Ashland, City Of (Overall Non Professional), Dec. No. 24645 A ( Rice, 12/21/87 ) (Employer) Int24645

User Manual: 24645-A

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 20

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

f

RECEIVED

---es

DEC 291987
W ISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMlSSlON

In The Matter

O f The Petition

Of

LOCAL NO. 216-K, AFSCME.
ASHLAND CITY HALL EMPLOYEES
To Initiate
Arbitration
Between Said Petitioner

Decision

NO.

24645-A

-andCITY O F ASHLAND (CITY HALL)

Appearances :

James Ellingson,
Staff Representative,
for the Union
Scott Clark, City Attorney,
for the Employer

Local No. 216-K. AFSCME, Ashland City Hall Employees, hereinafter
referred
to as the Union, filed
a petition
with the W isconsin Employment Relations
C o m m ission, hereinafter
referred
to as the C o m m ission, alleging
that an impasse
existed between it and the City of Ashland (City Hall),
hereinafter
referred
to
It requested the C o m m ission to
as the Employer, in their collective
bargaining.
initiate
arbitration
pursuant to Section 111.70(4)(cn)6
of the M u n icipal
A member of the C o m m ission’s staff
has conducted an
Employment Relations
Act.
investigation
in the matter and submitted a report to the C o m m ission.
At all times material
herein the Union has been and is the exclusive
collective
bargaining
representative
of certain
e m p loyees of the Employer in a
collective
bargaining
unit consisting
of all regular
full-time
and part-time
clerical
and m a intenance e m p loyees e m p loyed in the City Hall excluding
superThe Union and the Employer have been parties
visors
and confidential
e m p loyees.
to a collective
bargaining
agreement covering wages, hours and working conditions
of e m p loyees in the unit that expired on December 31, 1986. O n October
8, 1986 the parties
exchanged their
initial
proposals on matters to be included
Thereafter
the parties
met on two
in the new collective
bargaining
agreement.
O n April
8, 1987 the Union filed
a
occasions in efforts
to reach an accord.
was conpetition
requesting
arbitration
and on May 28, 1987 an investigation
ducted.
It reflected
that the parties
were deadlocked in their negotiations.
The parties
submitted their final
offers
to the C o m m ission and the investigation
was closed.
The C o m m ission concluded that an impasse exists
between the parties
with
respect to the negotiations
leading toward a new collective
bargaining
It ordered that arbitration
be initiated
for the purpose of issuing
agreement.
a final
and binding award to resolve the impasse and the parties
were directed
Upon being advised that the parties
had selected Zel
to select an arbitrator.
the C o m m ission appointed him as the arbitrator
on
S. Rice II,
Sparta, W isconsin,
July 14, 1987 and order him to issue a final
and binding award to resolve the
impasse by selecting
either
the total
final
offer of the Union or the total
An arbitration
hearing was conducted at the City
final
offer’of
the Employer.

Hall
sent

in Ashland,
evidence.

Wisconsin,

and both

parties

were given

an opportunity

to pre-

hereto and marked Exhibit
A,
The total
final
offer
of the Union, attached
proposed a two year contract
covering
1987 and 1988.
It proposed a 2 percent
increase
on July 1,
increase
on all wage rates on January 1, 1987 and 2 percent
The Union
1987 and 2 percent on January 1, 1988 and 2 percent on July 1, 1988.
proposed President’s
Day as a twelfth
paid holiday
and the addition
of a 5 perIt proposed that the agreement be
cent longevity
step after
twenty-five
years.
amended to provide
that the Employer would pay the difference
between Workers
Compensation disability
pay and the employee’s
normal base pay salary
for a
period of time not to exceed twenty-four
working weeks.
The final
offer
of the
Employer,
attached
hereto and marked Exhibit
B, proposed that the current
collective
bargaining
agreement be amended to provide
a 2.8 percent
increase
on
January 1, 1987 and a 2.8 percent increase
on January 1, 1988.
Ashland County paid its custodian
$7.80 per hour in 1986 and began paying
$8.03 per hour on January 1, 1987.
It paid a dispatcher
$6.70 per hour in 1986
and continued
that rate on January 1, 1987.
However, the position
of dispatcher
was moved to the protective
service
bargaining
unit and became eligible
for that
retirement
plan.
Ashland County paid a secretary
$7.71 an hour at the end of
1986 and on January 1, 1987 it paid the position
$7.94 per hour.
A bookkeeper
received
$9.28 an hour at the end of 1986 and $9.56 an hour on January 1, 1987.
The bookkeeper/secretary
in the sheriff’s
department
received
$8.25 an hour in
1986 and $8.50 an hour on January 1, 1987.
The deputy clerk received
$8.55 an
hour at the end of 1986 and $8.81 an hour on January 1, 1987.
The Employer proposes to pay its custodian
$5.35 an hour on January 1, 1987
and $5.50 an hour on January 1, 1988.
It proposes to pay its maintenance
employee $7.28 an hour on January 1, 1987 and $7.48 per hour on January 1, 1988.
The dispatcher
would receive
$7.28 per hour on January 1, 1987 and $7.48 per
hour on January 1, 1988.
The secretary/receptionist
is a part-time,
job sharing
position
and it would receive
$7.47 an hour on January 1, 1987 and $7.68 per
hour on January 1, 1988.
The secretary/receptionist
for the mayor and clerk
would receive
$7.82 per hour on January 1, 1987 and $8.04 per hour on January 1,
1988.
The police
department
records
clerk would receive
$8.66 per hour on
January 1, 1987 and $8.90 per hour on January 1, 1988.
The bookkeeper
is a computer account technician
and It is a part-time
position.
That position
would
receive
$8.30 an hour on January 1, 1987 and $8.53 on January 1, 1988.
The
deputy clerk is a part-time,
job sharing
position
and the salary
for it would be
$9.55 per hour on January 1, 1987 and $9.82 per hour on January 1, 1988.
The
maintenance
supervisor
would receive
$9.79 per hour on January 1, 1987 and
$10.06 per hour on January 1, 1988.
The deputy treasurer
would receive
$11.81
per hour on January 1, 1987 and $12.14 per hour on January 1, 1988.
The civil
technician
would receive
$12.28 per hour on January 1, 1987 and $12.62 on
The Department
of Public Works clerk would receive
$9.14 an
January 1, 1988.
hour on January 1, 1987 and $9.40 per hour on January 1, 1988.

-2-

The Union’s
proposal would provide
a salary
for the custodian
of $5.30 an
hour on January 1, 1987; $5.41 pet hour on July 1, 1987; $5.52 pet hour on
January 1, 1988; and $5.63 pet hour on July 1. 1988.
The mainrename
position
would receive
$7.22 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $7.36 per hour on July 1, 1987;
The
$7.51 pet hour on January 1. 1988; and $7.66 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
dispatcher
would be paid the same as the maintenance
posltion.
The
secretary/receptionist
would receive
$7.42 an hour on January 1, 1987; $7.57 an
hour on July 1, 1987; $7.72 an hour on January 1, 1988; and $7.87 on July 1,
Another secretary/receptionist
would receive
$7.76 pet hour on January 1,
1988.
1987; $7.92 per hour on July 1, 1987; $8.08 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and
The police
department
records clerk would
$8.24 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
receive
$8.59 an hour on January 1, 1987; $8.76 par hour on July 1, 1987; $8.94
The bookkeeper would
on January 1, 1988; and $9.12 per hour on July 1, 1988.
receive
$8.76 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $8.94 pet hour on July 1, 1987; $9.12
The mainpet hour on January 1, 1988; and $10.06 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
tenance supervisor
would receive
$9.71 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $9.90 pet
hour on July 1, 1987; $12.19 p-et hour on January 1. 1988; and $12.43 pet hour on
The civil
technician
would receive
$12.19 pet hour on January 1,
July 1, 1988.
1987; $12.43 pet hour on July 1. 1987; $12.68 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and
The Department
of Public Works clerk would
$12.93 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
receive
$9.07 per hour on January 1, 1987; $9.25 per hour on July 1, 1987; $9.44
pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $9.63 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
Sawyer County established
a position
of custodian
III on January 1, 1987.
It will
pay the position
$7.21 per hour on January 1, 1987; $7.25 pet hour on
December 1, 1987; $7.40 per hour on January 1, 1988; and $7.47 per hour on July
The custodian
II received
$7.09 pet hour in 1986.
The position
will
1, 1988.
receive
$7.78 per hour on January 1, 1987; $7.82 pet hour on December 1, 1987;
$7.98 pet hour on January 1, 1988 and $8.06 pet hour on July 1, 1988.
The
The position
has been reclassified
custodian
I received
$8.33 per hour in 1986.
and it will
receive
$9.25 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $9.30 pet hour on
December 1, 1987; $9.49 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $9.58 pet hour on July
A dispatcher
in Sawyer County received
$9.01 per hour in 1986.
The
1, 1988.
position
will
receive
$9.24 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $9.29 pet hour on
December 1, 1987; $9.48 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $9.57 pet hour on July
The secretary/receptionist
III
received
$7.03 pet hour in 1986.
The
1, 1988.
position
will
receive
$7.21 per hour on January 1, 1987; $7.25 pet hour on
December 1. 1987; $7.40 per hour on January 1, 1988; and $7.47 pet hour on July
1, 1988.
The secretary/receptionist
II received
$8.04 pet hour in 1986.
The
position
will
receive
$8.24 pet hour on January 1. 1987; $8.28 per hour on
December 1, 1987; $8.45 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $8.53 pet hour on July
The clerk/secretary
I will
receive
$9.02 pet hour during 1986.
The
1, 1988.
position
will
receive
$9.25 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $9.30 pet hour on
December 1, 1987; $9.49 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $9.58 per hour on July
The payroll
clerk received
$8.48 per hour in 1986.
The position
will
1, 1988.
be paid $8.69 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $8.73 pet hour on December 1, 1987;
$8.90 per hour on January 1, 1988; and $8.99 pet hour on July 1, 1988.

-3-

The Ashland
fessional
people
$9.35 an hour, a
$10.39 per hour,
school $10.01 per

School District
has not reached a settlement
with its nonproIn 1986 it paid a custodian
I
for the 1987-88 school year.
employee
custodian
II $7.26 per hour, a chief maintenance
a maintenance
man $10.01 per hour, a chief custodian,
high
hour, and a groundskeeper
$10.01 per hour.

The school bus drivers
at Maple received
a 3 percent
increase
on July
1987 and will
receive
another
1.5 percent
increase
on January 1, 1988.

1,

Bayfield
County gave its courthouse
employees increases
on January 1, 1987.
The salaries
were $9.14 an hour for a custodian,
$9.42 an hour for a dispatcher,
$8.26 per hour for a secretary/receptionist,
$9.12 per hour for a
secretary/receptionist,
$10.55 an hour for a bookkeeper,
$9.62 per hour for a
deputy clerk and $9.62 for a deputy treasurer.
Ashland County gave its Highway Department
employees a 30 cent per hour or
The courthouse
employees received
a 3 percent
3 percent wage increase
in 1987.
wage increase
on January 1, 1987.
Ashland County’s
nonprofessional
social
services
and nursing
employees received
a 5 percent
increase
on January 1, 1987.
Ashland County gave its nurse a 3 percent
increase
on January 1, 1987 and a 2
percent
increase
on July 1, 1987.
Its social
workers are in
mediation/arbitration
and the union has proposed a 7 percent increase
on January
1, 1987 and another 3 percent
increase
on July 1, 1987.
The county has proposed a 5.6 percent increase
on January 1, 1987.
Ashland County froze the
monthly wages of its law enforcement
personnel
but changed the work schedule
from six days on and two days off to five days on and two days off.
Its actual
cost for law enforcement
employees increased
5.5 percent.
The Ashland Water
Utility
received
a 2.8 percent
increase
January 1, 1987 and a fifth
step of
longevity
was added after
twenty-five
years.
The Water Utility
also agreed to
pay full
family health insurance
upon retirement
due to disability
until
Medicare commences.
The Employer’s
police
had their
wages frozen in 1987 and
the Employer agreed to pay the single
health
insurance
premium from retirement
The Ashland School District
gave its custodial
and
until
Medicare commences.
maintenance
employees a 3.8 percent
increase
on July 1, 1986 and it has not
reached agreement for the 1987-88 school year.
The Ashland School District
food service
employees received
a 3.8 percent
increase
on July 1, 1986 and they
have not reached agreement for the 1987-88 school year.
The City of Ashland
Department of Public Works is in arbitration
with its employees for 1987.
Sawyer County gave its nonprofessional
social
service
employees a 2.5 percent increase
on January 1, 1987, a .5 percent
increase
on December 1, 1987, a 2
percent
increase
on January 1, 1988 and 1 percent
increase
on July 1, 1988.
Its
income maintenance
workers received
an additional
10 cents an hour increase
on
January 1, 1987 and January 1, 1988.
Sawyer County gave its highway employees,
law enforcement
employees,
professional
employees and courthouse
employees the
same wage increase
it gave to the nonprofessional
social
services
employees
except that they did not receive
the additional
10 cents per hour on January 1,
1987 and January 1, 1988 that went to the income maintenance
employees.
-4-

Bayfield
County agreed to give its courthouse
employees and law enforcement
fringe
benefits
for
employees a 3 percent increase
on January 1, 1987, full
those employees who worked 75 percent of the normal schedule and prorated
fringe
benefits
for employees who worked between 50 percent and 75 percent of
The law enforcement
personnel
had their meal allowance
the normal schedule.
increased
by $5.00 pet month to a total
of $70.00.
Iron County gave its
courthouse
employees, highway employees and law enforcement
employees a three
year agreement coveting
the period from 1987 through 1989.
It maintained
the
COLA provision
that generates
1 cent pet hour for every .3 increase
in the
Consumer Price Index.
The highway employees were given an additional
$25.00 pet
year clothing
allowance
on January 1, 1988.
Law enforcement
employees received
an additional
$15.00 pet year clothing
allowance
on January 1, 1988 and another
The law enforcement
personnel
received
shift
dif$15.00 on January 1, 1989.
ferential
increases
of 5 cents an hour for the second shift
and 25 cents pet
hour for the third
shift.
The Hutley Department of Public Works and Police
Department
employees agreed on three year contracts
coveting
1987 through 1989.
They agreed to maintain
the COLA clause that generates
1 cent pet hour for every
.3 increase
in the Consumer Price Index.
The Hutley support staff
received
a 4
percent
increase
on July 1. 1987.
That was the third
year of a three year
contract.
The Superior
Department of Public Works employees received
a 3 percent
increase
on wages on January 1, 1987.
Sewage plant assistant
operators,
land
fill
attendants,
garbage truck tippet
and curling
rink attendant
received
additional
adjustments.
Superior
City Hall employees received
3 percent increases
on January 1, 1987.
Douglas County social
service
employees and professional
employees received
a 3 percent
increase
on January 1, 1987.
The Middle Rivet
Health Care Facility
employees received
a 3 percent
increase
on January 1, 1987 .
The Superior
Housing Authority
employees received
a 2 percent increase
on all
wage rates on January 1, 1987 and a 2 percent increase
on July 1, 1987.
They
also received
a fifth
longevity
step after
twenty-five
years of employment.
The
Superior
School District
support
staff
received
a 4 percent increase
on all wage
rates on July 1, 1986 but they have not reached agreement for the 1987-88 school
year.
The City of Superior
paid a clerk steno $7.78 pet hour in 1986 and that
wage was increased
to $8.01 pet hour on January 1, 1987.
A key punch operator
received
$8.09 pat hour in 1986 and the wage was increased
to $8.33 pet hour on
January 1, 1987.
A computer operator
received
$8.42 pet hour in 1986 and the
wage was increased
to $8.67 pet hour on January 1, 1987.
An account clerk I
received
$8.62 an hour in 1986 and was increased
to $8.88 pet hour on January 1,
1987.
An account clerk II received
$9.24 per hour in 1986 and was increased
to
$9.52 pet hour on January 1, 1987.
The deputy city clerk received
$10.05 pet
hour during 1986 and was increased
to $10.35 pet hour on January 1, 1987.
The
dispatchers
received
$9.79 pet hour in 1986 and were increased
to $10.08 on
January 1, 1987.
Those dispatchers
that were hired after
January 1, 1986
received
$8.21 pet hour in 1986 and were increased
to $8.46 pet hour on January
1, 1987.
The City of Superior
paid the museum janitor
$7.62 pet hour in 1986
-5-

and increased

that

wage to $7.85

on January

1, 1987.

Douglas County paid its zoning secretary
$7.66 an hour in 1986 and
increased
that
to $7.89 per hour on January 1, 1987.
The cashier/clerk
in the
county treasurer’s
office
received
$7.99 per hour in 1986 and was increased
to
Another cashier/clerk
in the county
$8.23 per hour on January 1, 1987.
treasurer’s
office
received
$8.32 per hour in 1986 and was increased
to $8.57 an
hour on January 1. 1987.
A deputy received
$8.97 per hour in 1986 and was
increased
to $9.24 per hour on January 1, 1987.
The maintenance
I employee
received
$8.63 per hour in 1986 and was increased
to $8.89 per hour on January
A maintenance
II employee received
$8.40 per hour in 1986 and was
1, 1987.
increased
to $8.65 per hour on January 1, 1987.
A maintenance
III employee
received
$7.76 per hour in 1986 and was increased
to $8.10 per hour on January
A maintenance
IV employee received
$7.45 per hour in 1986 and was
1, 1987.
increased
to $7.67 per hour on January 1, 1987.
The Employer’s
health
insurance
premium is $188.18 per month for family
coverage and $73.80 for single
coverage.
The dental insurance
premium is $22.40
per month for family
coverage and $7.33 per month for single
coverage.
The
Employer pays 90 percent of the premium.
The family
health
insurance
premium
paid by other public
employers
in the City of Ashland,
Ashland County, Bayfield
County, the City of Superior,
Douglas County, Sawyer County, Iron County and the
City of Hurley range from a low of $150.34 per month in Bayfield
County to a
high of $253.18 per month in Hurley.
The single
premiums range from a low of
$60.90 per month in Bayfield
County to $111.91 per month in Iron County.
The
dental
insurance
premiums for family
coverage range from a low of $23.96 per
month in the Superior
School District
to a high of $50.00 in the Hurley School
District.
The dental insurance
single
premium ranges from a low of $7.10 per
month in the Superior
School District
to $20.00 in the Hurley School District.
Most of those public
employers pay 100 percent of the health
insurance
and dental insurance
premiums.
The Worker’s
Compensation supplements
in the Lake Superior
District
of the
American Federation
of State,
County and Municipal
Employees vary.
Ashland
County pays full
salary
and benefits
for up to one year and the employee
returns
the Worker’s
Compensation
check to the employer.
Other municipal
employers
pay full wages and benefits
for lesser
periods.
Some municipal
employers
only continue
fringe
benefits
for those employees receiving
Worker’s
Compensation.
Other municipal
employers use sick leave to make up the difference
between Worker’s
Compensation
and the regular
pay checks and the fringe
benefits
continue
as long as the sick leave is available.
Longevity
is not uniform
in the Lake Superior
District,
The Employer pays
1 percent
after
five years, 2 percent after
ten years, 3 percent after
fifteen
years and 4 percent after
twenty years.
Ashland County and the Ashland Water
Utility
add a fifth
step after
twenty-five
years.
The Ashland School District
pays $20.00 per month after
fifteen
years and $25.00 per month after
twenty
years.
The City of Superior
provides
a 14 cents per hour longevity
payment
-6-

i

i

after
five years and it increases
every five years until
it reaches 26 cents per
There does not seem to be any uniform pattern
for
hour after
twenty-five
years.
longevity
in the Lake Superior District
of the American Federation
of State,
County and Municipal
Employees although most public
employers have some sort of
The
maximum
payments
are
achieved
after periods ranging from
longevity
program.
twenty years to thirty
years.
The “umber of paid holidays
of ten in Hurley and the Ashland
half in Douglas County.

in the Lake Superior District
range from a low
School District
to a high of thirteen
and one-

The State of Wisconsin rates each community within
the State to determine
their
Community Development Block Grant Fund eligibility.
The allocation
of
small city Community Development Block Grant Funds are distributed
based upon
the comparative
ranking of the communities who make application
for these block
The maximum number of points
that a community can get is 210 points in
grants.
The factors
that make up the analysis
include
the net
Distress
Score Analysis.
the percentage of households in need of
the per capita full
value,
mill rate,
of persons in poverty and the
assistance,
the per capita income, the percentage
The City of Ashland has received
203 out of a possible
210
unemployment rate.
points
in the Distress
Score Analysis
and has the highest
distress
score in the
state of Wisco”si”.
In 1970 the Employer had 31.7 percent of its population
under eighteen,
51.9 percent of its population
between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four
and
In Ashland County 34 percent of the population
in
17 percent over sixty-five.
1970 was under eighteen,
50.2 percent was between the ages of eighteen and
sixty-four
and 15 percent of the population
was over sixty-five.
In 1970 the
State of Wisconsin had 35.8 percent of its population
under eighteen,
53.4 percent of the population
between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four
and 10 percent over sixty-five.
By 1980 26 percent of the Employer’s
population
was under
eighteen,
54 percent was between the ages of eiihteen
and sixty-four
and 20 percent was over sixty-five.
In addition
to wages, the overall
compensation
provided by the Employer to
the bargaining
unit includes
such benefits
as job security,
vacations,
compensatory time, sick leave, health and life
insurance
benefits
and disability
insurance,
holidays,
longevity
pay, leaves of absence, retirement
and a thirtyfive hour work week.
The Employer is classified
in the nonmetro urban category.
urban area is one with a” urban population
of less than 50,000.
the rate of increase in the Nonmetro Urban Index was 2.5 percent
1987 it had increased
to 2.8 percent.
The Employer has a one year agreement with
unit for 1987.
It provides
no salary increase.
retirement
and health insurance provisions
that
-7-

A nonmetro
In May of 1987
and in June of

its Police Department bargaining
The police
received
the same
the firefighters
received.
It

provides
single
premium insurance
coverage from retirement
to Medicare for those
The estimated
cost of this benefit
employees employed before January 1. 1987.
is equivalent
to a 2.8 percent
salary
increase
for the police.
The Employer
reached a one year agreement with its firefighters
and it provided
that they
would receive
the Pair Labor Standards Act pay in 1987.
That amounted to
approximately
a 2.8 percent
pay increase.
The employees received
an increase
in
The firefighters
continue
to have a total
of
holiday
pay from $50.00 to $60.00.
ten holidays.
Ashland County reached agreement with its courthouse
percent
increase.
They all work thirty-five
hours a week
The State of Wisconsin
reached
work forty
hours per week.
with its employees that provided
a 2.1 percent
increase
in
The Employer provided
its nonunion and
increase
in 1988.
nel and officers
with 1987 salary
increases
of 2.2 percent.

employees on a 3
except custodians
who
a two year agreement
1987 and a 2 percent
administrative
person-

The Employer’s
proposal
of a 2.8 percent
increase
in 1987 cost $5.158.69
and the 2.8 percent increase
in 1988 cost $5,303.14.
The impact of that proposal would increase
the Employer’s
retirement
cost for the bargaining
unit by
$629.36 in 1987 and $646.98 in 1988.
In 1986 the Employer’s
health insurance
premium for family
coverage was $179.72 and it was $70.48 a month for single
coverage.
In 1987 the family
premium increased
to $188.18 which is an increase
of 5 percent and the single
premium increased
to $73.80 which is an increase
of
5 percent.
In 1988 the family
premium increases
to $222.05 per month which is
an 18 percent increase
and the single
premium increases
to $37.08 which is an
increase
of 18 percent.
In 1986 the Employer’s
Social Security
costs were
Under the Employer’s
1987 proposal
the cost would be $13.541.94,
$13,173.10.
which is an increase
of $368.84.
In 1988 the cost of the Social Security
contribution
would be $14.622.04
which is an increase
of $1,080.10
over the preceding year.
The total
percentage
increase
of the Employer’s
proposal
in 1987
would be 3.84 percent and in 1988 it would be 5.84 percent.
That is a 9.68 percent total
package cost increase
in a two year period.
The Union’s
proposal
has a 1987 payroll
cost of $189,803.14
which would be
an increase
of $5,564.02
or 3.02 percent
over the preceding
year.
In 1988 the
Union’s
proposal would have a payroll
cost of $197,471.18
which is an increase
of $7.668.04
or 4.04 percent over the preceding
year.
This represents
an actual
7.06 percent
cost increase
but-has
an 8.24 percent
lift
over the 1986 level.
The Employer’s
retirement
cost increase
would be $678.81 or .37 percent in 1987
and $935.50 or .49 percent
in 1988.
Because of the lift
factor,
the 1989 cost
would increase
$1.174.03 or .64 percent without
any increase
in salary.
The
Union’s
proposal would increase
the Employer’s
Social Security
costs in 1987 by
$397.82 or .22 percent and by $1.259.17
in 1988 or .66 percent.
The one additional
holiday
requested
by the Union would increase
the Employer’s
holiday
cost
by $787.84 or .42 percent.
The Union’s
longevity
proposal
of 5 percent after
twenty-five
years has no cost in 1987 or 1988 but would have long range impact
on this unit and might result
in similar
requests
by other bargaining
units
which would have an immediate cost impact.
The Union proposal
would have an
-8-

11.68 percent
total
package
cost due to the salary lift
in future
years.

cost
plus

increase
the long

over two years plus the impact on 1989
range impact of the longevity
increase

The Employer has budgeted 2.2 percent
for salary
increase
for 1987 and 2.8
The Employer is 5.8 percent over the
percent
for salary
increases
for 1988.
The Employer has a class and compenamount it budgeted for salaries
in 1987.
sation
plan that is designed to equate the work done by the various
jobs and
creates
relationships
between the wages for positions
based on the work performed.
It is designed to provide
equal pay for equal work and it provides
for some wage progression
in three years plus longevity
payments.
Occasionally
some positions
are ‘reevaluated
and reclassified
under the class and compensation
plan, depending on the responsibility
of the position.
UNION’S POSITION
The Union argues that Ashland County, Iron County, the City of Hurley,
Bayfield
County, Douglas County, Burnett
County, Sawyer County, and the City of
Superior
make up the proper comparable group to which the Employer should be
It contends that the internal
comparable6 are not valid because the
compared.
firefighters
are in a weak bargaining
position
because of the possibility
that
they will
eventually
be replaced.
The Union takes the position
that the
agreement between the Employer and its police
department
was not a realistic
comparable
because the value of the settlement
has not been accurately
portrayed.
It asserts
that the current
health insurance
premiums of the
Employer are well within
the normal range and an 18% increase
in premiums is not
excessive.
The Union points
out that the Employer’s
insurance
rates are lower
than several
communities
in the comparable group.
It argues that the roll
up
costs of retirement
and social
security
should not be considered
because all
settlements
in the area have those costs in addition
to the wage increases.
The
Union takes the position
that the actual
increases
resulting
from its proposal
that generate more cents
would be less than the increases
of higher paid units
per hour from the 3% increases
given to employees.
It contends that the nonmetro cost of living
figure
used by the Employer is not proper because the composite
total
for the United States is traditionally
utilized.
The Union argues
that the survey used by the Employer indicating
that it is one of the most
distressed
cities
in the State of Wisconsin
is misleading
because it does not
make any differentiation
among the component parts of the local property
tax and
deals only with income and not disposable
income.
It takes the position
that
all of northwestern
Wisconsin
is a distressed
area and the Employer is no worse
off than the other communities
in the comparable group.
The Union asserts
that
3% was the normal increase
in the area and a few communities
granted increases
beyond that.
The Union argues that its proposal
for 12 holidays
is not unusual in the
area because many communities
in the comparable group give their
employees 12
holidays
and in some cases 13. The Union contends that the Ashland water utility
and the Ashland County highway and law enforcement
have a fifth
longevity
-9-

step of 5% after
25 years and the Ashland County courthouse
and social
services
It asserts
that
the city
units
receive
10% longevity
payments after
25 years.
hall employees have the poorest Workers Compensation
supplement
in the area and
the Union’s
proposal
is below the average.
EMPLOYER’S POSITION
The Employer argues that it cannot be reasonably
expected to meet the
demands of the Union’s
final
offer.
It contends that it should not be coosidered
comparable to those lesser
distressed
governmental
unit employers from
the surrounding
area.
The Employer asserts
that it is significantly
more
troubled
economically
than its counterparts
in the area.
It takes the position
that its offer
is all the traffic
will
bear under the current
conditions.
The
Employer argues that its salary
offer
alone is greater
than the May 1987 consumer price index for nonmetro urban areas and the total
package cost of its
offer
is well in excess of that index.
It argues that its offer
is equal to or
greater
than the salary
increases
offered
to its other bargaining
units or
employee groups.
The Employer takes the position
that the agreement it has
reached with other bargaining
units and employee groups establishes
a pattern
that should be followed
in these proceedings.
The Employer contends that the
salaries
of its employees are generally
in the ballpark
when compared with other
Employers.
It asserts
that none of the municipal
Employers with which it is
compared have HMP medical insurance
and its work week is shorter
than most of
the cornparables
proposed by the Union.
The Employer points out that none of its other bargaining
units have 12
paid holidays
or a fifth
longevity
step.
It argues that the sheer size of the
City of Superior
and Douglas County make comparison
of them with the Employer
inappropriate.
The Employer argues that the Ashland water utility
is not comparable because its revenues do not come from tax revenues but from user fees.
It points out that the 1986 collective
bargaining
agreement between the parties
included
a provision
whereby the Employer paid the difference
between the
employees Workers Compensation disability
check and his normal base salary
for a
period of time not to exceed 90 days and that language is identical
to the
language in its agreement with employees in the department
of public
works.
It
takes the position
that there have been no problems with the current
language
and the status
quo should be maintained.
The Employer argues that its offer
has
a total
package cost of 9.68% over two years including
the increased
cost of
medical
insurance
premiums.
It asserts
that the Union’s
demand has a total
cost
over two years of 11.68% plus the hidden impact in 1989 resulting
from the lift
caused by the split
increase.
DISCUSSION
At the close of the hearing
the parties
agreed that they would submit
briefs
and they would be exchanged by the arbitrator.
The Union submitted
its
brief
in the form of a letter
dated October 29, 1987 and the Employer submitted
its brief
along with a letter
dated October 27, 1987.
On November 3, 1987 the
-IO-

.

.

.

.

There
arbitrator
forwarded the opposing party’s
brief
to each of the parties.
had been no discussion
at the hearing of any reply briefs
nor had there been a
discussion
of a date on which the parties
would no longer be permitted
to submit
In a letter
dated November
additional
material
for the arbitrator
to consider.
2, 1987 the Union sent a letter
to the arbitrator
enclosing
additional
information for his consideration
and requested that he delay writing
his decision
The Union stated that if this was not satisfacuntil
the Employer could reply.
the hearing should be reopened so the
tory to the arbitrator
or to the Employer,
The Union’s November 2nd letter
was not
new material
could be considered.
received
by the arbitrator
until
after
the briefs
of the parties
had been
On November 9th the Employer submitted
a letter
acknowledging
the
exchanged.
exchange of brief 6.
In that letter
it objected
to the Union’s attempt to
supplement the record after
the close of the hearing and it urged the arbitrator
On November 11, 1987 the
to ignore the new material
submitted
by the Union.
Union wrote the arbitrator
that the additional
information
provided by its
letter
of November 2, 1987 grew out of the arbitration
hearing between the
Employer and its department of public works bargaining
unit.
It stated that if
the information
contained
in the Union letter
of November 2nd was not accepted,
the Union demanded that the hearing be reopened or the arbitrator
remand the
case back to the WRRC for the selection
of a new arbitrator.
On November 17,
1987 the arbitrator
wrote the Employer and the Union that he would not remand
the case back to the WRRC for the selection
of a new arbitrator
but would
dispose of the issues himself.
Accordingly,
he directed
that each of the parties submit a brief
on the issue of pendency and he would decide if he was going
to receive the material
submitted
by the Union.
On November 23, 1987 the
Employer sent the arbitrator
a letter
enclosing
additional
information
for the
arbitrator
to consider.
In a letter
dated November 30th the Union included
additional
information
that it wished the arbitrator
to consider and it submitted as part of its brief
a letter
of Arbitrator
James Stern addressed to
Madison Teachers,
Inc. and Madison Metropolitan
School District
dated March 8,
1985 that dealt with the issue of material
submitted during the pendency of the
arbitration
proceedings.
The Union took the position
that unless there was a
cut off date for new information
or an agreement to exclude information,
an
arbitrator
must accept information
offered
by a party if the opposing party has
the opportunity
to verify
the accuracy of the information
and to brief
its relevancy if the new information
grows out of the arguments of the parties
at the
original
hearing.
In a letter
dated December 2, 1987 the Employer argued that
none of the data forwarded to the arbitrator
after
the date the briefs
were due
should be considered
by the arbitrator.
It took the position
that most of the
new material
submitted
in the Union’s
letter
of November 2, 1987 was available
to it at or during the hearing on September 23, 1987.
After
review of the briefs
submitted
by the Union and the Employer the
arbitrator
has concluded that he will
not reopen the hearing for the purpose of
permitting
the introduction
of new evidence presented to him subsequent to the
exchange of briefs
but prior
to issuing
the arbitration
award.
The Wisconsin
legislation
is designed to encourage the parties
to reach agreements through
bargaining.
If settlement
is not reached by the time that the final
offers
are
-ll-

certified
by the Wisconsin
Employment Relations
Commission,
each party is stuck
with its offer
unless there is agreement to modify it.
Those offers
are based
on the information
that is available
to the parties
when they are made.
Settlements
and other evidence
that becomes available
to the parties
after
the
submission
of final
offers
but prior
to the hearing
are ordinarily
introduced
Arbitrators
occasionally
ask for and receive
without
objection
at the hearing.
information
after
the close of the hearing
that was not made available
to them
at the hearing.
The normal practice
in arbitration
is that the hearing
is
closed when briefs
are submitted.
In the absence of an agreement between the
reply briefs
are not submitted.
In
parties
or a direction
by the arbitrator,
this case there was no discussion
or understanding
between the parties
about the
submission
of material
other than the brief
for his consideration
after
the
close of the hearing.
There was no agreement or understanding
about the submission of reply briefs.
When the briefs
were received
by the arbitrator
on
November 2, 1987 and exchanged by him on the following
day, the hearing was
No additional
material
could be submitted
by either
party for conclosed.
sideration
by either
party unless both parties
agreed or unless the arbitrator
felt
that additional
information
was necessary
for him to make an award.
Neither
of those circumstances
exists
in this case.
Each of the parties
has
submitted
additional
information
for consideration
by the arbitrator
after
the
date that the briefs
were received.
There is no agreement between them that the
additional
information
should be permitted
and the arbitrator
is satisfied
that
he can make a proper award in this matter based on the evidence submitted
to him
at the hearing on September 23, 1987.
Accordingly
the information
submitted
to
the arbitrator
by each of the parties
subsequent
to November 2, 1987 will
not be
considered
by the arbitrator.
The final
offer
of the Employer proposes a two year collective
bargaining
agreement with an increase
of 2.8% on January 1, 1987 and 2.8% on January 1,
1988.
The Union proposes a two year contract
that calls
for an increase
of 2%
on January 1, 1987, 2% on July 1, 1987, 2% on January 1, 1988 and 2% on July 1,
1988.
In addition
it proposes to give all members of the bargaining
unit a 12th
paid holiday
and a 5% longevity
step after
25 years.
It would amend the current
workmen’s compensation
disability
provision
to provide
the normal base pay of an
employee for a period not to exceed 24 working weeks.
The Union proposes a comparable group, hereinafter
referred
to as
Comparable Group A, consisting
of Ashland County, Iron County, Bayfield
County,
Douglas County, Burnett
County, Sawyer County, the City of Hurley and the City
of Superior.
It points
to a” arbitration
award involving
the Employer and its
police
bargaining
unit in which the arbitrator
utilized
Comparable Group A as
the standard
to which the Employer should be compared.
The Employer argues that
it should not be held as economically
comparable to the municipal
employers
in
the surrounding
geographic
area that make up Comparable Group A.
It points
out
that it has the highest
net mill rate,
the lowest per capita full
value,
the
highest
percentage
of households
in need of assistance,
the lowest per capita
i"COlW,
the highest
percentage
of persons in poverty,
and the highest
unemployment rate in the area.
The Employer’s
unpaid and delinquent
taxes are
-12-

.

on the rise and it asserts
that it must attempt
to mitigate
further
spiraling
of
The evidence clearly
establishes
that the Employer is
the cost of government.
However the entire
region is faced with economic
economically
distressed.
distress
and those municipal
employers
that make up Comparable Group A must also
All employees in an area,
attempt
to control
the spiraling
costs of government.
their
whether it is economically
distressed
or not, seek to at least maintain
In devestandard
of living
in comparison with the surrounding
communities.
loping
the wage schedules
for this bargaining
unit both the Employer and the
Union have had to consider
the wages that other municipal
employees in the area
Those wage levels
were not just produced in a vacuum.
have been receiving.
Consideration
was given to the awards of arbitrators
who utilized
the wages paid
by the municipal
employers in the area in developing
awards.
A “pecking
order”
has been established
as the result
of bargaining
that ranks which municipal
employers
pay the most and which ones pay the least and the relationships
between all of them.
While the Employer’s
circumstances
may not be the same as the
rest of those in Comparable Group A there is enough of a similarity
between them
based on economic considerations,
population
and geographic
location
to justify
the consideration
of Comparable Group A for purposes of external
comparison.
The Union has demanded a 12th paid holiday
as an improvement
in working
The old collective
bargaining
agreement provides
for 11 paid holiconditions.
The new collective
bargaining
agreements with the police
and fire
days.
bargaining
units continue
the 11 paid holiday
pattern
that has been provided
to
all of the Employer’s
employees.
The Department
of Public Works bargaining
unit
has demanded a 12th holiday
as part of its final
offer
presented
for the purposes of arbitration
and the Employer has proposed a continuation
of the 11
Arbitrators
are
not
inclined
to
provide
additional
fringe
holiday
pattern.
benefits
through arbitration
that depart from the pattern
established
through
bargaining
by other bargaining
units of the Employer.
Employers are interested
in maintaining
uniform fringe
benefits
for all of their
employees in order to
have been sympathetic
to that effort.
avoid “whip sawing” and arbitrators
The
Union points
out that the Ashland water utility
has 12 paid holidays
as do a
number of the other bargaining
units in Comparable Group A. Ashland County and
the City of Superior
have 12 paid holidays
and the City of Hurley has ten paid
holidays
so there is no uniform pattern
in Comparable Group A. While the issue
of another paid holiday
is not the type of issue that determines
which proposal
the arbitrator
selects,
the arbitrator
finds the concept of maintaining
uniform
fringe
benefits
for all employees sufficient
to justify
the Employer’s
position
on holidays
as more reasonable
than the Union’s
position.
The same rationale
would apply to the issue of adding a 5% longevity
step
after
25 years.
The Employer has had a collective
bargaining
agreement with the
Union providing
for longevity
steps of 1% after
five years,
2% after
ten years,
3% after
15 years, and 4% after
20 years.
That same longevity
provision
has
been encompassed in the new collective
bargaining
agreement with the police
and
fire
bargaining
units and has been offered
to the Department of Public Works
bargaining
unit.
The evidence indicates
that only the Ashland water utility
and
some of the Ashland County bargaining
units have a fifth
longevity
step of 5% or
-13-

more after
25 years.
That evidence
is not sufficient
to justify
departure
from
the Employer’s
established
patter”
of maintaining
uniformity
in its longevity
payments for all of its bargaining
units.
The Union seeks to increase
the length of time that the Employer provide
The
supplemental
benefits
to employees receiving
worker’s
compensation.
established
pattern
has been to provide
supplemental
payments to employees
That pattern
has
receiving
worker’s
compensation
for a period of up to 90 days.
been continued
in the new collective
bargaining
agreement with the firefighter
bargaining
unit.
The police
bargaining
unit has reached agreement with the
Employer to extend the period that supplemental
payments are made to employees
The
receiving
worker’s
compensation
to 24 weeks as sought by the Union.
Department of Public Works bargaining
unit has made a final
offer
in an arbitraMost
tion proceeding
seeking to extend the supplemental
payments to 24 weeks.
of the municipal
employers
in Comparable Group A provide
supplemental
payments
to employees receiving
worker’s
compensation
that are equal to or better
than
those offered
by the Employer.
There is no established
patter”
in Comparable
Group A but the benefits
do appear to be for a somewhat longer period than
offered
by the Employer.
There is no real pattern
in Comparable Group A and no
established
internal
pattern
for the Employer.
The arbitrator
is satisfied
that
the issue is not a major one in these proceedings
because supplemental
payments
to worker’s
compensation
are not major factors
in bargaining
units consisting
of
city hall employees.
The cornparables
would tend to support the Union’s
position but the arbitrator
is not convinced
that it has any more justification
than
the position
of the Employer.
Wages are the real issue in this dispute.
The evidence suggests
that the
Employer’s
salary
for employees in this bargaining
unit are very near the bottom
of Comparable Group A. A close examination
of the evidence reveals
that most of
the municipal
employers
in Comparable Group A pay higher wages than the Employer
to employees performing
similar
tasks.
The Employer ranks very near the bottom
of Comparable Group A in a comparison
of mos.t of the individual
positions.
Those rankings
were achieved
through collective
bargaining
and reflect
a
recognition
by the individual
bargaining
units of the amounts that they can
expect their
municipal
employer to pay.
Once the relationships
between the
wages paid by the various
municipal
employers
to their
different
types of
employees and the wage relationships
between employees performing
the same kind
of work have been established
through collective
bargaining,
a” arbitrator
is
reluctant
to disturb
them.
The statutory
criteria
indicate
that arbitrators
c
should make awards that would continue
and maintain
existing
wage relationships
in the absence of some unique circumstance
that would justify
giving
a
bargaining
unit an increase
that is either
higher or lower than the pattern
and
creates
new wage relationships
between the employees of the various
municipal
employers
in the comparable group.
The evidence establishes
that a 3% increase
in wages was the patter”
in
Comparable Group A for 1987.
The Employer’s
proposal
of 2.8% increase
for 1987
and 2.8% for 1988 is somewhat lower than the pattern.
The Union’s
proposal
of
-14-

2% on January 1, 1987 and 2% on July 1, 1987 and 2% on January 1, 1988 and 2% on
July 1, 1988 actually
has a cost during
1987 of only 3%, which fits
into the
However it provides
a lift
of 4% during that one year period
pattern
very well.
The Union’s
proposal
for
which is reflected
in the 1988 cost to the Employer.
1988 provides
an increase
of only 3% over the closing
wage level of 1987 but it
has a cost in 1987 of substantially
more than 3% because it is added on to the
The Union presents
its proposal
as a request
that has a cost to
1987 4% lift.
the Employer of 3% each year, but the fact is that the 1988 cost of the Union’s
proposal
is substantially
more than a 3% increase
over the 1987 cost.
Split
increases
are ordinarily
used to provide
catch-up
to employees who are lagging
behind without
increasing
the Employer’s
costs.
This can be achieved in a one
year agreement but it results
in an increase
in cost in the second year over and
Thus the proposal
of the Union
above any increase
granted for that second year.
has a 4% lift
the first
year but a cost of only 3%. The second year it has
another lift
of 4% and the increase
in cost will
be more than 4%. A further
increase
in cost will
be carried
over into 1989 because of the split
increase
given in 1988.
The employees of the Employer have lagged behind other Employers in
to be considered,
a split
Comparable Group A. If that was the only factor
increase
to provide
some catch-up
pay might very well be justified.
However
The Employer is economically
depressed.
By
there are other things to consider.
at least one method of measurement it is the nxxt distressed
community in
Wisco”si”.
The entire
region fn which the Employer is located
Is a depressed
area but all of the municipal
employers
in Comparable Group A are significantly
less depressed than the Employer.
While the Employer has not established
to the
arbitrator’s
satisfaction
that it does not have the ability
to meet the economic
demands of the Union’s
proposal,
he is satisfied
that it will
have some difficulty
in doing so.
That factor
alone does not mean that employees should make
sacrifices
by accepting
substandard
wages in order to support
the community services of the Employer.
Some of the employees in this bargaining
unit are paid
at a rather marginal
level and they cannot be expected to make sacrifices
in
order to maintain
the level of municipal
services.
It would be more appropriate
for the Employer to provide
its employees with a reasonable
level of wages and
other fringe
beneffts
and reduce the level and amount of municipal
services.
The Employer has reached agreement with its firefighters
bargaining
unit that
provides
the equivalent
of a 2.8% salary
increase.
Its police
department
reached agreement for 1987 that provides
for a wage freeze and a retirement
health
insurance
benefit
that has a cost equivalent
to a 2.8% salary
increase.
The Employer has offered
its public
works employees a 2.8% increase
in 1987 and
a 2.8% increase
in 1988.
While only two of the Employer’s
bargaining
units have
reached agreement for 1987 on a new agreement with a cost equivalent
of a 2.8%
wage increase,
those agreements indicate
that the Employer’s
proposal
to the
Union falls
within
the scope of reality.
The settlements
between the Employer
and the police
and fire bargaining
units
is close enough to the 3% pattern
in
Comparable Group A to satisfy
those employees.
Those agreements establish
an
internal
pattern
that the arbitrator
considers
sufficient
justification
to
extend the pattern
to the city hall employees.
It will
provide
equitable
treat-15-

ment to all employees and avoid the negative
effect
on morale that results
when
an arbitrator
awards a wage benefit
to one unit that the others were unable to
secure voluntarily.
There is at least one other factor
that supports
the Employer’s
position.
Its health insurance
premium increased
by 5% in 1987 and will
increase
by
another
18% in 1988.
The 1988 increase
had an impact that increases
the
In its brief
the Union indicated
that it did
Employer’s
overall
cost by 1.96%.
not consider
an 18% increase
in premiums as excessive.
Certainly
health
insurance
premiums have increased
substantially
but an 18% increase
in the
family
premium is not something that should be discounted,
particularily
when it
increases
the Employer’s
overall
cost by 1.96%.
Were it not for that substantial
increase
in the cost of insurance,
the Employer might very well be in a
position
to provide
a 3% increase
in wages with a lift
provision
that provided
a
little
catch-up.
The arbitrator
is satisfied
that the employees would rather
have the Employer pay the increase
in the health
insurance
premium and accept a
somewhat lower wage than to receive
the wage increase
proposed by the Union and
pay the increased
cost of the health
insurance
premiums.
The arbitrator
is reluctant
to make an award that provides
an increase
even
slightly
below the pattern
in the area to employees who are receiving
marginal
wages compared to other municipal
employees in the area who are performing
similar services.
He is equally
reluctant
to make an award that stretches
an
Employer’s
ability
to pay and breaks an internal
pattern
that has been accepted
by other bargaining
units.
The Employer tries
to justify
its proposal
by
pointing
to a class and compensation
plan that it contends supports
its proposal.
The arbitrator
does not consider
class and compensation
plans that are
unilaterally
developed by the Employer to be of much significance.
The particular
plan that the Employer has developed
is slightly
below the pattern
of
the area but close enough to be acceptable
to the arbitrator.
However it is
evidence of a disposition
on the part of the Employer to unilaterally
make a
decision
on the type of increase
it will
give to employees and avoid the give
and take at the bargaining
table.
Were it not for the fact that the Employer
will
incur an 18% increase
in its health
insurance
premium in 1988, the arbitrator might have been less likely
to consider
the Employer’s
proposal
realistic.
The Union’s
proposal
on its face appears to be in line with the pattern
of
increases
in Comparable Group A. A 2% increase
on January 1st and another 2%
increase
on July 1st has a 3% cost to the Employer the first
year.
However the
roll-up
in the second year resulting
from the 4% lift
in the first
year makes
the Union’s
proposal
somewhat less than realistic.
Adding another split
increase
the second year of the agreement provides
another roll-up
for 1989 that
the Employer cannot accept.
The arbitrator
recognizes
that there is a need for catch-up
for at least
some of the employees in this bargaining
unit.
Recognition
should also be given
to the fact that the Employer is the most distressed
community in the State of
Wisco”si”.
Under the circumstances
the most that could be expected of the
-16-

.

.

Employer would be to meet the pattern
of increases
in Comparable Group A. That
would maintain
the existing
relationships
between the members of this bargaining
unit and the employees peiforming
similar
work in Comparable Group A. The
Employer’s
proposal of a 2.8% increase
each year was slightly
lower than the
pattern
of increase
in Comparable Group A but close enough to be considered
realistic.
In view of the fact that it fits
the internal
pattern
that has been
established
by the settlements
between the Employer and its police and fire
bargaining
units,
the arbitrator
finds it to bs a more reasonable proposal
than
that of the Union.
It therefore
follows
from the above facts
undersigned
renders the following

and discussion

thereon

that

the

AWARD

After full
consideration
of the criteria
set forth in the statutes
and
after
careful
and extensive
examination
of the exhibits
and briefs
of the parties,
the arbitrator
finds that the Employer’s
final
offer more closely
adheres
to the statutory
criteria
than that of the Union and directs
that the Employer’s
proposal contained
In Exhibit
B be incorporated
into an agreement containing
the
other items to which the parties
have agreed.
Dated at Sparta,

Wisconsin

this

21st

-17-

day of December,

1987.

CITY HALL
ASHLAND, WISCONSIN

54806

OFFICE OF.
THE MAYOR
Phorw (715) 682-3433

FINAL OFFER BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND IN THE MATTEB OF ASHLAND CITY
tU%CME #216K CONTRACT FBOM~
1, 1987 - DECEMBER 31, 1988

Salary

Increase

January

1,

i987

2.8%

January

1,

1988

2.8%

. . . An Historic

HALL

Progressive

City

on the Shores

of Lake

Superior



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.3
Linearized                      : Yes
Creator                         : Acrobat Capture Server 2.01
Create Date                     : 1999:05:15 00:57:46
Title                           : Ashland, City of (Overall Non Professional), Dec. No. 24645-A ( Rice, 12/21/87 ) (Employer)
Author                          : 
Producer                        : Acrobat PDFWriter 3.03 for Windows NT
Subject                         : 
Modify Date                     : 1999:07:05 18:03:57-05:00
Page Count                      : 20

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools