And
Woodworkers Local Lodge W536
International Association of Machinists
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Gary L. Axon
Case #: 15793-I-01-361
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION )
ARBITRATOR‘S OPINION
)
BETWEEN ) AND AWARD
)
WOODWORKERS LOCAL LODGE W536 ) 2000 INSURANCE REOPENER
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
OF MACHINISTS, )
)
)
and )
)
)
County. )
________________________________________________)
HEARING SITE: Union
Hall
HEARING DATE:
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Faxed
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF
BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE
Grand
Lodge Representative
Woodworkers
District Lodge 1, IAM
REPRESENTING THE COUNTY: Mike E. Clift
Chief
Deputy Prosecutor
Prosecuting
Office
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
(541)
488-1573
I. INTRODUCTION
The County of
Woodworkers Lodge W536 IAM (
Bargaining Agreement effective
2001.
is
Article XVII which states:
This agreement shall be
effective from January
1, 2000 and shall remain in
full force and
effect
to and including the 31st day of
December, 2001. Either party
may commence
negotiations
by filing written notice to the
other
party pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter
41.56 RCW. By mutual agreement, the
agreement
may be extended for a period of one
year.
This agreement may be reopened no
earlier
than
purpose
of negotiating changes to Article VII,
Section 13, Employee Group
Insurance, with any
changes
being effective
a
different effective date is agreed upon.
Pursuant to the reopener,
the parties attempted to
negotiate a
revised insurance contribution level. The parties were
unable
to resolve the insurance dispute through negotiation and
mediation.
The insurance reopener
issue was certified for interest
arbitration
under RCW 41.56.450. The case was scheduled for
hearing
before this Arbitrator for a final and binding resolution.
In Article XVII, the parties
have agreed that the insurance
increase
awarded shall be effective January 1 unless a different
date
is agreed upon.
western
approximately
8,442. The County is located in a sparsely populated
rural
area of
The
members
employed in the Mason County Sheriff's Department. The
bargaining
unit consists of correction officers and support staff.
The majority of the members
are assigned to work at the jail.
At the commencement of the arbitration
hearing, the
opening
statements from the parties revealed a sharp difference of
opinion
over the issue of comparability. While the parties
stipulated
the number of comparators should be five, and four
counties
were agreed on to use as comparators, the fifth county to
be
used as a comparator was a matter of considerable disagreement.
A significant amount of
hearing time was devoted to presentation of
evidence
and argument on the statutory factor of comparability.
The Arbitrator directed the
parties to address the issue of
comparability
at the beginning of their post-hearing briefs. The
Arbitrator will address the
comparability issue at the commencement
of
his discussion and findings in this Award.
The hearing in this case required one day for
each side
to
present their evidence and testimony. The hearing was tape
recorded
by the Arbitrator as an extension of his personal notes
and
the tapes were not made available to the parties. Testimony of
witnesses
was received under oath. At the arbitration hearing the
2.parties
were given the full opportunity to present written
evidence,
oral testimony, and argument regarding the insurance
issue
in dispute. Both the
Arbitrator with substantial
written documentation in support of
their
respective positions taken on the insurance issue.
Moreover, counsel also submitted
comprehensive and
detailed
post-hearing briefs in support of the respective positions
taken
at arbitration. The approach of this Arbitrator in writing
the Award
will be to summarize the major and most persuasive
evidence
and argument presented by the parties on the insurance
reopener issue. After the introduction of the issue
and position
of
the parties, I will state the basic findings and rationale which
caused
your Arbitrator to make the award on the insurance issue.
The overall context for review of this case
is under the
terms
of Article XVII providing for a reopener of the
agreement on
the
subject of the insurance contribution. The insurance issue is
the
only issue before this Arbitrator. The number and level of
insurance
benefits are not an issue in this dispute. Article XVII,
Section 13, is the insurance
benefit language setting forth the
amount
of the insurance contribution to be made by the County for
each
employee. The agreed amount is currently set at $425 per
month
for each eligible employee. The $425 per month payment
purchases
medical, dental, vision, and life insurance coverage
through
the Machinist Trust. This is an interest arbitration
to
determine
the amount of the monthly contribution the County shall
pay
for the calendar year beginning 2001.
This Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and
evaluated all
of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established
by RCW 41.56.465. The Arbitrator has given
consideration
to all of the evidence and argument placed in the
record
by the parties and measured it against the relevant
statutory
factors.
The statutory criteria are set out in RCW
41.56.465 as
follows:
(1)
In making its determination, the panel
shall
be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated
in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards
or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a
decision, it shall take into consideration
the
following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i) For
employees listed in RCW
41.56.030 (7) (a) through (d) ; comparison
of
the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the
proceedings
with the wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment of like
personnel
of like employers of similar
size
on the west coast of the United
States;
(ii) For employees
listed in RCW
41.56.030(7) (e) through (h),
comparison
of
the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the
proceedings
with the wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment of like
personnel
of public fire departments of
similar
size on the west coast of the
United States. However, when
an adequate
number
of comparable employers exists
within
the state of
west
coast employers may not be
considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods
and services, commonly known as the
cost of
living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under
(a) through (d) of this subsection
during
the pendency of the proceedings:
and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to
the
factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection,
that are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in
the
determination of wages, hours, and
conditions
of employment. For those
employees
listed in RCW 41.56.030(7) (a)
who
are employed by the governing body of
a
city or town with a population of less
than
fifteen thousand, or a county with a
population
of less than seventy thousand,
consideration
must also be given to
regional
differences in the cost of
living.
II. COMPARABILITY
A. Background
The parties to this contract have no history
on the
subject
of jurisdictions with which to compare
utilize
as a guideline for establishing wages and benefits for
correction
officers and support staff employed in the Sheriff's
Department.
Without this history, the parties are starting fresh
in
the development of a list of comparable jurisdictions to assist
in
the resolution of this contract dispute.
To the credit of the parties, they agree that
five
counties
is a reasonable number of comparators to use as a guide to
settle
this dispute. Further, the parties stipulated the following
four
counties are comparable to
Island County
Grays Harbor County
Lewis County
Clallam County
The County proposed
county
on the list of comparators. The Union countered that
Cowlitz County should
constitute the fifth county on the list of
comparators.
The Union representing the Mason County
Deputy Sheriffs
went
to interest arbitration in 1999 before arbitrator Michael
Beck.
In that dispute, the parties stipulated to the same four
counties
that are agreed should be on the list of comparators in
the
case at bar. The County proposed Jefferson and the Union
proposed
arbitration.
Arbitrator Beck selected
county
to be on the list of comparators. However, the Beck
decision
is not strong precedent because the
County in its post-hearing
brief and sought to add two others to
the
list of comparators. Beck rejected the
adopted
comparators
for resolution of the Deputy Sheriffs' dispute.
The initial task of this Arbitrator is to
select a fifth
county
which will comport with the statutory mandate of "like
employers
of similar size on the west coast of the
Since there are an adequate
number of comparators in the state of
sides
recognize the difficulty of identifying a fifth county in
6.western
pointed
out in the parties' respective arguments. The Arbitrator
accepts
the stipulation of the parties and will include the four
agreed-upon
counties on the list of comparators.
B. The
The
conditions
of employment and is of similar size, while
County does not. In unrefuted testimony, three senior correction
officers
testified that the current staffing and inmate population
of
the
work
similar to the
conditions
of work in the
percent
of overcapacity in the
creates
unique working conditions in regards to officer safety,
regular
duties, decision making, stress, and staffing ratios. At
63% above inmate capacity, the
Mason County Correctional Facility
has
the fifth highest percent of use of all county jails in
Mason County while Jefferson
County's percent of use is 61.4% below
that
of
common
plus or minus 50/100% test frequently used by arbitrators,
and
put forth as valid thresholds by the employer during the
hearing.
Turning to the number of correction officers,
both
Jefferson County and Cowlitz
County fail in terms of the 50% test.
Cowlitz County has 72.7% more
correction officers than Mason County
while
Union argues that if Mason
County were staffed as designed, there
would
be additional correction officers on the payroll which would
bring
The County has proposed
increasing the size of the correction
facility
with the addition of more correction officers which would
further
bring the number of employees closer to the
staffing
level.
The unrefuted
testimony of the correction officers was
that
the ratio and inmate profile of
Facility
are more difficult than a facility of a much
larger size
with a
less racially diverse inmate population and a smaller
percentage
of felons. The inmate profile of Mason County makes the
jail
closer to the inmate profile of
established
there was no comparison between the working conditions
in
The parties also disagree as to what standard
should be
used
in determining employers of similar size. The Union takes the
position
that the standard to measure the size of a comparable
employer
should be tied to the political sub-division in question.
In this case, the political
sub-division in question is a County
Sheriff's
Department providing correctional facilities.
As such,
the
to
pay, and the population that must bear the tax load to provide
the
service should be the relevant standard. The revenue base of
the
County.
The Union reasons that the size and assessed valuation of
incorporated
areas should not be included in the measures for
establishing
comparability. The Union has provided measures which
accurately
meet the statutory standard in the form of percentage of
use,
work conditions, number of employees, size of the relevant
employer,
and unincorporated assessed value and unincorporated
population
measures.
Regarding the County's argument that all
residents have
an
equal opportunity to receive the services of the correctional
facility
for the total County population should be the key figure,
the
Union argues the County's position fails to recognize the
unfunded
mandate that the state of Washington has placed on the
counties.
The County also ignores a small number of inmates who
are
detained solely for committing municipal code violations which
generally
are misdemeanors rather than felonies.
The Sheriff's Department
operates under a different
system
of government and provides a distinct type of law
enforcement
separate from services offered by the cities. Thus,
Union asserts including data
from incorporated cities has no value
in
determining which counties are of similar size for purposes of
comparison
set for by the RCW.
When comparing the population and assessed
valuation from
which
Mason County derives revenue, Jefferson County failed the 50%
test
by having a population 57% below Mason County. Cowlitz County
9.is
comparable with a population of only 5.3% below Mason County.
In terms of assessed value,
both are within the 50% rate.
Jefferson is 42.3% below
Mason, while Cowlitz is 17% above. In
terms
of local sales and use taxes, Jefferson is 18.4% below Mason
County while Cowlitz is 46.1%
above Mason County. Jefferson County
should
not be included since its total revenue level is
substantially
below Mason County.
Turning to the Beck award, the Union argues
that it did
not
involve the parties to the instant dispute and is, therefore,
not
binding in this case. In addition, a close reading of the Beck
award
reveals that the Union in that case abandoned its contention
that
Cowlitz County is an appropriate comparable. Given the
incomplete
record established during the Beck arbitration, the
Arbitrator should give no
weight to Beck's conclusion to include
Jefferson
County as an appropriate comparator.
In sum, Jefferson County is the only county
that is below
Mason County in all six
categories of workload and revenue
measures.
Jefferson County fails the 50% test in four of the six
categories.
Cowlitz County fails the 50% test in only one
category,
that of size of correction staff and both parties agree
that
Mason County should have an additional six correctional
officers.
Jefferson County fails to be an employer of like
conditions,
like size, or like assessed valuation. Cowlitz County
provides
work conditions, assessed value, and population of a
similar
size. Therefore, the Union concludes Cowlitz County should
be
included as the fifth county on the list of comparables.
C. The
County
The County takes the position the burden of
proof is on
the
Union to establish its case in order to prevail on the
comparability
issue and the merits of the insurance dispute.
According to the County, its
comparables were selected based on the
generally
accepted methodology of population and assessed valuation
of
all taxable property being plus or minus 50% of Mason County.
The County's comparables meet
those criteria except that Island
County's assessed valuation is
more than 50% higher than Mason
County.
In contrast, Cowlitz County's population is 88.1% higher
than
Mason County. Cowlitz County has an assessed valuation of all
taxable
property which is 79.9% higher than Mason County.
With regard to the Union's
position that comparability
factors
should be limited to the unincorporated population of
counties
rather than the total population, there is no arbitrable
support
for this system of evaluation of the population and
assessed
valuation criteria. Even if there were such a decision,
it
would be inappropriate to use unincorporated population in this
case.
Counties are responsible for incarceration of all pre-
sentenced
and sentenced misdemeanor and felony offenders (except
those
in a state prison) regardless of whether the crime was
committed
in an incorporated city or an unincorporated area of the
county.
The Union presented a considerable amount of
statistics
suggesting
Cowlitz is an appropriate comparable and Jefferson is
not
an appropriate comparable. A close examination of these
statistics
reveals that correction officers' work, when examined in
light
of the average daily population, is closer to Jefferson than
it
is to
population
of jails to rated capacity.
capacity,
Mason is 163.5% above capacity, and
above
capacity. County witness Wright testified that a remodel of
the
the
remodel is completed in early 2002, the rate of capacity will
be
increased to 95 and the number of correction officers will be
increased
to 25. The effect of that remodel and staff increase
will
be a lowering of
as
its percent population above rated capacity.
The County next points to the Beck decision
involving the
Deputy
Sheriffs' bargaining unit. While the County recognizes
the
decision
on comparables in that case may not be compelling, the
County believes that it should
be considered as a relevant factor
in
the instant case. The County submits there is no compelling
reason
to have a different set of comparables for the two
bargaining
units represented by this
same
County department.
Based on all of the above-stated arguments
and record
evidence,
the County submits its method for selecting comparables
is
based on sound and acceptable methodology. The
on
various statistics should not override the more commonly
accepted
population and assessed valuation criteria. Therefore,
the
Arbitrator should select
comparable
to be used in resolving this dispute.
D. DISCUSSION
AND FINDINGS
The parties agree that five jurisdictions is
the
appropriate
number of comparators. A comparator list of five
jurisdictions
is a manageable number. The parties have stipulated
to
four counties that are comparable to
agree
that the fifth county selected should be located in western
The Arbitrator concurs with the
in
1999 should not be accorded great weight in this case. The
dispute
at that time did not involve this
1999 interest arbitration
dropped its proposal to utilize
County as a comparator and
attempted to substitute two additional
counties
as comparators in the post-hearing brief. The Arbitrator
concurs
that arbitrator Beck handled the case appropriately by
rejecting
the
to
use
finds
this is not a powerful argument for utilizing
County based on the way in
which Beck was forced to adopt
County
as the comparator. Thus, the Arbitrator will give little
weight
to the Beck award in determining the comparators in the
instant
case.
The initial question to be resolved is
whether the
population
data and assessed valuations of unincorporated areas of
assessed
valuation of the County are the relevant numbers. The
Arbitrator accepts the
County's position that the total population
and
assessed valuation of the County should be the appropriate data
to
examine. The
services
to the entire County, both the incorporated and
unincorporated
areas. Persons who commit crimes in
other
incorporated areas of Mason County are incarcerated in the
Mason
County Correctional Facility. While the source of funding
for
housing inmates from incorporated areas may be different, the
bottom
line is the Mason County Correctional Facility serves the
entire
County. The Union offered no arbitrable authority for
carving
out the incorporated population data for a county
correctional
facility serving both incorporated and unincorporated
areas
to justify its position.
The population data shows the following:
County Population
Cowlitz County 92.948
Island 71.558
Lewis 68,600
Grays Harbor 67,194
Clallam 64,525
Mason 49,405
stipulated
four comparators. If
comparators.
Cowlitz County has a population of 92,948, which
would
make it the largest county in population on the list of
potential
comparators.
approximately
twice that of
true
if the 2000 valuation of all taxable property is examined.
The
daily
population of 238 for the same period.
correction
officers and
at
22 correction officers. Un. Ex. 2.
In addition,
correctional
sergeants are in a different bargaining unit which
increases
the number of correction staff in the facility. Adding
at
the top in terms of both inmate population and number of
correction
officers.
When the population data and assessed
valuation for the
four
counties stipulated as comparables are reviewed in the context
of
the number of correction officers and size of the correctional
facilities,
on
the list of the four agreed-upon comparators. Placing
County on the list of
comparators would exacerbate this situation
by
adding a county with the population approximately twice as large
as
County.
The average daily population of the
facility
is three times larger with a staff almost twice the size
of
Moreover,
not
controlling, the case for the addition of
the
list of four comparators is strengthened in light of the
previously
discussed factors and statutory criteria.
The goal of the Arbitrator in this interest
arbitration
is
to strike a balance which will serve as a meaningful guide to
establish
insurance benefits for Mason County correction officers
and
staff. In practically every category of data offered, Mason
County is at the lower end of
the statistics. For example, Mason
County has the smallest
population (49,405) when compared to the
four
stipulated counties. The addition of Cowlitz County would add
a
county with a population of 92,948. Including Cowlitz County as
the
fifth comparator would place Cowlitz County at the top of the
list
in practically every category of the data presented to this
Arbitrator.
The addition of Cowlitz County to the list would tilt
the
balance of the comparators in favor of counties with a much
larger
population and larger correctional facilities than exist in
Mason County. Therefore, the
Arbitrator concludes the appropriate
balance
to create a list of comparators is struck by the addition
of
the smaller jurisdiction, Jefferson County.
The Arbitrator finds the following list of
comparators
comports
with the statutory standards:
County Population
Island 71,558
Lewis 68,600
Grays Harbor 67,194
Clallam 64,525
Mason 49,405
Jefferson 25,953
III. INSURANCE
A. Background
The parties agreed to a two-year contract
effective
and
Termination, allowed for a limited reopener to negotiate
changes
to Article VII, Section 13, Employee Group Insurance.
Article VII, Section 13
states:
Effective
to
four hundred twenty five dollars ($425) per
month
for each eligible employee for medical,
dental,
vision, and life insurance coverage
through
the Machinist Trust. Eligible
employees
are those working ninety (90) hours
or
more per month during the calendar year.
Time missed from work due to a
worker's
compensation
claim will be considered as time
worked
for employee group insurance and
vacation
purposes for a maximum of twelve (12)
months.
Effective
this
Article is sent by the union, the
employer
shall contribute up to an amount
equal
to the highest amount paid to any other
group
of
The employer shall provide an Employee
Assistance Program benefit (EAP) for all
bargaining unit
members.
Emphasis
added.
The
required
by the County to $483 per month, per member effective
effective
County countered with an offer
of $466 per month, per employee
effective
2001. When the 2000-2001
Collective Bargaining Agreement was
negotiated,
the agreed-on amount of $425 for insurance contribution
from
the County covered payment for the total cost of the coverage
for
medical, dental, vision and life insurance provided through the
Machinist
Trust.
The Machinist Trust increased rates to $483
per month on
of
the increase has meant employees had to pay $58 per month out-
of-pocket from
increase
translated into a $103 per month out-of-pocket
contribution
from the members of the bargaining unit. While
Article VII, Section 13, is
not a maintenance benefits provision,
the
County has historically agreed to pay for the total cost of the
insurance
coverage.
B. The
The
year
per employee, an amount equal to the average amount of its
comparators.
The employer proposes an annual amount of $5,796 per
employee,
an amount of $401 per employee per year below the average
amount
of the employer's own suggested comparators. The County has
provided
no explanation or justification as to why they want to pay
less
than the average of its own comparators other than to state
that
is the amount management offered to other bargaining units
within
the County.
While the
benefits
provision, it has proposed an amount necessary to fully
fund
the insurance package from
2001. Two of the other unions
agreeing to the County's health
benefit
offer did so on the context of negotiations for a successor
contract
and had the opportunity to trade health insurance benefits
for
wages. Some of the other
bargained
for fully paid insurance.
Turning to the employer's argument based on
internal
comparators,
the
First, the testimony is this
bargaining unit has a history of
extracting
better wages and benefits from the employer than any of
the
other bargaining units. The fact the parties have a history
where
the Sheriff's Department has lead other units in wages and
benefits
warrants the higher insurance contribution. The
argues
it is fully appropriate for this bargaining unit to be the
benefit
leader in insurance contribution. Second, since some of
the
members of existing
paid
health insurance, it would constitute a penalty to require
correction
officers to work in a stressful environment with a less
than
fully funded insurance program. Third, the employer' s
argument
fails because the examples they cite are for the 2001 plan
and
fiscal year, whereas the rate for this unit is for 2001 and
partially
for 2002. It is not known yet what the employer will
offer
the other units for the 2002 plan year.
The
year
leads the employer's fiscal year by five months, the
requests
the Arbitrator's award be stated in an annual amount per
employee
rather than the more traditional language of the maximum
amount
per month. Stating the annual amount provides maximum
flexibility
for the County and the
between
themselves. By using an annual amount, the language also
avoids
the issue of roll-up. By doing so, the parties begin
bargaining
in November for the 2002 contract from the $600 per
month
amount. On the other hand, by starting bargaining at $6,384
per
year per employee, the parties can work out the amounts and
start
bargaining in November at $6,384 per year rather than a
specified
monthly amount. The
insurance
contribution in an annual amount the positive labor-
management
relationship between the parties would continue into the
next
contract year.
Based on all of the above-stated arguments,
the Union
submits
its proposal should be adopted.
C. The
City
The County submits that its proposed
insurance
contributions
are reasonable and similar to what is paid in the
comparators.
County Exhibit H shows the maximum contribution of
the
comparable counties is $516 per month. It should be noted that
the
Machinist Trust, which provides coverage for employees in the
bargaining
unit, has a composite rate. Four of the five
comparables
have a composite rate. Island County, which has the
highest
contribution level, has tiered rates. The fact that Island
has
tiered rates, while the other four comparables and Mason have
composite
rates should be considered in determining the insurance
premium
contribution for 2001.
The County next argues that it has
historically tried to
keep
most benefit levels the same or similar among all of the
bargaining
units and non-represented employees. County Exhibit J
shows
that every other group of Mason County employees, except the
Deputy Sheriffs' bargaining
unit, has accepted and is receiving the
same
insurance contribution that has been proposed for this
bargaining
unit. Arbitrator Beck in his 1999 arbitration decision
did
give consideration to the contribution levels of other Mason
County employee groups in
determining what to award the Deputy
Sheriffs'
bargaining unit.
The Union's proposal appears to be focused on
comparing
the
annual costs to the employer rather than comparing actual
contribution
levels on a monthly basis. Utilizing the Union's
methodology
would set the County's payment significantly higher
than
any other contribution of the comparables, including giving
full
weight to Island's tiered rate contribution levels.
For all of the above-stated reasons, the
County submits
the
Arbitrator should adopt the insurance contribution proposal
offered
by the employer.
D. DISCUSSION
AND FINDINGS
The review of the merits of this case must
begin with
recognition
of the fact that Article VII, Section 13, is not a
maintenance
of benefits clause. If it was, there would be no need
for
negotiations and this interest arbitration over the insurance
dispute.
Under a maintenance of benefits clause, the County
would
be
bound to pay by contract the cost for the insurance charged by
the
Machinist Trust. Even though the contract does not include a
maintenance
of benefits clause, the Arbitrator cannot ignore the
fact
the County has historically paid the full cost of insurance
for
the members of this bargaining unit. This is exactly what the
County agreed to do in the
previous contract year of 2000.
Turning to the Union's proposal to set the
insurance
contribution
in terms of an annual amount, the Arbitrator rejects
this
approach. This case is presented to the Arbitrator under a
reopener of existing contract language. Current
contract language
sets
the contribution rate on a monthly basis. The Arbitrator
holds
the Union has offered no persuasive evidence why the present
monthly
contribution system should be changed to an annual basis
during a
reopener on this single issue. If the parties want to
change
the manner in which the insurance contribution is calculated
and
paid, that should be done when the entire contract is open for
negotiations.
The 2001 maximum monthly rate from the
comparables is as
follows:
County Contribution
Island $680
Lewis $434
Gray Harbor $568
Clallam $452
Jefferson $448
Average $516
Mason Proposed
$466
effective 1/1/2001
And
$500
effective 7/1/2001
Co. EX. H.
Except for Island County, all
of the above figures are composite
rates.
Island County has a tiered system which under insurance
pricing
creates a higher figure for the top tier.
Comparing the insurance paid in the other
jurisdictions
is
not as useful a guide as when making wage comparisons.
Comparing insurance payments
made on composite rates versus tiered
rates
complicates the process in making accurate comparisons.
Further, the number and type
of benefits offered to the employees
can
vary widely from county to county, directly reflecting on the
amount
of the cost for insurance benefits. The last element which
can
impact on the insurance contribution figure is the well-known
23.fact
that fees charged by health care providers may differ widely
from
area to area.
Turning to the issue of internal comparators,
this
Arbitrator has the authority
to decide what the contribution level
should
be for this bargaining unit. I have no control over what
other
bargaining units have agreed to in the area of insurance
benefits
or what trade offs were made to arrive at the amounts paid
to
the other employees. There is no statutory obligation to award
what
the other bargaining units in the County have negotiated in
the
area of insurance benefits. In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, an award for one
group of employees should not be so
different
as to be out of touch with the other bargaining units.
The goal is to provide consistency,
not complete uniformity.
The County's proposal of $466 per month
effective January
1, 2001 is $50 per month less
than the average paid in its own
group
of comparators. Even with the weaknesses inherent in making
direct
comparisons on insurance contributions, $50 per month is a
significant
amount. The Union's proposal of $483 per month for the
first
seven months of 2001 is consistent with the amount paid in
the
comparator jurisdictions. The $483 per month proposed by the
Union is $33 below the average
of the comparators.
When historical practice of the County in
paying the
entire
insurance benefit is combined with the insurance
contribution
paid in the comparator jurisdictions, the Arbitrator
finds
the $483 per month proposed by the Union is reasonable and
comports
with the statutory guidelines. The $483 per month figure
represents a
small increase of $17 per month over what the County
offered. Finally. the $403 per month figure
represents an amount
that
is not out of line with the internal comparators.
The most difficult question in this interest
arbitration
concerns
the amount of insurance contribution to be paid for the
last
five months of 2001. The cost of insurance increased
substantially
on August 1, 2001 to $603 per month, per employee.
The Union suggests this figure
will remain constant through July
2002. The Arbitrator cannot
ignore the fact this case comes to him
under a
reopener on insurance only. The entire contract will
be
open
for negotiation on January 1, 2002, with the expiration of the
existing
contract on December 31, 2001.
In awarding the Union's proposal of $403 per
month for
the
first seven months of 2001, the members will continue to enjoy
fully
funded insurance benefits for that period. For the last five
months
of 2001, the Arbitrator is persuaded the parties should
share
in paying for the substantial increase in the cost of
insurance.
The Union represented at the arbitration hearing the
rate
effective August 1, 2001 will be $603 per month even though it
proposed a
$600 per month contribution. Using the $600 offer,
adoption
of the Union's proposal, would represent an additional
$117
per month, per employee in cost to the County.
Dividing the $117 increase in half equals
$58.50.
Rounding that figure up to $60
and adding the $60 to the $483
contribution
awarded through July 31st, equals $543. The
Arbitrator finds the County's
contribution should be set at $543
25.effective
August 1, 2001. The $543 is $27 above the average amount
paid
in the comparators. The $543 contribution per month, per
employee
is $43 a month above the internal comparators'
contribution
rate of $500 per month effective July 1, 2001.
The $43 difference is not excessively higher
than the
amount
the County is paying its other employees. On the other
hand,
the members will have an approximate $57 per month out-of-
pocket
expense for the last five months of 2001. This is not an
unreasonable
amount which will impose undue burden on the members
to
purchase the comprehensive insurance benefit package.
The parties have stipulated to
four jurisdictions which
are
comparable to Mason County. Beyond that stipulation, there
were
no stipulations of the parties relevant to this interest
arbitration.
Regarding the factor of constitutional and
statutory
authority
of the County, no issues were raised with respect to this
factor
which would place the Award in conflict with Washington law.
Regarding the factor of change
in circumstances during
the pendency of the interest arbitration proceeding, none were
brought
to the attention of the Arbitrator by the parties to this
dispute.
The County did not argue it had the inability
to pay the
insurance
benefit sought by the Union.
Neither party to this interest arbitration
presented any
evidence
regarding the statutory factor of cost of living.
The parties did not offer any other evidence
which is
normally
or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination
of wages, hours, and conditions of employment on the
issue
of the reopener for insurance benefits.
While your Arbitrator recognizes this Award
will become
a
factor in the negotiations for the successor Collective
Bargaining Agreement, the
parties should keep in mind the interest
arbitration
was conducted pursuant to a contract reopener on the
single
issue of insurance. Under the reopener provision,
there was
no
opportunity for the parties to engage in the give and take of
negotiations
where the entire contract is at issue. The parties
will
have that opportunity when negotiations commence for the 2002
Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Article VII,
Section 13 shall
be
modified to read:
Employee Group Insurance:
Effective 1/1/2001
the
employer shall pay up to four hundred,
eighty
three dollars ($483) per month for each
eligible
employee for medical, dental, vision,
and
life insurance coverage through the
Machinist
Trust.
Effective 8/1/2001 the
employer shall pay up
to
five hundred, forty three dollars ($543)
per
month for each eligible employee for
medical,
dental, vision, and life insurance
coverage
through the Machinist Trust.
Eligible employees are those
working ninety
(90) hours
or more per month during the
calendar
year. Time missed from work due to a
worker's
compensation claim will be considered
as
time worked for employee group insurance
and
vacation purposes for a maximum of twelve
(12) months.
Effective 1/1/2001, unless
notice to re-open
this
Article is sent by the union, the
employer
shall contribute up to an amount
equal
to the highest amount paid to any other
group
of County Employees or officials.
The employer shall provide an
Employee
Assistance Program benefit
(EAP) for all
bargaining
unit members.
Respectfully
submitted,
Gary L.
Axon
Arbitrator
Dated:
September 12, 2001