INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN

WHITMAN COUNTY DEPUTY	)
SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION	)	INTEREST ARBITRATION
	)	OPINION AND AWARD
and	)
	)
WHITMAN COUNTY	)

PERC Case No. 17193-I-03-0396

Janet L. Gaunt
Arbitrator


June 18,2004

For the Association:	For the County:
Steven Schuback, Esq.	Brian M. Werst, Esq
Garrettson, Goldberg, Fenrich & Makler	Stamper, Rubens, Stocker & Smith, P.S.
638 NE 5th Street	720 West Boone, Suite 200
McMinnville, OR 97128	Spokane, WA 99201

[ REMOVED TABLE OF CONTENTS ]

WITNESS LIST

For the Association:

Jack Eastep, Deputy Sheriff, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
Mike Bogenreif, Deputy Sheriff, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
John Guidice, Deputy Sheriff, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
Ron Rockness, Undersheriff, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
Chris Chapman, Sergeant, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
Brett Myers, Sheriff, Whitman County Sheriffs Office
Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst, Garrettson Goldberg Fenrich & Makler

For the County:

Kelli Campbell, Human Resources Director, Whitman County
John Peterson, Administrative Services Director, Whitman County
Gary Hunt, Labor Consultant, Andrew Hunt & Associates LLC

I. BACKGROUND

Whitman County ("County") is a rural, agricultural county situated on the southeastern border of Washington State, adjacent to the State of Idaho. In 2003, the County had a population of 41,000. The Sheriffs Department ("Department") consists of an elected Sheriff (Brett Myers), an Undersheriff (Ron Rockness), 13 commissioned officers, and a number of reserve officers. The Department's workforce is quite experienced, averaging over nine years of service. Five members of the Department have been employed for ten years or more.

The Department has primary jurisdiction over unincorporated areas and certain smaller towns in the County.(fn:1) Approximately 8035 persons reside within those areas. Department officers serve in a backup role to police departments in the larger cities and towns in the County as well as for Washington State University ("WSU").(fn:2) Sixty-five percent of the County's total population live in Pullman or at WSU, which have large law enforcement agencies of their own.(fn:3) The Whitman County Deputy Sheriffs' Association ("Association") serves as the certified bargaining representative for a unit of thirteen commissioned officers, including four sergeants and nine deputies. The deputies were formerly affiliated with Teamsters Union Local 690. They opted to decertify that union in December 1998, and the Association was certified as the bargaining unit's new representa- tive in January 1999. A collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") that expired on December 31, 2001 was the first one negotiated between the County and the Association.

	fn:1	The smaller towns without their own law enforcement departments include Albion, Colton, Tekoa and Union Town.
	fn:2	These localities include Colfax, Palouse, Pullman, and Rosalia.
	fn:3	Pullman has 26 commissioned officers. WSU has 17 commissioned officers.

In February 2002, the County and Association began bargaining over the terms of a successor contract. They bargained to impasse regarding a number of issues that were then certified for interest arbitration by the Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). This interest arbitration was initiated in accord with RCW 41.56.450 to settle those unresolved issues. Initially, nine issues were certified for interest arbitration by the PERC Executive Director. Prior to the arbitration hearing, the parties resolved four of those issues.(fn:4) The issues remaining are:

Article 8 - Overtime
Article 11 - Insurance
Article 16 - Wages
New Article - FTO Premium Pay
Article 23 - Contract Duration

fn:4

The settled issues were Article 9 (Holidays), Article 10 (Uniforms and Equipment), Article 15 (Expenses), and Article 20 (Association Business).

On March 3, 2004, an arbitration hearing was conducted in Colfax, Washington. The parties agreed to submit their dispute to this sole Arbitrator for resolution, and waived the statutory provision for a partisan panel. The Association's case was presented by Steven Schuback of Garrettson, Goldberg, Fenrich & Makler. Brian M. Werst of Stamper, Rubens, Stocker & Smith represented by the County. During the hearing, each party had an opportunity to make opening statements, submit documentary evidence, examine and cross- examine witnesses (who testified under oath), and argue the issues in dispute. The hearing was recorded by a court reporter, and a transcript provided for the Arbitrator's use. The parties elected to make closing arguments in the form of posthearing briefs, the last of which was received on May 10, 2004. Because the Arbitrator was sent an incomplete record by the court reporter, the parties waived the statutory requirement that a decision be issued within thirty (30) days of the hearing's closure.

II. APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS

The Arbitrator's authority arises out of RCW 4 1.56, which prescribes binding arbitration for public employers and uniformed personnel upon declaration by the PERC that an impasse in bargaining exists. Relevant provisions of the Washington statutes read as follows:

RCW 41.56.030. Definitions. As used in this chapter: * * * * (7) "Uniformed personnel" means: (a) Law enforcement officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030 . . . . employed by the governing body of any county with a population of ten thousand or more; . . . . [2002 c 99 §2]. RCW 41.56.430. Uniformed personnel-Legislative declaration. The intent and purpose of chapter 131, Laws of 1973 is to recognize that there exists a public policy in the state of Washington against strikes by uniformed personnel as a means of settling their labor disputes; that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of the state of Washington; that to promote such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of settling disputes. [1993 c 131 §1] RCW 41.56.465. Uniformed personnel--Interest arbitration panel--Determinations--Factors to be considered. (1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful of the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 4 1.56.430 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 4 1.56.030(7)(a) through (d), comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of like personnel of like employers of similar size on the west coast of the United States; * * * * (d) The average consumer prices for good and services, commonly known as the cost of living; (e) Changes in any of the circumstances under (a) through (d) of this subsection during the pendency of the proceedings; and (f) Such other factors, not confined to the factors under (a) through (e) of this subsection, that are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment. For those employees listed in RCW 4 1.56.030(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 (l)(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. [1995 c 273 2; 1993 c 398 3.]

A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL/ STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE EMPLOYER

Neither party has made any allegation that the proposals of the other party exceed or are otherwise affected by the constitutional and statutory authority of the County.

B. STIPULATIONS OF THE PARTIES

Stipulations that relate to particular proposals are discussed sections of this decision that deal with those proposals.

C. COMPARABLE EMPLOYERS

One of the statutory criteria which this Arbitrator must consider is the comparison of wages, hours and conditions of "like personnel of like employers of similar sue on the west coast of the United States." The statute requires the use of comparable employers within the state of Washington if an adequate number of in-state comparable employers exists. Both sides further agree that compara- tors should be chosen from jurisdictions located in Eastern Washington State. The governing statute does not define how "similar size" is to be determined. To select its proposed comparators, the Association focused on population and geography, and used a range of 50% to 200% of the County's population. The County used a range of 50% to 150% for both population and assessed value.

1. Agreed Comparables

The parties have agreed that the following Washington counties are properly used as comparables for the purpose of RCW 45.56.465(c)(1):

Douglas
Franklin
Kittitas
Okanogan
Stevens
Walla Walla

2. Disputed Comparables

The parties each seek to add one additional county to the foregoing list.

Association Proposal: The Association proposes adding Grant County to the list of comparables, and objects to including Asotin as causing too imbalanced a list of comparators. If Grant County is added to the six agreed comparators, the Association contends the list will be properly balanced with three counties that are smaller than Whitman and three that are larger. Adding Asotin instead of Grant County, leaves an unbalanced list. with five smaller counties and only two that are larger. Adding both Asotin and Grant still leaves a list biased toward smaller counties.

The County's attempt to focus on only unincorporated population for the purpose of choosing comparators should be rejected as contrary to statute. The only "apples to apples" comparison between counties is to compare the entire population of those counties. Any suggestion that Whitman County deputies have less work because incorporated cities handle their own law enforcement is inaccurate. The County's own Sheriff testified that the workload of Whitman deputies is increased, not reduced, by the presence of cities within the County's geographic limits.

Grant County's assessed valuation is high, but population should be the primary consideration. Moreover, Grant County is located in close geographic proximity to Whitman. The importance of a balanced set of comparators is crucial to meeting the intent of the statute, so Grant County should be included to ensure that balance.

County Proposal: The County proposes the inclusion of Asotin County. The Association's own economic analyst conceded that assessed valuation is sometimes used by arbitrators in making a comparability analysis. The Association looked only at population and geography, but assessed valuation should be included. For both population and assessed valuation, Asotin falls within the range advocated by the Association. Moreover, Asotin directly borders the County so that close geographic proximity further supports inclusion.

The Association's economic analyst admitted that the applicable numbers for Grant County in the comparability analysis are "a little large." Grant County exceeds the 50- 150% range for both population and assessed value, and should be rejected for that reason. There is no statutory requirement to have the same number of jurisdictions below the 100% threshold as are above it. So long as a jurisdiction falls within the 50% to 150% threshold, it is a sufficiently "like employer" for comparison purposes.

Discussion and Findings: The selection of comparable jurisdictions is a process fraught with imprecision. As one of my colleagues has accurately observed: "The interest arbitrator faces the problem of making 'apples to apples' comparisons on the basis of imperfect choices and sometimes incomplete data." City of Pasco and Pasco Police Officers Association, 10 (Wilkinson, 1994). Five comparable jurisdictions is generally considered the minimum number necessary to make valid comparisons. My own preference is to have at least seven, but not at the expense of adding inappropriate jurisdictions.

There are certainly some interest arbitration awards that have focused on population and not assessed valuation when selecting comparable jurisdictions, but it is far more common to use both population and assessed valuation.

There are so many arbitration awards that have considered only population and assessed valuation as a measure of size that no citation is needed. These awards have spanned many decades without any correction from the Legislature or the courts. Thus, I emphasize that it is both usual and appropriate to confine one's inquiry to the population and assessed valuation indicators (with consideration also given to geographic proximity), as is seen from many interest arbitration adjudications.

City of Camas and IAFF Local 2444, PERC No. 16303-I-02-0380 (Wilkinson, 2003). "Certainly, any proposed comparable which is strikingly dissimilar in respect to assessed valuation, . . . , is not likely to be given much weight." City of Mukilteo and IAFF, PERC No. 16378-I-02-00382 (Lankford, 2002).

The most traditional range used by interest arbitrators for determining "similar size" has been the one used by the County, i.e., minus 50% to 150%. Although the 50% to 150% screen is the most prevalent one, arbitrators have occasionally broadened that range up to 200% when necessary to obtain a sufficient number of comparables. See, e.g., City of Pullman, PERC No. 12399-I- 96-0296 (Gaunt, 1997) (upper limit of just under 200% used because of lack of options); Thurston County and WSCCCE Council 2, PERC No. 14083-I-98-0312 (Axon, 1999) (used range of -53% to 164% to find more than four comparables). In the instant case, the relative size of the agreed as well as proposed comparable jurisdictions is as follows:(fn:5)

	Population	% of Whitman	Assessed Value	% of Whitman
Asotin	20,600	50%	807,777	45%
Douglas	33,600	82%	1,822,931	101%
Franklin	53,600	131%	2,264,270	126%
Grant	77,100	188%	4,114,470	228%
Kittitas	35,200	86%	2,355,405	131%
Okanogan	39,600	97%	2,002,586	111%
Stevens	40,600	99%	2,059,430	114%
Walla Walla	55,800	136%	2,805,931	156%
Whitman	41,000		1,802,335

fn:5

Population figures are for 2003. The assessed valuation figures are for 2002 because that was the most recent data submitted for all the proposed comparators. Exs. A-4, C-34; Tr. 297.

a. Asotin County

As can be seen from the foregoing chart, Asotin County falls below 50% of the County's assessed valuation. It is also strikingly smaller than the other agreed comparables for both population and assessed valuation. Asotin borders on Whitman County and thus falls within the County's local labor market. It will be kept in mind under that "other factors" criteria, but I conclude Asotin should not be included in the set of prime comparators.

b. Grant County.

Grant County clearly exceeds the 50-150% range for both population and assessed valuation. In fact, for assessed valuation it exceeds Whitman County by more than 228%. That is too much of a disparity, even to achieve a balanced list of comparators. As further explained below, limiting the comparators to just the agreed list of six, results in a list that is sufficiently balanced to achieve the statutory purpose.

3. The List of Selected Comparable Jurisdictions

Pursuant to RCW 4 1.56.465(c)(ii), the Arbitrator finds the following jurisdic- tions are appropriate comparators:

Douglas
Franklin
Kittitas
Okanogan
Stevens
Walla Walla

The foregoing list of comparables provides a sufficiently balanced range of jurisdictions both smaller and larger than Whitman County. For population, Franklin and Walla Walla Counties are bigger than Whitman; Douglas and Kittitas are smaller; and Okanogan and Stevens are slightly smaller but very close to the County's size. All the agreed comparators are larger than Whitman County in assessed valuation, but Douglas is only 1% larger and Okanogan and Stevens are pretty close as well. The average population for the six agreed comparators is 40,520, which is 99% that of Whitman County. The average assessed valuation is $2,100,924, which amounts to 117% that of the County.

D. COST OF LIVING CHANGES

RCW 4 1.56.465(d) requires consideration of "the average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living." This consumer price index is published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The consumer price index historically used by the parties has been "the CPI Western Cities Urban Wage Earner (July to July) Index." That index is identified in the BLS reports and commonly referred to as the "CPI-W." For the CPI-W, the parties have used West Area, Size Class B/ C. Although the CBA refers to the "July to July" index, both parties have submitted data using June to June comparisons. That data indicates that for the year ending June 30, 2001 , the applicable increase was 3.3%. For the year ending June 30, 2002, that index increased by 1.0%. The increase was 1.9% for the year ending June 30, 2003. Ex. A-6.

E. INTERIM CHANGES

Another specified statutory consideration is changes in the cost of living during the pendency of this proceeding. The latest release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics only goes through May 2004. For the period May 2003 to May 2004, the CPI-W increased by 3.2%. So far this calendar year (2004), the CPI-W has increased by 2.08%. Inflation has thus been increasing since 2002 but still remains low.

F. TRADITIONAL FACTORS

RCW 41.56.465(f) directs the Panel to consider "such other factors . . which are normally or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours and conditions of employment." A variety of factors are typically considered by interest arbitrators, including the fiscal condition of the employer, Whitman County / Deputy Sheriffs' Association Interest Arbitration - p. 11.changes in workload, bargaining unit turnover, internal parity with other County bargaining units, and conditions in the local labor market.

1. Ability to Pay. The County does not claim an inability to pay the wage and benefit increases sought by the Association. I t does claim that the County's financial situation has been deteriorating to the point that far more limited increases should be awarded. In 2000, the County's revenues exceeded its expenditures by $1,128,843. Ex. C-6. The County has remained in the black each of the next three years (2001 through 2003) but the excess revenue has been steadily declining from $458,695 in 2001 to $117,149 for 2003 and that latter figure is not yet final. Exs. C-7, C-8, A-30, Tr. 317-23, 507. But for the sale of a building in 2003, which netted over $400,000, the County contends it would have operated at a deficit in 2003. The fact that wages were frozen for most County employees in 2003 reinforces that claim.

The majority of the Sheriff's Department budget comes from the County's General Fund. At the end of fiscal year 2003, the County's General Fund Balance was $2,088,332. The fund balance declined over $100,000 from 2002 to 2003, but still remains above $2 million. To get an A+ bond rating, the County's underwriter wants the County to maintain a 10% general fund reserve. As acknowledged by the John Peterson, the County's Administrative Services Director, the County's reserve is currently at 23-24%. Ex. A-31; Tr. 439.

In 2002 and 2003, the County Commissioners transferred $150,000 from the General Fund into a special reserve they have discretion over. The balance of that Commissioner's Fund is currently $460,000. Tr. 433. The Fund was created to cover capital expenses over $5000, and cannot be used for the payment of wages and benefits. However, this fund does provide a source of money for expenditures that might otherwise be expenditures from the General Fund. To the extent that the General Fund is not used for those capital costs, additional monies become available for other discretionary uses. The same is true of monies returned to the Department of Solid Waste. That Department received a $100,000 refund of excise tax overpayments. That money went to Solid Waste, not into the General Fund, but represents dollars that Solid Waste can use instead of drawing upon the General Fund.

Potential revenue for the Sheriffs department comes from CRABS funds that the County receives for the maintenance of roads and public road law enforce- ment. The County currently receives about $300,000 per year. Of that amount, the Sheriffs department has been allocated approximately $60,000, but County commissioners have the discretion to use more of the CRABS funding for the Sheriffs budget. The Association also established that in recent years the Sheriffs department has returned a significant amount of unused funds back to the County's general fund. $85,000 was returned in 2002 and $65,000 in 2003.

Although there are discretionary funds available to pay a reasonable pay and benefit award, the County is justifiably concerned about a trend of declining revenue in the face of steading increasing expenses. The County historically received funding from the State as a result of the motor vehicle excise tax. With the passing of Initiative 695, that tax was reduced to $30 per vehicle. As a result, the County received $134,870 in 2001 and has received no additional revenue since then from this source. Tr. 399. Some Washington counties, including a couple of the comparators (Stevens and Walla Walla), continued to receive "backfill" funds after 2001, but not Whitman County. The County's ability to raise property taxes has also been limited by Initiative 747, which placed a limit on property tax increases. The County's tax rate is presently at the maximum allowed by law, so the County is unable to generate additional property tax revenue. Other anti-tax initiatives are looming and cause the County considerable concern.

Sales tax and business revenues have also been declining. Being adjacent to the state of Idaho causes the County to lose substantial business and sales taxes because Idaho does not have a state-mandated business and occupation tax. It also has significantly lower industrial insurance rates. Agriculture is the primary industry in Whitman County, but agricultural equipment is not subject to sales tax.(fn:6) The County's sales tax revenue is thus significantly lower than that enjoyed by comparable jurisdictions. Another source of revenue that has declined is interest income, which has fallen from $635,696 in 2000 to approximately $280,000 in 2003. That income is expected to decline even further in 2004. In the face of these revenue constraints, some of the County's expenditures have been significantly increasing. The County's liability insurance rose from $19,152 in 2002 to $170,062 in 2003. To effect long term future premium savings, the County switched coverage from Washington Counties Risk Pool to the Rural Counties Risk Pool, but that change triggered retroactive assessments by the Washington Counties Risk Pool that has the County paying $90,000 per year through 2008. Tr. 413-417.

fn:6

This exemption is scheduled to end in 2006. Tr. 419.

Employment costs continue to increase. The Department of Retirement Systems rates are based on a percentage of each employee's income and have steadily climbed. Costs associated with social security and unemployment insurance have continued to rise and industrial insurance rates have jumped roughly 36% in the past two years. As discussed more fully later in this decision, a major cost has been health insurance premiums. The annual increase for Options Health Care Plan A in 2002 through 2004 has been 19%.

2. Workload Changes.

Whitman County encompasses 2250 square miles. There is safety in numbers so it is preferable to have two officers respond to calls for assistance.

Due to the size of the County, and the fact that the Sheriffs Department has only thirteen officers covering 7 days a week, deputies frequently have to respond on their own. The County offered evidence that Whitman County has less crime per thousand than other comparators, but the County relies upon statistics that do not include all crimes, including DUI's. The crime statistics are not indicative that deputies in Whitman County have a lesser workload. Deputies handle everything from driving infractions to serious assaults, and do their own burglary and serious assault investigations. At a time when the Department has been operating with one position left unfilled, crime rates are up 10.7% in Whitman County. I therefore credit the Sheriff's testimony that his department is understaffed and overworked.

3. Bargaining Unit Turnover.

The extent to which bargaining unit employees are leaving to take other jobs is another factor routinely considered by interest arbitrators. Lack of turnover can be indicative of a compensation package that is sufficiently competitive to attract and retain qualified employees. Some members of the Department testified that they would consider taking jobs elsewhere if they could afford to move, but many deputies have family ties to the locality and stay mainly for that reason. From 1999 through 2002, the Department lost only one deputy, who retired.

There was more turnover in 2003, when the former Sheriff and Undersheriff left, and there was a departure of four deputies, but none of those individuals was known to have left for reasons that related to their wages. Since 1999, the County has received at least 93 applicants for Department positions. Of three new hires in 2003, one had a college degree and another had prior law enforcement experience. Fewer people are applying for positions that have historically done so in the past, but the record indicates that the County has been able to retain and recruit an experienced workforce.

4. Internal Parity.

Settlements reached by an employer with its other bargaining units is also a factor commonly considered under RCW 4 1.56.465(f). The reasons for this have been well described by Arbitrator Alan Krebs:

From the standpoint of both the employer and the union, the settlements reached by the employer with other bargaining units are significant. While those settlements are affected by the peculiar situation of each individual bargaining unit, still there is an understandable desire by the employer to achieve consistency. From the union's standpoint, it wants to do at least as well for its membership as the other employer's unions have already done. At the bargaining table, the settlements reached by the employer with the other unions are likely to be brought up by one side or the other. Thus, it is a factor which should be considered by the arbitrator.

City of Kennewick and IAFF Local 1296, AAA No. 75 300 00225 96 (Krebs, 1997).

The weight given to internal parity will vary depending on the issue involved and the economic situation. During difficult economic times when it becomes necessary to ask all employees to make sacrifices, internal parity will often merit more weight. "Obviously, it does nothing for the morale of one employee segment to accept, for instance, a wage freeze, and then see'another group receive a whopping increase, not matter how deserving the latter group is of that increase.'' City of Redmond and Redmond Police Association, PERC No. 16791-I-02-0387 (Wilkinson 2004).

At times when an employer is financially able to pay for increases, internal parity considerations become more problematic because settlements are affected by concerns unique to each bargaining unit. One unit may give a higher priority to achieving step adjustments in a wage schedule than to gaining a higher across the board increase. For another unit, the reverse may be true. One unit may accept a lower wage increase because that increase maintains the bargaining unit's wages at a level competitive with the wages in other jurisdictions for similar jobs. Another unit may find the same percentage increase unacceptable because it does not result in a competitive wage for their particular job classifications. Consequently, internal parity is important, but "not determinative in an interest arbitration under the Washington statute." WSCCCE Council 2 and Spokane County, PERC No. 14916-1-99-0329 (Axon, 2000).

In addition to non-represented employees, the County has four other represented bargaining units: (1) courthouse employees, (2) solid waste employees, (3)road employees, and (4) corrections officers and support staff. Only the Sheriffs Department deputies have binding interest arbitration.

Neither side offered evidence as to the wage increases received by other County employees in 2002. In 2003, only the corrections bargaining unit received a wage increase (1.5%). All other county employees had their wages frozen. All bargaining units and unrepresented employees got a 1.5% increase in 2004. The corrections unit will continue to receive step increases, but the other bargaining units have agreed to a one year freeze on those increases. A wage increase of 1.5% has been agreed to by all bargaining units for 2005 except for the court- house employees, who will receive 1.25%.

5. Local Labor Market Comparisons.

Anyone who has negotiated collective bargaining agreements - as this Arbitrator has in her prior life as an advocate - is well aware of the impact that local labor markets can have on the setting of wage rates and benefits. The consideration of a subject jurisdiction's local labor market is thus fully sanctioned by RCW 4 1.56.465(f). The reasons for this have been well described by UCLA Professor Irving Bernstein:

[Local labor market] comparisons are preeminent in wage determination because all parties at interest derive benefit from them. To the worker they permit a decision on the adequacy of his income. He feels no discrimination if he stays abreast of other workers in his industry, his locality, his neighborhood. They are vital to the union because they provide guidance to its officials on what must be insisted upon and a yardstick for measuring their bargaining skill. In the presence of internal factionalism or rival unionism, the power of comparisons is enhanced. The employer is drawn to them because they assure him that competitors will not gain a wage cost advantage and that he will be able to recruit in the local labor market. . . . . Arbitrators benefit no less from comparisons. They have "the appeal of precedent and ... awards based thereon are apt to satisfy the normal expectations of the parties and to appear just to the public.

Arbitration of Wages, Publications of the Institute of Industrial Relations, 54 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1954). As discussed later in this decision, I have kept the County's local labor market in mind.

III. THE RESOLUTION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES

A. ARTICLE 8 (OVERTIME)

Article 8.01 of the CBA addresses the issue of overtime pay and currently reads:

"Overtime pay shall be at the rate of one and one half (1 1/2) times the regular hourly rate for such bargaining unit employee for hours worked in excess of a forty (40) hour workweek. For the purposes of this Agreement, paid leave shall count as hours worked."

(Emphasis added by italics.[removed]) Article 8.05.2 reads as follows:

A bargaining unit employee shall be considered not available for work if during the week in question the employee was absent due to: a. Unpaid Leave of Absence b. Ineligible for Holiday Pay c. Absence without Permission

With its current budget and staffing, the Department does not have officers on duty at all times. There are times each day when no one is on duty and officers are called out as needed. Callouts occur on a regular basis, and have an impact on an officer's personal plans for that day when he/she was scheduled to be off duty. Under current contract language, an officer who has taken some paid time off during the workweek will still receive overtime pay for hours that individual is called back to work.

County Proposal: The County seeks to modify Article 8.01 to eliminate "paid leave" from being considered "hours worked." Article 8.05 would likewise be modified so a deputy who is on "paid leave" would be considered "not available for work during the week in question the employee was absent due to . . . paid leave." The proposed modifications would mean that if a deputy took vacation or a sick day during the workweek and was then called into work later that week, the deputy would be paid straight time for the work performed when called in. The County seeks this change as a form of economic relief. The change would help the County reduce its overtime liability, which for the Sheriff's Department alone amounted to over $76,000 in 2003. The County's proposal would also result in reduced cost for industrial insurance, which is based on the number of "hours worked." In the past two years, the industrial insurance rates have jumped approximately 36%. The County's economic circumstances merit granting this proposal.

Association Proposal: The Association seeks to maintain the status quo, which has existed for at least the past ten years. The burden rests on the County to establish why the long standing practice of counting paid leave towards overtime should be changed. That burden was not met. The Sheriff testified that he felt the cost savings resulting from this proposal would be outweighed by the negative impact on officers' morale. Considerations of internal parity also undermine the County's proposal. The County sought the same change in its negotiations with the Corrections bargaining unit, and ultimately dropped its proposal. Thus, in the Corrections unit, paid leave still counts as "hours worked."

The current contract language provides an advantageous overtime calculation. Take backs are not favored by arbitrators, and no compelling reason for granting one has been established in this case. The Association further objects because it believes that in prior bargaining, the parties reached tentative agreement to maintain the status quo. The County's proposal should therefore be rejected, and current contract language in Article 8.01 and 8.05 should remain.

Discussion and Findings:

As this Arbitrator has noted in prior decisions, interest arbitrators generally expect the party proposing a reduction in a previously gained benefit to bear the burden of persuasion. The County failed to satisfy that burden, primarily because of the impact its proposal would have on deputies who are called out on scheduled days off. Such callouts are a significant intrusion on the deputies' family lives and can cause them to incur unreimbursed personal costs such as for childcare.

Being paid for the called out hours at an overtime rate helps to compensate the deputies for those incidental expenses and the personal inconvenience. That no doubt explains why the current practice of counting paid leave as time worked for overtime purposes has been the prevailing practice for at least ten years. The County sought the same change in its bargaining with the Corrections unit, and ended up withdrawing the proposal. There seems insufficient justification to treat deputies less advantageously than those other law enforcement employees. The County's proposal is therefore not adopted.

B. ARTICLE 11 (HEALTH INSURANCE)

The County offers five different health insurance plans that Association members can choose from. Three of these plans are provided through the Washington Counties Insurance Pool: a Budget PPO, New Standard PPO, and Affordable PPO. The remaining two plans are provided through Options Health Care, Inc.: Plan A and Select (In-Network Only). The New Standard Plan has the highest premium for employee only or employee plus spouse coverage. When children are added, the Options Plan A premium is the most expensive. The Affordable PPO is the least expensive and considerably cheaper than all the other plans, but it provides the fewest benefits. Nine of the thirteen current deputies have chosen the Options Plan A; the rest are on the New Standard Plan. EX. C-44.

Pursuant to Article 11.01 of the prior CBA, the County pays the full insurance premium to provide members of the bargaining unit with medical, dental and vision insurance. All other County employees also receive this benefit.

However, the deputies also receive an employer contribution towards the cost of dependent health insurance. Article 11.02 of the prior CBA forth a superceded amount that the County will pay towards. The parties agree that the language appearing in Article 11.02 is obsolete and should be deleted. The currently applicable County contribution appears in Article 1 1.03 of the CBA. Pursuant to that provision, the County pays $150 per month. The amount of that dependent contribution has not changed in three years. In 2001, employees were paying 72% of their dependent premium costs. Because of intervening premium increases, they are now paying 85% of the dependent premium.

1. Dependent Health Care Premiums

Association Proposal: The Association seeks to change the County's contribution towards dependent health care premiums from a flat dollar amount to a percentage of 80%, beginning on the first day of the month following the Arbitrator's award. Over the past three years, the County has saved a substantial amount of money because its monthly contribution has remained fixed at $150. Health care costs are soaring and Association members have been paying the majority of dependent premium cost increases. The premium costs have become so expensive that some Deputies cannot avoid to cover a spouse or include their children on full family plans.

In 2001, Deputies paid about $395 per month for full family coverage. In 2004, they pay more than double that amount, i.e., $856. When insurance costs are deducted from the take home pay for a top step five year Deputy, the take home pay for a Deputy with a wife and two children is near poverty levels, with insurance representing approximately 33% of an officer's monthly income. Some Deputies now qualify for state assistance programs, including medical coupons and WIC (Women Infants and Children). County officers should not have to rely on state medical assistance for their families.

The Association's goal is to both reduce the employee dependent premium cost to the market average, and to use a percentage basis for contributions so both the County and Deputies share the burden of increasing premiums. The Association's proposal is supported by the practice of comparable jurisdictions. Not every jurisdiction handles insurance premiums the same, but Whitman Deputies pay more than their counterparts in the comparators. In a 2003 interest arbitration award involving Kittitas County, sharing the burden of cost increases was considered fair and 90% of the full family premium cost was shifted back to that County. Douglas County currently pays 75% of dependent costs, and that contribution will increase to 80% in 2005. Okanogan used to pay approximately 57% but has increased its contribution in 2004 to 70% of dependent medical/vision and 80% of dependent dental. Walla Walla pays 50% of dependent coverage. All jurisdictions except Whitman pay the major portion of total medical premium costs including dependent care.

Regardless of the cost of the medical plan selected by a particular employee, the issue is the proportional amount that employee pays. The County claims the New Standard Plan is the most expensive, but when that Plan is compared to similar managed care plans in other jurisdictions, Whitman Deputies still pay significantly more than there comparators. Even under the cheapest plan, Affordable PPO, Whitman deputies are still paying a monthly premium well above the comparator average. The County's attempt to blame employees for choosing an allegedly more expensive plan should be rejected.

Other County employees may receive even less assistance with medical premiums than the Association's members do, but those other employees have little recourse than to accept what the County dictates. For interest arbitration eligible employees, RCW 4 1.56.465(c) requires the comparison of law enforcement personnel to other law enforcement personnel. If the state legislature had wanted internal parity to supercede the comparison of like personnel required by RCW 41.56.465(c), it would have said so. Association members should not be denied a particular benefit because of internal parity sought between dissimilar units. An 80% dependent premium contribution by the County is a fair contribu- tion compared to the average for other comparators. A 20% dependent contribu- tion by Whitman Deputies would put their monthly cost at about $300, right at the comparator average. Conversion to a percentage contribution is a fair and equitable way to handle increased yearly rates. Four other comparators (Kittitas, Douglas, Walla Walla and Okanogan) all have percentage style contributions. Association members are willing to pay their fair share of premium increases, but not the total load. The Association's proposal should be adopted.

County Proposal: The County is seeking to maintain its current $150 per month contribution towards dependent health insurance costs. In 1998, Association members were insured under a composite health insurance plan that provided full family health insurance coverage. Association members chose to terminate representation by the labor organization (Teamsters) that provided that coverage. The Association thereby opted to relinquish its full family health insurance and accepted a flat-rate contribution by the County towards dependent health care coverage. I t is patently unfair for the Association to now demand the benefit it so recently relinquished. "Take backs are disfavored in interest arbitration, and that consideration supports the County's proposal.

The Association's economic analyst conceded that the Association's insurance proposal is on the "high end." Tr. 259. The proposal cannot be justified by any delay in implementing the Agreement. Numerous arbitrators have concluded that retroactive payment of actual healthcare costs is not appropriate.

Consideration of internal parity likewise supports the County's proposal. Except for the corrections officers and support staff bargaining unit, no County employees receive dependent healthcare coverage by the County. Moreover, Association members receive a greater contribution towards health insurance from the County than any other County employees.

The County's total contribution towards dependent health insurance is actually not that far off the comparable jurisdictions. A number of different formulas are used by comparable jurisdictions for dependent healthcare coverage, but for employee and dependent coverage combined, Whitman County's premium cost is more than Asotin and Franklin Counties, nearly the same as Okanogan and Stevens and only $128.36 per month less than the average for all compara- bles. Ex. A-10, C-21 (pp. 18-19).

The Association fails to consider the difference in benefits offered by the County's "Cadillac" health insurance plan compared to the plans offered by comparable jurisdictions. The Options Health Care Plan A requires no deductible and has only a 5% co-pay. The comparable plan in Douglass County has a $200 deductible and $10 co-pay. Okanogan's comparable plan requires a $100 deductible ($300 per family) and $10 co-pay. Ex. C-48, p.2. Since Whitman County offers better health insurance coverage, the premium costs are naturally more expensive.

The County pays the full premium cost for bargaining unit members and that cost has been increasing 17- 19% every year. The County recently added an insurance plan that is considerably cheaper than the other four alternatives. Association members could reduce their monthly premium cost to $424.71 if they chose a less costly insurance option. Most choose to participate in one of the two most costly plans, saying they must pick what is best for themselves. The County should be entitled to do the same.

A recent interest arbitration decision involving Kittitas County should not be the benchmark for an award impacting Whitman County. Kittitas presented no evidence of an inability to pay. Despite a smaller population, Kittitas County has substantially greater tax revenues than Whitman County. Unlike the situation in Kittitas County, there is 'no evidence that employees have left Whitman County because of health insurance coverage. In an interest arbitration award involving the deputy sheriffs in Walla Walla, that county did not argue that it was financially unable to meet the union's request; there was no turnover or inability to attract qualified applicants; and the Walla Walla deputies were already receiving a higher level of health insurance benefits than all other Walla Walla County employees. Arbitrator Krebs therefore rejected many of the same arguments the Association is presenting herein.

A few Association members may have decided that they cannot afford to pay the dependent medical premium, but all but four members current use the dependent health insurance benefits provided through the County. The County must walk down the path of dependent healthcare coverage slowly because a significant increase in its contribution will likely lead to increased use of such benefits within the bargaining unit and increased demand from other County employees seeking the same benefit. If the Arbitrator nevertheless decides that an increase in the County's contribution is justified, conversion to a percentage should not be awarded. A flat rate contribution provides the County with a benchmark for cost-control and budgeting purposes; maintains equality among Association members with regard to the total contribution they receive; and allows those members to use the County contribution in the manner they deem best. Other comparable jurisdictions (Asotin, Franklin and Okanogan) still maintain flat rate contributions so the practice of the comparators does not mandate a change.

Discussion and Findings: For purposes of this discussion, I have focused on the medical plan that most deputies have chosen (Options Plan A) and full family coverage, since the ordinary employee will want to be able to have insurance coverage for all family members. Since 2001, the premium that deputies pay per month for full family coverage on Options A has more than doubled, and now amounts to $856 per month. That financial burden is far more than employees in the comparator jurisdictions are paying. The figures shown below are effective 2004, except for Franklin and Okanogan Counties for which only 2003 data was obtained.

Jurisdiction	Employee Contribution
Douglas	$264.40
Franklin	$479.88
Kittitas	$225.64
Okanogan	$509.33
Stevens	$157.00
Walla Walla	$464.50
Comp. Average	$350.13
Whitman	$856.19

Ex. A-19. Even Asotin employees pay $100 less per month than Whitman deputies.

One reason the disparity has become so great is the fact that the County's contribution has been a set dollar amount that has not changed since 2001. Deputies have therefore borne the burden of all the intervening premium increases which have been substantial. To avoid this kind of result in the future, the Association seeks to change the contribution to a percentage of the applicable premium. The prevailing practice of the comparables supports this change. As shown below, the practice of the comparables is not uniform. I have used the Association's data, but noted where the County offered different figures.

Franklin and Stevens have a pooled insurance system called a VEBA. The employer contributes a certain dollar amount for an employee's health insurance, and any amounts not used or necessary for the employee's health insurance is assigned to the VEBA. Any amounts in the VEBA are then pooled out and divided evenly among the employees to assist those for whom the employer's contribution does not provide full insurance. Tr. 246-47. Pooled VEBAs can greatly reduce actual employee costs, but make it hard to ascertain exactly what those costs will be.

	Form of Employer Dependent Contribution
Douglas	75% in 2004 / 80% in 2005(fn:7)
Franklin	Capped $$ by employer ($485 in 2004)(fn:8)
Kittitas	90% (effective 09/01/03 per Interest Arbitration)(fn:9)
Okanogan	70% med/ vision (effective 01/01/04) 80% dental (effective 01/01/04)
Stevens	$300 per month employer contribution with a VEBA. Premium increases are split 60% County and 40% employee
Walla Walla	50% in 2004 (but full family dental)
Whitman	$150 per month employer contribution

---

	fn:7	The County's brief showed the percentage sharing as 70% employer/ 30% employee.That was the percentage sharing in 2003, but the Douglas CBA provided for increases each subsequent year.
	fn:8	The County says the capped contrib. is $559.19, supplemented by a VEBA account. CB47.
	fn:9	An interest arbitration award changed the Kittitas County contribution from a capped amount that was approximately 38% of the full family cost, to 90% employer paid and 10% employee.

Four out of the six comparator jurisdictions share dependent insurance premiums on a percentage basis: Douglas, Kittitas, Okanogan, and Walla Walla. A percentage is also used by Stevens County to pay for premium increases that arise during its collective bargaining agreement. Sharing premium increases at a specified percent removes the inequity that can arise when bargaining for future contracts is delayed. I agree with the Association that percentage contributions are a more equitable method of cost-sharing. Since that is a prevailing method of the comparables, the Association's proposal to use a percentage basis for contributions is adopted.

The remaining question is what percentage should be adopted. The Association seeks an 80/ 20% split with the County paying the 80%. Only one comparator is going to that high an employer contribution, and that does not occur until 2005. However, the comparable jurisdictions do generally pay a greater share of the dependent premiums than their employees. The average dependent contribution for the comparable jurisdictions is roughly a 70/ 30% split.

County	Year	Total Premium	Employer Contrib.	Employee Contrib.
Douglas	2004	$1144.27	$879.87	$264.40
Franklin	2004	$964.88	$485.00(fn:10)	$479.88
Kittitas	2004	$1335.04	$1109.40	$225.64
Okanogan	2003(fn:11)	$1185.89	$676.56	$509.33
Stevens	2004	$820.20	$663.20	$157.00
Walla Walla	2004	$1451.26	$986.76	$464.50
Market Ave		$1150.26	$800.13	$350.13
Whitman	2004	$1493.12	$636.93	$856.19

	fn:10	Whitman County uses $519.19 as Franklin County's payment, but agrees with the Association about the employee contribution. The $34 difference has little impact on the comparison, so I have used the Association's data.
	fn:11	The Association was unable to obtain the 2004 dependent premium and respective contributions for Okanogan County. The dollar amounts almost certainly increased, but the percentage contributions remained 70/ 30% so the net impact on the comparison would be insignificant.

The market average employee contribution of $350.13 is 30.44% of the average premium amount.

The comparator data lends support for adopting a 70% contribution share by Whitman County, but some additional considerations led me to reduce that percentage. The first of these is the fact that the Options Plan that most of the Association's bargaining unit have chosen is a "Cadillac" plan; one better than most of the comparator counties offer. Tr. 305-306 (Bennett). It has a smaller co-pay and benefit levels that reduce the out of pocket costs for the Whitman deputies. In a department where two deputies have experiences career ending injuries in the past two years, it is entirely understandable why a majority of bargaining unit members have chosen to be insured on this plan. However, there should also be some recognition that Whitman County thereby pays a higher total premium than all the other comparables.

I am further mindful of the fact that most other county employees receive no contribution towards the cost of dependent health insurance and had their wages frozen in 2003. Weighing those considerations, the County's overall financial condition, and the subsequent wage increases awarded later in this decision, I conclude that effective July 1, 2004 the County should pay 60% of the premium for dependent medical, dental, and vision insurance. A premium share of 40% still leaves deputies paying a higher amount ($577.25) than like employees at any of the comparables, but it represents a considerable improvement from what they are paying now.

2. Insurance Reopener (Articles 11.04/ 11.05)

Article 11.04 currently reads:

11.04 As soon as possible after execution of this Agreement, the County and Association bargaining teams shall meet to discuss the implementation of a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan for medical savings; health care cost pre-tax deductions and child care reimbursements.

A Section 125 Cafeteria Plan has already been implemented, so the parties agree that Article 11.04 should be revised to indicate that the County will continue to make a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan available for medical savings, health care cost pre-tax deductions and childcare reimbursements.

A remaining issue is the following reopener language that appears in Article 11.05:

11.05 During the term of this Agreement the Association shall have the option to exercise a reopener on health care issues if the Association shops health care and finds a plan or plans that provide(s) substantially comparable benefits to Association members for less cost than the County is currently paying.

County Proposal: The County seeks to delete the health care reopener because of the Association's history and manner of invoking it. During the past CBA, invocation of the reopener resulted in an unfair labor practice charge that was ultimately resolved in favor of the County, but both parties incurred substantial legal fees.

The reopener language is actually unnecessary because an employee can always propose a more affordable health insurance option and the County will investigate further. During the interest arbitration hearing, the Association conceded that the County has taken affirmative steps to investigate health insurance options proposed by the Association. Tr. 122. The County even did that on one occasion without any formal invoking of the reopener, and spent needless time and effort investigating a Teamster health insurance plan for which it discovered the Association did not qualify.

The Association has indicated that immediately after completion of the interest arbitration proceedings, it intends to invoke the reopener if it remains in the CBA. The County therefore believes that provision will lead to needless cost. Moreover, no other CBA in the County provides reopener rights for other employees, and no comparable jurisdiction provides reopeners that can be invoked solely at the discretion of employees. The troubled history of the existing reopener, internal comparability, and practice of comparable jurisdictions all demonstrate that the reopener provision in Article 11.05 should be eliminated from the CBA.

Association Proposal: Contract reopener language in Article 11 represents the status quo, and provides an avenue to discuss ways to decrease cost burdens on the bargaining unit. Any effort to help minimize out of pocket costs should be favored, especially since some cost savings measures require no additional cost to the County except for possibly some administrative costs. The County has not met its burden to show why such cost savings for employees should not be further explored. The Association would exercise discretion in exercising reopeners, but the current contract language provides a way the Association can assist the County in finding more cost effective insurance. In reality, bargaining will soon commence for a new contract, and insurance alternatives will be addressed in that forum.

Discussion and Findings: A reopener provision is existing language in the collective bargaining agreement, so County bears the burden of persuasion regarding its deletion. That burden has been met for a number of reasons. First, there is a practical one. The term of this contract will be ending on December 31, 2004, so negotiations over the term of a successor contract, including its health insurance provisions, will be starting in the near future.

There is also a historical reason for deleting the reopener. The existing reopener clause is worded in a way that can easily cause disagreements. In recent years, its invocation by the Association culminated in the filing of a ULP against the County. That charge was ultimately dismissed but only after the County had to incur legal fees to defend itself. Any employer would be understandably leery of retaining the language in Article 11.05 after that experience.

As currently worded, the insurance reopener can be invoked if the Association finds a plan or plans "that provide(s) substantially comparable benefits . . . for less cost than the County is currently paying." There is no consideration for whether the insurance provider can handle the plan administra- tion. The County employs only two people in its Human Resources Department, which is not sufficient personnel to handle all the administrative tasks associated with providing insurance benefits. Thus, looking solely at premium cost is impractical.

Finally, none of the County's other collective bargaining agreements allow an insurance reopener simply because the certified bargaining representative believes it has found comparable coverage that will cost less. Tr. 374. Neither do the collective bargaining agreements at the comparable jurisdictions. There is no health insurance reopener in the Kittitas, Stevens or Walla Walla. Douglas, Franklin and Okanogan have reopeners only if the employer or insurance broker proposes changes to the insurance coverage or benefits.

At a time when members of the bargaining unit were shouldering the heavier share of premium costs, a stronger argument might have existed for the provisions of Article 11.05. With the re-allocated cost sharing awarded herein, the County has more than sufficient incentive to investigate in good faith any potentially cheaper plans the Association might bring to the County's attention. The County has taken affirmative steps to investigate health insurance options proposed by the Association in the past. The County's proposal to remove Article 11.05 is adopted.

C. ARTICLE 16 (WAGES)

The current CBA provides officers with a five step wage schedule. Officers begin at Step A and progress to Step B after six months. They move to Step C after twelve months, to Step D after eighteen months, and to Step E after another twenty-four months. Officers thus top out on the salary scale after five years of experience. There is no additional wage premium for longevity. Deputies are paid at Grade 12 of the schedule. Sergeants are paid at Grade 14. Grade 12 currently ranges from $15.83 per hour at the lowest step to $19.24 per hour at the highest step. The range for Grade 14 is $17.45 to $21.21.

For each year of the prior CBA (1999-2001), the pay rates and salary step classifications for members of the bargaining unit were increased by 3% plus 90% of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, West Size Class B/C, July to July (hereinafter referred to as "CPI-U"). Effective October 1, 1999, the total combined increase was 5.47%. An identical increase, 5.47%, was implemented on January 1, 2000. The increase effective January 1, 2001 was 6.17%.

Association Proposal: Retroactive to January 1, 2002, the Association seeks a 3.3% increase in the pay rates and salary step classification for all bargaining unit members. Retroactive to January 1, 2003, the Association proposes a 3% increase, and retroactive to January 1, 2004, a 3% increase. The Association's proposal combines a market adjustment and CPI increase with a slower phase-in adjustment that softens the cost obligation for the County. The Association's proposal represents less of an increase than the bargaining unit has historically received since 1996.

The base wage for Whitman deputies falls approximately 13% behind the comparator jurisdictions for the various years of employment. In addition to base wage, an appropriate comparison should factor in longevity, education incentive, insurance costs, and paid leaves to get an "adjusted base wage." When adjusted base wages are compared, a Whitman deputy at five years of service is at least 32% behind the market. Ex. A-10.

RCW 41.56.465(d) permits the consideration of the average CPI increase to be a factor considered in setting a fair wage. The average CPI increase for calendar years 2001 through 2003 was 2.53%. The CPI part of the Association's proposal averages out to 2.1% over three years, an amount lower than the intervening CPI change. The County has offered only 1% which includes no retroactivity and thus means virtually no pay increases since January 2001. The County's proposal is well below the average CPI. Because of the lack of retroactivity and intervening CPI increases, the County's offer has actually worsened during these proceedings and borders on bad faith. There is no justifiable nexus between lawful delays caused by the bargaining process sanctioned by RCW 41.56 and the appropriateness of pay raises that are retroactive.

Internal parity can be a factor considered pursuant to RCW 41.56.465 (0, but the County's offer is actually less that increases given to other Whitman County employees. The Corrections Department settled for 1.5% annual increases. Courthouse and Road Department employees received at least a 1.5% COLA. Tr. 375, 21. Some step freezes have occurred in the recent past, but the County has still offered more COLA dollars to other County units than the Association's. Other bargaining units have little recourse in bargaining and cannot proceed to interest arbitration. The County's internal parity argument should not supercede the County's obligation to pay fair wages based on a comparator market.

The Arbitrator should reject the County's attempt to suggest that lower increases are justified by crime statistics. Crime rates are actually up 10.7% in Whitman County and the Sheriff testified that his department is understaffed and overworked. The Association recognizes the current poor economy but the County has managed to maintain an unreserved fund of over $2 million. The County's approximately 23% reserve provides strong evidence that the County has sufficient funds to afford the Association's various proposals.

The County's practice of using reserve funds to balance the budget gives the false impression that the County has to "borrow" every year to cover its expenses. In reality, the County has accumulated a budget surplus of over $900,000 since 2001, regardless of using reserves. During that same period of time, the County transferred $120,000 in 2002 and $30,000 in 2003 to a "Commissioner's Reserve Fund," which amounts to a semi-hidden slush fund for discretionary spending. That fund now has a $460,000 balance, and the $120,000 transferred to the Commissioner's Fund from 2002 would nearly pay for the Association's wage proposal. The County has not shown that providing the wage and benefit increases sought by the Association would significant affect the County's reserves, and the County offered no specific evidence that funding the Association's proposals would necessitate cuts in any other programs or layoffs.

Potential revenue for the Sheriff's department comes from CRABS funds that the County receives for the maintenance of roads and public road law enforcement. The County currently receives about $300,000 per year. Of that amount, the Sheriffs department receives approximately $60,000, but that allocation is discretionary. County commissioners could transfer more of the CRABS funding to the Sheriffs budget if they wanted. The Association also established that in recent years the Sheriffs department has returned a significant amount of unused funds back to the County's general fund. $85,000 was returned in 2002 and $65,000 in 2003. That is a significant amount of money returning to the general fund that could be used now to cover the cost of salary and benefit increases.

Despite concerns about the impact of various voter initiatives, the County has still managed to exceed its budget expectations by over $900,000 in the past three years. In minutes of one of the County Commissioner meetings, one of the commissioners is quoted as believing 2005 will be a better year with the economy rebounding. Ex. A-37, p.3. The estimated cost of the Association's wage proposal is $108,776 for the three year contract term. That figure includes estimated overtime. It is unlikely all deputies would switch to full family medical coverage, but even if that were to occur, the total cost of the Association's proposal with health insurance changes would be approximately $131,547; an average cost of $43,849 a year. The County has failed to show an inability to pay this amount or a detrimental impact on providing essential County services.

County Proposal: Effective upon the date of the Arbitrator's Award, the County proposes specific wage increases for the salary schedule steps. Those increases equate to approximately a 1% increase for each year of the CBA. The County's proposal would thus total approximately 3% for all employees over the life of the Agreement. The Association's contention that the County's proposal amounts to only a 1.2% increase over the life of the CBA is incorrect.

Wage increases in interest arbitrations are frequently tied to a selected cost of living index. Since expiration of the prior CBA, the applicable cost of living index has increased by 1% in 2002, 1.9% in 2003 and only .6% as of January 31, 2004. The County's proposal of a 3% increase over the life of the CBA is much closer to the CPI change of 3.5% over the same years than the Association's proposal of 9.3%. The Association's proposal is thus not warranted based upon consideration of the intervening CPI change. The award sought by the Association is also not warranted based on consideration of the local labor market. There has been little turnover in the Sheriffs Department, and there is no evidence that any Association member has left because of wages, working conditions or benefits.

The County has not been experiencing a heavy workload or inadequate staffing that warrants special consideration by the Arbitrator. The County is actually staffed better than any comparable jurisdiction and is the beneficiary of a lower crime rate.

Internal comparability was a guiding force for the County during the negotiations, and is a factor that should be considered by the Arbitrator. The County's other bargaining units have accepted 1.25-1.5% increases and do not receive step increases or incentive pay for training. All but one of those units do not receive dependent health insurance coverage. The wages of all elected officials in 2004 have been frozen Providing one particular group of employees wages or benefits not received by other County bargaining units is patently unfair. The Arbitrator should be mindful of the difference in economic resources between comparators . The majority of comparators dwarf the County in both retail sales tax revenue and property tax revenue. The County is also at the bottom of other indicia of the general economy, such as home ownership rate (2002), median household income (1999), and per capita income (1999).

The Association's economic analyst acknowledged that the County's actual revenues have been failing to keep pace with significantly rising expenditures. Revenue exceeded expenses in 2001, but since then the County has had to borrow funds from its reserves to balance the budget in 2002 and 2003. The Associa- tion's claim that the County has accumulated a $900,000 surplus is inaccurate. That figure represents how much the amount being borrowed from reserves between 2001 and 2003 declined; it does not represent a "surplus." A purported surplus of $117,149 in 2003 was only the result of unanticipated one time revenue from the sale of a building. But for that, the County would have had a deficit. The Association contends the cost of its proposals would only be $130,000 but that is just the cost impact in 2004. Those costs would continue to rise in the future.

In past years when the County's financial situation was strong, Association members received much more generous wage increases. With declining local government assistance from the State, capped property taxes, sales taxes and business revenue lost to the State of Idaho, declining interest earnings, increased insurance costs, and significantly increased employment costs, the County has had to tighten its belt. All the foregoing financial concerns affect the County's General Fund, which is home to virtually all the Sheriffs Department budget. The County's offer reflects existing economic realities, while the Association's proposal gives no regard to the County's financial circumstances.

Since at least 1988, collective bargaining agreements between the County and its deputies have never included a longevity or educational incentive. Tr. 61. The Association has made prior proposals, but never bargained either compensa- tion element into the CBA. Those elements should therefore not be included when making comparisons to comparable jurisdictions. By including them, the Association has inflated the "market average comparable." Comparability analysis must include, as near as possible, an "apples to apples" comparison. To achieve that result, the Arbitrator should evaluate only wages (for an employee of five years service), health insurance, and paid leave.

Since Whitman deputies have not had a wage increase since 2001, their compensation clearly falls short of that presently in effect at the other comparables. However, the top step deputy wage still exceeds that in Asotin County. Two recent interest arbitrations have recognized that if an arbitrator awards an increase in health insurance, the arbitrator should "err on the side of being conservative" when fashioning a wage award. By awarding the County's offered 1% per year, or even the 1.25-1.5% awarded other County employee, the Arbitrator will maintain the County's relative ranking in comparison to the comparable counties. The local labor market, lack of turnover, and ability to attract qualified applicants do not justify a wage increase greater than that.

The County has not budgeted funds necessary to pay retroactive wage increases and has no funding source to fund a retroactive award. The Commis- sioners Special Revenue Fund was created in 1995 "for Capital Expenditures in Whitman County." Capital expenditures cannot include payment of wages and benefits. Excise tax overpayments apply to the County's solid waste budget and provide no relief for general fund expenditures. CRAB grant money was budgeted to the County's Public Works Department for roads.

Any delay in finalizing a labor contract has not been the fault of the County. The bargaining process and interest arbitration was held up by unmeritorious unfair labor practice charges filed by the Association. The County requested twice that the parties begin bargaining before January 2002, and the Association refused. Negotiations did not commence until February 2002, and little was accomplished until the Association's bargaining representative was replaced. The County spent thousands of dollars successfully defending against two unfair labor practice charges, and has not been the reason it has taken so long to finalize a collective bargaining agreement. Given all the attendant circumstances, the Arbitrator should refrain from awarding retroactive wages.

Discussion and Findings:

I. Elements included in the Comparables Analysis

The County's approach has been to focus on the pay rate for a top step deputy with 5 years experience. The Association seeks a comparison that includes the top step pay of a deputy with 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years experience. I have analyzed the data at all those tenure levels, but for the purposes of this decision have utilized a 10 year top step deputy as the bench- mark because the average tenure of the bargaining unit is almost 10 years. Another difference between the parties is over whether to include longevity pay when calculating the wages at other jurisdictions. As demonstrated by last year's interest arbitration between Walla Walla County and its deputies, longevity is typically included in a compensation analysis. Walla Walla County and Walla Walla County Deputy Sheriffs Association, PERC No. 16895-I-02-0389 (Krebs, 2003). RCW 41.56.465 requires a comparison of "like personnel." When comparing benchmark positions, it is entirely consistent with that statute to factor in pay automatically received for being at that same level of seniority. The comparisons that follow therefore include longevity pay when it exists within a particular comparable.

Education incentive pay is also frequently included in an "adjusted base wage" calculation. I ran calculations that factored in educational pay in order to have a sense of how that affected the existing disparity in wages for officers who do have either an AA or BA degree. However, almost half of the bargaining unit has neither degree, so the comparisons detailed herein do not include that type of pay. Both the County and Association agree that an appropriate wage comparison should include paid leave. The cost of insurance is appropriately factored in as well.

2. The Adjusted Base Wage Comparison

Using a 10 year top step deputy as the benchmark, the chart below shows the Association's bargaining unit is considerably behind their counterparts at comparator jurisdictions, even using 2003 data for Franklin County. The data shown for Okanogan County has been revised to reflect a 2.5% increase deputies received in a recently finalized contract for 2004.(fn:12)

County	Base Wage	Longevity Pay	Paid Leave	Ee Ins. Payment	Er Ins. Payment	Adjusted Base
Douglas	3753.81	75.08	389.82	-264.40	879.87	4834.18
Franklin (2003)	3727.67	74.55	401.44	-479.88	485	4208.78
Kittitas	3480	39.5	408.23	-225.64	1109.40	4811.49
Okanogan	3632	72.64	376.98(fn:13)	-509.33	676.56	4248.85
Stevens	3697.43	0	412.41	-157	663.20	4616.04
Walla Walla	3836.87	40	457.47	-464.5	986.76	4856.60
Average						4595.99
Whitman (2001)	3334	0	437.91	-856.19	636.93	3552.65
% Below Average						-22.70%

	fn:12	The copy of the 2004 collective bargaining agreement between Okanogan County and the Okanogan County Sheriff Employee Association that was provided to this Arbitrator did not have signatures. I have presumed the text accurately reflects the finalized agreement because Whitman County received a copy and did not dispute its authenticity.
	fn:13	Since data provided at the arbitration hearing did not factor in the 2.5% increase Okanogan deputies are receiving in 2004, I have taken the data provided for 2003 and increased that by 2.5%.

Even before the cost of insurance is factored in, the base wage of Whitman deputies is well below the comparators. After factoring in differences between insurance contributions, the disparity reached almost 23%. The results are pretty similar at the other levels of experience.

The disparity would have likely been even greater if 2004 wage data had been available for Franklin County. One could factor in a presumed minimum 2004 percentage increase for Franklin but I have not done so because as part of the County's local labor market, Asotin County merits some consideration. the wage benefit package in Asotin runs significantly less that a Franklin, so I have just considered the impact of any Franklin County increase as being cancelled out by giving Asotin some consideration.

To bring its members closer to the market average, the Association has sought base wage increases of 3.3% in 2002, 3% in 2003 and 3% in 2004. As discussed earlier, the Association also sought to boost the County's dependent health insurance contribution to 80%. When combined instead with a 60% County insurance contribution, the Association's proposed base wage increases totaling 9.3% would bring the 10 Year Deputy's Adjusted Base Wage to 3.8% below the market average.

County	Base Wage	Longevity Pay	Paid Leave	Ee Ins. Payment	Er Ins. Payment	Adjusted Base
Douglas	3753.81	75.08	389.82	-264.40	879.87	4834.18
Franklin (2003)	3727.67	74.55	401.44	-479.88	485	4208.78
Kittitas	3480	39.5	408.23	-225.64	1109.40	4811.49
Okanogan	3632	72.64	376.98(fn:14)	-509.33	676.56	4248.85
Stevens	3697.43	0	412.41	-157	663.20	4616.04
Walla Walla	3836.87	40	457.47	-464.59	86.76	4856.60
Average						4595.99
Whitman (+9.3%)	3644.06	0	478.64	-597.25	895.87	4421.32
% below average						-3.80%

fn:14

Since data provided at the arbitration hearing did not factor in the 2.5% increase Okanogan deputies are receiving in 2004, I have taken the data provided for 2003 and increased that by 2.5%.

The Association's request for a "catch-up" increase is therefore supported by the comparator data.

3. Other Considerations.

The inquiry does not end at this point. One must next consider if other considerations merit an upward or downward adjustment in the wage increase being considered. The first consideration is fact that when substantial disparities develop over time, the gap is normally not closed within just a three year period. Interest arbitrators usually seek instead to narrow the disparity, not completely erase it.

Another consideration is the County's shrinking revenues in the face of growing expenses. However, one expense I have given no weight to is the $90,000 assessment currently incurred after changing liability insurance. The decision to change insurance providers was based upon a calculation that despite the current assessments, the County will ultimately experience an overall savings. Tr. 413. I therefore do not regard the current assessments as an appropriate basis for reducing an award to the deputies. I have likewise given no weight to potential tax cutting initiatives that at present are simply too speculative.

Despite concern financial trends, the County has not yet cut any services; it has just been trying to reduce expenses. Tr. 401. The Association's bargaining unit members provide essential services to County residents for which they should be willing to pay a competitive wage. At the very least, Association members should have their wages adjusted by the intervening changes in the cost of living. Dating back to at least 1997, Whitman deputies have received some sort of annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). Since 1999, that COLA has been based on 90% of the CPIW, not a full 100%. Application of 90% instead of the full CPI-W change evidences recognition that the cost of living in Whitman County is less than reflected in that index. The CPI-W has a significant medical component, so use of 90% becomes even more appropriate when the County is assuming a larger share of those expenses, as it will with this Award.

If the historical bargaining pattern had been followed to arrive at a 2002- 2004 CBA, the CPI-W for the year ending June 30, 2001 would have been used to adjust the 2002 base rate. Ninety percent of that reported CPI-W change is 2.97%. Rounding that up to 3% helps to compensate for the fact that the Association's bargaining unit has waited two and a half years to begin receiving a wage increase for 2002. For 2003, a COLA adjustment based on 90% of the CPI-W would amount to .9%. For a bargaining unit that is so significantly behind its comparator wages, that is too small an adjustment. I am mindful that most County employees have their wages frozen in 2003, but the corrections bargaining unit received an increase of 1.5%. The record is persuasive that Whitman County deputies should receive at least that much.

A 90% COLA adjustment for 2004 would amount to 1.7%. If that COLA is compounded with a 3% increase for 2002 and a 1.5% increase for 2003, the resulting base wage in 2004 for a 10 year deputy would become 3544.78. As shown below, the adjusted base wage (with a 60% dependent insurance contribution by the County) would bring this benchmark position to within 6.24% of the comparator average.

County	Base Wage	Longevity Pay	Paid Leave	Ee Ins. (40%)	Er Ins. (60%)	Adjusted Base
Douglas	3753.81	75.08	389.82	-264.40	879.87	4834.18
Franklin (2003)	3727.67	74.55	401.44	-479.88	486	4208.78
Kittitas	3480	39.5	408.23	-225.64	1109.40	4811.49
Okanogan	3632	72.64	376.98	-509.33	676.56	4248.85
Stevens	3697.43	0	412.41	-157	663.20	4616.04
Walla Walla	3836.87	40	457.47	-464.5	986.76	4856.60
Average						4595.99
Whitman (+6.32%)	3544.78	0	465.59	-597.25	895.87	4308.99
% below average						-6.24%

The Association estimates the cost of its health insurance and wage proposals in approximately $132,000. That assumed every deputy who was already on some kind of dependent coverage switched to full family coverage. The kind of increase I have just described will cost roughly one-third less than that Association's proposal. I find the record quite convincing that the County has sufficient discretionary funds to cover the cost of such an award. In fact, it appears that $150,000 of budgeted funds that the Sheriff's Department returned to the General Fund in 2002 and 2003 would itself suffice had they been retained in anticipation of an award that might eventually result from these proceedings.

With a General Fund Balance in excess of $2 million, the County has sufficient assets from which to pay this Award, and the deputies deserve no less. The awarded insurance contributions and wage increases are appropriate considering the compensation provided by comparable jurisdictions, the cost of living, and other factors normally taken into consideration in the determination of wages.

4. Retroactivity

The County has tried to characterize its final interest arbitration proposal as amounting to 1% each year of the contract. That is certainly not how the proposal reads. The County's proposal changed each existing wage on the salary schedule by different amounts that averaged out to slightly over 1%. The proposal expressly states that these one time changes would be effective only upon ratification of the CBA, and no further increases are specified. I fail to understand how the County proposal equates to 1% each year when the County has sought to have this Arbitrator refrain from making any awarded increases retroactive to the years when they would normally have applied.

The County's final offer to the deputies did not even equate to the kind of increases other County employees were receiving. Individual members of the Association's bargaining unit have continued to provide their services in good faith ever since the prior labor contract ended. Whatever the ill will that may have developed between negotiators at the bargaining table, and irregardless of where the blame may lie for the fact that this interest arbitration was delayed until 2004, the purpose of the statutory process is to ensure that arbitration eligible employees receive fair and equitable wages and benefits. Whitman deputies have been adversely affected enough by the fact that during the intervening period of time, they have borne the full weight of dependent premium insurance increases. There is no justification for denying them a retroactive wage adjustment with increases for each year that are compounded.

The 3% increase awarded for 2002 is to be retroactive to January 1 of that year. The 1.5% increase awarded for 2003 should be applied to the 2002 base wage that results after the 3% adjustment. Likewise, the 2004 adjustment of 1.7% should be applied to the 2003 revised base wage. The effect of compounding these increases means the ultimate 2004 base wage for a 10 year deputy amount will be 6.32% higher than it is right now.

D. NEW ARTICLE (FTO PREMIUM PAY)

Even though new hires have gone through extensive training at the Police Academy to become certified, the Sheriffs Department has a Field Training Officer program that provides further training in Department procedures. For his/ her first three months in the Department, a regular deputy trainee is assigned to work with a series of three different FTOs, spending approximately three to four weeks with each one. Reserve deputies also receive training by FTO's. Those officers are considered trainees for their first year and are assigned to an IT0 for their first four to six months.

FTO's go through a forty hour school, and are responsible for observing a trainee's actions and decision making. At the end of each patrol shift spent with a trainee, the FTO is responsible for writing up a Daily Observation Report (DOR). Tr. 162 (Myers). The Department has always had an informal FTO program, but the training process has become more regimented in the past three years. FTO training now occurs for a specified period, and DORs must be prepared more frequently than before. Tr. 172 (Myers). FTO's receive no extra compensation unless their duties cause them to work extra hours that become overtime.

Association Proposal: The Association is seeking to add new language to the CBA that would provide 5% incentive pay for officers who serve as FTO's. As modified at the arbitration hearing, the new article would read: "Field Training Officer (FTO). Officers who are assigned to serve as a Field Training Officer (FTO) shall receive a five percent (5%) incentive pay based on their current step for the time spent in the actual training of new full time regular deputies." The Association agreed at the hearing that its proposal would not require incentive pay for training reserve officers or lateral hire officers. Tr. 178-181, 216-218, 475- 476.

The Sheriff supports premium pay because FTO's act in a supervisory capacity and must spend extra time evaluating trainees and completing paperwork. There is also potential liability that arises from failing to train a new deputy properly. The Association equates FTO pay to working out of class pay, and feels it is justified to compensate for increased duties and liability, especially since the increased cost associated with this premium is not significant. The Department is fairly small and the training does not occur that often.

County Proposal: The County seeks to maintain the current status quo of no FTO incentive pay. Training has always been part of the job duties for Association members, as it is for most County employees. No other County employee receives premium pay for that training. Maintaining internal parity is an important priority for the County.

The County provided FTO pay in a prior collective bargaining agreement, but the bargaining unit opted to bargain that benefit away. Without a showing that circumstances have changed to warrant the reintroduction of FTO pay, the Arbitrator should not grant a take back of something the County gained through bargaining.

The Sheriff testified that the Association's proposed 5% premium would equate to at least an additional $500 per trained employee. That is an additional cost the County should not be required to incur. Contrary to the Association's claim, comparable jurisdictions do not use FTO pay. Only Asotin County and Stevens County have any form of FTO pay and the premium they provide is substantially less than what the Association proposes.

Discussion and Findings: The burden of persuasion rests upon the Association regarding its FTO premium. Even though other County employees do not receive a premium for on-the-job training of their co-workers, there is some justification for a different practice with the FTO's because over the past three years, the frequency of written reports, and extent to which supervisory tasks are being fulfilled has increased. Nevertheless, an FTO premium is not the prevailing practice of comparable jurisdictions. Though not a very substantial expense, it seems one the County can reasonably refrain from incurring at a time excess revenues have been shrinking each year. The Association's proposal is therefore not adopted.

E. ARTICLE 23 (CONTRACT DURATION)

The parties past two contracts have been three years in duration (1996- 1999 and 1999-2001). Because of the delay caused by unfair labor practice charges filed by the Association during bargaining for the current contract, a three year contract covering 2002-2004 will expire at the end of this year. The parties will thus have to begin bargaining for that next labor contract shortly after receiving this interest arbitration ruling.

Association Proposal: The Association seeks a three year contract with a term of January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004. The Association's proposals for FTO premium pay and the increased City contribution towards dependent medical insurance would only be effective upon the date of the interest arbitration ruling.

The Association objects to the County's request for a contract term longer than three years for a number of reasons. Prior to the arbitration, the County had been proposing just a two year term. The last minute regressive change to a three year term is indicative of bad faith bargaining. The County's proposal is also illegal. RCW 41.56.070 specifies that collective bargaining agreements cannot exceed three years. One reason for that limitation is to ensure bargaining unit members a regular right to change their representation if they so choose. A change of bargaining representative cannot occur while a labor contract is still in effect. Adopting the County's proposal would thus violate both public policy and state law.

The Association should not be penalized for the fact that ULP's were filed and certification to arbitration was suspended for awhile. Regardless of who can be blamed for the fact that the resulting contract will now be close to expiration, it would be patently unfair to extend the labor contract for one of more years when the Association presented no wage proposals for any subsequent years. Moreover, in anticipation that new negotiations would occur for a successor 2004 contract, the Association made choices as to which issues to take to interest arbitration and which could wait until the parties were back at the bargaining table. New issues have also arisen that were not raised in time for certification to interest arbitration. For all the foregoing reasons, the Arbitrator should adhere to the intent of RCW 4 1.56.070 and continue the status quo of a three year term.

County Proposal: The County seeks a contract whose term would extend at least through December 31 , 2005. The County contends that despite the three year limitation in RCW 41.56.070, arbitrators have crafted awards longer contracts in situations where a shorter term leaves the parties right back at the bargaining table. Finalizing a contract that ends in six months is inefficient and not a sensible solution. The Arbitrator should find some creative way to fashion an award that results in a contract extending through December 31, 2005.

Discussion and Findings: There would certainly be a benefit from giving the Association and County a break from negotiations. Finalizing the current contract has been a long, arduous and expensive process; one that has generated hard feelings on both sides. However, there are countervailing considerations, that make a three year contract the better option.

RCW 41.56.070 contains a directive that collective bargaining agreements negotiated under Chapter 41.56 be limited to a three year term. The reasons have to do with ensuring a periodic right for employees to change their bargaining representative if a majority so chooses.

RCW 41.56.070 Election to ascertain bargaining representative. In the event the commission elects to conduct an election to ascertain the exclusive bargaining representative, and upon the request of a prospective bargaining representative showing written proof of at least thirty percent representation of the public employees within the unit, the commission shall hold an election by secret ballot to determine the issue. . . , Where there is a valid collective bargaining agreement in effect, no question of representation may be raised except during the period not more than ninety nor less than sixty days prior to the expiration date of the agreement. Any agreement which contains a provision for automatic renewal or extension of the agreement shall not be a valid agreement; nor shall any agreement be valid if it provides for a term of existence for more than three years.

(Emphasis added in italics.[removed]) The County contends interest arbitrators have crafted awards longer in duration than three years, but the only case it cites is Spokane Transit Authority and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1015, PERC 15129-I-00-337 (Snow, 2001). Instead of having a three year contract that would be ending in six months, Arbitrator Carlton Snow awarded a six year contract with wages awarded for the first three years and then a reopener on wages and any two additional contract articles chosen by the parties. In doing so, he made no mention of RCW 41.56.070, and it is entirely possible he had the tacit agreement of Spokane Transit Authority and the ATU to such a resolution. Any mutual agreement is decidedly lacking in the case before me.

There are potential ways around the statute if parties want to try them. An example described by one witness was to mutually agree upon two consecutive CBA's, each two years in duration. Achieving such an outcome through mutual agreement is far different than unilaterally forcing a party into a contract longer than mandated by Chapter 41.56. The latter course of action is vulnerable to a Whitman County / Deputy Sheriffs' Association Interest Arbitration - p. 52.6 legal challenge over the Arbitrator's authority to ignore a governing statute. Further litigation is the last thing the County and Association's bargaining relationship needs. The Association's proposal for a three year term is therefore adopted.

IV. THE INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD

After considering the applicable statutory factors described in RCW 41.56.465, and with due regard for the County's financial situation, the Arbitrator makes the following award:

Article 8 (Overtime and Shift Differential): The County's proposal to modify this Article is not adopted.

Article 11 (Insurance): The current text of Article 11.02 shall be deleted as obsolete, and the text of Article 11.03 shall be changed to read: "The County shall contribute 60% of the cost of dependent coverage for medical, dental and vision insurance effective July 1, 2004. Article 11.04 shall read: "The County shall continue to make available the Section 125 Cafeteria Plan for medical savings, health care cost pre-tax deductions and childcare reimbursements.'' The reopener language contained in Article 11.05 shall be deleted.

Article 16 (Wages): The salary steps set forth in the CBA's Salary Schedule shall each be increased by 3% effective January 1, 2002, 1.5% effective January 1, 2003, and 1.7% effective January 1, 2004. The increases are to be retroactive and compounded in their application.

New Article (FTO Premium): The Association's proposal for FTO incentive pay is not adopted.

Article 23 (Duration): the term of the CBA shall be from January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004.

Dated this 18th day of June, 2004 by

Janet L. Gaunt, Interest Arbitrator

___________________
Janet L. Gaunt (206) 932-7020
Attorney at Law Fax (206) 932-7021

Arbitration / Mediation / Factfinding