And
Amalgamated
Transit
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 11148-I-94-00239
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
) P.E.R.C. NO. 11148-1-94-239
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
) NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR'S
BETWEEN )
) OPINION AND AWARD
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT
LOCAL
587, AFL-CIO, ) 1993-95
)
)
and ) AGREEMENT
)
)
Employer. )
HEARING SITE: Community
Center
Port
HEARING DATES: June 13, 14, 15,
1994
POST-HEARING BRIEF DUE:
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEF:
REPRESENTING THE
Martin
Garfinkel
Frank
and Rosen
1200
705
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER: Bruce L. Schroeder
Heller, Ehrman,
White & McAuliffe
6100
701
ARBITRATION PANEL: Curtis Stacey
Richard
E. Wojt
Employer
Appointed Member
Gary
L. Axon
Neutral
Arbitrator
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(503)
488-1573
Table
of Contents
Page
I. Introduction 2
II. Background 8
III. Position
of ATU 11
IV. Position
of
V. Arbitrator's
Award - Wages 42
VI. Arbitrator's
Award - Health Insurance 59
I. INTRODUCTION
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to RCW 41.56.492 and the regulations
promulgated thereunder. The
parties to this dispute are the
"Employer" or "
Union Local 587 (hereinafter "
this dispute have defined their working
conditions pursuant to a
Collective
Bargaining Agreement since
1983. The previous
Collective Bargaining Agreement covered the
period 1990 through
Agreement in the fall of 1992. To the credit of the parties, they
were able to resolve all differences, except
for wages and health
insurance for the 1993-95 Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
formed in 1980 to provide transit services
in
within the Olympic National Park and along
the
composed of three
Townsend Council members.
services including fixed route operations,
route deviations, van
pools, ride-matching service, regional
intercity bus interline
connection, local freight, and connections
with the
State ferries.
diverse and isolated counties in western
County is physically cut off from the
metropolitan
counties by both
western halves are separated by the rugged
county has a total land mass of 1,805 square
miles situated on the
northern portion of the Olympic
is one of the lowest in the state. The most recent population
figures indicate there are only 23,500
people residing in the
incorporated town in the county with a
population of 7,740.
The
rural nature of the service area creates some unique
driving situations when compared with urban
transit agencies.
each day,
from over 100 miles to as many as 400 miles. The
operators
are required to
drive over narrow
and sometimes
treacherous roads during adverse weather
conditions. For example,
the Brinnon-to-Port
Townsend run requires the operators drive over
The
drivers have to contend with problem passengers who
are under the influence of alcohol or
drugs. Drivers often have to
deal with passengers who harass and threaten
them while they are
operating the bus. In addition, drivers have to deal with
medical
emergencies while operating the buses in
remote locations.
passengers.
Drivers are expected to stop the bus when a person
flags the bus down seeking a ride.
In
sum, because of its large service area and small
population, Jefferson Transit's routes are
characterized by long
stretches between pick-ups with few
passengers on the bus at any
one time.
The
major economic and employment sectors in
County
include marine trades,
pulp and paper,
forest
products/logging, diversified
manufacturing, government and
tourism.
The major private sector employer is Port Townsend Paper
Corporation.
Government employment makes up a sizeable portion of
the
manufacturing segment of the economy is
declining while employment
in the service and retail trade industry is
occupying a greater
percentage of the employment in
a source of income for the residents of
population is growing at a moderate
rate.
experienced
recent immigration of
people as the
result of
"lifestyle moves from more urban areas
throughout the country."
The downturn in the forest products industry
and the closure of the
1.11.
The
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 represents 19
bargaining unit members at
is composed of 15 drivers, 2 mechanics and 2
dispatchers. Eight of
the 15 drivers are part-time operators. The part-time drivers
average between 25 and 30 hours of work per
week. They are
guaranteed 15 hours per week. There is one full-time and one part-
time dispatcher. Jeffrey Hamm, the Employer's general manager,
testified
that
dedicated employees who are "the heart
of this organization."
The
hearing in this case took three days for the parties
to present a substantial amount of testimony
and a voluminous
number of exhibits. The majority of the hearing time was consumed
on the issue of the appropriate
jurisdictions with which to compare
insurance benefits to be included in the
1993-95 contract. The
hearing
was recorded by
a court reporter
and a transcript
consisting of 619 pages was made available
to the parties and the
arbitration panel for the purpose of
preparing the post-hearing
briefs and the Award. Testimony of witnesses was taken under oath.
At the hearing the parties were given the
full opportunity to
present written evidence, oral testimony and
argument. The parties
provided the Arbitrator with substantial
written documentation in
support of their respective positions. Comprehensive and lengthy
post-hearing
briefs were submitted
to the Arbitrator
with
accompanying interest arbitration awards
previously issued in the
state of
The
approach of this Arbitrator in writing the Award will
be to summarize the major and most
persuasive evidence and argument
presented by the parties. After introduction of the issue and
positions of the parties, I will state the
basic findings and
rationale which caused the Arbitrator to
make the Award on the wage
and insurance issues.
The
parties filed their post-hearing written briefs in a
timely manner and the record was closed on
of the extensive record in this case the
parties agreed to an
extension of the statutory requirement that
a decision be issued
within thirty days of the close of the
record. On September 22,
1994, the neutral Arbitrator conducted a
telephone conference call
with the party appointed members of the
arbitration panel to
discuss the evidence and argument contained
in the record of this
case.
The comments and observations of the party appointed panel
members were of great assistance to the
neutral Arbitrator in
preparing his findings of fact and Award on
the issues presented
for interest arbitration. The written decision is solely the work
of the neutral Arbitrator.
This
Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant
to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.492. Since the record in this case is so
comprehensive, it would be impractical for
the Arbitrator in the
discussion and Award to restate and refer to
each and every piece
of evidence and testimony presented. However, when formulating the
Award
for the 1993-95
Collective Bargaining Agreement,
the
Arbitrator did give careful consideration to
all of the evidence
and argument contained in the record of this
case.
The statutory
standards and guidelines
to aid the
Arbitrator in reaching a decision on the
issues in this case are as
follows:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) Compensation package
comparisons,
economic indices,
fiscal constraints, and
similar
factors determined by the arbitration
panel
to be pertinent to the case; and
(d) 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.
II. BACKGROUND
This
case comes to interest arbitration pursuant to the
action of the
interest arbitration to employees of transit
agencies throughout
the state of
statute pertaining to transit employees and
the statutes covering
police and firefighter labor disputes were
the subject of some
conflict between the parties. The Arbitrator will discuss this
issue in his findings and Award.
Article
V, Section 2
established a base wage rate
effective
Classification Wage Rate
& Effective Date
Dispatcher $10.60
Driver $10.50
Mechanic $12.35
Transit
Operator Trainee $
5.00
In
a memorandum of agreement the parties agreed to modify
Article V, Section 2 to establish two
mechanic positions. The
January 1, 1992, rate for a lead mechanic
was set at $13.91 per
hour and for the maintenance service worker
the rate was set at
$10.30 per hour.
The
1990-92 Collective Bargaining Agreement also provides
for longevity pay for employees at two
different levels. Employees
with 61 through 120 months of service are
able to accrue a maximum
of $30 per month in longevity pay. Employees with 121 months of
service or more accrue a maximum monthly
amount of $60.
Article
VII addresses the issue of the insurance program.
The Employer is currently contributing less
than the $185 per month
maximum toward employee insurance. The $185 per month is adequate
to cover the cost of the employee only
insurance. The total
premium cost for 1992 was $34,647 and
$36,490 in 1993. Er.
Ex.
5.3. The
parties are at impasse on the amount of the Employer
contribution toward health insurance
premiums.
The negotiation
process resulted in a number
of
agreements on the issue of leaves, probationary
period, seniority,
grievance procedure etc. The Employer calculated the financial
impact of the tentatively agreed items over
the three-year duration
of the contract at $40,778. The parties also agreed to modify the
structure of the salary schedule to provide
a wage progression. In
essence, the new employee would have to work
five years to attain
the maximum level on the salary
schedule. The parties disagree
over the percentage to be applied at the
various steps until the
maximum salary is reached. The 1993 budget projected total revenue
of $1,323,627. Er. Ex. 3.13. It cost the District $382,019 to
fund the wages required under the 1992
contract. With FICA and
PERS an additional $58,181 was added to the
cost to fund the salary
schedule.
This
is the first interest arbitration the parties have
utilized to resolve an impasse over
negotiations for a Collective
Bargaining Agreement. The major focus of the parties on the wage
issue was comparability. The parties expressed at the arbitration
hearing widely divergent opinions over which
agencies should be
utilized
as comparators for
establishing the wage
level at
authorities from within the state of
comparables.
All of the agencies on the Employer's list operated
in non-metropolitan areas. On the other hand, the
a list of sixteen transit agencies in
wage comparison study. In addition,
alternative list of comparables which
included some local private
as well as public agencies it believed were
relevant to the
determination of wages for the members of
this bargaining unit.
Five transit agencies were common to the
lists offered by the
and the Employer.
In
its post-hearing brief, the
comparators to seven transit agencies in the
state of
The five agencies which are common to both
lists are as follows:
Pacific
Transit
Valley
Transit
Twin
Transit
Pullman
Transit
The Arbitrator holds that the five agencies
shared in common by the
two lists should be contained on the
ultimate list of comparables
to be
utilized in measuring wages for the members of this
bargaining unit.
III. POSITION
OF ATU
A. Background
The
a new hire at 85% of the maximum rate rising
to 100% at Step F
after
five years. Current
employees hired prior
to the
ratification of this Agreement would be
grandfathered at the
maximum rate.
The
as follows:
CLASSIFICATION WAGES
Dispatcher $12.94
Transit
Operator $11.55
+
Lead Mechanic $15.30
Mechanic $13.58
Maintenance Service Worker $11.33
Transit Operator Trainee $ 5.00
The above salary represents a 10%
across-the-board increase in
wages.
The
and third years of the contract as follows:
Effective
all
Employees will increase by a minimum five
percent
(5%). Should the aggregate percentage
increase
of sales and use tax received by
exceed
five percent (5%), Employees' wages
will
increase by an equal amount up to a
maximum
of ten percent (10%).
Effective
all
Employees will increase by a minimum five
percent
(5%). Should the aggregate percentage
increase
of sales and use tax received by
exceed
five percent (5%), Employees' wages
will
increase by an equal amount up to a
maximum
of ten percent (10%).
A Union proposal for a salary increase
effective
was withdrawn from arbitration on
The
ARTICLE
VII (FORMERLY VII) - HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS
SECTION I. MEDICAL,
DENTAL, VISION AND LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAMS
A. The EMPLOYER agrees to provide a medical
insurance
program, including
chiropractic coverage, a
dental
insurance
program, a vision insurance program, and a life
insurance
program covering all Employees, and
their
dependents. The cost to the Employer for monthly
premiums
shall be as follows:
1994 100% up to $160 and 75% thereafter
1995 100% up to $185 and 75% thereafter
C. The EMPLOYER will establish a health
benefit account
for
each Employee. On January 1st of each
year the
EMPLOYER
will deposit five hundred dollars ($500.00) into
the account
of each Employee.
At the Employee's
direction
the funds in this account may be directed or
held
for the following reason: Employee's monthly
premium
share; Employee's and family's deductible; or
required
Employee copayments.
Account balances at the
end
of the year will roll over to the next year, however,
the
total accumulated in the account cannot exceed the
total of
the individual employee's/family's gross
copayment and deductible liability. The account is for
health
benefits coverage only.
New
SECTION 4. NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED
CHANGES
No
change in any benefit levels shall be made unless
first
reduced to writing and negotiated with the
The
appropriate based on the statutory
factors. In addition, the
assurances from the past. According to the
acknowledged that its wages and past wage increases
were low and
led its employees to believe their earnings
would improve once the
fourteen years after the founding of this
agency it is a mature
enterprise with an excellent fleet of vehicles
and facilities. The
employees a decent wage on which they can
support themselves and
their families.
It
is the position of the
wage increases of 4%, 3% and 2% over the
duration of this contract
are minimal, and not in keeping with the
promise to improve the
wage payments when the agency matured. The
Employer's position on the health insurance
issue because it will
not provide adequate protection against
future premium increases.
The
changed without first negotiating such
changes with the
Turning
to the statutory factors, the
guidelines contained in RCW 41.56.492 are
similar to the statutes
covering police and firefighter labor
disputes. According to the
differences in wording that exists between
the two statutes. The
analysis that is routinely undertaken by
interest arbitration
panels in police and firefighter disputes.
Responding
to the Employer's claim that the use of the
phrase "compensation package
comparisons, " reflects the legislative
intent to focus the comparisons on the local
labor market, the
to allow greater flexibility in the sources of comparisons.
Further, the
of the phrase "fiscal constraints"
which appears in the controlling
statute for transit employees. Since both statutes contain the
"catchall" provision permitting
reference to factors that have
traditionally been used in collective
bargaining, the
that "fiscal constraints" is one
such traditional factor. The
Arbitrator should apply the general interest
arbitration principles
to this case that will generate over time
the rules to be used in
future transit agency interest arbitration
cases.
In
sum, the statutory guidelines favor the
and health insurance proposals over those of
B. Compensation Comparisons
The
five that are common to both, plus
Transit.
According to the
Transit are appropriate comparators in this
case because they are
located in adjacent, largely rural counties
that are more alike
than different than
and Clallam Transit serve counties of larger
population, they are
deemed to be "rural" systems by
the Washington State Department of
Transportation. Er. Ex. 3.3. Like the five mutually selected
comparators, neither of these two agencies
serve a metropolitan
service area.
Moreover,
the number of employees and budgets are more
closely related to
transit
agencies utilized on
the
comparators. From the
connection between the two transit agencies
from Clallam and Grays
Harbor
counties warrants their
inclusion in the
list of
comparators.
A map of
sandwiched between
the south.
With respect to Clallam Transit, this geographical link
has led to operational connections between
Clallam Transit.
Additionally, there
is also precedent in
Transit for using Clallam Transit as a basis
for comparison in
determining salaries. General Manager Hamm testified that when he
reclassified
the wages for non-represented
employees in 1990, he examined the wage structure at Clallam
Transit.
The
appropriate comparator for determining
managerial salaries, there
is no reason to exclude it as a comparator
of its unionized
employees.
The
Clallam Transit to
the list of the five
mutually selected
comparators will create a balanced list of
seven jurisdictions with
which to base the wages at
The
Transit and Mason Transit to the list of the
five agreed-on
comparators.
The
exclusion of these two agencies from the
list of comparators.
First,
neither of these agencies were in existence when the
negotiations began between the parties to
this contract in the fall
of 1992.
Mason Transit began operations in December 1992, and
1992.
If interest arbitration is considered an extension of the
bargaining, it would be illogical to chose
two agencies that did
not even exist at the time negotiations
began.
Second, none of the hourly employees of these two
agencies are represented by a union. The inclusion of these two
non-unionized agencies along with the five
unionized agencies will
artificially depress the compensation
package averages.
Third,
the employees of
the start up of this agency that transit
operations are an "iffy
proposition" and that wage increases
must be kept to a minimum
until the agency becomes more established.
Applying this principle
to
it is inappropriate to make comparisons
between a mature agency
such as this Employer with two new start-up
operations.
The
Employer's attempts to use as comparators
local school districts,
auto repair shops or
All of these proposed comparators are
non-transit employers. The
record
before this Arbitrator
does not contain
sufficient
information in order to determine whether
they are truly comparable
employers.
It
is also the position of the
bus drivers are not properly comparable in
mission or working
conditions to the work performed at
drivers are part-time drivers who work 180
days each year. The
attempt by the Employer to utilize mechanics
working at local auto
repair
shops as comparators should
also be rejected by the
Arbitrator, as most of the shops are small,
non-unionized and are
for profit enterprises.
Regarding
the dispatchers working for
and for Port Townsend, the record reveals
nothing about the working
conditions and/or job requirements for these
dispatchers. The
dispatchers employed by
supervisory duties which justifies a higher
rate of pay in light of
the services performed.
Lastly,
the
from around the state, there is no reason to
include non-transit
entities in the list of comparators because
they share little in
common with
The
operators which read:
1994
Operator Wage Rates
Transit Authority Wage Rate
Grays Harbor Transit $ 13.70
Pullman Transit $ 13.60
Clallam Transit $ 13.29
Twin Transit $
12.25
Valley Transit $ 11.00
Pacific Transit $ 10.98
Average Without
With
for 1993 and 1994 (cumulative total of 7%) $ 11.25
With Union Wage Proposals for 1993 and
1994 (cumulative total of 17.9%) $ 12.46
Based
on this wage comparison, the Arbitrator should
conclude the
of the
$0.33 an hour below the average of the seven
comparators. On the
other hand, the Employer's proposed wage
rate is more than $1.50 an
hour, or nearly 12% below the average.
The
"longevity pay" as part of the
hourly wage rate when making its
comparison studies. According to the
longevity pay into the hourly rate
artificially inflates the value
of the Employer's proposals. Longevity pay is provided in a
separate provision of the contract and is
expressed as a monthly
bonus, not as part of the hourly rate. The Employer recognizes
this because for the first time
new
"Step G" on its proposed wage progression grid.
It
is also the position of the
is intended to be an ancillary benefit similar
to vacation pay,
sick pay, and severance pay. The parties have agreed to add a
fourth week of vacation for employees with
between ten and fifteen
years of service in exchange for eliminating
the $30 increase in
longevity pay at ten years of service. Since not all members of
the unit enjoy longevity pay, it is
inappropriate to include them
in the wage comparison.
The
five mutually selected comparators. The
study revealed the
following:
1994
Operator Wage Rates
Transit
Authority Wage
Rate
Pullman
Transit $
13.60
Twin
Transit $
12.25
Valley
Transit $
11.00
Pacific
Transit $
10.98
Average Without
With
for 1993 and 1994 (cumulative total of 7%) $ 11.25
With Union Wage Proposals for 1993 and
1994 (cumulative total of 17.9%) $ 12.46
The
calculations show that wages for employees in this
agency will still remain far below the
average rate of the five
mutually agreed on comparators.
The
operators should set the pattern for all job
classifications except
for dispatchers. The
increase from $10.66 an hour to $12.94 an
hour. The 22% increase
for the dispatchers as opposed to the 10%
increase for the other
classifications, is justified in light of
the dispatchers' high
level of responsibilities According to the
in this unit have additional
responsibilities that are analogous to
first-line supervisors at other transit
agencies. Given these
supervisory-type duties, the
earned a substantial increase in the rate of
pay.
The
progression lends further support to its
wage proposal. The wage
progression will save the Employer money
over the long term. This
significant concession merits consideration
in the setting of the
wages during the duration of this
contract. When the concession on
the wage progression issue is combined with
the Employer's proposed
2% increase for 1995, the Arbitrator should
conclude the Employer's
proposal is plainly inadequate.
C. Economic Indices
The
is of a vibrant and growing county that is
capitalizing on its
advantages
to escape the economic down-turns
of other rural
resource-based communities. Un. Ex. 12.
The evidence shows that
median family income has risen dramatically
since 1980. Un. Ex.
14.
Further,
live, with high housing costs and tax
increases needed to fund
public work projects to absorb the new and
expanding population and
businesses.
demonstrated for both January 1993 and
January 1994, that
County has the worst housing affordability
index figures for any of
the other measured 12
income
and costs of
living in Jefferson
County have risen
dramatically, the wages for the members of
this bargaining unit
have remained depressed from the beginning
of the Employer's
operation.
Responding
to the reliance of the Employer on the cost of
living
indexes, the
determinative. First,
recognized their employees have received
only minimal raises over
the years on the assurance that employee
sacrifices would be
recognized once the agency became
established. Second, Jefferson
County's economy is sound and likely to
improve. The Union reasons
that it is appropriate that employees in
this bargaining unit be
able to make up some of the ground they have
lost over the last
decade.
D. Ability to Pay
It
is clear from the evidence in this case that this
agency can easily afford the increases
contained in the
wage proposal. The
agency has in fact enjoyed
substantial
surpluses in every year that is documented
in the record. In 1988,
the Employer renovated and moved into its
new headquarters. The
surplus achieved in 1993 of over $67,000 is
greater than the total
cost of the
Employer.
The Employer estimated the total incremental cost of the
1993 surplus exceeds by $17,000 the total
cost of the
proposal for 1993
The
Employer has made conservative financial assumptions
and currently maintains substantial reserves
in both the general
fund and capital fund to provide significant
financial cushions
against possible future economic
downturns. Union Exhibit 34
indicates the general fund budget currently
maintains a reserve
amount of over $515,000. In that same exhibit the capital fund
budget currently maintains a capital
replacement fund of $967,650.
This sum represents a significant percentage
of the total annual
revenues from 1993 of $1,396,840.
The
extremely successful in obtaining federal
and state monies for the
purpose of replacing vehicles. Union Exhibit 32 shows that over
60% of the cost of the vehicles it presently
owns came from grant
money.
$431,313 for all of the vehicles it
presently owns. This means
that the capital replacement fund currently
contains more than
twice the amount this Employer has spent over
the last ten years to
purchase all of its vehicles.
In
its offer, the
increase in each of the last two years of
the three-year contract,
plus an additional increase tied to the
percentage increase in the
sales and use tax received by
vehicle excise tax receipts is a creative
proposal which merits
adoption.
The principle that the level of employees' salaries
should be linked to the economic health of
worthy of recognition in the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. In
sum, there is no basis to conclude that
there exists "financial
constraints" that would preclude
funding the
E. Other Factors
The
members of this bargaining unit perform well under
difficult and stressful conditions. They operate busses often on
narrow and sometimes treacherous roads.
Adverse weather conditions
make some of the routes dangerous to drive
during the winter
months.
The
problem passengers and medical emergencies
in remote conditions far
removed from any type of assistance. There are some locations
where radio contact with the dispatch center
is practically non-
existent.
The absence of designated stops for passengers makes for
difficult driving conditions for bus
operators.
The
the members of this bargaining unit are as
significant and daunting
as faced by bus drivers anywhere. The Arbitrator should reject any
attempt by the Employer to justify lower
wage increases on the
assumption that driving a bus on country
roads requires less skill
and is less difficult than it is on city
streets.
The
its general manager wage increases that are
far in excess of those
received by bargaining unit employees. During the period between
1989 through 1994, the general manager
received a gross increase of
70%.
His increase for 1994 was 8.5%, which is almost three times
greater than the 3% increase which the
Employer has offered the
rank-and-file for 1994. It would be grossly unfair to award the
general manager a percentage increase that
is so much greater than
the one proposed for the rank-and-file
employees of this unit.
F. Health Insurance
The
is modest and should be chosen over the
Employer's proposal. The
Employer has calculated the financial
difference and impact between
the two proposals as a total of $5,000 for
1994 and 1995. Er.
Exs.
5.5, 5.10.
The
employees will not have to pay any portion
of their own premium
during the life of the contract, and to
enable employees to provide
dependent coverage for members of their
families. The goal of full
coverage is inapplicable to 1994 since the
actual monthly premium
cost is less than the Employer has proposed
to pay.
Turning
to the 1995 rates, the Employer has assumed that
premiums for each year for each employee
will increase only 7% to
a total of $151.05 per employee. Given the 7% assumption, the
Employer's proposal of a payment of $152 per
month would ensure
complete coverage for the individual
employees. In contrast to the
Employer's assumption that premium cost will
increase 7%, the
believes that it is more likely a premium
increase will be higher
than 7%.
In that event, the employees would be required to pick up
40% of the cost above $152 a month. It is for this reason that the
premium up to the maximum of $185 per month.
On
the subject of dependent coverage, the Union proposal
represents a modest attempt to assist
employees who need insurance
coverage for their dependents. The Employer offers to pay, in
effect,
86% of the cost of the dependent coverage, while the
depending upon the level of coverage.
The
Based on the information contained in Union
Exhibit 10, all transit
agencies
except Cowlitz, pay
100% of the
employee cost of
insurance.
Four of the seven agencies pay 100% of dependent
coverage.
The
comparator jurisdictions.
The
final proposal of the
remain constant through the end of the
contract unless both parties
agree to change the benefit package. It makes no sense for the
free to decrease the level of benefits. The
should
be adopted to
protect employees against
unilateral
alterations in their benefits package
through the end of the
Agreement.
For
all of the above stated reasons, the
proposals on wages and health benefits
should be adopted by the
Arbitrator.
IV. POSITION
OF
A. Background
The
Employer proposes a 4% across-the-board adjustment
for all represented personnel effective
addition, for employees with five years or
more of service a Step
G would be added to the wage progression
reflecting the hourly
equivalent of the longevity premium
contained in the previous
Collective Bargaining Agreement of $0.17 per
hour. For 1994, the
Employer would increase wages by 3%,
effective
During the third year of the contract the
Employer would increase
the salary schedule by 2%, effective
Effective
with the date of the Award,
would pay up to a maximum of $145 toward
health benefit premiums
plus 60% of the excess cost of such premiums
over $145. In 1995,
premium plus 60% of the excess over
$152.
also
establish a health
benefits account for
each eligible
employee.
each eligible employee in 1994 and
1995. At the employee's
discretion the funds in this account could
be directed or held for
the following purposes:
(1) applied toward the
employee's monthly
medical
benefits premium; (2) applied to the
individual's
or family's deductible; or (3)
applied
to the co-payment requirement. The
balances
left in the account at the end of
each
year may be rolled over to the next year.
The
total accumulated in the account cannot
exceed
the total of the individual's (and/or
family's)
gross co--payment liability plus one
year's
total deductible (individual's and/or
family's). The account is for health benefits
coverage
only.
Step
G would be reserved for employees with over five
years of service and include the longevity
premium of $0.17 per
hour.
The top two steps on the Employer's proposal would be as
follows:
(using
proposed 4%, 3%, 2% increase)
Step
F Step G
Over
4 yrs Over 5 yrs.
(100%) (w/longevity)
OPERATOR
1993 $10.92 $11.09
1994 $11.25 $11.42
1995 $11.47 $11.64
DISPATCHER
1993 $11.02 $11.19
1994 $11.35 $11.52
1995 $11.50 $11.75
LEAD MECHANIC
1993 $14.47 $14.64
1994 $14.90 $15.07
1995 $15.20 $15.37
MECHANIC
1993 $12.84 $13.01
1994 $13.23 $13.40
1995 $13.49 $13.66
MAINTENANCE
SERVICE WORKER
1993 $10.71 $10.88
1994 $11.03 $11.20
1995 $11.25 $11.42
insurance offer over the three years of this
contract coincides
with
the requirements of
the interest arbitration
statute.
metropolitan area and can be characterized
by its centralized local
labor market which has little manufacturing
base. The downturn in
the timber business, financial losses in the paper industry,
reduced number of tourists and the closure
of the salmon fishing
have all taken a toll on
Transit's
finances have not
been immune from this
economic
downturn.
The
Employer begins by noting that interest arbitration
is an extension of the collective bargaining
process rather than a
substitute for that process. The Arbitrator is required to
consider all of the factors set forth in the
statute. The process
of applying the statutory factors is
multidimensional, rather than
a simplistic process of looking only at what
other jurisdictions
pay their transit employees. The
because it focuses solely on what vastly
larger transit agencies
pay.
On the other hand,
on all of the statutory factors.
transit employees includes some unique
standards or guidelines
governing the establishment of wages and
benefits for transit
employees.
The statute governing uniform
personnel interest
arbitration factors include a reference to
like personnel of like
employers of similar size on the west coast
of the
and a reference to the average consumer
prices for goods and
services.
These two factors are not included in the transit
interest arbitration statute.
The legislature
adopted language which
refers to
"compensation package
comparisons, economic indices,
fiscal
constraints, and similar factors determined
by the arbitration
panel to be pertinent to the
case." The Employer explains that
the
difference in language places heighten
importance on developments
within an
employer's local labor market,
as well as budget
restrictions faced by the employer. According to this Employer,
the use of the phrase "compensation
package comparisons" reflects
a broadening of the definition of
comparators to include wages paid
by private sector employers and other public
sector employers in
the same local labor market. In addition, the new language is
narrower to the extent that it places the
focus locally rather than
on developments in the far-flung reaches of
the west coast. Thus,
the Employer has developed its comparison
studies to. reflect the
wages paid in the local labor market and by
fiscal constraints
which
The
tentative agreements already reached by the parties
will cost
this contract alone. The ATU's
proposals for substantial wage
increases and large health care cost
increases must be viewed in
the context of the items the Employer has
already tentatively
agreed to which will require the expenditure
of substantial sums of
money.
B. Compensation Comparisons
Although
not technically a stipulation, the reality is
five common comparables are included on the
proposed list of
comparables submitted by both parties.
that the five comparables shared in common
on the two lists should
be at a minimum contained on the ultimate
list of comparables. To
the list of five mutually acceptable
comparators, the Employer
would add Mason Transit and
are within the population bands when budgets
and number of
employees are considered. The Employer also points out that both
agencies operate on the Olympic
substantially similar to
Transit ties its routes to Mason Transit in
its southern reaches of
few years.
With the addition of Mason Transit and
the end result will be five comparables from
western
two from eastern
metropolitan areas.
The
Employer asks the Arbitrator to reject the
two arguments against the inclusion of Mason
Transit and
Transit in the list of comparables. The
they are newly formed agencies and therefore
should be rejected.
It is the position of the Employer that both
of these agencies have
been well received and ridership
counts have exceeded even the most
liberal estimates.
The
second challenge to the use of these two agencies by
the
no support for the exclusion of comparable
agencies simply because
they do not operate under union contracts.
The
Employer also argues that its proposed expanded
comparables reflect the weight which should
be applied to the local
labor market under the new statutory
criteria. The dynamics within
the local labor market are crucial in
determining wages. Thus,
school bus drivers within the local area are
correctly included in
the list of comparators. The same is true for dispatchers. When
making the comparison for dispatchers, the
Employer properly made
a comparison between the dispatchers
employed by the city of
Townsend and the
Turning
to the mechanic classification,
added the primary heavy diesel repair
operations in its service
area.
This includes both private and public sector groups who
employ mechanics in the local area.
In
sum, the information concerning wages paid for similar
positions in the immediate local labor
market is directly relevant
to establishing "compensation package
comparisons."
With
respect to the
the Employer submits it is a "result
oriented combination of
dissimilar agencies." The
by which to measure potential comparables.
The representatives for
the
240.
Moreover,
the
current.
This reliance on outdated data further skewed the
information presented to the panel and
heightened the subjectivity
underlying the
unique factor of sole reliance on
information contained in the ATU
International's data base. By utilizing this approach, incorrect
information and comparators were utilized
which were not even close
in population and size to
The
largest agency on the
employee count of 266 which is more than
950% larger than
Transit.
The same figures hold true on the size of the budget.
average
budget of the ATU's
comparables was 7.4
million.
Fundamental
fairness compels that
wages be determined
by
consideration of agencies who operate under
similar dynamics. Size
is a crucial dynamic in any wage
determination.
The
Arbitrator should reject the inclusion of Clallam
Transit on the list of comparables. Although Clallam Transit is
located on the Olympic peninsula and does
exchange passengers with
Jefferson Transit at Sequim, the
similarities end there. In 1993
Clallam Transit transported 693,413 passengers
in comparison to
persons at Clallam Transit verses 500 at
Clallam Transit budget is 3.7 million
dollars. It has 60.8
employees compared to
service area is three times larger than that
of
Thus, the Arbitrator should eliminate
Clallam Transit from the list
of comparables.
The
Employer also challenges the use of
Transit as a comparable. The service area population of Grays
Harbor Transit is 66,500, almost three times
the size of
Transit.
serving far-flung areas of southwestern
Harbor
Transit is not
a public transportation benefit
area
corporation, and is also in the ambulance
business.
Transit should not be included on the list
of comparables because
it is a dissimilar agency.
C. Wage Issue
supported by the statutory factors. The compensation comparators
with like employers reveals that
put it at the median of its
comparables. In addition,
Transit's proposal is fair in light of the basic trends in
collective
bargaining agreements throughout
the nation and
throughout
inflation, employees will gain ground on
inflation over the course
of this contract. According to the Employer, the bargaining
unit
members have done better than inflation over
the last decade.
wage increases offered in the local labor
market and the less than
rosy financial condition of the
into account.
place the operators well above the median of
the comparables. The
wage comparison revealed information as
follows:
OPERATORS 1993 WAGES 1994 WAGES
Pullman
Transit $13.25 $13.60
Twin
Transit $11.80 $12.25
Valley
Transit $10.67 $11.00
Pacific
Transit $10.66 $10.98
Mason
Transit $ 9.59 $10.01
1993
1994
comparing wages is fairer than an average
given the asymmetrical
distribution of wages. Even if the Arbitrator wants to look at
averages,
comparables.
A
similar study done for the dispatchers would place the
dispatcher wage rate for 1993 at $11.19 an
hour, $0.48 above the
median.
The same result is true for 1994 where dispatcher wages
would be $0.22 above the median wage of the
comparables.
The
mechanic wage for 1993 would be set at $13.01 which
places it right at the median wage for
mechanics in the 1993
comparison of wages. For 1994 the $13.40 proposed by
Transit would place it $0.78 below the
median.
employees, the relative ranking among the
comparables had stayed
the same or improved over the last five
years. There is absolutely
no evidence in this record that this
Employer has gone from being
a salary leader to a salary
"laggard." There is nothing in
this
record which calls out for the Arbitrator to
restore a former
position of the agency among the comparable
employers.
Responding
to the
premium,
establish its burden that such a premium is
warranted. The
offered absolutely no evidence from its own
comparables about
anything having to do with dispatcher
rates. Only one of the seven
comparables paid dispatchers more than their
operators. Nor did
the
notion
that dispatchers are
akin to first-line
supervisors.
Lastly, none of the dispatchers were called
to testify firsthand
about the demands of the job.
With respect
to the
increases to the sales and use tax
increases,
submits this proposal is without merit. If this proposal were
adopted for 1994, it would yield a 7.9%
increase to the members of
this bargaining unit. Only one of the
such a sales and use tax contingent increase
built into their
collective bargaining agreement. Further, the
only works if the tax receipts go up. If the tax receipts go down,
the Union proposal does not require wages to
also decrease by the
same amount.
The proposal makes no sense for an agency as small as
incomplete and inaccurate. According to the Employer, the
wage data cannot be trusted. All of the wage comparison charts
contained errors and were displayed in a
misleading fashion. This
includes
the comparison of
1994 wages for
comparables with
Contrary
to the
District
have been historically
low, is the
evidence which
demonstrated that members of this bargaining
unit have enjoyed wage
increases that exceed the average of ATU's comparables.
Factoring
in
result is a 22.1% increase over the 1990
wage rate. Applying the
same calculation to the Union's seven-year
comparison, Jefferson
Transit's 1994 wage rate constitutes a 29.8%
increase. The wage
comparisons with transit agencies across the
nation do not support
the ATU proposal.
It
is also the position of Jefferson Transit that its
proposal is fair in light of wages paid by
the "expanded comparable
list." When the wages paid by the three
major school districts for
their school bus drivers are considered,
this unit compares fairly
well.
Further, the school district drivers are part-time employees
who do not work the entire year. A review of the wages paid to
dispatchers by the city of Port Townsend and
Jefferson County
reveals that those dispatchers are paid
substantially less than
Jefferson Transit's current rates. The same is true when the wages
of Jefferson Transit mechanics are compared
with the wage rates
paid to mechanics working in Jefferson
County.
The
next statutory factor examined by the Employer
relates
to economic indices.
Jefferson Transit points
the
arbitration panel to three independent sets
of economic indices
which it believes support the Employer's
proposal. First, the
United States has sustained an extremely low
level of inflation
over the last two years, as measured by the
CPI. Second, Jefferson
Transit's employees have fared well
historically in relation to the
CPI.
Third, average annual earnings in
Jefferson County are
substantially less than the state average
and significantly less
than the counties advocated as comparable by
the Union. Fourth,
the per capita income levels for Jefferson
County lag behind state
averages.
Based on
all of the
above stated arguments,
the
Arbitrator should award
D. Health Insurance
health insurance premiums plus an additional
60% of the total
excess costs of such premiums over
$145. For 1994, this would
cover 100% of the cost for the employee
coverage, the class which
affects 11 of 19 bargaining unit
members. Effective January 1,
1995, Jefferson Transit would increase the
base amount of the
health premium paid to $152 plus continuing
to pay 60% of the
excess over $152. In addition, for both 1994 and 1995,
Jefferson
Transit would establish a health benefits
account for each eligible
employee consisting of $500 per year to use
to offset health
insurance premium costs, employee or family
deductible, or the
plan's
co-payment requirements. Under
Jefferson Transit's
proposal, an employee and one child would
receive 86% employer-paid
coverage.
An employee, spouse and two children with no dependent
medical would receive 87% paid
coverage. Jefferson Transit submits
that the proposal reflects a wise compromise
allowing risk-sharing
between employees and Jefferson Transit.
E. Financial Constraints
Jefferson
Transit asserts that the introduction of an
explicit fiscal constraint factor recognizes
the reality that
public agencies are more and more squeezed
by competing demands on
their limited resources. According to Jefferson Transit, the
Union's wage and benefit proposal would
decimate the budget for
years to come. The wage proposal alone would result in an
increase
over three years of $262,360. Er. EX. 5.9. The Union health
benefits proposal would add an additional
$16,468 to the cost of
the benefit program. If the Arbitrator adopts the Union proposal
to tie wages to increases in sales and use
taxes, the cost
increases would be substantially greater.
The
total financial impact of the Union's proposal would
force the agency into a negative operations
reserve by 1995. By
prudent management this agency has been able
to maintain reserves
and cash in investment fund balances to keep
the operation on solid
financial ground. The current projections show that the sales
and
use tax revenue for 1994 will be less than
anticipated. It is not
an option for this Employer to go to the
voters to increase the
taxes in the service area. Nor can the Employer abandon its
capital replacement fund.
order to provide a mechanism to replace
ageing vehicles in the
fleet.
F. Other Factors Traditionally Considered
When
setting
wages
As
previously noted, the Employer asserts that
County's labor market is basically self
contained. In the view of
the Employer, it is appropriate to look at
wage adjustments in the
local labor market. No employer is awarding increases remotely
close to those requested by the
Port Townsend agreed to a 3% increase. The SEIU bargaining unit at
increase was granted in the
Townsend Paper Company, awarded a 2.5%
increase for 1993. For
1994, that raise is currently proposed to be
only 2%.
County employees received a 2.61% increase
in 1993 and a 2.25%
increase in 1994.
The
factor of area economic conditions also supports the
Employer's proposal.
by lower paying service industry jobs. It does not have a strong
manufacturing base. The economy of the area was further impacted
by the closing of fishing and the downturn
in the timber industry.
is a state that would justify the dramatic
pay increases proposed
by the
Regarding
the factor of internal parity, the Employer has
adjusted non-represented staff
with only one cost of living
increase of 3% in 1992. For
1991, 1993 and 1994, the only
potential pay raises were merit-based. Only two staff received
such a raise in 1991, 1993 and 1994. The turnover and hiring rates
indicate that the pay level is adequate to
attract large numbers of
qualified candidates when positions are open
within the agency.
have less stress than employees in larger
agencies.
Transit does not deny there are certain
stresses associated with
the job within this service area. However,
dispute that these stresses exceed or equal
those carried by
employees in urban environments. This is reflected by the fact
that there are only five to six passengers
on a bus--on average--at
any particular time. This is in direct contrast to busses in urban
areas, where drivers routinely must operate
at standing room only
conditions
at rush hour.
The realities are
that the work
environment at
reduced.
a fair proposal for both wages and health
benefits within the
context of its budget and the economic
conditions within which this
Employer must operate. The Arbitrator should sustain the proposals
of
V. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - WAGES
A. Background
The
starting point in this case is RCW 41.56.492.
Since
the legislation extending the right to
interest arbitration to
employees of transit agencies throughout the
state of
relatively new, a few preliminary comments
about the statutory
procedure are in order. The guidelines contained in RCW 41.56.492
are similar to the guidelines governing
police and firefighter
interest arbitration. However, they are not identical to those
contained in the other statutes. RCW 41.56.492 subsection 2(C)
uses
the phrase
"compensation package comparisons,
economic
indices, fiscal constraints . . ." RCW 41.56.450 uses the phrase
comparison of the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of
personnel . . . " In the judgment of this Arbitrator, wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment are what is
commonly referred to as a
compensation package." Hence, this
Arbitrator can discern no real
difference
between the transit,
and police and
firefighter
guidelines on this statutory factor.
The
transit statute uses the terms
"economic indices"
rather than referring to the average
consumer prices for goods and
services that is referenced in the police
and firefighter statute.
The Arbitrator holds that the phrase
economic indices expressly
broadens the specific types of economic
indicators that may be
utilized by an interest arbitrator in
formulating an award.
The transit
statute also uses
the phrase "fiscal
constraints" which is not found in the
police and firefighter
interest arbitration guidelines. The Arbitrator finds that by
using this term an arbitrator is
specifically required to take into
account the financial circumstances of the
employer. Arbitrators,
under the catchall provision of the police
and firefighter statute
typically discuss the financial constraints
on the employer when
coming to an award on economic matters for
police and firefighters.
RCW
41.56.492(2)(C) includes the phrase "similar factors
determined by the arbitration panel to be
pertinent to the case."
This language would appear to grant to the
arbitration panel the
ability to exercise its discretion on a
case-by-case basis to
utilize additional "similar
factors" to the extent the facts may
warrant.
The utilization of "similar factors
in a particular case
expressly empowers an arbitrator to exercise
his or her discretion
on whether to take into account additional
factors when developing
an award.
To the extent the record warrants the utilization of
additional factors,
weight should be given to developments
within the Employer's local
labor market as well as budget restrictions
faced by the Employer
is correct.
RCW 41.56.492(2)(D) continued
without change the
"catchall" factor that is found in
the police and firefighter
interest arbitration statute. This retention of the same language
indicates to this Arbitrator the legislature
intended to continue
to allow great flexibility in the use of
factors which a party to
a labor dispute can establish are relevant
to their particular
agency or employment relationship. In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, any differences in language
between the two statutes
will not require any radical departure from
the analysis that is
routinely taken by interest arbitration
panels in police and
firefighter disputes. The duty of an interest arbitrator in a
transit dispute will be to apply the
standards and guidelines to
the specific record that is developed by the
parties in the case at
issue.
The
transit statute refers to the factors as "standards
or guidelines" to aid the arbitrator in
reaching a decision on what
terms should be included in a collective
bargaining agreement. The
relative weight to be given to any of the
criteria listed in the
statute is not specified. The factors identified in the statutes
are referred to as "standards or
guidelines" which cannot be
applied in a neat and exact fashion. This Arbitrator and others
who arbitrate labor disputes are responsible
for applying the
evidence to the statutory factors even if
the evidence submitted by
the parties is incomplete, misleading,
contains errors or is
manipulative. The submission of a dispute to interest arbitration
does not occur in a vacuum. It is part of the continuing
relationship
between the parties
to a collective bargaining
agreement.
Therefore, it is important for this Arbitrator to
develop an Award that will avoid doing
damage to the ongoing
relationship between the parties to the
contract.
The
Arbitrator finds after a careful review of the
evidence and argument, as applied to the
statutory criteria that
the salary schedule and wage progression
proposed by the Employer
should be adopted effective
further note that Step G should clearly be
identified as a
longevity step on the salary schedule.
The
Arbitrator holds that wages increases should be
applied across the board as follows:
1. A
four percent (4%)
across-the-board
adjustment for
all represented personnel
effective
employees
with five years or more of service,
a Step
G would be
added to the
wage
progression
reflecting the hourly equivalent
of
the longevity premium contained in the
previous collective
bargaining agreement
($0.17
per hour).
2. For 1994, wages shall be increased by
four
percent (4%)
across the board,
effective
3. For 1995, employees shall receive a
three
and
one/half percent (3 1/2%) across-the-board
adjustment,
effective
The
reasoning of the Arbitrator is set forth in the
discussion which follows.
B. Constitutional and Statutory Authority
of
the Employer
Regarding
the constitutional and statutory authority of
Jefferson Transit, no issues were raised
with respect to this
factor.
C. Stipulations of the Parties
Regarding
the factor of stipulations of the parties,
there were no formal stipulations entered
into by the parties to
this dispute. However, the parties do concur on two
essential
aspects of this dispute. First,
the parties agree that the
Collective Bargaining Agreement should cover
the period from
have agreed that the five transit agencies
included on both lists
of comparators should be used by this
Arbitrator in framing the
Award for the 1993-95 contract. The Arbitrator will honor the
requests of the parties and include the five
common agencies in the
list of comparators.
D. Economic Indices
Cost
of living as measured by the CPI-W reveals that
inflation has been running at a level
ranging from a low of 2.2% to
a high of 3.1% over the period from January
1992 through April
1994.
Er. Exs. 4.1 through
4.7. While the union attempted to
counter the low levels of inflation recorded
by the CPI with its
reliance on the housing affordability index,
the Arbitrator was not
persuaded that this index is such to justify
an award substantially
in excess of the increases in the cost of
living as recorded by the
CPI.
bargaining unit have fared well historically
in relation to the
CPI.
Er. Exs. 4.8 through 4.9. In essence, these exhibits
demonstrate that members of this bargaining
unit have received wage
increases in excess of those increases
recorded in the CPI over
that same period of time.
The
parties placed before this Arbitrator a substantial
amount of data about the
part, the information submitted by the
Employer was current and
reliable.
The Arbitrator gave the greater weight to
Transit's economic data. Er. Exs. 1.10 through 1.11, Er. Exs. 4.10
through 4.12. The picture that emerges from the economic
data is
that
population,
per capita personal income, and
in the number of
persons employed. The
Guide stated that because of the growing
diversity of its economic
base
the local economy has escaped the dramatic down-drafts of
other rural resource based
communities." Un. Ex. 12, p.
11
Recent unemployment figures show the
unemployment rate running at
6.2% and 8.5% for 1991 and 1992 respectively.
The
economic progress being made in
not tell the entire picture. Average annual earnings in
County
are substantially less
than the state
average, and
significantly less than the counties
advocated as comparable by the
earner.
On the other hand,
$18,339, or 9% less than the state
average. The per capita income
levels for
$17,099.
The average of
The Arbitrator cannot ignore the fact that
a high wage county for workers. Accordingly, the economic indicia
require an Award that is less than proposed
by the
E. Fiscal Constraints Factor
The
Employer argued that adoption of ATU's wage and
benefit proposal would decimate
years to come. The Arbitrator concurs with
the cost of the
economic climate within which this Employer
must operate. However,
the assertion that adoption of the
proposal would decimate
come is a bit of an overstatement.
managed organization which is conservative
in estimating its income
and expenses. In addition, the Employer is careful to set
aside
money
needed for capital
replacement and for
unanticipated
expenditures. The bottom line is that this Employer has
the
ability to pay a wage and benefit package
higher than it has
proposed without jeopardizing its overall
financial standing.
F. Other Factors Traditionally considered
In
setting
Wages
The
evidence is persuasive that a wage adjustment in the
amount of 10% effective
totally unrealistic in
adjustments
in the local labor market,
as evidenced by the
Employer's exhibits, show a range from 0% to
3%. As previously
discussed, the economic conditions existing
in
not warrant the type of wage adjustment
proposed by the
is the
parity factor. Non-represented employees
have not experienced wage
increases close to the amount proposed by
the
duration of this three-year Agreement. Turnover and ability to
attract qualified candidates to fill open
positions suggest that
the wage level is not in need of the radical
adjustment sought by
the
The parties
devoted considerable attention
at the
arbitration hearing to the differences
between working in a rural
transit system as opposed to an urban
transit system. The
Arbitrator finds no compelling reason to
drive the wages 9f this
unit downward because they serve a rural
population. Whether it be
rural or urban, each transit agency places
its own unique demands
on its employees.
G. Compensation Package Comparisons
The
primary focus of the presentations of the parties in
this case was the factor of
comparability. The parties came to
this interest arbitration with little or no
agreement over which
employers should be utilized as a guide to
the establishment of
wages in the
through the arbitration process they have
been able to reach a
consensus
on five transit
agencies which both
believe are
comparable.
Further, the parties concur that the appropriate
number of comparators should be seven
transit agencies. The
Arbitrator finds that a group of seven
comparators is a reasonable
number with which to measure what the wage
structure of
Transit should be during the duration of the
three-year Agreement.
five comparators. The task of the Arbitrator is to add two
other
transit agencies to the list which will
provide valid information
for the purpose of making the comparisons
among the various transit
agencies.
The
Arbitrator was persuaded that
should not be included on the list of seven
comparators. Grays
Harbor Transit is three times the size of
not a public transportation benefit area
corporation. It has
operational programs that set it apart from
service in the far-flung areas of
southwestern
Arbitrator was also persuaded that
included in the list of comparators.
formed transit agency which is not
geographically connected to
parties
would be well served by including on
its list of
comparators two transit agencies that did
not exist when the
bargaining between these parties commenced
for the successor
Agreement.
While
consideration on the list of comparators,
its time has not yet
arrived for placement on the list during
this round of bargaining.
The
Arbitrator was convinced that Mason Transit should be
included on the current list of comparators
even though it is a
newly formed transit agency. Mason and Jefferson counties are
adjacent to each other. Mason Transit is geographically connected
with
Mason Transit have connecting routes. Mason Transit is also
similarly sized to
location and similar size, it is reasonable to include Mason
Transit on the list of comparators. The utilization of Mason
Transit will also serve as a balance to the
adoption of Clallam
Transit as an appropriate point of reference
for determining wages
at
The
Arbitrator also holds that the use of Clallam Transit
as an appropriate indicator of what the
wages should be at
Transit is a much larger operation than
share the similarity of operating in
non-metropolitan, largely
rural areas in western
borders
is consistent with the Arbitrator's finding
that
borders
examining rural transit operations. The geographical link with
Clallam Transit has resulted in operational
connections between
Transit
and Mason Transit on the list of
comparators, the
Arbitrator is giving recognition to the
"local labor market"
arguments of the Employer in this case.
In preparing
its comparison studies,
the Employer
included the longevity rate as part of the
hourly wage rate. This
Arbitrator concurs with the
longevity pay as part of the hourly wage
rate when performing
comparison studies. There is no information
before this Arbitrator
that longevity was used in calculating the
top rate for the other
transit agencies or even if longevity is
available in those other
agencies. Longevity pay is provided as a
separate provision and is
expressed as a reward for long-term service
to
Under this contract employees are not
eligible for longevity until
they reach five years of service.
This
does not mean that the longevity pay provision
should be ignored. The problem develops when longevity pay is
commingled with the established contract
rate and then displayed as
the maximum rate at
comparison study. The Arbitrator will Award that the structure
of
the salary schedule will be established and
displayed as proposed
by
understand that Step G is a longevity
premium.
The
4% added to the 1993 salary schedule will yield a top
operator rate of $10.92. For those employees eligible for the
$0.17 longevity bonus, their wage rate at
Step G would be $11.09
per hour.
The parties have agreed to grandfather all current
employees at the maximum step. Adding an additional 4% to the
salary schedule effective for January 1,
j994, will yield a top
step wage of $11.36 an hour at Step F and
$11.53 with longevity
pay.
The implementation of this Award places
operators at the median of the comparables
and in a competitive
position with those agencies at the lower
end of the seven
comparators. With the implemented increases,
the ranking among the
comparators will look as follows:
OPERATORS 1993 WAGES 1994 WAGES
Pullman
Transit $13.25 $13.60
Transit * $13.29
Twin
Transit $11.80 $12.25
Valley
Transit $10.67 $11.00
Pacific
Transit $10.66 $10.98
Mason
Transit $ 9.59 $10.01
*Information
not available for the 1993 Clallam top wage
for
operators.
The
three and one/half percent (3 1/2%) ordered for 1995
will increase the top operator rate at Step
5 to $11.76 per hour.
With the addition of the longevity pay, an
operator will earn
$11.93 per hour in 1995.
As
denoted from the above comparison study, the removal
of the longevity premium does not change the
relative standing of
the members of this bargaining unit when
compared to the other
seven transit agencies. It is apparent from this display that
there is a wide range of wages paid to
transit operators in the
comparator group. Top paying
above the second ranking
done through this Award is to position
middle of the eight agencies involved in the
comparator group.
agencies that are at the bottom of the
range. At the same time,
which is the lowest paying of the top four
transit agencies of
concern.
The
economic conditions of
Transit simply do not justify a wage
increase which would drive
wages up by a minimum of 20% over the
three-year period. The Award
of this Arbitrator will establish a wage
schedule that is within
the ability of
budget for years to come. The Award is consistent with increases
recorded by the CPI. The increases awarded over the three years of
the
contract will enable
employees to enjoy
a measure of
improvement in their purchasing power when
compared to recent rates
of inflation. Nor is there any evidence in
the record of this case
which convinced the Arbitrator of a need to
propel the Jefferson
Transit wages into the ranks of the top
paying transit agencies in
the comparator group during this three-year
contract.
In
formulating this Award, the Arbitrator
was also
mindful of the tentative agreements reached
by the parties which
will improve the benefits paid to this
bargaining unit in other
areas.
The Arbitrator also took into account improvements in the
health insurance for employees and
dependents during the 1993-95
contract period.
The
Union made a unique proposal to provide an additional
increase to the members of this bargaining
unit over the base
amount tied to the percentage increase of
sales and use taxes
received by Jefferson Transit in 1993 and
1994. While this is
certainly
an innovative proposal,
the Arbitrator remains
unpersuaded
that this type of arrangement is appropriate at the
present time. The uncertainties surrounding the amount of
sales
and use tax to be received by Jefferson
Transit argues against the
proposal.
Further, only one of the transit' agency contracts
proposed by the Union as comparable contains
such a provision.
Thus, the Arbitrator must reject an increase
based on a formula
dependent on the amount of sales and use tax
received by the
Employer.
Turning
to the dispatcher issue, the
increase for dispatchers. The Arbitrator
holds the
satisfy its burden of proof to have a
dispatcher premium. There is
no evidence in the record which compels a
finding that dispatchers
should be paid a differential of the
magnitude proposed by the
study revealed that in only one of the seven
comparables did the
employer pay dispatchers more than
operators. In several agencies
dispatchers are paid substantially less than
operators. The
services
which are akin
to first-line supervisors
was not
documented by relevant and material
evidence. Therefore, the
Arbitrator refuses to award the dispatcher
premium sought by the
The
Award of this Arbitrator is consistent with the
increases being negotiated with transit
agencies across the nation.
Er. Ex. 3.46. Further, the Award takes into account the
economic
conditions existing in Jefferson County
which reveal a growing
economy--but hardly one that could be
characterized as booming--on
which to base an Award that would be totally
out of touch with
other local salary settlements.
Moreover,
the Arbitrator carefully reviewed the expanded
list of comparators submitted by
position in this case. The Arbitrator gave the greater weight to
the comparisons between
agencies because they are like
employers. They are delivering
comparable transportation services to the
public. The Arbitrator
examined the expanded list of comparators
developed by the Employer
and found that they argue against an
increase of the magnitude
sought by the Union. The Arbitrator further found from reviewing
the expanded list of comparators that the
wages paid by those other
employers did not compel the Arbitrator to
award the Employer's
proposal as it was presented at the
arbitration hearing. In other
words, the Arbitrator rejected the notion
that the expanded list of
comparators should be utilized to override
the comparison between
Jefferson Transit and other transit
agencies.
Lastly, the
amount of increases
awarded by this
Arbitrator give recognition to the
dedication to the members of
this bargaining unit and the work which they
often perform under
difficult and stressful conditions. The
majority of the members of
this bargaining unit are long-term employees
who have devoted
themselves to providing outstanding service
to the traveling public
within
Arbitrator rejects any notion that wages of
employees serving rural
areas should be driven down based on the
fact it is a rural transit
system.
In
sum, the Award of this Arbitrator will establish a
wage schedule over the duration of this
three-year Agreement that
is within the range of reasonableness when
compared with the five
transit agencies adopted by the parties as
the primary point of
reference, and the two added by this
Arbitrator to set the wages
for the members of this bargaining
unit. Further, the wage
schedule is not out of line with the
economic indices and the
fiscal constraints placed upon
this contract and beyond. The Award will allow members of this
bargaining unit increases which will protect
their purchasing power
due to any cost of living increases over the
duration of this
three-year contract.
AWARD
The Arbitrator
awards that wages
for the 1993-95
Collective Bargaining Agreement be adjusted
as follows:
1. A four percent (4%)
across-the-board
adjustment for
all represented personnel
effective
employees
with five years or more of service,
a Step
G would be
added to the
wage
progression
reflecting the hourly equivalent
of
the longevity premium contained in the
previous collective
bargaining agreement
($0.17
per hour).
2. For 1994, wages shall be increased by
four
percent (4%)
across the board,
effective
3. For 1995, employees shall receive a
three
and
one/half percent (3 1/2%) across-the-board
adjustment,
effective
4. A wage progression shall be implemented
to
provide:
Year Step
A Step B Step C
Step D Step E Step F Step G*
Hire-6 mo. 6 mo.-1 yr. 1-2 yrs. 2-3 yrs. 3-4 yrs. Over 4
yrs. Over 5 yrs.
90% 92% (94%)
(96%) (98%) (100%) w/longevity
*$0.17 per hour
VI. ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD - HEALTH INSURANCE
A. Background
Presently
the members of this bargaining unit enjoy a
benefit package which provides health
insurance to the employee
without any out-of-pocket costs. The issue for employees is not a
problem for 1993 and 1994 since the actual
monthly premium cost is
less than the Employer has proposed to cap
its obligations for
health insurance. The difference of opinion over employee
coverage
concerns the 1995 rates. With respect to dependent coverage, the
difference between the parties is over what
percentage the Employer
should pay to offset the cost to provide
insurance for dependents.
B. Discussion and Findings
The
Arbitrator finds that the Employer's proposal on
health insurance should become a part of the
contract with two
adjustments. First, the amount the Employer
contributes toward the
health benefit premiums should be increased
by approximately 8% to
$157 for 1995.
monthly contribution for 1995 by $7 is
inadequate to provide a
cushion against increased health benefit
premiums in 1995 for the
members of this bargaining unit. By increasing the amount of the
cap
to $157,
unexpected large price increases.
Second, the
levels will not be decreased during the
duration of this contract
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that the insurance article for the
1993-95 Collective Bargaining Agreement
provide as follows:
Effective
the date of the Award on this
interest
arbitration,
pay
up to a maximum of $145 towards health
benefits
premiums plus 60 percent (60%) of the
excess
cost of such premiums over $145.
In
1995,
up
to $157 towards health benefits premiums
plus
60 percent (60%) of the excess over $157.
In addition,
effective
accounting mechanism)
a health benefits
account
for each eligible employee. Effective
deposit
$500 into the account of each eligible
employee. Again,
on
additional $500
into the account for each
eligible employee.
At the employee's
discretion,
the funds in this account may be
directed
or held for the following purposes:
(1) applied toward the employee's monthly
medical
benefits premium; (2) applied to the
individual's
or family's deductible; or (3)
applied
to the co-payment requirement. The
balances
left in the account at the end of
each
year may be rolled over to the next year.
The
total accumulated in the account cannot
exceed
the total of the individual's (and/or
family's)
gross co-payment liability plus one
year's
total deductible (individual's and/or
family's). The account is for health benefits
coverage
only.
NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
No
change in any benefit levels shall be
made
unless first reduced
to writing and
negotiated with the
without the mutual concurrence of the
parties is reasonable and
should be included in the 1993-95 contract.
Third, the $500 account to be established for each
eligible
employee will provide an
additional contribution to
protect against out-of-pocket costs for
health insurance coverage.
CONCLUSION
This
is the first interest arbitration that
Transit and ATU have utilized to settle a
contract dispute. The
Arbitrator has formulated an Award which
will balance the interests
of both parties over the duration of this
three-year Agreement.
The list of comparators adopted by this
Arbitrator will serve as a
basis on which to resolve future contract
negotiations. The time
has come to put these prolonged negotiations
to rest so the parties
can concentrate on providing service to
their customers.
Respectfully
submitted,
Gary
L. Axon
Arbitrator
Dated: