City
of
And
Interest
Arbitration
Arbitrator: Gary L. Axon
Date
Issued:
Arbitrator:
Axon; Gary L.
Case #: 14678-I-99-00322
Employer:
City of
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC
14678-I99-322 )
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
)
THE
)
Association, )
1999 WAGE REOPENER
)
and )
)
)
City. )
HEARING SITE: City Hall
HEARING DATE:
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS:
REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION: Sydney D. Vinnedge
Patrick
A. Emmal
Emmal Skalbania & Vinnedge
REPRESENTING THE CITY: Eric S. Nelson
Corporation
Counsel
City
of
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary
L. Axon
Post
Office Box 190
(541)
488-1573
I. INTRODUCTION
The
City of
Police Association (Association) are
signatories to a Collective
Bargaining Agreement effective
31, 2000. Included in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement is
Article 29, which states:
ARTICLE
29
REOPENING
OF AGREEMENT FOR 1999 AND 2000
The
provisions of Article 19 covering salary
ranges
for Patrol Officer, Lead Patrol, and
Sergeant, and
including an Association
proposal for
creation of a
deferred
compensation
plan with a matching contribution
from
the Employer, shall be reopened for
negotiation
upon written demand no earlier
than
August
31, 1998, for the year 1999, and no
earlier
than
such
negotiations, all Articles covering Wages
and
Benefits shall remain in effect until new
terms
for the above provisions of Article 19
are
mutually agreed upon or until the impasse
procedure is
exhausted. This paragraph
affects
and relates only to the provisions of
Article
19 and benefits enumerated and no
other
article or provision shall be affected,
and any
changes are to be
effective on
respectively.
The parties were unable to resolve the 1999
wage dispute through
negotiation and mediation.
In
a letter dated
Executive Director,
Public Employment Relations
Commission,
certified for interest arbitration under
RCW 41.56.450 the issue:
1. Article 29 - Reopening of Agreement for
1999
and 2000. Specifically, the 1999
wage
reopener.
City
Ex. 4, p. 1.
The case was scheduled for hearing
before this Arbitrator for a
final and binding resolution. The parties have agreed that the
wage increase awarded shall be
retroactive to
The
City has a population of 16,420 persons and is
located in
(County) is located along the Pacific
coast of western
The total County population was
estimated at 68,300 for 1997.
Assoc. Ex. 16.
population growth for the County has
increased by 5.34% from 1990
to 1999.
City Ex. 11. The population of
the City of
remained constant over that same period
of time.
The
City is located in a sparsely populated rural county.
The population per square mile within
the City is 1,422.85. City
Ex. 10.
The per capita assessed valuation for the City is $38,771
and its regular levy rate for 1999 is
3.09. City Ex. 9. The 1999
total property valuation was
$636,624,943.
The
Association represents a bargaining unit composed of
32 police officers, including eight
sergeants and three lead patrol
officers. The majority of the police officers work patrol
and are
rotated in and out of detective
positions. Seven officers receive
premium pay for participating in the
City's "Advanced Officer"
program.
City Ex. 6. The Chief of Police
is Robert L. Maxfield.
At
the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the
opening statements from the parties
revealed a sharp difference of
opinion over the issue of
comparability. In addition, the parties
also disagree over methodology and means
by which to compare the
wages and contract benefits of
counterparts in other cities. A
significant amount of hearing time
was devoted to the presentation of
evidence and argument on the
statutory factor of comparability. The Arbitrator directed the
parties to address the issue of
comparability separately at the
beginning of their post-hearing
briefs. The Arbitrator will
address
the comparability issue at the commencement of his
discussion and findings.
The
hearing in this case required one day for each side
to present their evidence and testimony. The hearing was recorded
by a court reporter and a transcript was
made available to the
parties and the Arbitrator. Testimony of witnesses was received
under oath. At the hearing the parties were given the
full
opportunity to present written evidence, oral testimony, and
argument regarding the issue in
dispute. Both the Association and
the
City provided the
Arbitrator with substantial
written
documentation in support of their
respective positions on the wage
issue.
Moreover,
the parties also submitted comprehensive and
detailed post-hearing briefs in further
support of their respective
positions taken at arbitration. The
approach of this Arbitrator in
writing the Award will be to summarize
the major, most persuasive
evidence and argument presented by the
parties on the wage issue.
After the introduction of the issue and
the positions of the
parties, I will state the basic findings
and rationale which caused
your Arbitrator to make an award on the
wage issue.
The
overall context for review of this case is under the
terms of Article 29 providing for
reopening of the agreement on the
subject of the 1999 wage schedule. The
City offered an across-the-
board salary increase of 2% effective
objected to consideration of an
employer-matched contribution to a
new deferred compensation plan for
members of the Association as an
illegal subject of bargaining. The
Association proposed an across-
the-board salary increase of 13%
effective
Association also made an alternative
proposal of an 8% salary
increase
and a deferred
compensation plan with
matching
contribution from the City of 5% of
gross earnings effective
January 1, 1999.
This
Arbitrator has carefully reviewed and evaluated all
of the evidence and argument submitted
pursuant to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.465. Since the record in this case is so
comprehensive, it would be impractical
for the Arbitrator in the
discussion and Award to restate and
refer to each and every piece
of evidence, testimony, and argument
presented. However, when
formulating this
award, the Arbitrator
did give careful
consideration to all of the evidence and
argument placed into the
record by the parties.
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 Washington, other
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.
Because
of the voluminous record and extensive arguments
in this case, the parties waived the
thirty (30) day period an
arbitrator would normally have to
publish an interest award under
the statute.
II. POSITIONS
OF THE PARTIES
A. The Association
The
Association takes the position the award should be
based on a just and fair application of
the statute. A principled
approach to decision making in interest
arbitrations rejects
extreme positioning by either
party. Pursuant to that principle,
the legislature intended the parties
should not be allowed to gain
through arbitration that which would not
reasonably be anticipated
through unrestricted collective
bargaining. The Association
submits the City has acted contrary to
the legislative intent and
has engaged in extreme posturing
throughout negotiations in the
hope that the arbitration proceeding
would result in a wage
settlement which the City would not
otherwise be able to acquire
through unrestricted collective
bargaining.
In
1998 the Association agreed to no wage increase in
1998 in exchange for a reopener in 1999.
The Association accepted
the City's arguments for a zero wage
increase because the City had
"infrastructure expenditures"
it needed to attend to in 1998.
According to the Association, it only
agreed to no increase based
on an implicit understanding between
both parties that the City was
going to "make it right" in
1999. The presumption was the
Association would see a large increase
in 1999 to make up for the
lack of any increase in 1998. The evidence shows the City failed
to live up to this understanding when it
took a hard line in the
1999 bargaining and seeks to deny the
Association an appropriate
wage increase for 1999.
With
respect to the City's bargaining position, the
Association maintains the City chose to
bargain to impasse and go
to arbitration, arguing an overly
legalistic application of the
interest arbitration statute in order to
produce a novel and unjust
result.
The Arbitrator should reject the City's position in order
to prevent management from turning the
process into a legal
charade. The Association must be able to trust the
system;
otherwise, the damage to the
relationship between the parties will
ultimately affect the public welfare of
the citizens of the City of
Aberdeen.
The Arbitrator
should adopt the
Association's
comparability approach. The arbitration awards demonstrate that
comparability is
of overriding importance
in an interest
arbitration. While the statute provides
for a number of criteria,
comparability has been recognized by
interest arbitrators as the
predominant criteria to be used in
determining the appropriate wage
increase. The reason for the reliance on comparability
data is
that it allows for a presumptive test to
the fairness of a wage
structure. Because these comparisons carry an aura of
fairness,
they create an opportunity to produce a
result acceptable to those
affected.
The
Association takes the position the City's approach to
selecting comparables is result oriented
and inherently flawed.
After successfully extracting a zero
increase from the bargaining
unit in 1998, the City realized it would
have to pay in 1999 to
make up for the loss in 1998. The City now hopes to avoid this
obligation by asking the Arbitrator to
apply an extremely rigid
comparables analysis, and thereby
minimize its obligation to the
Association. This is exactly what the
City is trying to do when it
asks the Arbitrator to apply a strict
up/down population criteria,
and disregard the statutory mandate of
selecting like employers.
Arbitral authority holds that, in determining comparability,
arbitrators give
the greatest consideration
to population,
geographic proximity or labor market,
and assessed valuation.
The
Association takes the position its comparability
approach is superior because it looks to
fundamental geographic and
labor market factors. A major issue of comparability in this case
comes down to what is sometimes referred
to as the "Cascade
Curtain." Arbitrators have held
repeatedly that, where sufficient
comparables lie on one side of the
Cascade mountain range, there is
no need to select comparables on the
other side of the range. The
Association submits there is a multitude
of comparable cities on
the west side to choose from in
measuring what the appropriate wage
increase should be for the members of
this bargaining unit.
Contrary
to the arbitral authority, the City is asking
this Arbitrator to disregard the fact
that there are sufficient
comparables on the west side and to
utilize jurisdictions from the
east side in order to drive down the wages
of the members of this
bargaining unit. Both parties have provided the Arbitrator
with
numerous west side comparators that fit
within the statutory
criteria of "like personnel of like
employers of similar size."
The eleven western comparators proposed
by the parties are
sufficient. If the Arbitrator finds the proposed
comparators are
not adequate, he has the authority to
select from many of the
alternate western Washington contracts
contained in Volume 1 of the
Association's exhibit book.
Regarding
the City's proposal to use three comparators
from eastern Washington, the Association points out that the
economies of eastern Washington cities
are fundamentally different
from the economies on the west
side. The broad differences are
reflected in the economies,
demographics, and industrial topology.
Sunnyside, Ellensburg, and Moses Lake
are agrarian-based economies
with high levels of seasonal work and
migrant farm worker
populations. Aberdeen, located in Grays Harbor County,
bases its
economy on manufacturing and government
services and is fairly
close to the standard of a stable
population. Farming is the big
industry that dominates the economic
life of Ellensburg and Moses
Lake. The same is true for Yakima, where
substantial employment is
in the agricultural sector.
A
review of the unemployment claims reveals that 39% of
those claims from Grays Harbor originate from white collar
professions and 61% from blue collar
professions. In Grant County
and Yakima County the largest percentage
of unemployment claims
originate from agriculture which is
prone to seasonal unemployment.
Moreover, the sufficiency of western comparators is
evidenced by those jurisdictions which
both sides have offered as
comparable jurisdictions. Mountlake Terrace, Kelso, and Tumwater
are all west side jurisdictions. The Arbitrator should give
credence to the fact that both sides
have recognized three west
side jurisdictions as appropriate
comparators when developing the
full list of cities on which to base an
award.
The
Arbitrator should adopt the Association's variance
range to select comparables and refuse
to adopt the City's strict
up/down approach. In the view of the City, a +1-50% range
should
be used, yet at least one of the City's
comparables exceeds 50% of
assessed valuation, suggesting agreement
with the Association's
screen.
All comparables offered by the City and the Association
fit within the +1-50% screen on
populations. Many arbitrators have
allowed the comparables to exceed a +50%
screen by refusing to
adopt a strict up/down approach and
allowing "other factors" to be
considered. The key to assessing this range is
understanding that
what is being utilized is a ratio of
two-to-one in both directions.
It is also noted it is the task of the
Arbitrator to sift through
the data to determine who truly has
produced a more balanced set of
comparators.
Turning
to specific cities, the Association argues that
Hoquiam and Olympia are required under a
labor market geographic
analysis. Although Olympia and Hoquiam fall outside the
50/100
screen of population and assessed
valuation, they should be
included as comparators because of their
influence and proximity to
the Aberdeen labor market. Olympia should be included because it
falls within the sphere of influence of
Aberdeen. Arbitrators have
consistently held
that close geographic
proximity between
jurisdictions warrants special
consideration in the selection of
comparables. In the instant case, the proximity of Olympia
and
Hoquiam to Aberdeen is undisputed. The
sphere of influence clearly
encompasses the City of Aberdeen. Thus,
both jurisdictions deserve
to be seriously considered by this
Arbitrator and included in the
final list of comparable jurisdictions.
The
Association takes the position that the comparables
support its wage proposal for 1999. A straight wage analysis of
the western comparables proposed by the
Association and the City
supports the Association's wage
proposal. The base five-year
monthly salary for a police officer in
western Washington reveals
as follows:
Anacortes $3,873.00
Issaquah $4,288.00
Port
Angeles $3,676.00
Mountlake
Terrace $4,067.00
Hoquiam $3,687.00
Kelso $3,980.00
Olympia $4,272.00
Tumwater $3,975.00
Average $3,977.00
Aberdeen $3,721.00
Difference 6.9%
The
five-year base wages for the City's west comparables
are as follows:
Mountlake
Terrace $4,067.00
Kelso $3,980.00
Tumwater $3,975.00
Oak
Harbor $3,899.00
Centralia $3,788.00
Lake
Forest Park $3,857.00
Average $3,928.00
Aberdeen $3,721.00
Difference 5.6%
The
Association next argues that arbitrators have been
fairly consistent in considering both
education and longevity
premiums
in measuring wage inequities.
When longevity and
education premiums are considered,
neither of which Aberdeen
provides to its employees, the disparity
grows even further:
JURISDICTION 5-YEAR
BASE LONGEVITY AA TOTAL
Anacortes $3,873.00 $3,873.00
Issaquah $4,288.00 $60.00 $4,348.00
Port Angeles $3,676.00 $68.00 $112.00 $3,856.00
Mountlake Terrace $4,067.00 $189.00 $4,256.00
Hoquiam $3,687.00 $74.00 $3,761.00
Kelso $3,980.00 $80.00 $50.00 $4,110.00
Tumwater $3,975.00 $80.00 $4,055.00
AVERAGE $4,077.00
% Difference 9.57%
For those with a B.A. degree, the
disparity increases to an 11.72%
difference between Aberdeen and the
comparables. The Arbitrator
should take special note of the fact
that 100% of the comparables
proposed by the City receive an
education premium which amounts to
an
11% difference between Aberdeen
and the
employer 5 own
comparators. It is within the discretion of the Arbitrator
to
accord weight to the education and
longevity premiums. The bottom
line is roughly one-third of Aberdeen's
officers have a B.A. degree
and all comparables, City and Association, receive education
incentives. Therefore, the Arbitrator in his analysis of
the
compensation package should consider the
impact of the premiums
paid in the comparators.
The
Association next argues that the settlement trends
support their proposal for 1999. The following chart summarizes
the settlement trends:
COMBINED
WAGE INCREASES 1998 1999 1998 & 1999
Mountlake Terrace 5.00% 3.00% 8.00%
Kelso 2.64% 3.40% 6.04%
Tumwater 4.70% 3.10% 7.80%
Oak Harbor 3.90% 5.50% 9.40%
Lake Forest Park 7.50% 3.00% 10.50%
5.40- 14.40-
Centralia 9.00% 9.40% 18.40%
Moses Lake 2.60% 2.00% 4.60%
Ellensburg 7.20% 3.40% 10.60%
Sunnyside 3.00% 3.00% 6.00%
Olympia 3.10% 3.10% 6.20%
Port Angeles 3.00% 5.50% 8.50%
Anacortes 4.50% 4.00% 8.50%
Issaquah 4.00% 2.50% 6.50%
Hoquiam 10.00% 3.00% 13.00%
Employer Comparables
Average (%) 8.593
Association Comparables
Average (%) 8.068
Based on the wage trends described in
the above chart, the
Association concludes settlement trends
alone justify the 8%
proposed by the Association.
The
Association next argues that the City's feeble
attempts to justify no wage increase in
1998 are misplaced. The
wage trends indicate that police
settlements have exceeded the CPI
rather than mirrored the CPI as claimed
by the City. Further, the
police contract settlement trends do not
appear to be unrealistic
or out of line with the general economy. Data indicates the wage
increases in the general economy have
been greater than police
contract settlements. The City's attempt to justify its position
by a CPI analysis is flawed.
Even
the other interest arbitration eligible group in the
City--the firefighters--indicates a wage
increase substantially
above the CPI. However, the City, in its arguments based on
the
CPI, conveniently ignores the fact of
the wage increase granted to
firefighters. Here, the City attempts to
penalize police officers
for the same economic trend that results
in increases in excess of
the CPI for its firefighters.
Employer
Exhibit 27, comparing CPI to Aberdeen wage
increases, is misleading and inaccurate.
The City fails to provide
any source data for its wages in 1982
and 1987 and pulls them out
of thin air. Even if it is assumed those numbers are
accurate,
adding the annual CPI and annual wage
increases demonstrates the
difference in the CPI and wage increases
are negligible. In
addition, the City failed to take into
account the fact that it
provided no wage increases in 1985,
1986, 1987, and 1988, even
though the cost of living increased each
of those years. That is
a real wage loss for those years, and the wages are lost
permanently.
Turning
to the City's argument that the slight increase
in the AOP plan was a benefit, the
Association asserts this is
false for three main reasons. First, only a handful of officers
are eligible for the AOP plan. Second, the SERT premium was
eliminated for those participating while
the City simultaneously
cut the SERT training opportunities in
half. Third, all sergeants
are precluded from participating in the
AOP plan.
The
Association also rejects the City's argument that
employees received an economic benefit
increase in 1998 because
they had to work 17 hours less per
year. According to the
Association, this is absurd because the
17 hours did not increase
take-home pay, nor did it increase the
cost to the City. The
Association concludes that the length of
the normal work year of
2,080 hours reduced by 17 hours resulted
in a negligible .0817%
reduction in work hours.
During
negotiations, the City never raised financial
considerations or inability to pay
arguments, nor did they do so
at the arbitration hearing. According to
the Association, this is
understandable because the fiscal
condition of the City is
extremely healthy. By the end of fiscal year 1999, Aberdeen will
have a reserve fund of $2.5
million. The total police budget is a
maximum of $3.6 million. Aberdeen has consistently been running
budget surpluses in seven of the last
eight years. The economic
conditions of the City have been so good
that the City Council
actually reduced taxes on pull tabs and
commercial punch boards in
October 1998. The City's reduction in taxes has come at
the
expense of police officers' wages. Given the financial condition
of the City, the Association concludes
it can spare the meager 13%
increase sought by the Association over
a period of two years.
The
Association proposed an alternative offer in these
negotiations in the form of a deferred
compensation program. While
the City challenged the proposal as
illegal, the Association urges
the Arbitrator to reject the City's
legalistic arguments in light
of the fact deferred compensation
proposals exist in the state of
Washington. The deferred compensation proposal of the
Association
has absolutely nothing to do with LEOFF
I or LEOFF II. The City is
comparing apples to oranges in an
attempt to mislead the parties.
The City offers a deferred compensation
program to its non-
bargaining unit employees. The obvious
goal of the City is to keep
the deferred compensation program as a
management benefit.
The
Association next argues that both its comparables and
the City's comparables support a
deferred compensation match of 5%.
Almost all comparables provide some kind
of employer contribution,
either through Social Security or in a
deferred compensation plan.
The record reflects an increasing number
of comparables, and local
labor market jurisdictions
are adding deferred compensation
benefits, especially for employee groups
who are not covered by
Social Security. The fact is now that even Social Security
participants are beginning
to acquire deferred compensation
benefits. Even the City is acknowledging this trend by
providing
deferred compensation to its non-union
employees.
The
Association concluded in its post-hearing brief as
follows:
This
case represents a classic example of why
the
interest arbitration statute was adopted.
The
City has plenty of money, much of which
has
come from low police wages. Aberdeen has
a
City Council which can, but will not,
provide
comparable wages and benefits for its
police
department. Often, political
survivorship
depends on plausible deniability.
Although
the City Council does not have the
political
will to correct this situation, they
invite
the arbitrator to make the decision for
them. At best, they end up with a "novel
result"
that they would not have been able to
achieve
with unfettered bargaining. At worst,
they
can redirect their constituents to the
statute and
relinquish themselves of
responsibility. In the short run, it is a
win-win
situation for the Council members
either
way. In the long run, if the City gets
its
"novel" request, it is only the Police
Department
and the general welfare of the
citizens
of Aberdeen that will be harmed.
By
the time the Arbitrator reads this brief,
the
Aberdeen Police officers will have worked
more
than three years without a wage increase.
Moreover,
it seems that the Employer intends
on
denying them an increase in 2000. This
is
the
time and place to change this clearly
unsupportable trend,
and grant the
Association's
proposal of an 8% wage increase
effective
January 1, 1999, and a 5% deferred
compensation
match.
Association
Brief, pp. 28-29.
B. The
City
The
City begins with a review of how it believes the
statutory criteria should be applied to
this case. In the view of
the City, the task of an interest
arbitrator is to fashion an award
which constitutes an extension of the
bargaining process. If
arbitration is allowed to become an
entirely separate and distinct
proceeding, collective bargaining will
become little more than a
meaningless warm-up ritual for the arbitration
"game." The parties
must not be allowed to view arbitration
as a panacea for
unrealistic proposals which would never
be acceptable in the
underlying bargaining process. The interest arbitration process
must involve a sifting and weighing of all
of the factors in
deciding upon an appropriate wage
application. Application of a
mechanical formula, whether it be a
flawed comparison of some, but
not all, components of compensation, or
a single comparison with
the highest paying entity, must be rejected
for failure to take
into account the full range of factors
which must be applied. The
City respectfully contends that, when
all of the required relevant
factors are taken into account, the
City's 2% wage proposal should
be adopted.
The City
next described its
method of selecting
comparables by using the factors of
population and assessed
valuation. The City began by selecting all Washington
cities
within 50% above and below Aberdeen's
population. The City then
narrowed the list by selecting those
jurisdictions which were
within 50% above or below the assessed
valuation of Aberdeen.
Because this resulted in a list of
fifteen cities, the City then
narrowed the list by eliminating the six
cities with the lowest
population and assessed valuation. The City offered the selection
of the following nine comparables for
use by the Arbitrator as
follows:
Oak
Harbor
Mountlake
Terrace
Moses
Lake
Ellensburg
Centralia
Lake
Forest Park
Tumwater
Sunnyside
Kelso
The
City attacked the Association's methodology because
it began by selecting Washington cities
within 200% above and 50%
below Aberdeen's assessed
valuation. This resulted in a list of
some 56 cities. The Association then picked and chose among
the
resulting group of cities based upon the
wage and benefit packages
offered by the employer. The Association next offered two cities
which did not meet its own criteria,
that of Hoquiam and Olympia.
Olympia has a population that is almost
2.5 times as large as
Aberdeen and assessed valuation of over
four times as large as
Aberdeen. The only plausible explanation for the
Association's
results is "benefits
shopping." The average five-year
top step
monthly salary of the City's comparables
is $3,586. City Ex. 28.
The average five-year top monthly salary
of the Association's
proposed comparables is $3,940. Assoc. Ex. 23.
A
review of interest arbitration awards in Washington
supports the City's utilization of a
similar population range and
assessed valuation for selecting
comparables. The cities proposed
by the Association have an average
population 9.6% larger than
Aberdeen. In addition, the average assessed valuation
of the
Association's cities is 76.8% larger
than Aberdeen. Aberdeen's
assessed valuation is $636,494,452. The
average assessed valuation
of the Association's cities is
$1,125,610,003. The Arbitrator
should reject the Association's proposed
jurisdictions based upon
an assessed valuation which is not
comparable to that of Aberdeen.
Moreover, the
Association has introduced
evidence
intended to suggest that Aberdeen and
Grays Harbor County are
experiencing tremendous new growth and
prosperity. While it is
true the economy in the Aberdeen area is
growing slowly, this has
been reflected in a modest increase in
the City's budget. The 2000
general government budget reflects an
increase in expenditures of
4.1% over 1999, and revenues are
projected to increase by 6.6%.
This will be accomplished with no
increase in property taxes for
the citizens of Aberdeen in 2000. The City submits the modest
improvements in the local economy do not
warrant a comparison to
such cities as Issaquah and Olympia.
In
resolving this dispute, the Arbitrator
needs to
understand the context in which the
parties voluntarily agreed to
a zero percent increase for the first
year of the three-year
contract. The Association has argued that its proposed
13%
increase is appropriate to make up for
the fact it agreed to a zero
percent increase in 1998. At the time the parties negotiated this
agreement, they obviously did not
believe there was any need for a
significant "catch-up" in
wages. Thus, the parties agreed to a
zero percent increase for 1998.
The
City next points to the historical relationship among
comparable jurisdictions as an extremely
important factor in
setting compensation. Fred Thurman, City Finance Director,
testified that the City has focused more
on what it could afford to
pay than what was happening with CPI or
comparable employers.
However, Thurman did explain that the
City needed to maintain pace
with the CPI over a long period of
time. An examination of the
relationship between wage increases and
the CPI by Thurman revealed
that by 1998, police officers in this
bargaining unit had received
salary increases that exceeded the CPI-W
(Seattle) by 21.44%. City
Ex. 27.
While
the parties did agree to a zero percent wage
increase in 1998, members of this
bargaining unit enjoyed other
economic gains. The City agreed to implement a new disability
program, increased vision insurance,
reduced work hours, increased
overtime payments, increased specialty
pay for SERT officers, and
a match of up to 1.45% of base salary
for the six members of the
Association who are prohibited from
participating in Medicare. The
cost of the schedule change alone was
the equivalent of a one
percent across-the-board salary
increase. Thus, the Arbitrator
should reject as entirely inappropriate
the Association's attempt
to undo the bargain negotiated by the
parties in 1998 under the
guise of a "wage catch-up."
Adoption of the City's offer would put
Aberdeen police officers at only 1.6%
below the comparable
jurisdictions. The City's offer will maintain parity with
the
comparables and the CPI over time. Adoption of the Association's
proposal will radically change the
historical relationship between
Aberdeen and the comparable
jurisdictions.
A
review of Association Exhibits 23 and 24 shows how far
Aberdeen was behind the
comparable cities proposed by
the
Association. Even by including no base wage items, and the
obviously dissimilar
cities of Issaquah
and Olympia, the
Association was only able to produce a
6.4% difference between
Aberdeen's current
base wage and
the Association's loaded
comparables. The obvious conclusion is that an award of a
13%
increase would substantially change the
relationship between the
parties.
The
City's proposal would put Aberdeen officers 4% below
the average of the comparables proposed
by the Association. If
Issaquah and Olympia are eliminated from
the list, the City's offer
of a 2% wage increase would place
Aberdeen officers only .84%
behind the average of the Association's
proposed comparables. The
Association's proposal, if adopted,
would move Aberdeen within less
than 2% of the Olympia wage schedule.
Arbitral authority supports
the City's proposal as one which could
logically be reached if they
had continued with bargaining in good
faith.
The
issue before the Arbitrator is a second year wage
reopener
in a three-year contract. Both parties
have proposed
"across-the-board" wage
increases. The City has used the top
step
of the patrol officer base wage for
comparisons. In sharp
contrast, the Association has included
longevity and education
incentives, as well as survey data which
includes Social Security,
deferred compensation, hours of work,
vacation, and holidays in its
computations. The City submits it is inappropriate to
include any
of these supplemental and unrelated
benefits when analyzing a wage
only reopener. The City concludes that, in this wage reopener
interest arbitration, a relatively
simple and straightforward
"apples to apples" approach
when analyzing the salary differential
should be adopted by the Arbitrator.
Another
related factor is the percentage wage increase
given in other comparables for 1999. The average wage increase in
the comparables is 3.6%. City Ex. 28.
The highest wage increase
in any of the comparables was 5.5%. Again, this factor strongly
favors the City's position in this
proceeding where the Association
is seeking a 13% increase which is
totally inconsistent with wage
increases granted in the comparables.
Turning
next to the "metro/non-metro factor," interest
arbitrators have recognized there is a
substantial difference
between metropolitan Seattle
jurisdictions and jurisdictions
outside of the Seattle area. Generally speaking, jurisdictions in
metropolitan areas pay more than
non-metropolitan jurisdictions.
The City offered economic data to
substantiate both the existence
and impact of this differential.
The
population density of King, Snohomish, and Thurston
counties is from 7.8 to 22 times greater
than Grays Harbor County.
Per capital income in King County as of
1996 was $34,440, over 80%
higher than Grays Harbor's $18,884. Median household income in
King County is nearly twice that of
Grays Harbor. When the
economic data is reviewed, the
conclusion is inescapable that
Aberdeen is more similar to many cities
in eastern Washington than
it is to cities in the Puget Sound
metropolitan area.
Against
the background of the differentials in economic
data, the City claims it is entirely
appropriate to put wages for
Aberdeen police officers somewhat below
the average of the
comparable jurisdictions. Three of the City's seven comparables
are in the Puget Sound metropolitan area,
five are in the "I-5
corridor," and four have
significantly greater assessed valuations.
On the other hand, four of the
Association's eight cities are in
the Puget Sound metropolitan area, and
six are in the I-5 corridor.
According to the City, it would be
entirely inappropriate to award
a
wage increase that
would move Aberdeen police officers
significantly over the average of the
comparable jurisdictions.
Regardless of which methodology or
comparison is used, the City's
wage increase of 2% will put Aberdeen
police officers in an
appropriate place in comparison with the
other jurisdictions.
With
respect to internal equity, no City
employee
received a pay increase in 1998. For 1999, the majority of City
bargaining units and all non-represented
employees received a 2%
wage increase, based on 80% of the
CPI. City Ex. 7. The
firefighter bargaining unit received an
increase of 2% effective
January 1, 1999, but with an additional
2% on July 1, 1999. In 13
out of the past 16 years, all bargaining
units have received either
the same increase or within one percent
of each other. The City's
proposal is to provide police officers
with an increase which will
restore the historical relationship
between the parties. The issue
of internal equity strongly favors the
position of the City in this
interest arbitration.
The
factor of changes in consumer prices bolsters the
position of the City. The Consumer Price
Index has been running at
less than 3% and was only 1.3% for
1998. The CPI-W for Seattle
increased by 2.6% in 1998 and the CPI-W
for Portland increased by
only 1.6%. In the first half of 1999, the CPI-W for
Seattle
increased by 3%. The Association has completely ignored this
statutory factor in its attempt to
obtain a 13% wage increase. The
evidence also shows that the Consumer
Price Index overstates
inflation by about one percent. In the
total tax factor, the eight
cities proposed by the Association
reveals Aberdeen ranks next to
last.
This is the result of benefits shopping by the Association.
The Association did not even follow its
own selection criteria when
it included Hoquiam and Olympia in the
list of proposed cities.
All else being equal, it would be
expected that the jurisdiction
with more revenue per capita would be in
a better position to pay
its police officers. This is consistent with the City's position
on the total tax revenue list and
supports the City's position of
a 2% increase.
The
Association has suggested the Arbitrator should
consider the City's lack of
participation in the Social Security
system in setting the wage increase. The
Association is suggesting
the lack of Social Security benefits
supports an across-the-board
increase of 13%. The Association's reasoning should be
rejected.
The Association's analysis does not give
the City credit for other
benefits it provides police officers
which are also included in the
Social Security program. There is not any basis to include the
City's contribution to Social Security
in determining whether an
additional 5% increase is necessary for
Aberdeen police officers.
The Association is mixing apples and
oranges in that all other
components of wage comparisons are
limited to money that is
actually received by the police
officers.
Regarding
deferred compensation, the City argues it is
entirely inappropriate to include
deferred compensation as part of
a wage analysis. Deferred compensation is a separate and
distinct
benefit from wages. The Association has proposed a required
employer matching contribution to the
City's existing deferred
compensation program. The deferred compensation program is an
option with the employees and therefore
is not appropriate to mix
and match deferred compensation and
wages as part of an overall
analysis. The Arbitrator should find the City's offer
is
reasonable and should not be compromised
by the Arbitrator. To do
so would be to reward the Association's
use of:
1. An
inflated population band that expands
the
range to include cities more than
twice
the size of Aberdeen, with "loaded"
comparators from
the Puget Sound
metropolitan
area.
2. Inflated
methodology for making
compensation
comparisons that expand the
issues
far beyond the scope of this
second-year
wage reopener arbitration.
3. Unreliable
data The union has submitted
net
hours of work that does not reflect
the
change in work schedule negotiated by
the
parties.
4. Omitted
data - The Guild's arguments give
no credit
for favorable compensation
items already
negotiated, e.g. life
insurance,
employer co-pay on the Guild
disability
plan, increased premium pays,
reduction in
work hours, increased
overtime
pay, and other work rules.
City
Brief, p. 23.
In
sum, the Association has not offered any explanation
of how their proposal is in any way
consistent with or supported by
any of the statutory factors and should
be rejected.
Based
on all of the above-stated reasons, the City
respectfully requests that its wage
proposal be adopted.
III. DISCUSSION
AND FINDINGS (1999 WAGES)
A. Background
The
parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement covers the
period from January 1, 1998, through
December 31, 2000. For 1998
the parties agreed to a zero percent
increase on the 1997 salary
schedule. While there were other benefits negotiated,
the salary
schedule in place for 1997 was frozen
for 1998 with reopeners for
1999 and 2000. Neither side is proposing
a change in the structure
of the existing salary schedule. The current salary schedule for
1999 is as follows:
Current Pay Scale from 1998 Contract
Step
1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
Patrol 3,062 3,216 3,374 3,542 3,721
LPO 3,216 3,374 3,542 3,721
3,908
Sergeant 3,374 3,542 3,721 3,908
4,102 4,307
Assoc. Ex. 36.
This
case was presented to the Arbitrator based on a wage
reopener
for 1999 included in the parties' 1998-2000 Collective
Bargaining Agreement. Two preliminary subjects need to be
addressed at the commencement of this
discussion. First, the
Arbitrator concurs with the City that a
straight comparison of top
step wages for police officers should be
applied in the instant
case.
In the judgment of this Arbitrator, it is inappropriate to
utilize a total compensation analysis
when reviewing a wage only
reopener.
A
simple and straightforward "apples to apples" approach
when analyzing salary differentials
would best serve the parties
under the contract for a wage reopener. Any
attempt to go further
and explore the value of other benefits
received or not received,
such as longevity, education, medical
insurance, etc., would enmesh
the parties and this Arbitrator in areas
not subject to negotiation
under the wage reopener. This is particularly true where both
parties are proposing across-the-board
salary increases to the
existing schedule. Therefore, this Arbitrator will confine his
assessment of the record to the top step
wage paid to police
officers which is normally at the
five-year experience level.
The
second threshold issue to be considered is the impact
of the 1998 salary freeze taken by
members of this bargaining unit
on the 1999 wage reopener
interest arbitration. The answer of the
City is the parties agreed to a zero
percent increase in the first
year as the appropriate way to settle
the contract. Thus, the City
submits the agreed-on 1998 salary freeze
is irrelevant to this
case.
The
Association argues the members agreed to a salary
freeze in 1998 to help the City out,
with the underlying implicit
understanding the City would "make
it right" in 1999. Absent from
this record is any credible evidence
that such an implicit
understanding existed between the
parties. There was no written
evidence offered by the Association to
support that such an
understanding existed. Therefore, the Arbitrator will attach no
special significance to the voluntarily
agreed-on wage freeze
except to the extent the zero percent
increase impacted on the
comparability evidence.
As
previously noted, the City is proposing a 2% across-
the-board increase. If awarded by the Arbitrator, the 1999 salary
schedule would provide as follows:
2% Increase
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3 Step
4 Step
5 Step 6
Patrol 3,123.24 3,280.32 3,441.48
3,612.84 3,795.42 0.00
LPO 3,280.32
3,441.48 3,612.84 3,795.42 3,986.16 0.00
SGT 3,441.48
3,612.84 3,795.42 3,986.16 4,184.04 4,393.14
As
soc. Ex. 36.
Adoption of the Association's 13% proposal would
yield a
1999 salary schedule as
follows:
13% Increase
Step 1 Step 2
Step 3 Step
4 Step
5 Step 6
Patrol 3,460.06 3,634.08
3,812.62 4,002.46 4,204.73 0.00
LPO 3,634.08
3,812.62 4,002.46 4,204.73 4,416.04 0.00
SGT 3,812.62
4,002.46 4,204.73 4,416.04 4,635.26 4,866.91
Assoc.
Ex. 36.
The
Arbitrator will discuss separately the Association's
alternative proposal for a deferred
compensation plan with a
maximum 5% contribution rate. If this proposal is awarded by the
Arbitrator, the Association sought an 8%
increase on the salary
schedule. The deferred compensation plan would add a
new benefit
to the contract.
The
Arbitrator finds, after review of the evidence and
argument, as applied to the statutory
criteria, that a four percent
(4%) increase effective January 1, 1999,
applied to the existing
salary schedule is justified for
1999. Implementation of a 4%
increase will move the top step pay for
an Aberdeen police officer
to $3,870 per month effective January 1,
1999. By the time this
Award is implemented, the Aberdeen
police officers will have worked
more than three years without a wage
increase. The Arbitrator
rejects the Association's proposal to
add a deferred compensation
plan to the contract. The reasoning of
the Arbitrator is set forth
in the discussion which follows.
B. Deferred Compensation Proposal
Members
of this bargaining unit do not participate in the
Social
Security program. The
Association proposed as an
alternative to its 13% offer new
language to state:
In
addition, for all members of the bargaining
unit
including those referenced above, the
Employer
shall match employee contributions to
the
deferred compensation plan in an amount
equaling
up to 5% of the employee's base
monthly
wage.
Assoc.
Ex. 37.
If
the deferred compensation program were adopted, the
Association seeks an 8% increase on the
salary schedule. The City
objected to this proposal as an illegal
subject of bargaining.
Given the way the Association deferred
compensation plan is
structured and the fact the City
currently has in place a deferred
compensation program for non-bargaining unit employees,
the
Arbitrator does not agree the proposal
is illegal. Lastly, PERC
certified Article 29 for interest
arbitration which included the
potential for negotiations over a
deferred compensation plan.
The
Arbitrator rejects the Association's proposal for a
deferred compensation plan as part of
the 1999 wage reopener.
While Article 29 recognized the potential
for the negotiation of a
deferred compensation plan, your
Arbitrator was not persuaded this
new benefit should come into the
contract as part of a wage
reopener
in 1999. The adoption of a deferred
compensation program
should be considered in the context of
negotiation where total
compensation is the subject of
bargaining.
Standing
alone, the lack of a Social Security benefit is
not a justification for a deferred
compensation program. The
police unit opted out of Social Security
and is not seeking to
become a part of the Social Security
system. Further, the
comparability data offered by both
parties was mixed on the issue
of Social Security and deferred
compensation.
In
so holding, the Arbitrator wants to make it clear that
a deferred compensation program might be
an appropriate benefit to
be included in a future Collective
Bargaining Agreement. In the
judgment of this Arbitrator, the topic
of a deferred compensation
program should be left to future
negotiations. The point is
illustrated by the fact the Association
offered no specific
language regarding its proposal until
pressed by the Arbitrator to
do so.
Even the language presented by the Association at the
Arbitrator's request lacked detail and
specificity as to how the
program would be implemented and
administered.
In
sum, the subject of deferred compensation should be
left for future negotiations. The Arbitrator will make an award
based on a straight percentage figure to
be applied to the existing
salary schedule.
C. Stipulations of the parties
The
parties provided in Article 29 of the 1998-2000
Collective Bargaining Agreement for a reopener on the salary
schedule for 1999. The parties agreed the wage award would
become
effective January 1, 1999. Beyond the above-stated agreements,
there were no significant stipulations
of the parties relevant to
this interest arbitration.
D. Constitutional and Statutory Authority of the
Employer
Regarding
the factor of constitutional and statutory
authority of the City, no issues were
raised with respect to this
factor which would place the Award in
conflict with Washington law.
E. Changes During the pendency of this proceeding
Regarding
the factor of changes in any circumstances
during the pendency
of the interest arbitration proceeding, none
were brought to the attention of the
Arbitrator by the parties to
the dispute.
F. Comparability
The
driving force behind the positions of the parties is
comparability. One of the threshold issues to be decided by
this
Arbitrator is to determine the
appropriate group of comparators
with which to utilize in establishing
the level of wages for
Aberdeen police officers. To the knowledge of this Arbitrator,
this is the first interest arbitration
in which the parties have
had to resort to resolve a wage
dispute. Absent from this record
is any evidence that the parties have
previously utilized a group
of comparators for the purpose of
serving as a guideline to
establish wage rates for Aberdeen police
officers. The lack of
such evidence left the Arbitrator with
no historical precedent for
determining the comparator group.
The
parties did agree to confine their comparator groups
to police officers in Washington
cities. The parties are in sharp
disagreement over which Washington
cities should be included in the
comparator group. Both sides devoted considerable time and
effort
towards proving which cities best fit
the statutory criteria. The
methodology used by the City and the
Association to develop their
separate lists of comparators varied
widely.
The
parties did agree that three cities should be on the
final list of comparators for use as a
guide in setting police
wages in Aberdeen. The three cities agreed on are as follows:
Mountlake
Terrace
Kelso
Tumwater
The Arbitrator will include the three
above-named cities on his
list of comparators.
Two
main areas of disagreement divide the parties over
constructing a list of comparators. First, the City is proposing
three jurisdictions from eastern
Washington. They are Moses Lake,
Sunnyside, and Ellensburg. Second, the Association is proposing
Olympia, a city with a population of
40,210, and an assessed
valuation of
$2,585,508,854 for comparison.
All of the
Association's comparators
are drawn from western Washington
jurisdictions.
The Arbitrator
holds the Association
failed to
demonstrate Olympia was a like employer
under the statute. The
Association argued for inclusion of
Olympia based on Olympia's
alleged "sphere of influence"
on Aberdeen. In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, Olympia is clearly
distinguishable from Aberdeen on
three major grounds. First, Olympia's population of 40,210 is
23,790 greater than Aberdeen's
population of 16,420. Second,
Olympia's assessed valuation of
$2,585,508,854 is over four times
as large as Aberdeen's assessed
valuation of $636,624,943. Assoc.
Exs.
20 and 21.
Third,
the Association's sphere of influence claim was
unsupported by relevant evidence. Aberdeen is not a neighbor or
suburb of Olympia, but is located
approximately fifty miles away.
Further, the economic characteristics of
the two cities are not
sufficiently similar
to warrant a
finding the cities
are
comparable. Hence, the Arbitrator is compelled to
conclude the
sphere of influence argument does not
overcome the other factors
which make two cities like employers of
a similar size under the
statute.
Moreover, the Arbitrator will not add
Issaquah to the
list based on the fact it has an
assessed valuation of over twice
that of Aberdeen. In addition, Issaquah's proximity to Seattle
would give too much weight to the
Seattle metro area cities on any
comparator list. Based on population and assessed valuation,
Lake
Forest Park provides a better choice for
a Seattle metropolitan
area representative on the list of
comparators. The parties'
agreement to include Mountlake Terrace
and the use of Lake Forest
Park by this interest Arbitrator
provides a representative sample
of two cities located in the Seattle
metro area.
With
respect to Hoquiam, the conclusion of the Arbitrator
is the exact opposite. While Hoquiam is a smaller city with a
population of 8,995, it is located in
Grays Harbor County, less
than five miles distance from
Aberdeen. Hoquiam shares all the
attributes of Grays Harbor County cited
by the City to justify its
position on the economic and demographic
factors in Grays Harbor
County.
Because Hoquiam is a neighboring city located in the same
county, Hoquiam belongs on the list of
comparators, as proposed by
the Association.
A
major issue which interest arbitrators in Washington
have been required to address in
selecting comparators is whether
to use eastern Washington cities to
compare with western Washington
cities or vice versa. Arbitral authority
instructs that, if there
are sufficient and reliable comparators
in western Washington,
cities from eastern Washington should
not be used in developing the
list of comparators. The reason for not mixing the two geographic
areas of Washington is based on
location, economic and population
differences, and industrial development. This Arbitrator is
generally in accord with the
above-stated principle.
The
Arbitrator finds there are sufficient and reliable
jurisdictions in western Washington to
serve as a guideline for
reaching a decision on the wages to be
paid Aberdeen police
officers in this case. Under such circumstances, the Arbitrator
finds there is no need to include
eastern Washington jurisdictions
on the list of comparators. The parties have agreed to three
western Washington cities, and the
Arbitrator has added Hoquiam~
which was proposed by the Association.
Further, the Arbitrator has
accepted the City's proposal to include
Lake Forest Park as an
appropriate comparator representing the
Seattle metro area. The
obvious choice for the sixth city is Oak
Harbor based on a similar
population size and assessed valuation
to Aberdeen. The same
reasoning holds true for Port
Angeles. The population, assessed
valuation, geographic location, and
economic factors make Oak
Harbor and Port Angeles suitable guides
to assist the Arbitrator in
resolving this wage dispute.
With
the three agreed-on comparators and the additional
four cities selected by the Arbitrator
from those proposed by the
parties that are closely representative
to Aberdeen in several key
factors, the comparator list has grown
to seven. In the judgment
of
this Arbitrator, a meaningful
number of comparators for
resolving this case is nine. The balance can be struck to bring
the total number to nine comparators by
adding Anacortes and
Centralia to the list.
Anacortes
is a coastal city with a smaller population of
13,900
than Aberdeen, but
a higher assessed valuation of
$991,970,442. Given all the indicators, the Arbitrator
concludes
Anacortes is a like employer of a
similar size under the statute.
The equalizing force to the list of
comparators is to include
Centralia. By adding Centralia, a slightly smaller city
in
population and a somewhat lower assessed
valuation than Aberdeen is
added to the mix of comparators. Centralia is also an appropriate
comparator because it is located in an
adjacent rural county, not
far from Aberdeen.
The
Arbitrator adopts the following list of comparators
with the 1999 top step wage for police
officers added:
City Wage
Mountlake
Terrace $4,067
Kelso $3,980
Tumwater $3,975
Anacortes $3,873
Lake
Forest Park $3,857
Oak
Harbor $3,849
Centralia $3,788
Hoquiam $3,687
Port
Angeles $3,676
Average
wage $3,861
Aberdeen
1998 wage $3,721
The
2% increase offered by the City would place the top
step police officer wage at $3,795 per
month, or $66 below the
average wage paid in the nine
comparators. Further, the $3,795
proposal of the City would position
Aberdeen police officers at
number 7 in the ranking of the ten
cities, including Aberdeen.
Aberdeen police officers would be in the
bottom one-third of the
comparators. The Arbitrator's award of 4% positions
Aberdeen
police officers right in the middle of
the comparators at number 5.
Turning to
the Association's proposal,
there is
absolutely no evidence in the record
which would warrant the 13%
increase sought by the Association for
1999. The Arbitrator
disagrees with the Association's attempt
to justify the 13%
increase based on the voluntarily
agreed-on wage freeze in 1998.
The parties made a bargain in 1998 and
must abide by its terms and
consequences. Adoption of the 13% proposal would propel
the
members of this bargaining unit to the
top position on the
comparator list for police officers in a
period of one year.
Nothing in the record of this case
compels such a result. Even
with the wage freeze for 1998 factored
in, the Arbitrator concludes
a 13% increase for 1999 is not justified
by any measure of the
statutory criteria.
One
advantage of holding an interest arbitration in the
year 2000 for a wage adjustment in 1999
is that the comparator
cities have reached agreement on their
1999 wage adjustment. The
evidence shows that the wage adjustments
for the comparator group
to be as follows:
1999
Wage
City Adjustment
Mountlake
Terrace 3.0%
Kelso 3.4%
Tumwater 3.1%
Anacortes 4.0%
Lake
Forest Park 3.0%
Oak
Harbor 5
.5%
Centralia 5.4%
Hoquiam 3.0%
Port
Angeles 5.5%
As
can be seen from a review of the above data, the 1999
settlement range for police officer
contracts varied from 3% to
5.5%.
It is noteworthy that none of the comparators agreed on a 2%
increase, as proposed by the City, in
this case. Each of the above
cities also provided a wage increase for
1998. There is no
evidence that any of the cities on the
comparator group agreed to
a wage freeze in 1998, other than
Aberdeen. When the 1998 wage
freeze is combined with the 1999 police
officer wage settlements,
the Arbitrator finds the City's proposed
2% increase to be
inadequate.
The 4% wage
increase awarded by this Arbitrator,
effective January 1, 1999, will raise
the maximum salary for an
Aberdeen police officer to $3,870 per
month. The maximum salary of
$3,870 will position Aberdeen police
officers at number 5 in the
ranking of the ten cities. In addition, the top salary will be $9
above the average of the nine
comparators. The award of a 4%
increase places Aberdeen within the
range of reasonableness when
compared to their police counterparts in
the nine other western
Washington comparators. There
is no evidence before this
Arbitrator that the City is unable to
afford a 4% increase for its
police officers in 1999.
G. Cost of Living
The
record evidence established that the national CPI-W
and the CPI-U has been recording
increases between 2.5% and 3% over
the past five years. The 1998 Seattle CPI-W was 2.6%. Assoc.
Ex. 10.
For the first half of 1999, the Seattle CPI-W showed a 3%
increase.
The
City believes the CPI overstates "consumer prices" by
about one percent. The City reasons the Arbitrator should use a
revised CPI figure of 2% in analyzing
the cost of living factor.
The Arbitrator declines the City's
invitation to tinker with the
officially published CPI figures by a
reduction of one percent to
account for the purported overstatement
in the measurement of
increases in the price of goods and
services.
The
Arbitrator concurs with the City and the Association
that the cost of living factor is to be
used as one of the
guidelines for
setting the appropriate
level of wages for
employees. The CPI measures price
increases in a set market basket
of goods and services. The CPI is not intended to measure the
impact on any particular individual
because not all persons
purchase that same market basket of goods
and services, nor does it
reflect changes in buying patterns. However, the CPI is widely
recognized as an important factor in
determining appropriate wage
adjustments.
The
Arbitrator finds the evidence regarding cost of
living supports a wage settlement closer
to the City's position
than the 13% offered by the
Association. The City's evidence
proved the members of this bargaining
unit have fared well in
recent years when negotiated wage
increases are compared with the
corresponding changes in the CPI over
the past several years. City
Ex. 27.
While the City's study is not perfect, the analysis does
give the Arbitrator a long-term picture
of wage increases for
Aberdeen police officers in relation to
the CPI. The City's CPI
evidence does not factor in the
Association's evidence that police
officers have generally enjoyed wage
increases that have exceeded
the CPI and the fact the 1998 salary
schedule was frozen for 1999.
In
sum, the 4% wage increase awarded by this Arbitrator
for 1999 is consistent with the past and
projected increases in the
cost of living as measured by the
Consumer Price Index.
H. Other Traditional Factors
A
host of potential guidelines are suggested by the
catchall of "other factors . . normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination
of wage, hours, and
conditions of employment." RCW
41.56.465(1) (f) . As this case was
driven by the comparability factor,
neither party made a strong
argument there were "other
factors" at play in this dispute which
would override the enumerated statutory
criteria.
The issue
of internal comparability
is of some
significance to the resolution of this
dispute. The City explained
that no employee of Aberdeen received a
wage increase in 1998. In
addition, the City stated the majority
of bargaining units and non-
bargaining unit employees received a 2%
increase based on 80% of
the CPI for 1999. City Ex. 7.
The City notes that firefighters
also received a 2% increase effective
January 1, 1999, plus an
additional 2% to be applied on
fact that over the past fifteen years
police wages have increased
faster than firefighter wages.
The
Arbitrator is authorized by law to resolve the wage
dispute between the City of
Association. He is not here to settle the wages for other
employees of the City of
Arbitrator is consistent with the
statutory criteria and compatible
with wage increases enjoyed by other
employees of the City of
AWARD
The
Arbitrator awards the 1999 wages should be adjusted
as follows:
Effective
schedule for
police officers shall
be
increased
by four percent (4%) across the
board.
Respectfully
submitted,
Gary
L. Axon
Arbitrator
Dated: