At the end of every year, we like to present a wrap-up of the year’s interest arbitration awards to give everyone a feel of “which way the wind is blowing” with arbitrators. Much as years passed, the wind seems to be blowing the way of internal consistency. Despite fears of recruitment and retention issues for employers, arbitrators are still placing the most emphasis on employers maintaining consistency amongst their employees, rather than looking outside the organization to determine what the parties agreements should include in their contracts.
In Meeker County and MNPEA, the County’s deputies brought 15 separate issues in front of arbitrator Richard Miller, including wages, insurance, clothing allowance, on-call pay and severance. Of note was the fact the parties only had three regular negotiation meetings and one mediation session prior to going to arbitration. Fortunately, the parties were able to resolve the first 10 issues prior to the hearing, and only clothing allowance, on-call pay and severance were left to be decided.
Although the union changed its final position on uniform allowance less than 15 days prior to the hearing, the arbitrator awarded the union’s position on uniforms, as he found the delay to not have prejudiced the County. The primary reason for the award was the fact the deputies were requesting only $850 per year in uniform allowance, while two supervisory groups were being paid $1,000 per year for their uniforms. The County also lost due to internal equity issues when the union requested $250 per month in on-call pay for its investigators. While the County only offered $225 per month, its Sergeants were receiving $400 per month, and Arbitrator Miller found that disparity warranted the Union’s position being awarded.
However, the County also won its severance pay issue, and was allowed to include sunset language for its sick leave severance pay article. The evidence showed that every other bargaining unit in the County had agreed to the language.
In City of Gaylord and Teamsters Local 320, the parties were working on a new contract, and had over 20 issues to resolve. In short, the union was only awarded the same cost of living adjustment (COLA) as every other employee in the city (1.5%), and was only awarded additional benefits based on quid pro quo bargaining.
In Dakota County and Teamsters Local 320, the county’s correctional officers took seven issues to hearing, including wages, leave, hazard pay, and a retention bonus. During the hearing, the union relied on the stresses and hazards placed on its members during the COVID-19 pandemic. While seeking a three percent range adjustment, the union stated it would accept a lower range adjustment if it could receive some sort of hazard pay award.
In awarding the County’s position, Arbitrator Foy cited the lack of external comparables and a history of uniform negotiated waged/merit matrix increases. The arbitrator noted the county’s deputies agreed to the county’s pattern wage increase. In response to the union’s request for an additional $3.00 per hour going back to 2020, the arbitrator found no similar bonus issued to any other group, and found the union would have been unsuccessful negotiating such an increase outside of interest arbitration. In regard to the union’s request for a retention bonus, the arbitrator found no wage-related reason for the County’s high turnover, and no compelling reason to inclusion of the bonus. As a result, the union was granted a 1% general wage increase for 2021, and a 2% wage increase for 2022, no additional pay beyond the County’s established pattern.
In Clay County and Teamsters, Local 320 the county attorney group was seeking a 3% market adjustment for 2022, despite being at 101% of the market average maximum salary. After finding no reason from either internal or external settlements to offer a market adjustment, where he stated, “The importance of internal settlements cannot be overemphasized or overlooked.” (seeing a pattern, here?) The arbitrator ignored the union’s evidence of high caseloads, as he found the solution for that problem to be “to hire more attorneys to handle the additional cases, not pay existing attorneys more to work more.” Thus, the county’s position was awarded.
In City of Fairmont and LELS, it was the employer seeking to make wholesale changes to its collective bargaining agreement. While the parties agreed with each other on wages, the city was seeking to make changes to step structure, callbacks, severance pay, vacation carryover, holidays, comp time and waiver articles. In formulating his award, Arbitrator Wallin stated, “Little weight is ordinarily given to the subjective wants and desires of either party. Instead, interest arbitration seeks to identify objective criteria to use as the basis for decisions.” Regarding the major changes sought by the employer, the arbitration required “very persuasive evidence that the new structure is a response to unforeseen factors that now make it a necessity,” with regard to pay structure, vacation, holiday pay, comp time, and waiver language. Thus, despite many issues before the arbitrator, very little within the contract actually changed.
Finally, Washington County faced not one, but two separate interest arbitrations with its LELS sergeant and MNPEA Corrections Officer groups. The Corrections Officers were seeking a 4.2% general adjustment along with 3.5% range movement, while the county sought to impose its pattern of 2% in 2021 along with a $1,000 lump sum. The sergeants were only seeking a 3% general adjustment, a 3% range adjustment, and 2.75% range movement.
In the sergeant case, Arbitrator Beens stated, “Internal consistency is paramount in unsettled times. Absent a compelling case of need for a particular portion of County employees, labor unrest is best avoided by treating all equally.” He found that 83% of the county’s groups had accepted the County’s pattern, and the union did not provide any persuasive evidence to upset that, including the requirement that the sergeants not work from home.
In the corrections officer case, Arbitrator Foy found that the county’s pattern was established “during a time of great economic uncertainty generated by the pandemic,” and “elemental fairness dictates that economic burdens resulting from the pandemic be shared by all.” He found no evidence that would overcome the strong pattern established by the county through negotiation.
With that marked the end of 2021 for reported interest arbitrations. Wage adjustments stayed low, and no arbitrators were willing to venture out to compare parties to their competitors when strong internal patterns existed. Despite the fact we are still in the middle of a pandemic, we can take comfort in the fact that we can continue to rely on internal patterns and equity when it comes to wage adjustments. If you, or your organization, need any assistance in the negotiation or interest arbitration of expiring contracts, contact Wiley Reber Law, for experience that works.