Rights of Terminated Employees in Oregon

Document Sample
Rights of Terminated Employees in Oregon Powered By Docstoc
					ARBITRATION
  Spring 2006
CLASS SCHEDULE
   April 5- Introduction to the Arbitration Process
   April 12- Scope and Enforceability of Arbitration
   April 19- The Arbitration Hearing
       Guest Speaker: Rick Liebman a partner in the firm of
        Barran, Liebman, Portland, OR
   April 26- Arbitration Forms and Process
       Guest Speaker: Howell Lankford, Arbitrator, Milwaukie,
        OR
   May 3-The Life of an Arbitration Case
CLASS REQUIREMENTS
   ATTENDANCE: COME TO CLASS!!!
   GRADING: QUALITY PARTICIPATION=50% AND
    SUBMISSION OF ARBITRATION DECISION=50%
READINGS
 WILL BE POSTED ON MY WEB SITE
 WILL ALSO BE EMAILED TO YOU
 TEXTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE
  AND WILL ALSO BE ON RESERVE AT THE
  LIBRARY
OFFICE HOURS
   GENERALLY BEFORE
    OR AFTER CLASS
   BY APPOINTMENT
   EMAIL OR CALL WHEN
    THE NEED ARISES
HOW DO WE GET HERE?
 WHAT SORT OF DISPUTE DO YOU HAVE?
 IS THE DISPUTE SUITABLE TO THIS SORT
  OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION?
 WHAT PROCESS HAVE YOU GONE
  THROUGH PRIOR TO ARBITRATION?
WHAT SORT OF DISPUTE DO
YOU HAVE?
   IS IT A DISPUTE
    ARRISES OUT OF A
    CONTRACT?
   FROM THE LAW?
   FROM SOME
    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
    OR RULE?
   WHERE ELSE?
IS THE DISPUTE SUITABLE TO THIS
SORT OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION?
   LET’S LOOK AT RELATIVE POWER
    BETWEEN PARTIES
       POWER ISN’T ALWAYS EQUAL
       WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF UNEQUAL
        POWER?
       WHY SHOULD THIS MATTER, IT DOESN’T
        MATTER IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, DOES IT?
           OR DOESN’T IT?
WHAT PROCESS HAVE YOU GONE
THROUGH PRIOR TO ARBITRATION?
   CLEARLY YOUR WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN HERE IF
    YOU HAD RESOLVED THE ISSUE.
       HAVE LESS ADVERSARIAL METHODS BEEN EXHAUSTED?
       IF NOT, WHY NOT?
       ARE THE PARTIES ABLE TO DEAL WITH DEFEAT?
            GENERALLY SOMEONE IN ARBITRATION IS GOING TO
             LOSE, ARE THEY READY???
HOW IS ARBITRATION DIFFERENT
FROM OTHER FORMS OF ADR?
DO YOU WANT FINALITY?
WHAT LEVEL OF AUTHORITY DO YOU
WANT TO RELINQUISH?
ARE YOU STILL TRYING TO MAKE AN
AGREEMENT OR ARE YOU READY TO
FORCE A RESULT?
   WHAT IS
 ARBITRATION?
 THERE ARE WINNERS AND
THERE ARE MOST DEFINITELY
         LOSERS!
ARBITRATION: THE
FOUNDATION
 HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE
  ARBITRATION IS CONTEMPLATED?
 WHAT IS THE “LEGAL” FOUNDATION FOR
  ARBITRATION?
 IS IT A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROCESS
HOW DOES IT WORK?
  WHO IS THE ARBITRATOR?
  WHAT IS THE ARBITRATOR’S
           POWER?
THE POWER OF AN
ARBITRATOR,SHOULD THE ARBITRATOR:
 BE ABLE TO ORDER DISCOVERY?
 BE ABLE TO COMPEL THE PRESENCE OF
  WITNESSES?
 BE ABLE TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS?
 BE ABLE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE?
DISCOVERY: WHAT IS IT?
 WHAT TYPES OF DISCOVERY ARE THERE?
 SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENCE
  BETWEEN WHAT DISCOVERY A PARTY
  CAN DO IN ARBITRATION VERSUS WHAT
  CAN BE DONE IN COURT?
TESTIMONY: HOW MUCH AND
WHAT TYPE?
 SHOULD THE ARBITRATOR BE ABLE TO
  COMPEL THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES?
 SHOULD THERE (COULD THERE) BE
  OATHS FOR WITNESSES?
 CAN THE ARBITRATOR RESTRICT THE
  NUMBER AND TYPES OF WITNESSES?
 CAN THE ARBITRATOR RESTRICT THE
  CONTENT OF WITNESS TESTIMONY?
LIMITING EVIDENCE: WHAT
SHOULD BE EXCLUDED?
   ARE THERE RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT NEED BE
    APPLIED?
   WHY DO YOU THINK WE’D NEED RULES OF
    EVIDENCE?
   IF WE NEED RULES OF EVIDENCE, CAN THEY BE
    INDIVIDUALLY MODIFIED, CASE BY CASE?
   SHOULD THERE BE SOME OVERALL RULES?
   WHY WOULD THE PARTIES WANT EVIDENCE TO
    BE EXCLUDED?
HOW ACTIVE DO WE WANT
AN ARBITRATOR TO BE?
 SHOULD HE/SHE CALL WITNESSES?
 SHOULD HE/SHE ASK QUESTIONS?
 SHOULD HE/SHE INDEPENTLY COMPEL
  DOUCMENTS?
HOW SHOULD THE ARBITRATOR
FASHION A RESULT?
   IS IT BEST TO HAVE AN ORAL OR A
    WRITTEN DECISION?
       IF ORAL DO YOU WANT A BENCH DECISION?
   DO YOU WANT A COMPREHENSIVE
    DECISION OR A SUMMARY DECISION?
WHAT TYPE OF ARBITRATION DO
YOU WANT?
 WHY WOULD YOU WANT MULTIPLE
  ARBITRATORS?
 WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEMS
  WOULD BE WITH MULTIPLE
  ARBITRATORS?
WHO ARE THESE
ARBITRATORS?
 IS THERE A BENEFIT TO HAVING A
  GENERALIST ARBITRATOR OR AN
  EXPERT?
 WHAT ARE THE PARRELLS TO U.S.
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW?
OF ARBITRATORS AND
JUDGES
 HOW IS AN ARBITRATOR THE
  SAME/DIFFERENT FROM A JUDGE?
 HOW IS AN ARBITRATOR THE
  SAME/DIFFERENT FROM AN
  ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE?
 WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?
 SHOULD THERE BE THESE DIFFERENCES?
WOULD YOU EXPECT TENSION BETWEEN THE
LEGAL SYSTEM AND ARBITRATION?
 WHAT OF JURY
 SYSTEM
 PROPONENTS?
 WHAT HAPPENS TO
 DUE PROCESS?
     WHAT IS DUE
      PROCESS?
POST-ARBITRATION ISSUES
   SO THE ARBITRATOR MAKES A DECISION,
    HOW IS IT ENFORCED?
       WHERE WOULD YOU GO?
       WHO WOULD ENFORCE IT?
       WHO SHOULD ENFORCE IT?
DO YOU WANT FINALITY IN
ARBITRATION?
 BUT, WHAT IF YOU LOSE?
 WHAT IF THERE ARE “PROCEDURAL”
  ISSUES?
 WHAT IF THE ARBITRATOR WAS CLEARLY
  WRONG?
 WHAT IF THE ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED
  HIS AUTHORITY?
THE LESSONS OF OF LABOR
ARBITRATION
   THERE ARE TWO TYPES
       RIGHTS OR GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION
        DEALING WITH THE VIOLATION OF THE LABOR
        AGREEMENT
       INTEREST ARBITRATION DEALING WITH THE
        CREATION OF THE LABOR AGREEMENT
WHY NOT USE INTEREST
ARBITRATION?
 WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE TO A THIRD
  PARTY RESOLUTION?
 WHAT IS THE POSITIVE TO AN
  ARBITRATION RESOLVED CONTRACT?
 WHAT ABOUT THE TRANSIT STRIKE IN
  NYC?
       WHY NOT ARBITATION?
INTEREST ARBITRATION
 THE STATUTORY EQUIVALENT OF A
  STRIKE
 TAKES POWER OUT OF THE BARGAINING
  RELATIONSHIP
 INSERTS LOGIC
 GENERALLY NOT FAVORED BY LABOR OR
  MANAGEMENT, WHOEVER IS MORE
  POWERFUL IN A GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE
WHAT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO
GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION?
   WHOULD A STIKE BE PREFERABLE?
   WHY NOT JUST GO TO COURT?
HOW DO YOU SELECT AN
ARBITRATOR?
 WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF A MUTUALLY
  AGREEABLE SELECTION?
 WOULD HAVIN A PERMANENT PANEL
  MAKE SENSE AND WHY?
 WHERE CAN YOU GET LISTS OF
  APPROPRIATE ARBITRATORS?
WHAT DO THESE GUYS CHARGE?
 $750-$1,500 PER DAY
 THEY CHARGE GENERALLY FOR 2 DAYS
  RESEARCH AND WRITING FOR EACH DAY
  IN A HEARING
 THE PARTIES GENERALLY SPLIT THE
  COST
NEXT:THE HEARING
 VARYING DEGREES OF FORMALITY
 ARBITRATOR KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE
  CASE EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL
  CIRCUMSTANCES
 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
 ALLOCATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF
 EXHIBITS
 TRIAL LIKE PROCESS
MTA STRIKE
   WHAT IS THE
    PROPOSAL OF THE
    MTA?
   WHAT IS THE
    RATIONALE FOR
    THEIR POSITION?
   WHAT IS THE
    UNION’S RESPONSE?
   WHAT IS THEIR
    POSITION?
NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS OR
RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE
 LEVEL OF PROBLEM ON A NATIONAL
  LEVEL
 EFFECT OF A STRIKE IN NYC ON OTHERS
MTA PROPOSAL
 RAISE RETIREMENT AGE TO FROM 55 TO
  62
 APPLIES TO FUTURE RETIREES ONLY
 STILL RECEIVE HALF PAY (CURRENTLY
  $55,000 WITH OVERTIME) OR $27,500
  PER YEAR
 DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN MAINTAINED
MTA MODIFIED PROPOSAL
 INCREASE CONTRIBUTION RATES FROM
  2% TO 6%
 FOR NEW EMPLOYEES ONLY
 WHY WOULD THE UNION OBJECT?
EMPLOYER EFFORTS
ELSEWHERE
 CHANGE FROM DEFINED BENEFIT TO
  DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
 PRIVATE INDUSTRY EFFORTS AND THE
  GOVERNERATOR
THE STRIKE
   HOW LONG WAS IT?
   LEVEL OF DISRUPTION CAUSED?
   WHAT WAS THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE
    SETTLEMENT WAS TO BE RATIFIED?
   WAS IT?
WHAT WAS THE SETTLEMENT?
 37 MONTH DEAL
 3.5% PAY INCREASE PER YEAR
 REIMBURSEMENT OF $130M TO PENSION
 BETTER HEALTH CARE FOR RETIREES
 1.5% EMPLOYEE PAYMENT OF WAGES TO
  HEALTH CARE
OBLIGATION TO “SELL” THE
DEAL
 IT IS PART OF THE DUTY TO BARGAIN IN
  GOOD FAITH
 WHAT HAPPENED HERE?
AFTER FAILURE TO RATIFY
WHAT HAPPENS
 BACK TO THE TABLE?
 DYNAMICS OF WHAT HAPPENS AT THE
  TABLE AFTER A FAILURE TO RATIFY
ARBITRATION
 IS THERE A PROCESS FOR IT?
 HOW DO YOU GET THERE?
 HOW IS THE ARBITRATION CONFIGURED?
ROLE OF THE STATE AGENCY
   PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
    MUST DECLARE AN IMPASSE
       WHY DID THIS HAPPEN AFTER A STRIKE?
   THREE MEMBER ARBITRATION BOARD
    SET UP
BINDING ARBITRATION
 WHO WANTS IT?
 WHO DOESN’T?
 WHY?
WHAT A GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION
STATEMENT OF ISSUE LOOKS LIKE
         STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Was Brent Jones terminated from
   employment as a deputy with the
   Goodtimes County Sheriff’s Office for just
   cause under article 19 or the labor
   agreement?
If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
The arbitrator is asked to retain jurisdiction
   over any remedial dispute for a period of
   sixty days after the issuance of an award.
AN EXAMPLE OF AN
    INTEREST
  ARBITRATION
  CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
IAFF LOCAL 1395 AND
        THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

   INTEREST ARBITRATION
      MARCH 16, 2005
BURDEN OF PERSUASION
THE BURDEN OF PERSUASION APPLIES GENERALLY
TO LANGUAGE DISPUTES AND
RESTS WITH THE PARTY SEEKING TO CHANGE THE
STATUS QUO.
WHERE ONE PARTY IS PROPOSING A CHANGE IN
LANGUAGE OR COVERAGE STATUS QUO, THAT
PARTY IS CHARGED WITH THE BURDEN OF
PERSUADING THE ARBITRATOR THAT THE CHANGE
IS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE.-ARBITRATOR
LEVEK IN STATE OF OREGON AND IAFF
ISSUES IN QUESTION
    UNION PROPOSED
  CONTRACTUAL CHANGES
UNION’S POSITION ON WAGES
                  8.1 Wages
Effective July 1, 2005 the salary schedule in
effect on June 30, 2005 will be increased by
3% for all ranks.

Effective July 1, 2006 the salary schedule in
effect on June 30, 2006 will be increased by
3% for all ranks.
ISSUES IN QUESTION
 CITY PROPOSED CHANGES TO
         CONTRACT
CITY POSITION ON WAGES
8.1      Wages
Effective July 1, 2005 the salary schedule in effect on June 30,
2005 will be increased by 2% for all ranks.

Effective July 1, 2006 the salary schedule in effect on July 30,
2006 will be increased by 2% for all ranks.

Appendix “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference,
reflects the above described salary increases. Salaries as of
July 1, 2005 shall be rounded to the nearest dollar based upon
base salary as of June 30, 2005. Rounding of salaries for July
1, 2006 will be based upon the default payroll process of the
City.
BACKGROUND
DEPARTMENT COMPOSITION
THE BARGAINING UNIT
   THE BARGAINING UNIT CONSISTS OF THE
    FOLLOWING POSITIONS:
       FIREFIGHTER,
       ENGINEER,
       CAPTAIN,
       DEPUTY FIRE MARSHALL I AND II,
       EMS PROGRAM OFFICER, AND
       TRAINING OFFICER.
DISTRIBUTION OF BARGAINING
UNIT BY POSITION

                                  M   ,4       1
                                             S, , 1
                 15            PF          EM TO
              S,          DE
           IN
      TA
   CAP




                      5
                ,1
            E NG                                         ,   42
                                                      FF
BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS BY
RANK, WAGE AND SENIORITY


FF RATE           $ 4,183.72    $ 4,630.26    $ 5,081.17    $ 5,337.74
        MEMBERS             6             6             1            29
ENG RATE          $ 5,242.25
        MEMBERS            15
DFM RATE          $ 4,220.63    $ 5,578.92
        MEMBERS             1             1
CAPT/ETC RATE     $ 5,851.89    $ 5,852.08
        MEMBERS            15             4
BARGAINING UNIT MEMBERS BY
YEAR OF HIRE
 25
        23

 20

                17      17
 15



 10
                                 8
                                                 7
                                         6
 5



 0
      01-05   96-00   91-95   86-90   81-85   73-80
HEALTH INSURANCE UTILIZED
BY MEMBERS
               49

 50

 45

 40
 35

 30                          17
 25                                       12
 20

 15

 10

 5

 0
      FULL FAMILY   SINGLE        TWO PARTY
 INTEREST AND
WELFARE OF THE
    PUBLIC
FACTORS INVOLVED IN THE INTEREST AND
WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC
   In most interest arbitrations, it is difficult to isolate
    the interest and welfare of the public from the
    secondary factors listed in ORS 243.746(4).
   Frequently, employers argue that keeping costs low
    is in the interest of the public, and unions argue that
    a well-paid work force is similarly critical to the
    public welfare.
   Thus, while the statute demands that this factor be
    given primary consideration, in practice the interest
    and welfare of the public is usually determined by
    considering the other factors, including the financial
    ability of the employer and comparisons with other
    employees in comparable communities.
THE FINANCIAL ABILITY
 OF THE EMPLOYER TO
MEET THE COSTS OF THE
      PROPOSALS
CURRENT COST OF WAGES AND
INSURANCE

           UNION       CURRENT
           COST         COST
         SALARY        $ 4,948,551
         SOCIAL        $   351,347
         SECURITY
         (7.1%)
         MEDICARE      $   84,125
         (1.7%)
         PERS          $   672,013
         (13.58%)
         WCI (.1%)     $   49,486
         EMPLOYER      $   924,000
         PAID HEALTH
         INS.
         TOTAL         $ 7,029,522
COST OF UNION PROPOSAL YEAR 1
        UNION       CURRENT
                                      YEAR 1
        COST         COST
      SALARY        $ 4,948,551   $    5,097,007
      SOCIAL        $   351,347   $     361,888
      SECURITY
      (7.1%)
      MEDICARE      $   84,125    $      86,649
      (1.7%)
      PERS          $   672,013   $     692,174
      (13.58%)
      WCI (.1%)     $   49,486    $      50,970
      EMPLOYER      $   924,000   $    1,016,400
      PAID HEALTH
      INS.
      TOTAL         $ 7,029,522   $    7,305,088
FIRST YEAR COST OF UNION
PROPOSALS


YEAR 1 COST
IN DOLLARS       $    275,566

YEAR 1 COST
IN
PERCENTAGE                 3.77%
COST OF MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
YEAR 1
     MGMT        CURRENT
                                   YEAR 1
     COST         COST
   SALARY        $ 4,948,551   $    5,047,522
   SOCIAL        $   351,347   $     358,374
   SECURITY
   (7.1%)
   MEDICARE      $   84,125    $      85,808
   (1.7%)
   PERS          $   672,013   $     685,453
   (13.58%)
   WCI (.1%)     $   49,486    $      50,475
   EMPLOYER      $   924,000   $    1,016,400
   PAID HEALTH
   INS.
   TOTAL         $ 7,029,522   $    7,244,032
FIRST YEAR COST OF
MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS


 YEAR 1 COST
 IN DOLLARS     $   214,510

 YEAR 1 COST
IN PERCENTAGE         2.96%
DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN PROPOSALS
OF UNION AND MANAGEMENT




           UNION      MGMT     DIFFERENCE
YEAR 1    $ 275,566 $  214,510 $ 61,055
YEAR 2    $ 290,301 $  288,469 $     1,832
FISCAL ANALYSIS
CONSUMER PRICES
ANNUAL CHANGES IN CPI-W
Year   Jan         Feb         Mar         Apr         May         Jun         Jul         Aug         Sep         Oct         Nov         Dec         Annual
1996         2.6         2.6         2.8         2.9         2.9         2.8         2.9         2.9           3           3         3.3         3.3       2.9
1997           3           3         2.7         2.3         2.1         2.1         2.1         2.1         2.1         1.9         1.7         1.5       2.3
1998         1.3         1.1         1.1         1.2         1.5         1.5         1.5         1.4         1.2         1.3         1.4         1.6       1.3
1999         1.6         1.6         1.7         2.3         2.1         1.9         2.2         2.4         2.8         2.7         2.7         2.7       2.2
2000         2.9         3.4           4         3.3         3.3         3.9         3.7         3.4         3.5         3.4         3.5         3.4       3.5
2001         3.7         3.5         2.8         3.3         3.7         3.2         2.6         2.7         2.6           2         1.6         1.3       2.7
2002         0.9         0.8         1.2         1.3         0.8         0.7         1.3         1.6         1.3         1.9         2.1         2.4       1.4
2003         2.6         3.2         3.2         2.3           2         2.1           2         2.1         2.3         1.9         1.6         1.6       2.2
2004         1.8         1.5         1.4         2.1           3         3.2           3         2.6         2.4         3.2         3.7         3.4       2.6
2005           3           3         3.1         3.7         2.9         2.6         3.3         3.8         5.2         4.7         3.5         3.5       3.5
2006         4.1

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_
numbers&series_id=CWUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_12mths
ANNUAL CHANGES IN CPI-U
Year   Jan   Feb   Mar    Apr    May    Jun   Jul   Aug    Sep    Oct   Nov    Dec    Annual
1996   2.7   2.7    2.8    2.9    2.9   2.8   3.0    2.9    3.0   3.0    3.3    3.3      3.0
1997   3.0   3.0    2.8    2.5    2.2   2.3   2.2    2.2    2.2   2.1    1.8    1.7      2.3
1998   1.6   1.4    1.4    1.4    1.7   1.7   1.7    1.6    1.5   1.5    1.5    1.6      1.6
1999   1.7   1.6    1.7    2.3    2.1   2.0   2.1    2.3    2.6   2.6    2.6    2.7      2.2
2000   2.7   3.2    3.8    3.1    3.2   3.7   3.7    3.4    3.5   3.4    3.4    3.4      3.4
2001   3.7   3.5    2.9    3.3    3.6   3.2   2.7    2.7    2.6   2.1    1.9    1.6      2.8
2002   1.1   1.1    1.5    1.6    1.2   1.1   1.5    1.8    1.5   2.0    2.2    2.4      1.6
2003   2.6   3.0    3.0    2.2    2.1   2.1   2.1    2.2    2.3   2.0    1.8    1.9      2.3
2004   1.9   1.7    1.7    2.3    3.1   3.3   3.0    2.7    2.5   3.2    3.5    3.3      2.7
2005   3.0   3.0    3.1    3.5    2.8   2.5   3.2    3.6    4.7   4.3    3.5    3.4      3.4
2006   4.0




         http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
THE UNION’S PROPOSAL IN
RELATION TO THE ALL-CITIES CPI
   THE CPI FOR THE PAST YEAR HAS
    GENERALLY FLUCTUATED BETWEEN 2.5%
    AND 4.7%.
   THE UNION PROPOSAL CALLS FOR 3%
    RAISE EACH YEAR. THIS IS CLOSE TO THE
    CURRENT CPI
   IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CPI
    HAS NOT KEPT PACE WITH OVERALL
    FIREFIGHTER INCREASES STATEWIDE.
IMPACT OF THE CPI-U
   SINCE FIREFIGHTER INCREASES HAVE
    CONSISTENTLY EXCEEDED THE CPI, THIS
    SUGGESTS THAT THE CPI HAS PLAYED A
    LESS SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN SETTING
    FIREFIGHTER WAGES THAN THE OTHER
    STATUTORY FACTORS.
   THE CPI IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT FACTOR
    WHEN AN EMPLOYER, AS THE CITY HAS
    DONE HERE, THROUGH ITS PAY PRACTICES
    IN THE PAST HAVE CAUSED FIREFIGHTER
    PAY RATES TO BE LESS THAN COMPARABLE
    JURISDICTIONS.
                   COMPARATOR WAGE AND CPI-W INCREASES
                                                         Firefighter

                                                                                   1
                                                     Annual Raise Percentages
     Department                                                                                      Avg.
                           99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
Albany                            4.0% 4.5% 4.5% 5.0% 4.5% 3.5% 3.5%                                  4.2%
Bend                              5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%                                       5.0%
Corvallis                         3.0% 4.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.5% 3.5%                                       3.4%
Medford                                 4.2% 4.4% 4.3% 3.2% 6.0% 4.0% 4.0%                            4.3%
Tigard                                  6.0% 6.0% 7.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.4%                                 4.6%

Average                                4.0%      4.8%      4.6% 4.9%        3.6%   4.2%   3.6%   4.0% 4.2%
Springfield                                      6.0%      3.0% 10.5%       3.0%   3.0%               5.1%

% Off Average                               24.0% -52.7% 116% -21.3% -40.0%                          20.9%
All Cities CPI-W 2 2.2%                3.5% 2.7% 1.4% 2.2% 2.6% 3.5%                                  2.6%
1
    Combined raises for FISCAL year.
     '04-'05 - Albany rec'd add'l 1% EMT-P; Corvallis rec'd add'l .25% PEHP & .25% def. comp.
     '05-'06 - Medford reflects Union's LBO; Corvallis rec'd add'l .25% PEHP & .25% def. comp.
     '06-'07 - Medford reflects Union's LBO.
     '07-'08 - Medford reflects Union's LBO.
2
    CPI-W All Cities index, as reported for each calendar year (January).
The Ability to Attract and
Retain Qualified Personnel
SPRINGFIELD’S EXPERIENCE
   THE CITY, UNLIKE MANY OTHER FIRE
    DEPARTMENTS, HAS HAD DIFFICULTY
    ATTRACTING FIREFIGHTERS.
   THE DEPARTMENT’S MINIMUM
    QUALIFICATIONS ARE HIGHER THAN OTHER
    LOCAL AND/OR COMPARABLE
    JURISDICTIONS.
   AS A RESULT, THE NUMBER OF QUALIFIED
    APPLICANTS HAVE GONE DOWN
   ALSO, THE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE WHO
    MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROBATIONARY
    PROCESS HAS ALSO DECREASED
DEPARTMENT APPLICATIONS AND
HIRING-LAST THREE CYCLES
                             2001, 2003 AND 2004


    120

           103
    100


     80
                      0       76
                 67 7
     60

                                   43
     40


     20
                                             12                 9
                                        6         6                 3
                                                       2                1
     -
          APPLICANTS         MINIMUM         HIRED         STILL WITH CITY
                          QUALIFICATIONS



                              MINIMUM
           YEAR APPLICANTS QUALIFICATIONS HIRED STILL WITH CITY
            2001           103              76        12                9
            2003            67              43         6                3
            2004            70               6         2                1
WAGE COMPARISON
   SIMILAR SERVICES IN
 COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES
THE STATUTE
   ORS 243.746(4)(D)
   .“NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
    PARAGRAPH, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
    OF “COMPARABLE” APPLY IN THE SITUATIONS DESCRIBED
    AS FOLLOWS:
      (A) FOR ANY CITY WITH A POPULATION OF MORE THAN
       325,000, “COMPARABLE INCLUDES COMPARISONS TO
       OUT-OF-STATE CITIES OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR SIZE;
      (B) FOR COUNTIES WITH A POPULATION OF MORE
       THAN 400,000, “COMPARABLE” INCLUDES COMPARISON
       TO OUT-OF-STATE COUNTIES OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR
       SIZE; AND
      (C) FOR THE STATE OF OREGON “COMPARABLE”
       INCLUDES COMPARISON TO OTHER STATES.”
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE
   ORS 243.746(4)(E) MANDATES THE ARBITRATOR COMPARE
    THE TWO PROPOSALS WITH THE OVERALL COMPENSATION
    OF EMPLOYEES PERFORMING SIMILAR WORK IN
    “COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES.”
   IT DEFINES “COMPARABLE” AS “LIMITED TO
    COMMUNITIES OF THE SAME OR NEAREST POPULATION
    RANGE WITHIN OREGON.”
   IN RECENT YEARS, ARBITRATORS HAVE RULED THAT
    MUNICIPALITIES WHO ARE OTHERWISE COMPARABLE IN
    POPULATION WILL BE A COMPARABLE COMMUNITY
    WHETHER THEY PROVIDE THEIR OWN MUNICIPAL FIRE
    SERVICE OR CONTRACT AN ADJOINING FIRE DISTRICT.
    SEE CITY OF NORTH BEND/IAFF, LANKFORD, 1999; CITY
    OF GRANTS PASS/IAFF, BROWN, 2000; CITY OF
    ASTORIA/IAFF, LINDAUER, 2000; CITY OF ASHLAND/IAFF,
    BOEDECKER, 2000
Legislative History
   PRIOR TO SB 750 ORS 243.746(4) STATED NO CRITERIA FOR
    DETERMINING COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES. ORS
    243.746(4)(1993).
   THIS APPROACH LEFT ARBITRATORS WITH TREMENDOUS
    DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT WERE APPROPRIATE
    COMPARABLES.
   WHEN THE LEGISLATURE TOOK TO AMEND PECBA, IT SOUGHT TO
    LIMIT THE SCOPE OF COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES, AND
    CONSEQUENTLY ARBITRATORS’ DISCRETION.
   THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF SB 750 PROVIDED THAT COMPARABLE
    COMMUNITIES WOULD BE CHOSEN BASED ON TWO CRITERIA–
    POPULATION AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA. SENATE BILL 750 § 33
    (1995).
   HOWEVER, ON THE FINAL BILL THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA CRITERIA
    WAS DELETED–LEAVING ONLY POPULATION.
   CLEARLY, THE LEGISLATURE MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO
    CHANGE THE OPEN-ENDED, DISCRETIONARY APPROACH OF THE
    PRE-SB 750 STATUTE. THE CURRENT STATUTE DOES JUST THAT–
    IT LIMITS COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES TO THOSE CITIES THAT
    ARE OF THE SAME OR NEAREST POPULATION RANGE.
POPULATION OF
 COMPARABLE
 COMMUNITIES
SELECTION OF COMPARATORS
                             COMPARATOR WORKSHEET
  Subject Department:          Springfield

  Subject Population:          55,860               2005 PSU Certified Estimates

  Municipal or District?       Municipal       87      0           Positions:

  Seved by:                                                        Separate Contract?             Yes

  Cities - 4 Above / 4 Below (from 2005 PSU Certified Estimates)
                                              #    #    Used /
              Above            Population                                        Reason
                                             Paid Vol Not Used
       Beaverton                    83,095             Not Used    FF,   AO,   LT, CAPT, DFM I / II
  3.   Hillsboro                    82,025     61   25 Not Used    FF,   AO,   LT, FI I, FI II
  2.   Medford                      70,855     67    0 Used        FF,   AO,   CAPT, FI
  1.   Bend                         70,330     59   10 Used        FF,   AO,   CAPT, FI I, FI II
                                              #    #    Used /
              Below            Population                                        Reason
                                             Paid Vol Not Used
  1.   Corvallis                    53,165     63   43 Used        FF,   AO,   LT,   FPO
  2.   Tigard                       45,500             Used        FF,   AO,   LT,   CAPT, DFM I / II
  3.   Albany                       45,360     57   12 Used        FF,   AO,   LT,   DFM I, DFM II
       Lake Oswego                  36,075     48    0 Not Used    FF,   AO,   LT,   FPO
SPRINGFIELD AND COMPARATOR
POPULATION
    80,000



    70,000



    60,000



    50,000



    40,000



    30,000



    20,000



    10,000



         0
               Albany   Bend     Corvallis   Medford   Tigard   Average   Springfield
  Population   45,360   70,330    53,165     70,855    45,500   57,042     55,860
  WAGE AND
COMPENSATION
 COMPARISONS
   FIREFIGHTER
                                 FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                         BASE WAGE


  $6,000


  $5,500


  $5,000


  $4,500


  $4,000


  $3,500


  $3,000


  $2,500


  $2,000
             Albany       Bend      Corvallis   Medford      Tigard     Average     Springfield
Base Wage   $4,459.00   $4,754.40   $4,923.96   $4,846.42   $5,175.26   $4,831.81   $4,872.47
                           FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                     PERS


$350



$300



$250



$200



$150



$100



 $50



  $0
       Albany     Bend       Corvallis   Medford   Tigard    Average   Springfield
PERS   $267.54   $285.26      $0.00      $290.79   $310.52   $230.82     $0.00
                             FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                  BASE WAGE + PERS


  $6,000


  $5,500


  $5,000


  $4,500


  $4,000


  $3,500


  $3,000


  $2,500


  $2,000
             Albany       Bend      Corvallis   Medford      Tigard     Average     Springfield
BW + PERS   $4,726.54   $5,039.66   $4,923.96   $5,137.20   $5,485.78   $5,062.63   $4,872.47
                              FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                               VACATION/HOLIDAY LEAVES


        $900



        $800



        $700



        $600



        $500



        $400



        $300



        $200
                 Albany     Bend     Corvallis   Medford   Tigard    Average   Springfield
Vac/Hol Leaves   $734.81   $578.37   $558.00     $575.81   $859.89   $661.38    $542.12
                          FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                 OTHER WAGES


      $200

      $180

      $160

      $140

      $120

      $100

       $80

       $60

       $40

       $20

        $0
              Albany    Bend    Corvallis   Medford   Tigard   Average   Springfield
Other Wages   $189.06   $0.00    $49.24     $150.00   $96.66   $96.99     $44.17
                               FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                      TOTAL WAGES


    $6,500


    $6,000


    $5,500


    $5,000


    $4,500


    $4,000


    $3,500


    $3,000


    $2,500


    $2,000
               Albany       Bend      Corvallis   Medford      Tigard     Average     Springfield
Total Wages   $5,650.41   $5,618.03   $5,531.20   $5,863.01   $6,442.33   $5,821.00   $5,458.76
                            FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                  EMT-P INCENTIVE


$600


$550


$500


$450


$400


$350


$300


$250


$200
        Albany     Bend       Corvallis   Medford   Tigard    Average   Springfield
EMT-P   $378.42   $403.17     $418.54     $488.03   $548.58   $447.35    $465.27
                           FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                              OTHER INCENTIVE PAYS


      $300



      $250



      $200



      $150



      $100



       $50



        $0
               Albany    Bend     Corvallis   Medford   Tigard   Average   Springfield
Other Incent   $8.83    $268.10   $60.87      $185.29   $0.00    $104.62     $73.09
                                 FIREFIGHTER COMPENSATION
                                    TOTAL COMPENSATION


          $7,000

          $6,500

          $6,000

          $5,500

          $5,000

          $4,500

          $4,000

          $3,500

          $3,000

          $2,500

          $2,000
                      Albany       Bend      Corvallis   Medford      Tigard     Average     Springfield
Total Compensation   $6,037.67   $6,289.30   $6,010.61   $6,536.34   $6,990.91   $6,372.96   $5,997.12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Rights of Terminated Employees in Oregon document sample