IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION ) OPINION AND AWARD
)
BETWEEN ) OF
)
SKAGIT COUNTY EMERGENCY ) GEORGE LEHLEITNER
)
MEDICAL SERVICE COMMISSION ) NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR
)
v. )
)
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF )
)
FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 3427 )
HEARING: August 9, 2005
BRIEFS RECEIVED: October 26, 2005
NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR: George Lehleitner
4702 S.W. Scholls Ferry Rd., #334
Portland, Oregon 97225
PARTISAN ARBITRATORS: Douglas Ferguson for Skagit County Emergency
Medical Service Commission
Paul Harvey for International Association of
Firefighters, Local 3427
I. INTRODUCTION
This case involves an interest arbitration dispute submitted by the parties to a tripartite
panel consisting of Neutral Arbitrator George Lehleitner and Partisan Arbitrators Douglas
Ferguson appointed by Skagit County Emergency Medical Service Commission (EMS) and Paul
Harvey appointed by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 3427 (Union).
A hearing was held before the panel in Mt. Vernon, Washington on August 9,2005. At
hearing both sides were afforded an opportunity to present documentary and testimonial evidence
and to cross-examine witnesses, as necessary.
The parties agreed to submit simultaneous post-hearing briefs to the arbitration panel.
Briefs were received by the Neutral Arbitrator on October 26,2005. Thereafter, I received
supplemental arguments from the parties. The last such argument was received on November 4,
2005 and the hearing was closed on that date.
II. ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues presented to the arbitration panel are:
- Wages
- Part-time annual leave
- Part-time sick leave use
- Sick leave accumulation, and
- Duration
III. STATUTORY CRITERIA
The arbitration panel was selected in accordance with RCW 41.56, et seq.
The criteria for making a decision is set forth in RCW 41.56.465 as follows:
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;
* * * * *
(ii) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(e) through (h),
comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of
personnel involved in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like personnel of public fire departments of
similar size on the west coast of the United States. However, when an
adequate number of comparable employers exists within the state of
Washington, other west coast employers may not be considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for good and services, commonly known
as the cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances under (a) through (d) of this
subsection during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the factors under (a) through (e) of
this subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. For those
employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) who are employed by the governing
body of a city or town with a population of less than fifteen thousand, or a county
with a population of less than seventy thousand, consideration must also be given
to regional differences in the cost of living.
IV. BACKGROUND
Skagit County (County) is a largely rural county in the State of Washington located
approximately halfway between Seattle and the Canadian border. The EMS is an agency
established by Skagit County to provide emergency medical services in the central part of the
County. Advanced Life Support (ALS) and Basic Life Support (BLS) services in the far western
and eastern portions of the county are generally provided by the Anacortes Fire Department and
Aero-Skagit Emergency Services (Exhibit U-8).
EMS is a public employer. It employs approximately 34 certified, full-time and part-time
paramedics. EMS does not employ any firefighters. All paramedics employed by EMS are
trained and certified to provide ALS services.
The paramedics employed by EMS operate out of four (4) stations located at Sedro
Wooley, Burlington, Mt. Vernon and McLedBeaver Marsh. They work a schedule of 24-hour
shifts commencing at 9 a.m. and ending the same time the following day. As a result, they work
15 hours the first day of each shift and 9 hours the second day. This schedule, before time off for
earned leave, results in approximately nine (9) 24-hour shifts a month (Exhibit U-1 1). Since
EMS does not employ firefighters, it is not eligible for the FLSA exemption. Consequently,
paramedics routinely accumulate overtime under this schedule.
Paramedics employed by EMS are dispatched to provide BLS and ALS services,
including transport, in accordance with established protocols. The paramedics are trained to
provide ALS services in life threatening situations and do so on an ongoing basis.
Approximately twenty percent of the calls they respond to involve ALS services. The remainder
involve BLS services.
Prior to 2003, the City had contracted with Affiliated Health Services (AHS) to provide
paramedic services to the central portion of the county. However, effective January 2003, the
City began providing these services directly and the present EMS structure was created (Exhibit
EMS 3-3). Most of the paramedics previously employed by AHS transferred to employment
with EMS and an initial collective bargaining agreement covering the period from January 1,
2003 to June 30,2004 was negotiated.
The operations of the ambulance services provided by EMS are funded primarily by fees
for service, i.e., 87%, with a 13% supplement from a voter approved levy that expires on
December 31, 2006.
The issues before the arbitration panel were discussed by the parties during the mediation
process. More specifically, the parties exchanged “what if’ package proposals through the
mediator in November 2004. More specifically, a review of the “what if” package proposals
made during mediation reveal that on November 5, 2004 the Union made a “what if’ package
proposal that included the following elements: a 30-month contract with annual 3% wage
adjustments and current contract language with respect to sick leave accumulation and part-time
sick leave use. The Union proposed further under part-time annual leave that paramedics could
use paid time off up to 40 hours per week (EMS Exhibit 4-2).' The November 25, 2004 “what
if’ package response of EMS accepted the Union’s proposal on all items except part-time annual
leave accrual. On that issue EMS proposed allowing up to 48 hours of annual leave per week as
long as the paramedic was scheduled for 48 hours that week and had the appropriate amount of
vacation leave accrued (EMS Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3).
ISSUE #1 -WAGES
The predecessor collective bargaining agreement between the parties expired on June 30,
2004. The salary schedule is set forth in Appendix B. It consists of eleven (11) steps based on
experience. Effective July 1, 2003, the base salary (0 - 12 months experience) for a paramedic is
$18.06 per hour. The top step of 20 (242+ months of experience) earns $24.40 per hour (EMS
Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3).
A. The Union
The Union is proposing a three (3) year agreement with wage adjustments as
follows:
(1) Effective July 1,2004 - 100% of the increase in the CPI-U (Seattle-Tacoma-
Bremerton - January 2003 - January 2004) plus 3%.
(2) Effective July 1,2005 - 100% of the CPI-U (Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton -
January 2004 - January 2005), plus 3%
(3) Effective July 1,2006 - 100% of the CPI-U (Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton -
January 2005 - January 2006), plus 3%.
The Union’s arguments are summarized as follows:
(1) The Union’s analysis of the issues before the arbitration panel are based on the
statutory criteria set forth in RCW 41.56.465(1).
(2) Arbitration must be viewed as a continuum of the collective bargaining
process: Its primary purpose is to promote uninterrupted and dedicated service of
uniformed personnel without having to resort to strikes as a vehicle of dispute
resolution. Clearly, dedicated service suffers when a public employer fails to pay
competitive wage rates. The Union’s proposals are designed to promote morale
and mitigate the ills the legislature sought to cure when it enacted the impasse
resolution statutes.
(3) Sub paragraph (l)(a), “the constitutional and statutory authority of the
emp1oyer”supports the Union’s wage proposal for several reasons. First, EMS has
identified no statutory or constitutional objections. More importantly, EMS by its
Executive Director’s own admission has abundant fiscal resources and is easily
capable of covering the cost of the Union’s proposal.
(4) Subparagraph (l)(b) does not apply because the parties have not entered into
any stipulations except that they are both proposing a three (3) year agreement.
(5) Subparagraph (a)(c)(ii) pertaining to comparisons with public fire departments
of similar size goes to the crux of the Union’s case. This sub section requires the
arbitration panel to compare “wages, hours and conditions of employment of like
personnel of public fire departments of similar size . . . within the state of
Washington” (Emphasis Added). Both sides have properly based their analysis on
other fire departments in Washington with the notable exception of Whidbey
General Hospital in Island City, which is clearly a comparable employer. A
problem arises, however, because EMS has chosen to focus entirely on geographic
proximity using an arbitrary radius of 25 miles from its headquarters. The
approach of EMS is fatally flawed because it ignores the statutory criteria of “like
personnel” of fire departments of “similar size.” The results oriented comparators
selected by EMS are smaller departments that in many instances did not even
employ paramedics at the time the comparables were selected.
(6) The Union’s comparators, unlike those proposed by EMS, fully conform to the
statutory criteria and established arbitral precedent. In this regard, the Union has
used the widely accepted standard of population and assessed valuation to
determine size. The Union has also used geographic proximity by staying within
an established labor market. The Union’s comparability analysis, unlike the
results-oriented approach put forward by EMS, provides an understandable and
thoughtful approach that can be carried over in future negotiations.
(7) In selecting comparable jurisdictions, the Union examined all public ALS
transport agencies in Skagit, Whatcom, Island, Snohomish and King Counties,
thereby coming up with a list of 16 potential employers. The Union then pruned
that list by selecting those employers with a service population of 50% to 200% of
the EMS. The end result of this process produced the following comparators:
Agency Assessed Value Service Population
Whidbey 5,199,906,530 71,558
Marysville 4,148,555,129 60,870
Sno. Co. 8 5,062,652,996 70,542
Sno. Co. 7 5,307,339,409 66,970
Sno. Co. 1 9,609,908,397 150,000
Monroe 4,696,789,000 46,616
Everett 8,424,812,456 95,990
Shoreline 4,898,966,081 52,730
Redmond 11,667,932,627 69,900
Average 6,557,429,181 76,131
Skagit 6,737,655,220 76,514
The foregoing constitutes a suitable list of comparators that should be adopted by the
arbitration panel. All nine (9) public employers on the list employ paramedics, all but
one mutually agreed upon entity (Whidbey General Hospital) are fire departments, all are
located within the same general labor market and, most importantly, all satisfy the
statutory criteria of “like personnel” and “similar size.”
(8) Alternatively, the panel could eliminate the two (2) King County departments,
Shoreline and Redmond, from this grouping and still have enough comparators to
make meaningful wage and benefit comparisons. As will be demonstrated below,
comparisons of EMS wages and benefits with either of these groups will fblly
support the Union’s wage proposals.
(9) The Union’s approach to selecting geographically proximate departments
within 50% to 200% of the size of the department has been adopted by other
arbitrators. For instance, Arbitrator Janet Gaunt in City of Bellevue and Bellevue
Firefighters Local 1604, PERC No. 681 1-87-162 (Gaunt, 1987) expressly
endorsed this standard.
(10) As previously indicated, the EMS approach to selecting comparators is fatally
flawed for a multitude of reasons. First, EMS wants the arbitration panel to
disregard the statutory criteria and focus instead on the relatively low population
density of Skagit County. What EMS conveniently ignores is the fact that the
sparsely populated mountainous region of the county is served by a different ALS
service. Second, the arbitrary 25-mile radius proposed by EMS excludes
comparable departments such as Everett and Snohomish Fire Districts Nos. 1, 7
and 9, all of which operate in the same labor market and are an easy commute
from Mt. Vernon. Third, the inclusion of departments such as Mt. Vernon and
Camano Island are clearly inappropriate because Camano Island still provides no
paramedic service and Mt. Vernon still does not transport patients. Finally, the
EMS methodology of using operating budget and number of uniformed personnel
to determine size is not appropriate because it screens out most public employers
with comparable service populations and assessed valuation.
(11) Any argument that county wide demographics somehow justify the EMS
approach to comparability should be rejected. First, EMS simply ignores the
statutory mandate by including employers in its comparability list that employ
few, if any, paramedics. Second, as previously discussed, EMS fails to utilize the
widely accepted standards of assessed value and population to determine size.
Finally, it is apparent that the EMS approach to comparability is “results driven”
as opposed to being consistent with objective standards that conform to the
statutory criteria.
(12) The Union’s approach to comparability is preferable to that suggested by
EMS for a different reason. In this regard, the Union’s approach of comparing a
12-year paramedic, who is married with two children makes sense because it
conforms to the average profile of a paramedic employed by EMS. More
importantly, the Union’s comparability data are preferable to those of EMS
because they include evidence of total compensation not just hourly wage rates.
To make a truly meaningful comparison that conforms to the statutory criteria, it
is necessary to also include benefits such as vacations, holidays, health insurance,
supplemental retirement benefits and longevity pay.
(13) The Union’s proposed wage adjustments of 3% per year over the term of the
new agreement plus the cost of living as measured by the Seattle area CPI-U is
reasonable and should be awarded. The Union estimates its proposed wage
increases over the term of the new agreement would amount to 15.5%. Even with
such increases, bargaining unit paramedics would earn significantly less than the
average of any reasonable comparator group. Moreover, in fashioning an award,
the arbitration panel should ignore the “what if’ settlement proposals offered by
EMS. This is so because consideration of settlement offers is destructive of the
collective bargaining process.
(14) The Union’s comparability data is summarized in Exhibit U-35. As
previously discussed, this list of comparators is based on employers with service
population and assessed value between 50% and 200% of the EMS. Moreover,
the Union’s comparability data unlike the information offered by EMS, shows
overall compensation not just hourly wages (see, Exhibit U-3 5).
| Agency |
Annual Hours |
Vacation Hours |
Holiday Hours |
Net Annual Hours |
Avg. Monthly Hours |
Base Monthly Pay |
Scheduled OT Pay |
| Whidbey |
2,880 |
480 |
0 |
2,400 |
200 |
$6,094 |
$0 |
| Marysville |
2,645 |
180 |
120 |
2,345 |
195 |
$4,825 |
$0 |
| Sno. Co. 8 |
2,608 |
195 |
0 |
2,413 |
201 |
$5,081 |
$0 |
| Sno. Co. 7 |
2,503 |
216 |
104 |
2,183 |
182 |
$5,267 |
$0 |
| Sno. Co. 1 |
2,466 |
192 |
127 |
2,147 |
179 |
$5,254 |
$0 |
| Monroe |
2,624 |
360 |
0 |
2,264 |
189 |
$5,234 |
$0 |
| Everett |
2,190 |
180 |
0 |
2,010 |
168 |
$5,725 |
$0 |
| Shoreline |
2,496 |
216 |
144 |
2,136 |
178 |
$5,135 |
$0 |
| Redmond |
2,536 |
216 |
132 |
2,188 |
182 |
$5,271 |
$0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average |
2,550 |
248 |
70 |
2,232 |
186 |
$5,310 |
$0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skagit EMS |
2,503 |
278 |
0 |
2,225 |
185 |
$3,998 |
$1,199 |
| Average as % of Skagit |
|
|
|
100.3% |
100.3% |
132.8% |
|
| Agency |
Paramedic Premium |
Longevity 12 year |
Pay in Lieu of Holidays |
Total Monthly Pay |
Medical/Dental Premium |
Total Comp. Monthly |
Total Comp. Hourly |
| Whidbey |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$6,094 |
$451 |
$6,545 |
$32.72 |
| Marysville |
$482 |
$120 |
$0 |
$5,427 |
$1,388 |
$6,815 |
$34.88 |
| Sno. Co. 8 |
$508 |
$50 |
$234 |
$5,873 |
$1,141 |
$7,014 |
$34.88 |
| Sno. Co. 7 |
$632 |
$105 |
$0 |
$6,004 |
$1,388 |
$7,392 |
$40.64 |
| Sno. Co. 1 |
$721 |
$206 |
$0 |
$6,081 |
$951 |
$7,032 |
$39.31 |
| Monroe |
$550 |
$105 |
$0 |
$5,889 |
$771 |
$6,660 |
$35.30 |
| Everett |
$0 |
$315 |
$286 |
$6,326 |
$1,188 |
$7,514 |
$44.86 |
| Shoreline |
$770 |
$0 |
$0 |
$5,905 |
$1,096 |
$7,001 |
$39.33 |
| Redmond |
$738 |
$211 |
$0 |
$6,220 |
$1,296 |
$7,516 |
$41.22 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Average |
$489 |
$124 |
$58 |
$5,980 |
$1,074 |
$7,054 |
$38.13 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skagit EMS |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$5,197 |
$329 |
$5,526 |
$29.80 |
| Average as % of Skagit |
|
|
|
115.1% |
326.6% |
127.7% |
127.9% |
A review of the comparability data provided in this table shows that EMS paramedics are
27% below average.
(15) Even if the King County jurisdictions (Le., Shoreline and Redmond) are
removed from the comparability analysis, EMS paramedics are still 25.9% below
average with the disparity increasing in the second and third years of the new
agreement.
(16) Arguments made by EMS in its post hearing brief pertaining to deferred
compensation, FICA contributions and Medicare contributions should not be
considered by the arbitration panel because this evidence was not presented during
the arbitration hearing. Moreover, much of this new information offered by EMS
at pages 28 and 29 and Attachment S of its post hearing brief is erroneous. First,
all municipal employees pay the 1.45% tax for Medicare. Second, the social
security exemption is not automatic. Third, if retirement contributions are
considered, so too must LEOFF2 contributions. Fourth, EMS fails to mention the
6.5% retirement contribution paid by Whidbey General Hospital. Fifth, the Union
erroneously fails to take medical premiums paid into account in its comparative
analysis. The fact that EMS provides medical insurance to so called part-time
paramedics, who actually work full time, is irrelevant. Finally, if Union Exhibit
35 is revised to take into account the County’s belated total compensation
arguments, the evidence reveals that EMS paramedics are still 18.9% to 20.9%
behind their counterparts.
B. EMS
EMS proposes a three (3) year agreement with 3% wage increases effective July 1,
2004, July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006.
EMS' arguments are summarized as follows:
(1) In assessing the proposals and particularly the wage proposals it is important
for the arbitration panel to keep in mind what happened during the negotiations
process. More specifically, during mediation the Union expressed a willingness to
accept a 3-year agreement with annual wage increases of 3% each year. Now the
Union is "moving the ball" and asking the arbitration panel to award more than
3% per year.
(2) The wage proposal of EMS is based on the statutory criteria set out in RCW
41 S6.456 and the history of negotiations with this bargaining unit. To better
understand the wage proposal of the EMS it is important to keep in mind the
overall structure of the organization. EMS is a local emergency services and
trauma care council established by Skagit County to provide among other things
ambulance service within the central valley area of the county. Significantly,
EMS does not have a fire department and does not employ any firefighters.
However, the paramedics employed by EMS enjoy substantial benefits including
deferred compensation, social security payments and Medicare contributions. It is
also important to recognize that the ambulance service provided by EMS is 87%
funded by fees for service with the remaining 13% coming from a voter approved
excess property tax levy. Unlike the typical municipal fire department or county
fire district, no subsidies are received from the county's general fund.
(4) As the Union's counsel observes, the intent of the parties in negotiating the
transition from AHS to EMS was to maintain the Iktatus quo." The proposal of
EMS more than accomplishes this objective. By contrast, the Union's proposal
reflects an intent to disconnect from the history of bargaining between the parties
and "build Rome in a day."
(5) The constitutional and statutory authority of EMS is limited to operating an
emergency and non emergency medical/ambulance service. This authority is
different and more limited than that of a typical fire department. It is important to
recognize that when medical emergencies arise in the central valley, the first
responders, more often than not, are the local fire departments, Le., Mt. Vernon,
Burlington and Sedro Wooley. The important point is that while EMS paramedics
may provide the assessment and transport in ALS situations, there is a sharing of
workload such that the area serviced by EMS paramedics is smaller than the
76,000 population count for Skagit County. Finally, the fees that can be charged
by EMS are limited by statute. This, coupled with the fact that the supplemental
levy will run out in December 2006 militates in favor of holding the line on costs.
(6) The only relevant stipulation of the parties is that the agreement will expire on
December 3 1,2006.
(7) The statute calls for comparisons with "public fire departments" of similar
size. There are enough "public fire departments" of similar size in the local labor
market where most of the paramedics reside to do an appropriate comparative
analysis. Since there are more than enough wage comparators locally, it is neither
appropriate nor necessary to go outside the local labor market and bring in
comparators from King and South Snohomish Counties. EMS has satisfied the
statutory criteria of "similar size'' by selecting similarly sized departments with a
similarly sized budget and has been able to do so while staying within a 25-mile
radius of Mt. Vernon. The comparators developed by EMS are as follows:
Public Agency Uniformed Personnel Size Operating Budget Size
Skagit EMS 34 $3.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Vernon Fire Dept. 33 $3.8 Million
Anacortes Fire Dept. 18 $1.6 Million
Arlington Fire Dept. 25 $2.6 Million
Island Fire Dist. 1 15 $3.1 Million
Snohomish Fire Dist. 12
60 $4.6 Million
Average 30 $3.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whidbey Hospital Dist. 25 $2.9 Million
As discussed above, all of these comparators employ approximately the same
number of uniformed personnel as the EMS and all are within a relatively narrow
range in terms of operating budget size.
(8) By contrast, the Union’s proposed comparators are dominated by a large list of
much bigger and more metropolitan areas, many of which are located in the
Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metroplex. For obvious reasons, it is unfair to compare
the EMS to these departments. In this regard, a review of economic data
establishes that median family incomes are significantly higher in Whatcom,
Snohomish, Island and King Counties than in Skagit County. The same is true of
population density.
(9) EMS methodology for selecting comparator departments is consistent with
arbitral precedent and the statutory criteria. First, it is well established that, if
possible, the comparators selected should be in the same labor market. City of
Camas and IAFF Local 2444 (1996, Abernathy), see also, City of Bellevue and
IAFF Local 1604 (Block, 1982), City of Longview and IAFF Local 828,
(Lehleitner, 1987) and King. County and IAFF Local 2595 (Beck, 1987). Clearly,
public employers that employ paramedics in the Mt. Vernon area are more
appropriate than departments located in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett area.
(10) Turning to the statutory criterion of "like personnel," EMS had to use fire
departments employing firefightedparamedics because there were not enough
agencies in the local area employing paramedics only.
(11) In applying the "similar size" requirement of the statute, EMS has used the
number of uniformed personnel employed by comparator department and size of
each department's operating budget. Other criteria sometimes used in interest
arbitration such as population and assessed value don't work in this case because
fire departments servicing similarly sized populations are much larger than the
EMS and have far more extensive taxing authority. This approach conforms to
the stated preference of interest arbitrators to compare similarly sized
departments. City of Camas and IAFF Local 2444 (Wilkinson, 2003).
(12) The Union's comparability analysis is fatally flawed for a number of reasons.
First, the Union treats the EMS paramedics as if they were firefighters. They are
not. Second, the Union improperly seeks to compare EMS with large fire
departments employing firefighter/paramedics. These firefighters are different
from the EMS paramedics in a number of particulars, including without
limitation, eligibility for LEOFF retirement benefits and exemption from FLSA
overtime requirements. The eligibility of EMS paramedics for overtime adds an
average of 1.7% to their normal pay. Third, the Union looked no further than
population and assessed valuation to develop a list of comparables. This type of
analysis doesn't work under the unique circumstances of this case because even
though the EMS serves a resident population of 76,000, it is nowhere near the size
of a municipal or fire district department that serves a similar population.
Moreover, as a practical matter, the assessed values of the Union's proposed
comparators are approximately twice as large as the assessed values of the EMS
service area. Fourth, by ignoring the size of the comparator departments as
evidenced by the number of uniformed personnel and the size of their operating
budgets, the Union has violated the size requirement of the statute. Finally, the
Union's approach to comparability is flawed because it ignores the fact that most
of its proposed comparators do not operate in the same labor market as the EMS.
(13) The Union's comparability data is flawed for another reason. The Union
bases its comparisons on "total comp hourly" data by including in its comparisons
such factors as vacation hours, holiday hours, longevity, medical premiums, etc.
One intractable problem with this approach is that the Union omits significant
compensation items paid by EMS to its paramedics such as deferred
compensation, and FICA contributions. Moreover, the Union's holiday pay
comparisons are incomplete because it ignores premium pay for holidays worked.
The Union also deflates the contractual hourly rate in its charts by using 2503
hours rather than the correct figure of 2496. Finally, health insurance premiums
should not be included in the comparative data because health insurance
premiums are not at issue in this proceeding and also because the EMS, unlike
other departments, pays 100% of the health insurance for part-time paramedics. If
the Union's comparartive analysis as reflected in Exhibit U-35 is corrected to
account for the 8.5% deferred compensation contributions and the 6.2% social
security contributions while removing the "apples to oranges" health insurance
comparisons, the offer made by EMS would be $32.42 per hour compared to the
$33.OO per hour average of the Union's proposed comparators!
(14) The comparisons made by the EMS, unlike those proposed by the Union,
satisfy the statutory criteria of "like personnel" and same size "within the same
geographic area." Moreover, the EMS has compared hourly wage rates at every
step on the schedule rather than limiting its comparisons to a paramedic with 12
years experience. The EMS comparisons as shown in the table below clearly
establish that its proposal is very competitive with the comparator group.
| Skagit Current Wage Steps |
IAFF Mt. Vernon |
UFCS Whidbey Island |
IAFF City of Anac. |
IAFF City of Ailing. |
IAFF Island Fire #1 |
IAFF Marysvl. Fire #12 |
Comps 2005 Avg. |
Skagit -EMS- Central Valley 7/1/05 |
| 0-12 mos. |
19.12 |
19.152 |
19.60 |
19.26 |
18.37 |
17.28 |
18.80 |
$21.05 |
| 13-24 mos |
21.31 |
19.678 |
20.13 |
20.47 |
19.52 |
19.75 |
20.14 |
$22.36 |
| 25-36 mos. |
24.33 |
20.219 |
20.65 |
21.67 |
20.66 |
22.22 |
21.62 |
$23.67 |
| 37-48 mos. |
24.33 |
20.776 |
21.20 |
22.87 |
21.81 |
23.45 |
22.41 |
24.99 |
| 49-60 mos. |
24.33 |
21.348 |
21.76 |
24.08 |
22.96 |
24.69 |
23.19 |
$26.31 |
| 61-84 mos. |
24.39 |
21.934 |
21.81 |
24.19 |
22.96 |
24.96 |
23.33 |
$26.43 |
| 85-120 mos. |
24.50 |
23.157 |
21.89 |
24.23 |
23.54 |
25.06 |
23.73 |
$26.48 |
| 121-144 mos. |
24.66 |
25.121 |
22.03 |
24.30 |
24.11 |
25.43 |
24.27 |
26.55 |
| 145-181 mos. |
24.77 |
25.811 |
22.11 |
24.34 |
24.11 |
25.43 |
24.43 |
26.60 |
| 182-241 mos. |
24.93 |
27.250 |
22.24 |
24.41 |
24.68 |
25.43 |
24.82 |
$26.67 |
| 242+ mos. |
25.20 |
28.770 |
22.46 |
24.52 |
25.49 |
25.43 |
25.31 |
$26.80 |
Note: The Whidbey Hospital contractual rates on page 21 include overfime pay. The above Whidbey rates have
been adjusted by 2.56% to exclude overtime pay based on the same proportional amount of compensation the
Union has identified as “scheduled overtime compensation in U-0035 for Skagit EMS Paramedics. Calculation:
$1 199 annual scheduled overtime as a percentage of $3899 per month, multiplied by 12 months equals 2.56%. Er.
11-7, p. 21. See Er. 6-4. Er. 6-5 shows the market average without Whidbey Hospital rates. Tr. 156.
(15) The 3% wage adjustments in each year of the new agreement offered by EMS
exceeds the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In this
regard the annual average for Seattle for the last two (2) years available (2003 and
2004) was 1.8% and 1.2%. Moreover, the 3% adjustments offered by EMS meets
or exceeds wage settlements of other fire departments in the area.
(16) With respect to the statutory criterion of other factors traditionally considered
by interest arbitrators it is appropriate to consider internal parity. EMS’ offer is
generous compared to the 2% for 2004 and 3% for 2005 given to office and
management staff. And while it is true that call volumes have been increasing, the
reality is that they remain moderate and more paramedics have been hired to cover
the workload.
C. Discussion
The neutral arbitrator’s analysis is based on an application of the statutory criteria
to the facts of this case. What follows is a summary of the focal points in that analysis.
(1) The Washington statute does not specifically identify ability to pay as one of
the statutory criteria to be considered by interest arbitrators. However, as a
practical matter, most, if not all, interest arbitrators take this factor into account.
Consequently, it can be viewed as one of the factors normally or traditionally
considered in these types of proceedings.
That being said, ability to pay is not a critical factor in this case because by all
credible accounts the fiscal condition of EMS is sound. Under these
circumstances, it is in the best interest of the public to pay competitive wages to
its employees. What constitutes a competitive wage can best be determined by
assessing the factors of comparability and cost of living.
(2) Comparability.
Without question, the crucial wage determinant in this case is comparability.
Pursuant to the Washington statute this means, ''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 or
similar size . . ." (Emphasis Added).
Unfortunately, the parties have come up with widely divergent lists of comparable
departments and have utilized very different methodologies for arriving at
comparators and then analyzing the comparative data. This being so, the first task
of the arbitration panel is to come up with a workable list of comparator
departments that can serve as a guideline for the parties in these negotiations and
in the future.
As will be discussed below, developing an appropriate set of comparator
departments is particularly difficult in this case because EMS is not a fire
department and does not employ any firefighters. This creates something of a
problem because with one (1) exception, the departments EMS is being compared
to are fire departments that employ firefighters and paramedics.
In my view, there are some problems with the comparators proposed by both
sides. In its post hearing brief, the Union commenced its analysis by examining
all ALS transport agencies in Skagit, Whatcom, Island, Snohomish and King
Counties and then pared down that list by selecting employers with a paramedic
service population of 50% to 200% of the EMS. Based on this analysis, the
Union came up with the following comparators; Whidbey General Hospital,
Marysville (Snohomish Fire District No. 12), Snohomish Fire District No. 8,
Snohomish Fire District No. 7, Snohomish Fire District No. 1 (Everett), Monroe
(Snohomish Fire District No. 3), Everett Fire District, Shoreline Fire District and
Redmond Fire District. According to the Union, either this grouping of nine (9)
departments or a smaller grouping without the two (2) King County departments
(Shoreline and Redmond) would be valid comparators based on assessed value,
service population and geographic proximity. The Union contends valid
comparisons with either of these groups would support its wage proposal.
Some but not all of the Union’s proposed comparators are appropriate. The two
(2) King County departments (Redmond and Shoreline) are not appropriate
because they are part of the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metroplex and thus do not
operate in the same labor market as the EMS. Moreover, both are more than
twice as large as the EMS in terms of number of uniformed personnel (EMS
Exhibit 5-12). I have a similar problem with using the City of Everett and
Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 (South Everett) as comparators. Both are
significantly larger than the EMS in terms of uniformed personnel and both are
part of the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metroplex. Stated a little differently, both are
urban departments as distinguished from the EMS and most of the other proposed
comparators, which are more rural. Finally, I am inclined to agree with the
argument made by EMS that in view of its unique makeup @e., paramedic
service) and funding mechanism, it is not appropriate to have comparisons based
exclusively on assessed value and population. To the contrary, a more appropriate
criterion for developing comparator departments is the size of each department.
See, City of Camas v. IAFF, Local 2444 (Wilkinson, 2003).
In my view, the remainder of the departments suggested by the Union in its post
hearing brief, i.e., Whidbey General Hospital, Snohomish Fire District No. 7
(Clearview), Snohomish Fire District No. 12 (Marysville), Snohomish Fire
District No. 12 (Monroe) and Snohomish Fire District #8 (Lake Stevens) are
appropriate as comparators because they are all relatively rural departments, they
are all closer to the EMS in size and they are all geographically proximate.
However, as will be discussed below, there is an issue of relative ranking with
these departments because all but one are located in Snohomish County where the
cost of living tends to be higher because of proximity to the Seattle labor market.
Similarly, the cost of living tends to be higher in Island County than in Skagit
County.
Not surprisingly, the methodology used by the EMS and the resulting set of
comparables is very different than that of the Union. The EMS stayed within a
25-mile radius of Mt. Vernon because in its view there are more than enough
comparator departments in this area. Using department size and budget size as the
relevant criteria, the EMS arrived at the following set of comparators; Snohomish
Fire District No. 12 (Marysville), City of Mt. Vernon, Island Fire District No. 1
(Camano Island), City of Arlington, Whidbey Island General Hospital and City of
Anacortes.
Two (2) of the comparators proposed by the EMS are also on the Union's list, i.e.,
Snohomish County Fire District No. 12 (Marysville) and Whidbey Island General
Hospital. Clearly, these are appropriate comparators. As to the rest of the
comparators proposed by EMS, I do not disagree generally with the proposition
that given the unique structure of the EMS, department size is the most
appropriate criterion for developing a set of comparator departments. However, a
careful reading of the statute reveals that "department size'' is not the only
criterion the arbitration panel must consider. The statute also requires the
arbitration panel to compare "like personnel." The "like personnel" requirement
creates a problem in this case because many of the firefighters employed by the
proposed comparators are not EMTs with ALS skills equivalent to those of the
paramedics employed by the EMS. For instance, in 2004, the starting point for
the new agreement, several of EMS' proposed comparators, i.e., Island Fire
District No. 1 and Mt. Vernon, were not providing ALS transport services.
Moreover, while the parties did not provide evidence with respect to the
proportion of EMTs in other fire departments with ALS skills, it can be
reasonably assumed that Anacortes and Arlington have significantly fewer
paramedics with these types of skills than the EMS. This makes for an apples and
oranges comparison between departments in terms of department size.
Based on the foregoing, my approach will be to exclude the smaller departments,
i.e., Island Fire District No. 1 and Anacortes with either no ALS capabilities or
less ALS capability than the EMS. Consequently, from the comparators proposed
by the EMS, I will use Snohomish Fire District No. 12 (Marysville) and Whidbey
Island General Hospital, both of which are also on the Union’s list as well as
Arlington and Mt. Vernon. With respect to Mt. Vernon, I recognize that this
department only recently hired several paramedics and became capable of
providing ALS assistance. I also recognize that Mt. Vernon does not, except in
unusual circumstances, transport patients requiring ALS assistance. On the other
side of the coin, the reality is that Mt. Vernon is very comparable to the EMS in
terms of department size, it is headquartered in the same community, it frequently
responds to the same emergencies and it is subject to the same protocols. Under
these circumstances, it is appropriate to use Mt. Vernon as a comparable
department.
Based on the foregoing, the comparator departments I will use are; Snohomish
Fire District No. 7 (Clearview), Snohomish Fire District No. 12 (Marysville),
Snohomish Fire District No. 3 (Monroe), Snohomish Fire District No. 8 (Lake
Stevens), Whidbey Island General Hospital, Arlington and Mt. Vernon.
Having selected the comparator departments, a question remains as to the
appropriate methodology for making wage comparisons. Suffice it to say, the
methodologies suggested by the parties was as different as their choice of
comparator departments. More specifically, the Union using a 12-year paramedic
as a benchmark used an overall Compensation approach comparing factors such as
vacation hours, holiday hours, holiday pay and health insurance premiums to
arrive at a total compensation figure. Conversely, the EMS, at least initially,
limited its comparability data to hourly wage rates at each step of the salary
schedule. Subsequently, the EMS submitted rebuttal data designed to show the
amount it expended for such items as deferred compensation and social security
contributions.
I understand and do not necessarily disagree with the Union's overall
compensation approach to comparability. The problem, however, is that when
performing an overall compensation analysis it is critical to make "apples to
apples" comparisons. This is particularly difficult in a case like this, because the
structure of the EMS is different than that of the fire departments it is being
compared to. In my view some of the overall compensation comparisons in the
Union data may be problematical to the extent they do not include items such as
premiums for holidays worked and deferred compensation. Under these
circumstances, I will limit my comparisons to monthly wage rates for a twelve
(12) year paramedic, including overtime pay, paramedic premiums and longevity
pay. I will also consider health insurance premiums, but in the context of "other
factors" traditionally taken into account in interest arbitration proceedings.
Using this approach to comparability, my comparisons reveal the following:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
| Agency |
Base Monthly Pay - 12 Year Paramedic |
Overtime |
Paramedic Premium |
Longevity 12 Years |
Total Monthly Pay |
| Whidbey |
$6094.00 |
- |
- |
- |
$6094.00 |
| Snohomish No. 7 |
$5267.00 |
- |
$632.00 |
$105.00 |
$6004.00 |
| Snohomish No. 12 |
$4825.00 |
- |
$482.00 |
$120.00 |
$5427.00 |
| Snohomish No. 3 |
$5234.00 |
- |
$550.00 |
$105.00 |
$5889.00 |
| Snohomish No. 8 |
$5081.00 |
- |
$508.00 |
$50.00 |
$5639.00 |
| Arlington |
$4745.00 |
- |
$474.00 |
$60.00 |
$5279.00 |
| Mt. Vernon |
$4456.00 |
- |
$455.00 |
$120.00 |
$5031.00 |
| Average |
|
|
|
|
$5623.00 |
| Skagit EMS |
$4131.00* |
$1199.00 |
- |
- |
$5330.00 |
| |
|
|
|
|
-5.5% |
*The 4131 .OO base monthly pay for an EMS paramedic is calculated by taking the hourly salary of a Step 10
paramedic effective July 1, 2003 and multiplying by the average monthly hours of 185 as shown on Exhibit U-35.
Under the current salary schedule - Appendix 6, Step 10 paramedics (121-144 months) earn $22.33 per hour. Step
12 paramedics (145-181 months) earn $23.00 per hour.
The foregoing analysis reveals that in 2004, before any adjustments are made to
the EMS salary schedule, bargaining unit paramedics are 5.5% below the average
of the comparator departments. This differential should not come as much of a
surprise given the fact that at least three (3) of the comparator departments
(Snohomish No. 8 - Lake Stevens, Snohomish No. 3 - Monroe and Snohomish
No. 7 - Clearview) are influenced by the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett labor market
and the higher cost of living in that area. Similarly, a fourth agency, Whidbey
General Hospital, is located in an area with higher per capita incomes than Skagit
County. What this means as a practical matter is that it is not necessarily
appropriate for EMS wage rates to be on par with the average of the comparator
departments. To the contrary, what is appropriate is for EMS paramedics to
maintain a reasonable relative ranking among the comparator departments based
on its size and location. In my view, this can be accomplished by awarding 3%
wage adjustments in each year of the new agreement coupled with a modest
amount of “catch up” in the first year.
(3) Cost of Living.
The cost of living as measured by the consumer price Index (CPI) is another of the
statutory criteria routinely considered by interest arbitrators.
A review of available CPI figures using the Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton CPI-U
index shows that the 3% wage adjustments offered by the EMS meet or exceed
available data. More specifically, the annual average for this index come in at
1.6% for 2003 and 1.2% for 2004. Moreover, the first half of 2005 came in at
2.7%. Consequently, even if 2005-2006 figures come in somewhat higher, the
EMS offer of 3% per year easily satisfies this criterion. Moreover, it appears that
the EMS offer meets or exceeds settlements among the comparator departments to
the extent evidence of this information was presented to the arbitration panel.
On the other side of the coin, where, as here, the Union is contending that
bargaining unit employees lag behind and “catch up” is needed, the cost of living
should not be used as the only wage determinant. Stated a little differently, “catch
up” based on the factor of comparability is the amount needed to bring bargaining
unit wages up to the point they should be.
(4) Other Factors.
The statute specifically authorizes the arbitration panel to consider “other factors”
traditionally relied upon as wage determinants in interest arbitration proceedings.
I will focus briefly on several other factors that are worthy of consideration.
The first such factor involves overall compensation and more specifically, health
insurance. As previously indicated, I did not include overall compensation
components in my comparative analysis at least in part because doing so would
have resulted in “oranges and apples” comparisons. However, as the Union’s
counsel correctly observes, fringe benefits such as health insurance are most
assuredly a portion of the total compensation received by bargaining unit
paramedics. Consequently, even though it is true that health insurance is not at
issue in this proceeding, it may nonetheless be considered in assessing the overall
compensation package received by bargaining unit paramedics. Clearly, the EMS
contributes less toward health insurance premiums than most, if not all, of the
comparator departments. To be candid, I am not so much interested in what the
EMS contributes toward health insurance as I am to what employees receive and
what they have to pay out of pocket for full family coverage. Suffice it to say, the
EMS provides a low cost plan with employee-only coverage. I will take this
factor into consideration in making a wage award.
Another factor traditionally taken into consideration by interest arbitrators is the
ability to recruit and retain employees based on conditions in the labor market. By
all accounts, the EMS has been able to retain an experienced work force and has
had no trouble hiring qualified applicants. This suggests that the EMS is paying a
competitive wage in the local labor market.
One last issue involves the history of negotiations and more specifically, the
“what if’ package proposals that were exchanged during the mediation process.
This evidence creates a dilemma for the arbitration panel because as the Union’s
counsel correctly observes, after the fact consideration of settlement discussions
by an interest arbitrator tends to be destructive of the collective bargaining
process. On the other side of the coin, as both parties correctly point out, the
decision of the arbitration panel should reflect as much as possible the bargain the
parties themselves would arrive at through negotiations. This being so, it would
be inappropriate for the arbitration panel to completely ignore the “what if’
package proposals that were exchanged during mediations both as to wages and
other issues in dispute. However, in the final analysis the arbitration panel must
base its decision on an application of the statutory criteria to the facts of this case
even if the result is not the same as what was proposed during mediation.
(5) Summary
I have no intention of repeating what has already been discussed in considerable
detail in the foregoing paragraphs.
Suffice it to say, as to ability to pay, while the funding resources of the EMS are
somewhat limited and prudence dictates a conservative approach, it is in a
position to pay competitive wage rates.
Without question, the most important criterion in this case is comparability.
Based on the comparators selected by the neutral arbitrator and the methodology
for making wage comparisons, the evidence establishes that as of 2004 EMS
paramedics were approximately 5.5% below average. This disparity is
exacerbated to some extent because the EMS provides a lower level of health
insurance benefits to its paramedics than do other departments. On the other side
of the coin, the disparity is not particularly surprising given the fact that some of
the comparator departments are influenced by the higher income Seattle-Bellevue-
Everett labor market.
In my view, the 3% annual wage adjustments offered by the EMS plus a “catch
up” adjustment of 1.5% is sufficient to provide the EMS paramedics a reasonable
relative ranking among the comparator group. This is particularly true in view of
the fact that the 3% adjustments meet or exceed the cost of living and area
settlements during the relevant time period.
D. Award.
(1) Effective July 1,2004 increase all bargaining unit salaries by 4.5%.
(2) Effective July 1,2005 increased all bargaining unit salaries by 3.0%.
(3) Effective July 1,2006 increased all bargaining unit salaries by 3 .O%.
ISSUE #2 - SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATION (SECTION 10.1)
Under the predecessor agreement, full-time paramedics accumulate sick leave at the rate
of .0461 hours for each paid hour.
A. The Union
The Union proposes to increase the sick leave accumulator to a rate of 0.1 154
hours for each paid hour.
Based on a 48-hour work week, the current rate of accrual is 9.6 hours per month.
Under the Union’s proposal, the accrual rate based on a 48-hour work week would
increased to 12.9 hours per month.
The increase in the accrual proposed by the Union is supported by the factor of
comparability. More specifically, for area employers with population and assessed
valuation between 50% and 200% of the EMS, the average accrual rate is 14.5 hours per
month or 5 1% above the EMS. Even if the King County departments, Le., Shoreline and
Redmond, are excluded, the average of the comparators is still 13.3 hours per month or
39% above the EMS.
B. EMS
EMS’ proposes to retain current contract language with respect to sick leave
accrual rates.
EMS proposal to retain the sick leave accrual rate embodied in Section 10.1 of the
predecessor collective bargaining agreement is more than fair to bargaining unit
paramedics. Significantly, this language, which was negotiated by the parties only three
(3) years ago, increased sick leave accruals from 48 hours to 1 15 hours per year. It was
acceptable to the Union in mediation and should still be acceptable today because it
fulfills the stated intent of the parties to retain benefits the paramedics enjoyed when they
were employed by AHS. Moreover, paramedics employed by EMS already have ample
time off through the work schedule (5-24 hour periods of scheduled time off in each work
week, 1 1.6,24 hour shifts off a year for annual leave coupled with other leaves such as
family medical leave, military leave, bereavement leave and jury leave. Moreover, as a
practical matter, bargaining unit paramedics are not using all of the sick leave they
accrue. Providing more sick leave accrual will result in more overtime costs for the EMS
and it will create coverage problems. The comparability data provided by the Union is
fatally flawed because it compares firefighters to EMS paramedics when they work
completely different schedules. Interestingly, the only two (2) comparators proposed by
the Union that employ only paramedics, i.e., Whidbey General Hospital and King County,
actually support EMS’ argument. Finally, the fact that EMS paramedics unlike
firefighters accrue overtime when they are on sick leave make this an extremely costly
benefit.
C. Discussion
The Union’s proposal to increase the sick leave accrual rate of bargaining unit
paramedics will not be awarded.
The evidence established that the parties already negotiated a generous increase in
sick leave accrual rates that improves the benefit they previously received as employees
of AHS. Moreover, I concur with EMS’ argument to the effect that the Union’s
comparability data are flawed to the extent paramedics who work 48-hour shifts with 8
hours of overtime per shift are being compared to firefighters who are exempt from
overtime. Significantly, the two (2) comparators that employ paramedics only, i.e., King
County and Whidbey General Hospital, actually support the position of EMS.
D. Award
Reject the Union’s proposal.
ISSUE #3 - PART-TIME ANNUAL LEAVE (SECTION 9.3)
Under the terms of the predecessor agreement, “annual leave pay shall be the amount
which the paramedic would have earned had the paramedic worked hidher regularly scheduled
hours during the annual leave period.’’
A. The Union
The Union proposes to amend Section 9.3 to read as follows:
“Part-time annual leave pay shall be the amount which
The paramedic would have earned had the paramedic worked
hisher average hours worked during the annual leave period.”
According to the Union, the present system is unfair and should be modified as
the Union proposes. More specifically, the EMS expects part-time paramedics to work
additional unscheduled shifts, typically two (2) each week, so that they normally work an
average of 40 hours or more per week. However, since these so called part-time
paramedics are only re scheduled for one (1) shift per week, EMS is refusing to permit
them to use vacation and sick leave benefits in amounts greater than their re scheduled
hours in any week. Moreover, past practice supports the Union’s position. In this regard,
under AHS, part-time paramedics were permitted to use their accrued leave benefits as if
they were scheduled for 48 hours a week. To deny them this same benefit now is a
violation of the understanding between the parties to bring all bargaining paramedics,
including part-timers, over “whole” from AHS. Specifically, the Union seeks an award
whereby part-time paramedics are permitted to use their annual leave benefits in the same
amount as their average paid hours in weeks in which they performed work during the
prior 12 months. Thus, for example, if a part-time paramedic performed work in 39
weeks during the past 12 months and was paid for an average of 42 hours in those 39
weeks, that paramedic would be permitted to use up to 42 hours of accrued vacation in a
week.
B. The EMS
EMS opposes the Union’s proposal to amend current contract language.
As Union witness Moser candidly acknowledges, the Union’s proposal is a
contract interpretation issue that is being presented in an interest arbitration proceeding.
More specifically, the Union insists that past practice from the time the paramedics were
employees of AHS supports its interpretation of current contract language, i.e., that
annual leave for part-time paramedics should not be based on the number of hours they
are scheduled to work in a particular week. The Union’s proposal flies in the face of
current contract language defining a part-time paramedic as someone “who is regularly
scheduled to work less than forty-eight (48) hour within a seven (7) day period” - Article
5.3. It is also clearly contrary to current contract language whereby annual leave is based
on the number of hours a paramedic is “regularly scheduled” to work - Section 9.3. If
this is a legitimate contract interpretation issue as the Union contends, it should be
resolved through the grievance arbitration process, not in interest arbitration.
There are other problems with the Union’s proposal. First, the proposal, if
adopted would create a windfall for full time paramedics under the guise of a proposal
benefitting part-time paramedics by increasing the amount of vacation leave they could
take. Second, it is at least unclear how the Union’s proposal is supposed to work and
how it could be implemented. In this regard, the Union noted for the first time during the
arbitration hearing that its proposal was to be administered on an individual basis, but did
not offer a clue as to how the term “average hours” is supposed to be measured.
C. Discussion
The Union’s proposal with respect to part-time annual leave will not be awarded.
As EMS correctly observes, the crux of the Union’s argument is based on an alleged past
practice, i.e., a contention that while employed by AHS part-time paramedics were
permitted to take annual leave and sick leave in a manner consistent with what it is now
proposing. Thus, according to the Union, the contract language should be interpreted in
accordance with this alleged past practice. The obvious problem with this argument is
that it is an attempt to litigate a grievance arbitration dispute in an interest arbitration
proceeding.
On the merits of the Union’s proposal, I concur with several points made by EMS.
First, even assuming the past practice was as the Union contends, the fact remains that
when the transition was made from AHS to EMS, the negotiating parties made a
conscious decision to place Section 9.3 in the new agreement. This suggests to me that
they intended to limit part-time annual leave hours to conform to “regularly scheduled”
hours. Second, it is far from clear to me how the Union’s proposal would be applied in
terms of measuring “average hours worked.’’ At a minimum the parties should negotiate
as to how such hours would be measured if such is their mutual intent.
D. Award
Reject the Union’s proposal
ISSUE #4 - PART-TIME SICK LEAVE USE (SECTION 10.4)
The last sentence of Section 10.4 of the predecessor agreement ties sick leave pay to
regularly scheduled hours.
A. The Union and EMS
The Union makes the same proposal with respect to part-time sick leave use that it
did for part-time annual leave.
EMS proposes to retain current contract language.
The arguments of the parties with respect to this proposal are the same as they
were for part-time annual leave.
C. Award
Reject the Union’s proposal.
ISSUE #5 - DURATION AND RENEWAL (SECTION 22.1)
Section 22.1 of the predecessor agreement is as follows:
“22.1 Duration and Renewal. This Agreement shall become
effective on the first day after all parties have signed this Agreement,
or upon the termination of the Agreement between IAFF and EMS,
whichever occurs later, and shall continue in full force and effect
through and including June 30,2004. The parties specifically
acknowledge and agree that none of the provisions of this
Agreement nor their obligations upon impasse shall be covered
by RCW 41.56.123(1).”
A. EMS
EMS proposes to retain current contract language intact but change the ending
date to December 3 1,2006.
The Union’s proposal presented 14 days prior to the arbitration hearing is
incomplete as to contract language except to propose a 36 month agreement, which it
amended at hearing to a 30 month agreement. Since there is no stated intent on the
Union’s part to amend current contract language, the Union cannot raise this issue after
the fact. Consequently, the Union cannot now raise the issue of retroactivity for anything
other than agreed upon retroactive wage adjustments.
B. The Union
The Union agreed at hearing to a 30 month agreement expiring on December 3 1,
2006. The Union wants full retroactivity for all economic provisions but it did not
propose specific contract language.
According to the Union, the current contract language proposed by EMS should
be rejected for several reasons. The Union contends that EMS is proposing to penalize its
members for delays in the bargaining process by objecting to full retroactivity for
economic proposals such as increased accruals on sick leave and annual leave. Moreover,
the arbitration panel should delete language from the duration provision that no one,
including EMS, can understand. More specifically, no one understands the phrase “or
upon the termination of the agreement between the IAFF and EMS, whichever occurs
later.” Consequently, this wording should be deleted. The same can be said for the last
sentence of the “Duration” provision.
C. Discussion
I concur with the Union’s contention that some of the language contained in the
existing “Duration and Renewal’’ provision is ambiguous, at best. I will rewrite the
provision to make it more clear.
Leaving aside the technical arguments of EMS, the overriding difference between
the parties appears to involve the Union’s contention that its economic proposals, i.e.,
sick leave accruals, part-time sick leave use and part-time annual leave accruals should be
made retroactive. Since none of these proposals were awarded, this is a non issue.
However, I will draft language making the contract effective upon signing that will take
care of the retroactivity issue as to all economic benefits except those specifically made
retroactive, i.e., wages, in the new agreement.
D. Award
Amend Section 22.1 - “Duration and Renewal” to read as follows:
“221. Duration and Renewal. This Agreement shall on the first day after
all parties have signed and shall continue in full force and effect through
and including December 3 1,2006. It shall automatically be renewed from
year to year thereafter, unless either party notifies the other in writing, at
least 90 days prior, that it desires to modify the Agreement.”
Respectfully submitted this day of December, 2006.
George Lehleitner
Neutral Arbitrator
Arbitrator Douglas Ferguson Arbitrator Paul Harvey
0 I concur 0 I concur
0 I dissent 0 I dissent
FOOTNOTES
1. Several other items were included in the Union’s “what if’ package proposal of
November 5,2004 and the response of EMS. These items involved Uniforms, Posting, Past
Practices, Management Rights and Continuing Education. All of these issues were subsequently
resolved and are not before the arbitration panel.