And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Roger Buchanan
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Buchanan; Roger
Case #: 13831-I-98-00299
Employer:
Date Issued:
Interest Arbitration
Before Roger Buchanan, Impartial Arbitrator
Supervisors.
Corporals and Sergeants Bargaining Unit
(Employer)
and
Sheriffs Guild
(
Case
No. 13831-1-98-299
(Supervisor's Unit)
Appearance for
and Cabot Dow of Cabot Dow and
Associates,
Appearance for Kitsap James
M. Cline, Attorney at Law,
Conclusions.
Decisions and Awards In
Interest Arbitration
Hearing and Post Hearing Briefs
Hearings were held in Port Orchard,
September
1, 2, 3, 1998. Witnesses were sworn and each party
presented proposals, testimony,
exhibits
and arguments.
The County and the Guild filed post~hearing
briefs which were received by the Arbitrator on
or
before
Representation
Representing the Employer,
Washington
and Cabot Dow of Cabot Dow and Associates,
Representing the
Located in Kitsap County are
the incorporated cities of
Island which have their own
police departments which work closely with the
Sheriffs
Department.
13
collective bargaining units which include approximately 630 County employees.
The
this
case,
Sheriffs Department
supervisory employees who are involved in a second Interest Arbitration
case.
The average seniority of the 79 non-supervisory deputies
is 7.7 years. The average seniority
for
the "supervisory" unit is 15.9 years.
History of Bargaining
There is no history of Interest Arbitration between the
parties concerning the two Sheriffs
Department
bargaining units involved in these cases.
The contracts for the two bargaining units expired
Guild bargained from late 1996
through I 997 without successfully reaching an
agreement.
The dispute was then submitted to Mediation by the
Relations Commission (PERC) With the failure to reach a settlement in Mediation, the
PERC
Certified the cases to
Interest Arbitration on
1998
for the supervisors unit.
There are thirty-four (34) issues in dispute in this
Interest Arbitration case.
Bargaining Units
One bargaining unit includes
non-supervisory Sheriff Deputy Officers.
The second bargaining unit for uniformed officers of
bargaining
unit. This Interest Arbitration is concerned with the Supervisor's bargaining
unit which
includes:
"Uniformed Corporals and Sergeants
employed by the
Kitsap County Sheriffs Department
Statutory Criteria
This matter came to Interest Arbitration under the
Collective
Bargaining Act. The Act specifies that the Arbitrator is
required to follow the
following
standards and criteria which are set out in RCW 41.56.200:
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of
the
legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41 .56.430 and, as
additional
standards or guidelines to aid it in reaching a decision,
it
shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i)
For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(a)
through (d); 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 employees listed in RCW 41.56.030
through
(h), 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
adequate
number of comparable employers exists
within
the state of
employers
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 proceeding's; 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. For those employees
listed in RCW
41.56.030 (7)(a) who are
employed by the
governing body of a city or town
with a population
of less than fifteen thousand,
or a county with a
population of less than seventy
thousand,
consideration must also be given
to regional
differences in the cost of
living.
A fundamental principle of
interest arbitration is that an arbiter must view the total
package,
and not just isolated or individual proposals and issues. An arbiter's task is
to
render an award that constitutes an extension of the bargaining process. If
arbitration
is allowed to become a separate and distinct proceeding in and of itself,
collective
bargaining will become little more than a meaningless warm-up for the real
game.
Parties must not be allowed to view arbitration as a panacea for unrealistic
and
ill-conceived bargaining proposals.
Arbiter
a 1988
"The goal of interest
arbitration is to produce a final decision that
will,
as nearly as possible, approximate what the parties themselves
would
have reached if they had continued to bargain with determination
and
good faith."
In a somewhat longer passage predicated on the same
principle, Arbiter
Charles S. LaCugna stated as
follows in a City of
The Arbitrator must interpret
and apply the legislative criteria in RCW
41.56.460. The Arbitrator must
not only interpret each guideline, but he
must
determine what weight he will give to each guideline in order to
arrive
at a 'total package', because only the 'total package' concept can
measure
the real effect of the Arbitrator's decisions. The task is not easy.
He must attempt to fashion an
acceptable and workable bargain, one that
the
parties would have struck by themselves as objective and disinterested
neutrals.
This point is crucial. Dispute settlement procedures that culminate
in
binding arbitration make it easy to bypass negotiations, mediation and fact
finding
in the hope that an Arbitrator might award to one party what it
could
not gain through the process of free and robust negotiations. The
award
must reflect the relative bargaining strength of the parties. The
award
cannot be a 'compromise', much less 'splitting of the difference',
because
such an award would favor the party that advances extreme
demands
and takes an intransigent position.
An issue that will have a major impact on this case is
the one concerning the determination of
which
governmental jurisdictions will be used as "comparable
jurisdictions". Since the
"comparable
jurisdictions" chosen will be used as a guide by the arbitrator in finding
equitable
solutions
to the issues in this case, the choice of " comparables" is of
importance.
Comparables and comparisons
are preeminent in wage determination
because
all panties at interest derive benefit from them. To the worker
they
permit a decision on the adequacy of his income. He feels no
discrimination
if he stays abreast of other workers in his industry,
his
locality, his neighborhood. They are vital to the
they
provide guidance to its officials upon what must be insisted
upon
and a yardstick for measuring their bargaining skill. In the
presence
of internal factionalism or a rival union, the power of
comparisons
is enhanced. The employer is drawn to them because
they
assure him that competitors will not gain a wage-cost
advantage
and that he will be able to recruit in the local labor
market.
Small firms (and unions) profit administratively by
accepting a
ready~made solution; they avoid the expenditure of
time
and money needed for working out one themselves.
Arbitrators benefit no less
from comparisons. They have "the
appeal
of precedent and. . . " awards based thereon are
apt to
satisfy
the normal expectations of the parties and to appear just
to
the public.
The Intent of the 1973
The intent and purpose of this 1973 mandatory act is to
recognize that there exists a public
policy
in the state of
labor
disputes; that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of
employees is vital
to
the welfare and public safety of the state of
uninterrupted
public service there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means
of
settling
disputes. This stated public policy is carried out through the processes of
mediation and
Interest
Arbitration.
Issues
1. Determination of "Comparable" Jurisdictions.
2. Contract Provisions. (Listed in accordance with the
existing
contract).
Article I
Section I - Rights of
Management
Article II
Section A
- Salaries
-Pay Increases,
-1997
-1998
-1999
Section B- Experienced
Based Pay Incentives.
-Length of Service Pay
Increases.
-Length of Service Based on
Compensable hours.
-Experience steps to conform
to market conditions.
Section D-Longevity Bonus
-Removal of 1% increase at 5
years service.
Section
E-Shift Differential Pay.
-Removal of Shift Differential
Pay provision.
Section F- Assignment Pay.
-Raise "Assignment
Pay" from $120.00 to 5%.
-Add classifications to
"Assignment Pay".
f. Traffic Officer
g. Field Training Officer
h. Crisis Intervention Response Team (CIRT)
Section
G- Uniform Allowance.
-Increase Of
Uniform Allowances.
Section
1- Health and Welfare Benefits.
-Increase coverage of
dependants from 50% to 100%.
-Change from Blue Cross and
Kitsap Physicians Service to
Group Health, Virginia Mason Alliant Plan.
-Supplemental disability
insurance for LEOFF II Employees.
Section
K- Hours of Work.
-County's authority to assign
Shifts.
-Call in during emergency
while off duty.
-Proposal to institute a ten
(10) hour day, four (4)
day
week, work week.
-Shift configuration parameter
to be determined by
joint
labor-management committee.
-Compensation for call in to
testify in "civil trials".
-Increase in minimum pay for
call in from two (2)
hours
overtime to three (3) hours overtime.
-Overtime for non mandatory
training.
Section L- Overtime.
-Remove exclusion of
"civil cases" from overtime pay for
work
related court appearances.
-The County questions the
types of "call back" and objects
to
Guild's proposal to increase call back minimum hours
from
two to three.
-Call back when off duty, such
as in emergencies.
-Call back when scheduled,
such as court appearances.
Article III
Section
B- Annual Leave.
-County's proposal to reduce
annual leave benefits.
Section C- Sick Leave.
-County's proposal to reduce
sick leave benefits.
Article V- Term (of
agreement)
-Two
year agreement as opposed to three year agreement.
Comparables
1 . Determination
of "comparable" jurisdictions.
A basic issue in this case is the determination of the
questions concerning the comparables
from
which the measurements are taken for determining some of the contents of the
Decision and
Award
of this case. The listing of the
statutory requirements that must be considered are
contained
in RCW 41.56.465 which states in part:
The arbitration award should be based upon a reasoned
assessment of the evidence with an
application
of the statutory data. Those criteria are set out in RCW 41.56.465(1); see
above.
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of
the
legislative purpose enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 and, as
additional standards or
guidelines to aid it in reaching a decision ,
-
it shall take into consideration
the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i) For
employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(a)
through (d); 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 employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(e)
through
(h), 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
However, when an adequate
number of comparable
employers
exists within the state of
west
coast employers 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. For those
employees listed in RCW
41.56.030 (7)(a) who are employed
by the governing body of a city
or town with a population of
less than fifteen thousand, or a
county with a population of
less than seventy thousand,
consideration must also be given
to regional differences in the
cost of living.
The requirement of RCW 41.56.465 (c)(i) is interpreted to mean that there should be a
comparison
of wages, hours and conditions of employment in local government jurisdictions
which
are similar in character to
Comparability and comparisons of other jurisdictions are
of primary importance in the process
of
interest arbitration. It is the way that the appropriate use of comparables serves
all parties to
this
case in the fairest way. The
served
by knowing that their wages, hours and working conditions approximate those at
comparable
agencies and under comparable working conditions. A thorough job of basing an
interest
arbitration award on comparables gives all concerned a presumption that the
award
concerning
wages, hours and working conditions is based on a presumption of fairness to
all
parties.
Consequently all concerned feel at ease with the conclusions and award and feel
that they
are
acceptable.
The Issues of Comparables
Of the statutory considerations, the parties dispute one
another's selection of comparables,
their
methodology for determining the total wage package and the County's ability to
pay.
A. Comparables
1 . Selection of Comparables
Comparability is not defined
by statute. It is a relational concept and
cannot
be determined with mathematical precision. The interest
arbitrator
faces the problem of making "apples to apples" comparisons
on
the basis of imperfect choices and sometimes incomplete data. The
arbitrator's
task is to review data in evidence and devise a manageable
list
of employers that more closely resemble the important attributes of
the
subject jurisdiction than those jurisdictions not on the list. This does
not
mean that omissions from the list are irrelevant. In fact, omitted
candidates
form a helpful tool to check the validity of the results of the
arbitrator's
selections.
In determining comparability, arbitrators
give the greatest consideration
to population,
geographic proximity (i.e., labor market) and assessed
valuation per
capita.
The relevance of geographical
proximity is to determine the labor market.
The comparability criterion attempts
to insure that wages will not vary greatly
within a
labor market. Thus the primary task of a neutral is to determine,
where
possible, the labor market in which the employer competes. Except
where
the State is concerned, that market ideally will be local, but reference to
"secondary"
statewide comparators may become necessary where a sufficient
number
of local comparators do not exist. A local labor market is sometimes
referred
to as the distance a worker will drive to work without changing
residences...
Considered in what will be determined to be a comparable
jurisdiction are: Size, geography,
location,
location in relation to major urban centers, rate of crimes, distances to be
covered,
population,
size of sheriffs department, nature of the economy of the jurisdiction (urban,
rural,
commuter
bedroom area for a major city), impact of military installations, tax income,
inclusion in
U.S. Department of Labor's
local labor market, cost of living, including cost of housing,
complexity
of jurisdiction, type of crime problems, assessed value of property in the
jurisdiction.
The Position of the Guild and the County on
the Selection of Comparable Jurisdictions
In determining which jurisdictions were selected as
"comparable" in this case, a study of the
quite
voluminous information and data submitted by the parties was made.
The Guild proposes that the jurisdictions that should be
determined as "comparable" for the
two
(
comparable"
jurisdiction as the Guild theorizes that the comparable jurisdictions in this
case
should
be located in
The Employer,
The Guild and the County agree on three of the counties
in their proposal for comparable
jurisdictions.
They are:
In addition to the agreed on counties the Guild proposes
secondary"
proposal,
In addition to the agreed on counties, the County proposes:
County.
The parties agreed to the use of Thurston, Whatcom and
following
counties remain in dispute, Snohomish,
Since the weight of the evidence presented in this case
indicates that
which
includes
economy
than does Western
Counties be
eliminated from use as comparables in this case.
The inclusion of
though
substantially larger than
to
be eliminated as a reasonable "comparable". In addition
same
geographic area as is
defined
as the same "labor market" area.
Since both parties agree that Thurston, Whatcom, and
comparables"
in this case, it is the conclusion of the arbitrator that these three county
jurisdictions
should be included on the list of "comparables" for the instant case.
Snohomish County, proposed by the Guild is located in
"comparable"
in this case.
It is the determination of the arbitrator that the
following counties are the appropriate counties
for
use as comparables in these cases:
-
-
-
-
The following issues will be discussed and a
determination made, in the order that they appear
in
the existing Supervisors, Corporals and Sergeants Agreement.
Supervisors.
Corporals and Sergeants Agreement
Article I
Section
1- Rights of Management.
The County and the Guild both propose changes to the
existing wording in the management
rights
provision of the two contracts. The wording proposed by the County seems
designed to
improve
the bargaining position of management and the proposed wording of the Guild
seems
designed
to improve the bargaining position of the
A careful reading of the proposals of the County, the
Guild and the existing contracts causes
the
arbitrator to conclude: -The existing contract language has been the product of
past
negotiations,
carefully arrived at through the bargaining process, and -That the proposal
changes,
even
if implemented, would not really alter the basic bargaining relationship
between the Guild
and
the County.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
request of the County to revise the
wording
of the provision and request of the Guild to revise the wording of
Management,
is denied.
Article II
Section A- Salaries
The Guild proposes pay increases across the board"
of four and one half percent (4.5%) of
employees
gross compensation over the 1996 rate. This would be a four and one half
percent
(4.5%) pay increase for 1997
over the pay amounts listed in
"Gross
Compensation for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants".
This proposal also seeks an
additional
four percent (4%) increase across the board" for the following year, 1998,
for an eight
and
one half percent (8.5%) increase over two years.
The County proposes pay increases across the board"
of three percent (3%) for employees
gross
compensation over the 1996 level for the year of 1997, and an additional three
percent (3%)
increase
for the year of 1998. In addition, the County proposes that the contract period
be
extended
to three (3) years, through the calendar year 1999 and that a pay increase of
three
percent
(3%) be given to the employees starting
A study of all of the materials and data submitted in the
instant case has caused the arbitrator
to
conclude that the supervisors be given a three (3) year agreement for the years
of 1997, 1998
and
1999 and that pay increases of four percent (4%) be given for the year 1997,
that pay
increases
of three and one-half percent (3.5%) be given for the year 1998 and that pay
increases
be
paid the employees of three and one half percent (3.5%) for the year 1999 for a
total
percentage
pay increase of eleven percent (11%) over three years of the
titled
"Gross Compensation for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants".
It is concluded that the Article II, Section A- Salaries
provision of the agreement should be:
Effective
board
by four percent (4%) over the
for
Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants" of the previous year, 1996.
Effective
board
by the amount of three and one-half percent (3.5%) over the
entitled
"Gross Compensation for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants" of the
previous year, 1997.
The County proposed that a third year wage settlement be
put in place in this arbitration
award.
The County argues that there was a likelihood that the award in the instant
case would not
be
completed until early 1999 and that it would be wise to create a pause in the bargaining
process
by extending the elements of this award for an additional year, for the year of
1999.
The arbitrator agrees, and adds the following provision
to Article II, Section A- Salaries of
this
collective bargaining agreement.
"Effective
board
by the amount of three and one half percent (3.5%) over the
entitled
"Gross Compensation for Deputies, Corporals, and Sergeants" for the previous
year,
1998".
Article II
Section B- Experience Based
Pay Incentives
The Guild proposes changing the Article II, Section B-
Experience Base Pay Incentives
provisions
which concern within grade increases based on longevity.
Pursuant to review of the proposal, and in light of the
arbitration award in other sections of
this
Interest Arbitration, the arbitrator concluded that the existing six (6) step
system adequately
serves
the salary needs provided by this provision.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
Guild's proposed change of Article II,
Section B- Experience Based
Pay Incentives is denied.
Article II
Section D- Longevity Bonus
The Guild and the County both propose changes to the
Section D- Longevity Bonus provision
of
Article II.
1
. The
proposal would begin the payment at seven (7) years
instead of five (5) years.
Both the Guild and the County agree that the first
category that receives a Longevity Bonus,
the
one that begins at " 5 years of employment" should be eliminated, and
accordingly it is
eliminated.
The Guild and the County submit two different scales for
Longevity Bonus Pay.
The existing scale for Supervisors, Corporals and
Sergeants is:
5 Years of
Employment 1.00% of annual salary
7 Years of
Employment 1.25% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.50%
of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 2.00%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 3.00%
of annual salary
Under the existing contract, longevity Bonuses differ according to job classification. There are
three
grades, one each for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants. The Corporals and
Sergeants are
covered
under a separate contract from the Deputies, they are included in the existing
"
Supervisors" contract.
The Guild's proposed scale for the Supervisors, Corporals
and Sergeants is:
7 Years of Employment 1.75% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 2.00%
o f annual salary
15 Years of Employment 3.00%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 4.00%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 5.00%
of annual salary
The County's proposed scale for the Supervisors,
Corporals and Sergeants is:
7 Years of
Employment 1.25% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.50%
of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 2.00%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 3.00%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 3.00%
of annual salary
In summary, the Guild proposes a substantial increase in
the Longevity Bonus Pay scale and
the
County proposes the status quo. Both the County and the Guild agree that the
"5 years of
employment"
category should be removed.
Pursuant to a study of the issues and the factors in this
case, the arbitrator concludes that the
Article II, Section D-
Longevity Bonus scale for the Supervisors, Corporals, and Sergeants
should
be:
7 Years of
Employment 1.50% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.75%
of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 2.25%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 3.00%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 3.25%
of annual salary
Article II
Section E - Shift
Differential
It is agreed by both the County and the Guild that this
provision of the contract be
discontinued.
Article II
Section F- Assignment Pay
The Guild proposes changing Section F- Assignment Pay for
Supervisors, Corporals and
Sergeants from a $120.00 month
assignment pay addition, to a pay addition of five percent (5%)
of
the Deputies base pay for Deputies who are assigned to the five (5)jobs listed
for "Assignment
Pay".
In addition the Guild proposes the addition of three classifications to the
five included in
the
existing agreement. The Guild proposes adding the three classifications of
Traffic Officer,
Training
Officer and Crisis Intervention Response Team.
The County opposes any changes in this provision.
The Guild's proposal of designating a five percent (5%)
of base pay addition, instead of the
$120.00 amount in the existing
contract, in light of the comparables, and other factors relied on in
this
case, appears excessive. However an increase is due in the dollar amount of the
assignment
pay.
Accordingly, the dollar amount is raised from $120.00
month to $135.00 month effective
January 1, 1999.
Concerning the addition of the three additional
classifications to the eligible employees for
assignment
pay, it has not been demonstrated that two of the classifications of Traffic
Officer and
Crisis Intervention Response
Team meet the requirements of Assignment Pay
designation.
However the testimony and
supporting evidence presented for the case of including Field Training
Officer is convincing and it
is found that the classification of Field Training Officer should be
added.
Accordingly, there should be added to the list of covered
classifications for Assignment Pay
the
classification of Field Training Officer.
It is the award of the arbitrator that the instant
provision for Section F- Assignment Pay should
be:
Employees within the classification of Supervisors,
Corporals and Sergeants who are assigned
to
the job function shall receive 5135.00 pay per month as assignment pay.
A. Detective
B. Investigator
C. K-9
D. Bomb Technician
E. Search and Rescue
F. Field Training Officer.
Article II
Section G- Uniform
Allowance
The Guild proposes an increase in the "Uniform
Allowance" from $375.00 annually to
$475.00
annually, an increase of $100.00 per year.
The County proposes that there be no increase in the
Uniform Allowance.
A review of the evidence and data presented indicate that
an increase to the uniform allowance
is
due, but that an increase to $475.00 is too large an increase. It is concluded
that an increase of
$50.00 annually to the amount
of $425.00 is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
amount of the uniform allowance be
increased
to $425.00 annually, effective January 1, 1999.
Article III
Section 1-Health and
Welfare Benefits
Under the existing agreement each Supervisor, Corporal
and Sergeant's health insurance
premiums
are paid by the County. The costs of health insurance coverage for the
Supervisor,
Corporal and Sergeant's
dependants is paid fifty percent (50%) by the County, up to the dollar
amount
of $195.00 each month, with the employee paying the remainder. (50% or more).
The Guild proposes that the health insurance costs for
each Supervisor, Corporal and
Sergeant's dependants be paid for entirely by the County.
The County proposes.that the
employees included in the Guild's bargaining unit be changed to
a
different company and a different system of health insurance, the Group Health,
Virginia Mason
Alliant
Plan. Under the County's Alliant Plan the County
would pay the full cost for the
Supervisor, Corporal and
Sergeant and for the Supervisor, Corporal and Sergeant's dependant's
health
insurance.
The County's proposal for the Alliant
Plan is a proposal to change the health insurance
coverage
to a plan that is, in part, a Health Maintenance Organization (FIMO) Plan, that
limits the
coverage
to certain participating physicians at certain health facilities. The cost for
insurance
coverage
for the Alliant Plan is less than the cost for Blue
Cross and for Kitsap Physicians Service
Plans.
The Alliant Plan costs less even when full payment is
made by the County for the health
insurance
costs for dependants.
The County presents the argument that most other Kitsap
County employees are covered
under
the Alliant Plan.
Following a thorough study it is the conclusion of the
arbitrator that the Alliant Plan gives less
health
coverage than do the Blue Cross and Kitsap Physicians Service Plans.
Accordingly there is
less
cost to the County. The arbitrator concludes accordingly that there likely is
less value to the
employee
in the Alliant Plan.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that employees,
who are employed in high risk
employment
such as these Sheriffs employees should be in a health insurance plan that
presents
top
quality, easily available medical care. It is the conclusion of the arbitrator
that the Super-
visors,
Corporals and Sergeants should remain covered by the more traditional and
likely more
available
health plans which are under consideration in~this
case, the Blue Cross Plan and the
Kitsap
Physicians Service Plan.
It is the award of the arbitrator that the employees
covered by this bargaining unit should have
available
to them, either the Blue Cross Plan or the Kitsap Physicians Service Plan.
It is also concluded by the arbitrator that the
Supervisors, Corporals and Sergeants should
continue
to pay for part of their health insurance coverage for dependants. Accordingly
it is the
award
of the arbitrator that the County continue to pay the lull cost for health
insurance coverage
for
the Supervisors, Corporals and Sergeants and that the costs for the health
insurance for the
Supervisors, Corporals and
Sergeant's dependants be paid by the following
formula. That the
County pay sixty percent (60%)
of the costs for insurance coverage for the Supervisors,
Corporals and Sergeant's
dependants up to the dollar amount of $250.00.
Article II
Section K- Hours of Work
The Guild proposes that the County change the five (5)
day eight (8) hour work week, to a
four
(4) day ten (10) hour work week for the Sheriffs work force. Extensive research
was done
on
this subject by the arbitrator and it was concluded that for a work force, such
as the Sheriffs in
this
case, that there are clearly some advantages to the implementation of a four
(4) day ten (10)
hour
work week. It is also clear that such a change in work week creates some very
complex
problems
and that there are a number of impacts that must be administered in such a work
week
program.
It is also noted that evidence was presented that a ten (10) hour four (4) day
work
week
had been instituted and discarded in the past.
The County seeks the status quo and opposes the
implementation of the ten (10) hour four (4)
day
work week. It is concluded by the arbitrator that the implementation of a ten
(10) hour four
(4) day
work week might well be a clear benefit to both the County administrators and
to the
Sheriffs work force and should
be further examined in detail in the collective bargaining process.
It is further concluded that
this issue contains such a degree of complexity that such a work week
change
should be the product of careful negotiations between the County and the Guild
in future
contract
negotiations rather than the product of the process of Interest Arbitration.
Additionally
it
is noted that the existing contract provisions provide for, if not encourage
the exploration and
the
institution of the ten (10) hour four (4) day work week.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that there
be no change in Section K- Hours of
Work from this Interest
Arbitration award.
Article II
Section L- Overtime
1- Civil Case Exclusion
In paragraph 5 of Section L-Overtime the Guild
requests the removal of the phrase "except in
civil
cases" for call back from Deputies and Supervisors time off from their
job. The Guild also
calls
for the increase from "two (2) hours pay" to "three (3) hours
pay for the call back at the
applicable
overtime rate'' for Deputies and Supervisors being called from off duty to
testify in
court.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that the Guild's
proposal to remove "except in civil cases"
from
the overtime provision is reasonable, since the Deputy or Supervisor is
required to use his
off
duty time in an identical manner whether the case is criminal" or
"civil" and that it is a call
back
from leave about "...events arising out of their employment... which is
the cause of the call
back.
According, it is the conclusion of the arbitrator that
the phrase "except in civil cases" should be
removed
from Section L- Overtime of the agreement and that the Supervisors, Corporals
and
Sergeants should receive the same"report back to work" pay for civil cases as
they now do for
"criminal"
cases.
2- Call Back Pay
The Guild also proposes the increase in minimum hours a
Deputy or Supervisor is to be paid
for
"report back to work pay' from two (2) hours to three (3) hours of
overtime pay.
The County opposes increasing the minimum hours to be
paid from two (2) hours to three (3)
hours
of overtime. The County also divides the
"Call Back Pay" issue into two issues. The
County proposes that there
should be two types of "call back":
1
. When
an employee is called back to work after completing his
or her shift, when on vacation
and when on a day off.
2. When a Supervisor, Corporal or Sergeant is scheduled to
appear in court.
Since the majority of the comparable jurisdictions pay
three (3) hours of overtime pay or more
rather
than two (2) hours in the existing agreement it is concluded that the Guild's
request to
increase
the hours from two (2) hours to three (3 ) hours of overtime pay is reasonable
and should
be
awarded to the employees And, that there is little difference of the impact on
the employee
whether
he is called in from a day off or vacation, possibly because of an emergency
and when the
employee
has a scheduled appearance in court, there should be the same granting of three
(3)
hours
overtime for call back pay
Accordingly it is the award of the arbitrator that the
amount of overtime to be paid to an
employee
for a call back should be a minimum of three (3) hours overtime pay.
The Guild proposes the elimination from the existing
agreement, in its entirety paragraph 6 of
Section L- Overtime. Paragraph
6 states "Non-mandatory training requested by and approved for
an
employee shall not be considered in calculating overtime
The County opposes this proposal and seeks the status
quo.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that non-mandatory
training requested by a Supervisor,
Corporal or Deputy,
is not normally a subject involved in overtime pay. Though training is
normally a
very valuable asset to both the employee and the employer, in the context of
this
Interest Arbitration it is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
Guild proposal to eliminate paragraph 6
of
Article II Section L- Overtime is denied.
Article III
Section B-Annual Leave
The County proposes a reduction of the Annual Leave
benefits. The current agreement states:
" 1. Annual
leave with pay shall be earned by employees as follows:
a. Upon
employment 80 hours per year
b. Upon
completion of five (5) years of Employment 60 hours per year
c. Upon completion
often (10) years of Employment 200 hours
per year
d. Upon
completion of fifteen (15) years of Employment 240
hours per year
2. Employees shall attempt to use annual leave during the year
in which it is
earned. No more than three
hundred sixty (360) hours of annual leave
may be carried from one calendar
year to the next.
3 Upon separation of any employee by
retirement, resignation with two
weeks notice, layoff, dismissal
or death, the employee or beneficiary
thereof shall be paid for unused
annual leave at the rate being paid at
the time of separation."
The County proposes an annual leave scale that reduces
the overall annual leave benefit to
employees.
It is:
"Years of Service Current Proposal
0-5 years 80
hours 80 hours
6-10 years 160
hours 120 hours
11 - 15 years 200
hours 160 hours
Over 15 years 240
hours 200 hours"
The County proposes a maximum cap of 5 weeks (200) hours.
It does make an exception to
this
cap by stating:
"All Deputies who have
exceeded 200 hours annual leave may continue
to
accrue at 240 hours annually".
The County argues that the existing annual leave benefits
for the Supervisors, Corporals and
Sergeants is higher than most
of the comparable jurisdictions. Review of the evidence presented
indicates that
the County's conclusion is correct. However the "comparables" used by
the County
to
make the comparison include two comparables from Eastern Washington that are
not accepted
for
use as "comparables" in this case.
Since the evidence shows that the current annual leave
benefits are higher than many of those
in
comparable jurisdictions, it is concluded that there should be a reduction in
the annual leave
rate.
Accordingly, the rate of annual leave should be reduced for those employees in
the " I 0 to
15 years" of service
category to 190 hours per year and those employees in the "over 15
years" of
service
category to 220 hours per year. The new Annual Leave scale is:
Years of Service Hours of Annual Leave Earned
` 0-5 years 80 hours
6-10 years 160
hours
10-15 years 190 hours
Over 15 years 220 hours
All Supervisors, Corporals and Sergeants who have
exceeded the 10 years of service category
as
of January 1, 1999 shall not have their annual leave reduced. They shall be
awarded annual
leave
on the scale of the existing ( 1996) contract: 10 to 15 years of service at 200
hours per year
and
for those who currently have over 15 years of service their annual leave shall
remain at 240
hours.
Also it is determined that the maximum amount of hours
that may be carried from one
calendar
year to the next is to remain at 360 hours.
Article III
Section C- Sick Leave
The County proposes that the amount of sick leave given
the employees should be reduced.
The County proposes that the
current Sick Leave benefit to employees of 120 hours earned per
year,
ten (10) hours per month, should be reduced to eight (8) hours earned per month
or 96
hours
per year.
A review of the comparables used in this case indicates
that the existing sick leave benefit to
employees
is higher than in many of the comparable jurisdictions and that a reduction in
sick leave
benefits
might be justified. Since sick leave is a benefit that is designed to assist
employees who
become
ill or suffer a disabling injury, and that the work of a Deputy Sheriff is
among the most
hazardous
of occupations, it is the conclusion of the arbitrator that it would not be
proper to
reduce
in any way the sick leave benefits. It is noted that a downward adjustment is
made in the
award
in this case in the Annual Leave benefits Accordingly the County's proposal to
reduce the
sick
leave benefits of Section C-Sick Leave is denied.
Article V- Term
The Guild proposes that the term of the instant agreement
in Interest Arbitration be of two
years
in duration, effective for the contract period of January 1, 1997 through
December 31,
1998. The
employer proposes that the contract be of longer duration, requesting that the
County
and
the Guild be given a time of relief, a breathing space, from the pressure of
contract
negotiations.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that the County is
quite correct in its request for a
breathing
period from negotiations. It is also of importance for the parties to have a
time to
operate
under the contract awarded from this Interest Arbitration case, to determine
the propriety
and
effectiveness of the provisions of this Interest Arbitration award and prepare
adjustments to
it.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that this
Interest Arbitration award be effective
for
three (3) years in duration, from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999 and
that the
Article V- Term provision
should state:
Article V- Term
This agreement shall be in
full force and effect between the
Guild and Employer, Kitsap
County, from January 1, 1997
through
December 31, 1999.
Roger Buchanan, Impartial
Arbitrator
December 14, 1998
Date