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 PDF.
Page Count: 20

f ---es
RECEIVED
DEC 291987
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT
RELATIONS COMMlSSlON
In The Matter Of The Petition Of
LOCAL NO. 216-K, AFSCME.
ASHLAND CITY HALL EMPLOYEES
To Initiate Arbitration
Between Said Petitioner
-and-
CITY OF ASHLAND (CITY HALL)
Decision NO.
24645-A
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 Wisconsin Employment Relations
Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, alleging that an impasse
existed between it and the City of Ashland (City Hall), hereinafter referred to
as the Employer, in their collective bargaining. It requested the Commission to
initiate arbitration pursuant to Section 111.70(4)(cn)6 of the Municipal
Employment Relations Act. A member of the Commission’s staff has conducted an
investigation in the matter and submitted a report to the Commission.
At all times material herein the Union has been and is the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer in a
collective bargaining unit consisting of all regular full-time and part-time
clerical and maintenance employees employed in the City Hall excluding super-
visors and confidential employees. The Union and the Employer have been parties
to a collective bargaining agreement covering wages, hours and working con-
ditions of employees in the unit that expired on December 31, 1986. On October
8, 1986 the parties exchanged their initial proposals on matters to be included
in the new collective bargaining agreement. Thereafter the parties met on two
occasions in efforts to reach an accord. On April 8, 1987 the Union filed a
petition requesting arbitration and on May 28, 1987 an investigation was con-
ducted. It reflected that the parties were deadlocked in their negotiations.
The parties submitted their final offers to the Commission and the investigation
was closed.
The Commission concluded that an impasse exists between the parties with
respect to the negotiations leading toward a new collective bargaining
agreement. It ordered that arbitration be initiated for the purpose of issuing
a final and binding award to resolve the impasse and the parties were directed
to select an arbitrator. Upon being advised that the parties had selected Zel
S. Rice II, Sparta, Wisconsin, the Commission appointed him as the arbitrator on
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
final offer’of the Employer. An arbitration hearing was conducted at the City
Hall in Ashland, Wisconsin, and both parties were given an opportunity to pre-
sent evidence.
The total final offer of the Union, attached hereto and marked Exhibit A,
proposed a two year contract covering 1987 and 1988. It proposed a 2 percent
increase on all wage rates on January 1, 1987 and 2 percent increase on July 1,
1987 and 2 percent on January 1, 1988 and 2 percent on July 1, 1988. The Union
proposed President’s Day as a twelfth paid holiday and the addition of a 5 per-
cent longevity step after twenty-five years. It proposed that the agreement be
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 com-
puter 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
January 1, 1988. The Department of Public Works clerk would receive $9.14 an
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;
$7.51 pet hour on January 1. 1988; and $7.66 pet hour on July 1, 1988. The
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,
1988. Another secretary/receptionist would receive $7.76 pet hour on January 1,
1987; $7.92 per hour on July 1, 1987; $8.08 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and
$8.24 pet hour on July 1, 1988. The police department records clerk would
receive $8.59 an hour on January 1, 1987; $8.76 par hour on July 1, 1987; $8.94
on January 1, 1988; and $9.12 per hour on July 1, 1988. The bookkeeper would
receive $8.76 pet hour on January 1, 1987; $8.94 pet hour on July 1, 1987; $9.12
pet hour on January 1, 1988; and $10.06 pet hour on July 1, 1988. The main-
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
July 1, 1988. The civil technician would receive $12.19 pet hour on January 1,
1987; $12.43 pet hour on July 1. 1987; $12.68 pet hour on January 1, 1988; and
$12.93 pet hour on July 1, 1988. The Department of Public Works clerk would
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
1, 1988. The custodian II received $7.09 pet hour in 1986. The position will
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
custodian I received $8.33 per hour in 1986. The position has been reclassified
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
1, 1988. A dispatcher in Sawyer County received $9.01 per hour in 1986. The
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
1, 1988. The secretary/receptionist III received $7.03 pet hour in 1986. The
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
1, 1988. The clerk/secretary I will receive $9.02 pet hour during 1986. The
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
1, 1988. The payroll clerk received $8.48 per hour in 1986. The position will
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 School District has not reached a settlement with its nonpro-
fessional people for the 1987-88 school year. In 1986 it paid a custodian I
$9.35 an hour, a custodian II $7.26 per hour, a chief maintenance employee
$10.39 per hour, a maintenance man $10.01 per hour, a chief custodian, high
school $10.01 per hour, and a groundskeeper $10.01 per hour.
The school bus drivers at Maple received a 3 percent increase on July 1,
1987 and will receive another 1.5 percent increase on January 1, 1988.
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
3 percent wage increase in 1987. The courthouse employees received a 3 percent
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 pro-
posed 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
until Medicare commences. The Ashland School District gave its custodial and
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 per-
cent 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
employees a 3 percent increase on January 1, 1987, full fringe benefits for
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 normal schedule. The law enforcement personnel had their meal allowance
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
$15.00 on January 1, 1989. The law enforcement personnel received shift dif-
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 addi-
tional 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
$8.23 per hour on January 1, 1987. Another cashier/clerk in the county
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
1, 1987. A maintenance II employee received $8.40 per hour in 1986 and was
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
1, 1987. A maintenance IV employee received $7.45 per hour in 1986 and was
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 den-
tal 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 dif-
ference 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
hour after twenty-five years. There does not seem to be any uniform pattern for
longevity in the Lake Superior District of the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees although most public employers have some sort of
longevity program. The maximum payments are achieved after periods ranging from
twenty years to thirty years.
The “umber of paid holidays in the Lake Superior District range from a low
of ten in Hurley and the Ashland School District to a high of thirteen and one-
half in Douglas County.
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
grants. The maximum number of points that a community can get is 210 points in
Distress Score Analysis. The factors that make up the analysis include the net
mill rate, the per capita full value, the percentage of households in need of
assistance, the per capita income, the percentage of persons in poverty and the
unemployment rate. The City of Ashland has received 203 out of a possible 210
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
17 percent over sixty-five. In Ashland County 34 percent of the population in
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 per-
cent of the population between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four and 10 per-
cent 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 per-
cent 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, compen-
satory time, sick leave, health and life insurance benefits and disability
insurance, holidays, longevity pay, leaves of absence, retirement and a thirty-
five hour work week.
The Employer is classified in the nonmetro urban category. A nonmetro
urban area is one with a” urban population of less than 50,000. In May of 1987
the rate of increase in the Nonmetro Urban Index was 2.5 percent and in June of
1987 it had increased to 2.8 percent.
The Employer has a one year agreement with its Police Department bargaining
unit for 1987. It provides no salary increase. The police received the same
retirement and health insurance provisions that the firefighters received. It
-7-
provides single premium insurance coverage from retirement to Medicare for those
employees employed before January 1. 1987. The estimated cost of this benefit
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
holiday pay from $50.00 to $60.00. The firefighters continue to have a total of
ten holidays.
Ashland County reached agreement with its courthouse employees on a 3
percent increase. They all work thirty-five hours a week except custodians who
work forty hours per week. The State of Wisconsin reached a two year agreement
with its employees
that
provided a 2.1 percent increase in 1987 and a 2 percent
increase in 1988. The Employer provided its nonunion and administrative person-
nel and officers with 1987 salary increases of 2.2 percent.
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 propo-
sal 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
$13,173.10. Under the Employer’s 1987 proposal the cost would be $13.541.94,
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 pre-
ceding 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 per-
cent 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 addi-
tional 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 increase over two years plus the impact on 1989
cost due to the salary lift plus the long range impact of the longevity increase
in future years.
The Employer has budgeted 2.2 percent for salary increase for 1987 and 2.8
percent for salary increases for 1988. The Employer is 5.8 percent over the
amount it budgeted for salaries in 1987. The Employer has a class and compen-
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 per-
formed. 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
compared. It contends that the internal comparable6 are not valid because the
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
would be less than the increases of higher paid
units
that generate more cents
per hour from the 3% increases given to employees. It contends that the non-
metro cost of living figure used by the Employer is not proper because the com-
posite 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 uti-
lity 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
units receive 10% longevity payments after 25 years. It asserts
that
the city
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 coo-
sidered 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 con-
sumer 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 com-
parable 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-
. .
. .
arbitrator forwarded the opposing party’s brief to each of the parties. There
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
additional material for the arbitrator to consider. In a letter dated November
2, 1987 the Union sent a letter to the arbitrator enclosing additional infor-
mation for his consideration and requested that he delay writing his decision
until the Employer could reply. The Union stated that if this was not satisfac-
tory to the arbitrator or to the Employer, the hearing should be reopened so the
new material could be considered. The Union’s November 2nd letter was not
received by the arbitrator until after the briefs of the parties had been
exchanged. On November 9th the Employer submitted a letter acknowledging the
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
to ignore the new material submitted by the Union. On November 11, 1987 the
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 par-
ties 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 sub-
mitted 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 rele-
vancy 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
without objection at the hearing. Arbitrators occasionally ask for and receive
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
parties or a direction by the arbitrator, reply briefs are not submitted. In
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 sub-
mission 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
closed. No additional material could be submitted by either party for con-
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 cost of government. The evidence clearly establishes that the Employer is
economically distressed. However the entire region is faced with economic
distress and those municipal employers that make up Comparable Group A must also
attempt to control the spiraling costs of government. All employees in an area,
whether it is economically distressed or not, seek to at least maintain their
standard of living in comparison with the surrounding communities. In deve-
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
have been receiving. Those wage levels were not just produced in a vacuum.
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 bet-
ween 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
conditions. The old collective bargaining agreement provides for 11 paid holi-
days. The new collective bargaining agreements with the police and fire
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 pur-
poses of arbitration and the Employer has proposed a continuation of the 11
holiday pattern. Arbitrators are not inclined to provide additional fringe
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
avoid “whip sawing” and arbitrators have been sympathetic to that effort. 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
supplemental benefits to employees receiving worker’s compensation. The
established pattern has been to provide supplemental payments to employees
receiving worker’s compensation for a period of up to 90 days. That pattern has
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
receiving worker’s compensation to 24 weeks as sought by the Union. The
Department of Public Works bargaining unit has made a final offer in an arbitra-
tion proceeding seeking to extend the supplemental payments to 24 weeks. Most
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 posi-
tion 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
pattern very well. However it provides a lift of 4% during that one year period
which is reflected in the 1988 cost to the Employer. The Union’s proposal for
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
1987 4% lift. The Union presents its proposal as a request that has a cost
to
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
above any increase granted for that second year. Thus the proposal of the Union
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
Comparable Group A. If that was the only factor to be considered, a split
increase to provide some catch-up pay might very well be justified. However
there are other things to consider. The Employer is economically depressed. By
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 dif-
ficulty in doing so. That factor alone does not mean that employees should make
sacrifices by accepting substandard wages in order to support the community ser-
vices 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
Employer’s overall cost by 1.96%. In its brief the Union indicated that it did
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 substan-
tial 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 simi-
lar 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 propo-
sal. The arbitrator does not consider class and compensation plans that are
unilaterally developed by the Employer to be of much significance. The par-
ticular 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 arbitra-
tor 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-
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 HALL
tU%CME #216K CONTRACT FBOM~ 1, 1987 - DECEMBER 31, 1988
Salary Increase
January 1, i987 2.8%
January 1, 1988 2.8%
. . .
An Historic Progressive City on the Shores of Lake Superior

Navigation menu