City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 12924-I-97-00279
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 12924-I-97-279 )
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S
OPINION
)
Guild, )
) 1997-99
AGREEMENT
)
and )
THE
CITY OF
)
City. )
HEARING SITE: City
Hall
HEARING DATES: April
20 and 21, 1998
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE GUILD: James
M. Cline
Sydney
D. Vinnedge
Cline
& Emmal
Attorneys
at Law
REPRESENTING THE CITY: Glenna
Malanca
City
Attorney
City
of
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: GaryL.
Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
Table of Contents
ISSUE Page
Introduction 1
Comparability 7
1 -
Wages 18
2 - Salary Advancement 40
3 - Longevity Pay 44
4 - Reassignment Non-Probationary Einployees 48
5 - Health and Welfare Medical Co-Pay 49
6 - Non-Uniform Allowance 52
7 - Entire Agreement 55
8 - Deferred Compensation 56
9 - Duration 60
10 - Sick Leave Donation 64
11 - Master Police Officer
I. INTRODUCTION
The
parties are signatory
to a written Collective
Bargaining Agreement in effect for the
period
through
began preparations to negotiate a successor
contract. The parties
held several negotiating sessions- -but were
unable to resolve their
differences.
Subsequent mediation sessions failed to resolve the
dispute.
On
interest arbitration pursuant to RCW
41.56.450. The case was
originally set for hearing on November 3, 4,
and 5, 1997. Due to
health problems of the Guild attorney, the
Guild requested the
hearing postponed. The City objected to the postponement of the
hearing.
In a letter to the parties dated
Arbitrator held the Guild had shown good
cause to postpone the
hearing.
The November 1997 hearing dates were canceled.
A significant
amount of time
elapsed after the
postponement of the November 1997 hearing
dates until new hearing
dates could be agree on. The parties ultimately rescheduled the
hearing for April 20, 21, and 22, 1998. Following negotiations and
mediation, the parties remained at issue
over several key subjects
until the April 1998 hearing dates.
The
City of
relatively water-bound situation,
Washington State Ferry System for direct access
to King, Pierce,
and Snohomish counties. Highway passage to the eastern side of the
at
The
population of
Kitsap County had an estimated population in
1995 of 220,600,
ranking it the 6th largest of
population increased from 189,731 in 1990 to
220,600 in 1995. The
significant role in the economic health cf the area. Guild
Ex.
106. Community
leaders are seeking to expand
base beyond the strong government related
business and employment
opportunities which exist in the
The
Bremerton Police Department is managed by Chief Paul
L. DuFresne. The Guild represents 63 sworn officers in the
rank of
sergeant or below. The parties most recent contract covered a
two-
year period and expired on
At
the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the
opening statements of the parties revealed a
deep division on the
issue of comparability. In addition, the parties also disagreed
over the methodology and means by which to
compare the wages and
benefits of
other cities. A significant amount of hearing time was
devoted to
the statutory factor of comparability. The
Arbitrator directed the
parties to address this issue at the
beginning of their post-2
hearing briefs. The Arbitrator advised the parties he would
address the comparability issue at the
commencement of the Award.
This
case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to the Public Employees Collective
Bargaining Act. The parties to
this dispute are the
the City of
are parties to Collective Bargaining
Agreements dating back to the
1970s.
The parties went to interest arbitration in 1979 The
interest arbitrator issued an award dated
Ex. 3.
Bargaining
between the parties produced agreement on
several
issues. However, the parties were unsuccessful in
resolving all of the
issues that divided them in
contract
negotiations. Eleven fundamental issues were presented by
the
parties for interest arbitration. To the credit of the parties,
they were able to reach agreement on four of
the impasse issues
during the course of the April 1998
arbitration hearing.
The
hearing in this case took two days for each side to
present their evidence and testimony. Because there were few
stipulations by the parties, it was
necessary for the Guild and the
City to present detailed evidence on the
issues for the purpose of
establishing the terms of the successor
Agreement to the 1995-96
contract.
The majority of the hearing time was consumed with
different
attempts by the
parties to make
comparisons of
compensation among the comparator
jurisdictions
The
hearing was tape-recorded by the Arbitrator as an
extension of his personal note taking. Testimony of the witnesses
was received under oath. At the hearing the
parties were given the
full opportunity to present written
evidence, oral testimony, and
argument. Both the Guild and the City
provided the Arbitrator with
substantial written documentation in support
of their respective
cases.
The
parties also submitted comprehensive and lengthy
post-hearing briefs in support of their
respective positions taken
at arbitration. The approach of this Arbitrator in writing
the
Award will be to summarize the major and
most persuasive evidence
and argument presented by the parties on
each of the issues. After
the introduction of the issue and positions
of the parties, I will
state the basic findings and rationale which
caused the Arbitrator
to make the award on the individual issues.
A considerable portion
of the evidence and argument related to more
than one of the issues
and will not be duplicated in its entirety
in the discussion of the
separate issues.
This
Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant
to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.465. Since the record in this case is so
comprehensive, it would be impractical for
the Arbitrator in the
discussion and Award to restate and refer to
each and every piece
of evidence and testimony presented. However, when formulating
this Award the Arbitrator did give careful
consideration to all of
the evidence and argument placed into the
record by the parties.
The
statutory criteria are set out in ROW 41.56.465(1):
(1) In making its determination, the panel
shall
be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards
or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a
decision, it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c)
(i) For
employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(a)
through (d); comparison
of
the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the
proceedings
with the wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment of like
personnel
of like employers of similar
size
on the west coast of the United
States;
(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(e)
through (h), comparison
of
the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the
proceedings
with the wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment of like
personnel
of public fire departments of
similar
size on the west coast of the
number
of comparable employers exists
within
the state of
west coast
employers may not be
considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods
and services, commonly known as the
cost
of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under
(a) through (d) of this subsection
during
the pendency of the proceedings;
and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to
the
factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection, that
are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in
the
determination of wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment. For those
employees
listed in RCW 41.56.030(7) (a)
who
are employed by the governing body of
a
city or town with a population of less
than
fifteen thousand, or a county with a
population
of less than seventy thousand,
consideration
must also be given
to
regional differences
in the cost
of
living.
Because
of the voluminous record in the case, the parties
waived the thirty-day period an arbitrator
would normally have to
publish an award under the statute. The
parties later accepted the
Arbitrator's need for additional time to
prepare the Award due to
a personal situation in the Arbitrator's
immediate family which
delayed publication of this Award.
II. COMPARABILITY
A . Background
The
threshold issue to be resolved by the Arbitrator
involves the statutory factor of
comparability. Both parties
offered strong and compelling arguments as
to why their respective
list of cities should be the one adopted by
the Arbitrator to
utilize in formulating an Award for police
wages and working
conditions in
the issue of comparability were further
complicated because each
party used a different methodology for
selecting the purported
comparable jurisdictions to
The
disparity between the parties was demonstrated by the
lack of substantial agreement on cities
which should be used as the
comparators. The Guild offered a list of 14
cities drawn from what
it believed to be the
the City presented a list of 11
jurisdictions which it asserted had
historically been applied by the parties in
developing a fair wage
schedule.
The City's list
previously included
population growth in
from the City's list of comparables.
A
review of the 14 comparators presented by the Guild and
11 offered by the City revealed agreement on
only 6 jurisdictions
out of the 25 jurisdictions offered by the
parties as comparators.
The initial task of your Arbitrator is to formulate
a list of
comparable jurisdictions that is consistent
with the statutory
mandate enumerated in RCW 41.56.465(1). The following is the
statement of the positions of the parties
and your Arbitrator's
resolution of the comparability issue.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild takes the position that the Award should be
based on a principled application of the
statute rather than a
compromise between each party's position.
According to the Guild,
the City has engaged in posturing both
through negotiations and in
interest arbitration. The Arbitrator should reject the City's
implicit invitation to compromise and be
rewarded with terms and
conditions they could not otherwise achieve
by voluntary agreement.
The
Guild's approach towards comparability is more
consistent and more reasonable than the
approach taken by the City.
Comparability has long been recognized as
the predominant criteria
used in interest arbitration
proceedings. Arbitral authority
instructs that the reliance on comparability
data is that such a
comparison allows a "presumptive test
to the fairness of a wage."
Because these comparisons carry an aura of
fairness, they create an
opportunity to produce a result acceptable
to the parties to a
labor dispute.
The
Guild asserts its method for selecting comparables is
superior to the method advocated by the
City. The Guild's
arguments with respect to why its
comparables should be adopted are
summarized as follows:
1. The statute specifically mandates that
comparisons
be based on "like personnel of
like
employers of similar size." According to
the
Guild, this requirement has generally been
interpreted
to mean that comparison is made
between commissioned
police officers of
similar
rank in municipal police departments.
"The
requirement that comparisons be made
between employers
of 'similar size'
has
usually
been interpreted to mean population
jurisdictions
at issue." Population provides
a
rational basis to measure comparability
because it
is a good
indicator of the
complexity
of a city and the type of crime
problems
and working conditions an officer
would
face in the jurisdiction.
2. If
demographic factors other
than
population are
to be used
in selecting
comparables,
a wide range of factors should be
used
and not just assessed valuation. It
makes
little sense in Washington State to rely
heavily
on assessed valuation while ignoring
such
measures as sales tax and business and
occupation
tax revenues. The tax base for
Washington
municipalities is much broader than
the
value of
land and buildings.
The
Arbitrator
should reject the City's invitation
to develop
a list of
comparables based
exclusively on
population and assessed
evaluation.
The demographic data introduced by
the
Guild concerning the various proposed
comparables is
available for use as a
screening
device to limit or fine-tune the
comparable
list.
3. The comparables should be selected only
from
the relevant Puget Sound labor market.
Arbitrators have
a long tradition
of
recognizing labor
market and geographic
proximity as
a factor in
selecting
comparables. Jurisdictions which share a
defined labor
market deserve special
consideration in
the determination of
comparables.
Bremerton is part of the Central
Puget
Sound labor market which makes up the
Seattle-
-Tacoma- -Bremerton PMSA. The
extensive
data offered by the Guild indicates
the
relevant labor market consists of the
region
from which the Guild selected its
comparables. Specifically, the data reveals
that
the relevant labor market consists of the
cities
located in Snohomish, King, Pierce,
Thurston,
and Kitsap counties.
The
leading measure of the general labor
market
is the data provided by the census
bureau
defining metropolitan areas. The
consolidated
metropolitan standard area that
Bremerton
is a part of, in fact, is labeled
the Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton PMSA.
In
addition,
regional planning and development is
evolving
in a direction which will incorporate
Bremerton
into the Central Puget Sound labor
market
in an even more integrated manner. The
evidence
further indicates that the specific
labor
market for Bremerton police officers is
the
Central Puget Sound area. The existence
of
a Central Puget Sound labor market for
police
work is further indicated by the fact
that
police wages in the Seattle Metropolitan
area
are substantially higher than in other
regions
of the state.
4. The City's claim that there are agreed
or
historical
comparables is incorrect. Contrary
to
the City's position that there was some
kind
of agreement as to comparables, is the
lack
of evidence to support this agreement or
the
parameters of any such alleged agreement.
The
evidence shows there is no historical set
of
comparables that have been used by the
parties. The fact is the parties have moved
back and
forth between comparables
as
circumstances
have changed. The interest
arbitration
decisions involving the City of
Bremerton
and the police have confirmed the
use
of divergent sets of comparables. The
credibility
of the City's list of selected
comparables
is suspect because it failed to
provide
a clear and coherent explanation of
how
it arrived at its comparables that was
consistent
with the actual demographic data.
The
City could not explain the absence of
Mountlake
Terrace or Des Moines on their
proposed
list of comparables. The City also
was
forced to admit that Bremerton was more
than
twice as large as Port Angeles. The City
had
to concede that Oak Harbor and Port
Angeles
did not make very good comparables for
Bremerton. Finally, the City was unable to
explain
why its list of comparables would be
reasonable
when all of its comparables, except
for
Olympia were smaller than Bremerton or
describe
why it dropped the only larger city- -
Vancouver--from
its list of comparators.
5. The significant advantage of the
Guild's
set
of comparables is that it is drawn from
the
relevant Puget Sound labor market while
several
of the City's comparables are drawn
from
outside the relevant labor market. In
addition,
the Guild's comparables taken as a
whole
are a more reasonable set of comparables
because
the City of Bremerton tends to rank
closer
to the middle on most of the relevant
demographic
factors on the Guild's comparables
than
on the City's set of comparables. Two of
the
comparables proposed by the City--Mount
Vernon and Longview--provide a
reasonable
match
on demographic factors alone, but both
are
removed from the Central Puget Sound labor
market. The evidence before this Arbitrator
indicates
the City of Bremerton is competing
with
other Seattle area jurisdictions for
police
officers. The Arbitrator should stay
within
the relevant Central Puget Sound labor
market from
which the Guild
drew its
comparables
and reject the City's attempt to
depart
from the local labor market.
The Guild proposed the following list of
cities as its list of
comparators:
Rank Jurisdiction County Population
1 Kent King 62,006
2 Renton King 45,920
3 Kirkland King 43,720
4 Redmond King 42,230
5 Olympia hurston 38,650
6 Bremerton Kitsap 38,600
7 Auburn King 36,720
8 Edmonds Snohomish 35,470
9 Lynnwood Snohomish 33,070
10 Puyallup Pierce 29,490
11 Lacey Thurston 27,570
12 Des Moines King 27,030
13 Bothell King 26,350
14
15 Mountlake Terrace Snohomish 20,360
C. The
City
The
City begins by pointing out that the parties used
comparable jurisdictions in previous
negotiations to reach an
agreement on wages and benefits. In 1994 the City prepared a
comprehensive wage and benefit survey which
derived a set of
Western Washington cities with populations
and assessed valuations
within one-half to twice the populations and
assessed valuations of
the City of Bremerton. The survey produced in 1994 supported the
Guild's proposal for a parity
adjustment. The employer accepted
the survey as fair and accurate and agreed
that both the CPI
increase and a 1% market adjustment were
appropriate. Accordingly,
the wage increases were implemented on
settlement of the Agreement.
During
negotiations for the 1997 labor Agreement the
employer conducted a similar
survey using the same set of
comparable jurisdictions, but excluded the city of Vancouver
because it almost quadrupled in
population. The City submits that
its list of 11 comparators has survived the
test of time.
The City points to both reasonableness in its
method of
selection based on population and assessed
valuation and the
historical use made of the comparables by
the parties. During
negotiations, the Guild also used the City's
comparables in its
wage submission to the City in October of
1996. It was not until
March 27, 1998, that the Guild offered a new
set of comparables by
injecting 9 King County cities and deleting
4 of the 10 previously
used comparables. Four of the King County cities now top the
population list and 7 top the 1997 assessed
valuation rankings.
The
City urges the Arbitrator to reject the Guild's
position that its comparables are based upon
a "well defined common
labor market" the Central Puget Sound
labor market. The 9 King
County cities added to the list results in
Bremerton being ranked
number 7 in 1997 population. A flaw in the Guild's proposed
comparables is the City's rank at 14 in 1997
assessed valuation.
Kent, Redmond, Kirkland, and Renton have
assessed valuations of
approximately three
times that of
Bremerton. The larger
jurisdictions are among the top five 1997
police budgets of the
comparables and all are located in King
County.
The
Guild's arguments are further weakened by the fact
they are based upon a "hypothetical
world." For example, the
Guild's claim the impact of the predicted
number of retirees in the
Seattle Police Force will cause officers to
move from Bremerton to
Seattle is totally without factual
evidence. The hopeful signs of
an increased interest in Kitsap County real
estate were not
supported by the Guild's own real estate
expert. Kelly's testimony
that prices are lower in the Bremerton area
provides excellent
support for the City's proposed use of the
90% CPI-W for 1998 and
1999 wage increases.
The
City also took its analysis relating to assessed
valuation and population one step further
with a per capita
analysis. Per capita is indicative of the
tax base of a community,
relating to both the issues of size as well
as ability to pay.
While per capita analysis was not part of
the 1994 wage survey,
such an analysis at this time is an
excellent citation to the
viability of the City's comparables. While the City's population
is at 138% of its own comparables, the City
is at 60.47% of the
assessed valuation per capita, and 63.59% of
the sales tax per
capita in the comparables. It is true the Guild's comparables are
more compatible to the City in population,
but the economic
incompatibility of the Guild's comparables
is found in the per
capita positions of 43.10% for Bremerton in
assessed valuation, and
54.51% in sales tax. In sum, the City concluded:
The
City encourages the Arbitrator to adopt
the
City's comparable jurisdictions due to the
history
of use and acceptance; the durability
of
their status as valid comparables, their
relevance
to today's economy; contrasted with
the
inappropriateness of the speculative and
exclusively
King County injections by the
Guild.
Brief,
p. 6.
The City proposed the following list of
cities as its list of
comparators:
Rank Jurisdiction County Population
1 Olympia Thurston 38,650
2 Bremerton Kitsap 38,600
3 dmonds Snohomish 35,470
4 Longview Cowlitz 33,620
5 Lynnwood Snohomish 33,070
6 Puyallup Pierce 29,490
7 Lacey Thurston 27,570
8 Mount Vernon Skagit 22,280
9 Mountlake Terrace Snohomish 20,360
10 Oak Harbor Island 20,190
11 Port Angeles Clallam 18,890
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator begins with the premise that the parties
agree
that Olympia, Edmonds,
Lynnwood, Puyallup, Lacy,
and
Mountlake Terrace are jurisdictions with which
to compare Bremerton
for
establishing wages and
working conditions. These
6
jurisdictions form the core for developing a
list of "like
employers of similar size." The population and geographic location
of the 6 cities all comport to the statutory
factor of like
employers.
The
City maintains its list of 11 jurisdictions, minus
Vancouver, should be adopted based on
history of use, acceptance,
and assessed valuation. The Arbitrator
rejects the City's argument
that its list constituted a group of cities
that were agreed on and
historically used for comparison by the
parties.
The
Arbitrator finds two compelling points drive the
decision on which cities should be included
on the list of
comparators. The
first is population. Both parties have
identified cities that are of comparable
population. The ability
to have a sufficient number of similarly
sized cities provides a
solid ground on which to compose a list of
comparators.
The
second reason which strengthens the population factor
is geographic proximity to Bremerton. There are a sufficient
number of similarly sized cities in the
Puget Sound labor market to
compose a strong list of comparators that
meet the statutory test
of "like personnel of like employers of
similar size on the west
coast of the United States."
Moreover,
the Arbitrator finds the evidence justifies one
exception
to compiling a
list composed of
cities located
exclusively in the Puget Sound area. Four factors argue for the
inclusion of Longview on the list of comparators. First, the
population of Longview at 33,620 is
extremely close to Bremerton's
population of 38,600. Second, the assessed valuation of the two
cities is within $1,440,935.
Third,
even the Guild concedes the demographic factors of
Longview match closely with Bremerton. Fourth, the historical use
of a city from outside the Puget Sound area-
-which closely mirrors
Bremerton in size and demographic
factors--provides a balance to
the larger King County cities.
The
geographic locations of Oak Harbor and Port Angeles
are far removed from the Central Puget Sound
labor market.
Further, these two cities are significantly
smaller in population
than Bremerton. They even failed the City's assessed
valuation
test and thus should not be included on the list.
Regarding
the Guild's list of comparators, the Arbitrator
concurs with the City that the Guild's list
of 14 cities which
includes 8 King County cities in
unacceptable. Bremerton is not
located in King County. Establishing a list of comparators which
included
8 King County cities
would give undue weight to
jurisdictions located on the east side of
Puget Sound. The
Arbitrator is persuaded that Redmond and
Auburn should be added to
the list.
Redmond's population of 42,230 is 3,630 higher than
Bremerton.
Auburn's population is 1,880 less than Bremerton.
These two cities certainly meet the test as
to similarly sized
jurisdictions.
Based
on all of the cited reasons, the
Arbitrator
concludes the appropriate group of
comparators are as follows:
Rank Jurisdiction County Population
1 Redmond King 4 2,230
2 Olympia Thurston 38,650
3 Auburn King 36,720
4 Edmonds Snohomish 35,470
5 Longview Cowlitz 33,620
6 Lynnwood Snohomish 33,070
7 Puyallup Pierce 29,490
8 Lacey Thurston 27,570
9 Mount Vernon Skagit 22,280
10 Mountlake Terrace Snohomish 20,360
__________________________________________________________
Bremerton Kitsap 38,600
This
group of 10 cities- -with the exception of Longview- -
are located in the Puget Sound area. The Arbitrator is convinced
the above list is consistent with the
statutory criteria and will
serve as an acceptable "guideline to
aid" in reaching a decision on
wages and working conditions for Bremerton
police officers. For
purposes of reference the Arbitrator will
refer to the comparators
as the "Puget Sound 10" or
"PS 10."
ISSUE 1 - WAGES
A. Background
The 1995-96
salary schedule provides for
two job
classifications. The two classifications are police officer
and
sergeant.
Each schedule has five steps through which the officer
progresses. Neither side is proposing a
change to the structure of
the existing salary schedule.
One
of the complicating factors in making comparisons
with the other cities is that Bremerton police
officers do not
participate
in the social
security system. The
lack of
participation in the social security system
has two sides. First,
the members do not receive social security
benefits on retirement.
Second, the members do not pay a social
security tax while employed
by the City to secure future social security
benefits so their
take-home pay is greater.
The
deferred compensation program discussed in Issue 8
provides some recognition in the total
economic package for the
lack of social security benefits. Further, the wage dispute is
closely connected with Issue 3, Longevity
Pay. Bremerton police
officers earn additional amounts of money
based on length of
service with the City. The Arbitrator will address the longevity
pay dispute in Issue 3.
Moreover,
members of this unit do have a longevity and
deferred compensation program. However, the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement does not require the payment of
education incentives.
The combination of benefits paid and not
paid created a vigorous
dispute between the parties over the
appropriate methodology with
which to compare total compensation paid to
Bremerton police
officers with their counterparts in other
cities.
The
parties do agree the benchmark wage for purpose of
comparison is the five-year level. The basic wage scale for
Bremerton police officers for 1996 was as
follows:
Police
Officer 1996 Current
Step 1 3
,074
Step 2 3,189
Step 3 3,340
Step 4 3,484
Step 5 3,789
Sergeant 1996 Current
Step 1 4,003
Step 2 4,091
Step 3 4,178
Step 4 4,264
Step 5 4,354
The salary progression is approximately 12
months between steps.
Longevity pay commences with the sixth year
of employment and
continues until retirement.
In
a preliminary ruling on the comparability issue the
Arbitrator determined that, with the
exception of Longview, 9 Puget
Sound cities provided the appropriate list
of comparators with
which to measure wages and benefits for
Bremerton police officers.
The Arbitrator will not repeat the discussion
on comparability in
this section of the Award. Further, the
Arbitrator will not burden
this record with an extensive discussion on
the results of either
parties' comparison studies. The Arbitrator will give the greater
weight to the data and studies produced by
the parties which
concentrates on basic wages, for
establishing the wages in the
1997-99 Collective
Bargaining A~reement.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposed a two-year Agreement which would
adjust the salary schedule as follows:
Police
Officer
Effective
increase
of 5% for all wage steps.
Effective
increase
equal to 100% of the CPI (CPI-W).
Sergeant
Effective
increase
of 5% of all wage steps plus an
additional
2%.
Effective
increase
equal to 100% of the CPI (CPI-W), plus
an
additional 2%.
Because the consumer price index figures are
known at this time the
effective increase for
would be 3.7% or 8.7% over the two-year
term. It should also be
noted that the Guild proposes an additional
2% to be added to the
sergeant's wage schedule.
If
the Guild's proposals were adopted, the following wage
schedule would be implemented for 1997 and
1998:
Police
Officer
Step 1 3,228 3,347
Step 2 3,348 3,472
Step 3 3,507 3,637
Step 4 3,658 3,793
Step 5 3,978 4,125
Sergeant
Step 1 4,283 4,527
Step 2 4,377 4,626
Step 3 4,470 4,725
Step 4 4,562 4,822
Step 5 4,659 4,925
The
Guild argues that an analysis of the comparables
supports
its wage proposal. According
to the Guild,
its
methodology is reasonable and consistent
with arbitrable precedent.
That precedent distinguishes between wage
analysis and total
compensation analysis with predominate
weight given the former and
secondary weight given the latter. The Guild submits the City's
analysis
blurs the lines
by combining elements
of total
compensation into wage analysis on a
selected basis.
The
City's analysis suffers from three major defects.
First, it incorporates longevity into the
wage analysis, but not
education premiums. Second, the City's methodology selectively
incorporates only one aspect of retirement
payments- -deferred
compensation--into its wage analysis. Third, the City omits any
type of comprehensive "total
compensation" analysis. The charts
developed by the City are results oriented. In the post-hearing
brief the Guild argued:
By
including longevity (which it pays) while
excluding
education premium (which it does not
pay) and
including deferred compensation
(which it
pays) while excluding
social
security
and MEBT contributions (which it does
not pay) ,
it has rigged
the charts
grotesquely.
Brief,
p.13.
Turning
to the decision of this Arbitrator in the City of
Centralia, which was relied on by the City
to sustain its position,
the Guild argues the City has misread the
decision. The parties in
the City of
larger increase on its base wages because of
the lack of either
deferred compensation or social
security. There, the Arbitrator
rightfully rejected that claim indicating
that those retirement
costs were not part of the base wages. In the present case, the
City is doing precisely what this Arbitrator
ruled in the City of
added deferred compensation or social
security into the base wage
analysis.
Even if there was
a case for adding deferred
compensation as an element of base wages,
all similar types of
contributions including MEBT and social
security should be included
in the analysis. The City did not do so.
The
Guild next argues that its proposal for an 8.7%
increase over two years is strongly
supported by its wage chart.
Even though five of the fourteen comparators
were not reporting
1988
wages to date,
Bremerton averaged 9.46%
behind those
comparators as an overall average
encompassing all years of service
and education. Guild Ex. 67.
A reasonable projection the other
five jurisdictions would likely settle, in light of overall
settlement trends, would leave the City an
additional 1.25% to
1.50% behind the comparators in 1998 wage
terms. While the gap is
not wide, the City's position is flawed
because it included Oak
Harbor and Port Angeles on its list of
comparables. If those two
cities alone are excised from the City's
list, a wage gap would
exist which far exceeds the amount the
City's 90% cost of living
offer would cover.
It
is also the Guild's position that total compensation
should be given some consideration in
support of the Guild's
proposal. On a total compensation basis, the
gap between Bremerton
and the comparables is even wider. Two reasons account for this
substantial gap. First, the City of
Bremerton does not make social
security contributions. Second, the City of Bremerton expends
relatively less for health and welfare than
other jurisdictions.
The Arbitrator should factor in these
important benefits when
measuring the total effort and impact of the
City's compensation
package that should be made available for
its officers.
The
economic conditions support the Guild's proposal.
The evidence presented by the Guild
concerning the strength of the
national, state, and local economy strongly
supports an increase in
line with the Guild's proposal. The
Washington State economy is in
a period of exceptional growth. The employment picture is strong
for employees and unemployment is
unexceptionally low. Wage rates
are increasing in an amount substantially
above the CPI Index, as
labor shortages push up wages higher than
the CPI. The economic
outlook for Kitsap County is especially
good. Thus, there is no
reason for the Arbitrator to depress wages
based upon poor economic
conditions.
Turning
to police contract settlement trends, the Guild
argues its proposals are in line with the
market. For the
comparables proposed by the Guild, the
average settlement in 1997
was 3.14% and settlements thus far in 1998
averaged 3.87%. Guild
Ex. 93. An examination of the City's
proposed comparables supports
an even stronger settlement trend existing
of an average increase
of 3.59% for 1997 and 4.34% for 1998. Guild Ex. 94.
The Guild's
proposal of an 8.7% increase over two years
is in line with
industry settlements.
The
Guild next argues that the increased rate of turnover
within the department supports its wage
proposal. The trend in the
department is for more officers to leave the
City to take better
paying
positions in the
region. As the
City witnesses
acknowledged, a number of
lists for other departments. Failure to provide a wage increase in
line with wage adjustments in other departments will likely
accelerate the trend of officers departing
for higher paying
positions.
The
internal settlements support the Guild's proposal.
Here,
the City has agreed to a generous wage increase for
firefighters. Guild Ex. 112. The City has
indicated it will match
wage increases for the police managers for
whatever amount is
ordered here. Guild Ex. 113. The internal
settlements support the
Guild's proposal on wages.
The
cost of living factor should be considered, but under
the current economic situation it is not a
significant criteria.
Where the strength of the local and state
economy and the
settlement trends indicate increases in
excess of the CPI Index,
the cost of living factor should be given
limited weight. The
City's attempt to calculate regional
differences in the cost of
living should be rejected. In sum, there is no basis to indicate
that the cost of living for these officers
is appreciably less than
the cost of living for officers elsewhere in
the
region .
Based
on all of the above stated reasons, the Arbitrator
should award the Guild's proposal as
presented during interest
arbitration.
C. The
City
The
City begins by noting that the prior use
of
comparable jurisdictions produced a fruitful
list which provided a
basis whereby the parties were ultimately
able to reach agreement
on wages and benefits. The 1995-96 contract provided for a parity
adjustment that put the members of this unit
in a competitive
position with their counterparts in other
police jurisdictions.
The Guild has changed its methodology for
determining compensation
during this round of bargaining in order to
bolster its position
for a wage increase that is not
justified. The Arbitrator should
reject the Guild's result oriented
methodology as corrupt and
unjustified.
The
City interprets the base wage to be used when making
comparisons with other jurisdictions to be
that which is actually
paid to the officers. Those same reasons are
equally applicable to
this case and provide the basis for
rejection of the Guild's
attempt to argue the lack of social security
participation for
Bremerton police officers as leverage to
increase the wages paid to
the members of this unit. The City believes that it offers the
fair and reasonable analysis of the base
wage. The City's
methodology is one that enjoys a history
with the parties and is
consistent with the Washington statute. This methodology is
routinely cited by arbitrators in Washington
interest arbitration
awards.
The
three-year proposal of the City was stated as
follows:
City Proposal
1-1-97 - 2.6% of December 31, 1996 base wage,
not
retroactive- -paid in lump sum does not
ncrease wage rate.
1-1-98 - 90% CPI (3.3%), Greater Seattle CPI W,
July/July
not to exceed 4%
1-1-99 - 90% CPI,
Greater Seattle CPI W
July/July
not to exceed 4%
No
additional increase for sergeants.
The
City's proposed lump sum payment in 1997 is based on
the premise that the 1994 adjustment brought
the members of this
bargaining
unit into parity with
comparable jurisdictions.
Application of the lump sum payment would be
a one-time payment to
officers, not incorporated into the salary
schedule. The City
concludes that with this method of addressing
the 1997 salary
schedule Bremerton would remain competitive
among its comparators.
The
lump sum payment calculated by 90% of the CPI W,
which was at 2.6% for 1997 would provide a
single lump sum payment
to the members of this bargaining unit as
follows:
1997 - 2.6% LUMP SUM
POLICE OFFICER
Step
1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step
5
$959.00 $ 995.00 $1,042.00 $1,087.00 $1,182.00
SERGEANT
Step
1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$1,249.00 $1,276.00 $1,304.00 $1,330.00 $1,358.00
The
1998 wage increase would be 90% of the CPI, Greater
Seattle CPI W, July/July not to exceed
4%. Because the actual CPI
figures are known, 3.3% would be added to
the 1996 wage schedule to
create the 1998 wages for the members of
this bargaining unit.
The
resulting 1998 wages with the 3.3% increase would be:
1998 WAGES WITH 3.3% INCREASE
POLICE OFFICER
Step
1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step
5
$3,175.00 $3,294.00 $3,450.00 $3,599.00 $3,9l4.00
SERGEANT
Step
1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step
5
$4,135.00 $4,226.00 $4,316.00 $4,405.00 $4,498.00
Turning
to 1999, the City proposes the same CPI driven
formula.
According to the City, no vidence was offered
by the
Guild which would justify the additional 2%
increase for sergeants
in each of the two years of the Guild's proposed
Agreement.
The
City submits it has utilized a principled and
accepted method for measuring the components
of compensation. In
the view of the City, it has tried to use a
basic and simple method
which provides a realistic picture of the
wages and benefits paid
in its proposed list of comparators. A review of the City's
calculations reveals that Bremerton pays a
competitive wage and
that no additional compensation beyond what
the City offered is in
order during this round of bargaining.
City Proposal
1-1-97 - 2.6% of December 31, 1996 base wage,
not
retroactive--paid in lump sum does not
increase
wage rate.
1-1-98 - 90% CPI (3.3%), Greater Seattle CPI W,
July/July
not to exceed 4%
1-1-99 - 90% CPI,
Greater Seattle CPI W
July/July
not to exceed 4%
No
additional increase for sergeants.
The
City's proposed lump sum payment in 1997 is based on
the premise that the 1994 adjustment brought
the members of this
bargaining
unit into parity
with comparable jurisdictions.
Application of the lump sum payment would be
a one-time payment to
officers, not incorporated into the salary
schedule. The City
concludes that with this method of
addressing the 1997 salary
schedule Bremerton would remain competitive
among its comparators.
The
lump sum payment calculated by 90% of the CPI W,
w~ich was at 2.6% for 1997 would
provide a single lump sum payment
to the members of this bargaining unit as
follows:
1997 - 2.6% LUMP SUM
POLICE OFFICER
Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$ 959.00 $
995.00 $1,042.00 $1,087.00 $1,182.00
SERGEANT
Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$1,249.00 $1,
276.00 $1,304.00 $1,330.00 $1,358.00
The
1998 wage increase would be 90% of the CPI, Greater
Seattle CPI W, July/July not to exceed
4%. Because the actual CPI
figures are known, 3.3% would be added to
the 1996 wage schedule to
create the 1998 wages for the members of
this bargaining unit.
The
resulting 1998 wages with the 3.3% increase would be:
1998 WAGES WITH 3.3% INCREASE
POLICE OFFICER
Step1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$3,175 $3,294.00 $3,450.00 $3,599.00 $3,914.00
SERGEANT
Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
$4,135.00 $4,226.00 $4,316.00 $4,405.00 $4,498.00
Turning
to 1999, the City proposes the same CPI driven
formula.
According to the City, no evidence was offered by the
Guild which would justify the additional 2%
increase for sergeants
in each of the two years of the Guild's
proposed Agreement.
The
City submits it has utilized a principled and
accepted method for measuring the components
of compensation. In
the view of the City, it has tried to use a
basic and simple method
which provides a realistic picture of the
wages and benefits paid
in its proposed list of comparators. A review of the City's
calculations reveals that Bremerton pays a
competitive wage and
that no additional compensation beyond what
the City offered is in
order during this round of bargaining.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator has awarded
a three-year Agreement
covering the period from January 1, 1997,
through December 31,
1999.
The Arbitrator finds the City's proposal to pay a lump sum
settlement for 1997 should not be adopted.
None of the comparators
offered by either party support such an
approach. Further, once a
salary schedule is frozen the employees lose
the benefit of the
loss of the salary adjustment in all
succeeding years because the
base is lower from which future calculations
are made.
The
Guild's proposal to add an additional 2%
for
sergeants is rejected. The Arbitrator will award that sergeants
receive the same pay adjustments as the
patrol officers. The wage
spread between police officers and sergeants
was not shown to be
inadequate or unreasonable.
The
Arbitrator finds that after review of the evidence
and argument, as applied to the statutory
criteria that a 4%
increase effective January 1, 1997, on the
existing salary schedule
is justified for 1997. Further, an additional increase of 3.5%
effective
the third year of the contract that a CPI
driven formula is the
appropriate way in which to adjust wages for
1999. The Arbitrator
will award the City's proposal for 1999 with
modifications that the
increase shall be by 90% of the change in
the Consumer Price Index
with established minimum and maximum amounts
for the increase.
The
adjustments ordered by the Arbitrator will set the
top pay for a police officer effective
per month and $4,079 per month effective
sergeant's pay would be set at $4,528 per
month effective January
1, 1997, and $4,686 per month as of
of the Arbitrator--as guided by the
statutory criteria- -is set
forth in the discussion which follows.
At
the outset the Arbitrator needs to address the
argument of the parties which relied on my
decision in City of
the
their comparison studies to the single
factor of base wages. Faced
with that type of case presentation, your
Arbitrator held it was
improper to factor in the lack of social
security as a means to
justify a larger wage increase. I did comment in the award that
social security, or the lack of it, might be
an appropriate
consideration where the parties to an
interest arbitration used a
sophisticated total compensation analysis.
The
second threshold point to be made is the Arbitrator
has rejected the Guild's proposal for a
two-year Agreement. In so
doing, the Arbitrator will award a
three-year wage package. I have
also delayed other improvements and changes
to the Collective
Bargaining Agreement to the third year in
order to minimize their
impact on the City.
Constitutional and Statutory Authority of the Employer
Regarding
the factor of constitutional and statutory
authority of the City, no issues were raised
with respect to this
factor which would place the Award in
conflict with Washington law.
Stipulations of the Parties
The
parties reached agreement on a number of contract
provisions in dispute which were not the
subject of this interest
arbitration. In addition, four issues were settled during
the
arbitration hearing. Beyond the resolution of contract disputes
through
the negotiation process, there
were no significant
stipulations of the parties relevant to this
interest arbitration.
Comparability
In
a preliminary ruling, the Arbitrator adopted a list of
ten cities (PS 10) to utilize as a guide in
reaching a decision in
this
case. With the
exception of Longview,
all of the
jurisdictions are located in the Puget Sound
area. The PS 10 are
appropriate comparators because they are
employers of "similar
size" and located in the same
geographic region as Bremerton.
Consistent with the consensus of the
parties, the Arbitrator has
used 6 jurisdictions common to both
lists. The City dropped
Vancouver from its former list of
comparators because it no longer
fits the statutory criteria of similar
size. The Arbitrator
deleted Oak Harbor and Port Angeles from the
City's list of
proposed comparators because they do not
match up population wise
or with the demographic factors.
The
Arbitrator added Redmond and Auburn to arrive at the
PS 10 for three primary reasons. First, the Auburn population at
36,720 is almost identical to the population
of Bremerton at
38,650.
Redmond's population is 3,630 greater than Bremerton, and
is the next City on the population scale
above the agreed on
comparator of Olympia.
Second,
a credible list of Puget Sound comparators cannot
ignore the impact of King County on the
local labor market.
Without Auburn and Redmond there would be no
representative
jurisdictions from King County on the list
of comparators. Given
Bremerton's economic and social ties to King
County, the absence of
any King County cities from the list would
be unrealistic.
Third,
the Arbitrator has retained as part of the PS 10,
Longview
and Mount Vernon.
Both sides agree
these two
jurisdictions share common demographic
factors and have a history
of use by the parties in establishing a list
of comparators. They
also provide a suitable balance to the
cluster of cities located in
what the Guild referred to as the Central
Puget Sound labor market.
The
next topic to be addressed is the widely divergent
methodologies each side used to calculate
total compensation.
Given the way the evidence developed in this
case, the Arbitrator
is persuaded to focus on base wages in
formulating the 1997-99
Award.
Rather than attempt to reconcile the computations offered
by the parties on total compensation to
support their respective
positions, the Arbitrator will acknowledge
the primary benefits.
By recognizing those differences, the base
wage format will stand
as an appropriate comparison.
The
members of this unit enjoy a competitive health and
welfare program largely paid for by the
City. Bremerton police
officers also have the opportunity to earn
additional compensation
based on longevity. Five of the PS 10 offer longevity pay and 5
of
the PS 10 do not offer longevity pay. Noticeably, the highest
paying jurisdiction on the PS 10 list,
Puyallup, does not provide
longevity pay.
Approximately
8 jurisdictions offer an education premium,
which Bremerton does not. In those cities where both longevity and
education premiums are available, the
employee normally must elect
either longevity or education pay.
The
participation in social security, MBET, or deferred
compensation is a mixed bag among the
comparators. A substantial
number of the comparators do not participate
in any of the three
named programs. Other cities who are not in
social security may be
a part of one or two alternative benefits to
social security.
While the members of this unit are not in
social security, they do
have a deferred compensation program and
longevity pay. The
Arbitrator has considered total
compensation. Based on the record
in this case, the Arbitrator concludes that
by concentrating on the
five-year base wage rate of the comparators,
a result consistent
with the statute has been attained.
The
base wage for a five-year police officer on the PS 10
list for 1997 is as follows:
1997
Rank Jurisdiction Wage 5-Year Police Officer
1 Puyallup 4,161
2 Redmond 4,041
3 Longview 3,964
4 dmonds 3,963
5 Lynnwood 3,926
6 Olympia 3,921
7 Auburn 3,888
8 Bremerton (1996 wage
schedule) 3,789
9 Mountlake Terrace 3,762
10 Lacey 3,754
11 Mount Vernon 3,621
Guild
Ex. 66 & City Ex. A.
The City would keep the top step at the
current $3,789 based on its
lump sum offer. This would place Bremerton at the bottom
quarter
of the comparators. Given Bremerton's populatiqn
and assessed
valuation, the City should not be at the
lower end of the pay
ranking.
The
settlement trends for 1997 wages ranged from 2.61% to
5%.
The single 5% increase was for Olympia, which was at the low
end of the wage comparators. The City's lump sum offer that
amounted to a one-time increase of 2.6% is
unacceptable based on
the settlement trends and its impact on
future settlements.
Adoption of the 5% proposal of the Guild
would place Bremerton as
the third highest paying jurisdiction. Taking into account the
total compensation evidence, there is no
justification for placing
Bremerton as the third highest paying city
on the list.
The
4% increase awarded by this Arbitrator will set the
top salary at $3,941 or at a ranking of
number 5 in pay for the 11
cities on the list. The critical point for both parties to take
note of is the spread between--number 3
Longview and number 8
Auburn--is $76 per month. Bremerton at $4,941 per month is right
in the middle of the group of 6 cities in
the mid-range on the PS
10. This
places Bremerton within the range of reasonableness when
compared with their counterparts in the PS
10.
The
1997 wage comparison with a 4% increase for Bremerton
appears as follows:
1997
Rank Jurisdiction Wage 5-Year Police Officer
1 Puyallup 4,161
2 Redmond 4,041
3 Longview 3,964
4 Edmonds 3,963
5 Bremerton 3,941
6 Lynnwood 3,926
7 Olympia 3,921
8 Auburn 3,888
9 Mountlake Terrace 3,762
10 Lacey 3,754
11 Mount Vernon 3,621
The
1998 adjustment is somewhat more complicated because
settlements have not been reached in all of
the comparators. A
review of the settlement trends for 1998
shows a range of 3.3% to
6%. Guild
Ex. 94. The City's evidence also
indicates 1998
settlements are in line with the CPI-W. The 1998 increase offered
by the City was based on a 3.7% increase in
the CPI. The City
offered 90% of the CPI-W or 3.3%. The Arbitrator will round this
number up to 3.5% for 1998.
The
implementation of a 3.5% increase for 1998 will serve
to maintain the competitive position of
Bremerton police officers
with the PS 10 jurisdictions and will be
consistent with increases
recorded in the CPI. With a 3.5% increase the top step for a
police officer in 1998 will be set at
$4,079. This is a figure
that is totally compatible with the City's
own study of 1998 base
wages.
City Ex. A-12. The City's study
of its own comparables
shows 6 cities will be paying a top-step
police officer a minimum
of $4,000 per month.
Turning
to 1999, the Arbitrator will award the City's CPI
driven formula for a wage increase, with two
modifications. The
Arbitrator also concurs with the City there
should be no additional
increases for sergeants over what was
ordered for the Bremerton
police officers.
Cost of Living
Regarding
the cost of living factor, the Arbitrator finds
this factor of little assistance in
resolving the current dispute.
The City offered no documentary evidence or
argument on this
component of the statute. This is somewhat surprising since the
City's second and third year wage proposals
were based on a CPI
driven formula. The Guild's data on cost of living was
similarly
meager.
Given
the strength of the economy and settlement trends,
the Arbitrator will give little weight to
this factor. The
Arbitrator's award on wages for 1997 and
1998 is consistent with
the increases recorded in the CPI figures
used by the parties to
calculate their proposed wage adjustments
for 1997 and 1998.
Changes During the Pendency of this Proceeding
Regarding
the factor of changes in any circumstance
during the pendency
of the proceedings, none were brought to the
attention of the Arbitrator by the parties.
Other Traditional Factors
A
host of potential guidelines are suggested by the
catchall of "other factors . . normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination of
wage, hours, and
conditions of employment." RCW 41.56.465(1) (f) . As this case was
driven by the comparability factor, neither
party made a strong
argument there were "other
factors" at play in this dispute which
would override the enumerated statutory
criteria.
The issue
of internal comparability
is of some
significance to the resolution of this
dispute. The City offered
that it had a low turnover rate. In addition, the City stated it
has no trouble attracting qualified
applicants to the police
department.
The City asserts the Guild's
claims regarding
potential turnover are speculative at best.
The
Guild did cite to a marked rise in officer workload
over
the past 10 years as
justification for its proposal.
According to the Guild, calls for service
per officer have steadily
risen without a commensurate pay increase.
The
Arbitrator concludes the "other factors" criteria
bolsters the Guild's case for an increase in
excess of the CPI
formula proposed by the City.
In reaching
a conclusion on the wage
issue, the
Arbitrator was mindful of the additional pay
members of this unit
earn under the deferred compensation program
and longevity pay
plan.
The continuation of the incentive plans will provide
additional dollars for the members of this
unit who do not
participate in social security. The Arbitrator also took into
account in framing the award on salaries
that members of this unit
will continue to enjoy fully paid medical
and dental insurance
programs for the duration of the 1997-99
contract. On the other
hand, co-pay will be introduced during the
1999 contract term. The
members of this unit also enjoy a number of
premium pay benefits
which are consistent with the comparators.
AWARD
On the wage issue, the Arbitrator awards as
follows:
1. Effective January 1, 1997, the existing
wage schedule
for police officers
and
sergeants
shall be adjusted across-the-board
by
4%.
2. Effective January 1, 1998,
the wage
schedule
for police officers and sergeants
shall be
adjusted across-the-board by an
additional
3.5%.
3. Effective January 1, 1999, the wage
rates
shall
be adjusted by 90% of the Seattle CPI-W
July
1998 Index with a minimum adjustment of
3%
and a maximum adjustment of 6%.
ISSUE 2 -
SALARY ADVANCEMENT
A. Background
Pursuant
to Article 5.1.1 employees advance through the
salary schedule on the completion of a full
year of continuous
service.
Neither party proposes to modify the existing five-step
salary schedule that is in place both for
police officers and
sergeants.
This dispute centers over a City proposal to amend
Article 5.1.1 to allow management to
withhold a step increase based
on unsatisfactory performance.
The
current language states:
5.1.1 Advancement through the hourly wage
rates
from the first rate through the final
rate
of the longevity scale will occur upon
completion
of the prescribed number of full
year(s)
of continuous, employment since the
employee's
last wage placement. In the event
an
employee is on approved leave of absence
without
pay, the employee's next wage rate
advancement
date will be extended by the
actual
number of days the employee was absent
on
such leave.
B. The
City
The
City proposed to modify Article 5.1.1 to read:
5.1.1 Advancement through the hourly wage
rates
from the first rate through the final
rate
of the longevity scale will occur upon
completion
of the prescribed number of full
year(s)
of continuous, employment since the
employee's
last wage placement provided, the
employer
may withhold a step increase for
unsatisfactory
performance or disciplinary
action. A step increase can be withheld for a
maximum
of twelve (12) months during which
time the
employee will receive
monthly
evaluations. In the event an employee is on
approved
leave of absence without pay, the
employee's
next wage rate advancement date
will
be extended by the actual number of days
the
employee was absent on such leave.
The
City believes the proposed language merely recognizes
an
inherent management right
in dealing with
substandard
performance.
Automatic step increases provide no incentive for
police officers to improve performance. The
comparables offered by
the City support the City's proposed
language and the proposal
should be adopted.
C. The
Guild
The
Guild rejects the City's proposal as a "wide open
right which currently does not
exist." According to the Guild,
adoption of the City's proposal would give
management carte blanche
to determine when an individual has
performed poorly. The Guild
also interprets the City's proposal as not
allowing a grievance
over a withheld step increase.
The
Guild next argues the parties have already entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding which
allows management to
discipline by reducing an officer "to a
lower step for a specified
period of time. " City Ex. F-2.
The Guild submits the Memorandum
of Understanding grants the City all the
power it needs to address
substandard performance.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator concurs with the City that advancement on
the salary schedule should be based on more
than just putting in a
year of service. However, a review of the language from the
comparable contracts does not favor the
language offered by the
City.
The language found in the
and simple statement concerning step
increases.
Article
IX, Section B.2 from the Qlympia contract states:
No such
step increase shall
be denied
employees
who have met acceptable performance
standards.
The Arbitrator will award the language from
the
bargaining agreement with the modification
to make it clear a
denial of a step increase is subject to
arbitration. The
Arbitrator will also place a limit of six
months on the length of
time a step increase may be withheld.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that Article 5.1.1 be modified to
read:
5.1.1 Advancement through the hourly wage
rates
from the first rate through the final
rate
of the longevity scale will occur upon
completion
of the prescribed number of full
year(s)
of continuous, employment since the
employee's
last wage placement. In the event
an
employee is on approved leave of absence
without
pay; the employee's next wage rate
advancement
date will be extended by the
actual
number of days the employee was absent
on
such leave. No such step increase shall be
denied employees
who have met acceptable
performance
standards. Step increases may be
withheld
for a maximum of six (6) months. The
denial
of a step increase is subject to the
grievance
procedure.
ISSUE 3 - LONGEVITY
A. Background
Article
5.2 provides for a longevity premium starting 6
years after continuous employment with the
City, based on hourly
pay.
Section 5.2 currently reads:
5.2 LONGEVITY PAY: Longevity pay, which is a
rate
of pay based on the length of completed
continuous
service with the City, shall be
calculated
on the individual employee's hourly
wage
rate and shall be paid as follows:
Length
of Continuous Service Rate
Per Hour
0
through 5 years continuous employment 0%
Commencing 6 through 10 years continuous employment 1%
Commencing 11 through 15 years continuous employment 2%
Commencing 16 through 20 years continuous employment 3%
Commencing 21 years and over continuous employment 4%
The Guild has proposed to double the rates
for each category. The
City would continue the existing longevity
rates.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild's proposal would set the rates as follows:
Length
of Continuous Service Rate Per
Hour
0
through 5 years continuous employment 0%
Commencing
6 through 10 years continuous employment 2%
Commencing
11 through 15 years continuous employment 4%
Commencing
16 through 20 years continuous employment 6%
Commencing
21 years and over continuous employment 8%
The Guild submits its arguments on wages
equally apply to this
proposal.
Both total compensation and wage data support this
proposal.
Moreover,
the members of this unit do not receive an
education premium, as many of their
counterparts do. The lack of
social security and education premium argue
in favor of this
proposal.
The comparables and the longevity provision in the
Bremerton fire contract warrant adoption of
the longevity proposal.
C. The
City
The
City begins by pointing out 6 of its proposed
comparators provide no longevity premium. In
the view of the City,
the current rate is competitive with the
amounts paid in the
comparable jurisdictions.
Moreover,
the City has some concern about the value of
longevity pay. When an employer pays a competitive base
wage, the
City argues better wages reward veteran
employees. The Guild has
provided no evidence to justify
implementation of its proposed
increase.
The
current system is percentage based rather than a
fixed dollar amount. As the police officers base pay increases,
the longevity pay also rises to a higher
amount. The City submits
the weight of the evidence favors retaining
the status quo.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
starting point to recognize is that longevity pay
will rise over the course of the three-year
contract without a
change in the current rate. Because the
longevity premium is based
on a percentage figure, the amount paid to
officers will rise in direct proportion to
the increases this
Arbitrator has ordered on the salary
schedule.
Approximately
50% of the comparators offer a longevity
premium.
While the City's longevity premium is not at the top of
the scale, it is not at the bottom of the
rate paid in these
jurisdictions. The rate paid is comfortably positioned in
the
middle range. Hence, the Arbitrator was
unconvinced of any need to
double the longevity premiums.
The
Arbitrator was persuaded to make one change to
Article 5.2.
An additional step was added to the
contract after 26 years of continuous
service. The Arbitrator will
order that effective
added to the longevity schedule for officers
with over 26 years of
service. By including this additional step,
the City's recognition
of veteran employees in the police and fire
services will be
equalized.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that effective January 1, l999,
Article 5.2 shall be amended to read:
5.2
LONGEVITY PAY: Longevity pay, which is a
rate
of pay based on the length of completed
continuous
service with the City, shall be
calculated
on the individual employee's hourly
wage
rate and shall be paid as follows:
Length
of Continuous Service Rate
Per Hour
0
through 5 years continuous employment 0%
Commencing
6 through 10 years continuous employment
1%
Commencing
11 through 15 years continuous employment
2%
Commencing
16 through 20 years continuous employment
3%
Commencing
21 through 25 years continuous employment
4%
Commencing
26 years and over continuous employment 5%
This provision shall become effective
ISSUE 4 - REASSIGNMENT OF NON-PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES
The
parties reached agreement at the arbitration hearing
on language to resolve this issue. The dispute was settled by
agreement to add language at Article 6.2.3
of the contract to read:
Notwithstanding
6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the Chief of
Police may
reassign any non-probationary
employee
for just cause twice each year and
probationary
employees may be reassigned to
shifts
at the discretion of the Chief of
Police.
ISSUE 5 - CO-PAY
A. Background
Pursuant
to Article 14, the members of this unit enjoy a
full range of insurance benefits. The majority of the insurance
benefits for the employees are fully paid by
the City. Members
have the option of selecting coverage
through the Kitsap Physicians
Service Plan or Group Health.
Group
Health recently included a co-pay charge of $5.00
at the time service is rendered. The dispute
in this issue centers
over a City proposal to require police
officers to be responsible
for the co-pay amount.
B. The
City
The
City proposed to add new language to the contract
which states:
Should
any of the above plans require a co-pay
now
or in the future, it shall be paid by the
employee.
According to the City, employee co-pay is
the standard.
firefighters and employees represented by
the Teamsters all pay a
co-pay amount. Further, Guild members who participate in
the
Kitsap Physicians Service Plan are
responsible for a co-pay. The
Guild's objection to co-pay is untenable.
In
sum, the City concludes the Arbitrator should adopt
the City's proposed language.
C. The
Guild
The
Guild takes the position the proposed language would
allow the City total freedom to define the
amount of the co-pay.
In the Guild's view, this clause runs
counter to the City's duty to
bargain over wages and benefits. None of the
collective bargaining
agreements relied on by the City permit
management to unilaterally
set the co-payment levels.
The
Arbitrator shduld reject the City's proposal as
without adequate factual support. When the
lack of factual support
is combined with the vague language, the
Arbitrator should reject
the City's co-pay proposal.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
Arbitrator agrees that a small co-pay is reasonable
and supported by the evidence. This is
particularly true when most
of the insurance benefits are fully paid for
the members of this
unit by the City. Both the external and
internal comparators argue
for the City's position. However, the Arbitrator does share the
Guild's concern the language as proposed is
vague and uncertain as
to scope and liability. A careful review of all of the collective
bargaining agreements by this Arbitrator
revealed none with the
broad language proposed by the City.
The
Arbitrator will modify the City's
language to
establish a cap on the amount of co-pay that
might be required of
an employee.
Further, I will delay implementation of the co-pay to
January 1, 1999, to allow for a period of
adjustment. This will
also permit time to work out details with
the insurance carriers.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards new language shall be added to
Article 14 which states:
Effective
Kitsap
Physicians Service Plan A or Group
Health Cooperative now or in
the future
require
a co-pay, the co-pay will be paid by
the
employee. The amount the employee is
obligated
to pay shall not exceed $5.00 per
visit.
ISSUE 6 - NON-UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
A. Background
Article
15 addresses the subject of clothing and uniform
cleaning allowance. The dispute in this
issue centers over a Guild
proposal to increase the clothing allowance
for non-uniformed
officers.
Article 15.2 of the current contract establishes a
clothing allowance for non-uniformed
officers at the annual rate of
$425.00 per officer. The Guild would
increase the annual amount to
$450.00 in 1997 and to $475.00 in 1998. The City would continue
the current contract language.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild argues this is an economic benefit which should
be determined in light of the comparability
data. According to the
Guild, the collective bargaining agreements
from both the City and
Guild comparables support an increase in the plain clothes
allowance.
The trend in the collective bargaining agreements is to
increase the clothing allowance.
C. The
City
The
City argued that existing contract language should be
retained.
It is the City's position the current clothing allowance
is adequate. Hence, the Arbitrator should reject the
Guild's
proposal.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
clothing allowance paid to the members of this unit
is on the low end of the comparables offered
by both the City and
the Guild.
A range of $450.00 to $500.00 is the commonly accepted
amount for plain clothes allowances. The Arbitrator will order
that effective January 1, 1998, the clothing
allowance be increased
to $450.00.
Further, effective
allowance should be increased to $475.00.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator orders that Article 15.2 be modified to
read as follows:
15.2 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE: An annual allowance
effective January
1, 1998 equal
to four
hundred and
fifty dollars ($450.00)
and
January
1, 1999 equal to four hundred and
seventy-five
dollars ($475.00) per year will
be
provided to non-uniformed, sworn personnel.
Such
allowance shall be paid one-half during
the
month of January and July. In the event
an
employee is transferred to the Detective
Division
and is assigned as a Detective,
he/she
will receive a pro
rata clothing
allowance
payment.
ISSUE 7 - ENTIRE AGREEMENT
The
parties reached agreement at the arbitration hearing
to continue the current contract language
found in Article 21. The
issue was withdrawn from arbitration.
ISSUE 8 - DEFERRED COMPENSATION
A. Background
Members
of this unit do not participate in the social
security system. In negotiations for the 1995-96 Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the Guild proposed a deferred
compensation
program.
Negotiations over the deferred compensation program
resulted in a new economic benefit being
added to the 1995-96
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
The
new provision provided as follows:
ARTICLE
25 DEFERRED COMPENSATION
25.1 DEFERRED
COMPENSATION: Effective
January
1, 1996 the Employer shall match the
payroll
deduction of any written request by an
employee
covered by this Agreement, in an
amount
not to exceed two percent (2.0%) of the
employee's
base monthly wage rate.
The center of disagreement over this issue
concerns a Guild
proposal to increase the matching amounts.
B. The
Guild
The
Guild proposed to modify Article 25.1 to state:
25.1 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: The Employer
shall
match the payroll deduction of any
written
request by an employee covered by this
Agreement,
in an amount not to exceed four
percent
(4%) in 1997 and five (5%) in 1998 of
the
employee's base monthly wage rate.
It is the position of the Guild the deferred
compensation program
should be viewed as a wage related economic
benefit. Deferred
compensation is part of the total
compensation package. The
particular focus of total compensation being
on total retirement
and comparables exempt from social security.
Since
the City does not participate in social security
for police officers, the task of the
Arbitrator is to determine an
appropriate substitute which will bring the
economic package in
line with the comparators. Deferred compensation is the agreed on
vehicle for such retirement payments. The only issue is the level
of payment.
The
trend in police contracts is toward adding or
increasing the amount of deferred
compensation. According to the
Guild, increases in the 6% to 7.5% range are
necessary to bring the
City in line with the comparables. As a compromise, the Guild is
proposing to phase in adjustments at the 4%
and 5% levels.
The
City's proposal to freeze the deferred compensation
program is out of touch with the trends.
Therefore, the Arbitrator
should award the Guild's proposal.
C. The
City
This program
was implemented during
the 1995-96
Collective Bargaining Agreement. Adoption
of the deferred
compensation program was part of a market
adjustment to increase
total compensation. Participation in the deferred compensation
program is voluntary on the part of the
members. The Guild has
provided no evidence to justify an increase
in the current program
matching amounts.
D. Discussion
and Findings
The
deferred compensation program was first implemented
with the 1995-96 Collective Bargaining
Agreement. In the judgment
of this Arbitrator, the Guild has made no
compelling showing for
its proposal to double the contribution
during this round of
bargaining.
It is a new benefit that should be allowed to develop
as originally agreed in the previous
contract.
The
Arbitrator is not holding that future changes in this
program might not be warranted. However, those changes should be
left for future negotiations. With the three-year contract as
awarded by the Arbitrator terminating
parties will have the opportunity to revisit
this issue in a
relatively short period of time. At that time the deferred
compensation program will be ripe for
negotiations.
Moreover,
in rejecting this proposal, the Arbitrator
remains mindful that his focus has been on
the wage schedule.
Changes awarded on economic issues have been
minor in order to
concentrate on the issue of basic wages.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator rejects the Guild's proposal and orders
that current language found in Article 25.1
continued unchanged.
ISSUE 9 - DURATION
A. Background
The
current two-year contract expired on December 31,
1996.
For over two and one-half years the parties have been unable
to negotiate a successor Agreement. The Guild has proposed a two-
year contract and the City has proposed a
three-year contract.
B. The
Guild
While
the Guild has proposed a two-year contract, it
acknowledges that under the circumstances of
the instant case this
Arbitrator will probably grant a three-year
contract. In
recognition of this possibility, the Guild
urges the Arbitrator to
award an overall economic package which
accounts for current and
anticipated trends in police labor
agreements.
The
Guild's evidence indicates 1998 settlements are
exceeding those of 1997. The City's 90% of cost of living offer
appears out-of-line with current settlement
trends. Hence, the
Guild submits the Arbitrator should award a
third year wage
increase which will enhance the ability of
members of this unit to
remain competitive with police officers in
the PS 10.
C. The
City
Given
the long delays in this case, the City argues a
third year will provide the parties with a
much needed hiatus from
the bargaining table. The City relied on the reasoning stated by
this Arbitrator in two recent interest
arbitration awards for doing
the same in the instant case.
D. Discussion
and Findings
If
the Arbitrator awarded a two-year Agreement, it would
expire in less than six months from the date
of this Award. The
reasoning for ordering a three-year
Agreement which was expressed
by this Arbitrator in earlier cases is
equally applicable in this
case.
The negotiations have been long and at times bitter. In the
judgment of your Arbitrator, the time has
come to conclude the
negotiations and move on with the business
of policing the City.
In
PERC No. 11845-1-95-252,
I wrote:
The
Arbitrator can think of no valid
reason
for awarding a contract which would
compel the
parties to immediately begin
negotiations
for a successor to the Guild's
proposed
1995-96 Agreement. If the Arbitrator
were to
adopt a two-year
Agreement,
approximately
75% of the contract's duration
would fall prior
to the signing of
the
Agreement. As the County correctly pointed
out,
the "shelf-life" would be approximately
seven
months. The idea of compelling these
parties to
turn right around
and begin
bargaining for
a successor Agreement
is
totally
without merit. . .
In City of
No. 12476-1-96-272,
this Arbitrator reasoned as follows:
The
Arbitrator holds that the City's proposal
for
a contract extending through the last day
of
December 1998 should be adopted. There
is
little
to say for awarding a contract which
would
be approximately 75% elapsed at the time
it is
concluded. The parties
to this
Agreement need a reprieve from the
time
consuming and
expensive aspects of the
collective
bargaining process. The adoption
of
a three-year Agreement will allow for a
return
to stable labor relations.
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards that Article 26.1
should be
modified to read:
This
Agreement shall become effective January
1,
1997 and shall remain in effect through
thereafter
by mutual agreement. It is further
agreed
that the City or the Association may
request
reopening of this Agreement any time
within
six (6) months of the expiration for
the
purpose of negotiating changes to be
effective
following the expiration of this
Agreement
with such notice to be in writing to
the
other party.
ISSUE 10 - SICK LEAVE DONATION
The
parties reached agreement on this issue during the
arbitration hearing and the matter was
withdrawn from arbitration.
ISSUE 11 - MASTER POLICE OFFICER
The
parties reached agreement on this issue. The parties
agreed to the following language:
The number of MPO's
shall not exceed fourteen
(14).
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L. Axon
Arbitrator
Dated: