INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

Cowlitz County

And

Teamsters Local 58 Representing Cowlitz County Corrections Officers

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      George Lehleitner

Date Issued:   04/10/1995

 

 

Arbitrator:         Lehleitner; George

Case #:              11948-I-95-00257

Employer:          Cowlitz County

Union:                Teamsters; Local 58

Date Issued:      04/10/1995

 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION     )           OPINION AND AWARD

                                                                        )

BETWEEN                                                     )           OF

                                                                        )                      

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 58                            )           GEORGE LEHLEITNER

                                                                        )

REPRESENTING COWLITZ COUNTY    )           ARBITRATOR

                                                                        )

CORRECTIONS OFFICERS V.                  )

                                                                        )

COWLITZ COUNTY                                    )

INTEREST ARBITRATION                       )

 

 

 

 

HEARING:                                        February 15, 1996

BRIEFS RECEIVED:                       March 27, 1996

INTEREST ARBITRATOR:           George Lehleitner

                                                            7276 S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. #334

                                                            Portland, OR 97225

 

REPRESENTING

COWLITZ COUNTY:                       Larry Amburgey, Attorney at Law

 

REPRESENTING THE UNION:     John Silva, Business Representative

 

                                                            2

 

I.          INTRODUCTION

 

            The undersigned was selected as Interest Arbitrator by Teamsters

Local 58 (Union) and Cowlitz County (County) . The selection was made in

accordance with RCW 41.56.450.

 

            A hearing was held on February 15, 1996 in Kelso, Washington. The

Union was represented by John Silva, Business Representative and the

County by Larry Ainburgey, Attorney.at Law. Both sides were afforded a

full opportunity to make verbal and written presentations and to submit

post hearing briefs. The hearing was closed upon the receipt of post

hearing briefs on March 27, 1996.

 

II.        BACKGROUND

 

            The County, a public employer in Southwest Washington, employs

approximately 425 represented employees in seven (7) bargaining units

and about 175 non-represented employees (TR 30, Exh. C-l) . The Union

represents a bargaining unit consisting of Corrections Officers (Co's)

 

            The parties' labor agreement covers a two (2) year period from

January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1995 and includes a reopener for

wages only for 1995. This arbitration arises out of the wage reopener

provision. The only issue before me is the appropriate wage adjustment,

if any, for 1995.

 

                                                            3

 

1.         Wages (Appendix A)

 

            The  1994-95  Collective  Bargaining  Agreement  between  the

parties sets forth wage rates for CO's employed by the County

effective January 1, 1994. The beginning salary for a CO (Step 1)

is $2399.00 per month and the highest salary (Step 5) is $2797.00

per month. COs, who are firearms qualified receive an additional

one percent (1%) of their base pay.

 

1.         The Union

 

            The Union is proposing an across the board wage adjustment

equivalent to the September 1994 All Cities CPI-W of 3%.

 

            The Union's arguments are summarized as follows:

 

(1)        The appropriate comparators for purposes of determining

wage  rates  are  listed  in  Exhibits  U-l  and  C-2.  These

comparators consist of similarly sized counties in Washington,

Oregon and California.  This list of comparable jurisdictions

is based on an Interest Arbitration award rendered by Neutral

Arbitrator Michael Beck in 1987 between these same parties.

Since that time it has to the Union's knowledge been the

practice of the parties to use these jurisdictions as the

appropriate west coast comparators during wage neg9tiations.

 

                                                            4

 

(2)        Since the County is now suggesting for the first time

that three (3) Washington Counties (i.e., Benton, Clallam and

Lewis) might be more appropriate comparators, the Union feels

compelled to seek an amendment of the comparable list. More

specifically, a more appropriate list of comparators, in the

Union's view, would consist of all the Washington counties

(i.e ., Benton, Clallam, Greys Harbor, Lewis and Skagit) as

well as the five  (5)  Oregon counties  (Benton,  Deschutes,

Douglas, Josephine and Linn) . The Union proposes to delete the

five (5) California counties used in the past because of their

distance from Southwest Washington and because in recent years

the CPI-W for California cities has been from .5% to 2.5% less

than the CPI-W for Seattle and Portland. Once the California

counties are eliminated, the average for comparable counties

increases to  $2934.00 per month.  This average more than

supports the Union's proposed wage adjustment of 3%.

(3)        One of the statutory criterion the arbitrator must

consider is "the  average consumer price    for goods  and

services, commonly known as the cost of living. "There is no

valid reason for awarding anything less than the full CPI-W

for September to September as proposed by the Union. In this

regard the parties have in the past used the All Cities CPI-W

Index, September to September to determine wage adjustments.

Any attempt by the County to modify this historical practice

should be rejected by the arbitrator.

 

                                                            5

 

(4)        The County's suqgestion as reflected in Exh. C-4 that a

twelve  (12)  month average  of  CPI  figures would be more

appropriate as a wage determinant is fatally flawed. Since CPI

figures are based on a twelve (12) month period, the County is

attempting to base a cost of living increase effective January

1, 1995 on an average change in the CPI over a two (2) year

period.

 

(5)        The main problem with the County's contention that a wage

adjustment equivalent to 80% of the CPI-W from September is

that there is no basis for undervaluing the index in this

manner. To the contrary, as Interest Arbitrator Levak pointed

out  in  Spokane  County  v.  AFSCME  Local  492,   "where

comparability data is relatively neutral  .  .  .  a current

year's increase should be consistent with last year's increase

in the appropriate CPI."

 

(6)        Another  "red herring"  raised  by the County  is  its

contention  that  wage  adjustments  paid  to  other  County

bargaining units are somehow relevant. As Arbitrator Levak

noted in the Spokane County award, internal comparability is

of limited importance as a wage determinant.

 

(7)        The arbitrator is also authorized to consider "other

factors"  traditionally  relied  upon  in  these  types  of

proceedings. In this case the "other factor" that should be

 

                                                            6

 

considered is the increased work load and stress within this

bargaining unit. In this regard, the credible testimony of CO

Pecha and the statistics compiled in Exh. U-3 establish a

continuing increase in inmate population and even more to the

point a trend toward incarceration of more violent inmates.

These factors together with overcrowding problems in the jail

have resulted in a 30% increase in use of force incidents from

1994 to 1995. It is not at all unreasonable for CO'S to expect

higher wages to compensate them from the increasingly hostile

work environment they face every day.

 

2.         The County

 

The County is proposing a 2.5% cost of living increase for

1995.

 

The County's arguments are summarized as follows:

 

(1)  The applicable statute directs the arbitrator to compare

the wages offered by the County 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 (RCW

41.56.465(1) (c) (i) . The County's wage offer clearly satisfies

this criterion. In this regard, a review of wage rates among

the  previously  agreed  upon  west  coast  comparators  from

Washington,  Oregon and California  (i.e.,  Benton,  Clallam,

 

                                                            7

 

Grays Harbor, Lewis and Skagit counties in Washington; Benton,

Deschutes, Douglas, Josephine and Linn counties in Oregon and

El Dorado, Kings, Madera, Mendocino and Nevada in California)

reveals that the County's offer is very competitive. More

specifically, the County's offer would bring the average base

wage for COs up to $16.54 per hour, or to $16.71 per hour with

the  1%  bonus  for  officers  who  are  arms  qualified.  By

comparison, the 1995 average hourly wage for  COs among the

comparable west coast counties, including all add ons, is only

$16.26 per hour. Thus,  the County's offer would raise CO

salaries an average of $.45 per hour above the average total

wage for the comparable counties. Nothing more is warranted.

 

(2)        Another factor that underscores the competitiveness of

the County's wage rate is the willingness of prospective

applicants to seek employment as a CO. In this regard, when

the County advertised for a CO opening in January 1996 more

than 100 applicants responded in the first week. Similarly,

three (3) years ago approximately 300 people applied for a

single vacancy.

 

(3)        If one chooses to focus on the local labor market, the

County's wage rates compare favorably to those in the five (5)

comparable Washington counties (i.e., Benton, Clallam, Grays

Harbor,  Lewis  and  Skagit) .  The Washington counties  1995

average base pay for COs was $16.09 per hour, which is $.45

 

                                                            8

 

per hour less than the County's proposal for 1995 (Exh. C-i).

Even  including  all  add  ons,  the  total  average  of  the

Washington counties (including Cowlitz) was $16.65 per hour,

which is $.06 per hour less than the County's offer (Id)

 

(4)        If one leaves off the high and low Washington counties

(Skagit on the high end and Grays Harbor on the low end) the

result is the same. More specifically,  looking at Benton,

Clallam and Lewis Counties their hourly rate for 1995 ranged

from a low average of $12.22 to a high of $15.94, while the

County's base low was $14.19 per hour and its base high was

$16.54. If add ons are factored in, the three (3)  county

average is $.31 per hour less than that of the County (Exh. C-

3) . What these comparisons clearly establish is that any way

the numbers are calculated the County's wage rates are very

competitive and its offer satisfies the statutory criterion.

 

(5)        The testimony of Dick Anderson, the County's long time

Personnel Director, established that the County is committed

to paying competitive wages to all employees but it has no

interest in "leading the pack'. In view of the competitiveness

of the County's wage rates and its offer for 1995, the County

has a fiduciary duty to expend its funds wisely and not favor

one group of employees over another. The County's offer is

consistent with this responsibility.

 

                                                            9

 

(6)        The County does not question the dedication, hard work

and professionalism of its COs. However, the same can be said

for persons employed by the County in the numerous other

bargaining units as well as for its non-represented employees.

The credible evidence clearly established that in recent years

work load demands and stress have increased as much or more

for these employees as it has for the COs. In this regard from

1994 (when the parties last negotiated agreed upon wage rates)

to 1995 there has been no~change in the physical layout of the

jail and there has actually been a decrease in total bookings

(Exh. U-3) . Moreover, workload requirements eased in February

1995 when four (4) new officers were added to the work force.

Be that as it may, this bargaining unit seeks more than the

2.5% wage adjustment that has already been accepted by all but

two (2) of the other County bargaining units, which remain

unsettled (Exh. C-l) . Clearly, it would not be in the best

interest of the taxpaying public for the County to pay a

selectively higher wage adjustment to COs than to other County

employees.

 

(7)        The Union contends the COs are entitled to 100% of the

All Cities CPI-W from September 1994, which is equivalent to

3%.     The Union's contention is misplaced for a number of

reasons. First, the September 1994 CPI-W has no talismanic

qualities. It is nothing more then an arbitrary measure the

parties used because their 1995 negotiations commenced in

 

                                                            10

 

November 1994. Interestingly enough, it also happens to be the

highest indices for the entire 1994 calendar year (Exh. C-4).

In hindsight, a more representative figure would have been the

yearly average for 1994 which was 2.5%.   Second, while the

CPI-W figure for September 1994, may have been convenient and

available at the time it is not a direct measure of changes to

the cost of living at any particular place. For instance, the

index includes medical costs which in the case of County

employees is misleading because almost all such costs are paid

for by the County.  Moreover, the truth is that real people

make choices and substitute cheaper goods (i.e., margarine for

butter)  thereby  further  reducing  actual  cost  of  living

increases. Third, the arbitrator should reject out of hand the

Union's attempt to use the CPI indices for specific West Coast

cities as a wage determinant rather than the All Cities index.

There is no evidence suggesting that the indices for large

suburban areas such as Seattle, Portland, San Diego and Los

Angeles are reflective of the cost of living in rural Cowlitz

County. Finally, while both parties can argue pro and con as

to whether 80% or 100% of the CPI is most appropriate from a

statistical standpoint,  the fact remains that based on an

application  of  all  the  statutory  criteria  the  County's

proposal is reasonable and should be awarded.

 

(8)        This is not a case where the CO's are seeking "catch up"

pay because their wage rates are lower than those of the

 

                                                            11

 

comparator  jurisdictions.   As  previously  discussed  the

comparability data reveals that bargaining unit wage rates

are,  if anything, above average. Moreover,  as a practical

matter the credible evidence established that in the past the

County has been willing to award "catch up" when it has been

warranted.

 

C.        Discussion

 

            The arbitrator's analysis is based on an application of the

statutory criteria to the facts of this case. What follows is a

summary of the focal points in that analysis.

 

(1)        Comparability

 

            Under Washington law the arbitrator is required to compare

"the wages . . . of like personnel of like employers of similar

size on the west coast of the United States.

 

            Based  on  this  criterion  Neutral Arbitrator Beck adopted

fifteen (l5) comparable west coast counties consisting of five (5)

each from Washington, Oregon and California (See, Teamsters Local

58 v. Cowlitz County, April 1987) . Apparently the parties have

relied on these comparators during their negotiations from that

time to the present.

 

                                                            12

 

            In my view the statutory mandate to compare "like employers of

similar size on the west coast of the United States" together with

the Beck award effectively eliminates any question as to which

comparators should be utilized. In this regard, it may be that more

emphasis  should  be  placed  on  the  Washington  and/or  Oregon

comparators because they are in the same labor market as Cowlitz

County but this is more a question of relative ranking than one of

what comparators are appropriate.

 

            As the County correctly observes,  its wage offer of 2.5%

maintains the County's favorable ranking among the fifteen (15)

comparator jurisdictions. More specifically, the County's proposed

wage adjustment of 2.5% would produce an hourly wage, including add

ons, of $16.71 for Cowlitz County as compared with a $16.26 average

for the comparator jurisdictions.  It follows that the County's

proposal  produces  a  fair  and  equitable wage  insofar  as  the

criterion of comparability is concerned.

 

(2)        The Cost of Living

 

            The Union citing an award rendered by Arbitrator Levak in

Spokane  County  v  AFSCME  Local  492  argues  that  where  the

comparability data is relatively neutral, a current year's increase

should be consistent with last year's increase in the appropriate

CPI.

 

                                                            13

 

            Generally speaking, I concur with the principle expressed by

Arbitrator  Levak.  However,  in my  view the principle  is  not

controlling  in  this  case  because  other  factors  such  as

comparability and internal equity come into play. As previously

discussed, the factor of comparability supports a finding that the

County's proposed wage adjustment produces a wage that compares

favorably  with  wages  paid  by  the  comparator  jurisdictions.

Moreover, as will be discussed elsewhere in this award a wage

adjustment of more than 2.5% would be inconsistent with wage

adjustments previously accepted by other employees and as such

would not be in the public interest. And finally, a somewhat unique

aspect of this case is that in the past the County has consistently

maintained competitive wage rates without providing across the

board adjustments equivalent to the CPI by paying selective, "catch

up" increases when appropriate (See generally C-1 and C-2) . While

this practice may be viewed as somewhat unusual, the point is that

bargaining unit wage rates have remained competitive as compared

with those of comparable jurisdictions.

 

(3)        Other Factors

 

            As previously suggested, the criterion of "other factors . .

. traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of

wages" comes into play in this case.

 

                                                            14

 

            The first such factor is workload. As the Union correctly

observes the job of a CO has become increasingly difficult in

recent years.  In this regard even though the number of inmate

bookings has actually decreased since 1992 it is apparent to me

that COs are having to deal with more violent offenders than in the

past. This coupled with overcrowding in the jail has certainly

increased stress levels.

 

            On  the  other  side  of  the  coin,  the  credible  evidence

established that COs are not the only County employees faced with

an increasing workload. To the contrary other County employees such

as members of the Planning,  Road and Building departments are

having to deal with similar workload increases but they have

already settled for a 2.5% wage adjustment for 1995. Under these

circumstances it is difficult to justify a larger increase for COs

particularly when a review of the agreed upon external comparators

show that they are already receiving competitive wages.

 

            The other factor that is particularly germane under the facts

of this case is the interest and welfare of the public as it

relates to parity between the wage rates of COs and other County

employees. Generally speaking, it is in the interest and welfare of

the public to pay competitive wage rates so that the public

employer can attract and retain qualified employees. As previously

stated, the credible evidence in this case establishes that the

County pays competitive wages and has been able to recruit and

 

                                                            15

 

retain qualified employees within the local labor market. Moreover,

while there is no hard and fast rule that all County wage rates

must remained in "lock step," it is generally not in the interest

and welfare of the public to pay higher (or lower) wage rates to

one particular group of employees absent special circumstances

justifying such treatment. In this case, the vast majority of the

County's employees, including at least one non-strikeable unit,

have settled for the 2.5% cost of living increase offered by the

County. Moreover since at least 1988 the County has consistently

offered the same across the board wage adjustments (except for

selective "catch up" increases) to all employees (Exh. C-1) . Under

these circumstances, it would not be in the interest and welfare of

the public to adjust CO salaries in 1995 by more than 2.5%.

 

(4)        Summary

 

            Under Washington law an interest arbitrator is required to

consider  all  of  the  relevant  criteria  set  forth  in  RCW

41.56.465(1). When this is done it is apparent to me that the

factor of comparability strongly supports the County's position. In

this regard, with the 2.5% wage adjustment proposed by the County,

the COs will maintain their favorable ranking among the west coast

comparators historically used by the parties to determine wage

rates. And while it is true that the County's offer is only a

little  more  than 80% of the September to September All Cities

CPI-W, it is also true that the parties have in the past utilized

 

                                                            16

 

a similar formula. Even more to the point, the County's 2.5% is

consistent with the basic adjustment provided to all other County

employees, who have settled for 1995. Under these circumstances, I

conclude that an application of all the relevant statutory criteria

to the facts of this case supports the County's position.

 

D.        Award

 

            Adopt the County's wage offer.

 

            Respectfully submitted this 10 day  of April, 1995,

 

                                                George Lehleitner

                                                Interest Arbitrator