City
of
And
International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2444 “IAFF” or “The
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Abernathy;
John H.
Case #: 11665-I-95-00248
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION PANEL'S
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) OPINION
BETWEEN )
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
AWARD
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2444 ) FOR THE
ISSUES OF
"IAFF" OR "THE
AND )
CAPTAIN'S DIFFERENTIAL
)
FOR EACH YEAR OF A
)
COMMENCING
"THE CITY" OR "THE
EMPLOYER" )
ENDING
HEARING SITE: City Hall
Camas,
HEARING DATES: February 21 and
22, 1996
BOARD MEMBERS:
City Appointed
Neutral Chairman Board Member Board Member
John H. Abernathy Lloyd
Neutral Arbitrator City Administrator President,
Washington
City of
Fire
Fighters
APPEARING FOR THE FIRE
FIGHTERS:
Jim Hill, Spokesperson, IAFF Local 2444
Vice President,
7th District, IAFF
Don Fulthorp, Treasurer, Local
2444
Randy Miller
Allen Wolk, President, Local
2444
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Howard Strickler,
Management Consultant
Sandra G. Brown
David Artz
Dean Dossett,
Mayor of Camas
EXHIBITS
Joint
1. 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of
Camas and IAFF Local 2444
2. Job Description for Fire Fighter
3. Job Description for Fire Fighter/Paramedic
4. Job Description for Fire Captain
5. Job Description for Paramedic Captain
1. Handout and video
2. Map of Camas,
3. Newspaper articles regarding growth in Camas
area
4. Newspaper articles regarding growth in Camas
area
5.
6. What has Mayor Dossett
Accomplished? (political pamphlet)
7.
8. Fire and
9. Ambulance response history
10. Ambulance response history by District, 1995-96
11. 1989-91 Agreement between Local 2444 and City of
12. Assessed valuation of total
13. Assessed valuation and tax revenue' of total
District
14. Fees collected for
15. Comparison of population served for
Union comparables
16. Budget analysis of budget of City of
17. Union comparison of assessed valuation
18. Total compensation/net hours of Union comparison for fire
fighters (with, 10 years
service)
19. Total compensation/net hours of Union comparison for fire
fighter paramedics (with 10
years service)
20. Total compensation/net hours of Union comparison for fire
captains (with 10 years
experience)
21. City of
22. 1994 comparison 7-year fire fighter - City's comparables',
23. 1994 comparison 7-year fire fighter/paramedic - City's
comparables, February 17, 1996
24.
by assessed valuation +50% of
Camas
25. Nine collective bargaining agreements for the fire fighters
with:
(A)
(B)
(C) Olympia 1993-95
(D) Snohomish
#7 1994-96
(E) Port
Angeles 1994-95
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I) Kitsap
Fire District #7 1996
City
1. March 29, 1995 letter from Marvin Schurke,
Executive
Director, PERC, certifying four issues for interest
arbitration (wages, health care,
Captain's differential and
post-retirement insurance)
2
. City's
letter to arbitrator stating City's position on each
issue,
3. Excerpts from City's budget relating to Fire Department,
City of
4. Statement of Honorable Dean E. Dossett,
Mayor of Camas
5. January 29, 1996 memo from David Artz
to Howard Strickler,
re: Ambulance Service Area (ASA)
population
6. January 22, 1996 memo from Ken Pearrow,
GIS Demographics to
Lloyd Halverson, re: population estimates for Camas
District
7. List of IAFF Bargaining Unit Employees
8. City of
geographical location,
Brown, Personnel Specialist
9. Camas Fire employee terminations, November 1990 - December
31, 1995 prepared by Chief
10. All emergency calls 1990-1995 by totals for Ambulance
Service Area and Camas only
11. Fire and EMS emergency calls 1990-1995 by Camas Fire calls,
Camas
12. Statement of City's negotiator Howard Strickler
13. CPI data, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1975-1995 by months and annual average
14. 1995
Management, Population Forecasting Division, population,
15. Not used
16. The City's methodology for the selection of comparables
17. Master List,
populations served for fire
suppression
18. Master List, all
Protecting 1995 Population for fire suppression between
10,945 and 30,284
19.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) serving populations for fire
suppression between 10,945 and
30,284
20. Master list, all
protecting 1995 populations for
fire suppression between
10,945 and 30,284 (Camas assessed valuation +50% of
actual
$808, 810, 762 is $404, 405, 381 to $1,213,216,143)
21. 1995 populations and assessed valuations protected for fire
suppression (EMS/ALS and transport)
+50% of Camas's assessed
Evaluation
22. City's position on Issues 1 and 3, Wages and Captain's
Differential
23. Letter from Carol J. Wilnes,
Employee Benefits Specialist,
Association of Washington Counties, dated
to Larry Halverson, City of
Trust medical program rate increases compared to
marketplace
trends, 1990-1996
24. Benchmark Position: Fire fighter - by name, hire date and
years of service
25. 1995 Comparisons of 7-year fire fighter compensation
comparisons in descending order
by net hourly ate for Port
Angeles, Kitsap 15,
Pierce 16,
26. Benchmark Position:
Fire fighter/paramedic, by name, hire
date, years of service
27. 1995 comparisons., 7-year fire fighter/paramedic compensation
comparisons by net hourly rate
for same districts specified
in C-25
28. Benchmark Position:
Captain, by name, hire date and years
of service
29. 1995 comparisons, 15-year first line supervisors, same
districts as in C-25
30. Differentials for first line supervisors
31. 1995 fire fighter compensation at 7 years of service for
fire departments providing
fire/EMS and ALS service, 10,000
to 30,00.0 population. Note figures for City of
District do include 3% increase for 1995
32. 1995 comparisons, 7-year fire fighter/paramedic salary
comparison
33. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, state of
and
34. Uses of COLA clauses in southwestern Washington, various
bargaining units
35. American Chamberof Commerce Research
Association (ACORA)
cost of living index, second
quarter 1995 for
(108.0) and Seattle/Bellevue/Everett (120.3)
36. February 15, 1996 letter from Lawrence P. Daniels, Survey
Manager/Compensation Consultant, Milliman
& Robertson, Inc.,
Actuaries and Consultants to Lloyd Halverson, City
Administrator, City of
differentials between
37. Historical Comparison of Top Step Fire fighter Wage vs.
38. BNA Special Report of
Senate Finance Committee's Advisory Commission to Study
the
Consumer Price Index along with copy of the Commission's
report
39. History of Wage Adjustments, City of Camas, 1980-1995
40. Survey of
non-represented employees
employed by
PUD, Camas School District, James River Corporation and
City
of
41. Top Step Fire Fighter Base Wage Summary of Local Fire
Jurisdictions, 1994-96 for Camas Fire Department,
Washougal
Fire Department, Clark Fire District #6, Clark Fire
District
#3, Clark Fire District #11, and
42. Collective bargaining agreement for fire departments
selected by the City as
comparables and selected others
(A)
(B) Anacortes
Fire Department/IAFF 1537
(C) Cowlitz 2
Fire and Rescue/Teamsters 58
(K) Kitsap
County Fire District 15/IAFF 2819
(P) City of
(Q) City of
(R) Pierce
County Fire Protection District 16/IAFF 3152
(1995-97)
(T) Snohomish
County Fire Protection District 3/IAFF 3315
(1995-1997)
(U) City of
Tumwater/IAFF 2409 (1994-95)
(V) The City
of
(W) The City of
(X) The City
of
97)
(Y) The City
of
(1995-97)
43. Award of Interest Arbitrator John H. Abernathy, 1980, City
of
44. Award of Interest Arbitrator John H. Abernathy, 1981, City
of
45. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1983, City of
Bothell v. IAFF Local 2099
46. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1983, City of
47. Award of Interest Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs, 1984, City of
48. Award of Interest Arbitrator Tom Levak,
1985, City of
Tukwila v. IAFF Local 2088
49. Award of Interest Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs, 1986, Snohomish
County v. Teamsters Local 763
50. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1987,
County v. Teamsters Local 763
51. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1988, King
County Fire District #16 v. IAFF Local 2459
52. Award of Interest Arbitrator Tom Levak,
1990, City of
v.
53. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1991, City of
54. Award of Interest Arbitrator Michael H. Beck, 1994, City of
BACKGROUND
The City of Camas,
Association of Firefighters, Local No. 2444 (IAFF)
have been
parties
to several previous collective bargaining agreements, the
latest
being the 1992-94 agreement (Joint
Exhibit 1) . Failed
attempts to negotiate
a successor to the 1992-94
agreement
resulted
in this interest arbitration.
The City of
approximately
twelve miles east of
the
River
directly across from
205 bridge
the Columbia to
connect Portland and
Oregon to
Vancouver
and Washington. The
miles
to the north.
Camas is a municipality and a senior taxing district
within
the
state of
suppression
services to the approximately 8,000 residents of the
city. The Camas Fire Department also provides
Emergency Medical
Service to the City of
and 9
and the unincorporated portion of
cities
of
The Camas Fire Department consists of approximately 23
paid
full-time
employees, including the Fire Chief support staff and
18 fire fighters. The Department provides fire prevention and
suppression services within
the city limits
of Camas and
Emergency Medical Service
within Camas and a larger area around
the
city. The Emergency Medical Service (basic life
support,
advanced life support
and ambulance service with a fee-for-
service structure) provided by
the Department account
for
approximately
90% of all emergency calls. IAFF Local
2444 serves
as
the exclusive bargaining agent for the 18 person bargaining
unit: six fire fighters, eight fire fighters
paramedics, three
captains
and one captain/paramedic.
Bargaining for a 3-year (1995-97) successor contract began
oh
May 23, 1994. The parties bargained
intermittently during the
summer
of 1994. Serious and more frequent
negotiations began in
August
and continued until November. Agreement was reached on
some issues
but a number
of issues remained
in dispute in
November. So the parties requested mediation. A
Public Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) mediator conducted
three
mediation sessions and resolved some more issues but four
issues
remained unresolved. The mediator then
recommended the
remaining
issues be submitted to interest arbitration.
Shortly
thereafter Marvin L. Schurke,
Executive Director of
PERC,
reviewed
the case; concurred with the mediator's recommendation;
certified
four issues for interest
arbitration (wages, health
care, Captain's
differential and post-retirement insurance);
docketed
this case for interest arbitration; and instructed the
parties
to proceed with the appointment of partisan arbitrators
and a
neutral chairman. (City Exhibit 1)
The City chose City Administrator Lloyd Halverson as its
partisan
arbitrator. The
Firefighters President Michael McGovern
as its partisan
arbitrator. I was chosen as neutral arbitrator and
chairman of
the
three-person arbitration board. After
being notified of my
selection,
I contacted the parties to schedule a hearing. That
arbitration
hearing was scheduled for Wednesday and
Thursday,
February
21 and 22, 1996 in Camas,
James L. Hill, Vice
President, 7th District
IAFF acted as
spokesman
for the
acted
as spokesperson for the City. The
parties jointly asked
the
neutral chairman to attempt mediation on February 21st and T
did
so. During that mediation session, the
parties agreed to a
one-year
agreement to commence on
provide a
3% wage increase across the board for firefighters and
captains
but would not change any of the other items in dispute
or
any other agreed upon contract provisions during the term of
that
one-year agreement
At that point, the parties began discussing the
possibility
of a
3-year agreement commencing on
through
agreement
was desirable and they also agreed on the health and
welfare
issue1 and the post-retirement is sue2 for the new 3-year
agreement. The parties were unable to reach agreement
on wages
for 1996,
1997 and 1998
contract years or
the Captain's
differential for those
years. Thus wages
and Captains'
differential
are the only issues currently unresolved and are the
only
issues submitted to this Arbitration Panel.
The current or amended proposals of the parties on the
remaining
two issues are as follows:
Proposals of Proposals
of
Wages IAFF
Local 2444 City
of
Effective
Effective
Min. 2.5% & Max. 5%
Effective
Min. 2.5% & Max. 5%
1 For
active employees, Awc Plan B and Kaiser plans, status
quo for 1996 and
1997, but In 1998 put a105% cap
an the AWC plan and a $5 co-pay on the Kaiser
plan. City to continue to pay
premiums.
2 New Article 13.7 as follows:
The
Employer shall provide
post-retirement medical insurance
from
retirement to age
65 for the retired employee
only subject to the
provisions above. Spousal coverage may be purchased from the
Employer at
the medical plan rates, in
accordance with plan requirements.
Captain's Proposals of Proposals of
Differential IAFF Local 2444 City of
Effective
differential remain
the same as fire
Effective
paramedic/captain
Effective
of the 1996-98
agreement
The
parties provided documentary
evidence (see list
of
exhibits
above) and oral argument on these issues at the hearing.
The parties agreed to waive
the statutory requirement that the
Chairman issue his decision within
thirty days following the
conclusion
of the hearing. The parties also chose
to file post-
hearing
briefs. Upon my receipt of those briefs
on April 15,
1996 the hearing record was
closed.
The Chairman reviewed the complete record in this case
and
prepared a
draft decision which was mailed to each of the other
Panel
Members.
Thereafter, the
Chairman talked with the other
two
Panel Members on the phone. Panel Member
McGovern raised no
issues
and made no objections to the draft report.
Panel Member
Halverson
a three-page letter summarizing his concerns. I have
studied
Mr. Halverson's letter and have considered the points he
made
in preparing the final opinion and award of the Arbitration
Panel. Based on the record and my consultation with
the Panel,
the
following constitutes findings of fact and determination of
the
issues by a majority of the panel.
AUTHORITY OF INTEREST ARBITRATORS
Interest arbitrators in Washington public employment
derive
their
authority, not from collective
bargaining agreements as
grievance
arbitrators do, but from the
enabling statute that
creates
interest arbitration, RCW 41.56.460.
That statute also
sets forth certain
standards or guidelines
which must be
considered
by interest arbitrators in reaching their decisions.
Those standards or guidelines
include:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) (i) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7) (a) and
41.56.495, comparison of the
wages, hours and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages,
hours and conditions of employment of like personnel
of
like employers of similar size on the west coast of the
United States.
(ii) For employees listed
in RCW 41.56.030(7) (b),
comparison
of the wages, hours and conditions of employment
of
personnel involved in the proceedings with the wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of like
personnel of
public
fire departments of similar size on the west coast of
the
United States. However, when an adequate
number of
comparable
employers exists within the state of Washington,
other
west coast employers shall not be considered;
(d) The average consumer prices
for goods and
services,
commonly known as the cost of living;
(e) Changes in any
of the foregoing
circumstances
during
the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors not confined to the foregoing,
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consideration
in the determination of wages, hours
and conditions of
employment
[1988 c 110 Section 1; 1987 c 521 Section 2 1983
0 287 Section 4; 1979 cx.s. c 194 Section 3; 1973 c 131
Section
5.]
(City
Exhibit 15)
Only four of these named statutory criteria were argued
in
this
dispute. They are:
1. Cost of Living. 3 What is
the most appropriate
geographical
area for compiling cost of living data --
Portland
or Seattle?
Should the CPI index that is
selected
be given full weight (as the Union proposes)
or
should it be discounted (as the City proposes)?
If
it
is to be discounted, by how much?
2. Ability to pay. Does
the City have the ability to pay
the
full demands of the Union on wages and Captain's
differential.
3. Comparability. What
are the appropriate jurisdictions
to be selected
as comparable jurisdictions? When
comparisons
are made between Camas and these comparable
jurisdictions for comparable
work, what do
those
comparisons
reveal? The parties spent most of their
time, effort
and energy arguing which jurisdictions
were
most comparable. Each party used a different
methodology
and each came up with an entirely different
list
of comparables.
4. Other factors. Each
party argued that another factor
should
be considered and argued that these other actors
deserved heavy weight.
Unfortunately
they argued
different
other factors. The Union argued that an
increasing
demand for fire and EMS services (due to the
rapid economic growth
of t he area) and
increased
productivity
fully justified the Union's demands. The
City argued that it needed to
maintain internal equity
between
the wage increases granted to fire fighters and
those
of other City employees. The issues the
Panel
must
address are whether these other factors should be
given
consideration and weight, and, if so, how much?
The most efficient way of approaching this dispute, in
the
opinion
of the
Chairman, is to make preliminary rulings and
findings
on each of these four disputed criteria and then apply
those
rulings and findings to the wage issue and the Captain's
differential issue
to arrive at
the Panel's final
recommendations.
3 Both parties proposed using the OFI-W index,
and there was no dispute over
the actual CPI-w numbers. Originally there was a dispute over what
annual
time period (July to July or
January to January) but the parties apparently
agreed on a January to January
period for the new three-year agreement.
COST OF LIVING INDEX
The Union argued (but presented no supporting evidence)
that
the
City of Camas is more closely tied with the Seattle/Puget
Sound
area in terms of economic growth. None of the Union's
comparable
jurisdictions utilize the Portland CPI.
Camas fire
fighters live
in a state-imposed tax environment common to all
Washington
jurisdictions but no Oregon jurisdictions. Retirees
of
the Camas Fire Department receive a state provided pension
which
is adjusted annually based on 100% of the Seattle CPI.
The City contends that the Portland CPI is the
appropriate
index
for Camas. The City of Camas is part of
the greater
Portland labor and business
markets and in the Portland Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) . The City has used the
Portland CPI in prior negotiations
with this and
other4
bargaining
units and the Portland CPI is used in other southwest
Washington jurisdictions The City contends that the Union is
pushing
for the Seattle CPI because it is increasing at a faster
rate
than the Portland CPI.5 The
January 1996, Portland CPI-W
was
2.7%.
The majority of the Panel finds that the Portland CPI-W
is
the
appropriate index to be used. Camas is
geographically closer
to
Portland than to Seattle. Camas is part
of the Portland SMSA
and
is part of the Portland wholesale and retail trading area.
The
January 1996 Portland CPI-W was 2.7%.
4 OPEIU Local 11 and camas Police
Officers Association.
5 The city used the American Chamber of
Commerce Research Association's ACOPA
cost
of living index which is a comparison of the differences in the cost of
living between areas.
According to this
index, Portland is 11% behind
Seattle.
The next CPI question put to the Panel is whether fire
fighter
wages should be increased by an amount equal to or less
than
the Portland CPI-W. The Union maintains
they are entitled
to
100% of the increase in the CPI-W, but offered no persuasive
supporting
evidence. The City has proposed 80% of
the Portland
CPI-W chosen in the first two
years of the 3-year agreement and
90%
in the third year. The
City notes that the CPI market basket
contains a
medical component and that medical component is given
a
great deal of weight in computing the CPI.
The City notes that
it
has already agreed to pay all of the increases in medical
insurance
premiums in the first two years of the new agreement.
The medical insurance bought
by those premiums will cover a large
portion
of an employee's medical expenses. For
the City to pay
both
the employees' medical insurance and the full amount of the
CPI (which includes a medical cost component)
would mean that
the City would be
paying twice for
medical cost. The City
presented unrebutted evidence in the form of the Findings of the
Senate Finance Committee's
Advisory Commission to
Study the
Consumer Price Index and the
Advisory Committee's Interim Report
(City Exhibit 38) . The City argued
that these reports prove that
the
CPI overstates the actual cost of living because of five
built-in biases
known as the
formula, substitution, outlet
substitution,
quality change and new product biases.
The Union
offered
no evidence to rebut this evidence by the City. The
Chairman notes that for all
these faults, the
government's CPI
data
is still considered the most accurate and is the most widely
used. Finally, the
City argued that
other employees have
accepted a
discounted CPI as the basis for current and future
wage
increases.
The majority of the Panel also finds that the Union
failed
to
support its 100% of CPI Position and failed to rebut any of
the
evidence and arguments of the City as to why the Portland
CPI-W should be discounted as
proposed by the City. The majority
of
the Panel finds it appropriate to discount the CPI-W for
Portland
ABILITY TO PAY
The Union presented evidence showing that the City had
the
ability
to pay the full increases sought by the Union.
The City
did
not seriously contest this evidence. In
fact, written and
oral
statements by the mayor clearly establish that the City had
the
ability, but not the willingness, to pay the wages sought by
the
Union.
The majority of the Panel
also finds the
City has the
ability
to pay the full increases demanded by the Union.
COMPARABILITY
The third criteria that interest arbitrators in the state
of
Washington must consider
is comparability RCW
41.56.460
specifically
requires interest arbitrators to make comparisons
between:
"...the wages,
hours and conditions
of employment of
personnel involved in the
(interest arbitration) proceedings
with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like
personnel of public fire
departments of similar size on the
west coast of the United
States."
The statute goes on to state:
"However, when an adequate number of comparable
employers
exists within the state of Washington, other west coast
employers shall not be
considered."
In
the instant case,
only wages and
the Captain's
differential are
at issue and only
those two items
will be
compared.
The
Panel notes that
the statute provides
no further
guidance
as to how the comparability criterion is to be applied.
Rather, the interpretation and
application of this criterion is
left
to individual interest arbitrators on a case-by-cases basis.
In this case each party has
provided a number of other interest
arbitration decision and
each party has urged this
interest
arbitration
panel to adopt the methodology and reasoning of the
interest arbitrator
of their choice
with respect to
comparability. Of course, the methodology and reasoning the
parties
urge this Panel
to adopt just happen to support the
position
of that party and not the other. Thus,
they are self
serving. A reading
of these interest arbitration decisions
clearly
shows that those interest arbitrators have interpreted
and
applied the comparability criterion on a case-by-case basis.
Each time the interest
arbitrator(s) relied
on the facts and
circumstances
present in each individual case, and those interest
arbitrators
used different methodology and came up with different
results.
This Panel is not bound by the decisions, methodology or
reasoning
of interest arbitrators in other cases.
The majority
of
the Panel determines
that a case-by-case
approach is the
appropriate
approach and will apply that approach in this case.
Thus, while the decisions of these other
interest arbitrators
have
been read and considered, the Panel does not feel obligated
to
consider any of them as precedent or as controlling in this
case.
The
parties jump into
their methodology for
selecting
comparables
before considering the purpose and intent of the
comparability
criterion. This jump has created a
fundamental
error
in both parties' approach. The majority of the Panel
concludes that the
purpose and intent
of the comparability
criterion
should be considered first.
Comparability Criterion -
Purpose and Intent.
It is
generally
agreed that the three primary criteria that interest
arbitrators in Washington
must consider are
cost-of-living,
ability-to-pay,
and comparability. Each of these
criteria exert
a
different force on wages, hours and
working conditions. A
rising
cost-of-living, for example, exerts a pushing or driving
upward
force on wages as unions argue that wages "must" keep pace
with the rising
cost of living.
A true inability-to-pay
situation
creates a restraining force on wages.
Comparability,
on the other hand, is a
recognition of the impact of self-
regulating market
forces on wages. If, for example, an
employer
is
paying wages significantly below the prevailing labor market
wage,
then that employer could have difficulty in attracting and
retaining
workers. Prospective and current
employees will be
attracted
by the higher market wage and will attempt to move away
from
lower paid and into higher pay jobs.
In the opinion of the Chair, the comparability criterion
attempts to insure
that wages set
through the interest
arbitration
process do not vary greatly from what the wages for
comparable positions and
comparable employees in a free
and
perfect
local labor market. In local labor
markets, wage rates
are
determined by the interaction of local labor supply and local
labor
demand. And, in such markets, a labor
shortage or a rapid
increase
in demand will generate forces that will create self
regulating
forces in the market. For example, if a
shortage of
workers
with Job X skills occurs in a free and perfect local
labor
market, wage rates will rise high enough to attract more
workers
to that local labor market with Type X job skills. The
supply
of Type X workers will continue to rise to the point where
an
equilibrium, or market clearing, wage
rate prevails - i.e.
where
supply of and demand for Type X workers in that local labor
market
stabilize. Similarly, a sudden increase
in the demand for
Type Y workers in another free and perfect local
labor market
will
cause wage rates to increase, an inflow of more Type Y
workers
attracted by this higher wage rate, and this inflow of
workers
will continue until that labor market for Type Y workers
stabilizes.
The same analysis applies when one examines the wages,
and
the
supply of and demand for workers by a specific employer, e.g.
the
City of Camas. If an employer pays wages
significantly below
the
local labor market rate, that employer will have difficulty
in
attracting and retaining workers. New
applicants will other
things
being equal, select higher paying jobs elsewhere over the
lower
paying jobs of this employer. High
turnover, for non-
medical or health
and non-retirement reasons,
often is an
indication
that employees are leaving their jobs with the lower
paying
employer for higher wage jobs elsewhere.
The Chair recognizes that local labor markets are neither
completely
free nor completely perfect. Not all
employees, for
example, are free to move to the same or similar jobs
with a
different
employer. Home ownership, pension
plans, children in
school
and numerous other factors act as impediments to mobility.
But it is not necessary for
all workers in a labor market to be
mobile
in order for the labor market to be self-adjusting. It is
only
necessary for some to be mobile. The
Chair also recognizes
that
all workers in a labor market do not have full, complete and
readily
available information about
other jobs in
the labor
market. Again, it is only necessary that some do and
that some
with
that knowledge act on it.
Regardless of imperfections in a given local labor
market,
that
labor market is still to a large degree self-regulating.
Imperfections in a local labor
market may slow down its self-
regulating forces --
but imperfections do not stop
self-
regulating
forces. Neither does the local labor
market react to
small
wage rate differences. Certainly workers
who are mobile do
not change jobs
when the wage rate
differences between two
employers
are only a few cents per hour. Workers
make their own
cost-benefit
analyses. Only when the differences in
wage rates
between
two employers become large enough to overcome the costs
of
making a move, will mobility occur. However, all of us have
seen
or heard of cases when large changes in mobility take place.
For example, when a mill, the major employer
in a local labor
market, closes
down for good. Unemployed workers eventually
leave
the area and wages fall in that worker surplus local labor
market. Or, for example, when new employers,
employing hundreds
of
new workers, decide to locate in suburban areas, such as to
the
west of Camas. The resulting labor
shortage puts upward
pressures
on wages.
In
general, then, the
purpose and intent
of the
comparability
criterion is to produce a wage result that closely
approximates
that which would occur in a local market for labor.
That is accomplished by
comparing wages of similar employers for
similar
jobs and similar employees in the local labor market.
Thus, the comparability criterion raises three questions
for
interest
arbitrators that the statute does not answer completely
but
that must be addressed. Those questions
are:
What constitutes comparable public fire departments of
similar size?
What
constitutes
"like" or "similar" work
for
comparative purposes?
What constitutes a comparable employee?
Each of these three questions will be discussed below --
at
first
in general terms and then as to how they relate to this
case.
What constitutes comparable
public fire departments of similar
size?
The statute restricts interest arbitrators to public fire
departments
on the west coast of the United States and, where an
adequate
number is possible in the state, to
Washington. The
statute
does not provide any other guidance, however.
What
factors
have other interest arbitrators considered in searching
for
answers to this questions?
In Interest Arbitration in the Public Sector: Standards
and
Procedures,6
Arvid Anderson and Loren Krause state that the most
common factors used
by interest arbitrators
to establish
comparability
are:
(1) nearby communities;
(2) similar population size;
(3) past practice;
(4) parity relationships (e.g., police
and firefighters);
(5) extent of fire or crime problem;
(6) extent of recruitment and retention
problems;
(7) comparable ability to pay, state
equalized value, taxes
levied;
(8) distinctive characteristics of the
locality;
(9) comparable duties of the referenced
group of employees;
and
(10) the
peculiarities of the
particular trade or
profession, specifically
the hazards of
employment,
physical qualifications., educational
qualifications,
mental qualifications and job
training and skills.
6 Chapter 63, Volume 3, Labor and Employment
Arbitration, Tim Bornstein and
Ann Gosline,
General Editors, 1966, 63.03[3].
Apparently these factors are listed in order of
importance.
The first of these factors is
"nearby communities" which bolsters
the
local labor market discussion above.
The Panel finds that
neither
party in this interest arbitration paid serious attention
to
"nearby communities" or the local labor market. Perhaps the
local
labor market was ignored because such analysis would place
Camas in the greater
Portland/Vancouver labor market.7
In the
higher
wage Portland area labor market for fire fighters there
would
be one, maybe two, large sized public
employers of fire
fighters
(Portland and Vancouver) and then a number of satellite
cities (e.g. Troutdale, Gresham, Milwaukie, Lake Oswego, Camas)
whose
wage rates are influenced by what happens to wages for fire
fighters
in the core cities. This is not to say
that the wages
in
Camas must equal to those paid to fire fighters in Vancouver
or
Portland. Rather, it is to say that Camas's wages cannot
be
isolated
from labor market forces and prevailing wage conditions
in
this greater local labor market for fire fighters. Perhaps
the parties
found it difficult
to compare wages
and total
compensation
of Washington fire fighters with wages and total
compensation
of Oregon fire fighters. Wage schedules
for fire
fighters differ between
the two states,
so do benefits,
especially
retirement benefits and insurance. But
whatever the
reason,
the fact remains that neither party addressed the local
labor
market and their failure to do so, in the Chair's opinion,
results
in a major deficiency and a fault in their methodology
for
selecting comparables from the outset.
That fault is serious
enough
for the Panel to find the comparability data produced by
the
parties to be flawed, unrealistic and largely unusable.
7 The city was perfectly willing to place Oamas in the Portland CPI-W area but
not in the
Portland labor market.
The Union argued
that benefits and
retirement plans were
different on the
Portland side of
the river -- so
different
as to make comparisons difficult.
Besides, the Union argued, there
were
enough comparables in Washington. Other
plausible explanations are the
difficulty
in gathering statistical data or that
the parties were results
oriented
in choosing comparables.
Nevertheless, the Panel will
Summarize the different
methodology
for selecting comparables used by the parties and
comment
on other deficiencies in methodology.
The parties differ greatly in the jurisdictions they have
chosen
as comparables. Differences in data and
data sources, in
assumptions, in range of population used, in the similarity of
services and in
assessed valuation data contribute
to these
differences.
Data and Data Services. The parties agree that the Camas
Fire Department provides fire
suppression and ALS services to the
City's 8,015 residents and ALS
and transport to a large area
outside
the city limits. They differ on the
population served
outside
the City and in how that population should be weighted.
The Union claims
the area outside
the City contains
32,000
people,
while the City claims that area contains 26,755 people.
Using each party's City and
out-of-City figures to arrive at a
total
results in a Union total population of 40,000 and a City's
total
population of 34,770 (or 35,000 for ease of reference) for
the
total of the in-City and out-of-City area.
The Panel had some difficulty with the Union's
figures. The
Union did not
identify its source
for its 32,000
figure,
consequently
there is
no independent way
of verifying its
accuracy. The opposite is true for the City's
figures. The City
obtained
its population data from the State Department of Revenue
and
from the county demographer, Mr. Ken Pearrow (City
Exhibits 5
and 6)
. Because the City presented data from
reliable sources,
the
majority of the Panel decided to use the City's figures --
8,0125
inside the City, almost 27,000 outside
the City for a
total
population served of 35,000.
The Union based its other steps used to select
comparables
on
jurisdictions on its figure of 40,000.
The majority of the
Panel has already found that
40,000 figure overstates the in-City
and
out-of-City total population by 5,000 -- or by around 14%.
That figure of 40,000 makes a
great deal of difference when it is
used
as a base figure
for selecting a population range
for
comparables. Starting with an inflated base figure
gives an
inflated
range on the high side of the range.
The majority of
the
Panel finds this flawed population base figure makes the rest
of
the Union's comparability analysis flawed.
The City starts
with a total
population of 35,00.0
but
reduces
that figure to 20,200 by applying an adjustment formula
(see
discussion of Assumptions as to Workload below) . The base
figure
of 20,000 is important in defining the range of population
of
comparables. Thus if both parties used
a +50% and -50% of
population
above the base, the Union's range would be 17,500 to
52,500 and
the City's range
would be 10,000
to 30,000.
Those differences in range
would automatically generate different
comparables. Therefore, from the first step in the
selection of
comparables the parties
differ in methodology
so much that
meaningful
comparisons between them are impossible.
Assumptions as to workload. It is undisputed that the Camas
Fire Department in 1995
responded to a total of 2,500 calls --
1,508 EMS and transport calls
outside the City limits (60.3%) and
992 fire, EMS and transport
calls inside the City limits (39.7%)
The Union contends the total population of the area
served
and the
total number of
calls should be used
in selecting
comparables. The City disagreed. The City stated in the hearing
that
it did not think the figure of 35,000 was "a reasonable
figure
to use" in making its selection of comparables. The City
would
adjust the total area population 35,000 to reflect the
ratio of in-City
v. out-of-City calls
to get a
weighted
population
of 20,189 (rounded by the Panel to
20,200) The City
would make population
comparisons based on
this weighted
population
figure of 20,200. In its brief, the
City contended
that
the weighted population approach makes common sense and is
consistent
with what Interest Arbitrator Beck did in the City of
Bellingham v. IAFF Local #106
(1991)
The Panel recognizes
the difference between
fire
suppression,
EMS and transport services and we understand that
40% of the total calls were
within the City and were for fire
suppression, transport and EMS. The other 60% of calls were
outside
the City and were only for EMS and transport
(no fire
suppression)
. The majority of the Panel recognizes
to weigh the
27,000 persons outside the
City who receive only EMS/transport
calls, the same as the 8,000 within the City who
receive fire
suppression, transport
and EMS calls
would overstate the
importance
of the out-of-City population receiving EMS only. The
City's weighted average
population claims to
equalize the
comparisons. What is really does is lower the base
population
figure
and insure that the range of comparables relates to the
lower
figure of 20,200, resulting in a range of 10,000 to 30,000.
The Union's approach would
result start with 40,000 population
and a
range of 20,000 to 60,000. Again, the
difference in the
methodology
of the parties makes it impossible to compare their
results.
Population range. The majority of the Panel notes that a
reading
of the interest awards shows that there is no generally
accepted
range of population around a base population that is
always
used, i.e. there is no magic number that is used by all
interest
arbitrators. Rather, interest
arbitrators have used a
wide
variety of ranges -- e.g. 1/2 to 2; 1/3 to 3; +30%; -22% to
+69%; etc. The range chosen by the interest arbitrator
is the
one the interest
arbitrator deemed most appropriate
in each
individual
case.
In this case, the Union proposed using a population range
of
1/2
(-50%) to 2 times (+100%) the base population. Thus for its
40,000 population, the
range would be
jurisdictions with
populations
ranging from 20,000 to 80,000.
The City would use a range of plus or minus 50%, so that
with a
20,200 weighted population, the City's
range would be
10,100
to 30,300. The
City argued that other arbitrators have
used
the +-50% range in other. interest arbitrations and
that +-50%
is
logical.
The majority of the Panel finds the City's range of plus
or
minus
50% to be more reasonable and logical while the Union's
+100% overstates the
influences of larger jurisdictions. The
majority
of the Panel finds the Union's range to be more results-
oriented
and beyond a common sense meaning of comparing like
jurisdictions. The majority of the Panel agrees with the
City's
statement that
"[T]o claim that the Camas Fire Department is
comparable
to such jurisdictions as the City of Bellingham (an
EMS population served of
130,000) or
Pierce County #9 (also a
fire suppression and
EMS population served
of 130,000) is
"outside
the pale." The majority of the
Panel also notes that
the
Union's comparable list deliberately contains no
jurisdictions
from eastern Washington (because of geography) . On
the
other hand, a majority of the Panel finds the City's approach
understates
the range of population. Both parties
claim their
approaches
are not results oriented, but the
Union's approach
results
in comparisons with much larger (and
generally higher
paying jurisdictions) and
the City's approach permits it to
compare
with smaller (and generally lower paying jurisdictions).
The Union also
deleted eastern Washington
jurisdictions,
ostensibly
because of geography, but if geography or distance is
a
factor, why not exclude Bellingham and Port Angeles, because
both
are 200 or more miles away?
In summary, the majority of the Panel finds several
reasons
for
rejecting both parties' population range methodology.
The majority of the Panel also finds the Union, when
dealing
with
assessed valuation, compared different years and attempted
to use the
assessed valuation of the
Ambulance Service Area
outside
the City limits. Therefore, the
majority of the Panel
finds
the City's assessed valuation figures more realistic.
Further adjustments. Both the Union and the City arrived at
a long
list of possible comparables and then decreased into a
short list
by eliminating those
that did not
provide fire
suppression and advanced
life support.8 The
parties used
different figures, however,
for both population and assessed
valuation.
8 The Union also eliminated eastern Washington
jurisdictions "for geographical
as well as historical economic
reasons."
These adjustments brought the Union's list of compabables
down
to 9 and the City's list down to 10. The
different lists of
comparables
are:
Union's List City's
List
Bellingham City
of Walla Walla
Pierce #5 Cowlitz
2
Olympia Pasco
Kitsap Port
Angeles
Pierce #9 Monroe
Snohomish #7 Snohomish #3
Bremerton Aberdeen
Pierce #3 Pierce
16
Port Angeles Anacortes
Tumwater
One of these jurisdictions is
in the Portland labor market --
Cowlitz
2. Only
one jurisdiction is common to both lists (Port
Angeles) . Any comparison of Camas's fire fighter wages
to fire
fighters
, wages in the Union's list of comparables or
the City's
list of comparables
will obviously yield
different, and
essentially
unusable, results. This Panel
is not given the
authority
to make independent investigations.
Rather, the Panel
receives
evidence and evaluates that evidence.
While there is a
lot
of comparability evidence in this record, a majority of the
Panel finds it unusable and
will reject it.
The Union's list of comparables and the Union's and
City's
population
figures are compared in the chart below.
Population of
Union's
Comparables Data Data
Bellingham 55,000 148,300
Pierce #5 40,100 40,000
Olympia 36,000 80,000
Kitsap 50,000 65,000
Pierce #9 80,000 145,000
Snohomish #7 30,000 47,500
Pierce #3 35,000 98,000
Bremerton 40,000 39,610
Port Angeles 19,000 18,500
The Union did not indicate the source of its population
data, so
those Union figures
cannot be verified. The City
obtained its
data from Attachment
5 of the
Fire Service
Directory, City and County Population
Statistics (City Exhibit
14) . If the Panel were to use population of the
EMS area served,
it
would use the City's population data because it is verifiable.
Nearly all of the jurisdictions selected as comparables
by
the
Union and the City are located considerable distances away
from
Camas -- from about 100 to 200 miles away.
Assuming, for
the
sake of argument, that all are similar in size, only one can
be
considered part of the local labor market, i.e. as part of an
area
within daily commuting distance of Camas.
Therefore, only
one, in the opinion of the Chair, can be considered a direct
influencer
of wages for fire fighters in Camas.
What constitutes "like" or
"similar" work for
comparative
purposes?
To answer the second comparability question one must look
first
to the work performed by fire fighters in Camas. The
record
is clear that Camas fire fighters provide suppression,
advanced
life support, and transportation of
citizens from the
site of their
accident or illness
to hospitals. The best
comparison
to the work performed by Camas fire fighters would be
with
public fire departments of similar size in the local labor
market
area that provide these same services in about the same
ratio
of fire and EMS calls and in the aggregate .
The City tries
to
make other jurisdictions more comparable to Camas (or the
other way
around) by adopting
a formula that
weighs the
population
to reflect the ratio of in-City vs. out-of-City calls
That formula has the effect of
decreasing the population served
outside
the City of 34,770 to an arbitration population of about
20,200. The net effect of the City's approach
is to restrict the
population
range of possible comparables. It does
nothing to
insure
the comparison of like jobs. The City
did then identify
departments
that provided fire and ALS. But what
departments
provide
fire, ALS and transport?
In
negotiations the parties
used fire departments
that
employed
fire fighter/paramedics as comparables -- the Union used
nine
and the City fourteen. There was no
evidence that any of
these
23 departments also provided transport of people from the
site
of their accident, injury, or illness to hospitals, however.
So again the parties were not
comparing like jobs.
In summary, even if the parties had used the same
list of
comparable public fire
departments in Washington
(selected
entirely
by population), the comparisons made would not be valid
because
they did not compare like jobs.
What constitutes a comparable
employee?
Interest arbitrators normally reach this question only if
there is
a finding of
an acceptable list
of comparable
jurisdictions
and a finding that the jobs being compared are
similar. Having found
otherwise in this
case, it is not
necessary
to address this third question. But the
Panel shall do
so
to provide guidance to the parties in the future.
The Union has constructed a "
model employee," i.e. a fire
fighter
with 10
years of service, a
spouse and two or more
dependent
children. The Union claimed that the
average length of
service
in the fire department is 10 years and the maximum health
care
coverage is for a fire fighter, his/her spouse and two or
more
dependent children. The Union made
comparisons within the
list
of comparables on this basis.
The City used a 7-year fire fighter (City Exhibit 25) and
a
7-year fire
fighter/paramedic (City Exhibit
27) and made
comparisons
within the City's list of comparable jurisdictions on
these
bases. The seventh step is the top step
in the Camas fire
fighter
salary schedule.
The Union concluded from their comparison that Camas fire
fighters were paid
below the average
in their comparable
jurisdictions
and so a catch-up wage increase is in order -- i.e.
3%
above the CPI in each of three years. The City concluded that
Camas fire fighters were paid
more than the average in their list
of
comparative jurisdictions and so only a partial cost-of-living
increase
is justified. It should come as no
surprise that two
different sets
of data yield
different results and
lead to
different
conclusions.
Thus even if the parties had used the same jurisdictions
and
similar
jobs for comparisons, the use of different comparable
employees makes it
impossible to contrast
and compare their
exhibits
and makes their data even less useful for this Panel.
In
summary, both parties
ignored local labor
market
considerations in
selecting comparable
jurisdictions.
Concentrating, instead, primarily on
population to select
comparable
jurisdictions -- the Union using a total service area
population
but with figures from an unknown source, and the City
adjusting
the out-of-the-City population to arrive at a lower
population
figure. The result was that each party
came up with a
different
set of comparable jurisdictions. the parties then did
not
use similar or like jobs or similar or like employees to make
wage
comparisons. Finally, the parties could
not decide whether
to compare basic
wages or total
compensation. When these
differences
in methodology are considered as a whole, the volumes
of
comparability material furnished the arbitration panel do not
provide
the Panel with useful data for decision making.
OTHER FACTORS
Three
"other
factors" were argued by the parties to be
important
-- the Union argued economic growth in Camas and in
east
Clark County and productivity, and the City argued internal
comparisons.
Economic Growth. There is unrebutted
evidence in the record
showing
that Camas and east Clark County are growing rapidly in
relation
to other Washington cities and counties. Several
new
employers
will be or are currently building plants in the east
county -- Linear
Technology, Sharp Microelectronics, Sharp
Laboratories, Sharp of North America, Heraeus Shin-Etsa, Inc.,
Funino
USA Inc., IMT Corp., CID Corp., Underwriters Laboratories,
and
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Inc. (Union Exhibit 1).
These new employers will
eventually employ over 1400 new workers.
The number of building permits
issued in Camas grew from 79 in
1992
to 360 in 1995 -- an increase of 400% in three years. This
growth
in industry, population, and housing will increase the
demand
for fire suppression, ALS, and transport services provided
by
the City of Camas.
Internal Equity. The City put great weight on providing the
same
percentage increase in wages to all employees of the City --
including
employees in this bargaining unit. The City expressed
an
unwillingness to pay the fire fighter
bargaining unit any
increase
greater than the City has provided to other bargaining
units
and to non-represented City employees.
The City argued
that
this has historically been the City's salary philosophy and
practice
and that the City regarded this practice as an equitable
one.
The Union contended that the City had not always followed
this
policy and had, in fact, given more to the police bargaining
unit in their last
negotiations than it
gave to other City
employees
-- including fire fighters. The Union
charged that the
City ignored its own parity
policy in its recent police contract
by awarding a
3% across-the-board salary
adjustment and
increasing
base salaries by #5 premium pay for off-duty training.
The City disputes this Union
claim. The City claims that during
police negotiations the
method for administering
off-duty
training
pay was changed and simplified. The
City claimed a
history
of internal equity going back to 1980 and asserts their
evidence
(City Exhibit 39) on this history was unrebutted.
The Union contends that fire
fighters are the only City
employees
afforded interest arbitration and this is the first
time that Camas fire
fighters have exercised their right to
interest
arbitration. The Union argues that
nothing in state
statute requires internal
parity or prevents internal
parity
policy
from being broken.
The majority of the Panel concludes that it is not bound
by
the
City's parity wage policy The majority
of the Panel finds
nothing
in the statute that specifically requires them to give
weight
and consideration to the internal equity argument. Rather
it
is another of those "other factors" that will be given some,
but
not overriding, weight (as the City does) by the Panel.
Productivity. This is another one of those
"other" factors
that influence wages.
The Union contends
that Camas fire
fighters
have increased their productivity over the past 10 years
by
--agreeing in 1990
to a 14%
increase in hours
by
increasing
from a 42
hour workweek to
a 48 hour
workweek with no increase in
compensation; -
--responding to more fire and
EMT calls -- 21.5% more
between 1992 and 1993 and 17%
more between 1994 and
1995;
--responding to more ambulance calls (a 100% increase
over the past ten years)
All these changes occurred with no increase in the number
of
fire fighters. Consequently, a
catch-up wage increase
is
appropriate,
the Union argued.
The City argued that the increase in workweek hours was a
bargained
change that the fire fighters voluntarily accepted in
negotiations and should not be used here to
justify a wage
increase.
The majority of the Panel finds that productivity should
be
considered
as an "other" factor and given
some weight in their
deliberations. However, we do not assign this factor the
same
weight
the Union would. Productivity is
generally defined as
output
per person-hour. The bargained increase
in the workweek
in
1990 put 14% more person-hours in the workweek, so there would
be a
corresponding opportunity for handling more fire, EMT and
ambulance
calls in a week. Economic and population
growth in the
service
area has and will increase the demand for services, thus
resulting
in more calls. Meeting that increase in
calls with 14%
more
person-hours (but the same number of
fire fighters) could
naturally
result in an increase in productivity.
But to count
and
give equal weight to both the increased demand for services
and
the resulting increase in productivity would be to count both
the
cause and the result. The majority of
the Panel decided it
would
give some weight to one or the other, but not both.
FINDINGS
The following findings flow directly from the rulings on
criteria
made above. These findings are:
1. The
City has the ability to pay the wage increase
demanded by IAFF Local 2444.
2. The City of Portland, not the City
of Seattle, is the
proper
city for CPI
statistics. The parties have
agreed that the proper cost of
living index is CPI-W.
3. Comparability data by both parties ignores the basic
purpose of the comparability
criterion and does not
compare similar
jobs or similar
employees.
Consequently, the comparability data produced by
both
parties
is unusable for
determining the appropriate
increase in wages.
4. Internal
equity should be
given some, but
not
overriding weight.
5. Economic growth of Camas and eastern Clark County will
cause an increase in the demand
for fire suppression,
ALS
and transport
services and will put a long-run
upward pressure on fire fighter
wages.
In addition, the following findings are supported by
record
evidence.
5. The
Union has proposed
a "catch-up" wage
increase
beyond the cost of living
increase in each year of a 3-
year agreement. The Union, therefore/ has the burden
of proving the need for a
catch-up wage increase. In
the opinion of the majority of
the panel, the Union
failed to meet this burden.
6. The Union also failed to meet its burden of proving the
need for a 3% increase over
CPI-W for the Captain's
differential.
7. The City offered unrebutted
evidence as to why CPI data
should be discounted.
8. The City's evidence to support its position that wages
should be discounted to 80% of
CPI in the first two
years came from the amounts that
other City employees
agreed to in their contracts for
1996 and 1997. The
90% figure for 1998 reflects the potential increase in
medical premiums the fire
fighters may have to bear in
that year.
AWARD
Based on the record evidence, the arguments of the
parties,
the above
rulings on criteria
and the above
findings, the
majority
of the Panel would award as follows:
Wages - for all members of the bargaining unit
Effective 1/1/96 -
90% of CPI-W Portland
Minimum
of 2.5% and a maximum of 5%.
Effective 1/1/97 -
90% of CPI-W Portland
Minimum
of 2.5% and a maximum of 5%.
Effective 1/1/98 -
100% of CPI-W Portland
Minimum
of 2.5% and a maximum of 5%.
Captain's Differential - Maintain the current 12%
differential for all three years
of the new contract.
Respectfully submitted on this
the 20th day of June 1996 by
John H. Abernathy
Neutral Chairman