And
Teamsters
Local Union No. 763
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 11976-I-95-00260
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 11976-1-95-260
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S
AWARD
)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
)
and )
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, )
County. )
HEARING SITE: County
Administrative Building
HEARING DATES: May
25, 26, 1996
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Davies
Roberts and Reid
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Thomas E.
Platt
Perkins
Cole
40th
Floor
1201
ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
1465
Pinecrest Terrace
(541)
488-1573
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
ISSUE Page
Introduction 2
1 - Wages 6
2 - Pension 40
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is an interest arbitration conducted pursuant
to
the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
The parties to
this
dispute are Teamsters Local 763
(hereinafter "Union") and
the
County are parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement which
covered
the period from
The parties entered
into negotiations to
reach a successor
Agreement
to the 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The
parties
were successful in resolving most of the issues that
divided
them in contract negotiations. Three
fundamental issues
were
certified by the Public Employee Relations Coxnmission
for
interest arbitration. The issues
certified for interest
arbitration
were wages, shift differential and pension. During the
course
of the interest arbitration proceeding, the parties were
able
to reach agreement on the shift differential issue.
Snohomish County, Washington, stretches from
on
the west to the crest of the
Skagit County is located
immediately to the north, with
immediately
to the south, and Kitsap and Island Counties to the
west. The County is located on the I-5
corridor. The County
serves a
resident population of 525,600. The
largest city in the
County is
services
to all municipalities as well as unincorporated areas
within
its boundaries. All persons charged with
serious crimes and
misdemeanor
violations under the state code are booked and detained
at
the County jail. The arrestees sentenced
to one year or less
are
also by law housed at the
period
of their sentence. William Harper has
served as Department
Director
since 1982.
During 1995 the average daily population at
the
correctional facilities was 548. Over
16,000 persons were
booked
and processed through the facilities during 1995. The
majority
of the persons were detained for four days or less. In
1995 the average length of
stay for all bookings was 12.3 days.
The Corrections Department employs 195 staff. The
represents
105 employees in the Corrections Department in the
classifications of custody and corrections officers
that are
subject
to this interest arbitration.
Approximately 58 support
personnel, 5
corrections supervisors, 10
corrections support
supervisors
and 45 sheriff's support personnel are also represented
by
the
The hearing in this case took two days for the parties to
present a
substantial amount of testimony, and
extensive and
comprehensive
documentary evidence. The parties were
unable to
agree
on the appropriate jurisdictions with which to compare
the
members of this bargaining unit. A
considerable amount of
hearing
time was devoted to receiving evidence on the issue of
comparability. The hearing was recorded by a court reporter
and a
transcript
was made available to the parties and the Arbitrator for
the
purpose of preparing the post-hearing briefs and the Award.
Testimony of witnesses was
taken under oath. At the hearing the
parties were given
the full opportunity
to present written
evidence,
oral testimony and argument. The parties
provided the
Arbitrator with substantial
written documentation in support of
their
respective positions. Comprehensive and lengthy post-hearing
briefs
were submitted to the Arbitrator along
with interest
arbitration
awards previously issued by arbitrators in the state of
This Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the
evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established
by RCW 41.56.460. This is the first year
that interest
arbitration
has been available to corrections officers.
RCW
41.56.030(7) (C) . The approach of
your Arbitrator in writing this
Award will be to summarize the
major and most persuasive evidence
and
argument presented by the parties on each issue. After the
introduction
of the issue and positions of the parties, I will then
state
the basic findings and rationale which caused the Arbitrator
to
make the award on the individual issue.
The Arbitrator is directed by the statute to take into
consideration a
number of standards or guidelines to assist in
making
an Award to resolve this dispute. The
statutory factors to
be
considered by the Arbitrator may be summarized as follows:
(a) the
constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer;
(b) the stipulations of the parties;
(c) the wages, hours
and conditions of
employment
of like personnel of like employers
of similar size on the west coast of the
(d) the average consumer prices for
goods and
services, commonly
known as the
cost of
living;
(e) changes
in any of
the foregoing
circumstances during the pendency of the
proceedings;
and
(f) such other factors, not confined to
the
foregoing,
which are normally or traditionally
taken
into consideration in the determination
of
wages, hours and conditions of employment.
ISSUE 1 - WAGES
A. BackGround
The 1992-94 Collective Bargaining Agreement for custody
and
corrections officers provides for a six-step salary schedule.
The final year of the 1992-94 contract provided a salary range as
follows:
CLASS Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
2283.25 2396.58 2516.17 2643.00 2776.42 2913.25
The parties have agreed to retain the existing six-step
schedule
for three years with agreed on cost of living wage
increases. The parties agreed to adjust the salary
schedule
effective
increase
on
controlled
by a CPI formula. Effective
schedule
would be increased by an amount equal to 90% of the CPI-W.
The agreed on adjustments for the first two years will
result
in a salary schedule providing wages as follows:
CLASS Step 1 Step
2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step
6
CO 1995 2355.17 2472.07 2595.43 2726.25 2863.88 3005.02
CO 1996 2423.00 2543.27 2670.18 2804.77 2946.36 3091.56
CO 1997 COLA COLA COLA COLA COLA COLA
Jt. Ex. 9.
The dispute before the Arbitrator on the wage issue is a
Union proposal to add another
5% increase to the agreed on wage
adjustment
for both 1995 and 1996. The County takes
the position
the
agreed on COThA adjustments establishes the
appropriate levels
of
compensation for the 1995-97 contract years.
The only remaining
issue
for the Arbitrator is whether there will be further wage
adjustments
for 1995 and 1996 in addition to the COLA.
B. The
The
custody
officers are entitled to a substantial wage increase in
addition
to COLA increases. According to the
the
statutorily required adjustments for cost of living, the data
from
the comparable jurisdictions indicates a substantial increase
is
necessary to "narrow the gap" between the under compensated
jurisdictions. The
raise
for 1995 and 1996, in addition to the COLA adjustments is in
accord
with the statutory standards.
The
and
methodology are adopted by the Arbitrator, the evidence shows
the
custody officers are clearly entitled to a substantial raise.
In the view of the
arbitrator to take
"cost of living" into consideration when
formulating
an award. Arbitrators have
traditionally adjusted
comparison
studies to reflect different costs of living among the
comparison
jurisdictions. The
agreement
that the
basis for determining
differences in cost
of living among
considers
the cost of living data, he need not resolve all of the
parties
methodological sub-disputes, because a substantial raise is
clearly due
even if one
adopts the County's
comparison
jurisdictions
and methodology. The
shows
the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Metropolitan Area having by far
the
highest cost of living among the
The
1995 shows the following
composite cost of living comparisons:
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett 120.3
The
of
living differences, as further evidence
lowest
paid corrections officers of any county in the state, after
the reguired adjustment for cost of living is calculated. Employer
Exhibit 32 shows that
Snohomish County officers lag fully 22%
behind
Pierce County officers.
Employer Exhibit 32 is extremely persuasive of the need
for a
raise above COLA adjustments. First, the
Union asserts that
the
Arbitrator must evaluate the County's economic exhibits by
keeping
in mind they make no adjustments for differences in the
cost
of living among the jurisdictions cited by the County. Since
Snohomish County is part of a
metropolitan area, it defies logic to
fail
to take into account differences in the cost of living with
such
communities as Yakima and Spokane.
Second, Employer Exhibit
4D assumes the County's
position on every methodological dispute.
Even if the Arbitrator accepts
the County's skewed data, their own
evidence
still demonstrates a need to award custody officers a
substantial
raise in addition to COLA increases.
Turning to the factor of comparability, the Union submits
that
Pierce County and King County are the most directly comparable
jurisdictions. Pierce County is uniquely probative because
it is
the
County's southern twin. Pierce County is
a densely populated
part
of the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett megalopolis centered around a
large
second-tier city (Tacoma, Everett) .
Pierce and Snohomish
Counties play similar roles in
the Seattle Metropolitan Area by
providing
commuter employees to Seattle and at the same time act as
their
own commercial centers about thirty miles away from downtown
Seattle. Both counties sit astride I-5, the lifeline
of Washington
State's
most intense commercial activity.
The Union next argues that King County is probative of
appropriate
wage rates in Snohomish County. King and
Snohomish
Counties are large
sub-parts of the
Tacoma-Seattle-Everett
Metropolitan Area and are
clearly regarded as part of the same
labor
and economic market. Further, they are
part of the region's
new
transit plan which proposes extending commuter rail and HOV
express
lanes from Everett to south of Tacoma. Un. Ex. 15. The
Union reasons that from south
of Tacoma to north of Everett,
Washington State is one
uninterrupted stretch of densely populated
land
making the placement of county lines on the map of little
relation
to the reality of the economic and commercial activity.
The Union cited three other counties which it believes
also
provide useful guidance to setting the appropriate wage
schedule
for corrections officers. Clark County
is similar to
Snohomish County in that it is
part of a larger metropolitan
region. In addition, it is located on an interstate
corridor with
a
larger city, Portland, and serves as a commuter bedroom community
for
the larger city. Because it is much
smaller in size and has
substantially
lower tax revenue, Clark County's officers should be
paid
lower wages than their Snohomish County counterparts. The
record
reflects the opposite is true.
Skagit County is adjacent to Snohomish County and sits
astride
the 1-5 corridor. The fact that Skagit
County with its
total
population of 91,000 is substantially smaller than Snohomish
County's 504,270 population is probative by itself. The Union
submits
that owing to the size differential,
Snohomish County
officers
ought to make substantially more than Skagit County
corrections
officers. The evidence before this Arbitrator reflects
the
opposite is true.
The third county which the Union believes is useful for
comparison
purposes in this case is Thurston County.
For the
identical
reasons discussed with respect to Skagit County, Thurston
County is seen as providing
some guidance to setting the wages of
the
members of this bargaining unit. In sum,
the Union argues that
King County and Pierce County
are clearly the jurisdictions which
should
be given the greater weight when determining the wages for
the
members of this bargaining unit.
The Union takes the position that the Arbitrator should
reject the additional
counties advocated by the
County for
comparison
purposes. Yakima County is not a valid
comparison for
Snohomish County, because its
population and tax revenues do not
fall
within the one-half to two times rule-of-thumb.
In addition,
Yakima County is not on the
I-5 corridor or located in the Puget
Sound Area as part of a larger
metropolitan region. Yakima County
is
located east of the Cascades with an economic foundation of
fruit
orchards and hops fields. Snohomish, King and Pierce
Counties have an economic
foundation based on trade, shipping,
industry
and high technology.
The Arbitrator should also reject the County's reliance
on
Kitsap County because it is not located on the I-5 corridor and
is
not accessible to the Tacoma-Seattle-Everett Metropolitan Area
by
any convenient route. As the crow flies,
Kitsap would appear to
be
in geographic proximity to Snohomish County.
However, the Union
notes
"custody officers are not crows."
The only valid reason for
considering
Kitsap County would be because of its ferry boat
connection
to downtown Seattle. If Kitsap County
should be
considered
because of its mere relationship to Seattle, then the
Union's case for using King
County as a comparator is strengthened
substantially
by the County's choice of comparators.
The Arbitrator should also reject the County's proposal
to
include Spokane County as a basis for comparison. While Spokane
County is in an appropriate
population range, Spokane County should
not
be included in the comparator group because it is located
outside
the Seattle Metropolitan Area. The
counties located along
the
I-5 corridor and in the Seattle Metropolitan Area constitute a
unique
geographic and economic area in the state of Washington. If
the
Arbitrator decides to take Spokane County into consideration he
must
remember to make the adjustment for differences in the cost of
living
as previously discussed.
The Union asserts that its comparison data is fair and
reasonable
and shows a clear need for a substantial increase in
addition
to COLA adjustments. Union Exhibit 7
reveals as follows:
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO.
763 AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS
TOP SALARY STEPS INDEXED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY
COUNTY TOP SALARY STEP SNOHOMISH COUNTY
KING $3601 123.6%
PIERCE $3204 110.0%
SKAGIT $3080 105.7%
THURSTON $3028 104.0%
SNOHOMISH (1994) $2913 100.0%
CLARK (1994) $2712 93.1%
All of the figures in the
above exhibit are 1995 figures, except
where
otherwise noted.
Union
Exhibits 8, 9
and 10, index total employee
compensation
for the Union's comparison counties at the eight-year
and
fifteen-year levels. Union Exhibit 9
computed the base pay
plus
premiums for a
fifteen-year employee which
revealed in
relevant
part as follows:
TEAMSTERS
LOCAL NO. 763 AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY CORRECTIONS
COMPARISON OF BASE PAY PLUS
PREMIUMS
COUNTY BASE PAY TOTAL
KING $3601 $4,207
PIERCE $3204 $3,605
THURSTON $3028 $3,538
SKAGIT $3080 $3,526
CLARK (1994) $2712 $3,432
SNOHOMISH (1994) $2913 $3,299
The
Union then indexed
total compensation paid to
Snohomish
County officers with the comparators in Union Exhibit 10.
The Union submits there is no
basis for a 6.5% difference in
compensation
between Snohomish and Pierce Counties, unadjusted for
cost
of living. Pierce County is the
single-most comparable county
in
the state of Washington and has a cost of living well below that
of
Snohomish County. Basic fairness demands
that Snohomish County
officers
be paid at a level equal to or greater than Pierce
County's
corrections officers.
Similarly, there is no principled
basis
for paying King County corrections officers fully 21% more
than
Snohomish County officers. Nor is there
any valid reason for
three
vastly smaller counties (Thurston, Skagit,
Clark) to be
paying their
corrections officers substantially more than Snohomish
County pays its officers.
The Union submits its data is fair and reasonable and
designed
to present an accurate picture of employee compensation
among
the various jurisdictions. The Union's
choice of an eight-
year
employee comparison is designed to compare "apples to apples"
by permitting sufficient
time for all
employees in all
jurisdictions
to reach the top step of the wage scale.
The Union's
data
makes modest and reasonable assumptions for the purpose of
making
the calculations.
Moreover, the Union's inclusion of health and welfare
premium
payments is absolutely necessary to an accurate comparison
of
employee compensation. The County's
position to exclude health
and
welfare premiums should be rejected by the Arbitrator. It is
well
accepted that health and welfare premiums constitute a slice
of
the total economic pie and should not be ignored because the
benefits
are variable among the different jurisdictions.
The Union avers that Snohomish County custody officers'
working
conditions corroborate the need for a raise in addition to
COLA
adjustments. The conditions of employment factor
demonstrated
that
Snohomish County jail is "punishingly"
overcrowded, and that
overcrowding
affects the custody officers working
conditions more
directly
and dramatically than in any comparable jurisdiction. The
jail
opened in 1986 designed to hold a maximum 277 prisoners. In
February 1996 the average
daily population of the jail was 528
persons. Un. Ex. 4. There have
been no material modifications to
the
jail since 1986 to justify the doubling of the population.
The Union next points out that Snohomish County is a
"direct
supervision" facility that is unlike the typical jail where
corrections officers
simply observe locked cell blocks from within
a
secure officer station. Snohomish County
officers are directly
exposed
to inmate contact which is exacerbated by the overcrowding.
The only jail facility offered
by either side that is a direct
supervision
facility is Spokane County. According to
the Union,
this overcrowding impairs
Snohomish County custody
officers'
working
conditions because they are in direct contact with the
inmate
on a "moment-to-moment" basis.
The Arbitrator should reject the County's attempt to
minimize
its own situation by claiming that other
jails are
likewise
overcrowded. The Arbitrator should find
that Snohomish
County custody officers'
working conditions justify additional
compensation
because officers are directly exposed to dangerous
offenders
who are themselves struggling to cope with overcrowded
conditions.
Regarding the County's counterarguments to the Union
proposals, the Arbitrator should reject all of the County's
arguments
as unpersuasive. First, the Arbitrator
should reject the
County's claim that it is
financially unable to provide the Union's
requested raises because
the argument was
never made in
negotiations. By waiting until the arbitration hearing to
offer a
financial
inability to pay argument, the Union was deprived of the
ability
to investigate the alleged financial difficulties. Even
with
this late assertion of financial inability to pay, the
evidence
showed the County is in a strong financial position and
has
the ability to fund the Union's proposal.
Second, the County's attack on the Consumer Price Index,
that
it overestimates inflation is insufficiently supported to draw
the
inference sought by the County. The
County relied on a
"political"
study being used to slow the growth of entitlement
payments
that are a function of the increases in the CPI.
Third,
the County's historical data provided further
strong
support for the Union 5 wage proposal.
Tabs 8 and 9 of
Employer Exhibit 4
demonstrates that the County has consistently
agreed
to wage raises higher than the rate of inflation for
bargaining
unit members. In addition, the County
has historically
provided
greater wage increases to custody officers than to other
law
enforcement employees in an effort to narrow the wage gap
between
deputy sheriffs and corrections officers.
Likewise, the
County had sought to narrow
the wage gap between King County and
Snohomish
County corrections officers. Thus, the Arbitrator should
compel a
bargain in compliance with the historical trends reflected
in
the Employer Exhibits.
For all of the above stated reasons the Arbitrator should
award
the Union's proposal for an additional 5% increase in 1995
and
an additional 5% increase in 1996 over the agreed upon COLA
adjustments.
C. The County
The County takes the position that the agreed upon cost
of
living adjustments for the duration of this contract creates the
appropriate
wage structure for the parties. The
evidence offered
by
the Union failed to demonstrate that any additional wage
increases
are justified under the statutory standards.
Therefore,
the
Arbitrator should reject the Union's proposal for additional
wage
increases for the duration of the three-year contract.
The County begins by noting the Union's position in this
arbitration
is, "At war with the fiscal and budgetary actions that
are
being taken by the County." Er. Ex. 4D. The County has
adopted
stringent measures to arrest the imbalance in revenue and
personnel
cost growth projected by the County. The
County was
consistent in maintaining
this position during
the 1995
negotiations
with its various unions.
The parties have stipulated that effective January 1,
1995, a 3.15% cost of living
wage increase should be applied to the
existing
salary schedule. The parties also agreed
that effective
January 1, 1996, an additional
2.88% increase should be applied to
the
salary schedule. For 1997 the parties
have agreed t6 a cost of
living
adjustment based upon 90% of the CPI-W.
The agreed on
increases
are in accord with the statutory factors which guide this
Arbitrator
in formulating an award in this case.
Turning to the
factor of comparability, the County
selected
six counties located within the state of Washington with
which
to compare itself for determining wages for corrections
officers. The County's selection procedure
yielded the following:
County Population
Pierce 660,200
Spokane 401,200
Clark 291,
000
Kitsap 220,600
Yakima 204,
100
Thurston 189,200
The County utilized corrections officer assignments for
developing
its comparison data. The County
identified counties of
similar
size by adopting a 50% range factor. The
size of Snohomish
County is 525,600. The range thus is 262,800 to 788,400 which
yielded
the three Washington counties of Pierce, Spokane and Clark.
In order to expand the three
Washington counties to reasonable
proportions and to balance
the overall sample, the counties
offering
the closest population in comparison to Snohomish County
were
added to the list. This resulted in the
use of the smaller
counties
of Kitsap, Yakima and Thurston for comparison purposes.
In sum, the County submits that its
set of six Washington
counties
represents a well balanced group both in population and
geographic
distribution. Thus, the use of the six counties
identified
by the County comports with the statutory mandates.
Turning to the factor of cost of living, the County
maintains
the CPI has been averaging in the range of 2.5% to 3% for
the
last couple of years. Currently the CPI
is at 2% with the
Seattle
CPI-W at 2.7%. Er. Ex. 4D, Att.
12. According to the
County, the CPI overstates the
increases in the cost of living by
1%. Thus, the actual increase in consumer prices
is only 2%. The
County believes the Arbitrator
should use the revised figure of 2%
for
analyzing this factor.
The corrections and custody officers in this unit have
been
treated well when the CPI figures over the past ten years are
compared
to wage increases for the members of this unit.
The CPI-W
for
the Seattle-Tacoma Area has increased by 43.4% over the 1985-95
period. However, during that same period the
negotiated wage
increases
for the County corrections and custody officers have
increased
by 72.3%. Therefore, the County submits
the record does
not
support any special wage adjustments to account for changes in
consumer
prices.
The
County asserts that the burden of proof falls
squarely
on the Union as the party seeking to change the status guo
to
prove its proposals are justified under the statutory criteria.
The County characterized the
Union's position as a bold attempt on
their
part to utilize its first opportunity at interest arbitration
to
gain special wage increases for the members of this bargaining
unit. The difference between the County's cost based on its offer
and
the Union's demands is about $500,000 for the 105 employees in
this
bargaining unit. Given the numerous
financial challenges
facing
the County, it would not be prudent or reasonable to award
the
Union's proposal.
No adjustments beyond the agreed on wage increases are
warranted. The County's offer represents an increase to
the County
of
approximately 15.24% for the 105 bargaining unit members over
the
term of the three-year Agreement. The
Union's demand would
produce
more than a 25% increase in wages during that same period
at
an added-cost of approximately $500,000.
Since the parties have
voluntarily
agreed to each and every issue in bargaining, except
pension,
the dispute before this Arbitrator is properly framed as
a
"basic wage dispute."
The County's offer seeks to maintain the historical
relationship
among the comparable counties. On the
other hand, the
Union's proposal would have
the County move out to 9.5% above the
average
of the comparable counties. The Union
offered absolutely
no
credible explanation for this dramatic change in the treatment
of
corrections officers in relationship to the comparables. The
Union should not be allowed to
"unplug" itself frdm the history of
bargaining
or to add King County which has never been used as a
comparable.
Moreover, the historical relationship between
County
corrections
officers and deputy sheriffs reveals that over the last
ten
years the gap between the two groups of employees has narrowed
to
85%. The County's offer in this interest
arbitration proceeding
for
1995 will maintain the gap at 84.9%. The
Union's demand for an
additional 5% would reduce the gap between
what is paid to
corrections
officers and deputy sheriffs to 90%.
Reducing the gap
to
90% would put it at a level never achieved by the custody
officers
through free and open collective bargaining.
The wage
relationship
between custody officers and deputy sheriffs in the
comparison
counties is supported by the County's proposal.
The
County's offer maintains
the differential of
85% which is
remarkably
close to the average in the other counties of 84%.
The County favors a direct wages to wages comparison in
this
case. The Union favors a net hourly
compensation comparison
for
an eight-year or fifteen-year officer with an A.A. degree. In
the
view of the County, when the only compensation issue before the
Arbitrator is wages, the
addition of premium pays and other forms
of
compensation only serves to confuse the issue. While the County
could
have utilized a "net pay" analysis, the County submits an
"apples
to apples" wage comparison provides a realistic method to
assess
the wages paid among the comparable jurisdictions.
Turning to internal comparability, the County avers that
its
proposal is equitable and consistent with salary increases
negotiated
with other labor unions representing County employees.
For 1995 alone, the Union
demands a salary increase well over twice
as
great as other County groups who settled for 3.15% The record
evidence
also shows that the County corrections officers have been
generously
compensated over the past decade. The
top-step pay for
a
corrections officer has increased by 72.3% while the range for
other
County employees for that same period was at 43% at the low
end
and 69% at the top end. Adoption of the
County's position will
maintain
the traditional wage gap of 85.1% between a corrections
officer
and a deputy sheriff.
The County's wage proposal is reasonable in light of
local
market wage increases. The average wage
increase received by
city
of Everett bargaining units was 3.2% in 1995.
Snohomish
County PUD bargaining units
received a 3% wage increase for 1995.
Scott Paper bargaining groups
received a 3% increase for 1995.
Boeing settled with its unions
for a 1.5% increase on their base
wage
plus a 5% lump sum payment, which did not go into the base.
Everett School District
bargaining unints settled for a 4% wage
increase
for the 1995-96 period, which averages out to 2% per year.
The County next argues that the 1995 and 1996 salary
schedules
will also be within the norm for corrections Qfficers
in
the
comparable counties. The schedule
proposed by the Union is
not The County's proposed 1995 top-step salary
of $3,005 places
the
County in the number three position among the six Washington
comparators. The County's proposed salary of $3,005 is
4.2% above
the
average top salary for the comparator group.
The County's
proposal
is right on the mark and should not in any manner be
viewed
as "low balling" or "posturing" for the purpose of this
interest
arbitration.
It is also the County's position that its offer is
supported
by other traditional factors used in establishing a wage
schedule. The evidence shows the work force has been
stable and
there
has been no turnover problems in this bargaining unit. In
addition, the
County has had no trouble
in attracting good
applicants
from the local area for corrections officer positions.
The evidence also demonstrated
that the workload for corrections
officers
is moderate by industry standards. The
average daily
population
in the jail during 1995 remained stable.
The ratio of
custody/corrections
officers to prisoners in thegroup of counties
under
consideration by the Arbitrator was 1:6 during the calendar
year
1995. The County had slightly greater
staffing per capita at
1:5.
The County takes the position that working conditions are
safer
in the Snohomish County facility by virtue of the fact it is
a
direct supervision facility. Director Harper testified that work
for a
corrections officer in a direct supervision facility is much
safer
than for officers in an "indirect" supervision facility.
During 1995 there were
approximately 16,000 individuals processed
at
the County jail. During that period,
there were four custody
officers assaulted. There have been no riots or similar serious
disturbances
since the implementation of the direct supervision
facility. Contrary to the Union's unsupported claims
about a
crowded
jail and dangers to custody officers, the evidence in the
record is
at odds with the picture sought to be portrayed by the
Union
witnesses.
Turning to the Union's argument regarding comparators,
the
County submits the selection process utilized by the Union was
fatally
flawed in five respects. First, the
Union seeks to rewrite
the
statute based on ill defined notions of geography. The
Washington statute clearly
refers to "comparable communities" of
"similar
size." The Union's attempt to
suggest that King County
and
Snohomish County are part and parcel of an I-5 megalopolis is
simply
not supported by the statute.
Second,
the Union used only a few I-5 counties in
selecting
its comparators. The Union's insistence
on narrowing its
comparables
to the I-5 corroder incorrectly ignores any part of
Washington east of the Cascade
mountains.
Third, the huge gap in
size
from the Union's comparables and the County's, argues against
any
claim the jurisdictions selected are of similar size.
Fourth,
the Union's comparators
offer a moving and
shrinking
target because prior to the arbitration hearing Spokane
was
used as a comparable. At the arbitration
hearing, the Union
added
Skagit County and deleted Spokane County from its list of
comparators. Spokane County is significantly closer in
size to
Snohomish
County than either Skagit or Thurston Counties. The
Union's moving target approach
to comparators should be rejected by
the
Arbitrator.
Fifth, the Union's overall logic fails in both reasoning
and
presentation of the evidence. The
Union's own exhibits prove
that
King and Skagit Counties are not comparable under the statute
because
of the size differences. The Union's
declaration that
there
is ample evidence for use of factors other than size was
without
factual support. Thus,.
the comparators used by the County
should
be the only comparators used in deciding this case.
The County next challenges the Union's total compensation
analysis
offered by Union witness Mark Endresen. Un. Exs. 8-10.
The County objects to the
broad and slippery commingling of wages
and
benefits because the entire economic package is not before the
Arbitrator. The Union's methodology does not lend itself
to
"apples to apples" comparison critical to making an accurate
assessment
of total compensation. Thus, the Arbitrator
should
conclude
that it is inappropriate to mix benefits and wages when
reviewing
comparators for purposes of a wage increase.
The Arbitrator should also reject the patently misleading
indexing
to make comparisons because it masks clear and otherwise
unmistakable
relationships. When combined with the
inclusion of
King County into the group of
comparators, the King County salary
dominates
the study. If the average top step of
the four Union
comparators
is calculated without King County, the
figure is
$3,006. The $3,006 number is $1 per month greater
than $3,005 per
month
agreed to by the parties for 1995.
The County next argues the Union's figures are unreliable
because
they omitted certain data. For example,
Union Exhibit 6
does
not show "total taxes" as claimed.
The Union's use of the
corrections
officer with fifteen years of service is misplaced
because
it is not representative of a typical corrections officer.
The corrections officer with
fifteen years of service represents a
small
segment of the bargaining unit so as to be of little or no
use
to the Arbitrator when developing an award.
The Union's line
items
presented in Union Exhibits 8, 9 and 10 are suspect because
they
include elements of compensation that are not at issue in this
case. Absent from the Union's "total compensation"
spreadsheet is
any
reference to hours of work. The net
hourly wage approach was
presented
during bargaining but abandoned at arbitration. The
Union's model purports to be a
"total compensation package" but on
close
inspection the study fails to include several big ticket
items
enjoyed by County corrections officers.
The concluding argument of the County is that the Union's
proposal
is extraordinarily costly. With two 5%
increases the
monthly
salary of a top-step corrections officer would increase
from
$2,913 per month in 1994 to $3,150 to $3,399 per month in
1996. This would result in an increase in the
annual salary of
$5,828
for each corrections officer by next year. The statutory
criteria and
evidence in this
record supports the
County's
position. The Arbitrator should not reward the Union's
tactics
with a
"compromise award on the wage
issue.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Arbitrator holds the Union's proposal to provide an
additional
5% increase for 1995 and an additional5% for 1996 over
the
agreed on cost of living adjustments should not be adopted.
The Arbitrator does find that
an additional increase of 1.25%,
effective
July 1, 1996, is justified. The adoption
of the 1.25%
increase
will establish the top-step pay on July 1, 1996, at $3,130
per
month. The reasoning of the Arbitrator-
-as guided by the
statutory
criteria--is set forth in the discussion which follows.
Constitutional and Statutory
Authority of Employer
Regarding the constitutional and statutory authority of
the
employer, no issues were raised with respect to this factor.
While the County did argue in
its post-hearing brief the Union's
proposal,
"Is at war with the fiscal and budgetary actions that are
being
taken by the County," the Arbitrator does not interpret this
as a
claim the County is barred from paying an award over the
agreed
on cost of living raises. The Arbitrator
will discuss the
cost
factor later in this Award.
Stipulations of the Parties
The parties have reached tentative agreement on all
language
issues and cost of living adjustments for 1995, 1996 and
1997. The record reflects the parties will continue
the existing
salary
schedule with adjustments as follows:
January 1, 1995 (retroactive)
3.15%
January 1, 1996 (retroactive)
2.88%
January 1, 1997 90% CPI-W
The parties also agreed to
settle the "Shift Differential" issue
that
was certified for interest arbitration.
The parties also stipulated to limit their comparison to
other
counties located in the state of Washington, and to exclude
West
Coast counties outside the state of Washington.
Comparability
The threshold issue to be decided is to determine the
appropriate group of
comparators with which
to utilize in
establishing
the suitable level of wages for Snohomish County
corrections officers. The parties agreed
to confine their
comparator
groups to corrections officers in Washington counties.
The parties are
in sharp disagreement over which Washington
counties
should be included in the comparator group.
Both sides
devoted
considerable time and effort towards proving which. counties
best
fit the statutory criteria.
The Union argued that King County and Pierce County are
the
two most directly comparable jurisdictions.
Clark County,
Skagit County and Thurston
County were also offered by the Union to
provide
useful guidance with which to measure wages for Snohomish
County
corrections officers. The
County claimed that Pierce,
Clark, Spokane, Kitsap, Yakima
and Thurston Counties best passed
the
statutory test of "like employers."
The Arbitrator holds the Union failed to demonstrate
"King County" was a
like employer under the statute. The
Union
argued
for inclusion of King County based on geographic location
and
regional similarities. The Arbitrator
finds this argument did
not
overcome the County's evidence which demonstrated significant
differences
between King County and Snohomish County.
King
County's population is
1,613,600, as compared to the Snohomish
County
population of 525,600. When
other characteristics such as
assessed
valuation, total taxes, total expenditures, etc., are
examined,
the conclusion is inescapable that King County does not
meet
the statutory test of a like employer sufficient to justify
adding
King County to the list as a direct comparator.
If there
were
an insufficient number of jurisdictions available to make a
valid
comparison, King County might deserve some attention based on
geographic
location. However, that is not the
situation in the
instant
case.
The 1996 case is the first interest arbitration between
the
parties. To place King County on the initial list of
comparators
would unnecessarily distort the data submitted to the
Arbitrator for review. There is some merit to the Union's
arguments
that the parties cannot totally ignore the impact of
Snohomish County's immediate
neighbor to the south on the parties'
employment
relationship. Nor is the Arbitrator
holding that in
future
cases, guidance might not be found in the King County
situation. However, for
the 1996 interest arbitration, the
Arbitrator concludes the use
of King County as a comparator is not
justified
and King County should not be included on the initial
list
of comparator jurisdictions.
The three jurisdictions common to both lists are Pierce,
Clark
and Thurston Counties.
Spokane County clearly meets the test
of a
like employer of similar size and should be included on the
list
of comparators. The use of a second
county, located in
eastern
Washington on a list of six comparators,
gives this
Arbitrator some concern as to
the total influence that should be
accorded to eastern
Washington jurisdictions, on a western
Washington county. The County's evidence was persuasive that
Yakima County belongs
on the list
for the 1996
interest
arbitration.
The remaining dispute centers overwhether
Kitsap County
or
Skagit County should be among the group of comparators. The
County's evidence was unrebutted that Skagit
County uses
corrections
officer positions as a hiring and training ground for
its
deputy sheriffs. Based on this evidence
the Arbitrator concurs
that
Skagit County should be excluded from the list of comparators.
In sum,
the four jurisdictions of Pierce,
Thurston,
Spokane and Clark provide a
sound base for comparison. When
combined
with Yakima and Kitsap Counties, the six jurisdictions
form a
balanced group of similarly sized, like employers to assist
in
establishing the wage level for the members of this bargaining
unit.
While the list of comparators offered by the County, and
adopted
by the Arbitrator is not perfect, the
group of six
jurisdictions
will serve as a solid base for future negotiations.
Your Arbitrator spent a
considerable amount of effort examining the
evidence
and argument concerning the comparators because the six
jurisdictions
used in this case will serve as the benchmark for
future
negotiations. As previously noted, there should be no
further
disagreements over the use of Pierce, Thurston, Spokane and
Clark
Counties as appropriate comparators. The use of Kitsap
County and Yakima County may
be open for future debate. The sphere
of
influence of King County on Snohomish County will not go away as
the
Seattle Metropolitan Area continues to grow and expand.
The
Arbitrator concludes the
appropriate group of
comparators
for the 1996 interest arbitration are as follows:
Pierce
Thurs ton
Clark
Spokane
Kitsap
Yakima
The Arbitrator finds the context in which this first
interest
arbitration arises is significant. The
parties have
agreed
to cost of living adjustments for the duration of the 1995-
97 Collective Bargaining Agreement. Further,
they have agreed to
all
issues in dispute, except for the Union's proposal on pension.
In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, the compensation issue is a
basic
wage dispute, and the evaluation of compensation should be
confined
to basic wages. The Arbitrator was unpersuaded by the
Union's arguments that a total
compensation analysis should be used
in
this case. The application of a total
compensation analysis of
the
six comparators to Snohomish County in the first interest
arbitration
between the parties would unnecessarily complicate and
confuse
what is a basic wage dispute.
The County's wage study revealed the following:
1995 C.O.
Wage
Pierce 3165
Thurs ton 3028
Snohomish ** 3005
Spokane 2802
Kitsap 2772
Yakima 2740
Average 2883
Snohomish 3005
Sno v. Avg + 4.2%
*Clark is in interest
arbitration and has not settled for
1995, so a 3.0% COLA has been
included in the above figure
**Including 3.15% COLA
The above comparison of the 1995 wage level reveals
Snohomish County is 4.2% above
the average which includes the two
lower
paying eastern Washington jurisdictions of Spokane County and
Yakima County. While Snohomish County
ranks third, it is
significantly
behind the top paying Pierce County by $160 per
month. Snohomish County will pay in 1995, $23 per
month less than
the
second ranked Thurston County.
The top-step pay for a Snohomish
County corrections
officer
with the 2.88% cost of living adjustment in 1996 is $3,092
per
month. The Arbitrator was convinced that
an additional wage
adjustment
for 1996 is justified to narrow the gap between the top
paying
Pierce County and to place Snohomish County corrections
officers
at approximately the same wage level as Thurston County.
The pattern is clear the three top counties are located
in
western Washington on the I-5 corridor.
The four counties at
the
lower end of the rankings are outside of the direct influence
of
the Seattle Metropolitan Area. The
Arbitrator finds that 1.25%
should
be added to the 1996 wage schedule to maintain and enhance
Snohomish County's competitive
position within the comparator
group. The additional 1.25% should be implemented
effective July
1,
1996.
The additional 1.25% will raise the top-step pay for 1996
by
$39 to $3,130 per month. In formulating
this Award, the
Arbitrator was mindful of the
Union's intercounty cost of living
position. In addition, the fact the Snohomish County
jail is a
direct
supervision type of facility, and the overcrowded conditions
in
the jail warrant some recognition in the area of wages. When
the overcrowding
in the jail
is combined with
the direct
supervision
type of facility, the working conditions of the members
of
this bargaining unit are adversely impacted.
The added 1.25%
effective
July 1, 1996, will not disrupt the County's financial
program
and will be consistent with increases in the cost of living
as
recorded by the CPI. The Seattle CPI-W
for 1994 reflected a
3.64% increase.
Moreover, the additional 1.25% is consistent with the
salary
increases negotiated with other unions representing County
employees
and local market wage increases by outside employers. By
delaying
the effective date of the adjustment to July 1, 1996, the
financial
impact on the County is diminished.
Cost of Living
The record evidence established that the National CPI-W
and
CPI-U has been recording increases between 2.5% to 3% in recent
years. The Seattle CPI-W is currently at 2.7%. Er. Ex. 4D, Att.
12. The Seattle CPI-W for 1994 showed a 3.64%
increase. Er. Ex.
4D,
Att. 8.
The County believes the CPI overstates "consumer
prices"
by
about 1%. The County reasons the
Arbitrator should use a
"revised
figure of 2%" in analyzing this factor.
The Arbitrator
expressly
rejects the County's invitation to tinker with the
published
CPI figures by a reduction of 1% to account for the
purported
overstatement in the measurement of increases in the
price
of goods and services.
The Arbitrator concurs with the County that the cost of
living
factor is to be used as one of the guidelines for setting
the
appropriate level of wages for employees.
The CPI measures
price increases
in a set market basket of goods and services.
It
is
not intended to measure the impact on any particular individual
because
not all persons purchase that same market basket of goods
and
services. However, the CPI is widely recognized as an
important
factor in determining an appropriate wage adjustment.
The Arbitrator finds the evidence regarding cost of
living
supports a wage settlement closer to the County's position
than
the 10% proposed by the Union. The
parties have already
agreed
to cost of living adjustments in each of the three years of
the
1995-97 contract. In addition, the
County's evidence proved
the
members of this bargaining unit have fared well in recent years
when
negotiated wage increases are compared with the corresponding
changes
in the CPI over the past ten years. The
Seattle CPI-W
increased
by 43.3% during the 1985-95 period. For
that same
period, negotiated
wage increases for
the members of
this
bargaining
unit increased by 72.3%.
The Union argued the Arbitrator when considering the cost
of
living factor must take into account differences in the cost of
living
among the comparators. According to the
Union, it costs
more
to live in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Area than in other
geographic
locations in the state. Thus, the Union
submits it is
necessary
to adjust the wage levels to reflect the differences in
the
cost of living among the comparison group.
To sustain its cost of living case, the Union relied on
the
ACCRA Cost of Living Index for measuring relative price levels
for
consumer goods and services in participating areas. Un. Exs.
16,
17. The
Arbitrator finds the Union's exclusive reliance on the
ACCRA Index for assessing the
difference in the cost of living in
Snohomish County with
that of the
comparable jurisdictions
unpersuasive. The reliability of using the ACCRA Index to
justify
an
automatic cost of living differential between the comparators as
calculated
by the Union in Union Exhibits 7 and 10
was not
established.
Moreover, the ACCRA study does not cover all of
the
geographic
areas from which the proposed comparators are drawn. It
should
also be noted that the ACCRA Index does not purport to
measure
inflation which is the function of the various CPIs. On
the
other hand, the CPI does not seek to measure the cost
differentials
among the geographic areas for which indexes are
maintained.
Based on the record, the Arbitrator must conclude the
Union's intercity cost of
living adjustments should not be applied
in
the rigid and mechanical manner argued for by the Union. At
most,
the Arbitrator accepts the Union's evidence and argument, to
permit a
reasonable inference that the cost of living in the
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Area
is higher than the other Washington
Areas measured in the ACCRA
Index, such as Yakima. The Arbitrator
expressly
rejects the Union's methodology which indexed wages to
account
for cost of living differences among the comparators by
fixed
amounts displayed in the ACCRA study.
Changes During the Pendency of the Proceedings
The only relevant change in circumstances is the wage
increases
received by officers in the comparable jurisdictions
during
the course of bargaining for this contract.
One point is
clear,
none of the jurisdictions proposed by either side agreed to
increases
of 10% over the cost of living adjustments for 1995. The
agreed on.wage increases for 1996 were 3% in Pierce County, 3.25%
in
Spokane County, 2.88% in Kitsap County, 2.5% on January 1, 1996,
and
an additional 2.5% on July 1, 1996, in Yakima County. The
record
reflects that inany of the adjustments were driven by
CPI
formulas.
Other Traditional Factors
The Union argued the working conditions corroborate the
need
for a raise in addition to the cost of living adjustments.
According to the Union, the
Snohomish County jail is "punishingly
overcrowded." When the overcrowding is combined with the
fact the
jail
is a direct supervision facility, the
Union submits the
working
conditions justify additional compensation for the members
of
this unit. The County countered the
documentary evidence showed
nothing
out of the ordinary for Snohomish County when comparing
working
conditions in the corrections industry.
The Arbitrator finds the Union's evidence on overcrowding
when
coupled with the direct supervision type of facility argues in
favor
of an additional wage increase for the members of this
bargaining
unit. However, there is no support for
the 10% increase
sought by
the Union as
recognition of the
adverse working
conditions
for this group of officers. In
formulating this Award,
the
Arbitrator found support from this evidence to warrant the
modest
increase over the agreed on cost of living increase for
1996.
The lack of turnover in this unit demonstrates the 10%
increase
sought by the Union is unnecessary to attract and retain
qualified
officers.
The County did not make a straightforward inability to
pay
argument. Instead, the County asserted
the Union's proposal
was
at war with fiscal and budgetary actions that are being taken
by
the County to protect its financial stability.
Because the
Union's proposal is extremely
costly, the County asserts it should
not
be awarded by this Arbitrator.
The County's evidence did not demonstrate an inability to
pay
the Union's proposals. However, the
County's arguments were
persuasive
that the substantial increase in wages sought by the
Union would run counter to the
County's efforts to control its
expenditures
so as not to jeopardize its financial situation.
Given the absence of hard
evidence to support the 10% increase over
the
agreed on cost of living adjustments, the Arbitrator holds it
would
be inappropriate to grant the additional 10% sought by the
Union.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that effective July 1, 1996, an
additional
1.25% be added to the salary schedule over the agreed on
cost
of living adjustments for 1995 and 1996.
ISSUE 2 - PENSION
A. Background
The members of this bargaining unit currently participate
in
the PERS plan that covers all County employees. The Union
submitted a
proposal which would allow the employees to vote on
whether
or not they wanted to move to the Western Conference of
Teamsters
Pension Trust Fund. The
County proposed to maintain the
status
quo and continue with the PERS plan.
B. The Union
The Union's proposal to add new language on the subject
of
pensions read:
ARTICLE
PENSION
Subject to a vote of the
bargaining unit
referenced
below, the Employer shall pay into
the
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension
Trust Fund on account of each
member of the
bargaining
unit for all compensable hours per
calendar
month.
The total amount due for each
calendar month
shall
be remitted in a lump sum at the time
specified
by the Administrator of the Trust
Fund. The Employer shall abide by such rules
as
may be established by the Trustees of said
Trust Fund to facilitate the
determination of
the reporting
and recording of
the
contribution
amounts paid on account of each
member
of the bargaining unit.
The effective date
and the amount
of
contribution
shall be determined by a vote of
the
bargaining unit. However, contributions
to
the Trust shall be required only if the
employees
simultaneously vote to reduce their
hourly
wage rates set forth in this Agreement.
The Employer's hourly
contribution to the
Trust shall be equal to the
difference between
the hourly wage
rate set forth
in this
Agreement and the lower rate
voted by the
bargaining
unit.
The gist of the Union's proposal provides that members
would
be allowed to participate in the Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust
(hereinafter "Trust") only to the extent
they
simultaneously agreed to reduce their hdurly wage
rates in an
amount
equal to the amount of contribution to the Trust. According
to
the Union, the proposal has no economic impact on the County
because
the County would simply pay to the Trust monies it would
otherwise
be obligated to pay directly to the custody officer.
The Union next argued that coverage under the Trust would
provide a
potential windfall to Snohomish County officers. Union
witness Endresen testified that under the Trust rules a new
participant
is credited with three years of service for each of the
first
five years of participation in the Trust, to the extent the
officer
has been employed by the contributing employer.
In other
words,
an officer with ten years of seniority would at the end of
five
years have fifteen years of service credit with the Trust in
the
corresponding vested benefit. Endresen calculated
that at a $1
an
hour contribution rate, this would provide a lifetime benefit of
$832
per month for only five years of participation. Under the
PERS 2 program, the member
would only generate a $583 per month
benefit
after ten years of participation. Un. Ex. 14.
Regarding the County's claim that cost to the County
would
increase over the years, the Union submits the County's
concern
is exaggerated because the County will continue to have
control
over the level of future contributions.
In the view of the
Union, the County will only
agree to increase contributions that it
believes
are in its best interest. In addition,
participation in
the
Trust would provide an immediate economic windfall to the
County because future wage
increases are calculated as a function
of
the CPI percentages. When a bargaining
unit member voluntarily
reduces
his or her wages, they will require correspondingly smaller
salary
increases. The bottom line is if the
bargaining unit votes
to
participate in the Trust, the County will experience immediate
savings.
The Union asks the Arbitrator to reject the County's
claim
at arbitration that it had been somehow mislead because of
the
absence of a written proposal on the pension issue. The County
negotiator
testified the County was irreversibly opposed to the
Union pension proposal, and the Union correctly concluded that
forwarding
precise language would have been a futile act.
There is
no
basis for inferring any bad faith by the Union over concluding
the
County did not know the parameters of the Union's pension
proposal.
In sum, the Arbitrator should adopt the Union's pension
proposal
because it costs the County nothing while at the same time
provides a
potentially generous benefit for the members of the
bargaining
unit.
C. The County
The County begins by noting the Teamster Pension Plan is
not
available to other employees in the County.
The County already
offers
all employees a deferred compensation plan allowing them to
set
aside a generous $7,500 in pretax dollars annually. However,
less
than 30% of custody and corrections officers currently make
use
of the deferred compensation plan that is already available to
the
members of this unit. The County claims
an award of the
Union's proposal would also
create an expectation in the minds of
other
employee groups that they are somehow disadvantaged because
they
do not have access to yet another retirement savings plan.
The County argues the Union's proposal was not fully
explained
or seriously pursued during bargaining.
The Union's
written
proposal on the pension issue first surfaced at the
interest
arbitration hearing. Given this failure
to fully develop
and
articulate the pension plan at the bargaining table, the Union
should
not be rewarded with this proposal presented for the first
time
at the arbitration hearing. The record
is also void of any
evidence
to show that adoption of the Teamster Pension Plan
proposal
is supported by comparable counties.
The County next argues that to the extent the Union's
proposal
concerns internal Union matters or imposes administrative
costs
on the County to effectuate an employee benefit, it is
clearly a
permissive subject of bargaining not properly before the
Arbitrator. It is unclear what safeguards or protections
would
accompany
the vote of the membership which would then utilize the
County's payroll system to
make the pension contributions. The
Arbitrator should reject the
Union's proposal to impose on the
County a pension benefit which
is uncertain in scope and effect.
The County is also concerned
that its participation in the Teamster
Pension Plan would
impact on the
County's legal standing.
Governmental pension plans are
not subject to ERISA. The Teamster
Plan is an ERISA plan. The possibility of the County
subjecting
itself
to ERISA is not something the County seeks to undertake
because
of the potential for increased administrative costs and
legal reguirements.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Arbitrator finds that the Union's proposal to provide
an
option for the members of this bargaining unit to participate in
the
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund should not
be
included in the contract at this time.
The members of this
bargaining
unit currently belong to the PERS program which is
available
to all County employees. The movement
to a private
pension
plan involves complicated and potentially expensive issues.
The Arbitrator was persuaded
by the County's case that the Union's
pension
proposal was not thoroughly discussed at the bargaining
table. The presentation of a written pension
proposal for the
first
time at interest arbitration argues against an award in favor
of
the Union.
Moreover, less than 30% of custody and
corrections
officers
make use of a deferred compensation plan currently
available
to the officers. The lack of
participation in the
deferred
compensation plan indicates there is little need for an
additional
pension program which would require the members to
reduce
their salary in much the same way as the present deferred
compensation
program.
The record in this case is also lacking in any evidence
to
show that adoption of the Teamster Pension Plan proposal is
supported
by the comparable counties. In
rejecting the Union
pension
proposal, the Arbitrator is not making any findings as to
the
merits of the Teamster pension Plan. Nor
does the Arbitrator
dispute
the fact that there might be advantages to be obtained for
the
members by participation in the Teamster Pension Plan. The
holding
in this case is based on the absence of meaningful
bargaining
on the specifics of the Teamster Pension Plan and the
numerous
financial and legal implications to the County if such a
plan
were adopted. Therefore, it will be the
Award of the
Arbitrator to maintain the
status Quo on the matter of pensions for
the
duration of the successor contract.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that the Union's pension proposal
should
not become a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and
the
pension program shall remain unchanged.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L. Axon
Arbitrator
Dated: July 30, 1996