City of
And
Kelso Police Officer’s
Association
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Howard Lankford
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Howard Lankford
Case #: 15664-I-01-00357
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
In the Matter of the Interest Arbitration
between
Kelso Police Officers' Association )
("Association"), )
) Findings,
and ) Discussion
and
) Award.
City
of
______________________________________)
Case Numbers: Arbitrator’s case No. C59.
Representing the Jaime B. Coldberg,
Esq., and Garrettson Goldberg
97201.
Representing the Cabot Dow, and Cabot Dow Associates,
lnc.,
P.O.
Arbitrator: Howell L. Lankford,
Esq.,
Hearing held: In Kelso, Washington,
on August 27, 2001.
Witnesses for the
Kirk
Whitman Wiper.
Witnesses for the City: Wayne L. Nelson, Howard Strickler, Patricia Murray,
Jean Anderson, Hilary
K. Gertz, and Carol Wilmes
Post-hearing argument From the
received: October 17,
both timely postmarked on October 15,
2001.
Date of this
award:
This is an interest arbitration
under RCW 41.56.450 et seq. The parties
disagree
about wages, education incentives, uniform allowance, callback
minimums,
duration, and health, life and LTD insurance.
STATUTORY
FACTORS
RCW 41.56.465
requires that
(1) In making its
determination, the panel shall be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a
decision, it shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and
statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the
parties;
(c)(i)
For employees listed in CW 41.56.030(7)(a) through (d),
comparison of the
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment of personnel involved in the proceedings
with
the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like personnel of like
employers
of similar size on the west coast of the
* * * * *
(d) The average consumer
prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost
of
living;
(e) Changes in any of the
circumstances under (a) through (d) of this subsection during
the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not
confined to the factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection,
that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination
of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. For those employees
listed
in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) who are employed by the governing body of a city or
town
with a population of less than fifteen thousand, or a county with a population
of
less
than seventy thousand, consideration must also be given to regional differences
in
the
cost of living.
RCW 41.56.430-referenced in subsection (1), above-provides
The intent and purpose of chapter 131, Laws
of 1973 is to recognize that there exists
a public policy in the state of
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
should exist an effective and
adequate alternative means of settling disputes.
DISCUSSION
Background
facts and ability to pay.
The City of
city
covering about four square miles quite close to the much larger City of
Chief and two Captains are
excluded from the bargaining unit. The department
also
includes a records specialist, evidence officer and secretary, who are also
excluded
from the bargaining unit.
The City's other employees - none of whom are eligible
for statutory
interest
arbitration - received 2% to 3% increases in 2000, 2001 and 2002:
unrepresented
and the nine Teamsters- represented employees received and will
receive
2%, 3% and 3%, and the 20 WSCCCE-represented public works
employees
received and will receive 3% in each of those three years.
The City's income rests largely on property, sales, and
business-occupations
taxes. The City has essentially no industrial base.
The total general fund income
has
increased onlyl 1% to 2% per year over the recent
past; and sales tax income
for
this year will probably be less tha it was for last
year. The City reduced its
workforce
during 1997-98 in the streets, engineering and library departments (by
leaving
vacated positions unfilled); but there has been no reduction in the police
department. The state Legislature's removal of motor
vehicle excise tax from the
City's income base was a major
blow, resulting in a two-year loss of around
$90,000
to $95,000 (net of the legislative compensation for the change). The City
has
been required to undertake the construction of a new City Hall when its prior
seat
of government was taken out by a highway bridge project. Construction of the
new
City Hall will run through the second half of 2002.
Major
issues. The two principal issues this
case are certainly insurance
and
wages; and it is probably the parties' continuing dispute over insurance costs
and
programs that led them into this proceeding. In fact, it would not be much of
and
overstatement to say that these parties were driven to interest arbitration by
the
breathtaking
recent increases in the cost of Kaiser insurance coverage. Before
their
most recent contract, police officers were all covered under AWC Plan A;
and
one of the City's major goals in the 1997 negotiations was the relief from the
ever-increasing
costs of that coverage. The City
therefore proposed that police
employees
change to AWC Plan B, which has higher deductibles and copayment
requirements. The Association resisted that proposal; but
it eventually agreed to
the
proposed change with two additional provisions: First the City agreed to add
$50 to the base wage in each
of the first two years of the new contract in order to
defray
those increased medical costs under AWC Plan B; and, second, the City
agreed
to make Kaiser coverage available as a second alternative.1 Kaiser HMO
coverage
was then slightly less expensive to the City than coverage under AWC
Plan B. The premium difference between Plan - in terms of the 2001 cost for full-
family
coverage - is about $94 per month.
___________
1.
The City’s LEOFF I officers continue to be covered by AWC Plan A, and but their
depends
fall under the Plan B or Kaiser agreement.
When the parties first ventured into the Kaiser program,
Kaiser track
record
of recent premium increases was relatively modest. Kaiser premiums had
increased
an average of just over 4.6% per year from 1992 through 1997; and that
growth
rate was, apparently, cojpetitive with AWC Plan
B. Unfortunately, 1997
was
the last year of such modest increases in the cost of Kaiser coverage. For the
four
year period from 1998 through 2001, the City's Kaiser costs have grown an
average
of over 20% per year. In 2001, with ten
of the 25 unit employees under
Kaiser coverage, the cost of full
that family coverage has risen to $29 per month
more
that AWC Plan A - the premium burden which the City set out to escape in
the
prior round of negotiations - and about $125 per month more than AWC Plan
B.2 The City now proposes to cap its
insurance costs at the AWC Plan B rate; and
the
Association proposes to return to fully-paid AWC Plan A coverage. For any
premium
increases in subsequent years of the new agreement - AWC proposes
a
50/50 split; and the Association proposes continued 100% City payment. In
short,
the City is still on the trail of the insurance cost containment which eluded
it
after
the prior agreement, and the Association is mainly interested "in
preventing
any
further degradation of the health insurance coverage of its members" (Post-
Hearing
Brief at 2).
__________
2. The City persistently characterizes the
unexpected growth of Kaiser premium
costs
as "a mutual mistake of fact.” Nothing in the record suggests that the
increases fall within
that
legal doctrine. Although the City argues that the parties “had every reason to
believe that
Kaiser costs would not exceed
AWC Plan B (Post-Hearing Brief at 65), the record offers no
particular
support for that claim. The late 1990s was not the first time in recent memory
that
insurance
costs have grown rapidly; and no experienced purchaser of group medical
insurance
can
claim to be much surprised when two different insurers, in the same market,
occasionally
exhibit
substantially different premium increase rates.
Having been unable to resolve their dispute over
insurance costs and
coverage,
the parties also bring different wage pruposals to
interest arbitration
The City proposes to increase
base wages in the first year by 80% of the prior
year’s
increase in the mid-year
Association proposes a first
year increase of 4.5%. For the second and third years
of
the new contract, the City again proposes an increase of 80% of each prior
year’s
mid-year
of
4%. The Association proposes second and third year increases equal to the
prior
year’s increase in a different CPI index, with no manimum
or minimum
___________
3. Neither party proposes to disturb the
current, two-tier structure of the salary
schedule,
which sets out separate wage rates for LEOFF I officers and LEOFF II officers.
That
difference
reflects the parties' agreemetn, in the prior
contract, to change LEOFF II officers and
dependents
(and LEOFF I dependents) from AWC Plan A to either AWC Plan B or Kaiser
coverage. LEOFF I employes
remain on AWC Plan A to have a base rate less than their
colleagues'.
Comparables. The statutory language requires an interest
arbitrator to
“take
into consideration"
comparison
of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of personnel involved
in
the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditionsof
employment of like
personnel
of like employers of similar size on the west coast of the
Both parties begin with a
population range of ±50%;
and nothing in the record
suggests
that that initial elimination is unreasonable.4 The dispute, then, is over
how I
should pick comparables from out of that ±50% population group. The
first
systemic requirement for choosing a list of cornparables
is that the list must be
sufficient
to resolve the controversy, keeping in mind the statute’s very fist
consideration,
“that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of
employees
is vital to the welfare and public safety of the state of
The City begins the selection process with all Washington
cities within 50%
plus
of minus of the population of Kelso. It
then eliminated all cities on the east
side
of the state - on grounds of differential costs of living - and eliminated
cities
which
contract for police services (
Woodinville). The Association does not take issue with the
City's selection until
the
next step: The City then eliminates the
western
assessed
valuations of more than 50% above or of less than 50% below Kelso's.
The result was a list of 35
potential comparables; and of that list the City picked
the
ten most similar to Kelso in population, five above and five below:
__________
4. Neither party suggests that this language
requires me to consider all of the "like
employers
of similar size on the west coast."
Neither party proposes comparables which are not cities, so any possible
dispute about the term “like employers” does not include whether cities may be
compared to counties or--in fire fighter cases-to, fire districts.
Aberdeen 16,490 0.39 $648M 30%
Centralia 14,950 0.26 $605M 21%
Monroe 14,210 20% $708M 42%
Arlington 12,770 8% $609M 22%
Tumwater 12,770 8% $882M 77%
Kelso 11,8605 % variance $499M %
variance
Enumclaw 11,180 -6% $580M 16%
Battle Ground 10,040 -18% $448M -11%
Lynden 9,285 -28% $542M 8%
Hoquiam 9,035 -31% $299M -40%
I have reviewed the many prior Washington Interest Arbitration
cases
provided
or cited by the parties, and I must agree with the City's claim that
Washington interest
arbitrators have generally taken the statutory language "like
employers
of similar size” to require reasonable similarity of wealth, measured in
terms
of assessed valuation or-much better-assessed valuation per capita.
Just as the Association argues against the use of
similarity of wealth as a
basis
for choosing comparables, so the City argues against geographic proximity.
Once again, however, it is
quite clear that
commonly
preferred geographically proximate comparators when such were
available.
The City objects to the introduction of such traditional “labor market”
considerations
as proximity into the selection of comparables under the statute.
But one of the traditional
rationale for labor market analysisi n collective
bargaining
fits squarely within the directive of the statute: Employees’
satisfaction-or
lack of it-with their wages and working conditions depends,
first,
on their sense of local,comparability. It may be
interesting in the abstract to
know
what police officers make in Cheney; but what a Kelso officer could make
by
driving to
of
traditional, two-party collective bargaining as well, or course: noone expects
wage
data from the far corner of the state to have the same weight as wage data
from
just next door. The statute directs an arbitrator’s attention, first, to the
Legislature’s finding that
“the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes
of
employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of the state of
and
it is entirely consistent with that directive to give primary attention to
wages
paid
by nearby employers of the same size.
The five proposed comparables which are offiered by both parties-Battle
Ground,
miles
from Kelso; and that is a reasonable outside geographic limit.6
_______________
6.
Enumclaw is the most distant of the five, at about 117 miles. This creates a
somewhat
arbitrary line, of course; but all the contested proposed cornparables
discussed below are either well within this limit or quite substantially
outside it.
The Association argues against comparison with
Hoquiam,
Lynden and Monroe on the grounds of geographic remoteness.
The
Association also argues for
comparison with Camas and Tukwila on grounds of
similarity
in population and geographic proximity. I agree with the Association
that
Lynden (229 miles distant),
miles
distant) are inappropriate cornparables. Not only do they lie at substantially
greater
distance than any of the agreed camparables, but they
are separated from
Kelso
by the entire
are
about 98 and 102 miles away respectively and are too similar in size to Kelso
to
be
ignored as comparables. It is true that they do not lie on I-5; but there is
nothing
magical
about interstate location, and the commuting time to Kelso is not greater
for
those cities than for Enumclaw, which the Association concedes to be a proper
comparator.
The Association also proposes to compare Kelso wages and
benefits with
those
paid by Camus and Tukwila. Camas is only about 50
miles away and is quite
similar
to Kelso in population: 12,534 compared
to 11,895 in the
State of
Camas has a greater assessed
valuation than Kelso - $1.88 billion, compared to
$0.5 billion - but Camas's
assessed valuation per capita is within the ±50%
range.7 Camas is a proper comparable. Tukwila, on the other hand, is about 115
miles
away, which is about as far as Enumclaw, the most distant agreed
comparable. It is within the ±50% range of Kelso in population; but it
is vastly
outside
that range in assessed valuation (almost $185,000, which is well over
three
times the figure for Kelso). Moreover,
Tukwila is located within the heart of
the
Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, unlike Kelso and the other comparators,
which
are small, non-metropolitan cities.8
Tukwila is not an appropriate
comparable.
__________
7.
The City argues that the Associatian "skips
over" cities of similar size located near
1-5," but the nearest of
the "skipped" cities listed by the City-the nearest is Lake Forest
Park-is 139 miles from Kelso,
substantially farther than any of the agreed cornparables.
8.
Perhaps this difference explains--and is illustrated by-the striking difference
in
the
size of the Tukwila bagaining Unit compared to the
other cities: 64, well over twice the size
of
the next largest unit (which is
Most importantly, the Association argues for comparison
with Longview,
on
the basis of geographic proximity, despite the disparity in population sizes.
The
Association argues that Kelso
and Longview form a common market (although
admitting
that the
own
recent interest arbitration proceeding).
There were extensive discussions in
2000 of a possible merger of
the Longview and Kelso police departments. (Those
discussions
eventually faltered in the face of opposition of the
Guild.)
The local jail and prosecutor's offices are located literally on the border
between
the two jurisdictions, and officers from the two forces routinely assist and
cover
each other. Kelso patrol officers are in almost daily contact with Longview
officers.
Despite this close association, it seems to me that the express language of
the
statute does not allow the use of
Longview, with a population of
almost 35,000 is almost three times the size of
Kelso; and its assessed value
per capita is vastly greater. Although Longview
certainly
must be considered as an "other factor" under subsection (f) of the
statute,
it is not a primary comparator.
Each city in the resulting set of comparables is quite
similar to Kelso in
population,
is not metropolitan, is not remarkable dissimilar in wealth, and is
reasonably
proximate to Kelso. On this record, the proper comparators for Kelso
are
Hoquiam, and
Tumwater.
What to compare?
Before 1985, Kelso police officers had daily, 30-minute
unpaid
briefing periods. After the Supreme Court’s 1985 Garcia decision, those
briefing
periods were compensated by one day a month of comp time. In their next
round of
negotiations, the parties agreed to eliminate that comp time by adopting
their
current, 15-day rotation pattern. Officers now have five nine-hour days on
shift,
two off, five on;and three off.9 The resulting 90 hours of work every 15 days
adds
up to a total work year of 2190 hours (not adjusted for vacations, holidays,
etc.).
.As far as the record shows, the ‘96 negotiations traded the then-existing
Garcia pay
arrangement for the new alternating three-day weekends.
_________
9.
Seven bargaining unit positions are special assignments (at no
additional
pay): DARE, School Resource, two detectives, and three inter-agency
drug
force positions. Officers rotate through
those positions; and all of them, too,
work
the 2190 hour work year.
The Association proposes to cornpare
Kelso with other cities on the basis of
hourly
earnings; and that basis of comparison would have significant
consequences,
because all of the comparable jurisdictions have annual work hours
well
over 100 hours less than Kelso. The City argues vigorously against that
proposal. It’s primary arguments are (1) that the "hours of
work" issue was not
certified
by PERC and (2) that the additional work hours were bought and paid for
by
the addition of the thee-day weekends in the 15-day rotation.
Both of those arguments run into the language of the
statute. What
the
statute requires an arbitrator tu compare is not
simply "wages," but "wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment.” To the extent it is reasonably practicable,
that
comparison should be done on an “all things considered" basis, reflecting
wages
and hours of work together. For example, police officers who are making
20% less than the average wage
paid by cornparable jurisdictions have no
particular
reason to expect a raise if they are also working a total of 20% fewer
hours
than the average (as the City would certainly be quick to point out if the shoe
were
on the other foot). Washington interest arbitrators have commonly
recognized
this interrelationship in the past. See, e.g., Cowlitz County (1987,
Beck,
NAA) and City of Seattle (1984, Kienast, NAA).
What wage
comparison shows. It is not
necessary to analyze the figures in
the
record in great depth. The City's
exhibits and Post-Hearing Brief both provide
a
total compensation analysis adjusted for annual hours worked, holidays and
vacations.
The cityuses a ten year employee for comparison purposes.10 The
Association takes issue with
many of the details of the City's analysis; but it is not
really
necessary to address those disputes in detail because, as the Association
points
out, the City's own figures, for its own proposed comparators, show city net
hourly
wages with the City's proposed 2.7% increase to be more than 1.3% behind
the
average. That means that a total icnrease of more than 4% from current wages
would
be required to catch the City up to the appropriate average, even on the
City's
own numbers. When distant comparators
which th eCity proposed -
i.e.,
Arlington, Lynden and Monroe -
are removed from the City's own pattern of
analysis,
the difference between Kelso andthe average increases
slightly, from
4.0% to 4.1%.
__________
10.
The Associatian proposes to use nine-year employees
for purposes of
comparison.
There is a longevity increase for Kelso employees at the ten year point.
Thirteen
of
the 25 unit employees in the bargaining unit currently have over ten years
seniority;
and several more will pass the ten year point during the life of the new
contract.
Under those circumstances, ten years is the appropriate point for comparison.
If a lag of about 4% is the best picture that can be
painted from the City's
point
of view on this record, something a bit less than the Association's proposed
4.5% is the best the record
can support from the Association's point of view.
What the
insurance comparison shows. The
premiums actually paid for
the
25 members of this bargaining unit range from a low of about $179 to a high of
about
$636. Premiums for four of these
officers are under $300; and the premiums
for
six of them are well over twice that.
The average cost to the City per employee
is
about $480. Table 1, on the following
page, shows the Association's comparison
of
the total employer-paid healthcare premium benefits for full family coverage.
Table 2, also on the following
page, shows the City's version of the same issue.
(Insurance Premium Comparisons)
Table 2 Table 1
Association's Numbers: City's Numbers:
Employer-paid Insurance Benefits Employer-paid Medical, Dental, Vision
& Life
City Cost City Total LTD
Aberdeen 763.00 Aberdeen $794.20 $26.40
Camas 406.61 Camas $434.65
Centralia 601.65 Centralia $643.00 $33.00
Enumclaw 750.00 Enumclaw $720.40 $40.00
Hoquiam 756.55 Hoquiam $642.75
Tumwater 697.43 Tumwater $697.10
Bonney
Lake 446.50 Bonney
Lake $615.46 $25.86
Battle Ground 742.30
Average 645.51 Average, net of LTD $645.76
Kelso: Kaiser 636.09 KELSO, current $720.40
(w / Kaiser)
% under average 1.5% %
(of avg) over
avg 11.56%
Kelso: AWC Plan B 511.35 Kelso,
City proposal $595.66
% under average 26.2% % under average 8.41%
The Association's numbers in the record show columns for
dental, vision,
disability,
and life; but for many of the comparators, and for Kelso itself, the
Association shows no
additional costs in those columns. The City’s numbers, on
the
other hand, often show the same medical costs as the Association’s but almost
always
show separate costs for dental, vision and life.11 This is particularly true of
the
City’s numbers for Kelso itself (The fact that the numbers for average Neither
of
the Post-hearing Briefs particularly explains the discrepancy in the City’s
current
total cost data. I am forced to conclude that the City should be intimately
aware
of its own costs.
__________
11.
I have backed out LTD costs because they were already considered as part of
the
City’s wage compensation comparison process and should not be considered twice.
Unfortunately, the record does not contain data on the
actual average
insurance
premium cost per employee in the comparable jurisdictions; and some of
the
numbers set out on Tables 1 and 2 are clearly not representative of those
actual
costs. (for example, the
$642.75 shown for Hoquiam is the medical insurance cost
for
that city's only LEOFF I officer - under AWC Plan A - who happens to have a
spouse
and multiple children.)
The City argues that it will save a total of over $17,200
per year its
proposed
AWC Plan caps to its actual current costs fo the ten
employees in the
Kaiser
plan. That
amounts to about $1,436 per month, or an average of
about
$144
out of pocket co-pay per employee per month. Nothing in the record
suggests
that comparable jurisdictions exact such a price from their poice
officers
for
insurance coverage. But of course what
the City is looking for is not high out-
of-pocket
costs for the employees but an end to the staggering cost increases of
Kaiser
coverage.
Nothing in the record suggests that the past negotiations should
have
led the Association to conclude that the City would stick with Kaiser forever,
regardless
of whether Kaiser remained competitive in the local insurance market.
It is hard to fault the City's conclusion that it would
not have been
responsible
for it to stand idly by and accept four years of double-digit increases
from
Kaiser - not including the 12% increase contemplated for 2002 - without
taking
steps to escape from that upward spiral.
This is not a case of an employer
simply
trying pass any insurance costs along to the employees, it is a case of an
employer's
reasonable market reaction to the shocking incrases
of one carrier in
the
local insurance market. It is simply a
reasonable response to the market. If
the
employees
were paying their own premiums, it is hard to imagine that they would
not
be looking for alternatives to the current Kaiser coverage after their recent
premium
increase experience.
Cost
of Living. The statute
also requires consideration of "The average
consumer
prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living."
The city argues that the
mid-year COL has increased by just over 36% in the last
decade
while police officer wages have increased by 44.5%.12 But that analysis
includes a
12.5% wage increase for 1996, which was the year in which officer’s
Garcia pay was folded into
their base wage. Without that one year’s massive
increase-and
the record fails to show how much of it was attributable to the
Garcia pay-these wage rates
have roughly kept up with the cost of living over the
last
decade, neither forging much ahead nor falling much behind.
___________
12. The City also argues that the CPI is not an
accurate measurement of the cost of
living,
pointing to the Boskin Commission Report (more
properly, the 1995 Interim Reprot of
the
Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index), which found that the
BLS
(Bureau of Labor Statistics)
numbers systematically overstate inflation byb
something like 1%.
That commission reached
several suggestions about improvements in BLS's
sampling and
analytical
procedures. The Commission's conclusions
about upward bias in BLS's current
procedures
were the subject of vigorous debate, both academic and political; and BLS has not
has
not adopted the Report's most hotly contested proposals. Under those circumstances, the
CPI numbers are the best
measure of changes in the cost of living provided in this record.
The parties have inevitably used the Portland CPI in the
past for mid- -
contract
wage adjustments, but the Association now proposes to change to the
Seattle index-which is
currently substantially higher-or to an average or
Portland,
Seattle and All-Cities. Kelso is about 125 miles from Seattle and
less
than
50 miles from Portland. In light of the parties’ prior use of the Portland
index,
nothing
in the record justifies a change at this time.
Other
factors. The statute requires me to consider “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.’’ Considerations of the City’s ability to pay-in this
case,
ability to afford-an increase are set out above. The City’s economic future
is
not particularly bright: Changes in the
state’s structure of local governmental
financing
have dealt it a harsh blow; the costs of building a new city hall were
forced
on it by external events; and the City's changes of increasing its income in
any
way in the future appear to be quite slim.
There is nothing in the record of the
City's current ability to
afford an increase, however, that removes the City
from
the
statutory policy of maintaining police wages, hours and conditions of
employment
at a level - compared to other police employers - which is consistent
with
the legislature's determination that "the uninterrupted and dedicated
service
of
these classes of employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of the
state of
Washington."
The City argues strenuously that it should be allowed to
deal with its police
employees
consistently with how it has already dealt with its other employees. But
the
interest arbitration statute simply does not admit of that interpretation. The
City's dealing with its other
employees is a relavant other factor under the
statute;
but
it falls short of outweighing the comparison of the City's wages, hours and
conditions
of employment with those of like employers of similar size.
Nothing in the record suggests that the City has
experienced or will
experience
my substantial problems of recruitment and retention with the awarded
wage
and benefit package.
Finally, we come to the presence of the City of
Longview. The record does
not
include a very good picture of Longview's total compensation adjusted for
hours
of work, holidays and vacations. The
Association data, adjusting only for
annual
hours worked, shows an hourlyl wage of $24.91, which
is the
neighborhood
of 6% above the similarly computed average of the parties' mutually
proposed
comparators and almost 11% ahead of Kelso wages similarly adjusted.
The Longview police bargaining
unit is almost exactly twice the size of Kelso
bargaining
unit. Therefore, although Kelso officers
work regularly with Longview
officers,
Longview is not quite the proverbial 500 pound gorilla in the local police
labor
market (in the way that Seattle would be for Tukwila, for example). In light
of
the extreme difference in both population size and assessed valuation per capita,
Longview is at most an
interesting secondary comparable for Kelso.
Conclusion: Insurance costs. I must agree to the City's general proposal
to
exercise a
reasonable market response to Kaiser's spiraling premium increases; but
I will do so within the
limitations of the comparability record.
Kaiser medical
premiums
(measured at the full family level) are now abaout
24% above the City's
proposed
AWC Plan B cap; but, on the City's own data, the City's cap costs are
almost
8% under the average for the comparable jurisdictions. I will award a cap
to
encourage employees to find alternatives to Kaiser coverage with the following
three
limitations: First, the cap will be set
at the average insurance costs for
comparable
jurisdictions, i.e. 8% over the full family cost of AWC Plan B, which
will
make the initial cap $552.26 (based on 2001 rates). Second, the cap will be
set
in terms of the maximum cost of AWC Plan B, rather than running category by
category. Thus officers in the employee/spouse or
employee/child categories will
be
fully covered, and employees in the three most expensive categories of AWC
coverage
will all have an out-of-pocket cost of $53.81 if they choose to continue
under
the current Kaiser coverage. Third, the
cap will take affect the first month
following
the employees' next opportuntiy to change carriers.13 Finally, nothing in
the
record suggests that the comparable cities split premium increases with their
police
employees, so the AWC Plan B plus 8% cap will increase in subsequent
years
as the cost of AWC PIan B increases.
___________
13. The
record shows that Kaiser may be willing to craft a policy with deductibles,
costs
and benefits to fit within the $552.26 cap (or its down-year successors); and
the parties
are
free, of course to agree to such a substitution at any time.
Conclusion: Wages. Nothing in the record justifies the City’s
continuing
substantial
lag behind comparable jurisdictions in base wages. The City’s own
figures
show that the adjustment for that difference requires a 4% year increase in
base
wages. In light of the City’s current fiscal condition, however, I will defer
half
of that increase to the second year of the new contract.
The City argues strongIy
against making the first year wage increase
retroactive
to the expiration of the prior agreement. That suggestion seems to me
to
run squarely into fmo overwhelming difficulties.
First, interest arbitration is a
statutory
‘‘last resort’ in the bargaining process, The process overall works far
better
when the parties manage to work out their entire collective bargaining
agreement
in two-party negotiations. But if interest arbitration awards are not
commonly
retroactive to the expiration of the prior agreement, that creates an
obvious
pressure to initiate the interest arbitration process far enough in advance
to
avoid the retroactivity problem, regardless of whether two-party bargaining has
really
been exhausted or not. Second, leaving
long periods between collective
bargaining
agreements, and without orderly wage and benefit provisions, does nto
seem
to serve the stated legislative intent and purpose of the statute: "to
promote
such
dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should exist an effective and
adequate
alternative means of settling disputes."
The first year award should be
fully
retroactive.
The next detail of the wage dispute is the proper CPI
index to use for
subsequent
year increases. The Association proposes
a mixture which includes the
Portland CPI-W in their prior contracts, and the record offers no adequate reason
for
departing from this prior course of dealing (particularly when
than
50 miles away and is over 120).
Finally, the parties have repeatedly used 80% of the CPL
as the formula for
subsequent
year wage increases. The Association now
proposes to change to
100%. Once again, however, it seems to me that the
long-established prior
practice
of the parties, contract after contract, should not be disturbed with respect
to
such a detail; and I will use 80% of the prior mid-year
formula
for subsequent year increased. The record provides very little support for
the
City's proposed minimum and maximum limits on subsequent year wage
adjustments,
and I cannot award such limits.
In short, the base wages - and the compensation figures
which depend on
the
base wages - should be increased by 2% retroactive to the day after expiration
of
the prior collective bargaining agreement; and the resulting base should be
increased
again at the beginning of the second year of the agreement by 2% plus
80% of the most recent
mid-year increase in the
base
should be increased again at the beginning of the final year of the agreement
by
80% of themost recent mid-year increase in the
Education
Incentive. The Association proposes to change the
education
incentives
from fixed dollars to percentages of base wages in the final year of the
new
contract. The City "is opposed to
the additional compensation costs
associated
with removing the existing cap on the education incentive plan so that
education
incentive pay would not have to be renegotiated each time the contract
was
open." (Post-hearing Brief at 50).
Five of the eight comparables (Bonney
Lake, Centralia, Enumclaw,
Tumwater, and Hoquiam) set out education incentives
as a
percentage; and the other three have no education incentives at all. On this
limited
record, there is not good reason to reject the Association's proposal; but I
will
reward it so that there is no possibility of additional cost to the City:
Commencing
shall
be changed by substituting for $15, $50, $100 and $125 whatever is the
nearest
percentage (to two decimal places) of the contract's Police Officer B base
wages.
Long-Term
Disability. The Association proposes that the City add LTD
to
its
insurance package, but the record lacks the specificity required to make that
proposal
particularly attractive. The relative
value to police officers of group
disability
coverage varies greatly from policy to policy depending not only on
elimination
period and benefit period, but on how a particular policy dovetails with
accumulated
sick leave, social security and other, personal disability benefits. The
differences
are partly reflected by the variety of disability provisions found in
comparator
contracts. There is no reason to suspect
that just throwing a little
money
at the issue on the basis of a very limited record would serve the interests of
either
the officers or the City, and I decline to do so.
Life
Insurance and Uniform Allowance.
The comparables make short
work
of these issues. The Association
proposed to increase the life insurance
benefit
from $10,000 to $50,000.
provide
$10,000 of life insurance, just as Kelso does.
and
on
that record, no increase is justified.
The Association also proposes to increase the uniform
allowance from $500
to
$600. But as far as the Association's
own data shows, one of the comparables
(Camas) has a quartermaster
system, four (
and
Hoquiam) have uniform allowances less than Kelso's, and three (
Enumclaw and Tumwater) have
allowances that are greater. That record
does not
justify
the proposed increase.
Callback
minimum. The Association proposes to increase the minimum
period
for a callback from two hours to three. Four of the eight comparables
(Aberdeen, Turnwater,
Battle Ground, and Camas) have three-hour call-back
minimums;
one (Enumclaw) has a 2.5 hour minimum; and the other three
Centralia, Bonney
Lake, and Hoquiam) have two hour mimimums.
The record offers very little
additional data to support the decision on this issue.
The best "guestimate’’ in the record is that there are about eight
callbacks a month,
most
of which are over two hours, except for court appearances which are
sometimes
very short. The issue of the short court
appearance callbacks is
troubling;
but all in in all the record requires the increase of
the minimum callback
time
from two hours to two and a half.
AWARD
The parties shall make the following changes in their
new, 2001-2003
collective
bargaining agreement:
Wages:
Effective
2%; and the resulting base
wages must be increased again effective January 1,
2002, by 2% plus 80% of the
most recent mid-year increase in the
and
the resulting base must be increased again effective
of
the most recent mid-year increase in the
Insurance.
The parties must make changes in its insurance
benefits
language of Atricle 12, to be effective for the first
month after the
emloyees first have an opportunity to change
insurance carriers:
SECTION
1. MEDICAL BENEFITS.
For the life of this contract, for each
bargaining
unit employee, the Employer agrees to pay an amount for medical
insurance
of up to 108% of the premium for AWC Plan B coverage of for
employee,
spouse and two or more dependents.
Available plans shall continue as
under
the prior collective bargaining agreement unless the parties agree to
eliminate
or alter the Kaiser HMO plan at any time during the period of this
contract.
Callback pay: The parties must make change Section 4 of
Article 5 of
substitute
“two and a half (2.5) hours of overtime pay” for “two (2) hours of
overtime
pay."
Educational
Incentive. The parties must add the following language to the
end
of Section 1 of Article 14:
Commencing
by
substituting for $15, $50, $100 and $125 whatever is the nearest percentage (to
two
decimal places) of the contract’s Police Officer B base wages.
Life
Insurance, Long-Term Disability, Uniform and Equipment. There are
no
changes in these provisions.
Respectfully submitted,
Howell L. Lankford,
Arbitrator
Marvin L. Schurke,
Executive Director
Public Employment Relations
Commission
603 Evergreen Plaza Building,
Re: Kelso Police Officers’ Association v. City of
Dear Mr. Schurke:
Here is a copy of the
Findings, Discussion and Award in this interest arbitration case,
issued
on
Respectfully,
Howell L. Lankford