International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local 2919
And
City of Sea-Tac
Interest Arbitration
Arbitrator: Alan R. Krebs
Date Issued:
Arbitrator:
Krebs; Alan R.
Case #: 15951-I-01-370
Employer:
City of Sea-Tac
Date Issued:
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF SEA-TAC
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2919
PERC No.: 15951-I-01-370
Date Issued:
INTEREST
ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF SEA-TAC Otto
G. Klein, III
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2919 James
H. Webster
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
......................................................................................................2
APPLICABLE STATUTORY
PROVISIONS .........................................................................3
ISSUES
.........................................................................................................................................5
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER
..............................................................................................5
BARGAINING HISTORY
.......................................................................................................
6
COMPARABLE JURlSDlCTlONS
...........................................................................................7
COMPENSATION COMPARISON
........................................................................................11
COST OF LIVING
.....................................................................................................................15
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
..................................................................................................16
Ability to Pay
........................................................................................................................16
Turnover
...............................................................................................................................19
Settlements With
Other Bargaining Units ........................................................................20
LONGEVITY PAY
..................................................................................................................
21
HOURS OF WORK
...............................................................................................................
25
A
. Kelly Shifts
..................................................................................................................25
B
. Shift Defined
................................................................................................................29
C
. Overtime Defined
.......................................................................................................30
D
. Scheduling Kelly Shifts
..............................................................................................32
WAGES
...................................................................................................................................34
AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR
......................................................................................37
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF SEA-TAC
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2919
OPINION OF THE
ARBITRATOR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an interest arbitration
hearing
involving certain uniformed personnel of the city of
Sea-Tac was held in Sea-Tac,
Washington on August 6, 2002. The
parties
agreed to waive the statutory provision which calls for
an
arbitration panel consisting of three members. Instead, as
authorized
by WAC 391-55-205, the parties agreed to have the
matter
presented before a single arbitrator, Alan R. Krebs. The
Employer was represented by
Otto G. Klein of the
Group.
The
firm
Webster, Mrak and Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken
under
oath
and the parties presented documentary evidence. There was
no
court reporter, and therefore, the Arbitrator tape recorded
the
proceedings as required by RCW 41.56.450.
The parties agreed upon the submission of post-hearing
briefs. The Arbitrator received the briefs on
September 30,
2002.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed
personnel
are
unable to reach agreement on new contract terms by means of
negotiations
and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for interest
arbitration
to resolve their dispute. The parties agree that RCW
41.56.450 is applicable to the
bargaining unit of firefighters
involved
here. In interest arbitration, an arbitrator or
arbitration
panel adjudicates a resolution to contract issues
regarding
terms and conditions of employment, which are at
impasse
following collective bargaining negotiations.
Arbitrators are generally
mindful that interest arbitration is an
extension
of the bargaining process. They recognize those
contract
provisions upon which the parties could agree and decide
the
remaining issues in a manner which would approximate the
result
which the parties would likely have reached in good faith
negotiations
considering the statutory criteria.
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth certain criteria which must be
considered
by an arbitrator in deciding the controversy:
RCW 41.56.465 Uniformed personnel--
Interest arbitration
panel--Determinations--
Factors
to be considered. (1) In making its
determination,
the panel shall be mindful of
the
legislative purpose enumerated in RCW
41.56.430 and, as additional
standards or
guidelines
to aid it in reaching a decision,
it
shall take into consideration the
following
factors:
(a) The constitutional and
statutory
authority
of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the
parties;
(c) (i) . . .
(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
However, when an adequate
number of
comparable
employers exists within the state
of
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 ....
* * *
RCW 41.56.430, which is referenced in RCW 41.56.465, sets
forth a
public policy against strikes by uniformed personnel, and
recognizes
that there should be an effective alternative means of
settling
labor disputes involving such groups so as to promote
"dedicated
and uninterrupted public service."
RCW 41.56.430 Uniformed personnel
--
Legislative
declaration. The intent and
purpose
of this 1973 amendatory act is to
recognize
that there exists a public policy
in
the state of
uniformed
personnel as a means of settling
their
labor disputes; that the uninterrupted
and
dedicated service of these classes of
employees
is vital to the welfare and public
safety
of the state of
promote
such dedicated and uninterrupted
public
service there should exist an
effective
and adequate alternative means of
settling
disputes.
ISSUES
The
City's Fire Department, up to
and including the rank of battalion
chief.1 The
bargaining
agreement which expired on
were
unable to reach agreement on a new contract despite their
efforts
in negotiations and the assistance of a mediator. In
accordance
with RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the
that
the parties were at impasse on a number of issues. The
statutory
interest arbitration procedures were invoked. The
parties
agree that the issues remaining to be resolved in
arbitration
are:
1. Wages
2. Longevity Pay
3. Hours of Work
___________
1 In addition, there was one vacant position
at the time of the hearing.
They furthered agreed that the
new agreement should be for three
years:
2001, 2002, and 2003.
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER
The city of
Located within the City is the
Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport,
which has its own fire department. The City had a
population
of 25, 496 in 2000 according to published census
statistics.
The City operates three fire stations on three
shifts,
with nine firefighters, three captains, and a battalion
chief on
each shift. A majority of the City's firefighters have
between
10 and 14 years of service, with an average of 12 years.
While only five employees have
6 or less years of service, 13
have
14 or more years of experience.
BARGAINING HISTORY
The City incorporated in 1990. At that time, fire service
24 within the City boundaries
was provided by Fire District No.
and
by a volunteer station of Fire District No. 2. During 1991,
the
City formed its municipal fire department. The City hired
the
employees of Fire District No. 24. In its initial contract
with
the City, the
a
56-hour workweek with 24-hour shifts. This was a change from
the
practice in Fire District No. 24 which had a 52.5 hour
workweek
with a 12/24 hour shift schedule. In their next
contract,
the parties agreed to reduce the number of hours worked
in a
week to 54 by providing for 4.33 Kelly shifts annually. A
Kelly shift is a shift which
is scheduled off within a 27-day
duty
cycle in order to reduce the average number of hours worked
in a
week. The parties agreed at that time that wages would be
based
on a 53-hour workweek, with overtime paid above that
threshold.
This means that for each 27-day duty cycle without a
Kelly shift, 12 hours of
overtime would be paid above the base
wage.
Captain John Gallup, who was on the Union negotiating
team,
testified that during the parties' negotiations in the
early
1990's, there was an expressed understanding that the
would
be seeking hours reductions in future negotiations. City
Attorney, Robert L. McAdams,
who served on the City's negotiating
team
at that time, testified that there was never an
understanding
that hours would be reduced in the future. In
subsequent
contracts, hours were not reduced The parties have
never
agreed upon a longevity benefit.
COMPARABLE JURlSDlCTlONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW
41.56.465 upon which an
arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision
is a "comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment
of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of like employers of public fire
departments
of similar size on the west coast of the United
States."
The statute requires the use of comparable employers
within
the state of
comparable
employers exists.
While the governing statute requires a comparison with
public
fire departments of similar size, it does not define how
"similar
size" is to be determined. In making this
determination,
interest arbitrators have been constrained by the
nature
of the statistics which the parties have placed into
evidence.
The most commonly referenced criteria are the
population
and assessed valuation of the communities served.
Consideration is also
frequently given to the proximity of the
jurisdiction
to be compared and whether it is in a similar
economic
environment, such as in a rural area or part of a large
metropolitan
area. The parties agree that the primary
considerations
for selecting comparable jurisdictions are
location,
population, and assessed valuation.
The City proposed during negotiations and in these
proceedings
the following 11 fire departments as appropriate
comparable
jurisdictions.
Population % of Assessed % of
Sea-Tac Valuation Sea - Tac
Bainbridge Island 20,308 79.65 $2,390,951,072 88.86
Bothell 31,150 118.25 2,865,706,186 106.51
DesMoines
(King #26) 29,267 114.79 1,479,572,614 54.99
Lake Stevens (Sno. #8) 35,271 138.34 1,763,656,736 65.55
Mukilteo 18,019 70.67 1,595,276,190 59.29
Tukwila 17,1812 67.38 2,747,207,3132 102.10
University Place (Pierce #3)29,9332 117.40 1,572,318,4192 58.44
Sea - Tac 25,4962 2,690,612,418
The City's method for determining comparables is
selecting
all
jurisdictions in King, Pierce, Snohomish, and
that
are between 50% above and 50% below the City in
_____________
2
Where the City and the Union have provided different figures for population
or
assessed valuation of a jurisdiction, I have used the figures provided by
the
City. The City justified its population figure for Sea-Tac
with 2000
census
data. Moreover, a document submitted into evidence by the Union
regarding
the City's finances uses the same figure. The evidence presented
does
not reveal the basis for the
Sea-Tac
is 23,570. With regard to other statistics offered regarding
population
and assessed valuation, the City relied upon data published in the
2000
AWC Police/Fire Survey. The Union relied on the testimony of Union
President Richard Knight. Mr.
Knight testified that he obtained the data for
population
and assessed valuation from publications, from other employers, and
from
the bargaining units themselves, but he did not go into any more detail.
The City's figures appears to
be based on specifically identified published
data
and therefore its source is more understandable and reliable.
The Union has proposed the following nine jurisdictions
as
comparables:
Population % of Assessed % of
Sea-Tac Valuation Sea - Tac
Auburn 37,780 148.18 $3,392,920,313 126.10
East Pierce 38,000 149.04 1,800,000,000 66.90
Mercer Island 21,690 85.07 4,347,447,549 157.86
Tukwila 17,1812 67.38 2,747,207,3132 102.10
University Place
(Pierce #3) 29,9332 129.43 1,572,318,4192 58.44
Sea-Tac 25,4962 2,690,612,418
The Union contends that the appropriate departments for
comparison
are those located in King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties with service
population and assessed valuation in a
range
of 60% to 167% of the City. The Union acknowledges that
Bothell also falls within that
range. It asserts that the City
was
aware for many months of the
and
selection criteria, but did not alert the
The Union urges that the
Arbitrator not permit the City to profit
from
such a surprise challenge during the hearing. The Union
maintains
that the City's method of selection, which utilizes a
50% up and down band,
improperly weights its comparators towards
smaller
departments, because a decrease in a numerical amount has
a
much larger impact than an increase in the same numerical
amount.
I have selected seven fire departments which are similar
in
size
to Sea-Tac as comparable jurisdictions:
Bothell
East Pierce
Lynnwood
Puyallup
Tukwila
These represent all
jurisdictions proposed by the parties within
King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties falling within population
and
assessed valuation bands of between 66% and 150% of Sea-Tac.
Such a band provides a
sufficient number of comparable
jurisdictions.
A jurisdiction which is 66% the size of Sea-Tac
is
two-thirds its size, just as Sea-Tac would be
two-thirds the
size
of a jurisdiction which is 150% larger. I have not included
jurisdictions
in
land
border with
Counties.
Moreover, adding Kitsap County to the mix would add
only
one additional jurisdiction, and that would be an island,
which
Sea-Tac is not. There is no reason to exclude Bothell
inasmuch
as it falls within the selected range of population and
assessed
valuation, and it had been proposed by the City. In
comparison
with the selected comparables, the City is below
average
in population, but above average in assessed valuation.
COMPENSATION COMPARISONS
The parties are generally in agreement about how
compensation
comparisons should be made between the City and the
selected
comparable jurisdictions. They each would determine
total
monthly compensation by adding to monthly base wages,
longevity pay,
contractual overtime built into the regular
schedule,
health care contributions (with spouse and two
children),
deferred compensation (MEBT), and holiday pay. The
total
monthly compensation would then be divided by net monthly
hours
in order to determine net hourly pay. Net monthly hours
would
be determined by subtracting monthly vacation and holiday
leave
accruals from the scheduled hours. The comparisons below
reflect
these mutually recognized guidelines applied to a
firefighter
with ten years of experience, which is close to the
experience
level of the average City firefighter. The data for
the
selected comparable jurisdictions are derived from the 2001
contracts
and from the parties' exhibits. The City of Sea-Tac
data
reflects the parties' expired contract and 2001 health
costs.
Auburn
Base Wage $4,572
Health Care 701
Deferred Cornpensation
0
Longevity Pay 160
Contractual Overtime 0
Holiday Pay 213
Total Monthly Compensation $5,646
Monthly Contract Hours 203.50
Vacation Hours 18.00
Holiday Hours 0.00
Net Monthly Hours 185.50
Net Hourly Compensation $ 30.44
Bothell
Base Wage $4,642
Health Care 697
Deferred Compensation 58
Longevity Pay 93
Contractual Overtime 0
Holiday Pay 0
Total Monthly Compensation $5,490
Monthly Contract Hours 226.63
Vacation Hours 21.00
Holiday Hours 12.00
Net Monthly Hours 193.63
Net Hourly Compensation $ 28.35
East Pierce
Base Wage $4,749
Health Care 507
Deferred Compensation 142
Longevity Pay 142
Contractual Overtime 0
Holiday Pay 0
Total Monthly Compensation $5,540
Monthly Contract Hours 216.28
Vacation Hours 22.00
Holiday Hours 0.00
Net Monthly Hours 194.28
Net Hourly Compensation $28.52
King County #16
Base Wage $4,574
Health Care 7903
Deferred Compensation 0
Contractual Overtime 0
Longevity Pay 92
Holiday Pay 0
Total Monthly Compensation $5,456
Monthly Contract Hours 208.00
Vacation Hours 18.00
Holiday Hours 8.00
Net Monthly Hours 182.00
Net Hourly Compensation $ 29.98
Lynnwood
Base Wage $4,548
Health Care 6453
Deferred Compensation 282
Longevity Pay 90
Contractual Overtime 0
Holiday Pay 167
Total Monthly Compensation $5,732
Monthly Contract Hours 208.00
Vacation Hours 14.00
Holiday Hours 2.00
Net Monthly Hours 192.00
Net Hourly Compensation $ 28.85
Puyallup
Base Wage $4,
6983
Health Care 6433
Deferred Compensation 1303
Longevity Pay 0
Contractual Overtime 0
Holiday Pay 0
Total Monthly Compensation $5,471
Monthly Contract Hours 212.23
Vacation Hours 20.00
Holiday Hours 12.00
Net Monthly Hours 180.33
Net Hourly Compensations $30.34
_____________
3
Average of the two different figures provided by the parties.
Tukwila
Base Wage $4,7563
Health Care 874
Deferred Compensation 2983
Longevity Pay 68
Contractual Overtime 50
Holiday Pay 2013
Total Monthly Compensation $6,247
Monthly Contract Hours 218.67
Vacation Hours 18.00
Holiday Hours 0.00
Net Monthly Hours 200.67
Net Hourly Compensation 31.13
The average total monthly
compensation and average total hourly
compensation
for benchmark4 firefighters in the seven comparable
jurisdictions
in 2001, are reflected below:
Average total monthly
compensation $5,655
Average total hourly
compensation $29.66
The compensation currently
received by
firefighters
is reflected below. These figures represent
compensation
called for by the parties' expired agreement and
2001 health costs.
City of Sea-Tac
Base Wage $4,621
Health Care 722
Deferred Compensation 287
Longevity Pay 0
Contractual Overtime 277
Holiday Pay 0
Total Monthly Compensation 5,907
Monthly Contract Hours 234.00
Vacation Hours 20.00
Holiday Hours 11.00
Net Monthly Hours 203.00
Net Hourly Compensation $ 29.10
_____________
4 Firefighters with ten years of experience,
a spouse and two children.
The data presented establishes
that the total monthly and hourly
compensation
provided by the City compares favorably with the
comparable
jurisdictions, particularly if the City's compensation
figures
are adjusted with a cost of living increase.
COST OF LIVING
RCW 41.56.465(d) requires consideration of "[t]he
average
consumer
prices for goods and services, commonly known as the
cost
of living." The parties have both relied upon the Consumer
Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-W) covering the June to
June
period for the Seattle-Everett area. This measurement of
consumer
price increases published by the
Department of Labor, reflects
increases of 3.9% in 2000, 3.9% in
2001,
and 1.5% in 2002. The Union seeks a total compensation
increase
which matches these percentage increases, though it
seeks
this compensation increase primarily through its proposed
I hours reduction and
longevity benefits, rather than an increase
to
base monthly wages. The City emphasizes the current period of
low
inflation to argue that it is appropriate to hold down wage
increases.
It has proposed percentage base wage increases for
the
second and third years of the new agreement equivalent to 90%
of
the change in the cost of living, a formula which has been
utilized
by the parties during past collective bargaining
negotiations.
In this regard, it relies upon the testimony of
Steve Mahaffey, the City's
human resources director, that over
the
years the parties have always agreed upon wage increases tied
to
90% of change in the
additional
1% or 2% added. The City argues that it has been
extremely
generous with its firefighters over the years by paying
them
at a rate substantially exceeding increases in the CPI-W.
In this regard, the City
presented evidence that wages paid to
its
firefighters have exceeded the increase in the CPI by a total
of
10% since 1991.
Inasmuch as the governing statute requires the Arbitrator
to
consider
the cost of living, significant weight shall be given to
the
parties' agreed-upon method of measuring changes in the cost
of
living, the June to June CPI-W for Seattle-Everett.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465(a) -(e) , RCW 41.56.465(f) directs the Arbitrator to
consider
"[s]uch other factors ... that are normally or
traditionally
taken into consideration in the determination of
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment." Accordingly the
factors
discussed below, have been considered.
Ability to Pay
A factor frequently raised in contract negotiations and
also
considered
by arbitrators is the ability to pay wage and benefit
increases.
The City contends that economic difficulties have
severely
affected
the City's economic condition during the past several
years.
Elizabeth Spencer, presently the City's deputy city
manager,
and before that its finance and systems director,
testified
about the City's finances. The City's general fund
operations
are derived about one-third from property taxes, one-
third
from sales taxes, and one-third from other sources. During
2001, the State's elimination
of the motor vehicle excise tax led
to
budget cuts by the City amounting to $562,000. According to
Ms. Spencer, the City's
finances were negatively effected by the
tragic
events of
City's assessed valuation is
derived from the airlines operating
out
of the airport. Their assessed valuation for 2002 has not
yet
been determined, but the financial difficulties of the
airlines
are well known. Ms. Spencer estimated, based on
information
that she has received, that there will be a 20%
reduction
in the City's assessed valuation for 2002, and this
will
affect property tax collections during 2003. Sales tax
revenues
during the third quarter of 2002 have been down 13%
compared to
a year ago. It is projected to decrease in 2002 by
$1.5 million compared to 2001.
This decline has been caused not
only
by the decline in airport related commerce, but also by
unfavorable
conditions in the state economy, which has a high
unemployment
rate. Tax revenues derived from airport related
parking
is down by about 20%, resulting in a reduction of about
$400,000 in revenue for the
City during the first half of 2002 as
compared
with the same period in 2001. Similarly, hotel/motel
tax
receipts decreased 13% during the first half of 2002. In
order
to deal with these economic difficulties, the City has
reduced
its overall staffing level from 167.8 FTEs (full time
equivalent
positions) to 154.3 FTEs. Ms. Spencer testified that
there is much uncertainty in
the City‘s economic health since
much
depends on how long problems in the travel business
continue.
The City notes that in a bond rating report, Standard
& Poor’s confirmed that
these “[u]ncertainties in the travel
industry
post
the
city’s economic base.” The City asserts that the Arbitrator
should
not inject himself into the political debate of whether
taxes
should be raised despite the negative consequences for
attracting
new businesses to the City. The City argues that in
these
difficult and uncertain financial times, it should not be
required
to implement new and potentially expensive compensation
programs.5
The Union argues that the City has not contested its
ability
to
pay all amounts proposed by the
City‘s arguments are not
germane to the resolution of this
dispute.
The Union relies upon a February 21, 2002 letter to the
mayor
and council, in which Ms. Spencer stated:
... The general governmental
funds have considerable
capacity
to endure adverse conditions without
restricting
essential services. We continue to be
able
to maintain a stable capital improvement program
with
adequate financing. General Fund operations
continue
to be supported by a property tax rate well
below
the statutory limit and without the
implementation
of several revenue sources available
to
Occupations Tax or a Utility
Tax (6% allowed by
law).
. .
___________
5
Subsequent to the hearing in this matter, the City submitted documents which
indicated
that a ballot initiative will be part of the upcoming election,
which, if passed, potentially
could increase the City‘s costs for the
firefighters’
pension program.
This letter also references
"uncertainties" and "financial
challenges"
caused by the terrorist attacks and $2 million in
reductions
proposed in the 2002 budget. The Union contends that
the
City's financial strength is demonstrated by the fact, as Ms.
Spencer testified, that it is
able to delay floating bonds to
finance
acquisition of its
funds
until more favorable interest rates are available, and that
the
City's financial strength was recognized by Standard & Poor's
which
gave it a "AA-" credit rating for long-term bonds.
Standard & Poor's
documentation explains that this signifies that
its
"capacity to meet its financial commitment is very strong."
Your Arbitrator is mindful that general economic
conditions,
particularly
in the travel industry upon which the City heavily
relies
for its tax collections, have been unfavorable for the
last
several years. The City has so far been able to deal with
these
challenging times and maintain a healthy general fund
balance
and credit rating by reducing staffing and otherwise
cutting
expenditures. While the City is able to fund a fair and
reasonable
compensation increase for its firefighters, the
challenging
and uncertain economic situation must be considered.
Turnover
Interest arbitrators are likely to consider whether the
compensation
package provided to employees is sufficient to
retain
employees and to attract qualified applicants. Clark
County,
PERC No. 11845-1-95-252 (Axon, 1996). The City argues
that
its position that no significant change to the status quo is
necessary
is supported by the fact that turnover is not a problem
for
this bargaining unit. Mr. Mahaffey testified that in the
past
five years, three firefighters have resigned, and that none
went
to work for other fire departments. Mr. Mahaffey further
testified
that there were hundreds of applicants for the
vacancies.
The Union relies on the testimony of Captain Gallup
that
lateral hirings by other departments are very rare,
so that
there
is little opportunity for firefighters to move to other
departments.
In any event, it does appear that with the current
compensation,
the City is able to attract and retain qualified
personnel.
Settlements with
Other Bargaining Units
The City urges consideration of the wage increases
received
by
City employees who are not in the firefighter bargaining unit.
As I have recognized in other
interest arbitration proceedings,
consideration
of compensation settlements achieved by other
groups
of employees within the subject jurisdiction is
appropriate.
From the standpoint of both the employer and the
union,
the settlements reached with other bargaining units are
significant.
While those settlements are affected by the
particular
situation of each individual bargaining unit, still
there
is an understandable desire by the employer to achieve
consistency.
From the union's standpoint, it wants to do at
least
as well for its membership as the other unions have already
done.
At the bargaining table, the settlements reached by the
employer
with other unions are likely to be brought up by one
side or
the other. Other interest arbitrators have given some
weight
to internal parity. Port Angeles and Teamsters Local 589,
AAA
75 300 00215 98 (Wilkinson, 1999). Thus, it is a factor
which
should be considered by the Arbitrator.
The City has reached agreement with its other bargaining
unit
for the years 2001 and 2002. The AFSCME unit received wage
increases
each of those years of 3.51%, equal to 90% of the
increase
in the CPI. Non-represented employees received
identical
percentage increases, except that for 2002, those
earning
over $60,000 a year received an increase of 1.755%.
LONGEVITY PAY
The expired contract contains no provision for longevity
pay.
The Union proposes to add the following new provision:
9-09 Longevity Compensation
Effective January 01, 2001, base wages shall
be
adjusted
by the following percentages, on a monthly
basis,
for employees who have completed the following
continuous
service requirements:
Completion of 5 years - 1%
Completion of 10 years - 3%
Completion of 15 years - 5%
Completion of 20 years - 7%
Longevity compensation shall be due and
payable
beginning
on employee’s individual anniversary date
and
each consecutive pay period thereafter.
The Union contends that the
longevity pay which it has proposed
is
in reasonable relationship to the average longevity benefit of
the
comparable departments. It further reasons that longevity
pay
is appropriate given the paucity of opportunity to seek
improved
employment conditions in other departments. Moreover,
it
explains, it is reasonable to increase compensation to reward
increased
productivity that derives from experience. The Union
maintains
that in adding a longevity benefit, it does not propose
to
increase total hourly compensation relative to comparable
departments,
and, therefore, the City would realize savings
through
lower entry level pay rates.
The City is adamantly opposed to initiating a new
longevity
program
which would pay firefighters additional wages solely
because
they have more years of service. The City expresses
concern
that if it implements a new longevity program, it would
be
very difficult not to provide a similar program to other City
employees.
With regard to a comparison with the comparable
departments,
the City observes that some do not pay longevity,
and
that senior City firefighters already receive higher wages
than
comparable senior firefighters of the comparable
departments.
The City argues that the lack of turnover in the
department
demonstrates that there is no need to initiate a new
longevity
program. While recognizing that firefighters most
often
stay in one jurisdiction, the City asserts that its
firefighters
pay is not held down and there are ample promotional
opportunities
for them. The City urges that focus be placed on
the
cash compensation already received by City firefighters.
The chart below reflects the longevity pay policy of the
comparable
departments:
1st Step 2nd Step 3rd Step 4th Step 5th Step
Auburn 5 yrs-2% 8
yrs-3.5% 11 yrs-5% 14 yrs-6.5% 17 yrs-8%
Bothell 5 yrs-1% 10 yrs-2% 15 yrs-3% 20
yrs-4%
E. Pierce 5 yrs-1% 10 yrs-3% 15 yrs-5% 20
yrs-5%
King Co. #16 5
yrs-1% 10 yrs-1% 15 yrs-3% 20 yrs-4% 25
yrs-5%
Lynnwood6 4 yrs-0.5% 7 yrs-1% 10
yrs-1.5% 14 yrs-2%
Puyallup7 0 0 0 0
Tukwila6 5 yrs-0.25% 10 yrs-1.25% 15
yrs-2.5% 20 yrs-3.75% 23+yrs-4.5%
Average 5 yrs-0.25% 10 yrs-1.89% 15
yrs-2.5% 20 yrs-3.82%
Average of 6 5 yrs-0.96% 10 yrs-2.2% 15
yrs-3.67% 20 yrs-4.46%
jurisdictions
having
longevity
A new longevity pay benefit is awarded effective January
1,
2002. Longevity pay shall be
added to the employee‘s base
monthly
salary upon completion of the years of service reflected
in
the following schedule:
Completion of 5 years- 1%
Completion of 10 years- 2%
Completion of 15 years- 3%
Completion of 20 years- 4%
______________
6 The
Lynnwood and Tukwila contracts contain specific dollar amounts for
longevity
pay. These dollar amounts have been converted here to percentages
for
comparison purposes. Tukwila provides an amount equal to about an
additional
0.25% for each additional year of service after completion of 5
years,
up to a maximum of about 4.5% after 23 years.
7
Subsequent to the hearing in this matter, the
recently
negotiated contract which indicated that
firefighters
union agreed to implement a new longevity benefit in 2003.
The awarded longevity benefit in line with the prevailing
practice
in the seven comparable departments. It is reasonable
to
assume that firefighters with many years of service have
improved
their skills and are generally more valuable to the City
than
more recent hires. The City correctly points out that its
firefighters
already receive competitive wages. Indeed, the
Union does not dispute this.
Therefore, the value of the
longevity
benefit will serve to reduce the amount of the cost of
living
increase which will be awarded for 2002. For this
purpose,
the longevity benefit is valued at 2.3%. This figure is
derived
from the benefit which would accrue in this particularly
experienced bargaining
unit. With the new schedule, 8 employees
will
receive a 4% pay benefit, 1 will receive a 3% benefit, 28
will
receive a 2% benefit, 4 will receive a 1% benefit, and 2
will
receive no benefit, as will the person hired for the
Department's
one vacancy. The City has costed
the Union's
proposal
for longevity increases of I%, 3%, 5 %, and 7% at 3.3% of
base
wages. This cost estimate is in line with my estimate of a
2.3% cost for the awarded
longevity benefit of 1%, 2%, 3 %, and
4%. The City's argument that
the award of a new longevity
benefit
will cause difficulties with other City employees who
have
no such benefit is not persuasive. First, it is already a
fact
that the compensation package for this bargaining unit is
unique
as compared with other City employee groups. Moreover,
the
new longevity benefit is being paid for by an equivalent
percentage
reduction in the base monthly wage which would
otherwise
be awarded.
HOURS OF WORK
A. Kelly Shifts
The
increasing
the number of Kelly shifts from 4.33 to 8 effective
January 1, 2001, 12 effective
January 1, 2002, and 15 effective
reduction
of scheduled monthly work hours from the current 234 to
226.67 in
2001, 218.67 in 2002, and 212.67 in 2003. It would
also
result in a reduction of the average workweek from the
current
54 to 52.31 in 2001, 50.46 in 2002, and 49.08 in 2003.
The
the
total scheduled monthly work hours to near the average of the
comparable
departments by the last year of the new contract. The
cost
of scheduled overtime paid by the City. The
that
the cost of its proposed hours reduction should not be
calculated
by assuming that those hours would be filled by an
employee
working at overtime rates, since the City has the option
of
meeting its mission by staffing adequately. The
calculates
the cost of its proposal to increase the number of
Kelly shifts at $60,137 in
2001, $124,966 in 2002, and $198,198
in
2003. The
number
of leave days than the comparators, but points out that
the departments with
fewer or no holiday leave shifts typically
receive
holiday pay.
The City contends that the
reduction
should be rejected. The City calculates its cost for
adding
even a single Kelly shift at between $16,000 and $16,350,
assuming
that those filling in for the Kelly shift would be paid
at
the overtime rate. With this assumption, the City calculates
that
an increase to eight Kelly shifts would result in an overall
compensation
increase of 0.63% per Kelly shift. The City
maintains
that the
struck
ten years ago, whereby its members received a relatively
high
base pay and a favorable method of calculating overtime in
return
for scheduled hours that exceed the average of the
comparable
departments. Instead, according to the City, it would
still
be paying higher than average base wages, but without the
bargained
for benefit of higher than average scheduled hours.
The City points out that its
firefighters already receive
significantly more
vacation and holiday leave than do
firefighters
in the comparable jurisdictions, and therefore the
overall
difference in monthly hours worked is only about ten.
The City argues that at this
time of tremendous financial
uncertainty,
it is in no position to hire the additional
firefighters
which the
The hours worked by firefighters in the comparable
departments
are reflected in the following chart:
|
|
Kelly Shifts |
Average Scheduled Weekly Hours |
Average Scheduled Monthly Hours |
Average Scheduled Monthly Hours Less
Vacation & |
|
|
19.58 |
47 |
203.50 |
185.50 |
|
Bothell |
8 |
52.3 |
226.63 |
193.63 |
|
East Pierce |
13.52 |
49.91 |
216.28 |
194.28 |
|
|
N/A8 |
48 |
208.00 |
182.00 |
|
|
N/A8 |
48 |
208.00 |
192.00 |
|
|
15.22 |
49 |
212.33 |
180.33 |
|
Tukwila |
12 |
50.46 |
218.67 |
200.67 |
|
Average |
13.66 |
49.24 |
213.34 |
189.77 |
|
Sea-Tac |
4.33 |
54 |
234 |
203 |
It is awarded that effective
Kelly shifts received by
employees each year shall be increased
by
two to 6.33. That will result in a reduction in the average
scheduled
weekly hours to 53.078, and a reduction in the average
scheduled
monthly hours to 230. The net monthly hours when
vacation
and holiday accruals are deducted is 199. The increase
in
Kelly shifts serves to decrease the gap between the City and
the
comparable departments with regard to scheduled work hours.
The modest decrease in work
hours which is being awarded
represents a
gradual move in the direction of the prevailing
practice
among comparable departments. It also recognizes that
decreased
hours will likely result in increased staffing levels
or
overtime costs. This will be challenging for the City in the
current
difficult economic climate, which has
resulted
in diminished revenues and substantial reductions in
staffing
in other City operations. It further recognizes the
favorable
compensation levels which bargaining unit members have
enjoyed
when compared with those received in the comparable
departments.
The approximate cost of the hours reduction will
offset
the base wage increase which otherwise would be provided
for
2002.
____________
8 King
County #16 and Lynnwood each utilize a four platoon system. A four
platoon
system, if not adjusted, would result in a 42 hour workweek. King
County #16 and Lynnwood each
add "debit days” which employees must work in
order
to increase the average workweek.
The Union, in its submitted exhibits, calculated the
compensation
value of two additional Kelly shifts at about 1% of
the
total compensation. The City calculated the cost of
providing
each additional Kelly shift at 0.63%, which means that
it
would value two Kelly shifts at 1.26%. The City's estimate
assumed
that other employees would be assigned to fill in during
those
additional Kelly shifts on overtime. The calculations of
both
the Union and the City recognized that there would be some
cost
savings to the City because with an increase in Kelly shifts
there
would be less overtime built into the regular schedule of
each
employee. The City's calculation may overstate the cost of
an
additional Kelly shift since it was not established that all
new
Kelly shifts will result in a paid overtime shift for
someone.
On the other hand, I have considered the fact that
employees
have been favorably compensated in return for working
longer
hours than firefighters in comparable departments. This
bargain
has been affected by the reduction in hours worked which
will
result from this Decision. In view of all these
considerations,
for purpose of determining the overall
compensation increase,
I have valued the two newly awarded Kelly
shifts
at a total of 1.1%.
B. Shift Defined
The City proposes to add the following sentence to
Section
10.01 of
the Agreement:
An employee may not record more than
twenty-four
(24) hours in any one shift.
Mr. Mahaffey testified that
this is an attempt to correct a
situation
where employees sometimes are paid for more than 24
hours
in a day. Mr. Mahaffey explained that this may occur when
a
firefighter has traded shifts with another employee and then is
called
back to work overtime on his originally scheduled shift.
The City argues that it is
concerned that the public will not
understand
the nuances of any particular situation, and rather
will
focus on the fact that the City is paying more than 24 hours
of
pay for a 24-hour period.
The
City’s proposed change would
eliminate call back at the overtime
pay
rate where an employee is absent as a result of a shift
trade,
vacation, or compensatory time off, and is called in to
work
overtime. The Union points out that the City failed to show
that
any other comparable department operates on the basis it
proposes.
The Union further relies upon Mr. Mahaffey’s testimony
on
cross examination that he could not think of any specific
situation
where the existing contract language on this subject
has
resulted in additional costs for the City.
There is insufficient reason to modify Section 10.01. The
City relies on possible
adverse public perception. However,
there
was no evidence that there has been any negative public
perception
of Section 10.01 or its implementation. Moreover the
proffered
language does not appear to address any actual problem
or
inequity.
C. Overtime
Defined
The City proposes to change the overtime language in the
agreement
as follows with the underlined language reflecting
proposed
new language, and the crossed out language indicating a
proposal
to delete language:
10.05 Overtime
Defined
Overtime shall be defined as
work performed
in excess
of the designated 204 hours in the
twenty-seven
(27) day duty cycle and shall be
paid
in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). Only
actual hours
worked
and not paid hours shall county towards
the
204-hour threshold for the purpose of
determining
overtime. This shall include
time
when the employee is held past the end
of
his/her duty shift; when the employee is
called
back for alarms or special events;
in
accordance with the rotational relief
system.
Minimum call back shall be for two
(2) hours,
but all other overtime shall be
earned
and credited in fifteen (15) minute
increments.
For the purpose of calculating
overtime
the city will follow the F.L.S.A.
twenty-seven
(27) day duty cycle. Any hours
scheduled
over two hundred four (204) in the
twenty
seven (27) day duty cycle will be paid
at
the overtime rate.
Hours working within
the
recognized work schedule in excess of 204
shall
be paid at an additional time and one
half. Sick
leave, Vacation, Holiday, and
Compensatory Time Off shall
be scheduled as
paid
time off and will not be used to reduce
the
hours worked in a twenty seven (27) day
duty
cycle. Shift trades will not be
calculated
as hours worked, unless the City
has
requested such trades.
The City explains that under its proposal, leave time
would not
be
included in hours worked when calculating overtime pay. The
City argues that "there
is something fundamentally flawed" with
the
current practice of considering leave time as hours worked
when
determining whether overtime should be paid for working more
than
204 hours in a cycle. The City maintains that while it has
agreed
to pay firefighters higher pay in exchange for working
more
hours than the comparable jurisdictions, firefighters who
take
time off during a cycle are not in fact working more than
other
comparable firefighters. The City also relies on the
testimony
of Mr. Mahaffey that during 2001, its firefighters
used,
on average, 13 more hours of sick leave than they had
accrued
during the year. The City suggests that its proposal
would
reduce sick leave usage.
The Union contends that the City's proposal should be
denied.
The Union explains that the current contract provides
for
12 hours of overtime whenever a 27-day cycle is worked
without a
Kelly shift. Since it is rare for an employee to have
a
27-day cycle without either a Kelly shift or scheduled leave,
the
City's proposal would essentially eliminate contractual
overtime
which is built into the regular schedule. The Union
maintains
that such a result is not justified by a comparison
I
with the comparable departments.
I find that there is insufficient justification for the
City's
proposed amendment to the overtime language. The current
language
is part of the parties' negotiated scheme of providing
higher
pay to firefighters for working a relatively high number
of
hours. With this Award, the firefighters will still be
working
more hours than the average of the comparable
departments.
Therefore, the basis for the existing language
still
remains. However, the modest increase in Kelly shifts
which
has been awarded will result in a substantial decrease in
the
number of cycles with built in contract overtime. I am not
persuaded
that there has been any abuse of sick leave or that the
suggested
language change would have any effect on such leave
usage.
D. Scheduling
Kelly Shifts
The Union proposes to add the following language to the
contract
:
The Kelly shifts shall be
scheduled according to
mutual
agreement between the City and the Union.
Only one (1) Kelly shift may
be scheduled in a
twenty-seven
(27) day cycle, until the total
number
of Kelly shifts exceeds the number of
twenty-seven
(27) day cycles in a year. In
addition,
at such time as the total number of
Kelly shifts exceeds the
number of cycles in one
year,
the City will schedule Kelly shifts in a
uniform
manner. The Kelly shifts shall be
scheduled
so as to spread them out evenly. The
schedule
shall be subject to review by the Union
prior
to November 1st of the preceding year.
Kelly Shifts shall not be
considered leave time.
All Kelly shifts are tradable
within their
respective
cycle.
The
practice
whereby Kelly shifts are scheduled at the same time as
vacation
leave and are subject to the same limitation that no
more
than two persons may be scheduled off on leave at any given
time.
The Union proposes that Kelly shifts be scheduled before
the
vacation scheduling. Richard Knight, the Union president,
explained
on cross-examination that under the current system,
firefighters
are unable to schedule their shifts off, though he
provided
no specific examples.
The City urges that the Union‘s proposal should be
rejected.
It reasons that if the Union’s
proposal were adopted, then two
firefighters
could be on vacation while another firefighter was
taking a
Kelly shift off. This would bring staffing down to the
minimum
staff level, and there would be no buffer for
firefighters
who are sick. The City maintains that would have
substantial
staffing and fiscal impact. The City points out that
the
Union offered no testimony regarding its proposal to make
Kelly shifts tradable.
The Union’s proposal to add the new language of its
proposed
Section 10.02.01 is rejected.
No employee testified personally
to
having been adversely effected by the existing scheduling
procedure,
or even provided a specific example. Moreover, there
was
no documentary evidence presented which related specifically
to
this proposal, other than the proposal itself. The change
proposed
by the Union is likely to have a significant cost and
would
affect staffing levels. There was just insufficient
evidence
presented to justify this proposal.
WAGES
Both parties have proposed wage increases which, in large
part,
are related to the percentage increase in the Seattle CPI-W
for
the June to June period of the preceding years. The City has
proposed a
wage increase award of 2% for 2001, 90% of the CPI for
2002
(3.51%), and 90% of the CPI for 2003 (1.35%).
The Union has
proposed
increases of 50% of the CPI-W for 2001 (1.9%), 100% of
the
CPI-W for 2002 (3.9%), and 1 0 0 % of the CPI-W for
2003 (3.9%).
The City argues that its proposal is consistent with the
parties'
bargaining history, inasmuch as they have always used
90% of the CPI-W as the basis
for calculating a cost of living
increase.
The City points out that such a formula is also
consistent
with its historic treatment of the other City
bargaining
unit. The City recognizes that its proposed 2%
increase
for 2001 deviates from its long-standing practice. It
reasons
that such an increase is justified by the relationship of
the
City to the comparable jurisdictions, and by the City's
difficult
financial condition. The City emphasizes the fact that
unlike
other City employees, City firefighters have a health care
plan
that is fully paid by the City. Mr. Mahaffey testified that
the
City's cost of health benefits for its firefighters increased
by
about 40% between 1998 and 2002, which is a much larger
percentage
increase than the increase in the cost of living over
that
period of time. The City observes that the parties are in
agreement
that a comparison with comparable departments
demonstrates
that there is no need for a catch-up wage award.
The City asserts that the fact
it has no turnover problem
indicates
no significant change to the status quo is called for.
The
proposed"
the wage increases set forth above. The
that
its principal objectives are to obtain a reduction of the
scheduled
work hours and introduce longevity benefits, and that
such
new benefits, if awarded, justify a reduction in the wage
increase
which would otherwise be awarded. Thus, if the
Arbitrator adopts that Union's
hours reduction and longevity
benefits
in full, the Union would accept a freeze in base wages
for
the life of the contract. If not adopted in full, the Union
suggests
that 'to the degree the Arbitrator awards additional
Kelly shifts and longevity
benefits, increases in base wages may
be
reduced to accomplish that result." The Union contends that
in
2000, City firefighters received total compensation on an
hourly
basis at approximately the average of the comparable
departments,
and it only wishes to maintain this parity. The
Union claims that its
comparisons of compensation are
conservative,
since the City does not pay any premiums as do some
of
the comparables, and that has not been factored into the
comparisons.
Weighing the governing factors which are set forth in the
statute,
wage increases will be awarded for 2001 in the amount of
3.5%, for 2002 in the amount
of 1.2%, and for 2003 in the amount
of
0.25%. The intent of this Award is to provide overall
compensation
increases tied to the increases in the cost of
living.
They are calculated by taking 90% of the percentage
increase
in the Seattle-Everett CPI-W for the periods mutually
recognized
by the parties as applicable, and then subtracting
from
those figures the approximate value of the longevity
increase
awarded for 2002, and the hours reduction awarded for
2003. I have utilized 90% of
the CPI, rather than loo%, for
several
reasons. First, the City has agreed to provide 100% of
the
premium cost for health insurance, at a time when health
costs
have been rising at a rate much faster than the overall
cost
of living. The increase in health costs is a substantial
portion
of the increase in the cost of living. Thus, a
compensation
increase which would allow employees to keep up with
the
increase in the cost of living should reflect that employees
have
already been protected in large measure from cost increases
in
the health component of that index. Perhaps in view of the
long-standing
practice by the City of providing full health
premium
coverage to its firefighters, the parties have
historically
utilized 90% of the CPI-W as their standard for cost
of
living adjustments, with additional percentage increases
tacked
on if agreed upon. The parties are in agreement that
there
is no need or justification for an overall compensation
increase
larger than the increase in the cost of living. The
awarded
compensation increase is justified by a consideration of
the
listed statutory factors, including a comparison ”with the
wages,
hours, and conditions of employment” provided by
comparable
fire departments as well as by ”[t]he average consumer
prices.”
Also considered, as required by statute, were “other
factors
... normally or traditionally taken into consideration,’’
such
as the City’s difficult financial circumstances, the low
turnover among bargaining unit
members, the City‘s treatment of
its
other bargaining unit, and the parties‘ own bargaining
history
of determining cost of living increases by utilizing 90%
of
the Seattle-Everett CPI-W. The City was not persuasive in its
contention
that the wage increase for 2001 should be 2%. That
figure
is significantly less than the increase in the cost of
living.
It is also considerable less than that which it has
provided
to the other City bargaining unit. While the City is
confronted
with a challenging and uncertain economic climate, I
am
not convinced that it cannot afford a cost of living increase.
The wage increase for 2002
reflects the offset for the cost of
the
longevity benefit which has been awarded beginning that year.
The small wage increase for
2003 reflects the offset for the cost
of
the additional Kelly shifts awarded beginning that year.
AWARD
OF THE ARBITRATOR
It is the determination of your Arbitrator that the
Collective Bargaining
Agreement between City of Sea-Tac and
International Association of
Fire Fighters, Local 2919, shall be
amended
to include the following:
I. Base
wages shall be increased as follows:
Effective January 1, 2001 3.5%
Effective January 1, 2002 1.2%
Effective January 1, 2003
0.25%
II. Effective
January 1, 2002, longevity pay shall be added
to
each employee’s base monthly salary upon completion
of
the years of service reflected in the following
schedule:
Completion of 5 years 1%
Completion of 10 years 2%
Completion of 15 years 3%
Completion of 20 years 4%
III. Effective
January 1, 2003, the number of Kelly shifts
received
by employees each year shall be increased to
6.33.
IV. There
shall be no change in the definition of “shift”
contained in Section
10.01.
V. There
shall be no change in the definition of
”overtime” contained in Section 10.05.
VI. There
shall be no additional language related to the
scheduling of Kelly
shifts.
Sammamish, Washington
November 5, 2002 /s
/ Alan R. Krebs
________________________________
Alan R. Krebs, Arbitrator