International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 27
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 06576-I-86-00150
Employer:
City of Seattle &
Date Issued:
In the Matter of Arbitration )
between )
)
CITY OF
)
and ) PERC Case No.
) 6576-1-86-150
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 27 )
__________________________________ )
)
CITY OF
)
and )
) PERC Case No.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2898 )
__________________________________ )
Dated Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
MICHAEL H. BECK
FOR THE ARBITRATION PANELS
Michael H. Beck Neutral
Chairman
Carol Laurich Employer Member
Local 27
Bruce Amer Union Member
Local 27
Lizanne Lyons Employer Member
Local 2898
Scott McEwen Union
Member Local 2898
Appearances:
CITY OF
Marilyn
Sherron
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 27 and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2898 James
H. Webster
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION 1
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1 ISSUES IN DISPUTE 3
DISCUSSION 4
Statutory Criteria 4
Comparables 6
Wages - The Local 27 Unit 7
Wages - The Local 2898 Unit 31
Premiums - The Local 27 Unit 45
Premiums - The Local 2898 Unit 49
Medical Insurance - Both Bargaining
Units 50
Sick Leave and Long-Term Disability - The Local 27
Unit 56
Vacations - The Local 27 Unit 61
Overtime Pay - The Local 27 Unit 63
Tuition Reimbursement - The Local 27 Unit 64
Hours of Work The Local 2898 Unit 67
The Runzheimer
Report 68
II. AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN 78
In the Matter of Arbitration )
between )
)
CITY OF
)
and ) PERC Case No.
) 6576-1-86-150
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 27 )
_____________________________________ )
)
CITY OF
)
and ) PERC Case No.
) 6590-1-86-151
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2898 )
_____________________________________ )
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
RCW 41.56.450 provides for arbitration of disputes when
collective bargaining
negotiations have resulted in impasse.
The undersigned was selected
by the parties to serve as
Neutral Chairman of two
separate tripartite arbitration
panels. The parties agreed to a joint hearing which
was
attended by both Arbitration
Panels.
The Arbitration Panel selected in the dispute between
the City of
Fighters, Local 27 was
comprised of the undersigned as
Neutral Chairman, Carol Launch
appointed by the Employer,
the City of
The Arbitration Panel selected
in the dispute between the
City of
International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local 2898 was
comprised of the undersigned, Lizanne Lyons appointed by the
Employer, and Scott McEwen
appointed by Local 2898.
The hearing in this matter was held on March 2, 3, 4,
and 5 and July 6, 7, 9, and
10, 1987. The Employer, City of
Pidduck,
represented by James H.
Webster of the law firm of Webster,
Mrak
& Blumberg. At the hearing the
testimony of witnesses
was taken under oath and the
parties presented extensive
documentary evidence. A court reporter was present and a
verbatim transcript was
prepared and provided to the Neutral
Chairman (hereinafter
Chairman) for his use in reaching a
decision in this matter. The record in this matter included
345 exhibits, many of which
were quite lengthy. The entire
record created a stack of
documents measuring in excess of
three feet in height.
The parties agreed to file simultaneous posthearing
briefs. In view of the extremely lengthy record in
this
matter, the Chairman requested
that those briefs be
sufficiently specific so as to
allow him to use them as a
guide in reviewing the record
in this matter. The Chairman
has received excellent briefs
from the parties which were
timely filed and received by
the Chairman on October 15,
1987.
At the request of the Chairman, the parties agreed upon
an extension of the statutory
requirement that a decision
issue within thirty days
following the conclusion of the
hearing. On
other members of the
Arbitration Panels. A discussion of
the issues occurred which was
very helpful to the Chairman.
In accordance with the
statutory mandate, I set forth herein
my findings of fact and
determination of the issues.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues presented to the Arbitration Panel hearing
the Local 27 dispute are as
follows:
Wages (including premium pay)
Medical insurance
Sick leave and long-term disability
Vacations
Overtime pay
Tuition reimbursement
The issues presented by the parties to the Arbitration
Panel hearing the Local 2898
dispute are as follows:
Wages (including premium pay)
Medical insurance
Hours of work
DISCUSSION
Statutory Criteria
RCW 41.56.460 directs that the following criteria shall
be taken into consideration as
relevant factors in reaching
a decision:
[T]he panel shall be mindful of the legislative
purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.43~ 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) Stipulations of
the parties;
(c) . .
(ii) For employees
listed in *RCW
41.56.030(6) (b), [fire fighters] 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 only 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.
As the code revisors' note indicates, a portion of Chapter
521 [Engrossed Substitute
House Bill No. 498] which was
passed by the Legislature
during the 1987 Legislative
Session and which made certain
changes in RCW 41.56.460 was
partially vetoed by the
Governor. However, Section 2 of
that Bill, which made certain
changes with respect to how
comparables are to be selected
in cases involving fire
fighters was not vetoed and
appears as 41.56.460(c) (ii).
The Legislative purpose which your Chairman is directed
to be mindful of in applying
the standards and guidelines in
reaching his decision is set
forth in RCW 41.56.430 as
follows:
The intent and purpose of this . . act is to I
recognize that there exists a public policy in
the state of
uniformed personnel as a means of settling their
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
dedicated and uninterrupted Public service
there should exist an effective and adequate
alternative means of settling disputes.
Comparables
With respect to both bargaining units, the parties have
agreed upon seven cities which
are appropriately comparable
to
Thus, all of the comparator
cities are located in
except for
The Unions contend that pursuant to Subsection (f) of
RCW 41.56.460, the Chairman
should consider certain cities
as representative of the local
labor market. In this
regard, the Unions argue that
wages, hours and conditions of
employment available in the
local labor market is a factor
normally and traditionally
taken into consideration in in-
terest
arbitrations. In particular, the Unions
have
supplied data with respect to
no weight should be given to
the local area cities and
further points out that the Unions
have only supplied data
with respect to two of those
cities. The Employer does,
however, provide data for two
additional local area cities,
Bellevue and Redmond,
Washington, in order that the Chairman
would have a larger selection
of local area cities if he
determines to give any weight
to local area cities.
In view of the fact that the parties have stipulated to
seven west coast cities and
the fact that it is very likely
that the fire departments of
departments of the seven
stipulated cities, I find that the
comparators should be limited
to the seven stipulated
cities.
Wages - The Local 27 Unit
The parties are in agreement with respect to the
duration of the Agreement
which is to be from September 1,
1986 through
position of top step fire
fighter receive a 9.5% wage
increase for the first year of
the Agreement. This 9.5%
wage increase would also be
applied to the other steps on
the salary schedule. Additionally, the parties are agreed
that a 15% differential should
be maintained between the
ranks of top step fire fighter
and lieutenant and between
the ranks of lieutenant and
captain. Thus, under the
Union's proposal, the present
top step fire fighter base
monthly salary of $2,510 would
increase to $2,748. Fifteen
percent of this figure is
$3,160 which would represent the
base monthly salary for a
lieutenant during the first year
of the contract. Fifteen percent of that figure equals
$3,634 which would be the base
monthly salary for a captain
during the first year of the
contract. The Employer on the
other hand, proposes that
there be no increase in salary
during the first year of the
Agreement.
With respect to the second year of the Agreement, i.e.,
from
proposes a base salary
increase of 5% for all ranks. The
Employer proposes a base
salary increase equal to eighty
percent of the increase in the
August 1986 and August
1987. According to the Employer,
using the foregoing as the
basis of the increase in base
salary would result in a 1.1%
increase in base salary for
all ranks for the second year
of the Agreement effective
second year of the Agreement,
a top step fire fighter would
receive 5% of $2,748 or
$2,885, while under the Employer's
proposal, the top step fire
fighter would only receive 1.1%
of $2,510 or $2,538. Thus, the Local 27 proposal for the
second year of the Agreement
($2885) calls for an amount
almost 14% in excess of that
offered by the Employer
($2538).
A major reason why the parties have reached proposals
which are so far apart is due
to the manner in which they
contend the comparators should
be compared. Thus, the
takes the position that the
Chairman should compare monthly
base salaries actually paid to
the top step fire fighter in
each of the comparator cities
against that paid to the top
step fire fighter in
made, as the Union points out,
one finds that
presently 9.5% below the
average monthly base salary paid in
the comparator cities at the
beginning of the contract year
1986.
The Employer, on the other hand, takes the position
that the only appropriate way
to compare wages is to review
hourly compensation. The vast majority of fire fighters in
shift schedules. These schedules vary from comparator to
comparator resulting in an
average work week of 56 hours for
fire fighters in
and
week, while fire fighters in
hours per week. Fire fighters in
average work week of the
comparators as their average is
45.7 hours per week.
In order to make its hourly compensation rate
comparison, the Employer
determined that one should compute
the number of hours worked per
year by taking the scheduled
hours per year and deducting
hours not actually worked due
to vacation or holidays. Then the Employer would compute
the compensation per year by
adding to the annual salary any
payments made for holiday pay,
longevity pay and the cost
per fire fighter of providing
health care insurance. The
Employer then would divide the
compensation per year by the
number of hours actually
worked per year to come up with
compensation per hour
worked. Due to the fact that fire
fighters receive longevity pay
as well as vacation benefits
based on length of service,
the Employer has determined that
it is appropriate to make four
comparisons, one each for
five year fire fighters, ten
year fire fighters, fifteen
year fire fighters and twenty
year fire fighters.
A review of Employer Exhibit Nos. 114, 116, 118 and 120
reveals that
out of eight with respect to
five, ten and fifteen year fire
fighters, and second out of
eight with respect to twenty
year fire fighters. These same exhibits reveal that for the
contract year beginning in
1986,
above the average for a five
year fire fighter to 12% above
the average for a twenty year
fire fighter.
Although the
on monthly salaries is the
only appropriate method of
comparison, the
Chairman were to decide to
make a comparison of hourly
compensation, then the method
used by the Employer is not
appropriate. In particular, the
graphics of the
highest percentage of fire
fighters vis-a-vis bargaining
unit members holding higher
positions then in any of the
comparator cities. Thus, Union Exhibit No. 67 indicates
that 79.5% of the bargaining
unit members hold the position
of fire fighter, while only
20.5% hold the higher ranked
positions of lieutenant and
captain. At the other end of
spectrum, in the City of
gaining unit members are fire
fighters while 62.7% hold the
higher rated positions of
engineer or captain. Thus, for
this and other reasons, the
more equitable way to make
hourly comparisons is to take
each salary and benefit
element, including benefits not used
by the Employer in its
calculation, such as, pension pick-up
and Fair Labor Standards Act
compensation, and multiply
those elements by the number
of bargaining unit employees
who receive them. Thus, the salary and benefits received by
fire fighters are computed
separately from those received by
engineers, lieutenants or
captains in the various cities.
These figures are totalled, then divided by the total number
of bargaining unit members and
then adjusted for the actual
number of hours worked.
When hourly compensation is figured in the manner
described immediately above,
for the contract year
beginning in 1986 (
86). When one averages the hourly compensation
figures for
the seven comparators
appearing on Union Exhibit No. 86, one
finds that average to be
$16.56.
is $.14 above the average
hourly compensation of $16.56,
which works out to less than 1% above the average.
As the foregoing review indicates, despite the fact
that the parties are in
agreement with respect to the
comparability of seven cities
to
select for comparison leaves
your Chairman with a vastly
different set of comparable
figures to choose from. After
carefully considering the
matter, it is my conclusion that
the appropriate basis for
comparison with respect to the
issue of employee wages is the
base salary actually received
by the employees of the
regard, I note that the salary
schedule listed in Appendix A
of the prior agreement, which
expired
forth the salaries of all
bargaining unit members in terms
of monthly salary.
The fact that the collective bargaining agreement sets
forth employees' salaries in
terms of monthly salary cannot
be ascribed to
coincidence. Thus, the evidence clearly
establishes that it has been
the practice of the parties to
negotiate base wages in terms
of monthly salary and not in
terms of hourly
compensation. In this regard, I note the
testimony of Local 27
president, Paul Harvey, who testified
that traditionally the parties
have used the monthly salary
figure for a top step fire
fighter in comparing
Fighters to the various
comparator cities during the
negotiations for their
collective bargaining agreements.
The City does not contend to
the contrary.
In fact,
Phyllis Dwyer, Labor Relations
Analyst for the City, who, in
that position, provides
professional research support to the
Director of Labor Relations
and the City's negotiators with
respect to collective
negotiations. Thus, Dwyer testified
with respect to Employer
Exhibit No. 238 that it was her job
to update the base monthly
salaries in each of the
comparators and in
monthly salary, excluding
compared to
updates on an annual basis.
Local 27 and the City have only had to go to interest
arbitration on one occasion
prior to the instant case. That
occasion involved the labor
contract for the period
heard that arbitration was
chaired by Professor Philip K.
Kienast. One of the
in question there was a
reduction in the hours worked by
fire fighters. Professor Kienast
denied this proposal, in
part, because
hours per week than did fire
fighters in the comparator
cities. However, when it came to considering the
various
salary proposals, Professor Kienast granted a salary in-
crease which was more than
double that proposed by the
Employer, even though, at the
time,
among the comparators on an hourly
basis.
While it is true that Professor Kienast
was heavily
influenced in reaching his
salary determination by the fact
that the City of
fighters and police officers, Kienast did recognize that in
the past the City had
negotiated increases in base salary
despite the fact that the
City's fire fighters worked a
lesser number of hours than
that worked by comparator fire
departments. In fact, as the Union points out, the 2%
increase offered by the City
in 1982 would have placed the
City even further ahead of the
comparators on an hourly
basis than they already were
at that time. In this regard,
I note that the Employer's
calculation of total hourly
compensation for a ten year
fire fighter placed
$12.92 per hour as of
the seven comparators,. plus
No. 90). Thus, the Employer was offering a 2% increase
even
though based on total hourly
compensation, as the Employer
computed that figure, the
Employer was in first place, $2.71
r 26.5% above the
average. It also must be remembered that
the foregoing computation
includes
second highest total hourly
compensation figure to that of
Seattle and which the Employer
seeks to exclude in the
instant case. Thus, if one removes
total hourly computation
figures as of
finds that.the
average of the remaining seven comparators is
$9.89. This placed
the seven comparators in total
hourly compensation, and,
still the Employer was
offering a 2% increase.
One might legitimately ask why the City of
been willing to compare its
fire fighters on a monthly
salary basis with that of
other fire departments even though
its fire fighters work a
lesser number of hours. Local 27
suggests that the reasons for
this were the "exemplary
productivity of
brief page 39.) and the fact
that
the least opportunity for
promotion to a higher rank than
any of the comparator fire
departments. According to the
Union this can lead not only
to lower career earnings in
benefits generally are based
on compensation levels
immediately prior to
retirement.
Neither the evidence nor the argument submitted by the
Employer provides your
Chairman with any significant insight
into the reasons why it has
been willing to bargain as
described above. In any event, it is clear that over the
years the parties have
conducted their bargaining regarding
wages using as a basis for
comparing the comparators the
base monthly salary paid fire
fighters in the various com-
parator
cities. As Professor Kienast
pointed out in his
1982 Arbitration Award
referenced above (dated February 3,
1983) negotiating history is
an important factor to be
considered by an arbitrator in
determining the basis of
salary increases. While the parties certainly may change
the nature or manner in which
they conduct negotiations, an
arbitrator should be hesitant
to do so in the absence of
fairly compelling
reasons. Such reasons have not been
demonstrated to exist here.
Based on all of the foregoing, the evidence clearly
supports the conclusion that
the appropriate basis upon
which to make comparisons of
fire fighter wages in various
cities is base monthly salary.
The raises provided to the comparator fire departments
for the contract year 1986-87
were provided in each case
effective in either June or
July of 1986. Thus, by the
effective date of the first
year of the contract in question
here, namely
their raises for the contract
year 1986-87. Union Exhibit
No. 58 establishes that as of
in sixth place out of the
eight comparators and would
require a 9.5% increase to
reach the average, excluding
three of the comparator
cities,
Diego, provided their fire
fighters with additional in-
creases at varying points
during the 1986-87 contract year.
As I understand Employer
Exhibit No. 238, which lists the
contract years for the
comparators back to 1970-71, the
Employer has taken into
account any mid-year increases in
setting out the base monthly
salary on that exhibit. When
this is done for the contract
year 1986-87, the percentage
increase necessary to provide
annual salary is about 10%.
The Union points out that
received better than the
average base monthly salary of the
comparators since 1977 up
until 1984, and, even in that
case,
monthly salary, a difference
of less than 1%. It was not
until 1985 that
average, as its base monthly
salary of $2,510 was $122 less
than the average of $2,632,
leaving
of the average. For
1985, it would have required
an additional raise in
of approximately 4.9%. If
base monthly wage in 1986, as
proposed by the Employer, then
as of
average, and need a 9.5%
increase in wage rate to reach the
average of $2748 per month.
As already indicated, Employer Exhibit No. 238 provides
a comparison of
monthly salaries going back to
the year 1970-71. Before
beginning a discussion of Employer
Exhibit No. 238, it must
be remembered that unlike the
Exhibit No. 58 (which goes
back to 1977) the Employer
comparisons on Exhibit No. 238
take into consideration the
mid-year raises, if any.
average in base monthly salary
in 1970-71 than in any year
since. That year,
during that period
recession. Furthermore, beginning with the very next
year,
1971-72,
closing the gap between
year 1975-76, just two years
after the passage of the in-
terest
arbitration law in Washington state,
within seven dollars of the
average, leaving
99.5% of the average. Since that time, with the exception
of the year 1976-77, until
1984-85,
receive salaries above the
average. Employer Exhibit No.
238 indicates that even in
those two years
close to the average, 97% of
the average in 1976-77 and
98.7% of the average in
1984-85. If one does not include
the mid-year increases in
1984-85 and makes the computation
as the
contract year 1984, the
difference is even smaller, i.e.,
situation where, generally
speaking, since the mid 1970's,
the City of
monthly salary than paid by
the average of the comparators.
behind the average salary paid
by the comparators.
Based on all of the foregoing, I find that a con-
sideration
of the comparators does support the
tention
that a 9.5% increase for the contract year 1986-87
is appropriate. Further, in this regard, I note that such
an increase would place
eight comparators.
rankings on September 1 of any
year after 1977, except
during the last two years of
the immediate past agreement
when
years 1984 and 1985. (See Union Exhibit No. 58.) In fact,
the rate negotiated by the
parties for the first year of
that agreement, 1983, left
above the average as of
since 1974-75, the year after
the interest arbitration law
was passed in
only during the year 1976-77
and the year 1977-78 until the
last two years of the expired
agreement. Thus~ it cannot be
said that a ranking of fifth
place is historically inappro-
priate
for
The average raise received by the comparators between
1985 and 1986, not even
counting mid-year raises, was 4.4%
($2632 vs. $2748). Furthermore, if one looks at the raise
in monthly salary between
1982, after Professor Kienast had
ordered a 4.3% base salary
increase, and
one finds that the increase in
$2,510, a percentage increase
of approximately 7.5%, while
the increase in the average of
the comparators went from
$2,239 as of
1986, a percentage increase of
approximately 22.7%.
All of the foregoing indicates that based on a com-
parison
of the comparators, a wage freeze for the year 1986-
87 for
purpose set forth in the
legislative declaration contained
in RCW 41.56.430, namely, that
the settlement awarded by
your Chairman should be such
as to promote the dedicated and
uninterrupted public service
provided by fire fighters.
Rather, the foregoing
discussion of the comparators leads
your Chairman to conclude that
a substantial increase in
base monthly salary is
warranted.
The Employer contends that your Chairman should take
the long view, comparing base
monthly salary increases for
top step fire fighters since
1970. The Employer relying on
Employer Exhibit No. 238,
points out that Seattle fire
fighters have had a 185%
increase in base monthly salary
since the year 1970-71, while
the average increases for the
comparators, excluding
Seattle, has been only 183%. Why the
Employer chose the year
1970-71 as the year to base its
comparisons upon is not clear
from the record. However, as
I noted earlier, the year
1970-71 was the year in which the
Seattle fire fighters were
further behind the average of the
comparators than in any other
year of the sixteen years
prior to 1986-87 contained on
Employer Exhibit No. 238,
namely, 90.3% of the average
or 9.7% below the average. If
one wants to gain an
historical perspective, the appropriate
year to select as the basis of
comparison from Employer
Exhibit No. 238 is the year
1975-76, which was the first
year on that exhibit in which
Seattle came close to the
average of the comparators,
excluding Seattle. Thus, in
that year, Seattle was within
one-half of one percent of the
average. Using the figures contained on Employer
Exhibit
No. 238, one finds that the
increase in the average of the
comparators between the year
1975-76 and 1986-87 is 102.1%,
while the increase for top
step Seattle fire fighters during
the same period of time was
only 84.7%.
With respect to the second year of the Agreement, the
record, including the
affidavit of Bruce Amer, contains the
increases granted by all of
the comparators except San
Francisco in effect as of
September 1, 1987, the beginning
of the second year of the
Seattle Agreement. The average
increase of those six
comparators between September 1, 1986
and September 1, 1987 is
approximately 5.4%. Thus, in the
second year, the increase
sought by Local 27, namely 5%,
appears to be warranted by a
review of the comparators.
There are, however, other factors that must be
considered. In this regard, I note that RCW 41.56.460(d)
directs the Panel to consider:
The average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the cost of living.
The above-quoted language
makes clear that the Legislature
intended the Panel to consult
some measure of price change
regarding goods and
services. The most commonly used
measure is the federally
produced Consumer Price Index. I
note that the parties in their
prior agreement agreed that
for the contract years
beginning in 1984 and 1985, they
would base an increase in
salary on a percentage increase in
the Seattle-Everett CPI for
urban wage earners and clerical
workers, referred to as the
CPI-W. The period the parties
selected to review was the
period July to July immediately
preceding the year for which
the increase was to be cal-
culated. The evidence presented at the hearing also
in-
dicated
that the City and Local 27 have considered this
index as a basis for negotiating~prior collective bargaining
agreements and the evidence
also indicated that the City had
used this index in
negotiations with other unions as well as
in determining raises for
non-represented employees.
Based on all the foregoing, it appears appropriate to
consider in connection with
the statutory direction con-
tamed in RCW 41.56.460(d) the
CPI-W for the Seattle-Everett
area for the period July 1985
to July 1986 with respect to
the first year of the contract
in question here. That index
rose three-tenths of one
percent (.3%) during the period
July 1985 to July 1986. However, it also appears appro-
priate
to consider the U.S. City Average index as the Union
contends since the Bureau of
Labor Statistics BLS has issued
the following statement
regarding local indexes:
... As a subset of the national index, each
local index has a smaller sample size, and,
therefore, is subject to substantially more
sampling and other
measurement errors. It
follows that local area indexes often exhibit
greater volatility than the national index,
although long-term trends remain quite similar.
BLS strongly
recommends that users adopt the
U.S. City Average CPI for use in escalator
clauses.
Using the Consumer Price
Index for Escalation, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, October,
1986.
The U.S. City average CPI-W
increased 1.2% from July 1985 to
July 1986.
With respect to the second year of the contract, it
must be noted that the BLS has
made a number of changes
regarding the Consumer Price
Index. One of those changes is
that beginning with 1987, the
Seattle area index is to be
reported on a semi-annual
basis so that one can compare the
first half of one year with
the first half of the preceding
year and similarly compare the
second half of a particular
year with the second half of a
preceding year. The BLS has
published the 1986 figures so
that there would be a basis of
comparison for 1987. A BLS publication dated August 21,
1987 supplied by the Employer
with a letter to the Chairman,
copied to the Union, indicates
that the increase in the
Seattle area CPI-W for the semi-annual
period first half
1986 to first half 1987 equals
1.4%. Thus, the Employer
would substitute this new
index for the July to July figures
previously available. If one uses the Employer proposed 80%
calculation, one can see that
the increase appropriate under
the Employer's proposal is
1.1% for the second year of the
Agreement. It also should be noted that the U.S. City
average CPI-W increased 3.9%
July 1986 to July 1987.
Further, with respect to the changes in the cost of
goods and services, the
Employer presented evidence indi-
cating
that the Seattle area CPI has risen 215% from
November of 1966 up to July of
1986, while the increase in
Seattle fire fighters' base
monthly salary between January
of 1967 and September of 1986
has been 275% (Employer
Exhibit No. 230). Apparently the 1966-67 period was
selected for comparison
because the CPI uses 1967 as a base
year. However, as discussed earlier, a more
appropriate
year to base an historical
comparison for the Local 27
bargaining unit is the year
1975 when Seattle first came
close to the average of the
comparators. Thus, a review of
Employer Exhibit No. 230 shows
that between August 1975 and
July 1986, the cost of living
in the Seattle area went up
97.1%, while the increase in
Seattle fire fighters' base
salary between September 1975
and September 1986 was only
84.7%.
Finally, I note the substantial evidence put in the
record by the Union regarding
the excellence of the Seattle
Fire Department. While that evidence is really not
sufficient to actually measure
productivity between the
comparator fire departments,
it is clear that the Seattle
fire fighters perform many of
the functions which are
performed by engineers in five
of the seven departments and
in general Seattle is
considered a leading fire department
among the nation's fire
departments.
Based on all of the foregoing, a substantial wage
increase appears
appropriate. The comparators and bar-
gaining history suggest that
Seattle fire fighters should
receive sufficient
compensation so as to allow them to
receive a wage at least equal
to that received by the
average of the
comparators. However, in view of the
fact
that both the Seattle area and
U.S. Cities CPI-W during the
appropriate period have been
extremely low, it would not
seem appropriate under the
statutory criteria to award the
entire 9.5% requested by the
Union in the first year. How-
ever, the increase should be
in excess of the 4.4% average
increase between September of
1985 and September of 1986
received by the average of the
seven comparators (Union
Exhibit No. 58). (If the figures on Employer Exhibit No.
238 are used, the average
increase of the comparators
between the year 1985-86 and
1986-87 is closer to 5%. How-
ever, I have determined to use
the Union's figures since the
9.5% increase to the average
of the comparators sought by
the Union is based on its
figures.)
Based on all the foregoing, it is the opinion of your
Chairman that Seattle fire
fighters should receive an
increase which takes them a
substantial way toward reaching
the average base monthly
salary paid by the comparators. It
is my opinion that an increase
taking them two-thirds of
that way is appropriate. Therefore, I shall order a 6.3%
increase in top step fire
fighters' base monthly salary
effective September 1,
1986. 6.3% of $2,510 is $2,668.
Even with this substantial
raise, Seattle will only be at
97.1% of the average as of
September 1, 1986 and will remain
in sixth place among the
comparators, leaving only
Sacramento and San Diego
behind Seattle. These are the same
two cities which have
traditionally held the last two places
among the eight comparator
cities with respect to top step
fire fighter base monthly
salary.
The Employer also argues that the Chairman should con-
sider
the differences in the CPI-W increases in the compara-
tors
as compared to those increases in Seattle.
In this
regard, the Employer placed in
evidence Exhibit No. 149
which shows the increases in
the CPI-W from 1967 to 1985 in
San Diego, San
Francisco-Oakland, Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Anaheim, Regional West,
Portland and Seattle-Everett based
on the Consumer Price
Index. A review of that exhibit
indicates that Seattle's
increase during the aforementioned
period is less than the other
areas with the exception of
Portland.
As already pointed out the local CPI-Ws are not con-
sidered
as accurate as the U.S. Cities Index.
Even assuming
their validity, the increase
in the cost of living as
measured by the CPI in San
Francisco or in San Diego or in
any other city among the
comparators is not relevant to a
consideration of the cost of
living faced by a Seattle fire
fighter. What is relevant with regard to a Seattle
fire
fighter when considering local
CPIs is, how well have
Seattle fire fighter salary
increases kept up with the
increase in the cost of living
in the area in which they
live as measured by the local
(Seattle area) CPI. If one
takes an historical look at
the cost of living as measured
by the Seattle area CPI since
1975, the year I have been
using for comparison purposes,
one can see that an increase
from $1359 to $2,668 effective
September 1986 would result
in a salary increase over the
period of 96.3%, while at the
same time the increase in the
Seattle area CPI-W between
August 1975 and July 1986 was
97.1% (See Employer Exhibit
No. 230).
I turn now to consider the question of the appropriate
base monthly salary for the
second year of the contract. As
I have already reported, the
increase in base monthly salary
from September 1986 to
September 1987 for the six compara-
tors
for which information is available, averaged 5.4%. The
Union has sought a 5% increase
for the second year. As
already discussed the CPI-W
increase for the appropriate
period in Seattle was 1.4% and
was 3.9% in the U.S. Cities
average. Thus, we have a situation in which during the
two
years used as a base for
considering cost of living in-
creases for the Agreement in
question here, there has been
an unusually low rise in the
Seattle area CPI-W and a
relatively low rise in the
U.S. Cities~CPI-W.
Although your
Chairman believes, for the
reasons already discussed, that
Seattle should approach the
average salary paid by the
comparators, it would not be
appropriate to order the full
amount sought by the Union for
the second year in view of
the relatively low overall
rise in the CPI. Thus, again it
appears appropriate to order a
raise of two-thirds of that
sought, which is 3.3%. Such a raise provides Seattle fire
fighters at the top step with
a base monthly salary of
$2,756, which is 9.8% above
the $2,510 Seattle was receiving
effective August 31,
1986. A raise of 9.8% over a two year
period is a substantial
raise. However, it still leaves
Seattle in sixth place among
the eight comparators and in
the neighborhood of 5% below
the average depending upon the
eventual settlement in San
Francisco.
Wages - The Local 2898 Unit
The parties are in agreement with respect to the
duration of the Agreement
which is to be from September 1,
1986 through August 31,
1988. The Union proposes that the
position of top step Battalion
Chief receive a 17% wage
increase for the first year of
the Agreement. This 17% wage
increase would also be applied
to the other steps on the
salary schedule. Additionally, the parties are agreed that
the same differential should
be maintained between the rank
of Battalion Chief and the
rank of Deputy Chief as presently
exists. At the top step, Deputy Chiefs receive 15%
more in
base monthly salary than do
Battalion Chiefs. Thus, under
the Union's proposal the
present top step Battalion Chiefs'
base monthly salary of $4,084
would increase to $4,736.
One hundred fifteen percent of
this figure is $5,446. The
Employer, on the other hand,
proposes that there be no
increase in salary during the
first year of the Agreement.
With respect to the second year of the Agreement, from
September 1, 1987 through
August 31, 1988, Local 2898 pro-
poses a base salary increase
of 5% for both ranks. The
Employer proposes a 1.1% base
salary increase based on the
same cost of living formula it
deems appropriate with
respect to Local 27. Thus, under the Union's proposal for
the second year of the
Agreement,. a top step Battalion Chief
would receive l~5% of $4,736,
or $4,973. Under the Employer's
proposal, the top step
Battalion Chief would only receive
101.1% of $4,048, or
$4,~93. Thus, the Local 2898 proposal
for the second year of the
Agreement calls for an amount
about 21.5% in excess of that
offered by the Employer.
As in the case of Local 27, the parties are in dispute
as to the method to be used in
comparing Seattle with the
comparator cities. Thus, the Union takes the position that
the Chairman should compare
monthly base salaries actually
paid to top step Battalion
Chiefs in each of the comparator
cities against that paid to
the top step Battalion Chief in
Seattle. When such a comparison is made, one finds
that the
present salary received by a
top step Battalion Chief,
$4,048, is 90.7% of $4,461
which represents the average of
the seven comparators. This figure of $4,461 comes from
Union Exhibit No. 35 and
includes as I understand it any
mid-year increases granted in
the comparators. If one looks
at the comparators as of
September 1, 1986 (as Local 27 did
with respect to the fire
fighters), the average base salary
figure is $4,418 based on the
monthly figures appearing on
the stipulated fact
sheets. The figure $4,048 is 91.6% of
$4,418. To bring the base monthly salary of a Seattle
Battalion Chief to that of the
average of the comparators,
effective September 1, 1986,
would require a 9.1% raise.
The Employer, on the other hand, takes the position
that the only appropriate way
to compare wages is to review
hourly compensation. Battalion Chiefs in Seattle and in the
comparator cities work the
same number of hours as is the
case with fire fighters in
Seattle and the various compara-
tors. Thus, Seattle Battalion Chiefs on twenty-four
hour
shifts work the lowest number
of hours per week of any of
the comparators.
Although the Union believes that monthly comparisons
are the most appropriate, as
in the case of Local 27 it
also provides its own method
with respect to how hourly
compensation should be figured
in the event the Chairman
finds hourly compensation most
appropriate. The difference
in hourly compensation
computation methods between Local
2898 and the City results in
only slight differences.
Thus, Employer Exhibit No. 136
indicates that during the
contract year 1986-87 Seattle
is 7.5% above the average
based on compensation per hour
worked and is in second place
among the comparators. Union Exhibit No. 50, on the other
hand, contains hourly
compensation figures which place
Seattle 5.1% above the average
and in third place among the
comparators.
It is unnecessary to further consider the hourly com-
pensation
figures because I find, in agreement with the
Union, that the appropriate
basis of comparison with respect
to the Chiefs is base monthly
salary for a top step
Battalion Chief. To understand the reasoning behind this
decision, one needs to review
the evidence of bargaining
history.
Charles C. Soros is a Battalion Chief
in the Seattle
Fire Department and also
President of Local 2898, the
Seattle Fire Chiefs
Association. Soros
testified that in
1981, the Chiefs were informed
by the City that they no
longer would be given a
percentage increase based on what
was negotiated between the
City and the fire fighters, but
instead were being offered a
$1,500 annual raise. A review
of Employer Exhibit No. 236
confirms that effective
September 1, 1982, the
Battalion Chiefs did receive a $125 a
month raise which is a $1,500
annual raise. The Chiefs were
also informed that if they
wanted any additional raises they
would have to organize and
negotiate with the City. The
Chiefs did just that and their
unit was certified on March
28, 1983.
The Employer presented no evidence regarding an
historical comparison between
Seattle Chiefs wages and the
wages received by Chiefs in
the comparators either in terms
of monthly salary or hourly
compensation. The Chiefs pre-
sented
an historical comparison based on top step Battalion
Chiefs' monthly salary only as
far back as 1981 (Union
Exhibit No. 34). In 1981, Seattle was in first place in
monthly salary at $3,640,
according to Union Exhibit No. 34,
and in second place according
to Union Exhibit No. 35 which
has a higher figure for San
Francisco than does Union
Exhibit No. 34. Union Exhibit No. 35 indicates that the
average for the comparators
was $3,363 leaving Seattle 8.2%
above that average for
1981. If one uses the figures on
Exhibit No. 34 for 1981, then
Seattle was slightly higher
above the average of the
comparators. (As I understand both
of these two exhibits they do
include any mid-year increases
given in the comparators.)
Exactly what occurred with respect to consideration of
comparators when the parties
negotiated their first agree-
ment
in 1983 is not clear from the record.
However, Union
Exhibit No. 34 indicates that
the monthly salary negotiated
was $3,872 and the average at
that time was $3,765, leaving
Seattle 2.8% above the average
on a monthly basis and in
fifth place just six dollars
per month behind fourth place
Oakland. Interestingly, the monthly salary in Seattle
during the prior year, 1982,
was $3,765 (See Employer
Exhibit Nos. 232 and 236),
which, as indicated above, was
the average of the comparators
in 1983. Thus, the City gave
the Battalion Chiefs a 2.8%
raise even though no raise would
have left Seattle in 1983
exactly at the average of the
comparators on a monthly
basis.
It also seems appropriate to consider the comparators
on the basis of monthly salary
when trying to determine
wages for the Local 2898 unit
since that is the basis upon
which the City has
traditionally worked with Local 27.
Furthermore, it does seems
appropriate to provide Battalion
Chiefs with a salary figure
that has some relationship to
the fire fighters they
supervise. In this regard, I note
that the parties have agreed
to a fixed percentage between
top step fire fighters and
lieutenants, between lieutenants
and captains, and between
battalion chiefs and deputy
chiefs. The statutory purpose of providing for the uninter-
rupted
and dedicated service of Battalion Chiefs would not
be well served by following a
system that would allow
Battalion Chiefs to lose
substantial ground in salary in
relation to the fire fighters
they supervise. If one
compares the salaries of the
top step fire fighters, as set
forth on Union Exhibit No. 58,
as of September 1st of each
year going back to 1977 to the
top step monthly salary of
Battalion Chiefs as set forth
on Employer Exhibit No. 232
for the same years, one finds
that the percentage difference
is almost identical in each
year. That is, top step
Battalion Chiefs monthly
salary falls somewhere between 61%
and 62.6% above that provided
to top step fire fighters.
Thus, by using base monthly
salary for both units, the
parties will be able to
consider this important factor of
the relationship between
Battalion Chiefs' pay and the pay
of the fire fighters they
supervise.
Finally, in this regard, I note that questions such as
hours of work, the nature and
cost of medical benefits, the
nature and cost of pension
benefits, holidays, and vacations
are each separate issues which
necessarily have to be
separately negotiated and can
be separately placed before an
arbitration panel. It may be helpful for the parties to try
to place a value on the total
compensation package in one
city against that of another
city for purposes of costing
out one city's total package
against another. However, when
the parties actually negotiate
the terms of a collective
bargaining agreement, they
must do it on an issue-by-issue
basis. This is not to say that an arbitrator will
not
consider the various
contractual provisions in determining
what to award in a particular
situation. In fact I shall do
so in this case, as I will
consider my award regarding the
other matters in dispute in
light of my award on wages where
it is relevant to do so. However, for purposes of making
comparisons between comparator
cities, the most efficient
method is to compare apples to
apples, namely, salaries in
one city versus salaries in
another; hours in one city
against hours in another;
insurance programs in one city
against insurance programs in
another; vacations in one city
against vacations in another
city, etc.
I do not wish to imply that your Chairman would not
respect a stipulation of the
parties as to how they wish the
Chairman to consider portions
of an economic package from
city to city. Where such stipulations have been placed
before this Chairman, he has
followed them in the past.
Here, however, the parties are
in disagreement as to the
basis for comparison, and the
bargaining history supports
the Union's view that the
comparison with respect to
salaries should be made on the
basis of base monthly salary
and not on a total hourly
compensation basis.
In view of the fact that the City, when negotiating its
first contract with the
Chiefs, was willing to provide the
Chiefs with an average monthly
salary significantly above
that received by the average
of the comparators and in view
of the fact that the City has
established over the years a
percent difference between top
step Battalion Chiefs and top
step fire fighters in the
range of 61% to 62.6%, it would
seem appropriate to provide
Seattle Battalion Chiefs with a
raise that would move them
back toward the average of the
comparators. In this regard, it should be noted that when
one compares the percent
difference between the average
monthly salary of a top step
Battalion Chief as of September
1,1986 for the seven comparators
of $4,418 with the average
monthly salary of the top step
fire fighter as of September
1,1986 for the seven
comparators of $2,748, one finds that
the percent difference is
60.8%. If the comparison is made
including mid-year increases
the percentage difference is
$4,461 compared to $2,761
(Employer Exhibit No. 238) which
is 61.6%. Both percentage differences are in general
accord-
with the range of percentage
differences between Seattle top
step Battalion Chiefs and top
step fire fighters.
A raise of 9.1% above the $4,048 salary presently
received by Seattle top step
Battalion Chiefs is necessary
to bring Seattle to the
average as of September 1, 1986 of
$4,418. I have determined to use the $4,418 figure repre-
senting
the average of the comparators as of September 1,
1986 rather than the $4461
figure representing the average
of the comparators including
mid-year increases, in order to
be consistent with the
methodology used in connection with
the fire fighters. If one wants to bring Seattle to the
average of the comparators
including mid-year increases, the
percentage increase required
would be 10.2%. I also note
that the average increase
received by Battalion Chiefs in
the seven comparators between
1985 ($4,230) and 1986
($4,461) was 5.5%. These figures include mid-year increases
because no record is available
of the salaries of Chiefs in
the comparators as of
September 1 in any year prior to 1986.
With respect to the cost of living, the Employer placed
in evidence Exhibit No. 232
which shows that the overall
increase in salary for
Battalion Chiefs from January 1967 to
September 1986 was 341%, while
the increase in the Seattle-
Everett CPI-W between November
1966 and July 1986 was only
215%. However, it seems more appropriate to use the
same
year, 1975, as the basis of an
historical comparison
regarding the cost of living
for Battalion Chiefs as was
used with respect to fire
fighters. If one compares the
salary increases for Battalion
Chiefs from September of 1975
until September of 1986, the
increase is 87.5%, which is
very close to the 84.7%
increase over the same period for
salaries paid to top step fire
fighters. The Seattle area
CPI-W, as indicated earlier,
had increased 97.1% during the
period August 1975 until July
1986.
Further, I note that the prior agreement between Local
2898 and the City of Seattle
contained identical cost of
living provisions regarding
the setting of salaries for the
contract years beginning in
1984 and 1985. In view of the
foregoing, the same Seattle
area and U.S. Cities CPI-W
figures as discussed in
connection with Local 27 are appli-
cable to Local 2898.
Finally, I note there was substantial evidence placed
in the record by the Union
regarding the excellence of the
Seattle Fire Department
including the Local 2898 unit. As
was stated in connection with
Local 27, the evidence pro-
vided was not sufficient to
actually measure productivity
between the comparator fire
departments. However, it is
clear from the evidence that
the Seattle Fire Department is
considered a leader among the
nation's fire departments.
Clearly, substantial credit
must go to the members of the
Local 2898 unit who supervise
that fire department.
Based on all of the foregoing, a substantial wage
increase appears
appropriate. As was the case with Local
27, the comparators and
bargaining history suggest that the
Chiefs should receive
sufficient compensation so as to allow
them to receive a wage at
least equal to that received by
the average of the
comparators. However, in view of the
fact that both the Seattle
area and U.S. Cities CPI-Ws
during the appropriate period
have been extremely low, it
would not seem appropriate
under the statutory criteria to
award the entire 9.1% raise
necessary to bring Seattle to
the $4,418 average in the
first year. However, the increase
should be in excess of the
5.5% average increase between
1985 and 1986 received by
Battalion Chiefs in the seven
comparators.
Based on all of the foregoing, it is the opinion of
your Chairman that the Seattle
Chiefs should receive an
increase which takes them a
substantial way towards reaching
the average base monthly
salary paid by the comparators.
Thus, it is my opinion that an
increase similar to that
provided the fire fighters is
appropriate. Therefore, I
shall order a 6.3% increase in
top step Battalion Chief base
monthly salary effective
September 1, 1986. Six and three-
tenths percent (6.3%) of
$4,048 is $4,303. Such a raise
will place top step Seattle
Battalion Chiefs at 61.3% above
the monthly salary I have
ordered for top step fire fighters
($2,668). This 61.3% figure is right in line with the
percentage difference between
the average monthly salary of
Battalion Chiefs for the seven
comparators and the average
monthly salary of fire
fighters for the seven comparators in
1986. That percentage was either 60.8% or 61.6%
depending
upon whether one makes the
comparison at September 1, 1986
or one includes mid-year
increases. Additionally, the 61.3%
figure resulting from my award
here is also in line with the
traditional range of
differences in base monthly salary
between Seattle Battalion
Chiefs and fire fighters, namely
61% to 62.6%.
It should also be noted that the raise, although
substantial, will still leave
Seattle Battalion Chiefs at
only 97.4% of the average as of
September 1, 1986 and in
fifth place. The Seattle Battalion Chiefs will drop to
sixth place among the
comparators after the increase in
Portland on May 1, 1987.
I turn now to consider the question of the appropriate
base monthly salary for the
second year of the contract. A
careful review of the evidence
establishes that the record
contains information regarding
raises given to Battalion
Chiefs for the contract year
commencing in 1987 for only
three cities, namely, Long
Beach, Oakland and San Diego. A
comparison of the information
provided on Employer Exhibit
No. 270 with that provided on
Employer Exhibit No. 135
indicates that the raise in
base annual salary in total for
the three cities comes to
4.8%. The individual percentage
raises provided are as
follows: Long Beach, 4.3%; Oakland,
4%; and San Diego, 6.5%.
Local 2898 has sought a 5% increase for the second year
of the Agreement. The 5% request by the Union is in line
with the raises given in the
three comparator cities for
which we have information. However, as pointed out with
respect to Local 27, the
increases in the relevant CPI-Ws
during the appropriate periods
were relatively low overall.
Although your Chairman believes that Seattle should
approach the average salary
paid by the comparators,
pursuant to the statutory
criteria it would not be appro-
priate
to order the full amount sought by the Union for the
second year in view of the
relatively low overall rise in
the CPI-W. Thus, again it would appear appropriate to
order
a raise similar to that
provided the fire fighters, which is
3.3%. Such a raise will provide Seattle Battalion
Chiefs at
the top step with a base
monthly salary of $4,445. This
amount is 9.8% above the
$4,0348 received by the Chiefs in
1985. While I realize that a raise of 9.8% over a
two year
period is a substantial raise,
I note that it will leave
Seattle Battalion Chiefs still
substantially below the
average for 1987. Thus, the $4,445 figure is only $27 above
the average of the comparators
as of September 1, 1986 and
is actually $16 behind the
1986 average of $4,461 which
includes mid-year increases.
Premiums - The Local 27 Unit
The Union proposes the following premium increases:
Paramedic Premium: An
increase in the premium from 10%
to 15% based on the base
salary of a top step fire fighter.
Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) Premium.: A 2%
premium based on the base
salary of a top step fire fighter.
Presently there is no premium
paid for such certification.
Aid Car Premium: An
increase in the premium from
twenty cents per hour when
assigned to aid car duty to 5% of
a top step fire fighter's base
salary.
Hazardous Materials Team (HMT) Premium: presently
fire
fighters assigned to the HMT
receive no premium for such
assignment. Local 27 seeks a premium of 10% of a top step
fire fighter's base salary.
Premiums for Employees Working Forty Hours Per Week:
presently all positions
outside of the Operations Division
filled by Local 27 bargaining
unit members involve schedules
of forty hours per week. At present premiums are paid in
connection with some of those
positions. None of those
premiums are as high as five
percent. Local 27 proposes
that a premium of 5% of a top
step fire fighter's base
salary be paid in connection
with all positions involving
schedules of forty hours per
week.
The Employer contends that no changes in the present
situation regarding the
payment of premiums are warranted.
After carefully reviewing the record, I find, in
agreement with. the Employer,
that no additional premium is
warranted with the exception
of the paramedics. The
situation involving the
paramedics will be discussed at the
end of this section.
First, it must be remembered that the substantial
salary increases I have
awarded in this case are intended to
compensate bargaining unit
members for their generally high
level of training, dedication,
duties and responsibilities~
and productivity. Therefore, additional compensation on a
per skill or per duty basis
would not seem appropriate.
Further, a review of the evidence
regarding the comparators
does not suggest that
additional increases in premiums are
appropriate.
With respect to the premium for 40 hour per week
employees, it should be noted
that these employees already
receive a substantial premium
by virtue of the fact that
they are paid the same
salaries as Operations Division fire
fighters who work 45.7 hours
per week on average. The fact
that the 40 hour per week
employees in Seattle have a
smaller premium over their
Operations Division counterparts
than do the 40 hour per week
employees in the comparators is
due solely to the fact that
the Operations Division fire
fighters in Seattle work a
lower number of hours than do the
Operations Division fire
fighters in the comparator cities.
This fact certainly does not
compel a conclusion that
Seattle 40 hour per week
employees are somehow behind with
respect to wages received by
their counterparts in the
comparator cities.
With respect to paramedics, I note that the qualifi-
cations
for this work are substantial. Thus, to
apply for
training one must have state
EMT certification. One must
also have acquired at least
three years of service in the
Seattle Fire Department,
including two years of aid car
experience. If selected for training, a fire fighter then
undergoes a 2600 hour program
conducted at the Harborview
Medical Center and receives
paramedic Technician certifi-
cation
only upon successful completion of this program.
The Employer has only 55 paramedic positions, yet these
55 people respond to approximately
35% of all alarms. The
high volume of work which
paramedics are called upon to
perform is very stressful and
demanding work. The evidence
indicates that paramedics have
achieved considerable success
in saving lives over the
years, especially through the Medic
I program. The record also supports a finding that the
Seattle paramedics are among
the world's leaders in emer-
gency
medical services as evidenced by the considerable
interest shown in Seattle's
operation by other organizations
seeking to establish and
improve their own programs.
Among the comparators, only Long Beach employs Para-
medics as such. Beginning with the contract year 1987-88,
Long Beach paramedics will
receive the same base salaries as
Engineers, thus, receiving a
premium of approximately 22%
above the salary received by a
Long Beach fire fighter.
In view of all the foregoing, the Union's proposal for
an increase in the paramedic
premium from 10% to 15% is
appropriate and shall be
granted.
Premiums - The Local 2898 Unit
Presently no premiums are associated with any of the
positions filled by members of
the Local 2898 bargaining
unit. Local 2898 proposes that a 5% premium be paid
to the
Medical Services
Administrator, the Chief of Communications,
the Assistant Fire Marshal,
and the Evaluation Officer, as
well as to the four persons
who hold Operations Division
Deputy Chief positions. The Employer proposes that the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement continue not to provide for
any such premiums.
After a careful review of the record, I have determined
not to grant any of the
premiums proposed by Local 2898.
The primary consideration is
that the salaries I have
awarded, as in the case of the
Local 27 unit members, are
intended, in part, to
compensate the Local 2898 unit members
for their generally high level
of dedication and perform-
ance,
noting particularly their contribution to the
excellence of the Seattle Fire
Department. Further, a
review of the comparators does
not indicate that the award
of any of the premiums sought
by the Union is appropriate.
Medical Insurance - Both Bargaining Units
By virtue of Chapter RCW 41.26, entitled "Law Enforce-
ment
Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System,"
(hereinafter referred to as
LEOFF) employees in either
bargaining unit hired before
October 1, 1977 have
essentially all their medical
care paid for by the Employer.
Such employees are known as
LEOFF I employees, and they do
not figure in the instant
consideration of medical insur-
ance. On the other hand, LEOFF I dependents and
LEOFF II
employees (those hired on or
after October 1, 1977) and
their dependents must look to
the relevant collective
bargaining agreement for
medical insurance.
With respect to both bargaining units, the Employer
proposes as standard coverage
a comprehensive medical in-
surance
plan to be provided by King County Medical Plan,
hereinafter referred to as
KCM. The term "comprehensive"
denotes a plan in which an
insured's medical care is paid
for in full, subject to an
annual deductible, a copayment,
and a lifetime maximum. The Employer's proposal includes an
annual deductible of $00 per
person up to $300 per family,
a copayment
by the insured of 20% of medical costs up to
$2,000 per person per year,
and a lifetime maximum coverage
of one million dollars. For those employees who desire
coverage other than this
standard plan, the Employer
proposes to make available
coverage through two health main-
tenance
organizations (HMOS): Group Health
Cooperative of
Puget Sound and pacific Health
Medical Center. The Employer
proposes to pay 100% of the
premium for the KCM coverage but
only part of the premiums
charged by the HMOs, with
employees who select these
plans. paying the remainder.
The Unions propose retaining as standard coverage the
"basic/major medical"
plan now provided by KCM. Under the
basic portion of the plan, the
employee receives extensive
coverage for a variety of
medical services, including office
visits to a doctor, without
paying a deductible or any
copayment. Coverage for dependents is less extensive but
nevertheless requires no
deductible or copayment. Under the
major medical portion of the
present plan, physicians
services are paid for in full
and other costs, such as
hospital room, board, and
other charges, are subject to a
20% annual copayment
with a lifetime maximum of $200,000. A
$100 per person annual
deductible with no family maximum
applies to the major medical
portion. Local 27 proposes
maintaining this deductible
for the fire fighters, but Local
2898 proposes reducing it to
$50.00 per person. Both Unions
propose that the Employer
continue to pay not only all
premiums associated with KCM
coverage but also all premiums
associated with HMO coverage.
After carefully reviewing all of the evidence, I find
that it is appropriate to
adopt the Employer's suggested
medical insurance
program. In this regard, I note the
trend
of increased costs for medical
care and medical insurance in
recent years. I also note the commitment the Employer has
made to implementing cost
containment measures through
negotiations and cooperative
efforts with various labor
unions representing city
employees. If the trend in in-
creased medical insurance
costs were to continue unabated, a
situation could evolve where
employees would have sub-
stantially
less insurance protection or have to pay for
that protection by reduced
salary increases through the
years.
The estimated monthly premium for 1988 under each of
the insurance options are set
forth in the chart below:
1988 Estimated Monthly Medical Insurance premiums
Local 27 Unit Basic/MM Comprehensive Difference Percent
Difference
LEOFF I, dependents 143.25 107.8 36.07 34%
LEOFF II, employees
and dependents 70.95 128.24 42.71 33%
It should be noted that the above figures for the
basic/major medical plan assume the present $100 deductible.
If a $50 deductible is adopted
as proposed by the Chiefs,
the differences would be
slightly greater.
My analysis of the two plans using three major areas of
comparison, namely,
deductibles, coinsurance and lifetime
maximums, indicates each plan
has certain features to
commend it. Thus, while the deductible of $100 is applied
to a broader range of coverage
under the comprehensive plan,
that plan also provides a per
family limit of $300, while
there is no family limit under
the basic/major medical plan.
Additionally, while the
basic/major medical plan requires
coinsurance with respect to a
more limited area of coverage,
namely, hospital room and
board and various ancillary
charges, that coinsurance does
not contain the stop loss
provision of the comprehensive
plan. As pointed out above,
although the coinsurance
applies virtually across-the-board
under the comprehensive plan,
that coinsurance provision is
limited to 20% of the first
$2000 per person per year for a
total of $400 while the 20%
coinsurance required under the
basic/major medical plan is
not limited. Further, the
comprehensive plan provides a
one million dollar lifetime
maximum, while the basic/major
medical plan provides only a
$200,000 lifetime maximum.
The foregoing demonstrates that while the comprehensive
plan provides fewer benefits
than the basic/major medical
plan with respect to relatively
minor needs for medical
services, it provides for
better benefits in situations
involving more major or
catastrophic needs for medical
services. Thus, it can be concluded that the
comprehensive
plan protects employees
against the large expenditures which
might be incurred from serious
illness, while still pro-
viding sufficient coverage for
more minor illnesses, and all
of this at a cost to the
Employer substantially less than
that required by the
basic/major medical plan. As the chart
above indicates, the
basic/major medical premiums are esti-
mated to be approximately 33%
higher than those of the
comprehensive plan. Also, implementation of the comprehen-
sive
plan in these bargaining units will allow the City to
move toward the provision of
uniform medical insurance which.
will have the additional
long-term effect of further
reducing insurance costs.
After a careful review of the record, I have also
determined that an employee
who selects coverage made
available by the Employer
through either of the two HMOS
should pay a portion of the
premium. In this regard, I note
that HMOS generally provide a
wider range of benefits than
do insurance plans such as
King County Medical. Also, the
HMOs require either no copayment or a very small and limited
copayment. Therefore, since an employee who selects one
of
the two HMOs will receive
coverage without the costs
associated with a plan such as
the comprehensive plan, it
seems fair that they should
pay a portion of the premium.
The estimated premium for 1988 for Group Health is
$181.53 per month, while the
premium estimate for 1988 for
pacific Health is $155.82 per
month. The next question that
must be asked is what
percentage should an employee pay?
I note that the Employer and
the police Officers Guild
recently settled on a figure
of 20%. This figure appears
reasonable and I shall order
that employees in both the
Local 27 unit and the Local
2898 unit pay 20% of the premium
if they select one of the HMOS
made available by the
Employer.
Finally, it is my understanding from discussions with
the Panels that a change in
medical insurance from the
basic/major medical plan to
the comprehensive plan can be
implemented quickly. Therefore, I shall order that the
comprehensive plan be
instituted effective April 1, 1988.
Sick Leave and Long-Term
Disability - The Local 27 Unit
As in the medical insurance area, distinctions created
by the LEOFF system are
relevant here. Under that system, a
LEOFF I fire fighter who is
unable to work due to sickness
or injury receives up to 180
days per year in fully paid
leave. If the sickness or injury continues to
prevent the
fire fighter from working once
180 days have passed, the
fire fighter receives a
disability pension. These pro-
visions of the LEOFF system
apply regardless of whether the
sickness or injury is
job-related.
For LEOFF II fire fighters, however, the source of
sickness or injury is
significant. If it is job-related,
the fire fighter receives
benefits pursuant to the state's
Industrial Insurance Act, plus
certain supplemental bene-
fits. If it is not job-related, the fire fighter
may obtain
only whatever benefits are
available under the collective
bargaining agreement between
the Employer and Local 27.
Under the most recent
agreement, the fire fighter must first
exhaust paid sick leave. After exhausting that leave or
after 30 days, whichever is
longer, the agreement provides
for long term disability
insurance which will pay 50% of the
fire fighter's salary for a
period of up to five years. The
premiums for this insurance
are shared equally by the
Employer and the fire
fighter. As an adjunct to the in-
surance
provided by the agreement, the fire fighter may
obtain from the Fire Fighters
Relief Association insurance
which supplies the remaining
50% of the fire fighter 5
salary. A fire fighter who elects such coverage must
pay
the entire premium for it.
The Employer proposes that the existing provisions with
respect to LEOFF II fire
fighters be carried forward
into the new collective
bargaining agreement. Local- 27
proposes that LEOFF II fire
fighters "who are unable to
perform their regular assigned
duties due to sickness or
injury incurred not in the
line of duty" be assigned to
light duty positions
"when feasible." Local 27
further
proposes that if such an
assignment is not feasible, the
fire fighter receive up to 180
days of paid medical leave
per year.
Based on a number of considerations, my ruling is that
the collective bargaining
agreement should reflect the
Employer's proposal. Under that proposal, LEOFF II fire
fighters will continue to
accrue sick leave at a rate
approximately equivalent to
that provided in five of the
comparators:
Francisco and
In addition, neither
nor
its fire fighters. Thus, the Employer's proposal would
continue to accord
available in four of the seven
comparators, and the record
is lacking in evidence
concerning how
disability coverage compares
with that of the other three
cities in which such coverage
is available. Additionally,
the record lacks evidence of
what the comparators do with
respect to assigning sick or
injured fire fighters to light
duty.
Apart from whatever other fire departments may do with
respect to such light duty
assignments, Local 27 argues that
the Employer's refusal to bind
itself contractually to a
practice of assigning all sick
or injured LEOFF II fire
fighters to light duty when
feasible is inherently unfair
and unwise. In particular, it asserts the morale of LEOFF
II fire fighters is adversely
affected by the knowledge that
their LEOFF I co-workers have
significantly better sick
leave and disability benefits. This does indeed appear to
be something of an inequitable
situation, yet I am also
aware that this situation is
not only tolerated by the
that body. In acting as it did, the Legislature must be
deemed to have considered
numerous relevant factors, in-
cluding
the financial strain which would be placed on the
various fire departments in
the state by requiring that they
continue to provide LEOFF I
benefits to all their fire
fighters. In these circumstances, I do not deem it appro-
priate
to require the City of Seattle to, in essence, pro-
vide LEOFF II fire fighters
with a LEOFF I benefit.
Local 27 cites as a further inequity the fact that the
Employer frequently offers
light duty assignments to LEOFF I
fire fighters who have been
injured while off duty. From
the Employer's perspective,
such a practice makes economic
sense, that is, the Employer
is attempting to mitigate the
financial loss it incurs from
paying both the injured fire
fighter's salary and the
salary (as well as any overtime) of
whoever has taken the fire
fighter's regular position during
the term of the fire fighter's
disability. Such a financial
incentive is absent in the
case of a LEOFF II fire fighter
injured while off duty.
Finally, Local 27 contends that the light duty
assignment portion of its
proposal is already mandated under
should reflect this mandate,
thereby eliminating the need to
resort to the courts in the
event the Employer fails to
honor the mandate. In support of its contention, Local 27
relies on two recent
Washington State Supreme Court cases:
Reese v. Sears, Roebuck
& Co., 107
Wash. 2d 563 (1987), and
Dean v. Metropolitan
Seattle, l04 Wash. 2d 627 (1985). I
have carefully reviewed these
cases. It would unnecessarily
lengthen this Opinion to
discuss them in detail. Suffice it
to say that my review leads me
to conclude that these cases
do not require a finding that
the Union's proposal is
mandated by law.
State law requirements notwithstanding, I recognize
that the City of
requires the Employer, when
reasonable, to reassign pregnant
fire fighters to light duty
positions temporarily. In
addition, the Employer and
Local 27 reached an agreement
shortly after the hearing in
this arbitration permitting a
LEOFF II fire fighter assigned
to a non-fire suppression
position to continue in that
position even if he or she is
injured while off duty,
provided the fire fighter's
physician releases the fire
fighter to perform the duties of
the position. Hopefully further progress in this regard can
be made and I encourage
it. However, for the reasons
already provided, the Union's
proposal shall not be ordered
by your Chairman.
Vacations - The Local 27 Unit
The Employer proposes that Local 27 bargaining unit
members working 40 hours per
week accrue vacation at the
same rate as employees working
40 hours per week in the
Employer's other
departments. Local 27 proposes that
bargaining unit members
working 40 hours per week accrue the
same number of hours of
vacation per year as is accrued by
fire fighters working 24 hour
shifts. Local 27's proposal
reflects the manner in which
bargaining unit members working
40 hours per week presently
accrue vacation. The problem,
as the Employer points out, is
that the pertinent language
in the parties' 1983-86
collective bargaining agreement
seems to require something
else. I find, in basic agreement
with the Employer, that the
language provides only that
bargaining unit members
working 40 hours per week should
accrue vacation at the same
rate per hour worked as 24 hour
shift fire fighters accrue
vacation. Given that Article 4.2
of the 1983-86 agreement
indicates that 24 hour shift fire
fighters work 45.7462 hours
per week on average, the
vacation language requires
bargaining unit members who work
40hours per week to accrue
approximately .87% (40 divided by
45.7462) as many vacation
hours per year as 24 hour shift
fire fighters..
As already indicated, however, the language has been
misconstrued, resulting in 40
hour per week employees
accruing 100% as many vacation
hours per year as 24 hour
shift fire fighters. After consultation with the panel, I
have concluded that both
proposals should be rejected and
that the collective bargaining
agreement should indicate
clearly that bargaining unit
members working 40 hours per
week accrue vacation at the
same rate per hour worked as 24
hour shift fire fighters
accrue vacation. This will provide
40 hour per week fire fighters
with greater vacation
benefits than other City
employees who work 40 hours per
week, but it will reduce the
benefits such fire fighters are
presently receiving. The result will be a vacation benefit
in proportion to that earned
by 24 hour shift fire fighters
and in line with the intent of
the language in the prior
agreement.
Overtime Pay - The Local 27 Unit
Both parties agree that for overtime compensation
required under the Fair Labor
Standards ACT [FLSA], longev-
ity
pay must be included in the calculation of that compen-
sation. Nevertheless, there are situations in which
over-
time compensation will be
required under the collective
bargaining agreement but not
under FLSA. Local 27 proposes
that, as is presently the
case, longevity pay be included in
the calculation of overtime
compensation in such situations.
The Employer proposes that
Article 6.1 be clearly worded to
indicate that longevity pay
shall not be included in such
situations.
The Employer recognizes that premium pay other than
longevity pay should be
included in the calculation of
overtime compensation because
such pay "reflect[s] unique
duties of certain
positions. (Employer brief page 95.)
The Employer, however,
contrasts premium pay with longevity
pay, taking the position that
longevity pay does not reflect
any particular job
duties. However, longevity pay does
reward experience on the job
and, as such, is as legitimate
as any other premium pay. The Employer has not established
any basis upon which it would
be appropriate for your Chair-
man to order a change in
overtime pay.
Tuition Reimbursement - The Local 27 Unit
Local 27 proposes that the Employer's current tuition
reimbursement policy, which is
set forth in Fire Department
Operating Instruction ~ I
18~8, not only be continued but
also be incorporated within
the Agreement. Under the policy
a fire fighter is reimbursed
for two-thirds of the cost of
tuition for a course which,
generally speaking, contributes
to a fire fighter's job
performance ability and benefits his
or her career with the~Fire Department.
The course must be
successfully completed. If a course meets the criteria,
then the fire fighter may
obtain reimbursement without
receiving permission to take
the course. Moreover, there is
no limit to the amount of
money to be spent by the Employer
on tuition reimbursements each
year.
The Employer, on the other hand, proposes that a some-
what different tuition
reimbursement policy be reflected in
the Agreement. Under its proposal, a fire fighter would be
reimbursed two-thirds of the
cost of tuition up to a maximum
of $250 per class for courses
at certain accredited colleges
and universities. However, the course must be approved by
the Fire Chief in advance and
a grade of "C" or better must
be obtained. In deciding whether to approve a course, the
Chief would be required to
consider the "direct relevance of
the class to the fire service
or to the advancement of [the
fire fighter] in the fire
service. The Employer's proposal
also includes a $12,000 annual
limit on reimbursements to
all members of the Local 27
bargaining unit, combined with a
provision for carrying over up
to $4,000 of unexpended funds
from one year to the next,
subject to a maximum of $25,000.
For each $1,000 of carryover
reserve, the per class maximum
will be increased by $25.00.
The Employer's primary justification for its proposal
is the predictability that
will be afforded in the budgeting
of funds for tuition
reimbursements. In my view this is
certainly an acceptable
justification, especially in light
of the fact that the proposed
policy is unlikely to alter
substantially the overall
benefit presently received by the
Local 27 bargaining unit. It seems doubtful that,as
Local
27 fears, fire fighters will
be discouraged from improving
their education. In particular, I note that the Employer
spent $14,306 on tuition
reimbursements in 1986, which,
although somewhat more than
the $12,000 guaranteed to be
available in any given year
under the Employer's proposal,
is far less than the $25,000
potentially available in any
one year. Additionally, I note that in 1986, six fire
fighters received $931 or
about 65% of the total of $l4,306
spent on tuition
reimbursement. The limit per class may
well result in a more even distribution
of the tuition
reimbursement funds.
With respect to the criteria for obtaining reimburse-
ment,
several minor differences between the Employer's pro-
posal
and the current operating instruction are apparent
from the discussion above, but
none appears to be of much
significance except perhaps
the prior approval requirement
proposed by the Employer. However, this change seems
reasonable and there is no
reason to believe the Employer
will use its right of prior
approval to discourage fire
fighters from making use of
the tuition reimbursement pro-
vision.
In view of all of the foregoing, I shall order that the
Employer's tuition
reimbursement provision be included in
the Agreement.
Hours of Work - The Local 2898 Unit
Members of the Local 2898 bargaining unit presently
work 99 24 hour shifts per
year on average. The Employer
proposes adding two
"debit" shifts annually, which would
bring to 101 the number of
shifts worked annually. Local
2898 opposes this proposal, in
part because the California
comparators have not increased
hours for any of their repre-
sented
units of chiefs at any time within the last five
decades, and in
mented
in 1988. (See Union Exhibit No. 344.)
The
contends that to increase
hours without increasing salaries
(as the Employer proposed)
would be regressive.
In view of the salary increase I have ordered for
members of the Local 2898
unit, the regressive argument is
not relevant. Furthermore, even under the Employer's pro-
posal,
members of the Local 2898 unit would still work fewer
hours than do chiefs in any of
the comparators. In view of
the foregoing, I am
sympathetic to the Employer's proposal,
However, I am unable to grant
the proposal, due to the fact
that the Employer has done
nothing more here than simply
articulate its proposal. The Employer's brief presents no
discussion in support of the
proposal and the record is
likewise void of any explicit
justification for it. Thus,
based on the record before me
I must decline to grant the
Employer's proposal.
The Runzheimer Report
The Employer strongly contends that your Chairman
should consider the cost of
living in each comparator vis-a-
vis
the cost of living in
comparisons called upon by the
statute. The Employer intro-
duced a
number of studies and reports in support of its
position that the cost of
living in the comparators is on
avarage
higher than the cost of living in
particular, the Employer
relied on studies produced by a
management consulting firm,
named Runzheimer International
(Runzheimer),
which prepared two reports, one with respect
to the fire fighters unit and
one with respect to the chiefs
units.
The Unions take the position that intercity cost of
living comparisons are not
called for by the statute.
Further, the Unions take the
position that if the Chairman
were to consider such
intercity comparisons, both the
documentary evidence and the
expert testimony provided by
the Unions demonstrate that
Seattle's cost of living is
either the same as or higher
than the average of the
comparators. Finally, the Unions take the position that
the
studies prepared by Runzheimer are flawed and, therefore,
unreliable.
I have determined not to consider the evidence of
intercity cost of living
comparisons provided by the
Employer in relation to my
consideration of the comparators
regarding wages.
First of all, the statute lists in separate sections
the two criteria most commonly
relied upon in interest
arbitrations in the State of
comparison of wages, hours and
conditions of employment in
like comparators, which is set
forth in RCW 41.56.460(c) of
the statute, and the average
consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as
the cost of living, which is set
forth in RCW.41.56.460(d) of
the statute. Thus, it does not
appear that the statute
intends a comparison of wages among
the comparators to also
include an adjustment of these
comparisons based on cost of
living in the various
comparators. Rather it appears that the statute directs
the
Chairman to consider wage
differences between the juris-
diction at issue and its
comparators, on the one hand, and
the cost of living faced by
the employees subject to the
interest arbitration, on the
other hand.
Further support for the position I have taken here is
provided by the fact that the
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
does not measure the
differences between cost of living in
various cities. Rather that index can only tell one the
percentage increases over time
within each of the various
cities for which it maintains
an index. Thus, when the
Legislature listed as a
criterion the average consumer
prices for goods and services,
it must be assumed that in
doing so it was aware that the
most commonly used measure of
consumer prices for goods and
services, the CPI, does not
provide for intercity
comparisons.
However, even if I were to find that intercity compari-
sons regarding the cost of
living were appropriate under the
statute, the evidence presented
does not provide a reliable
basis upon which to make
intercity cost of living
comparisons.
With respect to the Runzheimer
studies, I note that
Runzheimer
attempts to compare costs for a given set of
expenditures in one city with
costs for the same set of
expenditures in other
cities. This is accomplished by
expressing costs for each city
in relation to the arithmetic
mean of costs for one hundred
"representative" U.S. cities.
Even though Runzheimer analyzes twelve general types of
expenditures covering four
areas (taxation, transportation,
housing, and goods and
services), the only data it requires
of a client are an annual
income, a family size and shelter
status (i.e., renter or homeowner). Runzheimer then
supplies all other facts and
assumptions necessary for it to
generate a study. However, in this case the Employer also
attempted to determine the
averages for mortgage tenure and
home square footage for both
units and also provided that
information to Runzheimer.
In the case of each of the comparators, except Long
Beach and Sacramento, Runzheimer also agreed to examine
housing both in the comparator
proper as well as in the
three surrounding communities
in which, according to data
obtained from each comparator
by the Employer, most
bargaining unit members
live. Thus, for example, based on
survey data obtained by the
Employer from the San Francisco
fire department, Runzheimer looked at housing information
for San Francisco, where 35.8%
of San Francisco fire
fighters live and also information
for Novato, Petaluma and
Santa Rosa where combined
17.3% of San Francisco fire
fighters live.
When Runzheimer actually looked at
housing for fire
fighters within the city of
San Francisco, it apparently
only looked at the west
central portion of the city, plus
neighborhoods described as
Forest Hill and
as I understand Runzheimer 5 report, are communities within
the city. The record is silent as to how many of the
327
Francisco actually live in
these portions of the city. Even
assuming that all 327 do
indeed live in the parts of San
Francisco proper focused on by.Runzheimer, this means that
Runzheimer's
housing data for San Francisco fire fighters
applies to communities where
only 53.1% of San Francisco
fire fighters live. This is because only 35.8% of San
Francisco fire fighters
actually live within the city of San
Francisco and only 17.3% of
them live in the three
communities of Novato,
Petaluma and Santa Rosa combined.
The final cost of living figure the Employer relies on
with respect to San Francisco
fire fighters uses the housing
numbers generated by Runzheimer for San Francisco fire
fighters living in the
communities of Novato, Petaluma and
Santa Rosa as a proxy for the
housing information applicable
to the full 64.2% of
outside the city of
average prepared by Runzheimer in terms of a single index
figure can, at best, represent
housing information relevant
to only 53.1% of the
record simply does not contain
any evidence about housing
characteristics in the
remaining communities in which 46.9%
of San Francisco fire fighters
live.
Problems similar to those described above exist for
other cities with respect to
both bargaining units. More
over, the data collected by
the Employer with respect to the
comparators apparently
pertains only to communities where
fire fighters live, but does
not distinguish betweeri renting
or home ownership. This raises the whole question of
substitution addressed by the
Union. That is, if in fact it
costs more to buy a home in
San Francisco than in Seattle a
fire fighter might not only
elect to live outside the city
but the fire fighter might
also elect to rent. As the
Runzheimer
report indicates, there is a significant differ-
ence
between calculating the cost of living for someone who
owns their own home and
calculating it for someone who
rents.
Housing is the major component of the Runzheimer
study.
If housing values are not
properly assessed, then items such
as mortgage principal and
interest, as well as taxes will
not be properly assessed in
computing the intercity cost of
living figures. Checking on the accuracy of Runzheimer is
made more difficult by the
fact that Runzheimer destroys the
raw housing data gathered in
past years and it maintains as
proprietary the nature of the
judgments it makes in gathering
and analyzing such data.
The foregoing represents just a few examples of the
difficulty in relying on Runzheimer. However,
even if one
were to assume that the Runzheimer studies are reliable as
an indicator of intercity cost
of living differences, the
conclusions reached by Runzheimer do not justify the
Employer's argument that no
salary increase is appropriate
for the first year of the
Agreement. In making this
argument, the Employer relies
heavily on two exhibits which
adjust compensation per hour
worked in each of the compara-
tors
to Seattle's cost of living based on the Runzheimer
plan of living cost
standards. Thus, Employer Exhibit No.
295 shows the compensation per
hour worked for each compara-
tor
adjusted to Seattle's cost of living.
The average for
the seven comparators is
$13.76, while hourly compensation
in Seattle is $15.92, placing
Seattle in first place among
the comparators and 15.7%
above the average. When one looks
at Employer Exhibit No. 297
with respect to the chiefs, one
finds that the average
compensation per hour worked of the
seven comparators adjusted to
Seattle's cost of living is
$2l.70, while hourly
compensation in Seattle is $24.91,
placing Seattle in second
place and 14.8% above the average.
However, in my view the aforementioned exhibits pre-
pared by the Employer do not
appropriately reflect the
conclusions of the Runzheimer studies.
In this regard, I
note that the key information
on which all of Runzhelmer's
work is based is the annual
salary for a
fire fighter, including
longevity, and the salary for a top
step Battalion Chief. With respect to each bargaining unit,
Runzheimer
then set about determining a cost of living for
for a standard of living
approximately compatible with the
salaries applicable to each
bargaining unit. That is to
say, Runzheimer
determined what type of cars persons making
a given salary might drive,
what type of expenditures they
would make for goods and
services, etc. Runzheimer's
concern was not with how many
hours a year one had to work
to obtain such salaries, nor
was it with other types of
compensation, such as medical
insurance, a person might
receive in addition to such
salaries. When one takes the
base annual salaries paid to
fire fighters in the compara-
tors
and adjusts those amounts according to the formula at
the bottom of Employer Exhibit
Nos. 295 and 297, one obtains
the following results. With no salary increase in 1986,
i.e., at an annual base salary
of $30,l20, Seattle fire
fighters would be 3.2% below
the average of $31,122, and in
fifth place among the
comparators. With the 1986 base
salary increase I have
awarded, i.e., $2,668 per month, or
$32,016 per year, Seattle
would still be in fifth place and
only 2.9% above the average.
If the same calculations are made with respect to the
chiefs unit, one finds that
the chiefs with no salary in-
crease in 1986, i.e., at an
annual base salary of $48,576,
would be in seventh place
among the comparators and about
2.2% below the average of
$49,674. With the 1986 base
salary increase I have
awarded, i.e., $4,303 per month, or
$51,636 per year, Seattle
would move to third place about
3.95% above the seven city
average.
When the Runzheimer figures are
viewed in what I
believe to be the proper light
as described above, one can
see that the raises I have
granted are not extreme, and, in
fact, are in line with
bargaining history. That is, as
previously described,
generally received raises
placing them above the average in
base monthly salary.
My final concern about the comparative cost of living
information is that the
parties not settle into a custom of
going to great expense to
obtain and analyze information
which appears to be of dubious
value. In this regard, it
must be noted that Runzheimer and other organizations
performing intercity cost of
living analyses measure
differences in the cost of
living at only one particular
point in time. Thus, if the parties came to rely on such
information, they would be
required to go to great addi-
tional
expense each time a new agreement is negotiated. In
this regard, the substantial
cost of addressing the
Runzheimer
data alone was acknowledged by the parties when
they agreed that instead of
presenting live testimony
regarding Runzheimer,
the Employer would offer portions of
the transcript of the hearing
in the interest arbitration
between the Employer and the
Association. That transcript portion amounted to almost
three hundred pages, plus
several lengthy exhibits.
Further, the comparative cost
of living portion of the
hearing in this arbitration
covered over three hundred pages
in the transcript and added
dozens of exhibits to the
record, many of which were
quite lengthy. The time and
effort spent by your Chairman
in reviewing this material was
considerable, not to say
anything about the time and effort
that must have been spent by
the parties, both in preparing
for this hearing and in the
extensive treatment of this
matter in their briefs.
Based on all of the foregoing, intercity cost of living
comparisons have not been a
factor in my determination of
the issues in this case.
AWARD OF THE CHAIRMAN
It is the Award of your
Chairman that:
A. With respect to wages for the Local 27 bargaining
unit, the base monthly salary for a top step fire
fighter shall be $2,668, effective September 1,
1986, and $2,756 effective September 1, 1987.
During each year of the Agreement, the base monthly
salary for a top step lieutenant shall be 15%
greater than the base monthly salary for a top step
fire fighter, and the base monthly salary for a top
step captain shall be 15% greater than the base
monthly salary for a top step lieutenant.
B. With respect to premiums for the Local 27
bargaining unit, the paramedic premium proposed by
the Union, 15% of the top step fire fighter base
salary, is granted. All
other premiums proposed by
the Union are denied.
C. With respect to medical insurance for the Local 27
bargaining unit, the Employer's proposal that a
comprehensive medical plan be provided by King
County Medical Blue Shield is granted. Each member
of the Local 27 unit who selects medical insurance
provided by a health maintenance organization shall
pay 20% of the premium associated with such
insurance. The foregoing
provisions of this
Paragraph C shall be effective
D. With respect to sick leave and long-term disability
provisions for the Local 27 bargaining unit, the
E. With respect to vacations for members of the Local
27 bargaining unit who work schedules of 40 hours
per week, such employees shall accrue vacation at
the same rate per hour worked as 24 hour shift fire
fighters accrue vacation, effective January 1,
1988.
F. With respect to overtime compensation for the Local
27 bargaining unit, the Employer's proposal is
denied.
G. With respect to tuition reimbursement for the Local
27 bargaining unit, the Employer's proposal is
granted, effective
H. With respect to wages for the Local 2898 bargaining
unit, the base monthly salary for a top step
battalion chief shall be $4,303, effective
September 1, 1986, and $4,445 effective September
1, 1987. During each
year of the Agreement, the
base monthly salary of a top step deputy chief
shall be 15% greater than the base monthly salary
for a top step battalion chief.
bargaining unit, all the premiums proposed by the
Union are denied.
J With respect to medical insurance for the Local
2898 bargaining unit, the Employer's proposal that
a comprehensive medical plan be provided by King
County Medical Blue Shield is granted. Each member
of the Local 2898 unit who selects medical
insurance provided by a health maintenance
organization shall pay 20% of the premium
associated with such insurance.
The provisions of
this Paragraph J shall be effective April 1, 1988.
K. With respect to hours of work for the Local 2898
bargaining unit, the Employer's proposal is denied.
Michael H. Beck,
Neutral Chairman