IN THE MATTER OF
KITSAP COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT No. 7
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2876, AFL-CIO, CLC
PERC No.: 15012-I-00-333
Date Issued: November 10, 2000
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
KITSAP COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT No. 7 Michael J. Meglemre
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2876, AFL-CIO, CLC James H. Webster
IN THE MATTER OF
KITSAP COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 7
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2876, AFL-CIO, CLC
OPINION OF THE ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an interest arbitration
hearing involving certain uniformed personnel of Kitsap County
Fire Protection District No. 7 was held before Arbitrator Alan R.
Krebs. The parties agreed to waive the statutory provision that
called for a three-person arbitration panel. The hearing was
held in Port Orchard, Washington on July 17, 2000. The Employer
was represented by Michael J. Meglemre of Puget Sound Public
Employees. The Union was represented by James H. Webster of the
law firm Webster, Mrak and Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence. There was
no court reporter, and therefore, the Arbitrator tape recorded
the proceedings. Following the hearing, the parties provided
additional stipulated facts to the Arbitrator. The parties
agreed upon the submission of post-hearing briefs. The
Arbitrator received the briefs on September 19 and 20, 2000.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed personnel
are unable to reach agreement on new contract terms by means of
negotiations and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for interest
arbitration to resolve their dispute. The parties agree that RCW
41.56.450 is applicable to the bargaining unit of firefighters
involved here. In interest arbitration, an arbitrator or
arbitration panel adjudicates a resolution to contract issues
regarding terms and conditions of employment, which are at
impasse following collective bargaining negotiations.
Arbitrators are generally mindful that interest arbitration is an
extension of the bargaining process. They recognize those
contract provisions upon which the parties could agree and decide
the remaining issues in a manner that would approximate the
result the parties themselves would likely have reached in good
faith negotiations considering the statutory criteria.
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth certain criteria which must be
considered by an arbitrator in deciding the controversy:
RCW 41.56.465 Uniformed personnel--
Interest arbitration panel--Determinations--
Factors to be considered. (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) . . .
(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 United States.
However, when an adequate number of
comparable employers exists within the state
of Washington, other 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....
* * *
RCW 41.56.430, which is referred to in RCW 41.56.465, reads
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 Washington against strikes by
uniformed 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 Washington; that to
promote such dedicated and uninterrupted
public service there should exist an
effective and adequate alternative means of
settling disputes.
ISSUES
The Union represents uniformed employees in the Employer's
Fire Department, up to and including the rank of captain. The
Union and the Employer are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement which expired on December 31, 1999. They were unable
to reach an agreement on a new contract despite their efforts in
negotiations and the assistance of a mediator. In accordance
with RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the Washington
State Public Employment Relations Commission certified that the
parties were at impasse on a number of issues. The statutory
interest arbitration procedures were invoked. The issues
remaining in arbitration, which are to be decided, are:
1. Wages for 2000
2. Wages for 2001
3. Wages for 2002
4. Wage differential for Lieutenants
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer provides fire suppression, emergency medical
response and related services in South Kitsap County, including
the city of Port Orchard. Kitsap County is situated on the
Olympic Peninsula in western Washington. The Employer services a
resident population of about 74,000, and a region with an
assessed valuation of about $3.15 billion. There are 57 members
of the bargaining unit, including 1 captain, 18 lieutenants, and
38 firefighters. The firefighters are classified as Probationary
Firefighter, Firefighter I, II, or III, or Firefighter/Paramedic.
The firefighters work a 24-hour shift, three platoon schedule.
The average tenure of employment is between six and seven years.
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in RCW
41.56.465 upon which an arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision is a "comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages, hours, and conditions of like employers of public fire
departments of similar size on the west coast of the United
States." The statute requires the use of comparable employers
within the state of Washington if an adequate number of in-state
comparable employers exist.
While the governing statute requires a comparison with
public fire departments of similar size, it does not define how
"similar size" is to be determined. Interest arbitrators
generally determine which criteria should be relied upon in order
to compare the size of fire departments. In making this
determination, interest arbitrators have been constrained by the
nature of the statistics that the parties have placed into
evidence. The most commonly referenced criteria are the
population and assessed valuation of the communities served.
Consideration is also frequently given to the proximity of the
jurisdiction to be compared and whether it is in a similar
economic environment such as in a rural area or part of a large
metropolitan area. The parties agree that the primary
considerations for selecting comparable jurisdictions here are
location, population, and assessed valuation.
The Union proposes that the following 11 fire departments
should be relied upon as appropriate comparable jurisdictions:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Serviced % of Assessed % of
Population Kitsap #7 Valuation Kitsap #7
Edmonds 39,585 53.35% $3,395,631,161 107.79%
Renton 56,270 75.84% 5,228,115,236 165.96%
Central Kitsap 60,000 80.86% 3,262,398,590 103.56%
KCFD #4(1) 56,000 75.47% 3,756,080,608 119.23%
KCFD #36 52,250 70.42% 5,809,802,981 184.42%
KCFD #43 52,500 70.75% 3,052,640,168 96.90%
SCFD #1(2) 118,675 159.94% 5,929,235,912 188.22%
SCFD #7 56,110 75.62% 3,638,580,942 115.50%
SCFD #12 45,000 60.65% 2,764,148,325 87.74%
PCFD #2(3) 65,000 87.60% 3,079,782,225 97.76%
PCFD #5 46,032 62.04% 4,112,484,210
Kitsap F.D.#7 74,200 $3,150,230,821
____________
1 KFCD is an abbreviation of King County Fire District.
2 SCFD is an abbreviation of Snohomish County Fire District.
3 PCFD is an abbreviation of Pierce County Fire District.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Employer agrees with this list of comparable jurisdictions
except that it would omit King County Fire District No. 36,
Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, and Renton. Thus, the
parties agree that the comparable jurisdictions should be
selected from four Western Washington counties. The Union's
suggested comparable employers fall within a range in both
population and assessed population of 50% to 200% of that of
Kitsap County Fire Protection District No. 7. It points out four
prior interest arbitration awards where arbitrators have accepted
this range. The Employer proposes that a comparison be made with
employers which fall within a population and assessed valuation
band of 50% to 150% that of Kitsap County Fire Protection
District No. 7. It points to five interest arbitration awards
where such a band was utilized.
I have selected as comparable jurisdictions nine fire
departments which are similar in size to Kitsap County Fire
Protection District No. 7:
Edmonds
Renton
Central Kitsap Fire and Rescue
King County Fire District No. 4
King County Fire District No. 43
Snohomish County Fire District No. 7
Snohomish County Fire District No. 12
Pierce County Fire District No. 2
Pierce County Fire District No. 5
Except for Edmonds, they represent all jurisdictions proposed by
the parties which have a population and assessed valuation of
communities served which fall within a band of 60% to 166% that
of Kitsap County Fire Protection District No. 7. Selecting such
a band results in a sufficient number of employers for purposes
of comparison. While Edmonds' population falls slightly below
this range, I have nevertheless included it inasmuch as both
parties agree that it should be included, and its assessed
valuation is closer to that of the Employer than most of the
other agreed upon comparable jurisdictions. The Employer has
argued that Renton should not be included since its assessed
valuation is 165.96% that of Kitsap County Fire Protection
District No. 7. Nevertheless, I have included Renton. The
Employer recognizes that it is appropriate to compare employers
with populations 53%, 60%, and 62% that of Kitsap County Fire
Protection District No. 7. Just as it is appropriate to select
these jurisdictions as comparable in size with the Employer,
based on the size of the percentage differential, it would also
be appropriate to select Renton. The assessed valuation of
Kitsap County Fire District No. 7 is about 60% that of Renton
(3,150,230,821/5,228,115,236). I have excluded King County Fire
District No. 36 and Snohomish Fire District No. 1. Each has an
assessed valuation which is between 180% and 190% larger than
that of the Employer. There are a sufficient number of
jurisdictions to compare with the Employer which are
significantly closer in assessed valuation.
COST OF LIVING
RCW 42.56.465(d) requires consideration of "[t]he average
consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the
cost of living." The CPI-U Seattle-Everett Index for the period
from July 1998 to July 1999 increased by 3.0%, which is the same
increase as occurred in calendar year 1999. The same index for
the period from July 1999 to July 2000 period changed by 3.3%.
This measurement of consumer price increases is published by the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Employer presented evidence that while the CPI-U All City
Index for the period from January 1992 through June 1999 rose
20.5%, during the same period a top step firefighter for the
Employer had received 36.8% in wage increases. The Union urges
the Arbitrator not to rely on the Consumer Price Index, but
rather on the comparative data which is available. As previously
indicated, the governing statute requires the Arbitrator to
consider the cost of living. Therefore, significant weight shall
be given to the change in the cost of living.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465(a)-(e), RCW 41.56.465(f) directs the Panel to consider
"such other factors . . . that are normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination of wages, hours and
conditions of employment.lV Such factors, which are discussed
below, have been considered, but with lesser weight than that
which is given to the specifically enumerated criteria of
comparability and cost of living.
ABILITY TO PAY
A factor frequently raised in contract negotiations and also
considered by arbitrators is the ability of the employer to pay
wage and benefit increases. The Employer does not contend that
it is unable to pay a reasonable and fair increase.
TURNOVER
The Employer argues that the current wage structure is
sufficient to attract and retain quality firefighters. Chief
Mike Brown testified that in the past nine years, three
firefighters have left the Department voluntarily, and one of
those had been employed for only two weeks. The Union responds
that lateral transfer is normally unavailable, since forfeiture
of rank, longevity, and seniority is a customary condition if a
firefighter is to transfer to another department. Nevertheless,
it does appear that with the current compensation package, the
Employer is able to attract and retain qualified personnel.
WAGES
The Union proposes the following base wage increases for all
members of the bargaining unit:
Effective January 1, 2000 7%
Effective January 1, 2001 6%
Effective January 1, 2002 7%
The Employer proposes the following base wage increases:
Effective January 1, 2000 2.7%
Effective January 1, 2001 3%
Effective January 1, 2002 90% of CPI-U
with minimum of
2% and maximum
of 4%
The Union argues that its proposed wage increases are needed
in order to raise the total hourly compensation for the benchmark
position of top step firefighter to the average of the comparable
departments. The Employer contends that its proposed increases
are sufficient to maintain the position of the bargaining unit
members in relation to the comparable departments, and that over
the life of the agreement, its proposal will maintain the
bargaining unit members far ahead of price changes recorded by
the Consumer Price Index.
The Union and the Employer suggest different methods of
comparing compensation levels between the Employer and the
comparators. They both agree upon a comparison of compensation
provided to firefighters who have completed five years of
service. The Employer would include in the comparison: base
monthly salary, EMT premium pay, education incentive pay,
longevity pay, and deferred compensation. The Union would
consider these elements, but with regard to education incentive
pay and deferred compensation, the Union relies upon the average
amount paid for these benefits for each bargaining unit member.
In contrast, the Employer would utilize as a benchmark a
firefighter who has an Associate of Arts (A.A.) degree and who
receives the maximum possible employer deferred compensation
contribution. The Union would also consider the average cost per
employee of physical fitness pay. In addition, it would include
in the comparison the cost to the employer of health and welfare
benefits, as well as contributions to a Municipal Employee
Benefit Trust (MEBT) and holiday pay. The Union's suggested
methodology is to calculate an hourly wage for the benchmark
firefighter by considering the regular work schedule, less hours
for Kelly time, vacations, and holidays. The Employer opposes
such consideration of "hourly" wages.
One of the comparators, Edmonds, provides physical fitness
incentive pay. The Employer argues against consideration of such
incentive pay based on Chief Brown's testimony that the Employer
has spent $20,000 in the past year on exercise equipment for the
stations and has also provided fitness testing. Whether or not
the comparable employers provide such equipment or testing, and
no evidence pro or con was presented about this, there is
insufficient basis for excluding consideration of physical
fitness pay in total compensation. It is an actual payroll cost
of Edmonds. It is a benefit which can be attained by employees
who maintain their fitness. Therefore, I shall consider the
average cost per employee expended by Edmonds for the physical
fitness incentive.
The Union asserts that the total compensation of one of the
comparators, Pierce County Fire District No. 5, should include
$88 per month of holiday pay. The Employer would not include
this amount. Neither party has explained its rationale in this
regard. An examination of the relevant collective bargaining
agreement reveals that Pierce County Fire District No. 5 gives
the employee the option of requesting pay in lieu of time off for
holidays. While this is a benefit, it would be unfair to add
this holiday pay to total compensation since it would not
recognize the optional element of this benefit, and the fact that
any employee who receives it would forfeit their holiday time
off. The Union, in its brief, actually considers the holiday
benefit not only as additional pay beyond monthly wages, but also
as time off work for the purpose of reducing hours worked in
determining hourly pay. It cannot be both, since the employee
has the choice of one or the other. The holiday benefit in
Pierce County Fire District No. 5 shall be considered as an
element of hours worked for the purpose of determining the hourly
wage.
While the parties agree that education incentive pay should
be included in the compensation comparisons, they disagree on the
details. The Employer urges utilization of a benchmark of an
Associate of Arts (A.A.) degree. The parties' Collective
Bargaining Agreement provides a 2.5% pay increase for employees
"who attain 45 credits towards an EMS or Fire Service Degree
Program or equivalent...and an additional 2.5% pay raise shall be
given to those personnel who receive an Associate Degree..."
Thus, an employee with an appropriate A.A. degree would receive a
5% pay increase in this Department. No additional pay is
provided for education beyond an A.A. degree. The Union argues
in favor of using an average amount paid by each employer for
each bargaining unit employee for this benefit. The Union
obtained this data as a result of survey letters sent to the
relevant fire departments. The Union claims it is incorrect to
assume that all employees have A.A. degrees. Only seven members
of this bargaining unit received the premium for an A.A. degree.
The Employer, in its brief, questions the reliability of the
Union's survey data. It suggests that the averaging method is
unstable, because it is subject to change as a department adds or
loses employees. Chief Brown testified that during negotiations,
the parties had never utilized averages in determining the cost
of benefits. He testified that the Employer budgets for the
maximum possible cost of the benefit.
I have determined to utilize the average education benefit
actually paid as one of the elements of total compensation. The
5% incentive which is provided by the Employer for employees
holding an A.A. degree is the maximum education benefit offered
to bargaining unit members. Inasmuch as only seven employees
receive the A.A. degree incentive in this bargaining unit of 57
employees, it would not be fair to adopt this as a benchmark.
Certainly in this Department, a firefighter with an A.A. degree
is not typical. Moreover, use of an A.A. degree as a benchmark
is not a plausible compromise. Rather, use of the A.A. degree as
a benchmark would tend to inflate the Employer's suggested total
compensation figure in a manner that is disproportionate to the
actual compensation provided. While the Employer, in its brief,
challenges the reliability of the survey data presented by the
Union, it made no attempt to question its accuracy by
cross-examination or otherwise during the hearing. The parties were
given additional time after the hearing to confer and confirm the
figures provided during the hearing. The parties presented
corrected figures to the Arbitrator, but none of these related to
the average educational incentive payout of the Employer or the
comparators. There was no indication in the record presented
which would establish the unreliability of the figures provided
by the Union. Those figures shall be utilized as an element of
total compensation.
The Union takes the position that an employer's contribution
to a Municipal Employees Benefit Trust (MEBT) should be
considered as an element of total compensation. Only one
comparator, Edmonds, provides an MEBT benefit. According to the
Union, such a benefit involves the payment by employers equal to
what they would contribute if employees were covered by Social
Security. The Employer provided no evidence or argument which
would explain why this actual compensation cost should be
excluded. MEBT benefits shall be considered as an element of
total compensation.
The Employer and most of the comparable departments provide
a deferred compensation benefit, by which departments match
employee contributions to these supplemental retirement plans, up
to a maximum amount. Kitsap County Fire Protection District No.
7 provides 50 cents for every dollar contributed by the employee,
as does one of the comparators. The other comparable departments
which offer a deferred compensation benefit match employee
contributions dollar for dollar. The Employer contends that
deferred compensation contributions should be considered as an
element of total compensation on the basis of the maximum
possible contribution for which the Employer could be liable.
The Employer reasons that it must budget for a maximum possible
payout. The Union asserts that the deferred compensation benefit
should be based upon the average amount paid by each employer for
each bargaining unit employee. The Union argues that the
Employer's assumption that all employers contribute the maximum
possible matching contribution for each employee is incorrect.
The Employer responds that the Union's data in this regard is
unreliable.
The average employer payout for deferred compensation shall
be utilized. Comparing maximum possible payouts for a deferred
compensation would be unfair and inaccurate. Since the Employer
only matches half of the employee contribution, while most of the
comparators match employee contributions dollar for dollar, it
may be assumed that employees of the comparators are more likely
to make contributions. Therefore, it should be expected that the
comparators would pay a higher proportion of the maximum possible
contribution, than would the Employer. This is reflected in the
average contribution figures submitted by the Union. While the
Employer, in its brief, challenges the reliability of the survey
data presented by the Union, it made no attempt to question this
information by cross-examination or otherwise during the hearing.
Under the circumstances, the Union's suggested figures for the
cost of the deferred compensation plans are more appropriately
utilized than those of the Employer.
The Union contends that the Employer's health insurance
costs should be included in the total compensation comparison.
It would include costs for medical, dental, and vision plans
covering an employee, spouse, and two dependents. Where an
employer offered a choice of two plans, the Union utilized the
average cost of the two plans. The Employer argues against the
inclusion of such costs in the compensation comparison. It
reasons that many variables can affect premium rates, including
the ability to buy down monthly premium rates by paying points up
front as the Employer did.
The cost of medical, dental, and vision insurance will be
included in the total compensation comparison. Such costs are a
significant element of compensation and arbitrators generally
consider such costs in calculating compensation comparisons.(4)
While the Employer has asserted that it paid up front points to
pay down the cost of insurance, it provided no evidence regarding
the amount it paid for this. Therefore, I am unable to factor
this into its costs for insurance.
_____________
4 In City of Seattle and Seattle Police Manaqement Association
(1988), a decision which the Employer attached to its brief, Arbitrator
Snow considered the employer's cost of health insurance in its total
compensation comparison.
Both total monthly compensation and hourly compensation
shall be considered. Each has been considered by other interest
arbitrators. The parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement refers
to both a monthly wage rate (Article 4, Section4.1) and an
hourly rate of pay (Article 9, Section9.1).
The total monthly and hourly compensation figures for a
firefighter with five years of service, EMT certification, and an
A.A. degree in the selected comparable departments during 2000
are listed below:
------------------------------------------
Edmonds
Base Wage $4,349.00
MEBT and Pay 196.00
Fitness Premium 68.52
Insurance 611.83
Total Monthly Compensation $5,225.35
Net Hours Per Month 187.50
Total Hourly Compensation $27.87
Renton
Base Wage $4,481.00
Longevity 149.14
A.A. Incentive 68.77
Deferred Compensation 88.07
Insurance 727.33
Total Monthly Compensation $5,514.31
Net Hours Per Month 173.50
Total Hourly Compensation $31.78
Central Kitsap Fire & Rescue
Base Wage $4,463.00
A.A. Incentive 11.89
Deferred Compensation 50.00
Insurance 664.00
Total Monthly Compensation $5,188.89
Net Hours Per Month 195.50
Total Hourly Compensation $26.94
King County Fire District NO. 4
Base Wage $4,439.00
Longevity 88.78
Deferred Compensation 107.31
Insurance 595.79
Total Monthly Compensation $5,230.88
Net Hours Per Month 180.70
Total Hourly Compensation $28.95
King County Fire District NO. 43
Base Wage $4,603.00
Longevity 138.09
A.A. Incentive 47.83
Deferred Compensation 46.68
Insurance 572.19
Total Monthly Compensation $5,407.79
Net Hours Per Month 188.20
Total Hourly Compensation $28.73
Snohomish County Fire District No 7
Base Wage $4,577.00
Insurance 592.58
Total Monthly Compensation $5,169.58
Net Hours Per Month 195.50
Total Hourly Compensation $26.44
Snohomish County Fire District No. 12
Base Wage $4,286.00
A.A. Incentive 3.33
Insurance 473.44
Total Monthly Compensation $4,762.77
Net Hours Per Month 199.50
Total Hourly Compensation $23.87
Pierce County Fire District No. 2
Base Wage $4,596.00
A.A. Incentive 151.49
Deferred Compensation 250.00
Insurance 789.77
Total Monthly Compensation $5,787.26
Net Hours Per Month 196.50
Total Hourly Compensation $29.45
Pierce County Fire District No. 5
Base Wage $4,573.00
Longevity 91.46
A.A. Incentive 75.00
Deferred Compensation 219.00
Insurance 543.21
Total Monthly Compensation $5,501.67
Net Hours Per Month 194.50
Total Hourly Compensation $28.29
------------------------------------------
The average total monthly compensation and average total hourly
compensation for the nine comparable jurisdictions are reflected
below:
Average total monthly compensation $5,309.83
Average total hourly compensation $27.99
With the agreement of the Union, the Employer has already
implemented its 2.7% wage offer, effective January 1, 2000, with
the understanding that an additional wage increase may be
forthcoming as a result of the interest arbitration process. The
total compensation figures reflected below for Kitsap Fire
Protection District No. 7 include the 2.7% increase which has
already been implemented for 2000:
------------------------------------------
Kitsap Fire Protection District No. 7
Base Wage $4,423.00
A.A. Incentive 53.75
Deferred Compensation 98.42
Insurance 566.59
Total Monthly Compensation $5,141.76
Net Hours Per Month 193.50
Total Hourly Compensation $26.57
------------------------------------------
The above analysis reveals that even after the 2.7% increase
already implemented for 2000, the Employer's total monthly
compensation is 3.27% below the average provided by the
comparable departments during 2000. The total hourly
compensation of the Employer is 5.34% behind.
Base wage increases for the comparable departments for 2001
and 2002 are listed below:
2001 2002
Edmonds 100% CPI-U (3.3%) Not Available
Renton 3.5% 3.5%
CentralKitsap 3% 3%
KCFD#4 3% Not Available
KCFD#43 3% Not Available
SCFD#7 100% CPI-U + 1% (4.3%) 100% CPI-U (min 3 max 5)
SCFD#12 Not Available Not Available
PCFD#2 Not Available Not Available
PCFD#5 100% CPI-U (3.3%) Not Available
min 2/max 4
Weighing the governing factors which are set forth in the
statute, wage increases will be awarded for 2000 in the amount of
4.25%, and for 2001 in the amount of 4.5%. For 2002, a wage
increase is awarded in an amount equal to 100% of the CPI-U
Seattle-Everett Index for the preceding July to July period plus
0.5%, with a minimum of 3.5% and a maximum of 5.5%. A wage
increase of 4.25% for 2000 will be an additional 1.55% above the
wage level currently being paid, since a 2.7% increase has
already been implemented. In order to diminish the disparity in
total compensation between the Employer and the comparable
jurisdictions, the awarded increases exceed the applicable
percentage changes in the cost of living and the average
increases provided by the comparators. The higher increase
awarded for 2001 reflects the higher cost of living for the July
1999 to July 2000 period when compared with the prior year. The
awarded wage increases will likely bring the total monthly
compensation paid to bargaining unit members to about the average
of the comparable jurisdictions by the third year of the new
Agreement. At that time, the total hourly compensation will
likely be a few percentage points below the average of the
comparators, though much of the current gap will have been
eliminated. The awarded increases take into account the
statutory criteria, including a comparison of compensation levels
with that of like sized employers, the low turnover among
bargaining unit employees, and the increase in the cost of
living.
LIEUTENANT WAGE DIFFERENTIAL
The Union proposes to increase the pay differential between
the ranks of lieutenant and top step firefighter from the current
12% to 12.9% in order to achieve parity with the average provided
by the comparable departments. The Employer responds that it is
not necessary to meet the exact statistical average of the
comparable jurisdictions in order to be at a competitive wage.
The Employer observes that the parties have historically
recognized equal wage progressions between ranks of 6%. In this
regard, the current wage structure reflects the following:
Top Step Firefighter 100%
Probationary Lieutenant 106%
Lieutenant 112%
Probationary Captain 118%
Captain 124%
The lieutenant wage differential shall be maintained at 112%
of top step firefighters. Such a differential maintains the
logic of the parties' negotiated wage structure. The current
leutenant wage differential is reasonably close to the average
wage differential provided by the comparators. There is
insufficient reason to mandate a change that would upset the
existing proportional wage structure.
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
It is the determination of your Arbitrator that the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between Kitsap County Fire
Protection District No. 7 and International Association of Fire
Fighters, Local 2876, AFL-CIO, CLC shall be amended to include
the following:
I. Base wages shall be increased as follows:
Effective January 1, 2000 4.25%
Effective January 1, 2001 4.5%
Effective January 1, 2002 100% of the CPI-U
Seattle-Everett,
July 2000-July 2001,
plus 0.5%, with a
minimum of 3.5% and
a maximum of 5.5%.
II. There shall be no change in contract language
regarding the wage differential for lieutenants.
Sammamish, Washington
Dated: November 10, 2000
Alan R. Krebs, Arbitrator
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.