IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF REDMOND
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2829, AFL-CIO, CLC
PERC No.: 17577-I-03-0406
Date Issued: July 12, 2004
INTEREST ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD
OF
ALAN R. KREBS
Appearances:
CITY OF REDMOND Bruce L. Schroeder
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2829, AFL-CIO, CLC James H. Webster
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCEDURAL MATTERS .......................................................... 1
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS ............................................. 2
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER ...................................................... 4
ISSUES ...................................................................... 5
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS .................................................... 6
COMPENSATION COMPARISONS ................................................... 27
COST OF LIVING ............................................................. 33
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 34
Ability to Pay ............................................................ 34
Turnover .................................................................. 37
Settlements With Other Bargaining Units ................................... 38
WAGES ...................................................................... 39
LONGEVITY PAY .............................................................. 41
PROMOTIONS AND VACANCIES ................................................... 43
AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIR ................................................. 58
IN THE MATTER OF
CITY OF REDMOND
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2829, AFL-CIO, CLC
OPINION OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIR
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
In accordance with RCW 41.56.450, an interest arbitration
hearing involving certain uniformed personnel of the City of
Redmond was held before an Arbitration Panel consisting of three
persons. City of Redmond appointed Nancy Buonanno Grennan as its
designee on the Panel. International Association of Fire
Fighters, Local 2829, AFL-CIO, CLC appointed Paul S. Harvey as
its designee. Alan R. Krebs was jointly selected by the parties
as the Neutral Chair of the Arbitration Panel. WAC 391-55-245
provides that the determination of the Neutral Chair 'shall be
controlling." The hearing was held in Redmond, Washington from
December 2 through 5 and on December 11, 2003. The Employer was
represented by Bruce L. Schroeder of the Summit Law Group PLLC.
The Union was represented by James H. Webster of the law firm
Webster, Mrak and Blumberg.
At the hearing, the testimony of witnesses was taken under
oath and the parties presented documentary evidence. A court
reporter was present, and subsequent to the hearing, a copy of
the transcript was submitted to the Neutral Chair. The parties
agreed upon the submission of post-hearing briefs. The Neutral
Chair received the briefs on April 26, 2004. In view of the
lengthy record, the parties agreed to waive the statutory
requirement that the interest arbitration award be issued within
30 days following the conclusion of the hearing. It was agreed
that the Neutral Chair, within 60 days of his receipt of briefs,
would present a draft of his Award to the other Panel members and
then would issue his decision after they had an opportunity to
provide input. On June 22, 2004 the Neutral Chair mailed a copy
of his initial draft decision to the other Panel members for
review and comment before the final decision was provided to the
parties. On July 7, 2004, the Panel discussed and revised the
draft decision.
APPLICABLE STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Where certain public employers and their uniformed personnel
are unable to reach agreement on new contract terms by means of
negotiations and mediation, RCW 41.56.450 calls for interest
arbitration to resolve their dispute. The parties agree that RCW
41.56.450 is applicable to the bargaining unit of firefighters
involved here. In interest arbitration, an arbitrator or
arbitration panel adjudicates a resolution to contract issues
regarding terms and conditions of employment which are at impasse
following collective bargaining negotiations. Arbitrators are
generally mindful that interest arbitration is an extension of
the bargaining process. They recognize those contract provisions
upon which the parties could agree and decide the remaining
issues in a manner which would approximate the result the parties
would likely have reached in good faith negotiations considering
the statutory criteria.
RCW 41.56.465 sets forth certain criteria which must be
considered by an arbitration panel in deciding the controversy:
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
41.56.430 and, as additional standards or
guidelines to aid it in reaching a decision,
it shall take into consideration the
following factors:
(a) The constitutional and statutory
authority of the employer;
(b) Stipulations of the parties;
(c) (i) ...
(ii) For employees listed in RCW
41.56.030(7) (e) through (h) , comparison of
the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the
proceedings with the wages, hours, and
conditions of employment of like personnel
of public fire departments of similar size
on the west coast of the United States.
However, when an adequate number of
comparable employers exists within the state
of Washington, other west coast employers may
not be considered;
(d) The average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly known as the
cost of living;
(e) Changes in any of the circumstances
under (a) through (d) of this subsection
during the pendency of the proceedings; and
(f) Such other factors, not confined to
the factors under (a) through (e) of this
subsection, that are normally or
traditionally taken into consideration in the
determination of wages, hours, and conditions of
employment....
* * *
RCW 41.56.430, which is referenced in RCW 41.56.465,
sets forth a public policy against strikes by uniformed personnel,
and recognizes that there should be an effective alternative means
of settling labor disputes involving such groups so as to promote
"dedicated and uninterrupted public service."
RCW 41.56.430 Uniformed personnel --
Legislative declaration. The intent and
purpose of this 1973 amendatory act 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.
NATURE OF THE EMPLOYER
City of Redmond's Fire Department provides fire protection
services for both the City and King County Fire District No. 34,
which lies just to the east of the City. The City operates six
fire stations. One of these stations is located in the City of
Bellevue, just across the street from Redmond's border. Captain
Thomas Norton testified that this station's first alarm
responsibilities include a portion of the City of Bellevue. On
January 1, 2003, the Redmond Fire Department assumed
responsibility for the provision of Advanced Life Support (ALS)
services for a large portion of East King County, including not
only Redmond and Fire District No. 34, but also Carnation,
Duvall, Fall City, Kirkland, Woodinville, a portion of Bellevue,
and King County Fire District No. 36. The City's paramedic
personnel operate from a fire station in Redmond, a fire station
in Woodinville, and Evergreen Hospital, which is located in
Kirkland.
The Union represents about 125 uniformed employees
below the rank of deputy chief. This includes employees holding
the positions of firefighter, firefighter-paramedic, driver/operator,
fire inspector, lieutenant, captain, battalion chief, assistant
fire marshall, and fire marshall. Employees in the bargaining unit,
on average, have about eleven years of service.
ISSUES
The Union and the Employer are parties to a collective
bargaining agreement which expired on December 31, 2001.
They were unable to reach agreement on a new contract despite their
efforts in negotiations and the assistance of a mediator. In
accordance with RCW 41.56.450, the Executive Director of the
Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission certified
that the parties were at impasse on a number of issues.
The statutory interest arbitration procedures were invoked. The
parties agree that the issues remaining to be resolved in
arbitration are:
1. Salary Schedules
2. Longevity Pay
3. Promotions and Vacancies
Another issue which had been certified for interest arbitration,
health care insurance, was subsequently removed by the
Commission's Executive Director, for the time being, in response
to an unfair labor practice charge filed by the Union. The
parties have reached settlement on eight other issues which had
been certified for interest arbitration. They further agreed
that the new agreement should be for three years: 2002, 2003,
and 2004.
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
One of the primary standards or guidelines enumerated in
RCW 41.56.465 upon which an arbitrator must rely in reaching a
decision is a "comparison of the wages, hours, and conditions of
employment of personnel involved in the proceedings with the
wages, hours, and conditions of like employers of public fire
departments of similar size 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.
While the governing statute requires a comparison with
public fire departments of similar size, it does not define how
"similar size" is to be determined. In making this
determination, interest arbitrators have been constrained by the
nature of the statistics which the parties have placed into
evidence. The most commonly referenced criteria are the
population and assessed valuation of the communities served.
Consideration is also frequently given to the proximity of the
jurisdiction to be compared and whether it is in a similar
economic environment, such as in a rural area or part of a
large metropolitan area.
The parties could not agree upon the figure which represents
the combined population of Redmond and Fire District No. 34.
They agree that Redmonds population is 46,040. the Employer
maintains that the population served by Fire District No. 34 is
10,000, and that therefore, its total service population is
56,040. The Union maintains that the population served by Fire
District No. 34 is 23,000. It claims that Redmonds total fire
service population is 69,040. The Union justifies its figure by
relying on the Citys web page and its advertisement for a new
fire chief, both of which stated that the population of District
No. 34 is 23,000. Deputy Chief Andy Hail testified that in 1999,
the service population of Fire District No. 34 was approximately
21,000. He testified that Fire District No. 34 then lost a
portion of its population when the City of Sammamish
incorporated. A portion of the new City of Sammamish had
previously been part of the service area of Fire District No. 34.
The City of Sammamish contracted with Fire District No. 10 to
provide its fire service. Deputy Chief Hail testified that he
examined the census tracts for the portion of Fire District No.
34 that had been incorporated into Sammamish. He determined that
the remaining service population of Fire District No. 34 was
7500. The service population for Fire District No. 34 reported
in the 2003 Washington State Fire Service Directory is 10,000.
Deputy Chief Hail testified that he was the source of this
number, which included his estimate of population growth in the
District between 1999 and 2002. The Employer represented that
the population for Fire District No. 34 which was reported on its
website and in the job announcement was incorrect, and that the
job announcement has since been corrected.
I find that the evidence presented supports the Employer's
representation of a service population of 56,040. That was the
population reported in the Washington State Fire Service
Directory. Both parties rely on that publication to provide the
population figures for comparable departments. The Employer's
figures are also supported by the testimony of Deputy Chief Hail.
The Union has relied on documents which appear to contain
inaccuracies inasmuch as they do not take into account the loss
of service population by District 34 as a result of the
incorporation of the City of Sammamish.
The City proposes the following as comparable fire
departments (comparables) :
Department Population
Auburn 45,355
Bothell 39,403
Edmonds 44,038
Kirkland 75,000
Lynnwood 34,500
Puyallup 35,490
Renton 54,900
King Co. No. 4 56,000
King Co. No. 11 40,000
King Co. No. 36 50,000
Pierce Co. No. 2 65,000
Pierce Co. No. 5 42,000
Pierce Co . No. 21 55,000
Snohomish Co. No. 7 47,500
The Employer asserts that it selected comparables that fall
within a band of 50 percent to 150 percent of its service
population. The Employer notes that many arbitrators have used
this methodology. The Employer observes that interest
arbitrators regularly look to geographical proximity in
fashioning a list of comparables. Therefore, the Employer
limited its comparables to the Central Puget Sound Counties of
King, Pierce, and Snohomish. The Employer did not use assessed
valuation as a basis for comparison. It reasons that applying a
50 percent to 150 percent band in terms of both assessed
valuation and population would have resulted in only two
comparable jurisdictions, which is too small a list. The
Employer explains that by relying on population and geographic
proximity, it obtained a list of seven cities and fourteen fire
districts. In order to include an equal number of cities and
fire districts, it utilized only the seven largest fire districts
which met the comparability criteria.
The Union urges the Panel to adopt as comparables the
following fire departments:
Department Population
Auburn 45,355
Bellevue 234,000
Everett 95,470
Kent 150,000
Kirkland 75,000
Renton 54,900
The Union contends that during bargaining, the parties stipulated
to the use of these departments as comparables, and the Panel
should honor and enforce that agreement. The Union argues that
the Employers repudiation of this agreement, and its proposal to
utilize a whole new set of comparables, undermines the
effectiveness of the collective bargaining process and the goals
the legislature sought to obtain through the interest arbitration
process. The Union further argues that the Panel should adopt
its proposed comparables independent of the parties agreement,
because their use is justified by the criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465 (l)(c)(ii) and (f). The Union reasons that these
comparables are not only of similar size to Redmond, they also
are the product of the parties dealings over an extended period
and were utilized in the contract negotiations for the contract
at issue here. The Union maintains that their adoption by the
Panel would promote stability in the collective bargaining
relationship. The Employer denies that there was any stipulation
to use these departments as comparables, and contends that it
communicated throughout bargaining that it was reserving the
right to re-examine the question of comparables. The Employer
argues that the fact that a particular set of cities has been
used in the past does not set the list in stone, irrespective of
changes that may mean certain cities are no longer of similar
size.
As the City concedes, for a number of years, Redmond
has used the six cities proposed by the Union for salary and
compensation surveys for the various City bargaining units and
for its non-union employees. In the parties 1996-98 contract,
the Employer and the Union agreed to the following regarding a
third year wage reopener.
1998 SALARY ADJUSTMENTS. Adjustments to Appendix A,
and to net hours worked, to be effective January 1,
1998, shall be open for negotiation by the parties.
In preparation for such negotiations the parties
agree to convene a task force with representatives of
each party to attempt to agree regarding the
jurisdictions which should be considered as
comparable to Redmond for the purpose of RCW 41.56.
If the parties are unable to agree regarding the
identity of the comparable jurisdictions, the parties
agree to use as comparable jurisdictions the fire
department jurisdictions within Region 4 with service
areas which have both an assessed valuation and a
population within a range of fifty percent (50%) to
two hundred percent (200%) of Redmond service area.
During 1997, the parties representatives agreed to use Auburn,
Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Kirkland, and Renton as comparables.
Captain Norton, who represented the Union in those discussions,
testified that in accordance with the wage reopener provision,
the parties agreed to use comparables falling within a band of 50
percent to 200 percent when compared to Redmond in both
population and assessed valuation. Captain Norton testified that
even though Bellevues population did not fit that model, they
agreed to use it because the Employer used it as a comparable for
its other employee groups. Captain Norton testified that the
Union agreed with the Employers request that fire districts not
be used as comparables. Captain Norton testified that the
parties agreed at that time to work together to collect the
comparative data. They agreed to perform the data collection for
a benchmark position of a firefighter employed for ten years,
married with two children, with an A.A. degree, and certified
as an EMT and to use a defibrillator. Captain Norton worked
to collect that data in a collaborative manner with a
representative of a consulting firm which had been retained by
the Employer. Captain Norton testified that spreadsheets were
jointly developed, and the parties utilized that data to agree
upon wages for 1998 which were very close to the average of the
comparables.
During negotiations for their 1999-2001 contract, the
parties again agreed to utilize the consulting firm and Captain
Norton to collect the same type of data from the same group of
comparables, with certain additions. Those additions related to
lieutenants and to health care costs. Captain Norton testified
that after the data was collected and examined, the Employer took
the position that health care costs should not be included in a
comparison of total compensation. The Employer is self-insured
for its employees' health insurance. Captain Norton testified
that the Employer explained that the Union should not benefit if
the Employer was able to provide health care at a lower cost.
The Union agreed not to include health insurance in a comparison
of total compensation. Captain Norton testified that the parties
agreed to settle the 1999-2001 contract by setting wages at the
average of the comparables, based on the data jointly collected.
In negotiations with its police bargaining unit for a 2002-
2004 contract, the Employer relied on the same six comparables
plus the City of Federal Way. Captain Norton explained that in
negotiations with the firefighters, Federal Way was not utilized
as a comparable because that city contracted with a fire district
to provide its fire service. The police negotiations also ended
in interest arbitration. During those proceedings, the Employer
stipulated to the arbitrator's use of the six comparables
proposed by the Union here plus Federal Way. Doug Albright, the
Employer's negotiator for both the police and fire bargaining
units, testified that in the police negotiations, the Employer
did not propose an alternative list of comparables because the
data from the traditional comparables supported "a hold-the-line
type of contract" for that bargaining unit.
For the firefighter bargaining unit, the first negotiation
session relating to the 2002-2004 contract occurred on October
31, 2001. At that time, the parties agreed to utilize Captain
Norton and the same consulting firm which the Employer used in
past negotiations to collect data from comparables. Captain
Norton testified that at this meeting, Mr. Albright asked him if
using the same formula of 50 percent to 200 percent for
population and assessed valuation would result in the same
comparables as had been used in the past. Captain Norton
testified that earlier in the year, another Union member had done
such an analysis based on 2000 data. Captain Norton advised Mr.
Albright that the data collected supported utilizing the same
comparables as they used in the past, except for Bellevue which
had been "grandfathered" in. Captain Norton testified that it
was agreed that the same comparables would be surveyed using the
same benchmarks as had been used before. They agreed upon a
separate joint subcommittee to collect data from the comparables
on health insurance. In Mr. Albright's bargaining notes for that
session, is the notation "Same comparables?" Mr. Albright
testified that this indicated that he questioned whether they
would use the same comparables. Mr. Albright testified that he
"expressed that we were not stipulating to the comparables and
reserved the right." John Ryan, who is chief of the Department,
served on the Employer's negotiations team. Chief Ryan testified
that at one of the first meetings, Mr. Albright said with regard
to use of the six historical comparables that 'we're going to
leave that window open or we're going to be researching or, you
know, something to that effect. " Captain Norton testified that
Mr. Albright never said that the Employer was reserving the right
to change comparables. Frank Glaser was also at this meeting
representing the Union. Captain Glaser testified that there was
no discussion concerning restrictions placed on use of the
traditional comparables.
The parties reached an understanding that wages would be
Contract negotiations continued through the negotiated last.
fall and winter of 2001 and the spring and summer of 2002 without
reaching the subject of wages. Mr. Albright testified that at a
bargaining session during the spring, he reminded the Union
negotiators that the Employer was not stipulating to the
traditional comparables and reserved the right to produce other
comparables. Captain Norton denies that such a statement was
made. Chief Ryan testified that he did not hear Mr. Albright
question the use of the traditional comparables after doing so
during one of the first negotiation sessions. Mr. Albright
testified that during a bargaining session held on July 24, 2002,
a Union negotiator stated that if the Employer sought a change in
the comparables, then the Union would make medical more of an
issue. Mr. Albright's bargaining notes reveal that during this
session, they were discussing cost sharing of medical premiums,
and that the Union negotiator had stated that if the Union were
asked to pay a percentage of the premium, it would have to
examine the validity of the premium numbers set by the Employer.
His bargaining notes further indicate that the Union negotiator
questioned whether, since the Employer was self-insured, it would
create 'nominal premiums" and foist those on the employees. Mr.
Albright then recorded in his bargaining notes the following:
Concerns re premium #, cost
sharing & how fits into compensation -
i.e. if city seeks to change comps, then
medical is an issue that must be addressed.
Mr. Albright testified that he used "comps" as shorthand for
comparables, and so this demonstrated that the Union understood
that the Employer could seek to introduce new comparables.
Captain Norton testified that the City never indicated that it
might change comparables until November 2002. He testified that
Mr. Albright's notes do not reference comparables, but rather
compensation, inasmuch as the Employer was, for the first time,
seeking to include health care premiums in an analysis of total
compensation, and the Union was questioning whether they could
trust the Employer's premium numbers.
Both parties utilized the traditional comparables to support
The Union negotiators provided some of their non-wage proposals.
their Employer counterparts with charts showing how the
traditional comparables treated "pay steps upon promotion" and
"acting pay." Similarly, the Employer provided charts to the
Union showing how the traditional comparables treated "rate of
acting pay" and the "% employee pays for family medical per
month."1
Captain Norton began research for the joint
compensation survey of the traditional comparables during the
latter part of 2001. He worked closely with the consulting firm's
representative, Charles Murry. Mr. Murry had filled the same
role during the parties' 1999 contract negotiations. They met
numerous times over the next nine months at Mr. Murry's office,
at Captain Norton's home, and at restaurants. They examined
labor contracts and contacted individuals at the traditional
comparables in order to clarify compensation practices. They
each maintained a database of collected information and they
shared that data. They each reported to Mr. Albright their
progress in gathering the data. Mr. Albright testified that he
was not advised of the specific information collected until their
report was completed on September 26, 2002. The report contained
the collected compensation data from the Employer and from each
of the traditional comparables, and set out separate spreadsheets
for firefighter and lieutenant which compared compensation.
Above the signatures of Captain Norton and Mr. Murry on their
report was the following statement:
The report distributed today is a joint one and
contains the results of that analysis. We believe
that it correctly represents the compensation
practices of the jurisdictions named above.
However, nothing in the report is meant to suggest
that all the compensable elements listed are
appropriate to the final calculations. Similarly
it is not meant to exclude the raising of
additional pay issues in the collective bargaining
process.
Captain Norton testified that the next-to-last sentence meant
that either party could dispute whether it would be appropriate
to consider a particular element of compensation. He testified
that the last sentence meant that the parties could re-examine
the information collected if better information became available
and they could consider the 2004 contracts of the traditional
comparables when they became available. Mr. Murry did not
testify. Mr. Albright testified that his understanding from
reading this language was that data provided was not all the
compensation data that should be considered, not did it contain
data that necessarily should be considered.
Captain Norton testified that the joint compensation survey
report was submitted to the Employer on September 26, 2002. He
testified that at that time, he discussed it with Employer
representatives and both parties accepted and agreed to it. The
report reflected that the Employer's hourly firefighter
compensation was 92.1 percent of the average firefighter
compensation paid by the traditional comparables for 2002. The
same report indicated that the Employer's lieutenants received
93.3 percent of the average paid by the traditional comparables
for 2002. Mr. Albright asked Captain Norton to go over the
numbers with a deputy chief and representatives from the
Employer's Human Resources Department. At a meeting on
October 15, 2002, Julie Howe, a compensation specialist in the
Employer's Human Resources Department, raised eleven items
in the compensation report that needed correction. According to
Captain Norton after a discussion, three of the questioned items in
the report were determined to be correct as reported. Captain Norton
agreed to seven of the suggested changes, six of which benefited
the Union, and one benefited the Employer. He testified that he
did not agree with one suggested change, though it would have
benefited the Union. Captain Norton corrected the data sheets
and spreadsheets of the compensation report accordingly. Captain
Norton testified that as a result of these changes, the Union was
even further behind the traditional comparables.
On October 24, 2002, the Union made its first economic
proposal. After receiving the compensation survey report in
September, the Employer had begun work on finding different
comparables. Before the Employer either disclosed to the Union
that it was researching new comparables or had made its first
economic proposal, the negotiators refocused their efforts to
reaching an agreement to cover the 26 paramedic employees who
were to be added to the bargaining unit. During 2002, Evergreen
Hospital elected to stop providing ALS services, effective
January 1, 2003. Redmond and Shoreline divided these ALS
services. The paramedics working at Evergreen chose, by
seniority, whether they would work for Redmond or for Shoreline.
During October 2002, the parties began discussing compensation
for the paramedics. At first, the Union took the position that
it wanted to use the traditional comparables to set the
paramedics' wages. Mr. Albright questioned whether new
comparables should be used for the paramedics inasmuch as only
two of the traditional comparables employed paramedics. During
late October or early November 2002, the parties agreed that the
paramedics would receive a 14 percent differential based on
firefighter wages. Captain Norton testified that during the
meeting when this agreement was reached, he referred to the
compensation survey report and stated that by using a
differential they could use the data from the comparables that
they already had. Mr. Albright testified that he has no
recollection of the compensation survey being referenced during
bargaining for the paramedics.
In mid-November 2002, the Shoreline fire chief sent an
e-mail to the Evergreen paramedics, advising them of what they
could earn if they chose to work for Shoreline. On November 18,
2002, Deputy Chief Hail of the Redmond Fire Department sent the
following e-mail to the Evergreen paramedics:
Attached is an Excel document that contains a
spreadsheet of total cost of compensation for a ten
year FF - Paramedic with longevity and other benefits
(additional retirement...). Additionally, there is a
chart (tab to the left) that shows where we are at
comparatively with some other comparable departments.
While we are in negotiations for 2002/ 2003 + we have
made some conservative assumptions; ie., 4% increase
for 2002. The liklihood [sic] is that we may be paying
above 4% due to where we line up with comparables and
the Citys historical track record of paying at or
slightly above average, however there are no
guarantees. We wanted to use 4% to avoid over
projecting. The spreadsheet also reflects a 14% spread
between top step FF and FF - Paramedic. This amount
was tentatively agreed to during our last negotiations
session and should stand w/o any challenge.
Deputy Chief Hail attached a spreadsheet which indicated the
compensation paramedics could receive if they worked for Redmond,
with the negotiated 14 percent differential and with a general
wage increase of 4 percent, 6 percent, 8 percent, or 9 percent.
Firefighter-Paramedic Dana Yost testified that Redmonds Mayor
spoke to the Evergreen paramedics and told them that Redmond had
a collaborative relationship with the Union and they had always
settled for the middle of their comparables. Firefighter-
Paramedic Yost testified that he had all but made up his mind to
go to Shoreline, but that after hearing the Mayor and reading
Deputy Chief Hails e-mail, he chose to work for Redmond. He
testified that he had to make his decision by late November or
early December. Another Evergreen paramedic , Mark Brownell ,
testified that the decision had to be made in November.
Firefighter-Paramedic Brownell testified that he decided to
choose Redmond based on his understanding from Deputy Chief
Hails e-mail of the compensation he would receive.
On November 21, 2002, Mr. Albright sent to the Union an
e-mail, advising that the Employer would be relying upon 13
departments as comparables.2 The Employer attached spreadsheets
showing the compensation provided by these comparables for
firefighters and lieutenants. Captain Norton testified that he
was very disappointed to receive this since in his view they had
already agreed on comparables, he had not been advised that the
Employer was considering new comparables, and the Employer
departed from the criteria traditionally used to select
comparables. On November 26, 2002, the Employer presented its
first economic proposal to the Union.
Firefighter-Paramedic Brownell testified that when he
learned of the Employer's positions on comparables and
compensation, he tried to change his decision so that he could
work for Shoreline, but it was too late. Firefighter-Paramedic
Yost testified that he also learned of the new bargaining
situation after he had committed to go to Redmond.
I have selected four fire departments which are similar in
size to Redmond as comparable jurisdictions: Auburn, Everett,
Kirkland, and Renton. In addition, consideration will also be
given to Bellevue and Kent, but not as similarly sized
departments, because they are not. Both serve populations well
in excess of twice that of the Employer here and arbitrators
generally do not consider departments with such a disparity as
similar in size. Rather, they will be considered pursuant to RCW
41.56.465(f) because of the role they played in the parties'
bargaining history, including, most importantly, in these
collective bargaining negotiations, and also in concurrent
negotiations with another Employer bargaining unit.
There are a number of reasons why these departments
have been chosen for purposes of comparison. All are situated
reasonably close to Redmond. Both parties agree that geographic
proximity is significant for comparables. The Auburn, Everett,
Kirkland, and Renton Fire Departments each service a population
falling within a band of between 50 percent and 200 percent that
of Redmond. The Employer correctly points out that many
arbitrators select comparables by utilizing a population range of
50 percent o 150 percent when compared with the subject
jurisdiction. However, it is also true that a band of 50 percent
to 200 percent has been used by arbitrators. Indeed, this
Neutral Chair has had occasion in other interest arbitration
proceedings to use each, and other bands as well, depending on
the circumstances presented. The determining factor here is that
the parties agreed to use a 50 percent to 200 percent comparative
band in their past two negotiations, and even specifically
included such a band in a wage reopener provision of a previous
contract. Moreover, it was apparently referenced approvingly at
the beginning of these negotiations when there was discussion
regarding whether the traditional comparables still fell within
the 50 percent to 200 percent band. In the past, the parties
also compared assessed valuation. Indeed, this is a factor
frequently utilized by arbitrators when selecting comparables.
However, here, neither party takes the position that assessed
valuation should be a factor in determining appropriate
comparables.3
The parties' bargaining history supports the use of the six
traditional comparables. The Employer correctly points out that
the fact that comparables have been used in the past does not
mean that they are forever appropriate. The governing statute
requires comparison of departments of similar size. Demographics
do change over time. One department may grow faster than
another, such that departments once of similar size are no longer
so. Nevertheless, here, it is undisputed that in past contract
negotiations the parties utilized Bellevue as a comparable
despite a recognized significant disparity in size. More
importantly, the parties both utilized the six traditional
comparables in contract negotiations preceding this interest
arbitration for more than a year. It may well be that the
Employer intended all along to reserve the right to introduce new
comparables. However, such an intent is only significant here if
it has been conveyed to the Union such that it should reasonably
have been aware of the Employer's intended reservation. There
was conflicting testimony regarding whether this intent was
conveyed to the Union. It appears that Mr. Albright sincerely
believes that it was conveyed. I find that the intent was not
sufficiently conveyed such that the Union reasonably should have
I understood that the Employer had reserved the right to introduce
new comparables, even after a year of bargaining. There does
appear to have been some questioning of the comparables to be
used during the initial bargaining session in October 2001, but
not thereafter. I am not persuaded that the Employer clearly
raised the right to introduce new comparables in the spring of
2002. No bargaining notes were presented which would support
this. It is contradicted by the Union negotiator, Captain
Norton, and could not be verified by Chief Ryan, who was on the
Employer's bargaining team. I am also not persuaded that Mr.
Albright's bargaining notes of the July 24, 2002 bargaining
session reflects Union recognition that the Employer may seek to
change comparables. Rather, I credit Captain Norton's testimony
that those negotiations related to how medical premiums would be
treated with regard to comparisons of total compensation. Mr.
Albright's bargaining notes, when viewed as a whole, supports
this, particularly his use of "i.e." to preface his note "if city
seeks to change comps, then medical is an issue that must be
addressed." The "i.e." suggests that this statement is meant to
clarify the previous note: "Concerns re premium #, cost sharing
+ how fits into compensation." By underlining compensation and
then immediately writing "i.e.," it appears that Mr. Albright was
recording the Union's position that if the Employer changed the
manner in which compensation is totaled so as to include medical
premium costs, then those premium costs would be an issue.
The Employer's actions indicated that it had adopted the six
traditional comparables. They were utilized by the Employer
during bargaining to support its positions. The Employer paid
for a consultant to work with the Union to determine the total
compensation paid by those six departments. That consultant and
Captain Norton worked separately and together on that report from
late 2001 until late September 2002. It is undisputed that they
spent a great deal of time on it. Mr. Albright received periodic
reports of progress being made in obtaining this information. I
do not view the statement contained at the end of the final joint
report as indicating that other comparables could be introduced.
Rather, it suggests that the parties could disagree about the
appropriate elements of total compensation, and they could raise
additional pay issues. The fact that the parties placed so much
effort into researching and preparing this report indicates that
they intended it to have some significance. It reflects an
understanding as to the comparables which would be utilized by
the parties during negotiations. Indeed, as previously stated,
both parties did justify proposals based on comparisons with the
comparable departments. That there was such an understanding was
buttressed by the communication made by the deputy chief to the
Evergreen Hospital paramedics. His e-mail to them in November
2002, more than a year after the start of collective bargaining
negotiations, conveyed that he still understood that the
compensation levels.
Moreover, the Employer stipulated to these same comparables
during concurrent negotiations with its police union and the
following interest arbitration. This lends support to the
Union's contention that the Employer had accepted and adopted
these comparables. Moreover, as discussed in more detail in a
later section of this Opinion, interest arbitrators often
considers "internal parity" as one of the criteria considered in
the determination of wages, hours, and conditions of employment
pursuant to RCW 41.56.465(f). From the standpoint of the Union,
it would understandably seem unfair for the Employer to stipulate
to the use of the traditional comparables in the context of its
other uniformed employee group, but argue against their use here.
Both the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission
and the Washington Supreme Court have stated that interest
arbitration should be considered a continuation of the collective
bargaining process. City of Bellevue, Dec. 3085-A (PECB, 1989);
City of Bellevue v. International Association of Fire Fighters,
Local 1604, 119 Wn. 2d 373 (1992). This was also recognized by
Arbitrator Beck in City of Bellevue, PERC No. 14037-I-98-0309
(1999). In that interest arbitration decision, Arbitrator Beck
utilized as comparables the departments which the parties
utilized during negotiations, even though the populations of the
comparables varied widely in size and one party would not
stipulate to their use in the interest arbitration. Arbitrator
Beck, relying on the parties bargaining history and on
subsections (1)(c) and (1)(f) of RCW 41.56.465 determined to
select the comparables utilized during negotiations as the
appropriate comparables in that case.
Similarly, here, I have selected the parties traditional
comparables as appropriate based on a combination of factors,
including relative population, proximity, past bargaining
history, contract negotiations preceding this interest
arbitration, particularly their joint preparation of a
comparative compensation analysis, and internal parity. Thus,
the departments which will be utilized as comparables in this
proceeding are: Auburn, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Kirkland, and
Renton.
COMPENSATION COMPARISONS
The parties agree that a total hourly compensation analysis
is appropriate. They both would compare compensation for a
firefighter with ten years of service, including add-ons such as
longevity pay, holiday pay, etc., determining hourly total
compensation by dividing by the adjusted hours, taking into
account vacation and holiday hours. However, there are some
differences in the proposed analysis. The Unions proposed
benchmark position assumes that the firefighter has an A.A.
degree. The City opposes inclusion of the pay premium for an A.A.
degree in the total compensation comparison because most
firefighters do not have an A.A. degree. The Employer would
include health insurance costs in the total compensation
comparison. The Union opposes inclusion of health insurance
premiums in the total compensation comparisons, but did submit
data concerning the average co-payment for dependent insurance by
employees in the comparable departments. The Union points out
that its proposal is to pay the average of these co-payments in
the comparable departments.
I shall include the premium for an A.A. degree in the
compensation comparison. The parties themselves have included an
A.A. degree in compensation comparisons in prior years and it is
sometimes considered by interest arbitrators in compensation
comparisons. The evidence presented establishes that a majority
of bargaining unit employees have some significant level of
higher education. The Union presented evidence that 43
bargaining unit members have either an A.A. or a B.A. degree, and
of those without degrees, 39 have at least 45 college credits. I
shall also include the employers' contributions for medical,
dental, and vision insurance during 2002 inasmuch as they are a
significant element of total compensation. Most arbitrators,
including Arbitrator Wilkinson who decided the recent Employer's
interest arbitration with its police union, recognize employee
insurance costs as an element of total compensation. The cost of
disability and life insurance will not be considered as part of
the total compensation comparison because the evidence presented
in this regard is incomplete with regard to the comparables
selected here.
For the most part, I have utilized the data which was
jointly collected by Captain Norton and the Employers
consultant, as subsequently modified following the meeting
between Captain Norton and representatives of the Employers
Human Resources Department. Given the joint and careful
collection of the data, it is likely to be reliable. The monthly
compensation figures below reflect benchmarks for a firefighter
and a lieutenant, with ten years of experience, an A.A. degree,
certified as an EMT and to use a defibrillator, and married with
two children:
Auburn Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $4,778 $5,653
Longevity Pay 167 198
Education Pay 200 200
Holiday Pay 156 185
Health Insurance 832 832
Total Monthly Compensation $6,133 $7,068
Annual Hours 2,422 2,422
Vacation Hours 240 240
Holiday Hours 48 48
Net Annual Hours 2,154 2,154
Net Monthly Hours 179.5 179.5
Net Hourly Compensation $34.17 $39.38
Bellevue Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $5,057 $5,74
Longevity Pay 101 115
Education Pay 177 201
Holiday Pay 27 31
MEBT 332 377
Health Insurance 570 570
Total Monthly Cornpensation $6,264 $7,034
Annual Hours 2,560 2,560
Vacation Hours 216 216
Holiday Hours 120 120
Net Annual Hours 2,224 2,224
Net Monthly Hours 185.33 185.33
Net Hourly Compensation $33.80 $37.95
Everett Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $5,336 $6,063
Longevity Pay 187 212
Holiday Pay 267 303
Deferred Compensation 110 110
Health Insurance 693 693
Total Monthly Compensation $6,593 $6,593
Annual Hours 2,190 2,190
Vacation Hours 180 180
Holiday Hours 24 24
Net Annual Hours 1,986 1,986
Net Monthly Hours 165.5 165.5
Net Hourly Compensation $39.84 $44.60
Kent Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $5,3844 $6,0344
Longevity Pay 215 241
De-fibrillation Pay 54 60
Holiday Pay 28 28
Deferred Compensation 108 121
Health Insurance 819 819
Total Monthly Compensation $6,608 $7,299
Annual Hours 2,632 2,632
Vacation Hours 264 264
Holiday Hours 120 120
Net Annual Hours 2,248 2,248
Net Monthly Hours 187.33 187.33
Net Hourly Compensation $35.27 $38.96
Kirkland Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $5,164 $5,887
Longevity Pay 103 118
MEBT 248 383
Health Insurance 825 825
Total Monthly Compensation $6,3405 $7,1135
Annual Hours 2,554 2,554
Vacation Hours 228 228
Holiday Hours 120 120
Net Annual Hours 2,206 2,206
Net Monthly Hours 183.83 183.83
Net Hourly Compensation $34.49 $38.69
Renton Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $4,800 $5,520
Longevity Pay 192 221
Education Pay 192 221
Holiday Pay 41 47
Deferred Compensation 264 304
Health Insurance 918 918
Total Monthly Compensation $6,407 $7,231
Annual Hours 2,430 2,430
Vacation Hours 264 264
Holiday Hours 120 120
Net Annual Hours 2,046 2,046
Net Monthly Hours 170.5 170.5
Net Hourly Compensation $37.58 $42.41
The average total hourly compensation for benchmark firefighters
in the six comparable departments for 2002 is $35.86. The
average among the comparables for lieutenants is $40.33. The
compensation currently received by benchmark Redmond firefighters
and lieutenants, modified to reflect the Employer's 2002 health
costs, is reflected below:
Redmond Firefighter Lieutenant
Base Wage $4,777 $5,528
Longevity Pay 191 221
MEBT 246 285
Health Insurance 837 837
Total Monthly Compensation $6,051 $6,871
Annual Hours 2,528 2,528
Vacation Hours 216 216
Holiday Hours 132 132
Net Annual Hours 2,180 2,180
Net Monthly Hours 181.67 181.67
Net Hourly Compensation $33.31 $37.82
Benchmark firefighters in Redmond earn 7.66% less than the
average received by similarly situated firefighters employed by
the comparable departments in 2002. Lieutenants in Redmond earn
6.66% less.6
The comparable departments provided the following percentage
wage increases to its firefighters in 2003 and 2004:
2003 2004
Auburn 4% 4%
Bellevue 2.5% Unavailable
Everett 1.5% 1.2%
Kent 1.5% 0.9% (+24 hours holiday)
Kirkland 3.5% 4%
Renton 3% 3%
COST OF LIVING
RCW 41.56.465(d) requires consideration of "[t]he
average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly
known as the cost of living." The Employer presented evidence
that its firefighter wages have exceeded the cost of living in recent
years. In this regard, a firefighter's pay has increased by 47
percent since 1992, while the cost of living during that period
increased by 42 percent. The Employer also presented evidence
regarding the low increases generally in the cost of living
during recent years. The Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), published by the United States Department of
Labor, indicates consumer price increases of 1.6 percent in 2001,
2.4 percent in 2002, and 1.9 percent in 2003. The Employer
argues that during this time of low inflation, it is entirely
appropriate to hold down wage increases for public-sector
employees.
Inasmuch as the governing statute requires the Panel to
consider the cost of living, significant weight shall be given to
the low increases in the cost of living during recent years.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the specific criteria set forth in RCW
41.56.465(a)-(e), RCW 41.56.465(f) directs the Panel to consider
"[s]uch other factors ... that are normally or traditionally taken
into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and
conditions of employment." Accordingly, the factors discussed
below have been considered.
Ability to Pay
A factor frequently raised in contract negotiations and also
considered by arbitrators is the ability to pay wage and benefit
increases. City of Port Angeles, AAA No. 753000021598
(Wilkinson, 1999), p.25; Clark County, PERC No. 11845-I-92-0252
(Axon, 1996), p.36.
The Employer presented evidence that the state and local
area are experiencing hard economic times, and that this has
negatively affected its financial condition. Washingtons
jobless rate was 7.3 percent in May 2003, one of the highest in
the nation. In June 2003, the states chief economist reported
to legislators that the state economy, particularly in the
Seattle area, was extremely weak. Redmond is situated about 20
miles east of Seattle. Jane Christenson, the Employers
assistant to the mayor, testified that in recent years the
Employer has experienced a slowing in sales tax revenues. The
other major source of revenue, property tax, has been limited by
state Initiative 776 to a one percent increase per year, unless
voter approval for a larger increase is obtained. Initiatives
695 and 776 have, in recent years, reduced the Employers
revenues by eliminating income derived from the motor vehicle
excise tax. Additionally, a 1995 law exempts from the sales tax,
expenditures for high-tech research and development. This has
cost the Employer millions of dollars in revenue from high-tech
companies located within its borders, particularly Microsoft.
Ms. Christenson further testified that the fiscal crisis suffered
by the State and the County have resulted in their transferring
responsibility for services which they had previously provided to
the various municipalities. This has already involved funding
for parks, pools, and jail services, and may affect court
services as well. The Employer has not received additional
resources to pay for these additional expenses. In order to
balance the Employer's 2003-2004 biennial budget, the Employer
has eliminated 11.7 F.T.E. positions which were vacant and put a
freeze on certain discretionary items, such as travel. Ms.
Christenson testified that the Employer reduced budgeted reserves
for 2003-2004 by $537,000. Ms. Christenson further testified
that the Employer has had to budget for double-digit increases in
medical insurance costs which it has experienced in recent years
and which it has been advised will likely continue.
On the other hand, the Union points to the Employer's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2002, which states
that "Redmond has a strong, diversified economic environment,"
with "high tech and light manufacturing, business parks, and an
expanding retail core." It contains the headquarters for
Microsoft, which "was largely insulated from the downtown in this
industry." Other well known companies have a significant
presence in Redmond, including Honeywell, AT&T Wireless, Eddie
Bauer, Genie Industries, Safeco Insurance, and UPS. The report
indicated that a decline in sales tax revenue was largely offset
by an increase in property tax revenue from new construction. In
this regard, the Union pointed out that the Employer is
benefiting from the recent opening of several large retail
establishments, and other construction which is in progress. The
report further indicated that at the end of 2002, the ending
general fund balance was 11.5 percent of the fund's 2002
expenditures. Ms. Christenson testified that the Employer has
not exhausted its taxing capacity.
I conclude that the Employer can afford a reasonable pay
increase for its employees. It does have a strong economic base
with impressive corporate and retail presence. However,
consideration must be given to the weak regional economy, which
has negatively affected the Employers revenue. The Employer has
so far been able to deal with these challenging times by
adjusting staffing and other cost-cutting measures. The
difficult economic climate confronting the Employer during the
last few years predictably should have a moderating effect on the
compensation increases that can be expected.
Turnover
The City argues that an employers turnover experience is
routinely considered by interest arbitrators. It maintains that its turnover
experience does not reveal an agency that is having difficulty retaining
qualified firefighters becasue its wages are too low. The Union argues
that turnover evidence is irrelevant to the legislative criteria because
firefighters are strongly inhibited from moving to another department
inasmuch as there are few opportunities for lateral movement, and such
a move would result in loss of seniorty, longevity, and vacation accrual
benefits.
Arbitrators have given consideration to whether an employer's
wages and benefits have been sufficiaent to attract and retain qualified
applicants. City of Port Angeles, AAA No. 753000021598 (Wilkinson,
1999), p. 29; City of Mount Vernon, PERC No. 10183-I-92-0218 (Axon,
1993), p.59. One would expect that if wages and benefits were
unreasonably low, there would be movement to other departments or
careers. In the last five years, seven firefighters have left the Fire
Department voluntarily. According to Deputy Chief Loren Charlston,
each of these firefighters gave a reason for leaving other than a
dissatisfaction with compensation. The Employer's turnover
experience does indicate that with the current compensation, it
is able to retain qualified personnel.
Settlements With Other Bargaining Units
Another factor routinely considered by interest arbitrators
is the settlements the employer has reached with its other
bargaining units. Arbitrators Axon and Wilkinson referred to
this factor as "internal equity" in Spokane County, PERC No.
14916-I-99-239 (Axon, 2000), p.30 and City of Camas, PERC No.
16303-I-0380 (Wilkinson, 2003), p.7. As the Neutral Chair has
recognized in other interest arbitration proceedings,
consideration of compensation settlements achieved by other
groups of employees within the subject jurisdiction is
appropriate. From the standpoint of both the employer and the
union, such settlements are significant. While those settlements
are affected by the particular situation of each individual
bargaining unit, still there is an understandable desire by t he
employer to achieve consistency. From the union's standpoint, it
wants to do at least as well for its membership as the other
unions have already done. At the bargaining table, the
settlements reached by the employer with 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 Panel.
Other Redmond employee groups have received the following
wage increases in the 2002-2004 period.
2002 2003 2004
AFSCME 3.51% 1.5 % 0.81%
RCHEA 3% 2.49% 1.7%
Police 3.51% 1.35% 0.81%
Nonrepresented 3% 2.49% 1.7 %
The Employer also presented evidence that since 1992 , its
firefighters have had their wages increased by a higher total
percentage than any other employee group.
WAGES
The Union proposes the following wage increases:
Firefighter Lieutenant
Fire Inspector
January 1, 2002 9.75% 8.5%
January 1, 2003 2.7% 2.7%
January 1, 2004 2.6% 2.6%
The Unions justification for its wage proposal is that it will
result in its members being paid at the average paid by the
comparable departments.
The Employer proposes the following wage increases to
be applied to the entire bargaining unit:
January 1, 2002 2%
January 1, 2003 1.71%
January 1, 2004 1.53%
The Employers proposed wage increases for 2003 and 2004 are
equal to 90 percent of the CPI-W for the June to June period
ending the prior year. The Employer contends that its proposal
will ensure that bargaining unit members will keep pace with
their comparables, while also taking into consideration cost-of-
living information, the Employers fiscal resources, internal
parity, and turnover statistics.
Weighing the governing factors which are set forth in the
statute, wage increases will be awarded in the amount of 4
percent in 2002, 3 percent in 2003, and 3 percent in 2004. These
wage increases will move the total compensation received by
bargaining unit members significantly closer to the average
received in comparable departments. However, it will not
entirely close the gap. The governing statute requires that the
Panel consider a variety of factors, not just comparability as
the Union urges. These other factors all have a moderating
effect on the wage level to be awarded. In this regard, the
Panel has considered the low cost of living increases which
have occurred just prior to and during the three year term of
the contract in dispute. The wage increases awarded are
significantly above the cost of living increase in each year of
the contract. Other factors normally considered in the
determination of wages also have a moderating effect, such as the
difficult economic conditions prevalent during 2002 and 2003, the
low rate of employee turnover, and the wage increases received by
the Employer's other employee groups. While the wage increases
awarded here will not bring the wage level up to the average of
the comparable departments, still bargaining unit members will
receive a larger overall percentage increase than the average
received by employees in the comparable departments and by the
Employer's other employees. Thus, the wage increases awarded
here take into account the variety of criteria referenced in RCW
41.56.465, such as comparability, the increase in the cost of
living, and other relevant factors such as ability to pay,
internal parity, and turnover.
LONGEVITY PAY
In Appendix A, Section A.4 of their 1999-2001 contract, the
parties agreed to improve longevity pay. The Union now proposes
to further improve longevity pay, by increasing the longevity
premium after 15, 20, 25, and 30 years of service. The following
chart sets forth the longevity pay which is provided in the
expired contract and the Union's proposal for an enhanced
longevity benefit.
Current Union
Service Time Benefit Proposal
5 years 2% 2%
10 years 4% 4%
15 years 5% 6%
20 years 6% 8%
25 years 7% 10%
30 years 7% 12%
The Union reasons that its proposal rewards increased
productivity that derives from experience. The Union asserts
that its proposal bears a reasonable relationship to the average
benefit provided by the comparable departments.
The Employer maintains that the existing longevity pay
benefit should be maintained without change. It argues that the
Union proposal for increased longevity pay is not supported by
the comparables, and is also unsupported when considered in light
of total compensation. The Employer presented evidence that
firefighters already receive higher longevity premiums than any
of the Employer's other employee groups, and those premiums
exceed the longevity benefit available to police officers at
every experience level.
The comparable departments provided the following longevity
pay premiums:
5 yrs 10 yrs 15 yrs 20 yrs 25 yrs 30 yrs
Auburn 2% 3.5% 6.5% 8% 8% 8%
Bellevue 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5%
Everett 2% 2% 5.5% 9% 11% 13%
Kent - 2002 2% 4% 5% 6% 6% 6%
Kent - 2003 2% 4% 6% 7.5% 8.5% 8.5%
Kirkland - 2002 0 2% 3% 5% 5% 5%
Kirkland 2003 0 3% 4% 6% 7% 7%
Renton 2% 4% 6% 10% 12% 12%
Average - 2002 1.5% 2.92% 4.83% 7% 7.83% 8.17%
Average - 2003 1.5% 3.08% 5.17% 7.42% 8.58% 8.92%
Redmond current 2% 4% 5% 6% 7% 7%
No enhanced longevity benefit shall be awarded. The existing
benefit is not out of line with the comparables. Redmond
firefighters have a slight advantage in longevity pay over the
average received by their counterparts in the comparable
departments during their fifth to tenth year of employment, are
very close to average for the next ten years, and after 20 years,
are at a slight disadvantage. Overall, the difference is not
particularly significant. Moreover, according to figures
provided by the Employer, their longevity pay benefit is superior
to that received by every other employee group employed by the
City of Redmond.
PROMOTIONS AND VACANCIES
Article XI of the expired contract reads, in relevant part,
as follows:
Section 11.1 - Civil Service. All promotions and the filling
of positions in the Bargaining Unit shall be made in accordance
with the City of Redmond Civil Service Ordinances, Rules and
Regulations, and the Washington State Civil Service Law (RCW
41.08) as they may hereafter be amended.
Section 11.2 - Job Descriptions and Position Qualifications.
Copies or facsimiles of current job descriptions, position
qualifications and testing requirements adopted by the City
and/or Civil Service Commission shall be contained in SOG,
Personnel - 021.
Section 11.3 - Promotions. The promotional process shall be as
described in SOG Personnel - 021.
The Union proposes to delete Section 11.3 and to amend Section
11.1 to read as follows:
Section 11.1. Filling of Vacancies - C-etitive Examinations.
All vacancies in the ranks of Driver/Operator, Lieutenant,
Captain, Battalion Chief, Assistant Fire Marshall, and Fire
Marshall shall be filled by promotion made solely on merit,
efficiency, and fitness ascertained by competitive examination
among eligible candidates.
Section 11.1.1. Nature of Examinations and Certification of
Results. Examinations shall fairly test for qualifications for
the position, and results shall be certified to produce a rank
ordering of those candidates pursuant to examination scores.
Section 11.1.2. Impartial Administration of Examinations.
Examinations shall be impartially administered. Candidates
shall be permitted to review their examination scores,
including scoring keys and oral board interview notes, if any.
Section 11.1.3. Filling of Vacancies. The Employer shall
promote the highest scoring candidate on the promotional list
that was current at the time the vacancy first occurred, except
that an employee may be passed over for legitimate reasons, in
which case the Employer shall promote the next-highest scoring
candidate and contemporaneously provide a written statement to
the passed-over candidate and the Secretary of the Union
setting forth all reasons and supporting facts. In the event
two or more candidates have identical scores, the candidate
with the greatest seniority shall be deemed highest scoring.
The Union contends that employees lack confidence in
appealing promotional actions to the Redmond Civil Service
Commission because important career development opportunities are
administered by commissioners and a chief examiner who are
dominated by the Employer's management. Civil Service Commission
members are appointed by the mayor and are dependent on the
Employer's Human Resources Department for staff support. The
Union notes that RCW 41.080.040 requires that chief examiners be
appointed by competitive examination, and places limitations on
how they may be discharged. The Union maintains that the
Employer's Municipal Code violates this law by providing that a
designee of the City's Human Resources Department shall serve as
the chief examiner, and by excluding that position from civil
service protection. Ken Irons has been chief examiner for the
Redmond Civil Service Commission since February 2002. He is an
employee of the Employer's Human Resources Department. Mr. Irons
was appointed to his position by the mayor, without taking a
competitive examination, and he serves at the pleasure of the
mayor. The Union argues that the current situation has led
repeatedly to rule violations to the detriment of bargaining unit
morale. These alleged abuses of the civil service process are
described below.
First, the Union contends that on several occasions, the
civil service commissioners have consulted in secret with
Employer representatives when making decisions affecting the
promotional opportunities of employees. At the Commission
meeting of May 15, 2002, Deputy Chief Loren Charlston advised the
Commission that another fire administrative assistant would have
to be hired since the last one had not successfully completed
probation. Deputy Chief Charlston requested that three employees
on the eligibility list for the position be removed for lack of
qualifications. At the time, the fire administrative assistant
position was not in the bargaining unit. The Union president
protested that names should not be removed from the eligibility
list. Captain Norton testified that Chief Examiner Irons passed
a note to a commissioner and the Civil Service Commission then
went into an executive session. Captain Norton testified that
Mr. Irons and Deputy Chief Charlston, who was then a battalion
chief, participated in that executive session, but the Union was
excluded. When the Commission reemerged from the executive
session, it announced that it granted the request to amend the
eligibility list. Firefighter Gary Anderson testified that in
1999 he presented an appeal to the Commission. He testified that
before voting to deny his appeal, the Commission went into an
executive session with the chief examiner and the test
facilitator, who was Deputy Chief Charlston. Captain Norton
testified that at a Commission meeting on July 17, 2002, the
Commission again met in executive session to speak in private
with the Employer's labor attorney about potential litigation and
labor relations issues. The Union argues that the Commission's
actions violate the appearance of fairness and the State's Open
Meeting Act, RCW 42.30.110. The Union maintains that it should
not have to bring suit every time the Commission violates the law
in its dealings with bargaining unit personnel.
The Union raises other problems it has had with the
Commission. Union President Ken Weisenbach testified that for
years, the Commission began meetings at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall,
when the doors to that building lock at 5:00 p.m. He testified
that he complained to the Commission about this in July 2001, and
again in March 2002, before the Commission moved the meetings to
an accessible place.
The Union complains the Commission called a special meeting
in 2001 without sufficient notice.
Captain Norton testified that in December 2000, the
Department proposed to postpone a promotional test by a few days
so that three additional candidates would have sufficient
experience to qualify. After the Union protested, the employer
agreed not to postpone the test.
Union President Weisenbach testified that in October 2001,
the Employer posted an opening for deputy chief, which indicated
that the rating process would include an interview by the mayor
and the fire chief. Deputy chiefs are not in the bargaining
unit. The Union protested that this politicizes the appointment
Chief Ryan testified that as a result of the Union protest,
they decided to not conduct the interviews, even though they had
the right to do so .
Captain Norton testified that he was upset by the way he was
treated when he was promoted to the rank of captain. Captain
Norton had been the top-ranked candidate on the certified
eligibility list for captain. Captain Norton testified that a
lower ranking candidate was interviewed before him because one of
the assessors on Captain Norton's oral board had raised concerns
about him. Captain Norton testified that this was relayed to him
by another candidate, and when he learned of this, he asked to
see the assessor's notes. He testified that a deputy chief would
not show him the notes, but did relate what the assessor had
said. Captain Norton did receive the promotion.
Captain Norton testified that in June 2002, he served on an
oral board for entry level firefighters. He testified that Mr.
Irons was present during the first four interviews, and
afterwards, advised the interview team how he would have scored
each candidate. Captain Norton testified that he thought Mr.
Irons was trying to influence the ratings of the interview team.
Neither Captain Norton, nor another participant, Firefighter Gary
Anderson, changed their scores, and there was no indication
whether or not the third team member did so. At that time, the
Employer was hiring three firefighters. The Employer hired the
top rated candidate and two candidates who were tied for the
fifth spot on the list. Deputy Chief Andy Hail admitted that he
violated the civil service rules when he bypassed the candidates
ranked second, third and fourth. Those rules required the first
selection from the three highest rated candidates, and then a
selection from the remaining top three, etc. Deputy Chief Hail
testified that he knew that he could reach the fifth ranked
candidate, but he failed to take into account that there was a
tie for the fifth spot. He testified that he made an honest
mistake when he violated the Commission's "rule of three," by
failing to select from the three highest ranking candidates for
each selection.
Captain Norton testified that when significant revisions to
the civil service rules were proposed, the cover sheet was
titled, "Now For Something Really Dull."
The Union contends that its proposal remedies the abuses
that result from the Commission's dependence on the Employer's
administration by incorporating the basic standards and
procedures of civil service into the collective bargaining
agreement, thereby encouraging those involved to follow the rules
by the prospect of enforcement by a neutral arbitrator. The
Union asserts that its proposal would'permit candidates to review
their test materials. It argues that there is no credible need
to maintain confidentiality of test materials. It reasons that
candidates should be entitled to understand why they have done
poorly so that they could learn from the experience or evaluate
whether a credible challenge to the scoring could be raised. The
Union points out that its modified "rule of one" proposal is less
restrictive than the rule in the State Civil Service Statute, RCW
41.08.040(9) which requires certification of the name highest on
the eligibility list. The Union recognizes that the law permits
local civil service commissions to utilize a "rule of three,"
citing Local 404 v. City of Walla Walla, 90 Wn. 2d 828 (1978).
The Union points out that Chief Ryan testified that he has no
objection to providing an explanation to a top-rated candidate
who had been passed over for promotion. Chief Ryan testified
that he would have a problem if the "rule of three" was changed,
since that would restrict his ability to select the best
candidate.
The Union asserts that the Employer's refusal to bargain
over its promotional standards proposal prevented the Union from
accommodating the Employer's interests and led to revisions of
the Union's proposal at the outset of the hearing and at the
outset of the Union's rebuttal case. The Union agrees that after
the first three or four bargaining sessions, new contract
proposals cannot be advanced. The Union asserts that this
practice has not required the presentation of a final proposal,
but rather a brief explanation of the issue. The Union points
out that at the outset of the negotiations, it raised two general
issues concerning the civil service process: modification of the
"rule of three" and the conflict of interest inherent in hiring a
Human Resources employee as the chief examiner. Captain Norton
testified that the Employers response to the Unions concern was
to suggest that it be discussed in another forum. Captain Norton
testified that Chief Ryan questioned whether the current system
was broken and whether it could be fixed in collective
bargaining. The Unions first written proposal on promotions was
made on July 24, 2002. The Union maintains that it addressed the
issues initially raised at the start of negotiations by proposing
to incorporate basic statutory standards into the contract so as
to provide an alternative enforcement mechanism.
Finally, the Union contends that there is broad support for
its promotion proposal among the comparables.
The Employer urges rejection of the Unions proposal to
change the civil service system for promotions. The Employer
argues that the Union should not be allowed to expand beyond the
issues it identified as possible proposals early in the
bargaining. The Employer points out that from October 2001
through July 2002, there were no proposals regarding promotions
other than the rule of three and the independence of the chief
examiner. The proposal that the Union made on July 24, 2002 was
even more extensive than the modified proposal which it offered
at hearing. The Employer advised the Union by letter dated
August 19, 2002, that the new proposal was contrary to the
parties ground rules. The Employer argues that the Unions
presentation of revised promotion proposals at the hearing
demonstrates its failure to adequately develop the proposal in
bargaining. The Employer maintains that it did not have the
opportunity to fairly evaluate that proposal, and its late
distribution violates the admonition that interest arbitration is
not a substitute for the bargaining process.
The Employer contends that the problem situations raised by
the Union reveals that many were resolved under the current
system, or else do not involve promotion issues or bargaining
unit members. The Employer asserts that it has demonstrated its
willingness to work with the Union to refine the promotion
procedures. Chief Ryan testified that he agreed with the Union
several years ago to initiate a Peer Review Board. This three-
person board is tasked with reviewing all promotion protests and
making recommendations. Bargaining unit members comprise the
Peer Review Board for promotion protests made by bargaining unit
a members. Recommendations of the Peer Review Board can be
appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Captain Norton
testified that in October 2003, the Commission certified a
promotion list at the request of senior staff, despite a
recommendation from a Peer Review Board that a portion of the
test should be regiven.
The Employer argues that allowing promotion candidates
unfettered access to all selection materials, including
assessors' notes, would harm the selection process. The
Department's Standard Operating Guidelines provides candidates
with the opportunity to review, after the test, the "candidate's
written test," the "written test answer key," \\a blank copy of
assessment criteria," and the "candidate's exercise scores."
Also, the candidate has "the opportunity to receive a synopsis of
assessors' comments from the Training Division." Chief Ryan
testified that he does have concerns about candidates having
access to the assessors' notes. Chief Ryan explained that
assessors are volunteers from other departments and they expect
anonymity so that they could respond frankly about a candidate's
performance, and that it would be difficult to obtain such
volunteer service if their identity is revealed to the candidate.
The Employer argues that requiring the promotion of the
highest scoring candidate would deprive a chief of needed
discretion in filling command positions.
The Employer contends that the Union's proposal defining the
nature of examinations is vague and could lead to frequent
appeals. Chief Ryan testified that this could lead to a quagmire
as the promotional process is slowed while employee appeals
proceed to arbitration. The Employer argues that this not only
has the potential for great inefficiency, but also a loss of the
institutional consistency which the Civil Service Commission
provides.
Finally, the Employe1 argues ha a review of the
comparables does not demonstrate support for the Union's
promotion proposals.
A review of the contracts of the comparable departments
reveals the following: Bellevue's contract provides for
vacancies and promotions to be governed by the Bellevue Civil
Service Commission. Its contract does provide for a written
explanation if the candidate with the highest score is not
selected. Everett's contract does not contain a promotion
provision. Its promotions are governed by the Everett Civil
Service Commission. Renton's contract also does not contain a
promotion provision. Its promotions are governed by the Renton
Civil Service Commission. Kent's contract provides for
promotions to be governed the Kent Civil Service Commission. Its
contract also provides for its chief, in filling vacancies, to
select from the top three eligible candidates on the register.
It also provides the following:
If the Chief elects to pass over a higher-ranking
candidate from among the top three candidates, then,
if requested, the Chief shall provide a written
statement to the passed-over candidate(s) stating, in
general, the Chief's reasons for not choosing the
higher-ranking candidate(s).
Kirkland's contract specifies the matters to be tested on a
promotional exam. It calls for selection from the top three
names on the register and provides that "[i]n the event a leading
candidate is bypassed, the determining factors for the bypass
will be provided, in writing, to the candidate." Kirkland's
contract provides for that employer and its union to establish a
committee which would develop a promotional process by the end of
2002. The Auburn contract specifically provides for the
grievance-arbitration process to resolve appeals alleging
violation of the promotion process. It contains language similar
to the Union's proposed Sections 11.1 and 11.1.1. The Auburn
contract permits employees to inspect their summary score sheets
and a "Qualitative Evaluation Form" which will be mutually agreed
upon by that city and the union and would provide candidates with
information related to their performance in all phases of the
testing process. The Auburn contract contains a rule of three
provision, but does not require a written explanation to a
passed-over candidate.
The Award will amend Section 11.1 by providing that a
candidate for a promotion who is by-passed in favor of a
candidate lower ranked on the eligibility list is entitled, upon
request, to a written explanation of the reasons. Three of the
six comparable departments have a provision calling for an
explanation to passed-over candidates. It is reasonable and fair
for employees who have worked very hard preparing for a
promotional exam to expect a response to an inquiry regarding why
they were by-passed for the promotion. Obviously, such
information could be useful to the employee with regard to future
promotion opportunities. Moreover, Chief Ryan testified that he
has no objection to providing such information to a passed-over
candidate.
No other changes to Article XI shall be awarded. None of
the Union's proposals are supported by a prevailing practice
among a majority of the comparable departments. Further, the
Union's argument that the current civil service system has been
unfair to bargaining unit members is not persuasive. Most of the
alleged abuses by the Redmond Civil Service Commission raised by
the Union either do not involve bargaining unit members, or would
have been unaffected had the Union's proposal been in effect.
Thus, the Union's proposal would have had no bearing on the
situations involving the selection of the administrative
assistant, the deputy chief, or the newly hired firefighters.
There was also insufficient nexus between bargaining unit members
right to a fair process for promotion appeals and the allegations
made by the Union regarding the Commission holding an executive
session to discuss labor relations issues, or providing
insufficient notice of one Commission meeting, or regarding the
wording of a cover sheet accompanying a rule revision. Also,
some of the alleged problems raised by the Union have already
been mutually resolved, such as by moving Commission meetings to
an accessible location, not postponing a lieutenant's test, and
canceling interviews for the deputy chief position. The
implementation of a Peer Review Board several years ago appears
to have been an effective means of fairly resolving most appeals
by a review by fellow bargaining unit members. In the one
example given by the Union where an employee was denied a request
to see their assessor's notes, the employee did receive the
promotion. Moreover, the Employer's practice of providing to
candidates a summary of the assessor's notes provides a fair and
reasonable balance between the employee's need to understand his
assessment and the need for the Employer to maintain
confidentiality for assessors from other departments. There is
insufficient evidence that the rule of three is inherently unfair
or had been applied unfairly. The rule of three is the
predominant practice of the comparable departments. The example
of the 1999 appeal where an employee felt that he was treated
unfairly by the Commission is insufficient to establish general
unfairness in the current civil service system. Questions raised
by the Union regarding whether the Redmond Civil Service
Commission is structured in accordance with the statute is a matter
for the courts to resolve. Overall, the evidence presented does
not establish a pattern of arbitrary and unfair treatment by the
Redmond Civil Service Commission regarding promotion appeals by
bargaining unit members.7
AWARD OF THE NEUTRAL CHAIR
It is the determination of your Neutral Chair that the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between City of Redmond and
International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2829, shall be
amended to include the following:
I. Base wages shall be increased as follows:
Effective January 1, 2002 4%
Effective January 1, 2003 3%
Effective January 1, 2004 3%
II. There shall be no change to Appendix A, Section A.4 -
Longevity Pay.
III. Article XI - Promotions and Vacancies, Section 11.3,
shall be amended to add the following:
If a higher-ranking candidate on the
civil service eligibility list is
passed over, then, upon the request of
that candidate, a written explanation
shall be provided of the basis for
that decision.
Sammamish, Washington
Dated: July 12, 2004 /s/ Alan R. Krebs
Alan R. Krebs, Neutral Chair
Footnotes
1This chart included not only the six traditional comparables, but Federal
Way as well. The chart was labeled "Fire and Police Medical." It seems
likely that it was utilized by the Employer in its negotiations with both of
its uniformed bargaining units.
2The Employer later added a fourteenth comparable department.
3The Union has offered alternative comparable jurisdictions for
consideration by the Panel in the event that it rejects its position that the
six traditional comparables be utilized. In selecting those alternative
comparables, the Union relied on both population and assessed valuation. It
is unnecessary to consider this alternative proposal inasmuch as I have
decided to utilize the six traditional comparables that the Union prefers.
4This figure includes a one percent raise implemented on July 1, 2002 . The
parties joint compensation survey committee utilized this figure which
includes the mid-year raise. Reducing this figure to reflect that the base
wage was lower by one percent during the first half of the year would not
significantly change the overall analysis.
5I have not included the sick leave incentive which the Union argues should
be included. Receipt of that incentive is dependent on the amount of sick
leave usage by the employee. Moreover, the Union, without explanation, did
not include in its prepared figures for the City of Redmond the sick leave
incentive provided in that Agreement.
6If Bellevue and Kent were removed from the compensation comparison, as the
Employer proposes because they are much larger in serviced population than
Redmond, the compensation disparity between Redmond and the average of the
remaining comparables would increase.
7It would unnecessarily lengthen this opinion to resolve the Employer's
contention that the Union acted improperly when it revised its promotion
proposals to include matters not previously discussed during negotiations,
inasmuch as that proposal, for the most part, has not been adopted by the
Panel. The one aspect of the Union's promotion proposal which has been
adopted relates to its rule of three proposal which, it is clear, was raised
in a timely manner during negotiations.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.