By Jim Cline
In our recent newsletters we discussed the extension of arbitration to emergency dispatchers (Newsletter 4/26/24). In the last article, we discussed what the chief interest arbitration factors were under law and arbitration precedent (Newsletter 4/29/24). We noted in that article that there may be some complexities in extending those principles to dispatchers and we discuss that here.
As we discussed in the last article, the law mandates that primary consideration be given to “comparables.” We also discussed there how Population, Assessed Valuation, Location and sometimes Sales tax revenues are considered among the most important factors defining “comparability.” But given the nature of how E911 work has been organized across the state, there are definite complications to extending these principles to E911 centers.
Police and Corrections work is almost always organized within a given city or county and the demographics of those agencies determine how comparability is measured. Even since the push that started in the 90s to regionalize dispatch services, dispatch centers are rarely specific to one jurisdiction. Even if a City or County is the sponsor of the center, the work is usually organized to encompass other jurisdictions by intergovernmental agreements. And even more often, the work is removed from cities and counties and is handled by an independent regional dispatch center.
These organizational issues create some complicated comparison issues. There is some experience with fire service that can help clarify how these comparisons can be made. Fire service often encompasses jurisdictions in regional authorities or combinations of districts that require the consideration of the population and tax base of multiple jurisdictions.
That will need to happen here. Based on our experience, we are confident that few employers and labor unions are currently equipped to make these comparability comparisons very seamlessly or easily, at least at this time. Population and tax base have to be calculated by adding multiple jurisdictions together and the data to do those calculations has to be collected.
An important consideration that will likely be tested early under this new law is how tax base will be used to define comparability. In traditional city and county arbitration, assessed valuation is almost always used and sales tax revenues are only occasionally used. But given the way E911 centers are funded, it seems to us likely that sales tax revenues will eventually be given greater weight in selecting dispatcher comparables.
Cline and Associates is in the midst of preparing database revisions to allow these calculations. We are also preparing for a future online webcast, probably for late June, to explain how to effectively use the rights that have been extended in this new legislation. We’ll be prepared at that point to reveal the details of the methodology for selecting “comps” and how to create compensation reports to use in negotiations.
For more information on how Washington interest arbitration works visit the Cline Premium website. The online Washington Public Safety Representative’s Manual contains a detailed discussion of arbitration principles with links to additional resources including arbitration decisions.
