City
of
And
Teamsters,
Local 252
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 11884-I-95-00255
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) CASE NO. 11884-1-95-255
)
BETWEEN )
ARBITRATOR'S AWARD
)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 252, ) 1996 INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
)
and )
)
)
City. )
HEARING SITE: City
Hall
HEARING DATE:
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Davies,
Roberts and Reid
Attorneys
at Law
REPRESENTING THE CITY: Otto
G. Klein, III
Heller,
Ehrman, White
& McAuliffe
6100
701
ARBITRATOR: GaryL. Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
Table of
Contents
ISSUE Page
Introduction 2
1 - Wages 6
2 - Premium Pay 32
3 - Holidays/Vacations 33
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to
the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The parties to
this
dispute are Teamsters Union Local 252 (hereinafter "Unioni")
and
the City of
that
covered the period
The parties entered
into negotiations to reach
a successor
Agreement
to the 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The
parties
were successful in resolving most of the issues that
divided
them in contract negotiations. Three
issues were submitted
to
the Arbitrator for resolution.
City has a population of
12,730 persons.
populated
with a population of 24.7 persons per square mile. The
1995, the patrol officers fell
within the statutory definition of
"uniform
personnel" which granted
them interest arbitration
according
to the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act. RCW
41.56.030(7) (b) (i) . Prior to
bargaining
unit were statutorily prohibited from engaging in any
economic
activity in support of its bargaining proposals.
At
the commencement of the
arbitration hearing the
parties
agreed to use a list of comparable jurisdictions to assist
in
the resolution of this contract dispute.
The ten jurisdictions
are
the same group of comparators used by an Ad Hoc Salary Review
Committee in 1992 composed of
individuals from management and
labor. The jurisdictions stipulated to as comparable
for the
purposes
of this interest arbitration are:
Chehalis Tumwater
Kelso Ellensburg
Issaquah Hoquiam
Enumclaw
Marysville
Because of the stipulation of
the parties, it was unnecessary for
either
the City or the
the
appropriate jurisdictions with which to compare
the
purposes of establishing the terms of the successor Agreement.
The hearing was tape recorded by the Arbitrator as an
extension
of his personal note taking. Testimony
of the witnesses
was
received under oath. At the arbitration
hearing the parties
were
given the full opportunity to present written evidence, oral
testimony
and argument. The parties provided the Arbitrator
with
substantial
written documentation in support of their respective
cases.
The parties also submitted comprehensive and lengthy
post-hearing
briefs in support of their respective positions taken
at
arbitration. The three issues identified
for an Award by this
Arbitrator
are as follows:
1. Wages
2. Premium Pay
3. Holidays/Vacations
This Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the
evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established
by RCW 41.56.465. The approach of your
Arbitrator in
writing
the Award will be to summarize
the major and most
persuasive
evidence and argument presented by the parties on each
of
the issues. After the introduction of
the issue and positions
of
the parties, I will then state the basic findings and rationale
which
caused the Arbitrator to make the Award on the individual
issues.
The statutory criteria are standards or guidelines to aid
an
interest arbitrator in reaching a decision in a case subject to
this
procedure in resolving disputes. The
statutory factors to be
considered
by the Arbitrator may be summarized as follows:
(a) the
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) the stipulations of the parties;
(c) the wages, hours
and conditions of
employment
of like personnel of like employers
of
similar size on the West Coast of the
(d) the average cosumer
prices for goods and
services, commonly
known as the
cost of
living;
(e) changes
in any of
the foregoing
circumstances during the pendency of the
proceedings;
and
(f) such other factors, not confined to
the
foregoing,
which are normally or traditionally
taken
into consideration in the determination
of
wages, hours and conditions of employment.
For those employees in a city with a population less than
15,000, consideration must
also be given to regional differences in
the
cost of living. The jurisdictions agreed to by the parties for
purposes
of comparison included cities from both eastern and
western
A. Background
The most significant fact in this case is that the
parties
have agreed upon wage increases for 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Pursuant to the parties'
agreement, bargaining unit members will
get a
2.7% increase for all of 1995, a 2.25% increase for 1996 and
an
increase based upon the change in the Seattle/Tacoma CPI-U Index
for
1997. Thus, the issue of annual wage
increases for the members
of
this bargaining unit is not in dispute.
social
security program. As such, there is no deduction from their
wages
for the employee contribution to the social security system
or
an employer cost for social security.
In 1987 the City implemented a salary schedule consisting
of
23 ranges with 7 steps per range. At that time, patrol officers
were
placed in Range 13 of the salary schedule where they have
remained
since 1987. The Union proposed moving
patrol officers to
Range 14 as of July 1995. The City objects to the movement of the
patrol
officers from Range 13 to Range 14 of the salary schedule.
B. The Union
The Union takes the position that the time has come to
adjust
the salary range for patrol officers which has been in
existence
for nearly ten years. The Union submits
its proposal
will
protect the integrity of the 7-step advancement system, as
well
as spreading out the economic impact on the City over time.
The Union is proposing moving
individual patrol officers up one
step
on Range 14. As of July 1995, seven of
the twenty-two patrol
officers
in the bargaining unit had topped out at Range 13, Step G.
Under the Union's proposal,
those seven officers would receive a
new
step advancement date as of July 1, 1995. The remaining patrol
officers
would retain their existing step advancement date for
further
adjustments.
The Union maintains its position is supported by the
internal
comparators. Teamsters Local 252
represents the clerical
and
support staff. The contract for that
bargaining unit called
for
negotiated COLA increases and movement of some employees to a
higher
range on the salary schedule. Under the
police clerical
contract,
the Department's secretary was also moved up one complete
range.
Turning to the external comparators, the Union begins by
noting
the City spent a considerable amount of time attempting to
persuade
the Arbitrator that Issaquah should be excluded from the
group. The Union maintains that the City's attempt
to exclude
Issaquah from the comparator
group was based on flawed information.
Moreover, the City's Exhibits 10 through 13 list each of
the
comparator cities by name and purport to set forth data
pertaining
to population, demographics, per capita personal income,
median
household income, average net earnings and average wage for
covered
employment. At the arbitration hearing it was learned that
the
data as to the comparator cities was not based upon economic
data
on a city by city basis. The economic
data was instead culled
from
information as to the
entire county within which the
comparator
cities are located. The legislature in
developing the
interest
arbitration statute expressly provides that comparisons
should
be made to "employment of like personnel of like employers
of
similar size." The statutory directive to interest arbitrators
has
resulted in arbitrators routinely rejecting comparing uniform
personnel
in cities to uniform personnel in counties.
The statutory directive to interest arbitrators has
resulted
in arbitrators routinely comparing uniform personnel in
cities
to uniform personnel in other cities.
Nor is there support
for
comparing uniform personnel of the City to all personnel of all
employers
of all counties in which the mutually agreed upon
comparators
lie. The entire purpose of furnishing data on
comparator
cities is to provide an arbitrator the information to
make a
principled-based decision.
Union witness Mark Endresen
prepared a series of exhibits
which
included a breakdown of population, valuation and taxes as
provided
by the State Auditor. Un.
Exs.
2-11. Union
Exhibit 12
consisted
of eight separate summaries of raw data drawn from
information
contained in the State Auditor's Office reports. The
witness
also ranked compensation paid in the comparators based on
the
collective bargaining agreements from the ten cities. Endresen
compared
the longevity pay, educational incentive pay and whether
the
employer participated in social security in the ten other
cities.
Under the Union's proposal the highest step that any
patrol
officer would attain in 1995 would be Range 14, Step F which
has a
base pay of $3,254. This would place the
top step base pay
for a
patrol officer at Step G at $3,368 per month.
Without the
increase
in the range from Range 13 to Range 14, Centralia would be
ranked
number seven at $3,148 per month.
Union Exhibit 12, page 9 reflects various items of
compensation
including longevity pay, educational incentive and
FICA/Medicare in order to show
what the Union alleges is the actual
cost
of the proposal to the City. The Union
calculated the cost to
the
City with this proposal to move to Range 14 to be $3,527 per
month. If officers remained at Range 13 the top step
would cost
the
City $3,305 per month. The Union's
calculation of the total
cost
revealed the following rankings if the cost of FICA/Medicare
are
factored in for the comparators.
CITY TOTAL
1. Issaquah . . . $4062 MO.
2. Kelso . . . $3767 MO.
3. Enumclaw . . . $3681 MO.
4. Tumwater . . . $3594 MO.
5. Oak
Harbor . . . $3556 MO.
6A. Centralia(#14) . . $3527 MO.
6. Marysville . . . $3481 MO.
7. Centralia(2.7) . . . $3305 MO.
8. Ellensburg . . . $3231 MO.
9. Hoquism . . . $3194 MO.
10. Chehalis . . . $3147 MO.
11. Moses Lake . . . $3122 MO.
Un. Ex. 12, p. 9.
Regarding the City's attack on the Union's presentation
of
evidence which included cost of FICA/Medicare, the Union submits
this
is a mistaken effort on the part of the City.
The notion that
social
security taxes should be ignored as they do not represent
actual
compensation to the employee misses the point.
The fact is
those
other jurisdictions that pay into FICA and Medicare are
making
expenditures that jurisdictions such as Centralia, which
only
pays into Medicare, do not have to make.
The facts in this
case
presented by the Union are intended to show the actual cost to
the
City of adopting the Union's proposal.
In sum, the Union submits the facts demonstrate the Union
proposal
is within the range of reasonableness when compared with
the
comparator cities mutually agreed upon by the parties. The
Union did not come into
arbitration "shooting for the stars" with
the
hopes of getting the moon. The Union
seeks a reasonable
compensation
package which is entirely consistent with its relative
ranking
within the comparator cities. The
majority of patrol
officers
have seniority of less than five years.
The Union hopes
to
achieve a compensation package that will attract and maintain
patrol
officers within the Centralia Police Department. The Union
concludes
that its proposed adjustment in the salary range is in
the
best interest of both the bargaining unit members and the City.
C. The City
The City takes the position that there is absolutely no
evidence
to support the substantial change in the salary schedule
for
Centralia police officers. According to
the City, the
Teamsters' proposed
"phase in" of the increase is illusory. The
impact
of the Teamsters' proposal will be an immediate increase in
police
officer wages of about 7%. Under the
Teamsters' proposal
all
employees will move back one step on July 1, 1995, at the same
time they
move up one grade. Employees would then
move up to their
existing
step on July 1, 1996. Since the
Arbitrator's Award will
be
issued sometime in May or June of 1996, the practical impact of
the
"phase-in" is that all bargaining unit members would receive a
7% increase in their base
salary in the summer of 1996. This would
translate
into a 10% total increase for 1996. The
record simply
does
not justify an increase of this magnitude.
Turning
to the wage
analysis of the
comparable
jurisdictions,
the City's study establishes that Centralia officers
are
fairly paid in comparison with their counterparts in the ten
other
jurisdictions.
The City begins by noting that an analysis of the
comparables
is complicated by certain unique factors in the city of
Issaquah. Issaquah is in King County and thus in the
greater
Metropolitan
Seattle Area. Issaguah's assessed valuation per
capita
is substantially higher than all of the other comparables.
The total taxes in Issaquah
further suggest there is a significant
difference
between Issaquah and the other comparable jurisdictions.
Issaquah's total tax per
capita is substantially higher than any of
the
other jurisdictions. The record also indicates that per capita
personal
income is substantially higher in Issaquah than in the
rest
of the comparables.
The top step base wage for Issaquah is almost $400 higher
than the
second highest paying
jurisdiction on the
list.
Arbitrators have recognized
that if a
jurisdiction pays
substantially
more than other jurisdictions
on the list
of
comparables
it must be discounted in some way so as not to distort
the
data. In addition, the top two steps in
Issaquah are merit
driven
and are entirely discretionary with the city of Issaquah
If the city decides not to
award merit pay, the officer may not
challenge
the city's determination. In recognition
of the unique
situation
of Issaquah, the City used two different methodologies in
analyzing
the comparables. The first method
included Issaquah's
top
step, assuming all police officers received the discretionary
step
increases. The City next prepared a
formulation which
excluded
Issaquah from the comparable average.
The City submits
that
the two comparisons (with and without Issaquah) provide the
Arbitrator a "range of
reasonableness" with which to measure City
wages.
The
comparison study of
1995 base monthly wages,
including
the 2.7% increase for 1995 in Centralia, resulted in an
average
wage of $3,171 per month. If Issaquah is
excluded, the
average dropped
to $3,111 per month in the nine jurisdictions.
City
Ex. 17.
Centralia officers will be paid $3,148 at the top
step
in 1995. This is .73% below the average
or 1.19% above the
average
if Issaquah is excluded.
The City next offered data which included longevity pay
for
purposes of making the wage comparison.
The City made its
comparison
with police officers at ten years of service and fifteen
years
of service. City Exs. 18, 21. A Centralia police officer
with
ten years of service would earn an additional $50 per month in
longevity
pay bringing the total salary to $3,198 per month. The
average total monthly
salary, including longevity,
in the
comparator
group is $3,196 and $3,139 if Issaquah is excluded.
Seven of the comparator cities
do not pay a longevity premium.
The City also prepared an exhibit which factored in
educational
incentive pay. The parties agreed that the appropriate
educational
incentive pay for purposes of comparison was the AA
degree. With the education incentive added to the
base salary and
longevity,
a Centralia police officer would receive $3,261 per
month
at the top step. The educational
incentive is worth 2% in
Centralia. The average for a
ten-year police officer is $3,237, or
$3,184 if Issaquah is
excluded. At the fifteen-year level of
service,
a Centralia police officer would earn a base pay in 1995
of
$3,148 but with the longevity and education incentive, the total
would
rise to $3,271 per month. City Ex. 22. The
average salary
for
an officer with fifteen years of service and an AA degree in
the
comparative group would be $3,253, or $3,202 if Issaquah was
excluded. In percentage terms at the ten-year level the
Centralia
pay
is .73% above the average, or 2.41% above the average if
Issaquah is excluded.
The City next argued the "The Twin Cities
Factor" must be
recognized
in establishing the wage schedule. Chehalis and
Centralia are intimately and
inextricably linked through various
governmental
and quasi-governmental agencies. The
two police
departments generally
work closely together. On average, Centralia
police
officers wages have been about 8% over
Chehalis police
officers'
wages since 1990. The City's offer for
1995 will
maintain
this relationship between the "twin cities." With the
2.7% increase for 1995 in
Centralia, the differential will be 8.8%.
If the Teamsters' proposal for
a range increase were awarded, the
differential
would be almost 16% or double the average it had been
over
the last six years. The Teamsters have
not offered any
evidence, argument
or basis for
radically altering this
relationship.
The law requires that "consideration must also be
given
to
regional differences in the cost of living." RCW 41.56.465(f).
In the City's viewpoint,
regional differences in the cost of living
support
the City's position. Even without this
express statutory
factor, regional differences in the cost of living
have been
traditionally
considered under the "other factors" which interest
arbitrators
have had discretion to utilize in framing an award.
The Washington Legislature has
made consideration of this factor
mandatory
for jurisdictions with a population of less than 15,000.
The City asserts that there are significant differences
in
the cost of living throughout the state of Washington. Given
the
higher cost of living in the Puget Sound Metropolitan Area,
employees
working in the Puget Sound Area generally receive more
pay. Whether one looks at per capita personal
income, median
household
income or average net earnings per worker, it must be
concluded
individuals in King County and Snohomish County are
higher
paid than individuals elsewhere in the state.
Arbitrators
have
repeatedly recognized this differential, and have taken it
into
account in varying ways. Thus, the City submits it
is
inappropriate
to expect that police officers in a non-metropolitan
area
will be paid at the same level as police officers in the
Seattle
Metropolitan Area.
The City's evidence demonstrates that Centralia and Lewis
County are significantly below
both the comparables and the state
average
in every economic comparison offered at the hearing. The
data
offered by the City was collected on a county-wide basis.
While not as precise as data
for each individual municipality, it
does
provide ample evidence of the significant differences between
geographic
areas in the state of Washington. In
addition, a
significantly
higher percentage of low income households are
located
in the City of Centralia than in the rest of Lewis County.
The City summarized its data in the post-hearing brief as
follows:
Per Capita Personal Income
Comparables State
Centralia
Average Average
$17,365 $20,218 $21,774
Median Household Income
Comparables State
Centralia
Average Average
$30,682 $37,682 $40,398
Average Net Earnings Per
Worker
Comparables State
Centralia Average Average
$27,282 $29,836 $31,478
Average Monthly Wage
Comparables State
Centralia Average Average
$ 1,770 $
1,962 $ 2,150
The City does not ask the Arbitrator to apply a precise
formula
in analyzing this data. The City
concedes there is no
specific formula which could be appropriately used in this
proceedings. However, the analysis of this data is
certainly
relevant
in determining Centralia's appropriate place among the
comparable
jurisdictions.
The City argues the economic data demonstrates that
Centralia police officers
should not expect to be paid above the
average
of the comparable jurisdictions. Since
every analysis of
wages
and income show that Centralia is below the average in both
the
comparables and Washington State, there is no reason Centralia
police
officers should be treated differently.
The Union's
proposal
for a 7% grade increase would significantly change the
relationship
between Centralia and its comparables. Depending upon
the
comparison, it will put Centralia police officers from 7% to
10%
ahead of the comparables. City Exs. 17-23. The regional
differences
factor strongly supports the position of Centralia in
this
case.
The City next turns to the increases received by other
City
employees and in the comparable jurisdictions. The other
comparable
jurisdictions which have settled for 1996 have generally
agreed
upon a CPI-based formula for their wage increase, similar to
that
agreed upon by the parties to this dispute.
In addition, the
wage
increases received by other bargaining units in the City are
in
the same general range as salary increases received by the
Teamsters
under the wage agreement. It
is significant that three
of
these units are represented by the Teamsters.
Regarding the factor of changes in consumer prices the
Consumer Price Index for the
U.S., whether it is the CPI-W or the
CPI-U Index,
has been running at less than 3% City Exs. 29, 30.
The Seattle area CPI-W and
CPI-U are increasing at about 3%. The
most
recently reported index for Seattle (January 1996) shows an
increase
of only 2.7% for both indexes. City Exs. 31, 32.
According to the City, the Consumer Price Index overstates
increases
in the cost of living by an average of 1% to 1.5%. This
overstatement
is caused by substitution bias, outlet bias, formula
bias,
quality change and new products. The
City believes that a
restated
figure of a 1% to 2% increase in the CPI is what should be
used
by the Arbitrator in analyzing this factor.
It is also the position of the City that local economic
conditions
do not support a substantial wage increase. Centralia's
local
economy has been stagnant for some time.
The average annual
earnings
in Lewis County are only 85% of the state average.
Significantly, the difference
between Lewis County and the state
average
has increased substantially over the last ten years. Lewis
County has been officially
declared a distressed area in the state
of
Washington. City Ex.
7.
Moreover, the
impact of recent
floods have had a
devastating
effect on the City's financial condition.
The damage
to
City property was $10 to $11 million.
While much of the outlay
will
be paid by the federal government, the City must still come up
with
12.5% of the cost estimated at $1.25 million.
The City is
also
involved in a significant environmental dispute with the
federal
government which would have a potential impact on the City
ranging
from $10 to $100 million.
In sum, the City maintains this is not the time to turn
Centralia
into a wage leader among the comparables. The parties
have
agreed on a fair and reasonable cost of living increase for
each
of the next three contract years. The
City concludes no
further
increase in warranted or appropriate.
With
respect to the
Teamsters evidence offered
concerning
population and total tax revenues for each of the
comparable
jurisdictions, the City submits this data supports its
offer
in this proceeding. The Union ranked
all comparable
jurisdictions
by population and by total tax. However,
there is a
substantial
difference between jurisdictions on
the list of
comparables. A better way of comparing the relative
rankings in
these
jurisdictions is by analyzing total tax per capita. The
City's calculations placed
Centralia at number eight in the total
tax
ranking per capita. After implementation
of the agreed upon
2.7% increase for 1995, Centralia police officers will be sixth
(the
median) among the comparables for most comparisons. The City
submits
that the total tax per capita reveals this is about where
the
City should be on the calculations by wage level.
The City takes the position that the Union's suggestion
that
the Arbitrator should consider participation in the social
security
system when determining whether a range increase is
required
at Centralia is flawed. First, by
including social
security
in the analysis it mixes apples and oranges.
All other
components
of the wage comparison are limited to money which is
actually
received by an individual police officer. Social security
money
contributed by the employer does not go to the officer, but
rather
to the federal government. Police
officers in other
jurisdictions
have their pay reduced because of the deduction for
social
security charges. The Union's wage study
does not reflect
that
police officers' take home pay in the comparators is reduced
by
the employee cost of social security.
Moreover, the parties have adopted a relatively simple
method
of analyzing the comparables by choosing to ignore a great
number
of pays and benefits in their analysis.
The parties did not
include
medical or dental premiums, life and disability insurance
premiums
or other premium pays available to police officers. There
is
no consideration made for hours of work,
including work
schedule,
vacation and holiday time. If a party is
going to offer
a
total cost of compensation analysis, it
should include all
relevant
costs of compensation. The Union's
picking and choosing
of
such benefits should be rejected by the Arbitrator.
Three different arbitration decisions have rejected
inclusion
of an employee's social security payments in a wage
comparison
study. King County Fire District 16 (Beck, 1988);
Cowlitz County (Beck, 1987) ; King County (Dorsey, 1985) ; City of
Bellingham (Latsch, 1996) . Further, the parties did not discuss
social
security contributions at the bargaining table and the Union
should
not be allowed to raise it at interest arbitration.
The members of this bargaining unit have the option to
get
into the social security system but have not done so. If the
bargaining
unit opted to go into the social security system, the
individual
officers would be required to contribute about 7% of
their
pay to social security. Therefore, the
Arbitrator should
reject
any attempt to include the employer's contribution to social
security
in determining whether an additional 7% increase is
necessary
for Centralia police officers.
Based on all of the above stated arguments, the City
concludes
there is no basis to award a 7% grade increase to
Centralia
police officers.
D. Discussion and Finding
The Arbitrator holds that the Union's proposal to advance
all
police officers from Range 13 to Range 14 on the salary
schedule should not be included
in the 1995-97
Collective
Bargaining
Agreement. The
application of the evidence to the
statutory
criteria failed to demonstrate the Union's proposal to
change
the structure of the salary schedule for Centralia police
officers
should be awarded. The Arbitrator will award that current
contract
language be continued. The reasoning of
the Arbitrator- -
as
guided by the statutory criteria- -is set forth in the discussion
which
follows.
Constitutional and Statutory
Authority of the Employer
Regarding the factor of constitutional and statutory
authority
of the City, no issues were raised with respect to this
factor.
Stipulations of the parties
The parties entered into two critical stipulations which
are
relevant to this interest arbitration.
First, the parties
agreed
to a group of ten Washington cities with which to compare
Centralia for the purpose of
measuring and defining the wages and
working
conditions for this bargaining unit.
Second, the parties have agreed to a cost of living
adjustment
of 2.7% for 1995 and 2.25% for 1996.
Further, the
parties
agreed the 1997 wage adjustment will be controlled by a CPI
formula
which will guarantee a 2% minimum increase up to a maximum
increase
of 5%. Hence, the evaluation of the Union's proposal must
be
considered in the context of the agreed upon wage increases--as
measured
against the wages paid police officers--in the stipulated
comparator
group of the ten Washington cities.
Comparability
The stipulation as to the ten
Washington cities with
which to
compare Centralia for the purpose of establishing wages
and
working conditions is a credit to the parties.
In addition,
both
parties performed a wage analysis which focused primarily on
base
wages. The parties did not attempt to
perform a total
compensation
analysis frequently used in interest arbitration
cases.
One area of dispute over methodology in making the
comparison
studies was the Union's addition of 7.65% to the base
wages
of the comparator jurisdictions to account for the employer
cost of social
security. Since Centralia officers
do not
participate
in social security, the Union argued it was appropriate
to
add the cost of social security to the other cities who
contribute
to social security in order to make an
accurate
comparison. The City maintains social security cost paid
in the
comparators
should not be used in resolving the salary range
dispute.
The Arbitrator holds the Union's addition of the cost of
social security to the
base wage in
the comparators is
inappropriate
for four major reasons. First, the use
of a social
security
component in developing a wage comparison study is not an
accepted
methodology used in Washington interest arbitration
awards. Where it has been offered, interest
arbitrators have
rejected social
security as a valid component of a wage study.
Second, the Union's wage study with the social security
element
mixes apples and oranges. . With the exception of social
security,
all other elements of the study represent actual money
paid
to the police officers. A police officer
who is employed by
a
city that participates in the social security system will also
make a
contribution to social security that effectively reduces
take
home pay. In order to be accurate, the
Union's comparison
would
have to reflect the reduced take home pay of the individual
officer,
as well as employer cost.
Third, the parties to this dispute have used a basic
methodology
to make their wage comparisons. If the
Union is going
to
utilize a social security element, the methodology would have to
be
expanded to a total compensation comparison study. When this
approach
is adopted, it is typical to use a great number of pay and
benefits, such as premium pay, medical
insurance, life and
disability
insurance, uniform allowances, vacation and holiday time
and
retirement, to develop the basis for comparison. The use of
the
single element of social security in a wage study is not an
accurate
way to compare total compensation.
Fourth, social
security
is not a negotiated benefit.
The 1995 base monthly salary, with the 2.7% adjustment
for
Centralia reflects the following:
COMPARISON OF 1995 BASE
MONTHLY SALARY
Top
Step Officer
Base
Monthly Salary
Issaquah $3,713
Tumwater $3,339
Enumclaw $3,336
Kelso $3,254
Marysville $3,234
Oak Harbor $3,153
Hoguiam $3,086
Moses Lake $2,900
Chehalis $2,893
Ellensburg $2,805
AVERAGE $3,171
AVERAGE excluding Issaquah $3,111
Centralia $3,148
Centralia/Average -0.73%
Centralia/Average
excluding Issaquah 1.19%
City Ex. 17.
The same comparison with the addition of longevity and
education
incentive for an officer with ten years of service
established
the following ranking:
COMPARISON OF 1995 BASE PAY
PREMIUMS
Police Officer with 10 Years
Service and A.A. Degree*
Base salary Longevity Education Incentive Total Monthly salary
Issaquah $3,713 0 $0 $3,713
Kelso $3,254 4% $50 $3,434
Enumclaw $3,336 0 1.25% $3,378
Marysville $3,234 $35 $100 $3,339
Tumwater $3,339 0 . 0 $3,339
Hoquiam $3,086 0 2% $3,148
Ellensburg $2,805 3% 2% $2,945
Moses Lake $2,900 0 0 $2,900
Chehalis $2,893 0 0 $2,893
AVERAGE $3,237
AVERAGE excluding Issaquah $3,184
Centralia/Average 0.73%
Centralia/Average excluding
Issaquah 2.41%
Assumes 2.7% increase for 1995
in Centralia
*Degree not related to law
enforcement
City
Ex. 19.
The City argued Issaquah represents a unique situation.
The City is correct that
Issaquah with a top step some $400 per
month
above the second ranked Kelso, distorts the average wage.
However, Issaquah is among the
comparator group and cannot be
totally
ignored. Issaguah
is clearly the wage leader among the
eleven
cities. Because Issaquah pays an
exceptionally high wage,
its
influence on the average wage must be discounted.
The next three cities in the ranking all pay within $85
per
month of each other on the base wage. City Ex. 17.
Centralia
is
comfortably positioned in the middle three cities at the base
monthly
salary ranking. The lowest paying cities
at base wage pay
are a
group of four which pay from $62 to $343 per month less than
Centralia. If incentives are included, a similar pattern is
maintained.
The adoption of the Union's proposed Range 14 would
establish a
top step wage at Step F of $3,368 per month.
The top
base
pay for Centralia would jump to the highest paying of the
cities,
other than Issaquah. The grade increase
would represent a
7% increase in addition to the
2.7% cost of living adjustment for
1995. Based on the
evidence in this record, there are no grounds
for
establishing Centralia as a wage leader among the ten cities
agreed
on as the comparators.
The City's evidence established Centralia police officers
are
paid at or slightly above the average of the comparator group,
depending
on whether Issaquah is included. On the
record before
this Arbitrator,
there are no grounds to conclude Centralia police
officers
are paid a substandard wage which demands drastic and
immediate
measures to correct the situation.
While
the evidence does
suggest some additional
improvements
in the wage schedule could be justified to enhance
Centralia's competitive position
within the middle
three
jurisdictions,
and the highest paying cities (Issaquah excluded),
the
Union's proposal before this Arbitrator is to change the range
at
which police officers are compensated.
On the issue submitted
to
this Arbitrator, I have no authority other than to accept or
reject
the proposed increase in the range from Range 13 to Range
14. The parties have agreed to three cost of
living adjustments
over
the term of the contract. Therefore,
the Arbitrator must
resist
any attempt to interfere with the agreed on cost of living
adjustments.
The wage adjustments received by police officers in the
comparator
group does not justify an increase of the magnitude
which
would flow from a move to Range 14 . As previously noted, the
1996 wage increases for police
officers in the comparator group are
based
on CPI driven formulas. Generally, the
CPI formulas adopted
in
the comparator group set a minimum raise of 2% ranging up to a
maximum
of 5%.
Internal comparability favors the City's proposal. While
not
controlling for this bargaining unit, the City has reached
settlements
with its other units in the 2.5% to 3% range.
The
record evidence
does not justify a wage increase
for this
bargaining
unit that would be excessive in relation to the amount
received
by other City employees.
The Award of this Arbitrator should not be interpreted to
mean
future modifications in the structure of the salary schedule
would
be inappropriate. As the Union correctly
pointed out, seven
of
the twenty-one police officers are topped out at Step G on Range
13. By the time this contract expires, the
number of members at
the
top step will have increased. Given
Centralia's wage position
in
the middle of the comparator group, efforts will have to be made
to
protect and improve the competitive position for members in this
unit
in bargaining for a successor contract.
There are no valid
reasons
to drive the wages paid to the members of this bargaining
unit
down in the wage rankings.
Cost of Living
The Arbitrator holds the
factor of cost of living
supports
the City's position to retain the current Range 13 for
police
officers. The National CPI-W and CPI-U
has been running
less
than 3% for the past several years. The
Seattle area .CPI-W
and
CPI-U have recorded annual increases ranging from 2.5% to 3.5%
in
recent years. The agreed on wage
increases for 1995, 1996 and
1997 are consistent with the
changes in the cost of living as
measured
by the various Consumer Price Indexes.
In sum, the Union's proposal to change the salary range
finds
little support in the cost of living factor.
Changes in Circumstances During the Pendency of the
Proceedings
The only relevant change in circumstances is the salary
increases
received by police officers in the comparable cities
during
the course of bargaining for this contract. As noted in the
comparability
discussion, wage increases for 1996 in the comparable
jurisdictions
were largely based on CPI formulas with a guaranteed
minimum
of 2% to a maximum of 5% Given the
range of wage
increases
generated in the comparator group for 1996, the amount of
the
increase which would flow from a range increase is not
justified
by this factor.
Other Factors
RCW 41.56.465(f) requires that
for cities with a
population
less than 15,000 "consideration
must be given to
regional
differences in the cost of living."
The difficulty for
the
parties in presenting evidence on this factor is that there are
no
reliable measurements of the differences in cost of living in
Centralia
and the ten other comparator jurisdictions.
The economic
data
is often collected on a county-wide basis rather than on a
city
to city system.
The City offered considerable economic data which it
believed
established there are significant differences in the cost
of
living throughout the state of Washington.
City Exhibit 11
showed
1993 per capita personal income to be 30% higher in King
County. Median household income is almost 20% higher
in King
County
than the state average. City Ex. 12. Further,
net earnings
per
worker in King County are 20% higher than the state average.
City
Ex. 12.
The City's evidence demonstrated that in every economic
comparison
offered at the hearing, Lewis County was below the state
average. In addition, there are a
significant number of low income
households
located in Lewis County. City Ex. 12A. Based
on the
economic
data, the City submits it would be inappropriate to pay
non-metropolitan
area police officers at the same level as King
County
law enforcement personnel. The City also reasoned
Centralia
police
officers should not expect to be paid above the average of
comparable
communities.
The weakness in the City's reasoning based on the
economic
data is that the economic data does not purport to measure
regional
differences in the cost of living. As
the source
documents
reveal, the studies are of such
items as
income,
unemployment,
average net income per worker, etc. The
Arbitrator
rejects
the City's claim that based on the economic data Centralia
police
officers should not be expected to be paid above the average
pay
in the comparator group.
The Arbitrator holds that the data offered by the City
argues
against the 7% increase- -resulting from changing the range--
on
top of the agreed on cost of living adjustments. However, if
other
factors justified above average pay for this group of
employees,
this Arbitrator would be free to make such an award.
The Union offered no evidence
which countered the City's evidence
on
the regional differences factor. In
sum, absent from this
record
is any evidence that local economic conditions supported the
substantial
wage increase which would result from moving police
officers
to Range 14 on the salary schedule.
AWARD
The Arbitrator rejects the Union's proposal to change the
salary
range for Centralia police officers from Range 13 to Range
14. The current contract language shall continue unchanged in the
1995-97
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
ISSUE 2 - PREMIUM PAY
Section 5.1.7 of the current
Agreement provides:
All employees shall receive a
minimum of one
hundred
and eight (108) days off per calendar
year.
During bargaining proposals
were made to compensate detectives and
the
DARE officer with a $100 per month premium.
The trade off
would
be the deletion of Section 5.1.7.
Counsel for both parties addressed this issue in their
post-hearing
briefs. After reading the briefs, the
Arbitrator was
left
with the impression there was no dispute between the parties
over
the premium pay issue. The Arbitrator
sought clarification
from
counsel as to whether there was still a difference between the
parties
on this issue.
Based on the record and
responses of counsel,
the
Arbitrator concludes the
parties are in agreement that current
contract
language should continue unchanged.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Section 5.1.7 shall continue
in
the successor Agreement without change.
ISSUE 3 HOLIDAYS/VACATIONS
A Background
Section 7.1.1 recognizes ten designated holidays and two
floating
holidays as paid time off. Section
7.8.1 provides a
vacation
schedule which reads:
Year of Continuous Hours
per
Completed Service Hours
per Month Year/Days
0 - 5 6.66 80 10
6 - 11 10.00 120 15
12 - 18 13.33 160 20
19 - Over 16.66 200 25
Detectives and the DARE officer receive an additional
four
days off per year. The added time off
is granted in
recognition of the
fact detectives do
not receive extra
compensation
for their assignments. Detectives and
the DARE
officer
work an additional four days over what they would have
worked
if assigned to patrol and doing shift work.
The Union proposed that police officers with less than
ten
years of service be granted two additional vacation days.
During bargaining it was
suggested by the City that the additional
days
off be characterized as floating holidays. At arbitration the
City proposed to continue the
current vacation schedule.
B. The Union
The Union proposed that police officers with less than
ten years
of service be provided with two additional days off per
year. According to Business Agent Mike Mauermann, the two
additional
vacation days are necessary to bring the members in line
with
the comparators. In the post-hearing brief the Union
corrected a
"mathematical error," to make it clear that the number
of
vacation days for officers at years four and five would be
twelve
days. Police officers with six and
seven years would
receive
seventeen days of vacation.
Moreover, the Union maintains there was a meeting of the
minds
during bargaining that police officers with under ten years
of
service would get two additional days off.
According to the
Union, the City agreed to two
additional floating holidays. At the
hearing,
the City withdrew it proposal and seeks to maintain the
status
quo. The Union submits its proposal is justified and should
be
accepted by the Arbitrator.
C. The City
The City takes the position that vacation and holidays
for
police officers should be combined and analyzed as one. When
total
paid time off is combined, the City submits no additional
time
off is required. The Union's failure to
include holiday time
in
Union Exhibit 16 is significant since the extra days off sought
by
the Union are in fact holidays.
In City Exhibit 37, the display reflects that during the
first
ten years of employment, Centralia police officers receive
more
time off than the average in four of the years, and in five
years
they receive less time off. In the first
years of service,
Centralia is equal to the
average. Further, in years eleven
through
twenty-five, Centralia police officers receive more time
off
than the comparables in eleven of the fifteen years.
The City's position is bolstered by the fact six members
of
the unit receive an additional four days off that are not
reflected
on the exhibit. The six members would be
the detectives
and
DARE officer. The City also points out
that all other City
employees
are on the same vacation schedule. Thus,
there should be
no
distinction between the vacation schedule for the police unit
and
other City employees.
The City next argues the Union's proposal to add two
additional
days of vacation to each of the first ten years of the
vacation
schedule is flawed. If the proposal is adopted, employees
with
eleven years of experience will receive less vacation than
employees
with six through ten years of experience.
The City
submits such a schedule would be
potentially disruptive of
Department morale and should
be rejected.
D. Discussion and Findings
The threshold question to be addressed is the alleged
meeting
of the minds on this issue during the bargaining process.
Absent from this record is any
written evidence the parties reached
a
tentative agreement on the issue of additional time off. As
such,
the City is free to make its proposal at arbitration to
maintain
the status quo.
The Arbitrator rejects the City's attempt to use the
additional
four days off that detectives and the DARE officer
receive
to justify the status quo. The
additional time off is
granted
as "compensation" for the work in these two assignments.
Therefore, it is inappropriate
to compare these four days to the
holiday
or vacation benefits enjoyed by all members.
A careful examination of City Exhibit 37 reveals that
except
for the first five years of service Centralia police
officers
are at or above the average of the combined number of
holidays
and days of vacation earned per year in the comparator
group. At years twenty and twenty-five, Centralia
officers enjoy
four
to five days more of paid time off than the average of the ten
cities. The obvious weakness is during the first five
years of
service
where new officers are one to three days below the average
depending
on the year of service. No such pattern
appears at the
six
through ten year level of service.
The Arbitrator holds that some relief is due for the
officers
in the first five years of service. The
Arbitrator will
order
that one additional day of vacation be added to the one
through
five year level of service on the vacation schedule. This
change
will be ordered effective January 1, 1997.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that effective January 1, 1997, the
vacation
schedule shall be modified to provide one additional day
of
vacation at the one through five year levels of service.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L. Axon
Arbitrator
Dated: June 8, 1996