BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the matter of the interest )
arbitration between ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL 252, ) OPINION AND AWARD
)
and )
)
CITY OF CHEHALIS, WASHINGTON ) CASE 15864-I-01-366
(POLICE DEPARTMENT) )
) 2001-2002 AGREEMENT
_______________________________)
HEARING SITE: City Hall
Chehalis, Washington
HEARING DATE: October 2, 2001
POST-HEARING BRIEFS POSTMARKED: November 2, 2001
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS: November 5, 2001
REPRESENTING THE CITY: William T. Hillier
City Attorney
Hillier & Scheibmeir
299 NW Center St
Chehalis, WA 98532
(360) 748-3386
REPRESENTING THE UNION: David W. Ballew
Attorney at Law
Davies, Roberts & Reid
101 Elliott Ave W, Ste 550
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 285-3610
ARBITRATOR: Mark S. Downing
Public Employment
Relations Commission
PO Box 40919
Olympia, WA 98504-0919
(360) 753-2955
DATE OF AWARD: February 22, 2002
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an interest arbitration proceeding under Chapter 41.56 RCW
and Chapter 391-55 WAC between Teamsters Union, Local 252 (Union),
and City of Chehalis, Washington, Police Department (City). The
City and Union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement
(agreement) effective January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2000.
The agreement covers approximately 15 employees in the
classifications of police officer and police sergeant.
After the City and Union failed to reach agreement in bilateral
negotiations for a successor agreement, on December 20, 2000, the
parties filed for mediation with the Public Employment Relations
Commission (Commission). See Case 15530-M-00-5435. The matter was
not resolved in mediation and on June 19, 2001, Marvin L. Schurke,
Executive Director of the Commission, certified the following issues
for interest arbitration under RCW 41.56.450:
1. Salary Schedule
2. Compensatory Time
3. Contact Calls
4. Specialty Pay
5. Detective Clothing Allowance
6. Longevity Pay
Case 15864-I-01-366 was docketed by the Commission to process the
interest arbitration proceeding.
On July 13, 2001, the parties filed a letter with the Commission
under WAC 391-55-205 waiving their right to appoint partisan
arbitrators to form an arbitration panel, and requesting that a
Commission staff member be assigned to act as neutral chairperson
under WAC 391-55-210(2). Executive Director Schurke appointed Mark
S. Downing from the Commission staff to serve as Arbitrator.
On August 10, 2001, a Notice of Hearing was issued by the Arbitrator
scheduling a hearing for October 2, 2001. On September 20, 2001,
the Union filed written proposals on the issues it intended to
submit to interest arbitration. The City filed its written
proposals on the issues on September 26, 2001.
A hearing was held by the Arbitrator in Chehalis, Washington, on
October 2, 2001. At the beginning of the hearing, the Union
withdrew its proposed changes on two issues: 1) Compensatory time;
and 2) Specialty pay. Oral testimony and documentary evidence were
received on the remaining issues at the hearing. The City and Union
were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, to present any evidence pertinent to the dispute, and to
make argument. A tape recording of the hearing was taken by the
Arbitrator. The parties filed written briefs and the record was
closed upon receipt of the final brief on November 5, 2001.
II. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
The Opinion and Award of the Arbitrator is based on the following
statutory provisions:
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), 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;
. . . .
(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.
. . . .
The six statutory factors set forth in RCW 41.56.465 will serve as
standards and guidelines for the Arbitrator to follow in making his
decision.
III. ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The parties have presented four issues for the Arbitrator to decide:
Salary Schedule
Contact Calls
Detective Clothing Allowance
Longevity Pay
The Union submits two alternative proposals for the issues of salary
schedule and longevity pay, as follows:
ALTERNATIVE A:
APPENDIX B - SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2001: 3.3% wage increase.
Effective January 1, 2002: 4.0% wage increase.
SECTION 7.5 - LONGEVITY PAY
After 5 years of service, .25% added to base monthly
salary for each year of service.
ALTERNATIVE B:
APPENDIX B - SALARY SCHEDULE
Effective January 1, 2001: 5.0% wage increase.
The City proposes that monthly salaries in Appendix B be increased
by 3.3% on January 1, 2001, with an additional increase of 4.0% on
January 1, 2002. The City proposes no change in longevity pay.
In relation to detective clothing allowance, the Union proposes to
increase the current allowance from $540 to $600 per year. The City
proposes no change in the allowance.
The Union proposes a new section for "contact calls." The agreement
provides employees with a minimum guarantee of four hours
compensation for callbacks during their off-duty hours. Under the
Union's proposal, employees contacted for a duration of five minutes
or less while off-duty to provide information which is beneficial to
the City, would receive compensation of 1/2 hour overtime instead of
the four-hour minimum callback. The City seeks no change in the
agreement on this issue.
IV. STIPULATIONS OF PARTIES
One of the six statutory factors under RCW 41.56.465 that the
Arbitrator must consider is the "stipulations of the parties."
Another statutory factor is "comparison of the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment" of police officers and police sergeants of
the City of Chehalis 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 City and Union entered into a stipulation concerning comparable
jurisdictions. The parties agreed that the Arbitrator will use the
following 11 cities in the state of Washington to make the statutory
comparison of wages, hours and conditions of employment under RCW
41.56.465:
1. Arlington
2. Burlington
3. Centralia
4. Ferndale
5. Hoquiam
6. Kelso
7. Port Orchard
8. Poulsbo
9. Sedro-Woolley
10. Shelton
11. Sumner
The parties' stipulation concerning comparable jurisdictions is
binding on the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator cannot pick and choose
which of the comparables to use on any particular issue. The
parties stipulated to 11 comparable cities and all of them will be
utilized in analyzing the issues presented to the Arbitrator.
V. POSITIONS OF PARTIES
A. Position of Union
The Union's stated goal in this proceeding is to bring the
compensation of City of Chehalis police officers and police
sergeants in line with comparable jurisdictions. There are two key
components of compensation in the Union's mind: 1) Wages (monthly
salary); and 2) Longevity pay. Under the City's wage proposal for
2001 and 2002, the Union maintains that compensation at the entry
level and five-year service level will be acceptably in the
mid-range of the comparables. However, compensation for employees
with 10 years of service will fall 4.2% behind the comparables, and
this gap will increase to 5% after 15 years of service and 6.6%
after 20 years of service. The Union contends that this gap in
compensation for more experienced employees is due to the fact that
nine of the 11 comparables have longevity pay, while Chehalis has a
very limited longevity pay plan.
The Union prefers its two-year Alternative A proposal to address the
compensation gap for more experienced employees. The Union's
one-year Alternative B proposal, based on a 5.3% wage increase
received in 2001 by the City's firefighters, does not include any
change in longevity pay. Although the longevity pay component of
Alternative A would increase the City's annual costs by
approximately $18,000, the Union argues that the City can afford
such an increase given its current unreserved revenue balance. The
Union maintains that acceptance of the City's proposal would allow
the City to increase its unreserved revenue balance nearly 50%, from
6.8% ($425,000) to 10% ($600,000) of the general fund.
In regards to detective clothing allowance, the Union argues that
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a ruling during the
agreement determining that this allowance is taxable income. In
response, the City began to withhold income taxes from the allowance
of approximately $100 per year. The Union contends that the IRS
ruling has reduced the value of the current allowance.
In relation to contact calls, the Union provided the example of
night shift employees receiving calls from the Prosecutor's office
during daytime hours when these employees are normally sleeping. The
Union asserts that employees have been hesitant to seek the
four-hour minimum for callbacks provided in the agreement for these
short-term contacts. The Union's proposal would lower compensation
for contacts of five minutes or less to 1/2 hour overtime. The
Union characterizes its proposal as an "olive branch" to resolve a
"percolating grievance in a cost-effective manner."
B. Position of City
The City argues that its total compensation package, including
wages, medical insurance and net hours of work, exceeds or is well
within the range of the comparables. The City maintains that its
compensation package is 3.7% above the average of the comparables
for an entry-level employee, 2.9% above average for a five-year
employee, at the average for a 10-year employee, and only .5% below
the average for a 15-year employee. The City objects to the Union's
"piecemeal" approach of only looking at wages and longevity pay. As
the Union agrees that the City's wage offer for 2001 and 2002 is
appropriate, the City asserts that the Union is simply seeking to
add a new benefit of longevity pay. The City argues that now is not
the time to add a new benefit, as it has been forced in recent years
to tighten its budget due to declining sales tax revenue. The City
points out that it cut its overall staffing by six positions in
2001, and more cutbacks may be necessary in 2002.
The City claims that longevity pay was provided to employees in the
past, but that the Union negotiated this benefit away for
employer-paid long-term disability insurance. The City asserts that
longevity pay has historically been provided to public employees
because they have received less compensation than private sector
employees providing similar services. However, the City believes
that as current compensation packages for public employees equal or
exceed benefits for similar positions in the private sector,
longevity pay is no longer appropriate.
In regards to the Union's proposed new section on contact calls, the
City argues that the Union currently enjoys the highest compensation
of any of the comparables for minimum callbacks. The City believes
that the Union is in the wrong forum on this issue, arguing that the
Union should bring this contract interpretation matter before a
grievance arbitrator. In relation to detective clothing allowance,
the City believes that the amount of its current allowance is fair.
The City asserts that it is paying more than seven of the 11
comparables and that an increase in this benefit is not provided in
its budget.
VI. DISCUSSION
A. Statutory Considerations
Interest arbitration is a statutory process under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
RCW 41.56.430 recognizes that: 1) There is a public policy in the
state of Washington of avoiding strikes by uniformed personnel as a
means of settling their labor disputes; and 2) The interest
arbitration process was developed to provide an effective and
adequate alternative means of settling such disputes. The standards
and guidelines under RCW 41.56.465 for determining interest
arbitration disputes can be summarized as follows:
* Constitutional and statutory authority of employer
* Stipulations of parties
* Comparable conditions of employment
* Cost of living
* Changes in circumstances during the proceeding
* Other factors normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in bargaining. For cities of less than
15,000, this includes regional differences in the
cost of living.
The parties made no arguments and presented no evidence on three of
the statutory factors: 1) Constitutional and statutory authority of
employer; 2) Cost of living; and 3) Changes in circumstances during
proceeding. As the parties did not present any information on these
factors, the Arbitrator is unable to take them into consideration in
making his decision.
The arguments of the City and Union focused on the following
statutory factors:
* Stipulations of parties
* Comparable conditions of employment
* Other factors normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in bargaining.
Due to the parties' stipulation to use 11 comparable cities, the
record contains collective bargaining agreements from those
jurisdictions. Those agreements provide detailed information
concerning comparable conditions of employment. Other documentary
evidence and arguments of the parties will be considered by the
Arbitrator in analyzing other factors normally or traditionally
taken into consideration in bargaining.
B. Application of Statute to Issues in Dispute
The City and Union have framed four issues for the Arbitrator to
decide:
Salary Schedule
Contact Calls
Detective Clothing Allowance
Longevity Pay
The parties have concentrated their arguments in this proceeding on
one key issue: longevity pay. The Arbitrator frames this issue as
follows:
Do comparable jurisdictions stipulated by the parties
support the inclusion of longevity pay in the compensation
of police officers and police sergeants of the City of
Chehalis?
Salary Schedule and Longevity Pay
Appendix B of the agreement contains a salary schedule providing
monthly wages for employees. The wage portion of the Union's
Alternative A proposal is identical to the City's wage proposal,
providing a 3.3% increase in monthly salaries on January 1, 2001,
and an additional increase of 4.0% on January 1, 2002.
However, the parties are diametrically opposed on longevity pay.
Section 7.5.1 of the agreement currently provides as follows:
7.5. LONGEVITY
7.5.1. The following LEOFF I officers shall receive
forty dollars ($40.00) per month longevity compensation:
Steve Birley and Gary Hodges.
Police officers hired prior to 1977 are covered by the Law
Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System Plan I
(LEOFF I), established by Chapter 41.26 RCW. Section 7.5.1 applies
to only two of the 15 employees covered by the agreement.
The Union proposes that section 7.5.1 be replaced with the following
language:
7.5.1. Employee shall receive longevity pay in
proportion to the employee's years of service and shall be
compensated in the following manner. After five (5) years
of service an employee shall receive point two five
percent (.25%) added to his or her base monthly salary for
each year of service.
The City seeks to continue the status quo on longevity pay.
The Union argues that salary schedule and longevity pay must be
analyzed together, as they are both forms of wage compensation. The
City favors looking at its total compensation package, which
includes wage compensation, medical insurance, and net hours worked
by employees. The Arbitrator cannot accept the City's position
concerning total compensation. There is insufficient evidence and
argument in the record to make a comparison of medical insurance and
net hours worked between the comparables and the City. In addition,
those issues were not certified for interest arbitration and are not
before the Arbitrator for decision.
The issues of salary schedule and longevity pay have been presented
to the Arbitrator. Should these issues be considered or analyzed
separately by the Arbitrator, or together as the Union asserts? RCW
41.56.450 defines the statutory factor of "comparable conditions of
employment" as including "wages, hours, and conditions of
employment." Employees receive wages, or monetary payment for their
services, in various forms. Employees typically receive a monthly
or hourly salary. Employees with certain assignments may receive
speciality pay, and employees with designated levels of experience
or service may receive longevity pay. Monetary payments received by
employees as salary or longevity pay are both forms of wage
compensation, and are appropriately considered together in this
proceeding.
The 11 agreements in evidence indicate that seven of the comparables
have settled their wages for 2001. The four cities that have not
concluded negotiations for 2001 are: 1) Kelso; 2) Port Orchard; 3)
Poulsbo; and 4) Sedro-Woolley. In addition, Sedro-Woolley has not
settled their agreement for 2000. The parties stipulated to a list
of 11 comparables. In order to effectively implement this
stipulation, the Arbitrator must decide the appropriate wage rates
to use for Kelso, Port Orchard, Poulsbo, and Sedro-Woolley in
calculating the average wage of a police officer for the comparables
in 2001.
It is unacceptable to use 1999 and 2000 wage data to calculate an
average wage of the comparables for 2001. Insufficient information
is presented in the 11 agreements to calculate an average wage
increase in 2000 for the comparables. Of the seven comparables who
have settled their 2001 agreements, wages increased an average of
3.15% over 2000 salaries. It is appropriate for comparison purposes
only to adopt a 3% wage increase in 2001 for Kelso, Port Orchard,
Poulsbo and Sedro-Woolley, and an additional 3% wage increase in
2000 for Sedro-Woolley. Such assumptions are necessary to make an
"apple to apple" comparison of the City and Union proposals on
salaries and longevity pay with the compensation paid in 2001 by the
comparables.
The 11 agreements indicate that the following monthly salaries were
paid to police officers by the comparables in 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------
After 5 After 10
Entry Years Years
Arlington $3249 $3876 $4297
Burlington 3312 3958 3958
Centralia 3428 4074 4074
Ferndale 3050 3706 3956
Hoquiam 3074 3634 3982
Kelso* 3392 4214 4214
Port Orchard* 3252 4021 4021
Poulsbo* 3465 4013 4013
Sedro-Woolley** 3162 3898 3898
Shelton 3336 3863 3863
Sumner 3388 4159 4159
Average 3283 3947 4040
Chehalis*** 3241 3923 3923
-1.3% -.6% -2.9%
* Includes 3% wage increase assumption for 2001
** Includes 3% wage increase assumption for 2000 and 2001
*** Includes 3.3% wage increase for 2001
----------------------------------------------------------
Police officers in the comparables have all reached the top step of
their salary schedules after 10 years of service. This "wages only"
comparison shows that entry-level and top-step wages of police
officers in the City of Chehalis for 2001 are below average.
A similar "wages only" table cannot be developed for 2002, as wage
information is available from only four of the 11 comparables.
However, the parties' agreed-upon 4% wage increase for 2002 can be
compared to the 2000 wage increase contained in the parties'
agreement. The 2000 increase equaled 100% of the July 1999 Seattle
Consumer Price Index [All Urban Consumers] (CPI-U). If the same
CPI-U formula were used with the July 2001 index to calculate a 2002
wage increase, the formula would generate a 4% increase. As wage
increases often track cost of living indexes, it is likely that the
parties' 2002 wage increase will maintain the relative wage position
of Chehalis with its comparables.
Agreements from the comparables provide the following information on
monthly longevity pay for 2001:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After 5 After 10 After 15 After 20 After 25
Years Years Years Years Years
Arlington $25.00 $50.00 $75.00 $100.00 $100.00
(.6%) (1.2%) (1.7%) (2.3%) (2.3%)
Burlington 22.50 35.00 47.50 60.00 72.50
(.6%) (.9%) (1.2%) (1.5%) (1.8%)
Centralia 1.5% 2.5% 2.75% 3% 3%
Ferndale No 55.00 80.00 105.00 130.00
(1.4%) (2%) (2.7%) (3.3%)
Hoquiam No No No No No
Kelso 2% 4% 4%* 4%* 4%*
Port Orchard .75% 2% 3.25% 4.5% 5.75%
Poulsbo 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Sedro-Woolley 21.00 38.50 56.00 70.00 70.00
(.5%) (1%) (1.4%) (1.8%) (1.8%)
Shelton 42.00 126.00 210.00 250.00 250.00
(1.1%) (3.3%) (5.4%) (6.5%) (6.5%)
Sumner No No No No No
Average .73% 1.66% 2.25% 2.75% 3.04%
Chehalis No No No No No
Union proposal 1.25% 2.5% 3.75% 5% 6.25%
( ) Represents conversion of flat dollar amounts to percentage
of top step police officer wage.
* Employees hired on or before 1/1/96 receive 6% after 15
years and 8% after 20 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Police officers in nine of the 11 comparables receive longevity pay.
On an average, the comparables provide monthly longevity pay of
.73% of base salary after five years of service. Longevity pay
increases to 3.04% of base salary after 25 years of service.
A complete picture of wage compensation for City of Chehalis police
officers comes into view only when wage and longevity pay data are
viewed together. Total monthly wage compensation (salary and
longevity pay expressed in flat dollar amounts) of the comparables
for 2001 reads as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After 5 After 10 After 15 After 20 After 25
Years Years Years Years Years
Arlington $3901 $4347 $4372 $4397 $4397
Burlington 3981 3993 4006 4018 4031
Centralia 4135 4176 4186 4196 4196
Ferndale 3706 4011 4036 4061 4086
Hoquiam 3634 3982 3982 3982 3982
Kelso**** 4298 4383 4383 4383 4383
Port Orchard* 4051 4101 4152 4202 4252
Poulsbo* 4053 4093 4133 4174 4214
Sedro-Woolley** 3919 3937 3954 3968 3968
Shelton 3905 3989 4073 4113 4113
Sumner 4159 4159 4159 4159 4159
Average 3977 4106 4131 4150 4162
Chehalis*** 3923 3923 3923 3923 3923
-54 -183 -208 -227 -239
-1.4% -4.5% -5.0% -5.5% -5.7%
* Includes 3% wage increase assumption for 2001
** Includes 3% wage increase assumption for 2000 and 2001
*** Includes 3.3% wage increase for 2001
**** Includes 3% wage increase assumption for 2001, and
longevity pay based on employees hired after 1/1/96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After five years of service, police officers in the City of Chehalis
are 1.4% behind their comparables in total wage compensation. This
gap jumps to 4.5% after 10 years of service, 5% after 15 years, 5.5%
after 20 years, and 5.7% after 25 years.
Two statutory factors must be considered by the Arbitrator in
deciding the issue of longevity pay: 1) Comparable conditions of
employment; and 2) Other factors normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in bargaining. The Union contends that wage
compensation for more experienced City of Chehalis police officers
is significantly behind the comparables. The City argues that it
has current budgetary constraints and that the Union negotiated away
a previously-provided longevity pay benefit in exchange for
employer-paid long-term disability insurance. Both of the City's
contentions are traditional considerations of bargaining.
Under section 7.2.6 of the agreement, the City pays a long-term
disability insurance premium of approximately $30.00 per month for
non-LEOFF I employees. This premium applies to approximately 13 of
the 15 employees covered by the agreement. However, the parties
have agreed in their current negotiations that upon the signing of
their 2001-2002 agreement employees shall be responsible for
payment of this premium. The parties failed to present any argument
or evidence concerning whether the comparables generally provide
long-term disability insurance to employees, and if so, who pays for
this benefit. Such information is critical to determine whether the
City is out of step with the comparables on this issue. In
addition, long-term disability insurance is not one of the issues
that was certified before the Arbitrator. There is no support in
the record for the City's claim that the Union agreed to forego
longevity pay in exchange for employer-paid long-term disability
insurance.
The City is faced with serious budgetary issues. On September 12,
2001, three weeks before the hearing in this proceeding, City
Manager Dave Campbell presented a "2002 Budget Preparation Status
Report" to the Budget Committee of the City Council. This report
projected that the City would begin 2002 with a general fund
unreserved balance of approximately $640,000. Campbell recommended
that the Council adopt a target of $600,000, or 10% of the general
fund, for the balance in this fund at the end of 2002. Campbell
indicated that in order to attain this $600,000 target, City
expenditures would need to be reduced by $160,000. While the City
currently has a healthy general fund unreserved balance, that
balance may be in jeopardy unless the City reduces expenditures.
The Arbitrator must weigh the wage compensation (monthly salaries
and longevity pay) of the comparables with the City's budgetary
constraints. There is a huge gap between the wage compensation
received by City of Chehalis police officers and the wage
compensation paid by the comparables. The magnitude of this gap
clearly outweighs the budgetary constraints faced by the City.
The Union proposes that employees receive longevity pay after five
years of service, in the amount of .25% of base monthly salary for
each year of service. Under the Union's proposal, employees would
receive longevity pay of 1.25% of base monthly salary after five
years of service, increasing to 6.25% after 25 years of service.
While the comparables support an improved longevity pay system, the
Union's proposal is too rich.
The Arbitrator will replace section 7.5.1 of the agreement with a
longevity pay system similar to that provided by the City of Poulsbo
for its police officers. Under the new longevity pay system,
employees will receive longevity pay of 1% of base monthly salary
after five years of service, 2% after 10 years, 3% after 15 years,
4% after 20 years, and 5% after 25 years of service. The following
table summarizes the gap between the monthly wage compensation
(salaries and longevity pay) of the City and the average of its
comparables, the Union's proposal for longevity pay, and the
longevity pay system adopted by the Arbitrator:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After: 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years
Wage Gap between
Chehalis and Average
of Comparables -1.4% -4.5% -5% -5.5% -5.7%
Union Longevity
Pay Proposal 1.25% 2.5% 3.75% 5% 6.25%
Longevity Pay
Adopted by
Arbitrator 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The new longevity pay system fails to completely bridge the current
wage compensation gap. After 10 years of service, employees will
still trail the average of their counterparts in the comparables by
2.5%. However, this gap decreases to 2% after 15 years, 1.5% after
20 years, and .7% after 25 years of service. The new longevity pay
system will provide a progressive approach to encourage the City's
more experienced employees to continue their police careers with the
City.
The Arbitrator recognizes that this new longevity pay system carries
additional costs for the City. To soften the retroactive cost of
this benefit, the new system shall be phased in over a two-year
period. Effective January 1, 2001, section 7.5.1 of the agreement
shall be amended to reflect longevity pay of 1/2% after five years
of service, 1% after 10 years, 1.5% after 15 years, 2% after 20
years, and 2.5% after 25 years of service. These percentages will
double when the new longevity pay system takes full effect on
January 1, 2002.
Contact Calls
The agreement establishes the following procedures for minimum
callbacks:
5.5. CALL TIME
5.5.1. A call-back is defined as an official assignment
of work which does not continuously precede or follow an
employee's regularly scheduled working hours. Call-back
shall not include departmental meetings or training
sessions in which the employee(s) are notified a minimum
of five (5) calendar days in advance of such activities.
5.5.2. Employees called out, during their off duty hours,
shall be guaranteed a minimum of four (4) hours of
compensation at the employee's applicable rate of pay.
Any part of an hour shall constitute a full hour for those
worked above the minimums listed above.
5.5.3. Minimum call-back pay shall not apply in cases
where an employee is called back to correct a work
deficiency of said employee.
Under these provisions, employees called out during their off-duty
hours receive a minimum callback of four hours compensation.
The Union proposes the addition of a new section for "contact
calls," as follows:
5.5.4. CONTACT CALLS: An employee who is contacted while
off duty to solicit information which is beneficial to the
Employer shall be compensated a minimum of thirty (30)
minutes at time and one-half (1 1/2) for calls of five (5)
minutes or less duration. For calls which are in excess
of five (5) minutes call-back (four (4) hour minimum) as
described in section 5.5.2. shall be invoked.
The Union has presented a narrow issue for determination by the
Arbitrator. Under the agreement, employees are entitled to a
minimum four-hour callback when they are called out during off-duty
hours. The Union proposes an exception to this norm, providing for
a reduced minimum callback of 1/2 hour overtime for employer
contacts of five minutes or less. The Union indicates that its
proposal is designed to clarify whether the current four-hour
language applies to short-term contacts, as the City has taken the
position that such contacts are not entitled to the four-hour
minimum.
The City opposes the Union's proposal on two grounds. One, the City
argues that the Union is really seeking an interpretation of the
agreement which should be processed under the parties' grievance
procedure. Second, information from the comparables indicates that
City of Chehalis employees enjoy the highest minimum callback of any
of the comparables.
The parties' arguments rely on two statutory factors: 1) Comparable
conditions of employment; and 2) Other factors normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in bargaining. The Union is
attempting to resolve an issue that has arisen concerning the
administration of the agreement. Such concerns are normally taken
into consideration in bargaining. The Union's arguments focus on
off-duty contacts made by the Prosecutor's office. The City
indicates that it is attempting to work with that office to resolve
the Union's concerns.
Data from the comparables indicate the following minimum callbacks
for employees called out during off-duty hours:
----------------------------
Minimum Callback
Arlington 3
Burlington 4
Centralia 4
Ferndale 2
Hoquiam 2
Kelso 2
Port Orchard 3
Poulsbo 2
Sedro-Woolley 4
Shelton 3
Sumner 3
Average 2.9
Chehalis 4
+1.1
----------------------------
The average minimum callback for the comparables is 2.9 hours. This
information supports the City's position that the current four-hour
minimum callback is above average. However, the Union's proposal
would reduce the minimum callback for short-term contacts.
Agreements from two of the comparables support the Union's proposal.
Centralia provides a one-hour minimum callback for telephone
contacts during off-duty hours. Poulsbo compensates employees by a
1/4 hour minimum callback for phone contacts.
For the issue of contact calls, the data concerning comparable
conditions of employment outweighs consideration of other factors
normally or traditionally taken into consideration in bargaining.
Only two of the 11 comparables have language providing for a reduced
minimum callback for short-term contacts. The Arbitrator must
reject the Union's proposal for a new section concerning contact calls.
Detective Clothing Allowance
Detectives currently receive an annual allowance of $540 for
clothing. The Union proposes to increase this allowance to $600,
citing several reasons in support of its proposal. One, while the
allowance has remained at $540 for the last two agreements, the cost
of clothing has increased. Second, during the term of the last
agreement the City began withholding income taxes from the allowance
in response to an IRS ruling. The Union argues that this action by
the City has effectively reduced the value of the clothing
allowance. The City emphasizes that data from the comparables do
not support an increase.
The arguments by the parties focus on two statutory factors: 1)
Comparable conditions of employment; and 2) Other factors normally
or traditionally taken into consideration in bargaining. Agreements
from the comparables provide the following information concerning
annual clothing allowances:
---------------------
Arlington $400
Burlington 500
Centralia 675
Ferndale 600
Hoquiam 350
Kelso 500
Port Orchard QM*
Poulsbo 555
Sedro-Woolley QM*
Shelton 700
Sumner QM*
Average 535
Chehalis 540
+5
---------------------
* Quartermaster system where employer replaces uniforms
on "as needed basis"
The current detective clothing allowance of $540 is $5 above the
average allowance provided by the comparables.
The Union's arguments relate to other factors normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in bargaining. Clothing
allowances based on flat dollar amounts are frequently increased in
negotiations due to inflationary pressures. The Union has a valid
concern that the clothing allowance has not increased in recent
years. The Union's argument concerning the decreased value of the
current allowance due to the withholding of income taxes is not
persuasive. Any ruling by the IRS requiring the City to modify its
withholding practices would apply equally to the comparables.
In determining an appropriate dollar amount for the detective
clothing allowance, the information from the comparables outweighs
the other factors cited by the Union. The Arbitrator must reject
the Union's proposal for an increase in the detective clothing
allowance.
VII. CONCLUSION
The parties have presented four issues for the Arbitrator to decide:
1) Contact Calls; 2) Detective Clothing Allowance; 3) Salary
Schedule; and 4) Longevity Pay. The Union, having proposed changes
on the first two issues, is the moving party for those issues. The
Union has failed to establish that the comparables support its
proposed changes for contact calls and detective clothing allowance.
The third issue (salary schedule) is in reality a non-issue. The
City and Union have both proposed a general wage increase to monthly
salaries of 3.3% effective January 1, 2001, and an increase of 4%
effective January 1, 2002.
The parties' agreement on salaries for 2001 and 2002 clearly frames
the remaining issue: longevity pay. The Arbitrator is bound by the
parties' stipulation of 11 comparable cities in calculating
"comparable conditions of employment" under RCW 41.56.450. For
2001, the average monthly salary of the comparables for an
entry-level police officer is $3283. The entry-level salary in
Chehalis is $3241, which is $42 or 1.3% behind the comparables.
Entry-level police officers in Chehalis are paid a competitive
salary, although 8 of the 11 comparables pay more than Chehalis.
The monthly salary picture changes as employees gain experience on
the job. After 10 years of service, the comparables pay an average
monthly salary of $4040. Chehalis only pays $3923, which is $117 or
2.9% behind the comparables. Nine of the 11 comparables pay a
higher monthly salary than Chehalis for police officers with 10
years of service. Even before the issue of longevity pay is
considered, monthly salaries for experienced police officers in
Chehalis are 3% behind their comparables.
Longevity pay is a substantial benefit for the comparables. Nine of
the 11 comparables provide this benefit to their police officers.
The City's current longevity pay system compensates two of 15
employees covered by the agreement at the rate of $40 per month.
This system stands in stark contrast to the longevity pay systems of
the comparables. Police officers in the comparables receive an
additional .73% increase in salary, or $29 per month, after five
years of service. After 10 years of service, the average longevity
pay for the comparables reaches $67 per month, then $91 after 15
years, $111 after 20 years, and $123, or 3.04% of monthly salary,
after 25 years.
The combination of monthly salaries 3% behind the average of the
comparables for more experienced police officers, and an additional
3% in salary for the average longevity pay system for the
comparables, is devastating to the City's budgetary constraint
arguments. When monthly salary and longevity pay are combined, the
average compensation of the comparables for police officers after
five years of service is $3977. Chehalis pays $3923, which is $54
or 1.4% behind the comparables. At the five-year level of service,
Chehalis is fairly competitive with only six of the 11 comparables
paying more than Chehalis.
There is a dramatic change in total monthly wage compensation
between the comparables and Chehalis after the five-year level of
service. At 10 years of service, the comparables average $4106 per
month, with Chehalis still at $3923. The comparables at the 10-year
level of service pay $183 per month, or 4.5%, more than Chehalis.
In the short span of police officers with five years versus 10 years
of service, Chehalis has fallen 3% behind the comparables. And the
gap in compensation between more experienced police officers in
Chehalis and the comparables continues to grow at the 15-year,
20-year and 25-year levels of service, until 25-year Chehalis police
officers are 5.7% behind their comparables when monthly salary and
longevity pay are viewed together.
The interest arbitration process is designed to produce comparable
conditions of employment for comparable jurisdictions. The wage
compensation (salary and longevity pay) data from the 11 comparables
is convincing. Chehalis must step up to the plate and compensate
its police officers and police sergeants at the prevailing levels of
compensation paid to like personnel of like public employers in the
state of Washington.
AWARD
Based upon the competent, material and substantial evidence on the
whole record, it is the decision of the Arbitrator that the parties'
2001-2002 agreement shall include the following provisions:
1) CONTACT CALLS - proposed section 5.5.4. shall not be added.
2) DETECTIVE CLOTHING ALLOWANCE - section 7.1.4. shall remain
unchanged.
3) LONGEVITY PAY - section 7.5.1. shall be amended as follows:
Effective January 1, 2001, employees shall receive
longevity pay in proportion to their years of service at
the following percentages of base monthly salary:
After 5 After 10 After 15 After 20 After 25
Years Years Years Years Years
1/2% 1% 1.5% 2% 2.5%
Effective January 1, 2002, employees shall receive
longevity pay in proportion to their years of service at
the following percentages of base monthly salary:
After 5 After 10 After 15 After 20 After 25
Years Years Years Years Years
1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
4) APPENDIX B - SALARY SCHEDULE Effective January 1, 2001,
monthly salaries shall be increased by 3.3% over 2000 pay
levels. Effective January 1, 2002, monthly salaries shall
be increased by 4% over 2001 pay levels.
Issued at Olympia, Washington, this 22nd day of February, 2002.
MARK S. DOWNING, Arbitrator
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.