INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

Teamsters Union, Local No. 378

And

Mason County

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      Michael H. Beck

Date Issued:   07/19/1999

 

 

Arbitrator:         Beck; Michael H.

Case #:              13872-I-98-00301

Employer:          Mason County

Union:                Teamsters Union; Local 378

Date Issued:      07/19/1999

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE                                )

INTEREST ARBITRATION                              )     INTEREST ARBITRATION

BETWEEN                                                           )     OPINION AND AWARD

                                                                               )

MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON                 )     PERC Case No. 13872-I-98-301

                                                                               )

            and                                                             )     Date: July 19, 1999

                                                                               )

TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 378          )

_______________________________                 )

 

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 41.56.450.  The parties waived the right to

appointment members and this matter was submitted to the undersigned as the sole

Arbitrator.

      A hearing in this matter was held at Shelton, Washington on April 13 and May

14, 1999.  The Employer, Mason County, Washington, was represented by Mike D. Clift,

Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney.  The Union, Teamsters Union, Local No. 378 was

represented by Kevin Keaney of the law firm of Willner Keaney Mata & U'ren, LLP.

      The parties did not provide for a court reporter.  However, the Arbitrator did

record the proceedings pursuant to RCW 41.56.450.  The testimony of witnesses was

taken under oath and parties presented documentary evidence.  The parties agreed

upon the submission of posthearing briefs which were timely filed, the last of which was

received by the Arbitrator on June 21, 1999.  The parties agreed to waive the statutory

requirement that the Arbitrator issue his decision within 30 days following the conclusion

the hearing.

 

ISSUES IN THE DISPUTE

      The issues which remain in dispute at the time of the hearing are set forth

below:

      1.   Wages for deputies for 1999.

      2.   Wages for sergeants for 1998 and 1999.

      3.   Health insurance contributions for 1999.

      4.   Employer payments of dues for membership in Washington Council of

            Police & Sheriffs.

 

STATUTORY CRITERIA

      RCW 41.56.465 directs Arbitrator in making his decision to "the 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 United States;

                  ***

                  (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, are normally or

            traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of

            wages, hours, and conditions of employment.  For those [law

            enforcement officers] who are employed by the governing

            body of the city or town with the population of less than fifteen

            thousand, or a county with the population of less than seventy

            thousand, consideration must also be given to regional

            differences in a cost of living.

                  ***

 

      The legislative purpose your Arbitrator is directed to be mindful of in making his

determination is set forth in RCW 41.56.430 follows:

                  The intent and purpose of * this 1973 amendatory act

            is to recognize that there exists in public policy of the state of

            Washington against strikes by uniformed personnel as a means

            of settling the labor disputes: that the uninterrupted and

            dedicated service of these classes of employees is vital to the

            welfare in public safety of the state of Washington; that to

            promote such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there

            should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of

            settling disputes.  (Reviser's note omitted.)

 

COMPARABLES

      The factor listed as (c) (i) in RCW 41.56.465 has traditionally been a significant

factor relied upon by interest arbitrators in making determinations of appropriate wage

rates, as well as other conditions of employment.  This factor is commonly referred to as

the "comparables."

      Employer and the Union agreed before following counties constitute

counties comparable to Mason County: Island County, Grays Harbor County, Lewis

County, and Clallam County.  At the hearing, both parties agreed that the fact that they

were in agreement on four counties, did not limit the inclusion of additional counties as

comparables if appropriate.  After hearing in the candidates posthearing brief the

Employer contended that it would be appropriate to include Jefferson County as a

comparable County.  The Union the position at the hearing that it would be

appropriate to add Cowlitz County as a comparable but not appropriate to add Jefferson

County.  However, in its brief the Union has abandoned the contention that Cowlitz

County is an appropriate comparable and instead suggests that Thurston and Kitsap

Counties should be added to the four agreed upon counties as comparables.

      Employer Human Resources Director Charles "Skip" Wright testified that the

Employer selected its five comparables by taking the population of Mason County and

included as comparables those counties in Western Washington whose population was

within plus or minus 50% Mason County.  (Employer Exhibit C.) Additionally,

note that Jefferson County borders Grays Harbor County and Mason County to the

south, and Clallam County to the north.

      With respect to the Union suggested comparables, as noted above, it appears that

Union has abandoned its contention that Cowlitz County is an appropriate comparable.

Furthermore, the Union did not contest the testimony of Charles Wright that the

population of Cowlitz County is approximately 92,000, placing Cowlitz County's

population at 90.5% greater than Mason County.

      With respect to Thurston and Kitsap County, the Union did not provide a rationale

for selecting these counties as comparables, nor did it present any evidence regarding the

population of these counties.  It is clear from the evidence presented by the Employer that

these two counties each have populations that do not meet the standard selected by the

Employer, namely a population of 50%, plus or minus, that of Mason County.  This type

of population standard is often employed in interest arbitration cases, and I find it

appropriate in the instant case.  Finally, as noted above, the Union did not contend at the

hearing that Thurston or Kitsap Counties were appropriate comparables, and thus, the

Employer had no opportunity to present evidence or take a position regarding these

counties.

      Based on all the foregoing, have selected the following five counties as the

appropriate comparables in this case: namely Island, Lewis, Grays Harbor, Clallam, and

Jefferson Counties.

 

WAGES FOR DEPUTIES

      As indicated earlier, the parties have stipulated to a 3% increase for deputies in

1998.  Effective December 31, 1997 the base wage for the top step deputy was $3,330 per

month.  A 3% increase raises the wage for 1998 to $3,430.  For 1999, the Union

proposes that rate be increased by 3%, while the Employer proposes an increase of 1.7%.

A raise of 1.7% over the 1998 rate of $3,430 equals $3,488, while a raise of 3% equals

$3,533.

      The Union in support of its position points out that even if consideration is limited

to the Employer comparables, each of those comparables received increases greater than

6% between 1997, when the prior Agreement at Mason County expired, and 1999, the

year presently in dispute.  Thus, the Union takes the position that a 6% increase over two

years is a reasonable offer.  In making this argument, the Union relies on the figures

contained in Union Exhibit No. 3, which show that with respect to deputies, the increase

between 1997 and 1999 at Lewis County was 9.7%; at Grays Harbor County, 9.1%;

Clallam County 8.3%; and at Jefferson County 6.4%.  The deputy wage rate for 1999 at

Island County had not been settled at the time of the hearing.

      The Employer proposal of 1.7% for 1999 was based on the raise in the Consumer

Price Index for the U.S. All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the period July 1997 to July

1998 which was 1.7%.

      I have set forth a chart showing the 1999 base wage, top step for the comparables,

excluding Island County which had not settled for 1999.

____________________

CHART I

BASE WAGE, TOP STEP DEPUTY 1999

COUNTY                                         WAGES

Clallam                                            $3,654

Lewis                                               $3,598

Grays Harbor                                  $3,536

Jefferson                                         $3,251

 

Average 1999                                  $3,510

 

Mason 1998                                    $3,430

 

Union 1999 Proposal                       $3,533

Percentage Above Average           0.007%

 

Employer 1999 Proposal                 $3,488

Percentage Below Average            -0.006%

____________________

      Adoption of the Employer proposal would raise the base wage, top step deputy at

Mason County to a monthly wage of $3,488.  As Chart I shows, Mason County would be

6/10ths of 1% (0.006%) below the average of the comparables.  On the other hand, the

Union's 1999 proposal of $3,533 would place Mason counties 7/10ths of 1% (.0.007%)

ahead of the average comparables.

      As the review of Chart I shows, selection of either the Union or Employer proposal

with place Mason County 4th with respect to the comparables including Island County,

with only Jefferson County being lower than Mason County.  In 1997, just the reverse

was true, as can be seen by review of Chart II on the next page based on figures taken

Union Exhibit No. 3.  Thus, with respect deputies, Mason County was 2nd among

the four comparables, including Island County, with only Clallam County having a

higher base wage top step rate.  Furthermore, as Chart II below indicates, the average

before comparables, excluding Island County, came to $3,239, leaving Mason County at

the end of 1997 with a monthly base wage top step of $3,330 which was 2.8% above the

average.

____________________

CHART II

BASE WAGE, TOP STEP DEPUTY 1999

County                                    Wage

Clallam                                   $3,390

Mason                                                $3,330

Lewis                                      $3,279

Grays Harbor             $3,240

Jefferson                                $3,047

 

Average Without Mason County      $3,239

Percentage Mason Above Average  2.8%

____________________

      Clearly the deputies in Mason County have slipped in comparison with the

deputies at the four comparables, excluding Island County.  The foregoing factors

indicate to your Arbitrator that a raise in excess of that offered by the Employer is

appropriate.  On other hand, the relatively low inflation rate as measured by the CPI

indicates that such a raise should not substantially higher than 1.7% raise offered

by the Employer.  In this regard, I note that the U.S. CPI-U maintained the 1.7% increase

in inflation during the year 1998 (January 1998 to January 1999).

      Based on all the foregoing I have determined to set the base wage rate for

deputies in 1999 at $3,510, which is the average of the four comparators for 1999,

excluding Island County, and constitutes a raise of 2.3% above the $3,430 base wage, top

step received by deputies in Mason County in 1998.

 

WAGE RATE FOR SERGEANTS

      The Union proposes a 5.5% increase for sergeants in 1998 and an additional 5.5%

increase in 1999.  The Employer proposes an increase for sergeants of 3% plus $40 in

1998 and an additional 1.7% plus $40 for 1999.  Below I have set forth Chart III,

showing the wages paid by the comparables and Union and Employer offers for

sergeants and 1998 and 1999.

____________________

Chart III

BASE WAGE, TOP STEP SERGEANTS

1998 AND 1999

County                                         1998          1999

Clallam                                        $4,188       $4,263

Island                                          $3,919       Not Settled

Lewis                                           $3,791       $3,940

Grays Harbor                             $3,740       $3,890

Jefferson                                     $3,511       $3,563

 

Average, 5 Comparable             $3,830

Average w/o Island County        $3,808       $3,914

 

Mason 1997,                               $3,585

 

Employer Offer                           $3,733       $3,836

Percentage below Average        -2.5%        -2.0%

 

Union Offer                                 $3,782       $3,990

Percentage Below Average       -1.3%

Percentage Above Average                         1.9%

____________________

      As the chart shows, at the end of 1997, the base wage, step sergeant received

$3,585 per month in Mason County.  Three percent plus $40 proposed by the Employer

when added to that figure comes to $3,733 per month for 1998.  The raise sought by the

Union of 5.5%, comes to $3,782 promote for 1998.  The average base wage for the five

comparables in 1998 is $3,830, and the Employer proposal of $3,733 is 2.5% less than

the average for comparables.  Even the Union's proposal of $3,782 places Mason

County sergeants 1.3% below the average of the five comparable counties.

      The Employer argues that it should not be required to match the average wage

since four of the comparables have substantially larger populations that Mason County.

However, the purpose of selecting comparables to select jurisdictions which are to be

used for comparison purposes because they meet the statutory criteria, including the

requirement that with respect counties of less than 70,000, consideration must be given

to regional differences in the cost of living.  Here all the counties involved are basically

rural counties located in western Washington and all have timber based economies except

for Island County.  With respect to Island County, it was included by the parties among

the comparables and agreed to by both parties.  In view of the foregoing, the fact that Mason

County is fifth in population and has an average population significantly below that of the

five comparables does not mean that the Arbitrator should reduce an otherwise

appropriate wage.

      An award to the sergeants of the Union proposal means the base wage, top

step sergeant will receive $3,782 and when this amount is compared to $3,430, the agreed

upon monthly base wage, top step deputy for 1998, percentage difference is 10.3%.

The Union does not dispute the appropriateness of the 10% difference between the base

wage, top step sergeant and the base wage, top step deputy, and I note that the 10% is in line

with premiums paid the workers in certain other bargaining units at the Employer.

      Based on all the foregoing, I shall award the Union proposed wage of $3,782.

      For 1999, the Employer proposal results in a base wage top step monthly rate of

$3,836.  In its brief the Union states that the additional 5.5% it proposes for 1999 results

in a base wage, top step salary of $3,895.  (Union brief, pg. 2.) However, this figure only

takes into account a 3% increase over the 1998 wage rate of $3,782 which was proposed

by the Union and awarded by your Arbitrator.  An additional 5.5% of $3,782 comes to

$3,990 per month.  I assume the Union has made a clerical error.  In any event I am not

bound by the state law governing this interest arbitration to pick the proposal of either

one party or the other, but instead to choose a figure I deem appropriate.

Therefore, I shall consider the Union's offer to be $3,990 (the higher figure), thus

allowing me to choose that figure or any figure below the down to the $3,836 figure

proposed by the Employer.

      Employer Exhibit J contains the 1999 base wage rates for top step sergeants for

1999.  A review of that document reveals that the Employer only had 1999 figures for

three of the comparable counties, namely Lewis, Grays Harbor and Jefferson counties.

The Union, in Union Exhibit 3 does not have the base wage, top step rate for Clallam County

given as $4,263.  Again, since Island County had not settled its contract for 1999 no rates

are available for that comparable for 1999.  The relevant 1999 comparable figures for

sergeants are set forth in Chart III above.

      In deciding the appropriate sergeant wage for 1999, a number of factors have to

be considered.  First, I note that the low inflation rate as reflected in the consumer price

index continued all through 1998, as described above, and remains low so far in 1999.

      Furthermore, I note that when one compares the average base wage, top step

salary paid to the comparables, excluding Island County, in 1998, that figure is $3,808.

The same figure for 1999 is $3,914, meaning that the four comparables, excluding Island

County, only increased wages for sergeants 2.8% between 1998 1999.  If a similar

raise were granted to Mason County sergeants for 1999, their rate would be $3,888.  Such

a raise would still leave Mason County sergeants below the average of the four

comparables, excluding Island County, but only by a small percentage, namely 7/10ths of

1% (0.007).  The spread between the base wage, top step deputy and base wage, top step

sergeant at Mason County would be 10.8% since, as discussed above, the base wage, top

step deputy will receive $3,510 per month.  Additionally an award of $3,888 will bring

the difference in 1999 between what is earned by the base wage, top step sergeant and the

base wage to step deputy at Mason County in line with that difference at the four

comparables, excluding Island County, in 1999.  See Chart IV below.

____________________

CHART IV

BASE WAGE, TOP STEP SERGEANT COMPARED TO

BASE WAGE, TOP STEP DEPUTY FOR 1999

                        Mason        Four Comparables,

                        County        Excluding Island County

Sergeant         $3,888         $3,914

Deputy            $3,510         $3,510

 

Difference      10.8%         11.5%

____________________

      I recognize that a raise of 5.5% for 1998 and a raise of 2.8% for 1999 is a

significant raise in a relatively low inflation environment.  However, at a base wage, top

step of $3,888 Mason counties sergeants when compared with the other comparables wage

settled in 1999 are not only below the average, but are in fourth place, with only

Jefferson County having a lower monthly rate of pay.

 

HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS

      The parties agreed upon an Employer contribution of $356 per employer per

month for payment of health insurance premiums during 1998.

      With respect to 1999, the Union contends that the Employer should pay an

amount equal to the full cost of the health insurance premium for each bargaining unit

member.  The Employer contends that the premium contribution figure should be set at a

fixed cost, namely $368 for 1999.

      During the 1990's the Employer contribution has been based on a fixed amount

agreed upon by the parties.  This fixed amount generally covered the full premium costs.

As I understood the testimony of Union Representative Paula Ross, the $356 figure

agreed upon for 1998 did not pay the full premium costs even before the premium increase

in October 1998, the specific amount of which is not clear from the record.  The evidence

also indicated that the $368 figure proposed by the Employer will not cover the full

premium costs for 1999, although again the specific amount of the premium for 1999 is

not clear from the record.

      While it is true, as the Union points out, the premium contributions for 1999

for greater than the $368 at each of the comparables, the record contains no explanation of

the reason for these greater premium contributions, or for that matter, any evidence

regarding the coverage of these plans.

      I also note that various local Teamster unions representing a total of five different

bargaining units have agreed to accept from Mason County a contribution of $368 for

1999.  In fact, all of Mason County's unionized employees, except employees

involved in this case, have accepted $368 as the premium contribution for 1999, which

includes employees represented by two non-teamster unions.  Finally, the premium

contribution provided to non-union employees is also $368 per month.

      Based on the lack of specificity in the record regarding health insurance and its

cost, that fact that all other employees at the Employer will receive a premium

contribution of $368 for 1999, and the significant wage increases I have awarded

bargaining unit employees during a period of relatively low inflation, the Employer

proposal of $368 shall be granted.

 

EMPLOYER PAYMENT OF MEMBERSHIP DUES IN THE WASHINGTON

COUNCIL OF POLICE & SHERIFFS

      Mike Patrick, the Executive Director of the Washington Council of Police &

Sheriffs (the Council), testified that his organization is dedicated to enhancement of

benefits for LOEFF II employees.  Patrick also testified that an individual deputy sheriff

cannot join the Council has an individual, as the entire sheriffs department must join and

each individual member would then be required to pay $7.00 per month in dues.

      Patrick testified that he did not know which sheriff's departments paid dues to the

Council for its eligible employees and which sheriffs departments actually collected that

$7.00 dues from each employee.  He did testify that with respect to three of the

comparables, there sheriffs department employees were members of the Council, namely

Grays Harbor, Lewis and Island Counties.  Employer Exhibit N indicates that none of the

comparables, including Grays Harbor, Lewis and Island Counties pay the employees

dues for membership.

      Based on the foregoing, I find that it is not appropriate to require the Employer to

pay Council membership dues for employees.

 

INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD

      It is the Award of your Arbitrator that:

      I.    The 1999 base wage, top step deputy at Mason County, shall be $3,510.

      II.  A.  The 1998 base wage, stop step sergeant, shall be $3,782.

            B.  The 1999 base wage, top step sergeant, shall be $3,888

      III. The health insurance premium contribution by the Employer for 1999

            shall be $368 per month, per employee.

      IV. The Union's proposal that the Employer membership dues in none

            Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs is rejected.

 

Dated: July 19, 1999                          /s/

Seattle, Washington                           Michael H. Beck, Interest Arbitrator