IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) PERC CASE 14894-1-99-328
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
)
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL ) AND AWARD
UNION, LOCAL 120, )
) 1999-2001
Union, )
) CONTRACT
and )
)
CITY OF BURLINGTON, WASHINGTON, )
)
Employer. )
HEARING SITE: Fire Station
Burlington, Washington
HEARING DATE: May 4, 2000
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked June 16, 2000
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS: June 20, 2000
REPRESENTING THE UNION: Kathleen Phair Bernard
Schwerin Campbell &
Bernard LLP
18 W. Mercer St., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98119-3971
Thomas A. Leahy
Staff Attorney
SEIU State Council
150 Denny Way
Seattle, WA 98109
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER: Bruce L. Schroeder
Summit Law Group
Suite 300
1505 Westlake Ave., North
Seattle, WA 98109
INTEREST ARBITRATOR: Gary L. Axon
P.O. Box 190
Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-1573
Table of Contents
ISSUE Page
Introduction 1
Comparability 6
1 - Wages 22
2 - Specialty Pay 43
3 - Medical Insurance Premiums 47
4 - Compensatory Time 51
5 - Shift Differential 57
Conclusions 61
I. INTRODUCTION
The 1999-2001 contract will be the first Collective
Bargaining Agreement between SEIU Local 120 (Union) and the City of
Burlington, Washington (Employer or City). Prior to 1999 the
employees of the Burlington Police Department (BPD) were
represented by the Burlington Police Guild. The Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the Burlington Police Guild and the
City covered the period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1998.
SEIU acquired representation rights for Burlington Police
Department officers commencing with the 1999 contract.
The parties engaged in bargaining for a successor
Agreement. Although the parties were able to reach agreement
through bargaining and mediation on numerous issues, five core
topics remained in dispute. Both sides are proposing a three-year
Agreement.
In a letter dated November 19, 1999, the Public
Employment Relations Commission (PERC) certified five issues for
interest arbitration under RCW 41.56.450. Un. Ex. 1. The five
issues are:
1. Base wage increase;
2. Specialty pay (detective-FTO-DARE);
3. Medical insurance premium payment;
4. Compensatory time; and
5. Shift differential.
This Arbitrator was selected to decide the case and a hearing was
scheduled for May 4 and 5, 2000.
The Union represents sixteen sworn officers in the rank
of sergeant or below. In the bargaining unit three members are
sergeants and thirteen employees are police officers. The BPD is
headed by Chief Bud Bowers and Lieutenant Van Wieringen. Prior to
this case, the parties have resolved their disputes without the
need to go to interest arbitration.
The City of Burlington is located in Skagit County along
the 1-5 corridor. Skagit County has a population of 100,600 and
Burlington has a population of 5,635. The City's population has
grown by over 29% from 1990 to 1999.
A unique feature of the City of Burlington is the
presence of a large number of retail shopping malls and stores.
These stores attract over 35,000 shoppers and tourists per day to
Burlington. Skagit County and Burlington have a history that is
rooted in agriculture and forest products. With the increase in
retail activity, agriculture and forest products have diminished in
importance to the economic activity in the area.
Two threshold issues developed at the commencement of the
hearing. First, the parties had totally different ideas over which
jurisdictions should be utilized for comparison to serve as a guide
to determine wages and benefits for Burlington police officers. A
second, but related issue developed over what, if any,
consideration should be given to the fact Burlington's daytime
population swells from a resident population of 5,635 to
approximately 40,000 people due to the presence of visitors
attracted to the shopping malls.
As the hearing progressed, it became apparent that there
was wide disagreement over the methodology and means by which to
compare the wages and benefits of Burlington police officers with
their counterparts in other cities. A significant amount of
hearing time was devoted to the presentation of evidence and
argument on the statutory factor of comparability. The Arbitrator
directed the parties to address the comparability issue at the
beginning of their post-hearing briefs. The Arbitrator advised the
parties he would address the comparability issue at the
commencement of the Award.
The hearing in this case required one day for both sides
to present their evidence and testimony. The hearing was recorded
by a court reporter and a transcript was furnished to the parties
and the Arbitrator for preparation of the post-hearing briefs and
Award. Testimony of the witnesses was received under oath. At the
hearing the parties were given the full opportunity to present
written evidence, oral testimony, and argument regarding the five
disputed issues. Both the Union and the City provided the
Arbitrator with substantial written documentation in support of
their respective positions to supplement the testimony provided by
the witnesses at the arbitration hearing.
The parties also submitted comprehensive and detailed
post-hearing briefs to bolster their respective positions taken at
arbitration. The approach of this Arbitrator in writing the Award
will be to summarize the major and persuasive evidence and argument
presented by the parties on each of the five issues. After the
introduction of the issue and position of the parties, I will state
the basic findings and rationale which persuaded the Arbitrator to
make the award on the individual issues. A substantial portion of
the evidence and argument related to more than one of the issues
and will not be duplicated in its entirety in the discussion and
findings on each of the issues.
This Arbitrator carefully reviewed and evaluated all of
the evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the criteria
established by RCW 41.56.465. Since the record in this case is
lengthy and detailed, it is impractical for the Arbitrator in the
discussion and Award to restate and refer to each and every piece
of evidence and testimony offered. However, when formulating this
Award, the Arbitrator did give careful consideration to all of the
evidence and argument placed into the record by the parties.
The statutory criteria are set out in RCW 41.56.465(1) as
follows:
(1) In making its determination, the panel
shall be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional
standards or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a decision, it shall take into consideration
the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i) For employees listed in ROW
41.56.030(7)(a) through (d); comparison
of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the
proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like
personnel of like employers of similar
size on the west coast of the United
States;
(ii) For employees listed in ROW
41.56.030(7) (e) through (h) , comparison
of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the
proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like
personnel of public fire departments of
similar size on the west coast of the
United States. However, when an adequate
number of comparable employers exists
within the state of Washington, other
west coast employers may not be
considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly known as the
cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under (a) through (d) of this subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings;
and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to
the factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection, that are normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in
the determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. For those
employees listed in ROW 41.56.030(7) (a)
who are employed by the governing body of
a city or town with a population of less
than fifteen thousand, or a county with a
population of less than seventy thousand,
consideration must also be given to
regional differences in the cost of
living.
Because of the large amount of written documentation and
extensive post-hearing briefs, the parties waived the thirty-day
period an arbitrator would normally have to publish an award under
the statute.
II. COMPARABILITY
A. Background
The parties have no history on the subject of
jurisdictions with which to compare Burlington to utilize as a
guideline for establishing wages and benefits for Burlington police
officers. Without this history, the parties are starting fresh in
the development of a list of comparable jurisdictions to assist in
the resolution of this contract dispute.
At the arbitration hearing the Union presented a list of
thirteen cities, plus Skagit County as its proposed list of
comparators. Un. Ex. 41. In the Union's post-hearing brief,
reference was made to fifteen jurisdictions which were not
identical to the list of fourteen found in Union Exhibit 41.
Included on the Union's list were several jurisdictions which were
substantially larger in population than Burlington. The use of the
larger populated cities was premised on geography and Burlington's
40,000 daytime population.
The Employer countered with a list of ten cities chosen
primarily on population and assessed valuation. Two of the
Employer's proposed cities were from eastern Washington. Except
for Fife and Milton, all of the Employer's proposed cities are
located outside of the central Puget Sound area. Five cities
appear on both lists which the parties agreed should be used for
comparators. They are as follows:
Arlington
Chehalis
Fife
Poulsbo
Sedro Woolley
The Arbitrator will include the above five jurisdictions on the
list of comparators.
In the post-hearing brief, the Union stated that it
agreed two cities off the Employer's list of ten comparators met
the statutory test of like employers. The two cities were Port
Townsend and Ferndale. The Arbitrator adopts the Union's
stipulation and will add these two jurisdictions to the list which
brings the total number of mutually acceptable cities for
comparison to seven. The duty for the Arbitrator is to determine
if any of the other eight jurisdictions proposed by the Union
should be included on the list of comparators to bring the total to
fifteen. With the exception of Port Townsend and Ferndale, three
of the ten cities proposed by the City remain unacceptable to the
Union. Thus, with this background the Arbitrator must develop a
list of comparables which will comport with the statutory mandate
of "like employers of similar size on the west coast of the United
States."
B. The Union
The Union asserted that the statutory criteria supported
its list of comparator cities to be:
----------------------
City Population
Anacortes 14,370
Arlington 7,350
Blaine 3,640
Chehalis 7,010
Ferndale 7,925
Fife 5,155
Gig Harbor 6,405
Lake Stevens 6,100
Medina 2,940
Mount Vernon 22,700
Port Orchard 7,255
Port Townsend 8,400
Poulsbo 6,445
Sedro Woolley 8,010
Skagit County 100,600
Burlington 5,635
----------------------
Arbitrators have utilized additional factors listed in
the statute that are "normally or traditionally" used in the
determination of hours, wages, and conditions of employment to
select comparable jurisdictions. Among those additional factors
are geographic proximity to the employer, comparison of counties in
which the cities are located, growth of the employer's city,
internal comparables, uses of the employee in question, total
assessed property valuation, historical comparables, and
comparables both parties have in common when making their
proposals.
The Union maintains its list is appropriately balanced
and will serve both parties well in future negotiations. In
addition to the seven common jurisdictions, the Union would add:
1. Anacortes
2. Blaine
3. Gig Harbor
4. Lake Stevens
5. Medina
6. Port Orchard
7. Skagit County
8. Mt. Vernon
All of the above comparator police departments have approximately
the same number of officers as Burlington, except for Skagit County
and Mt. Vernon. Evaluating these eight cities with the following
traditional factors will result in the Arbitrator concluding they
are all like employers to Burlington.
The most important factor for determining like employers
is population. Using a population band of 50 percent below and 50
percent above, the City of Burlington's population of 5,635 will
encompass the following cities from the Union's list:
----------------------
City Population
Blaine 3,640
Gig Harbor 6,405
Lake Stevens 6,100
Medina 2,940
Port Orchard 7,255
Burlington 5,635
----------------------
The Union next argues that geographic proximity is the
second most important factor when determining like employers.
Anacortes, Blaine, Lake Stevens and Mt. Vernon are in close
geographic proximity to the City of Burlington and are located
along the I-5 corridor. In addition, Anacortes, Mt. Vernon and
Burlington are all located in Skagit County. Blaine is located in
Whatcom County which is directly north of Skagit County. Whatcom
County, with a population of 161,300, is similar in size to Skagit
County with a population of 100,600. All four of the cities are in
the same general labor market. Therefore, all five of the
comparators should be placed on the final list developed by the
Arbitrator.
Assessed valuation is another important factor in the
determination of like employers. Using a total assessed property
valuation of 50 percent below and 50 percent above Burlington's
$506,501,506 total assessed property value brings in the following
cities:
----------------------------
Assessed Property
City Valuation
Blaine $371,103,783
Gig Harbor $621,616,211
Lake Stevens $295,888,618
Port Orchard $366,565,792
Burlington $506,501,506
----------------------------
The Union next argues that Burlington's large daytime
population and unique characteristics call for the inclusion of
cities with larger populations, such as Mt. Vernon, Anacortes and
Skagit County, on the final comparator list. Burlington has a
population which increases to over 40,000 during the day. The
evidence concerning this large influx of people was undisputed.
This large influx of daytime tourists and visitors influences
Burlington's taxable retail sales and crime statistics. Burlington
has the highest criminal offenses per officer rate in all of the
comparables. Un. Exs. 7-8. With this large influx of people comes
the corresponding need for police services.
In sum, the unique situation of the City of Burlington
due to its high property valuation and taxable retail sales
justifies comparing Burlington to larger departments such as
Mt. Vernon, Anacortes and Skagit County.
Turning to the City's proposal of using East Wenatchee
and Union Gap as comparators, the Union argues these two
jurisdictions must be excluded from the comparator list. According
to the Union, it is inappropriate to use eastern Washington
jurisdictions which are located far away from the City of
Burlington. The economy of eastern Washington is radically
different from the economy of western Washington and those
jurisdictions along the I-5 corridor. Clearly the cost of living
is higher in western Washington along the I-5 corridor than in
eastern Washington. The bottom line is Burlington is not an
eastern Washington city with attributes that are similar to East
Wenatchee and Union Gap.
Based on all of the above-stated reasons, the Union
respectfully requests the Arbitrator adopt the Union's list of
comparables as like employers.
C. The Employer
The Employer begins by noting the Arbitrator should
follow the traditional rule of accepting the five mutually selected
cities of Sedro Woolley, Arlington, Chehalis, Poulsbo and Fife to
be included on the list of comparable jurisdictions. According to
the City, its proposed comparables are similarly sized while the
Union's are not. The City's methodology for choosing comparables
started with population and assessed valuation. The City initially
developed a band of 50 percent upward and 50 percent downward from
Burlington's recorded population of 5,635. This resulted in a
range from 2,818 on the low end to 8,453 at the upper end of the
population band.
In sharp contrast, the Union acknowledged it had no
particular test for similar size. The city of Mt. Vernon, whose
population is 22,700, puts it more than four times as large as
Burlington. Further, Anacortes was included which has a population
of approximately 2.6 times that of Burlington. Even more
significantly, the Union included Skagit County with a recorded
population of 100,600. These jurisdictions are not similar-sized
cities to Burlington and should be rejected by this Arbitrator.
The City next applied the similar 50 percent range for
assessed valuation. Assessed valuation provides a measure not only
of size but of relative wealth of the community. All of the ten
jurisdictions chosen by the City fit within the 50 percent assessed
valuation range. The assessed valuations developed in the City's
study range from a low of $253,250,753 to a high of $759,752,259.
The same cannot be said of the Union's list.
It was the Union's attempt to counter this wide variation
in assessed valuation with an argument the jurisdictions are
geographically close. According to the City, this argument is not
sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of "similar size"
and "like employer." Thus, mere geographic proximity cannot
transform Burlington into an agency substantially larger with a
significantly greater tax base than it currently has.
The City's proposed list of comparables should be adopted
because they share demographic similarities. Those similarities
are primarily non-central Puget Sound communities with a strong
agricultural surrounding coupled with a strong retail base.
Because the list of potential comparables using only population and
assessed valuation resulted in 34 jurisdictions, the City attempted
to apply the like employer test to replicate the primary
demographic factors applicable to Burlington. The evidence shows
the central Puget Sound boom has not yet hit Skagit County. This
is a demographic factor that cannot be ignored in formulating an
interest arbitration award.
Recognizing that 34 jurisdictions are not a manageable
number, the City, utilizing the demographic criteria, came up with
the following ten jurisdictions:
CITY COMPARABLES
------------------------------------------------------------
PUGET SOUND ASSESSED VALUATION
JURISDICTION URBAN POPULATION* (MILLIONS)
Port Townsend 8,400 $568
Sedro Woolley 8,010 329
Ferndale 7,925 437
Arlington 7,350 557
Chehalis 7,010 340
Poulsbo 6,445 413
Milton * 5,680 287
Burlington 5.635 $506
East Wenatchee 5,395 318
Union Gap 5,350 276
Fife * 5,155 698
Average 6.672 $422
__________
*Population:
Average: 18.4% greater than Burlington
Largest (Port Townsend): 49% greater than Burlington
------------------------------------------------------------
The City explained that while Fife and Milton are in the
central Puget Sound area, they were included because they were the
two closest jurisdictions in size to Burlington, located in western
Washington, and are also major retail cores. The City included
East Wenatchee and Union Gap because they are the two cities in
eastern Washington that are closest in size to Burlington and also
have a significant retail presence servicing surrounding
agricultural communities. Further, they also reside next door to
a much larger city, as Burlington does to Mt. Vernon. Both of
these eastern Washington cities have major malls serving
populations of their larger neighbor in the same fashion
Burlington's malls serve Mt. Vernon.
In sum, the two eastern Washington cities which closely
match Burlington should be included to provide geographical
diversity and to provide an adequate number of comparables to
preclude a disparate impact by any one comparable.
Turning to the Union's use of Skagit County, the City
argues Skagit County is not a like employer. Skagit County fails
the like employer test based on size and assessed valuation.
Skagit County should also be rejected because the department is run
by an elected official, the sheriff, unlike the traditional
arrangements in a city police department. A sheriff's office
provides different types of law enforcement services than a city
police department.
The city of Medina should be rejected based not only
because of its significantly greater assessed value, but also
because of its presence in the heart of the central Puget Sound
area and its dissimilar residential demographics. Medina is the
home to Microsoft founder Bill Gates. There is almost no
similarity between the cities of Burlington and Medina. Moreover,
the Union also proposed Port Orchard, Gig Harbor, Lake Stevens and
Fircrest as comparables. Since the Union offered no explanation
for their inclusion, the Arbitrator should find the Union failed to
bear the burden to justify its comparables. Thus, these four
jurisdictions should be rejected as dissimilar to Burlington.
The remaining city sought by the Union to be included on
the list of comparators was Blaine. While Blaine falls within the
50 percent population and assessed valuation test, Blaine does not
have any significant retail presence. Ironically, if the City were
engaged in a results-oriented approach, it would have included
Blaine since its wage rate is significantly less than Burlington's.
D. Discussion and Findings
The parties agree that five jurisdictions common to both
lists should be included on the roster of comparators. Further,
the Union in its post-hearing brief accepted Port Townsend and
Ferndale off the City's proposed list as being appropriate
comparables bringing the list to a total of seven cities. The
Arbitrator rejects the Union's attempt to add eight more cities to
the list for a total of fifteen. A comparator list of fifteen
jurisdictions simply is not a manageable number.
This Arbitrator normally prefers to use a list of
comparators in a range from five to ten jurisdictions. The greater
the number of comparators, the more difficult it becomes to collect
and maintain credible data. Also, the potential for error in
compiling the data increases as the number of comparators grows.
Finally, with fifteen comparators, the ability of the parties to
draw accurate conclusions is substantially diminished by the sheer
weight of the data.
One of the comparators offered by the Union does not
belong on the list because it fails the like employer test. Skagit
County operates its law enforcement services through an elected
sheriff. County sheriffs typically operate under a different
system of government and provide a distinct type of law enforcement
services. Skagit County is also out of the picture because of its
much larger population and assessed valuation.
The Arbitrator concurs with the City that Medina, located
in the heart of the Seattle metropolitan area, is a totally
dissimilar community in terms of wealth and demographics. Because
of the location of Gig Harbor and Fircrest, adjacent to Tacoma and
the central Puget Sound area, the Arbitrator finds these two cities
should not be placed on the list of comparators when the city of
Milton is already present on the City's list of comparators. The
inclusion of Blaine, located on the Canadian border, on the Union's
comparator list would work against the Union's case because of a
lower salary schedule. Blaine also lacks the significant retail
presence important to the Union's case.
While Anacortes is located in close proximity to
Burlington, its significantly higher population (14,370) and
assessed valuation ($1,164,708,043) remove it from the list of
comparable jurisdictions. Port Orchard has some potential in terms
of population and assessed valuation, but its location as the
county seat of Kitsap County and being under the sphere of the
Puget Sound urban area argues against its inclusion on the
comparator list. The Arbitrator was unpersuaded by the Union's
argument that Port Orchard should be included on the list at this
time.
The neighboring city of Mt. Vernon is a tempting target
because of its geographical proximity to Burlington. However,
Mt. Vernon has a population four times as large as Burlington with
22,700 people and an assessed valuation of $1,180,787,549, as
compared to Burlington's assessed valuation of $506,501,506. In
addition, the police force is over twice as large as Burlington's.
While the Arbitrator does not accept Mt. Vernon as a primary
comparator, Burlington certainly falls under the sphere of
influence of its larger neighbor located just across the river.
Mt. Vernon residents do come across the bridge to shop in
Burlington.
Moreover, the Arbitrator rejects the Union's argument
that the large daytime visitor population of Burlington should
override the primary criterion of actual resident population and
assessed valuation in this case. This is particularly true when
there is no evidence in the record concerning the daytime
population of Mt. Vernon. Thus, the Arbitrator finds Mt. Vernon
falls into the category of what has been termed a "secondary
comparator."
While the Arbitrator finds the City established an
overall better case for its list of comparators, I am reluctant to
include two eastern Washington cities on the roster of the ten
comparables presented by the City. There are several western
Washington cities that will better serve as appropriate comparators
than Union Gap. In the judgment of this Arbitrator, the eastern
Washington city of Union Gap should be dropped from the list in
favor of Lake Stevens. Lake Stevens has a population of 6,100,
slightly larger than Burlington by 465 persons. Burlington has a
substantially higher assessed valuation than Lake Stevens and a
slightly larger police force. Lake Stevens has the distinguishing
feature of being located on the I-5 corridor some forty miles south
of Burlington. Therefore, the Arbitrator will delete Union Gap, a
city located approximately 200 miles away from Burlington on the
east side of the Cascades, from the City's proposed list of
comparators in favor of Lake Stevens.
In sum, the Arbitrator finds the list of ten comparators
meets the statutory criteria and provides a reasonable group of
jurisdictions to serve as a guide for formulating an Award in this
interest arbitration. The ten cities are:
------------------------------------------------------------
PUGET SOUND ASSESSED VALUATION
JURISDICTION URBAN POPULATION* (MILLIONS)
Port Townsend 8,400 $568
Sedro Woolley 8,010 329
Ferndale 7,925 437
Arlington 7,350 557
Chehalis 7,010 340
Poulsbo 6,445 413
Lake Stevens 6,100 296
Milton * 5,680 287
Burlington 5,635 $506
East Wenatchee 5,395 318
Fife * 5,155 698
Average 6,747 $424
___________
*Population:
Average: 19.7% greater than Burlington
Largest (Port Townsend): 49% greater than Burlington
------------------------------------------------------------
ISSUE 1 WAGES
A. BACKGROUND
The 1998 salary structure for police officers is a four-
step schedule rising to a maximum level after 37 months of
employment. The 1998 wages for police officers were as follows:
CITY OF BURLINGTON BASE PAY FOR POLICE OFFICERS
------------------------------------------------
STEP I STEP II STEP III STEP IV
1998 $3,024 $3,128 $3,389 $3,614
------------------------------------------------
Sergeants were paid on a two-step salary scale with the
wages listed below:
CITY OF BURLINGTON BASE PAY FOR SERGEANTS
-----------------------------------------
STEP I STEP II
1998 $3,761 $4,150
-----------------------------------------
The Union proposed the following wage increases:
1. January 1, 1999, 6%;
2. January 1, 2000, 6%; and
3. January 1, 2001, 6%.
The City proposed the following:
1. January 1, 1999, 2.9%;
2. January 1, 2000, 2%; and
3. January 1, 2001, effective January 1,
2001, base wages should be increased by
an amount equal to 80% of the "All U.S.
Cities CPI-W," August 1999 to August
2000, with a minimum 2% and a maximum 4%
increase.
B. THE UNION
If the Arbitrator were to adopt the Union's language and
wage scale, it would provide the following salary schedule:
Section 8.2. Employees covered by this
Agreement shall be compensated as follows:
------------------------------------------------
Classification 1999 2000 2001
Sergeant - 12 months $3,987 $4,226 $4,479
Sergeant - thereafter $4,399 $4,663 $4,943
Police Officer:
Step 1 - 12 months $3,205 $3,398 $3,602
Step 2 - 12 months $3,316 $3,515 $3,725
Step 3 - 12 months $3,592 $3,808 $4,036
Step 4 - 12 months $3,831 $4,061 $4,304
------------------------------------------------
Un. post-Hearing Brief, p. 11.
The Union argues its proposed wage scale is appropriate
because Burlington officers have the heaviest workload of all of
the comparator departments. In 1999, the Burlington Police
Department had a ratio of 61.8 criminal offenses per officer. This
is much higher than the ratio for any of the comparator police
departments. The next closest ratio was 53.4 offenses per officer
in Mt. Vernon. The Burlington ratio is still 16% higher than Mt.
Vernon. The City has never disputed the heavy workload of
Burlington police officers. Chief Bowers has created a chart for
the Burlington City Council to demonstrate the extreme workload of
City police officers compared to other larger departments. Un. Ex.
9.
The Union asserts that its wage proposal is well within
the range of comparable cities. Un. Exs. 34-35. According to the
Union, its proposal is clearly justified when taking into
consideration the fact Burlington police officers have the heaviest
workload of the comparable cities. The Union submits the great
demand that is placed on Burlington police officers clearly
mandates they be paid at the top of any final comparator wage
schedule.
The Union next argues the rate of growth in Burlington
and Skagit County further justifies the Union's wage proposal. The
growth in population of the City of Burlington and Skagit County
has resulted in a heavier workload being placed on Burlington
police officers. The City of Burlington's population has grown
over 29% from 1990 to 1999. Skagit County's population has grown
over 26% during that same period of time. The evidence presented
at arbitration indicates the City of Burlington will continue to
grow and prosper.
The taxable sales of Burlington are the highest of any of
the Union's comparators. This is a reflection of the large number
of shoppers and tourists who visit Burlington's retail center.
Burlington's property valuation is in the middle of the Union's
comparables. The property valuation and large amount of taxable
retail sales further justify the Union's proposal. The Union
submits there is no basis for the City to argue it cannot afford to
pay the Union's proposed wage increase.
The Union argued in its post~hearing brief that internal
equity demanded its proposal be adopted:
Further evidence of the fairness of the
Union's proposal can be demonstrated by
comparing it to the public works employees at
the City of Burlington. A lead operator in
Waste Water Treatment will receive $3,680 a
month after working for 12 months. A Class II
Operator will earn $3,544 after 12 months.
However, after 12 months as a police officer
in the City of Burlington, an employee will
make $3,528 under the Union's proposal and
only $3,295 under the City's proposal. The
City's proposal also places second year police
officer at a lower rate that [sici Utility I
workers in the public works division. Ex. U-
11; U-34.
Police officers put their lives at risk every
day and deserved to be compensated
appropriately for the risks they take in the
line of duty. If the City of Burlington has
the funds to pay these wages to the Waste
Water Treatment Operators and public works
employees, it certainly must have the funds to
pay police officers at the rate the Union is
requesting. Ex. U-11, 12; U-34.
Un. post-Hearing Brief, p. 13.
In sum, given the large amount of taxable sales, assessed
property valuation and the heavy workload of police officers, the
Union's proposal should be adopted by the Arbitrator.
C. THE CITY
An award of the City's proposal over the three-year
period would establish a base pay for Burlington police officers
which would provide the following:
CITY OF BURLINGTON BASE PAY FOR POLICE OFFICERS
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEP I | STEP II | STEP III | STEP IV
1999
2.9% COLA $3,112 | $3,218 | $3,487 | $3,719
2000 1/1 $3,174 1/1 $3,283 1/1 $3,557 1/1 $3,793
2.0% COLA 7/1 $3,224 | 7/1 $3,333 | 7/1 $3,607 | 7/1 $3,843
2001 Est.
2.0% COLA $3,288 | $3,399 | $3,679 | $3,920
CITY OF BURLINGTON BASE PAY FOR SERGEANTS
-----------------------------------------
| STEP I | STEP II
1999
2.9% COLA | $3,870 | $4,270
2000 1/1 $3,947 1/1 $4,355
2.0% COLA | 7/1 $3,997 | 7/1 $4,405
2001 Est.
2.0% COLA | $4,077 | $4,493
-----------------------------------------
The City asserts that its proposal is extremely fair when
measured against the statutory criteria. Even if the Arbitrator
uses some of the Union's own data, he will find that the City's
proposal on wages is justified and conclude the Union's proposal is
unreasonable. Whatever factor the Arbitrator examines, the
conclusion is inescapable that the City's proposal should be
adopted.
The City's comparability data reveals that a top-Step
officer would make $3,719 per month if the City's proposal for a
2.9% increase were granted for 1999. That figure does not include
the $40 per month rotating shift premium that is paid to all
officers regardless of whether they are working days, swing,
graveyard or a power shift. Without inclusion of this rotating
shift premium~ Burlington police officers are already 2.8% ahead of
the average of the City's comparables, and with the inclusion of
the $40 rotating shift premium, they are 3.9% above the average.
The City next argues that adoption of its 2.9% proposal
would put Burlington police officer wages 3% above the average of
its comparables, and the City would also rank third among the
comparables at the base wage. Further, the City's position of a 2%
wage increase effective January 1, 2000, is justified based on
comparability. The average of the jurisdictions which have settled
through the hearing date for 2000 was $3,733 per month. With the
City's 2% proposal, Burlington's pay would grow to $3,793 per
month. The City is further proposing to increase the rotating
shift premium to $50 per month and meld that into the base pay
resulting in a rate of $3,843 per month. Thus, the effective raise
for a Burlington police officer in 2000 is 3.3%. With or without
consideration of the rotating shift premium conversion,
Burlington's base pay would remain above the average of the City's
comparables in 2000.
Even the Union's own comparability data supports the
reasonableness of the City's wage offer. With all the Union's
comparables, including those influenced by the central Puget Sound
metropolitan area, the average is $3,768 per month. Adoption of
the City's 2.9% proposal for 1999 would be nearly 1.3% below the
average. If the shift premium of $40 per month is added, then the
base pay is $3,759 per month, less than .2 of one percent under the
average of the other comparables. The focus on median versus
average similarly supports Burlington's offer. With the $3,719
offer, the City would be exactly in the middle of the fourteen
comparables. The Union's proposal of 6% would put Burlington above
the average and toward the top of the Union's own comparables--a
result that is not justified on the record before this Arbitrator.
The fairness of the City's position is bolstered by the
availability of significant additional compensation every month to
Burlington police officers which is not available in both the
City's comparables as well as the Union's comparables. Officers in
Burlington are eligible for longevity pay, educational incentives,
and shift premiums. Of the bargaining unit members, one-half
receive some level of education incentive, thirteen of sixteen
receive longevity premiums, and all receive the rotating shift
premium. Of the City's comparables, only one out of ten, East
Wenatchee, provides all three premiums to its officers. Two out of
the ten comparables offer shift premiums. Two out of the ten
provide an educational incentive and six out of ten pay a longevity
premium. The same holds true if the Arbitrator examines the
Union's comparables where only Mt. Vernon offers all three
premiums. The bottom line is the City bears a significant
additional cost to provide these premiums to the police officers
which should not be lost in analyzing an appropriate wage
adjustment.
Turning to the cost of living factor, the City argues its
evidence supports the offer made in this round of bargaining.
Three main reasons were presented by the City why it believed the
offer is in compliance with the cost of living factor. First,
Burlington police officer wages have significantly exceeded the
cost of living over the last decade by more than 30%.
Second, the cost of living for officers in Burlington is
significantly less than in a majority of the comparables,
particularly those in the central Puget Sound metropolitan area.
Housing prices are significantly less in the Burlington market than
in the comparables.
Third, the City's proposal is fair in light of the
current measures of the effective cost of living. Measurement of
the effective cost of living supports the reliance on the Consumer
Price Index as the basis for the 2001 base wage adjustments. The
2% floor and 4% ceiling on raises comports with the general
inflationary range that had been borne out over the last several
years. Some percentage less than 100% is appropriate, given the
significant risk borne by the City in terms of benefit cost
increases.
The local labor market factor supports the City's
proposal. Evidence presented by the City revealed that
significantly lower wage rates are paid in Skagit County than in
other parts of the state of Washington. The unemployment level is
higher than in the central Puget Sound area and general income
levels lag when compared with other parts of the state. All of
this data supports a more conservative wage award than is proposed
by the Union.
An examination of the wage increases given to other major
employers in the Skagit County area supports the City's proposal.
The employees at Burlington-Edison School District took a wage
freeze. Another major employer, Tesoro, provided a 3.5% increase.
Most wage adjustments fell in the 2-3% range. Cost of living
adjustments for calendar year 2000 were not significantly different
among the other major employers in Skagit County.
The City's proposal is fair in the context of the general
conditions in the Skagit County local labor market when compared
with other portions of the state of Washington. The average annual
covered wage from 1970 through 1995 published by the Washington
State Employment Security Department demonstrated covered wages in
Skagit County lag significantly behind the state as a whole. By
1995, the difference had grown to an annual average covered wage of
$22,209 in Skagit County versus $27,448 for the rest of the state
as a whole. Er. Ex. 3.3.4. The most recent figures available
through 1998 show the average monthly wage in Skagit County for
1998 was $2,009 per month. In contrast, for Snohomish County the
average was $2,799, 39% greater than Skagit's, while in Seattle-
King County, the number was $3,441, 71% greater than Skagit. The
same holds true for Thurston County and Pierce County where the
average exceeds Skagit County's wage level by 18% and 14%,
respectively.
The data on median household income shows a similar
pattern. By the end of 1999, the median household income in Skagit
County was $38,756 per year. That same household in King County
would have a median income of $64,795, 67% higher than in Skagit.
In Snohomish County, the median household income was $52,063, 34%
greater than in Skagit. The City's evidence graphically portrays
that the prime wealth, as measured by median household income, is
concentrated primarily in the central Puget Sound area, not in
Skagit County. The median household income differences are also
borne out in per capita income figures.
Regarding the unemployment figures, the three-year
average unemployment rate in Skagit County was 6.8% at the end of
1999. This qualified Skagit County as a distressed area which is
defined as a county with a three-year average unemployment rate
equal to or greater than 6.4%. In contrast, the three-year average
unemployment rate in King County for the same period was 3.2%,
Kitsap County 5.2%, Pierce County 4.5%, and Snohomish County 3.5%.
None of these counties qualified as distressed areas.
Although Burlington is not offering a classic "inability
to pay" case, the City maintains it is critical to get an accurate
picture of the current finances of Burlington. Rick Patrick, the
City's Finance Director, clearly pointed out the faulty analysis of
the Union's approach regarding the collection of retail sales
taxes. The Union asserted the City collected retail sales taxes at
the rate of 8.7% on all retail sales generated in the City. In the
opinion of the Union, Burlington's taxable sales tax collected was
$42,649,614. Un. Ex. 37. The City argues this number is in error
by at least tenfold because the City only receives 1% of the total
composite sales tax rate of 7.8%. The actual sales tax revenue for
1999 was $4,169,790. Therefore, the Union's retail sales analysis
should be completely rejected.
The rapid growth in the City has generated a number of
requirements to develop the expensive infrastructure necessary to
support the retail businesses. City resources must be preserved to
provide money to cover the cost of growth.
Adoption of the City's offer will result in an additional
cost of $25,452 in 1999. In 2000, the $25,452 from 1999 would
continue plus an additional $22,677 in 2000. Finally for 2001, the
last two years expenses would continue, plus another $23,436 as an
estimate for the 2001 cost of living adjustment. These numbers do
not include any estimate of upcoming insurance increases. If the
City's proposal is adopted, the combination of additional
expenditures over the three years of the contract is estimated at
$145,146. The Union's proposal would cost at least 2.5 times as
much as the City's. Over the course of the three years of this
contract alone, the Union's proposal would cost an additional
$362,241. The Union has not presented sufficient evidence to
justify this additional cost.
Turnover statistics do not support the Union's proposal
for a significant wage increase. The lack of turnover in this unit
reflects a compensation package that is sufficient and competitive
to attract and retain qualified police officers. From 1999 to
present, six officers have left the department voluntarily, only
one of whom continue to pursue a law enforcement job in his
original hometown. Thus, an above-market adjustment is not needed
to attract and retain qualified personnel.
Crime rates have not changed significantly and are
largely composed of shoplifting offenses that are less risky to
officers than other forms of criminal activity. The record is
largely undisputed that since 1996 the calls for service to the BPD
have startlingly trended downward. The bulk of crime statistics
involves shoplifting offenses. While there is some risk, the
testimony is undisputed that shoplifting does not present the type
of danger that more serious crimes would have on officer safety.
The number of calls responding to vehicle accidents has remained
relatively stable for the last five years.
Moreover, the testimony of Chief Bowers revealed that
mall security personnel perform a number of tasks that police
officers would normally perform in other areas. The mall security
personnel have secured alleged suspects, prepared reports and often
have evidence on videotape. Thus, although the calls are reported
for crime statistics purposes, the actual demands on the officers
are reduced.
Finally, within the last year BPD has hired an additional
police officer to help reduce officer workloads. The City is also
in the process of hiring four more officers to be paid through
grant funds to help reduce the workload on existing officers.
Therefore, the City concludes the crime statistics do not justify
an above-market base wage adjustment.
Based on all of the above-stated arguments, the
Arbitrator should award the City's proposal as being consistent
with the statutory criteria.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The Arbitrator finds, after a review of the evidence and
argument as applied to the statutory criteria, that a 3.25%
increase effective January 1, 1999, applied to the existing salary
schedule is justified for the 1999 contract year. Implementation
of a 3.25% increase will move the top-step pay for a police officer
to $3,731 per month. Effective January 1, 2000, an additional 3%
should be added to the existing wage schedule to bring the top step
to $3,843 per month. The third year of the contract shall be
adjusted by an additional 3% effective January 1, 2001, increasing
the top step to $3,958 for the final year of the contract. The
reasoning of the Arbitrator is set forth in the discussion which
follows.
The City made a proposal to increase the shift
differential premium to $50 from its current $40 and roll the
amount into base pay. In Issue 5 - Shift Differential, the
Arbitrator rejected the Union's proposal to modify the way shift
differential is paid. This is a small police department. Police
officers rotate through the three different shifts on a regular
schedule. The evidence before this Arbitrator shows the system
works and presents no undue financial burden on the City. The
Arbitrator concludes no justification has been shown to change the
current system of paying a monthly shift differential in
recognition of the disruption to Burlington Police Department
officers lives who must rotate through three different shifts on
a regular basis.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF CITY
Regarding the Constitutional and statutory authority of
the City of Burlington, no issues were raised with respect to this
factor which would place the Award in conflict with Washington law.
STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES
The parties agree that the Collective Bargaining
Agreement should become effective January 1, 1999, through
December 31, 2001. Other than the above-stated agreement, there
were no significant stipulations of the parties relevant to this
interest arbitration.
CHANGES DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS PROCEEDING
Regarding the factor of changes in any circumstances
during the pendency of this interest arbitration and proceeding,
none were brought to the attention of the Arbitrator by the parties
to this dispute.
COMPARABILITY
The Arbitrator adopted the City's proposed list of
comparators, with the exception of deleting Union Gap, and adding
Lake Stevens. The wage level for the 1999 comparables with the
Arbitrator's awarded 3.25% to Burlington police officers provides
for the following top-step salary ranking:
COMPARABLES - 1999 WAGES
------------------------
JURISDICTION WAGE
Port Townsend $3,517
Sedro Woolley $3,674
Ferndale $3,693
Arlington $3,687
Chehalis $3,687
Poulsbo $3,798
Milton $3,528
East Wenatchee $3,356
Lake Stevens $3,652
Fife $3,891
Average $3,648
Burlington $3,731
------------------------
Examination of the above chart shows for 1999 Burlington
police officers will be paid $83 above the average and rank in
third place among the seven cities at the top step. When the $40
shift premium paid to officers is considered along with the
incentive payments, this group of officers enjoys an overall
compensation package that is reasonable and competitive with the
ten cities.
There is absolutely no justification in the record of
this case to adopt the Union's 6% proposal for each of the three
years of the 1999-2001 contract. Contrary to the Union's claims of
an increased workload is the evidence which demonstrated the
figures were skewed because of shoplifting crimes in the malls.
Burlington has not experienced a rapid rise in major crimes but has
maintained a rather steady crime rate.
The City effectively discredited the Union's data
concerning the retail sales tax revenue actually received by
Burlington. The modest increases awarded by the Arbitrator are
costs the City can afford to pay and still meet its other financial
obligations.
For the 2000 contract year, the issue of comparability is
more complicated because three of the comparator groups have not
reached a final agreement. In those jurisdictions which have
reached agreement, substantial wage increases have been bargained.
Er. Ex. 3.1.6. The average salary of the seven cities, including
Lake Stevens, will increase by $306 per month to $3,342 per month.
The data on the 2000 settlements established the City's
proposed 2% increase is inadequate to maintain the Burlington
Police Department's competitive wage schedule with the other ten
cities. Although the 3% awarded by the Arbitrator will cause some
slippage in ranking to Burlington Police Department officers, the
$3,843 per month pay will still keep the top step comfortably
positioned in the upper range of the comparator group.
The City's proposal for a 2001 wage adjustment based on
the CPI driven formula is inappropriate in this case. Where a CPI
factor has served as the basis for a formula driven wage increase,
the effective date typically is at least two to three years in the
future. By the time this Award is published over one and one-half
years of the three-year Agreement will have lapsed. The 2001
increase will be effective in approximately four and one-half
months. Therefore, the Arbitrator will not burden this contract
with a complex CPI formula and will award a straight 3% increase
effective January 1, 2001.
In reaching conclusions on the wage issue, your
Arbitrator was mindful of the additional pay that members of this
unit earn under the incentive plans and shift differential premium.
The Arbitrator also rejected the City's proposal to add a co-pay
requirement to the insurance program. The Arbitrator, when framing
this award on wages, gave weight to the fact the members of this
unit will continue to enjoy fully paid medical, dental and vision
insurance for the duration of the 1999-2001 contract. Payment of
100% of the insurance is not the standard in the comparator group.
COST OF LIVING
Regarding the cost of living factor, the CPI for the
Seattle area in 1998 and 1999 varied from 2.5% to 3.1%. Er. Ex.
3.2.2. The All U.S. Cities CPI-U for the twelve-month period
ending March 2000 was up 3.7%. Er. Ex. 3.2.3. The Arbitrator
concurs with the City that the cost of living factor is to be used
as one of the guidelines for setting the appropriate level of wages
for employees. The CPI measures price increases in a set market
basket of goods and services. The CPI is not intended to measure
the impact on any particular individual because not all persons
purchase that same market basket of goods and services. However,
the CPI is widely recognized as an important factor in determining
an appropriate wage adjustment.
The Arbitrator finds the evidence regarding the cost of
living supports a wage settlement less than the 6% proposed by the
Union. In addition, the City's evidence proves members of the
bargaining unit fared well in recent years when negotiated
increases are compared with the corresponding changes in the CPI
during that same period. Adoption of the City's offer for 1999 and
2000 would result in wage gains less than increases measured by the
CPI. This is unacceptable for a bargaining unit composed of
professional employees. The award of this Arbitrator is in
conformity with recent increases in the cost of living as measured
by the CPI.
The City made a persuasive argument that the differences
in the cost of living in Burlington and other western Washington
cities should be factored into a final award. This difference in
cost of living between Burlington and other western Washington
cities manifests itself in the wage levels paid to other public and
private employees in Skagit County in general. The three-year
increases awarded by this Arbitrator represent a reasonable
reflection of the historical cost of living differences between
Burlington and other western Washington cities which are located in
the immediate Puget Sound area.
OTHER TRADITIONAL FACTORS
A host of potential guidelines are suggested by the
catchall of "other factors, . . . normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of employment." ROW 41.56.465(1) (f) . As this case was
driven by the comparability factor, neither party made a strong
argument there were "other factors" at play in this dispute which
would override the enumerated statutory criteria. The award of the
Arbitrator is consistent with the treatment of other employees by
the City. Internal equity is important, but not determinant in an
interest arbitration under the Washington statute. This Arbitrator
is charged with the responsibility of formulating an award for the
members of this police bargaining unit, not other city-represented
employee groups.
In formulating the three-year wage package this
Arbitrator has taken into consideration the award in Issue 3 -
Medical Insurance, to continue fully paid insurance coverage for
police officers. In addition, all members of this unit will see
the shift differential increased to $50 per month effective October
1, 2000. Finally, the Arbitrator cannot ignore the fact Burlington
police officers have the ability to participate in three separate
premium pay programs. This is an option that is not the standard
in the comparator group.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards as follows:
1. Effective January 1, 1999, the existing
wage schedule shall be adjusted across-
the-board by 3.25%.
2. Effective January 1, 2000, the wage
schedule shall be adjusted across-the-
board by an additional 3%.
3. Effective January 1, 2001, the wage
schedule shall be adjusted across-the-
board by an additional 3%.
ISSUE 2 - SPECIALTY PAY
A. Background
Section 8.2 provides for a detective premium of $40 per
month. The Union proposed to increase the premium pay to $100 per
month. In addition, the Union would also add field training
officers (FTO) and DARE officers to those eligible for the $100 per
month premium pay. In response, the City would increase the
premium pay to $50 per month and allow for premium pay for the FTO
while serving as trainer.
B. THE UNION
The Union argues the increase in specialty pay for
detectives and field training officers is justified by the heavy
demands placed on officers for the same reasons as expressed in the
Union's proposal for an increase in wages. Further, officers
working as a detective or FTO require unique skills which should be
properly rewarded for the expertise and skills these police
officers bring to the Burlington Police Department.
Turning to the DARE officer, the Union asserts the
specialty pay comes about because of community outreach which
places the officer at schools and in contact with students.
Working in the schools and with students requires special skills
and patience which should be rewarded with extra pay. The $100
specialty pay provides both an incentive and a reward for officers
to get involved in the DARE outreach program.
C. THE CITY
The City has agreed on specialty premiums for detectives
and for the FTO while serving in a trainer capacity. According to
the City, this proposal is more than fair in relation to both the
City's comparables and the Union's. The FTOs should only be paid
the premium while they are assigned to oversee the training of
newly-hired officers. The FTO program typically lasts for
approximately three months where the time is split between two
FTOs. Over the last three years, Burlington has only hired three
new officers. The City submits it is appropriate that FTO officers
should only be paid a premium when they are actually training new
officers.
With respect to the DARE officer, the City notes none of
its comparables have a premium for the DARE officer and only two
provide a premium for detectives and three for FTOs. Er. Ex. 4.1.
Both Sedro Woolley and Ferndale provide the same $50 premium, as
proposed by the City. These cities also only provide a premium for
the FTO when that person is serving in a training capacity.
An examination of the Union's comparables reveals that
only one of the fifteen pays any premium for a DARE officer, three
of fifteen for an FTO, and four of fifteen for detectives. Er. Ex.
4.2. There is no support for the Union's FTO proposal allowing a
premium even in months with no FTO duties.
The City avers there is a special benefit for DARE
officers in that during the school year they do not have to rotate
off of day shifts. DARE officers benefit from a regular schedule
without the inconvenience of working swing and graveyard shifts.
The officers work with children to help them stay out of trouble
and by the nature of their work are at significantly less risk of
harm. The detectives also share this intangible benefit in that
they generally work day shifts and do not have to rotate as do
other officers.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The evidence presented by the Union does not justify
adoption of the Union's proposal. In the judgment of this
Arbitrator, the Union has made no compelling showing for its
proposal to increase the detective premium by $60 per month, and to
make the FTO and DARE officers eligible for the premium in the
manner proposed. There is no logical basis for paying the FTO
premium to an officer while they are not engaged in FTO training
duties. The City's proposal is justified, whether one looks at its
comparators or the Union's comparators. Therefore, the Arbitrator
will award the City's proposal on this issue to be effective
October 1, 2000.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Section 8.2 be modified to
provide for a $50.00 per month detective premium effective October
1, 2000. New language shall be added to Section 8.2 to state:
Effective October 1, 2000, FTO Premium - Fifty
Dollars ($50.00) per month during training.
ISSUE 3 - MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS
A . BACKGROUND
Currently the City pays 100% of the cost for full family
medical insurance for all police officers. In 1999, full family
coverage for medical, dental and vision insurance cost the City
$702.30 per month, per officer. The City proposed a co-payment of
90% by the Employer and 10% by the employee for premiums effective
the first full month after publication of the Award. The Union
would continue current contract language.
B. THE CITY
The City begins by noting that it has absorbed
significant additional cost to maintain the insurance program for
members of this bargaining unit. According to the City, the
absence of any contribution by the employees means there is no
recognition of the costly nature of the health insurance benefit or
any financial incentive to control costs. If employees share in
the cost of the insurance premium, there will be greater attention
paid to cost containment in the three benefits that are currently
provided.
The City next argues that modest premium sharing is
supported by the comparables. Even the comparables proposed by the
Union have forms of insurance cost containment not reflected on
Union Exhibit 30.
In sum, employers like Burlington are increasingly
turning to a variety of mechanisms to control steeply escalating
health insurance costs. The City's proposal is reasonable and does
not ask for significant contributions from employees.
C. THE UNION
The Union proposes that no changes that no changes be made in
the current
language regarding insurance benefits because there is simply no
evidence to justify a change in the status quo. According to the
Union, Burlington police officers are offended that the City is
actually trying to take away benefits from them during a time of
growth and expansion for the City. The City has not lost any
revenues which would entitle them to take away medical benefits.
The Union argues in the overwhelming majority of the
comparators, 100% payment of medical insurance by the employers is
standard. In addition, the City of Burlington pays 100% in the
most recent public works contract with the Teamsters. The City
simply cannot make an inability to pay argument in regard to
medical benefits given the current economic climate, and the fact
they are already providing full medical benefits to public works
employees.
Based on all of the above-stated arguments, the
Arbitrator should recommend that current language remain unchanged
in the 1999-2001 contract.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The 1999-2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement will be the
first contract between this Union and the City of Burlington. By
the time this contract is implemented, there will be less than
18 months to go before the Agreement expires. The Arbitrator finds
the City has not demonstrated sufficient justification for adopting
a co-pay in this first contract.
A review of the comparators reveals that out of ten
cities, three are still paying 100% of the insurance cost. Members
of this unit enjoy a comprehensive and competitive insurance
program. There are no issues before the Arbitrator concerning the
level of insurance benefits. in this round of negotiations, the
Union did no propose expanding the insurance program.
The Arbitrator's finding in this issue should not be
taken as a signal the City's proposal is without merit. The trend
is clearly moving in the direction of employee contributions to the
insurance programs. With this contract expiring in approximately
18 months, the parties will have the opportunity to examine the
insurance issue again. At that time the parties will have
substantially more experience and information about costs and
benefits of the existing program.
The days of 100% employer payment for insurance benefits
are coming to an end. This award on the insurance issue should be
taken by Union members as a warning that on expiration of the 1999-
2001 contract the time will be right to expect employee
contribution to insurance programs based on what the comparators
are paying. In continuing the 100% employer-paid insurance, you
Arbitrator took this decision into account in formulating the award
on the wage issue.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Article XII - Health and
Welfare Benefits shall remain unchanged in the 1999-2001 contract
with the City paying 100% of the cost of the existing plans.
ISSUE 4 - COMPENSATORY TIME
A. BACKGROUND
Currently only detectives and those on the drug task
force receive compensatory time. The City proposed to continue the
status quo. The Union proposed to add a new section to Article 7 -
Overtime. The language would read:
Section 7.5 Compensatory Time. Compensation
for overtime shall be in the form of
additional compensatory time off at time and a
half or extra pay at time and a half at the
employee's option. No employee shall
accumulate more than forty (40) hours of
compensatory time in one (1) year or carry
over more than forty (40) hours compensatory
time in a succeeding year.
The City presented alternative language at the
arbitration hearing in the event the Arbitrator was persuaded that
compensatory time should become part of this Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
B. THE UNION
The Union begins by asserting the City offered no valid
reason why it continues to refuse to offer compensatory time for
all of its officers. In view of the fact the City already offers
compensatory time to detectives, all employees should be given the
same opportunity for compensatory time. The Union points to most
of the comparators which offer compensatory time to officers. The
City provides employees under the public works contract with
compensatory overtime. Further, compensatory time is justified
because Burlington police officers bear a heavy workload and would
benefit from the ability to use compensatory time.
Regarding the City's argument that it would be too
difficult to offer compensatory time to all of its officers, the
Union submits this claim is simply without merit. Smaller police
departments throughout the state are able to provide compensatory
time for their officers. The Union submits the City should extend
the compensatory time currently being provided to detectives for
all of its officers.
The Union objects to the City's proposed alternative
compensatory language offered for the first time at the arbitration
hearing. The City had time during the negotiations to respond to
the offer regarding compensatory time. By allowing the City to
offer this proposal at the arbitration hearing, the City is
undermining the bargaining process. If the parties had the
opportunity to negotiate this issue, the Union submits the parties
could possibly have reached agreement and avoided arbitration on
the compensatory overtime issue.
C. THE CITY
The City takes the position the Union has failed to
justify its compensatory time proposal in light of the tremendous
expense and scheduling difficulties which would result from
implementation of the program. In the view of the City, the Union
offered no evidence to justify the new language extending
compensatory time to all police officers. The City asserted there
are a number of reasons why maintaining a limited scope of
compensatory time is the appropriate course to follow in the 1999-
2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
First, compensatory time brings with it tremendous
expenses because officers asking to take compensatory time must be
provided one and one-half hours off for each hour of compensatory
time taken. Because police officer coverage must be maintained,
another officer has to be brought in, usually at overtime, to cover
the work. If that officer in turn asks for compensatory time in
lieu of overtime, the City must pay one and one-half hours for each
hour of coverage. This proposed system quickly escalates into
significant expense and operational problems to the department.
Second, the reason the City wishes to maintain the status
quo is the difference between the work of detectives and of regular
police officers. Detectives in most cases do not have to have
positions filled while they are absent. The work of investigating
outstanding criminal complaints would be placed on hold while the
detectives are gone. On the other hand, the City must maintain
24-hour police coverage to protect its citizens.
Third, the City maintains the Union's proposal is flawed
because it failed to offer a comprehensive policy. For example,
the proposal does nothing to address how use is determined or what
would happen, if anything, by way of cash out. The new policy also
does not address management's right to schedule compensatory time
at a period convenient to the Employer. As the moving party, the
Union has failed to meet its burden with a comprehensive proposal
on this subject.
A review of the comparable contracts reveals that
Ferndale, Fife and Poulsbo have no provision for compensatory time
in lieu of paid overtime. Of those contracts who allow some form
of compensatory time, many require agreement by management before
compensatory time is allowed, as in the Port Townsend and Milton
contracts. Other contracts provide for control over the amount of
compensatory time. These types of details are lacking from the
Union's proposal which provides a compelling reason for its
rejection.
The City offered alternative language in the event the
Arbitrator believed compensatory time should become a part of the
contract. According to the City, its alternative language would
fill in many of the holes in the Union's proposal for compensatory
time. The City views its alternative language as providing a means
to control the use of compensatory time and still provide police
services to the citizens.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The starting point for examining this issue is to
recognize the fact we are dealing with a small department with
sixteen officers. Minimum staffing levels must be maintained for
officer safety reasons and to provide adequate police services for
the citizens of Burlington. Currently, the Burlington Police
Department must provide coverage for police officers absent on sick
leave, vacation leave, disability leave and training.
Adoption of the Union's proposal would compound an
already serious problem of officer availability and maintenance of
appropriate staffing levels. Er. Ex. 6.1. The Arbitrator concurs
with the City's argument the Union's proposal leaves too many
questions unanswered on how the compensatory time language would be
applied. The Arbitrator also is reluctant to award a proposal
which presents a real potential for unlimited liability of
compensatory time. Where compensatory time is offered in the
comparable jurisdictions, the language is specific and precise as
to how the program will be applied. In addition, the language
found in those contracts which do allow for compensatory time
provide a system whereby management controls the program so that
adequate police services can be assured and compensatory time
liability is limited.
The Arbitrator holds addition of a compensatory time
program might be appropriate at a future date. However, carefully
crafted language is an absolute necessity to make a compensatory
time program successful for both parties in a small police
department. Because of the major impact a compensatory time system
would have on the Burlington Police Department, this Arbitrator is
unwilling to create language of his own out of proposals offered by
either party.
AWARD
The Union's proposal shall not become a part of the
successor Agreement, and the status quo should be continued.
ISSUE 5 - SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
A. BACKGROUND
Section 8.5 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
regarding shift differential contains language which states:
8.5 Shift Differential: Employees regularly
assigned to rotating shifts and straight night
shifts shall receive $40.00 per month premium
over their regular scale of wages.
The Union would delete the current provision and
substitute new language to read:
8.5 Shift Differential: Employees working
rotating shifts will receive a premium of
60 cents per hour for swing shift and 80 cents
per hour for graveyard shift. Swing shift is
defined as 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and
graveyard shift is defined as 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.
The City proposed to abandon a rotating shift premium and
to take the $40 per month, increase it to $50 per month and apply
it to the base pay. Er. Ex. 1.6.
B. THE UNION
The Union argues that its proposal for a shift
differential truly rewards employees for working the graveyard and
swing shift, which is the entire point of a shift differential.
The shift differential has traditionally been separate from an
employee's base wages and the Union proposes to keep it this way.
The Union submits its proposal for the change in shift differential
should be adopted so premium pay truly reflects shift differential
and rewards employees for working the more undesirable shifts.
C. THE CITY
The City takes the position that the Union's proposal is
unworkable and contains some serious gaps in its language.
According to the City, the Union has failed to meet its burden of
proof on this issue for a change in shift differential. Only two
of the ten City comparables provide any shift differential. Of the
Union's comparables, only two of the fourteen provide any type of
shift differential. Therefore, the comparability factor does not
support the Union's proposal.
In recognition of the vast majority of the Union's and
City's comparables, the City proposes to abandon the rotating shift
premium of $40 per month. The City proposes to take the $40 per
month premium, increase the amount to $50 per month and apply it to
the base pay. The City submits its proposal to maintain the shift
premium dollars for officers, and to have it reflected in base wage
is very reasonable.
D. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Both parties made proposals to change the current program
on shift differentials. However, neither party made a convincing
case that there was any compelling need to change the existing
method of providing for shift differential pay. The program
appears to have worked for the parties, and no evidence was
presented that the shift differential program was burdensome to
administer.
The Arbitrator recognizes the current shift differential
program is unique to Burlington. The program provides differential
pay in recognition of the fact officers in this bargaining unit do
work rotating shifts. Police officers who work rotating shifts
find significant disruption to their personal lives. It is
appropriate that this system of scheduling officers on a rotating
basis during the course of a year should yield financial
recognition. The parties are also directed to the Arbitrator's
discussion regarding the compensatory time issue as an additional
reason for maintaining the existing shift premium payment system.
Given there is no evidence before this Arbitrator that the current
system is financially unreasonable or unmanageable, the Arbitrator
will award that current contract language be continued.
AWARD
The Arbitrator awards that Section 8.5 be continued in
the 1999-2001 contract unchanged.
CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with the statutory criteria and rules of
the Public Employment Relations Commission, this Arbitrator has
awarded a series of contract provisions which will serve as a
constructive basis for mature and stable relations between the
parties. There was obvious merit to the positions taken by both
sides on the five issues submitted to interest arbitration. The
Arbitrator has not awarded anything radical or drastic for
inclusion in the 1999-2001 contract. The Arbitrator has not split
the difference between the parties. The Award is based on record
evidence which reasonable people could settle their differences
within the context of the statutory criteria.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary L. Axon
Interest Arbitrator
Dated: August 16, 2000
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.