And
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator, Michael H. Beck
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Michael H. Beck
Case #: 15174-I-00-341
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
and )
) Date:
SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION )
__________________________________________)
OPINION AND AWARD
OF
THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR
Interest Arbitration Panel
Michael H. Beck, Interest
Arbitrator
Pat J. Dalton, Employer Panel
Member
Mark E. Brennan, Union Panel
Member
Appearances
For the Employer: Otto G.
Klein, III
For the
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
and
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OPINION OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR 1
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1
ISSUES IN DISPUTE 2
STATUTORY CRITERIA 2
BACKGROUND 3
WAGES AND DEFERRED
COMPENSATION 4
The Proposals 4
Failure to Bargain in Good Faith 5
The Comparables 6
Cost of Living 11
Automobile Commuting 14
Conclusion 15
MEDICAL BENEFITS 20
SPECIALTY PAY 22
PERSONAL HOLIDAYS 24
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 24
AWARD OF THE INTEREST
ARBITRATOR 2
***
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
INTEREST ARBITRATION BETWEEN )
) INTEREST
ARBITRATION
)
and )
) Date:
SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION )
________________________________ )
OPINION OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Arbitrator, Michael H. Beck, was selected by the
parties to conduct an
Interest
Arbitration pursuant to RCW 41.56.450. The Arbitration Panel
included
Employer Member Pat J.
Blumberg.
A hearing in this matter was held on January 23 and 24,
2001 at
the
Summit Law Group, PLLC. The
Association, was represented
by Thomas R. Luciani of the law firm of Stamper,
Rubens,
Stocker & Smith, P.S. At
the hearing the testimony of witnesses was taken under oath
and
the parties presented a substantial amount of documentary evidence. A court
reporter
was
present at the hearing, however a transcript was not prepared.
The parties agreed upon the submission of simultaneous posthearing briefs which
were
filed by both parties and received by the Arbitrator on
also
agreed at my request to waive the statutory time requirement for issuance of a
decision.
On
the
issues before the panel. This discussion was very helpful to me and I thank my
fellow
panel
members for their efforts in this regard.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues before the Arbitration Panel are set forth
below:
1. Wages
and Deferred Compensation
2. Medical Benefits
3. Specialty Pay
4. Personal Holidays
5. Uniform
Allowance
STATUTORY CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.465 directs the Arbitrator, in making his
decision, to be mindful of
the legislative
purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and to “take into consideration the
following
factors:”
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the
employer,
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c)(i) For [law
enforcement officers] comparison of
the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of personnel
involved
in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment of like personnel of like employers
of
similar size on the west coast of the
***
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the
cost of living,
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under (a )through (e) 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. . . .
The legislative purpose your Arbitrator is directed to
mindful of in making his
determination
is set for in RCW 41.56.430 as follows:
The intent and purpose of [this chapter] is to
recognize
that there exists a public policy in the state of
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
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there
should
exist an effective and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes. (Reviser’s note omitted.)
BACKGROUND
The
Employer Labor Relations
Manager Gary A. Carlsen testified that there are
approximately
194 employees in the bargaining unit of which about 140 are in the job
classification
of Deputy Sheriff about 32 in the job classification of Detective/Corporal,
and
about 22 in the job classification of Sergeant. The parties agree that the
Collective
Bargaining Agreement should be
for the three year period
The parties are also in agreement that the appropriate
comparables are those
determined
by Arbitrator Krebs in his
wage
issue for the parties’1997-99 Agreement. These comparables are the following
five
counties:
1.
2. Kitsap
3. Pierce
4. Snohomish
5
.
WAGES AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION
The Proposals
The
2001, the
compensation
program; and for the year 2002, the
for
all ranks plus a 1% matching deferred compensation program.
The Employer proposes a wage increase of 2% for all ranks
for each year of the
three
year Agreement. The Employer opposes establishing a matching deferred
compensation
program.
This arbitration was quite unusual in one respect, the Sheriff,
Mark Sterk
supported
not only the implementation of the Union wage proposal but several other
Union
proposals. While I have certainly considered the
Sheriffs testimony, I have relied
on
Mr. Carlsen and Employer counsel for the County’s
position.
Failure to Bargain in Good Faith
The
on
its contention that the Employer has not bargained in good faith in the manner
in
which
it conducted negotiations leading up to this Interest Arbitration. In
particular, the
through
December 2000 for the calculations used by the Employer to substantiate its 2%
per
year wage offer. However, the
the
Employer, through its counsel, stated that its offer was not based on precise
calculations
but was supported by the statutory factors and the lower cost of living in the
The
“hide-and-seek”
that the
practice
in City of
119
Wn. 2d. 373 (1992).
This case does hold that the duty to bargain, including the duty
to
provide relevant information needed to carry out collective bargaining
responsibilities,
continues
after PERC certifies unresolved collective bargaining issues to Interest
Arbitration.
However, the case also holds that the unfair labor practice determinations
are
within the jurisdiction of PERC. Here, as the Employer points out, the
file
an unfair labor practice complaint with PERC.
Additionally, I note that the
apply
for the Employer’s alleged failure to bargain in good faith is that the
Arbitrator
should
begin his analysis of the appropriate wage increase at 3% as that is the lowest
percentage
increase for the year 2000 granted to any comparable, Since it is not for the
Arbitration Panel to determine
if the Employer bargained in bad faith in violation of state
law,
the Arbitration Panel cannot adopt the remedy sought by the
The Comparables
As both parties recognize, pursuant to RCW 41.56.465 (c)(i), a major factor to be
considered
is a comparison of wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the
employees
involved in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of like
personnel
of like employers of similar size on the west coast. Here, as already
indicated,
the
parties have agreed on five such comparable employers.
All of the comparables have settled their contracts for
the year 2000
Approximately 72 % of the
bargaining unit employees are classified as Deputy Sheriffs.
Therefore, the first
appropriate comparison is that of the Top Step Deputy Sheriff in
relied
on Union Exhibit E and Attachment D to the Employer’s brief. Where there are
differences
between those exhibits, I have explained my resolution of the matter in an
accompanying
footnote. Also some figures varied by one dollar, apparently due to
rounding.
However, a one dollar difference had no effect on the overall percentages.
CHART No. 1
TOP STEP DEPUTY SHERIFF MONTHLY RATE
Monthly Rate
1999 2000 PERCENT INCREASE
KITSAP $3,946 $4,0841 3.5%
PIERCE $4,173 $4,298 3.0%
SNOHOMISH $4,002 $4,1222 3.0%
AVERAGE $3,956 $4,082 3.2%
AVERAGE VERSUS
1. For
2. With
respect to
3. The 1999
rate is used here for
Detective Dan Blashill
testified that the average length of service unit wide, that is
taking
in all three classifications, was between 10 and 11 years. The Employer placed
in
evidence a
chart compiled as of
196 employees in the unit of
which 106, or about 54%, had less than 11 years of service
in
the unit. Additionally, Arbitrator Krebs, in his July 1999 Interest Arbitration
also
considered
the 10 year Top Step Deputy an appropriate comparison point, Finally, in this
regard,
both parties provided exhibits which made a comparison for the 10 year Top Step
Deputy
Sheriff with longevity. Following the same system I used with
respect to Chart
No. 1, in resolving
differences between Employer Attachment D and Union Exhibit E, I
have
set forth below Chart No. 2 comparing the 10 year Deputy Sheriff with longevity
in
CHART No. 2
TEN YEAR DEPUTY SHERIFF WITH LONGEVITY
Monthly Rate
2000
KITSAP $4,1551
PIERCE $4,298
SNOHOMISH $4,266
AVERAGE $4,221
AVERAGE VERSUS
1. See
Footnote No. 1 under Chart No. 1. With respect to the 10 year Deputy in Kitsap County,
the
Employer Exhibit No. 10, showing the distribution of
bargaining unit employees
by
length of service does not indicate the job classification of the employees. It
does
show,
however, that 40 employees had completed between 11 years of service and less
than
16 years of service. Thus, 146 of the 196 bargaining unit employees as of July
11,
2000 had completed less than
16 years of service, which constitutes about 75% of the
bargaining
unit. Based on the foregoing, it is appropriate to also make a comparison of
the
15 year Deputy Sheriff in
comparables.
The Employer made these comparisons (Attachment D to the Employer’s
brief),
but the
adjustment
for
comparisons
are set forth below in Chart No. 3.
CHART No. 3
DEPUTY SHERIFF WITH LONGEVITY
2000-15
YEARS
CLARK $4,427
KITSAP $4,1661
PIERCE $4,297
SNOHOMISH $4,848
YAKIMA $3,999
AVERAGE $4,347
AVERAGE VERSUS
SPOKANE 6.9%
1. Top Step Deputy Sheriff at Kitsap County receives $4,084 (see
Chart No. 1). A 15 year
Deputy at Kitsap County receives a longevity premium of
2%.
2. An employee who has completed 15 yean at Spokane County
receives a longevity premium of 5.5%.
If we look at the difference between Spokane Top Step
Deputies at the three key
points
in their careers described in the above charts, the difference between their
present
compensation
(1999) and that of the comparables in 2000 can be summarized as follows:
CHART No. 4
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AVERAGE OF
2000 COMPARABLE
WAGE AND SPOKANE COUNTY 1999 WAGE
TOP STEP WITH 10 YEARS WITH 15 YEARS
________________________________________________________________________
AVERAGE VERSUS
SPOKANE 5.9% 5.8% 6.9%
________________________________________________________________________
As the Employer points out, the parties have negotiated a
generous education
incentive
benefit. Thus, a bargaining unit member with an AA or AS degree receives a
premium
of 3.5%, with a BA or BS a 7% premium, and with an MS, MA, or MBA a 9%
premium.
The 1997-99 Agreement requires that an employee choose either to receive
longevity
or to receive the educational incentive premium. Carlsen
testified that the
parties
have agreed than an employee can change the choice previously made so that the
employee
may receive either the longevity premium earned or the educational incentive
premium
earned, whichever is higher.
In support of its position that the educational incentive
benefit should be
considered,
the Employer points to the fact that Arbitrator Krebs, in his July 1999 Award,
set
forth a comparison between
with
10 years longevity and with a BA. Using the figures in Attachment D to the
10.Employer’s
brief (without making any adjustments) the average in the comparables for
the
year 2000 for a Deputy with 10 years longevity and a BA is only about one half
as
much
above
considered
for the 10 year Deputy.
The only evidence contained in the record regarding how
many employees in the
bargaining
unit have earned degrees qualifying them for an educational incentive is the
testimony
of
20% have BA degrees and about
40% have an AA degree. Assuming new hires to refer
to
employees with less than one year of seniority, I note that as of
were
nine employees with less than one year of seniority. In the absence of evidence
indicating
the number of employees who have earned degrees qualifying for educational
incentive
and at what point these employees fit on the seniority ladder, I cannot find
educational
incentive to be a relevant consideration. Unlike longevity, educational
incentive
is not a benefit that applies to all employees who have completed a certain
number
of years with the Employer.
Cost of Living
One of the statutory criteria to be considered by the
Arbitration Panel is the cost
of
living described by the statue as the “average consumer prices for goods and
services.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) publishes various Consumer Price Indexes (CPI)
including
I have been serving as an Interest Arbitrator in the
State of Washington for over
20 years. My experience leads
me to conclude that the most often used BLS index is the
recommends
use of one of the national indexes rather than a local index for inclusion in
contracts because
the local indexes, such as the
frequently
and based on a smaller sample, thus being more volatile and subject to
measurement
error.
In view of the two factors described above, I have
determined to set forth relevant
figures
for both the
indexes
it is appropriate to pick dates in which both the Seattle and
published.
Bargaining for a collective bargaining agreement beginning January 1, 2000
would
normally take place in the summer and fall of 1999. In August of 1999 the
increase
in the
3.1%. In October of 1999, the
next time a figure is recorded for both indexes, the U.S.
CPI-W was at 2.7% while the
Seattle area CPI-W was at 3.2%.
Considering the same indexes in connection with the year
2001, I note that the
U.S. CPI-W in August of 2000
was at 3.4% while the Seattle area CPI-W was at 3.9%.
In October of 2000 the U.S.
CPI-W was at 3.4% while the Seattle area CPI-W was at
4.3%. The very last figure
available for both of these indices is in April of 2001, where
the
The Bureau of Economic Affairs of the Department of
Commerce publishes an
index
called the Implicit Price Deflator. Mr. Carlsen
testified that the Price Deflator is
employed
under
under
Referendum 47. The Union in its brief points to the fact that the Implicit
Price
Deflator stood at 2.09% in
January of 2000 and thus it was very close to the Employer’s
12.2% offer beginning January
of 2000. However, Mr. Carlsen admitted on cross-
examination
that the Employer did not rely on this index in constructing its 2% proposal
Furthermore, there is no claim
here by the Employer of an inability to pay even the full
Union proposal if it were
granted by the Arbitration Panel.
Perhaps the largest single amount of time spent during
the hearing was litigating
the
question of whether or not the cost of living in
counties
on the west side of the state, and particularly with respect to the two
counties in
the
reviewed
all of that testimony, as well as the numerous arbitration decisions provided
by
the
Employer. The evidence supports the conclusion that Interest Arbitrators in
Washington State have
recognized that there is a lower cost of living in Eastern
difference
is and, of course, the difference may change from time to time.
One of the difficulties in this case, unlike many of the
arbitrations involving
in
Eastern
generally
located in
comparables.
However, it is appropriate pursuant to RCW 41.56.465 (f) to consider as a
factor
“normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages,
hours,
and conditions of employment,” the differences in cost of living between
various
labor
markets.
In his
did
not set forth a specific “discount factor” between
Washington Counties, but did
conclude that the cost of living in the Seattle metropolitan
area
was higher than the cost of living in the
This difference in the cost of
living should be considered
when
comparing the wages of the Employer with that of the
comparables
in larger metropolitan areas, particularly the
Arbitrator Gary L. Axon, on August 9, 2000 issued his
Interest Arbitration
Opinion and Award in Spokane
County and the Washington State Council of County and
City Employees, Council 2,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Local 492 settling the contract for the
years
1999 through 2001 for Correctional Officers. In making that Award, Arbitrator
Axon also found that there was
a higher cost of living in Western Washington than in
Eastern Washington. He did not
attempt to set a specific “discount factor” but he did
state
in connection with making his wage Award that it would “not push the wage
schedule
of
west
side.” (Exhibit No. 99 at pg. 29.)
Automobile for Commuting
Bargaining unit members at the comparables are provided
with a car for the
purpose
of commuting to and from work. In Spokane County only a few bargaining unit
members
are given this benefit. Dr. David Knowles, an economist, testified that he
thought
this benefit was worth $275 per month. The Employer did not put on evidence to
contradict
this figure. Arbitrator Krebs, in his July 1999 Arbitration Opinion, recognized
that
there was a monetary value to what he termed this “commuting privilege” (pg.
17)
but
found that the record did not provide precise evidence regarding the use of an
automobile
on a part-time basis.
A $275 per month benefit is certainly a significant
benefit. However, Dr.
Knowles testified that his
$275 per month conclusion was based on an estimate and that
there
was not a precise way to measure this benefit. Additionally as the Employer
points
out,
the provision of a car for commuting has traditionally not been included as a
factor to
be
considered in setting wage rates. This benefit is very different in nature than
wages
and a
longevity premium. Therefore, it seems most appropriate for the Union to seek
this
benefit
separately as has been done in the other comparables. However, it is clear that
receiving a
car for commuting does provide a benefit even if one cannot precisely
determine a
monetary amount. Furthermore, the provision of a car to bargaining unit
members
is a cost to the County. Thus, I do think it appropriate in considering the
overall
wage rate to take into account the fact that, unlike their fellow bargaining
unit
members
in the other comparables, the bargaining unit members in
some
exceptions, do not receive this benefit.
Conclusion
I have carefully considered the other factors raised by
both parties. None of these
in
the factual circumstances here are sufficient to affect my conclusion on wages,
and,
therefore,
I have not separately discussed them. I have determined that in the year 2000
Deputies and Detectives should
receive an increase of 3.7%. While I recognize that this
is
.5% higher than the average increase in the comparables, it still leaves the
average of
the
comparables higher than
CHART No. 5
______________________________________________________________________
DEPUTY DEPUTY DEPUTY
TOP STEP 10 YEARS 15 YEAR
______________________________________________________________________
COMPARABLE $4,087 $4,221 $4,347
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
VERSUS
2.2% 2.0% 3.0%
SPOKANE
SPOKANE
RANKING
AMONG THE 5 OF 6
5 OF 6 4 OF 6
COMPARABLES
The 3.7% increase here in the year 2000 is similar to the
3.5% increase given in
the
year 2000 to Correctional Officers by Arbitrator Axon who used the same
comparators
as agreed to here. Additionally, in discussing his Award of 3.5% for 1999,
the
first year of the Correctional Officer Agreement, Arbitrator Axon noted that
with
respect
to the 10 year Correctional Officer, who he used as the standard for his
comparability
analysis, the increase of 3.5% left the
wage
rate below that of three of the five comparables, thus placing
Officers
fourth of six. In noting that his Award left Spokane
Correctional Officers
slightly
behind
represented a
“reasonable reflection of the historical cost of living differences between
east-side
and west-side
my
Award leaves
16.to
the top step and ten year Deputy and fourth of six with respect to the 15 year
Deputy. I
have
made this Award despite the fact that as to population,
the
average of the comparables and third of six among the comparables. (Employer
Exhibit No. 14.) Thus, I have
taken into account the cost of living differences between
The Union’s one percent matching deferred compensation
proposal is denied. No
other
comparable provides a deferred compensation program nor is it provided to any
other
bargaining unit at the Employer.
The Employer points out that Sergeants
in
they
are in the comparables. Thus, the Employer argues that if the Arbitrator determines
to
provide more than 2% for Deputies and Detectives, he should still limit the
raise to
Sergeants
to 2%. In this regard, I note that Union Exhibit E
indicates that in 1999 the
Sergeant in
comparables
and that even when one compares the 1999 Sergeant rate to the average
comparable
Sergeant rate for the year 2000, the
more
than the average. Furthermore, Employer Exhibit No. 49 indicates that even with
only a
2% raise in
from a
4% higher wage with ten years of seniority up to 9.5% higher wage with 25 years
of
seniority than does the average Sergeant of the comparables. Additionally, the
Employer supplied Exhibit No.
52 which shows the differential between Top Step
Sergeants
and Deputies for the year 2000 in both
average
differential in the five comparables is 15.5% and the differential for
1999 is 25.6%, indicating that
the differential in
than
the average comparable differential between Sergeants and Deputies.
In view of all of the foregoing, I think it is
appropriate, at least in the first year, to
provide the
Sergeants with a reduced wage increase from that given the Deputies and
Detectives.
Therefore, the Sergeants will receive an increase of 2.5% for the year 2000,
but
will receive the same increase for the following two years as do the Deputies
and
Detectives.
Also, I note that Arbitrator Krebs in his July 1999 Arbitration Opinion also
recognized
the significantly greater wages paid to Sergeants in
comparables
and the significantly greater differential between Sergeants and Deputies in
Spokane with a 2.5% increase
for the first year of the 1997-99 Contract, while
providing
the Deputies and Detectives with a 3.5% increase.
With respect to the second and third years of the
Agreement, two of the five
comparables
contracts have been settled for each of those three years and one of those
two,
representative
sample upon which to base my conclusions for the years 2001 and 2002. It
seems
more appropriate to me to rely on the cost of living for the second two years
of the
contract,
particularly since I placed significant reliance on the comparables for the
first
year
of the contract.
Exactly which CPI figures to use must be determined. As I
said earlier in this
Opinion, it is my experience
regarding
much
more often used than the
the
There is not specific evidence
of a practice in
listed
both the
specifically
rely on either one. Arbitrator Axon did specifically refer to the
CPI but also did not use the
CPI to set the wage rate.
In view of the recommendation of the BLS to use national
rather than local
indexes
for labor contracts, I have determined to use the
both
the CPI-W and CPI-U for August 2000 and October 2000 each of those four indexes
indicates
an annual increase of 3.4%. On the other hand, the
different
figures for each of the four indices (CPI-W August 2000,3.9%; October 2000,
CPI-W 4.3%; August 2000, CPI-U
4.0%; and October 2000,4.2%). The figures provide
support
to the conclusion of he BLS regarding the volatility of the
It is appropriate to select one index for use in
calculating the 2001 wage
Therefore, I shall order that
the increase in the year 2001 be based on the increase in the
cost
of living between October 1999 and October 2000 in the
already
indicated, is 3.4%.
With respect to the year 2002, I shall use the
percentage
increase in the
compute
the necessary wage increases before the start of the year and still allow the
CPI
increase
to be based on the increase in the cost of living during most of the year prior
to
2002.
I have rejected the Employer’s contention that in setting
wages based on the CPI,
I should use a 90% figure. In
making this decision, I note that the BLS has established a
new
formula in calculating the basic components of the CPI as of January 1999 in
order
to
correct the prior method which the BLS determined created upward biases in the
CPI.1
_________________________________
1 See
Municipal Research and
http://www. mrsc.org/finance/cpipage. htm.
MEDICAL BENEFITS
Presently the Employer provides three medical plans.
These plans are the Group
Health Plan, the MSC
Traditional Plan and the MSC Preferred Provider Option (MSC-
PPO).
The Employer seeks to eliminate the MSC Traditional Plan, pointing out that
presently
all Employer bargaining units and all unrepresented employees have available
only
the MSC-PPO and the Group Health Plan. In further support of its proposal, the
Employer points out that only 27 bargaining unit employees have selected the MSC
Traditional
Plan.
The
Agreement.
Under the County proposal, all costs of coverage under
the MSC-PPO plan would
be
borne by the County. Additionally, employees who elect to be covered by Group
Health would have either
employee and spouse coverage or employee and dependent
children
coverage fully paid. However, an employee who wants full family coverage,
that is
for spouse and children, would presently be required to pay $41. Presently the
contractual
requirement that the Employer pay 90% of the MSC Traditional plan full
family
premium is sufficient to cover full family premium at Group Health. However, as
I understand the Employer
proposal, the 90% funding mechanism would move from the
MSC Traditional plan to the
Group Health plan and thus employees wanting full family
coverage
would have to pay 10% which presently is $41 per month. Further, the County
proposal
requires that if in the year 2002, the Group Health premium raised above its
current
$517, then such increases would be split 50/50 between the Employer and the
employee.
In view of the fact that all other employees at the
Employer are now under a two
plan
system it is appropriate to require that the Deputy Sheriffs also be placed
under the
two
plan system. However, as Mr. Carlsen testified, there
are approximately 120
employees
in a professional and technical unit represented by Local 17, who although
under
the two plan system are guaranteed 100% premium coverage.
The Union, at page 8 of its brief, although again making
clear that it does not
want
to see a reduction in the number of plans, states that, at the very least, if
the
Arbitrator orders the Deputy
Sheriffs to accept the two plan system he should do so at no
premium
cost to the employee, that is the plans should be fully funded by the Employer.
I shall order that commencing
with the beginning of the next plan year, the Employer
may
institute the two plan system and continue it during the term of the contract,
provided
that it fully funds the premiums.
The Union proposes that the Employer provide Lasik vision surgery. Sergeant
Martin O’Leary testified that
there are a number of situations where it would be quite
helpful
for officers not to have to wear corrective lenses. Sergeant O’Leary testified
that
the
Union was not taking the position that every bargaining unit member needed to
have
Lasik
surgery provided, but that a process needed to be put in place in order to
determine
which
employees perform work where the provision of Lasik
vision surgery would
significantly
benefit the employee in performing his or her assigned work.
The Employer, in opposing the provision of Lasik vision surgery, does not dispute
that Lasik vision surgery may benefit certain employees in
performing their work, but
points
out that Lasik vision coverage is not provided by any
of the comparables.
Based on the foregoing, I shall order that the parties
engage in a joint study
regarding
the benefits, application to unit employees and costs of Lasik
vision surgery in
preparation
for their bargaining for the contract commencing January 1, 2003.
SPECIALTY PAY
The Union makes three proposals regarding specialty pay,
all of which the
Employer opposes. First, the
Union proposes that the current $150 per month specialty
pay
for bomb squad members be changed to 5% of “regular monthly pay based on the
rank
of qualified individual.” (Letter from Union counsel to Arbitrator dated January
15,
2001, Employer Exhibit No. 3.)
It is not clear, as the Employer points out, to exactly
what
this phrase refers. I note that the Union in its brief uses the phrase “current
base
wage.”
(Union brief pg. 6.) The parties 1997-99 Agreement at
Section 10.13 in
referring
to six different specialty pays other than the bomb squad provides that the
percentage
to be paid should be based on a “top step Deputy’s wage.” In 1999, $150
came
to 3.9% of a top step Deputy’s wage. In the year 2000, based on the raise I
have
ordered,
the $150 figure comes to 3.8% of the top step Deputy.
The Employer points out that no comparable pays more than
3.5% for bomb
squad
members. Based on this fact a 5% figure is not appropriate. However, it is
appropriate
to change the bomb squad premium from a fixed amount to a percentage
percentage.
I shall therefore convert the $150 premium to a percentage and order that the
bomb
squad percentage premium be 3.8%. Making this change will not raise the amount
paid
to the bomb squad, but will keep the amount from decreasing vis-a-vis
salary
increases.
Additionally in its January 15, 2001 letter to the
Arbitrator setting forth its
specialty
pay proposal, the Union states that all specialty pay should be based on the
“rank
of qualified individual.” In its brief (pg. 5), the Union states that “all
percentages
shall
be based upon the rank of the recipient.” Again, as the Employer points out, it
is
not
entirely clear what the Union is seeking here. Assuming that what the Union
seeks
here
is that a Detective who performs a specialty would receive the premium based on
the
Top Step Detective rank and
that a Sergeant who performs a specialty would receive the
premium
based on the Top Step Sergeant rank, I find myself in agreement with the
Employer that such a change is
not appropriate. Sergeants are already being paid an
additional
amount of money for performing the work of a Sergeant and Detectives are
also
being paid additional money for performing the work of a Detective. Therefore,
it is
appropriate
to compensate each individual similarly for performing the same specialty
work.
Finally with respect to the Union’s proposal to add to
the contract specialty pay in
the
amount of a 3% premium for tactical squad members and for motorcycle unit
members,
this request is not supported by the comparables, and therefore is denied.
PERSONAL HOLIDAYS
Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the parties 1997-1999
Agreement, employees are
entitled
to seven paid personal holidays per year. The contract is administered so that
each
employee has a bank of 56 hours, that is seven paid holidays times 8 hours. The
Union proposes that a personal
day be based on the schedule of the employee. Thus, if
the
employee works four ten hour days, he or she should receive seven ten hour days
as
personal
holidays rather than seven eight hour days. The Employer opposes any change
in
the personal holiday provision of the Agreement.
I note the testimony of Carlsen
that approximately 185 members of the bargaining
unit
work a schedule of four days of ten hours a week. Furthermore, Carlsen admitted
that
the Employer does require employees to take their personal days on a full day
basis.
In view of the foregoing, it
is appropriate to grant the Union’s proposal with
respect
to personal holidays.
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
Presently Spokane County provides a uniform allowance of
$750 a year. The
Union proposes allowance be raised to $1,000 per year
and that the allowance
for
members of the motorcycle unit be raised to $1,500 a year. The Employer
proposes
no
change in the uniform allowance. The difficulty in making a determination here
is
that
all of the comparables use a quartermaster system. Under that system, Deputies
are
issued
their uniforms and will normally have replacements provided. They also receive
a
cleaning
allowance.
The Union provided evidence that the cost of the basic
uniform at Spokane
County is $1,027.07. (Union Exhibit H.) The Employer did not provide evidence
controverting this figure. Carlsen testified that the $750 uniform allowance was in
effect
when
he came to work at Spokane County in 1994. An increase of $250 would amount
to a
one third increase in the uniform allowance which is a very large increase.
I note that the U.S. CPI-W in January 1994 stood a 143.6
while in January of
2001 it stood at 171.7, an
increase of 19.6%. Based on the foregoing I have determined
to
increase the uniform allowance by 20%, which comes to $150. Therefore, the
uniform
allowance
shall be $900. While this may not fully cover the costs as outlined by Deputy
Chuck Haley, it represents a
significant increase in this benefit. This benefit shall
commence
with the current year, namely 2001.
The Union also sought an increase to $1,500 for members
of the motorcycle unit
due
to the cost of a leather jacket. The Employer maintains that this increase
should not
be
provided. Sheriff Sterk, who as indicated above,
supported just about all of the Union
proposals,
testified that a leather jacket would probably provide better protection than a
nylon
jacket for members of the motorcycle unit, but did not believe it was necessary
for
motorcycle
employees to have a leather jacket.
Based on all of the foregoing, the Union’s proposal in
this regard is rejected.
AWARD
OF THE INTEREST ARBITRATOR
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450 having served as the Neutral
Chairman of the
Arbitration Panel duly
constituted in this matter, I hereby make the following Award
which
is set forth below issue by issue.
I. Wages and Deferred
Compensation
1. For
the year 2000, all bargaining unit employees except Sergeants shall
receive a wage
increase of 3.7%. Sergeants shall receive a wage increase
of 2.5%.
2. For
the year 2001, all bargaining unit employees shall receive an
additional wage
increase of 3.4%
3. For the year 2002, all bargaining unit employees shall
receive an
additional wage
increase based on the percentage increase in the U.S. CPI-
W between October 2000 and October 2001.
II. Medical Benefits
1. Commencing
with the start of the next plan year, the Employer may
eliminate the MSC
Traditional Plan provided that the Employer funds the
premium for the
Group Health Plan and the MSC-PPO Plan at 100%
during the term of
the Agreement.
2. The
Union’s proposal that the Employer provide Lasik
vision surgery is
denied. The parties
shall establish a joint committee to study the benefits,
application to unit
employees, and cost of providing Lasik vision
surgery.
III. Specialty Pay
1. Section
10.13.1 of the Agreement shall be revised so that bomb squad
members who are
deemed qualified shall receive 3.8% per month of a top
step Deputy’s wage
in addition to their regular pay.
2. All other
Union proposals are rejected.
IV. Personal Holidays
1. The
Union’s proposal shall be granted so that employees working 10 hour
days shall receive
personal holidays to which they are entitled on the basis
of a 10 hour day
(seven paid personal holidays x 10 hours = 70 hours),
while employees
working eight hour days shall receive personal holidays
to which they are
entitled on the basis of an eight hour day (seven paid
personal holidays x
eight hours = 56 hours).
V. Uniform Allowance
1. Beginning
with the calendar year 2001, bargaining unit employees entitled
to a uniform
allowance shall receive a uniform allowance of $900 per
year.
Dated: June 5, 2001
Seattle, Washington
Michael
H. Beck, Interest Arbitrator