IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) OPINION
)
COWLITZ COUNTY, WASHINGTON ) AND
)
"THE COUNTY" or "THE EMPLOYER" ) AWARD
)
AND )
)
COWLITZ COUNTY DEPUTIES GUILD )
)
"THE GUILD" OR "THE UNION" ) INTEREST ARBITRATION
HEARING: July 12, 2007 and July 13, 2007
Kelso, Washington
BRIEFS: Employer's received: September 17, 2007
Union's received: September 17, 2007
HEARING CLOSED: September 17, 2007
ARBITRATOR: Timothy D.W. Williams
2700 Fourth Ave., Suite 305
Seattle, WA 98121
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER:
Howard Rubin, Attorney
Jim Zdilar, Personnel Director
Duane Engler, Undersheriff CC Sheriff's
Department
REPRESENTING THE UNION:
Daryl Garrettson, Labor Consultant
Kelly Lincoln, Deputy - Guild President
Brad Thurman, Guild 2nd Vice President
Pat Schallert, Deputy - Negotiation Committee
Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
Darren C. Ullmann, Deputy - Guild lSt Vice
President, Negotiation Committee
Dan Sheridan - Deputy Sheriff
APPEARING AS WITNESSES FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Jim Zdilar, Personnel Director
Mark Nelson, Captain CC Sherif
Reagan Smith, HR Grants County
Duane Engler, Undersheriff CC Sheriff's
Department
APPEARING AS WITNESSES FOR THE UNION:
Dan Sheridan, Dep. Sheriff - Guild
Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
Pat Schallert, Deputy - Negotiation
Committee
Brad Thurman, Sgt. Cowlitz County
Darren ullman, Guild lSt Vice President
Graig Shelton, Deputy
Troy Brightbill, Deputy
Dave Smith, Sgt. CC Sheriff
Kelly Lincoln, Deputy
EXHIBITS
Union
1. Guild Labor Agreement 2003-2005
2. Guild's Proposed Changes 3/23/2007
3. Employer's Proposed Changes 3/23/0007
4. Arbitrator Beck's Decision 4/7/1987
5. [withdrawn]
6. Comparable Jurisdictions in 1987
7. Population Tax Comparison
8. Washington County Map
9. 37.5 to 40 Hour Comparison
10. Market Summary - percentage behind in compensation
11. CPI - W US Cities, June 2007
12. Guild CPI Analysis
13. Newspapers on the Local Economy
14. Guild Total Leave Comparison
15. Fatigue on Police Work
16. NTSB Controllers - Fatigue and Air Safety
17. Physical Fitness Ability Test
18. Pay Comparison for A . Degree
19. Police Association for College Education
20. Projected Market Summary
21. Projected Market Summary County's Comparables
22. Projected Market Summary County's Comparables
23. Duty Weapon Provision - Comparables
24. Written Statement of Pat Schallert
25. 12/13/2006 Hire Three Deputies
26. 7/6/2007 Median Home Sold for $199, 250
27. Public Defenders Pay Increase 7/11/2007
28. Memo to file by J. Goldberg
Employer
1. Letter from Marvin L. Schurke, Executive Director, Public
Employment Relations Commission, to Jim Zdilar, Cowlitz
County and Jaime B. Goldberg, Counsel for the Guild, dated
August 1, 2006
2. Letter from Jaime B. Goldberg to Arbitrator Timothy D.W.
Williams dated March 23, 2007
3. Letter from Howard Rubin to Arbitrator Timothy D.W. Williams
dated March 23, 2007
4. Letter from Jaime B. Goldberg to Arbitrator Timothy D.W.
Williams dated March 26, 2007
5. Letter of Understanding between Cowlitz County and Cowlitz
County Deputies Guild dated March 8-9, 2007 (concerning
County's contribution toward the cost of the monthly premium
for medical, dental and life insurance)
6. Cowlitz County Sheriff's Agreement, 1/1/2003-12/31/2005
7. Employee list (with hire date, years of service, education,
and position)
8. Map of State of Washington
9. Interest Arbitration Opinion and Award of Michael H. Beck In
the Matter of Cowlitz County and Teamsters Local 58, dated
April 7, 1987
10. Population of Selected Counties
11. Assessed Valuations of Selected Counties
12. Assessed Valuations Per Capita of Selected Counties
13. CPI - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers - US City
Average 9June 2005, June 2006)
14. Benton County Contracts
15. Clallam County Contracts
16. Grays Harbor County Contracts
17. Lewis County Contract
18. Skagit County Contract
19. Cowlitz County Profile, January 2007
20. Grays Harbor County Profile, May 2007
21. Clallam County Profile, December 2001
22. Adams and Grant County Profile, December 2002
23. Island County Profile, April 2000
24. Per Capital Income - 2005
25. Median Household Income - 2005
26. Unemployment Rate - 2006
27. Housing Market Snapshot - Median Price - First Quarter 2007
28. Comparisons Regarding Cowlitz County Proposals
29. Comparisons Regarding Cowlitz County Deputies Guild
Proposals
30. Lehleitner Award 2/15/1996
31. Employee Insurance Options - 2006
32. Employee Insurance Options - 2007
33. Employer Contribution/Employee Contribution - 2006
34. Employer Contribution/Employee Contribution - 2007
35. Blue Notebook Deputies Comparables
36. Green Notebook Sgts. Comparables
37. Washington City and City Employee Salary Survey
38. Grievance List 6/3/2003 to 8/6/2006
39. Article on College Degrees and Police Work
40. Assessed Value of Taxable Property
41. Grant County Vacation E-Mail Memo
42. CC Sheriff Department Team Assignment
43. Patrol Calendar - 2007
44. Job Application Data
45. Summary of Separations from Service
BACKGROUND
The Cowlitz County Deputies Guild represents a bargaining
unit made up of 41 employees in the County Sherifff s Department,
ranging in rank from deputy through sergeant. The Guild and
Cowlitz County were bound by a Collective Bargaining Agreement
which expired on January 31, 2005. Presently, the Parties have
come to an impasse in negotiations over the language of the
successor agreement. RCW 41.56.450 provides that uniform
personnel interest arbitration is to be used to resolve an
impasse. The issues to be submitted to the arbitrator for
determination "shall be limited to the issues certified by the
executive director". By letter dated August 1, 2007 Executive
Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC),
Marvin Schurke, certified the following issues at impasse and
thus subject to interest arbitration:
Article 4, Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.9, and 4.10
Article 5, Sections 5.2
Article 6, Sections 6.4, 6.6, 6.7
Article 8, Sections 8.8
Article 11, Sections 11.3, 11.4, 11.7
Article 14, Sections 14.1, 14.2
Article 15, Sections 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.5, 15.6
Article 16
Article 18, Sections 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6
Appendix A: Salary Schedule
Appendix B: Uniform and Equipment List
New Article: Payroll Dates
In accordance with WAC 391-55-205, each Party had the right
to name one partisan Arbitrator to serve as a member of the
arbitration panel. Part one (1) of the cited code provides that
"The use of partisan arbitrators shall be deemed waived if
neither Party has notified the executive director of its
appointee within fourteen days following the issuance of a
certification of issues for interest arbitration, and the
Partiesf principal representatives shall then select the neutral
chairperson". Both Parties waived the use of partisan
arbitrators and Arbitrator Timothy Williams was selected as the
neutral chairperson. For the purposes of this document, the
terms "neutral chairperson" and "interest arbitrator" or
"arbitrator" shall be interchangeable. The hearing was set
beginning on February 27, 2007 and was subsequently rescheduled
beginning April 9, 2007.
WAC 391-55-220 provides that parties to an interest
arbitration must provide the Arbitrator and each other with
written proposals on all issues within fourteen (14) days of the
hearing. Both Parties timely submitted their proposals on March
23, 2007.
The Arbitrator received two emendations to the Guildf s
proposal following the initial submission. By letter dated March
26, 2007, representative for the Guild, Jaime Goldberg, notified
the Arbitrator that the Guild did not intend to seek the
longevity component in Article 18.6, as had previously been
indicated. By letter dated April 3, 2007, Mr. Goldberg further
notified the Arbitrator that the Guild has decided to withdraw
its proposal to increase the uniform and equipment allowance in
Article 11.4.
Ultimately, the hearing was again rescheduled and it took
place in Kelso, Washington on July 12 and July 13, 2007. The
proceedings began with a pre-hearing conference, in accordance
with WAC 391.55.225 (1) which provides that "The neutral
chairperson may, upon his or her own motion or upon request of a
party, convene a prehearing conference or conferences." At the
pre-hearing conference, the Parties notified the Arbitrator that
they were able to resolve the following issues:
Article 5, Section 5.2
Article 11, Section 11.3, 11.4, 11.7
Article 15, Section 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.5, 15.6
Article 16
The issues remaining before the Arbitrator at the commencement of
the hearing proper were the following:
Article 4, Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.9, and 4.10
Article 6, Sections 6.4, 6.6, 6.7
Article 8, Sections 8.8
Article 14, Sections 14.1, 14.2
Article 18, Sections 18.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.5, 18.6
Appendix A: Salary Schedule
Appendix B: Uniform and Equipment List
New Article: Payroll Dates
While Article 4.10 was listed as an issue in dispute,
neither Party presented a specific proposal, neither did either
Party make an argument on this issue. Therefore, the Arbitrator
determines that there is no remaining dispute over 4.10.
Similarly, The Union's set of proposals (Union Exhibit #2)
contains the existing language on Article 6.6, the Employer's
proposals make no mention of this Article and neither Party
presents argument with regard to this issue. Therefore, the
Arbitrator determines that there is no remaining dispute over
6.6.
At the hearing, both Parties had full opportunity to make
opening statements, examine and cross-examine sworn witnesses,
present documentary evidence, and make arguments in support of
their positions.
RCW 41.56.450 provides that "a recording of the proceedings
shall be taken." In compliance with the statute, an official
transcript of the proceedings was taken, and a copy was provided
to the Arbitrator. At the close of the hearing, the Parties were
given the opportunity to file written briefs. The Parties
accepted, and the due date of August 31, 2007 was set for their
submission. By letter dated August 29, 2007, the Arbitrator
granted the Employer's request to postpone the filing of posthearing
briefs until September 14, 2007. Both Parties timely
submitted the documents and they were received by the Arbitrator
on September 17, 2007. In accordance with WAC 391-55-240, the
Arbitrator declared the hearing closed on September 17, 2007.
The Arbitrator's opinion and awards are submitted on an
issue-by-issue basis. For each issue I will begin by presenting
the Partiesf respective positions, outline the Partiesf arguments
in support of their positions, provide the analysis for the
Arbitrator's opinion and conclude with the award. In that the
issue of wage has serious impact on the consideration of all
other proposed language, I consider it to be the central issue of
the present negotiations. Accordingly, the opinion and award
will begin with Appendix A (Wages) and proceed to address all
other contract language in the order that it is presented in the
Labor Agreement. The Arbitratorf s interest award is based on a
careful analysis of the evidence and argument presented during
the hearing, as well as the arguments found in the written
briefs, and with full consideration of the following factors,
found in RCW 41.56.465:
(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;
(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 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
(2) Subsection (1) (c) of this section may not be construed
to authorize the panel to require the employer to pay,
directly or indirectly, the increased employee contributions
resulting from chapter 502, Laws of 1993 or chapter 517,
Laws of 1993 as required under chapter 41.26 RCW.
POSITIONS, ARGUMENTS, OPINION AND AWARD
ISSUE I: APPENDIX A - WAGES
Current Language: Effective January 1, 2003, all salaries
listed in Appendix A have been increased by
80% of the percentage increase in the CPI-W,
U.S. City Average measured from June 2001 to
June 2002.
Effective January 1, 2004, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by 80% of the percentage increase
in the CPI-W, U.S. City Average measured from
June 2002 to June 2003.
Effective January 1, 2005, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by 80% of the percentage increase
in the CPI-W, U.S. City Average measured from
June 2003 to June 2004.
Guild's Proposal: Effective January 1, 2006, all salaries
listed in Appendix A have been increased by
six percent (6%) .
Effective January 1, 2007, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by six percent (6%).
Effective January 1, 2008, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by the percentage increase in the
CPI-W, U.S. City Average measured from June
2006 to June 2007 minimum 3%, maximum 6%.
County's Proposal: Effective January 1, 2006, all salaries
listed in Appendix A will receive a 2.1%
increase aboie the 2005 level.
Effective January 1, 2007, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will
receive a 2.1% increase above the 2007 level.
Effective January 1, 2008, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by 80% of the percentage increase
in the CPI-W, U.S. City Average measured from
June 2006 to June 2007.
Guild's Position: The issue of determining equitable wages may
be seen as a composite of two questions and the Parties address
each of these separately in their briefs. The first is the
question of which counties provide the most accurate comparables.
The second question concerns the methodology utilized to compute
wages in those counties deemed comparable.
The Guild proposes the following counties as comparables for
Cowlitz: Benton, Grant, Island, Lewis and Skagit. The
legislature sets forth that population and the type of employer
are the only two factors which must be used in the selection of
comparables. It is undisputed that a large disparity in
population will result in a large disparity of base wage
calculations. The Guild has chosen the five Washington counties
which are closest in population to that of Cowlitz County. The
two counties which are larger than Cowlitz, Benton and Skagit,
are mutually agreed upon by the Parties. The issue in dispute is
which smaller counties to use. The Union defends its choice of
Island, Lewis and Skagit on the grounds that these are the
closest in population to Cowlitz County. In support of this
choice, the Union cites the arbitration decision of Michael Beck
(1987). The rational of Arbitrator Beck in selecting comparators
was solely based on considerations of population. In the two
decades since that decision, the population distribution of the
area has changed such that the counties proposed by the Union are
the closest in population to Cowlitz and therefore the most
appropriate. Additionally, all five of the Guild's
recommendations are within an acceptable range of assessed
valuation and of total taxes due, and therefore provide a
balanced estimation of the local labor market.
The Union criticizes the County's argument that the specific
jurisdictions chosen by Arbitrator Beck in 1987 should continue
to be used today. Those comparables which have been historically
used are now outdated and it would be a mistake to regard their
selection as set in stone. As population changes, the rational
used by Arbitrator Beck recommends a different set of
comparables. The Union also criticizes the County's reliance on
Arbitrator Lehleitnerf s decision (1996) , stating that "the
question of what comparators would be appropriate was not part of
Arbitrator Lehleitner decision" (p. 9, Union's brief).
Additionally, the Union anticipates that the County will make a
case against the use of Island County by noting that its high
assessed value makes it a poor comparator to Cowlitz. According
to the Union, total taxes due are a better measure of a local
jurisdiction's ability to pay increased wages. Because Island
County has significantly lower total taxes due, it is not an
unreasonable comparator, especially when one takes into account
that its assessed value is still lower than that of the agreedupon
comparators, Benton and Skagit.
Lastly, the Union takes issue with the County's use of a blended
set of comparables, which it believes should be disregarded
entirely. Because this set is comprised of only two larger
jurisdictions and five smaller ones, the resulting average is
heavily distorted towards the smaller jurisdictions and,
consequently, lower base wages.
The Union believes that its proposed comparators, selected on the
basis of population, give the Arbitrator an accurate picture of
the labor market within which the Guild member finds himself
situated. On the contrary, the County's comparators have been
chosen with an eye towards the smallest counties, "to justify
their economic position. The County comparators have no basis in
economic reality" (p. 10, U's brief).
Once the Arbitrator has settled the question of which counties
are appropriate for comparison for the purpose of determining an
equitable wage increase, the question remains of which Party
carried out the more accurate comparison - that is the question
of methodology. The primary methodological dispute in this case
centers on the incorporation of insurance costs into the analysis
of base wages. After presenting its case for figuring insurance
costs into the analysis, the Union proceeds to criticize the
County's methods on three unrelated points. These are: how paid
leave is accounted for, what benchmarks are appropriate, and
whether comparison should be of hourly or of monthly wages. The
Guild's arguments on these topics may be summarized as follows.
First, the Union takes issue with the County's method of
excluding the costs of health insurance when analyzing the wage
data of comparable jurisdiction. The Union holds that the
analysis required by the RCW must of necessity take into account
total compensation, which includes health insurance. The
County's position that insurance is difficult to calculate should
not prevent the Arbitrator from recognizing the weight of its
importance, especially considering the rapid inflation of
healthcare costs and insurance. The great weight of arbitral
authority prefers total compensation to any form of piecemeal
analysis. The County's reason for seeking to exclude insurance
from the analysis is that Cowlitz pays substantially less than
the comparator jurisdictions for it, while its employees pay
substantially more. At the same time, the County seeks to
justify its offer of only 80% of the CPI by citing rising
insurance costs. It is simply unreasonable to use health
insurance as a component in the determination of salary to be
paid, but to exclude it from the analysis when comparing salaries
across jurisdictions.
Second, the Union argues that there are a number of problems with
the way in which the County accounts for paid leave. The first
of these is a discrepancy between the County's selection of pay
(the first full month of the start of the sixth, eleventh, and
twentieth complete year of service, same as the Union) and the
County's selection of vacation hours (at the start of the fifth,
the tenth, and the twentieth year). This error causes the
numbers generated by the County for the market average to be
artificially low. Another problem with the way in which the
County accounts for paid leave arises in their application of a
net hourly system. In order to arrive at an hourly wage, the
County subtracts vacation and holiday time from total hours
worked and divides the remaining hours into the monthly wage.
That position is invalid because not all of that leave is taken
and both Cowlitz and its comparator counties have some form of
buy-back for time not taken. Because employees can sell their
unused paid time off, vacation and holiday benefits are clearly
cash benefits and have a very real cash value. "The better
methodology is to calculate the vacation and a total value for
holiday time and add that to the net wage. This provides a more
accurate picture not only of the cost of compensation to the
employer, but also the value of the compensation received by the
employee" (p. 15, U's brief).
Third, the Union takes issue with the County's reliance on the
eleven year benchmark in presenting its case. The Union argues
that no demographic benchmark, especially not one based on
averages, makes any sense when we lack the demographic
information of comparator jurisdictions. An apples-to-apples
comparison is only possible with standardized benchmarks, used
consistently throughout the industry. The use of the eleven year
benchmark is simply convenient for the County, as it highlights
its highest compensation position.
Lastly, the Union advocates a month to month comparison, over the
hourly comparison generated by the County. The monthly wage is
more appropriate because employees are paid by the month, in
Cowlitz as well as comparator counties, and not by the hour. An
hourly comparison is unreliable, as the number of hours worked in
any given month varies tremendously due to the structure of the
schedule. In order to account for the fact that Cowlitz
employees do work fewer hours per month, the Union has created an
adjusted forty hour schedule base wage.
Before proceeding to summarize its analysis, the Guild makes a
correction to its data regarding paid leave for Grant County.
Readjusting the numbers reduces the aggregate deficiency for all
four benchmarks of Cowlitz Deputies to 8.5% behind for 2006
rather than 9.4% behind.
The Guild concludes that the appropriate comparable
jurisdictions, when analyzed using the appropriate methodology,
establish that the Deputies of Cowlitz County were substantially
behind the market for all four benchmarks as of January 1, 2006.
The disparity is between 6.3% (at five years) to 9.3% (at fifteen
years), the average being 8.5%. The Guildf s request for a 6%
wage increase is entirely reasonable, given these numbers. For
2007, the Guild applied a cost of living escalator, revealing
that Cowlitz Deputies would be on average 12.4% behind. The
County failed to make any adjustment for 2007, thereby skewing
their data downward. The use of a CPI escalator is the approach
preferred by arbitrators, because making no adjustment amounts to
accepting the very unlikely assumptions that comparator employers
would not increase their wages at all for 2007. For 2008, the
Guild argues for 100% of the US All Cities CPI with a 3% minimum
and a 6% maximum. The justification for this is that a salary
increase equal to the CPI merely maintains an employee's current
purchasing power. A reduction in the wage increase results in a
real loss of purchasing power for the employee, especially in
Cowlitz County where housing costs are rising much more quickly
than the national average reflected by the CPI. The Countyfs
justification for 80% of the CPI is that they would be
potentially facing rising health insurance costs. This change is
speculative and, if it does occur, would not result in the
employee saving any money. "There are simply no justifications
for reducing an increase below the cost of living" (U's brief,
pg. 20.)
The Union concludes its written arguments by drawing the
Arbitrator's attention to the fact that, by the time the
Arbitration award is rendered, employees will have gone without
pay adjustments in over twenty-one months and some have retired.
Both the Guild and the County have proposed retroactive pay
increases beginning in January 1, 2006. The Guild asks that
retirees not be denied the benefits of those increases.
County's Position: The Employer proposes the following counties
as comparables for Cowlitz: Benton, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Lewis
and Skagit. The primary justification behind this choice is that
it is a matter of past practice. Since the Beck decision in
1987, the County has used these comparables to negotiate wages
with all of its bargaining and non-represented employees. In
1996, Arbitrator Lehleitner reaffirmed the use of these
comparables, rejecting the Union's proposal to alter the set.
All of these comparators fall within the acceptable range of
population and assessed value, as well as assessed valuation per
capita. The Guild has shown no need to change them, as it should
have attempted to do in good faith negotiations. Plus, unlike
the County, which has been consistent in its choice of
Interest Arbitration between Cowlitz County and Cowlitz County Deputies Guild: Page 15
comparators, the Union has twice changed its proposed comparators
during negotiations.
Aside from the question of comparables, the County puts forth
arguments in defense of its wage calculations on the basis of
methodology. As noted above, the question of whether health
insurance is to be figured into wage calculations is the major
point of dispute here. The County argues against the inclusion
of insurance in the comparison. The County also believes that a
close look at the Guild's insurance numbers render their entire
set of calculations inaccurate.
The Employer devotes a considerable portion of its arguments to
the issue of health insurance costs and contributions. The
County begins by outlining the Partiesf Letter of Understanding
of March 2007 regarding contributions to health and life
insurance and the numerous insurance plan options available to
employees. Although there are plans that require monthly
employee contributions, the County focuses on the observation
that "[tlhe average actual contribution per bargaining unit
employee is extremely low ... the County paid over 98% of the
bargaining unit's total health, dental, and life insurance costs
in 2006, and over 95% of those costs in 2007" (E's brief, pg.4-
5)
The Employer also takes issue with the Union's computations of
employee insurance contributions, specifically with the Guild's
"take away" item of $407.97 per person per month. This
hypothetical number renders the Union's analysis entirely
inaccurate, argues the County, because guild members actually pay
much less for their insurance than the projection indicates.
Such a "take away" is not a standard item on wage proposals and,
generally, health insurance contributions are not included in
salary proposals between the County and its represented
employees. "The Guildfs use of an inflated, non-representative
value for individual insurance contributions skews every one of
the Guild's salary computations and calls their overall value
into question" (p. 11). Another source of inaccuracy in the
Guild's numbers is the fact that Cowlitz County uses a combined,
rather than a tiered, system to compute insurance costs, and this
is not the practice in the comparator counties.
The Arbitrator should disregard the Unionfs computations of
comparable salaries because these figures include employee
contribution amounts which are greatly at odds with reality.
"The Guild did not submit any evidence that its numbers for
employee and employer insurance contributions in the comparator
counties is actually an apples-to-apples comparison "(E's brief,
pg. 12). Instead, the Arbitrator should accept the County's
computations of comparable salaries, which exclude health
insurance from wage calculations.
The County argues that in order for the present analysis of
comparable wages to be accurate, health insurance must be
excluded from the calculation. This is because the Parties have
already settled the matter of health insurance payments in a
manner which provides for substantial increases in the County's
insurance benefits contribution. Additionally, health insurance
costs and benefits are notoriously difficult to calculate and the
numbers provided by the Guild are based on woefully insufficient
data. Many arbitrators, including Arbitrator Beck in his 1987
decision, decline to factor health insurance into wage comparison
precisely due to the difficulty of establishing a valid
comparison on the grounds of health insurance design, costs, and
coverage. In the present case, the Union hasn't even attempted
an apples-to-apples comparison, instead positing an impossible
"take away" number in order to artificially lower the Cowlitz
Deputiesf wage calculations. " [TI he Guildf s unrealistic
inflation of the deputiesf health insurance contributions make
its calculations unkeliable if not meaningless" (Ef s brief, pg.
29).
Additionally, the Employer takes issue with the Guild's wage
comparison charts and computations due to an erroneous vacation
figure for Grant County. The Guild posits 231.96 hours per year
for Grant County Deputies, but their yearly maximum is actually
176 hours, undercutting the validity of all of the Guild's
calculations.
The Employer concludes that "[t]he County's wage proposal should
be adopted because it is reasonable, fair, well supported, and
puts the County at or above the average compensation for the
comparators (including the two new comparator counties proposed
by the Guild) " (E's brief, pg. 25) while "[t]he Guild's proposal
not only far exceeds all the averages, it also exceeds the hourly
compensation for each an everyone of the seven proposed
comparator counties" (E's brief, pg. 10) . With few exceptions,
all permutations of years of service and education level, the
County's offer is above average. The offer of 80% rather than
100% of the CPI is both fair and reasonable as it results in
above-average wages while, at the same time, accounting for the
significant contributions the County makes to employee's health
insurance costs. The factor of 80% is consistent with the
negotiated 2003-2005 labor contract. Additionally, arbitrators
have previously held that less than the full CPI increase is
reasonable where employer contributions protect the employee from
fluctuations in the CPI, as is the present case with rising
healthcare costs.
Award APPENDIX A - WAGES
Effective January 1, 2006, all salaries
listed in Appendix A will receive a 4%
increase above the 2005 level.
Effective January 1, 2007, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will
receive a 3% increase above the 2007 level.
Effective January 1, 2008, all
classifications listed in Appendix A will be
increased by 80% of the percentage increase
in the CPI-W, U.S. City Average measured from
June 2006 to June 2007.
The above wage increases are fully
retroactive with each bargaining unit member
to receive additional compensation equal to
the difference between what he or she has
been paid and what he or she would have been
paid under the above wage structure. In the
event that a bargaining unit member would
have received additional compensation
(performed work after January 1, 2006) but
for the fact that he or she left employment,
the County will make a reasonable effort to
locate the individual and provide whatever
additional compensation is owing.
Arbitrator's Analysis: Most of the Parties arguments focus on
the issue of the appropriate comparators and, therefore, that is
where the Arbitrator's analysis will begin.
The Arbitrator finds that Benton, Skagit, Grant, Lewis and Grays
Harbor are the appropriate comparators for Cowlitz County. In
arriving at this conclusion he agrees with the Guild that it is
the logic of the Michael Beck decision (Employer #9) more than
the results that are important.
On the other hand, the Arbitrator agrees with the Employer's
conclusion that Island County is not a good comparator. The
first point that led to this conclusion includes the fact that
Island County is immediately adjacent to King County,
Washington's largest population center including the cities of
Seattle, Bellevue and Redmond. Cowlitz County and the other
comparators do not share this relationship; none of them are
immediately adjacent to a major metropolitan area. The second
point of importance is the fact that the major employer in Island
County is the Federal Government by way of the Whidbey Island
Naval Air Station (Employer #23), a fact which also has an impact
on the economic conditions of the county. Moreover, a review of
the data provided by the Guild shows a substantial difference
between Island County and the other comparators including Cowlitz
County when looking at total taxes due compared to assessed value
(divide assessed value by total taxes due) -- .000775 for Island
County to -00169 for the 6 County average (Guild # 7 ) .
Ultimately, it is the Arbitrator's conclusion that Island County,
while a good comparator in terms of population size, is a poor
comparator when considering economic factors.
As to the choice of Grays Harbor County, the Parties have
traditionally used five comparators which included Grays Harbor.
Also, Grays Harbor is part of the set of five that are the
closest in population size to Cowlitz County (leaving out Island
County); two larger and three smaller. Moreover, Lewis County is
immediately adjacent with Cowlitz County and Grays Harbor
immediately adjacent to Lewis County. Geographic proximity
combined with similar population size makes Grays Harbor County a
logical addition to the other four.
Having determined the five comparators, the Arbitrator is now
left with the difficult task of determining what those
comparators actually show. The key question is how the
compensation provided by Cowlitz County to this bargaining unit
stacks up against the compensation provided by the comparators.
Compensation is provided in many forms which makes the
mathematics of a comparison challenging. A significant point of
disagreement between the Parties involves whether The Employer's
contributions to medical insurance ought be included in the
comparison; the Employer says no and the Guild says yes.
The Arbitrator is in agreement with the Union on this point. The
medical insurance premium is a major part of an employee's
compensation. While a precise comparison is difficult since
medical insurance takes many forms and at numerous cost
structures(fn:1), as the Employer argues, it is the Arbitrator's
conclusion that the disadvantages of not including it are greater
than the problems around the preciseness of the comparison.
________________
fn:1 For example, the Evidence indicates that Cowlitz County has fourteen
different insurance packages all of which have been different price tag.
Thus, how do you arrive at a single number to be used for comparison purposes?
Ultimately the choice was simply to use the Employer's maximum contribution; a
good choice but certainly not without its inaccuracies.
In the final analysis, the Arbitrator chose to use Guild exhibit
10 to make a final determination. However, he made two
modifications: 1) substitute Grays Harbor County for Island
County, 2) use the figure $86.26 instead of $406.97 for Cowlitz
County under the column InsER. A look at Employer exhibit 33
indicates that the largest contribution by an employee for
medical insurance in 2006 was $86.26. Since no employee ever
contributed towards medical insurance a figure anywhere close to
$406.96, it is the Arbitrator's conclusion that the data needed
to be adjusted to what was actually happening.
The Arbitrator further concludes that when the above adjustments
are made, the gap between compensation in Cowlitz County and
comparator compensation is substantially narrowed. For example,
on the page for five years of service the adjusted base for
Cowlitz County is not $5448.65 but rather $5770.36 (Guild # ) .
In the final analysis the Arbitrator finds that there is some
lack of comparability at the higher levels of the salary schedule
and based on this conclusion he is awarding a 4% increase for
2006. The 3% that is awarded for 2007 is a "keeping pace" figure
based on projections with regard to the comparators and cost of
living.
As to 2008 wages, the Arbitrator is convinced by Employer
arguments that the 80% figure applied to the cost of living is
both consistent with past practice and reasonable given a $50.00
increase in the Employer's contribution towards medical
insurance.
Finally, the Arbitrator is in agreement with the Unionfs
arguments with regard to full retroactive pay both for employees
on the current payroll and for those who have separated from
service since January 1, 2006 - the effective date of the
collective bargaining agreement.
ISSUE II: ARTICLE 4 - HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME
Article 4.1
Current Language: Hours of work - Patrol - Patrol employees
shall work ten (10) hour shifts. The work
shifts shall be 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for
day shift patrol. The work shifts for night
shift patrol shall be 5:00 p.m. t o 3:00 a.m.
or 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Sergeants shall
work either 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for day
shift or 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. for night
shift. The workweek is defined as Sunday
through Saturday. Patrol shall work;
four (4) days on then three (3) days off;
four (4) days on then three (3) days off;
four (4) days on then four (4) days off;
six (6) days on then four (4) days off;
four (4) days on then three (3) days off;
four (4) days on then three (3) days off;
Four (4) days on then six (6) days off
After two ( 2 ) complete cycles, a day shift to
night shift & night shift to day shift
rotation will occur at the end of the six
days off.
County's Proposal: Hours of Work - Patrol - Patrol employees
shall work ten (10) hour shifts. The work
shifts may be 6:00 a.m. t o 4:00 p.m., 8:00
a.m. t o 6:00 p.m., 10:OO a.m. t o 8:00 p.m.
for day shift patrol. The work shifts for
night shift patrol may be 5 p.m. t o 3:00 a.m.
or 8:00 p.m. t o 6:00 a.m. Sergeants may work
either 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for day shift
or 4:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. for night shift.
The workweek is defined as Sunday through
Saturday. Patrol may work:
four (4) days on then three (3) days off
four (4) days on then three (3) days off
four (4) days on then four (4) days off
six (6) days on then four (4) days off
four (4) days on then three (3) days off
four (4) days on then three (3) days off
four (4) days on then six (6) days off
The 2001 calendar is attached to this
Agreement as Appendix C
After two (2) complete cycles, a day shift to
night shift & night shift to dayshift
rotation, will occur at the end of the six
days off.
Guild's Proposal: No change.
County's Position: The County proposes language which would give
the Sheriff additional flexibility in making schedule changes.
Capitan Nelson's undisputed testimony is that the present
situation is problematic. Existing restrictions on schedule
changes create staffing shortages at peak times and at special
projects. Unnecessary overtime is created when the County calls
people in early or holds them late to deal with emergency
staffing needs. Sergeants on the front lines are made to handle
the additional burden of calling in employees. The Countyfs
proposal alleviates all of these problems.
Guild's Position: Adopting the County's language would have a
severe impact on the lives of the employees through complete
destabilization to their schedules. By changing the word "shall"
to "may", the Sheriff could create shifts with irregular start
times, require split shifts, or alter the work week, which is
currently defined in Article 4.1. "It would basically eliminate
any scheduling protection whatsoever. As such, the County bears
the burden of proof" (U's brief, pg. 26). The Guild believes
that the County fails to meet its burden due to lack of
compelling evidence. The County has not shown that calls have
gone unanswered or that moving Deputies would solve any serious
problems. At the same time, moving one employee to cover a hole
in the schedule creates a hole elsewhere. The County failed to
show that the significant change to the employeesf conditions of
employment would have a positive result on law enforcement. As
such, the change is not warranted.
Article 4.2
Current Language: Except by mutual consent, employees assigned
to non patrol positions shall work 7:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday or
Tuesday through Friday. Provided mountain
patrol will work Thursday through Sunday
except by mutual agreement. The task force
deputy will work Monday through Friday 2:00
p.m. through 10:OO p.m. except by mutual
consent. In order to equalize hours of work
with patrol an average calculation of the
annual hours of work will occur. This number
of hours will be calculated by averaging the
number of hours of scheduled for patrol teams
AC and BD, then adjusting the hours of non
patrol personnel to match that average. Non
patrol personnel by January lSt will submit a
schedule of desired days off to their
sergeant for approval. Once approved the
schedules will be submitted to the Sheriff's
administration. Such days off must be used
within the quarter scheduled (January -
March, April -June, July-September, October-
December). The adjusted days off may be used
at anytime within the quarter earned.
However, if an assignment change occurs any
extra days used and not yet earned will be
deducted from the employee's vacation
account, compensatory account, or result in
loss of pay if no time off balances are
present. These extra days off may be moved
within the calendar quarter by mutual
consent. Such movement shall not create any
overtime nor cause the employee any loss of
pay or benefit. If unused days off exist
during the last two weeks of the quarter, the
employee must use them or lose them. Such
loss will not generate compensatory time or
overtime. An extension of extra days into
the next quarter may be granted with
administrative approval. The DARE deputy
shall be allowed to place his/her extra days
off at mutually agreed dates throughout the
entire year.
County's Proposal: Except by mutual consent, of the employee and
administration, employees assigned to non
patrol or special patrol assignment (e.g: E
Team) may work 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday or Tuesday through Friday.
The task force deputy will work Monday
through Friday 2:00 p.m. through 10:OO p.m.
except by mutual consent. In order to
equalize hours of work with patrol an average
calculation of the annual hours of work will
occur. This number of hours will be
calculated by averaging the number of hours
of scheduled for patrol teams AC and BD, then
adjusting the hours of non patrol personnel
to match that average. Non patrol personnel
by January lSt will submit a schedule of
desired days off to their sergeant for
approval. Once approved the schedules will
be submitted to the Sheriff's administration.
Such days off must be used within the quarter
scheduled (January - March, April -Junef
July-September, October-December). The
adjusted days off may be used at anytime
within the quarter earned. However, if an
assignment change occurs any extra days used
and not yet earned will be deducted from the
employee's vacation account, compensatory
account, or result in loss of pay if no time
off balances are present. These extra days
off may be mobbed within the calendar quarter
by mutual consent. Such movement shall not
create any overtime nor cause the employee
any loss of pay or benefit. If unused days
off exist during the last two weeks of the
quarter, the employee must use them or lose
them. Such loss will not generate
compensatory time or overtime. An extension
of extra days into the next quarter may be
granted with administrative approval. The
DARE deputy shall be allowed to place his/her
extra days off at mutually agreed dates
throughout the entire year. The Sheriff
shall establish work schedules and hours of
work for deputies, who are paid fully or in
part, through an agreement with any
government agency, governmental department,
or private entity in order to fulfill
contractual obligations.
Guild's Proposal: No Change
County's Position: See County's Position for Article 4.1.
Guild's Position: The County's proposed changed from "shall" to
"may" is a drastic change in the present practice which is not
justified by the evidence presented. What has been shown is that
whenever the need arose to adjust an employee's schedule for a
specific purpose, that individual has been agreeable. Likewise,
whenever the County has reached agreements for privately or
governmentally funded positions, the Guild has been agreeable to
entering into the appropriate MOU for scheduling. "In fact it
appears that all of the Counties Article 4 provisions are
intended to punish the Guild for going to Arbitration over wages.
That is the County has presented no evidence of an operational
necessity for such a radical change in the accepted practice" (p.
29, U's brief).
Article 4.7
Current Language: Training Days. Every effort will be made to
schedule training at least (14) fourteen or
more days in advance of occurring. Training
which is posted (14) fourteen or more days
before it occurs shall be considered the
employee's assigned shift for that day. If
such scheduled training is cancelled within
(14) fourteen days of occurring and no other
training is substituted, the employee has the
option, with approval of affected
supervisors, of either working the scheduled
training hours for that day (usually 077-
1700) or move back to their regular shift
hours.
County's Proposal: Notification of training shall be made at
least by the end of the employees regularly
scheduled workweek, prior to training.
Training in which posting or other
notification was made by the end of the
employees regularly scheduled work week shall
be considered the employee's assigned shift
for that day. The Sheriff shall determine
the days and hours of such training. If the
scheduled training is cancelled after the end
of the employees last regularly scheduled
workweek, and no other training is
substituted, the employee shall work their
regular shift hours.
Guild's Proposal: No Change.
County's Position: The Employer's basic position is that the
above change is operationally effective since
it provides that employees will work their
regular shifts when a training activity is
cancelled and thus allows the Employer to
avoid having to arrange for substitute
activity.
Guild's Position: The schedule set forth in Article 4.1
provides for overlap days, Thursdays, which
are typically used for training. The
County's proposed language would eliminate
the option for employees to stay on their
scheduled shift when occasionally training
does not take place. The County's concern,
that everyone would elect to stay, is
baseless. Once again, the County is
proposing a change without any evidence to
support the need to change the status quo.
Article 4.9
Current Language: None
Guild's Position: Green-time. Employees shall be allowed a
rest period of eight (8) hours from the time
they are released from any type of work
related assignment to the start of their
shift without loss of any paid time.
County's Proposal: No change
Guild's Position: The purpose for providing Deputies with eight
hours of free time between work activities is clear: to provide
adequate rest. The dangers and demands of law enforcement are
made more strenuous by sleep deprivation and on-the-job
exhaustion. Common sense as well as scientific studies tell us
that our, as well as our deputiesf, judgment is significantly
impaired by lack of rest. At the present time the only option
available to a Deputy who is too tired to work is to use vacation
time or sick leave. The County does not believe that mere
fatigue warrants the use of sick leave. The question then
becomes should a Deputy Sheriff have to burn their vacation or
compensatory time in order to insure that they get adequate rest,
when the reason that they are tired, is that they were performing
work for the employer" (Uf s brief, pg. 25) .
County's Position: The novel "green time" proposal would mean
that the County would pay employees for time that they do not
work. The justification for this proposal is that it would
increase safety and performance. However, the Guild has
presented no evidence to the effect that fatigue is a salient
problem for Cowlitz County Deputies recently. None of the
comparator counties have such a provision. "The Guild has not
met its burden of persuading the Arbitrator that there is an
actual problem to be remedied, or that a novel green time
allowance would be a reasonable and appropriate remedy" (p. 34
E's brief).
Award ARTICLE 4 - HOURS OF WORK AND OVERTIME
The Arbitrator directs the Parties to
maintain the language found in the prior
agreement on Articles 4.1, 4.2 and 4.7.
The Arbitrator does not grant the Union's
request for a new provision on "Green Time"
Arbitrator's Analysis: Most of the Parties arguments focus on
the desire of the Employer to substitute the word "may" for the
word "will." While the Employer raises some reasonable arguments
around staffing needs and the realities of a small department, in
the Arbitrator's view the proposed change is seriously flawed.
The primary problem with the proposal is that it makes the
language meaningless. When the language reads that employees
will have a certain schedule it means that the employees know
when they will be working. When the language is changed to say
that the employees may work a schedule it provides the
possibility of when work will be done but leaves open the fact
that the employees may also work any number of other
alternatives. If the Sheriff is to be permitted to set and reset
the schedule at any time, then there is no reason to have the
language in the agreement. The Arbitrator does not believe that
this is the Employer's purpose but it is the outcome of the
proposed change in language; no restrictions on the setting and
resetting of the schedule. Thus the Employer's proposal is
rejected by the Arbitrator.
The Union's Green-time proposal is intriguing, appears to have
some merit and is not supported by the comparables. While the
Arbitrator basically agrees with the Union that an officer needs
eight hours for rest between active duty assignments, he cannot
support the proposed language as it places the Employer in the
position of paying employees for not reporting to work. If there
is a continuing problem around the issue of too little sleep,
then there must be a better answer than the Union's proposal.
The Arbitrator urges the Parties to continue to study the
problem.
ISSUE III: ARTICLE 6 - VACATIONS
Article 6.4
Current Language: Vacation leave shall accumulate to a total of
two hundred forty-eight (248) hours, after
which time, if no leave is taken, no
additional leave shall be credited. That is,
an employee at no time shall have more than
two hundred forty-eight (248) hours of
accumulated vacation leave due, unless
extended by the Employer.
Guild's Proposal: Vacation leave shall accumulate to a total of
three hundred (300) hours, after which time,
if no leave is taken, no additional leave
shall be credited. That is, an employee at
no time shall have more than three hundred
(300) hours of accumulated vacation leave
due, unless extended by the Employer.
County's Proposal: No change.
Guild's Position: "The Guilds proposal for increase in the
vacation accumulation is supported by an
analysis of the comparable jurisdictions. As
Exhibit G-14 obtained reflects, Cowlitz
County is 57.2% behind the comparable
jurisdictions in vacation and holiday hours"
(U's brief, pg. 30).
County's Position: The Guild proposed on average a 19.7%
increase in vacation hours per month without -
any economic or performance rational for
support. The County does not propose any
change to the vacation schedule because it is
already meeting its goal of being "in the
middle of the pack" with regard to comparator
counties. "The Guild has not shown that its
membersf vacation is inadequate or below
average for any of the comparators, whether
proposed by the Guild or by the County.
Taking into account the actual scheduled
hours of work per month, monthly vacation
hours, and monthly holiday hours, the
benchmark County deputy [works less] " (E's
brief, pg. 34).
6.7
Current Language: The provisions of this Article are not
applicable to persons regularly working less
than twenty-one (21) hours per week, or to
persons in temporary, intermittent, or
occasional employment status.
BONUS LEAVE
Section 1
Bonus vacation days shall be granted to the employees and
credited to their account on the anniversary date of employment
and in accordance with the vacation schedule shown below.
VACATION SCHEDULE
| Number of Years of Employment Completed |
Vacation Hrs Earned |
Bonus Hours | Total Hours of Vacation Earned Per Year |
| 1 | 96 | 8 | 104 |
| 2 | 96 | 16 | 112 |
| 3 | 96 | 32 | 128 |
| 4 | 96 | 32 | 128 |
| 5 | 96 | 40 | 136 |
| 6 | 96 | 40 | 136 |
| 7 | 96 | 40 | 136 |
| 8 | 96 | 40 | 136 |
| 9 | 96 | 40 | 136 |
| 10 | 96 | 48 | 144 |
| 11 | 96 | 56 | 152 |
| 12 | 96 | 64 | 160 |
| 13 | 96 | 64 | 160 |
| 14 | 96 | 72 | 168 |
| 15 | 96 | 72 | 168 |
| 16 | 96 | 80 | 176 |
| 17 | 96 | 80 | 176 |
| 18 & over | 96 | 88 | 184 |
| Number of Years of Employment Completed |
Vacation Hrs Earned |
Bonus Hours | Total Hours of Vacation Earned Per Year |
| 1 | 126 | 8 | 134 |
| 2 | 126 | 16 | 142 |
| 3 | 126 | 32 | 158 |
| 4 | 126 | 32 | 166 |
| 5 | 126 | 40 | 166 |
| 6 | 126 | 40 | 166 |
| 7 | 126 | 40 | 166 |
| 8 | 126 | 40 | 166 |
| 9 | 126 | 40 | 166 |
| 10 | 126 | 48 | 174 |
| 11 | 126 | 56 | 182 |
| 12 | 126 | 64 | 190 |
| 13 | 126 | 64 | 190 |
| 14 | 126 | 72 | 198 |
| 15 | 126 | 72 | 198 |
| 16 | 126 | 80 | 206 |
| 17 | 126 | 80 | 206 |
| 18 & over | 126 | 88 | 214 |
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.