IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEREST ) ARBITRATOR'S
)
ARBITRATION BETWEEN ) OPINION
)
CITY OF COLLEGE PLACE POLICE ) AND
DEPARTMENT )
) AWARD
"THE EMPLOYER" OR "THE CITY" )
)
AND )
)
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 839 )
)
"THE UNION" )
HEARING: April 8, 2009
College Place, WA
Federal Way, WA 98003
HEARING CLOSED: June 8, 2009
ARBITRATOR: Timothy D.W. Williams
2700 Fourth Ave., Suite 305
Seattle, WA 98121
REPRESENTING THE UNION:
David Ballew, Attorney
Rich Davis, Business Representative
Bill Kelly, Bargaining Unit Member
REPRESENTING THE EMPLOYER:
Kevin Wesley, Attorney
Pat Reay, City Administrator
APPEARING AS WITNESSES FOR THE UNION:
Richard Davis, Business Representative
Bill Kelley, Police Officer, Bargaining Unit
APPEARING AS WITNESSES FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Reay, City Administrator
EXHIBITS
Union
SPREADSHEET NOTEBOOK
1. PERC Certified Issues
2. Union Positions
3. Employer Positions
4. Population Reports 2007
5. Population and Assessed Valuation 2007
6. Population, Per Capita Revenues, and Per Capita Sales and
Uses Taxes 2007
7. Per Capita Revenue Report 2007 - SAO Website
8. Assessed Valuation Report 2007 - DOR Website
9. Map of Comparators
10. Seniority Report
11. Top Step Base Wage 1/1/08 - Union Comparators
12. Top Step Base Wage 1/1/08 - Employer Comparators
13. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (3 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
14. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (3 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
15. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (11 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
16. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (11 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
17. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (20 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
18. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (20 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
19. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (25 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
20. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (25 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
21. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (3 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
22. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (3 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
23. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (11 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
24. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (11 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
25. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (20 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
26. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (20 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
27. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (25 Year
Officer) - Union Comparators
28. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (25 Year
Officer) - Employer Comparators
29. CPI-W Data
30. Difference in Heath Care Premiums 2008 Union Comparators
31. Difference in Heath Care Premiums 2008 - Employer
Comparators
32. Difference in Heath Care Premiums 2009 - Union Comparators
33. Difference in Heath Care Premiums 2009 - Employer
Comparators
34. WTWT Contribution History
35. UEBT Contribution History
36. WTWT Dental Plan Information
37. Carol Ferraro's Dental Bill/Information
38. Life Insurance - Union Comparators
39. Life Insurance - Employer Comparators
40. Shift Differential
41. Vacation Top Steps - Union Comparators
42. Vacation Top Steps - Employer Comparators
43. Vacation and Holiday Data
44. On-the-job Injury Coverage - Union Comparators
45. On-the-job Injury Coverage - Employer Comparators
46. Uniform Benefit - Union Comparators
47. Uniform Benefit - Employer Comparators
48. Length of Contract History
49. Maintenance of Benefits - Union and Employer Comparators
50. Salary Data - Cities and Towns 2007 & 2008
COMPARATORS NOTEBOOKS - CONTRACTS
1. Prosser - Union Comparator
A. 2006-2008 CBA
B. 2009-2011 CBA
C. Notes and Declarations
2. Othello - Union Comparator
A. 2008-2010 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
3. Selah - Union Comparator
A. 2008 CBA
B. 2009 CBA
C. Notes and Declarations
4. Ephrata - Union Comparator
A. 2008-2009 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
5. College Place
A. CBA
B. UEBT Contributions Rates for 2009
C. Notes and Declarations
6. Toppenish - Union Comparator
A. 2005-2007 CBA
B. 2006-2008 CBA
C. Notes
7. Grandview - Union Comparator
A. 2007-2009 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
8. Cheney - Union Comparator
A. 2008-2009 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
9. West Richland - Union Comparator
A. 2006-2008 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
10. Walla Walla - Competitor
A. 2006-2008 CBA
B. 2009-2010 CBA
C. Notes and Declarations
11. Airway Heights - Employer Comparator
A. 2007-2009 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
12. Clarkston - Employer Comparator
A. 2008-2011 CBA
B. Notes and Declarations
COMMON COMPARATORS NOTEBOOK
A. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (3 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
B. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (3 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
C. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (11 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
D. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (11 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
E. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (20 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
F. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (20 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
G. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/08 (25 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
H. Longevity, Vacation, Holiday & Medical 1/1/09 (25 Year
Officer) - Common Comparators
I. Difference in Health Care Premiums 2008 - Common
Comparators
J. Difference In Health Care Premiums 2009 - Common
Comparators
K. Dental Plan Comparison - Common Comparators
Employer
1. 2007 City Comparators - List of Comparator Cities
2. 2007 City Comparators - Population, Assessed Value and
Sales Tax Screen Spreadsheet
3. 2007 Population comparisons
4. 2007 Assessed Value Comparisons
5. 2007 Retail Sales Tax Comparisons
6. 2007 General Property Tax
7. 2007 GO Debt Property Tax Revenues
8. 2007 Criminal Justice Sales Tax Revenues
9. 2007 Building Department Revenues
10. 2007 Total City Budget Comparisons
11. 2007 Current Expense Budget Comparisons
12. 2007 Police Department Budget Comparisons
13. 2007 Police Department Size Comparison
14. 2007 Total City Full Time Employees Comparison
15. 2008 City Comparators - List of Comparator Cities
16. 2008 City Comparators - Population, Assessed Value and
Sales Tax Screen Spreadsheet
17. 2008 Population Comparisons
18. 2008 Assessed Value Comparisons
19. 2008 Retail Sales Tax Comparisons
20. 2008 General Property Tax
21. 2008 GO Debt Property Tax Revenues
22. 2008 Criminal Justice Sales Tax Revenues
23. 2008 Building Department Revenues
24. 2008 Total City Budget Comparisons
25. 2008 Current Expense Budget Comparisons
26. 2008 Police Department Budget Comparisons
27. 2008 Police Department Size Comparisons
28. 2008 Total City Full Time Employees Comparison
29. 2009 Total City Budget Comparisons
30. 2009 Current Expense Budget Comparisons
31. 2009 Police Department Budget Comparisons
32. 2009 Police Department Size Comparisons
33. 2009 Total City Full Time Employees Comparison
34. City Wage Proposal
35. 2007 Top Step Base Wage Comparison
36. 2007 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
37. 2007 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
Spreadsheet
38. 2007 Total Compensation - Top Step Comparison
39. 2007 Total Compensation - Top Step Spreadsheet
40. 2007 Internal Top Step Comparison
41. 2007 Calls for Service Comparison
42. 2008 Top Step Base Wage Comparison
43. 2008 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
44. 2008 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
Spreadsheet
45. 2008 Total Compensation - Top Step Comparison
46. 2008 Total Compensation - Top Step Spreadsheet
47. 2008 Internal Top Step Comparison
48. 2008 Calls for Service Comparison
49. 2009 Top Step Base Wage Comparison
50. 2009 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
51. 2009 Total Compensation - Top Step (5 Year with AA Degree)
Spreadsheet
52. 2009 Total Compensation - Top Step Comparison
53. 2009 Total Compensation - Top Step Spreadsheet
54. 2009 Internal Top Step Comparison
55. Historical Wage Increases Compared to CPI 1997-2008
56. Historical Information - CPI Spreadsheet
57. Historical Information - Internal Comparison on Wage
Increases 2007-2009
58. Premium Pay Comparison Exhibits a-i
59. Shift Differential City Proposal
60. 2007-2008 Shift Differential Comparisons
61. Shift Differential Comparison Spreadsheet
62. Health Care Benefit Plan City Proposal
63. 2007 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions
64. 2007 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions - Other City
Bargaining Units Comparison
65. 2008 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions
66. 2008 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions - Other City
Bargaining Units Comparison
67. 2009 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions
68. 2009 Employee Out of Pocket Contributions - Other City
Bargaining Units Comparison
69. Article 8: Sick Leave and Other Defined Leaves (Time Loss)
- Time Loss Benefit City Proposal
70. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
City Proposal
71. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
per month in hours 1-5 Years
72. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
per month in hours 5-10 Years
73. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
per month in hours 10-15 Years
74. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
per month in hours 15-29 Years
75. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
per month in hours 20+ Years
76. Article 13.1: Vacation Accrual Benefit - Vacation Accrual
Comparison Spreadsheet and Graph (All)
77. Article 15.4: Life Insurance Benefit Amount - Life
Insurance Benefit City Proposal
78. Article 15.4: Life Insurance Benefit Amount - Life
Insurance Benefit Employer Provided Comparison
79. Article 15.4: Life Insurance Benefit Amount - Life
Insurance Benefit Employer Provided Comparison Spreadsheet
80. Article 81.1: Number and Content of Issued Officer Uniform
Items - Uniform City Proposal
81. Article 81.1: Number and Content of Issued Officer Uniform
Items - Uniform Allowance Comparison Spreadsheet
82. Article 81.1: Number and Content of Issued Officer Uniform
Items - City of College Place Officer Equipment Inventory
Spreadsheet
83. Article 26: Term of Agreement - Term of Agreement City
Proposal
84. Officers Leaving Department Since 1994 Spreadsheet
85. News Paper Articles Related to Job Market and Economy
86. Airway Heights Contract - Local 270-P AFSME, AFL-CIO
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009
87. Cheney Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 690 January
1, 2004 through December 31, 2006
88. Cheney Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 690 January
2007 through December 31, 2009 (Police Guild)
89. Clarkston Police Guild - January 1, 2005 through December
31, 2007
90. Clarkston Police Guild - January 1, 2008 through December
31, 2011
91. City of College Place - General Teamsters Local No. 839
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009
92. Grandview Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 760
January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009
93. Othello Law Enforcement Officers - Teamsters Local No. 760
May 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007
94. Othello Law Enforcement Officers - Teamsters Local No. 760
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010
95. Posser Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 839 January
1, 2006 through December 31, 2008
96. Selah Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 760 January
1, 2005 through December 31, 2007
97. Selah Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 760 January
1, 2008 through December 31, 2008
98. Toppenish Police Department - Teamsters Local No. 760
99. 2007 Population Rating by City - OFM
100. 2007 City Population, Property Tax and Sales Tax sorted
alphabetically
101. 2007 Sales Tax Data - DOR
102. 2007 Criminal Justice Data - DOR
103. 2008 Population Rating by City - OFM
104. 2008 City Population, Property Tax and Sales Tax sorted
alphabetically
105. 2008 Sales Tax Data - DOR
106. 2008 Criminal Justice Data - DOR
107. General City Financial Information - Airway Heights
108. General City Financial Information - Cheney
109. General City Financial Information - Clarkston
110. General City Financial Information - Grandview
111. General City Financial Information - Othello
112. General City Financial Information - Prosser
113. General City Financial Information - Selah
114. General City Financial Information - Toppenish
115. Asotin County Assessor Information
116. Yakima County Assessor Information
117. Wages - Comparator City Respondent Contact Information
118. Wages - College Place Salary Ordinance 2007
119. Wages - College Place Salary Ordinance 2008
120. Wages - Othello
121. Wages - Selah
122. Wages - Toppenish
123. Historical Wage Increase Information - CPI-W Data 1991
through 2009 (BLS)
124. Historical Wage Increase Information - AWC Survey
Information for 2007 & 2008 (Includes: Hours Worked, Number
of Employees in PO, PO Budgets, Base Salary, Contact
Information and Medical Benefits)
125. Premium Pay Support Documents 2007 & 2008 - AWC Survey
Information (Includes: Standby Pay, Callback Pay, Court
Pay, Shift Differential, Additional Assignment Pay,
Deferred Compensation, Educational Incentive, Longevity
Pay, Annual Leave, Holiday Pay and Sick Leave)
126. Shift Differential Support Documents - Contact List of
Responding Cities
127. Health Insurance Comparison Support Documentation - Contact
List of Responding Cities
128. Vacation Accrual Benefit - Contact List of Responding
Cities
129. Life Insurance Benefit Amount - Contact List of Responding
Cities
130. Uniform Items Support Documentation - Contact List of
Responding Cities
131. Calls for Service - Contact List of Responding Cities
BACKGROUND
Teamsters Local 839 represents a bargaining unit made up of
10 officers employed by the City of College Place. The Local
and the City were bound by a Collective Bargaining Agreement
which expired on December 31, 2007. Presently, the Parties have
come to an impasse in negotiations over the language of the
successor agreement. RCW 41.56.450 provides that uniform
personnel interest arbitration is to be used to resolve an
impasse. The issues to be submitted to the arbitrator for
determination "shall be limited to the issues certified by the
executive director". By letter dated July 29, 2008 Executive
Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC),
Cathleen Callahan, certified the following issues at impasse and
thus subject to interest arbitration:
Economic Issues:
Article 12.1 and Appendix A/Wages
Article 15.1 Health insurance premium payment share
Article 15.4 Life insurance benefit amount
Article 12.2 Shift differential
Article 13.1 Vacation accrual benefit
Article 8.5 Time loss compensation insurance for on-the-job
injury
Other Issues:
Article 18.1 Number and content of issued officer uniform
items
Article 26 Term of agreement and language on how to request
negotiations for successor agreement, proposed by
union as new text.
In accordance with WAC 391-55-205, each Party had the right
to name one partisan Arbitrator to serve as a member of the
arbitration panel. The statute provides that "The use of
partisan arbitrators shall be deemed waived if neither Party has
notified the executive director of its appointee within fourteen
days following the issuance of a certification of issues for
interest arbitration, and the Parties' principal representatives
shall then select the neutral chairperson". Both Parties waived
the use of partisan arbitrators and Arbitrator Timothy Williams
was selected as the neutral chairperson. For the purposes of
this document, the terms "neutral chairperson" and "interest
arbitrator" or "arbitrator" shall be interchangeable.
WAC 391-55-220 provides that parties to an interest
arbitration must provide the Arbitrator and each other with
written proposals on all issues within fourteen (14) days of the
hearing. Both Parties timely submitted their proposals on March
23, 2009.
The hearing took place ln the City of College Place,
Washington on April 8, 2009. At the hearing, both Parties had
full opportunity to make opening statements, examine and crossexamine
sworn witnesses, present documentary evidence, and make
arguments in support of their positions.
RCW 41.56.450 provides that "a recording of the proceedings
shall be taken." In compliance with the statute, the Arbitrator
made an audio digital recording and provided a copy to both
parties. At the close of the hearing, the Parties were given
the opportunity to file written arguments. The Parties accepted
and their briefs were timely received by the Arbitrator on June
8, 2009. In accordance with WAC 391-55-240, the Arbitrator
declared the hearing closed on June 8, 2009. On July 7, 2009
the Arbitrator informed the Parties of a need for a short
extension of time. By return e-mail, both Parties acknowledged
and approved this request.
The Arbitrator's opinion and awards are submitted on an
issue-by-issue basis. On each issue the Arbitrator begins by
presenting the Parties' respective positions, outlines the
Parties ' arguments in support of their positions, provides the
award and then sets forth the rationale for the award. The
opinion and award will address the issues in the order listed in
Ms. Callahan's letter of July 29, 2008.
The Arbitrator's interest awards are based on a careful
analysis of the evidence and argument presented during the
hearing, as well as the arguments found in the written briefs,
and with full consideration of the following factors, found in
RCW 41. 56.465 :
(1) In making its determination, the panel shall be mindful
of the legislative purpose enumerated in RCW 41.56.430 and,
as additional standards or guidelines to aid it in reaching
a decision, it shall take into consideration the following
factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory authority of the
employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) The average consumer prices for goods and
services, commonly known as the cost of
living;
(d) Changes in any of the circumstances under (a)
through (c) of this subsection during the pendency of
the proceedings; and
(e) Such other factors, not confined to the factors
under (a) through (d) of this subsection, that are
normally or traditionally taken into consideration in
the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment. For those employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7) (a) who are employed by the governing body
of a city or town with a population of less than
fifteen thousand, or a county with a population of
less than seventy thousand, consideration must also be
given to regional differences in the cost of living
(2) For employees listed in RCW 41.26.030(7) (a) through
(d), the panel shall also consider a comparison of 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.
The Arbitrator notes that there are 216 exhibits on the
records of these proceedings. Additionally, there are the
opening statements and the testimony provided at hearing. Also,
both Parties submitted extensive written arguments in the form
of their briefs. While this information has been carefully
reviewed and considered, the Arbitrator has not attempted to
respond to all of it. To do so would have produced an award of
ponderous length and of doubtful value to the Parties. Rather
the Arbitrator has focused his analysis on the primary factors
that led to the ultimate award on each issue.
POSITIONS, ARGUMENTS, OPINION AND AWARD
ISSUE 1: ARTICLE 12.1 and APPENDIX A/WAGES
Current Language:
Effective April 1, 2005 all classifications in appendix "AU will
increase 3%. See Appendix "Au.
January 1, 2006 - 3% increase.
January 1, 2007 - 3% increase.
APPENDIX A
Police Department Salaries
Effective April 1, 2005
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
2822 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3288 |
3387 |
3488 |
3593 |
3701 |
| Dectective |
3387 |
3488 |
3593 |
3701 |
3812 |
Probationary Officers will move to Step I after completion of
Police Academy. Officers will increase to the next higher step
on anniversary date.
Union's Proposal:
12.1
Wage Rates:
Effective January 1, 2008 - all classifications in Appendix "AU
will increase to rates shown in Appendix "Au. [Below]
Effective January 1, 2009 - The amounts in Appendix "AU shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2007 to
August 2008, with a floor of 3.5%.
Effective January 1, 2010 - The amounts in Appendix "AU shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2008 to
August 2009, with a floor of 4%.
APPENDIX - "A"
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2008
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3268 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3872 |
3988 |
4108 |
4231 |
4358 |
| Dectective |
3988 |
4108 |
4231 |
4358 |
4489 |
Probationary Officers will move to Step I after completion of
Police Academy. Officers will increase to the next higher step
on anniversary date.
City's Proposal:
Effective January 1, 2008 all classifications in appendix "A"
will increase 4%. See Appendix "A".
January 1, 2009 - 4% increase.
January 1, 2010 - 3% increase.
January 1, 2011 - Wages to be increased by 100% US All-Cities
CPI-W, Sept-Sept, minimum of 2% - maximum of 4%.
APPENDIX A
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2008
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3114 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3628 |
3737 |
3848 |
3964 |
4083 |
| Dectective |
3737 |
3848 |
3964 |
4083 |
4206 |
Union's Position:
The Union's position is that the terms and conditions of
employment of the officers of College Place Police Department,
as primarily reflected by wages provided, are far behind the
comparator cities. A drastic gap is apparent whether the
analysis takes into account common comparables only, Union
comparables or even Employer comparables. The Union argues that
the payment of sub-par wages cannot continue and submits
proposals which it characterizes as reasonable, modest, and
supported by detailed data.
Further, the Union's position, supported by citation from
the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Bellevue v.
International Association of Firefighters, is that interest
arbitration is not a substitute for collective bargaining, but
rather a process that displaces the police officer's right to
strike in support of its demands.
The arbitrator should not merely determine the bargain
the parties would have agreed to in polite talks
across the bargaining table. He should, instead,
consider what bargain would have been reached, and how
staunch each party's resolve would have been, had the
Union-been bargaining from a position in which one of
its economic weapons included the right to strike. A
contrary approach... would strip the Union of their most
powerful economic weapon, while giving them little in
return. (U brief, pg. 2)
The whole purpose behind interest arbitration is to bring
the bargaining unit more on par with the comparators. The Union
argues that the comparators proposed by the City are
problematic, while those proposed by the Union are more
reasonable. The Parties agree on the following comparators:
Prosser, Othello, Selah, Toppenish, Grandview and Cheney.
The Employer proposes to add Airway Heights, which the
Union considers inappropriate because it has the lowest assessed
valuation of any of the proposed comparators and because, like
Cheney, it is a small city next to Spokane and therefore
unnecessary. The Employer also proposes to add Clarkston which
the Union considers inappropriate because it is part of the
Lewiston, Idaho labor market and Idaho is a "right-to-work"
state.
Instead, the Union proposes to add Ephrata, which is
appropriate because it has a population similarly small to
College Place and is geographically close to five of the common
comparator cities. The Union also proposes to add West
Richland, which is appropriate because, like College Place which
is contiguous to a larger city (Walla Walla), West Richland is
continuous to the larger Richland. The Union's comparators are
particularly appropriate because they place College Place
directly in the middle of the population range.
Also, the Union urges the Arbitrator to be mindful of the
terms and conditions of employment in contiguous Walla Walla.
Turnover and competition from Walla Walla is a serious
consideration as in recent years two officers, or 20% of the
bargaining unit, have left College Place for Walla Wall because
of the greater pay and benefits offered there.
In addition to disagreement over the appropriate
comparables, the Parties also disagree regarding the methodology
to be utilized in making comparisons between the bargaining unit
and others. The Union argues that its methodology allows for a
more accurate, "apples to apples" comparison. The Union made
calculations based on a "real" hourly wage determined by
dividing total pay including base wage, longevity pay, and
employer premium payments - by the number of hours worked, 2080
minus vacation and holiday hours.
The Union's position is that the City's numbers are
"padded" because the City included the AA premium (which only
two officers qualify for), deducted employee contributions for
H&W (which does not represent an actual cost to the City), and
relied on what comparables may charge for optional family
coverage against what a College Place officer with no family
would payout. Furthermore, the Union asks the Arbitrator to
disregard the City's emphasis on 2007 data as it is irrelevant
for this interest arbitration.
The Union's review of the common comparators shows that
College Place is significantly behind the average. In 2008 this
lag ranges between 18.67% for a 3 year officer to 21.94% for a
25 year officer. In 2009 this lag ranges between 10.27% for a
25 year officer to 17.18% for an 11 year officer.
The Union's review of the City's comparators shows that
College Place is significantly behind the average. In 2008 this
lag ranges between 16.63% for an 11 year officer to 19.38% for a
25 year officer. In 2009 this lag ranges between 13.16% for a 3
year officer to 17.44% for a 25 year officer. These numbers
reflect the Employer's proposed wage increases for 2008 and
2009.
The Union's review of the Union's comparators shows that
College Place is significantly behind the average. In 2008 this
lag ranges between 20.78% for a 3 year officer to 25.78% for a
25 year officer. In 2009 this lag ranges between 12.92% for a
25 year officer to 19.80% for an 11 year officer. These numbers
reflect the Union's proposed wage increases for 2008 and 2009.
Although the City's spreadsheets are flawed, they still
demonstrate that the City's proposals will widen the
compensation gap between police officers at College Place and
those in the City's comparator jurisdictions. For the Top Step
Wages the disparity will increase from 2.31% in 2007 to 2.69% in
2008 to 3.57% in 2009. Had the City's spreadsheets factored in
longevity, vacation, holiday hours, and employer healthcare
premiums as the Union contends they should have these
disparities would be even more pronounced.
The City's proposals should be rej ected by the Arbitrator
as they fail to even begin bringing College Place officers on
par with comparator jurisdictions, regardless of which
comparators are used and even if the City's spreadsheets are to
be accepted. The City does not make an inability to pay
argument and the Arbitrator therefore lacks the basis to
conclude that budgetary constraints should prevent the Union's
proposals from being accepted. The Union takes the position
that all of the arguments and data presented above supports the
position that the Union's proposals are more than reasonable and
should be accepted by the Arbitrator.
City's Position:
The City's position is that the wage increases requested by
the Union are "ridiculous... not justified by the appropriate
comparables and unattainable in actual negotiations especially
in light of the current economic climate" (E brief, pg. 6). In
contrast to the Union, which has not modified its economic
proposal, the City has increased its financial offer based on
the tracking of settlements offered by comparator jurisdictions.
The result is that the City's current proposal keeps its
officers within market and should be adopted by the Arbitrator.
Further, the City' s position, supported by citation from
Arbitrator Gaunt's decision in Bellevue v. International
Association of Firefighters, is that interest arbitration is an
extension of the collective bargaining process and that the
party seeking a change to contract language bears the burden of
persuasion.
The Parties agree on the following comparators: Prosser,
Othello, Selah, Toppenish, Grandview and Cheney. However, the
City argues Union did not use objective criteria to arrive at
their comparators and the match between their comparator cities
and the Employer's is purely coincidental. The Union's
screening criteria did not take into account the employer's
ability to fund increases, and relied instead solely on
population and assessed value. The City cites Arbitrator
Wilkinson (1994) in support of i ts position that "sole reliance
on population and assessed value fails to satisfy the statutory
requirement... since retail sales tax generates a significant
share of local income". Although the inclusion of West Richland
and Ephrata, as proposed by the Union, would actually help the
City in making a total compensation argument, the City rejects
these as comparators because they are not justified by
appropriate data. Furthermore, the City urges the Arbitrator to
reject the Union's argument that Airway Heights and Clarkston
are inappropriate comparators because of their proximity to
Idaho. In fact, Cheney, which the Union also proposes to
include, is much closer to the state border than Airway Heights.
The City argues that, unlike the Union's, its list of
comparators is arrived at by using wage blind, arbitrator
accepted methodology which results in a list of jurisdictions
comparable in size as well as current expense responsibilities.
These jurisdictions include those common comparators already
listed, plus Airway Heights and Clarkston. Of these cities,
only three operate a fully paid fire department, as does College
Place. The criteria used included population, assessed
valuation, taxable retail sales, and relevant geographic
screening.
The City also argues that the Arbitrator should reject the
Union's request to consider Walla Walla as a competitor labor
market for officers. Walla Walla does not consider itself
comparable to College Place as it operates under a budget which
is four times larger, and instead compares itself to the TriCities,
Kennewick, Pasco etc. The testimony of Mr. Davis that
officers have left College Place for Walla Walla should be taken
in the context of City Exhibit 84 which shows that in the last
fourteen years only two employees have done so, out of the ten
who have left department for various reasons. The two officers
who did leave for Walla Walla wanted more opportunity for action
and advancement than is available in our small town where calls
for service are far below the average of our comparators and
declining.
The City argues that the evidence on the record (E exhibits
34-54) demonstrate that the compensation offered by College
Place is on par with that of comparable cities. In arriving at
this conclusion, the City considered its current budget and tax
revenues, the actual take home compensation proposed by the
City, and the general state of the economy. The total take home
pay of an employee reflects what that person has to spend,
considering base wage, top step (reached sooner in College Place
than comparable jurisdictions), and an AA degree premium
(generally offered by comparable jurisdictions and frequently a
requirement for entry officers) and less the employee's
contribution to medical insurance (based on full family, maximum
liability). According to the City, total take home compensation
is the only appropriate method of comparability for real life
employees as it is the most direct and applicable.
Attempting to put together a total compensation picture, as
does the Union, is problematic because the compensation packages
of different jurisdictions frequently included benefits and
other elements which are offered everywhere and are not directly
comparable. Furthermore, the City believes that the Union's
data is not reliable and that it is "riddled with errors both
raw data and calculation errors" making the Union's conclusions
"inaccurate and unreliable" (E brief, pg. 17).
The City finds the Union's proposals to be entirely
unreasonable and unjustified. Going against the norms of good
faith bargaining, the Union did not cost out the impact of its
proposal, which the City approximates at 25%-27% over the three
year term proposed. Such proposals would not possibly be
accepted in bi-lateral negotiations. To award such increases
without justification would mean that "interest arbitration
stops being an extension of the collective bargaining process
and becomes an end unto itself where unreasonable proposals...
have a new life" (E brief, pg. 18)
The City's review of the department's expense budget shows
that it is catching up even though the department has one third
fewer employees. The department's budget went from being 19.91%
below the average in 2007 to 17.20% below in 2008 to 10.78%
below in 2009. Meanwhile, the City's budget went from being
3.91% above average in 2007 to 10.85% below in 2008 to 1. 60%
below in 2009 and the retail sales and use taxes went from being
10.34% below average in 2007 to 12.51% below in 2008.
Historically, the City has taken care of its officers,
increasing their base wages by 47% since 1997 an increase
which exceeds the CPI by 15.10%. In 2007, the City is 2.31%
behind the comparators in to step base wage for a 5 year
officer; 2.69% behind in 2008; and 3.57% behind in 2009.
However, adding in the City's take home approach places it 2.05%
ahead in 2007; 1.42% ahead in 2008; and .21% ahead in 2009. The
City is at the average in terms of total take home pay.
Lastly, the City cites Arbitrator Krebs' Kennewick v. IAFF
Local 1296 decision in support of its position that settlements
with other bargaining units must be taken into consideration in
determining wage adjustments. Unlike most of the comparators,
College Place operates a paid Fire Department which places
additional strain on the City's expenses. The firefighters also
constitute an interest arbitration eligible unit and the City
has routinely kept the wages of the two units at parity, which
is especially important during difficult economic times, as
explained by Arbitrator Wilkinson in Redmond v. Redmond Police
Association. Nonetheless, the wages presently offered to the
police officers will for the first time exceed those of the
firefighters. In fact, the officers' wages will be the highest
offered to any City bargaining unit or non-represented group,
exceeding the average by 11.6% in 2007; by 12.7% in 2008; and by
13.4% in 2009.
The City asks that the Arbitrator adopt its wage proposal
as being the most reasonable in total take home compensation.
Award on Issue 1:
12.1 Wage Rates
Effective January 1, 2008 - all classifications in Appendix "A"
will increase to rates shown in Appendix "A". [Below]
Effective January 1, 2009 - all classifications in Appendix "A"
will increase to rates shown in Appendix "A" for 2009. [Below]
Effective January 1, 2010 - The amounts in Appendix "A" shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2008 to
August 2009, with a floor of 2% and a maximum of 4%.
Effective January 1, 2011 - The amounts in Appendix "A" shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2009 to
August 2011, with a floor of 2% and a maximum of 4%.
Wages increases for all current bargaining unit members will be
retroactively applied, as appropriate, to January 1, 2008.
APPENDIX - "A"
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2008
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3144 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3662 |
3773 |
3885 |
4003 |
4122 |
| Dectective |
3773 |
3885 |
4003 |
4122 |
4246 |
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2009
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3301 |
|
|
|
|
| The Police Officer |
3845 |
3963 |
4079 |
4203 |
4328 |
| Dectective |
3963 |
4079 |
4203 |
4328 |
4458 |
Probationary Officers will move to Step I after completion of
Police Academy. Officers will increase to the next higher step
on anniversary date.
Analysis:
RCW 41.56.465 requires that the Arbitrator consider a
number of factors when making an interest award. Many of these
factors deal specifically with issues concerning wages and other
cost items. The Arbitrator has been specifically mindful of
these factors in reviewing the Parties disagreement over the
matter of the wages that are to be paid to College Place police
officers. This analysis focuses on those factors which were
stressed in the arguments of both the Union and the City. The
factor most discussed by both Parties is the matter of
comparability; whether the City pays wages to its police
officers consistent with other comparable jurisdictions. In
response to the heavy emphasis placed on this criterion by the
Parties, much of the analysis related to wages focuses on this
concern.
The Parties are in agreement over the following six
comparable jurisdictions:
Toppenish
Cheney
Grandview
Selah
Prosser
Othello
The City proposes to add Clarkston and Airway Heights to
the list. The Union disagrees and offers Ephrata and West
Richland. While both Parties disagree as to which jurisdictions
to add, they do agree that the total number should be eight.
Based on this the Arbitrator determines that the appropriate
comparators are:
Clarkston
Ephrata
Toppenish
Cheney
Grandview
Selah
Prosser
Othello
For a number of reasons the Arbitrator rejects Airway
Heights and West Richland as possible comparators. Airway
Heights is the most geographically distant and the least related
on a number of other key criteria. Western Richland is a suburb
of Richland which is a part of the central Washington Tri-City
metro complex. None of the other comparators have a similar
relationship to a metro complex, a relationship which has a
tendency to drive up wages. The Arbitrator further notes that
by eliminating Airway Heights and West Richland as comparators,
he has removed the statistical extremes from the data; West
Richland at the top and Airway Heights at the bottom.
Using the data found in both Union and City exhibits, the
Arbitrator pulls together the following wage information:
2008 Top Step Police Officer
Toppenish 4,451
Cheney 4,412
Grandview 4,335
Selah 4,180
Clarkston 4,174
Prosser 4,069
Othello 3,955
Ephrata 4,322
Average 4,237
College Place 4,358 Union proposal of 11% increase
Difference 120.75
% above .028
College Place 4,083 Employer proposal of 4% increase
Difference 154.25
% below .038
College Place 4,122 Arbitrator's award of 5% increase
Difference 115
% below .028
2009 Top Step Police Officer
Cheney 4,717
Grandview 4,595
Toppenish 4,540
Prosser 4,420
Selah 4,347
Clarkston 4,257
Othello 4,153
Ephrata* 4,538
Average 4,446
College Place 4,366 Union proposal of 5.93% increase
Difference 80
% below .018
College Place 4,287 Employer proposal of 4% increase
Difference 159
% below .037
College Place 4,328 Arbitrator's award of 5% increase
Difference 118
% below .027
While RCW 41.56.465 requires that an arbitrator use
comparability as one of the factors In reaching a decision
related to wages, the statute does not set forth how any given
jurisdiction ought to relate to the comparators. A set of
comparators provides both a range of wages and an average wage.
Should the instant jurisdiction set wages at the average, the
top or the bottom? That question is left by RCW to the Parties
to argue and ultimately for the Arbitrator to determine.
The City passionately argued that wages for its police
officers should legitimately lag behind the appropriate
comparators. Having carefully studied the City's argument and
the evidence presented in support of that argument, the
Arbitrator concludes that the City makes a good case. As a
result the Arbitrator determined to set wages between two and 3%
below the average for the comparators (.028 in 2008 and .027 in
2009) . He believes that this decision does not treat the
officers in College Place unfairly or unreasonably.
Furthermore, in reviewing the labor agreements in place for the
comparators, the Arbitrator also concludes that the mathematical
formula awarded by which to set wages in 2010 and 2011 will
achieve the same results.
In their written briefs, both Parties repeatedly recognized
the difficulties in attempting to have an "apples to apples"
comparison. Some wage increases, for example, are given by the
comparators at the beginning of the year, others provide smaller
increases but one at the beginning and one mid-year. The
Arbitrator used the top step for a police officer as the basis
for establishing comparability but the number of years to get to
the top step differs comparator to comparator. Without undue
elaboration, the Arbitrator recognizes the difficulty of getting
a true comparison. Ultimately, however, he arrives at the
conclusion that using top step for police officer is a
reasonable basis to make the comparison and does not unduly
construe the results.
As emphasized above, the Arbitrator carefully considered
all of the evidence and arguments provided by the Parties but is
focusing this analysis on those factors he considered most
significant in shaping the award. This analysis continues by
discussing five of those primary factors.
First, the Union at page 8 of its brief cites a prior
interest arbitration award by this Arbitrator. In that award
the Arbitrator took the position that the best comparison is
total cost to total cost. In other words, what is the full cost
to a jurisdiction for purchasing one hour of police services?
The flip side of this is that those costs are what a police
officer receives (wages and benefits) for providing that one
hour of service. The Arbitrator emphasizes the concept of an
hourly comparison because the number of hours worked by a police
officer during a year can change jurisdiction to jurisdiction
and can further change by seniority as the officer receives
additional vacation time.
Compensation can take many forms and different
jurisdictions provide that compensation in unique combinations
of those different forms. It is the sum total cost of those
unique combinations that need to be compared jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. Thus this Arbitrator reaffirms his earlier
decision and emphasizes his effort in shaping the various awards
in this decision to be cognizant of the concept of total cost as
the basis for making a comparison.
Second, the City put a heavy emphasis on the concept of
employee take home pay. The Arbitrator carefully studied the
data and philosophically is drawn to it. Employees pay their
mortgages and other bills not with gross pay but with net pay.
Ultimately, however, he did not find this a compelling argument.
For one thing, the City's data is heavily skewed by the presence
of Airway Heights, the jurisdiction that provides employee only
medical insurance. Police officers in that jurisdiction who
need full-family coverage pay the entire cost of that addition
thus reducing their take home pay. No other comparator is
similarly situated. Since the Arbitrator removed Airway Heights
from the list of comparators, the City's data is significantly
less compelling.
Additionally, as is set forth In the analysis on the next
issue, the City's data is also skewed in that it assumes that
all police officers in each jurisdiction need full-family
coverage. The Arbitrator concludes that this assumption is
substantially inaccurate, a fact which additionally undermines
any legitimacy to the City's argument.
Third, the Arbitrator did give consideration to the City's
arguments around the internal comparators. However, he found
the external comparators more significant in determining the
appropriate wage. The Arbitrator specifically notes the City's
concerned about its other interest arbitration eligible
bargaining unit, the firefighters. While this bargaining unit
will certainly raise arguments related to any internal disparity
with police officer wages, it will additionally have to justify
its proposals by external comparators. If both the internal and
external comparators support a wage increase, the City will
simply have to deal with that fact.
Fourth, the Union pushed for higher wages based on a
comparison with Walla Walla which it called a competitor not a
comparator. The Arbitrator simply notes that the concept of a
competitor is not a statutory criterion and that the movement of
two officers from the College Place police department to the
Walla Walla police department is a fact too old to have much
significance for this award.
Finally, the Arbitrator needs to admit to a certain amount
of trepidation over issuing this interest arbitration decision.
The Arbitrator takes note that on a daily basis the front pages
of the media continue to emphasize that we are in the midst of
the greatest recession since the Great Depression. The
trepidation comes from the fact that this entire proceeding and
this award has too much of a feel that it is simply business as
usual. How can one give any increase in wages when some
jurisdictions (California and Oregon for example) are rolling
back wages and furloughing employees?
Ultimately, the Arbitrator set aside his trepidation,
focused on the statutory criteria and notes that for most all
the comparators wages and benefits are already set through the
year 2011. This award is, in the Arbitrator's view, consistent
with the terms and conditions set forth in the labor agreements
of the comparators. Hopefully actions taken at the national and
state level will continue to have a positive impact on the
economy and business can return to a more steady state. Clearly
this award contains some of the optimism found in that
statement.
ISSUE 2: ARTICLE 15.1 - HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM PAYMENT SHARE
Current Language:
15.1 Effective 7/1/05 the employer will increase contributions
for Health and Welfare to $677.15 per month per member of the
bargaining unit for the following coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits - $610.00
WTWT Dental Plan C - $49.20
WTWT Life/AD&D Plan B - $6.60
WTWT Vision Plan EXT - $11.35
Effective 1-1-06 and 1-1-07 cost increases in the above
listed plans to be shared on a 50/50 basis, 50% by the employer
and 50% by the employee.
Union's Proposal:
15.1 Effective 1/1/08, and continuing for the duration of this
agreement, the Employer will increase contributions for Health
and Welfare to the required amount per month per member of the
bargaining unit for the following coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits UEBT - $702.00
Time Loss 4 - $ 22.00
WTWT Dental Plan A - $117.14
WTWT Vision Plan EXT -
$ 11.35
Effective 1-1-08, and each month thereafter during the
period of this Collective Bargaining Agreement is in effect, the
Employer agrees to pay to the Washington Teamsters Welfare
Trust, c/o Northwest Administrators, and the United Employees
Benefit Trust the full premium amounts per employee who received
compensation for not less than 40 hours the previous month to
purchase the above-referenced mix of benefits.
City's Proposal:
15.1 [No change]
Union's Position:
The Union's review of the medical premiums paid by College
Place demonstrates that the City pays much less for full-family
coverage, regardless of which comparators are used and even
should the Union's proposal be adopted.
Using only the common comparators, the City pays $479.03
less per employee in 2008 and $506.54 less per employee in 2009.
Using only the Employer's comparators, the City pays $425.04
less per employee in 2008 and $450.13 less per employee in 2009.
Using only the Union's comparators, the City pays $536.60 less
per employee in 2008 and $571.11 less per employee in 2009.
Adopting the Union's proposal for 2008 would result in a
cost of $ 852.89 per month per employee. This is $348.95 less
than the average of the common comparators; $294.96 less than
the Employer comparators; and $406.52 less than the Union
comparators.
Adopting the Union's proposal for 2009 would result in a
cost of $910.07 per month per employee. This is $345.38 less
than the average of the common comparators; $288.97 less than
the Employer comparators; and $409.95 less than the Union
comparators.
The Union argues that its proposed language should be
adopted as it "both protects the employees from further
diminution to their wages and still allows the City to remain
below the average of the comparators" (U brief, pg. 15).
City's Position:
During the last negotiations the Parties agreed to current
contract language establishing the level of benefits and the
50/50 cost sharing approach. Significantly, the City agreed to
transition the officers from the previous AWC plan to the UEBT.
Al though both the City and the officers pay less per month to
UEBT, this transition was a costly one for the City in terms of
loss of control regarding the timing of premium payments and
other expenses. "[A]ny cost savings realized by the City... have
more than been exceeded by the cost of City staff time and
representatives dealing with their complex regulations as well
as costs defending the City in grievances over the application
of trust rules" (E brief, pg. 15) Consequently, the amount
that the employer contributes to medical insurance is less
relevant as the employee out of pocket contribution. The City
premium contribution is a product of the Union's request to move
to the UEBT plans and should not be compared to the costs
incurred by other jurisdictions due to their choices regarding
Union Trust plans. Making comparisons on the basis of the
Employer contributions would penalize the City for bargaining in
good faith when it agreed to move to the Union trust plan.
The City's review of employee out of pocket contributions
to the insurance plan demonstrates that the bargaining unit pays
less for coverage compared to average internal and external
comparators. Considering external comparators, College Place
officers paid 79.69% less In 2007; 68.28% less in 2008; and
55.15% less in 2009. Considering internal comparators, College
Place officers paid 60% less in 2007; 46% less in 2008; and 32%
less in 2009. This is fair and consistent.
The Union has presented no rational to change the status
quo and enhance the insurance plans selected during the last
negotiations, nor have the officers raised any issues with the
level of plans currently in place. The Arbitrator lacks any
basis to conclude that the status quo should not be maintained.
Award on Issue 2:
15 .1 Effective 8/1/09 the employer will increase
for Health and Welfare to $756.07 per month per
bargaining unit for the following coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits - $700.00
WTWT Dental Plan C - $44.72
WTWT Vision Plan EXT - $11.35
Effective 1/1/10 the employer will increase its per
bargaining unit member monthly contributions for Health and
Welfare to the amount set forth below for the following
coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits - ($700.00 + 50% of
increased cost over prior year)
UEBT Time Loss 4 - - $ (full amount)
WTWT Dental Plan A - $ (full amount)
WTWT Vision Plan EXT - $ (full amount)
Effective 1-1-11 the above listed plans will be maintained
and any cost increases will be shared on a 50/50 basis, 50% by
the employer and 50% by the employee.
Effective 1-1-08, and each month thereafter during the
period that this Collective Bargaining Agreement is in effect,
the Employer agrees to pay to the Washington Teamsters Welfare
Trust, c/o Northwest Administrators, and the United Employees
Benefit Trust the full premium amounts per bargaining unit
member who received compensation for not less than 40 hours the
previous month to purchase the above-referenced mix of benefits.
Analysis:
The current medical insurance benefit was negotiated and
agreed to in the old CBA. That provision called for a 50/50
split of any increased costs during the last two years of the
agreement. The old agreement expired on December 31, 2007. The
medical insurance benefit has been continued for the last
eighteen months applying the same 50/50 split for increased
costs in 2008 and again in 2009. The Arbitrator sees no reason
to retroactively make adjustments to the cost sharing or to the
makeup of the benefits. Thus his award takes effect on August
1, 2009.
As on the prior issue, the medical benefit issue is
primarily about the comparators; wages plus the cost of the
insurance benefit making up the substantial majority of the
City's cost for hiring a police officer. On wages the
Arbitrator attempted to bring this bargaining unit into a closer
relationship with the average wage for the comparators. He
applied the exact same reasoning with regard to the medical
benefit. As is more extensively explained above, attempting to
calculate an exact equivalency to comparators is a difficult
task achieving at best a reasonable approximation. The
Arbitrator is convinced that his award is that "reasonable
approximation." Additional specific points of analysis are
provided below.
Starting on January 1, 2010, the Arbitrator's award
improves the dental insurance benefit and adds the Time Loss
element. These changes reflect the Arbitrator's conclusion that
the City lags behind its comparators in both the amount paid for
medical insurance benefits and specifically with regard to the
dental insurance program (U 31, 32, 33). These changes also
reflect the fact that the Arbitrator found persuasive Union
arguments with regard to the need for improved dental program
and the Time Loss benefit.
The Union claims that the City lags way behind the
comparators with regard to the total payment to the medical
insurance benefit while the City contends that members of the
bargaining unit have far less out of pocket costs then employees
of the comparators. After a careful study of the data, the
Arbitrator found neither of these claims completely accurate.
The Union's analysis of the comparators uses the employers'
contribution towards the cost of full family coverage as the
basis for its claim. The problem with this method is that many
officers will not be enrolled in full family coverage but will
have employee only insurance or employee plus one dependent (U
31, 32, 33). In that case the contribution is substantially
less. Since College Place pays a composite rate, as do Othello
and Selah, a comparison to the cost of full-family coverage
under a traditional payment structure gives a significantly
distorted view. Looking at the relationship between payments
made by Othello and Selah to those made by College Place does
show a lag for 2009 of 18% (U 32). Having studied the data, the
Arbitrator is convinced that the 18% figure is a rough
approximation of the actual gap between what College Place pays
for the medical insurance benefit and the per employee average
payment made by the comparators. The Arbitrator acknowledges,
however, that while the 18% is a real figure when looking at
Othello and Selah, it is simply a studied approximation when
looking at the whole group of eight comparators.
The City, on the other hand, provides data on employee
contributions for the comparators that also use the contribution
for a non-composite rate full-family premium. In other words,
while the Union uses this figure to look at the employers'
contribution, the City uses it to look at the employees'
contribution. In either case it distorts the end result. For
example, the city notes that a Clarkston city employee
contributes $145 per month (C 65) towards the medical insurance
benefit in 2009. This is true only if that employee is
receiving the full-family benefit. If the employee is receiving
employee only benefit (is single, has a spouse that is otherwise
insured, etc.), he or she pays only $51 per month (U 33). Other
comparators show the same gap such as Prosser where the employee
contribution is $170 full family compared to $ 5 9 for employee
only. Unless one knows the exact makeup of the bargaining unit
and the selection made by each employee it is not possible to
calculate exactly the average per employee contribution to the
medical insurance benefit. It will, however, be a number
somewhere between the high and low set forth above.
The bottom line for College Place is that there is a lag
with the comparators on the medical insurance benefit but it is
not as bad as the Union claims nor as good as the City wants to
make it. The Arbitrator's award takes a significant step
towards addressing the discrepancy in a cost sensitive manner.
ISSUE 3: ARTICLE 15.4 - LIFE INSURANCE BENEFIT AMOUNT
Current Language:
15.4
Term Life Insurance: The City agrees to pay the premium
for term life insurance for each covered employee in the amount
of ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
Union's Proposal:
15.4
Term Life Insurance: The City agrees to pay the premium
for term life insurance for each covered employee in the amount
of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
City's Proposal:
15.4
Term Life Insurance: [No change]
Union's Position:
The Union's proposal would increase the cost to the City
from $1.60 per month per employee to $8.00 per month per
employee, amounting to $51.20 per month for the bargaining unit.
"$10,000 is not a large life insurance policy, especially when
considering that these police officers put their lives on the
line everyday for the City" (U brief, pg. 15).
$50,000 is reasonable. An increase to
City's Position:
The City recognizes that the current benefit is low
compared to other jurisdictions. Its inability to grant the
Union's proposal is due to the inability of the Parties to reach
agreement on wage and medical insurance increases. "Given a
reasonable settlement award the City would not be opposed to the
addition of this benefit within the context of an affordable
total package" (E brief, pg. 33).
Award on Issue 3:
15.4
Term Life Insurance: The City agrees to pay the premium
for term life insurance for each covered employee in the amount
of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
Analysis:
The Arbitrator notes that the only barrier to an agreement
on this issue is a satisfactory settlement of the other issues
in dispute. The Employer was reluctant to agree to a cost
increase for this benefit until it knew all of the other costs
that would occur as a result of the settlement of the remaining
issues. Since this award determines those costs and, in the
Arbitrator's view, the costs are reasonable, the award of the
increase to the life insurance benefit is justified.
ISSUE 4: ARTICLE 12.2 - SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
Current Language:
12.2
Shift Differential: Employees whose assigned shift is
other than the designated "Day Shift" shall receive the
following additions to pay.
12.2.1 Thirty-five cents ($.35) per hour shall be added to the
pay of those working the designated "Swing Shift".
12.2.2 Forty cents ($.40) per hour shall be added to the pay of
those working a designated shift other than "Swing" or "Day"
(e.g., Late Swing, Relief or Graveyard).
12.2.3 No shift differential shall be added to the pay of
employees who may incidentally work hours outside the designated
"Day Shift". An entire shift must be assigned in order to
qualify for pay under this Article.
12.2.4 No Employee shall suffer a reduction in shift
differential due to a temporary reassignment of shifts by the
Employer.
City's Proposal:
12.2
Shift Differential: [Delete, remove from contract]
Union's Proposal:
12.2 Shift Differential: Employees whose assigned shift is
other than the designated "Day Shift" shall receive the
following additions to pay.
12.2.1 Forty-five cents ($.45) per hour shall be added to the
pay of those working the designated "Swing Shift".
12.2.2 Fifty cents ($.50) per hour shall be added to the pay
of those working a designated shift other than "Swing" or "Day"
(e.g., Late Swing, Relief or Graveyard).
12.2.3 No shift differential shall be added to the pay of
employees who may incidentally work hours outside the designated
"Day Shift". An entire shift must be assigned in order to
qualify for pay under this Article.
12.2.4 No employee shall suffer a reduction in shift
differential due to a temporary reassignment of shifts by the
Employer.
City's Position:
The City argues that the payment of a shift differential
has become an obsolete practice In public sector employment.
Only one other comparator jurisdiction offers a shift
differential and no other employee group in the City of College
Place receives it. Police officers understand that law
enforcement requires round-the-clock coverage and accept shift
work as a condition of employment. Many officers even prefer to
work other than the traditional day shift, despite the original
logic behind this premium as penalty pay. The City's method of
rotating officers through the shifts within a one year period is
fair and appropriate. The elimination of a shift differential
would additionally lighten the administrative burden of the
City's very busy payroll staff.
Union's Position:
The City's proposal to take away the shift differential is
unacceptable because it would place the officers even further
behind in overall wages. As the City did not give any reason to
justify the removal of this language, the Arbitrator should not
allow the officers to suffer this additional reduction In
compensation.
Award on Issue 4:
12.2 Shift Differential: The shift differential provided in the
prior agreement shall be retained until August 1, 2009.
Effective August 1, 2009 the payment of the shift differential
will be terminated and the language related to the differential
removed from the collective bargaining agreement.
Analysis:
The Union proposes to maintain the language related to
shift differential but to increase each of the differentials by
10ยข an hour. The Union's reasoning is that the differential has
existed over many years but has not been increased. Therefore,
an increase is warranted. Additionally, the Union obj ects to
the City's proposal to remove the provision and argues to retain
based on the fact that the overall wages of the bargaining unit
are low compared to the comparables and removal would just
exacerbate the problem.
The Arbitrator notes, however, that neither the existence
of the shift differential nor the proposed increases are
supported by the comparators. With the exception of Prosser, no
other comparator has a shift differential. Most important, the
shift differential appears to serve no purpose other than to put
some additional money into the pocket of bargaining unit members
and that purpose, in the Arbitrator's view, can best be served
through an appropriate increase in basic wages.
The City calls the shift differential a "dinosaur whose
time has come for extinction" (C Br. 24). On reflection, the
Arbitrator sides with the City on this issue and concludes that
the matter of non-comparable wages ought to be addressed as a
matter of wages not through the shift differential.
removes the shift differential from the CBA. The Award
ISSUE 5: ARTICLE 13.1 - VACATION ACCRUAL BENEFIT
Current Language:
13.1 Vacation Leave: Regular employees shall accrue vacation
credit from the Date of Hire (DOH), but may not use vacation (or
receive payment in lieu) prior to completing twelve (12) months
with the Employer. In the event of a personal emergency, an
exception may be granted by the Police Chief. If an employee is
terminated during the initial probation period, no vacation
shall have been earned.
Regular full-time employees shall earn vacation leave according
to the following schedule:
| Continuous Service |
Monthly Accrual |
Annual Equivalent |
| 1 Year Through 5 |
8.00 Hours |
12 Days |
| 6 Years Through 10 |
10.00 Hours |
15 Days |
| 11 Years Through 15 |
13.33 Hours |
20 Days |
Union's Proposal:
13.1
Vacation Leave: Regular employees shall accrue vacation
credit from the Date of Hire (DOH), but may not use vacation (or
receive payment in lieu) prior to completing twelve (12) months
with the Employer. In the event of a personal emergency, an
exception may be granted by the Police Chief. If an employee is
terminated during the initial probation period, no vacation
shall have been earned.
Regular full-time employees shall earn vacation leave according
to the following schedule:
| Continuous Service |
Monthly Accrual |
Annual Equivalent |
| 1 Year Through 5 |
8.00 Hours |
12 Days |
| 6 Years Through 10 |
10.00 Hours |
15 Days |
| 11 Years Through 15 |
13.33 Hours |
20 Days |
| 16 Years Through 20 |
14.66 Hours |
22 Days |
| Over 20 Years |
16.66 Hours |
25 Days |
City's Proposal:
Article 13.1: [No change]
Union's Position:
The bargaining unit has several employees of considerable
seniority. The Union is requesting a modest bump in total
possible vacation accrual to reward long-term employees for
their loyalty. When compared with other jurisdictions, the City
is on the low side of vacation for long-term employees. The
Union comparators average 25.63 days of accrual for an 18.5 year
employee. The Employer comparators average 23.75 days of
accrual for a 17. 75 year employee. This benefit is reasonable
as it is not a large expense to the City.
City's Position:
The Union has failed to meet its burden of proof to
demonstrate that an increase in vacation accruals is needed.
According to the City "this proposal is another wish list item
thrown on the table in hopes that the arbitrator will split the
baby and grant the Union some benefit they could not have
achieved in negotiations" (E brief, pg. 32).
The Union has attempted to make contradictory arguments.
On the one hand it argues that the City has poor retention, is
losing officers to Walla Walla, and should grant wage increases.
On the other hand it argues that the City has long term
employees who should be rewarded with more time off.
The City's review of the comparables demonstrates that it
is on par with other jurisdictions in terms of vacation accrual.
Testimony at the hearing further demonstrated that the City has
a problem with getting officers to take the vacation they are
currently accruing - granting additional accrual is not
sensible. Furthermore, such an increase in accrual would
disrupt a long standing, city wide, consistently applied
practice of granting the same level of vacation benefit to all
city staff.
Award on Issue 5:
13.1
Vacation Leave: Regular employees shall accrue vacation
credit from the Date of Hire (DOH), but may not use vacation (or
receive payment in lieu) prior to completing twelve (12) months
with the Employer. In the event of a personal emergency, an
exception may be granted by the Police Chief. If an employee is
terminated during the initial probation period, no vacation
shall have been earned.
Regular full-time employees shall earn vacation leave according
to the following schedule:
| Continuous Service |
Monthly Accrual |
Annual Equivalent |
| 1 Year Through 5 |
8.00 Hours |
12 Days |
| 6 Years Through 10 |
10.00 Hours |
15 Days |
| 11 Years Through 15 |
13.33 Hours |
20 Days |
| 16 Years Plus |
14.66 Hours |
22 Days |
Analysis:
The City's own comparators establish a justification for a
small improvement at the top end of the vacation accrual chart
(C 74 and 75). The Arbitrator's award adds some additional
vacation time for those employees with sixteen or more years of
service with the City. Vacation time should be retroactively
added to those qualifying employees effective January 1, 2008.
ISSUE 6: ARTICLE 8.5 - TIME LOSS COMPENSATION INSURANCE
FOR ON-THE-JOB INJURY
Current Language:
8.5
Injury on the Job: Any regular full-time employee covered
by this Agreement who is injured while on his regular job and is
unable to return to work, shall be compensated by the Employer
in the amount equal to the difference between his regular salary
and those monies paid by the State of Washington Temporary
Disability Compensation schedule so that the employee shall
receive a full day's [eight (8) hours] pay at his regular rate
for each eligible day disabled. Such difference in compensation
shall be paid from the employee's sick leave bank up to a
maximum of fifty (50) days. Only that portion of sick leave pay
used shall be deducted from the employee's sick leave bank,
unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Employer and
employee.
Union's Proposal:
8.5
Injury on the Job: Any regular full-time employee covered
by this Agreement who is injured while on his regular job and is
unable to return to work, shall be compensated by the Employer
in the amount equal to the difference between his regular salary
and those monies paid by the State of Washington Temporary
Disability Compensation schedule so that the employee shall
receive a full day's pay at his regular rate for each eligible
day disabled. Such difference in compensation shall be paid
from the employee's sick leave bank up to a maximum of one
hundred (100) days. Only that portion of sick leave pay used
shall be deducted from the employee's sick leave bank, unless
otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Employer and employee.
City's Proposal:
8.5
Injury on the Job: [No change]
Union's Position:
The Union argues that there is no basis to deny the
proposal to allow employees to use a larger amount of sick leave
when injured on the job, which it characteri zes as reasonable
and "only fair". The proposal costs the City nothing and will
actually save money as the used sick leave will no longer be a
liability to the City. Furthermore, most comparator cities do
not have a cap for sick leave resulting from on-the-job
injuries.
City's Position:
The City's position is simple and straightforward. It
emphasizes that the Union points to no problems with the
provision in the past. In the absence of any difficulties with
the current language, the City sees no reason to make a change.
Award on Issue 6:
8.5
Injury on the Job: Any regular full-time employee covered
by this Agreement who is injured while on his regular job and is
unable to return to work, shall be compensated by the Employer
in the amount equal to the difference between his regular salary
and those monies paid by the State of Washington Temporary
Disability Compensation schedule so that the employee shall
receive a full day's pay at his regular rate for each eligible
day disabled. Such difference in compensation shall be paid
from the employee's sick leave bank up to a maximum of one
hundred (100) days. Only that portion of sick leave pay used
shall be deducted from the employee's sick leave bank, unless
otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Employer and employee.
Analysis:
One hopes that this provision never has to be used.
Injuries on the job are something that every Employer seeks to
prevent. Unfortunately, at times, they do happen. The City's
argument that no change is needed because it has not previously
experienced a situation where an officer has needed a benefit
greater than what currently exists reflects, in this
Arbitrator's view, a fortunate circumstance. The Arbitrator
concludes, however, that the change requested by the Union is
reasonable, consistent with the comparators and is more
responsive to the type of risks taken by a police officer.
Waiting until the time a police officer has a major injury is
not the right time to make the change. Using sick time to cover
partial loss of income during the time of a maj or inj ury does
not increase the City's cost and is clearly a significant
benefit to the employee.
ISSUE 7: ARTICLE 18.1 - NUMBER AND CONTENT OF ISSUED
OFFICER UNIFORM ITEMS
Current Language:
18.1 The Employer shall provide as initial issue of three (3)
serviceable uniforms to new employees and on an exchange and
replacement basis to regular employees. All uniform and
equipment items shall be subject to prior approval of the Chief
of Police. The Employer shall pay for the cleaning of one (1)
uniform per week.
Union's Proposal:
18.1 The Employer shall provide as initial issue of four (4)
serviceable uniforms to new employees and on an exchange and
replacement basis to regular employees. All uniform and
equipment items shall be subject to prior approval of the Chief
of Police. The Employer shall pay for the cleaning of one (1)
uniform per week.
City's Proposal:
18.1 [No change]
Union's Position:
The officers request one additional uniform so that they
are able to wear a fresh uniform on each shift and only have to
launder them on days off. "Having fresh and clean uniforms,
especially in the hot weather, is important for the officers,
especially when dealing with the public. This is a small
request" (U brief, pg. 17).
City's Position:
The provision of three serviceable uniforms is justified by
comparator jurisdictions. However, the City has complied with a
request made by the officers during the term of the previous
contract to provide a jump suit. The contract does not define
what constitutes a serviceable uniform, and the Police Chief at
his discretion has determined that a jump suit is appropriate
for wear by the officers. The City's position, therefore, is
that it already provides four serviceable uniforms; neither does
the Union contradict this premise. The Union's current position
is an attempt to challenge what constitutes a serviceable
uniform. As it failed to bargain over this definition during
negotiations, it should not be allowed to prevail in
arbitration.
Award on Issue 7:
18.1 The Employer shall provide as initial issue of four (4)
serviceable uniforms to new employees and on an exchange and
replacement basis to regular employees. All uniform and
equipment items shall be subject to prior approval of the Chief
of Police. The Employer shall pay for the cleaning of one (1)
uniform per week.
Analysis
The Arbitrator finds the arguments of the Union persuasive
on this issue. Officers work a 4 day week and having a fresh
uniform to put on each day is not an unreasonable request.
Moreover, the Arbitrator did not find the comparables to be of
much help on this issue. Primarily the language in comparator
agreements simply state that the Employer will provide uniforms
but without expressing a quantity.
The Arbitrator did not find persuasive the City's
contention that the jump suit gave officers a fourth uniform and
thus there was no need to change the language. While obviously
the j umpsuit has its utility, there is simply no evidence that
in the normal course of events it is routinely worn as part of
the officers regular attire.
ISSUE 8: ARTICLE 26 - TERM OF AGREEMENT AND LANGUAGE ON HOW TO
REQUEST NEGOTIATIONS FOR SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT, PROPOSED BY UNION
AS NEW TEXT
Current Language:
26.1 This document shall be in full force and effect from
January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007.
Union's Proposal:
26.1 This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. This Agreement will
automatically renew itself from year to year thereafter, unless
either party gives written notice to the other, one hundred
eighty (180) days prior to the expiration date, of a desire to
amend or terminate said Agreement.
City's Proposal:
26.1 This document shall be in full force and effect from
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011.
Union's Position:
The Union's proposal for a three year Agreement is
reasonable as, historically, the Parties have not had an
Agreement for a term longer than three years since at least
1988. A three year limit is especially important if the City's
proposal that the employees pay 50% of their medical insurance
premiums is accepted. Otherwise, they would be subject to
unpredictable increases in premiums for an unacceptably long
period of time.
The Union's proposal to include re-opener language for a
successor agreement is in line with the express purpose of RCW
41.56 to promote collective bargaining, avoid labor disputes,
and settle contracts. The City provides no rationale for
opposing this portion of the proposal.
City's Position:
The City's position is that an agreement of four years or
longer serves the interests of both Parties better than a three
year contract.
Prior to 2007 Washington statute limited contracts to three
years. Unfortunately, this created the common situation in
which the Parties currently find themselves where two or more
years expire before the process of negotiations, mediation, and
interest arbitration is concluded and a new contract effected.
In the interest of allowing the parties to "cool off" and
regroup from the interest arbitration process before returning
to negotiations for the successor agreement, the State
legislature modified RCW 41.56 to allow for longer term
contracts.
In the instant case, a three year agreement would mean that
the Parties would return to negotiations eight months after the
signing of the contract. To avoid the scenario of perpetual
negotiations, the City advances its proposal to have a four-year
contract and would even be willing to agree to a five-year term
(based on the same CPI formula as for the fourth year) .
Award on Issue 8:
26.1 This document shall be in full force and effect from
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011. This Agreement will
automatically renew itself from year to year thereafter, unless
either party gives written notice to the other, one hundred
fifty (150) days prior to the expiration date, of a desire to
amend or terminate said Agreement.
Analysis
While the Arbitrator would normally agree with the Union
that a three year collective bargaining agreement is
appropriate, the practical reality is that in agreeing with the
City the new CBA is only 2.5 years long (this decision is
rendered in July of 2009 and the endpoint of the CBA is December
31 of 2011).
Additionally, the Arbitrator finds the new language
proposed by the Union consistent with that found in the
comparators and of value in that it sets the time to commence
negotiations over a successor agreement. The Arbitrator awards
this language but modifies the 180 day element of the Union's
proposal in that it appeared excessive and not supported by the
comparators.
SUMMARY OF AWARD
The following is an issue by issue reproduction of the
Arbitrator's actual award on the eight items in dispute. It is
provided solely for the purpose of making it easier for the
party's to review the Arbitrator's decision as a whole.
ISSUE 1
12.1 Wage Rates
Effective January 1, 2008 - all classifications in Appendix "A"
will increase to rates shown in Appendix "A".
Effective January 1, 2009 - all classifications in Appendix "A"
will increase to rates shown in Appendix "A" for 2009.
Effective January 1, 2010 - The amounts in Appendix "A" shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2008 to
August 2009/ with a floor of 2% and a maximum of 4%.
Effective January 1, 2011 - The amounts in Appendix "A" shall be
increased by amounts equal to 100% of the CPI-W, August 2009 to
August 2011, with a floor of 2% and a maximum of 4%.
Wages increases for all current bargaining unit members will be
retroactively applied, as appropriate, to January 1, 2008.
APPENDIX - "A"
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2008
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3114 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3662 |
3773 |
3885 |
4003 |
4122 |
| Dectective |
3773 |
3885 |
4003 |
4122 |
4246 |
Police Department Salaries
Effective January 1, 2009
| |
Step I |
Step II |
Step III |
Step IV |
Step V |
| Probationary* |
3301 |
|
|
|
|
| Police Officer |
3845 |
3963 |
4079 |
4203 |
4328 |
| Dectective |
3963 |
4079 |
4203 |
4328 |
4458 |
ISSUE 2
15. 1 Effective 8/1/09 the employer will increase
for Health and Welfare to $756.07 per month per
bargaining unit for the following coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits - $700.00
WTWT Dental Plan C - $44.72
WTWT Vision Plan EXT - $11.35
Effective 1/1/10 the employer will increase its per
bargaining unit member monthly contributions for Health and
Welfare to the amount set forth below for the following
coverage:
UEBT A-5 Medical Benefits - ($700.00 + 50% of
increased cost over prior year)
UEBT Time Loss 4 - - $ (full amount)
WTWT Dental Plan A - $ (full amount)
WTWT Vision Plan EXT - $ (full amount)
Effective 1-1-11 the above listed plans will be maintained
and any cost increases will be shared on a 50/50 basis, 50% by
the employer and 50% by the employee.
Effective 1-1-08, and each month thereafter during the
period that this Collective Bargaining Agreement is in effect,
the Employer agrees to pay to the Washington Teamsters Welfare
Trust, c/o Northwest Administrators, and the Dnited Employees
Benefit Trust the full premium amounts per bargaining unit
member who received compensation for not less than 40 hours the
previous month to purchase the above-referenced mix of benefits.
ISSUE 3
15.4
Term Life Insurance: The City agrees to pay the premium
for term life insurance for each covered employee in the amount
of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
ISSUE 4
12.2
Shift Differential: The shift differential provided in the
prior agreement shall be retained until August 1, 2009.
Effective August 1, 2009 the payment of the shift differential
will be terminated and the language related to the differential
removed from the collective bargaining agreement.
ISSUE 5
13.1
Vacation Leave: Regular employees shall accrue vacation
credit from the Date of Hire (DOH), but may not use vacation (or
receive payment in lieu) prior to completing twelve (12) months
with the Employer. In the event of a personal emergency, an
exception may be granted by the Police Chief. If an employee is
terminated during the initial probation period, no vacation
shall have been earned.
Regular full-time employees shall earn vacation leave according
to the following schedule:
| Continuous Service |
Monthly Accrual |
Annual Equivalent |
| 1 Year Through 5 |
8.00 Hours |
12 Days |
| 6 Years Through 10 |
10.00 Hours |
15 Days |
| 11 Years Through 15 |
13.33 Hours |
20 Days |
| 16 Years Plus |
14.66 Hours |
22 Days |
ISSUE 6
8.5
Injury on the Job: Any regular full-time employee covered
by this Agreement who is injured while on his regular job and is
unable to return to work, shall be compensated by the Employer
in the amount equal to the difference between his regular salary
and those monies paid by the State of Washington Temporary
Disability Compensation schedule so that the employee shall
receive a full day's pay at his regular rate for each eligible
day disabled. Such difference in compensation shall be paid
from the employee's sick leave bank up to a maximum of one
hundred (100) days. Only that portion of sick leave pay used
shall be deducted from the employee's sick leave bank, unless
otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Employer and employee.
ISSUE 7
18.1 The Employer shall provide as initial issue of four (4)
serviceable uniforms to new employees and on an exchange and
replacement basis to regular employees. All uniform and
equipment items shall be subject to prior approval of the Chief
of Police. The Employer shall pay for the cleaning of one (1)
uniform per week.
ISSUE 8
26.1 This document shall be in full force and effect from
January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2011. This Agreement will
automatically renew itself from year to year thereafter, unless
either party gives written notice to the other, one hundred
fifty (150) days prior to the expiration date, of a desire to
amend or terminate said Agreement.
This interest arbitration award is respectfully submitted, under
the authority of RCW 41.56.450 and in compliance with RCW
41.56.465, on this the 14th day of July, 2009 by,
__________________________
Timothy D. W. Williams
Arbitrator