Teamsters
And
City of
Arbitration
Arbitrator:
Philip Kienast
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Philip Kienast
Case #: 15204-I-00-342
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER
OF ARBITRATION
CITY OF
) OPINION AND AWARD
)
OF
-and- ) Panel Chairman Philip Kienast
)
)
TEAMSTERS
) PERC 15204-1-00-342
__________________________________________)
APPEARANCES
For the
Kenneth J. Pedersen, attorney at law
For the Employer:
Roy Wesley and Kevin Wesley, labor consultants
Reported by: Cheryl A. Pelletier
CCR
DLLLE CA 422NU
OPINION
This proceeding is in accordance with KCW 41.56.450 and
WAC 391-55. The parties
selected
Philip Kienast as the neutral Chairman. The City
appointed Jim Cherf and the
appointed
Mark Rogstad as their respective panel members. The
Executive Director of the
Public Employment Relations
Commission certified the following issues for determination in
this
proceeding to complete an agreement covering police officers:
1. Employer Rights
2. Wages
3. Hours of Work
4. Vacation/Leave
5. Educational lncentive Pay
6. Workers Compensation
A hearing was held on
positions
on the above-referenced issues. The record was closed upon receipt of post
hearing
briefs
by the Chairman on
Applicable Statutory
Provisions
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth 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;
(h) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i ) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) through (d),
comparison
of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of like personnel
of like
employers of similar size on the west coast of the
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly
known
as the cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the circumstances under (a) through (d) of this
subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to the factors under (a) through (e )
of
this subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in
the
determination
of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. . . .
The two statutory provisions cited within RCW 41.56.465
contain the following
provisions
pertinent to this proceeding:
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
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
service
there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of settling
disputes.
RCW 41.56.030 Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(7) “Uniformed personnel” means (a)(i) Until July , 1997, law
enforcement
officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030 employed by the governing
body
of any city or town with a population of seven thousand five hundred or
more
and law enforcement officers employed by the governing body of any
county
with a population of thirty-five thousand or more; (ii) beginning on July I,
1997, law enforcement officers as defined in
RCW 41.26.030 employed by the
governing
body of any city or town with a population of two thousand five
hundred
or more. . . .
Analysis and Conclusions
The Employer argued that only
the
wages, hours and other conditions of employment of
of
similarly sized employers. It based its argument on labor market and cost of
living factors.
The
Western Washington cities
proposed by the Employer in that proceeding, namely, Anacortes and
Tumwater, should
be used again for comparison purposes.
The consensus final list of comparables selected by the
arbitration panel in 1998 was:
1. Anacortes
2.
3. Kelso
4. Mukilteo
5. Tumwater
6. Ellensburg
7. Sunnyside
The selection was based primarily
on population comparability.
The Employer’s argument is not persuasive. First, in the
1998 interest arbitration it had
proposed
six cities for comparison purposes, four of which were
Moreover, in February of 2000,
City Manager, Joe Gavinski, presented the City
Council a report
recommending
salary increases for councilpersons and the mayor based on a comparison of
salaries
paid in ten other cities of similar sire and including five
In light of the foregoing, the Chairman rejects the all
group
offered by the Employer. By contrast, the
comparison
group used by the previous arbitration panel is prudent and reasonable.
Moreover, it
promotes
stability in bargaining by using a consistent group of comparable
jurisdictions. It will
he
used to make the comparisons required under RCW 41.56.465.
Salary
The
the
comparable cities. The Employer argues the salaries should be increased
commensurate with
increases
granted fire fighters and other City employees. The Employer also argues cost
of
living
differences between the comparator cities located in
does
not warrant bringing police salaries up to the average for the comparator
cities.
The Chairman concludes the Employer has failed to establish
by clear and understandable
evidence
that the City of
significantly
lower salary for its police unit members. Accordingly, the Chairman will order
wages
be increased enough to bring salaries within the mid range of the comparable
cities,
especially
in light of the evidence
capita
tax collections and unrestricted revenues as shown in Table 1 on the following
page. This
table
discloses that per capita tax income for
The table also shows a current
difference of more than 20% between the average monthly top
step
salary in
Table 1
|
Population |
City |
Property Taxes |
Sales & Use Tax |
Business and Utility Tax |
Unrestricted Revenues |
Police Officer Top Monthly Salary |
|
11,940 |
Kelso |
$73 |
$144 |
$166 |
$557 |
$4,311 |
|
12,500 |
Tumwater |
93 |
182 |
134 |
685 |
4,094 |
|
13,440 |
Sunnyside |
91 |
144 |
70 |
407 |
3,443 |
|
13,600 |
|
106 |
141 |
107 |
464 |
3,994 |
|
14,190 |
|
126 |
226 |
109 |
662 |
3,247 |
|
14,340 |
Ellensburg |
94 |
161 |
107 |
606 |
3,506 |
|
14,710 |
Anacortes |
176 |
153 |
116 |
718 |
4,028 |
|
17,360 |
Mukilteo |
94 |
94 |
64 |
592 |
4,040 |
|
Average (Excluding |
13,989 |
115 |
146 |
109 |
576 |
$3,917 |
Source: U8-10 and Post Hearing Exhibit 1 (1997
Unrestricted Operation Revenues)
These adjustments will also be consistent with increases
in salary to the mayor and
council
members of
salary
was 71% below the $550/month average of comparable cities (U28). The mayor’s
salary
was
doubled from $350 to $700/month. A councilperson’s salary was also doubled from
$150 to
$300/month which placed them
just below the average monthly salary in the comparable
jurisdictions.
Against this backdrop of salary changes, the increases being awarded the police
bargaining
unit are prudent and reasonable.
The Chairman estimates that in 2002 the top step police
officer salary in
still
lag the average in the comparable cities by 3.5% to 5.0%. This state of affairs
was intended
by
the Chairman due to the unclear picture that emerged from the evidence in this
proceeding
regarding
cost of living differences among the comparable cities. The Chairman strongly
encourages
the parties to work cooperatively in negotiations on a successor agreement to
measure
with as much precision as possible if and to what extent cost of living
differences exist
between
of
cost of living differences, the parties themselves can negotiate whether
should
be set above, below or at the average for the comparator cities. Given that the
comparable
jurisdictions use more frequent and smaller steps between entry level and top
step
(U10), beginning in 2002 the
Chairman finds the addition of three new salary steps is warranted.
Also, a greater number of
steps appears more consistent with the movement of a
police officer
from a
rookie to a journeyman and, therefore, is reasonable to include in the new
agreement.
The following changes will be ordered in the salary
structure for the police bargaining
unit:
2000
Effective the first payroll period of 2000, monthly
salaries for top step police
officers will increase 8% to
$3,507. The entry level will be set at 80% of that
figure or $2,806 per month.
A corporal will be paid 5% above the top step police
officer’s salary or $3,082 per
month.
A sergeant will he paid 10%
above the top step police officer’s salary or $3,858
per month.
2001
Effective the first payroll period of 2001 monthly
salaries for top step police
officers will increase 8% over
2000 levels to $3,788 per month. The entry level
will be set at 80% of that
figure or $3,030 per month.
A corporal will continue to be paid 5% above the top step
police officer’s salary
or $3,977 per month.
A sergeant will continue to be paid 10% above the top
step police officer’s salary
or $4,167 per month.
2002
Effective the first payroll period of 2002, monthly
salaries for top step police
officers will increase 3.5% to
$3,921 per month. The entry level will be set at
80% that figure or $3,137 per month.
Also 3 new intermediate steps between entry and top step
will he created. After
one
year of employment at the entry level, a police officer will be paid at 85% of
the
top step; after two years of employment at 90% of the top step; and after three
years
of employment 95% of the top step salary rate. This new five step structure
will
apply only to unit members hired after
A corporal will he paid 5% above
the step rate for a police officer with an equal
number
of years of employment.
A sergeant will be paid 10% above the step rate for a
police officer with an equal
number
of years of employment.
The Arbitrator has decided against specialty pay
differentials as requested by the
There is no persuasive
evidence that special assignments given officers in
comparable
in scope and duration as specialty assignments in the comparable jurisdictions.
Also, the Arbitrator concludes
that any further changes in the pay structure be studied and
considered
directly by the parties in negotiations on a successor agreement, including the
issue of
adding
longevity steps to the salary schedule.
Employer Rights/Hours and
Shift Scheduling
The Employer proposes language that would reserve to its
discretion the method used to
determine
shifts and how unit members arc assigned to shifts. The
the
current practice of shift assignment by seniority bidding. The Employer's
proposal
represents a
radical change from the status quo. The Employer has failed to provide
persuasive
evidence
to cause the Chairman to order such a significant change.
The party proposing change carries the but-den of'
showing by clear and understandable
evidence
the change requested is reasonable and i n this
instance demanded by operational
necessities.
The only evidence presented was the testimony of the police chief that he feels
it
may
be beneficial to have a policy officer rotate through day and off shifts to
avoid complacency
and
keep skills well rounded (Tr. 219). This is insufficient evidence to justify
the broad grant of
discretion
sought in the Employer’s proposal. Therefore, the Chairman will not grant the
proposal
and suggests the Employer engage in future bargaining with the
specific
issues cited by the chief in his testimony, e.g. language that might require a
unit member
to
bid on an off shift every few years.
Vacation/Leave
The Employer proposes to specify situations in which sick
leave could be used by an
employee.
The
situation
covered. The Chairman concludes, with the addition of maternity leave to the
listed
situations,
the proposal of the Employer’s proposal is reasonable and shall he included in
the
agreement.
Both maternity and paternity will not exceed five (5 )
days per calendar year.
Workers Compensation
The Employer proposes a new provision in the Agreement
that will spell out the interface
between
an employee’s use of sick leave and workman’s compensation. The Chairman has
reviewed
the collective bargaining agreements in the seven comparable cities and finds
only
three
of these deal explicitly with this interface issue. Absent compelling evidence
from the
Employer of a real and present
need to resolve this interface issue now, the Chairman concludes
the
Employer’s proposal should not he included in this Agreement. He recommends the
parties
study
the various approaches to this issue with an eye toward funding a mutually
acceptable
contract
provision in the future. In particular, the Chairman recommends the parties
closely
examine
the provisions in the Sunnyside, Anacortes and Mukilteo agreements (U1, 2 and
4)
covering
this interface issue as well as ask the State Auditor to comment on or suggest
draft
language.
AWARD
The parties’ Agreement effective
1. Provide for changes in the
salary schedules:
A. Effective
the first payroll period in 2000 the top step salary shall increase 8% to
$3,507 per month.
Entry level will be set at 80% of the top step or $2,806 per
month. A corporal
shall be 5% above the top step or $3,682 per month. A sergeant
shall be paid 10%
above the top step police officer’s salary or $3,858 per month.
B. Effective
the first payroll period of 2001, the top salary shall increase 8% to $3,788
per month. A
corporal shall be paid 5% above or $3,977 per month. A sergeant
shall he paid 10%
above the top step or $4,167 per month. Entry level salary is 80%
of top step or
$3,030.
C. Effective
the first payroll period of 2002, the top step salary shall increase 3.5% to
$3,921 per month.
Three new steps shall be added to the
schedule and an officer hired after January 1,
2002 will progress through the schedule for
each year of service.
Percentage of 2002 Monthly
Top Step Salary
(Entry) Step
1 80% $3,137
Step 2 85% $3,333
Step 3 90% $3,529
Step 4 95% $3,725
(Top) Step
5 100% $3,021
Corporals shall be paid 5% above the applicable step rate
based on years of service.
Sergeants shall he paid 10% above the applicable step
rate based on years of service.
2. The Vacation/Leave proposal of the Employer with the addition
of “maternity leave” to
the list shall become a
provision of the Agreement.
3. All other proposals from the parties for changes to the
Agreement shall not be included in
the Agreement.
4. The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of
resolving any disputes over the
implementation of the above
ordered changes.
_____________________________
Philip Kienast