Why our union has doubled in size in 10 years
Regional conference is biggest ever
Pictures from conference
Arbitration ruling is breakthrough for union
Local foils City's contract-out attempt
News in Brief
Happy end to 8-year battle in Spokane
2001 scholarships named in honor of five people
Don Craig knows (almost) everything about the union
Five Steps you can take when seeking volunteers
How members make union visible at work
Discussion on violence attracts large audience
Retirement issues remain at top of list
Members of Executive Board |
• |
• |
• |
Arbitration ruling is breakthrough for union
Council 2 won a major victory for its members in a recent interest arbitration hearing in Spokane. The issue involved “comparables,” or the way in which wages are determined using comparisons with other counties or areas.
Members of Local 492 (Spokane County Jail) smile after hearing arbitration result. They are, front, from left: Ken Erickson, Tom Trarbough, Ken Thomas, Jay Shuman. In the center at the back is Staff Representative Gordon Smith.
 |
The union regards the comparables that were ruled appropriate by Arbitrator Gary Axon in the hearing as a favorable guideline that can be used in future negotiations.
The hearing involved three issues in contract negotiations between Council 2’s Local 492, which is made up of correction officers, and Spokane County.
The issues were: comparable jurisdictions and wages; shared leave; and whether the county should pay for officers’ uniforms.
Here’s what happened:
- Comparables
A problem in determining appropriate wages for Spokane County correction officers is deciding which other counties they should be compared with. Axon pointed out in his ruling that no other Eastern Washington counties have a population even close to Spokane County’s 414,500. A precedent in interest arbitration cases dictates that Eastern Washington jurisdictions must have at least some Eastern Washington comparators.
The Union and the County agreed that five counties — Clark, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and Yakima —should be used as comparables for County correction officers, but differed on whether Thurston County (suggested by the Union) or Benton (suggested by the County) should also be used as a comparator. The Union argued that Benton County is just too small to be a comparator.
Axon ruled that the five counties on which the Union and the County had agreed should be used as comparables and an additional one should not be added.
- Wages
Axon’s ruling on wages was closer to those proposed by the Union than those suggested by the County. The comparable jurisdictions established in this case were crucial to a favorable decision. They also will be favorable to the Union’s position on wages and benefits in future negotiations.
Axon ruled that a 3.5 percent increase effective January 1, 1999, applied to the existing salary schedule, is justified for the 1999 contract year. Effective January 1, 2000, an additional 3.5 percent should be added to the existing wage schedule, followed by a 3 percent increase effective January 1, 2001.
The Union had proposed 4 percent increases for 1999 and 2000 and 3 percent for 2001. The County had proposed 2 percent increases for 1999 and 2000 and 1.5 percent for the first half of 2001 and 1.5 percent for the second half of 2001.
- Shared leave
The Arbitrator ruled that the shared leave program should allow for only vacation leave to be donated to other employees.
The Union had argued that the present program, which allows for shared leave to include sick leave, should be retained.
- Uniforms
The Arbitrator ruled that the present system, in terms of which Spokane County correction officers pay for their own uniforms, should remain in place for now. The Union had proposed a quartermaster system, which applies in the counties used as comparables, in which the employer provides the officers with uniforms.
“The Arbitrator has held the Union’s proposal should not be adopted in this round of bargaining,” the ruling said. “The quartermaster concept has merit and could properly be the subject of a successor contract with specific contract language supported by reliable cost data.
“The rejection of the Union’s proposal at interest arbitration should not be interpreted by either party as your Arbitrator’s conclusion that the quartermaster system would not be beneficial to both parties. The quartermaster system needs more study and consideration.”
Audrey Eide, Council 2’s General Counsel, appeared for the Union.
|
|
|
