International Association of
Firefighters
And
City of
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator: Beck;
Michael H.
Case #: 14037-I-98-00309
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION
AND AWARD
) PERC
NO. 14037-1-98-309
and )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) Date:
OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL NO. 1604 )
OPINION AND AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
Interest Arbitrator
Michel H. Beck
Appearances
Siona D.
International association of Firefighters
James H. Webster
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
And
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL
NO.1604
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
OPINION OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 1.
Procedural Matters 1.
Issues in Dispute 2.
Background 2.
Statutory Framework 3.
Comparables 5.
Basis for Comparison 17.
Wages 19.
Longevity 24.
Vacation Accrual 26.
Workweek 29.
Hourly Compensation 31.
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 33.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST )
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
) OPINION AND AWARD
) PERC NO. 14037-1-98-309
and )
) Date:
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL NO.1604 )
________________________________ )
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 their right to appoint
panel members, and, thus, the
matter was submitted to the undersigned as the sole
arbitrator.
A hearing in this matter was held at
1999. The Employer, City of
Bellevue, Washington, was represented by
Hannah of the law firm of
Perkins Coie, LLP and Siona
D. Windsor,
Attorney. The
was represented by James H.
Webster of the law firm of Webster Mrak &
Blumberg.
At the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and the parties
presented substantial
documentary evidence. A reporter was present at the hearing and a
transcript of the proceedings
was made available to the Arbitrator for his use in reaching
a determination in this case.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous
post hearing briefs which
were timely filed and received
by the Arbitrator on
parties agreed to waive the
statutory requirement that the Arbitrator issue his decision
within 30 days following the
conclusion of the hearing.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
Four issues were litigated at the hearing and submitted
to the Arbitrator for
determination. These four
issues are:
1. Wages
2. Longevity Pay
3 . Vacation Accrual
4. Length of Workweek
BACKGROUND
The
response area includes, in
addition to the City of
the City on a contract basis.
The
separate pay classifications.
Additionally, premium pay is provided for those employees
who perform the duty of
firefighter/paramedic.
The
staffing various engine and
aid units, an aerial ladder truck, and medic unit. The
Department has earned a Class
II Insurance Service Rating, the highest attained by any
fire department in the State
of
Commission on Fire
Accreditation International an accredited status based on a
comprehensive review of over
200 performance standards. Such accreditation has only
been received by seven other
departments internationally. The assessed value of the
property protected by the
the State of
thoroughly professional
organization.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Chapter 41.56 RCW provides for collective bargaining
between various public
employers and certain
employees employed by those public employers. Chapter 41.56
RCW, beginning with RCW
41.56.430, provides a separate set of requirements in
connection with the collective
bargaining process between certain public employers
employing uniformed personnel
and the uniformed personnel. Neither
party disputes that
the provisions of Chapter
41.56 RCW apply to the instant interest dispute.
RCW 41.56.430 provides as follows:
RCW 41.56.430 Uniformed personnel-
Legislative declaration. The
intent and purpose of *this 1973
amendatory act is to recognize
that there exists a public policy
in the state of
personnel as a means of
settling their labor disputes; that the
uninterrupted and dedicated
service of these classes of
employees is vital to the
welfare and public safety of the state
of
uninterrupted public service
there should exist an effective and
adequate alternative means of
settling disputes. [Revisor's
note omitted.]
RCW 41.56.440 Uniformed personnel-Negotiation-Declaration
of an
impass-Appointment
of mediator, provides that if the parties are unable to reach
agreement after negotiations
for a specified period of time, either party may declare an
impasse and submit the dispute
to the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC)
for mediation. The mediator is
authorized to take such steps as he or she may deem
appropriate in order to
persuade the parties to resolve their differences and effect an
agreement.
RCW 41.56.450 Uniformed personnel-Interest arbitration
panel-Powers
and duties-Hearings-Findings
and determination, provides that if agreement has
not been reached following a
reasonable period of negotiations and mediation, and the
Executive Director of PERC,
upon recommendation of the assigned mediator, finds that
the parties remain at impasse,
then an interest arbitration panel shall be created to resolve
the dispute. This statute
further provides that the issues for determination by the
Arbitration Panel shall be
limited to those issues certified by the Executive Director.
RCW 41.56.465 provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be
mindful of
the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and,
as
additional standards or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a
decision, it shall take into consideration the following
factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties'
(c)
***
(ii) For . . . [firefighters], comparison of
the wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of personnel involved
in
the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of like personnel of public fire departments
of
similar size on the west coast of the
when an adequate number of comparable employers exists
within the state of
may not be considered
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances under
(a)
through (d) of this subsection during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the
factors
under (a) through (e) of this subsection, that are
normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in the determination
of
wages, hours, and conditions of employment....
COMPARABLES
The factor listed as Subsection (c)(ii) of RCW 41.56.465
(1) 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."
The Employer has selected six fire departments as
comparable to
namely Central Pierce;
Snohomish #1-11, referred to by the
(Alderwood);
Kent;
#10, referred to by the
the
taking the population served
by the City's fire department and going up 30% and down
30%, resulting in the six fire
departments with the population range of 100,000 to
140,000.
In support of its position, the City contends that the
method it used to select
comparables is a "pure
statutory approach." (Employer brief, pg. 29.) In this regard, the
Employer takes the position
that the phrase "similar size" appearing in RCW
41.56.465(1)(c)(ii) refers to
population, and that the six comparables chosen by the
Employer have an average
population of 116,666 which is just less than 10% of
adequate number of comparable
employers, and thus all are within the State of
The
the "agreed
comparators."1 The agreed comparators, according to the
King #39 (
_________________________
1The
Employer has used the term comparables and the
throughout in order to
avoid confusion with the term agreed comparators.
The
that the 11 comparables it
seeks to have the Arbitrator adopt were, in fact, agreed to by
the Employer. The Employer,
admits that it did agree to use the 11 comparables as a
basis for negotiating a new
agreement, and in fact continued to rely on those comparables
during mediation. However, the
Employer points out that it never stipulated to their use
in interest arbitration.
After carefully reviewing the record, I find that the 11
comparables contended for
by the
parties' collective bargaining
history will be helpful to an understanding of my decision
on this matter.
The record indicates that the parties' bargaining history
dates back at least to the
1970's. During the nine year
period between 1980 and 1988 the parties executed four
separate collective bargaining
agreements, three of which were concluded as a result
of interest arbitration.
Arbitrator John J. Champagne arbitrated the 1980-81 agreement,
while Arbitrator Howard S.
Block arbitrated the 1982-83 agreement. The 1984-86
agreement was concluded
without interest arbitration, but the 1987-88 agreement resulted
from the interest arbitration
conducted by Arbitrator Janet L. Gaunt.
Each of the three arbitrators noted that the question of
appropriate comparables
was heavily litigated in the
proceedings before them. Furthermore, each of the three
arbitrators noted the inherent
ambiguity in the statute making it difficult for an arbitrator
to reach a determination on
the most appropriate set of comparables. In this regard,
Arbitrator
determination on each of the
issues before him, he would make "suitable adjustments for
varying degrees of comparability
or lack of comparability. . . ." (Employer Exhibit No.
9, pg. 5.)
In noting the difficulty in selecting comparables,
Arbitrator Block pointed out:
The range of alternatives available [under
the
statutory criteria] for comparison is nowhere more apparent
than in the record of this proceeding. The City and the
have both offered plausible contentions for sharply
conflicting
interpretations of the statutory criteria. (Union Exhibit
No.9,
pg. 4.)
Arbitrator Block determined that the
economic area with a common
labor market and therefore determined that cities in the
No. 9, pg.8.) He also found
that his determination in this regard was fully sanctioned by
the "such other
factors" language in Subsection (f) of the statute. At the time of the
Block Award, the statutory
criteria were set forth at RCW 41.56.460, and Subsection (c)
of that statue referred only
to "like employers." A city and fire district were not
considered like employers.
Thus, no fire districts were included in the list of
comparables selected by
Arbitrator Block. He selected eight comparables which he
described as "
or more population."
(Exhibit A, pg. 54.) At that time, according to Arbitrator Block
the
cities he selected were
and
As discussed above the parties concluded a collective
bargaining agreement for
the years 1984 -1986 without
going to interest arbitration. The record does not indicate
what, if any, comparables were
used by the parties in negotiating this agreement.
However, the parties were
unable to conclude a successor agreement without going to
interest arbitration. The
1987-88 agreement was concluded by interest arbitration before
Arbitrator Gaunt. That
interest arbitration required seven days of hearing, involved 15
certified issues, and
Arbitrator Gaunt issued a 126 page Opinion and Award.
With respect the question of comparable employers,
Arbitrator Gaunt began her
discussion by noting the
appropriateness of giving deference to the comparables selected
by Arbitrator Block in the
prior interest arbitration award. In this regard, she stated:
The record certainly indicates that the
parties could
benefit from some degree of consistency and
predictability in
their bargaining relationship. (Union Exhibit No. 10, pg.
11.)
Arbitrator Gaunt recognized that she faced a different
statutory framework than
did Arbitrator Block as at the
time of her Award the relevant statute had been changed to
require consideration of
public fire departments. Additionally, the new statute, with
respect to firefighters,
required the comparable employers to be within the State of
Washington, rather than on the
west coast as had the prior statute, if an adequate number
of employer comparables
existed within the State of
The Employer, following the same process it has in the
matter before me,
determined to look at public
fire departments which had a population of 30% more than
the State of
comparable employers did not
exist within the State of
and minus 30% criteria to the
west coast states of
yielded no
48 fire departments were
within the plus or minus 30% range. In order to reduce this
number to a manageable size,
the Employer took the five departments closest in size to
Bellevue, thereby arriving at
10 comparable employers, three from Washington, two from
Arbitrator Gaunt rejected this approach by the Employer,
stating that in her view
the phrase "similar
size" in the statute could "appropriately be interpreted to include a
range of public fire
departments within one-half to two times the size of the department
to which comparisons are being
drawn." (Pg. 15, case citations omitted.) In this regard,
Arbitrator Gaunt pointed to
the fact that when one looked at the range in terms of ratio
rather than percentages, a
department 50% of the size of
is two times the size of
comparable public fire
departments, all but two of which were in the three county (King,
Pierce and Snohomish)
as the appropriate
comparables, Arbitrator Gaunt indicated her agreement with Arbitrator
Block regarding the
appropriateness of selecting as comparables public fire departments
located within the same local
labor market as the employer involved. She did, however,
caution against using local
labor market employers to the exclusion of considering
''similar size" pursuant
to Subsection (c).
Arbitrator Gaunt's list of 11
comparables contained six fire districts and five
cities. Four of the five
cities were also selected by Arbitrator Block and as to the fifth
city,
that at the time of the Block
Opinion and Award, the
collective bargaining
agreement.
During the negotiations for the two collective bargaining
agreements which
followed the Gaunt Award,
namely the 1989-91 agreement and the 1992-94 agreement,
the parties were able to agree
on a set of comparables in conducting those negotiations.
The specific comparables
agreed to are not contained in the record, but it appears from
the testimony of Union
negotiator Mark Moulton that the comparables agreed to during
those two negotiations were
either the same as those referred to by the
agreed comparators," or
perhaps contained one or two differences.
During the negotiations for the 1995-97 agreement, the
parties in Appendix D set
forth a list of comparable
employers to be used in calculating what the parties referred to
as a 'market adjustment."
Pursuant to Appendix D, the parties agreed to an increase in
hourly compensation over the
course of the agreement equal to, " 103% of the average
increase in hourly
compensation experienced by the eleven
bargaining units from 1994 to
1997." These 11 "bargaining units" are the same as the 11
comparables which the
These agreed comparators are the same comparables
selected by Arbitrator Gaunt
except that the two non-Puget
Sound comparables on her list were eliminated by the
parties in Appendix D, namely
At the beginning of negotiations for the 1998-2000
Agreement, which is the
subject of this interest
arbitration, the parties executed a document entitled
"Collaborative Bargaining
Guidelines by and Between City of
# 1604 Re: 1997 Labor
Negotiations." The document signed on September 10, 1997
states that the purpose of the
guidelines "is to establish a procedural framework for
arriving at a new collective
bargaining agreement." Paragraph 8 provided that:
The parties will exchange their respective
lists of
comparison fire departments they are proposing to use to
justify their proposals no later than the 2nd meeting, which
is
scheduled for October 15. (Union Exhibit No.15.)
On October 15, 1997 the Employer presented the Union with
a document entitled,
"City Proposals to
Address Open Issues" which at Paragraph 8 stated:
To promote continued stability in the
identification of
comparable fire departments the following list remains a
reasonable option." (Union Exhibit No.16.)
Immediately thereafter, the
City listed the 11 comparables which had been listed in
Appendix D of the 1995-97
agreement. The Union agreed with the Employer on the
appropriateness of these 11
comparables and as indicated above has since referred to
these comparables as the
"agreed comparators."
AlI during negotiations and
through several mediation sessions held by a PERC
mediator in the spring and
summer of 1998, both parties relied exclusively on the 11
agreed comparators." In
this regard, Cabot Dow, the Employer's chief spokesperson in
the bargaining negotiations
testified that during the mediation process the parties
exchanged extensive amounts of
information using the 11 agreed comparator
jurisdictions and that this
information was made available to the mediator. The mediation
efforts did not succeed, and
by letter dated July 23, 1998 PERC Executive Director
Marvin Schurke
certified 17 issues for interest arbitration. In the last line of his letter,
Mr. Schurke
stated that the services of a PERC mediator would be available until a
neutral chairman was
appointed.
By letter dated July 7, 1998 Union Counsel James Webster
wrote to Employer
Assistant City Attorney Siona Windsor noting that the parties were moving towards
interest arbitration and asked
that the City provide certain information in order to allow
the Union to prepare for
interest arbitration. Included in that request was a request for
information, including
documents and exhibits, upon which the City either relies on to
support its proposals or to
oppose the Union proposals which the City intends to present
in interest arbitration. On
September 21, 1998 Mr. Dow provided the Union's lead
negotiator, Russell Caney,
with a substantial amount of documentary information in
response to the Union's
information request. That information included information
based on the 11 comparables
which the parties had been using all during negotiations. I
was retained as the neutral
interest arbitrator on October 8, 1 998 and the hearing was set
for March 1-5, 1999.
By letter dated January 14, 1999 the Employer wrote to
the Union stating that it
had determined to use six fire
departments as comparable employers at the interest
arbitration based on a range
of plus or minus 30% of Bellevue's population. The six fire
departments listed were the
same six fire departments which the Employer seeks to have
the Arbitrator select as the
appropriate comparables. The following day the Union
acknowledged receipt of the
Employer comparables and informed the Employer that it
would be relying on the same
11 comparables which had been used during negotiations
and mediation.
As I understand the Employer's position it is that the
interest arbitrator is
required, pursuant to RCW
41.56.465( 1)(c)(ii) to consider as comparable jurisdictions
only those public fire
departments which can be said to be of similar size to that of the
Employer. In this regard, the
Union points out that its set of six comparables clearly
meets the statutory criteria,
but the
comparables not only vary
widely in population size from 55,920 in
Tacoma, but also because the
Union has not selected its comparables consecutively,
instead skipping over public
fire departments whose population is closer to that of
Bellevue's in order to select
only comparables in the Puget Sound labor market.
Additionally, the Employer
points out that the "other factors" criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465(1)(f) limits
consideration by the Arbitrator to factors other than those
separately set forth in the
statute which includes comparable jurisdictions.
I find nothing in RCW 41.56.465 to preclude consideration
of two of the statutory
guidelines together if an
arbitrator believes that to do so will enhance his or her ability to
reach a decision in accord
with the legislative purpose of the interest arbitration
provisions. I note that both
Arbitrators Block and Gaunt, in their interest arbitration
decisions, recognized the
importance of comparisons among local area labor market
jurisdictions. In fact, both
arbitrators quoted UCLA Professor Irving Bernstein regarding
the importance of local labor
market comparisons in connection with wage
determinations. In this
regard, Professor Bernstein pointed out that local area labor
market comparisons allow
employees to determine the adequacy of the income they
receive and that they will
feel no discrimination if they determine that their income is
abreast of other employees in
the same industry, locality and neighborhood. Thus, such
comparisons will assist an
interest arbitrator in making determinations which will in the
words of RCW 41.56.430
"promote . . . dedicated and uninterrupted public service" by
unformed personnel.
The choice left to an interest arbitrator in a situation
where local labor market
considerations are of
significance is to either establish two separate lists of comparables,
one pursuant to subsection ( 1
)(c) and the other pursuant to subsection (1)(f) of RCW
41.56.465 and then somehow try
to weight the results of the comparisons made pursuant
to those lists, or to combine
in one list the guidelines suggested by each of those two
subsections of RCW 41.56.465.
It must be remembered that the standards or guidelines
set forth in RCW 41.56.465
have been placed there to aid the arbitration panel in
reaching a decision which is
to be in accord with the legislative purpose set forth in RCW
41.56.430. Therefore, if an interest arbitration panel
believes it helpful in reaching a
decision to consider two
statutory standards or guidelines together, there is simply
nothing in the relevant
statutes to prevent the panel from doing so. In my experience this
is the course generally
followed by interest arbitrators with respect to comparables.
The question that must be addressed now is, whether even
though I have found
that RCW 41.56.465 does not
preclude taking into account other factors in establishing
comparable employers, should
the
selected as the appropriate
comparables. The Employer contends that it never agreed to
use the "agreed
comparators" for purposes of interest arbitration. The Employer points to
RCW 41.46.465(b) which lists
the stipulations of the parties as one of the standards or
guidelines to aid the
arbitration panel in reaching a decision. The Employer contends it
never stipulated to the use of
the agreed comparators for purposes of interest arbitration.
As I understand the Union's position, it does not contend
that the Employer
specifically stipulated to the
use of the agreed comparators for interest arbitration.
However, the Union points out
that the parties did stipulate to the use of the agreed
comparators for purposes of
justifying their proposals during negotiations for a new
collective bargaining
agreement and continued to do so through mediation and for several
months after the undersigned
was selected to be the Interest Arbitrator. Furthermore, the
Union points out that the
Employer in proposing and then agreeing to the use of the
agreed comparators during
negotiations did not limit the agreement so as to exclude use
of the agreed comparators for
interest arbitration, and therefore the
agreement of the parties to
use the agreed comparators continues through the entire
collective bargaining process,
including interest arbitration.
As the Union points out, in City of Bellevue, Decision
3085-A (PECB, 1989);
1989 WL 592696, PERC sustained
on appeal the Examiner's decision that the City of
Bellevue had committed an
unfair labor practice when it refused the Union's request to
identify the fire departments
the City intended to use as comparables in interest
arbitration. In its appeal,
the City asserted that the interest arbitration proceeding was not
a part of the collective
bargaining process and therefore PERC had no jurisdiction over
the matter. In affirming the
Examiner's decision, the Commission (at pg. 2) states:
. . .We view the interest arbitration process
as concurrent
with, or even a continuation of, the
collective bargaining
process created within the same chapter of
the Revised Cede
of
at the point where contract issues are
certified for interest
arbitration, nor does it end while interest
arbitration
proceedings are taking place. Rather; it
continues at all times
during the interest arbitration process.
Although interest
arbitration is triggered by the Executive
Director's
certification under RCW 41.56.450 that an
impasse exists, that
impasse can be broken at any time. In fact,
it is in the public
interest that such an impasse be broken, and
that the parties
proceed, if possible, to a negotiated
resolution of their dispute.
The Supreme Court of Washington in City of Bellevue v.
International
Association of Firefighters.
Local 1604, 119 Wn. 2d 373 (1992) affirmed the ruling
of
PERC stating:
We find the Legislature did not intend PERC's
explicit statutory directive "to prevent any unfair
labor
practice and to issue appropriate remedial order" to
be affected
or impaired by the statutory interest arbitration
procedures ...
With respect to statutory
interest arbitration, the Court stated:
. . . [T]he Legislature did not intend
statutory interest
arbitration to displace the negotiating process; it
intended it to
be used to promote uninterrupted and dedicated service by
uniformed personnel and to avoid strikes. RCW 41.56.430.
Thus, it is more appropriate to view interest arbitration
not as
a substitute for collective bargaining, but as an
instrument of
the collective bargaining process that displaces certain
economic tactics. (Pg. 382.)
Based on the parties bargaining history and the interest
arbitration statutory
framework, I have determined
to select the "agreed comparators" as the appropriate
comparables in this case. They
are: Everett; Kent; King # 4 (Shoreline); King # 39
(Federal Way); King # 10
(Issaquah); Kirkland; Pierce # 2 (Lakewood); Redmond;
BASIS FOR COMPARISON
Both parties have provided evidence regarding hourly
compensation in Bellevue
versus the comparable
employers each party selected using the same general formula as
that set forth in Appendix D
of their 1995-97 agreement with certain exceptions. The
parties are in agreement that
"total compensation (monthly)" includes base salary,
longevity, educational
incentive pay, mutual employee benefit trust/deferred
compensation (MEBT/D.Comp), and holiday pay.
Furthermore the parties are in
agreement that "net hours
per month" is computed by subtracting from annual work
hours, vacation hours accrued
and holiday hours received and then dividing by 12. Total
compensation on a monthly
basis is then divided by net hours worked per month in order
to compute "hourly
compensation."
In Appendix D of the 1995-97 agreement, the parties used
a firefighter in his or
her 11th year as a basis for
computing hourly compensation because that was the average
length of continuous service
by bargaining unit members as of
average length of service of
bargaining unit firefighters as of
years and as a result the
Union, in its computations presented at the hearing, used a
firefighter in his or her 13th
year of service In addition to presenting hourly
compensation comparisons for
year 13 firefighters, the Union also presented such
comparisons for one, six,
sixteen, twenty-one and twenty-six year firefighters.
The Employer suggests one major variance from the
compensation system used in
Appendix D of the 1995-97
agreement. In this regard, the Employer updated the
bargaining unit
classifications as of February 23, 1999 and found that out of 163
bargaining unit members on
that date, 87 of them or 53.4% of the bargaining unit
members held a position higher
in pay than basic firefighter. Of the 87, 32 held the rank
of Lieutenant or Captain,
while 55 received additional pay for serving as
Firefighter/Engineer or
Firefighter/Paramedic. Thus, the Employer contends that the
bargaining unit should not be
seen as a unit of firefighters, but as a unit of employees the
Employer refers to as
"firefighter-plus." Based on the foregoing, the Employer contends
that the Arbitrator should
employ in making the comparisons center-of-gravity
demographics" with
respect to the five core positions in the bargaining unit, namely
Captain, Lieutenant,
Firefighter/Engineer, Firefighter/Paramedic and Firefighter.
However, arbitrators traditionally have used the basic
firefighter as the core rate
for purposes of compensation
comparisons. Furthermore, I note that for the last three
contracts the parties
themselves have set the rate for Firefighter/Paramedic
Firefighter/Engineer (Firefighter/Driver)
and Lieutenant based upon an additional
premium over that paid
Firefighters, and set the Captain's rate based upon an additional
premium over that paid the
Lieutenant. Therefore, I shall make comparisons based on the
basic firefighter.
Since the parties both during negotiations for the
1995-97 agreement and the
current agreement used hourly
compensation as described in Appendix D of that
agreement, I shall also use
the same formula in making comparisons between the
appropriate comparables. I will
treat each of the four issues separately as they were
separately certified for
arbitration, however, I will consider each of the four issues
together in making my final
determination, since, as both parties recognize, the four
issues are interconnected as
each affects the overall hourly compensation paid to
bargaining unit members.
WAGES
The Union proposes the following increase in base wages:
1 . Effective
January 1, 1998: 100% of the increase in the Seattle CPI-W
from July 1996 to July 1997.
2. Effective
January 1, 1999: 100% of the increase in the Seattle CPI-W
from July 1997 to July 1998.
3. Effective
January 1, 2000: 100% of the increase in the Seattle CPI-W
from July 1998 to July 1999.
As I understand the Employer's wage proposal for 1998, it
would provide a cost
of living general wage
increase based on the same CPI-W computation except that it
would only provide 80% of that
increase. Therefore, instead of the 3.7% increase
resulting from the Union's
proposal, the Employer proposes a 3% increase for 1998, with
that increase to be effective
general wage increase was
granted under the 1995-97 contract. While the Union refers to
a wage increase based on the
Seattle CPI-W from July 1996 to July 1997 and the
Employer apparently agrees
this is the appropriate basis, I note that the CPI-W for Seattle
does not contain a reading for
either July 1996 or July 1997. Apparently the parties are
referring to the first half of
1996 as compared to the first half of 1997, which percentage
increase is listed in the
CPI-W for Seattle as 3.7%.
With respect to 1999, the Employer proposes that
effective January 1, 1999 the
general wage increase should
be an amount equal to 80% of the percentage increase in
the
contains no figure for August
1997, although it does contain a figure for August 1998.
Both parties are in agreement
that if the Arbitrator were to base an increase effective
January 1, 1999 based on 100%
of the Seattle CPI-W figures they believe appropriate,
that increase would be 2.5%.
Eighty percent of 2.5% would be 2%, which is the increase
the Employer proposes for
1999. I note that the increase in the Seattle CPI-W between
the first half of 1997 and the
first half of 1998 is 2.5%.
The Employer proposes effective January 1, 2000 a general
wage increase by an
amount equal to 80% of the
percentage increase in the Seattle CPI-W for the period from
August 1998 to August 1999.
The most recent update of the Seattle CPI-W is dated
September 16, 1999. Again no
figure is listed for Seattle for July of 1999, just as none
was listed for July of 1998,
1997, and 1996. The increase between August 1998 and
August 1999 for the Seattle CPI-W
was 3. 1%. However, the increase in the Seattle
CPI-W between the first half
of 1998 and the first half of 1999 was 3%. In view of the
fact that the evidence
indicates that the parties have based their 1998 and 1999 increase
proposals on the difference
between the first half figures for 1996 and 1997, and 1997
and 1998 respectively, I have
determined to use the increase in the Seattle CPI-W from
the first half of 1998 to the
first half of 1999. Thus, the Union's proposal of 100% of the
CPI-W amounts to 3%, and 80%
of 3% amounts to 2.4%.
General wage increases in Bellevue have traditionally
been made based on base
pay. At the close of the
1995-97 agreement, a firefighter in his or her 13th year of
employment (the average
firefighter) earned base pay of $4,145 per month at Bellevue.
However, as of January 1, 1998
the average base pay of the 11 comparables for a 13
year firefighter was
$4,323.55. Thus, the 13th year base pay average for the 11
comparators during 1998 was
4.3% higher than the base pay received by a year 13
firefighter in Bellevue in
1997. These facts support the Union's request for an increase
equal to a 100% increase in
the Seattle CPI-W which came to 3.7%. Such an increase
would provide a year 13
firefighter in Bellevue with a base wage of $4,298 rounded to
the nearest dollar, which is
the practice in Bellevue. This figure is $25.55 per month less
than the average firefighter
in the 11 comparables at 13 years. Thus, granting the
Union's proposal still leaves
the Bellevue firefighter approximately 6/10 of 1% (.006%)
behind the average of the
comparables for a year 13 firefighter.
I have also reviewed the three contracts reached by the
parties since the 1987-88
agreement which resulted from
the Gaunt Award and I note that none of the general wage
increases were based on 80% of
the Seattle CPI-W. I have prepared a chart showing how
the Seattle CPI-W has been
employed by the parties since 1989.
CHART NO.
1
Basis for General Wage Increase
1989-97
YEAR
1989*
1990 Effective 1/1/90: 1% plus 90% of Seattle CPI-W**
1991 Effective 111/91: 1% pIus 90% of
Seattle CPI-W**
1993 Effective 1/1/93: 1% pIus 90% of Seattle CPI-W**
1994 Effective 1/1/94: 100% of
Seattle CPI-W**
1995*
1996 Effective 1/1/96: 100% of Seattle CPI-W**
1997 Effective 1/1/97: 90% of
Seattle CPI-W 1% effective July 1, 1997 and a
market adjustment effective 9/30/95,
amounting to 0.5%**
* The extent to which the general wage increase in these years
was based on the CPI is not clear from the record.
** Maximum and minimum limitations set forth for those years are
not shown as neither party proposed such limitations for the general wage
increases for the 1998-2000 Agreement.
Finally, it is true as the Employer points out that there
has been some recent
criticism that the CPI has
overstated the actual rate of price inflation. (See the Interim
Report to the Senate Finance
Committee from the Advisory Commission to Study the
Consumer Price Index, dated
September 15, 1995, submitted by the Employer as
Attachment W to Employer
Exhibit No. 7). However that report indicates that a final
report is to be published with
specific recommendations for procedures to improve and/or
complement the CPI. The record does not indicate whether such a
final report has issued
or to what extent, if any, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, which continues to publish the
CPI, has adopted any
recommendations of the Advisory Commission.
With respect to the effective date of the 1998 general
wage increase, the Union
contends that the effective date
should be January 1, 1998 while the Employer contends
that the effective date should
be September 30, 1998. In support of its position the
Employer points out that
bargaining unit employees under the 1995-97 agreement
actually received two
increases in the second half of 1997, namely 1% effective July 1,
1997 and 0.5% market
adjustment effective September 30, 1997. Thus, in the
Employer's view it would be
appropriate to wait at least one year before providing
bargaining unit employees with
another raise.
I find myself in agreement with the Union that it would
be appropriate to
implement the general wage
increase at the beginning of the new agreement. In this
regard, I note that in the
nine years since the Gaunt Award, namely 1989 through 1997,
the general wage increase was
effective as of January 1. Furthermore, additional raises
were granted effective
September 1, 1992 and September 1, 1995 yet the general wage
increases in 1993 and 1996
were effective January 1 of those years. Based on the
foregoing, I have determined
that the effective date of the wage increase in 1998 should
be January 1, 1998.
LONGEVITY
The Union proposes the adoption of a longevity schedule
of 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, and
5% payable at five, ten,
fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five years of completed service
respectively. As I understand
the Union's proposal these percentages would be
calculated on the base wage of
the bargaining unit member receiving the longevity pay.
The Union's proposal, if
granted, would eliminate Appendix B, Longevity. The
Employer opposes the
implementation of a longevity schedule and also seeks to eliminate
Appendix B, Longevity.
The history of the Appendix B, Longevity provision is
fully described in my
Opinion and Award in the
Longevity Pay Grievance dated April 12, 1999, and involving
the parties here. (Union
Exhibit No. 35.) In that case, I held that the Employer violated
the 1995-97 agreement by
refusing to provide LEOFF I employees with 17 or more years
of service with longevity pay
as described in Appendix B. I also found
that my Award
affected only about 17
bargaining unit employees over a seven-year period between
1992 and 1998.
The Union in support of its position points to the fact
that as of January 1, 1998,
nine of the 11 comparables had
a longevity schedule and effective January 1, 1999 that
figure moved to 10 as Kirkland
added a longevity schedule effective January 1, 1999.
The Employer opposes the
Union's request for a longevity pay schedule, pointing out that
it provides a broadly based
educational incentive pay program with approximately 70%
of the bargaining unit members
receiving educational incentive pay as of July 1, 1997.
The Employer also points out
that the Union's request for a longevity pay schedule was
rejected by all three of the
prior interest arbitrators.
I have determined to grant the Union's longevity proposal
for the reasons set forth
below.
As the Union points out, at the time of the Gaunt Award,
only eight of the 11
comparables relied on by
Arbitrator Gaunt had longevity pay schedules and only one had
both a longevity pay schedule
and an educational incentive program. However, presently
10 of the 11 "agreed
comparators" have a longevity schedule and three now have both a
longevity pay schedule and an
educational incentive program. I also note that the
Union's proposal before me is
one half of that presented to Arbitrator Gaunt, which was
two, four, six, eight and ten
percent at five, ten, fifteen, twenty and twenty-five years
respectively.
Implementation of the Union's proposed longevity pay
schedule would still leave
Bellevue significantly behind
the average longevity pay schedule of the comparables. In
this regard, I note that Union
Exhibit No. 30, page 1, "Comparison of Longevity" shows
that the comparable average is
significantly higher than
implementation of the
implementation of the
that the average comparable
varies from 18% higher than
have completed 10 years to 32%
higher for employees who have completed 20 years.
Union Exhibit No. 30 actually contains 1999 figures for
two comparables, namely
employees who have completed
ten years and for employees who have completed 20
years, using zero for
during 1998, and substituting
the 1998 figures for King # 4 (Shoreline).2 When the
comparable average is
recalculated using 1998 figures, it is still 8.7% above
employees who completed ten
years and 22.4% above
completed twenty years.
Finally, I note that the calculations agreed upon by the
parties in Appendix D
regarding the elements of
total compensation, include both longevity and educational
incentive pay. Therefore
educational incentive pay will be taken into account in making
overall comparisons between
VACATION ACCRUAL
The Union proposes substantial increases in vacation
accrual for bargaining unit
members except for those with
one through four years of service. Below in Chart No. 2
I have set forth the changes
proposed by the Union with respect to both full-time
employees working 24-hour
shifts and those working eight hour days. In producing
Chart No. 2, I have used the
Union's years of service categories which differ slightly
from those in Article 17,
"Vacation Leave."
2 A review of Union Exhibit No. 29 shows that
the longevity pay in Shoreline for an employee who had
completed ten years was
$149.35 rather than $170.68 figure shown on Union Exhibit No. 30, page 1.
Furthermore, for employees who
had completed 20 years at Shoreline in 1998, the longevity payment was $320.03
rather than the $341.36 figure shown on Union Exhibit No.30.
CHART
NO.2
YEARS OF HOURS
PER CALENDAR
CONTINUOUS VACATION SHIFTS MONTH OF SERVICE
SERVICE Presently Union Proposal Presently Union
Proposal
1-4 6 5 12 10
5-9 7 8 14 16
10-14 8 10 16 20
15-19 9 11 18 22
20-24 10 12 20 24
25 and above 10 12.5 20 25
8-HOUR
DAYS HOURS PER MONTH
Presently Union Proposal Presently Union
Proposal
1-4 15 12 10 8
5-9 18 21 12 14
10-14 21 27 14 18
15-19 24 30 16 20
20-24 27 33 18 22
25 and above 27 34.5 18 23
I have determined to discuss this issue in terms of the
24-hour shift employee for
two reasons: first, the issue
of vacation accrual was discussed during the hearing in terms
of the 24-hour shift employee
and the relevant exhibits relate to the 24-hour shift
employee; secondly, as I
understand the
eight hour employee
commensurate with those it is proposing for the 24 hour shift
employee.
The Employer opposes any change in vacation accrual
pointing out that the
Union's proposed increases run
from 14.3% for employees with five through nine years
of service, to 25% for
employees with either 10 through 14 years of service or 25 years
and beyond of service. The
Union relies on a comparison between Bellevue and the
comparables in support of its
position. Thus, the Union points out that with the exception
of employees with one through
four years of service,
comparables, running from 10%
behind the average of the comparables for employees
with five through nine years
of service to as much as 24% behind with respect to the
average of the comparables for
employees with more than 25 years of service. (Union
Exhibit No. 31.)
It is appropriate, as the Employer points out, to
consider the number of holiday
hours employees receive in
connection with a consideration of vacation hours accrued.
Holiday hours in Bellevue are
120, while the average of the comparators is only 106.
Thus, Bellevue awards holiday
hours that are 13.2% greater than that awarded by the
average of the comparables.
Additionally, the longevity schedule I have awarded
bargaining unit employees
rewards to a greater extent the more senior employees as does
the
accrual is appropriate in view
of the disparity between the comparables and
I have determined to grant the Union's proposal with
respect to employees with
one through four years of
service but not with respect to employees with five through
nine years of service. With
respect to the next three service categories, I have determined
to grant one half of the
provide any additional
increase in vacation accrual for employees at the service level of
25 years and beyond. In this
regard, I note that of the 11 comparables only four provided
increases in vacation accrual
for employees at the 25 years and beyond service level
namely, Pierce No. 2 (
Immediately below in Chart 3, I have set forth the total
of holiday and vacation
hours which will be received by
Award compared to the average
of the comparables for 1998.
CHART
NO.3
Vacation Hours Awarded Vs. Comparables
average 1998
YEARS OF BELLEVUE COMPARABLES
CONTINUOUS Vac. Hol. Vac. Hol. TOTAL
SERVICE Hours Hours Total Hour Hours Total Bellevue
v. Comps
1-4 120 120 = 240 124 106 =
230 -
4.4%
5-9 168 120
= 288 185 106 =
291 +1.0%
10-44 216 120 = 336 236*
106 = 342 +1.8%
15-20 240 120
= 360 262 106 =
368 +2.2%
More than 20 264 120 = 384 285 106
= 391 +1.8%
* Union Exhibit No. 29 shows
231 vacation hours for the year 11 average of the comparables and 236
vacation hours for the year 13
average. I have used year 13 since it
represents the continuous service of the average bargaining unit member at
Bellevue.
WORKWEEK
The Union proposes that effective January 1, 1999 the
average workweek be
reduced to 47.95 hours from
the present figure of 49.10 hour per week. This would be
accomplished by providing
bargaining unit members with 2.5 additional off days (Kelly
days) annually. Presently
24-hour shift employees receive 15 Kelly days annually. Thus,
the Union proposal would raise
that amount to 17.5 Kelly days annually.
The Union relies on the comparables in support of its
position, pointing out that
the average workweek of the
comparables in 1998 was 47.80 hours, leaving
49.10 hours, 2.73% above the
average of the comparables. Furthermore the Union points
out, that even if the Union
proposal is accepted,
average of the comparables
since it will be at 47.95 hours. (Union Exhibit No.32.)
The Employer opposes any change in the workweek, pointing
out that there have
been three significant workweek
reductions since 1994. In 1994, the last year of the
1992-94 agreement, the weekly
hours of work were reduced from 50.48 to 50.02 and was
accomplished by increasing the
number of Kelly days from 12 to 13. For 1996, the hours
of work were reduced from
50.02 to 49.56 by adding an additional Kelly day, providing
employees with 14 Kelly days.
For 1997, the hours of work were reduced from 49.56 to
the current 49.10 by adding an
additional Kelly day so that employees had 15 Kelly days.
Thus, in the three year period
between January 1, 1994 and January 1, 1997 hours were
reduced 2.73%. The Union's
proposal seeks a reduction in the workweek of 2.34%.
Thus, if the Union's proposal
were granted, the reduction in hours over the four year
period
It would not be appropriate to reduce the workweek hours
any further during the
1998-2000 Agreement in view of
the substantial reduction in work hours over the prior
two collective bargaining agreements.
In this regard, I note the parties acknowledgement
in their 1995-97 agreement
that "improvements in hourly compensation occur both when
additional compensation is
received and when fewer hours are worked." (Employer
Exhibit No. 1 , Appendix A.)
As described below, I have awarded substantial increases in
other components of hourly
compensation.
HOURLY COMPENSATION
As discussed previously in this Opinion, in the Section
entitled "Basis For
Comparison," it is
appropriate to use the Appendix D calculation of "Hourly
Compensation,"
substituting a top step firefighter with 13 years experience for a top step
firefighter with 11 years
experience. Union Exhibit No. 29 at page 4 sets forth the
calculation showing that the
hourly compensation for a year 13 employee in
the end of 1997 amounted to
$24. 19. In the same exhibit at page 3, the
the computation for hourly
compensation in
indicating an hourly
compensation of $26.85 which would be an 11% increase over the
hourly compensation at the end
of 1997. The hourly compensation for the year 13
employee based on those
proposals of the
which is 6.7% above the hourly
compensation at the end of 1997.
Immediately below I have set forth the calculations
resulting in the $25.82 hourly
compensation figure. In doing
so I have used the Union's figures on the third page of
Union Exhibit No. 29,
"Union's Proposed 1998 Bellevue," except in those areas where I
have not granted the
Compensation (monthly),"
I have granted the Union's base pay and longevity pay
proposals and therefore there
is no need to alter the
below:
Base Pay $4,298.00
Longevity Pay $ 85.96
Educational Incentive Pay $ 107.45
MEBT/D. Comp. $ 297.85
Holiday Pay $ 0.00
Total Compensation $4,789.26
With respect to Appendix D, "Net Hours per
Month," the Union's figures have to
be altered to reflect the fact
that I did not grant either its workweek proposal or its full
vacation accrual proposal.
Thus, the workweek remains at 49.10 hours. The vacation
hours will have to be altered
since I only granted an increase in vacation accrual
sufficient to allow for one
additional 24-hour work shift at 13 years instead of the two
proposed by the
and the holiday hours remain
at 120.
When the 49. 10 hour workweek is multiplied by 52.18 and
the vacation hours and
holiday hours are subtracted,
the net hours per year figure is 2226.04. When this figure is
divided by 12 the resulting
net hours per month is 185.50. In order to calculate the
hourly compensation, the total
compensation of $4,789.26 must be divided by the net
hours per month of 185.50,
leaving an hourly compensation figure of $25.82. When the
hourly compensation figure of
$25.82 is compared to the compensation received by the
13 year firefighter at the end
of 1997 of $24. 19, the increase measures 6.7%. As the
Employer points out, 6.7% is a
significant increase, particularly in a relatively low
inflation environment.
However, as the Union points out, the average of the comparables
for 1998 of$25.99 is 7.4%
above the $24.19 in hourly compensation received by the 13-
year firefighter in
compensation figure just
slightly below that of the average of the comparables. At
$25.99, the hourly
compensation of the comparable average is less than 1% above that of
resulting from my Award leaves
place
including
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR
It is the Award of your Interest Arbitrator that:
I. With respect to base wages:
A. Effective
January 1, 1998 the base wage shall be increased by
100% of the increase in the Seattle CPI-W from the first
half of 1996 to
the first half of 1997 which equals 3.7%.
B. Effective
January 1, 1999 the base wage will be increased by 100%
of the increase in the
half of 1998 which equals 2.5%.
C. Effective
January 1, 2000 the base wage shall be increased by
100% of the increase in the Seattle CPI-W from the first
half of 1998 to
the first half of 1999 which equals 3%.
II. With respect to longevity pay: Effective
January 1, 1998 the
proposed longevity schedule
shall be adopted and Appendix B, Longevity
eliminated.
III. With respect to vacation accrual:
A. Article
17, Section 1, Vacation Leave shall be amended as follows:
Years of Vacation
Hours per
Continuous Service Shifts Calendar
Month
of Service
1 through 4 5 10
5 through 9 No
change No
Change
10 through 14 9 18
15 through 20 10 20
More than 20 11 22
B. Article
17, Section 2, Vacation Leave shall be amended as follows
Years of 8-Hour
Days Hours Per
Month
Continuous Service
1 through 4 12 8
5 through 9 No
Change No Change
10 through 14 24 16
15 through 20 27 18
More than 20 30 20
IV. With respect to workweek: The Union's proposal is rejected and
the
Employer's proposal of no reduction in the workweek is
granted.
Dated: September 17, 1999
Seattle, Washington
/s/
Michael H. Beck, Interest
Arbitrator