By Jim Cline
This is the fourth in a series of articles on recent Interest Arbitration decisions. A summary of all recent arbitration decisions since 2008 is available on the Premium website. This is a decision by Arbitrator Gary Axon concerning Vancouver police officers.
The Guild proposed 5 Cities from Washington, 3 from Oregon, and 3 from California. The Guild solely applied Population as its selection criterion. Arbitrator Axon rejected that approach indicating that, while he was not rejecting the possibility of California cities, he did not agree that selecting California Cities solely based on Population was appropriate.
He also rejected the Guild’s proposed comparator of Bellevue, based on its Assessed Valuation being substantially higher than Vancouver’s. Arbitrator Axon ended up selecting the 10 Cities proposed by the City: Spokane, Tacoma, Kent, Everett, Federal Way, Eugene, Salem, Gresham, Hillsboro, and Beaverton.
The City argued for wage constraint, citing its fiscal situation. It proposed for the three years 2012-14 wage increases of 0-1-2%. The Guild argued the officers were behind their comparables, and proposed 2.7-2.5-2.5% wage increases for the three years.
The City argued for adoption of a “net hourly wage analysis,” which the Arbitrator agreed to apply. In so doing, he concluded that the officers were actually paid above the average of the comparables. He ultimately concluded that 2% per year, for each of the 3 years, would keep the Officers at about the same place with their comparables.
“Competency Premium.” The Guild took an unusual approach to longevity, apparently due to the City’s opposition to the longevity concept. It proposed a “competency premium” in which Officers who undertake 24 hours of training, and could qualify with their handgun (both presumable requirements of the job), would receive additional pay on a sliding scale matching their years of service. The City opposed the premium, explaining that they reject the idea of Longevity. The Guild replied that the Firefighters had their own form of “competency premium.”
Arbitrator Axon rejected the premium, explaining that it “was not the right time to add” it. He also observed that the proposal did not contain any “meaningful measure of competency.”
Health Insurance. The City proposed several significant changes to the health insurance language, such as: changing the plan design; capping future premium increases at 5%; and adding language allowing it to change plans in the future.
The Arbitrator did not detail the extent of the plan design changes, but the changes were intended to match the Officers with the benefits for other City employees. Arbitrator Axon agreed that the changes should be made. He rejected a Union proposal for a separate new plan, indicating that because the Guild had not presented the proposal during contract negotiations he would not consider it in Arbitration.
Arbitrator Axon rejected the City’s proposal to cap its contributions to future premium increases to 5%. He cited his award to the City on its plan design proposal as a major reason for further changes in the premium structure, and rejected the City’s proposal to add language allowing it to change plans. He explained that there already existed some language in the CBA allowing some ability to change carriers, provided the benefits are not “substantially changed.”
The Arbitrator’s award was very modest for the Officers, given that they will be facing a diminished health insurance plan. Fashioning a “competency premium” as a cover for a longevity premium was creative, but did not seem to appeal to the Arbitrator. One would have thought that some type of longevity premium might have been awarded as a logical offset to the diminished health insurance benefits. Apparently the arbitrator believed that providing a 2% wage increase was a sufficient offset.
Use of “net wage analysis” is common in fire contracts, but very uncommon in police contracts. Only a very limited number of police awards have adopted such an analysis. The Arbitrator’s rejection of any California comparables while including lower paid Oregon comparables no doubt diminished the strength of the Guild’s case.
