justify the Union's proposal.

Moreover, the County failed to consider all outside benefits; and in any event, an

overall compensation package is not at issue here, only the wages are at issue.  Finally,

the County offered no evidence that it was unable to fund the Union's proposal.

 

      Award of the Impartial Arbitrator.

      Impartial Arbitrator adopts the County's proposal and awards the

following:

            Effective 1/1/94: 3%;

            effective 1/1/95: 100% Seattle CPI-W (min 3%, max 6%);

            effective 1/1/96:100% Seattle CPI-W (min 3%, max 6%).

The following is the Impartial Arbitrator's rationale:

      First, there are no issues relative to ability to pay, the authority of the County

were stipulations.  The sole issues relate to comparability, the cost of living, the

County's analysis of overall wages and benefits paid, and one so-called "other

factor."

      With regard to comparability, the persuasive and compelling evidence

supports the County's position, both with regard to the selection of comparator

jurisdictions and with regard to the County's relationship vis a vis those

comparators.

      Regarding selection, the County began its analysis by selecting Washington

counties of similar size, based upon resident population.  The Impartial Arbitrator

agrees that the County's reliance on Washington jurisdictions was well-placed.

While the statute allows for consideration of Oregon and California jurisdictions,

such consideration is inappropriate (1) where sufficient Washington jurisdictions

exist upon which to base a comparability study, (2) where there is a dearth of

evidence concerning revenue sources, assessed valuation or socio-economic

composition of the out-of-state jurisdictions, or (3) where special size or proximity of

location do not exist.⁹  In the instant case, sufficient comparable Washington

jurisdictions exist; the Union failed to provide persuasive evidence regarding revenue

sources, assessed valuation and socio-economic composition of its out-of-state

comparators; and special size and proximity of location do not exist.

_____

      ⁹     For example, the Legislature may have considered it appropriate to allow comparisons

            between large West Coast cities, such as Seattle, Portland and Sacramento; or it may have

            considered inappropriate to allow consideration of nearby cities, such as Portland, Washington and

            Moscow, Idaho.

_____

      The Impartial Arbitrator further agrees with the County that virtually all

interest arbitrators hold that resident population is the appropriate similar size

standard under the statute.  In selecting comparator counties by resident population,

the County again followed the methodology utilized by all experienced arbitrators: It

first utilized a + 50%/-50% test, and when directed only four comparators, it

broadened its search by utilizing a + 100%/-100% test.

      Impartial Arbitrator also agrees with the County that its attempt to insure

that more than one Eastern Washington comparator was included in its comparator

list was appropriate.  As it points out, every arbitrator to consider cases involving

Eastern Washington jurisdictions has utilized Eastern Washington Comparators to

the greatest extent possible.  Moreover, its inclusion of Benton County was patently

reasonable.  That County is similar to the County in terms of core area population,

education, per capita income and average wage paid.

      In sum, the Impartial Arbitrator adopts the following comparator list as

appropriate: Pierce County, Snohomish County, Clark County, Kitsap County,

Yakima County and Benton County.

      Turning then to the impact of utilizing the selected comparators, the Impartial

Arbitrator conclusive to County appropriately utilized data relating to the top

step base wage, longevity pay, educational incentive pay, and medical/dental/vision

payments, based upon 1994 wages and benefits negotiated for COs employed by

County comparators.

      The average top step base wage for County comparators is $2,777.  The

County pays $2,839, and is therefore 2.2% ahead of the comparator average.

Figuring the County's top step as longevity pay, the County's analysis of ten-year

COs with longevity in 1994 reveals that its $2,839 wage is .2% ahead of the

comparator average of $2,834.  As the County further notes, when payments for

medical plans are considered, the County is almost 5% ahead of its comparators.

Similar results occur when the educational incentives are considered.  In sum, the

County fares well in comparison to its comparators.

      The County evidence regarding so-called "internal comparability" is also

persuasive.¹⁰  The only evidence is that the vast majority of County employees

received a 1994 wage increase of 3%.  Moreover, as the County further notes, the

range adjustment received by Correction Sergeants is the same adjustment that COs

already have in their Agreement.

_____

      ¹⁰    Internal comparability or "internal parity" is an "other factor" of secondary

            consideration only.  Under the statute, an arbitrator is charged with determining an appropriate

            wage for a group of employees with primary consideration being given to the labor market in which

            those employees compete.  COs compete with other COs; they do not compete with police officers,

            classified employees, clericals and administrators employed by their own employer.

_____

      Additional secondary consideration evidence offered by the County also

supports its position.  As it notes, 1994 public sector wage increases within the local

community averaged around 3%, and private sector increases averaged around

2.7%.

      The County's position is also strongly supported by the cost of living criterion.

Arbitrators generally hold that where comparability data it is relatively neutral, as it is

in the instant case, a current year's increase should be consistent with the last year's

increase in the appropriate CPI.  The annual increases in both the Seattle/Tacoma

area CPI-W and the CPI-U for the year ending 1993, were 2.8%.  The use of those

CPIs was clearly appropriate.  The only evidence is that, in the past, the County has

generally used the Seattle CPI-W, has occasional use the CPI-U, but that it has

never used the Union-suggested West Coast Index.  The Union presented no

persuasive argument why the traditional CPI should no longer be utilized.

      The CPI formula increases utilized by the County for the second and third

use of the Agreement are also appropriate.  Since at least 1987, absent

considerations not here present, almost all arbitrators have typically utilized CPI

increase formulas tied to 3% floors and 6% ceilings.

      In sum, all relevant statutory criteria support the position of the County.

Accordingly, the Impartial Arbitrator has adopted that position.

 

ISSUE NO. 2. VACATION RELIEF.

      Union Evidence, Argument and Contentions.

      Without the leave guaranteed by the language of the T/A, there will not be the

availability for the vacations that the COs accrue.  This year, relief personnel were

utilized to provide computer training in addition to in-service training.  It is

uncertain exactly how long in-service training will take each year or in which months

it will occur.  Without guarantees, relief officers will not be available for COs on

vacation.

      If the County is to be allowed to utilize relief officers for in-service training,

the use should be well-defined and limited.  That is, in-service training cannot be

computer training, and the specific months of in-service training should be

delineated.

      County Evidence, Argument and Contentions.

      Under the County's proposal, any CO who bids for a vacation during the time

of the in-service academy will be allowed to take vacation.  However, once the

secondary bid is completed, the County would be able to close the bidding for future

requests during the academy.  In essence, the County's proposal is exactly what was

done in 1993 and 1994.  The cost savings in those years was $40,000 to $50,000 over

previous years.  The Union's argument that there already isn't enough time for COs

to take vacations is inapposite since very few COs vacation during academy months.

Finally, the Union's position is non supportable since its argument largely relates to

non-academy time, and only that time is relevant.

      Award of the Impartial Arbitrator.

      The Impartial Arbitrator awards the following language:

            Provided, however, that during the time in-service training takes place,

            normally during January through March, the County will only be

            required to have available the number of relief officers necessary to

            cover for vacations which were bid during the previous December bid

            period, up to a maximum of eight (8).  During such in-service training,

            the County may utilize relief officers to cover for COs who are receiving

            in-service training.

The following is the Impartial Arbitrator's rationale.

      The persuasive evidence established that during the January through March

in-service training, a bona fide need exists for the County to assign relief officers to

cover for COs were receiving such in-service training.  The persuasive evidence

further established that the County actually did so during 1993 and 1994, with no

detriment COs' vacation bid rights.  So that there is no question concerning the

scope of the award, the Impartial Arbitrator memorializes his intent that the

awarded language only apply to the In-Service Academy and to the type of subjects

traditionally talk that academy.  The awarded language does not apply to

specialized, one time training, such as training on a new computer.

 

IT IS SO AWARDED.

 

/s/

Thomas Levak, Impartial Arbitrator

March 10 27, 1995.

 

I hereby concur/dissent.

/s/

John Cole, Union Appointed Arbitrator.

Date: March 21, 1995

 

I hereby concur/dissent.

/s/

Gary Carlsen, County Appointed Arbitrator.

Date: March 23, 1995