ARBITRATOR GARY L. AXON recently ruled in favor of Council 2 on three critical issues involving Thurston County corrections officers.
The issues in the arbitration hearing involved contracting out, hours of work, and compensatory time.
On a fourth issue, the arbitrator ruled that the wording in the agreement on covering for more senior officers should not be changed.
Details of the issues:

• Contracting out
  The dispute over contracting out arose when an inmate who was hospitalized at Harbor View Hospital in Seattle required 24-hour security for an extended time. The County hired a private contractor to provide security for him.
  The Union filed a grievance, claiming the action amounted to subcontracting of bargaining unit work.
  In addition to undermining the premise of the public sector bargaining law, the Union argued that private security officers lack the proper training. As a result, inmates outside of the facility could have a chance to receive contraband which can be dangerous once an inmate is back inside the jail.
  The County argued that if the duties were not contracted out extensive overtime would need to be paid and long travel distances from Thurston County were involved.
  The arbitrator supported the Union's proposal to add new language to the contract that limits contracting out to security details only outside of Thurston County. He rejected the County's proposal, which would have allowed contracting out at any place outside Thurston County's correction facilities.
• Hours of Work
  In the second dispute, the County applied to have the regular work hours of 53 corrections officers changed. The officers are now working a 9/80 schedule, which involves working nine-hour days and having up to three days off. The County sought to have the 9/80 schedule changed to a regular schedule of five 8-hour days on and two off beginning on January 1, 2001.
  The County argued that the 5/2 schedule is more efficient than the 9/80 schedule, which it said causes costly shift overlaps.
  The Union opposed the proposal, saying it fell out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which runs from Jan. 1 1998 through Dec. 31, 2000. The Union also argued that the 9/80 system — which had been introduced by the County in 1992 — has proven efficient and effective and has been good for morale.
  The arbitrator found that the County's evidence was not compelling enough to make a significant change in a successful program. He also agreed that he had no authority to award a contract provision that would become effective outside of the term of the agreement that was subject to the arbitration hearing.
  He ruled the language on work hours in the contract should not be changed.
• Minimum staffing
  This dispute involved the use of corrections officers to cover for master control officers during their breaks and lunch periods. The County and Union disagreed on whether the coverage is voluntary or is directed by management.
  The arbitrator held that the policy, which does not make it clear whether the coverage is voluntary or not, should not be changed and should not be incorporated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
• Compensatory time
  The dispute involved a clause in the agreement that allows the County to deny employees the use of compensatory time if the granting of such time takes the facility below minimum staffing levels.
  The Union argued the policy should be modified so that the County cannot use the need to use overtime to meet minimum staffing as a valid reason to deny the requests for compensatory time.
  The Union said if officers are unable to use their compensatory time, in essence they then work for free. The County is required to buy down to only 40 hours.
  The County argued that it is irresponsible and unreasonable for the County to be placed in a position where it grants compensatory time off to an employee which takes the facility below minimum staffing and results in overtime being required.
  The arbitrator ruled that the agreement be modified to require the County to buy down accumulated compensatory time to 30 hours.
  “By requiring the employer to buy down an additional amount of the accumulated compensatory time, additional incentives will be placed on management to schedule compensatory time under Policy 357,” he said.
  Audrey Eide represented the Union in the hearing.