International
Association of Machinists And Aerospace Workers
And
City
of
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: John H. Abernathy
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Abernathy; John H.
Case #: 13396-I-97-00285
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ) INTEREST
ARBITRATION ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
BETWEEN ) OPINION
)
THE CITY OF
)
(City) ) AWARD
AND ) ON
THE FOLLOWING
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) SUBMITTED ISSUES:
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, ) 1.
Wages for Police LODGE NO. 160 )
Officers and Sergeants
) 2. Retroactivity of any
(
) 3. Educational Incentives
) 4. Overtime work/7(K)
_____________________________________ ) Exception.
HEARING SITE:
HEARING DATE: May 13 and 14, 1998
ARBITRATOR: John H. Abernathy
207 Enders Alley
APPEARING FOR THE CITY:
Bruce E. Heller, Attorney at Law
Reed McClure Law Firm, Seattle
APPEARING FOR THE
Don Hersey,
Business Representative
BRIEFS RECEIVED:
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the
Public Employment
Relations Commission for the
State of
negotiations
between The City of
Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, Lodge 160 ("
issues
(wages, retroactivity, education incentives and overtime work/7(k) exception).
The
Executive Director then
directed those four issues be submitted to interest arbitrati
on.
The parties selected John H.
Abernathy to serve as the interest arbitrator.
Arbitrator Abernathy conducted an Interest Arbitration
hearing in this matter on
the
the
conclusion of the hearing that each parry would submit a post-hearing brief
postmarked
no later than
extended
to
declared
this hearing closed upon the timely receipt of those briefs on
Milton Washington is a city of 5,525 population in an
area of 2.2 square miles,
with a
total assessed valuation of $2417258,951. The City is located on the
King-Pierce
County line, about 25 miles
south of
operated
under the Mayor-Council form of government, and has an overall employment
compliment
of 39 full time and 11 part time employees.
The Milton Police Department employs 11 full time
employees. IAM Local 160
is a
labor organization representing two bargaining units within the department: 1)
two
non-commissioned
support: services personnel who are part of a non-uniformed personnel
unit;
and 2) nine commissioned employees in the Police Department - seven police
officers,
one detective and one sergeant. Only these nine commissioned employees are
subject
to interest arbitration, and it is that bargaining unit which is at impasse The
average
length of service of employees in the police commissioned unit as of the date
of
the
hearing was nine years, excluding the one probationary police officer.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS
A labor agreement between the parties covering this unit
of employees was set to
expire
with
District Lodge 160 Business Representative Don Hursey
bargaining for the
and
then-Mayor Leonard Sanderson bargaining for the City. Historically, although
the
parties
had not been eligible for interest arbitration prior to
according
to the union, employed methodology of comparing cities with one-half to twice
the
population and total assessed valuation of the City of
was
an agreement to do so. To further narrow their differences, Don Hursey claimed that
he
and then-Mayor Sanderson agreed to limit their comparables to a four county
area in
Shortly after the
advised
the
on
behalf of the City. Thereafter, negotiations were suspended while the City
selected a
new
negotiator and a new negotiating team; a process which was not completed until
December 1996. The City's new
negotiator, Attorney Bruce Heller, met with Don Hursey
in
December of 1996. Productive bargaining began in earnest at the turn of the
year after
the
then pending labor agreement had expired.
Once negotiations between Hursey
and Heller were underway, the City began
proposing
comparators beyond the four county area agreed to by Don Hursey
and
then-Mayor
Sanderson - including cities in
was
employed by the City for the remainder of the negotiations, including
mediation, and
remained
so until the interest arbitration hearing. At the interest arbitration hearing,
the
City no longer offered
In addition, after HelIer
became the City's chief spokesman, the City began to
utilize a
methodology of 33% plus or minus in population and total assessed valuation to
select
comparable cities.
When the parties were unable to reach agreement through
their own efforts on all
issues,
mediation was requested from PERC and a mediator was assigned. After
mediation
and at the recommendation of PERC Mediator Katrina L Boedecker,
four
issues
were directed to interest arbitration by PERC Executive Director Marvin Schurke
by
letter dated
STATUTORY GUIDELINES
Interest arbitration in
Employment,
Civil Service and Pensions. Relevant portions of Title 41
for this interest
arbitration
are:
RCW 41.56.030 Definitions - which defines public
employees as:
". . .any officer, board,
commission, council, or other person or body acting on
behalf of any public body
governed by this chapter, or any subdivision of such
public body."
and specifics where interest
arbitration for law enforcement officers may be
used as:
"(a)(i)
Until
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
41.26.030 employed by the governing body of any city or
town with a population
of two thousand five hundred or more and law enforcement
officers employed by
the governing body of any county with a population of ten
thousand or more; . . ."1
1 This means that the City of
arbitration
in its law enforcement bargaining unit prior to
date.
RCW 41 .56.465 requires interest arbitrators to consider
the following factors in
making
their determination:
". . . the
legislative purposed enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards
or guidelines to aid it in reacting a decision, it shall take into
consideration
the following factors:
(a) The
constitutional and statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations
of the parties;
(c)(i) For employees listed in RCW 4156.030(7)(a)
through (d),
comparison
of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of personnel
involved
in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment
of
like personnel of public fire departments of similar size on the west coast of
the
exists
within the State of
considered,
(d) The
average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly
known
as the cost of living;
(e) Changes
in any of the circumstances under (a) through (d) of this
subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such
other factors, not confined to the factors under (a) through (e) of
this
subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination
of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. For those
employees
listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) who are employed by the governing
body
of a city or town with a population of less than fifteen thousand, or a county
with a
population of less than seventy thousand, consideration must also be given
to
regional differences in the cost of living.
(2) Subsection
(1)(c) of this section may not construed to authorize
the
panel
to require the employer to pay, directly or indirectly, the increased employee
contributions
resulting from chapter 502, Laws of 1993 or chapter 517, Laws of
1993 as required under chapter
41.26 RCW. (1995 c 273 paragraph 2; 1993 c 398
paragraph
3.)"
APPLICABLE STATUTORY FACTORS IN THIS CASE
Not all of the statutory factors in RCW 41.56.465 were in
dispute in this case. For
example
the parties agree that the City has the constitutional and statutory authority
to
enter
into negotiations with the Union and since July 1, 1997, has the authority to
submit
unresolved
issues to interest arbitration for a binding decision. Therefore, statutory
factor
(a) is
not in dispute.
Nor is factor (b). The parties stipulated: 1) to waive
the tripartite panel called for
in
RCW 41.56.450; 2) that only the four issues certified for interest arbitration
remain in
dispute;
and 3) that the agreed upon general wage increases for 1997, 1998, and 1999
would
be 3%, 3%, and 4% respectively. This stipulation as to the negotiated wage
increases
for the three contract years largely renders factor (d) cost of living, of
lesser
importance
than under circumstances where the general wage increase is an issue in
interest
arbitration
The remaining factors - (c) comparability, (e) changes in
circumstances, and (f)
other
factors - are the most relevant factors for this dispute. Factors (e) and (f) were
not
relied
upon to any great degree by either party except for the controversy over what
was
the
relevant year for comparative data. The most hotly debated of these three
factors was
comparability.
Each party had a different methodology for arriving at comparable
jurisdiction
and each party was critical of the other's methodology and list of comparables.
The section below summarizes the comparability dispute:
first, by presenting
Methodology (the Union's and
the City's); Supporting Arguments (Union and City); and
Criticisms
(of the other's methodology). Then I shall analyze the
comparability evidence
and
make findings. These findings will later be applied to the four issues in
dispute.
In addition to these statutory factors I have found it
useful in my experience in
factfindings and interest arbitrations
over the past 28 years to place the burden of
proof/persuasion
on the party seeking a change. To prevail, the party seeking change
must
be able to prove that a problem exists and that the proposed change will
correct this
problem.
I shall use this assignment of burden in this case.
PRELIMINARY
ISSUE
COMPARABLE
JURISDICTIONS
Statement of the Issue: What jurisdictions should be
adopted by the Arbitrator for
comparison
to the City of Milton?
Union's MethodoIogy Used in the Selection of ComparabIes
The Union utilized: (1) population; (2) assessed
valuation; and (3) jurisdictions
within
close proximity to Milton to select comparable jurisdictions. The Union
searched
for
all jurisdictions within one-half to twice the population of Milton (-50% to
+200%),
the
same range in assessed valuation and local geographical proximity to Milton,
i.e. cities
within
Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap Counties The following table provides the
Union's
first list of 17 possible comparable jurisdictions.
Rank Jurisdiction County 1995 Assessed Valuation 1995
Population
1 Enumclaw King $453,253,013 10,170
2
3 Sumner Pierce $363,969,796 7,700
4 Snohomish Snohomish $357,876,663 7,495
5 Port Orchard Kitsap $257,629,361 6,240
6 Stellacoom Pierce $424,849,253 6,120
7
8 Brier Snohomish $309,127,765 6,030
9 Poulsbo Kitsap $311,817,476 5,765
10 Fircrest Pierce $263,650,746 5,375
11
12
13
14
15
16 Buckley Pierce $129,322,203 3,870
17 Duvall King $180,383,137 3,490
18 Clyde Hill King $473,081,072 3,000
$324,986,356 5,786
The Union narrowed this list to 12 jurisdictions by
selecting the 6 entries
immediately
greater and the 6 entries immediately smaller than Milton. That resulted in
the
following list of 12 possible comparable cities
Rank Jurisdiction County 1995 Assessed
Valuation 1995 Population
1 Stellacoom Pierce $424,849,253 6,120
2
3 Brier Snohomish $309,127,765 6,030
4 Poulsbo Kitsap $311,817,476 5,765
5 Fircrest Pierce $263,650,746 5,375
6
7
8
9
10
11 Buckley Pierce $129,322,203 3,870
12 Duvail King $180,383,137 3,490
13 Clyde Hill King $473,081,072 3,000
$335,498,707 4,881
The Union further refined this list by deleting Stellacoom (because police officers
there
also serve as firefighters) and substituted Port Orchard (because it met the
other
Union
selection criteria). This resulted in the following final
Union's List of Comparables
Rank Jurisdiction County 1995 Assessed Valuation 1995 Population
Brier Snohomish $309,127,765 6,030
Buckley Pierce $129,322 203 3,870
Clyde Hill King $473,081,072 3,000
$335,498,707 4,881
Fircrest Pierce $263,650,746 5,
375
Poulsbo Kitsap $311,817,476 5,765
Port Orchard Kitsap $257,629,361 6,240
The Union contends that its list of comparable
jurisdictions is appropriate as it is
drawn
from a methodology accepted in the industry and historically utilized by the
parties
and,
appropriately, utilizes data available to the parties at the time of their
negotiations.
The Union urges the Arbitrator
to adopt its lists of comparables.
The City's Methodology Used in the Selection
of Comparables
The City focused on the customary measurements of a
city's size (population) and
source
of taxable wealth (assessed valuation) to arrive at its initial list of
comparable cities.
The City then used a 33%
range, i.e., cities and towns with populations between 33% less
than
and 33% greater than that of the City of Milton which provides a population
range of
between
3,683 to 7,348. The City arrived at this + or - 33% factor by researching
police
and
fire interest arbitration awards since 1990 where arbitrators have applied the
"similar
size"
criterion. The table below summarizes that research:
Date of Arb Interest Parties
to the Min. Population Max. Population
Award Arbitrator
Name Arbitration of Comps of Comps.
5/27/97 Axon Everett
v. EPOA -31% +31%*
No. 763
6/20/96 Abernathy Camas
v. IAFF -50% +50%*
2/06/92 Axon Pullman
v. PPOG -10% +86%
6/17/91 Beck Bellingham
v. IAFF -28% +90%
2/12/90 Krebs Pasco
v. PPOG -30% +30%
10/04/90 Levak Pasco v. IAFF -50% +50%*
6/17/91 Beck Moses
Lake v. IAFF -38% +60%
4/02/96 Latsch Bellingham v. -50% +50%
Teamsters
No. 231
9/17/97 Lumbley Centralia v. IAFF 9% +46%*
7/01/97 Beck Vancouver
v. VPOG -50% +50%*
*In each of these cases, the Union wanted to utilized
twice as much cut-off point
(or
greater), and it was expressly rejected by the Arbitrator.
Through this process the City identified a rather large
group of 35 Washington
cities
and towns, including Milton. Other population ranges in the record where the
parties
could not agree include: +1-20% in City of Lynnwood v Teamsters Local No 763
(Abernathy, 1980), +/-33% in Ciwkutz County v. Teamsters Local No. 763 (Beck, 1987),
-27% to +47% in City of
Seattle v. Seattle Police Management Association (Beck, 1983),
45%
to 40% in Snohomish County v. Teamsters Local No. 763 (Krebs, 1986).
Also,
Krebs in Seattle v. Seattle
Police Management Association Krebs, 1984) concluded that
Seattle, a city 80% larger
than Sacramento is not similar in size. He also concluded that
"... to
include such cities as San Diego that have a population of 75% or more than
that of
Seattle would, in the opinion
of your Chairman, not be in accord with the statutory
mandate
to compare cities of similar size.'' (pp.11-12). When large ranges have been
used,
such as the -50% to 200% proposed by the union in this proceeding, it has been
when
the parties had agreed to consider such a range. This was the case in City of
Bellingham v. IAFF Local No
106 (Beck, 1991) at pp.6-7 and (Beck, 1994) at p. 6
However, when the comparables
were finally selected, Arbitrator Beck selected the closest
five
up and five down in population and the resulting range was much narrower. In
that
case,
Bellingham's population was listed as 47,290. The largest population selected
by
Arbitrator Beck was Clark at
80,000 (+69%) and the smallest population selected was
Kennewick
at 36, 880 (-22 %). See p.22 (Beck, 1991). Finally a +1-30%
population band
was
agreed upon in King County IAFF LocaI No. 2459 (Beck,
1988).
Contrary to the Union's contention at the hearing that
the +200% and the -50%
band
was commonly used, the City could find no arbitration awards to support the
Union's
approach. The City argued that its proposed range of
+/-33% is more consistent
with
prior arbitration awards than the +200% and -50% proposed by the Union.
Applying the +1- 33% range the City found the following
cities comparable in
population
to Milton:
Cities
and Towns
With Resident Populations
+/-33% of Town of Milton
Town Population
Ferndale 7,235
Normandy Park 7,122
Chehalis 7,035
Port Orchard 6,965
Battleground 6,948
West Richland 6,930
College Place 6,980
Clarkston 6,870
Steilacoom 6,185
Brier 6,180
Poulsbo 6,175
Arlington 6,010
Ephrata 5,945
Fircrest 5,895
Selah 5,730
Pacific 5,640
Milton 5,525
Burlington 5,445
Othello 5,395
Union Gap 5,325
Lake Stevens 5,290
East Wenatchee 5,245
Prosser 4,840
Colville 4,690
Fife 4,545
Ornak 4,495
Sequim 4,375
AIrway Heights 4,139
Gig Harbor 4,130
Buckley 3,920
Wapato 3,880
Duvall 3,813
Montesano 3,810
Medical Lake 3,790
Source: Official
1997 Population of Washington Clties.
To reduce this list to more manageable proportions the
City then applied assessed
valuation,
again using the +33% to -33% range resulting in an assessed value range of
$175,285,798 to $349,695,167. Milton's 1997 assessed valuation for 1998 taxes was
$228,955,105 in Pierce County
and, $33,973,592 in King County, for a total assessed
valuation
of $262,928,697.
This process resulted in the elimination of 15
jurisdictions resulting in the
following
20 cities and towns. During the arbitration, the City explained that it had
inadvertently
included several comparables that fell outside the +1-33% band in assessed
valuation.
They were Pacific with an assessed valuation of $174,848,233 (-33.5%);
Buckley with an assessed
valuation of $~43,364,48l (45.5%) and Poulsbo with an
assessed
valuation of $362,488,539 (+37.9%). As Pacific, Buckley, and Poulsbo fall
outside
the +1- 33% band they should be removed from the list. The following list of
cities
resulted.
Washington State
Cities and Towns
With Resident Populations and Assessed Valuations
~/-33% of Town of Milton
Jurisdiction Population Assessed Valuation
Chehalis 7035 $336,655,619
Brier 6180 $332,388,303
East Wenatchee 5245 $311,599,785
Port Orchard 6965 $296,559,770
Sequim 4375 $281,314,679
Fircrest 5895 $276,133,034
Battleground 6948 $271,837,895
Milton 5525 $262,928,697
Selah 5730 $253,096,028
Lake Stevens 5290 $250,403,048
Union Gap 5325 $244,737,028
Othello 5395 $244,030,063
West Richland 6930 $231,611,746
Colville 4690 $226,055,376
Prosser 4840 $224,305,425
Duvall 3813 $209,403,955
Clarkston 6870 $191,416,799
Ephrata 5945 $182,558,934
College Place 6980 $178,966,585
In light of the new requirement of RCW 41.56.030(7)(a), consideration to regional
differences
in the cost of living, PEW 41.465(1)(f), the City used geographical proximity
to
Milton as a further screening criteria. Consequently, the City next looked more
closely
at
the neighboring counties with cities and towns of similar size in the Puget
Sound Area
(King,
Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston Counties).2 According to the
U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, these counties comprise the
Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area (CMSA), as defined by the Federal Office of
Management, and Budget on June
30, 1993 Cities outside those counties were
eliminated.
This process resulted in the elimination of 11 more of the City's possible
jurisdictions,
which provided the following 8 cities and towns, all of which have their own
police
departments and employ police officers, to utilize as comparables.
2
Thurston County was not used by the Union but the other four Counties were.
The City
of Milton's
Comparable Cities and
Towns
With Resident Populations and Assessed
Valuations
+1- 33% of Town of
Milton and
Located in Puget Sound Labor Market
Jurisdiction Population Assessed Valuation Location
Port Orchard 6,965 $296,559,770 Kitsap
Brier 6,180 $332,388,303 Snohomish
*Poulsbo 6,175 $362,488,539 Kitsap
Fircrest 5,895 $276,133,034 Pierce
*Pacific 5,640 $174,848,233 Pierce, King
Lake Stevens 5,290 $250,403,048 Snohomish
*Buckley 3,920 $143,364,481 Pierce
Duvall 3,813 $209,403,955 King
Average: 5,485 $255,698,670
Variance +0.7% +2.8%
* The City explained in the arbitration hearing why these
cities should be eliminated from
the
City's final list of comparables but the City failed to do so
The City argues that the above eight cities provide a
well balanced set of
comparators
that is consistent with statutory, judicial and arbitral direction, common
sense
and
objectivity. All cities and towns are within +1- 33% in population and assessed
valuation
and all are located in the five county area denominated by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics
as the Puget Sound Labor Market. The City argues that the
comparables
proposed
by The City of Milton should be adopted by the Arbitrator.
UNION'S CRITICISMS OF CITY'S METHODOLOGY
The City's approach is flawed and should not be adopted.
Absent a compelling
need
for change, the historical practice honored by the parties should be continued.
See
e.g.
City of Bellevue v. IAFF Local No 1604; PERC Case 68114-87-162 (Gaunt 1988)
(I.87-88). Apart from the fact
it draws comparable jurisdictions more favorable to its
position,
the City of Milton has established no basis for abandoning the historical
practice
of
using a 50% to 200% methodology.
More fundamentally, the flaw in the City's approach can
be seen from simply
applying
the methodology they suggest. According to the City of Milton, adopting a 33%
plus
or minus methodology results in a total assessed valuation range of
$175,285,798 to
$349,695,
167. Therefore, the jurisdictions of Poulsbo,
Buckley and Pacific, offered by the
City as comparable, are
disqualified, as they fall outside the City's proposed assessed
valuation
range. Were this not enough reason to disqualify the
City of Pacific from
consideration,
there are at leas two more reasons for its disqualification. First, the City of
Pacific did not even have a
police force as of 1996 making the comparison of that city,
during
the relevant time period of negotiations between the parties, inappropriate.
Second, the disproportionately
low salary range of police officers employed by the City of
Pacific warrants its exclusion
from consideration on that basis alone. See City of Walla
Walla and Walla Walla Police Guild, PERC Case 6213-1-86-139 (Levak 1986) (133)
Elimination of these
jurisdictions leaves only five (5) jurisdictions as comparable, all of
which,
incidentally, are included on the Union's list of comparators.
The error in the City's approach likewise stems form the
data it uses. Rather than
using
data available to the parties at the time of negotiations, the City uses data
which
would
be pertinent if negotiations were being undertaken currently. Examination of
the
City's data reveals that the
population and total assessed valuation numbers being used are
those
which were not available until, at the absolute earliest, July 1997. While RCW
41.56.465(1)(e)
calls for consideration of "changes in circumstances . . . during the
pendency of the proceedings," at Ieast one arbitrator operating under this statutory
language
found the utilization of data not available at the time of negotiations between
the
parties
inappropriate. In the City of Kent and IAFF 1747, (1980), Arbitrator Sutermeister
adopted
an approach which seeks to avoid the delay inherent in encouraging the parties
to
withhold
settlement in hopes that more favorable data will become available if one just
waits
long enough. About this, Arbitrator Sutermeister
said:
The panel further believes that CPI figures introduced
for 1980 should not be
considered. If negotiations had
been concluded on time, before the end of 1979
the parties would have used cost
of living figures available in 1979. The panel
believes it should encourage the
parties to settle the wage issue themselves in
future years, and that using
1980 cost of living figures for an arbitration award
would only encourage one or the
other part (sic) to delay future settlements until
figures more favorable to their
side become available (emphasis added).3
In this regard, Arbitrator Sutermeister's
approach is consistent with statuary
purposes.
RCW 41.56.465 directs the interest arbitrator to "be mindful of the
legislative
purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430" and then to use the other factors listed in
RCW
41.56.465
as a guideline. The statement of legislative purposed of
the Act has not
changed
since its adoption in 1973. The intent and purpose language of RCW 41.56.430
says:
The intent and purpose of this 1973 amendatory act is to
recognize that there
exists a public policy in the
State of Washington against strikes by 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
(emphasis added)
3 As of the time of Arbitrator Sutermeister's decision, the relevant statutory
language
was found in RCW 41.56.460 which proceded RCW
41.56.465 poor to the
1995
amendments to the statute.
Quite clearly, a system by
which the parties would be encouraged to withhold settlement
with
hopes that next year's data will produce a more favorable data is inconsistent
with
the
statutory purpose of prompt dispute resolution, the Union argues.
In contrast to the flaws in the approach recommended by
the City, the comparators
offered
by the Union are drawn from a methodology that has been historically utilized
by
the
parties, accepted in the industry, and properly based upon data available to
the parties
at
the time of their negotiations. Accordingly, the Arbitrator should select the
list of
comparators
suggested by the Union. When those comparators are examined, the Union S
proposals
on the issues at impasse will be judged to be appropriate, the Union concludes.
CITY'S CRITICISM OF UNION'S METHODOLOGY
During the hearing, the Union claimed that its
methodology was commonly
accepted
by cities and unions. The Union offered no evidence to support this claim. As
noted
above in the comparison of lnterest Arbitrator's
awards, this contention is rebutted
by
prior arbitration awards.
The Union also claimed that its methodology had been
adopted by both the City
and
Union in previous negotiations. There is no support of this assertion in the
record. In
fact,
record evidence is to the contrary. The Union called Mr. Michael Meglemre, labor
consultant
and negotiator for the City under the prior Mayor's term. He testified that he
utilized
the "twice as big and half as big" bands as a starting point only. He
then narrowed
his
starting point list of cities from there by selecting those cities closest in
population and
assessed
valuation to Milton's. Prior Mayor, Leonard
Sanderson, testified that while he
had
discussed the +200%/-50% band with the Union, he had never agreed to it. More
importantly,
he did not have the authority to bind the City on this matter since the City
Council sets the parameters
for negotiations. Moreover, union Exhibit 5, the Union's
comparability
document, states on the cover page: "For illustrative purposes only. This
report
does not imply, nor should the reader assume a stipulation of comparability by
the
author,
the negotiating committee, or by the Employer."
The selection process by the Union should be rejected because
it is grossly results
oriented
It is skewed towards larger cities and ignores cities that are closer in
population
and
assessed valuation to Milton. For example, the Union includes Monroe in its
list of
comparables
with a population of 8,670 (3,145 greater than Milton) but excludes
Satinwood
with a population of 3,050 (only 2,475 less than Milton).
Both are cities
located
in Snohomish County.
It is not reasonable for the Union to claim that the City
of Milton is comparable to
such
jurisdictions as Clyde Hill with an assessed valuation of $475 Million (80.7%
greater
than
Milton) or Fife with an assessed valuation of $527 Million (100.4% greater than
Milton). At the same time, the
Union seeks to exclude the City of Pacific with a
population
within 2% of Milton and an assessed valuation within 34% of Milton.
The City argued that even if the arbitrator were to
utilize a larger population band,
e.g., +1-50%, the results
would not support the demands of the Union. Below is a list of
all
cities within a +1-50% population/assessed valuation with King, Snohomish,
Pierce,
Thurston and Kitsap Counties, and the salaries for their top step police officer
and top
step
sergeant for 1997.
1997 1997
City Top
Step Top Step
Police
Officer Sergeant
Brier $3,094 $3,445
Buckley $3,054 $3,190
Duvall $3355 $3,441
Fircrest $3,385 $3,762
Gig Harbor $3,590 $4,281
Pacific $2,871 $3,137
Port Orchard $3,541 $4,002
Poulsbo $3,557 $4,011
Shelton $3,262* $3,621*
Satinwood $3369
$3740
AVERAGE: $3,308 $3,676
Variance 4% +3.6%
A similar comparison for 1998 is contained in the
following chart.
1998 1998
Top
Step Top Step
City Police
Officer Sergeant
Brier $3,193 $3,555
Buckley $3,143 $3,330
Duvall ('97) $3,489 $3,579
Fircrest $3,603 $4,005
Gig Harbor $3,805 $4,439
Pacific ('97) $2,871 $3,137
Port Orchard ('97) $3,541 $4,002
Poulsbo $3,692 $4,160
Shelton $3,360* $3,730*
Satinwood $3504 $3920
AVERAGE: $3,419 $3,798
MILTON $3,393 $3,927
Variance -.8% +3.3%
* These figures are based on the AWC wage survey, which was
utilized by the Union for
all
of its comparisons. while collective' bargaining
agreements are clearly a more accurate
source
of information, when wage schedules are based on future CPI developments,
utilizing
AWC survey is easier and more practical.
As the chart above shows, even using a +1-50% band, Milton's 1997/1998 wage
offer
would be less than 1% below the average of police officers, but more than 3%
above
the average for the sergeants. These figures clearly do not justify the 5%
increase
sought
by the Union, the City argued..
ANALYSIS
The City of Milton's
methodology and the Union's methodology agree in several
respects.
First, the City and the Union agree that population and total assessed
valuation
are
the ''first-select" criteria by which to determine comparables. Second,
the City and die
Union agree that the
comparable jurisdictions would be drawn from counties in the
Western
Washington area. The Union would use King, Pierce, Snohomish
and Kitsap
Counties; the City would use
those four but add a fifth, Thurston County. Third, they
agree
that in order to determine whether a parity adjustment is warranted, maximum
wage
for
police officer and sergeants is relevant consideration. Fourth, the parties
agree that the
total
list of possible cities should be reduced by adopting a population and assessed
valuation
range above and below Milton and by excluding cities outside this range. They
disagree
on what this range should be. The Union proposed a -50% to +200% range and
the
City proposed a 41- 33% range, but indicates that a +/- 50% range could be used
as
well.
The comparable cities arrived at by the Union and the
City (in both approaches)
are
listed below.
City City
Union +/-33% +1-50%
Arlington Arlington
Brier Brier Brier
Buckley Buckley Buckley
Clyde Hill Clyde
Hill
Duvall Duvall
Fife
Firecrest Firecrest Firecrest
Gig Harbor Gig
Harbor
Lake Stevens Lake
Stevens Lake
Stevens
Pacific
Poulsbo Poulsbo Poulsbo
Port Orchard Port
Orchard Port Orchard
Shelton*
10 8 11
*Sheldon is not in the 4 or 5
county area used by the parties.
While there are some differences, there are also several
common cities. In
comparing
the Union's list with the City's +133% list, one finds that the cities of
Brier,
Buckley,
Firecrest, Lake Stevens, Poulsbo, and Port Orchard on
both lists. Only Fife, Gig
Harbor, Clyde Hill, Pacific,
and Duvall are not on both lists. When the Union's list is
compared
with the City's +1- 50% list, the common cities are Arlington, Brier, Buckley,
Firecrest,
Gig Harbor, Lake Stevens, Poulsbo, and Port Orchard The
City's +1- list does
not
contain Fife, and Clyde Hill, but does contain two cities not on the Union's
list -
Pacific and Sheldon (but
Sheldon is not in the 4 or 5 counties of Western Washington used
by
the parties).
Thus one can see that the choice of the range is the
disputed selection factor, and
that
factor largely determines the comparative cities. In my opinion the Union has
not
made a
compelling case for the +200% part of its range. The evidence of historical use
is
disputed.
The City is correct in its argument that twice as big comparisons push the data
upward
and is therefore result oriented. None
of the upward ranges in any of the prior
interest
awards provided by the City was a +200% upward range. The largest is a +90%,
but
+75% and +80% have been rejected by interest arbitrators. Of the 15 interest
arbitration
decisions provided by the City and not disputed by the Union, five use the
+1-50% range and the average is about 42% to +55%. Therefore I reject the Union's
+200% upward figure.
I also reject the City's +1- 33% figure. The City's own
documentary evidence
shows
that figure was used only once in the 15 interest arbitrations. (There is a
+/-30%
and a
+/-31% however.)
I shall utilize a +/- 50% range because I find that prior
interest arbitrators have
used
it about a third of the time, and because the Union agrees on a -50% lower
range and
because
the City uses +/-50% in its comparisons. I find the Union's reasons for
excluding
Poulsbo and Pacific compelling
and will exclude those cities from my final list of
comparables I
will also exclude Sheldon from my final list because it is not in the 4 or 5
county
area used by; the parties. It is in Marion County
I also reject the cities of Clyde Hill and Fife for the
reasons argued by the City
I also find the City's averaging methodology to be
incorrect The City added the
population
and assessed value of the City of Milton to get population and assessed
valuation
averages. The City then compared Milton to those averages that included
Milton. The City of Milton
should have been excluded from the calculation of averages to
have a
meaningful comparison of the City to the average.
The remaining eight cities are the cities that I shall
use as comparables:
1995 1995
Area County Population Assessed Value
Arlington Snokornish 5,350 $336-$337 M
Brier Snokomish 6,030 $309
M
Buckley Pierce 3,870 $129 M
Duvall King 3,870 $209M
Firecrist Pierce 5,375 $263M
Gig Harbor Pierce 3,890 $327M
Lake Stevens Snokomish 4,955 $229 M
Port Orchard Kilsap 6,240 $258 M
AVERAGE 4,940 $257M
These eight comparables will be used to judge the
proposals of the four issues
remaining
in dispute.
I agree with the Union and Arbitrator Sutermeister
that the appropriate data to be
used
is the data that was available at the time of negotiations. I shall use the
Union's data
for
these comparables.
ISSUE NO. 1 - RANGE INCREASE/MARKET
ADJUSTMENT
Issue: Whether or not police officers and sergeants
should receive a "market
adjustment''
in the form of reclassifying their positions to a 5% higher pay range in the
City's classification pay
plan?
Current Contract (1995 through 1996);
The 1995 - 1996 contract
provided for assignment of police officers to pay Range
16 and sergeants to pay Range
19 the negotiated adjustments to Range 16 (Police
Officers) and to Range 19
(Sergeants) of the base wage schedule was as follows:
Year Percentage
Increase
1995 3.0%
1996 3.0%
Union's Proposal - The Union proposed to add Range 17 for
Police Officers and
Range 20 for Sergeants which
would result in a 5% increase for each rank.
STEP
Range A B C D E
P.O. 16 2,632 2,763 2,902 3,046 3,198
add 17 2,763 2,902 3,046 3,198 3,358
Sgts. 19 3,046 3,198 3 358 3,526 3,702
add 20 3,198 3,358 3,526 3,702 3,886
Union' s Arguments:
The Union contends that the following comparability data
for a 40 hour week
supports
its proposal.
UNION COMPARABLES
POLICE SERGEANT
(1/1/97)
Police
Officer's Police Sergeant's
City Maximum Wage Maximum Wage
Arlington 3469 3866
Brier 3094 3445
Buckley 3051 3187
Clyde Hill 3343 - 0 -
Duvall 3355 3544
Fife 3686 4136
Fircrest 3491 3879
Gig Harbor 3590 4274
Lake Stevens 3139 3619
Monroe 3550 4441
Poulsbo 3574 4010
Port Orchard 3541 4002
Average: 3406 3855
Milton 3199 3702
Using the average salary range for the Cities comparable
to Milton, under the
contract
rate schedule in evidence the salary range for the City's Police Officers
should be
increased
two ranges and the sergeant rate increased one range, the Union contends.
Examining the maximum wage rates of those jurisdictions
as of January 1, 1997, as
drawn
from the collective bargaining agreements submitted by the parties and
verification
through
the city administration of the jurisdictions listed, the following is revealed:
Police
Officer Poise Sergeant
City Maximum
Wage Maximum Wage
Brier $3,094 $3,445
Buckley $3,051 $3,187
Clyde Hill $3,343 N/A
Duvall $3 355 $3,544
Fircrest $3,491 $3,879
Gig Harbor $3,590 $4,274
Poulsbo $3,574 $4,010
Port Orchard $3,541 $4,002
AVERAGE $3,406 $3,855
The Union argues that when these figures are compared to
the contract rate range
for
full time employees of the City of Milton, it shows that to achieve parity, the
range for
the
City of Milton police officer classification should be set at range 18 which,
under the
schedule
in evidence is a top wage of $3,526, and the range for the City of Milton
police
sergeant
classification should be set at range 20 which is a top wage of $3,886. Hardly
a
windfall
as an examination of the wage structure of these comparable jurisdictions
demonstrates,
the Union argues.
According to the Union, a wage parity adjustment is
warranted even if the City's
comparability
methodology is adopted. Eliminating those jurisdictions which the City's
total
assessed valuation range dictates must be excluded, namely Pacific, Poulsbo and
Buckley, the average top step
police officer salary, according to the City's 1997 figures is
$3,305.80
which would still dictate a parity adjustment to step 17.
It is only if one
includes
those jurisdictions which the City's methodology says are disqualified can one
arrive
at the calculations the City offers.
The Union argues that the City's effort at slight-of-had
should be rejected. The
Union's proposal of an
additional range for police officers and police sergeants should be
adopted,
the Union argues.
City Proposal (1997 through 1999): - The City rejects the
Union's demand to
reclassify
the bargaining unit positions to a higher salary range.
City's Arguments:
The 1995-1996 contract provided
for assignment of police officers to pay range 16
and
sergeants to pay range 19. Now the Union proposes a reclassification to pay
range 17
for
police officers and pay range 20 for sergeants, a 5% increase. The City
proposed that
the
classifications of police officer and sergeant continue to be classified in
range 16 and
19,
respectively, in the City of Milton Contract Rate Schedule.
The Union has the burden
of
proof to justify a special increase of 5% for police officers and sergeants and
has failed
to
do so, the City argues, even by arguing for a greater population and assessed
valuation
cut-off
band than proposed by the City. Additional City arguments include:
1.. The City has already agreed to the wage increases for 7/1/97
(3%), for
4/1/98 (3%) and 1/1/99 (4%) as
follows:
2. The salary
schedule proposed by the City is well within the range of salary
schedules
for police officers and sergeants in comparable cities. There is no
justification
for a
reclassification of police officers and sergeants to a higher pay range.
3. The City of Milton's offer of 3.0% for 1997 is on par with the average
wage
increase of 3.0% for police officers in the comparable cities for 1997. A
comparison
of
the top step police and sergeant wages in the comparable cities for 1997 shows
that the
average
top step police officers wages in those cities was $3251 compared to the $3294
that
will result from the City's 7/1/97 offer.
4. These
salary increases are the same- as salary increases negotiated with
other
labor unions representing City of Milton employees, including IAM Lodge 160 on
behalf
of the police department support staff: To grant this City bargaining unit a
greater
wage
increase will cause other Unions in the City to feel they have not been treated
fairly
and
will generate ''catch-up'' demands from them in their next negotiations. This
internal
equity
argument should be given ''considerable weight''. See Arbitrator Axon's
decision.
Similarly the average for top
step sergeants ($3,577) is 6.6% higher than the
5. The
general wage increase for Milton Police Officers and Sergeants for
1998 is 3.0% which compares to
the current 1998 wages (as of
comparable
cities as follows:
1998 1998
Top
Step Top Step
Police Officer Sergeant
Average 3346 3555
Variance +1.4% +6.5%
6. The Wage
increases for City of
quite
generous, even the settlements already reached in four of the eight comparable
cities:
City 1999 Wage
Increase Estimate
Brier 90% CPI-U 90%
of 2.9% = 2.6%
Buckley 3.0% Fixed 3.0%
Fircrest 100% CPI-U 2.9%
Poulsbo 100% CPI-W 2.6%
Average 2.8%
Variance +1.2%
*CPI estimates are based on
the most recent available information reported for the second
half
of 1996 to the second half of 1997, i.e., 2.9% for the CPI-U and 2.6% for the
CPI-W,
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton
Area.
The cities of Duvall,
for
1999
7. In
addition,
Three of the City's eight
comparables (Brier, Buckley and Fircrest) receive no
longevity
pay
at all. The monthly longevity pay schedule for police officers and sergeants is
above
average
in comparison to comparable cities. No comparable cities receive both longevity
and
education pay.
City 5
Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years
Brier None None None None
Buckley None None None None
Duvall ('97) None $50 $100 $150
Firorest None None None None
Lk.
Stevens None $97 $97 $97
Pacific ('97) $35 $100 $180 $180
Pt. Orchard ('97) $71 $81 $124 $170
Poulsbo $37 $74 $111 $148
Average $18 $50 $77 $93
Variance +$16 +$18 +$24 + $9
8. The salaty increases already agreed to by the parties are
reasonable when
compared
to recent trends in the Consumer Price Indexes for the Seattle-Tacoma Area.4
9. The City
has the ability to recruit and retain police officers with its present
salaries.
The average years of service in this bargaining unit is nine years.
ANALYSIS
The
proof/persuasion
is placed on the
comparables I
will use for this analysis and I have already determined I will use the data
provided
by the
its
own data.
The chart below compares the maximum salary for police
officers and sergeants
for
1997 according to the
comparable.
Maximum
Wage Maximum Wage
Police
Officers Police Sergeants
1997 1997
Brier 3,094 3,445
Buckley $3,051 $3,187
DuvalI $3,355 $3,544
Fircrest $3,491 $3,879
Gig Harbor $3,590 $4,274
Port Orchard $3,541 $4,002
Average: $3,341 $3,727
4 Since the issues were certified for
arbitration on
actually
declined.
Top step police officers in
comparable
cities, but top step sergeants are only $25.00 below the average for these
eight
comparable
cities.
Based on this comparison alone, I do not find persuasive
evidence of a need for a
change
in the structure of the salary schedule. Salary schedules generally have a
ceiling
and
some employers will eventually bump up against that ceiling. Police officers in
who
do so still have the option of seeking promotion to sergeant and obtaining a
raise and
a
new ceiling if they do so.
Three other uncontested facts support my decision. First
the parties have agreed
to
the amounts of the general wage increases for the next three years. Those
increases
will
be applied to all steps in the salary schedule. So top step police officers and
sergeants
will
not be without a salary increase over the next three years. They will not get a
step
increase
however.
Second, it is undisputed that
pay
increases, while three of the eight comparable jurisdictions do not (Brier,
Buckley, and
Firecrest).
In addition,
of
the remaining five cities.
Finally, there is evidence that the City has the ability
to recruit and retain police
officers
and sergeants. The average years of service in the bargaining unit is not out
of
line
with police bargaining units in comparable cities. If they were, police
employees
would
move to higher paying jobs.
AWARD:
Reject
ISSUE NO.
2 RETROACTIVITY
Issue: Whether the
arbitration award on salaries should be retroactive prior to
July 1, 1997, the date when
the commissioned police officers and sergeants became
eligible
for interest arbitration?
The
41.56.030 to make law
enforcement officers employed by the governing body of any city
or
town with a population of two thousand five hundred or more eligible for
interest
arbitration
(for the first time) beginning
Union Proposal: The
1997 wage adjustment shall be effective retroactive to
1998.
City Proposal: The
1997 wage adjustment shall be effective retroactive to July 1,
1997 and the 1998 wage
adjustment shall be effective retroactive to
Union's Argument:
1. The
retroactivity proposal of the City for 1997 is consistent with the
application
of the interest arbitration statute for cities the size of
1,
1997.
2. The City's delay in negotiations, including the failure,
until the arbitration
hearing,
to utilize comparators from the four Counties agreed upon at the outset of
negotiations,
warrants a retroactive adjustment to
3. There is
ample authority for this request. See: e.g., City of
Board
of Education, 109 LA 502, 507 (Feldman 1997).
4. The
Arbitrator should reject the City's argument that the Arbitrator could
not
make a retroactive adjustment to a time prior to
interest
arbitration, by statute, did not begin until that date. The City offers no
reference
to
statutory language or legislative history or authority of any other type to
support this
argument.
City's Argument
1. The
retroactivity proposal of the City for 1997 is consistent with the
application
of the interest arbitration statute for cities the size of
1,
1997.
2. The
retroactivity proposal of the City for 1998 is consistent with the
application
of the interest arbitration statute for cities the size of
1,
1998.
ANALYSIS
Both parties have proposed retroactivity. They disagree
on the effective date for
retroactivity
in 1997.
Based on the arguments of the parties, I have concluded
that under the interest
arbitration
statues affecting smaller
binding
interest arbitration awards began on
AWARD
Retroactivity for 1997 - effective
Retroactivity for 1998 - effective
ISSUE NO. 3
FLSA 207(k) EXEMPTION FROM DAILY OVERTIME STANDARD
Issue:
Whether overtime is to be paid for all hours worked in
excess of 160 hours per
28-day work cycle, as authorized by section 207(k) of the
Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA)?
Current Contract Language:
A.5 Overtime
shall be paid only upon the approval of the department director for
each
hour worked beyond the normal working day at one-and-one-half time the
employee's
regular straight-time hourly rate of pay. The Mayor or his designee may
approve
the employee's requests for compensatory time of fin lieu of cash at the same
rate
of
time and one half for each hour worked. All such approvals shall be in writing.
City's Proposed Contract Language:
A.5 Overtime
shall be paid only for hours approved by the police chief or his
designee.
All hours worked in excess of 160 hours per 28 day work cycle shall constitute
overtime,
as authorized by section 207(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. All overtime
shall
be paid at one and one-half times the employee's regular straight hourly rate
of pay.
A.5 No change
proposed.
City's Argument:
Section 207(k) allows cities to pay law enforcement
officers overtime based on the
number
of hours worked in a work cycle, rather than based on a forty hour work week.
This exemption from the
standard forty hour work week is based on the recognition that
because
of shift rotations, the hours of law enforcement officers (and firefighters)
often
fluctuate
during a month. During one week officers may work 60 hours, and the next
week
only 20. As long as the overall hours during a particular work cycle do not
exceed a
predetermined
number, section 7(k) does not require the payment of overtime. In short,
the
purpose of section 7(k) is to provide public employers with greater flexibility
in
scheduling
the shifts of its law enforcement personnel.
A number of the City's comparable cities utilize the 7(k)
exemption, including
Brier, Buckley, Duvall, Fircrest, Lake Stevens, and Poulsbo5
.
5 Union Exhibit 4 is in error m that the
record refutes the Union's "No" in the 7(k)
exemption
Column for the cities of Poulsbo, Fircrest and
Duvall, which have adopted
the
7(k) exemption.
The City's 7(k) proposal is eminently reasonable. Under
Article 14.4, the City is
paying
holiday overtime in the form of time and one-half the employee's regular
straight
time
hourly rate of pay, in addition to the employee's holiday pay, for hours worked
on all
of
the holidays - even though the time worked is part of the employee's regular
work
schedule.
Under the Department of Labor Regulations, the City is exempted from paying
overtime
unless the employee works more than 171 hours in a 28 day period. This, In
effect,
increases the weekly overtime threshold to 43.25 hours. Here, the City is
proposing a
smaller number of hours than Dept. of Labor Regulations permit 160 hour
per
28 day work cycle, which will maintain the average overtime threshold at 40
hours.
The major purpose for the exemption is to allow the City
scheduling flexibility.
Other arguments offered by the City are as follows: The
Police Chief needs
flexibility
in the administration of his overtime budget when it comes to shift changes,
training
requirements, covering for holidays (Article 14.1 ), vacations (Article 15.1),
illness
and
injuries (Article 16.3), family and medical leaves (Article 18.1), prolonged
disabilities
(Article 18.2), military leave
(Article 18.3), jury duty (Article 18.4), bereavement leaves
(Article
18.5), and other operational contingencies.
Union's Argument: Comparability data does not support
this City proposed
change.
As the Union demonstrated, the vast majority of the Cities comparable to Milton
have
not adopted a section 7(k) overtime exemption. For this reason, the City's
proposed
contract
amendment to adopt this exemption is unwarranted and should be denied.
The City bears the burden of establishing a need for
change from the existing
contract
language. See City of Bellevue v. IAFF Local No 1604, PERC Case
6811-I-87-1622
(Gaunt 1988) (I.87-88). The City has not met this burden.
The City's proposal draws upon the same comparators it
uses with respect to its
wage
parity argument. Here again, the City' s approach is
flawed in three respects. First,
the
City proposes the wrong comparables. Second, even under the City's methodology,
jurisdictions
of Buckley, Pacific and Poulsbo are disqualified under the City's total
assessed
value range. Excluding those jurisdictions from consideration, and assuming for
the
sake of argument the information provided by the City is correct, a majority of
the
remaining
five jurisdictions proposed by the City (Duvall, Fircrest
and Port Orchard) do
not
employ the section 7(k) exemption.
Finally, the information offered by the City on this
point is not correct. In
examination
of the Brier and Lake Stevens collective bargaining agreements, it is revealed
that
the Chief of Police in those cities has the option of electing a 40 hour per
week or 160
hours
in 28 work days approach to overtime. The 40 hour option is in effect.
Consequently, once the
jurisdictions the City says must be disqualified under its
methodology
are removed, none of the jurisdictions the City lists as comparable utilize the
section
7(k) exemption.
Using the comparables offered by the Union shows that the
vast majority of the
properly
considered jurisdictions do not utilize the section 7(k) exemption.
Accordingly,
the
City's proposed change in contract language concerning overtime compensation is
without
basis and should be rejected.
ANALYSIS
This City proposal calls for changes in the existing
contract language. The City
has
the burden of proof/persuasion on this issue.
In my opinion the City has failed to meet this burden.
First, according to the City
the
major purpose of this proposed change is to give the Police Chief flexibility
(or more
flexibility)
in scheduling. However, there is no evidence that the Police Chief is having
problems
in scheduling. Nor is there any evidence that alleged scheduling problems are
due
entirely to the current language in the collective bargaining agreement. Lack
of
evidence
as to the existence of and causes of a problem are grounds for denying this
proposed
change.
Second, I am also disturbed by remarks by the City that
hint at another reason for
this
City proposal - to avoid paying both holiday overtime and that regular straight
time
pay
to employees who are scheduled to work and who do work on holidays. If that is
the
real
objective of the City, again they failed to submit evidence of a problem in
this area.
Finally, the comparables I have selected do not justify
the change.
AWARD:
Retain Current Contract Language.
ISSUE NO. 4
Education Incentive
Pay
Issue: Whether or
not police officers and sergeants should receive additional pay
increases
based on college credits, regardless of when obtained?
Current Contract Language: No premiums are paid for college credits.
Union's Proposal:
The Union proposes that the police officers and sergeants
receive a
2% increase in pay if they obtain an AA degree or 90 college credits and a 4%
increase
in pay if they obtain a BA degree.
Union's Argument:
The Union has presented ample evidence that an education
incentive is warranted.
Of the twelve (12) comparables
offered by the Union, seven provide an education
incentive. (Union Ex. 4). Of the five that do not, three (Port Orchard,
Poulsbo and Fife)
offer
significantly higher than average maximum wage to both their police officers
and
sergeants. (Union Exs. 2 and 3). In fact, the
maximum wage rates in these jurisdictions
exceed
the wage rate for police officers and sergeants employed by the City of Milton
after
grant of the parity increase proposed by the Union (Union Exs.
2,3 and 6).
City's Proposal:
The City rejects the Union's demands for education pay.
City's Arguments:
Presently, there are no education
incentive pay increase for Milton police officers
or
sergeants, and none should be awarded. The Union has the burden of proof to
justify
its
demand and has failed to do so.
Among the City's comparables only the City of Buckley has
included a pay
increase
for college credits. No other City of Milton employees receive increases in pay
based
on the obtaining of degrees including other employees in the Milton Police
Department.
Even among the
increases
for education. Union Exhibit 4 is in
error with regard to Fircrest and Brier,
which
do not provide education incentive pay for police officers
1. No other
employee in the City of
obtained
an AA degree or BA degree, including other employees in the Milton Police
Department.
2. No objective
information is available to the City to support the
that
police officers with more college education display superior performance over
Police
officers
with less education.
3 . The City already pays longevity pay for years
of service, i.e. 1% after S years,
after
10 years and 3% after 15 years. The City should not be required to pay both
longevity
and education incentive pay. The City of
city
in the
education -
pays no longevity pay.
ANALYSIS
This is a Union proposal for a new contract benefit. The
Union has the burden of
proof/persuasion
on this issue.
In my opinion the Union has failed to meet this burden.
There is no evidence of a
problem
and no evidence that additional college credits are being required in the
department
for promotions. Should the Department require a certain number of college
credits
for hiring and/or promotion, then compensation for that requirement could be
more
easily
justified.
AWARD:
Reject Union Proposal.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST )
INTEREST
ARBITRATION ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
BETWEEN ) AWARD
)
TEE CITY OF MILTON, WASHINGTON )
)
(City) )
)
AND )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, )
(
_____________________________________ )
After careful consideration of all oral and written
arguments and evidence and for
the
reasons set forth in the opinion that accompanies this award, it is awarded
that:
Submitted Issue No. 1: Wages
for Police Officers and Sergeants:
Award: Reject
Union's Proposal to Modify Structure of Salary Schedule.
Submitted Issue No. 2:
Retroactivity of Any Wage Increase:
Award: Retroactivity
for 1997 - effective July 1, 1997
Retroactivity for 1998 -
effective January 1, 1998
Submitted Issue No. 3:
Overtime Work/7(K) Exception:
Award: Retain
Current Contract Language
Submitted Issue No. 4:
Educational Incentives:
Award: Reject
Union Proposal
Respectfully submitted on this 24th day of July, 1998 by
_________________________
John
H. Abernathy
Arbitrator