Teamsters
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Kenneth J. Latsch
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator: Latsch; Kenneth J.
Case #: 11718-I-95-00250
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
BEFORE ARBITRATOR KENNETH J. LATSCH
In the Matter of the Interest Arbitration )
between: )
)
THE CITY OF
)
and )
) INTEREST
ARBITRATION
TEAMSTERS
_____________________________ )
Appearances:
Heller, Ehrman,
White & McAuIiffe, by Otto G. Klein, III,
appeared for the City of
Davies, Roberts and Reid, by
Russell J. Reid, appeared for Teamsters Union,
Local
231.
Procedural Background
The City of
collective
bargaining relationship involving a bargaining unit of nonsupervisory,
uniformed
personnel of the Bellingham Police Department. The personnel are classified as
either
police officers or as police sergeants. The record indicates that the position
of
sergeant
is a promotional position within the bargaining unit. At the time of this
hearing,
there
were approximately 97 police officers and sergeants in the bargaining unit.
The parties entered into negotiations for a wage reopener for calendar year 1995, but were
unable
to reach agreement on a mutually satisfactory wage increase for bargaining unit
personnel.
By mutual request of the parties, Arbitrator Kenneth J. Latsch
was selected to
resolve
the dispute concerning the 1995 wage reopener.
The parties waived the creation of an interest arbitration
panel. A hearing was conducted
before
the Arbitrator on
submitted
post-hearing briefs.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of interest arbitration proceedings the parties
respective positions can be
set
forth as follows:
The
The
jurisdiction
in this interest arbitration case.
The
calendar
year 1995.
The Employer:
The Employer contends that
jurisdiction.
The Employer proposes a 3% salary increase for police officers
and a 2% salary
increase
for police sergeants.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
The
resolve
impasses that may occur in collective bargaining negotiations involving public
employers
and uniformed personnel. RCW 41.56.430 states:
Uniformed personnel
Legislative directive. The intent and purpose of this
1973 amendatory act is to
recognize that there exists a public policy in the state of
labor
disputes; that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of
employees
is vital to the welfare and public safety of the state of
to
promote such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should exist an
effective
and adequate means of settling disputes.
The standards to be followed
in interest arbitration proceedings are governed by the
provisions
of RCW 41.56.460:
Uniformed personnel interest
arbitration panel - Basis for determination.
In making its determination,
the panel shall be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 and as additional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a
decision, it shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulation of the parties;
(c)(i) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(a) and 41.56.495, comparisons
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
(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
when
an adequate number of comparable employers exists within the state of
(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. .
A noted in the Employee's
closing brief, interest arbitration must be viewed as a logical
extension
of the collective bargaining process, and cannot be used to advance
unreasonable
positions. In other words, interest arbitration cannot be viewed as a second
opportunity
to gain advantage or to advance unrealistic proposals. As Arbitrator Charles
La Cugna
stated:
The arbiter must interpret and
apply the legislative criteria in RCW 41.56.460. The
arbitrator
must not only interpret each guideline, but he must determine what
weight
he will give to each guideline in order to arrive at a "total
package" because
only
the "total package" concept can measure the real effect of the
arbitrator's
decision.
The task is not easy. He must attempt to fashion an acceptable and
workable
bargain, one that the parties would have struck by themselves as
objective
and disinterested neutrals. This point is crucial. Dispute settlement
procedures
that culminate in binding arbitration make it easy for each to bypass
negotiations,
mediation and fact-finding in the hope that an arbitrator might award
to
one party what it could not gain through the process of free and robust
negotiations.
The award must reflect the relative bargaining strength of the
parties.
The award cannot be a "compromise" much less "a splitting of the
difference"
because such an award would favor the party which advances extreme
demands
and takes an intransigent position. City of
Discussion and Analysis
Comparable Jurisdictions
The Employer and the
jurisdictions
The parties limited their analysis to jurisdictions within
The parties first selected
cities within 50% above and below
The parties then refined the
list of potential comparables by limiting their attention to cities
within
50% above and below
following
list of mutually acceptable comparable jurisdictions:
The parties were not in
complete agreement on the issue of comparability, however. The
Employer desired to include
argued
that inclusion of
City of
a
number of factors supporting each party's argument concerning the
use
of
proceedings
must be addressed before the underlying salary dispute can be analyzed.
The parties have presented compelling arguments for their
respective positions. The
Employer believes that
because
it shares a common labor market with the City of
notes
that the
Department
work together on a regular basis. The City of
emergency
dispatching for the entire county, while
wide
criminal justice data base in which Bellingham Police Department records are
kept.
County provides specialized
services such as marine patrol upon request from the City,
and
the record reflects that the City provides its canine team, SWAT team and
hazardous
materials
team upon request from the County. In addition, the Employer presented
credible
evidence that the majority of job applicants for bargaining unit positions come
from
While acknowledging the close geographic proximity between the
City of
jurisdiction.
Noting that the parties have already stipulated to 11 comparable jurisdictions,
the
this
proceeding. The
to
the other comparable jurisdictions but argued that those located in
not
be accorded the same weight as the non-King County jurisdictions.
The issue of comparing cities to counties has been a point of
contention in many interest
arbitration
proceedings. In its closing brief, the
arbitrators
on the subject as stated by Arbitrator Jane Wilkinson in City of
The City proposes
the
local labor market. While I have carefully considered this proposal and find it
tempting
because of the unique characteristics of the Tri-Cities area, I am rejecting
it
on the grounds that those comparators do not meet the statutory requirement of
"like
employers" . . .
It is interesting to note that
the same issue arose in an interest arbitration case involving
the
City of
the
City shared significant similarities with the County. Noting that the City and
County
shared a
common labor market, Arbitrator Snow stated:
Despite the fact that
contact
with the County that consideration must be given to the wage structure
for
law enforcement personnel in the City of
(Snow,
1986).
The existence of a common
labor market is very important to a full consideration of the
wage
proposals being advanced in this case. As noted by Arbitrator Janet Gaunt:
Comparisons within the local
labor market are traditionally taken into
consideration
in collective bargaining. The reasons for this have been aptly described
by
UCLA Professor Irving Bernstein as follows:
[Local labor market]
comparisons are preeminent in wage
determination
because all parties at interest derive benefit
from
them. To the worker, they permit a decision on the
adequacy
of his income. He feels no discrimination if he
stays
abreast of other workers in his industry, his locality,
his
neighborhood. They are vital to the union because they
provide
guidance to its officials on what must be insisted
upon
and a yardstick for measuring their bargaining skill. In
the
presence of internal factionalism or rival unionism, the
power
of comparisons is enhanced. The employer is drawn
to
them because they assure him that competitors will not
gain a
wage cost advantage and that he will be able to
recruit
in the local labor market . .
The City of
large
majority of applicants for work in the bargaining unit come from
and
the record reflects that the city and the county share significant economic
factors.
Apart from a common labor market,
framework
of comparability factors already agreed upon by the parties. As demonstrated
in
Employer Exhibit 9 (page 6),
criteria
agreed upon by the parties to find comparable jurisdictions.
In addition, the use of
between
the
comparable
jurisdictions. The use of "metropolitan" comparators has been a
contentious
issue
in interest arbitration proceedings, and the relative weight to be given to
"metropolitan"
jurisdictions has been debated on numerous occasions. It is important to
select a
list of comparators that truly reflects the nature of the specific jurisdiction
where
the
interest arbitration proceeding arose.
Moreover, the situation presented here is different from the
circumstances found by
Arbitrator Wilkinson in City
of
immediate
geographic area from which comparisons could be made. There are no other
cities
nearby from which such comparisons can be made in this case
Given the arguments presented here, it is appropriate to
include
comparable
jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the City of
County share a common labor
market, and that there is a significant degree of interchange
and
mutual cooperation between the two law enforcement agencies.
In addition, use of
the
closest geographic comparator to the City of
the
economic realities of that particular area. While the other comparable
jurisdictions will
provide
relevant information, none can provide such a close comparison to the economic
climate
found in the geographic area surrounding the City of
RCW 41.56.460(f), the
relationship between
presents
factors:
which
are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment
Having included
county
will be the sole or prima comparator, however,
to
the list of comparable jurisdictions already stipulated by the parties. While
the county
has
unique factors justifying its inclusion on the list of comparable
jurisdictions, the entire
list
of comparators must be analyzed to determine the appropriate wage increase in
this
case.
The Wage Increase
It is important to note the immediate bargaining history which
led to this interest
arbitration
proceeding. The parties entered into a three year collective bargaining
agreement
for calendar years 1993, 1994 and 1995 The parties agreed to a 4% wage
increase
for 1993 a 3% wage increase for 1994, and a wage reopener
for 1995. It is in
this
context that the parties make their arguments concerning an appropriate wage
increase
for 1995.
In making its wage proposal of 9% for calendar year 1995, the
bargaining
history must not play a significant factor in determining the appropriate wage
increase.
As the Union notes in its closing brief, the parties could not agree to 1995
salaries
when bargaining took place in 1993 and the
"stand
alone" for purposes of this proceeding. The
Employer's arguments
concerning promotional opportunities must be rejected as
misleading
to the underlying salary dispute. The
contain
similar provisions, and that promotional opportunities should not be used to
detract
from the
The
paid
in comparable jurisdictions. Even though the
County as a comparable
jurisdiction in advancing this argument, the
analysis
must be discussed as presented to understand the reasons behind the
wage
increase.
According to the
relation
to its comparable jurisdictions. In Union Exhibit 4, the
differences
in the "top step" police officer salaries for 1994 as follows:
_____________________________________________________________________
Police
Officer "Catch
Up"
Top
Step To Top Rate
Kirkland $3838 - - -
Renton $3760 2.1%
Redmond $3698 3.8%
Kent $3659 4.9%
Edmonds $3593 6.8%
Vancouver $3560 7.8%
Auburn $3554 8.0%
Olympia $3534 8.6%
Lynnwood $3529 8.9%
Bellingham $3524 8.9%
Yakima $3491 9.9%
Kennewick $3355 14.8%
_____________________________________________________________________
Using the same formula for
calendar year 1995, the Union presented the following
information
in Union Exhibit 12:
_____________________________________________________________________
Police
Officer "Catch
Up"
Top
Step To Top Rate
Kirkland $3959 - - -
Renton $3892 1.7%
Kent $3806 4.0%
Edmonds $3706 6.8%
Redmond $3698
(1994) 7.1%
Vancouver $3685 7.4%
Auburn $3666 8.0%
Lynnwood $3653 8.4%
Yakima $3597 10.1%
Olympia $3587 10.4%
Bellingham $3524
(1994) 12.3%
Kennewick $3461 14.4%
_____________________________________________________________________
The Employer advances a much
different argument concerning the appropriate wage
increase.
The Employer maintains that the wage proposals must be analyzed with the
1993
and 1994 increases in mind. The Employer argues that the
Union's position is well
out
of the range of the 1993 and 1994 increases, and the Employer asserts that the
Union
is
attempting to use interest arbitration to gain a wage increase that would have
never
occurred
in normal bargaining. The Employer further notes that the City of Bellingham
has
not suffered turnover problems with the wage structure currently in place, and
that
hiring
has not been difficult.
The Employer asserts that many bargaining unit employees are
eligible for specialty pay
and
there are many promotional opportunities that impact wages. The Employer
contends
that
its wage proposal is also appropriate when considering "internal
comparability
factors"
within the Bellingham Police Department. Finally the Employer argues that its
wage
proposal is reasonable and that it generally keeps pace with the cost of living
(approximately
3% at the time of the hearing).
Following the Employer's analysis, the parties have voluntarily
put the bargaining unit
slightly
below the average of the comparable jurisdictions, with Bellingham police
officers
somewhere
between 1/2% to 4% behind the average wage increase. As further proof of
this
state of affairs, the Employer, in Employer Exhibit 43, notes that the
following pattern
has
emerged from collective bargaining for the years 1990 through 1994:
_____________________________________________________________________
Year Bellingham
Relationship to Average
1990 1.6%
below the average
1991 1.3%
below the average
1992 3.3%
below the average
1993 1.5%
below the average
1994 1.5%
below the average
_____________________________________________________________________
Clearly, the parties have
differing interpretations of how the wage increase issue should be
addressed.
The Arbitrator must note that the Union's analysis contains a number of
factors
which have not been used in fashioning salary settlements in the past. The
testimony
of Kathryn Hanowell, Director of Human Resources,
credibly establishes that
the
parties had not used such cost factors as Social Security payments made by the
Employer, deferred
compensation payments, accreditation pay and physical fitness
incentives.
In fact, it appears that the parties had traditionally looked at base wages and
longevity
as the basis for negotiations. This is made clear by Employer Exhibit 66, a
document
prepared by the Union for bargaining in 1993 in which base wage and longevity
factors
were used to propose wage increases for bargaining unit members.
The Arbitrator does not see any reason to upset the historical
progression of the parties'
collective
bargaining relationship. While the Union has a legitimate point concerning the
need
to balance bargaining history with the realities of the particular round of
negotiations
in question, it must be noted that this particular dispute arises in the
context
of a
contract that is, except for wages closed for 1995. It would be wholly
inappropriate
to
discard the bargaining history in which the collective bargaining agreement was
initially
executed.
A wage reopener is just what its name implies; it is
a chance for the parties to
reconsider
wage rates after the passage of some time from the date of contract
ratification.
The wage rate is to be negotiated at the time designated in the wage
reopener, and this will typically complete
bargaining on the contract as a whole.
During the course of the hearing, and by way of closing briefs,
the parties to this dispute
have
provided a great deal of information supporting their conflicting views on the
appropriate
wage increase for 1995. While the Arbitrator has examined all of the exhibits
and
arguments presented, this dispute must be decided in the context of the
situation in
which
it was presented. There is no evidence that the parties had ever used the
factors set
forth
by the Union in determining the wage increase to be appropriate. The process of
interest
arbitration mus be viewed as a natural progression
from the realm of good faith
collective
bargaining. It cannot be used as a means to gain advantage that could not have
been
gained through the negotiations themselves. Accordingly the Union's position
that
this
wage increase must be used to help the bargaining unit "catch up"
with comparable
jurisdictions
must be rejected here
Deciding against the Unions position concerning the propriety
of "catch up" factor does
not
end the discussion of the appropriate wage increase. As noted in the Employer's
closing
brief the record demonstrates that bargaining unit employees are given the
opportunity
to earn additional compensation by working in specialty areas such as
detective,
shift investigator, and traffic officer. While each of these promotional
positions
are
not, in and of themselves conclusive evidence that the City of Bellingham is a
unique
jurisdiction,
their existence must be counted as part of the factors in determining an
appropriate
wage increase.
Finally, examination of the consumer price index (CPI) at the
time of this dispute shows
that
the national index, whether expressed as CPI-U or CPI-W, was running slightly
less
than
3%, and the Seattle area index was slightly above the 3% level. The Union did
not
submit
argument concerning the relative merit of the consumer price index, given that
it
stressed
its "catch up" theory. The consumer price information is important
because it
gives a
general economic structure in which the different wage increase proposals can
be
analyzed.
The general range of consumer price indices indicates that a 3% increase would
be
appropriate in this case, and such a result would be logical within the context
of the
wage
opener found in the collective bargaining agreement.
The last issue to be decided is whether the 3% increase should
be granted to all bargaining
unit
employees or should sergeants receive a lower amount, as the Employer has
argued.
Given the nature of these
proceedings, and remembering that the interest arbitration
proceeding
arises from the context of a wage reopener, it would
be inappropriate to grant
a
different wage increase for sergeants than the other officers would receive,
Throughout the presentation of its evidence and in its closing
brief, the Employer strongly
argued
that interest arbitration should not be used as a forum to advance bargaining
proposals
that were unrealistic in terms of the underlying negotiations. In this case,
given
the
limited number of issues that could be brought to the bargaining table, it is
most
unlikely
that the Union could have ever agreed to different wage increases for patrol
officers
and for sergeants when the issue of wages was the only thing available for
discussion.
AWARD
For purposes of this interest
arbitration award, Whatcom County is included as a
comparable
jurisdiction.
For calendar year 1995, the
wages of all bargaining unit employees subject to this interest
arbitration
award shall be increased by 3% on the base wage amount.
Dated
at Olympia, Washington this 2nd day of April, 1996.
/s/
KENNETH J. LATSCH,
Arbitrator