Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0386.094July 21, 1994 TIlE ';JOIIORABLE CITY OOUNCIL Palo Alto, californ,ia Members of the Council: Beport in Bri.ef I.' 7 City representatives and the P~10 Alto Peace Officers' As$ociation (PAPOA) failed to reach agreement in contract negotiations ft:»)." the 1993 -94 fiscal year. Pursuant to Article V, Section 4 of the City Charter, PAPOA declared an impasse and invoked ""rbitration procedures. The arbitration award was issued July 5. 1994 by ne~tral arbit~ator Norman Brand. This reporc presents for Council approval documents necessary to implement the award, ~hich provides 10r a 3 percent wage increase effective July 24. 1993, 40 hours of additional vacation after 19 or more years of continuous service. and several additional miscellaneous changes. The awara is final and binding. hgkground Prior to reaching imt--asse in negotiations, PAPOA representatives and management achieved tenta~ive ~greement on three issues~ a contr.ct term of one yeAr~ a minor change in the court pay provipion, and a PER$ contract amendment which allows veterans to buy military service credits at no cost to the employer. The unresolved issues submitted to arbitration by both parties included w.geB~ vacations, alcohol ~ld drug testing. work sch~,~ule. Field Service shift iLHsignment I utilization of Reserves. st.affing levels, Pollce Officer Trainee retirement and Investigative Services Division 10/4 shift scheduling. During the. arbitration proceedings, the parties agreed to drop t",,·o issues, Field Service shift assignment and ISO 10/4 shift scheduling. Also during the proceedings. the parties reached agree~t on all other issues with the exception of wages, vacations and alcohol and drug testing. The agreerrlente appear in the Arbitration Award as Appendices A. B and C. QIR,386:94 o Page Two Pxoytsipnt of t.h. ,yard Arbitrator Norman Brand 8~lected the City's final offer on wages~ a 3 percent increase to all repre8ent~d classes effective .July 24 r 199'3. Onder thla f":ttard. the 87 sworn police positions will receive the same 'perceHtage increase as received by other City employe •• for tne 1993-94 fiocal year. On the vacation aCCTUa} is,8ue-o, the arbitrator selected PAPOA's final offer; Vacation accrual' will increase b}' 20 hours ~r year, from 160 hours to 180 hours, after 11 years of service; and by an at:: ',-:tionill 20 hours. from 180 to 200 hours r after 19 J'ears of servi.:e. The final issue in ~rbitration. drug and alcohol testing. was also decided in favor of PAPO". Arbitrator Brand declir.ed jurisdiction of furth-sr nctfotiations on this matter. This issue. however, may be revisi'c.ed in future contract negotiations. The text of the Arbitration Award & Opinion al:e attached. along with the Dissent of the Association regarding wages. The Dissent is included as a matter .,.{ informat ion and han no impact on the Award. Also attached are the Arr~Qdments to the Memorandum of Agreement containing the full text of the items Which were in agreement prior to arbitration. Coet of the A;bitratica AWl~ The cost of the ~ percont waga increase is approximately $216,000. The estimated cost of additional overtime arising out of the increase in vacation accrual is ~ess than $11,000. Funding for the award was provided in the 1993-94 budget. Btl! r (La tion Staff recommend~ that Council taKe th~ follOWing actions which are re~~ired to implement the arbitration award. 1. Adopt Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations regarding the Memorandum of Agre~ment Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Peace Officers~ Association. \ " Page Three 2. Adopt Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compe~Dation Plan for Police Non~ Management Personnel and Rescindlng Resolution No. 7013, Documentation for the PERS amendment allowing employee purchase of military service credit will be presented for Council approval at a later date. Reapectfl,lll)' sllbmitted, V£q-Z~L- JAY g, ROUNDS Director of HUman Resources ~~~ City ManJger Attachments ' .. ' follows: RKSOLtJTION NO. RBSOLtJTION OF TIIB COI/Nen, OF TIIB CIIT OF PALO ALTO AMIINDING SECTION l601 OF Tl!B MERIT SYSTllM R1JLBS AND REGULATIONS REGARDING Tl!B MEMORANDUM OF AGRBBMRNT BI!THEBN TIIB CIIT OF PALO ALTO AND THE PALO ALTO PRACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as Sgc:rION 1. Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations is her~y amended to read as follows: "'1601. Me:zuoranc!WQ of agreement incorporated by ref~renc.e.. That certain memorandum of agreement by and between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers' !":..asociation, consisting of preamble and Sections 1 through 49 and Appendix A, for a term commencing July 1, 1991, and expiring June 30, 1994, is hereby incorporated into these Merit System Rulea and Regulations by reference as though fully set forth herein. Said memorandum includes amendments to sections 15, 19(£) and 49, and further I incorporates I as amendments to Sections 1, 28 and 45, the decision of Arbitrator Norman Brand as set forth in the "Award and Opinion II No. NB 1398, dated July 5. 1994. Said memorandum shall apply to all employees in classifications of police officer trainee, police offic'er, police agent, and police sergeant~ exc.P.pt where specifically provided otherwise herein. In the case of conflict with this chapter and any ot.her provisions of the Merit System Rules and Regulations, this chapter will prevail over such other provisions as to employees represfmted by said Palo Alto Peace Officers" Association." UCTION 2. The changes provided for in this resolution shall Dot affect any right established or accX1.\ed, or any offense or act committed. or any penalty of forfeiture incurred, or any prosecution, suit, or proceeding pending or any judgment rendered prior to the effective date of this resolution, 1 / o SBCTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under ehe california Rnvironmental Quality Act and, therefore j no enVitoamental impact asses~nt is necessary. INTRODOCBD AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTBNTIOKS : ABSBlIT: ATrES'l': APPROVRD: city clerk Mayor APPROVRD AS TO FORM: APPROVRD: senior Assistant City Attonley City Manager Director of Human Resources M01IIIw 00Xl9II3 2 . ," AMENDMENTS TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION AND CITY OF PALO ALTO Julv 1, 1991 -June 30,1994 las amended) ~..,-....,-..~---. -- n. ",-- ' ........ " ' :'1 o Section 15. COIIT! Pay Swom Polico Porso,lnel ap~aring In court for tho Peo,," will be com~n.atod according to tho following: Ib) Ie) Appaarance on scheduled day off Any end ell court time dL!ring scheduled shift or court time is jmme· diately preceding or following a shift. ~i/>ji(~ flm ."" .'~'T1ILV.&e~, appearance 01) scheduled work day but not during. immediately before or immediatalv after scheduled shift. Time end one-haM Straight time during shift. time .and one· half fer period befo/Et or after scheduled shift. Tin)B and one-hltlf Minimum 2 hours None 2 hows i2+hour mini­ mum may not runinto shift) " ~90 49. OUnnloD Tni. Memorandum of Agreement $noll become effective July I, 1991 and remoin effective untJl June 30, •. EXECUTED: ___ J~u~1~y~1~9~,~1~9~9~4 FOR: PALO ALTO PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION s/.:rii.' Cof fman slOan Ryan a/Sarah Scholer-Andersen siRon Baldal G/Kim Collet s/Mike Denson -'-~------ slG 1 enn -=H"a:;r:;d:;>:;' n"-______ __ siRon Watson FOR: CITY OF PALO ALTO s/Jay F.ounds s/Susan Ryerson S!Lynne Johnson s/Tom Merson s/Rathy McKenna -=------- s/Plora Tzeng ~~~~~L-____ _ /­I MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT CHANGES RESULTING FROM ARBITRATION AWARD NB 1388, JULY 6,1994 Section 7, Salary proyision. Stctio" 28. Vacatign Accru.1 I_I No change. Ibl No change. Icl Nine, l>tIi"'~:,t!'ilnloi!'$<In year. -For employee. completing nine. biltnoi .~~:·"~~~:;~Qt.trt"~/f!_~ continuous service; 1 60 hours vacation ~er year. lcjl "" F'O!.irteiii\;I1.n 1""tl]anl'ii1~,t""I1Y,.,.r$,f'or ~mplo"' •• s completing fourte..", b\it;~tmor~,,!l',n ,.f)!nete8n\lj¥it$.i'Pl)tln".U4 s.rvl~es:', 18C)' ho 4r~,' "a~aitoll ""VI\·tWY!iili; (el! ·~!Nif!Ij.~<If'!dt:\'Ijl>ie.~t~"··I'QI~rtiPl'?YIl8a~pri)l\letl"g"i!Jeti"jh' .fmc,\, ,yearj !i':>~8.~i~;'~!;IQ,:I1~II!'i!:VJj~9n,IeDve "etv~ari SID" LETTER Tralnl"9/Evalualion Program for Newly-Appointed Sergeants Management and PAPOA agree that a formalized trainrng and mentoring progr~m for newty·appointed sergeants is needed to monitor and assis1 them during the initia! period after promotion. Therefore. during the next 12 months. management will meet wtth representatives of PAPOA to deverop the specific el,ements. for oS trainimz and evaluation program. The program elements will include tha following: - 1. Provisional promotional appointment 2. Formatized training and mentoring program similar to the FTO Program 3. Evaluation process Management and PAPOA agree thaI the program will be daveloped and ready for ''ti· .,' ", I' Implemet ,tetlon no later than July 1995. Stctiqn 9. 0 1',,"" pf 8tHryt! for FitkI Service. DMsJon Eyant. lal Same Ibl Same Idl 5""", Sti;W.igfUf In_ University A".owe Str .... t Fair will cotlSist a,I n()liosS,tha,hal:1 (atlo of ,"'9,<Mr ,officOl's to l~ oftleen,. FIELD SERYICES DIVISION ORGANIZATION GENERAL ORDER: 1.14 Bfyloed M. y 1994 h I. tho policy 01 tho Palo Alto Police Deportment that the safety of Field Services Division ps(sonnftl be reasonably ensured through the maintenance of minimum staffing 16vels for e8ch shift. The Field Sorvtces Di.ision will be managad by tha Coordinator of Field Services. Eech Watch will b. managed by a Watch Commander and by a designated relief in hl$Ihe, absence. The Relief Watch Commander shall not be below the rank of Sergeant. The Watch Commander assumes the responsibilities of the Field Sef'.Jices Coordinator In hi'fhar absence. L:(.h"ing the hours of shift overlap, therefore, the Watch Commander in charge shall be the one with the greatest shift tenure regardless of time in grade. The exception will be when one Watch Commander is higher in rank, in which case the higher ranking officer will assume command. Field ServiCO$ Division officers will repoh . .'"n duty promptly at the designated times for each W8tC"~ with he exception note(j"~ slow. Briefings will commence at the beg1nning of each shift and, unless tfainlng is being conducted, shall generalty n01 exceed ofl&-helf hour in length. I' .! 1',' . o The following hour. and minimum steffing levels will be obserwd on ell three shifts 01 the Field SeMc .. ~ivision. During $111ft overlaps (1400-1630 and 2100-2400 hours). the combined staffing levols of the two shifts will •• rve to meet minimum stsffl~g levels. e.capt os noted on the 10Uowing page. Wetch I (2100-07ool 1 Ueuto""nt/Sergoent (Wetch Commanderl 1 Sergeant/Agent ISupervisor) 6 OfficerslAgonts On those oecasiol1. when the Watch I UOU1anant leavos early. the minimum staffing level win be reduced by one between the hour. of 0300 and 0630 (side latter agreeing to • one-yo.r trian. Officer(s) needed to fulfill minimum staffing requirements will work overtime as: follows: Sunday· Thursd,y friday ~ Satvrday 0001 ·0700 2100 . 0700 Watch II (0630 . 1630) 1 Lieutenant/Sergeant IW6tth Commander) 1 SOlgeantlAgenl (Supervisor) 6 OfficerslAgents V'/hen Watch II falls belowmlntmum staffing bV oneotiicor/egenl on Mondays through fridays, one TrsHi¢ Team n1ltmbet wm be aSSigned as 8 backup UOit to fulfill lhe minimum staffing requite-ments. When Watch 111alls below minimum staffing by two 01 more officfJrs!agenls. oHiceds) required10 mnintain minimum staffing requirements will work overtime from 0630 to 1430 hours. Watch III (1400 . 2400) 1 UeutonantlSerge.nt (Watr.h Com mender) 1 Se'geantlAgent -Supervisor) 6 Offioars/Agents OfficBf(sl needed to fulfill minimum slaffing requirements· will work overtime from 1630·2130 hours. Watch commanders/supervisors shall have discretion to change the overtjme schedules in those inslam:es when officer safety may be: affectod or when case follow-uplcompletion is (Qquired. o. /;. ".:.', . \.~., .. \-" In llIe Malter of an Arbitration Pursulnt to Article 51 Sec:tlon .. of llIe Cbarter ofllle City of Pal. Alto IAWARD '" OPINION Between I I PAW ALTO POPCE OFFICERS ASSOClA nON I I and I NB 1383 I THE CI1Y OF PALO ALTO I _______ ._-_____ 1 July S, 1994 Before the Board of Arbitration NORMAN BRAND, Noutral Chair JIM COFFMAN, PN'OA Appointed Member JAY C. ROUNDS, Cit)' Appointed Member APPEARANCES FOR THE UNION Davis, RenG & Courtne)' by, Alan C. Davis, Esq. FOR THE CITY Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos b)', Richard S. Whitmore I,? "" BACKGROUND FoUowing good faith negotiations between the Palo Alto Police Orncers Association ("PAPOA") and the City of Palo Alto ("City") an impasse was declared. In accordance with Article V, Section 4 of the Palo Alto Charter, P APOA and the City each appointed. member to the Board of Arbitrati on and these members jointly chose me as neutral chair of the Board. We held hearings in Palo Alto on February 14, 15, 16, 17, and May 9, 1994. 2 Both parties were present at the hearings, and represented by counsel. Each party was given a full opportunity to examine and cross-examlne witnesses, present evidence, and make arguments [n support of its position. Neither party objected to tile conduct n.fthe hearing. A stenographic record of the proceedings was made. At the close of the evidence the parties asked to file written briefs. tog~th~r with their last offer of settlement on each of the issues in dispute. \Ve receH'ed the last offers and briefs on June 16, '994. We met in executive session on June 22, 1994. We agreed that the Neutral Chair would draft the Aw..-d & Opinion and transmit it by facsimile to the part}' appointed Board members, for their vote on each i" ue still in dispute. Each Board member would vote immediately upon receipt of the A ward & Opinion, and immediately .xchange signed copie, "ith one another. These signed copies would constitut~ a true copy of the decision and be deemed transmitted to the parties bi' the exchange. The len day period prior to public disclosure would begin to lUll with the exchange. 3 ISSUES At the hearing the panies submittod the foUowing issues: I. Wage~ 2, Vacations 3. Alcohol and Drug Testing 4. Work Schedule 5. Field Service Shift Assignment 6. Utiliutio" of Reserv« 7. Siaffing Levels 8, Polke Officer Trainee Retirement 9. rSD 1014 Shift Scheduling The parties agreed to drop their demands on issues 5 (Field Service Shift Assignment) and 9'(ISD 10/4 Shift Scheduling). They agre<d to a revision to General Order 1.14 in setdement of their dispute over issue 7 (Staffing Levels.) On issue 8 (Police Officer Trainee Retiremeut) thoy agreed to a joinlletter which they bave senl. On issues 4 (Work Schedule) and 6 (Utilization of Reserves) the panies reached agreemenl outside of the intere.t arbitration proce~s, and asked to have their agreements inc<>rporated into this Award. By unanimous vote of the Board of Arbiiration, the parties' agreement on issue 4 is incorporated in thiS Award as Appendix A, and their agreement en isslle 6 is incorporated as Appendix B, agreement on issue 7, the revision ofG.O. 1.14, is incorporated as Appendix C. Of the original issues, only I, 2, and 3 remain to be decided by the Board. o RELEVANT CHARTER LANGUAGE The Chartet contains the following standard, which the Board used in delennining each of the unresolved i ",U<5: 1qe ubitration board shall decide each i"ue by majority Yote by selecting ... ruehever last otier of senlement on that issue it finds most nearly conforms with those (actors traditionally laken into coll5ideration in the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and C<lnditions of public and private ernplo)'lllent, including, but not limited to, changes in the 3\'erage consumer price index for goods. and services, the wage;;, h~U!.:i e.,11d other limns and conditions of employment of other employees perfonoing similar services, and the financial condition of the city and its ability to mectthe cost of the av.'8.id. 4 · ,"'. Issue 1: WAGES U"wl/ Fhral Offer (a) Ejfecti> .. beginning July I. 1993, u salary inNease of J% shall be applied to the salary ranges of/he/allowing c/arsijicalions: Police Officer. Police Age"'. r.nd Police Sergeant. (b) The re/roac/;ve application a/the abOl'" salOl)' increase shall apply /(1 any p".on who is or W<lr employed .ifhin the Unit as of Jull' I. 1993. City Final O.Der s Effect;ve wilh lilt pay period hegiuJ/ing Jul) , }{ 1993, (1 J% inCff!Gle al tin.' f:·Slcp wi/J be applied (Q 01/ classifications In file rcpreuJlfOliofl UlliE. Factor-", TrsdHi{)nally Taken Jnt(1 Considcution·· Internliill Comparisons The City olfeted evidence of all of the ,enlements made with «pre$<nted and non-repre$<lltcd employees. The SEIU barg.inir.g unit ao<<pled a 3% raise with. two pa)' period delay. The Management &. ConfIdential group received a 3% raise with a 2 pay period delay. (C-M, page I) Ton), Spitaleri, President of the Palo Alto Fire Fighters Association. testified that the FiIefighlet' (who also are entitled to 8(i>itrale impasses undet the Charter)acce-pted a 3% raise for 28 pay periods. 'Chis rai$< left member< ofms bargaining unit below the ,,'erage compensation of jurisdictions with which theyhavelraditionally compared themselves. (Tr 383:19-23) ,/' .. , .. , o 6 PAPOA offered no evidence on internal comparisons, nor did it seek to contradict the City's evidence. II asserts that internal comparisons are mis\eadins, smee the tasks of different employees are not comparable, and the« is no need for interdepartmental uniformity. In some areas, such as health care, there may be a need for a citywide plan in order to achieve the best value and avoid comple.ities of administration. There is no such need when it come to paYTaj~s. Furthennorc, PAPOA argues, in poli';e interest arbitrations, arbitrators generally look more to external comparisons iIlan internal comparisons. (Quoting, Feiulle & Schwochall "The Decisions; of Interes.t Arbitrators" 43 Tlte ArbifraliVII JUI/flJl1I28 (1988)) Finally, PAPOA notes that it has never 'greed thaI internal wage comparisons would be the wage setting standard. The City atso quotes scholarl)' articles on in!eresl arbitrat" '1) fDr Ihe proposition lhal internal comparability should be "«orded controlling weight in this case. Quoting Arvid Anderson, it points to the importance of equity considemrions where a clear internal pattern of wage adjustments has been established. {Anderson & KIause, "Factors Used By Neutrals In Determining Comparability and Ability to Pay" 1987 Report of the Commine. on Stale and lM:al Government Bargaining, Section ofLaoo, and Employment Law. Am~rican Bar Association)' The City ciles an article studying the Wisconsin experience with interest arbitration for the propositi 0" that the majority of arbitrators place more importance on internal, rather than extema! considerations. (DeWOrno "Wage Dispufes in In.tr.resl Arbitration: Arbitrators \Veight the Criteria" 44 The While the excerpl of the attic1e pro\id«l b~' the City (C-l) does noL indicale an)' biQgrapbic.l1 information on the authors, the infonnatiQn (whkh is withir ;~!-[Iet$C'!~ kD;)", ledge of the neutral chair) is of some significance AI the time. An'i(l Anrl~n w",'/ C?>~[r '.'! U!~ N-ew Yt:rt~ C:l? C!f;;::~ "f CoI!ecti\'e BIL""gal.ning. As such. he ,,'as ulurn.alel)· re,;ponsibte ror resoh',mg imp.m:c· bN\\ f"en the CIi., and over 60 unions Jq>restnting mor~ UwllOO,lXIO employees. Loren Knu.se '"' as hi s rummer inlrnt An4erson's suppon ofiJUernal compa.rnbi~it)" n.s a primal)' consider"tion be«tm.::s mort oolitp.clJeosib!e in ~t oolUe>.1.. ... ·0·· 7 . Arbitration Jouma/4 (1989» From the evidence and these article, the City concludes: "Internal C<lmparability should aI so be accorded controlling weight in the present proceedings .... " (Brief 6: 9-10) Changes In the Average Consumer Price Inde. The City offered uncontradicted evidence that the San Jose-Oaklan!l-San Francisco CPI (U) is traditionally used by the parties as the index to measure changes in the average consumer pric.e index. The July 1993 index shows a 2.7% change. (C-5A. page 6) The City argues that this is precisely consistent wi~, it' last offer, since a 3% raise for 24 pajr periods amounts to a 2.77% incrcas.e in pay for one year. PAPOA offers no argument on the CPI data. Wages, Hou .... and Other Terms and Conditions of Emplo)'ment of Other Employees Performing Similar Services -External Compari.ons The partie, h.ave their sharpest di ,agreements over what form the external comparisons should take. The parties agree on the 17 jwisdictions which they bave traditionally used to compare wages, ltours, and other terms and conditions of employment' Their disagreement concerns which data should be included in the compensation comparison, and which jurisdictions should be included in each type of comparison. These j wisdktic.ns are: Alamed.:i:, Alameda COUnL)'. BerKeley, Conooro, Fre-mom, Hayward, MOUlltam View, Red-wood City, Richmond,. San Jose, San Leandro. San Mateo COlmf)'. San Mateo. Santa Clara C=ny, SanIa Clara, Vallejo_ and Walnut Cmk / o 8 The City offers four different types of comparison: I) All jwhdictions, lop step poli~ officer monthly salary, with PERS pick up, as of July 1993; 2) All jurisdictions, lOp step police officer monthly salary, with PERS pick up, as of July 1993, showing 1% P&!o AlIa De«mber Adjustmenl added 10 Palo Allo monthly. base; 3) A11)urisdictions, "Police All Classes", with PERS pick up, July 1993; and, 4) All jurisdictions, "Pattern of Police Officer Adjustmenls," January through July 1993. PAPOA offers 24 differenl comparisons which fall inlO two sels and twelve types. The Iwo sels are Police Officer and Sergeant. PAPOA has provided sepl'IJflle data fOTeach rank, in each (:omparison. The tweh'c types of comparison are: I) Alljurisdiclions, lap slep salary, July 1993; 2)Alljurisdicl.ion" lap slep salary, Augusl 1993; 3) All jurisdictions, top slep salary, January 1994; 4) All jurisdictions, lOp step salary ranking, after gtving specified increase (ranging from 2.5% 106.5%) 10 Palo Alto, July, 1993; 5) All jwisdiClions, top SlOP ,.Iory ranking, atrer giving specified increase (T1IJ1ging from 2.5% to 6.5%) to Palo Alto, Augus~ 1993; 6) All jurisdictions, top step salary ranking, after giving specified increase (ranging from 2.5% 10 6.5%) to Palo Allo, January 1994; 7) Selccled jurisdktions', top base monthly salary with PERS pick up, July, 1993; 8) Selecled jurisdietioru:, top base monthly salary with PERS pick up, August, 1993; 9) Selected jurisdictions, top base monthly salary with PERS pick up, January, 1994; 10) Selected jurisdictions, rooking', lop base monthly salary with PERS pick up, after giving specified increase (ranging from 2.5% 10 6.5%) to Palo Alto, July 1993; II) Selecledjurisdietions, ranking, top base monthly salary with PERS pick la all orthe (ollowmg data arrays, PAPQA el'lmifla~cd Alameda Count)'. San Jo~e, and San Abl ~ O:-tm!}' from the C¢mp~"l; group '!:lcc .. u.;c th;;:y do not t.ave PERS fetilemenl systems, lbis rtdu~ Ill,c, rompa."1se;Jl giOUP 10 11 olllsid~ age>1ccies. 4 The prt''o'ious I'3llkinp. based on salary o..,..Iy. used a lotal group of 18. These rank1ng5, US¢d 3 (Qtal Bf'O'''' of IS. .' " ." / , .... " 9 up, aftu giving specified increase (ranging from 2.5% to 6.5%) to Palo Alto, August. 1993; IIld 12) S.l ... '!ed jwisdictions, ranking, top base monthly salary with PERS pick Ill', afttr giving s!,«ified increase (ranging from 2.5% to 6.5%) to Palo Alto, JlDuary 1994. Eacll side IU&~ agaillS1 the propriety of using the other side's comparisons. Wi: shall flrs1 deal "jth the inaccuracies cited by each side to eliminate cmain C<)mparisons, detemtining which comparison, are not helpful. The-n. in the dis.t:ussion section, we shall examine the effeci of the external dala on our selection of the last offer of ont' of the parties Three ofche City'Homp",;,o", are properl)· attacked b)' PAPOA. First, PAPOA aNacks the City's inclusion of ils 10/1) "Deceml:Jer AI.ljustJrtent" in the base ",onthly salary. It has never "sed this bonu, in salary comparisons with PAPOA, nor has. it ll~ II with other Cit)' bargaining units_ II has not ,letermined whether ccmparableju.-i~ittiOjlS have bonUSeS, nor did it present this data during negotiations. Most imponanlly -in the Board's view -. bonus is simply not a paI1 of b&se salary. An ~p)o) .. e does not get pan of the bonus each month. Rz.Ihn, the employee only gets the bonus by meetir,g certain conditions at the end of the year. If the City wished to include the bonus in base pay, it could do so. But, it would then become pan of the basis upon which all salary driven premiums and benefits. are calcuJated. Sin\'< the City has not included the bonus in base salary for all purpo~s, it is improper to call it part of "base" whep comparing Palo Alto police officers with other jurisdictions. Second, the City's "Police All Classes" comparison provide, no useful data. According Ie. the testimony, it was compiled by taking top step ,alari., for officers and sergeants, multiplying each by authorized strength in the rank, and / /A .. ~ L',' o 10 then dividing by the total authorized strength. This ga\'e a figure for """h compan.ble jwisdicrion. The SAIne procedure was followed for Palo Alto, which bas the intermediate rank of Police Agent.' The data 'how conclusively that if there is '" authorized intermediate nnk b<:tw~n officer and ~eant, a weigh led average of salaries will yield a higher figure than if the .. is M inlemedi.le rani; But this is a mathematical facl, not a basis for comparison. Jl means Ibat ralo Allo pays more. Oil avetilgc~ per ··'sworn pe:rsonnel," for polk.e services than do comparable jwisdi,tions with onl)' two ranks. II does nol mean thallne aetua/lop step salaries of pollee officers. or police sergeants, ,ompare an}' more favorably \\r:ith other jurisdictions. Smce the City is not raising its ability to pay the CiJSI.:,f the Award as a defense, the fact that it paj's more for polke scrvkes by "irtue of having the rank of Police Agent is ilTelevant. Third, Ihe City', "P,Mem of Police Orlie,r Adjustmenls:· Jann.r)' Ihrough July 1993, is fatally /Jawed. There is no logical jwrificarion fOl choosing onl)' a six month period. when contracts in other jurisdictions gene-rail)' provide for anDuai increases. If the City had sough I 10 show Ibe 'trend" during the prior >·ear, that might have been of some value as an external comparison. Obviously, the greater the length of time covcoed by the data, the mor, likely it is to show a trend. But by presenting only half a year, the Cily has elimm.ted the possibility of showing an actual trend. Ralber, the data rna)' b<: nothing more than an artifact and. as such. of no use to the panel. Th~ PAPOA comparisons also have serious flaws. Two flaws make ""'1ost of the data unhelpful in selecting a lasl offer. First. all of the data which are based 0.' salary only (Hi) are contrary to the .gr~menl of the panties. The 'i , ,-.'-------- : " ~,Jlice "Agents are paW a salary bet ..... cen Police OtTiCCf and Sttgeatll Th~' wmpr4c sorurthin~ '\.J~~ :!~/ .. of the unil. ,,e' . , . . \ , . , u Memorandwn of Agr~ement ("MOA")(J-2) provides: For pUJ1lt?sos of negotiation and arbitration proceedings hereafter, the payment by the City of the employee's contribution shall be deemed a 7 percent adjustment in salary for tho year July I, 1983 through June 30, 1984, .. ,d a 2 percent adjustment in salary for the ten months, September I, 1981 tI:roagh JUile 30, 1985. (Section 19.(d» .... ' II The uncontradicted testimony i. that this was lIegotiated when the City became ono ofthefJI'Sljllrisdictions to bargain a pick up of the employee's PERS contribution. The ladliuage has stayed in this Agreemen~ as well as the Firefighter Agreement, despite attempts by the unions to remove iL TIle language is plain enough. It provides the City with "credit," in .alaI)' terms, for the PERS pickup. The City is entitled to claim that 9% "credit" "for putp0ses of '" arbitration proceedings hereafter ... ," Consequently~ any comparisons wnich fail to give the City credit for the PJiRS pick up cannot be the basis for selecting the last offer of either of the parties. Second, the comparisons th.tus";ncreases after July 1993 (8, 9, II, 12lare all flawed by inherently misleading data. Initially, it must be noted that these comparisons do not show increases with a retroaclive date before July 1993. Increases which effectively occurred prior to the expiration date of the MOA might weU Qe relevant m aelennining both an appropriate increase, and Palo Alto's ranking among comparable jurisdicti ons. Rather, the PAPOA comparisons simply show increases that took effect in connacls beginning August I, 1993, and thereafter. There are serious conceptual flaws with these comparisons. In the ftrst place~ if there is full retroactivity, compruisons based 011 percentage increases o 12 whicb t()(1k place after expiration of the MOA will necessarily require larger dollar and percentage increases to P APOA than are other wise justified.' For example, if Palo Alto decided that it would compare itself exclusively with Mountain View, using the January 199-1 data and full rettoactivily, then that comparison would give Palo Alto police officers a much larger dollar and percentage raise theu Mountain View. According to Exhibit A-l3, Mountain View received a 5% raise on January I, 1994. If thaI were a basis for giving Palo Alto officers their retroactive increase to July I, 1993 --b~une 30, 1994 the Palo Alto police officers would have enjoyed 12 months of a higher salary, while Mountain View police officers had only enjoyed six mon~1S ofa highcr salary. An effective 2.5% increase for Mountain View would have yielded a 5% increase for Palo Alto for the period of the Palo Alto MOA (July I, 1993 to June 30, 1994.) Thus, combining fuU retroactiv~ty with data about what occurred after expiration of the MOA, without adjusting the data for the conttact length, results in mjsleadUig ~ornparisons.1 In addition, the onJyrelevant period is July 1,1993 through June 30,1994, since the parties are not negotiating a multi-year contract. By the time this Award bewmes binding, it will have expired, and the parties will be able to negotiate a successor Agreement. Thus, all of the post July I, 1993 data will become relevant to the contract which will begin on July I, 1994. And ranking' based on that data will be appropriate for considering the next increase for police officers. Pul aoothc:r way, if the pertt.'\tage increase is nOI adjusted for its overlap w1m the Palo Alto (:(Inttact period it is mislcaciinB· 1 PAPOA asserted thai this additional data gi\'e~ the Board :I ""Tstal b~II" which en"bles it ~o .sce the pkture mor~ fully than if the parties had reached agreement plior to lIle expiralion (1ftlJe MOA. This ... Lew {Jf lhe future. howe'\,tr, would only be useful if it enabled the Board 10 see pr(:-expiralion settlements that "'~ not yet available 31 the c"Pimtion ofthc MOA. o 13 Third, the City argues that PAPOA =ot simply drop the jurisdictions which do not ba ve PBRS pick up from the comparison group. there by infl oting the OV<n3e total compensation' of the remaining group The :,;dence shows that 1'110 Alto was one of the fu-st jurisdictions to negotiate a PERS pick up. Sul>sequend)'. milly other jurisdictions negotiated the same benefit' Since 1986. the parties bave both tlSed the SJlIDe 17 agencies. regardless of whether they have PBRS pick UP. or the arnolDlt of the pick up 10 . (C-SA. 1986 attachments) This is tIN: ftrst year in whiob PAPOA has attempted to eliminate the agencies which have no PERS pi~k up from the comparison. According 10 the evidence. the J agencies which PAPOA has excluded hs.'w'c non~PERS reti.remen! systems. Since the}' provide retirement in some other way. PAPOA argues that the City has the burden of showing the arnoullt attributable to that retirement if it wishes to Inc1 ude Jtese jurisdktions in a "tota! compensation" comparison. Otherwise. PAPOA argues. the comparl,,," is skewed by lowering the average figure. The total compensation figwe which includes PERS pick up does not actually represent the retirement costs that the various agencies pay for their police offiCer>. If it did, as PAPOA argues. il would be a volatile figure that might not be useful for comparisons. What the PERS pick up ac.tuaIly represents is an employer payment of an employ~ obligation. A police officer can get a pay inc, ..... by the City putting more dollars in her monthly pay. or by the City relieving her of one of her monthly obligatiOn<. In either even~ that is an increa., Tbc. partU$ use the term "lOW compensation" in a somewhal aberrant war. Thev include anly AlIr)', aDd ~ lhaithe empk\)'t;C would otherwise be obliged to p.a)' as rus Tetitem~, ronlributio~, but .iUr;h are' paid by the emplo)'et iruteoad . ., ln effcrt. th" PERS pick up enaMes emplo)'ces 10 achieve a 9%. tax fru pa)' increase. 1 ~ In 19&6. lhere .... 'ere si'( agencies \\-iihoul PERS pick up. In the remaining I J agmcies. Lhe ~ of the pl~~i3nged rromti.!!i%to 9.0"/~. " " " . o 14 in h<T pay. Polie<: officers who have noo·PERS retiremenl s~~lems may, or may 1loI, have lin obligation to pa), ... 'un: cflt.eir retiremenl costs -there is no eviden« in iIle re<ord on this point. If their agencies pay part, or all, of the amOWlt these other police offie<:" are obligated to pay for retirement. thai would be similar to ~ PERS pick up, and should be included. Ifother police officers have non-rontributory ')'Sian .. or are obliged 10 conmbute to their ')'Stems, it is still oppropri~ 10 include the salary paid these poli« officer, in the comparison. Sine<: ~y do r 'J! get any of their salary by the agency picking up an <>bligallor. which they would oth<n>ise have 10 pay,lhere is no ligure 10 be added 10 salary. And the exclusion oflhfse non~PERS agencits from the comparison group skews the agenc}' salary comparison figures and rankings. Thus, removing the non­ PERS a,gencics from Ihe comparison skews it. while including them permils comparing like runOWils. Ability to lII .. t the Co.! of the Award The City did oot contest its ability to mtel!he cost of an award containing the raise requested by PhPOA. While PAPOA pro.-nted an analysioQfthe City's fl/llUlces, ilis unneCessary to examine that analysis, in light of the City'S concession that its finAncial condition is alleasl adequale to pay any Award issued by this Board. The Board is required 10 set.CI the lasl offer of the parry which most neariy tonfonns with the criteria contained in the Cnaner. The last ofrer ofPAPOA is inconsistent with both the internal comparisons, and the CPI. In conlras~ the last " o 15 offer of the City is perf.d 1)1 C<lnsistent wifu both. There is no q uesti on of the City'. ability to pay, so bOth last offers are consistent "ith that criterion. The last offer of the City also oonfonns most closely ,,;,th the external comparisons, The City's "All jurisdictions. maximum mcnlhly salar)' (polio.! offic.er} with PERS pick up. July 1993" (C·SA. page 3) shows Palo Alto salaries 2,7"/0 below rh. mean, The PAPOA data -which exclude the non·PERS agencies -show the Palo Allo Police Officers 4.5% below the av.rage of the remaining agencies. By eliminating those agencies which do nol (msofar as the evidenc< ,nows) themselve$. pay a portion of theu-police officers:' share of rellremenl contIihulions, while including all those thai do, PAPOA has ske\,,'ea lhe comparison. Even if the comparison were not skewr:d, if the factors (internal comparison~ CPJ, ex lerna I comparison. ability to pay) were equally weighted, the Cil), lasl offer would slill most nearly confo~ to the factors which we are required b~· Charter to consider. The Last Offer of the City is se/ectlXl, r concur: Idi .... nl' , i ; )ll _/; /) 4- , 1 . 'r·-~ June 23, 1994 .. -" . Issue 2: Vacations Union Final Oller Section 2B. Vacation Aequo! (a) No p~posal for change. (b) No proposal for change. (c) Nine, but Jess than!ourleenyttars a For employees compleling nine, but nol more than jourteell years cOllfinru)IIs service,' 16(j hO!Jrs vQcalion per year. (d) Fourteen, bUl less than nine/cell yecrs . For employees ,'ompleling/ouneen, b,J{ 110/ more ,han nine/een years continuous service; 180 hours "'aeOlian leave per yeflf. (e) Nineteen or more years· For employees camp/fling nineteen or more years continuou.~ service; 200 hours vacalion (eave per year. t'ily Final Oller The City proposes maintaining Ihe slatus qllo regarding vacation accrnal. Faclors Tradltiom,lJy Taken Into Consideration -Internal Comparisons With the exception of firefighters, all of the City's employees have the same apparent amounl of vacation after nille years: 160 hours (expressed as 20 working days in the SEIU MOA). Management and confidential employees, regardless of their length of service, gel an additional 40 hours al the begiruting of each year, which can be added to vacarion accruals, or paid for ifnol used. (A-H) 16 o 17 SEIU represented employ"s, regardle" of their length of,ervice, get five floating boUdaY' in the sWllmer months, which can be added to vacation accruals if management cannot schedule them. Both non·,lrlft firefighters and ISD officers, get five floating hoUdaY'. Firefighters get elev"" shifts, or 264 hours "acation time. II The City argued that its rotating 411 0 ,ehedule provides police officers with four consecutive days off every six weeks. It is not clear that this benefit is unique to polioe, since other City employees work a variety of,ehedules. (~, A·31, page 13) In addition, firefighters may be able to put together an equal or greater number of (Consecutive days off. although there is no specific evidence on this, by v,rlue oftheir 24 nour shifts. Finally, the City notes that all employees have the option of conwrting their December adjustment into paid time off. Chang .. in the A,'erage Consumer Price Index Thj£ criterion is irrelevant to tho last olfer of PAPOA. Wages, Hours, and Other Term. and Conditio", of Employment of Other Employ .... Performing Similar Servic .. -External Comparisons The differing number of years required to become eligible for vacation in differentjlrrisdictions makes it difficult to compare them precisely. It appears that the City offers appro><imately the .verage munber of hours of vacation in the ftrst tour years, and from the fifth to ninth years." Between nine and 14 years it is " There is no evidmce as 10 how much lime this a~uall)' works QUI 10, gh:en the paue-m of fiml8lUer sd>~ U AU (XJmp.atisons are bast(! upon Emibits C·5B and A.32A ' .. '~ // Q more generous than othe. jurisdictions. AI fourteen years five jurisdictions offer men> vacotion bours and Iv:O offer fewer. At nineteen years nine jurisdictions offer mqre wution than Palo Alto. In addition. after 20 years, 13 jurisdictions offer more vacarion 10 their police officers than Palo Alto." Ablllty to Mm the Cost of the Aword 18 The uncotrtndicted evideo« is that the proposal would cost the City $11,000 a year ifal) eligible employ,es took the Ie,,', in the fonn of , ash. It would cost far less .if emplo)'ees took the additional vacation at limes wheIL co\'C'rage was otherwise adequate and Were was no need to !:eptace them. The linand.l analysis .fth, City done by P,\POA indicated lh.t an annual expenditu<e of this amounf would na\'e no effect whatsoever. Discussioll The illtemal comparisons show that police officers working on stUft, w[th 14 Oi more years of se-rvice, have less \'aca!ion time than like siluated mall"8emen~ confidential, SEIU represenled, and non-shift police and rtfe employees. While their work schedule is such that they get four consecutive days off every six weeks, the City has not shown thai is the ,arne as vacation. Indeed, there is no evidence it can be accrued, paid for, or otherwise recaptured. The in=se ill CP! is irrelevant to this demand, and it would have a\k ~ effect on !be City budget. At 14 years the City offers a competitive number of hours of "acation accrual. Beyond nineteen years, the City offers less than 13 other jurisdictions, putting its most senior police officers in the lowest third of va cation " Thete lS no dala en whether oLhtr jurisdi (,'1ions have add:liorW floating ho I ida}'s. SoJ>xial c:ntitlemCflli. or an~1hing e4e The co(')par}sons nwc "'ere striclly on flle basis ohacation accrual in """" " 19 The burden is on PAPOA to show !hat its last <'ff .... on Yac,ation mosl nearly conforms witb 1bo;' factors listed in the Charter provision. The City offered no chlulge whatsoever for the most senior <rnploy~s in its lasl offer. Although the PAPOA last offer makes changes where ~ lItO not as compelling, it also inwrporates a change for the most ~or employers that is well justified under the critm. of !he Cl1artcr. The UstOfferoftlJ. Un;!)n is selectoti. ] cOn<:ur; J d i!se01: I fit'i C I L_jCL , June 23,1994 .:' ' o Issue 3: Drug and Alcohol Testing Union Final Offer The Association opposes any City proposal/hal language be inc/oded ill/he camrae} 10 cover alcohol and drug monilOring or ,hal/he parties be ordered to negotiate IM( issue under the cominued jurisdicaon of Arbitralor Norman Brand. City Final Offer 20 Remand the issue of an alcohol and dnlg monitorIng!lfJnn;: program bad (0 Ihe parfie~ /0 alioll' them /0 pur.we an agret'menlll'hit.:h addreSJl's the;r rt',Spf.fli\'f! interests. wilh the Neutral Arbifralor relainingjilfiJdiclion in fhe C)'/Hlf the parlit'" faUta reach agreement. "Factors Traditionally Taken rnto Consideration -Inlernal Comparisons The City introduced testimony that dispatchers in the police department, who are subject to DOT rules because they dispatch oertain utility workers, are required to u.dergO ralldom drug testing. This requuernent is iInposed b)' the federal government. No other police officers undergo random testing. There is no evidence that any other City employees are subjected to random testing." The City argues that this situarim: is inequitable, since officers handling narcotics and other contraband are not randomly tested, while those who dispatch them are. II is likel ... ' ihallhe utitity employees dispatched by tho!iC di:>patc.hel'$ who are C\)\"cred by lhe DOT regulations are a!S<J required to submillo random testint!. There is.. however, 110 c\ide.nce in Ille record on this point. " " . ',' ":'.' The City also argues tmt two situations which OCCUJT<d in the last ten years might have been detected in advance if a random testing policy had been '" effecl. The City notes. as well, that police officers aho have an ",terest in being assured that when they call for backup Ibe officer who responds will be fully capable. Finally. the City argues that this proposal represents no more than an "QpportUII.;ty to bave more complete negotiations Mth Association representatives in an (,trort to assure the mamtainlng of an alcohol and drug free workplace." PAPOA argues that the City proposal is vague and unnecessary, in light of the existing drug and alcohol policy. (A-36) The most rccent problem in thc department involve<l an offLcer who stopped and purchased alcohol while en route to a training program in Lake Tahoe. There is no evidence of alcoholism, consuming .Icohohvhile on the job, or that random drug testing would have had any effect in detening this sort ofimpropriety. Furthermore, Ibe draft policy the City presented the PAPOA presents serious constitutional problems. Changes In the Average Consumer Price Index This criterion is irrelevant to the last offer of the City. Wages. Hours, and Other Terms and Conditions of Employment of Other Employees Performing Similar Services -External Comparisons The City presented no e,odence that any other jurisdiction in the State had random drug testing for its police offLcer. PAPOA 's evidence showed that so, other jurisdictions in the survey group have "reasonable suspicion" testing policies ','~,!J:'~" . :,;';f(' (only one of which is contained in the Memorandum of Agreement) similar to Palo Alto's ~UITetlt policy. None bave random testing. (A-37) Abll!ty 10 Meet tbe Cost of the Aw.rd This criterion is irrelevant to the last offer of the City. /)IsCl/ssiOll 22 The City argues that its last offer is merely an attempt to prO\'tde an opportunity for negotiations. PAPOA notes that this arbitration is for a i::ontracr running from )ul)' I, 1993, through June 30, 1994. It would be impossible 10 implemmt any random drug policy retroactively, and Ihe parties will soon begin negotiations for a success;or agreement. Since drug testing is a mandatory subject of Degotiations, the City will have an opportu.lityto negotiate this issue and --if negotiations reach an impasse -bring the issue to last offer arbitration, in accordance with the Charter provision. Consequently. there is no need to continue this arbitration by requiring the arbitrator to retain jurisdiction. The P APOA position is compelling. There is no support for a random drug and alcobollesting policy based on any of the Charter criteria. There is no need to extend the interest arbitraGon by retaining jurisdiction over an issue which can otherwise be immediately negotiated and ultimately arbitrated. If the City wishes 10 imp,ltment ~ randum drug ami aicohol testing poiicy. it can negotiate it for the successor to. this agreement. ~,.::,-~.)~ ,; o 23 [ con.ur: I dis_I: , I , ' . -,/1,! ( IL~,> , '. June 23, 1994 :: " Side letter Agreement APPENDlXA Tr.lningIE¥llu.II~1l Progrom for Newly-Appointed Sergeants .. ," 24 Management8I1d PAPOA agre. thaI a formalized training and menloring program for newly-appointed sergeants is needed 10 monitor and assi51lhffll during the initial period afierpromotion. Therefor<, during the ""! 12 months. management will meet with represemati\'es of PAPOA IJ dew'lop the sJ>('dflc clements for a training and evaluation program. The program elements ~\;1I include the following: I. Provisional pwmolional appointment 2. Fonnalized training and mr:nloring program similat II} the FrO program ;. Evaluation process Management and PAPOA agree that Ill' program will be d,,·eloped and rend)' for implementation no laterilian July, 1995 . . ,-. ~--......... APPENDIXB Section 45. Utilization of Reserye5 for Field Services Division EvenlS (a) Same (b) Same (c) Reserves may be used for the May Day Parade, Stanford University or NFL football games, park patrol, Black and White Ball, and supplement.1 patrol staffing in excess of levels set forth in the Field Services Stafl1ng Levels general order. (d) Same 25 <e) Staffing for the University Avenue Street Fair will consist of no less than a 1; 1 ratio of reguJar officers to reserve oft1 cers. ;. 26 APPENDIX C FIELD SERVICES DIVISION ORGANIZATION GENERAL ORDER: 1.l4 Revised May 1994 II is the policy of Ibe Palo Alto Police D!!partrnent that the salety of Field Services Division personnel. be reasonably ensured through the mamtcnante of minimum staffing levels for each shift. Procedure The Field Sen;ces Division will be managed by d" Coordinator ofField Services Each Watch will be managed by a Watch Comm.nder and by a designated relief in hislher ab,<nce. The Relief Watch Commander shall not be below the rank of Sergeant. The Watch CommilIlder assumes the responsibil itles of the Field Services Coordin~lor in ruslher absence. During the hours of shift overlap. therefore. the Watch Commander in charge shall' be the oue with the greatest shift ter,ur. regardless of time in grade. The exception will be when one \\fatch Commander is higher in rank, in which case the higher ranking officer will assume command. Field Services Division officers will report for duty promptly at the designated times for each watch, with the exception noted below. Briefings will commence at the beginning of each shift and, wtiess training is being conducted. shall generally 1I0! exceed one-half hour in length. The following hours and minimum staffing levels will be observed on all three shifts oCthe Field Services Division. During shift overlaps (1400-1630 and 2100- 2400 hourS). the combined staffing levels of the two shifts "iii serve to meet ininimum staffing levels. except as noted on the follo'ving page. Watch 1 (2100 -0700) I Lieutenant/Sergeant (Watch Commander) 1 Sergeant/Agent (Supervisol') 5 OffiCti sf Agents On tho", <XC8Sioru when the Watch J Lieulenant leaves early, the minimum SIafling level will be rtd\l~d by on. between the l,ours of 0300 and 0630 (sid. Idttr agreeing to a "O~e·ye81 trial). 27 Officet{s) needed 10 fulfill minimum staffing requirements will work overtime as folio".,: Walch If (0630· 1630) Sunda)'. Thursday Friday· Saturda)' 0001 ·0700 2100· 0700 I LieutenanliSergeanl (Watch Commander) 1 Sergc""I/Agenl (Supervisor) I> Officers/Agents When Watch n ratt, below minimum staff Lng b)' one officerlagent on Monda)'s tt\rough hi,days. one Traft:1<: Tcam member will be assigned as a back up unit ;0 fulfill the minimum .laffing requirements. When Watch II falls below minimum staffing by h\'o or more officers/agents, afficer(s) required to maintain minimllm staffing IcquiJemems will \york Qvcnjrne from 06:30 to 1430 hours. Watch III (1400 • 24(0) I LieutenantiSergcant (lValch Commander) 1 Sergeant/Agent (Supervisor) 60fficers/AgenlS Offi~s) needed to fulfIll minimum staffing requirements \\ill work overtime from 1630·2130 hours. Wlleh corrunander;lsupervisors shall have discretion to change the overtime Sl:bedules in those instances when officer safety rna)' be affected or when case follow-uplc<'>mpJetion is requlrtd. ""c.~."". ---___ -.:'" __ 2 3 4 5 6 I 7 8 9 I 10 I It II 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 , ;" IN INTEJlEST ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PtlRSUANr TO AltTICLE V, SECTION 4 OF THE CHAJtT£Jt OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO 1D the MotU' Qf. Contr"' .. ")' Betwe<n PALO ALTO roues OFFlCERS ASSOCIATION, and COY OF PAW ALTO. R.~ardin8 Piop=d Ne", Ag ... ement .. "-, PALO ALTO POUCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION DISSENT OF THE ASSOCIATION . . "~to 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 I respectfully ~DI frOlD the June 1994 .Board 0( Arl>itratioo." Award ODd 3 Opinion as 10 Issue number aGe (wages) in the aboYe captioned matter. I COIK'Ur in the 4 remainder of the Board's Award and Opinioo. S The reasons for my dissenl on the issue of ...,es are .. 1 forth below. 6 If. ARGYMENT 7 It is uncontrovened thai the parties have traditionally uoed .. veDt..~n (17) .. rvey 8 jurisdictions to compare wages, beurs, and other Wms and condilions 0( emplO)'DleDt. 9 (Award & Opinion, p. 7) Accordingly, the Arl>itration Board coructJy considered the 10 average wage in these comparable f.Lrisdictions as a criteria iD rea<.~hi.Qg its deMon. 11 However, the Board improperly adopted tbe City's -All jUlfsdictiOilS. Duxiarum mor..thly 12 salary (police officer) with PERS pick up, July 1993' .urn), for comparison putpQS<s. 13 strongly disagree ·"ilb Ibe use of I'" SU,,'.Y. 14 15 NON·PERS JURISDICTION'S SHOUL]) BE EXCLUDED FROM TIlE APPLICABLE WAGE SURVEY 16 The Board's opinion relies, i. part, 00 Seclion 19(d) of tbe 1991-1993 MOU ' i. 17 support of its decision to include PERS pkk up as base salary. H",,-ever, in so doiD" 18 the Board fails 10 acknowledge Ibat although the lang>age 0: §I9(d) still exists br the 19 contract, it has DOt be.n amended 10 effedive~ cover post. 1m nesotiation &lid 20 arbitration proceedings 21 22 Section 19(d) reads as foU"",,: 23 For purposes of negotiation and arb:tratioD proceedings heru.fter. the· 241 payment by the City of the employee'$ ~t.-;b>..!ti~ ~:.n ~ d~w~..i is "; I pereent adjll,tme.1 in salary for the year Jl!ly I, 1983 tbrou8b June 30, 25 1 19e4, :"1 a 2 per-Ci.n' ~adjn;;i..meQt in saiary for the ten months., September 26 I, 1984 through June 30, 1985. (IX I) I ·1· . -'. ", ~. '.:.-; J o , 1 lD additi01l, even if PERS pick up is includ. d as base salary, th. Board 2 improperly failed to ...,lude .on-PERS jurisdi<:tion. from the su!'\ley results. The 3 Board's opinion acknowledges that payments similar to the PERS pick up sbould be 4 included in the base ..uaries of non-PERS jurisdiction. and also recognizes that 5 information on such paymeDIS was not available during the arbitration proceedings. 6 (Award & Opinion, p, 14) 7 Despite this ~cknowledg.men~ the Board mates the unfouDded presumptioa. 8 that the employers in the nOD-PERS jurisdictions do not mate 'pick up' payme.1S and 9 refuses to exclude nOD-PERS jurisdictiol1S. There is no justification for Ihis 10 presumption nor fot' the Boardfs coDe-hJsion that excluding non-PERS jurlsdictlons 11 would skew the survey results. In fact, the opposite p"~-Jmption and condusioD is 12 more likely to be true, 13 II even one of the .aD-PERS jurisdi<:tions makes a pick up payment which is not 14 reflected in the data, the average SIllary will be misleadingly low, Whereas, if we 15 exclude the "oD-PERS jurisdi<:tions, we ",'oid any misleading information and suffer 16 merely from a reduction in the size of our data pool. 17 B. 18 THE JULY SURVEY DATA SHQULD NOT liE USED r also strongly object to Ibe Board's application of the City's SU!'\ley on the 19 separate g<oundthat the July data is not the most appropriate to apply. 20 The Board &CJ<liowledges ';hat the increases that took place prior to toe 21 e"l'm.tion date of the MOU 'might well be relevan~" but argues that incr ...... which 22 took piace after expiration of the "'Dtract should b. disregarded as misleading bea.use 23 the Association is seeking retroactivity. (Aw-..rd & OpiniOD, p. 11) However, whether 24 or not theAssOclation is .. eldng retroactivity is irrelevant The purpose of the "'!'\lOY is 2S to reflect the average prtvailing wage among surveyed jurisdictions at the time that 26 uegatiations are taking place. Since arbitration is aD extension of the negotiatioD -2- . : " , · ·. ,"i;.. c, .:<:. '-.. " 1 process, Ibe January 1994 survey figures ,;ould properly be applied by lb. Board. In 2 fael, the 1994 survey figures C!!D even be considered under-representative of the !rue 3 prcvaiIiIIg wage in surveyed jurisdictions since Bertoley and olber jurisdiction wore. ; _ 4 Ibe process of negotiating Ibeir own potentially retroactive wage increases .wiing Ibe S period of Ibese arbitration proceedings. (TR 238) 6 In addition, Ibere are strong policy and equ ity reasons for applying Ibe most 7 receDI sun'Cf data. In this case, • Dew CODtract will be entered approximately one year 8 foDewing oxpiration of Ibe 1991-1993 agreemenl How<yer. there are cases where the 9 negotiation process lakes even longer, often due 10 lactics of delay and bad faith. 10 Some times these factics stall agreem ents for years. rn such cases, it would be JJ. pattntJy uofair 10 continue applying a "pr~vailiDg wage~ that was years O\lt of c!.ale. 12 Continued use of external wage data gathered at the time the most recent contract 13 txpired simptj encourages employers to delay reaching an agreemenl This is true t4 whether or not the employees are setkin~ a retroactive wage increase. If an employer IS is a5S\1red, regardless of Ibe lengtb of time il takes tor a new contract to be settled, thai 16 tlle appli~bJt. prevailing wage is "stucJc'l at the same level) he has no incentive 10 se1tle. 17 From an employer's penpective, it is belter 10 pay a retroactive pay incr ..... of 3% for 18 two f)f three years than 10 settle o:.:peditiously and move on 10 future negotiations in 19 which anotber wage increase may be required. For this reason. if fOI no other, the 20 most recent survey figures should be used. 'll In addition, there is an "'e" ~onger policy reason for using Ibe survey r •• >JI1s 7.2 Ibat eisl al the time of impasse (August 1990). Since mlI£[ side can declare impasse, 23 either party which believes that Ibe olber is sI3I1ing may immediately "freeze" the wage 24 comparison data and move on 10 arbitration. Knowledge Ibat this "frozen" dala will be 2S applied would discourage employers from sI3I1ing negotiations in the hope that future, 2611arg,.r wage increases will be forestalled. -3- At the some time, employers who tear Ibat . :. r \\ ' '-,," .', , ", .. ':; o the OlIIployee Ofl&Dlzatiol> is Slalliug in hope of ,<coNing aD eve' increasing prevailing 2 ~ woWd be able tolreeze the applicable clala b,~ dec".rinB impasse. 3 The BoanI', applieatioo oIlh. July 1993 data does Dot address pertinent poliO)' 4 IIId tq\ljty COD<efDI aIId is, th.~fo,., ill advised. S C. THE BOAJU) IMPROPERLY IGNORED THE SERGEANT SALARY 6 SUlYEY RESULTS 7 The Board prop<rIy Tejected the City's 'Police All C1 ...... " wage comparison. 8 The BoanI reoopiud that Palo Alto alone has the intermediate rank of police ageDt 9 ."d ad:now1'Czed thatth. 'All CIIW<$" ,urvey yielded misleading results. (Awud & 10 Opinion. p. 10.11) How",'", ther. is DO similar danger of contol,ion in u,ing "patate, 11 c-La.s.s by class eompanooDS tor police offkers and poliet: sergeallts. All survey 12 jurisdictions have thnse ",,'0 c13.S$es and the As,.so.::iatiou p;~sented sUI\Iey data for each. n Tht_ Association's sul'\'e)'$ demoustrate thai Palo Alto police officers were 4.5% 14 b<low the a.erage in July 1993 (AX 5), 5% below average in August 1993 (AX 6), and IS 6.1% b<low Iverage in January 1994 (AX 7}. ",,1.0 Alto police serBcants were 65% 16 below averaBe in July 1993 (AX 11),7% below ".erage in August 1993 (AX 12), and 11 8.1% below avo tate in Jllluary 1994 (AX 13). 18 N; tb_ results show, &II of the Association's surveys suppon tbeproposed 5% 19 wag. iJIcrea$e, rega:dles$ of. the date or iDctusiOll/exctusion of PERS pick up. This is 20 pani<ularly true when the survey results fcrbotb classes of the bargaining unit are 21 lake. law COI1SicIeratioll, as llIey properly shOllId be. 22 Without -tiD& any reason for $() doing, the BoanI co,"npl".ty disregarded aU of 23 the Association', police .sergeant wage survey results. Such disregard is improper and 24 canpJetei)' u.nlknnin .. the Boald', d..,isio •. 25 /I 26 1/ 2 3 D, ·,,'f~ }> : . ,""" THE BOARD OF ARBITRATION SHOULD SELECr THE WAGE INC.tEASE WlUCH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS WITH THE WAGE SUJlVEY RESULTS AMI SHOULD NOT IMPOSE ITS OWN OPINIONS OR CRITERIA TO ALTER TIlE RESULIS, 4 The barpiDing bistory ~t.\~en the parties shows th4t w>'Y surveys have S provided tile priIl!ary criteri. to; watt setting. Othor factots, sucb as CPI and internal 6 wage compariooos. hlM: fac1.ortd much Ies; predominlllUy as mten. for lbe filIaJ 7 agreemollls reacl1ed. 8 Despite this b"gainin& history, lbe Board .. ties OIl the fact th.t lbe City's Ias1 9 Gffer on ,,-ages is the one which is must ronsUltr:I1"iVi(lJ internal comparu.-ons and the 10 CPL (Award &. Opinio., p. 14) To. Board acknowledS" th.llhe Association's July 11 1993 wage survey of PERS partjcipati:Jg jurisdiC'tioDS (wbich includes PERS pick up as U pan of h .... pay) 'how> that Palo Alto potice officers are 4.5% behind tile average 13 survey wage. The Board then improperly ,tates that 14 15. 16 , .. if thelactors (internal OOIllparisons, CPL erumal comparison, abili!)' to pay) ""''' equ,Uy wtith~ the City lAst offer would still .,ost .carly conform to the factors which we are requiItd by ChArter to consider. 17 (Award &. Opinion. p. IS) 18 The glaring impropriety 0/ this ttU01lin~ is, as Slated aboYe, that the partios 19 have Dever considered all 0/ the wage .. ~ cOkn. 0/ ~ "'i&h~ Therdor<, it is 20 nUl appropriate .for lbe Board to do so. 21 It is _D.-ttJed th4t in determininj; disputes ewer <OQ1nCt tetms, it is the 22 tu.a.."Iioa of the arl>ltrators to award what til e paroe. th ...... J.es, as rusonable people, 23 should bave agreed upon in negoti>tion.. Thin Cily RApid Transit Co. (1941) 7 LA 845, 24 848; Norrh Amuican A""rwn, Inc, (1952) 19 U\ 16, 77; l'rirJing 11Idustf}' of Metro. 2S W~"'" D.C, Inc. (1978) 71 LA 838, 840. The Arbitrators' decision should 26' /I -5- '" o aJlll!ClXillli>t., as clo~ly as possible, tbe agreements the panies would have reached, but 2 for their stalt,~te. 3 It is clear w.t the parties have not in the past, nor would they in this case ba¥C 4 gMn significant weight to factor> other than the wage: 'UIVeyS and the Clly', ability 10 S pay. Therefore, it is unacceptable for the Board 10 reject the As>ociation's proposal .. 6 a result of its decision to Increase the wo;.ghl ordinarily given 10 criteria other than Ihqe 7 two faeIors. 8 m. CONCLUSION 9 In light of all the above, it is the Union', final offer which most clearly conforms 10 to the bargaining history betweon the parties and to the Chaner criteria. 11 The inexplicable ",Iectio" of the City's final off.r on wage was nUl basod on logic 12 or OD fact. I am shocked and perplexed by Ihe Board', decision. Howeo.'er, I trust 13 thatthe neutral arbitrator retained an unbiased disposilion throughoul lhese procudings. 14 15 16 Dated; July 5, 1994 Respectfully .ubmilled, 17 18 19 2Q 21 22 Z3 24 25 1 26 1 -7· · I', RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THB COUNCIL OP TlIB CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FOLIC! NON· MlIII1IGBMBNT PBRSONNl1L AND RBSCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 7013 .< •• The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RI!SOLVB as follows : SICAION 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Sectfon 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City Of Palo Alto, the Compensation Plan, as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part h~reof by reference, is hereby adopted for police oon­ management personnel effective retroactive to July 24, 1993. SECTION 2. The Compensation Plan adopted herein shall be administered by the City Manager in acccrdance with the Merit System Rules and Regulations. SECTION 4. The Compensation Plan shall continue in effect retroactively from July 24, .1993, through June 30, l.994. ~ICTIQN 4. The Director of Finance hereby fa authorized to implement the Compensation Plan adopted herein in her preparation of forthcoming payrolls. She is further a:J.thorized to make changes io the titles of employee classifications identified in the Table of Authorized Personnel contained in the 1993~94 budget if such ·titles have been changed 1n the Compensation Plan. :S..irn.0li...S.. Resolution .,~). 7013 is hereby rescinded. SBCTION 6. The Council finds that this is not a project under the calitornia Enviro~ntal Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. J;NTRODUCBD ANI> PASSIlD: AYES: NOI!S: ABS'l'BNTIONS' ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor 1 APPROVKD AS TO FORM: APPROVIID: seDlar AssIstant city Attorney City Manager Director of Finance Director of Human Resources 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO COKPEHSATION PLAN EFFECTIVE: July 24, 1993 through June 30, 1994 ~,,' "" Exhibit A /, "'<' r ~, COI!PENSA'rION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO Pollee peportment ·-aJeT1QH I. SJ.MR'i A~ Salary Range Tables Personnel covered by this plan s.hall receive. cotllPQnsation within the salary ranges set f~~th in the salary Ronge Tables that tollow S~ctlon +I~ The salary range tor each position classification tltle and number i& expressed in bi-weekly and/or hourly rates alon9 with the approxiaate Monthly and/or annual equivalent. 8. 6C1taPli;lhmgnt of salaD. The City Manaqer is authorized to ~ake appointuonts to or advancements within the prescribed ranges upon evaluation of enployee qualification and performance. For the purpose of determining step t,ine require;1cnts for ].";E:rit advancement, time vill con~enc~ on the first day of the Donth coinciding with or following entrance onto a salary step. ~tep increases shall be effective on the first da~' of the payroll period in .... hich the time and performance requirements have been met. The City ManagcJ:, 1:1 recognition of unusual circumstances or extraordinary perforClance. Ilay authorize special morit advancement. In the event that a do'..mward. adjustment of a salary rang'e indicates a reduction in the established salary o( an individual e~ployee, the City Manaqer may, if circumstances warrant, continue tile: salary tor such employee in an a1l10unt in eXCGSS of the revised r.enge maximum for a reasonable period of time. Such interim salary rates shall be Qefined as nY-rates." S!C'l'lON II. SPteIAL COMPENSATION Personna I covere,d by this 'compensation plan, in addition to the salary set forth in Seotion I above, may receive special compensation as follows. Eliqibility shall be. in conformance with th.e Merit Rules and P.equlations and Administrative DirectiVes issued by the: City l1ane,C;ler tor the pur-po~es of clarification and interpretation. A. Annual Adjustment Annually, each employee who holds a regular rull-ti~e appointment in the municipal service on or before July first and continues in such status through the first pay period in December shall receive, in addition to the salary prescribed herein, a salat·y adjustoent equal to one pel·cent (1\:) ot the employee's current annual salary; or at the employQ@'s op+i.nn o&.:nd subject to management approval. 2"4 hours paid leave to be used prior to the January 31 follo'Wing. Annttal adjustTllant.s or tirn{} oft sha.ll ~e prorated to reflect appointment from January 1 through July 1 ct. the current year, or jnterrupted service during the year. POLICE COKPENSATION PLAN Paqe 2 B. ciygttim. and In-Lieu Holiday Pay ... , coapensation for overtime 'Work and scheduled work. 0" paid holidays shall be in conformance-with the Kerit Rules and Regulations and Adainistrative Directives, Compensatory ~ime off subject to the 1~mitation8 ot the Fair Lab~r Standards Act which is approved by aanaqeaent in liay ot overttae payment on a staffing available basis will be taken at the rate of 1 1/2 hours for every hour of credited overtime. C," Wgrkiriq out of cloAsificAtiQD Within each fiscal yl!!IAr, after t .... ·o complete shifts have been worked in a hiqher ~lassification, e~ployQes shall receive a seven percent pre~ium for all '-.3ubsequ~nt shifts worked out of classification. D. Night S.b.U.t Differentia) Niqfit shift differential shall be paid at the rate of 5% to represented alasses for all hours ~orked between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Vacation pay for employees whQ regularly work nigh~ shifts shall include appropriate night shift premiums, relating to nigl1.t shift hours regularly workad. E. porking, in Civic Center GAL:M£§. Employees in represflnted classes shall be entitlrld to fr~~ p,,::J.:lng in the Civic Center Garage. F. Personal Deyelopment Program Pursuant to administrative rules governing eligibility and qualifj,cation the following may be .::r.an't.ed to sworn police personnel: .P.O.S.T. Interlllediate certificate: 5' above base salary P.O.S.T. Advanced Certificate: 7 1/2\ above base salary G'~ Tuition Reimbursement The City will reimburse expenses incurred under the Tuition Reimbursement Program to a maximum of $1000 per fiscal year. Up to $100 of the annual maximum may be used for reimbursing the purchase of work-related bOOKS, periodicals, or professional association memberships. To be eligible for reimbursement, expe.ndit\1reS must be for tri"ining or materials which contribute to current job performance or prepare the employee for other city positions. Requests for tuition railllbursement will be deternined t.O he ta)o~,:!ble unless sufficient cocumentation is provided on how the ~ourse or ~e~inar is related to improving performance in the employee's current position. -. ,/ . .,-, . 1 ,}-' .. POLICE COHPENSilTION PLAN 'Paqe 3 K. This ~ocume~t~tion will be interpreted so as to maintain the spirit and purpose or the tuition relmb~sement program and to comply with Internal Revenue Code regulations. Reimbursement requests may be submi tted at any tiae, but will be batch processed on a ,periodic basis. With regard only to POST-reimbursable training which is ,approved in advance by management and subject to the paragraph ~low, and for which PO$'l' rai!l!.bursem.ent is prov:l,ded. for meals, lodqin9, "'~,)_ld mileaqe; such meals, ·lodging, and mileage. are reimbursable unaer tuit10p reimbursement subject to the maximum amount of $1000 and subject to POST' procedures. Association members may use tuition reimbursement to attend' training durinq off-duty time. If Association members wish to attend training on scheduled work: days, alternate work days may be granted by Manaqement when staffing allows. Court Appearances S;W\Jrn Police Personnel appearing in court for the People shall be compensated as follows: Period 1. Appearance on scheduled day off. 2. Any or all court time during scheduled shift, or co~t time is immediately beginninq or tollo~in9 shitt. 3. For other than first watch *-ployeesl appearance on scheduled work day but not during, immediately before or \liter Dcheduled shift .. 4. Appearance on schedulea work day by employees· assiqned to first Wf',tch. Time and 4 hours one-half Straight time tlone during shift, time and one- half for periods before or after schedule.d shift T iae and one-2 hours (2 hr. half min. may not run into shift time) Time and one-3 hours hal! POLlet COKPEHS~TION PLAN \>49. 4 I. Group InSurAnce 1. Health Inpura nce o The City shall pay all premium payments on behalf of employe •• and dependents who are eliqible for the employee-selected Public "t.ployee.f Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCAJ optional plan. (a) Retiree Medical Provi~ions~ (l) Monthly city-paid premium contributions for a retiree­ selected PEKHCA optional plan will be made as provided under the Public ~~ployees' Medical and Hospital Care Act. ~. ~ rD3UtanC~ a. The city will maintain the present level of oenefits on the City­ sponsored dental program fOl" current employees ana their o.apendents. b. Effe.ctive heginning July 1, 1985~ the city provided. a 50\ of reasonable charges, $1500 lifetime maximum orthodontic benefit tor representation unit employees and their dependents. 3~' Vision Care Effective beginning September 1, 1989, the City will offer vision care cov,raqe for e~ployees and dependents. Coverage is equivalent to $20 ueductlble Plan A under the Vision Service Plan, with monthly preaiums paid by tha omployer. 4. LiCe Insurance Basio Lite Xnsurance (per $1000 of coveraqa) not to exceed amou~t indicated on exlsting plans J. Onifof3 Purchase plan Per PAY periog $.13 ~ (Approx) $.289 Unt.;(onns inclu(Ung cleal;iflq and safety equipment will be provided in accordance with Administrativ~ Directives. POLICE ~~ENSATION PLAN Paqe 5 K. Satir,unt ,', .' .!,' " ~, . o 1. Effective b<!qinnill9 July 1, 1983 the City paid •• ven parcent (7/9ths) of the eaployee '$ nin. percent Public Employees' Retirement systea contribution costs. 2. !ffective beqlnnl~9 with the pay period including Septanber 1, 1984 tha City increasN the pick-up of e~ployeill: PERS contributions troTii 7t to 9%. J. Notwithstanding subsections l~ and l. above, upon tiling a notice of retlreaent~ the 9t city-p~i(' PtRS contribution will be converted to a salary adjustQ;ent ot equal ar,ount on a one~tiJ:Je: irrevocable basis tor the. fina 1 tW'~lva months iEUlediatelr prior to a retirement, provided that all of the rollo~inq conditions a~e met. a. For ~7IIployees hired prior to July 1, 1989, the employee l!l\...st haVi;; at least 20 rears of PERS Sa.fety Member Service as of t.he. date of retire~ent., or have attained the mnxl~u;n P,f..R$ benefit factor Df 75t, or have attained the a~e of 55 at the date of retirement. Employees hired on 0;" aft.er July 1, 1989, may qualify only :by attaining 20 years of PERS safety Me~r Service as of the date .of retire:l:lGnt. b. ~elve months prior to retlre~ent thQ employee must qiv~ notice to the city tor a retirement date certain. c~ DUring the 12-montl1 conversion period, the employee shall pay PERS esployee contributlonfi. d. All provisi¢ns of this sub~ection are subject to and condition6d upon compliance with IRS regulations, i, ClTY or PALO AUt) C(Jttf"lNSAlJott PLAN POL[C~ PERSONNEL EfFECTI\I£ July 2". .993 CLASS TITlE RANGE ,-NUIotIJER M rH 0 U • l V. _ ,., ,., ,e, ,D, 1£, 811 POLICE IIClEHl 2002 20,ot 1.1.17 22.3' 23.') 2',03 813 POLIcE AQ[Nl/AOV ~.,o 21.~O 22.74 24.04 25.42 21.1' 812 'OlIC£ AG[Nl/JN1EJI ~104 21 O. 22.25 23.'2 2'.'7 21.30 ." POLICE ~F TRAINl~ US .. 1'.54 .1.81 20.73 21,i2 23.11 821 POLICE OfflCu 115. 11.54 i8,fl 20.73 21.12 23.1' '" POlttE orfJC£~-ADV liDO l8.'O 2J.O! 22.25 23,$3 24." 8n POlle! OfflCER-I"TfR .tt~1 1 •.•• 20.10 21,71 23.03 24.35 8" POLICf $~IHjfANT 215 .. 21.5 .. 22,), Z4.0t ~S.47 211.93 8" f'OU:(:f saT IADv 2311 l~.ll 24.51 a$.tz Zl.~l 2'.9' 832 POLICE SQTJIHTU 2288 22,10 23,we 2$.34 ze.7a 2'.33 820 POI.JC[ TJtAINEE 1111 11,11 1t.1t 21.03 22:.23 23.:11 '" APP~OKlMAT€ TO~ S1(P MUfUAl ~THLY 52,082 ",:;13' 55,010 ~.n' 54,70" 4,55. 411 .214 4,017 H.2lo( 4.011 51, i~O 4.)12 50,IIH ",220 SII,014 4,11" &0,211 5,023 :SI,9Z" ' •• 10 .(8,900 .. ,O)~ --tA,· --V.I -W Tel I LTD'· --ri)· 1101.40 iet3,eo 17'1.20 l"3.~G 2002.'0 1720,00 UU,lO U23.20 203=-.;10 1150.40 11,3.20 .1.0.00 1"1.10 l'le.ao 2104,00 14,3.20 1' ••.• 0 l'S'.~O 17~3.60 11~O UU.20 151!1.IO 185 .... 0 1753.10 U '. 1 1'12.00 le ••. oo 1110.00 1"2.40 l •• o .• a 1551.~O 114'.00 11 .. t.40 1'42.40 1 ..... 0~ 11~3.20 1112,"0 1'27.20 l031 110 2154,40 115 ..... 0 11.0 .• 0 2073.1I~ 2112,'0 2)11.40 1a12.10 1118.'02027,202143.2022"11.40 150 .... 0 15'1.20 10'2.40 1771.40 11'0,10 (;~ <...1) :;;<:':ii;,!:\" P' • : :... " ~:~, _I '. :' '".~ '\ ;~'~~(i"~ "', (' , • • r ;;' t ," • ' ~1.'ti11 "',' ,;f . \; . '. : ~ ... ,~ ~ "~" r i, fli:' .. /J.}I ,', " • t" I~C: ............ j. <~,"" .~ F.J.jit,,~;,·,;.~~.~~.. " ,~.,.f ~,: ',:-: '; ".' :;. ;\,,".\t\~/,~,,:,~.