And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Roger Buchanan
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Buchanan; Roger
Case #: 13261-I-97-00283
Employer:
Date Issued:
Interest Arbitration
Before Roger Buchanan, Impartial Arbitrator
Deputies Bargaining Unit
Kitsap County, Washington
(Employer)
and
Conclusions
Decisions and Awards In
Sheriffs Guild
(
Case No. 13261-I-97-283
Appearance for
and
Cabot Dow of Cabot Dow and
Associates,
Appearance for Kitsap
Hearing and Post Hearing Briefs
Hearings were held in Port Orchard,
September 1, 2, 3, 1998.
Witnesses were sworn and each party presented proposals, testimony,
exhibits and arguments.
The County and the Guild filed post-hearing briefs which
were received by the Arbitrator on
or before
Representation
Representing the Employer,
Washington and Cabot Dow of
Cabot Dow and Associates,
Representing the
Located in Kitsap County are
the incorporated cities of
Island which have their own
police departments which work closely with the
Sheriffs Department.
13 collective bargaining units
which include approximately 630 County employees. The
this case,
Sheriffs Department
supervisory employees who are involved in a second Interest Arbitration
case.
The average seniority of the 79 non-supervisory deputies
is 7.7 years. The average seniority
for the
"supervisory" unit is 15.9 years.
History
of Bargaining
There is no history of Interest Arbitration between the
parties concerning the two Sheriffs
Department bargaining units
involved in these cases.
The contracts for the two bargaining units expired
Guild bargained from late 1996
through 1997 without successfully reaching an agreement.
The dispute was then submitted to Mediation by the
Relations Commission (PERC).
With the failure to reach a settlement in Mediation, the PERC
Certified the cases to
Interest Arbitration on
1998 for the supervisors unit.
There are thirty-four (34) issues in dispute in this
Interest Arbitration case.
Bargaining Units
One bargaining unit includes
non-supervisory Sheriff Deputy Officers. This bargaining unit is
defined:
"Uniformed Employees.
All regular full-time and regular part-time
fully commissioned deputy
sheriffs of the
Department excluding the
Sheriff, Undersheriff, supervisors,
confidential employees and all
other employees.
The second bargaining unit for uniformed officers of
bargaining unit which is
composed of "Uniformed corporals and sergeants employed by the Kitsap
County Sheriffs
Department".
Statutory Criteria
This matter came to Interest Arbitration under the
Collective Bargaining Act. The
Act specifies that the Arbitrator is required to follow the
following standards and
criteria which are set out in RCW 41.56.200:
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of
the legislative purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as
additional standards or
guidelines to aid it in reaching a decision,
it shall take into
consideration the following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) (i) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(a)
through (d); comparison of the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of personnel involved in
the proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like personnel of like
employers of similar size on the west coast of the
(ii) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(e)
through (h), comparison of the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of personnel involved in
the proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like personnel of
public fire departments of similar size on the west
coast of the
adequate number of comparable employers exists
within the state of
employers may not be considered;
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the cost of
living;
e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under (a)
through (d) of this subsection during the pendency
of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to the factors under
(a) through (e) of this subsection, that are
normally
or traditionally taken into consideration in
the
determination of wages, hours,
and conditions of
employment. For those
employees listed in RCW
41.56.030 (7)(a)who are
employed by the
governing body of a city or
town with a population
of less than fifteen thousand,
or a county with a
population of less than
seventy thousand,
consideration must also be
given to regional
differences in the cost of
living.
A fundamental principle of
interest arbitration is that an arbiter must view the total
package, and not just isolated
or individual proposals and issues. An arbiter's task is
to render an award that constitutes
an extension of the bargaining process. if
arbitration is allowed to
become a separate and distinct proceeding in and of itself,
collective bargaining will
become little more than a meaningless warm-up for the real
game. Parties must not be allowed
to view arbitration as a panacea for unrealistic
and ill-conceived bargaining
proposals.
Arbiter
a 1988
"The goal of interest
arbitration is to produce a final decision that
will, as nearly as possible,
approximate what the parties themselves
would have reached if they had
continued to bargain with determination
and good faith."
In a somewhat longer passage
predicated on the same principle, Arbiter
Charles S. LaCugna
stated as follows in a City of
The Arbitrator must interpret
and apply the legislative criteria in RCW
41.56.460. The Arbitrator must
not only interpret each guideline, but he
must determine what weight he
will give to each guideline in order to
arrive at a 'total package',
because only the 'total package' concept can
measure the real effect of the
Arbitrator's decisions. The task is not easy.
He must attempt to fashion an
acceptable and workable bargain, one that
the parties would have struck by
themselves as objective and disinterested
neutrals. This point is
crucial. Dispute settlement procedures that culminate
in binding arbitration make it
easy to bypass negotiations, mediation and fact
finding in the hope that an
Arbitrator might award to one party what it
could not gain through the
process of free and robust negotiations. The
award must reflect the
relative bargaining strength of the parties. The
award cannot be a
'compromise', much less 'splitting of the difference',
because such an award would
favor the party that advances extreme
demands and takes an
intransigent position.
An issue that will have a major impact on this case is
the one concerning the determination of
which governmental
jurisdictions will be used as "comparable jurisdictions". Since the
"comparable
jurisdictions" chosen will be used as a guide by the arbitrator in finding
equitable
solutions to the issues in
this case, the choice of "comparables" is of importance.
Comparables and comparisons
are preeminent in wage determination
because all parties at
interest derive benefit from them. To the worker
they permit a decision on the
adequacy of his income. He feels no
discrimination if he stays
abreast of other workers in his industry,
his locality, his
neighborhood. They are vital to the
they provide guidance to its
officials upon what must be insisted
upon and a yardstick for
measuring their bargaining skill. In the
presence of internal
factionalism or a rival union, the power of
comparisons is enhanced. The
employer is drawn to them because
they assure him that
competitors will not gain a wage-cost
advantage and that he will be
able to recruit in the local labor
market. Small firms (and
unions) profit administratively by
accepting a ready-made
solution; they avoid the expenditure of
time and money needed for
working out one themselves
Arbitrators benefit no less
from comparisons. They have "the
appeal of precedent and.
" awards based thereon are apt to
satisfy the normal
expectations of the parties and to appear just
to the public
The Intent of the 1973
The intent and purpose of this 1973 mandatory act is to
recognize that there exists a public
policy in the state of
labor disputes; that the
uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of employees is vital
to the welfare and public
safety of the state of
uninterrupted public service
there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling disputes. This stated
public policy is carried out through the processes of mediation and
Interest Arbitration.
Issues
1. Determination of "Comparable"
Jurisdictions.
2.
Contract Provisions. (Listed in accordance with the
existing contract).
Article I
Section 1- Rights of
Management.
Article II
Section A- Salaries
-Pay Increases,
-1997
-1998
-1999
Section B- Experienced
Based Pay Incentives.
-Length of Service Pay
Increases.
-Length of Service Based on
Compensable hours.
-Experience steps to conform
to market conditions.
Section B-Longevity Bonus.
-Removal of 1% increase at 5
years service.
Section E-Shift
Differential Pay.
-Removal of Shift Differential
Pay provision.
Section F- Assignment Pay.
-Raise "Assignment
Pay" from $120.00 to 5%.
-Add classifications to
"Assignment Pay".
f. Traffic Officer
g. Field Training Officer
h. Crisis Intervention Response Team (CIRT)
Section G- Uniform
Allowance.
-Increase of Uniform
Allowances.
Section 1- Health and
Welfare Benefits.
-Increase coverage of
dependants from 50% to 100%.
Change from Blue Cross and
Kitsap Physicians Service to
Group Health, Virginia Mason Alliant Plan.
-Supplemental disability
insurance for LEOFF II Employees.
Section K- Hours of Work.
-County's authority to assign
shifts.
-Call in during emergency
while off duty.
-Proposal to institute a ten
(10) hour day, four (4)
day week, work week.
-Shift configuration parameter
to be determined by
joint labor-management committee.
-Compensation for call in to
testify in "civil trials".
-Increase in minimum pay for
call in from two (2)
hours overtime to three (3) hours overtime.
-Overtime for non mandatory
training.
Section L- Overtime.
-Remove exclusion of
"civil cases" from overtime pay for
work related court appearances.
-The County questions the
types of "call back" and objects
to Guild's proposal to increase call back
minimum hours
from two to three.
-Call back when off duty, such
as in emergencies.
-Call back when scheduled,
such as court appearances.
Article III
Section B- Annual Leave.
-County's proposal to reduce
annual leave benefits.
Section C- Sick Leave.
County's proposal to reduce
sick leave benefits.
Article V- Term (of agreement)
-Two year agreement as opposed
to three year agreement.
Comparables
1 . Determination of "comparable"
jurisdictions.
A basic issue in this case is the determination of the
questions concerning the comparables
from which the measurements
are taken for determining some of the contents of the Decision and
Award of this case. The
listing of the statutory requirements that must be considered are
contained in RCW 41.56.465
which states in part:
The arbitration award should be based upon a reasoned
assessment of the evidence with an
application of the statutory
data. Those criteria are set out in RCW 41.56.465(1); see above.
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of
the
legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as
additional standards or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a decision,
it shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) (i) For employees listed in RCW 41 .56.030 (7)(a)
through (d); comparison of the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of personnel involved in
the
proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions
of
employment of like personnel of like employers of
similar size on the west coast of the
(ii)
For employees listed in RCW 41 .56.030 (7)(e)
through (h), comparison of the wages, hours,
and
conditions of employment of personnel
involved in
the proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions
of
employment of like personnel of public fire departments
of similar size on the west coast of the
However, when an adequate number of
comparable
employers exists within the state of
west coast employers may not be considered;
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and services,
commonly known as the cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the circumstances under (a) through
(d) of this subsection during the pendency of the
proceedings; and
(f) Such other
factors, not confined to the factors under
(a) through (e) of this subsection, that are
normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination
of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment. For those
employees listed in RCW 41.56.030 (7)(a) who
are employed
by the governing body of a city or town with
a population of
less than fifteen thousand, or a county with
a population of
less than seventy thousand, consideration
must also be given
to regional differences in the cost of
living.
The requirement of RCW 41 .56.465 (c)(i)
is interpreted to mean that there should be a
comparison of wages, hours and
conditions of employment in local government jurisdictions
which are similar in character
to Kitsap County, Washington.
Comparability and comparisons of other jurisdictions are
of primary importance in the process
of interest arbitration. It is
the way that the appropriate use of comparables serves all parties to
this case in the fairest way.
The Union and the Employees' and the Employe's
interests are
served by knowing that their
wages, hours and working conditions approximate those at
comparable agencies and under
comparable working conditions. A thorough job of basing an
interest arbitration award on
comparables gives all concerned a presumption that the award
concerning wages, hours and
working conditions is based on a presumption of fairness to all
parties. Consequently all
concerned feel at ease with the conclusions and award and feel that they
are acceptable.
The Issues of Comparables
Of the statutory considerations, the parties dispute one
another's selection of comparables,
their methodology for
determining the total wage package and the County's ability to pay.
A. Comparables
1. Selection of Comparables
Comparability is not defined by statute. It is a
relational concept and
cannot be determined with mathematical precision. The
interest
arbitrator faces the problem of making "apples to
apples" comparisons
on the basis of imperfect choices and sometimes incomplete
data. The
arbitrator's task is to review data in evidence and
devise a manageable
list of employers that more closely resemble the
important attributes of
the subject jurisdiction than those jurisdictions not on
the list. This does
not mean that omissions from the list are irrelevant. In
fact, omitted
candidates form a helpful tool to check the validity of
the results of the
arbitrator's selections.
In determining comparability, arbitrators give the
greatest consideration
to population, geographic proximity (i.e., labor market)
and assessed
valuation per capita.
The relevance of geographical proximity is to determine the
labor market.
The comparability criterion attempts to insure that wages will
not vary greatly
within a labor market. Thus the primary task of a neutral is to
determine,
where possible, the labor market in which the employer
competes. Except
where the State is concerned, that market ideally will be
local, but reference to
secondary" statewide cooperators may become necessary
where a sufficient
number of local comparators do not exist. A local labor market
is sometimes
referred to as the distance a worker will drive to work without
changing
residences...
Considered in what will be determined to be a comparable
jurisdiction are: Size, geography,
location, location in relation to major urban centers,
rate of crimes, distances to be covered,
population, size of sheriffs department, nature of the
economy of the jurisdiction (urban, rural,
commuter bedroom area for a major city), impact of
military installations, tax income, inclusion in
U.S. Department of Labor's local labor market, cost of
living, including cost of housing,
complexity of jurisdiction, type of crime problems,
assessed value of property in the jurisdiction.
The Position of the Guild and the County on
the Selection of Comparable Jurisdictions
In determining which jurisdictions were selected as
"comparable" in this case, a study of the
quite voluminous information
and data submitted by the parties was made.
The Guild proposes that the jurisdictions that should be
determined as "comparable" for the
two Kitsap County cases should
be:
Thurston County
Whatcom County
Clark County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
( Spokane County is listed by the Guild as a
"secondary" jurisdiction for consideration as a
comparable" jurisdiction
as the Guild theorizes that the comparable jurisdictions in this case
should be located in Western
Washington).
The Employer, Kitsap County proposes the following
jurisdictions as comparable:
Whatcom County
Thurston County
Clark County
Yakima County
Benton County
The Guild and the County agree on three of the counties
in their proposal for comparable
jurisdictions. They are:
Thurston County, Whatcom County and Clark County.
In addition to the agreed on counties the Guild proposes
Snohomish County and as a
"secondary"
proposal, Spokane County.
In addition to the agreed on counties, the County
proposes: Benton County and Yakima
County.
The parties agreed to the use of Thurston, Whatcom and
Clark Counties as comparables. The
following counties remain in
dispute, Snohomish, Spokane, Benton, and Yakima.
Since the weight of the evidence presented in this case
indicates that Eastern Washington,
which includes Spokane, Benton
and Yakima Counties has a substantially different type of
economy than does Western
Washington it is concluded that all three Eastern Washington
Counties be eliminated from
use as comparables in this case.
The inclusion of Snohomish County is a reasonable
inclusion as a "comparable" as its size,
though substantially larger
than Kitsap County in population, is not so much larger as to cause it
to be eliminated as a
reasonable "comparable". In addition Snohomish County is included in
the
same geographic area as is
Kitsap County, the same urban area (Seattle) and located in what is
defined as the same
"labor market" area.
Since both parties agree that Thurston, Whatcom, and
Clark Counties should be used as
"comparables" in
this case, it is the conclusion of the arbitrator that these three county
jurisdictions should be
included on the list of."comparables" for
the instant case.
Snohomish County, proposed by the Guild is located in
Western Washington and inside the
Puget Sound labor market, as
is Kitsap County, and is an appropriate jurisdiction for use as a
"comparable" in this
case.
It is the determination of the arbitrator that the
following counties are the appropriate counties
for use as comparables in
these cases:
Whatcom County
Thurston County
Snohomish County
Clark County
The following issues will be discussed and a
determination made, in the order that they appear
in the existing Deputy
Sheriffs Contract.
Deputy Sheriffs Agreement
Article I
Section 1- Rights of
Management.
The County and the Guild both propose changes to the
existing wording in the management
rights provision of the two
contracts. The wording proposed by the County seems designed to
improve the bargaining
position of management and the proposed wording of the Guild seems
designed to improve the
bargaining position of the Union.
A careful reading of the proposals of the County, the
Guild and the existing contracts causes
the arbitrator to conclude:
-The existing contract language has been the product of past
negotiations, carefully
arrived at through the bargaining process, and -That the proposal changes,
even if implemented, would not
really alter the basic bargaining relationship between the Guild
and the County.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
request of the County to revise the
wording of the provision and
request of the Guild to revise the wording of Article I. - Rights of
Management, is denied.
Article II
Section A- Salaries
The Guild proposes pay increases "across the
board" of four and one half percent (4.5%) of
employees gross compensation
over the 1996 rate. This would be a four and one half percent
(4.5%) pay increase for 1997
over the pay amounts listed in Kitsap County's payroll entitled
"Gross Compensation for
Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants". This proposal also seeks an
additional four percent (4%)
increase "across the board" for the following year, 1998, for an
eight
and one half percent (8.5%)
increase over two years.
The County proposes pay increases "across the
board" of three percent (3%) for employees
gross compensation over the
1996 level for the year of 1997, and an additional three percent (3%)
increase for the year of 1998.
In addition, the County proposes that the contract period be
extended to three (3) years,
through the calendar year 1999 and that a pay increase of three
percent (3%) be given to the
employees starting January 1, 1999.
A study of all of the materials and data submitted in the
instant case has caused the arbitrator
to conclude that the employees
be given a three (3) year agreement for the years of 1997, 1998
and 1999 and that pay
increases of four percent (4%) be given for the year 1997, that pay
increases of three and
one-half percent (3.5%) be given for the year 1998 and that pay increases
be paid the employees of three
and one-half percent (3.5%) for the year 1999 for a total
percentage pay increase of
eleven percent (11%) over three years of the Kitsap County pay scale
titled "Gross
Compensation for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants".
It is concluded that the Article II, Section A- Salaries
provision of the agreement should be:
Effective January 1 , 1 997, all steps, in the 1997
salary schedule shall be increased across the
board by four percent (4%)
over the Kitsap County salary schedule entitled "Gross Compensation
for Deputies, Corporals and
Sergeants" of the previous year, 1996.
Effective January 1, 1998, all steps in the 1998 salary
schedule shall be increased, across the
board by the amount of three
and one-half percent (3 . 5%) over the Kitsap County salary schedule
entitled "Gross
Compensation for Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants" of the previous year,
1997.
The County proposed that a third year wage settlement be
put in place in this arbitration
award. The County argues that
there was a likelihood that the award in the instant case would not
be completed until early 1999
and that it would be wise to create a pause in the bargaining
process by extending the
elements of this award for an additional year, for the year of 1999.
The arbitrator agrees, and adds the following provision
to Article II, Section A- Salaries of
this collective bargaining
agreement.
"Effective January 1, 1999, all steps in the 1999
salary schedule shall be increased, across the
board by the amount of three
and one-half percent (3.5%) over the Kitsap County salary schedule
entitled "Gross
Compensation for Deputies, Corporals, and Sergeants for the previous year,
1998".
Article II
Section B- Experience Based
Pay Incentives
The Guild proposes changing the Article II, Section B-
Experience Based Pay Incentives
provisions which concern
within grade increases based on longevity.
Pursuant to review of the proposal, and in light of the
arbitration award in other sections of
this Interest Arbitration, the
arbitrator concluded that the existing six (6) step system adequately
serves the salary needs
provided by this provision.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
Guild's proposed change of Article II,
Section B- Experience Based
Pay Incentives is denied.
Article II
Section D- Longevity Bonus
The Guild and the County both propose changes to the
Section D- Longevity Bonus provision
of article II.
1 . The proposal would begin the payment at seven (7) years
instead of five (5)
years.
Both the Guild and the County agree that the first
category that receives a Longevity Bonus,
the one that begins at "5
years of employment" should be eliminated, and accordingly it is
eliminated.
The Guild and the County submit two different scales for
Longevity Bonus Pay.
The existing scale for Deputies is:
5 Years of Employment 1.00%
of annual salary
7 Years of Employment 1.25%
of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.50%
of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 1.75%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 2.25%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 2.75%
of annual salary
Under the existing contract, longevity Bonuses differ
according to job classification. There are
three grades, one each for
Deputies, Corporals and Sergeants. The Corporals and Sergeants are
covered under a separate
contract from the Deputies, they are included in the existing
"Supervisors"
contract.
The Guild's proposed scale for
the Deputies is:
7 Years of
Employment 1.75% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 2.00%
of annual salary
1 5 Years of Employment 3
.00% of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 4.00%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 5.00%
of annual salary
The County's proposed scale
for the Deputies is:
7 Years of Employment 1.25%
of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.50%
of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 1.75%
of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 2.25%
of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 2.75%
of annual salary
In summary, the Guild proposes a substantial increase in
the Longevity Bonus Pay scale and
the County proposes the status
quo. Both the County and the Guild agree that the "5 years of
employment" category
should be removed.
Pursuant to a study of the issues and the factors in this
case, the arbitrator concludes that the
Article II, Section D-
Longevity Bonus scale should be:
7 Years of Employment 1.50% of annual salary
10 Years of Employment 1.75% of annual salary
15 Years of Employment 2.00% of annual salary
20 Years of Employment 2.50% of annual salary
25 Years of Employment 3.00% of annual salary
Article II
Section E - Shift
Differential
It is agreed by both the County and the Guild that this
provision of the contract be
discontinued.
Article II
Section F- Assignment Pay
The Guild proposes changing Section F- Assignment Pay for
Deputies from a $120.00 month
assignment pay addition, to a
pay addition of five percent (5%) of the Deputies base pay for
Deputies who are assigned to
the five (5) jobs listed for "Assignment Pay". In addition the Guild
proposes the addition of three
classifications to the five included in the existing agreement. The
Guild proposes adding the
three classifications of Traffic Officer, Training Officer and Crisis
Intervention Response Team.
The County opposes any changes in this provision.
The Guild's proposal of designating a five percent (5%)
of base pay addition, instead of the
$120.00 amount in the existing
contract, in light of the comparables, and other factors relied on in
this case, appears excessive.
However an increase is due in the dollar amount of the assignment
pay.
Accordingly, the dollar amount is raised from $120.00
month to $135.00 month effective
January 1, 1999.
Concerning the addition of the three additional classifications
to the eligible employees for
assignment pay, it has not
been demonstrated that two of the classifications of Traffic Officer and
Crisis Intervention Response
Team meet the requirements of Assignment Pay designation.
However the testimony and
supporting evidence presented for the case of including Field Training
Officer is convincing and it
is found that the classification of Field Training Officer should be
added.
Accordingly, there should be added to the list of covered
classifications for Assignment Pay
the classification of Field
Training Officer.
It is the award of the arbitrator that the instant
provision for Section F- Assignment Pay should
be:
Employees within the classification of deputy sheriff who
are assigned to the job function shall
receive $135.00 pay per month
as assignment pay.
A. Detective
B. Investigator
C. K-9
D. Bomb Technician
E. Search and Rescue
F. Field Training Officer
Article II
Section G- Uniform
Allowance
The Guild proposes an increase in the "Uniform Allowance"
from $375.00 annually to
$475.00 annually, an increase
of $100.00 per year.
The County proposes that there be no increase in the
Uniform Allowance.
A review of the evidence and data presented indicate that
an increase to the uniform allowance
is due, but that an increase
to $475.00 is too large an increase. It is concluded that an increase of
$50.00 annually to the amount
of $425.00 is appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
amount of the uniform allowance be
increased to $425.00 annually,
effective January 1, 1999.
Article III
Section I-Health and
Welfare Benefits
Under the existing agreement each Deputy's health
insurance premiums are paid by the
County. The costs of health
insurance coverage for the Deputy's dependants is paid fifty percent
(50%) by the County, up to the
dollar amount of$195.00 each month, with the employee paying
the remainder. (50% or more).
The Guild proposes that the health insurance costs for
each Deputy's dependants be paid for
entirely by the County.
The County proposes that the employees included in the
Guild's bargaining unit be changed to
a different company and a
different system of health insurance, the Group Health, Virginia Mason
Alliant
Plan. Under the County's Alliant Plan the County
would pay the full cost for the Deputy
and for the Deputy's
dependant's health insurance.
The County's proposal for the Alliant
Plan is a proposal to change the health insurance
coverage to a plan that is, in
part, a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) Plan, that limits the
coverage to certain
participating physicians at certain health facilities. The cost for insurance
coverage for the Alliant Plan is less than the cost for Blue Cross and for
Kitsap Physicians Service
Plans. The Alliant
Plan costs less even when full payment is made by the County for the health
insurance costs for
dependants.
The County presents the argument that most other Kitsap
County employees are covered
under the Alliant
Plan.
Following a thorough study it is the conclusion of the
arbitrator that the Alliant Plan gives less
health coverage than do the
Blue Cross and Kitsap Physicians Service Plans. Accordingly there is
less cost to the County. The
arbitrator concludes accordingly that there likely is less value to the
employee in the Alliant Plan.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that employees,
who are employed in high risk
employment such as Sheriffs
Deputies should be in a health insurance plan that presents top
quality, easily available
medical care. It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that the Deputies
should remain covered by the
more traditional and likely more available health plans which are
under consideration in this
case, the Blue Cross Plan and the Kitsap Physicians Service Plan.
It is the award of the arbitrator that the employees
covered by this bargaining unit should have
available to them, either the
Blue Cross Plan or the Kitsap Physicians Service Plan.
It is also concluded by the arbitrator that the Deputy
should continue to pay for part of his or
her health insurance coverage
for dependants. Accordingly it is the award of the arbitrator that
the County continue to pay the
full cost for health insurance coverage for the Deputy and that the
costs for the health insurance
for the Deputy's dependants be paid by the following formula. That
the County pay sixty percent
(60%) of the costs for insurance coverage for the Deputy's
dependants up to the dollar
amount of $250.00.
Article II
Section K- Hours of Work
The Guild proposes that the County change the five (5)
day eight (8) hour work week , to a
four (4) day ten (10) hour
work week for the Deputy Sheriff work force. Extensive research was
done on this subject by the
arbitrator and it was concluded that for a work force, such as Deputy
Sheriffs in this case, that
there are clearly some advantages to the implementation of a four (4)
day ten ( 1 0) hour work week.
It is also clear that such a change in work week creates some very
complex problems and that
there are a number of impacts that must be administered in such a
work week program. It is also
noted that evidence was presented that a ten (10) hour four (4)
day work week had been
instituted and discarded in the past.
The County seeks the status quo and opposes the
implementation of the ten (10) hour four (4)
day work week. It is concluded
by the arbitrator that the implementation of a ten (10) hour four
(4) day work week might well
be a clear benefit to both the County administrators and to the
Deputy work force and should
be further examined in detail in the collective bargaining process.
It is further concluded that
this issue contains such a degree of complexity that such a work week
change should be the product
of careful negotiations between the County and the Guild in future
contract negotiations rather
than the product of the process of Interest Arbitration. Additionally
it is noted that the existing
contract provisions provide for, if not encourage the exploration and
the institution of the ten
(10) hour four (4) day work week.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that there
be no change in Section K- Hours of
Work from this Interest
Arbitration award.
Article II
Section L- Overtime
1- Civil Case Exclusion
In paragraph 5 of Section L-Overtime the Guild requests
the removal of the phrase "except in
civil cases" for call
back from Deputies time off from their job. The Guild also calls for the
increase from "two (2)
hours pay" to "three (3) hours pay for the call back at the
applicable
overtime rate" for
Deputies being called from off duty to testify in court.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that the Guild's
proposal to remove "except in civil cases
from the overtime provision is
reasonable, since the Deputy is required to use his off duty time in
an identical manner whether
the case is "criminal" or "civil" and that it is a call
back from leave
about "...events arising
out of their employment... which is the cause of the call back.
According, it is the conclusion of the arbitrator that
the phrase "except in civil cases" should be
removed from Section L-
Overtime of the agreement and that the Deputies should receive the
same "report back to
work" pay for civil cases as they now do for "criminal" cases.
2- Call Back Pay
The Guild also proposes the increase in minimum hours a
Deputy is to be paid for "report back
to work pay" from two (2)
hours to three (3) hours of overtime pay.
The County opposes increasing the minimum hours to be
paid from two (2) hours to three (3)
hours of overtime. The County
also divides the "Call Back Pay" issue into two issues. The
County proposes that there
should be two types of "call back":
1 When an employee is called back to work after completing
his
or her shift, when on vacation and when on a day off.
2. When a Deputy is scheduled to appear in court.
Since the majority of the comparable jurisdictions pay
three (3) hours of overtime pay or more
rather than two (2) hours in
the existing agreement it is concluded that the Guild's request to
increase the hours from two
(2) hours to three (3) hours of overtime pay is reasonable and should
be awarded to the employees.
And, that there is little difference of the impact on the employee
whether he is called in from a
day off or vacation, possibly because of an emergency and when the
employee has a scheduled
appearance in court, there should be the same granting of three (3)
hours overtime for call back
pay.
Accordingly it is the award of the arbitrator that the
amount of overtime to be paid to an
employee for a call back
should be a minimum of three (3) hours overtime pay.
The Guild proposes the elimination from the existing
agreement, in its entirety paragraph 6 of
Section L- Overtime. Paragraph
6 states "Non-mandatory training requested by and approved for
an employee shall not be considered
in calculating overtime".
The County opposes this proposal and seeks the status
quo.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that non-mandatory
training requested by a Deputy, is not
normally a subject involved in
overtime pay. Though training is normally a very valuable asset to
both the employee and the
employer, in the context of this Interest Arbitration it is not
appropriate.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that the
Guild proposal to eliminate paragraph 6
of article II Section L-
Overtime is denied.
Article III
Section B-Annual Leave
The County proposes a reduction of the Annual Leave
benefits. The current agreement states:
" 1.
Annual leave with pay shall be earned by employees as follows:
a. Upon employment 80 hours per year
b. Upon completion of five (5) years of employment 160 hours per year
c. Upon completion of ten ( I 0) years of employment 200
hours per year
d. Upon completion of fifteen (15) years of Employment 240 hours per year
2. Employees
shall attempt to use annual leave during the year in which it is
earned. No more than three hundred sixty (360) hours of annual leave
may be carried from one calendar year to the next.
3.
Upon separation of any employee by retirement, resignation with two
weeks notice, layoff, dismissal or death, the employee or beneficiary
thereof shall be paid for unused annual leave at the rate being paid at
the time of separation."
The County proposes an annual leave scale that reduces
the overall annual leave benefit to
employees. It is:
"Years of Service Current Proposal
0-5 years 80 hours 80 hours
6-10 years 160
hours 120 hours
11-15 years 200 hours 160
hours
Over 15 years 240 hours 200
hours
The County proposes a maximum cap of 5 weeks (200) hours.
It does make an exception to
this cap by stating:
"All Deputies who have
exceeded 200 hours annual leave may continue
to accrue at 240 hours
annually".
The County argues that the existing annual leave benefits
for the Deputies is higher than most
of the comparable
jurisdictions. Review of the evidence presented indicates that the County's
conclusion is correct. However
the "comparables" used by the County to make the comparison
include two comparables from
Eastern Washington that are not accepted for use as "comparables"
in this case.
Since the evidence shows that the current annual leave
benefits are higher than many of those
in comparable jurisdictions,
it is concluded that there should be a reduction in the annual leave
rate. Accordingly, the rate of
annual leave should be reduced for those employees in the " 1 0 to
1 5 years" of service
category to 1 90 hours per year and those employees in the "over I S
years" of
service category to 220 hours
per year. The new Annual Leave scale is:
Years of Service Hours of annual Leave Earned
0-5 years 80 hours
6-10 years 160
hours
10-15 years 190 hours
Over 15 years 220 hours
All Deputies who have exceeded the 10 years of service
category as of January 1,1999 shall
not have their annual leave
reduced. They shall be awarded annual leave on the scale of the
existing (1996) contract: 10
to 15 years of service at 200 hours per year and for those who
currently have over 15 years
of service their annual leave shall remain at 240 hours.
Also it is determined that the maximum amount of hours
that may be carried from one
calendar year to the next is
to remain at 360 hours.
Article III
Section C- Sick Leave
The County proposes that the amount of sick leave given
the employees should be reduced.
The County proposes that the
current Sick Leave benefit to employees of 120 hours earned per
year, ten (10) hours per
month, should be reduced to eight (8) hours earned per month or 96
hours per year.
A review of the comparables used in this case indicates
that the existing sick leave benefit to
employees is higher than in
many of the comparable jurisdictions and that a reduction in sick leave
benefits might be justified.
Since sick leave is a benefit that is designed to assist employees who
become ill or suffer a
disabling injury, and that the work of a Deputy Sheriff is among the most
hazardous of occupations, it
is the conclusion of the arbitrator that it would not be proper to
reduce in any way the sick
leave benefits. It is noted that a downward adjustment is made in the
award in this case in the
Annual Leave benefits. Accordingly the County's proposal to reduce the
sick leave benefits of Section
C-Sick Leave is denied.
Article V- Term
The Guild proposes that the term of the instant agreement
in Interest Arbitration be of two
years in duration, effective
for the contract period of
1998. The employer proposes
that the contract be of longer duration, requesting that the County
and the Guild be given a time
of relief, a breathing space, from the pressure of contract
negotiations.
It is the conclusion of the arbitrator that the County is
quite correct in its request for a
breathing period from
negotiations. It is also of importance for the parties to have a time to
operate under the contract
awarded from this Interest Arbitration case, to determine the propriety
and effectiveness of the
provisions of this Interest Arbitration award and prepare adjustments to
it.
Accordingly, it is the award of the arbitrator that this
Interest Arbitration award be effective
for three (3) years in
duration, from
Article V- Term provision should
state:
Article V- Term
This agreement shall be in full
force and effect between the
Guild and Employer,
through
Roger Buchanan, Impartial
Arbitrator
Date