And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 13815-I-98-00298
Employer:
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
PERC No.:
13815-I-98-298
Date Issued:
INTEREST
ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
IN THE MATTER OF
AND
OPINION OF THE
NEUTRAL CHAIRMAN
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an
interest arbitration
hearing involving
certain uniformed personnel of
was held before an
arbitration panel consisting of three persons.
Brennan as its
designee on the Panel. Arbitrator Alan R. Krebs
was selected as the
Neutral Chairman of the Panel. The hearing
was held in
Employer was
represented by Otto G. Klein, III of the
Group. The
Association was represented by Thomas R. Luciani. of
the law firm
Stamper, Rubens, Stocker and Smith, P.S.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses
was taken under
oath and the
parties presented documentary evidence. There was
no court reporter,
and therefore, the Arbitration Panel tape
recorded the
proceedings.
The parties agreed upon the submission of
post-hearing
briefs. The Neutral
Chairman received the briefs on June 3,
1999. RCW 41.56.470
provides that the Neutral Chairman, after
consulting with the
other members of the Arbitration Panel, shall
make "a
written determination of the issues in dispute, based on
the evidence
Presented." On
discussed the
issues by conference call. Thereafter, the Neutral
Chairman provided a
copy of his draft decision to the other Panel
members for review
and comment before the final decision was
provided to the
parties.
APPLICABLE
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their
uniformed personnel
are unable to reach
agreement on new contract terms by means of
negotiations and
mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for interest
arbitration to
resolve their disputes. The parties agree that
RCW 41.56.450 is
applicable to the bargaining unit of deputy
sheriffs,
detectives, and sergeants involved here. In interest
arbitration, an
arbitrator or arbitration panel adjudicates a
resolution to
contract issues regarding terms and conditions of
employment which
are at impasse following collective bargaining
negotiations.
Arbitrators are generally mindful that interest
arbitration is an
extension of the bargaining process. They
recognize those
contract provisions upon which the parties could
agree and decide
the remaining issues in a manner which would
approximate the
result which the parties would likely have
reached in good
faith negotiations considering the statutory
criteria.
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth the criteria
which must be
considered by an
arbitration panel in deciding the controversy:
RCW 41.56.465 Uniformed personnel--
Interest
arbitration panel--Determinations
Factors to be
considered. (1) In making its
determination, the
panel shall be mindful of
the legislative
purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and, as
additional standards or
guidelines to aid
it in reaching a decision,
it shall take into
consideration the
following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i) For
employees listed in
RCW 41.56.030(7)(a)
through (d), a
comparison of the
wages, hours
and conditions of
employment of
personnel involved
in the proceedings
with the wages,
hours and conditions of
employment of like
personnel of like
employers of
similar size on the west
coast of the
(d) The average consumer prices
for goods and
services, commonly known
as the cost of
living;
(e) Changes in any of the
circumstances under
(a) through (d) of
this subsection
during the pendency of
the proceedings;
and
(f) Such other factors, not confined
to the factors
under (a) through (e) of
this subsection,
that are normally or
traditionally taken
into consideration
in the
determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment. ...
RCW 41.56.430,
which is referenced in RCW 41.56.465, reads as
follows:
RCW 41.56.430 Uniformed personnel--
Legislative
declaration. The intent and
purpose of this
1973 amendatory act is to
recognize that
there exists a public policy
in the state of
uniformed personnel
as a means of settling
their labor
disputes; that the uninterrupted
and dedicated
service of these classes of
employees is vital
to the welfare and public
safety of the state
of
promote such
dedicated and uninterrupted
public service
there should exist an effective
and adequate
alternative means of settling
disputes.
ISSUES
The
19 sergeants of the
agreement which
expired on
to reach an
agreement on a new contract despite their efforts in
negotiations and
the assistance of a mediator. In accordance
with 41.56.450, the
executive director of the
Public Employment
Commission certified that the parties were at
impasse on a number
of issues. The statutory interest
arbitration
procedures were invoked. The only issues remaining
before the
Arbitration Panel are wages for the years 1997, 1998,
and 1999. The Parties'
wage proposals are as follows:
___________________________________________________________________
1997
Employer: 3.1%
increase for deputies
0% increase for detectives and sergeants
$500
lump sum payment for detectives and
sergeants
(not to be added to base wage
rates)
1998
Employer: 3.7%
across the board increase
1999
Employer: 2.5%
across the board increase
___________________________________________________________________
COMPARABLE
JURISDICTIONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines
enumerated in RCW
41.56.465 upon
which an interest arbitrator must rely in reaching
a decision is a
"comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of
employment of
personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages, hours and
conditions of employment of like personnel of
like employers of
similar size on the west coast of the United
States." The
parties agree that three
"like
employers" which are appropriately comparable to
County: Clark,
Pierce, and Snohomish. The parties disagree as
to other comparable
jurisdictions. The Employer suggests that
three other
counties located in the State of
Yakima, Kitsap, and
Benton Counties, are comparable. The
urges that
Both parties agree that in determining
which employers are
like employers of
similar size on the west coast. . . ," it is
appropriate to
consider sheriff's departments within
State which are
located in counties with a population band of at
least half and no
more that twice that of
parties would
exclude
The Union argues that there is a
historical basis for its
reliance on the
five counties which it has proposed as comparable
to
negotiations
between the Employer and the
1980's, the parties
have consistently relied upon the labor
contracts involving
their counterparts in those five counties.
While conceding
that Yakima and Kitsap counties fall within the
population band
which both parties agree is comparable to
County, the Union
asserts that this "minimal compliance with an
informal standard
is insufficient to override a 15 year history."
The Union argues
that "there is neither statutory, nor logical
rationale" for
including
jurisdiction. It
reasons that the population of Benton County
and the size of its
sheriff's department are both much smaller
than that of
The Employer argues that Kitsap and Yakima
Counties are
comparable because
they fall within the population band which
both parties have
utilized to determine comparability. The
Employer recognizes
that Benton County falls outside of this
population band,
but nevertheless urges its consideration. The
employer reasons
that interest arbitrators consider geography
when selecting
comparable jurisdictions and, where the subject
employer is an
eastern
generally weighted
their lists with additional eastern
jurisdictions. The
Employer points out that the agreed-upon
population band
contains only one eastern
that
counties. The
Employer relies upon a 1995 interest arbitration
decision by
Arbitrator Levak involving
union which
represents its correctional employees. In that
decision,
Arbitrator Levak found that
to
education, per
capita income and average wage paid," as well as
the tendency of
arbitrators to utilize eastern
comparators to the
greatest extent possible in cases involving
eastern
Benton County is
still economically better off than Spokane
County with regard
to annual average covered wage, per capita
income, and average
net earnings per worker. The Employer urges
that the reasoning
of Arbitrator Levak be adopted here, so that
it would have
consistency across its bargaining units that are
eligible for
interest arbitration. The Employer contends that
Marion and
Washington Counties should not be used as comparables.
It asserts that
there is no reason why these Oregon counties were
included, but three
other
population band,
i.e., Clackamus, Lane, and
were excluded. The
Employer contends that other interest
arbitrators have
not used
jurisdictions for
eastern
nothing special
about
comparables be
used. The Employer asserts that the parties'
bargaining history,
while indicating that Marion and Washington
counties have been
used as comparables on some occasions in
bargaining, also
indicates that there were a great many other
jurisdictions used
as comparables over the years, with no
consistent pattern.
Below are listed the populations of all
counties in
Washington which
fall within the agreed upon relevant population
band of half to twice
that of Spokane County. Also included are
Benton County and
other Washington counties with a higher
population than that of Benton
County, but which fail to meet the
minimum criteria.
___________________________________________________________________
Pierce County 686,800
Snohomish County 568,100
Spokane County 410,900
Clark County 328,000
Kitsap County 229,000
Yakima County 210,500
Thurston County 199,700
Whatcom County 157,500
Benton County 137,500
___________________________________________________________________
Below are listed
all counties in Oregon which fall within the
agreed-upon
population band.
___________________________________________________________________
Multnomah County 624,903
Washington County 383,603
Clackamus
County 324,043
Lane County 306,862
Marion County 260,919
___________________________________________________________________
With regard to the parties' prior use of
comparables during
bargaining, no
documentary evidence was presented. The testimony
offered on this
subject was brief, short on details, and confined
to two witnesses.
Detective Don Blashill testified first on this
subject for the
Union. Labor Relations Manager Gary Carlsen then
testified for the
Employer. Detective Blashill testified that he
has participated in
collective bargaining negotiations since
1985. On direct
examination Detective Blashill stated that
Marion and
Washington Counties "are organizations that [the
parties] have used
in the past" and which the Union offered as
comparable
jurisdictions when collective bargaining for the
agreement at issue
here commenced. On cross examination,
Detective Blashill testified that in collective bargaining
negotiations since
1991, the Union has relied upon its five
proffered
comparable jurisdictions, and has not relied upon
Multnomah, Lane, or
Clackamus Counties. On redirect examination,
Detective Blashill testified that in the past, the Union has
proposed Marion and
Washington Counties, and the Employer has
accepted them as
legitimate comparables. Mr. Carlsen has been
employed by the
Employer for about five years and therefore was
not at the
bargaining table prior to 1995. Mr. Carlsen testified
that he has
reviewed the Employer's bargaining notes for the
period between 1985
and 1995, and those notes reflect that the
parties have
utilized as comparable jurisdictions a number of
counties in
Washington, Oregon, and California, including the
five counties
advanced by the Union here, but the parties did not
focus on only those
five counties. The Union offered no rebuttal
testimony.
Thus, Detective Blashill's
testimony that Pierce, Snohomish,
Clark, Washington,
and Marion Counties have been used as
comparable
jurisdictions during past collective bargaining is
countered by Mr. Carlsen's testimony that other jurisdictions
were utilized as
comparators as well. The record presented to
the Arbitration
Panel does not support a finding that the parties
have a long
standing practice of an exclusive list of five
comparable
jurisdictions.
Absent such evidence, there is no reason
to exclude Kitsap
and Yakima Counties
from the list. Both fall within the
population band
which the parties agree is appropriate for
comparison with
Spokane County. Marion and Washington Counties
will not be
considered. While both fall within the relevant
population band, so
do three other Oregon counties. Two of those
other Oregon
counties, Clackamus and Lane, are significantly
closer in
population to Spokane County, than is Marion County.
No evidence
regarding the wages provided by those three excluded
Oregon counties was
provided to the Arbitration Panel. In
interest
arbitrations involving Washington jurisdictions,
arbitrators have
generally been reluctant to utilize out-of-state
jurisdictions as
comparators, particularly where there are a
sufficient number
of in-state jurisdictions which may reasonably
be utilized. The
situation involving Spokane County is a close
question in this
regard. As one of the largest counties in the
state, there are
relatively few in this state that compare in
size. The
population band utilized by the parties, while wide in
scope, provides
only five in-state comparators. This is a bare
minimum for
comparison, and it can reasonably be argued that it
could be
appropriate to reach out-of-state to select two more.
It must be kept in
mind that the statute permits the selection of
comparable
jurisdictions on the west coast, and does not confine
selection to
Washington. Nevertheless here, there is
insufficient reason
to select the two counties in Oregon advanced
by the Union, while
excluding others. In these circumstances,
since there is a
marginally adequate number of Washington
jurisdictions which
may be utilized for comparison purposes, the
list of comparators
will be confined to that state.
Benton County is not a "like employer
of similar size" when
compared with
Spokane County. The population of Spokane County
is three times that
of Benton County. The size of their
respective
sheriff's departments are even more disparate in size,
with the Spokane
County Sheriff's Department employing about five
times more
employees than its Benton County counterpart. I agree
with the Employer
that it is important to utilize as many other
eastern Washington
jurisdictions as possible for comparison with
Spokane County.
However, in order to be a primary comparator
according to RCW
41.56.465(l)(c)(i), the jurisdiction must be of
"similar
size" to the subject jurisdiction. Benton County and
Spokane County are
simply not of similar size.1
1 It is recognized that another arbitrator
has held, in the context of a different union and bargaining unit but the
same employer, that
Benton County is an appropriate jurisdiction to compare with Spokane County.
The Union
here was not a party
to that proceeding and should not be bound by its results. Based on the
evidence presented in
the instant case,
Benton County is not comparable to Spokane County according to the criteria set
forth in the
statute.
_____
POSITION OF THE
UNION ON WAGES
The Union argues that its request for an
across-the-board
wage increase of 6%
for 1997, 5% for 1998, and 5% for 1999 is
justified when
compared with the wages of the comparable
jurisdictions. The
Union asserts that its wage proposals are
also justified by
the increased responsibilities of the employees
because of
increased calls for service and new programs which the
Employer has
implemented. In addition, the Union asserts that
acceptance of its
wage requests is needed so that employees would
receive a
competitive wage, morale would be boosted, and the
exodus of
experienced officers would be prevented. The Union
argues that as a
result of the Employer's "scorched-earth
negotiating
tactics" it has received no wage increase since 1996,
and it has fallen
16% behind the wages paid by the jurisdictions
which it alleges
are comparable. Moreover those employers
provide their
deputies with cars. The Union urges that the same
percentage increase
be applied to all ranks. According to the
Union, there is not
a single interest arbitration award which
splits the ranks in
the manner urged by the Employer. The Union
asserts that the
sergeants are paid appropriately because they
perform duties
ordinarily associated with lieutenants in other
departments.
According to the Union, the Employer's detectives
and sergeants have
had their responsibilities increased, and the
same
responsibilities were not given to similar ranks in
comparable
departments. The Union observes that the current wage
differentials for
detectives and sergeants are needed in order to
attract qualified
applicants. Finally, the Union points out that
the Employer
maintains a 42% wage differential between its jail
sergeants and its
top-step corrections officers.
POSITION OF THE
EMPLOYER ON WAGES
The Employer contends that if its 3.1%
wage proposal for
1997 is adopted and
longevity and education pay are considered,
the wages that its
deputies receive are within the zone of
reasonableness in
comparison with the wages for that year paid by
the counties which
it alleges are comparables. It asserts that
the wage levels are
either slightly above or slightly below the
average, depending
upon the seniority and education level that is
used for
comparison. It argues that with relative differences in
the cost of living
factored in, it is clear that the evidence
from the
comparables does not warrant any sort of catch up wage
increase. The
Employer requests consideration of the relatively
higher cost of
living in Pierce, Snohomish, and Clark counties
which are part of
large metropolitan areas. With this in mind
and all else being
equal, the Employer reasons, one would expect
to find the wages
of the Spokane deputies below the average of
the comparables.
The Employer justifies its offer of a lump sum
of $500 to
detectives and sergeants for 1997 based upon a
comparison with the
wages paid by the comparable jurisdictions to
these ranks. The
Employer asserts that the differential in pay
between top step
deputies and both detectives and sergeants is
much higher for its
employees than for those of the comparables.
The Employer
suggests that this is a good time to close the gap.
The Employer
maintains that it would be easier for detectives and
sergeants to accept
a wage freeze for 1997, since that year has
passed, and all
employees will be receiving a lump sum amount to
compensate them for
back pay. The Employer proposes that the
second and third
year wage increases for all ranks be 100% of the
Seattle CPI-W,
which works out to 3.7% and 2.5% for 1998 and
1999. According to
the Employer, its proposals for these years
is right at the
average of increases for these years which were
provided by the
comparable employers. The Employer asserts that
its proposed wage
increases are in line with the increases
awarded in the most
recent interest arbitration awards in this
state, while the
Union's proposed increases are much higher than
any recent
arbitration award. The Employer claims further
support of its
proposal by the factor of internal equity. In
this regard, it
points out that in 1997, most County employees
took a wage freeze,
and in 1998 and 1999 most County bargaining
units settled for a
2% increase. The Employer asserts that its
proposed increase
for this unit, if adopted, would be higher than
any other group.
The Employer observes that the statute requires
consideration of
changes in consumer prices. It asserts that its
offer for 1998 and
1999 of 100% of the increase in the Seattle
area consumer price
index ensures that the deputies will have
out-paced inflation
for the entire decade. While recognizing
that Spokane city
police are paid more than the County deputies,
the Employer observes
that this is typical of the wage
relationship
between comparable counties and the largest city
within each of
those counties. The Employer further observes
that no deputy has
left the Employer in order to take a job with
the City of Spokane
for the past six years. Regarding the
Union's evidence of
increased productivity, the Employer states
that there is no
reason to believe that service calls are not
going up
everywhere, including in the comparable jurisdictions.
WAGE COMPARISONS
WITH COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
Listed below are the monthly top step base
wages paid by the
comparable
jurisdictions in 1997:
___________________________________________________________________
Deputies
1997 With 10 With
20 B.A. With
Base Pay Years Years
10 Years
Longevity Longevity Longevity
Clark County 3,684 4,052 4,052 4,052
Kitsap 3,685 3,740 3,777 3,740
County
Pierce 3,892 3,892 3,892 3,892
County
Snohomish 3,741 3,872 4,078 4,003
County
Yakima 3,519 3,589 3,660 3,589
County
Average-1997 3,704 3,829 3,892 3,855
Spokane 3,481 3,603 3,794 3,725
County
1996 Wages
Difference -6.4% -6.3% -2.6% -3.5%
Detective/Corporal Sergeant
1997 Base Pay 1997 Base Pay
Clark County Not Applicable 4,269
Kitsap County 3,805 4,218
Pierce County 4,164 4,475
Snohomish County 3,853 4,334
Yakima County Not Applicable 3,955
Average-1997 3,941 4,250
Spokane County 3,934 4,424
1996 Wages
Difference -0.2% +4.1%
___________________________________________________________________
Each of the comparable jurisdictions
permit their officers
to commute to work
in their county vehicles. While some Spokane
County officers
have this privilege, most do not. There is a
monetary value to
this commuting privilege, though the precise
amount is not
evident from the record.2
2 The Union presented evidence regarding the
monetary value of a car which may be used for any purpose. That
situation does not
apply here.
_____
The percentage differentials between
deputies and detectives
or corporals and
between deputies and sergeants are reflected
below:
___________________________________________________________________
Detective
or Sergeant
Corporal
Clark County Not Applicable 15.9%
Kitsap County $120 (3.3% in 1997) 14.5%
Pierce County 7% 15%
Snohomish County 3% 15.9%
Yakima County Not Applicable 12.4%
Average 4.4% 14.7%
Spokane County 13% 27.1%
___________________________________________________________________
Detective Blashill
testified that the Employer advances
deputies to the
position of detective on the basis of civil
service tests,
while most of the comparable jurisdictions merely
appoint their
detectives. He testified that during collective
bargaining
negotiations about 12 years ago, sergeants received an
extra 2% pay
increase because it was recognized that they were
often the senior
officer on duty at which times they were
performing work of
a higher rank. The evidence presented fails
to establish that
the duties of the Employer's detectives and
sergeants are
significantly different from the duties performed
by similar ranks in
the comparable jurisdictions.
The percentage wage increases which the
comparable
jurisdictions
provided to their uniformed sheriff's department
employees for the
years 1997, 1998, and 1999 are set forth below:
___________________________________________________________________
1997 1998 1999
Clark County 4% 2.5% 3%
Kitsap County 4% 3.5% 3.5%
Pierce County 3% Jan. 1 - 2% 3%
July
1 - 2%
Snohomish April 1 - 2.61% April 1 - 3.33% 2.25%
County July 1 - 1.25
Yakima County 2.75% 4% 3%
___________________________________________________________________
COST OF LIVING
RCW 41.56.465(1)(d) requires consideration
of "[t]he average
consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly known as the
cost of
living." The Employer provided data on the change in the
CPI-W Seattle and
the CPI-W All U.S. Cities. These consumer
price indexes are
published by the United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. They reflect the following
annual increases in
the cost of living:
___________________________________________________________________
Year Ending CPI-W Seattle CPI-W All Cities
July 1996 2.9% 2.9%
July 1997 3.7% 2.1%
July 1998 2.5% 1.5%
___________________________________________________________________
The Employer contends that the Panel, when
comparing wages,
should take into
account the higher cost of living that exists on
the west side of
the state, where three of the comparables are
situated in
metropolitan areas: Pierce, Snohomish, and Clark.
Detective Blashill conceded that the cost of living is generally
higher in Seattle
than it is in Spokane. The Employer provided
comparative data on
the cost of living generally in various
Washington
localities, the cost of housing, average net earnings
per worker, and
other published indicators that confirm the
obvious fact that
the Seattle metropolitan area is a higher cost
area than is
Spokane. This difference in the cost of living
should be
considered when comparing the wages of the Employer
with that of
comparables in the larger metropolitan areas,
particularly the
Seattle metropolitan area.
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set
forth in RCW
41.56.465(a)-(e),
RCW 41.56.465(f) directs the Panel to consider
"such other
factors. . that are normally or traditionally taken
into consideration
in the determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of
employment." Such factors, which are discussed
below, have been
considered, but generally with lesser weight
than that which is
given to the specifically enumerated criteria
of comparability
and cost of living.
Ability to Pay
A factor frequently raised in contract
negotiations and also
considered by
arbitrators is the ability of the employer to pay
wage and benefit
increases. The Employer does not contend that
it is unable to pay
a fair and reasonable pay increase. However,
it does point out
that its ability to raise property taxes is
limited, by state
law, to increases in the implicit price
deflator, an
economic index published by the U.S. Department of
Labor. That index
increased by 1.9% in 1997 and, according to
the Employer, is
projected to increase at an even lower rate in
1998. Nevertheless,
Mr. Carlsen conceded that he heard that the
Employer has a
budget surplus. A recent newspaper article
submitted into
evidence by the Union, without objection, quoted a
Spokane County
commissioner as saying that the Employer had $12
million in the
bank. It appears that the Employer can afford
some reasonable
compensation increase for its employees.
Settlements With Other Bargaining Units
From the standpoint of both the Employer
and the Union, the
settlements reached
by the Employer with other bargaining units
are significant.
While those settlements are affected by the
particular
situation of each individual bargaining unit, still
there is an
understandable desire by the Employer to achieve
consistency. From
the Union's standpoint it wants to do at
least as well for
its membership as the other unions have already
done. At the
bargaining table, the settlements reached by the
Employer with other
unions are likely to be brought up by one
side or the other.
Thus, it is a factor which should be
considered by the
Panel.
The Employer has reached agreement with
all of its other
bargaining units
for 1997 and 1998. Only the corrections
employees have not
as yet reached a settlement for 1999. The
bargaining unit of
Sheriff's Department lieutenants and captains
first became
entitled to interest arbitration some time during
1997. That
bargaining unit received no wage increase in 1997, a
2% increase in
September 1998, and another 2% increase in 1999.
The corrections
employees and supervisors, who are also subject
to interest
arbitration, settled in 1997 for a 1.5% increase on
January 1 and
another 1.5% increase on July 1. They agreed to
the same wage
increases in 1998. Their wages for 1999 have not
yet been
established. The various other bargaining units, as
well as the
Employer's non-represented employees,all received a
wage freeze in
1997, and 2% increases in 1998 and 1999.
Turnover
Detective Steven Barbieri
testified that the Employer's swat
team was devastated
in 1993 when four of its members resigned and
were then employed
by the City of Spokane's Police Department.
Corporal Raymond
Harding of the Spokane Police Department
testified that he
resigned from the Sheriff's Department in 1993
because of better
pay and benefits offered by the Spokane Police
Department.
Sergeant Jeffrey Tower testified that in 1993 or
1994, two trainees
who were attending the training academy also
resigned in order
to accept employment with the City Police
Department.
Deputy Brian Miller testified that
Sheriff's Department
employees and
Spokane Police Department employees work in the
same building,
perform similar duties, and often work together.
Detectives James Dresback and Rick Grabenstein
each testified
that City and
County officers work together on a regional task
force. In 1997, the
top step base wage for a City of Spokane
police officer was
7.3% higher than the 1996 wage still received
by the Employer's
top step deputies. The Employer points out
that considering
the cost of the County's superior education
incentive/longevity
program, the overall difference narrows by
2%, and will be
narrowed even further when the Sheriff's
Department
employees receive their 1997 pay increase.
Nevertheless, the
Employer concedes that police officers in the
City of Spokane do
receive somewhat higher pay. However, the
Employer points out
that in this regard, its employees are still
better off in
comparison to the situation of their brethren in
each of the
comparable jurisdictions. When top step deputy
sheriff wages
within each of the comparable counties are compared
with top step
police officer wages in the largest city within
each of those
counties, the city police officers always receive
more pay, with the
differences reflected below:
___________________________________________________________________
County - City Difference
Clark
- Vancouver 8.4%
Kitsap
- Bremerton 6.9%
Pierce
- Tacoma 3.6%
Snohomish
- Everett 11.4%
Yakima
- Yakima 6.3%
___________________________________________________________________
The Employer also
points out that no deputy has resigned to take
a job with the City
of Spokane for the past six years. City of
Spokane police
officers received wage increases of 2.61% and
3.47% in 1997 and
1998 respectively. Their 1999 contract is
currently being
negotiated. City of Spokane police lieutenants
and captains
received wage increases of 3.33% and 2% in 1998 and
1999.
AWARD OF WAGES
Weighing the various factors, a wage
increase of 3.5% will
be awarded to
deputies and detectives retroactive to January 1,
1997. Sergeants
will receive a wage increase of 2.5% retroactive
to January 1, 1997.
For 1998, all ranks will receive an increase
of 3.7%. For 1999,
all ranks will receive an increase of 3%.
These increases will result in deputies
with B.A. degrees
receiving wages
which approximate the average wage paid to
employees with such
credentials by the comparable jurisdictions.
Deputies who do not
receive the B.A. premium will receive a few
percentage points
less than the average of their counterparts
among the
comparables unless they have very lengthy seniority, in
which case they
would compare favorably with their counterparts.
The wage increases
awarded during the three year period generally
approximate the
average wage increases provided during these
years by the
comparable jurisdictions. The wage increases
awarded will result
in detectives and sergeants maintaining
higher wages than
the average of their counterparts in the
comparable
jurisdictions. Moreover, the awarded wage increases
will continue the
employees' wage advantages at all ranks in
relation to the
only other eastern Washington comparable
jurisdiction,
Yakima County. Considering the Employer's
favorable education
and longevity premiums and wage differential
between ranks, as
well as the recognized lower cost of living in
Spokane County
compared with some of the western Washington
comparable
counties, the wages provided to this bargaining unit,
overall and with
the awarded increases, will not be out of line
with the comparable
jurisdictions. Recognizing the increased
productivity of the
bargaining unit and the Employer's ability to
pay, the percentage
wage increases for the three year period are
for the most part
higher than the increase in the cost of living.
Even if the cost of
living index for Seattle is used, which has
been rising at a
faster pace than the all-cities index, the
sergeants, with
their lower awarded increase in the first year,
still will receive
a wage increase which approximates the
inflation rate.
Moreover, the wage increases over the three year
period for all
bargaining unit employees, including the
sergeants, will
compare favorably with other of the County's
employee groups.
The increases awarded are likely sufficient to
attract new
personnel and to prevent the loss of employees to
other departments
and to the Spokane Police Department in
particular. These
percentage wage increases are generally a
little higher than
those provided by the City of Spokane during
the corresponding
years.
It is appropriate to provide different
percentage wage
increases for
different ranks, where circumstances, considered in
context of the
statutory criteria, justify such differences. One
would assume that
the Union would be seeking an additional pay
increase for higher
ranks if the wage differential between ranks
was unreasonably
low in comparison with like employers. In a
recent interest
arbitration decision authored by this Neutral
Chairman and
referenced by the Employer, both parties involved in
that proceeding
agreed that the higher ranks were entitled to a
wage increase over
and above the rank and file increase. They
recognized that the
wages provided to those ranks were inadequate
in comparison with
the ranks they supervised, and also in
comparison with
their counterparts in the comparable
jurisdictions. City
of Kennewick and IAFF Local 1296, AAA No. 75
300 0025 96 (1997).
Even here, the parties have in the past
negotiated
percentage wage increases for sergeants which were
different from that
received by deputies. The wages received by
the Employer's
sergeants are high in relation to that provided by
the comparable
jurisdictions, and the wage differential between
deputies and
sergeants in Spokane County is particularly high in
such a comparison.
The evidence presented fails to establish any
unique
characteristics of the Employer's sergeants which would
require more
favorable treatment than the comparables.
Therefore, while a
cost of living increase is appropriate for the
sergeants given the
specified statutory criteria of "cost of
living" as
well as the implied criteria of productivity and
ability to pay, any
additional increase is not warranted in view
of the criteria of
comparability and internal equity.3 However,
the statutory
criteria do not provide sufficient justification
for treating
detectives differently than deputies. Detectives'
wages are more in
line with the situation of the comparable
employers than are
the sergeants'.
3 The large wage differential between the
County's corrections officers and corrections sergeants is not significant
because the evidence
presented does not indicate whether or not those positions are in any way
similar in duties or
responsibilities to
the positions at issue here. However, it is significant that the percentage
wage increases awarded
to the Sheriff's
Department sergeants compare favorably with those received by other bargaining
units employed by
the County.
_____
In sum, the awarded wage levels are
appropriate considering
the wages paid by
the comparable jurisdictions, the cost of
living, and other
factors normally taken into consideration in
the determination
of wages, such as turnover, productivity, the
wages increases
provided by the County to other employee groups,
and the wages paid
by other local employers to similar types of
employees. The base
wage increases awarded are as follows:
Effective January 1, 1997 3.5% for deputies
and detectives
2.5%
for sergeants
Effective January 1, 1998 3.7% for all ranks
Effective January 1, 1999 3.0% for all ranks.
Redmond, Washington
Dated: July 12, 1999 /s/ALAN R.
KREBS
Alan
R. Krebs, Neutral Chairman