BEFORE THE NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Interest Arbitration Between )
)
Franklin County ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION
) AND AWARD
the Employer )
)
and )
) PERC Nos. 19374-1-05-0449 and
United Steel Workers' Union, Local 12-369 ) 18871 -M-04-6182
)
the Union )
__________________________________________________)
Appearances:
For the Employer: For the Union:
Adam Collier Todd Lyon
Bullard, Smith, Jernstedt, Wilson Reid, Pedersen, McCarthy and Ballew, L.L.P.
1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 101 Elliott Ave. W., Ste 505
Portland, OR 97205 Seattle, WA 98119
Neutral Arbitrator:
Jane Wilkinson
Attorney and Arbitrator
PMB 211
3 Monroe Pkwy., Ste. P
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Date of Award: March 1, 2007
WITNESS LlST
For the Employer:
Fred Bowen, County Administrator
For the Union:
Gordon Thomasson, Deputy Sheriff (Third Class)
Lee Barrow, Deputy Sheriff (First Class)
EXHIBIT LIST
Employer Exhibits:
1. County's Proposal
2. Union's Proposal
3. Interest arbitration statutes
4. 2004 Collective Bargaining Agreement
5. 2003 Annual Financial Report
6. 2004 Annual Financial Report
7. 2005 Annual Financial Report
8. Selected Portion of Franklin County Budget 2004
9. Selected Portion of Franklin County Budget 2005
10. Loss of Tax Revenue Due to Repeal of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
11. Franklin County Loss of Revenue Due to 1-747 (2002-2005)
12. Franklin County Spending Freeze Notifications
13. Franklin County Unencumbered Cash (2002-2005)
14. Franklin County General Fund Ending Balances (1996 Current)
15. Unemployment rates for State of Washington
16. Populations of Cities, Towns, and Counties of State of Washington for 2005
17. Franklin County Sheriffs Department Budgeted Positions vs. Unincorporated Population
18. State of Washington - County Population, Property Tax, and Sales Tax Information for
years 2004 and 2005
19. Map of Comparator Counties
20. Total Benefit Package: Wages and All Monetary Benefits as of 12/31/04-Comparable
Counties Within 50%-150% of Franklin County Population
21. Comparable Counties Within 50%-150% of Franklin County Population and Assessed
Value
22. Comparable Counties Within 50%-150% of Franklin County Population and Unincorporated
Population
23. Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) Medical Expense Plan for Franklin
County
24. 2004 Vacation Leave Accrual Comparison
25. 2004 Sick Leave Accrual Comparison
26. Wage lncreases vs. CPI-W Annual Average [effective dates January 1, 1996 through
present]
27. Benefits Contributions [ I 996 through 20071
28. Franklin County Detailed Listing of Represented and Non-Represented Job Classifications
(as of 211 512006)
29. Summary of Franklin County Wagellnsurance lncreases for Other Bargaining Units (2005
through 2008)
30. Raises in SalariesIWages Received 2001-2006 (All Employees)
31. Health lnsurance PlanlSummary of Benefits
32. Dental Plan
33. Washington Counties lnsurance Fund - Group Life lnsurance Certificate $24,000 Benefit
Witness and Exhibit List
34. Vision Plan - Added Value You Can See - 2005 Vision Benefit News
35. Sheriff Deputies Guild lnsurance Census
36. Franklin County - lnsurance Allocation! VEBA Contribution (Employee Only Medical)
37. Franklin County SCAAP Revenue
38. 2000 to 2004 Budgeted vs. Actual Revenue and Expenditures
39. Recommended Ending Fund Balances
40. VEBA Contribution Option
41. Witness Statement of Fred Bowen
42. Witness Statement of Rosie Rumsey
43. Monthly EE Out-of-Pocket Cost to Health lnsurance
44. 2004 Salary Data -Counties
45. 2005 Salary Data-Counties
Union Exhibits:
1. Certified Issues for 2004-5
2. Certified Issues for 2005-2007
3. 1117106 Union Offer
4. 1 1/7/06 Employer Offer
5. Demographics Summary
6. CPI (US Cities, West, and Seattle-Tacoma)
7. Seniority list
8. 2005 Top Step Deputy
9. 2006 Top Step Sergeant
10. 2006 Top Step Deputy without Employer's proposal
11. 2006 Top Step Sergeant without Employer's proposal
12. 2006 Top Step Deputy with Employer's proposal
13. 2006 Top Step Sergeant with Employer's proposal
14. 2005 10-year Deputy Adjusted Wage (Average Franklin Deputy is 9)
15. 2005 1 0-year Sergeant Adjusted Wage
16. 2005 15-year Deputy Adjusted Wage
17. 2005 15-year Sergeant Adjusted Wage
18. Comparator County Detective Pay
19. 2005 Franklin County lnsurance employee choices and costs
20. 2006 Franklin County lnsurance employee choices and costs
21. 2005 Comparator lnsurance Summary & Data
22. 2006 Comparator lnsurance Summary & Data
23. Statement re insurance of Jason Nunez
24. Statement re insurance of Aaron Hamel
25. Franklin County Resolution Number 2005-538 (Part of 2006 Budget)
26. 2005 Franklin County Budget (excerpt)
I. PROCEEDINGS
This dispute, between Franklin County (the Employer or County) and United Steel Workers
U.nion, Local 12-369 (the Union), concerns certain terms of a three-year labor agreement
covering the calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Union represents a bargaining unit of
Deputy Sheriffs employed by the County. Although the parties tentatively agreed to most
provisions of their new contract, they reached an impasse in their negotiations on two key
issues, wages and health care insurance. Pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, those issues were
certified for interest arbitration by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) and
submitted to neutral Arbitrator Jane R. Wilkinson for resolution. The parties waived the RCW
41.56.450 provisions for a tri-partite panel. The Arbitrator-conducted evidentiary hearings, in
Pasco, Washington, on November 21, 2006. Each party had the opportunity to present
evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and argue its case. The Arbitrator received
the parties' post-hearing briefs on January 12, 2007, and thereupon closed the hearing.
II. PARTIES' FINAL OFFERS ON WAGES AND INSURANCE
A. Employer's Final Offer
2005:
1. Health Insurance.
No change in the County contribution.
2. Wages.
Effective January 1, 2005, the County offers a zero percent COLA Adjustment and zero
dollars added to the benefits with Contractual Leave as discussed below.
3. Contractual Leave
For the year 2005 only, employees shall be provided a one-time entitlement of
Contractual Leave. Contractual Leave is defined as one work week of leave. For the
bargaining unit, Contractual Leave shall only amount to a total of forty (40) hours of leave
for regular full-time employees. In addition, the following provisions shall apply:
(a) To be eligible for Contractual Leave, the employee must be employed by Franklin
County at the time the Arbitrator issues her decision.
(b) Contractual Leave shall only be used within a twelve (12) month period starting with
the date the Arbitrator issues her decision and ending exactly 12 months after that
date. Any Contractual Leave not utilized within the 12 month time period shall expire
and be forfeited without any compensation or benefit owing to the employee.
(c) Contractual Leave shall be scheduled in full day increments. Full day increments
shall mean the regularly scheduled hours which make up a work day as approved by
the Elected Official/Department Head. This means if the employee's scheduled work
day is more than the balance of the employee's Contractual Leave, then vacation will
have to be used to make up the difference for the work hours for that day.
(d) This Contractual Leave is a one-time-only contractual clause which means it is valid
for only the 2005 term of the Agreement.
(e) Termination andlor separation of employment with Franklin County shall result in
the expiration and forfeiture of all Contractual Leave entitlements accrued by such
employee without any compensation or benefit owing to the employee for the
Contractual Leave.
(f) VEBA Election will not apply for the year 2005. (This means if an employee has
accrued vacation beyond the limit of 240 hours as of December 31, 2005, for 2005
only, those hours will be forfeited. The balance carried over for 2006 will only be 240
hours with no payment into the employee's VEBA account.)
2006:
1. Health Insurance
For 2006, the County offers a $60 increase for medical premium. contributions for a
total of $645 per month per employee. The $60 takes into consideration the 2005 and 2006
increase to the lowest premium plan for the employee only.
2. Wages
Effective January 1, 2006, the 2005 Salary Schedule will be increased by a 2.69%
COLA for the year 2006 based upon 89.7% of the CPI-W-West-BIC 12 month period ending
July 31.
2007:
1. Health Insurance.
For the 2007 year, the Employer contribution will increase bv 100% of the increase for
the employee-only coverage of the County's lowest premium plah.
2. Wages
Effective January I, 2007, the 2006 Salary Schedule will be increased by a COLA in an
amount no less than 1.5% and no greater than 3.5% based upon the CPI-W-West-BIC 12
month period ending July 31 minus any employer paid medical benefit increase. For year
2007, the final percentage of the COLA amount will take into consideration medical benefit
increases and/or decreases in order to achieve a desired 100% COLA.
For example, for year 2006:
2.69% Wage Increase is 89.7% of the 3% COLA
$60 Employer lnsurance increase is 10.3%
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 100.0%
Example No. 2 - for year 2007:
For example purposes only, assume there is an lnsurance lncrease of $30 with the
same 3% COLA:
2.85% Wage Increase is 95.3% of the 3% COLA
$30 Employer Insurance increase is 4.7%
TOTAL PERCENTAGE 100.0%
B. Union's Final Offer
2005, 2006 and 2007:
1. Health lnsurance (Including Benefit Levels and Costs)
Employer pays 90% of cost of premiums for employee plus. The Employer pays 100%
cost of premiums for employee only. This benefit shall be retroactive to the first day of
the contract.
2. Wages
A. A 5% increase each year. This benefit is retroactive to the first day of the contract.
B. Special duty pay for detectives of 3% above scale.
C. Bilingual pay for Spanish speakers of 3% above scale.
III. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.030(7), read in conjunction with RCW 41.56.430-.450, states that unresolved
disputes concerning the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement must be
settled by interest arbitration when the affected bargaining unit is composed of "uniformed
personnel," including (emphasis added):(fn:1)
_______________________________
fn:1 RCW 43.52.520 authorizes a joint operating agency such as ENW to establish a nuclear security force:
An operating agency constructing or operating a nuclear power plant under a site certificate issued under
chapter 80.50 RCW may establish a security force for the protection and security of each nuclear power
plant site exclusion area.
(a) ... (ii) beginning on July 1, 1997, law enforcement officers as defined in RCW
41.26.030 employed by the governing body of any city or town with a population
of two thousand five hundred or more and law enforcement officers employed by
the governing body of any county with a population of ten thousand or more; (b)
correctional employees who are uniformed and nonuniformed, commissioned
and noncommissioned security personnel employed in a jail as defined in RCW
70.48.020(5), by a county with a population of seventy thousand or more, and
who are trained for and charged with the responsibility of controlling and
maintaining custody of inmates in the jail and safeguarding inmates from other
inmates; (c) general authority Washington peace officers as defined in RCW
10.93.020 employed by a port district in a county with a population of one million
or more; (d) security forces established under RCW 43.52.520; (e) fire fighters as
that term is defined in RCW 41.26.030; (f) employees of a port district in a county
with a population of one million or more whose duties include crash fire rescue or
other fire fighting duties; (g) employees of fire departments of public employers
who dispatch exclusively either fire or emergency medical services, or both; or
(h) employees in the several classes of advanced life support technicians, as
defined in RCW 18.71.200, who are employed by a public employer.
RCW 41.56.450 specifies the powers and duties of the interest arbitration panel:
Uniformed personnel--Interest arbitration panel--Powers and duties--Hearings--
Findings and determination. If an agreement has not been reached following a
. reasonable period of negotiations and mediation, and the executive director,
upon the recommendation of the assigned mediator, finds that the parties remain
at impasse, then an interest arbitration panel shall be created to resolve the
dispute. The issues for determination by the arbitration panel shall be limited to
the issues certified by the executive director. Within seven days following the
issuance of the determination of the executive director, each party shall name
one person to serve as its arbitrator on the arbitration panel. The two members
so appointed shall meet within seven days following the appointment of the later
appointed member to attempt to choose a third member to act as the neutral
chairman of the arbitration panel. Upon the failure of the arbitrators to select a
neutral chairman within seven days, the two appointed members shall use one of
the two following options in the appointment of the third member, who shall act
as chairman of the panel: (1) By mutual consent, the two appointed members
may jointly request the commission, and the commission shall appoint a third
member within two days of such request. Costs of each party's appointee shall
be borne by each party respectively; other costs of the arbitration proceedings
shall be borne by the commission; or (2) either party may apply to the
commission, the federal mediation and conciliation service, or the American
Arbitration Association to provide a list of five qualified arbitrators from which the
neutral chairman shall be chosen. Each party shall pay the fees and expenses of
its arbitrator, and the fees and expenses of the neutral chairman shall be shared
equally between the parties.
The arbitration panel so constituted shall promptly establish a date, time, and
place for a hearing and shall provide reasonable notice thereof to the parties to
the dispute. A hearing, which shall be informal, shall be held, and each party
shall have the opportunity to present evidence and make argument. No member
of the arbitration panel may present the case for a party to the proceedings. The
rules of evidence prevailing in judicial proceedings may be considered, but are
not binding, and any oral testimony or documentary evidence or other data
deemed relevant by the chairman of the arbitration panel may be received in
evidence. A recording of the proceedings shall be taken. The arbitration panel
has the power to administer oaths, require the attendance of witnesses, and
require the production of such books, papers, contracts, agreements, and
documents as may be deemed by the panel to be material to a just determination
of the issues in dispute. If any person refuses to obey a subpoena issued by the
arbitration panel, or refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation to testify, or
any witness, party, or attorney for a party is guilty of any contempt while in
attendance at any hearing held hereunder, the arbitration panel may invoke the
jurisdiction of the superior court in the county where the labor dispute exists, and
the court has jurisdiction to issue an appropriate order. Any failure to obey the
order may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof. The hearing
conducted by the arbitration panel shall be concluded within twenty-five days
following the selection or designation of the neutral chairman of the arbitration
panel, unless the parties agree to a longer period.
The neutral chairman shall consult with the other members of the arbitration
panel, and, within thirty days following the conclusion of the hearing, the neutral
chairman shall make written findings of fact and a written determination of the
issues in dispute, based on the evidence presented. A copy thereof shall be
served on the commission, on each of the other members of the arbitration
panel, and on each of the parties to the dispute. That determination shall be final
and binding upon both parties, subject to review by the superior court upon the
application of either party solely upon the question of whether the decision of the
panel was arbitrary or capricious. [I983 c 287 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 184 !j 2; 1975-
'76 2nd ex.s. c 14 § 2; 1975 I st ex.s. c 296 § 29; 1973 c 131 g 4.1
RCW 41.56.452 states that an interest arbitration panel is a state agency and specifies
An interest arbitration panel created pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, in the
performance of its duties under chapter 41.56 RCW, exercises a state function
and is, for the purposes of this chapter, a state agency. Chapter 34.05 RCW
does not apply to proceedings before an interest arbitration panel under this
chapter. [ I 983 c 287 § 3; 1980 c 87 5 19.1
In RCW 41.56.465, the Washington ~e~islatursepe cified that the interest arbitrator must
apply the following criteria over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement:
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of the legislative purpose
enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and, as additional standards or guidelines to aid it in
reaching a decision, it shall take into consideration the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c)(i) For employees listed in RCW 41.56.030(7)(a) through (d), comparison of the
wages, hours, and conditions of employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with
the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like personnel of like employers of
similar size on the west coast of the United States;
***
(d) The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the
cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances under (a) through (d) of this subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to the factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, hours, and conditions of employment. For those employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7)(a) who are employed by the governing body of a city or town with a population
of less than fifteen thousand, or a county with a population of less than seventy thousand,
consideration must also be given to regional differences in the cost of living.
In resolving the issues in this dispute, whether or not fully articulated herein, the
undersigned Arbitrator has been mindful of these criteria and has given consideration to all of
the evidence and arguments presented by the parties relative to these criteria.
IV. POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A. Position of the County
1. The County's ability to pay is the overriding factor in this interest arbitration proceeding.
a. Following the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, replacement funding by the
Legislature decreased significantly in 2003 and 2004; the County's share of the excise
tax proceeds decreased over $500,000 by 2004 (compared to 1999 levels).
b. This caused the County's criminal justice funding to decrease from about $789,000
in 2001 to $369,000 in 2005.
c. Initiative 747 limited increases in property tax collections to 1% per year, resulting
in cumulative lost revenues of over $700,000 by 2005.
d. When Benton County opened a new jail in 2004, Franklin County lost a contract to
house prisoners from other counties; lost revenues were almost $1 million in 2004
alone.
e. The County's Sheriffs Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funding was
drastically reduced from the expected amount for 2003 and has remained low, over
$50,000 less than the 2003 level.
f, Investment interest has declined in the County.
g. As a result, the County experienced budget shortfalls for three years in a row,
forcing it to freeze spending on at least two occasions and take out a $500,000 loan in
2004. In 2004, the County's ending fund balance was only 0.3% of total general fund
expenditures, extremely weak from the point of view of Standard & Poor's, which gave
it a low "BBB" bond rating.
h. After drastic cost cutting, the County's 2005 ending balance increased to 3.4% of
general fund expenditures, which was still inadequate. Despite improvements, the
County is still in the midst of a financial crisis.
2. Comparables data favors the County's proposal.
a. Comparables should be located in Eastern Washington; Exh. E-21 contains the
most appropriate comparator chart.
b. The County's deputies receive 8% more in base compensation and 10% more in
total compensation (including medical) than the comparables average despite the
County's small service population and relatively high unemployment rate.
c. The total compensation of the lone bargaining unit member who has chosen full
family coverage, the most expensive plan, continues to exceed the average of the
comparables by between 3% and 8%.
d. The Union's comparables list is inappropriate; there is no justification for including
Western Washington jurisdictions and jurisdictions which exceed 150% of the County's
population or valuation. The Union failed to justify its exclusion of Kittitas, Okanogan,
and Douglas counties from its list, all of which have populations and assessed
valuations within the 50-1 50% range and are located close to Franklin County.
(1) The County's proposal will keep every wage step 3% to 5% above the average
of the Union's three appropriate comparators of Stevens, Walla Walla, and
Whitman counties.
(2) The County cannot afford bilingual and detective pay, and the Union failed to
justify the need. Only one of the Union's three appropriate comparators offers a
detective premium, and none offer a bilingual premium.
3. Internal comparability favors the County's proposal.
a. In the context of an emplo,yerls financial crisis, internal parity carries more weight
than it does in better times. It is unfair to ask some groups of employees to make
sacrifices (all other County employees have accepted its package on wages and
insurance) while others get pay increases.
b. The 2.5% step increase some County employees received in 2005 was not a costof-
living adjustment (COLA); rather it was an automatic step increase pursuant to a
matrix accepted by all the County's employees except the Union. The Union cannot
claim to be treated unfairly in light of its previous refusal to accept the matrix.
c. Sheriff's deputies have historically received higher wages than other bargaining
unit members, but the County can no longer afford to give deputies preferential
treatment.
4. Deputies' wages have outpaced the cost of living over the past ten years. The oneyear
proposed wage freeze and 40-hour limit on contractual leave will cause employees to
lose ground against the cost of living for one year, but proposed wages and other benefits
for the following years guarantees that employees will keep pace with the cost of living.
5. The statutory criteria favor the County's health insurance proposal.
a. The potential cost of the Union's proposal is enormous; it would double the
County's contribution to the full family health coverage and reduce employees'
contribution such that compensation for each employee would increase by $492.69,
equivalent to an 11.8% increase in total compensation for a top step deputy in 2005.
For 2006, the increase would be 16.4%.
b. Franklin County compares favorably to the Union's three appropriate comparators.
While County employees pay more than the comparators for employee plus and full
family coverage, they fare much better under employee-only coverage.
c. Consider also that employees have additional benefits through their HRA VEBA
plan. Each HRA VEBA receives funds from cashed-out, unused vacation or sick leave
as well as unused County insurance contributions. There is no cap on the amount an
HRA VEBA can accrue, and it is available to the employee even if helshe discontinues
employment.
6. The Union's charts are misleading.
a. The Union's charts do not reflect employees' total compensation and reflect only
the cost of the most expensive health plan. In contrast, the County's charts show that
Franklin County's total compensation exceeds that of comparable jurisdictions even
after insurance costs are subtracted.
b. The current plans were not foisted on the employees; they themselves chose the
more expensive set of health plans available to them. Instead, employees preferred to
have HRA VEBA option available than reduce the cost of insuring dependents. The
County should not be forced to incur the cost of the actions of employees, who control
the administration and selection of plan benefits.
c. The Union does not show that some employees pocket money from the County's
health insurance contribution by either choosing employee-only coverage or waiving
coverage altogether.
B. Position of the Union
1. Seven comparators is an appropriate number and the Union's are superior to the
County's.
a. The Union's comparables are within 50%-200% population. In contrast, all of the
County's comparables have populations less than Franklin County.
b. The Union's comparables are well within 50%-200% assessed valuation, an
appropriate bandwidth.
(1) This bandwidth is statistically symmetrical and provides equal weight to
jurisdictions larger and smaller than the subject jurisdiction.
(2) Arbitrators in recent years have become more receptive to using this larger
bandwidth to generate comparables.
(3) Franklin County is experiencing a surge in new construction that is not subject
to the 1% limitation imposed by Initiative 747, which supports the larger bandwidth
and counters its ability to pay argument.
c. To achieve a balance of comparators, the Arbitrator must pierce the Cascade
Curtain.
2. The Union's 5% wage increase is supported by the comparables data; moreover, the
Union's wage data is superior to the County's.
a. The Union's data comes directly from comparators' collective bargaining
agreements.
b. The County's data is unreliable.
(1) The County was unsure what class of deputy the data showed. Ms. Rumford
testified she thought it was for a 5-year deputy.
(2) Despite the notation that most information was compiled from counties and
contracts, Ms. Rumford simply confessed that she gathered the information from
the Municipal Research & Services Center of Washington, which excluded senior
deputies from the data.
(3) The County's data should not have included social security, retirement, and
educational incentives.
(4) The County improperly compared Franklin County's 2004 data wrth 2004 data
from the comparators. It should have used 2005 comparator data.
c. The Union's data shows that deputies are entitled to a significant wage increase.
d. The benchmark classification is 5% behind the comparables' average for 2005 and
over 8% behind for 2006.
3. The wage increase should be retroactive to the beginning of the contract. Otherwise,
the County would obtain its wage freeze simply by proceeding to arbitration.
4. The Union's retroactive 9011 0 split on insurance premiums is justified.
a. Deputies currently pay nearly 50% of the premium for full family medical coverage
and over 23% for employee plus coverage, much higher than the Union's comparables'
average of 12.6% for full coverage and just under 9% for employee plus coverage.
b. The County's insurance program is currently largely inaccessible to employees
because of its cost. It should be accessible, and the Union seeks to cure this problem
with a premium-sharing program consistent with the comparators.
5. A 3% bilingual premium is warranted.
a. Approximately 80% of the citizens encountered by deputies speak Spanish, while
there are only two deputies in the bargaining unit who speak fluently. They are
stretched too thin to accommodate all the needs of the County.
b. City of Pasco police officers are commonly brought in to fill the County's Spanishspeaking
gap. The city's officers receive a 3% bilingual premium, no doubt the result
of an interest arbitration award.
6. A 3% detective premium is warranted.
a. Metro detectives are required to be on call 24 hours a day, work with federal
investigators, generate informants, and work undercover, Investigation detectives work
on homicides and childlsex cases and maintain evidence.
b. Of the comparable jurisdictions that offer a detective premium, 5% is the lowest
one. Therefore, 3% is appropriate for bargaining unit members.
7. The County's inability to pay argument is baseless. The financial difficulties
experienced by the County in 2004 do not prove that it cannot pay for the Union's
proposals in 2005-2007. In fact, the County experienced a major turnaround in 2005.
a. Mr. Bowen admitted on cross-examination that the County has over $4 million in a
rainy day fund.
b. The Sheriff's Department finished 2005 nearly $54,000 under budget.
c. The County's assets and revenues were up in 2005.
d. Cash exceeded accounts payable.
e. The unreserved fund balance increased $341,762 over the 2004 amount.
f. Property tax collections increased 9%.
g. The General Fund increased by 6.5% over the 2004 amount. Actual revenues for
2005 were $44,073 over budget.
h. Long-term debt is down by nearly $1.3 million.
8. The County's reliance on internal parity misses the mark.
a. Rather than experiencing a wage freeze, County employees actually received a
2.69% wage increase in 2005.
b. Several employees received greater wage increases. An accounting coordinator
received a 7.7% increase, the chief deputy for the County clerk received a 4.8%
increase, and a courthouse custodian received a 25.9% increase.
c. The Union's bargaining unit is the only group of County employees entitled to
interest arbitration.
d. Internal consistency must give way to external comparability.
e. The County improperly compares this bargaining unit to other groups of County
employees. The proper, apples-to-apples comparison is with other law-enforcement
units.
V. ARBITRATOR'S DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION
A. Analysis of the Statutory Considerations
As set forth in full above, RCW 41.56.465 requires the Arbitrator to set wages after
considering the legislative purpose of the statute, the compensation paid by comparators,
employees' cost of living, any stipulations and legal concerns over the employer's authority, and
"other factors . .. that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of
wages, . . ." Such "other factors" typically include turnover, increased duties, the fiscal health of
the employer, general economic considerations, and considerations relating to internal parity or
equity. The statute does not specify the relative weight to be assigned to each consideration,
nor how they are to be measured. These matters are left to the determination of the arbitrator.
1. Comparison of Franklin Police Compensation to that of Police Employed by
"Like Employers of Similar Size"
The parties agreed that Stevens, Walla Walla and Whitman counties are suitable
comparators. Beyond that, they disagreed. The Union proposed adding Chelan, Clallam, Grant
and Grays Harbor counties to this list. The County proposed adding Douglas, Kittitas and
Okanogan counties. The County could not, however, verify the wage data it presented for these
three additional counties, and in its post-hearing brief, relied upon the three agreed-upon
comparator jurisdictions. I agree with the Union that three comparators is a very small
sampling, and it would be preferable to have more (at least five), even if it means crossing the
"Cascade curtain" or increasing the range of the more traditional plus or minus 50% screen.
My analysis of the proposed comparators appears on the following table. Figures outside
of the plus or minus 50% screen are shown with italicized boldface type:(fn:2)
________________________
fn:2 I used the Union's data, Exh. U-5 as a source. That data provides total revenues and total revenues per capita
in lieu of assessed valuation. The County did not contend this was inappropriate.
| County | Population 2005 | Total Revenues 2004 | Revenues per capita |
| Franklin | 60,500 | $25,963,089 | $429 |
| -50% | 30,250 | $12,981,545 | $215 |
| 50% | 90,750 | $38,944,634 | $644 |
| Whitman | 42,400 | $20,187,854 | $476 |
| Walla Walla | 57,500 | $33,194,118 | $577 |
| Chelan | 69,200 | $41,515,707 | $600 |
| Stevens | 41,200 | $26,275,358 | $638 |
| Clallam | 66,800 | $42,755,493 | $640 |
| Okanogan | 39,600 | $25,636,939 | $647 |
| Grant | 79,100 | $52,932,044 | $669 |
| Grays Harbor | 69,800 | $51,597,171 | $739 |
| Kittitas | 36,600 | $32,549,549 | $889 |
| Douglas | 34,700 | $32,047,821 | $924 |
| County | Population 2005 | Total Revenues 2004 | Revenues per capita |
| Clallam | 66,800 | $42,755,493 | $640 |
| Stevens | 41,200 | $26,275,358 | $638 |
| Chelan | 69,200 | $41,515,707 | $600 |
| Walla Walla | 57,500 | $33,194,118 | $577 |
| Whitman | 42,400 | $20,187,854 | $476 |
| Franklin | 60,500 | $25,963,089 | $429 |
| County | Base Wage/Mo. | Long. | Total/Mo. | Vac Hrs | Hol Hrs | Adj Hrly Wage |
| Franklin County (2004) | $3,974.87 | $79.50 | $4,054.37 | 136 | 88 | $26.21 |
| Whitman County | $3,600.00 | $72.00 | $3,672.00 | 160 | 88 | $24.06 |
| Walla Walla County | $3,990.34 | $40.00 | $4,030.34 | 160 | 88 | $26.40 |
| Stevens County | $3,834.13 | $3,834.13 | 144 | 88 | $24.90 | |
| Chelan County | $4,175.77 | $4,175.77 | 128 | 88 | $26.88 | |
| Clallam County | $4,337.60 | $4,337.60 | 144 | 96 | $28.29 | |
| Average | $ | |||||
| Franklin County to Average | +0.41% |
| County | Total Wages/Mo | Prem. Contrib.* | Total Comp/Mo | Vac/Hol Hrs | Adj Hrly Wage |
| Franklin County (2004) | $4,054 | $585 | $4,639 | 224 | $30.00 |
| Chelan | $4,176 | $915 | $5,090 | 216 | $32.77 |
| Clallam | $4,338 | $733 | $5,071 | 240 | $33.07 |
| Stevens | $3,834 | $734 | $4,568 | 232 | $29.66 |
| Walla Walla | $4,030 | $735 | $4,765 | 248 | $31.21 |
| Whitman | $3,672 | $799 | $4,471 | 248 | $29.29 |
| Average | $31.20 | ||||
| Franklin to Average | -4.03% |
| County | Adjusted Hourly Wage |
| Clallam | $33.07 |
| Chelan | $32.77 |
| Walla Walla | $31.21 |
| Franklin (2004) | $30.00 |
| Stevens | $29.66 |
| Whitman | $29.29 |
| County | Adjusted Hourly Wage |
| Chelan | $36.99 |
| Walla Walla | $33.83 |
| Stevens | $32.84 |
| Franklin (2004) | $32.62 |
| Whitman | $31.76 |
| County | Total/Mo (Base+Long) |
Empl Med Contrib |
Total Monthly |
Vac/Hol Hrs |
Adj Hrly Wage |
| Franklin | $4,163.43 | $645.00 | $4,808.43 | 224 | $31.09 |
| Chelan | $4,259.29 | $956.86 | $5,216.15 | 216 | $33.58 |
| Clallam | $4,417.76 | $758.65 | $5,176.41 | 240 | $33.87 |
| Stevens | $3,973.91 | $754.97 | $4,728.88 | 232 | $30.71 |
| Walla Walla | $4,189.96 | $808.52 | $4,998.48 | 248 | $32.74 |
| Whitman | $3,746.46 | $858.34 | $4,604.80 | 248 | $30.28 |
| Average | $32.19 | ||||
| Franklin to Average | -3.54% |
| County | Total/Mo (Base+Long) |
Empl Med Contrib |
Total Monthly | Vac/Hol Hrs |
Adj Hrly Wage |
| Franklin | $4165.05 | $700.00 | $4,865.05 | 224 | $31.46 |
| Chelan | $4,259.29 | $956.86 | $5,216.15 | 216 | $33.58 |
| Clallam | $4,417.76 | $758.65 | $5,176.41 | 240 | $33.87 |
| Stevens | $3,973.91 | $754.97 | $4,728.88 | 232 | $30.71 |
| Walla Walla | $4,189.96 | $808.52 | $4,998.48 | 248 | $32.71 |
| Whitman | $3,746.46 | $858.34 | $4,604.80 | 248 | $30.28 |
| Average | $32.19 | ||||
| Franklin to Average | -2.34% |
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.