IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) CASE 19575-I-05-0454
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATION PANEL'S
)
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, ) OPINION AND AWARD
)
LOCAL 587, AFL-CIO, ) MECHANICS WAGE
Union, )
and ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
METROPOLITAN SERVICES )
Employer. )
HEARING SITE: Summit Law Group
Seattle, Wasington
HEARING DATES: May 10-11, 2006
POST-HEARING BRIEFS DUE: Postmarked August 18, 2006
RECORD CLOSED ON RECEIPT OF BRIEFS: August 22, 2006
REPRESENTING THE UNION: Clifford Freed
Frank, Freed, Subit & Thomas, LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 981 04-1 798
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER: Otto G. Klein, III
Summit Law Group, PLLC
315 5th Avenue South, Suite 1000
Seattle, WA 98104-2682
ARBITRATION PANEL: Nick Caraway
Union Appointed Member
Steve Grissom
Employer Appointed Member
Gary L. Axon
Neutral Arbitrator
I. INTRODUCTION
The Amalgamated Transit Union 587 (ATU or Union) and King County
Department of Metropolitan Services (Employer or Metro) are signatories to a Collective
Bargaining Agreement effective November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2007. In a
Statement of Intent dated June 23, 2004, the parties agreed to reserve two issues for
further negotiations so as not to delay the signing of the new Collective Bargaining
Agreement. Un. Ex. 7. One of the issues was resolved and the other issue was
bargained to impasse. The issue involving "Mechanic and Electronic Technician Wages
Equity Adjustment" was not resolved through negotiation and mediation.
The matter was certified by the Public Employment Relations Commission
for interest arbitration. The Union takes the position that a 5% equity wage adjustment
is due for mechanics, lead mechanics, electronic technicians, and lead electronic
technicians (mechanics). Metro rejects the Union's proposal and submits that no
special pay increase for mechanics and electronic technicians is warranted. The parties
conducted an interest arbitration hearing before a three-member Arbitration Panel,
chaired by Neutral Arbitrator Gary L. Axon.
II. STATUTORY FACTORS
RCW 41.56.492 sets forth specified criteria, which must be considered by
the Arbitration Panel in resolving this controversy. The statutory guidelines applicable
to employees of public passenger transportation systems are as follows:
RCW 41 56.492
Application of uniformed personnel collective
bargaining provisions to employees of public passenger
transportation systems -- Conditions.
(2) If an agreement has not been reached following a
reasonable period of negotiations and mediation, and the
mediator finds that the parties remain at impasse, either
party may demand that the issues in disagreement be
submitted to an arbitration panel for a binding and final
determination. In making its determination, the arbitration
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 decisions [decision], shall take into
consideration the following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) Compensation package comparisons, economic indices,
fiscal constraints, and similar factors determined by the
arbitration panel to be pertinent to the case; and
(d) Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which
are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment.
There are differences between the above statute and the interest
arbitration statute, governing police and fire personnel. Although some of the criteria
are similar, the statute governing transit employees vests in the Arbitration Panel the
authority to consider "fiscal constraints" on the employer. Each side argued that its
position was fully supported by the applicable statutory factors.
III. BACKGROUND
The Union represents approximately 3,500 bargaining unit employees.
The largest number of ATU members are employed in the driver classification. The
employees involved in this dispute are in four classifications assigned to the vehicle
maintenance group. The number of employees in each of the classifications is as
follows:
CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Mechanics 218
Lead Mechanics 36
Electronic Technician 17
Lead Electronic Technician 3
____________________
Total 274
The vehicle maintenance employees work at nine different locations that
include the Atlantic Base, North Base, South Base, East Base, Central Base, Bellevue
Base, Ryerson, the Component Supply Center, and the Non-Revenue Vehicle Shop.
The duties of a mechanic are set forth in the mechanic job description and
mechanic job announcement. Er. Exs. 8.3, B.4. The duties of an electronic technician
are set forth in the electronic technician job description. Er. Ex. 6.6. Neither the lead
mechanic classification nor lead electronic technician have a job description, but their
duties were set forth in a recent job announcement. Er. Exs. B.5, B.8.
Metro also employs craft workers in the sheet metal worker, painter,
machinists, upholstery, and metal constructors crafts. Er. Ex. 6.1 1.
The most significant characteristic of this Employer is its size both in
number of employees and number of buses used by Metro. Metro is the largest public
transit agency in Washington. Metro serves all of King County and neighboring
counties utilizing Sound Transit buses. Metro employs 4,200 employees.
The Employer also provides para-transit services for people with
disabilities. The van pooling service operation is the largest van pooling system in the
United States. In addition, Metro assists other governmental organizations throughout
King County in planning and delivery of public transit systems capacity issues, and
street and highway engineering assistance.
Metro is an enterprise fund of King County. Metro receives 65% of its
annual operating revenue from the sales tax. The rest of the operating revenue comes
from the fare box via cash or pass fares collected and other miscellaneous sources of
revenue.
The genesis of this dispute is found in the acquisition of 235 articulated
hybrid buses in May of 2004. The hybrids began carrying passengers on June 5, and
all 235 buses were in service by the end of 2004. Un. Ex. 1. King County Executive
Ron Sims described the hybrid as "the first of its kind bus" and that it was "cutting edge
technology" that would "transform transit systems throughout the United States." Un.
Ex. 1. The Union argued that the 5% equity wage adjustment for mechanics is
warranted because the hybrid bus is unique and much more complex than any other
fleet of buses. Metro disagrees and rejects the Union's 5% equity adjustment proposal.
At the arbitration hearing, the parties were given the full opportunity to
present written evidence, oral testimony, and argument regarding the issue in dispute.
Both the Union and the Employer provided the Arbitration Panel with substantial written
documentation and oral testimony in support of their respective positions on the equity
adjustment issue. The hearing was recorded by a court reporter and transcripts were
made available to the parties for use in preparation of post-hearing briefs and to the
Arbitration Panel for development of this Award.
The parties also submitted comprehensive and detailed post-hearing
briefs in further support of their respective positions taken at arbitration. The Arbitration
Panel will summarize the major, most persuasive evidence and arguments presented by
the parties on the issue in this Award. This Arbitration Panel has carefully reviewed and
evaluated all of the evidence and argument submitted pursuant to the statutory
standards. Since the record in this case was so comprehensive, it would be impractical
for the Arbitration Panel in the discussion and award to restate and refer to each and
every piece of evidence, testimony, and argument presented. However, when
formulating this Award, the Arbitration Panel did give careful consideration to all of the
evidence and argument placed in the record by the parties. Because of the voluminous
record and extensive arguments in this case, and the need for coordination between the
three- member Arbitration Panel, the parties waived the 30-day period an arbitration
panel would normally have to publish an interest arbitration award under the statute.
The Neutral Arbitrator prepared a draft of the statement of facts and
positions of the parties. The Arbitration Panel held a telephone conference call on
October 19, 2006, to discuss the draft and the case. The Arbitration Panel held a
second telephone conference call on October 30, 2006, to discuss the proposed Award.
Thereafter, the Neutral Arbitrator published the final Award.
IV. POSITION OF THE UNION
The primary focus of the Union's case is on the impact the introduction of
the hybrids had on the job duties of mechanics. According to the Union, the hybrid bus
is unique and extremely more complex than any other fleet of buses. First, the hybrid
uses a blended power system that allows the vehicle to run on any combination of
diesel and electric power.
Second, all of the systems on the bus are interrelated and networked
through a complex communication protocol designated as the "J1939 backbone."
Third, the hybrid is controlled by a sophisticated Allison EV drive system
that serves as the primary brain commanding the operation of the engine.
Fourth, the hybrid has a multitude of modules or electronically
programmed control units that control and monitor the various systems on the coach.
The Union avers the system is unique in that all of the modules are networked and
communicate with each other through a sophisticated control area network (CAN).
Fifth, there is another system on the hybrid that controls all of the basic
electrical parts on the bus, including the doors, headlights, wheelchair ramps, etc.,
called the VANSCO programmable logic controller (PLC).
In sum, the Union submits the level of sophistication of the systems is
unique to the hybrid. No other bus in the Metro fleet combines all of the systems into
one bus.
The Union next argues the new technology has exponentially increased
the difficulty of a mechanic's work and has essentially changed the nature of the
position. Mechanics now use a computer to diagnose problems on the hybrids through
fault codes that are generated by the various systems on the bus. Mechanics must
understand 250 fault codes that are currently in existence, with another 200 soon to
come. The complexity on the bus requires a mechanic to understand not only how each
system works, but the mechanic must have a far deeper understanding of how all
systems work together.
Mechanics testified that the work on a hybrid requires a "whole new level,
a new way of thinking." Tr., p. 134. All of the mechanics testified that where the job
formerly required only basic mechanical knowledge, the job now requires substantial
knowledge and the familiarity with computers and electronics. Further, it was the
testimony of the mechanics that in many different respects, working on the hybrid is far
more stressful. The mechanics' primary tool now is the computer as compared to
wrenches and impact guns that enabled the mechanics to perform their work on earlier
vehicles.
The hybrids comprise 17% of Metro's fleet and 152 out of the 254
mechanics are at bases where there are hybrids. However, the Union notes that the
mechanics have the right to pick different bases and at any time could be given an
assignment to perform a mechanical repair on a hybrid. The Union asserts there are no
comparables because no transit agency in the country performs the type of work that
Metro mechanics perform. According to the Union, Metro mechanics perform work that
is more difficult and more complex, requiring a higher level of skill and competence,
than mechanics at other agencies. The Union faults Metro's comparables because of
their substantially smaller fleet size, and none of the comparables has a significant
number of hybrid buses. The impact of the hybrid on the mechanics' work life has been
substantial, meriting a wage increase. Comparing the work of Metro mechanics to the
duties of mechanics in other jurisdictions is the proverbial "apples to oranges"
comparison that is abhorred in interest arbitration. It was the testimony of Metro
mechanics that the introduction of the hybrid bus was a revolutionary leap with respect
to the mechanical systems that far exceeded any incremental technological advances in
the past.
Regarding Metro's argument that many of the other buses in the fleet have
one or more of these components, and the assembling of them all together in the hybrid
is really nothing new, the Union disagrees. First, no other vehicle has blended power,
as does the hybrid.
Second, no other vehicle communicates system-wide by using a LAN
language that talks to the engine, transmission, and other circuitry.
Third, to the extent the other buses have some components of similar
nature, those components are far more rudimentary and do not interrelate with all other
systems. The record evidence established that the nature and degree of the change
manifested with the introduction of the hybrid buses made the mechanics' job more
difficult with the addition of new job duties.
The Arbitration Panel should reject Metro's claim that the mechanics' job is
actually easier because of reliance on a computer. What Metro fails to acknowledge or
comprehend is how daunting it is for mechanics, trained principally with more
conventional tools, to find themselves in the position of relying primarily on a computer
to administer their tasks. The mechanics testified universally with respect to how much
more stressful the job was now, given their immersion in a work universe that is so
different than their previous training. Nothing in the mechanics' job description suggests
the requirement of experience and knowledge with respect to computers or complex
networking systems.
The Arbitration Panel should look to arbitration decisions involving wage
classification issues. Arbitrators have awarded wage increases where there has been a
substantial change in the job that justified a wage increase. Cooper Industries, Inc., 104
LA 383 (1995) (Imundo, Arb).
Turning to the statutory guidelines, ATU submits the evidence in the
record supports a finding that the Union's proposal is justified. First, there is no dispute
that the parties have the constitutional and statutory authority to abide by an award of
the Arbitration Panel.
Second, the work performed by Metro mechanics is so unique that
comparison of compensation packages to other agencies is not helpful to the analysis in
this case. The Union asserts that to the extent any agency works on hybrids at all, it is
vastly disproportionate to the work performed by Local 587 mechanics. Metro has 235
hybrids, comprising 17% of the entire fleet. Metro mechanics have been working on
hybrids for a year and a half. Three of Metro's comparables have no hybrids. The
second largest number of hybrids involves Baltimore, which has 10 hybrids representing
1.23% of its fleet. Given the unique nature of Metro mechanics' work, the Union asserts
there are no appropriate comparables to guide the Arbitration Panel.
Third, the Union argues the testimony established that Metro could easily
afford to pay the 5% equity adjustment. No Metro witness testified that King County
would be unable to afford the wage increase. Dr. Peter Donohue, an economist called
by the Union, testified that paying the wage increase would not present a problem to
King County. After reviewing the King County financial records, Donohue found that for
approximately the last 15 years, King County revenues have been consistently higher
than projected in its budget. King County enjoys a Triple A bond rating, the highest
possible rating for local government. Dr. Donohue pointed to King County's general
fund, which is the benchmark for assessing the County's overall financial condition and
resources. The general fund is unrestricted and could be used for any purpose King
County designates, including Metro.
Moreover, Dr. Donohue also examined Metro's own ability to pay, based
on its status as one of the County's enterprise funds. The fund balance at the end of
the year 2005 showed Metro had approximately 36 million dollars in unrestricted
earnings. As with King County's general fund, Metro's retained earnings are
unrestricted and can be used for any legal purpose. In 2004, Metro's operational
expenses were 7 million dollars under budget and for the years 1997-2001, Metro spent
on average almost exactly 10 million dollars annually less than it had budgeted.
Dr. Donohue also testified that retail sales tax revenue in King County
increased significantly in the last two years. The majority of Metro funding comes from
the sales tax revenue. Metro is anticipating that with the acquisition of the hybrids, King
County will save 3.5 million dollars in fuel and maintenance annually. Metro also has
the ability to raise money by raising the sales tax an additional 1/10 of a percent.
Based on the review of King County's financial records, Dr. Donohue
opined there are more than sufficient resources within King County and within Metro to
meet the cost of the Union's proposed 5% equity wage increase. The Arbitration Panel
should conclude that King County has the financial ability to pay for the cost of the
award without jeopardizing Metro's financial stability.
Fourth, the Union pointed to the other factors criteria as a basis to argue
that the workload for mechanics has changed. According to the Union, the very nature
of the mechanics' job has changed in significant ways that argues for a wage increase.
Metro did not put on a single witness to counter the impact of the mechanics' testimony
concerning the nature of the work required to maintain the hybrids on a day-to-day
basis.
The Union concluded in its post-hearing brief as follows:
The purchase of 235 hybrid buses brought twenty first
century technology to King County Metro. It now requires of
Metro's mechanics a concomitant knowledge of twenty first
century technology. That knowledge has not come quickly
or easily to the workforce, which lacks the requisite
background in technology to perform the job with the facility
they previously enjoyed. No other transit mechanic in the
country works on these buses to the extent they are worked
on by Metro mechanics. No other transit agency in the
country has to deal with the complexity and the
accompanying frustration that the hybrids bring to the job.
Metro wants a twenty first century fleet, but wants to pay
only twentieth century wages. Metro's position that it "is both
unwilling and unable to place any amount of money on the
table" to recognize its employees' efforts should be
repudiated by the Arbitration Panel. If the parties have
bargained reasonably and in good faith, Metro would have
recognized the greater effort now required by mechanics to
perform their jobs. A 5% equity increase is reasonable and
would award that effort. The Union respectfully requests that
the mechanics be granted a 5% equity wage increase
retroactive to November 1, 2004.
Brief, pp. 37, 38.
V. POSITION OF THE EMPLOYER
The Employer begins by maintaining that it already pays its vehicle
maintenance employees extremely well--at the top of the national market--and that no
additional wage increase is justified. According to Metro, the everyday working
conditions of maintenance employees has not significantly altered to the extent that
would warrant an extraordinary increase in pay. The Arbitration Panel should find in
favor of the Employer and reject the Union's proposal for a 5% equity adjustment.
The Employer sees the purchase of the hybrid buses as part of the long
history of Metro regularly upgrading its fleet of buses. Metro submits the purchase and
utilization of the hybrid fleet is yet another step on Metro's long-term technological
journey.
After reviewing the history of fleet purchases over the years, Metro
maintains the hybrid fleet is yet one-more advancement in the technology of buses.
Every time a new piece of equipment is introduced, there is something new and
different about the bus that requires the mechanics to learn in order to repair the bus.
Testimony of Metro managers was uniform that there is nothing so radically unique or
different about the hybrid, and in particular as it relates to the work performed by
mechanics and electronic technicians to warrant a special pay increase. As with any
new bus fleet, there are new systems and techniques that must be learned in order to
work on these buses. The same is true with the hybrids as it was with the first 1600
Flyer Fleet purchased in 1979 and the dual mode Breda Fleet purchased in the late
1980s. Historically, with each new fleet, the parties have negotiated a wage increase
for mechanics that is the same as all other bargaining unit employees.
The Employer next argues the Arbitration Panel should reject the Union's
proposal that seeks to end a long bargaining history going back to 1977. Among
vehicle maintenance employees, there have been classifications of mechanic, sheet
metal worker, painter, machinists, metal constructor, and upholstery worker. Each of
these classifications has been paid at exactly the same hourly rate throughout the 30-
year bargaining history between the parties. In 1991, the parties agreed to add the
classification of electronic technician. Since then, the parties have mutually agreed to
pay the electronic technicians the same as all the other classifications in vehicle
maintenance. The same holds true with lead positions.
Metro next argues that there is basically the same wage relationship
between the skilled crafts and transit operators. Since 1981, the machinists and skilled
crafts had received about 15% more than transit operators. The percentage today is
essentially the same.
Over the history of the Collective Bargaining Agreements, the parties have
agreed that all members of the skilled trades and crafts positions in vehicle
maintenance should receive the same wage increase. Arbitral authority instructs that
the moving party must establish a compelling need for change, which deviates from a
long and established pattern of bargaining history. The Union has failed to demonstrate
the recent introduction of the hybrid fleet justifies a significant redistribution of pay
among the bargaining unit members.
Turning to comparability, the Employer elected to utilize the comparables
that traditionally had been used by the parties in bargaining over the last few
negotiations. Metro recognizes that selection of comparables in this case is made more
difficult by the fact that a small minority of the bargaining unit employees are involved.
Transit operators make up 90% of the Union bargaining unit. In the view of Metro, the
Arbitration Panel should not deviate from the traditional comparators in developing an
award involving only mechanics. This is one of the reasons the Employer did not offer a
change in comparables for this proceeding, which is limited to the wage issue for the
mechanic group. The Employer submits the comparables provide the Arbitration Panel
with a fair and reasonable method to assess the relative status of the mechanics. Metro
does not feel that the addition of 235 hybrid buses, which amounted to about 116th of
the fleet was a basis for changing the transit agencies that had been traditionally looked
to as comparators for the entire bargaining unit.
Regarding the Union's complete rejection of comparables based on the
fact no other jurisdiction has as many hybrid vehicles as Metro, the Employer responds
this approach is contrary to the statute. Comparables should serve to bring stability to
the parties' relationship over time. Here, the Metro hybrid fleet is less than 20% of the
entire Metro fleet. The Union bears the burden in this case to offer to the Arbitration
Panel evidence that is consistent with the statutory factors in order to prevail. The
Union has not met this threshold requirement.
The primary purpose of looking to the comparables in this case is to
determine whether a significant adjustment is necessary for mechanic and electronic
technician pay. Metro mechanics were fourth in pay among the nation-wide
comparables as of October 2004, the final month of the prior contract. Metro is 12%
above the average pay in the comparable jurisdictions. Mechanics benefited from a
generous cost of living increase that took effect over the last two years. By April 2005,
Metro was 16.3% ahead of the comparables. As of April 2006, Metro has moved to
second among all of the comparables, just slightly below Oakland. Metro is now 17.4%
above the average of the comparables.
Effective November 2005, Metro employees received an increase of
4.66%. Not one of the comparable jurisdictions received an increase that high. The
same holds true when Metro is compared to local transit jurisdictions. Metro mechanics
are now the highest paid among all of the Puget Sound area jurisdiction mechanics.
Metro mechanics received a compound increase of 18.65% from 2002 to 2006. Metro
employees also enjoy fully paid health benefits.
Based on the comparability data, there is no support for providing Metro
mechanics with the extraordinary wage increase they seek. Metro mechanics are
already well paid, and the factor of comparables argues strongly for adoption of the
Employer's position.
The Employer next argues the Union's proposal is fatally flawed because it
is applicable to all mechanics and electronic technicians for all of their work. The hybrid
fleet makes up about 17% of the total bus fleet. Forty percent of the fleet is made up of
40-foot conventional diesel buses, and another 24% is made up of 60-foot conventional
diesel buses. Of the 254 mechanics, only 152 work at bases that even have a hybrid
bus.
The majority of the testimony presented by the Union dealt with the use of
a laptop computer as part of the initial diagnostic work done by mechanics. There was
very little testimony about the actual repair work performed by mechanics on the hybrid
system. The Union's focus on utilization of the computer was misplaced because
computer usage by mechanics is a relatively small part of their overall duties. Further,
the use of computers for diagnosis is not in any way unique to hybrids.
The electronic technicians work out of Atlantic Base, where there are no
hybrids. Currently, 90% of electronic technicians are stationed at Atlantic Base, where
they work on trolleys. Electronic technicians seldom work on hybrids.
There is no justification for a 5% pay increase for mechanics simply
because the work happens to be on a hybrid. Mechanics perform traditional work on
axles, brakes, door systems, lights, the driver station, the suspension, the fuel system,
and the steering system that is no different than that performed on other transit fleets.
The job code data was from June of 2004 to December of 2005, and examined in an
effort to determine the percentage of the total amount of coded hours that would be
hybrid-specific work. Manager George Stiles determined that during each month there
was a total of only 89.9 hours of hybrid-specific work. This worked out to 0.18% of the
time that a mechanic was actually doing hybrid-specific work. Even at bases with
hybrids, mechanics spend less than 1% of their time on hybrid-specific work. Er. Exs.
C. 10, C.12. These facts demonstrate that a 5% wage increase for all mechanics and all
electronic technicians for their entire workday that also includes the duties traditionally
performed by mechanics is not justified.
King County Metro is hardly unique in its decision to begin utilizing hybrid
buses. Hybrid buses are being introduced in the eleven-comparator jurisdictions. Not
one of those jurisdictions pays any premium or additional pay to mechanics for working
on hybrid buses. This is strong evidence the transit industry does not find utilization of
the hybrids so unique or different that working on a hybrid bus requires additional pay.
The Employer next argues that recruitment and retention statistics support
Metro's position. Metro has been able to secure a significant pool of qualified
applicants. Metro has been fortunate in being able to have an adequate pool of
qualified mechanics to choose from. Similarly, Metro has not had any trouble hiring
electronic technicians. Very few mechanics leave Metro to work for other employers.
The hiring and retention data provides further evidence there is no need to adopt the
Union's proposed 5% equity adjustment.
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) data supports Metro's position. The
parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that all employees will receive an
increase tied to the CPI. The formula utilized in the labor Agreement contains a
minimum increase of 3%. As such, utilization of the 3% floor has resulted in mechanics
receiving an increase that is higher than the CPI. King County mechanics also
benefited from a spike in the CPI for their most recent wage increase that yielded an
increase of 4.66% for all bargaining unit members.
The Union's request should be rejected given Metro's fiscal constraints.
Over the last several years, expenses have increased at a faster rate than the revenue.
Further, another factor impacting revenue is the significant reduction in the percentage
of fare box revenue collected. The rise in the cost of doing business has further eroded
Metro's financial position. A 10% increase in the cost of diesel fuel adds an additional 1
million dollars to expenses. When the cost of doing business is coupled with the
increased demand for bus service, Metro must act prudently in allocating its financial
resources. Due to financial constraints, bus service has grown by less than 2% since
2001. The three-year cost of awarding the Union's proposal would be close to 3.5
million dollars. Er. Ex. D.15. The statutory factor of fiscal constraint on Metro is a
criterion that strongly supports the position of the Employer in this interest arbitration.
Metro submits that the Union's effort to revise over 30 years of bargaining
history is unwarranted. ATU 587 mechanics are already well compensated when
compared to both national and local transit agencies. Turnover is almost non-existent,
and there is no difficulty in recruiting good candidates. The work performed by
mechanics on hybrids is less than 1% of the overall workload for mechanics. The
Arbitration Panel should conclude the Union has failed to meet its burden that the
additional complexity of the work established a 5% additional pay increase is justified.
VI. ARBITRATION PANEL'S DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
A. General
The central issue in this dispute is whether the mechanics should receive
an additional 5% equity adjustment over the wage increase provided in the 2004-2007
Collective Bargaining Agreement. The issue before the Arbitration Panel is not whether
mechanics will receive wage increases. The mechanics received or will receive the
same wage increase that other members of the bargaining unit obtained under the cost
of living adjustment formula set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Since the Union is the moving party, it bears the burden of proof to
establish the proposed 5% equity adjustment for mechanics conforms to the statutory
criteria. In the present case, the Union seeks to change the status quo and deviate
from a 30-year practice of paying employees from the various vehicle maintenance
classifications the same hourly rate of pay. Arbitral authority teaches the moving party
must establish a compelling need for a major change in the status quo and the past
practice established by previous Collective Bargaining Agreements.
The Union's argument in support of the 5% equity adjustment for
mechanics is based exclusively on the introduction of the hybrid buses into the Metro
fleet and resulting impact on the job duties of mechanics. Metro takes the position the
Union cannot establish "the recent introduction of the hybrid fleet justifies a significant
redistribution of pay within the bargaining unit." The Arbitration Panel will now turn to
the application of the evidence contained in the record to the statutory criteria.
B. Statutory Criteria
1. Similar Factors Determined by the Arbitration Panel to be
Pertinent to the Case
The Union argued for a 5% special wage adjustment "because of Metro's
acquisition of a fleet of hybrid buses, which the mechanics asserted involved a
technological change impacting their working conditions." According to the Union, there
are several factors that make the hybrid unique and so much more complex than any
other fleet of buses. Primarily, the Union points to the hybrid's use of blended power in
conjunction with the fact all of the systems on the bus are interrelated and networked
through a complex communication protocol which make working on the hybrids unique
and more complex. The Union asserts the job of the mechanics has changed from
using wenches and impact guns to the use of the computer as the primary tool.
The Arbitration Panel holds the Union's position is properly addressed
under the criteria of "similar factors determined by the Arbitration Panel to be pertinent
to the case."
The Arbitration Panel accepts the Union's argument the hybrids are
unique, to the extent the diagnostic work performed by the mechanics involves the use
of a computer to engage in problem solving. The crux of this case is whether the
introduction of the hybrids and the resulting impact on the job duties of the mechanics
shows a compelling need for a 5% special equity adjustment. The Arbitration Panel
holds the Union failed to prove the 5% special equity adjustment is warranted when
examined within this framework of this statutory criteria.
The burden on the Union is particularly heavy in this case because it
seeks to break a bargaining pattern that goes back 30 years. There is no dispute that
among employees in the vehicle maintenance unit, each classification has been paid
the identical hourly rate for approximately 30 years. Further, the Collective Bargaining
Agreements since 1981 have provided a 15% higher rate of pay for members of the
crafts than to bus operators. The Arbitration Panel finds the introduction of the hybrid
buses and the resulting changes in job duties are insufficient justifications to pay
mechanics 5% more than other craft employees in the classifications of mechanic,
sheet metal worker, painter, machinist, metal constructor, and upholstery worker.
Moreover, if the Arbitration Panel were to award the 5% special equity
adjustment, it would apply to approximately 274 employees out of the bargaining unit of
3,500 or 7% of the ATU members. To award an additional 5% increase to 7% of the
bargaining unit must be shown by the Union to have a substantial basis in fact. Absent
from this record is convincing evidence the overall duties of the mechanics have
changed to such a significant degree as to warrant an additional 5% increase in the
hourly rate of pay.
The Union's proposal would increase the rate of pay for all 274
mechanics. However, the evidence shows that only 152 mechanics work at bases
where hybrid buses are present. The scope of the hybrid specific work is narrowed
even further when the job codes are examined. Manager Stiles testified convincingly
that after examining the job codes, only 89.9 hours of hybrid-specific work was
pelformed by mechanics per month.
Turning to the electronic technicians, the lack of hybrid-specific work
performed by electronic technicians is even more glaring. Electronic technicians work
at Atlantic Base where there are no hybrids. Stiles testified that 90% of the electronic
technicians are assigned to Atlantic Base where they work on trolleys.
The Union argued that mechanics could bid or be assigned to work at a
base where hybrid buses are housed. The fact that mechanics could potentially move
to bases where they would be required to work on hybrid buses does not change the
fact the mechanics continue to perform their traditional duties as set forth in the job
description.
At the arbitration hearing, the Union presented evidence that focused
primarily on the impact the use of the computers had on mechanics when they were
troubleshooting a hybrid bus. The evidence presented by Metro established mechanics
also perform work on hybrids that is not specific to hybrid buses. Manager Stiles
identified work that is not unique to hybrids such as repair and maintenance on axles,
brakes, door systems, lights, the driver station, the suspension, the fuel system, and the
steering system, as being no different than work performed on other transit buses. In
sum, the Arbitration Panel holds the Union failed to prove that because of the
introduction of the hybrids into the fleet, the totality of the work of mechanics has
changed to such a degree that would justify an additional 5% equity adjustment limited
to the mechanics and electronic technicians.
2. The Constitutional and Statutory Authority of the Employer
No constitutional or statutory objections were raised that would put this
Award in conflict with Washington law.
3. Stipulations of the Parties
The parties stipulated to waive the statutory obligation of the Arbitration
Panel to submit the Award within 30 days of submission of the briefs.
4. Compensation Package Comparators
In a typical interest arbitration case, comparability issues are usually the
major source of contention. It has been the experience of the Neutral Arbitrator that
comparability is the guiding force behind a dispute over wage adjustments. The instant
case is different. The Union argued that the work of Metro mechanics is so unique, that
comparison of compensation packages to other transit agencies is not helpful to the
analysis in this case, and that comparability should be completely disregarded. The
Union submits that because of the number of hybrids in the Metro fleet, the work of
Metro mechanics is so different that it would be futile for the Arbitration Panel to
compare dissimilar jobs.
It is the position of the Employer the Arbitration Panel must review
compensation packages in other transit agencies in making a decision under the
interest arbitration statute. Metro utilized comparables that traditionally had been used
for this bargaining unit. Metro's comparables consisted of 11 other public transit
agencies around the United States that are roughly the same in terms of size and scope
of operation as Metro.
The Arbitration Panel holds that the introduction of hybrid buses into
Metro's fleet is not a ground to ignore the statutory factor of compensation package
comparisons to assist in the resolution of this dispute. While the Arbitration Panel
agrees the comparability factor in this case should not be given the weight that normally
would be accorded the criteria of comparability, the Arbitration Panel would be derelict
in its responsibility to completely disregard the comparability factor.
In presenting its case on comparators, the Employer utilized a list of transit
agencies that had been used in the previous negotiations, plus three smaller, local
transit agencies. Er. Exs. D.4, D.lO. While the Employer's list is in need of some finetuning
and updating, the Arbitration Panel concludes that information gleaned from
Metro's list of comparators is of assistance in resolving this dispute. The Union
concedes that Metro mechanics are well paid. Finally, the Arbitration Panel is of the
belief that the way this case was presented, it is unnecessary to do an extensive and
detailed review of the comparables in this discussion.
The Arbitration Panel finds the following facts to be true:
1. Metro mechanics have or will receive the same cost of
living increases as other members of the bargaining unit.
2. Metro mechanics enjoy a competitive and reasonable
wage rate when compared with the 11 national comparator
jurisdictions. Er. Exs. D.4, D.5, D.6. As of April 2006, the
top-step pay for mechanic is above the average pay for
mechanics in the comparator jurisdictions and Metro is the
second highest paying agency on the comparator list.
3. The 2005 wage increases in the comparator group
ranged from 1% to 4%. Metro mechanics received a 4.66%
wage adjustment, the highest in the comparator group.
4. Metro mechanics have received a cost of living
adjustment from 2002 to 2006 of 18.65%. Er. Ex. D.lO.
5. Metro pays the entire cost of health insurance for
mechanics and their families.
6. None of the comparator jurisdictions pay a premium for
working on hybrid buses.
Based on the comparison data, the Arbitration Panel holds Metro
mechanics are paid a reasonable and competitive wage rate and have--over the years--
received cost of living adjustments exceeding the CPI. Thus, the Arbitration Panel must
conclude the factor of comparability supports the Employer's position that no additional
wage increase is appropriate for mechanics.
5. Economic Indices and Fiscal Constraints
a. Cost of Living
Interest arbitrators traditionally use the cost of living, as measured by the
CPI, as a factor for resolving wage disputes. The Union offered no data concerning the
CPI. As members of the bargaining unit, the mechanic and electronic technician
classifications received the same wage adjustment as other employees in the
bargaining unit.
The parties agreed to include in the current contract a wage adjustment
based on a cost of living formula. The formula created a 3% floor, which resulted in
recent increases greater than the CPI. The most recent cost of living adjustment
provided all members of the bargaining unit, including mechanics a 4.66% wage
increase. The Union proposed an additional 5% equity adjustment. The cost of living
factor does not support a 9.66% total wage adjustment for mechanics only.
b. Fiscal Constraints
Both sides offered considerable evidence and testimony directed to this
factor. The Union argued the record evidence shows Metro has the ability to pay the
Union's proposed 5% equity increase, and that there are no fiscal constraints to funding
the proposal. The Employer responded by saying there are fiscal constraints forming
the basis to reject the Union's proposal. Mainly, Metro claims expenses are rising faster
than income and at the same time, the demand for services is growing to meet the
rapidly increasing population rates in King County.
The Arbitration Panel concurs with the Union that Metro has the ability to
pay the cost of the Union's 5% increase. However, the statutory standard is not
whether the Employer has the complete inability to fund the Union's proposal. The
standard is one of fiscal constraints that limit the ability of an employer to pay the
proposed wage increase. When the factor of fiscal constraints is considered within the
context of the other statutory factors, the Arbitration Panel concludes the Employer's
position is well founded.
6. Other Factors
a. The Ability to Hire and Retain Qualified Mechanics
Supports the County's Position
Turnover is almost non-existent in the mechanic classification. The
Employer's evidence shows Metro is able to attract and hire qualified mechanics. The
ability to hire and retain qualified mechanics is evidence Metro pays a competitive and
reasonable wage rate to mechanics in the bargaining unit.
b. Workload
The Union maintained that the introduction of the hybrid buses was an
evolutionary leap with respect to the duties required of mechanics in order to
satisfactorily perform their job. According to the Union, the very nature of the
mechanic's job changed with the introduction of the hybrid buses. Thus, the Union
submits the 5% equity adjustment is fully warranted.
As previously noted, the Arbitration Panel recognizes the job of the
mechanics changed with the introduction of the hybrid buses. However, Metro
mechanics still perform the traditional work required of mechanics as set forth in their
job descriptions. Mechanics have used computers in the past and continue to use them
in diagnosing problems with buses in the fleet other than hybrids. The Arbitration Panel
remains unconvinced that the advances in technology brought on by the introduction of
the hybrid bus into Metro's fleet are of such a significant change, in the totality of the
mechanics job, as to justify the Union's request for a 5% equity increase for mechanics
and electronic technicians retroactive to November 1, 2004.
The Arbitration Panel will enter an Award consistent with the above-stated
findings and conclusions.
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
INTEREST ARBITRATION ) CASE 19575-I-05-0454
)
BETWEEN ) ARBITRATION PANEL'S
)
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, ) OPINION AND AWARD
)
LOCAL 587, AFL-CIO, ) MECHANICS WAGE
Union, )
and ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
)
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
METROPOLITAN SERVICES )
Employer. )
Having reviewed all of the evidence and argument, the Arbitration Panel
concludes that the Union's proposal should not become part of the current Collective
Bargaining Agreement and that the Employer's position of no special wage increase for
mechanics and electronic technicians shall be adopted.
It is so ordered.
_________________________
Gary L. Axon
Neutral Arbitrator
Dated: November 3, 2006
____________________________ ___________________________
Nick Caraway Steve Grissom
Union Appointed Arbitrator Employer Appointed Arbitrator
Concur / Dissent Concur / Dissent
Dated: November ______, 2006 Dated: November _____, 2006
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.