INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

                 BEFORE THE ARBITRATION BOARD

In the Matter of the Interest  )
Arbitration Between            )
                               )
City of Camas, Fire Department )
                               )    ARBITRATOR'S
               the Employer    )
                               )    AWARD
                               )
            and                )
                               )    PERC No.
International Association of   )       16303-I-02-0380
Fire Fighters,                 )
Local 2444                     )
                               )
               the Union       )
_______________________________)

                          APPEARANCES:

FOR THE CITY:                     FOR THE UNION: 
Larry Hannah, Esq.                David Snyder, Esq. 
Perkins Coie                      Attorney at Law
One Bellevue Center, Ste. 1800    522 S.W. Fifth Ave., Ste. 1275
411 - 108th Ave. NW               Portland, OR 97204
Bellevue, WA 98004          

                   NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR:
                   Jane Wilkinson, Attorney and Arbitrator
                   PMB 211
                   3 Monroe Parkway, Ste. P
                   Lake Oswego, OR 97034

Date of Award: January 22, 2003
            
WITNESS LIST

For the Union:
Kevin Bergstrom, Firefighter and President, Local 2444

For the Employer:
Lloyd Halverson, City Administrator
David Artz, Fire Chief
Howard Strickler, Consultant
Joan Durgin, Finance Director
Sandra G. Brown, Manager of Human Resources

 Aberdeen
 Bremerton
 Clark FD #6
 Cowlitz Fire and Rescue #2
 Gig Harbor
 Kitsap #7
 Lacey (Thurston County 3)
 Olympia
 Pierce #21
 Puyallup
 University Place (Pierce County 3)

II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA
RCW 41.56.030(7), read in conjunction with RCW 41.56.430-.450, states that unresolved disputes concerning the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement must be settled by interest arbitration when the affected bargaining unit is composed of "uniformed personnel," including:

RCW 41.56.465 specifies that interest arbitrators must apply the following criteria when determining the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement for firefighters:

The Legislative purpose, referenced as a criterion in the above quoted statute and found at RCW 41.56.430, states:

RCW 41.56.452 states that an interest arbitration panel is a state agency and specifies:

In resolving the issues in this dispute, whether or not fully articulated herein, the Arbitrator has been mindful of the Legislative criteria set forth above and has given consideration to all of the evidence and arguments presented by the parties relative to these criteria. The undersigned Arbitrator also recognizes that interest arbitration is an extension of the collective bargaining process. The arbitration should endeavor to approximate the result that reasonable parties themselves would likely have reached in good faith negotiations. E.g., Kitsap County Fire Protection District No. 7 (IAFF Local 2876), PERC No. 15012-1-00-333 (Krebs, 2000); City of Centralia (IAFF Local 451), PERC No. 11866-I-95-253 (Lumbley, 1997)

III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Camas, Washington, has a population of approximately 13,500 and its fire department provides fire suppression and EMS services within the City's limits. The Camas Fire Department also provides Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance transport services for the City of Washougal, Clark County Fire District #1, and Clark County Fire District #9. The ALS ambulance transport services are provided to these jurisdictions through inter-local agreements whereby EMS (emergency medical services) tax levy revenues are paid to the City. The service population for the fire department's emergency medical services is about 44,800. Fire suppression service is not provided to this larger EMS service population area, except under mutual aid agreements. The assessed valuation of property within the City of Camas is about $2.15 billion; the valuation of the property of the fire department's entire service area for emergency medical is about $3.53 billion. Georgia-Pacific and Wafertech, which have large manufacturing facilities within Camas's city limits, contribute significantly to the City's tax base.

The Union represents a bargaining unit of 33 members, classified as Fire Fighters (8) Paramedics (16), Captains (6), Paramedic Captains (1), and Deputy Fire Marshals (2). In addition to these 33 bargaining unit members, the City utilizes about seven volunteers. The parties' last contract expired on December 31, 2001. The parties negotiated, but were unable to reach agreement on a successor contract, which they agreed would have a term of three years (January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2004).

The Executive Director of the Public Employment Relations Commission certified fourteen issues to interest arbitration, but the parties subsequently settled all but two of those issues, those pertaining to wages and to medical insurance premiums. The resulting arbitration hearing was confined to testimony and exhibits on those remaining two issues.

IV. PARTIES' PROPOSALS ON WAGES
A. EMPLOYER'S PROPOSAL

B. UNION'S PROPOSAL:
Effective January 1, 2002, employees will receive the following wage adjustments based upon comparability, the City's compensation goals, the local labor market, increases in the cost of living, and other statutory factors:

	Firefighter                       13%
	Firefighter/Paramedic             17%
	Fire Captain and Deputy Marshals  10%

Effective January 1, 2003, all employees will receive a cost of living increase equal to 100% of the 2002 CPI-U for the Portland Salem Metropolitan Area as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period July July.

Effective January 1, 2004, all employees will receive a cost of living increase equal to 100% of the 2003 CPI-U for the Portland Salem Metropolitan Area as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period July July.

ARGUMENTS OF THE EMPLOYER ON WAGES:
Comparators:
A. Comparables should not be used inappropriately and their selection should consider the unique characteristics of the Camas Fire Department.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVEN USED IN NEGOTIATIONS             FINAL SEVEN 
 
 Aberdeen* (only paramedics employed)   Aberdeen* (only paramedics employed)
 Anacortes*                             Anacortes* 
 Bremerton                              Cowlitz County No.2
 Cowlitz County No.2                    Pasco*
 Olympia                                Pierce County No.3 (Univ. Pl.)
 Pasco*                                 Port Angeles
 Pierce County No.3 (Univ. Pl.)         Tumwater*
 Port Angeles  
 Thurston County No.3 (Lacey)* 
 Tumwater*
 Walla Walla
__________
*Outside city limits, ambulance service only
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The City used a net hourly pay approach based on cash compensation and a 17-year benchmark for captains (the average tenure of captains in the bargaining unit); and 10 years for firefighters and paramedics.

D. Results: The City's 2002 offer would put firefighters 1.01% above the median and slightly below the average; paramedics would be 1.57% above the median and slightly above the average; captains would be 7.65% above the median and 5.68% above the average.

Changes in the Cost of Living

A. The City contends that the statutory cost of living criterion lends strong support to the City's position.

B. The Portland CPI had July-to-July change for 2001 to 2002 of only 1.25%.

C. The City asserts that the cost of living, as expressed in wage levels, places the Portland area below the Seattle area (which includes Pierce County), home of the Union's favorite "comparables"). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage of a firefighter in the Seattle area is $23.16, compared to $21.27 in the Portland area. Correspondingly, average annual pay in the Seattle area is $41,953, versus $35,830 in the Portland area. Id.

Other Statutory Considerations

A. "Other" statutory factors support the City's position:

B. According to the City, various Union contentions are misplaced.

ARGUMENTS OF THE UNION ON WAGES:
Comparators:
A. The Union contends that the screening band is appropriately -50%, +100%.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 * Aberdeen                          * Thurston County No. 3 (Lacey) 
 * Bremerton                         * Olympia
 * Clark County No. 6                * Pierce County No. 21
 * Cowlitz County No. 2              * Puyallup
 * Pierce County No. 5 (Gig Harbor)  * Pierce County No. 3 (Univ. Pl.)
 * Kitsap County No. 7  
----------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Union's position is that service area population is the relevant population indicator.

C. The Union maintains that assessed valuation has been a uniformly important consideration to interest arbitrators.

D. According to the Union, geographic proximity is important but limited in usefulness here.

E. Generally, only transport agencies should be used as comparators per Arbitrator Abernathy's 1998 award, which also emphasized the importance of a local labor market. Therefore, the union urges that an exception be made for Clark County Fire District No. 6.

F. Historical comparators used by the City support the Union's list and the City has no offered valid reasons for excluding comparators that do not support its position; furthermore, the Union's position has been consistent throughout negotiations and into arbitration.

G. Department size and call load are not normally considered by arbitrators; if considered in this case, the number of bargaining unit personnel is more relevant than department size and call load ratios are rendered problematic because of the use of volunteers.

Results of Comparator Analysis
A. According to Local 2444, a comparator analysis based on the Union's comparators shows the following lag (using a ten years' service benchmark).

-------------------------------------------------------------
                     UNION PROPOSAL  65TH PERCENTILE  AVERAGE 
FIREFIGHTER                13%           15.02%        12.84%
FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC      17%           19.06%        16.86%
CAPTAIN                    10%           11.87%         7.98%
-------------------------------------------------------------

Other Statutory Considerations
A. The Union contends that the cost of living consideration is proper, but the modest increases in the cost of living clearly do not require a modest increase in wages:

B. Other factors traditionally considered by arbitrators support the Union's position.

VI. DISCUSSION AND AWARD ON WAGES
A. SELECTION OF COMPARATORS
1. SELECTION OF COMPARABLES, IN GENERAL

As the City cautions, I am mindful that a comparator analysis is only one of the statutory considerations. I am mindful also that comparability is the consideration given the most weight by arbitrators. The task of selecting appropriate comparators is frustrating; the n is compounded because the statute does not target the subject jurisdiction's wages at any particular position vis-a-vis its comparators (e.g., to the average, median, top or bottom).(3) Nevertheless, the comparator analysis has an appealing logic, both in terms of achieving a just end result as well as an objectively quantifiable one.
__________

Selecting appropriate comparators is usually difficult; perhaps the easy ones do not end up in arbitration. Ideally, the comparator jurisdictions will perform an identical function, will have a population and assessed valuation within a reasonable range of the subject's, and will lie within the subject's local labor market so as to obviate the need to consider geographical differences in wages and cost of living.

The fact that the City provides two services (fire and EMS) within its limits and one service (EMS) to a large county area makes the population and assessed valuation considerations problematical (and the source of the difference between the parties' analyses). This circumstance forces this Arbitrator to consider other measuring devices for the selection of comparators. I emphasize that my doing so is driven by the unusual character of the Camas Fire Department; this approach is not appropriate for all cases. I find that the size of a jurisdiction's fire department (whether measured by uniformed personnel or number of bargaining unit members) is the most useful indicator in this case. I relied on department size in the last Washington interest arbitration award that I issued (Spokane International Airport and IAFF Local 1789 (2002) because the airport lacked an appreciable resident population and had no assessed valuation. In that case, I noted that the statute, RCW 41.56.465 (1)(c)(ii), requires comparison of the wages "of like personnel of public fire departments of similar size." By considering department size in two cases in succession, I am not suggesting this is an appropriate consideration in every case. In fact, I have not considered department size in any prior Washington cases and I am not aware of other arbitrators who have. I agree with the Union's contention that the statutory phrase " of like personnel of public fire departments of similar size" admits of the interpretation traditionally given by interest arbitrators, that is, " size" is primarily determined with reference to the jurisdiction's resident population and assessed valuation. There are so many arbitration awards that have considered only population and assessed valuation as a measure of size that no citation is needed. These awards have spanned many decades without any correction from the Legislature or the courts. Thus, I emphasize that it is both usual and appropriate to confine one's inquiry to the population and assessed valuation indicators (with consideration also given to geographic proximity), as is seen from many interest arbitration adjudications.

The Camas Fire Department, however, is not like most fire departments. It provides fire suppression services only within the City of Camas, with a resident population of 13,500. It also provides EMS services within the City of Camas. But, it provides EMS services to a large area outside of the City, so that the entire EMS service area population is about 44,800. Its EMS service (both in and out of the City) includes ALS (advanced life support) and transport. The service area for its EMS service is over three times the size of the service area for its fire suppression service, a fact that creates an obvious problem when selecting comparators.

I suggested one alternative approach to the parties at hearing: use a population and assessed valuation figure based on some sort of weighted average between in-city service and outside EMS service. The parties' response was not encouraging: neither party undertook or advocated a weighted-average analysis in its post-hearing brief. The City apparently proposed this method to Arbitrator John Abernathy in 1996 and the arbitrator rejected it. (Arbitrator Abernathy, however, eschewed the use of comparators altogether, something this Arbitrator is unwilling to do). Given both parties' response, Arbitrator Abernathy's view, and the somewhat complicated nature of such an undertaking, I will not pursue this approach.

The other approach I suggested received a warmer (but not wildly enthusiastic) reception from the parties, that approach being the comparison of department size (either based on the number of uniformed firefighters or the size of the bargaining unit). The parties provided the Arbitrator with the necessary data and considered it in their arguments, but the Union urged the Arbitrator not to overly rely on this criterion, while the City urged the Arbitrator to avoid placing too much weight on comparator considerations altogether. Nevertheless, given the peculiar configuration of the services delivered by the City, I find that department size is the most appropriate indicator of "similar size" in this dispute. As noted in the Spokane International Airport dispute, supra, there is a correlation between the number of uniformed or bargaining unit personnel employed by a jurisdiction and wages. Simply put, larger fire departments (in terms of uniformed personnel) tend to pay higher wages. In addition, the fact that Camas delivers EMS services outside of its limits indisputably affects the size of its department. Were it to deliver services only within the City's limits, its fire department would be considerably smaller. Thus, there obviously is a correlation between the number of personnel employed and service delivery. I recognize that using department size as a primary comparator screen is not a perfect method. There may be efficiencies or economies of scale differentially achieved by the proposed comparators. Some jurisdictions make more use of volunteers than others, although that does not appear to be a factor in this case. Nevertheless, I favor this approach because I find the approaches proposed by both parties to be faulty. The City proposes using jurisdictions no larger than its service area of 44,800, which the Union persuasively contends is an artificial limit that probably is too limiting. The Union, on the other hand, proposes selecting comparators based on a population band of half to double Camas' s service area. This population band is one that is not frequently employed by arbitrators and in my opinion, is justified only when the more traditional 50% to 150% band is inadequate. The following table shows the recent decisions that have mentioned the bandwidth:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CASE NAME                              BANDWIDTH                      |
City of Sea-Tac, PERC No.
   15951-I-01-370 (Krebs, 2002)        66%-150%                       |
King Cty Fire Dist. 44, PERC No.
   15764-I-01-360 (Wilkinson, 2002)    50-150%                        |
City of Longview, PERC No.
   15438-I-00-350 (Nelson, 2001)       50-150%                        |
City of Mountlake Terrace , PERC Case
   No. 15590-I-01-354 (Croll, 2001)    50-150%                        |
Kitsap County Fire Protection District
   No. 7 (Krebs, 2000)                 60-166%                        |

City of Bothell , (Krebs (2000)        70-140%                        |
                                       40-160% used because 50-150%
Thurston County (Axon, 1999)           yielded only four comps        |

Mason County (Beck, 1999)              50-150%                        |
                                       Rejected 200%, noted 15 award
City of Milton (Abernathy, 1998)       average was about -42% to 55%  |
City of Centralia PERC No.
   11866-I-95-253 (Lumbley, 1997)      75-150%                        |
City of Vancouver,
   AAA 75 L 390 00218 96 (Beck, 1997)  50-150%                        |
City of Kennewick, AAA 75 300 00225 96
   (Krebs, 1997)                       70-130%                        |
City of Pullman, PERC No.              Upper limit of just under 200%
   12399-I-96-296 (Gaunt, 1997)        used because of lack of options|
                                       Upper limit of 200% may be
City of Bellevue (Gaunt 1988)          appropriate                    |
City of Seattle, PERC No. 4369-I-8298  200% according to Arb. Gaunt in
   (Beck 1983)                         City of Bellevue (1988)        |
City of Seattle, PERC No.
   5059-I-84-114 (Krebs, 1984)         Ibid.                          |
City of Renton , 71 LA 271
   (Snow, 1978)                        Ibid.                          |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The 50% to 150% screen is the prevalent one, with arbitrators narrowing or broadening that screen as circumstances require. With the exception of Arbitrator Gaunt's award in City of Pullman, where the arbitrator employed a 200% screen out of necessity, I found no cases employing that bandwidth since 1988. The Union's approach also is defective because it fails to make any adjustment for the hybrid nature of Camas's service delivery.

The Employer advances an argument favoring the number of calls per employee and total call volume as suitable screens or indicators for the selection of comparators. I am unaware of any arbitral precedent using call volume ratios as a primary or even secondary screen and the Employer did not cite any such cases.(4) The use of call volume is not something that can be readily inferred from the language of RCW 41.56.465, and the Employer did not present persuasive evidence or argument as to why call volume is a particularly suitable indicator of "like personnel of public fire departments of similar size." Call volume ratios may show an employer's efficiency and may indicate workload, but there maybe other circumstances that affect call volume figures, such as the use of volunteers, mutual aid agreements, reporting methodology, and peculiar circumstances that prevent a department from becoming more efficient.(5) I note that the call volume figures the City presented varied considerably among the comparable jurisdictions under consideration, and I am not certain why. For example, Tumwater also is a hybrid department with service areas populations similar to Camas's. It has a city population of 13,000 and a total EMS service population of 50,000, versus 13,500 and 44,800, respectively, for Camas. Tumwater's call volume is considerably higher (65% higher) than Camas's, but it employs 26 uniformed personnel, compared with 36 for Camas. Thus, the call volume ratio for Tumwater is between 2 1/2 to three times that of Camas (197 per uniformed employee, compared with 72 for Camas). The call volume ratio and total call volume for Tumwater suggests its unsuitability as a comparator, even though it is one of the few putative comparators with the same hybrid service configuration as Camas's, serving populations that are nearly the same size. Although the size of its department is smaller, it nevertheless passes the 50%-150% department size screen. Therefore, as the record stands, I am not persuaded that call volume data should be given weight.
__________

The Employer also objects to the use or over-use of fire districts as comparators because they are funded from a single dedicated source, whereas cities with fire departments must allocate their funds among their various competing services. I know of only one Washington fire department award that refused to consider fire districts: City of Centralia , PERC No. 11866-I-95-253 (Lumbley, 1997). Eliminating fire districts from consideration in this case is not a realistic option. It would eliminate around half the viable comparators for a reason that is no better than one could advance for eliminating the other half.

Finally, the Union contends that bargaining unit wages should be targeted at the 65th percentile of its comparators because in 1999, a wage consultant employed this figure in a compensation study using relatively small cities as comparators. See Exh. U-21. The Union's 65th percentile target lacks any kind of statutory basis and is without significantly weigh precedent. It will not be the objective adopted with this award.

2. THE ARBITRATOR'S SELECTION OF COMPARABLES
I carefully reviewed both parties' proposed comparators and I found that no comparator was as "like" Camas as one would prefer. The three comparators the parties proposed in common (Aberdeen, Cowlitz County No. 2, and Pierce County No. 21 (University Place)) are suitable because they are acceptable to both sides and are demographically appropriate; they will be included on the Arbitrator's comparator list. To select the remaining comparators, I used a -50% to 150% screen on department size. The Union urged the use of bargaining unit size, while the City preferred the number of uniformed employees in the department. The number of uniformed employees appeared to be a more inclusive number, and I opted to use it. There were some discrepancies between the numbers the parties provided, but none sufficient to make a difference. When a jurisdiction's size is shown with a range of numbers on the table below, one figure is the Union's and the other is the City's. After utilizing the department/unit size screen, I reviewed each comparator individually to see whether something about it warranted its exclusion from or addition to the comparator list, despite having passed or failed the department size screens. The results of the department size screen are shown on the following table.

-------------------------------------------------
JURISDICTION(6)                    UNIFORMED SIZE 
ABERDEEN                               35
ANACORTES                              18-19
BREMERTON                              53-54 
CLARK COUNTY NO. 6                     52-54 
COWLITZ COUNTY FIRE/RESCUE NO. 2       27
KITSAP COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NO. 7      61
OLYMPIA                                78
PASCO                                  42-44
PIERCE COUNTY NO. 21                   37
PIERCE COUNTY NO. 3 (UNIV. PL)         33-34
PIERCE COUNTY NO. 5 (GIG HARBOR)       60
PORT ANGELES                           20 
PUYALLUP                               58
THURSTON COUNTY NO. 3 (LACEY)          54
TUMWATER                               26

CAMAS                                  36
 
MINUS 50% CAMAS                        18
PLUS 50% CAMAS                         54 
_____
The strikethroughs show the jurisdictions failing
the -50/+50% screen 
-------------------------------------------------

The above table shows that Kitsap County No. 7, Olympia, Pierce County No. 5 (Gig Harbor) and Puyallup failed the department size screen and fell from the list, although, as explained next, I reconsidered Olympia. I also took a close look at those jurisdictions to which a party voiced an objection. The particulars on these individual reviews are as follows:

EXCLUSION OF OLYMPIA. Olympia presented a close question: It failed the department size screen because it employs a large number of firefighters, but otherwise, it would seem to be a comparable preferable to Pierce County No. 21. Olympia is located closer to Clark County and it serves a smaller population; its assessed valuation is higher, although still appropriate because falls between the assessed valuation of the City of Camas's and its broader service areas. In order to maintain balance (see the discussion of the Puget Sound issue, below), I determined it would be appropriate to include Olympia or Pierce No. 21, but not both. The wages at Pierce No. 3 are slightly higher than Olympia's. Because Pierce No. 3 passed the department size screen and Olympia did not, I opted to go with Pierce No. 21. The choice of Olympia instead would not have affected the end result.

INCLUSION OF CLARK COUNTY NO. 6. The Employer strongly objects to Clark County No. 6 as a comparator. Although that jurisdiction services a large population area, I elected to include it because it passed the department size screens and it is the only local labor market comparator available. As the Union ably pointed out in its post-hearing brief, many arbitrators have attached significance to geographically proximate comparators. E.g., City of Kelso (Lankford, 2001); Walla Walla County (Greer, 2000); Mason County Beck, 1999); City of Bothell, (Krebs, 2000); City of Mount Vernon, PERC No. 10183-I-92-218 (Axon, 1993) City of Bellevue, PERC No. 14037-I-98-309 (Beck, 1999); Kitsap County , PERC No. 13831-I-98-299 (Buchanan, 1999); City of Bremerton, PERC No. 12924-I-97-279 (Axon, 1998); City of Kennewick, AAA 75 300 00225 96 (Krebs, 1997); Jefferson Transit , PERC No. 11148-I-94- 239 (Axon, 1994). In addition, the assessed valuation of the area serviced by Clark County No. 6 is below that of Camas's service area but above that of the City of Camas itself.

CENTRAL PUGET SOUND COMPARATORS. The Employer strenuously objects to central Puget Sound area comparators (although it proposed Pierce County No. 21), citing the high cost of living and high wages in the Seattle area. As the Union points out, the Employer's argument assumes that the economic conditions in Seattle and King County apply to the other areas surrounding Puget Sound. The Employer did not present evidence to support this assumption, and the information available to this Arbitrator shows that economic indicators are uneven in this region. It is true that wages, the cost of living, median income, median home prices and similar indicators are higher in jurisdictions bordering Puget Sound than in rural areas. But, when compared with Clark County, these measures are much closer, after Seattle and King County is excluded. For example, Clark County median home prices and its annual average earnings per job are similar to Pierce County's. Median household income in Clark County is almost nine percent higher than in Pierce County. (7) Bremerton, in Kitsap County, has an assessed valuation considerably lower than Camas's assessed valuation ($1.51 billion for Bremerton, $2.15 billion for Camas), and its fire department serves a population area that falls between the City of Camas itself and its broader service area. Given these indicators, there is no reason for the categorical exclusion of Central Puget Sound jurisdictions.
__________

On the other hand, comparator wage data, as well as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wage data, (8) suggest that the closer one gets to Seattle, the higher the firefighter wages, and the difference become significant. This information suggests a different wage market for firefighters in the Central Puget Sound area; as a consequence, I prefer that these jurisdictions not have an overwhelming presence on a list of comparables.
__________

THE "CASCADE CURTAIN." The Union strongly objects to crossing the "Cascade Curtain" and bringing in Pasco, despite its size and functional similarity to Camas. Few interest arbitrations have occurred where the east-west divide has not been a source of contention. A review of those many cases shows that arbitrators will consider cross-Cascade comparators when it is appropriate.

Because of the economic dissimilarities with Camas (Pasco's assessed valuation is 60% of Camas's, despite having a population that is 2 1/2 times larger; median household and per capita income in Camas is nearly double that of Pasco)(9) , I seriously considered eliminating Pasco as a comparator. On the other hand, I noted that a number of the proposed comparators are dissimilar in certain important respects. If I eliminated all those that contained a significant flaw, there would be few left. Accordingly, Pasco stays.
__________

There were problems, however, in the record with Pasco's wage analysis. The City presented no analysis, and the Union presented three (Exh. U-5, 6 and 28) with the first two (Exh. U-5 and 6) purporting to be copies of analyses previously performed by the City. I elected to start with the Union's independent analysis (Exh. U-28) and compared it with the Pasco Firefighters' collective bargaining agreement. There were two errors: one in the base wage of firefighters at ten years (the Union had the pay too high) and the other in the number of holiday hours. The Union listed that number as "0;" it should have been 132, a figure that works to the benefit of the Union. Finally, noting testimony at Tr. 249 that Pasco has not settled its contract for the year 2002, but that the firefighters "probably" will accept the city's 4% offer, I "aged" the figures for Pasco by 4%. (The year 2002 is the reference year for the comparators).

The number of comparators I have selected is relatively large, but not without precedent.(10) Accordingly, I have selected the following as comparators.
__________

ARBITRATORS' FINAL COMPARATOR LIST
----------------------------------
Aberdeen              Pierce County No. 3 (Univ. Pl)
Anacortes             Pierce County No. 21
Bremerton             Port Angeles
Clark County No. 6    Thurston County No. 3 (Lacey)
Cowlitz County No. 2  Tumwater
Pasco  

Although flaws for comparison purposes can be identified for each jurisdiction, taken collectively, they achieve an appropriate balance, in my opinion.

B. WAGE COMPARISON WITH COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
The following table shows how Camas fares compared to the median and average of its comparators for the ranks of Firefighter, Paramedic and Captain.(11)
__________

 
----------------------------------------------------------- 
                          FIREFIGHTER  PARAMEDIC    CAPTAIN
JURISDICTION                  - - - NET HOURLY PAY - - - 
Aberdeen                    $ 24.03     $ 25.17     $ 26.44
Anacortes (no firefighters)             $ 24.07     $ 26.78
Bremerton                   $ 27.13     $ 29.07     $ 31.21
Clark Cty No. 6             $ 25.94     $ 27.22     $ 30.45
Cowlitz Cty No. 2           $ 22.73     $ 24.55     $ 26.37
Pasco                       $ 19.81     $ 25.18     $ 27.83
Pierce Cty No. 21           $ 26.78     $ 29.62     $ 33.59
Pierce Cty No. 3 (Univ. Pl) $ 28.91     $ 31.53     $ 32.19
Port Angeles                $ 23.18     $ 24.38     $ 26.16
Thurston Cty No. 3 (Lacey)  $ 25.70     $ 28.27     $ 30.84
Tumwater                    $ 23.35     $ 25.69     $ 28.07

                     CAMAS  $ 23.51     $ 24.70     $ 28.61
        Comparator Average  $ 24.76     $ 26.80     $ 29.08
    CAMAS LAG FROM AVERAGE     5.3%        8.5%        1.7%
         Comparator Median  $ 24.87     $ 25.69     $ 28.07
     CAMAS LAG FROM MEDIAN     5.8%        4.0%       -1.9%
-----------------------------------------------------------

This table shows a significant pay lag for Firefighters and Paramedics (although not nearly as significant as the Union asserts). The pay lag for Captains is not significant. Although slightly below the average, even without an increase, Camas's Captain's pay is above the median.

3. CHANGES IN THE COST OF LIVING
The Union does not dispute the Employer's assertion that over the past decade, bargaining unit wages have outpaced increases in the consumer price index (CPI). According to the Employer's brief, the various bargaining unit classifications have seen the following increases relative to changes in the consumer price index:

The Employer contends that 100% CPI increases are not all that common in interest arbitration awards and it notes the "conventional wisdom" that the CPI overstates actual changes in the cost of living. The Employer did not present evidence, however, that the CPI actually overstates the cost of living, and this proposition is at least debatable. I recently addressed this subject in King County Fire District 44 (2002), stating:

CPI INCREASES IN RECENT ARBITRATION AWARDS
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NAME                                 % CPI APPLIED
Spokane County (Spokane County Deputy
  Sheriff's Association), (Beck, 2001)          100%
City of Longview (Longview Police Guild),
  PERC No. 15438-1-00-350 (Nelson, 2001)        100%
City of Mountlake Terrace (Mountlake
  Terrace Police Guild), PERC Case No.
  15590-1-01-354 (Croll, 2001)                   90%
City of Kelso (Kelso Police Officers
  Association) (Lankford, 2001)                  80%
Kitsap County Fire Protection District
  No. 7 (IAFF Local 2876), PERC No.
  15012-1-00-333 (Krebs, 2000)                  100%
City of Aberdeen (Aberdeen Police Assn.),
  PERC No. 14678-I99-322 (Axon, 2000)           100%?
City of Bellevue (IAFF Local 1604), PERC
  No. 14037-I-98-309 (Beck, 1999)               100%
-------------------------------------------------------

My award also noted Arbitrator Beck's comment in Spokane County , (Beck, 2001), where he rejected a 90% formula, explaining:

As to whether or not to discount the CPI in this case, I have decided against it for three reasons: 1) I have opted to preserve the medical cost sharing found in the parties' prior Collective Bargaining Agreement; therefore, I cannot automatically assume that employee medical benefits more than make up for the 10% CPI discount; 2) the Employer, which advocates the discount, did not present evidence as to why it is appropriate; and 3) the inflation rate is so low that the amount at issue is not particularly significant (and this may explain why the Employer did not vigorously pursue this issue with supporting evidence). Thus, any CPI-based increase awarded will be based on 100% of that index.

D. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Of the remaining considerations customarily taken into account by interest arbitrators, the parties have asked the Arbitrator to consider turnover, internal parity and the state of the economy.

1. TURNOVER
The parties vigorously debate the significance of the Camas Fire Department's turnover data. The City points out that average tenure is about ten years, and over the past decade, only four bargaining unit members have taken jobs elsewhere. This level of turnover is not significant, the City maintains. While the much larger Vancouver Fire Department and the Portland Fire Department, with their higher pay and better promotional opportunity, will inevitably allure some of Camas's firefighters, as the Arbitrator noted at hearing, some migration to larger departments is fully expected and is the norm. Smaller community departments also have their appeal. Unless the turnover is highly significant, it is an insufficient basis for a pay adjustment.

The Union disagrees with the City's argument, and notes that of the four firefighters who left the Camas Fire Department since 1996, three left during the past three years, thus showing a sudden accelerated increase. This turnover is continuing, the Union maintains, and it presented evidence that two bargaining unit members are accepting offers from the Vancouver Fire Department. In addition, two bargaining unit members and the Fire Marshal are on Vancouver's Civil Service hiring list. Finally, a volunteer began working for the Portland Fire Department in November 2002. The Union noted that the cost of training a new firefighter is $19,450 and the cost of training a new paramedic is $33,000, making turnover an expensive proposition for the City.

The City contends that turnover data should be discounted because at least two firefighters went to Vancouver because of a family history of working with that department. Another firefighter was motivated to leave because of Vancouver's better promotional opportunities. The Union counters this information by pointing out that no firefighter has left the Vancouver Fire Department to join the Camas Fire Department.

Other things being equal (e.g., geography, psychic satisfaction, etc.), high turnover should indicate that wages are below what is needed to keep good people on the job. The problem is determining what constitutes "high turnover." I have arbitrated police and fire interest disputes in four Western states, and have never encountered a jurisdiction that has much turnover at all. This appears to be the experience of other arbitrators since I have not found any cases where an arbitrator identified turnover as a significant factor supporting a wage increase. Based on my limited world view, I am inclined to believe the turnover in Camas is a little on the high side. Although the departure of four employees in ten years is not significant, the fact that three of the four left during the past three years is cause for concern. Moreover, the departure of two more bargaining unit members appears imminent. I do not consider the reasons for an employee's departure in favor of another fire department to be pertinent, especially when based on hearsay, as it was in this case. Rather, it is the overall numbers that tell the story. Although I have no doubt that the City has plenty of qualified applicants for the positions vacated (especially in the current economic climate), I also note the evidence concerning the high cost of turnover. I am reluctant to give too much credence to the turnover data because its evaluation is subjective; nevertheless, it tends to confirm my comparator analysis showing that Camas's firefighters are somewhat underpaid.

2. INTERNAL PARITY
Both parties made arguments addressing internal parity.

The Employer's concern was with salary compression between bargaining unit members and management if the bargaining unit is awarded its wage demand. It also was concerned that a large increase would increase like demands from other bargaining units. For example, a 13% firefighter increase would cause firefighter wages exceed police wages by 8.7%.

Although I can appreciate the Employer's concern, absent an employer's showing of financial difficulty, the effect that an increase will have on other bargaining unit's perception of their relative worth is something arbitrators find impractical to consider.

The Union points out that the City gave its police officers a 4% increase in 2002, 3% in 2003, and 3% in 2004, well above what it offered its firefighters. The implication is that the Arbitrator should not hesitate to award at least as much to its firefighters as well. I agree with the point the Union makes, so long as those increases are justified by a comparator analysis and other statutory criteria.

3. STATE OF THE ECONOMY
The Employer reminded the Arbitrator of the currently poor economy due to an ongoing recession. This point is of particular concern to the Arbitrator. Even if the Employer were to agree that the kind of wage increase sought by its firefighters was justified, I seriously doubt it would agree to that kind of increase, although it might agree to began phasing in some sort of catch-up measures. Collective bargaining is both an economic and a political process; certainly City officials are mindful that they are located in an area with the highest unemployment rate in the entire nation. According to BLS data, as of November 2002, Oregon had the highest unemployment rate in the country (7.1%); Washington's was fifth highest at 6.6%. The unemployment rate shown for the Portland-Vancouver PMSA was 7%, while the rates for Seattle-Bellevue-Everett PMSA, the Spokane MSA, the Bremerton PMSA, and the Olympia PMSA were lower: 6.2%, 6%, 5.8% and 5.4% respectively. This suggests that Clark County is not an anomaly in the Portland-Vancouver PMSA. I do not think that a double-digit increase would be well received in the community in this climate, considering the very low rate of inflation. A consideration relating to the state of the economy is a valid one, being a logical extension of the notion that interest arbitration awards should replicate the end result of the collective bargaining process. For this reason, I will temper slightly the increase indicated by the comparator analysis by phasing it in over the first two years of the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement.

After considering all of the above factors, as well as any other statutory factors not specifically addressed herein, the Arbitrator concludes that the City's wage increase offer is inadequate, but the Union's demands are excessive. An appropriate increase for bargaining unit members is as follows:

--------------------------------------------------
YEAR                 --- POSITION ---
            FIREFIGHTER     PARAMEDIC      CAPTAIN 
2002            4%             4%            CPI
2003       CPI plus 1.5%  CPI plus 2.5%      CPI
2004            2%             2%             2% 
--------------------------------------------------

As between selecting the average or the median as the target, good arguments support either one; therefore I selected points between. For Firefighters, this point indicated a 5.5% wage increase. The data supports a 6.5% increase for Paramedics; it also indicates that Captains are adequately paid at their current level. To reiterate, because of the economic climate, I will order the increases for Firefighters and Paramedics to be phased in over the first two years of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Thus, in allocating the increases for Firefighters and Paramedics, I will award 4% paid retroactively for 2002. For 2003, I will award the remaining 1.5% for Firefighters and 2.5% for Paramedics, plus a increase equal to 100% of the change in the Portland-Salem CPI-U. Captains will receive an increase equal to 100% of the CPI-U for the first two years of the contract. In 2004, in keeping with the City's preference for a firm figure for budgeting purposes, all bargaining unit members will receive a 2% increase. (Given that the CPI-U Portland has actually declined since July 2002, it is unlikely that July 2002 - July 2003 CPI-U will exceed 2%).

After the 2003 increases take effect, and assuming the comparators receive CPI-based increases, Camas's ranking vis-a-vis those jurisdictions will be as follows:(13)
__________

ESTIMATED 2003 PAY AND RANKINGS
FIREFIGHTER, 10 YEARS
-------------------------------------
 1 Pierce Cty No. 3 (Univ. Pl) $29.29
 2 Bremerton                   $27.48
 3 Pierce Cty No. 21           $27.13
 4 Clark Cty No. 6             $26.28
 5 Thurston Cty No. 3 (Lacey)  $26.03
 6 CAMAS                       $25.14
 7 Aberdeen                    $24.34
 8 Tumwater                    $23.65
 9 Port Angeles                $23.48
10 Cowlitz Cty No. 2           $23.03
11 Pasco                       $20.07
12 --(no firefighters in Anacortes)--
        Average of comparators $25.07
-------------------------------------

ESTIMATED 2003 PAY AND RANKINGS
PARAMEDIC, 11 YEARS
-------------------------------------
 1 Pierce Cty No. 3 (Univ. Pl) $31.94
 2 Pierce Cty No. 21           $30.01
 3 Bremerton                   $29.45
 4 Thurston Cty No. 3 (Lacey)  $28.64
 5 Clark Cty No. 6             $27.57
 6 CAMAS                       $26.66
 7 Tumwater                    $26.02
 8 Pasco                       $25.51
 9 Aberdeen                    $25.50
10 Cowlitz Cty No. 2           $24.87
11 Port Angeles                $24.70
12 Anacortes                   $24.38 
        Average of comparators $27.14
-------------------------------------

ESTIMATED 2003 PAY AND RANKINGS
CAPTAIN, 10 YEARS
-------------------------------------
 1 Pierce Cty No. 21           $34.03
 2 Pierce Cty No. 3 (Univ. Pl) $32.61
 3 Bremerton                   $31.62
 4 Thurston Cty No. 3 (Lacey)  $31.24
 5 Clark Cty No. 6             $30.85
 6 CAMAS                       $29.77
 7 Tumwater                    $28.43
 8 Pasco                       $28.19
 9 Anacortes                   $27.13
10 Aberdeen                    $26.78
11 Cowlitz Cty No. 2           $26.71
12 Port Angeles                $26.50
        Average of comparators $29.46
-------------------------------------

I believe that the resulting ranking of Camas, at sixth out of twelve jurisdictions, is appropriate. I note that with the exception of Tumwater, the jurisdictions that pay more are I-5 jurisdictions, and four of those are in the generally higher paying (for firefighters) Puget Sound area. Firefighters' and Captains' pay will be slightly over the average of the comparators, while Paramedics' pay will be below the average but at the median, and still well with the range of reason.

VII. PARTIES' PROPOSALS ON MEDICAL INSURANCE
A. EMPLOYER'S PROPOSAL ON MEDICAL INSURANCE

B. UNION'S PROPOSAL ON MEDICAL INSURANCE

VIII. PARTIES' ARGUMENTS ON MEDICAL INSURANCE
Employer's Argument on Medical Insurance:
A. The record compellingly calls for maintenance of the status quo on medical insurance, which essentially is the City's proposal.

B. The Union would sweeten the status quo by abolishing premium sharing altogether for 2002; in 2003 and 2004, the Union would abolish premium sharing on the AWC Plan B as to employee costs and would limit premium sharing to dependent coverage. Also, the Union resists adjustment of the Kaiser co-pay to $10.

C. Cost Containment is needed when premiums escalate as they are now.

D. The City proposes a minor modification to the Kaiser co-pay ($5 to $10) based on Kaiser's own demand; the alternative, reimbursement, would be an administrative nuisance and would run counter to the objective of co-payments.

E. Premium sharing deductions that were inadvertently not made prior to September 2002 should be awarded to the City; the Union has offered to compelling reason to the contrary.

Union's Argument on Medical Insurance:
A. Local 2444 proposes to provide for fully paid AWC Plan B medical insurance for the employee, with the current provision for dividing increases in premiums between the City and the employee applying to coverage for dependents.

B. Under the current 1999 2001 contract, after the eleven months in which the employer paid 100% of the AWC Plan B premium, the increase in premiums in the second and third year is divided as follows: the City pays the first 5% increase, the employees the next 8% increase, and any increase over 13% is split between the City and the employee.

C. Each of the 11 comparators proposed by Local 2444 pays 100% of the employee's medical insurance premiums, as do two of the City's comparators (Port Angeles and Tumwater).

D. The City argues that consideration of internal parity should persuade the arbitrator to deny Local 2444's proposal to bring this contract provision into line with the overwhelming majority of both parties' comparators. In its next breath, the City urges that the arbitrator increase the Kaiser co-pay from $5 per visit to $10. The City's 2002-2004 collective bargaining agreement with the Camas Police Officers Association provides for the $5 co-pay plan. No weight should be given the City's internal parity argument given this cynical approach.

IX. DISCUSSION AND AWARD ON MEDICAL INSURANCE
In the parties' 1999-2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties agreed to the following sharing of increases in health care insurance premiums: The City pays the first 5% increase, the employee the next 8% increase, and any increase over 13% is split between the City and the employee. Thus, premium sharing represents the status quo, which the City seeks to preserve. Labor consultant Howard Strickler testified that the City inadvertently and mistakenly paid 100 percent of employees' premiums between January and September 2002. He explained that in 2001, the premium increase was five percent, so that the employees' premium contribution did not kick in. Premiums apparently went up more than 5% in 2002, but the City neglected to deduct the employees' share from their paychecks. Premiums will be up about 15.5% in 2003, Strickler testified. Tr. 190-91. The City now seeks reimbursement for the employees' share of the 2002 premium through an offset to a retroactive wage payment. The City also seeks one minor modification of the insurance language, which is to increase the Kaiser per visit co-pay from $5 to $10, something that Kaiser is urging employers to do and which other City employees (except police) are doing.

The Union proposes to partially undo what it agreed to do in the 1999-2001 Collective Bargaining Agreement, citing comparator evidence in support of its position. It would eliminate premium sharing for employees, but maintain it for dependent coverage. The Union opposes the increased Kaiser co-pay, arguing that the internal equity argument made by the City does not hold water because the 2002-2004 police labor agreement does not include this increased co-pay. Although the Union apparently opposes the reimbursement of the premium share that bargaining unit members would otherwise have paid during the first three quarters of 2002, it did not submit an argument on this issue.

I will not change the premium sharing arrangement that the parties agreed to in 1999. Arbitrators are loathe to undo a recent change to a contract unless they receive substantial evidence that the language did not accomplish its objective or produced unintended mischief. Moreover, as I stated in King County Fire District 44, supra , there may be a trend towards premium sharing as a way of managing skyrocketing health care costs. Therefore, I am not persuaded that the 1999-2001 language should be modified in the way that the Union seeks.

As to the Kaiser co-pay, it is a modest change. If the police holdout is the only reason to deny the change, then the City is faced with a perpetual " who will go first" proposition. I will award the City's proposal.

The City's request for an award that allows the City to recoup the employees' share of the 2002 premiums that it inadvertently paid is a reasonable one. If I were ordering premium sharing for the first time, I would not make the award retroactive. See, King County Fire District 44, supra . However, premium sharing was the status quo ante and thus was part of the parties' continuing obligation to one another. The law is on the side of the City. Although bargaining unit members might find the deduction painful, surely they would agree with this rationale if the tables were turned, that is, if the City had deducted too much from their paychecks in 2002, and now was refusing to give it back.

X. FINAL AWARD
The decision and award of the Arbitrator in this dispute is as follows:

A. WAGES:
Effective January 1, 2002, bargaining unit employees will receive the following wage adjustments:

Firefighter                     4%
Firefighter/Paramedic           4%
Fire Captain and Deputy Marshal 100% of CPI-U

Effective January 1, 2003, bargaining unit employees will receive the following wage adjustments:

Firefighter                      1.5% plus 100% of CPI-U 
Firefighter/Paramedic            2.5% plus 100% of CPI-U 
Fire Captain and Deputy Marshal  100% of CPI-U

Effective January 1, 2004, all bargaining unit employees will receive a cost of living increase of 2%.

B. MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS:
The parties' 2002 2004 Collective Bargaining Agreement will include the language set forth below on medical insurance premiums. The language is the same as that found in the parities' 1999 - 2001 agreement, except the Kaiser plan is changed from plan 5A5XE to plan 10A10XE, with the result being that the per visit co-pay will increase from $5 to $10.

The parties are hereby directed to amend their Collective Bargaining Agreement for the years 2002 though 2004 accordingly. The parties are further directed to share equally in the fees and expenses of the Arbitrator.

Date: January 22, 2003


Jane R. Wilkinson January Labor Arbitrator