And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Beck; Michael H.
Case #: 12915-I-97-00278
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
CITY OF
and ) OPINION
AND AWARD
GUILD )
OPINION AND AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
Interest Arbitrator
Michael H. Beck
Appearances
City: Jeffrey A. Hollingsworth
Orna A. Edgar
Guild: David A. Snyder
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION
AND AWARD
CITY OF
And
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Procedural
Matters 1.
II. Issues
in Dispute 2.
III . Statutory Criteria 2.
IV. Comparable
Employers 3.
V. Rates
of Pay 14.
VI. Deferred
Compensation 23.
VII. Education
Incentive 23.
VIII. Past
Practice 26.
IX. Flexible
Benefits 30.
X. Award
of the Interest Arbitrator 33.
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITATION BETWEEN )
CITY OF
) OPINION AND AWARD
and )
) Date:
GUILD )
OPINION OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator, Michael H. Beck, was selected by the parties to
conduct an
Interest Arbitration pursuant
to RCW 41.56.45 a. Panel members were not selected by the
parties
and the Interest Arbitration was heard by the undersigned as the sole
Arbitrator.
A hearing in this matter was held on June 3, 4, 5, and
A. Hollingsworth and Orna A. Edgar of the
law firm of Perkins Coie. The
Vancouver Police Officers
Guild, was represented by David A. Snyder, Attorney at Law.
At the hearing the testimony
of witnesses was taken under oath and the parties presented
a
substantial amount of documentary evidence. A court reporter was present at the
hearing
and a verbatim transcript of the proceedings was made available to the
Arbitrator
for
his use in reaching a determination in this case.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous posthearing briefs which
were
filed by each party and received by the Arbitrator on
parties
agreed to waive the statutory requirement that Arbitrator issue his decision
within
30 days following the
conclusion of the hearing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
During the course of the hearing the parties resolved several issues.
There
remains
for the Arbitrator five issues to be resolved which are listed below:
1. Rates of Pay
2. Deferred
Compensation
3. Education
Incentive
4. Past Practice
5. Flexible
Benefits
STATUTORY CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.465 directs the Arbitrator, in making his decision,
to be mindful of
the
legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and to "take into
consideration the
following
factors:"
(a) The
constitutional and Statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c)(i) For [law
enforcement officers] comparison of
the wages, hours, and conditions
of employment of personnel
involved in the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like
personnel of like employers
of similar size on the west
coast of the
(ii) For
[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
when an adequate number of
comparable employers exists
within the state of
may not be considered,
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the
cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the circumstances under
(a)through (d) of this
subsection during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the factors
under (a) through (e) of this
subsection that are normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and conditions of
employment....
The legislative purpose your Arbitrator is directed to mindful
of in making his
determination
is set for in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of *this 1973 amendatory act
is to recognize that there
exists a public policy in the state of
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
promote such dedicated and
uninterrupted public service there
should exist an effective and
adequate alternative means of
settling disputes. (Reviser's
note omitted.)
COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS
It is common in these proceedings for the Arbitrator to select
an appropriate
number
of comparable employers. Here, the employees are employed as police officers
by
the City of
41.56.465(1)(c)(i) with respect to the selection of comparable employers.
Under the statute a comparable employer is one who employs like
personnel and
is a
like employer of similar size on the west coast of the
in
agreement that like personnel of like employers refers to cities employing
police
officers.
They also agree that similar size is to be determined primarily by the
population
of
the city employing the police officers. Finally, there is no dispute that the
west coast
of
the
However, the parties are in dispute with respect to the
comparators to be used in
this
case. Their disagreement stems primarily from the fact that the Union uses a
smaller
population
spread in selecting the comparators than does the Employer, and from the fact
that
the Employer does not believe that it is appropriate, in the circumstances of
this case,
to
consider cities located in California as comparable employers to the City of
Vancouver.
In the spring of 1996, when the parties began negotiations for
a new collective
bargaining
agreement to be effective January 1, 1997, the population of the City of
Vancouver was approximately
68,000. However, at that time the parties were aware that
there
was a planned annexation by the city of several areas, referred to as Cascade
Park,
Mill Plain,
and Evergreen. These areas, adjacent to the city on its east, were estimated to
contain a
population of approximately 57,000, and thus if the annexation was approved,
then
the new city population would be approximately 125,000.
The City believed that since the annexation was likely to be in
place at the start of
the
term of the new contract it was appropriate to select comparators based on the
combined
population of approximately 125,000. The Union shared this view and based
its
selection of comparators on a figure of 125,000. The annexation was approved
and
was
effective January 1, 1997. The inclusion of the population of the annexed areas
with
that
of the City of Vancouver, moved the City from the seventh largest city to the
fourth
largest
city in the State of Washington. The parties are in agreement that the
population
of
the City of Vancouver at the time of the hearing was 126,453.
The Union in selecting its comparators determined to select all
cities on the west
coast
which came within a band of 10,000 below 125,000 and 10,000 above 125,000,
thus a
range of 115,00 to 135,000. By employing this relatively tight population
range,
the
Union was able to limit the number of comparators to 12, which the Union views
as a
reasonable
number of comparators. However, of the 12 comparators, ten are located in
California,
and two in Oregon with none located in Alaska or in Washington. The Union
determined
that since Vancouver was located in Washington it would be appropriate to
add
the three cities in Washington whose population was closest to that of
Vancouver,
Bellevue, Everett and Tacoma,
so that "cities within Washington were a factor in
assessing
wages and benefits in Vancouver." (Guild Exhibit No. 37.) Thus, the Union
now
had 15 comparators.
In an attempt to meet the objections of the city to the Union
selected comparators,
the
Union modified its list of comparators by removing two California cities,
Lancaster
and
Santa Clarita, which the Employer had specifically objected to because these
cities
contracted
with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office for law enforcement services
and,
thus, as I understand it, did not maintain their own police departments.
Furthermore,
the
Union agreed to add two additional cities located in Washington which were the
next
closest
in population to Vancouver, namely Federal Way and Spokane.
The Employer specifically objected to the inclusion of
Sunnyvale, California
because
that city has consolidated its police and fire protection services into a
single
department
and, therefore, could not be considered a like employer under the statute. The
Union refused to remove
Sunnyvale as a comparator taking the position that in Sunnyvale
employees
working as public safety officers were primarily responsible for law
enforcement
rather than fire fighting.
In alphabetical order, the Union's 15 proposed comparators are:
__________
Bellevue Orange
Escondido Salem
Eugene Salinas
Everett Santa Rose
Federal
Way Spokane
Fullerton Sunnyvale
Haywood Tacoma
Irvine
__________
The Union's list contains five Washington comparators, two
Oregon comparators
and
eight California comparators. Furthermore, the ten comparators from Oregon and
California are within the
narrow population band of 115,000 to 135,000 while the five
Washington comparators,
although not within the population band, are included by the
Union in order to provide
representation from the State of Washington among the
comparators.
The Employer determined its comparable employers by considering
a population
band
of 50% below the population of Vancouver to 150% above the population of
Vancouver. The Employer,
however, did not include as comparators any cities in
California. In this regard,
David Vial, the City's Assistant Director of Human Resources
and
Risk Services, testified that he used geography in determining the comparators
to be
selected
within the population band he believed appropriate. Thus, Vial testified that
he
considered
the comparators in Washington that met the population criteria since
Vancouver is located in
Washington. Vial also included the comparators located in
Oregon that met the population
criteria because of Vancouver's location directly across
the
Columbia River from Portland, Oregon. In
this regard, Vial testified that the citizens
of
Vancouver listen to radio stations located in Oregon and watch television
programs
received
from television stations located in Oregon. Additionally, he testified that
Oregon newspapers are readily
available in Vancouver and are generally read by the
citizens
of Vancouver. Furthermore, he testified that Vancouver citizens cheer for the
Portland
NBA team, the Blazers, rather than the Seattle NBA team, the Sonics.
Thus, he
concluded
that comparators located in Oregon were appropriate. No mention was made
by
the Employer during its case of comparators located in Alaska, but based on my
review
of Guild Exhibit No. 16, entitled "Alaska Population Overview: 1996
Estimates,
it
does not appear that any Alaska city was within 50% to 150% of the population
of
Vancouver.
The Employer's method of selecting comparators yielded five
Washington
comparators
and four Oregon comparators, for a total of nine comparators which are
listed
below in alphabetical order:
__________
Bellevue Gresham
Beaverton Salem
Eugene Spokane
Everett Tacoma
Federal
Way
__________
After carefully considering the contentions of the parties on
behalf of their
selected
comparators, I find that neither list presents an appropriate set of
comparators.
First of all, I do not think it is appropriate in the instant
case to eliminate all
California comparators as
contended for by the Employer. The Employer makes two
basic
arguments in support of its position. First, that if there are sufficient
comparators in
the
immediate area of the employer in question, or in the same state, or in the
region, then
the
comparators should be so restricted. According to the Employer, this approach
of
obtaining
comparators from what the Employer describes as "the least remote area
possible,"
(Employer's post-hearing brief, p. 11) is consistent with the legislative intent
of
the statute as it requires the Arbitrator to focus on employees who are
similarly
situated
to the employees employed by the Employer involved in the arbitration
proceeding.
Secondly, the Employer contends that inclusion of California cities are
inappropriate
given cost of living differentials between cities located in Washington and
Oregon on the one hand, and California cities on the other. In support of its
contention
that
such cost of living differentials exist, the Employer commissioned a study which
was
prepared
in May of 1997 by the firm of Runzheimer
International.
As the Union points out, RCW 41.56.465(1)(c)(i) does require the Arbitrator,
when
conducting an interest arbitration for law enforcement officers, "to take
into
consideration":
[a] comparison of the wages,
hours and conditions of
employment of personnel involved
in the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and conditions
of employment of like
personnel of like employers of
similar size on the west coast
of the United States. (Emphasis
added.)
While it is possible as the
Employer suggests to first consider and then reject California
as a
source of comparable employers, there must be a significant reasons to do so in
light
of
the statutory language. Thus, for example, if an arbitrator is looking at
comparators
for a
small city located along the I-5 corridor between Seattle and Olympia, and the
arbitrator
finds that there are a sufficient number of comparators located along that I-5
corridor,
the arbitrator might appropriately limit consideration of comparators to that
area
based
on well recognized concepts of labor market. However, here we are not dealing
with a
labor market, but merely with an Employer contention that the Arbitrator should
limit
consideration to the smallest possible area in which a sufficient number of
comparators
can be found, which in this case is a two state area. There is no evidence
presented
at the hearing to indicate that the states of Oregon and Washington constitute
a
labor
market distinct from that contained in California.
Furthermore, I note that since the Interest Arbitration Statute
was adopted by the
legislature,
the legislature has amended that statute to provide that with respect to fire
fighters,
but not with respect to law enforcement officers, the following:
[W]hen an adequate number of comparable employers exist
within the State of Washington,
other west coast employers
may not be considered. RCW
41.56.425(1)(c)(ii)
Thus, as the Union points out, while the legislature thought it
appropriate to limit
comparable
employers to the State of Washington where an adequate number of such
employers
existed for fire fighters, it did not make the same determination with respect
to
law
enforcement officers. This suggests to your Arbitrator that it would be
contrary to
the
legislative intent to limit the selection of comparable employers to a state or
regional
area
merely because there was an adequate number of such comparable employers in
that
state
or regional area with respect to law enforcement officers. However, this is
exactly
what
the Employer is seeking here. Namely, to have the Arbitrator limit the
comparators
to a
two state region, Washington and Oregon, on the basis that there are a
sufficient
number
of comparators in that two state region: The statute simply does not provide
for
such a
result.
I turn now to the Employer's contention that California cities
are inappropriate as
comparators
because of a cost of living differential between cities located in California
and
cities located in Washington and Oregon. As I understand the Employer's
argument,
it
is that an employer cannot be considered a "like employer" if it can
be demonstrated
that
that employer has a higher cost of living than the employer subject to the
Interest
Arbitration.
However, in my view, this reads too much into the phrase "like
employers"
contained
in the statute. No mention is made in the statute that to be a "like
employer," an
employer
must have a "cost of living" that is the same or close to that of the
employer in
question,
even assuming such differentials can be accurately computed. In fact, the
statute
prescribes the method of choosing appropriate comparators, namely, employers
employing
like personnel, being of similar size and located on the west coast of the
United States.
Furthermore, the Runzheimer method
relied on by the Employer is designed for
assisting
clients whose executives are transferring from one part of the country to
another. Runzheimer uses income studies starting at $100,000 up to
$300,000 in $25,000
increments
based on costs in a large city such as Denver, St. Lous
or Atlanta. Here we
are
dealing with police officers who at top step earned less than $46,000 in base
salary in
1996, worked in a much smaller
city, and were not transferring to another city and thus
did
not have to secure housing. Finally, as
described below, I have taken into account
regional
differences by selecting comparators from the three west coast states in which
there
are employers that meet the statutory criteria.
The Union does not contend that the Employer range of 50% to
150% of
Vancouver's population is
inherently unreasonable. However, the Union points out that
if
this population criteria is applied in the instant case, the result would yield
approximately
70 California comparators. I agree with the Union that such a large
number
of comparators would constitute an unwieldly number
of comparators. However,
I disagree with the Union that
the way to avoid an unwieldly number of comparators
is to
employ
the standard of 10,000 minus and 10,000 plus and then add Washington
comparators
even though they do not come within the standard used in selecting Oregon
and
California comparators. The 50% to 150% population standard is one that has
been
traditionally
used in interest arbitrations. Therefore, it seems to me that this standard
should
be employed here as the Employer suggests, and, if the result is too large a
number
of California comparators, then those comparators closest to Vancouver in
population
can be selected and the others dropped from a list of appropriate comparators.
The result will be that all of
the comparators selected will meet the selection standard.
Five Washington comparators and three Oregon comparators meet
the 50% to
150%
standard, while one Oregon comparator, Beaverton, is borderline.
In fact, based on
the
current population of Vancouver, Beaverton has a population of just under 50%
of
Vancouver
(City Exhibit C-1.Z).
The Union objects to the inclusion of either Gresham or
Beaverton as comparators
since
they don't meet the population range of plus or minus 10,000 and they are not
located
in the State of Washington as is Vancouver. However, as I have discussed above
I have determined to use the
standard of 50% to 150% and therefore have determined to
include
Gresham as a comparator. I have determined not to include Beaverton for several
reasons.
First, its population is presently below 50% of that of Vancouver. Secondly,
your
Arbitrator, in determining comparables is hopeful that the comparables selected
will
continue
to serve as appropriate comparators for the parties after the conclusion of the
agreement
under arbitration here. In this regard, I note that there is evidence in the
record
to
indicate that Vancouver is considering additional annexations, which if they
occur will
increase
Vancouver's population, thereby widening the population difference between
Vancouver
and Beaverton in the future.
The foregoing results in eight comparators from the two
northwest states, five
from
Washington and three from Oregon. The Union initially determined that 12
comparators
would be a reasonable number and I agree. Thus, the addition of four
California comparators would
provide for 12 comparators. More importantly, however, it
would
distribute the comparators relatively equally thoughout
the three states in which
there
were comparators which met the 50% to 150% population selection standard.
Selecting the four California cities closest in population to
Vancouver will vary
depending
upon whether the population figures listed in Guild Exhibit No. 14 or No. 32
are
employed. Sunnyvale would be among the four closest in population to Vancouver
if
Exhibit No. 14 is used but
would not be among the four closest cities if Exhibit No. 32 is
used.
In any event, I have determined not to include Sunnyvale as I agree with the
Employer that Sunnyvale is not
a like employer in view of the fact that Sunnyvale does
not
maintain a separate police department.
The next conflict involves Fullerton and Haywood. On Exhibit
No. 32 Fullerton
is
listed as having a population of 300 more people than Haywood and thus 300
closer in
population
to Vancouver. However, in Exhibit No. 14, Haywood is listed as having a
population
of 100 more than Fullerton and thus being 100 closer to Vancouver. I have
determined
to select Fullerton over Haywood as the fourth closest city in population to
Vancouver because, in doing
so, the result is the selection of two comparators located in
northern
California and two located in southern California, namely Salinas and Santa
Rosa
from northern California and Fullerton and Irvine from southern California.
The 12 comparators and their
populations are listed below. I have used City
Exhibit No. C-1.Z for the
Washington and Oregon population figures as I believe these to
be
the latest figures with respect to these comparators. With respect to the
California
comparators,
I have used Guild Exhibit No. 14 as it appears this exhibit contains the
latest
population figures available in the record for the four California cities I
have
selected.
__________
TABLE I
COMPARATORS LISTED BY
POPULATION
150% OF VANCOUVER 189,680
SPOKANE 187,700
TACOMA 185,000
IRVINE 127,200
VANCOUVER 126,453
EUGENE 126,325
SANTA ROSA 125,700
SALINAS 122,500
FULLERTON 122,100
SALEM 120,835
BELLEVUE 103,700
EVERETT 81,810
GRESHAM 79,350
FEDERAL WAY 75,240
50% OF VANCOUVER 63,227
VANCOUVER 126,453
AVERAGE WITHOUT VANCOUVER 121,455
__________
A review of Table I above indicates that Vancouver is the
fourth largest of 13
comparators,
including Vancouver, and its population is approximately 4.1% higher than
the
average of the 12 comparators. Furthermore, the Vancouver figure of 126,453 is
based
on a population assessment for Vancouver made in May of 1997 while population
figures
for all of the other comparators were put together at earlier dates. Therefore,
if
Table I were based on figures
for the 12 comparators as of May of 1997, it might well be
that
Vancouver would not be as high as fourth and that the 4.1% difference between
Vancouver and the 12
comparator average might even be less. In this regard, I note that
if
one uses for Vancouver the estimated population of 125,000, which was used by
the
parties
during negotiations, Vancouver moves from fourth to sixth and the percent
Vancouver's population is
above the average of the 12 comparators slips to 2.9%.
RATES OF PAY
The parties are agreed upon a three year contract effective
January 1, 1997. The
City proposes an increase in
base wages for 1997 equal to 80% of the percentage increase
in
U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers (CPI-W) for
the Portland-Vancouver area measured from July 1995 to
July 1996, with a minimum of
2% and a maximum of 6%. (While both parties refer in
their
past collective bargaining agreements and in their proposals to "July to
July" in
describing
the CPI-W index they intend to employ, the actual index they are using is the
semi-annual
average index published in June and December for Portland-Vancouver. I
point
this out merely to avoid confusion and for the same reason will also refer to
this
index
as "July to July.") Eighty percent of the CPI-W figure for this
period according to
the
Employer is 2.58% and thus the Employer proposes a 2.58% increase for 1997 (My
calculation
comes to 2.56%.) The Union proposes for 1997 a 4% raise plus a raise in the
amount
of 90% of the same Consumer Price Index, which comes to 2.88%. Thus, the
Union proposes for 1997 a
6.88% increase in base wages over the rates of pay in effect
on
December 31, 1996.
The City proposes the same formula for 1998 and 1999. Thus,
effective January
1, 1998 the employees would
receive a raise of 80% of the Portland-Vancouver CPI-W
based
on the period July 1996 to July 1997 with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of
6%. This comes to 2.64%. Effective January 1,
1999, employees would receive a raise
equal
to 80% of the Portland-Vancouver CPI-W for the period July 1997 to July 1998
with a
minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6%.
The Union proposes for 1998 a raise of 4% plus 90% of the
Portland-Vancouver
CPI-W based on the period July
1996 to July 1997 with the portion of the increase based
on
the CPI-W to be no less than 2% or more than 6%; This comes to a total increase
of
6.97% (2.9% based on 90% of
the CPI plus 4%). Finally, for 1999 the Union proposes
an
increase equal to 100% of the Portland-Vancouver CPI-W based on the period July
1997
to July 1998, again with a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 6%.
The first question that must be resolved is, what methodology
should be used as a
basis
for making a comparison between the comparators? The parties presented a large
volume
of material which allows your Arbitrator to make wage comparisons based on
monthly
salary, a combination of monthly salary and other benefits, hourly wage, and an
analysis
of wages and various benefits received on an hourly basis. Additionally,
information
is supplied so that your Arbitrator can make these comparisons for law
enforcement
officers at various levels of seniority, for example a five year, ten year, 15
year
or 20 year law enforcement officer.
I have carefully considered all of the material submitted,
including the various
objections
made by both the Employer and the Union to the inclusion, in some cases, and
the
exclusion, in others, of certain benefits when attempting to make a wage and
benefit
analysis.
In view of the fact that the parties are not in agreement on the specific
manner
in
which wage comparisons between Vancouver and the comparators should be made, I
have
determined to use a basis for comparison that I believe is appropriate in the
situation
here.
It is appropriate to base wage comparisons on a top step police
officer since at this
point,
five years of service, an officer's wage has reached the journeyman level and
generally a
majority of the unit is at this level. In Vancouver, as of May 1, 1997, there
were a
total of 111 employees in the bargaining unit. Fifteen were corporals and 19
were
sergeants,
leaving 77 police officers. The average tenure of a police officer was 5.18
years.
(City Exhibit C-1.U) Additionally, if one includes the corporals and sergeants
in
the
average, the average rises to 8.84 years which is less than 10 years, and,
generally
speaking,
benefits provided police officers in the various comparators do not change from
the
five year level until a police officer has served 10 or more years.
Furthermore,
corporals
and sergeants receive a wage based on a specified differential over that paid
to
top
step police officers.
I have decided to make the comparisons based on hourly wage as
it is clearly
relevant
to a consideration of wages received to take into account how many hours an
employee
is asked to work to receive those wages. Additionally, I have included
longevity
in the few instances where it is paid to a five year police officer as every
officer
with
that level of experience will receive longevity as part of his or her wage
without
having
to qualify in some special way such as securing a certain level of education in
order
to receive an education incentive or having to contribute to a deferred
compensation
plan in order to receive a matching contribution from the Employer.
Furthermore, these two
benefits are separately certified as issues to be determined by the
Arbitrator.
The fact that wage and benefit issues are separately certified further
convinces
me that it is appropriate not to attempt to base a determination of the issue
of
rates
of pay on a comparison of overall compensation, that is, on attempt to come up
with
a
number representing all wages and benefits paid in each comparator.
However, there is one additional element of compensation that I
believe should be
included
in an hourly wage analysis when making a comparison of rates of pay and this is
pension
pick-up. In Oregon and California, cities do have the option of
"picking-up" or
paying
the employees prescribed contribution to funding the employees retirement by
negotiating
with the collective bargaining representative such a pick-up. Thus, where an
employer
does pick-up an employee's share of the retirement contribution, this is, in
effect,
a direct payment to each employee because without the pick-up the employee
would
have to take that money out of his or her pocket each month and make the
contribution.
The fact that this pick-up option is not available in Washington does not
require a
contrary result as the key question is the direct wage benefit to the employee
who
does not have to make a retirement contribution he would otherwise have to
make.
Section 14.7 of the parties 1995-96 Agreement makes clear that
the 2.4% paid to
each
police officer is paid in lieu of overtime pay for working on a holiday.
Therefore
the
Union is correct that this 2.4% should not be included in an hourly wage
analysis
since
it is overtime pay for working on a holiday and, in many of the other comparators,
overtime
for working on a holiday is specifically provided for, such as payment of time
and
one half or double time for working on a holiday.
Approximately 70% of the bargaining unit have
a shift schedule as opposed to
working a
40 hour week and, therefore, I have used the patrol officer working a shift
schedule
in producing the wage analysis.
Five of the 12 comparators have contracts which instead of
commencing on
January 1 commence on or after
July 1 and, therefore, increases are provided as of July 1
or
thereafter in 1996. Thus when making comparisons for 1996, the last year of the
prior
agreement
in Vancouver, it seems appropriate to compare wage rates as of June 30, 1996.
Furthermore, in this regard, I
note that the parties began negotiations in the spring of
1996
at which time the comparators were paying rates in effect prior to June 30,
1996.
I have set forth below Table
II showing an hourly rate wage analysis, comparing
Vancouver
to the comparators. I have reviewed each of the collective bargaining
agreements
to insure that the figures I have used are correct as of June 30, 1996. As
Table II shows, I have taken
the monthly salary paid to the top step police officer, added
longevity
where it is provided after five years, added the pension pickup and then
divided
that
total by the net hours worked. The net hours worked is the monthly scheduled
hours
less
hours not worked by a police officer after five years due to holidays and
vacation
accrual.
The sum of the top step salary, longevity if any, and pension pickup if any, is
divided
by the net hours worked to reach the hourly rate.
__________
TABLE II
COMPARATORS HOURLY RATE AS
OF JUNE 30,1996
MONTHLY PENSION NET HOURLY
NAME SALARY LONGEVITY PICKUP TOTAL HOURS WAGE
IRVINE $4,344 $391 $4,735 155.33 $30.48
SALINAS $4,057 $365 $4,422 146.66 $30.15
SANTA ROSA $4,213 $379 $4,592 155.33 $29.56
FULLERTON $4,220 $380 $4,600 156.00 $29.49
FEDERAL WAY $4,164 $4,164 156.00 $26.69
BELLEVUE $4,013 $4,013 154.66 $25.95
TACOMA $3,936 79 $4,015 155.33 $25.85
EVERETT $4,035 81 $4,116 162.67 $25.30
GRESHAM $3,554 $213 $3, 767 153.67 $24.51
EUGENE $3,370 $202 $3,572 147.72 $24.18
SALEM $3,487 $209 $3,696 154.75 $23.88
SPOKANE $3,596 73 $3,669 154.00 $23.82
AVERAGE $26.66
VANCOUVER $3,832 150.34 $25.49
AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE IS 4.6%
ABOVE THAT PAID IN VANCOUVER
__________
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.465(1)(e), it is
appropriate to consider the salary
increases
provided by the comparators since June 30, 1996. Therefore, I have set forth
below
Table III showing the monthly salaries paid in the comparators as of June 30,
1996
compared
to the monthly salaries negotiated and in effect June 30, 1997, as well as
increases
in effect on and after July 1, 1997.
__________
CHART III
MONTHLY SALARIES
JUNE 30, 1996 JUNE 30, 1997 JUNE 30, 1998
IRVINE $4,344 $4,344 1
FULLERTON $4,220 $4,304 2% (7/26/97)
SANTA ROSA $4,213 $4,469 6%
SALINAS $4,057 $4,361 5% (1/1/98)
EVERETT $4,035 $4,166
BELLEVUE $4,013 $4,133
TACOMA $3,936 $4,054
SALEM $3,487 $3,801 3
SPOKANE $3,596 $3,736
GRESHAM $3,554 $3,643 4
EUGENE $3,370 $3,500
AVERAGE $3,916 $4,063
AVERAGE INCREASE: JUNE 30,
1997 OVER JUNE 30, 1996 EQUALS 3.8%
_____
1 Effective July 12, 1997: Increase equal to
increase in CPI-W Los Angeles/
Anaheim/Riverside, April 96 -- April 97, minimum 2% and maximum
5%
2 Employer and Union figures differ and
evidence in record is not sufficient to make a
to determination.
3 Effective January 1, 1998 increase equal to
90% of CPI-W Seattle area, first half of
1996-first half of 1997, minimum 3%, maximum 7%.
4 Effective July 1, 1998 increase equal to
increase in Portland CPI-W January to
January, minimum 2.5% and maximum 5%.
__________
As of June 30, 1996 the average hourly rate in the comparators
was 4.6% above
that
paid in Vancouver (Table II). Additionally, the percentage increase in top step
base
salary,
based on the average of 11 of the 12 comparators, between June 30, 1996 and
June 30, 1997 is 3.8%.
Pursuant to 41.56.465(1)(d), I now
move on to consider the average consumer
prices
for goods and services as reflected in the U.S. government indicator of the
cost of
living,
namely the Consumer Price Index.
The first collective bargaining agreement between the parties
here was effective
January 1, 1992. Thus, it is
appropriate to compare the increase in the CPI-W for
Portland-Vancouver over the
last five years with the raises received by police officers
during
the same period. As pointed out above, the parties have traditionally relied on
the
Portland-Vancouver
CPI-W. The CPI-W for Portland-Vancouver for 1991
reported
as
the 2nd half-semi-annual average for 1991 was 132.1 and five years later the
same
index
was 156.5. (City Exhibit C-7.G.) This was an increase
of 18.5%. During the same
five
year period from 1991 to 1996 the top step police officers salary went from
$3,004 to
$3,832,
for an increase of 27.6%. Thus, in percentage terms, the Union has
secured
increases
for police officers of approximately 50% more than the rise in the cost of
living
since
1991.
It is also appropriate to compare increases provided fire
fighters as fire fighters
are
subject to the same interest arbitration law as police officers and such a
comparison is
often
taken into consideration in interest arbitrations. The fire fighters received
$2,978 at
the
top step in 1991 and five years later in 1996 that amount had increased to
$3,874 for
an
increase of 30.1%. Thus, fire fighters have increased their top step wage rate
by an
even
larger percentage over the five years than did police officers. Furthermore,
effective
January 1, 1997 fire fighters
will receive a raise of 7.38%, although there was testimony
to indicate that this raise
was at least in part due to fire fighters agreeing to an increase in
their
productive hours of work.
The difficulty in reaching a final determination in this case
is the fact that the City
of
population.
Therefore, it does not seem reasonable to require
the
average of the comparators over the course of the first contract in effect
after such a
large
annexation. Furthermore, despite the fact that
population,
a comparison based on the higher population revealed that
only
4.6% behind the average hourly pay and had a higher hourly pay rate than five
of the
12
comparators. (See Table II at page 20.) Additionally
police officers in
have
over the past five years received raises significantly greater than the rise in
the cost
of
living. On the other hand,
police
officers in line with its new status as a significantly larger city.
Based on all of the foregoing, I shall award 3.8% increase in
1997, which is the
average
increase in the comparators from
shall
award a 2.3% increase, representing one-half of the 4.6%
average
as of
1996
to July 1997 which is 2.97%. The total increase for 1998
shall be 5.27%. As for
1999, I shall award 90% of the
Portland-Vancouver CPI-W July 1997 to July 1998,
with a
minimum of two percent (2%) and a maximum of six percent (6%).
I have carefully considered the Employer's contention that the
CPI formula
should
be reduced from 90% to 80%. In rejecting this Employer proposal, I note that
the
90% is the traditional formula
used by the parties. With respect to the "Boskin
Report,"
(City Exhibit C-7.K) whatever
its merits, it has not been adopted by the
of
Labor which produces the CPI.
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
Commencing with the 1995-96 Agreement, the parties negotiated a
deferred
compensation
plan. Effective
contribution
up to a maximum of 1% of an employee's base salary.
The
City will match to 2% of base
salary effective
effective
the
12 comparators provide deferred compensation. One of those comparators,
will
not provide this benefit for officers hired after
Additionally, I note that
compensation
benefit and no employee employed by the Employer receives a higher
deferred
compensation benefit than that presently received by police officers.
In view of all of the foregoing, I find that no increase in the
deferred
compensation
benefit is warranted.
EDUCATION INCENTIVE
Bargaining unit employees receive an educational incentive of
$90 per month if
they
have earned an associate degree from an accredited college or university and
$180
per
month if they have earned a bachelors degree from an accredited college or
university.
The City proposes to eliminate the education incentive program. The Union
seeks
to increase educational incentives so that bargaining unit employees with an
associate
degree from an accredited college or university would receive a 3% premium
and
bargaining unit employees with a bachelor's degree from an accredited college
or
university
would receive a 6% premium.
The Union has placed in the record substantial material
indicating the relationship
between
the increased education of law enforcement officers and the improved quality of
law
enforcement services performed. Additionally, as the Union points out, the
states of
Oregon and California have
recognized the value of education in establishing their law
enforcement
certification standards. Thus, both states substitute education for experience
with
respect to a law enforcement officer qualifying for an intermediate or advanced
certificate.
With respect to the 12 comparators, five presently provide an
education incentive
for
an associate degree and a bachelor's degree. These five are Bellevue, Eugene,
Everett,
Fullerton, and Salem. Additionally, Salem provides for additional
premiums
based
on earning both an intermediate and an advanced certification. Further, Tacoma is
scheduled
to add an education incentive effective January 1, 1998 for employees on the
payroll
on and before that date. Additionally, four comparators which do not provide
education
incentives per se do provide for the payment of a premium based on the law
enforcement
officer earning an intermediate or advanced certification. These four are
Gresham,
Irvine, Salinas and Santa Rosa. Thus 10 of the 12 comparators
provide or will
soon
provide an education incentive or a premium based on earning an intermediate or
advanced
certification.
The Employer points to the fact that it maintains a tuition
assistance program
which
police officers are eligible for on a first come, first served, basis. However,
my
review
of the comparator collective bargaining agreements indicates that of the 10
comparators
that provide or will provide an education incentive or a premium for
certification,
six also provide for a tuition reimbursement or assistance program. These
six
are Bellevue, Fullerton, Irvine, Salem, Salinas, and, as of January 1, 1997,
Tacoma.
Based on all the foregoing, I find that the Employer's proposal
to eliminate the
education
incentive is not appropriate and thus must be rejected.
I turn now to the Union's proposal to move from a fixed amount
with respect to
the
education incentive to a percentage amount, which the
for
an associate degree and 6% for a bachelors degree. Of the six comparators that
have
or
will have an education incentive, five of those use a percentage rather than a
fixed
amount.
With respect to the five comparators that provide for a certification premium
(including
premium),
four provide that premium on a percentage basis and only one provides the
premium
based on a fixed amount. Thus, of the ten comparators that
provide or will
provide
an education incentive or a certification premium, or both, eight do so on a
percentage
basis rather than on a fixed amount. Furthermore, as the Union points out, if a
fixed
amount remains in place year after year while salaries increase the relative
value of
the
education incentive is reduced.
Based on all of the foregoing, I agree with the
should be
substituted for a fixed amount with respect to education incentive. The
in
support of its position that the associate degree should require a 3% premium,
while
the
bachelors degree should require a 6% premium, presented the testimony of Scott
Bieber who has been on the Union's
bargaining team in 1992, 1994, and 1996. Bieber
testified
that the fixed amount of $90 and $180 was negotiated in 1991 based on the fact
that
those amounts were approximately 3% and 6% of the top step salary in place in
1991
which
was $3,004. However, as Bieber admitted, the
negotiations
to have the agreement include the percentage figures of 3% and 6% and thus
although
the wages increased, the education premium stayed the same at $90 and $180.
I note that of the ten
comparators that provide or will provide either an education
incentive
or a certification premium, five provide for a percentage or a fixed amount
that
is
no more that 2.5% for an associate degree or intermediate certification and no
more
than
5% for a bachelors degree or advanced certification. Of the five that provide
for at
least
3% and 6%, one of those, Everett, requires the officer to choose either the
education
incentive
or longevity. Although in Everett the education incentive is 3.5% for an
associate
degree and 7% for a bachelors degree, an employee with 4 to 8 years of
experience
would have to forego his or her 2% longevity payment, thus in effect reducing
the
associate degree incentive to 1.5% and the bachelors degree incentive to 5%.
In view of all of the foregoing, I shall award 2.5% of the base
salary for an
associate
degree and 5% of base salary for a bachelor's degree. The institution of the
2.5% and 5% education
incentive payment will provide a significant raise for bargaining
unit
employees with respect to education incentive and continue from year to year to
recognize
the importance of education with respect to law enforcement.
PAST PRACTICE
Presently Section 28.1 of the contract provides:
The Employer and the Guild agree that past practices that
are
mandatory subjects of bargaining
and are not specified by this
agreement but known by both the
Guild and the Employer shall
remain unchanged.
The Employer proposes that this provision be replaced by the
following language:
Past practices which are mandatory subjects of bargaining
and
are known to both parties of
this Agreement, even though not
identified in the Agreement,
shall remain in effect unless
changed in accordance with RCW
41.56,
The language in Section 28. 1 was
Employer proposed language which was
included
in the first agreement between the parties. No attempt was made to change the
language
during negotiations for the 1995-96 Agreement.
The Employer's proposal is prompted in significant part by the
matter described
below.
On February 29, 1996 Jeffrey Hollingsworth and Otto Klein, III, as
representatives
of the City of Vancouver and Clark County respectively, wrote to the
Union's representative, David
Snyder, and Daryl Garrettson, the representative of
the
Clark County Sheriffs Guild
seeking four way negotiations in order to resolve the layoff
seniority
dovetailing issue, which would arise as a result of the planned annexation. The
letter
suggested that negotiations commence in March of 1996 and that if the four
parties
could
not resolve the issue that "all parties jointly seek the appropriate
mandatory dispute
resolution
remedies." (Guild Exhibit No. 82.) Exactly what was meant by the phrase
"mandatory
dispute resolution remedies" is not clear from the record. It was the
Union's
understanding
that the Employer was referring to mediation and interest arbitration
pursuant
to RCW Chapter 41.56.
In any event, by letter dated March 5, 1996 Mr. Snyder, on
behalf of the Union,
informed
Mr. Hollingsworth that the Union would not participate in four way
negotiations,
taking the position that neither RCW 41.56 nor RCW 35.13 imposed a duty
upon
the Union to bargain with either Clark County or the Clark County Sheriffs
Guild.
RCW 35.13.380(1) provides as follows with respect to the
transfer of county
sheriff
employees to a city police department that annexes an area of the county served
by
those county sheriff employees:
For purposes of layoffs by the city,
... only the time of
service accrued with the city shall
apply unless an
agreement is reached between the
collective bargaining
representatives of the police
department and sheriff's office
employees and the police
department and sheriff's office.
The Union took the position that this section of the statute
did not require it to
bargain
with the other three entities regarding the question of whether or not the
sheriffs
employees
transferred in to the Vancouver Police Department due to the annexation
would
have their seniority for layoff purpose dovetailed with employees already in
the
unit
working as police officers. David Vial testified that the Employer was so
concerned
by
this action of the Union that it considered filing an unfair labor charge
alleging a
refusal
to bargain, but determined not to do so because the
Section 28.1 allowed the
However, as I view Section 28.1, it has no relevance with
respect to the Employer
requiring
the
Section 28.1 refers to past
practices between the
there
was no indication in the record that there was a past practice known by both
the
sheriff's
office employees who transfer into the City of
indicates
that during 1995 there were discussions between the
pursuant
to which the parties reached a tentative agreement, which was never placed into
a
memorandum of understanding, that sheriff's office employees who became
employees
of
the Vancouver Police Department would be treated as new employees for purposes
of
seniority
for layoff.
Furthermore, the proposed Employer language would, as the Union
points out,
conflict
with portions of Section 28.4 of the Agreement. Section 28.4 provides that both
parties
waive the right to oblige the other party "to bargain with respect to any
subject or
matter
specifically discussed during negotiations or covered in this agreement unless
mutually
agreed otherwise." However, under the City's proposed language, past
practices
which had been discussed during negotiations but which were not identified in
the
Agreement could be changed in accordance with RCW 41.56. In fact, the Employer
proposed
language allows even past practices identified in the Agreement to be subject
to
change
in accordance with RCW 41.56. Thus, under the language proposed by the
Employer, the Employer would have
the right to oblige the
matters
specifically discussed in negotiations or covered in the Agreement if those
matters
could be characterized as past practices pursuant to the new language of
Section
28.1.
I also note that Vial admitted that that on several occasions
in the past the
has
agreed to bargain during the term of the collective bargaining agreement on
emerging
issues,
resulting in agreements between the parties that were reflected in several
memorandums
of understanding.
Finally, I cannot find that the Employer's position is
supported by a review of
contract
language in the comparators. The language in each contract is different and
there
is no clear pattern to this language which can be said to provide support for
the
Employer's
proposal here.
The Employer's proposed language is rejected.
FLEXIBLE BENEFITS
Presently, two health plans are available to bargaining unit
members. One is the
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Preferred Provider Plan. This plan provides for a $50 deductible
per
individual and a $150 deductible per family. Additionally, there is 100%
coverage
with
respect to providers within the plan and 80% coverage with a $2,500 maximum out
of
pocket with respect to providers outside the plan.
The Employer proposes the following changes in the Blue Cross
Blue Shied
Preferred
Provider Plan. The deductible would be doubled, so that it
would be $100 per
individual
and $300 per family. Additionally, coverage with respect to providers within
the
plan would be reduced to 90% and coverage with respect to providers outside the
plan
would
be reduced to 70%, with an overall $2,500 maximum out of pocket.
Presently, the second plan available to bargaining unit members
is the Kaiser
HMO Plan which provides for a
$1.00 office visit co-pay charge. The Employer
proposes
to raise this co-pay charge to $5.00.
The
The Employer is motivated to propose these changes based upon
increases in
premium
costs. The premium for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan for 1997 is expected to
increase
20.4% over 1996, although there is a possibility of some premium refund
depending
upon claims experience. With respect to the Kaiser HMO Plan, City Exhibit
No. 8.A indicates a 2.3%
premium increase in 1997, although it shows a 5.2% decrease in
1996. I also note that Guild
Exhibit No. 85 states that the Kaiser premium actually
decreased
by 1% from the 1996 rates.
The Employer, in support of its position, did a survey of
certain health care
benefits
provides by the nine comparators it had selected for use in these proceedings.
Eight of those comparators,
that is all except
comparators I
selected for use in this proceeding. According to City Exhibit No. 8.D,
seven
of the eight comparators had co-pays in at least one of the plans available,
and all
but
two of those co-pays had at least a $5.00 minimum. Furthermore, six of the
eight
comparators
had deductibles in one or more of the plans available and none of those
deductibles
were as low as $50 for an individual and $150 per family. In fact, most of the
deductibles
were at the $100 per individual and $300 per family level.
One of the difficulties in assessing the information provided
is that City Exhibit
No. 8.D lists 22 health plans
in the eight comparators. Although there is some
duplication,
it is clear that comparisons are being made between a relatively large number
of
different health plans, which may well have different benefit provisions.
In any event, after carefully considering this matter, I have
determined not to
grant
the Employer's proposal to change the health care benefit at this time. In this
regard,
I note that it was in 1992 that the
Shield Indemnity Plan to the
Blue Cross Blue Shield Preferred Provider Plan. In doing
so,
the
gained
100% coverage for employees using preferred providers. The indemnity plan had
a
$100 deductible per individual and a $300 deductible per family and only
provided 80%
of
coverage up to $2,500 of out of pocket expense with 100% thereafter. Thus, it
seems
somewhat
unfair to ask Union employees to give up a substantial amount of the benefit
they
secured by moving to the preferred provider plan just two prior contracts ago.
Furthermore, when the
plan,
they were moving to a plan that the non-represented City employees were covered
by
at that time and dating back to 1988 or 1989. Here, none of the City's
employees,
union
or non-union, are subject to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Preferred Provider Plan
or
Kaiser HMO Plan as proposed by
the Employer. Vial testified that the City intended to
look
at plan design changes with the City's other bargaining units, as well as the
non-
represented
employees, in an attempt to reduce premium rates. However, he also testified
that
he did not know what in particular the City was going to do with respect to
this
matter.
As
attempted
to initiate a labor-management insurance committee in an effort to work co-
operatively
with its employees in determining what, if anything, should and could be
done
regarding health care costs and benefits. Furthermore, the City in 1996 has
changed
insurance
consultants after 10 years with its prior insurance consultant. This fact
provides
additional support for a decision not to move ahead with health-care changes on
a
piecemeal basis at this time. I also note that with the City now being the
fourth largest
city
in the State of
additional
options such as self-funding of benefits may become viable.
Finally, as Guild Exhibit No. 87 demonstrates, the maximum
employer paid
premium
for health and dental benefits is not significantly different for
1997
than it is for the average of the comparators.
In this regard, I took the average of
the
11 cities listed on Guild Exhibit No. 87 which I have selected as comparators.
The
average
is $462.73 which is approximately 1.1% more than $457.50, the maximum City
paid
premium for medical and dental benefits for 1997. Also,
approximately
in the middle of the comparators with five paying a higher maximum
premium
and six paying a lower maximum premium.
Guild Exhibit No. 87 does not include
comparators
proposed by the
City
questionnaires for each of its comparators. I
have not included
information
supplied in City Exhibit No. 10 appears to relate to 1996 and not 1997. In
this
regard, I note that the maximum medical premium listed on the questionnaire for
V. This amount is very similar
to the maximum medical premium paid in
1996
for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Preferred Provider Plan which was $329.70.
Based on all the foregoing, I have determined not to accept the
Employer's
proposal
for a change in flexible benefits.
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
Set forth below is the Award of your Interest Arbitrator with
respect to each of the
five issues
discussed in the attached Opinion:
I. Rates of Pay
A. Effective January 1,
1997, an increase in the base pay of 3.8% for police
officers, police corporals and
police sergeants.
B. Effective January 1,
1998, an increase in base pay of 5.27% for police
officers, police corporals and
police sergeants.
C. Effective January 1,
1999, an increase in base pay for police officers,
police corporals and police
sergeants equal to 90% of the percentage
increase in the
For Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers,
Portland-Vancouver
area for the period of July 1997
to July 1998, with a minimum of 2% and a
maximum of 6%.
II. Deferred Compensation
No change from the 1995-96 Agreement.
III. Education Incentive
A. Effective January 1,
1997, a 2.5% premium for bargaining unit employees
with an associate degree from an
accredited college or university.
B. Effective January 1,
1997, a 5% premium for bargaining unit employees
with a bachelor's degree from an
accredited college or university.
C. This Award is not
intended to change any requirements contained in
Article 23, "Educational
Incentives" of the parties' 1995-96 Agreement.
IV. Past Practice
No change from the 1995-96 Agreement.
V. Flexible Benefits
No change from the 1995-96 Agreement.
Dated: