International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2916
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: David C. Auble
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Auble; David C.
Case #: 09868-I-92-00213
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF INTEREST )
ARBITRATION )
) OPINION
BETWEEN )
) AND
) AWARD
AND )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 2916 )
Hearing:
Post-Hearing Briefs: Received July 9 and
Neutral Arbitrator: David C. Auble
Auble & Associates, Inc.
107 South
Howard,
Partisan Arbitrators:(DISTRICT) Duane Wilson
Duane
Wilson & Associates
Garden
Court Building
W. 222
(
Department
of Economics
Eastern
Representing the District: Otto G. Klein, III
Representing the
1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to RCW 41.56, Neutral Arbitrator David C. Auble was selected by
County Fire District No. 9 and
by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2916, to
make
an interest arbitration award on several issues remaining in their collective
bargaining
negotiations.
Also selected to serve on the arbitration panel were Duane Wilson, Partisan
Arbitrator
for the Fire District, and Dr. Shik Young, Partisan
Arbitrator for the
A hearing was held at the Shilo
Inn,
a.m.
until
to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to file post-hearing briefs. The last
post-hearing
brief
was received by the arbitrators on
at
that time. Subsequent to the June 2 hearing, the arbitration panel members met
on June 9,
June 15, and July 16, 1993,
for the purpose of arriving at a decision regarding the matters at
issue
in this case.
II. ISSUES
Although several issues were discussed during the open
hearings, it appears that the
primary
issues to be resolved by the arbitration panel are as follows.
A. Paid
firefighter wages for the calendar year 1992. During the hearings, the
requested
that salary levels for 1992 be set by the panel, and salary levels for calendar
year 1993
and
thereafter, be reopened for negotiations. The Fire District requested that the
arbitration
panel
set salary levels for 1992, 1993, and 1994.
B. Progression
in pay scale.
C. Disposition
of resident volunteer firefighters.
D. Quarter
Master System versus clothing allowance.
III. BASIS FOR DECISIONS BY THE PANEL
The arbitration panel met on
from
the Union representatives and the Fire District representatives. Subsequent to
that, the
arbitration
panel met on
resolving
the dispute, but did not discuss the issues at any length at that point,
because the briefs
had
not been delivered to the panel members at that time. Subsequently, the panel
reconvened
on
On
after
having reviewed the briefs and discussed the testimony. It should be pointed
out that most
issues
were resolved by consensus with all three arbitrators agreeing on the
conclusions reached.
Considerable discussions were
had on all issues, and primary emphasis in the discussions was
placed
on comparable contracts from other districts. Both the
the
Fire District's comparable contracts were considered, and neither were rejected
in total by
the
panel.
During the hearings, it was apparent that the
purposes,
the 1993 wage level in their comparable contracts. The Fire District, on the
other
hand,
used 1992 wage levels for comparables. As a result, it was necessary for the
panel to go
back
to the
purposes.
Once this was done, the difference between the two sets of comparables was
rather
significantly
reduced. The Fire District also presented testimony relative to the cost of
living
differences
between the
eastern
arbitration
panel members felt that this was a reasonable consideration, and the testimony
of
Brent Baker, the Union's
consultant, was accepted as being relevant to the issue of cost of living
adjustment
for the comparables. The panel chose to adjust the 1992 wage levels of the
comparables
by the factors presented in the District's brief. Once this was accomplished,
it was
clear
that all of the comparables tended to fall into the same general pattern of
wage level.
The next issue considered by the arbitration panel was
the comparability of the various
cities
and districts to
population
served has been a primary consideration. The population served in Fire District
No.
9 is not clear, as testimony
did not provide the panel with a clear indication of what the
population
served is. There was nearly a 100 % difference in the reported population
between
the
population
in the community, the panel chose to agree that the population served is
probably in
the
range of about 25,000. The arbitration panel then concluded that a half up and
half down
method
of selecting the best comparables would be appropriate. This eliminated five of
the eight
Union
comparables but none of the District's comparables.
However, it should be pointed out
that
the panel effectively considered all of the comparables, but in essence placed
less weight
on
those comparables that fell outside of the half up and half down envelope. In
an analysis of
the
comparables, the panel reduced the wages to a common denominator of an adjusted
hourly
wage
rate for top step firefighters. This was then used as the basis for all other
analyses and
conclusions.
The following schedule is a summary of the comparables
with their adjusted base hourly
wage
rate and reported population. It should be noted that the population of Kitsap
District No. 7 is essentially
unknown, as two substantially different numbers were found in the
material
provided, but 20,000 appears to more believable than 50,000.
Fire District Population
Adjusted Base HourIy
Wage Rate
Estimate
UNION COMPARABLES
Pierce County Fire District 21 38,000 $13.42
King County Fire District 10 65,000 $12.67
King County Fire District 2 35,000 $12.62
King County Fire District 11 50,000 $13.31
King County Fire District 36 42,000 $13.60
City of
Kitsap County Fire District 7 20,000 $43.46
Snohomish County Fire District
7 50,000 $12.82
DISTRICT COMPARABLES
Ellensburg 12,570 $9.70
Pullman 21,190 $11.30
Spokane County Fire District 9 25,000 $11.38 (1991)
A review of the comparable contracts indicates that
nearly all of the comparables included
EMT
training as a requirement for their firefighters.
Thus, the adjusted base wage rate includes
EMT
training. Also, all included medical insurance.
Therefore, they are all equal comparables
on
these issues. However, it was noticed that most of the comparables paid a
premium to
paramedics,
which varied rather significantly. Some
of the comparables had substantial
increases
for certified paramedics and others had only nominal increases over the base
wage
rate.
The comparables range from apparently no increase for paramedic pay, to as much
as
$2.68
per hour. There is no clear-cut pattern to the
paramedic premium, but it does tend to
appear
that the higher the base wage rate, the higher the premium for paramedic.
In reviewing all of the comparables presented by both the
of
the comparables use the Quarter Master System and only six use an Allowance
System.
IV. ARBITRATION PANEL CONCLUSION
A. Wages--After
reviewing the comparables and considerable discussion of the
various
wage levels, and economic conditions, the panel has reached a consensus opinion
that
the
Spokane County Fire District No. 9 proposal, as outlined in a letter dated
to
David Auble, Chairman of the Panel, should be accepted
with one modification. That
modification
being that the 1992 wage level be increased by 6.2 % . This would increase the
base
hourly
rate for a Senior Firefighter to $12.09 per hour, which would then be used as
the basis
for
adjustment of all other Union employees.
It is apparent that the present wage level of $ 11.38 per
hour is at the very bottom of the
pay
scale for all of the comparables considered.
In reaching our conclusion, we have
considered
that the cost of living in
or
three years, and that a substantial portion of that increase has been due to
housing. However,
it
is also recognized that individuals do not buy homes every year; although to
those individuals
who
chose to rent, living quarters would obviously be affected by annual increases
in rental
prices.
Also, in its deliberations regarding wages, the panel took into consideration
the fact that
Fire District No. 9 is a
predominantly rural, but growing district, as there has been substantial
new
residential development immediately north of the city of
In addition, we have considered the fact that the
District has been operating without a
contract
for 1 1/2 years and that negotiations
for 1993 wages would essentially be after the fact,
and
negotiations for 1994 wages would have to begin immediately. Therefore, the
panel has
concluded
that it is in the best interest of both parties to establish 1993 and 1994 wage
levels at
this
time. In arriving at a decision as to what the increases should be for 1993 and
1994, we
have
taken into consideration the recent and historical changes in the Consumer
Price Index
(CPI).
Although the CPI for 1992 was only slightly over a 3% change, it appears that
the CPI
for
1993 may ultimately be slightly under a 3% change. After considerable
deliberation among
the
panel members, the panel has accepted a 3% increase for 1993 and an additional
3 % increase
for
1994 as reasonable increases in wage levels for the Union employees.
B. Progression in
Pay Scale--The panel has concluded that a wage increase of 6.2%
to
$12.09/hr ($2,776.71/mo) for 1992, a 3 % increase for 1993, and an additional
3% increase
for
1994 is appropriate for the top step firefighters, and that the differential
for lieutenants be
set
at 10% over the top step (journeyman) rate for firefighters, and that the
differential for
captains
be 20 percent over the top step (journeyman) rate for firefighters. These
established
differentials
should be effective on the date that a new contract is signed, and shall be
retroactive
to
With regard to the wage progressions schedule, the panel
accepts the District's proposal
that
new employees hired after
0 to 3 months Recruit
Firefighters 70%
4 to 12 months Firefighter
I 80%
13 to 24 months Firefighter
II 90%
25 + months Senior
Firefighter 100%
(existing Journeyman)
Lieutenant
Firefighter 110%
Captain Firefighter 120%
Prevention Lieutenant 110% + differential
Training Lieutenant 110% + differential
Paramedic certified personnel shall receive an hourly
premium pay in the amount of 5%
of
the Senior Firefighter's hourly rate, in addition to the hourly rate for their
assigned rank.
Regular part-time personnel will be paid at the Recruit
Firefighter rate.
Progression through the schedule from recruit Firefighter
to Senior Firefighter is
dependent
upon the employee passing a test developed by the District and offered
annually.
Promotion to Lieutenant or
Captain will be in accordance with the promotion process outlined
in
the contract.
C. Disposition of
Resident Volunteer Firefighters--The panel listened to testimony
from
both sides regarding the issue of resident firefighters. It is apparent that the
District is
predominantly a
rural district and that there are unmanned stations at this time. The District
would
like to be able to man all stations for as many hours as possible, and the
Resident
Volunteer Firefighter program
appears to have accomplished this goal.
It is the panel's
understanding
that Resident Volunteer Firefighters have substantial training, including EMT
training.
Considering the nature of the District and the need to provide the best
possible
protection
to the residents, it is the panel's conclusion that the Resident Volunteer
Firefighter
program
offered by the District should be implemented. Resident Volunteer Firefighters
may
be
assigned to fire stations to staff the station, with or without paid
firefighters being assigned
to
that station. When paid firefighters and Resident Volunteer Firefighers
are assigned to the
same
station, one of the duties and responsibilities of the bargaining unit
personnel will be, at
the
District's request, to train and supervise the Resident Volunteer Firefighters.
Except in the
event
of a levy failure or other significant economic hardship, Resident Volunteer
Firefighters
will
not be used to replace (i.e. through layoff) existing paid firefighter's
positions. All Resident
Volunteer Firefighters must have
successfully completed the District's Recruit Firefighter
training,
which is to include not less that 48 hours of first responder medical training,
and
emergency
vehicle accident prevention training.
D. Quarter Master
System Versus Clothing Allowance--The District
presented
testimony
that a Quarter Master System would be in the best interest of both the District
and the
employees.
The
District's
position. After reviewing the comparables and finding
that 9 of the 15 comparables
used a
Quarter Master System, it is the conclusion of the panel that a Quarter Master
System
would
be in the best interest of both parties. Therefore, the panel has concluded
that a Quarter
Master System should be
established. The clothing allowance should include boots, since the
District has indicated that
they will be included, even though boots were not in their previously
written
proposal.
V. ARBITRATORS AWARD
After listening to the oral presentations and
studying the comparables and briefs, the
panel
has by consensus agreed that the preceding conclusions and awards are
reasonable and
appropriate.
Each of the following panel members concur in the above award.
__________________________
David C. Auble Date
Neutral Chairman
__________________________
Duane Wilson Date
District Arbitration Panel
Member
__________________________
Dr. Shik
Young Date
Union Arbitration Panel Member