International
Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2099, AFL-CIO, CLC
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs Alan R.
Case #: 14181-I-98-00316
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2099,
AFL-CIO, CLC
PERC No.: 14214-U-98-03522
Date Issued:
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2099,
AFL-CIO, CLC James H. Webster
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 2
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS 3
ISSUES 5
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER 6
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS 7
COST OF LIVING 16
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 17
Ability to Pay 17
Settlements With
Other Bargaining Units 18
Turnover 19
INSPECTOR PREMIUM PAY 20
TRAINING ASSIGNMENT PREMIUM 22
LONGEVITY BENEFITS 24
HEALTH CARE COST SHARING 27
WAGES 31
TERM OF AGREEMENT 46
AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN 47
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2099,
AFL-CIO, CLC
OPINION OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an interest arbitration
hearing
involving certain uniformed personnel of the city of
Bothell was held before an
arbitration panel consisting of three
persons. City of
designee
on the Panel. International Association
of
Firefighters, Local 2099,
AFL-CIO, CLC appointed Paul Harvey as
its
designee. Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs was
selected as the
Neutral Chairman. The hearing was held in
September 27-29 and
represented
by Greg A. Rubstello of the law firm
Wallace. The
law
firm Webster, Mrak and Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath
and the parties presented documentary evidence.
There was
no
court reporter, and therefore, the Neutral Chairman tape
recorded
the proceedings.
The parties agreed upon the submission of post-hearing
briefs. The Neutral Chairman received the briefs on
December 6,
1999. In view of the lengthy record, the parties
agreed to waive
the
statutory requirement that the interest arbitration award be
issued
within 30 days following the conclusion of the hearing.
It was agreed that the Neutral
Chairman, within 60 days of his
receipt
of briefs, would present a draft of his Award to the
Employer-appointed Arbitrator
and the Union-appointed Arbitrator,
and
then would issue his decision after they had an opportunity
to
provide input. On
provided a
copy of his initial draft decision to the other Panel
members
for review and comment before the final decision was
provided
to the parties. The Panel conferred by
conference call
on
February 11 and 17, 2000.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed
personnel
are
unable to reach agreement on new contract terms by means of
negotiations
and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for interest
arbitration
to resolve their dispute. The parties agree
that RCW
41.56.450 is applicable to the
bargaining unit of firefighters
involved
here. In interest arbitration, an
arbitrator or
arbitration
panel adjudicates a resolution to contract issues
regarding
terms and conditions of employment, which are at
impasse
following collective bargaining negotiations.
Arbitrators are generally
mindful that interest arbitration is an
extension
of the bargaining process. They
recognize those
contract
provisions upon which the parties could agree and decide
the
remaining issues in a manner which would approximate the
result
which the parties would likely have reached in good faith
negotiations
considering the statutory criteria.
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth certain criteria which must be
considered
by an arbitrator in deciding the controversy:
RCW 41.56.465 Uniformed personnel--
Interest arbitration panel--Determinations- -
Factors to be considered. (1) In
making its
determination, the panel shall
be mindful of
the legislative purpose
enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and, as additional standards or
guidelines to aid it in reaching
a decision,
it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c) (i) .
. .
(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(e) through (h),
comparison of
the wages, hours, and conditions
of
employment of personnel involved
in the
proceedings with the wages,
hours, and
conditions of employment of like
personnel
of public fire departments of
similar size
on the west coast of the
However, when an adequate number of
comparable employers exists
within the state
of
not be considered;
(d) The
average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly
known as the
cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the circumstances
under (a) through (d) of this
subsection
during the pendency
of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to
the factors under (a) through
(e) of this
subsection, that are normally or
traditionally taken into
consideration in the
determination of wages, hours,
and conditions
of employment. ...
RCW 41.56.430, which is referred to in RCW 41.56.465,
reads
as
follows:
RCW 41.56.430 Uniformed personnel
Legislative declaration. The intent and
purpose of this 1973 amendatory
act is to
recognize that there exists a
public policy
in the state of
uniformed personnel as a means
of settling
their labor disputes; that the
uninterrupted
and dedicated service of these
classes of
employees is vital to the
welfare and public
safety of the state of
Washington; that to
promote such dedicated and
uninterrupted
public service there should
exist an
effective and adequate
alternative means of
settling disputes.
ISSUES
The Union represents uniformed employees in the
Employer's
Fire
Department, up to and including the rank of captain. The
Union and the Employer are
parties to a collective bargaining
agreement
which expired on December 31, 1997. They
were unable
to
reach an agreement on a new contract despite their efforts in
negotiations
and the assistance of a mediator. In
accordance
with
RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the Washington
State Public Employment
Relations Commission certified that the
parties
were at impasse on a number of issues.
The statutory
interest
arbitration procedures were invoked.
Following
mediation,
as well as during the arbitration hearing, the parties
resolved
or withdrew some of the issues which had been certified.
Thus, the issues remaining in
arbitration which are to be decided
are:
1. Salary
2. Longevity
premium
3. Inspector
premium
4. Training
assignment premium
5. Health
cost sharing
6. Term
of agreement
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER
The city of Bothell is located in northern King County
and
southern
Snohomish County, Washington. Its Fire Department
provides
fire suppression, emergency medical response and related
services
within its city limits and the adjacent Snohomish County
Fire District No. 10 for a
combined 1998 resident population of
30,900,
and an assessed valuation of $2,636,461,277.
The Fire
Department employs 46
employees in the bargaining unit, of which
32 are classified as
firefighter I, II, III, or IV, and the
remaining
14 hold the rank of fire lieutenant or fire captain.
The firefighters generally
work a 24 hour shift. At least two
firefighter
assignments have a standard 40 hour day shift.
Those
two
assignments are the inspector and the training assignment.
The City experienced a significant transformation during
the
past
decade according to a report published in connection with
its
issuance of municipal bonds. During this
period, the City
has
grown considerably in population by annexation of land.
However, most of this
annexation of land involved territory which
had
been previously included in the service area for the City's
Fire Department as a result of
its contracts with several fire
districts. The construction of two large business parks
has
changed
the City from a primarily residential community to one
which
is a major employment center within the Puget Sound area.
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW
41.56.465 upon which an
arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision
is a "comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of like employers of public fire
departments
of similar size on the west coast of the United
States." The statute requires the use of comparable
employers
within
the state of Washington if an adequate number of in-state
comparable
employers exists.
While the governing statute requires a comparison with
public
fire departments of similar size, it does not define how
"similar
size" is to be determined. Interest
arbitrators
generally
determine which criteria should be relied upon in order
to
compare the size of fire departments. In
making this
determination,
interest arbitrators have been constrained by the
nature
of the statistics which the parties have placed into
evidence. The most commonly referenced criteria are the
population
and assessed valuation of the communities served.
Consideration is also
frequently given to the proximity of the
jurisdiction
to be compared and whether it is in a similar
economic
environment such as in a rural area or part of a large
metropolitan
area. The parties agree that the primary
considerations
for selecting comparable jurisdictions are
location,
population, and assessed valuation.
The Employer proposes that the following 11 fire
departments
should
be relied upon as appropriate comparable jurisdictions:
%
of Assessed C
of
Population Bothell Valuation Bothell
Edmonds 39,585 128.11% $2,830,143,773 107.35%
Mercer
Island
21,690 70.19% 3,295,622,067 125.00%
Mount lake
Terrace 26,655 86.26% 1,259,668,483 47.78%
SeaTac 23,540 76.18% 2,369,768,776 89.88%
SCFD#8 28,000 90.61% 1,615,343,968 61.27%
SCFD#121 46,000 148.87% 1,822,189,569 69.11%
KCFD#22 33,000 106.80% 2,324,989,367 88.19%
KCFD#16 30,000 97.09% 2,190,955,222 83.10%
KCFD#26 29,000 93.85% 1,311,564,504 49.75%
KCFD#40 38,000 122.98% 1,599,554,126 60.67%
Bothell 30,900 $2,636,461,277
___________________
1 SCFD is an abbreviation of Snohomish
County Fire District.
2 KFCD is an abbreviation of King
County Fire District.
The Employer asserts that its group of eleven proposed
comparable
employers was selected in consideration of four
factors. First, they all have a population and
assessed
valuation
which each fall within a range of 50% to 150% that of
the
Employer. Second, they represent a
balanced list of King and
Snohomish County employers,
with six in King County and five in
Snohomish
County. In
this regard, the Employer reasons that just
as
the city of Bothell is equally located and populated between
Snohomish and King Counties,
the list of stipulated comparable
employers
should be equally distributed between those two
counties. Third, according to the Employer, its
proposed list
represents a
balance between employers larger and smaller than
Bothell. Finally, the Employer relies on the parties'
bargaining
history
to justify its selection of comparable jurisdictions. It
points
out that King County Fire District No. 40 was included in
the
list selected by the parties' interest arbitrator in 1987.
Moreover, both the Employer
and the Union recognized that fire
district
as comparable during contract negotiations in 1992 and
1995. The Employer contends that Mountlake Terrace
should be a
comparator
even though its assessed valuation is less than 50% of
Bothell's. The Employer points out that it has a special
relationship
with Mountlake Terrace which does not exist with any
of
the other proposed comparable employers.
Bothell and
Mountlake Terrace share a
jurisdictional service boundary, and
from
time-to-time, each has responded to emergencies in the other
jurisdiction
pursuant to a mutual aid agreement.
The Employer asserts that the Union's proposed use of
Auburn/Algona and King County
Fire District No. 43 as comparable
jurisdictions
would result in twice as many King County employers
as
Snohomish County employers. The Employer
argues that
Auburn/Algona is not
comparable because its operating budget of
$8,432,400 is almost double
the operating budget of any other
proposed
comparator. In addition, its uniformed
staff of 66
bargaining
unit members is considerably larger than the staff of
the
other proposed employers. The Employer
maintains that
Puyallup should be rejected as
a comparable jurisdiction since it
is
in Pierce County and there is no reason to reach that far when
sufficient
comparable jurisdictions exist in King and Snohomish
Counties. The Employer points out that
Pierce County employers
were
previously excluded from consideration in two prior interest
arbitration
opinions involving these parties.
The Union, during negotiations and the interest arbitration
hearings,
proposed ten fire departments as comparable
jurisdictions. These ten jurisdictions are listed
below. In its
brief,
the Union suggested that the Panel might also consider an
alternative
list of comparable jurisdictions, which would delete
two
jurisdictions from the 10 which it had proposed. The last
two
jurisdictions listed, Puyallup and Snohomish County Fire
District No. 12, are the two
which would be deleted by the Union
according
to the alternative proposal which it advanced in its
brief.
% of Assessed % of
Population Bothell Valuation Bothell
Auburn/
Algona 39,880 129.06% $3,406,593,946 129.21%
Edmonds 39,585 128.11% 2,830,143,773 107.35%
Lynnwood 33,110 107.15% 2,199,865,188 83.44%
Mercer
Island 21,690 70.19% 3,295,622,067 125.00%
SeaTac 23,540 76.18% 2,369,768,776 89.88%
KCFD#2 33,000 106.80% 2,324,989,367 88.19%
KCFD#16 30,000 97.09% 2,190,955,222 83.10%
KCFD#43 40,000 129.45% 1,900,000,000 72.07%
SCFD#12 46,000 148.87% 1,822,189,569 69.11%
Bothell 30,900 $2,636,461,277
The Union asserts that it selected its ten proposed
comparable
jurisdictions by first obtaining information on all
departments
in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties with a
population
and assessed valuation, each within a range of 50% to
200%
of the Employer. The
Union then selected departments by
alternately
taking the next largest and the next smallest until
all
departments below the Employer were exhausted, yielding the
ten
departments which it has proposed.
Alternatively, the Union
suggested
in its brief that the interest arbitration will be best
served
if the Panel adopts the same 70%-140% criteria for
comparables
which was chosen in two prior interest arbitration
awards
involving this bargaining unit. The
Union reasons that by
adopting
this same standard, the Panel would effectively
discourage
further litigation over comparable departments and
stabilize
expectations. The Union observes that
the selection of
70% to 140% achieves an
appropriate size range since 70% and 140%
have a
similar relationship to 100% inasmuch as 100% is 71% of
140%.
The Union argues that the Employer's proposed range of
50%
to
150% of the size of Bothell for selecting comparable
departments
improperly weights the Employer's comparators towards
smaller
departments, because, pursuant to the law of large
numbers,
a decrease in a numerical amount has a much larger
impact
than an increase in the same numerical amount.
The Union
further
argues that the Employer improperly included King County
Fire District No. 26 and
Mountlake Terrace in its comparable
departments
inasmuch as both of these jurisdictions fall below
the
Employer's proposed standard of a minimum of 50% of the
assessed
valuation of Bothell. The Union urges
that the Panel
disregard
the fact that the Employer has a mutual aid agreement
with
Mountlake Terrace, since it has not proposed the inclusion
of a
number of neighboring departments with which it has similar
agreements. The Union questions why the Employer excluded
King
County Fire District No. 43
and Auburn/Algona, departments which
meet
all the Employer's stated criteria for size and location.
The Union notes that the
City's own compensation survey, prepared
by a
consultant in cooperation with the City Manager, deemed
Auburn
as suitable for use as a comparison city. The Union
observes
that the Employer's exclusion of Auburn/Algona based on
tax
revenues and staff size is inconsistent with the Employer's
reliance
upon jurisdictions with even greater discrepancies in
these
areas.
I have selected nine fire departments which are similar
in
size
to Bothell as comparable jurisdictions:
Auburn/Algona
Edmonds
Lynnwood
Mercer Island
SeaTac
KCFD#2
KCFD#16
KCFD#43
SCFD#12
Except for Snohomish County
Fire District No. 12, they represent
all
jurisdictions proposed by the parties located within King and
Snohomish Counties which have
a population and assessed valuation
of
communities served which are both within 30 percent of the
figures
for Bothell. With the same exception,
they also
represent
the jurisdictions in King and Snohomish Counties which
would
fall within the band of 70% to 140% that of Bothell in
terms
of both population and assessed valuation.
This was the
band
selected by arbitrators in two prior interest arbitrations
involving
these parties. City of Bothell, (Beck,
1983); City of
Bothell, (Krebs, 1987). I have included Snohomish County Fire
District No. 12 as a
comparable jurisdiction since it is a
jurisdiction
which both parties agreed during negotiations and
during
the interest arbitration hearings is appropriately
comparable
to the Employer. I have excluded
Puyallup since it is
situated
in Pierce County. It would not be
unreasonable to
include
jurisdictions from Pierce County as the Union urges,
since
it is an adjacent county to King County in which the
Employer is partially
situated. Nevertheless, there are
sufficient
comparators available from King and Snohomish
Counties, and those counties
are more significant since the
Employer is situated within
their boundaries and is affected by
the
general economic conditions of that area.
I am not persuaded
by
the Employer's argument that there should be an approximately
equal
number of King and Snohomish County comparators since
Bothell's boundaries are
situated in both counties. The Employer
never
explained why such a balance is desirable.
Since King
County has a larger population
than Snohomish County, it is
understandable
that there would be more fire departments in King
County than in Snohomish
County which are comparable in size to
the
Employer. In any event, three of the
selected comparable
jurisdictions
are situated in Snohomish County, namely Edmonds,
Lynnwood
and Snohomish County Fire District No. 12. In these
circumstances
where all of the selected comparators are situated
nearby
to the Employer, I find insufficient reason to stretch the
criteria
in order to include Mountlake Terrace, a jurisdiction
with
less than half the assessed valuation of the Employer,
merely
because they are neighboring departments with a joint
response
agreement. I also find insufficient
reason to include
KCFD No. 40 based on its prior
use as a comparator some years
ago. In the intervening years, the Employer's
growth has
outpaced
the growth of that jurisdiction and there is a
diminished
basis for comparison. Similarly, the
assessed
valuations
of KCFD No. 26 and SCFD No. 8 are significantly below
the
70% minimum selected as a threshold for comparison. There is
inadequate
basis to exclude Auburn/Algona as urged by the
Employer. While the Employer correctly points out that
Auburn/Algona employs about 20
more uniformed personnel in its
fire
department than that of Bothell, this is balanced by Mercer
island,
which both parties agree is a comparable jurisdiction and
which
employs about 20 less firefighters than does Bothell.
Auburn/Algona has a population
and an assessed valuation which
are
both within 30% that of Bothell's. That
Auburn/Algona
chooses
to devote more of its resources to it's fire department,
as
reflected in a substantially higher operating budget, is not
sufficient
reason to disregard it as a comparable jurisdiction.
Compared to the selected
comparable jurisdictions, the Employer
ranks
seventh out of ten in population, and fourth out of ten in
assessed
valuation.
COST OF LIVING
RCW 41.56.465(d) requires consideration of "[t]he
average
consumer
prices for goods and services, commonly known as the
cost
of living." The Employer presented
evidence of the change
in
the CPI-W Seattle for the June to June period.
This consumer
price
index is published by the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Bothell is located in the
Seattle
metropolitan area. The
CPI-W Seattle reflects the
following
annual increases in the cost of living for that area:
Year Ending CPI-W
Seattle Index
June 1999 3.2%
June 1998 2.5%
June 1997 3.7%
The Employer provided evidence
that from 1991 through 1997 its
firefighter
base wages increased by an average of 4.7% per year.
During this same period, the
CPI-W increased by an average of
3.6% per year. The Union urges that the Panel disregard the
CPI
because
the delay in these proceedings has allowed comparative
data
to be available, and also because Puget Sound firefighters
have
in recent years negotiated compensation increases
substantially
above increases in the CPI. As
previously
indicated,
the governing statute requires the Panel to consider
the
cost of living. Therefore, significant
weight shall be given
to
the relatively modest increase in the cost of living during
recent
years.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465(a)-(e), RCW
41.56.465(f) directs the Panel to consider
"such
other factors . . . that are normally or traditionally taken
into
consideration in the determination of wages, hours and
conditions
of employment." Such factors, which
are discussed
below,
have been considered, but with lesser weight than that
which
is given to the specifically enumerated criteria of
comparability
and cost of living.
Ability to Pay
A factor frequently raised in contract negotiations and
also
considered
by arbitrators is the ability of the employer to pay
wage
and benefit increases.
The Employer does not contend that it is unable to pay a
reasonable
and fair increase. However, it does
request that its
uncertain
financial situation be considered. In
this regard, it
points
out that the I-695 initiative recently went into effect.
That initiative resulted in a
reduction in certain funding
sources
for Bothell, as well as requiring voter approval for
future
tax hikes. The Employer argues that
since the parties
will
be meeting again this year to negotiate a successor contract
to
the one at issue here, the Panel should allow the parties to
negotiate
the impact of I-695 before any substantial increase in
wages
and other benefits are required to be paid by the City.
The evidence presented does not indicate that the
Employer
is
unable to pay fair and reasonable wage increases and other
benefits. While the I-695 Initiative raises some
questions
regarding
the Employer's future finances, such issues, if they
arise,
can be dealt with in collective bargaining between the
parties.
Settlements With
Other Bargaining Units
From the standpoint of both the Employer and the Union,
the
settlements
reached by the Employer with other bargaining units
are
significant. While those settlements are
affected by the
particular
situation of each individual bargaining unit, still
there
is an understandable desire by the Employer to achieve
consistency. From the Union's standpoint, it wants to do
at
least
as well for its membership as the other unions have already
done. At the bargaining table, the settlements
reached by the
Employer
with other unions are likely to be brought up by one
side
or the other. Thus, it is a factor which
should be
considered
by the Panel.
The Employer has reached agreement with both of its other
bargaining
units for the years 1998 through 2000.
Its agreements
with
the Bothell Police Officers Guild and with AFSCME which
represents
most of its non-uniformed personnel provided the
following
increases:
Police AFSCME
Effective Wage Deferred Wage Deferred
Date Increase Comp.
Match Increase Comp.
Match
1/1/98 3% 1% 2.4% 1%
1/1/99 100%CPI 0.5% 85% CPI
(2%-5%
range) *
1/1/2000 100%CPI 1.5% 85%CPI
+0.5% (2%-5%
range) *
*A portion of the AFSCME CPI
wage adjustments in 1999 and 2000
was
applied to deferred compensation.
Turnover
The Employer contends that the wages and other benefits
that
it
pays its employees has not in any appreciable sense caused the
City to lose firefighters nor
has it deterred applicants seeking
to
be hired when a vacancy occurs. The
Employer points out that
the
turnover rate in its fire department is significantly lower
than
the average of other City departments.
The Union argues
that
there has been a dramatic increase in turnover which
evidences
dropping morale and a pressing need to remedy
substandard
compensation.
The evidence presented reveals that during the past five
years,
six firefighters have resigned in order to take positions
with
other fire departments, and that in the four years preceding
that
period, there were no resignations. This
indicates that
there
may be a problem, though the reasons behind these
departures
are not clear. On the other hand, Terry
Briscoe, the
City's human resources
director, testified that the Department
received
over 1800 applications for its firefighter recruitment.
INSPECTOR PREMIUM PAY
Article XI of the expired agreement contains the
following
provision:
Section 2 - Inspector Premium Pay. Employees
assigned by the Fire Chief as
Inspector in
the Fire Prevention Bureau will
receive
additional compensation
according to the
following table:
Upon Completion of Employee
Receives
6 months $60/month
12 months $120/month
24 months $180/month
The Union proposes:
Effective January 1, 1998, premium pay
for employees assigned by the
Fire
Chief as Inspector in the Fire Prevention
Bureau . . . should be as follows:
On Appointment 105.5%
After 6 months 110.0%
The Employer proposes that the
current benefit be enhanced by
shortening
the time required to earn the maximum, such that the
inspector
would receive a $60 premium upon appointment, advancing
to
$120 after 6 months and $180 after 12 months.
Captain Daniel Johnson, the Union's president, testified
that
the inspector conducts fire inspections of buildings and
reviews
construction plans to verify compliance with fire and
building
codes. He testified that the inspector
must acquire
specialized
knowledge in national fire and building codes and
fire
sprinkler system installation. The
inspector works a 40
hour
per week day-shift schedule. Captain
Johnson testified that
firefighters
generally consider such a schedule to be less
desirable
than the 24 hour shifts to which other firefighters are
assigned. Captain Johnson testified that the inspector
assignment
is rotated to a different firefighter every two years.
The comparable jurisdictions provide the following pay
premium
for a top step inspector:
Auburn/Algona 5%
Edmonds 13%
Lynnwood 14%
Mercer Island 0
SeaTac 0
KCFD#2 10%
KCFD#16 0
KCFD#43 0
SCFD#12 0
Average 4.67%
Average of 4 which
provide
premiums 10.5%
Bothell 0-$180
(0%-4.7%)
The Union argues that its proposal is justified by both
the
responsibilities
assumed by employees in these assignments and by
compensation
data from comparable fire departments.
The Employer
contends
that its proposed adjustment should be adopted.
It
asserts
that the Union's proposal is not justified by the
situation
of the comparators and that there has been no change in
inspector
job duties.
Though the parties disagree regarding this issue, there
is
no
dispute that this benefit should be enhanced in some manner.
It is awarded that the premium pay for the inspector position
shall
be set at 5%. That figure is very close
to the average
inspector
premium provided by the comparable fire fighters. It
matches
the lowest premium paid by a comparable jurisdiction
which
provides for such a premium. Providing a
percentage amount
for
the inspector premium, rather than a set dollar amount, is
consistent
with the practice of all of the comparators which
provide
such a premium. It also decreases the
likelihood that
this
premium will be an issue in future negotiation.
The
Employer's proposal that the
premium be provided in a series of
steps
draws no support from any of the comparable jurisdictions.
TRAINING ASSIGNMENT PREMIUM
The Union is seeking a 5.5% premium upon appointment of a
firefighter
to a training position, increasing to 11% after 6
months. Currently no premium is provided for such
work. The
Employer contends that no
premium is warranted.
Two firefighters are assigned to assist the training
captain,
Captain Johnson. Captain Johnson
testified that
firefighters
assigned to a training position must acquire special
training
skills, including National Fire Prevention Association
Instructor I certification,
Emergency Vehicle Accident Prevention
Instructor,
and King County Emergency Medical Service
Defibrillation Instructor, as
well as mastering Advanced Vehicle
Extrication
and relevant computer skills. Captain Johnson
testified
that the incumbents have these skills, except that they
have
not yet received computer training.
Captain Johnson
testified
that while the primary function of these two employees
is
training, they occasionally are required to respond to
emergencies. They work a schedule of four ten-hour days.
Captain Johnson testified that
firefighters generally find such
shifts
to be less desirable than the 24 hour shifts usually
worked
by firefighters. On the other hand, Ms.
Briscoe testified
that
the firefighters assigned to training work an annual total
of
2080 hours, while firefighters working the 24 hour shift work
a
total of 2720 hours. Deputy Chief Ron Zsigmondovics testified
that
the training assignments are rotated among firefighters on
an
annual basis, and that volunteers are solicited to fill them.
He testified that there are no
special skills or certifications
which
are requirements for selection to these positions. Of the
selected
comparable fire departments, only Auburn/Algona pays a
premium
for a training assignment. The amount of
that premium is
5%.
The Union contends that its proposal for a premium for
the
training
assignment is justified by both the responsibilities
assumed
by employees in these assignments and by compensation
data
from comparable fire departments. The
Employer argues that
the
Union's training assignment wage proposal should be denied.
It reasons that such a premium
is not generally provided by the
comparators,
that there are no advanced skills required for this
assignment,
and that the employees assigned to training already
benefit
by working less hours, but for the same pay, than the 24
hour
shift personnel.
No premium is awarded for the training assignment.
Comparable jurisdictions
generally do not provide such a premium.
Moreover, the evidence is less
than clear that employees assigned
to
training are actually required to have specialized skills or
training
beyond those normally required of other experienced
Department
firefighters.
LONGEVITY BENEFITS
Employees currently receive the following longevity pay
in
accordance
with Article XI, Section 1.b.1 of the expired
Agreement:
1% of base salary after 5 years
2% after 10 years
3% after 15 years
4% after 20 years
The Union proposes to double
the longevity pay as reflected
below:
2% after 5 years
4% after 10 years
6% after 15 years
8% after 20 years
The Employer proposes no
change to the current language.
The comparable jurisdictions provide the following
longevity
pay
rates:
Auburn/Algona 2% after 5 years
3.5%
after 8 years
5% after
10 years
6.5%
after 14 years
8% after
17 years
Edmonds 2%
after 6 years
4% after
12 years
6% after
18 years
(Employees
in Edmonds
must choose between
longevity pay and
education pay. They
cannot receive both.)
Lynnwood $9.23 per bi-weekly period
after 4
years(0.5%)
18.46 after 8 years (1%)
27.69 after 10 years (1.5%)
39.23 after 14 years (2%)
4% after
10 years
6% after
15 years
8% after
20 years
SeaTac None
KCFD#2 1.5%
after 5 years
3% after
10 years
4.5%
after 15 years
6% after
20 years
7.5%
after 25 years
KCFD#16 1%
after 5 years
2% after
10 years
3% after
15 years
4% after
20 years
5% after
25 years
KCFD#43 3%
after 4 years
5% after
9 years
SCFD#12 1.5%
after 6 years
2.5%
after 9 years
Average3 1.06% after 5 years
2.78% after 10 years
3.72% after 15 years
4.61% after 20 years
The Union argues that it is reasonable to provide
longevity
pay
in order to reward increased productivity that derives from
experience. It observes that there is a paucity of
opportunity
for
hire into positions above entry level in other fire
departments. Nevertheless, the Union reasons, lack of
adequate
incentives
appear to explain the acceleration in turnover among
bargaining
unit employees, which has increased dramatically in
recent
years. The Union further argues that the
comparable
departments
provide more generous longevity benefits than the
Employer.
___________________________
3 The average would be lower if
longevity pay in Edmonds was discounted
because
employees who receive education pay in Edmonds receive no longevity pay.
For instance, the average at
20 years would fall to 3.94% if it is assumed that
Edmond's firefighters
generally select the education incentive.
The Employer argues that longevity pay should not be
examined
separately, but only as part of the total compensation
model. It notes that unlike some other comparators,
Bothell pays
an
education incentive in addition to the longevity premium. In
this
regard, the Employer presented evidence that whereas it
provides
an education incentive premium for credits received
short
of an AA degree (1% for 24 credits and 1.5% for 45
credits)
, only one other comparable jurisdiction provides such a
benefit. Moreover, three of the comparable departments
provide
no
education incentive at all. The Employer
further argues that
a
change is not justified by a comparison with the longevity
premium
paid by other comparators.
No change in longevity pay is awarded. The slight
difference
between the longevity pay provided by Bothell and the
average
rate provided by the comparators does not justify an
increase. There is insufficient evidence to suggest
that recent
turnover
among Department employees could be attributed to the
amount
of longevity pay that had been provided to the departing
employees.
HEALTH CARE COST SHARING
Article VI, Section 1 of the expired contract provides
that
the
Employer provides 100% of the group medical and health care
premium
for employees and 90% of the premium for their
dependents. The Employer proposes the following new
contract
language
so that employees would share in premium increases and
also
so that they would be subject to a "Section 125" plan:
ARTICLE VI HEALTH
CARE
* * *
Section 7. The City agrees to provide and
administer a Flexible Spending
Account
(FSA) for Employees and their dependents
under IRC Section 125. Employees may choose
to participate in the Premium
Only and/or
Medical and Dependent Care Expenses
Accounts.
Section 8 - Employee Cost Sharing The
City agrees to pay up to 108% of 1998
premium costs on any premium
increases
in 1999 and up to 108% of 1999
premium
increases in 2000. The City and Union
agree that any increase in
premiums for
1999 and 2000 over 8% and up to 15%
shall be split between the City
and
the employee on an equal
basis. It
is understood that employee's
share
of premium increases will be
made
through tax-free payroll
deduction.
Premium increases in either 1999 or
2000 in excess of 15% shall trigger a
health care benefits reopener. The
City and Union agree that if combined
health benefit premiums decrease
0
to 8% per year, the City will
absorb
the savings. Actual dollar savings in
health benefit premiums over 8%
in
1999 or 2000 shall be distributed
in the form of a one time
payment
in that calendar year only to
employees
on an equal basis.
Section 9. The Association agrees to
participate in a Labor
Management
Committee formed to study alternatives
for funding employee benefits.
Section 7 of the Employer's proposal includes an offer to
allow
employees to participate in its Section 125 program and for
the
Employer to pay for the administrative costs of this program.
Section 125 references a
provision of the Internal Revenue Code
which
allows employers to establish plans which would permit
employees,
at their discretion, to have their share of the cost
of
health premiums as well as their estimated cost of out of
pocket
health expenses deducted from their salaries.
Such
deductions
would result in savings for the employees since they
would
not be subject to income tax or medicare tax. The employer
would save
the cost of payroll taxes on the deducted amounts.
Employees who participate in
the plan could be reimbursed for
their
out of pocket expenses, though they would forfeit any
amount
for which they had authorized deduction from their
salaries
which was in excess of their out of pocket expenses in a
given
year.
Employer exhibits establish that health care costs have
risen
at a rate of about 5% per year since 1991.
An article
submitted
into evidence by the Employer indicates that health
care
costs are expected in the future to continue to rise at a
rate
of 5% per year. Carol Wilmes is the employee benefits
program
coordinator for the Association of Washington Cities.
She manages the employee
benefit trust for that organization.
The Employer is a member of
that insurance trust, from which it
obtains
medical insurance for its firefighter bargaining unit.
Ms. Wilmes
testified that the board for the trust is considering
adopting a
2% premium increase in 2000. She
testified that
higher
increases of 8% or more are probable in future years. The
Employer negotiated a premium
cost sharing arrangement with its
AFSCME
bargaining unit.
However, it was unsuccessful in
bargaining
such an arrangement with its police bargaining unit.
Unrepresented employees of the
City do not share in the cost of
their
health premiums. Also, none of the
comparable departments
require
that their employees share in the cost of the premium for
employee
medical coverage.
The Employer argues that its proposal is a win-win
situation
for
both the City and the Union. It asserts
that there is a
trend
reflecting the escalation of health care costs above those
that
can be reasonably absorbed by an employer in a given year.
The Employer asserts that
despite the recent modest increase in
health
costs which it has experienced, still the new language
needs
to be in the contract before an extraordinary increase in
medical
insurance premiums takes place. The
Employer contends
that
its Section 125 plan proposal is clearly an additional
benefit
to bargaining unit employees, allowing them the
opportunity
to shelter health care and family care expenses from
taxable
income.
The Union argues that the Employer's health care premium
cost
sharing proposal should be rejected for a number of reasons.
First, there have not been
runaway premium increases during the
1998-2000 contract term, and
the Employer's proposal would have
no
effect during that period. Next, the
comparable jurisdictions
have
not adopted a cost-sharing mechanism like that proposed by
the
Employer. The Union also observes that
the Employer has not
negotiated
similar cost sharing with its other uniformed
bargaining
unit, nor has it imposed it on its unrepresented
personnel.
I conclude that there is insufficient reason to require
the
adoption
of the Employer's proposed new health and welfare
language. There is no support for such a change in the
practice
of
the comparable departments. Moreover,
the Employer's proposal
would
have absolutely no effect during the term of the Agreement
at
issue here. The parties will soon be in
negotiations for a
successor
contract and this issue would more appropriately be
relevant
at that time. With regard to the
Employer's Section 125
plan,
it appears that the Union has no interest in this benefit.
It is also not clear that the
Employer is interested in providing
this
benefit if its premium cost sharing proposal is not adopted.
WAGES
The Union proposes the following base wage increases for
all
members
of the bargaining unit:
Effective January 1, 1998 9%
Effective January 1, 1999 5.5%
Effective January 1, 2000 6%
The Employer proposes the
following wage increases:
Effective January 1, 1998 3.6%
Effective January 1, 1999 2.25%
Effective January 1, 2000 2.88%
The Union justifies its proposal on the basis that there
is
a
large gap between the wages paid to firefighters in the
comparable
departments and that paid to bargain unit members
here. The Union asserts that its requested
increases are needed
in
order for employees to catch up with compensation paid by
comparable
departments.
The Employer asserts that its proposal is consistent with
the
parties' bargaining history of placing firefighter wages at
slightly
below the mean of the comparators. The
Employer
suggests
that its proposal is consistent with the 1998 and 1999
base
wage adjustments made by its comparators.
The Employer
contends
that its proposal is further supported by the published
moderate
growth in the cost of living, especially considering
that
employees already receive a substantial cost of living
adjustment
by the increased costs the Employer incurs to provide
health
insurance coverage which is an element of the CPI market
basket. The Employer further argues that its wage
proposal is
justified
by low turnover in the bargaining unit, and the fact
that
vacant positions are highly sought after.
In addition, the
Employer asserts that
consideration must also be given to the
rate
of increases granted to other City employees.
Finally, the
Employer relies on the
uncertainty caused by the recent
implementation
of the I-695 initiative.
The parties agree that a comparison with the comparable
departments
should be based on a total hourly compensation basis,
factoring
in wages and certain benefits. However,
several
disagreements
between them which relate to the total hourly
compensation
analysis must be resolved. They disagree
with
regard
to whether the following benefit costs should be included
in
the comparison: deferred compensation,
MEBT, LEOFF II
payments,
and EMT pay. They also disagree
regarding the
longevity
benchmark and the appropriate base wage for
Auburn/Algona.
Firefighter Hugh Moag, who
served on the Union's negotiating
team,
testified that deferred compensation and MEBT represents
money
paid by some of the comparable employers into a retirement
fund
for their employees. He testified that
in a deferred
compensation
plan, the employer may be required to match an
employee's
contributions to the fund up to a certain percentage.
Firefighter Moag testified that MEBT plans require contributions
by
the Employer without regard to employee contributions.
Firefighter Moag further testified that the monetary figures
provided
by the Union with regard to the deferred compensation
and
MEBT contributions by the comparable departments, assume that
those
departments made the maximum possible contribution for each
employee. He testified that he did not contact any of
the
comparators
to determine the extent of employee participation.
He testified that he was told
by someone at a Union conference
that
Lynnwood Fire Department had 100% employee participation.
Firefighter Moag did not specify who told him this. He also did
not
indicate whether the employee participants contributed the
maximum
amount allowable. Firefighter Moag testified that he was
unaware
of the vesting requirements of these supplemental
retirement
plans. Ms. Briscoe testified that for
MEBT plans,
employees
do not become vested until they are employed for 10
years. She testified that she is aware that in one
city in the
area,
Bellevue, employees who are terminated for cause forfeit
the
MEBT benefit, regardless of tenure. She
testified that the
Union first raised deferred
compensation and MEBT as an aspect of
compensation
during mediation. Ms. Briscoe
acknowledged that
Bothell provides a deferred
compensation benefit to its police
and
AFSCME bargaining units, as well as to its city manager. In
a
recent compensation study covering non-represented city
employees
for which the Employer had contracted, deferred
compensation
was considered as one of the major elements of total
compensation.
Assuming a maximum deferred compensation or MEBT
contribution
from each comparator, they would have made the
following
monthly contributions for each employee during 1998:
Deferred
Compensation MEBT
Auburn/Algona 0 254
Edmonds 0 0
Lynnwood 251 0
Mercer Island 104 0
SeaTac 0 0
KCFD#2 0 0
KCFD#16 47 0
KCFD#43 270 0
SCFD#12 0 0
The Union argues that deferred compensation and MEBT
contributions
must be considered as part of the entire
compensation
package since they represent real employer costs and
real
employee benefits. It observes that the
Employer makes
deferred
compensation contributions for other city employees and
that
the Employer utilized such benefits as part of the City's
own
compensation study.
The Employer argues that deferred compensation and MEBT
should
not be considered for purposes of comparison.
It reasons
that
these are discretionary benefits for which employees must
decide
to participate and then remain with the employer for the
necessary
period of time to vest. According to the
Employer,
most
of the Employer's firefighters have less than seven years of
service
and would not be vested in such plans.
The Employer
further
relies on the fact that the Union did not include such a
benefit
category in its spreadsheets depicting total hourly
compensation
until after an impasse had been reached in
negotiations
and they had begun mediation. The
Employer argues
that deferred
compensation and MEBT plans are supplemental
retirement
plans, and such plans were recently held to be an
illegal
subject of bargaining by the Washington State Public
Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) in Firefighters v. City of
Seattle,
Dec. 4687A and 4688A (PECB, 1996). The Employer urges
that
the Panel not be influenced by such illegal contract
provisions. The Employer asserts that the provisions for
deferred
compensation or MEBT contributions which were included
in
some of the collective bargaining agreements of the
comparators
and also in the Employer's agreement with its police
bargaining
unit, were all negotiated before the Washington State
Supreme
Court's refusal to accept review of the decision.
The Union responds that neither PERC nor the Washington
State Court of Appeals stated
or implied that other forms of
retirement
benefits traditionally provided to uniformed personnel
by
many jurisdictions were improper subjects for collective
bargaining
or for comparison pursuant to the interest arbitration
statute.
It is concluded that deferred compensation and MEBT
contributions
by the comparable departments shall be considered
in
the total hourly compensation comparison.
However, the
figures
utilized for these contributions in the comparison shall
be
one half the amount reported by the Union.
The Union provided
only
the maximum liability for the comparable jurisdictions, not
the
actual amount expended. It is clear that
the actual cost of
these
benefits to the comparable employers is substantially less
than
the figures provided by the Union, since it is likely that
not
all employees in the relevant comparable departments
contribute
the maximum allowable amount to the deferred
compensation
plan, thus reducing the employers' matching
obligations. It may also be the case that some employees
will
never
become vested in those plans.
Nevertheless, the deferred
compensation
and MEBT plans are benefits with a substantial
compensation
cost for the participating employers. It
is likely
that
these benefits were negotiated as part of an overall
compensation
package, perhaps in place of higher wages or other
benefits. It is realistic to include the comparators'
deferred
compensation
and MEBT contributions as an integral part of their
total
hourly compensation to their employees.
For comparison
purposes,
reducing the maximum possible payout by one half
recognizes
that it is unlikely that the relevant comparators
incur
the maxiumum possible liability which is reflected in
the
figures
provided by the Union. The evidence
presented fails to
reveal
the actual cost of these benefits to the comparators. The
PERC decision referenced by
the Employer did not specifically
deal
with deferred compensation or MEBT contributions. Rather,
it
dealt with union proposals for disability benefits and for a
supplemental
pension system based on years of service.
PERC,
supra,
and the State Court of Appeals in Fire Fighters v. City of
Seattle,
93, Wn.App. 235 (1988), held that such
benefits were
illegal
subjects for bargaining as violative of RCW
41.56.040(1).
That statute required that
firefighters and law enforcement
officers
participate in the LEOFF retirement system "to the
exclusion
of any pension system existing under any prior act."
It is not entirely clear that
the language utilized in these
decisions
would be applied to deferred compensation or MEBT
plans. Such plans are widely utilized for uniformed
personnel,
including
by this Employer. There has been no
showing that any
jurisdiction
which has such a plan has discarded it.
If they are
ever
required to do so, which is a hypothetical which may never
occur,
their collective bargaining negotiations will likely deal
with
the charged circumstance and it cannot be presumed that the
monetary
value of the compensation package which such employers
provide
will necessarily be diminished. In any
event, during the
entire
period of this contract term, 1998 through 2000, some of
the
comparators are paying for deferred compensation and MEBT
benefits. During this period, it is appropriate that
such
benefits
be factored into the compensation package for purposes
of
comparison, though at a rate reflecting half the maximum
contribution.
The Union's position is that LEOFF II contributions
should
be
considered in the calculation of total hourly compensation.
The Employer's position is
that there is no reason to include it.
LEOFF II contributions will
not be utilized as a basis for
comparison. Each department must pay the same percentage
contribution
to this state pension fund, so it will not be
indicative
of any difference in employee benefits.
The Union
recognized
that the Panel may consider or disregard these
contributions
without consequence, but recommended their
consideration
as a matter of convenience since the Union included
them
on its spreadsheet. Since the Union's
spreadsheet has not
been
totally adopted, convenience is not relevant here.
The Union argues that the Panel should consider Emergency
Medical
Technician (EMT) pay. The
Union points out that all
Bothell firefighters are EMT
qualified and would receive the
premiums
paid by other jurisdictions. The Union
reasons that EMT
pay
represents real payroll costs to the Employer and a real
employee
benefit. The Employer's position is that
EMT pay was
omitted
from its spreadsheets because EMT certification is a
requirement
for Bothell firefighters and no special pay is
provided
for it. It points out that EMT pay may
not be a
requirement
in the comparable departments.
EMT pay will be utilized in the comparison. Since all
Bothell firefighters have EMT
certification, they would all
receive
EMT pay if employed by one of the comparators.
It is
therefore
appropriate that their pay be compared with EMT
certified
employees of the comparable departments.
The Union argues that for purposes of comparison, a
firefighter
with 9 years of seniority should be used as a
benchmark. The Union justifies this view by asserting
that 9
years
corresponds with the average bargaining unit tenure as of
February 1998. The Employer's position is that a 7 year
firefighter
should be utilized as a basis for comparison with
firefighters
of the comparable jurisdictions. The
Employer
points
out that 7 years of service has been historically used as
a
benchmark by the parties in their negotiations and that their
expired
contract calls for a 7 year step increase "in both
Article XI for Education
Incentive/Longevity Pay and Article XII
for
Vacation Accrual." The Employer
suggests that only the basic
firefighters
should be counted to determine average length of
service
since lieutenant and captain wage rates are based on a
premium
above top stop firefighter. The Employer
contends that
the
average length of service of basic firefighters is under 7
years,
and that a considerable majority of the basic firefighters
have 7
years of less of service within the bargaining unit.
A 7 year benchmark will be utilized for purposes of
comparison. This was the benchmark utilized by the
parties in
past
negotiations. Utilizing the seniority
list dated February
26, 1998 provided by the
Union, the average bargaining unit
seniority
is 7.72 years. Evidence was presented
that six new
employees
were hired shortly after that date, resulting in a
decrease
to this average seniority figure. A
majority of
employees
in the bargaining unit have less than 7 years of
seniority. There is insufficient reason to change the
long
standing
practice of the parties to utilize a 7 year benchmark in
their
negotiations.
The parties were unable to agree on the amount of the
base
wage
level for one of the comparators, Auburn/Algona. The Union
urges
adoption of the "weighted average" of the "Fire Fighter 1st
Class" rank and the
"Fire Fighter 1st Class-Specialist" rank.
The Union reasons that Bothell
firefighters would qualify for the
specialist
base wage. The Employer maintains that
the Fire
Fighter 1st Class base wage in
Auburn/Algona should be utilized.
The Auburn/Algona contract provides for 30 specialist
positions
among the 66 bargaining unit members.
These positions
include
rescue specialists, HAZ-MAT specialists, shift medical
specialists,
investigation specialists, "shift P.I.E.
specialists,"
deputy fire marshals, a public information officer,
a
public information specialist, a communications specialist, a
mechanic,
and a training division specialist.
These specialists
earn a
2% premium over the wage rate of a first class
firefighter.
The Fire Fighter 1st Class rank in Auburn/Algona shall be
utilized
for the comparison. Specialty pay is
simply a separate
issue
from base wages. Each of the comparators,
as well as the
Employer, provide separately
for specialty pay. Those amounts
have
not been added to base wages for the comparators or the
Employer here, and therefore
it would be inaccurate to do so for
Auburn/Algona.
The total monthly and hourly compensation figures for a
senior
firefighter with 7 years of service, EMT Certification and
an
AA degree in the selected comparable departments during 1998
are
listed below:
Auburn/Algona
Base Wage $4,
090.92
Longevity Pay 81.82
AA Incentive 200.00
Insurance 593.46
Total Monthly Compensation $4,966.20
Net Hours Per Month 185.50
Total Hourly Compensation $26.77
Edmonds
Base Wage $4,101.00
Longevity Pay 82.02
Physical Fitness Incentive 61.52
MEBT 127.13
Insurance 582.09
Total Monthly Compensation $4,953.76
Net Hours Per Month 186.00
Total Hourly Compensation $26.63
Lynnwood
Base Wage $4,050.78
Longevity Pay 40.00
AA Incentive 194.03
Holiday Pay 88.83
Deferred Compensation 125.57
Insurance 605.88
Total Monthly Compensation $5,105.09
Net Hours Per Month 194.00
Total Hourly Compensation $26.31
Mercer Island
Base Wage $4,
179.75
Longevity Pay 83.60
Deferred Compensation 52.25
Insurance 537.35
Total Monthly Compensation $4,852.95
Net Hours Per Month 188.00
Total Hourly Compensation $25.81
SeaTac
Base Wage $4,
349.00
Deferred Compensation 134.82
Insurance 652.80
Total Monthly Compensation $5,136.62
Net Hours Per Month 207.00
Total Hourly Compensation $24.81
KCFD#2
Base Wage $4,228.36
Longevity Pay 63.43
EMT Pay 10.00
Insurance 583.30
Total Monthly Compensation $4,885.09
Net Hours Per Month 193.67
Total Hourly Compensation $25.22
KCFD#16
Base Wage $4,126.30
Longevity Pay 41.26
AA Incentive 82.53
Insurance 600.74
Total Monthly Compensation $4,850.83
Net Hours Per Month 184.00
Total Hourly Compensation $26.36
KCFD#43
Base Wage $4,294.20
Longevity Pay 128.83
AA Incentive 128.83
Deferred Compensation 23.34
Insurance 621.73
Total Monthly Compensation $5,196.93
Net Hours Per Month 193.33
Total Hourly Compensation $26.88
SCFD#12
Base Wage $4,
059.54
Longevity Pay 60.89
AA Incentive 50.00
Insurance 542.11
Total Monthly Compensation $4,712.54
Net Hours Per Month 200.67
Total Hourly Compensation $23.48
The average total hourly
compensation amounts provided by the
comparable
departments to their top step fire fighters during
1998 are listed below:
Auburn/Algona $26.77
Edmonds 26.63
Lynnwood 26.31
Mercer Island 25.81
Sea-Tac 24.81
KCFD#2 25.22
KCFD#16 26.36
KCFD#43 26.88
SCFD#12 23.48
Average $25.81
Bothell's 1997 monthly compensation, which is still in
effect,
is as follows:
Bothell
Base Wage $3,854.00
Longevity Pay 38.54
AA Incentive 77.08
Physical Fitness Incentive 38.54
Insurance 642.94
Total Monthly Compensation $4,651.10
Net Hours Per Month 195.67
Total Hourly Compensation $23.77
The above analysis reveals
that the Employer's total hourly
compensation
which has been in effect since 1997 is about 8.6%
behind
the average of the 1998 total hourly compensation provided
by
the comparable departments.
Base wage increases for the comparable departments during
the
period 1998-2000 are listed below:
1998 1999 2000
Auburn/Algona 4.00% 3.95% 90%CPI (2.5%-4% Range)
Edmonds 4.00% 2.90% 100%CPI
Lynnwood 4.76% 3.71% 4.18
Mercer Island 5.83% 3.08% Not Available
Sea-Tac 3.33% 2.25% 3.88%
KCFD#2 3.25% 3.25% Not Available
KCFD#16 4.00% 3.50% 100%CPI (3%-5% Range)
KCFD#43 5.20% 2.90% Not Available
SCFD#12 4.00% 2.25% 85%CPI+0.5%
(2%-4.5%
Range)
Average 4.26% 3.09% Not Available
Weighing the governing factors which are set forth in the
statute,
wage increases will be awarded for 1998 in the amount of
5%, for 1999 in the amount of
4%, and for 2000 in the amount of
4%. The 5% figure is one of the highest wage
increases among the
comparators
for that year and is 0.74% higher than the average
increase. The wage adjustments for 1999 and 2000
represent
increases
in excess of both the cost of living increases for
those
years as well as the average increases among the
comparators. The significant wage increases awarded are
necessary
to bring this bargaining unit's wage levels closer to
the
average of the comparators. By the end
of this contract
term,
the compensation provided by the Employer will likely be
only
slightly below the average of the comparators.
At that time
it
will likely rank among the comparators 7th or 8th out of 10.
I have not fashioned an award
which would cause the total
compensation
level of the Employer's firefighters to equate with
the
average of that of the comparators because, as I explained in
my
1987 Award involving these parties, the statutory criteria
requires a
more complex analysis. The statute calls
for a
consideration
of changes in the cost of living, and of other
factors
traditionally taken into consideration.
Thus,
consideration
has been given to the modest change in the cost of
living,
the compensation settlements reached by the comparators,
the
more modest compensation increases received by other City
employees,
and the intense competition for positions in this
bargaining
unit when they become available. These
other factors
tend
to moderate the level of increase which could be derived
from a
consideration of the comparability factor alone.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
Both the Union and the Employer have proposed a 3-year
contract,
covering the years 1998, 1999, and 2000.
While the
Union urges full retroactivity
for the Panel's Award, the
Employer asserts that
retroactivity should only apply to the base
wage
adjustment and not to any other benefit increase that might
be
awarded. The Employer asserts that
requiring retroactivity of
other
benefits would present accounting and financial
difficulties. The Union responds that the Employer's
proposal in
this
regard would reward the Employer for having failed to reach
a
prompt voluntary settlement.
The Award will be fully retroactive to January 1, 1998.
Besides base wages, which both
parties agree should have
retroactive
effect, the only other awarded benefit is the
enhanced
premium for the inspector position.
Calculating such an
increase
on a retroactive basis should not be an overly difficult
task.
AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN
It is the determination of your Neutral Chairman that the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the city of Bothell and
Local No. 2099, International
Association of Firefighters shall
be
amended to include the following:
I. Base wages shall be increased as follows:
Effective January 1, 1998 5%
Effective January 1, 1999 4%
Effective January 1, 2000 4%
II. There shall be no change in contract
language regarding the longevity
premium.
III. The premium pay for the inspector
position shall be 5% upon
appointment.
IV. There shall be no premium pay for the
training assignment.
V. The Employer's proposal to implement
health cost sharing and a
Section 125
Plan shall not be adopted.
VI. The Agreement shall have a term of
January 1, 1998 until December 31, 2000.
The terms of this Award shall be
implemented retroactive to
January 1,
1998.
Redmond
, Washington
/s/____________
February 4, 2000 Alan
R. Krebs, Neutral Chairman