HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESOLUTION - 51-05 - 9/27/2005 - ARBITRATION AWARD ELK GROVE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 2340RESOLUTION NO. 51-05
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ARBITRATION
AWARD BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE AND THE ELK
GROVE VILLAGE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 2340
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, INC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Elk Grove Village, Counties of Cook and DuPage, State of Illinois as follows:
Section 1: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees hereby accept the
INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD
BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE AND THE ELK GROVE
FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL 2340 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, INC.
a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth and the Village
Clerk is authorized to attest said documents upon the signature of the Mayor.
Section 2: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and approval according to law.
VOTE: AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 0
PASSED this 27th day of September 2005.
APPROVED this 27th day of September 2005.
APPROVED:
Mayor Craig B. Johnson
Village of Elk Grove Village
ATTEST:
Ann I. Walsh, Village Clerk
By: Margit C. Thompson
Deputy Village Clerk
AgreementArb itration Fire.doc
R
In the Matter of Interest Arbitration
Between
ELK GROVE VILLAGE FIREFIGHTERS
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 2340,
INTERNATIONL ASSOCIATION OF
FIREFIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, CLC,
Union,
and
VILLAGE OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Employer.
Appearances
RECEIVED
SEP 0 7 2005
SEYFARTH, SHAW
Firefighter Lieutenants' Pay
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Tripartite Arbitration Panel
Marvin F. Hill, Jr. (neutral)
James Baird (employer appointed)
Kevin Quinn (union appointed)
For the Union: Joel A. D'Alba, Esq.
Asher, Gittler, Greenfield & D'Alba, Ltd.
200 West Jackson Blvd. --Suite 1900
Chicago, IL 60606
312-263-1500
For the Employer: R. Theodore Clark, Jr.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
55 East Monroe Street, Ste 4200
Chicago, Illinois 60603
312-346-8000
I. BACKGROUND, FACTS, AND STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to provisions of Section 14 of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act ("IPLRA"),
the parties selected the undersigned as the Interest Arbitrator to decide 12 unresolved economic
issues and three unresolved non -economic issues. A hearing was held before the Arbitrator and the
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL
Z
parties' designated Arbitrators, James Baird, Esq., for the Village and Kevin Quinn for the Union,
in Elk Grove Village on September 13, October 13, November 3 and 4, 2004, January 17 and 20,
April 6 and 20, and May 20, 2005.
On the second day of the hearing, the parties resolved one of the issues previously in dispute,
i.e., duration of the agreement. Thus, on October 13, 2004, the parties mutually agreed, as
summarized by the Arbitrator, "... the length of the successor agreement will be four years," i.e.,
from May 1, 2003 through April 30, 2007 (Tr. 57). Moreover, on that same date the parties "agreed
that salaries for firefighters would be an issue separate from salaries for fire lieutenants" (Tr. 57-58).
The parties thereafter executed on October 13, 2004, a Stipulation of Issues in Dispute, which was
received as Joint Exhibit 2. This Stipulation listed 12 economic issues and 3 non -economic issues
(JX 2). Thereafter, the parties agreed to exchange their final offers on all of the issues that were then
in dispute on October 20, 2004 (Tr. 58-59). The Union's final offers, including its final offer on fire
lieutenant salaries, was received into evidence as Joint Exhibit 3A. The Village's final offers,
including its final offer on fire lieutenant salaries, was received into evidence as Joint Exhibit 313).
Following the exchange of final offers, 11 of the 12 economic issues and all three non-
economic issues were resolved either by the parties or the parties' Board representatives. The
following chart (excerpted from the Employer's post -hearing Brief) documents the resolution of all
these issues:
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 2
ISSUE
DISPOSITION
Economic Issue 1 — Salaries for
As agreed to by the parties' designated Arbitrators and
Firefighters (Section 14.1)
memorialized by the Chair, the Village's final offer on salaries
was accepted (3/28/05 transcript, at 2).
Economic Issue 3 — Paramedic Pay
The Union requested and the Village agreed that the
(Section 14.4)
Arbitrator should award the Union's final offer on this issue
(Tr. 80-81); the Arbitrator subsequently stated "that the
Union's final offer is being awarded (Tr. 107).
Economic Issue 4 — Longevity Pay
The parties agreed that longevity pay would be increased by
(Section 14.5)
$50 at the 10 year, 15 year, and 20 year levels effective May
1, 2003, May 1, 2004, and May 1, 2005, and by $25 at each
such level effective May 1, 2006 (Tr. 377-79).
Economic Issue 5 — Retroactivity
Both parties agreed that there was no substantive difference
(Section 14.6)
between the parties' final offers on retroactivity (Tr. 83); the
Arbitrator subsequently stated that he thought that "the parties
are.in agreement as to retroactivity" (Tr. 107), to which
neither party disagreed.
Economic Issue 6 — Hours of Work
As agreed to by the parties' designated Arbitrators and
and Overtime and Holidays (Articles
memorialized by the Chair, the Village's final offer on this
XIII and XVIII)
issue was accepted (3/28/05 transcript, at p. 2).
Economic Issue 7 — Insurance (Article
The Union withdrew its final offer on this issue and accepted
XV)
the Village's final offer to add a new Section 15.9 to Article
XV (Insurance) (Tr. 93-94); the Arbitrator noted that it was
his "understanding ... that the Union has accepted the
employer's proposal" (Tr. 108).
Economic 8 — Sick Leave (Section
As agreed to by the parties' designated Arbitrators and
17.1)
memorialized by the Chair, the Union's final offer to maintain
the status quo on sick leave was accepted (3/28/05 transcript,
at p. 2).
Economic Issue 9 — Emergency Leave
As noted by the Arbitrator, "[t]he Union accepts the
(Section 17.2)
Employer's proposal" on this issue (Tr. 108).
Economic Issue 10 — Cost of Training
The parties agreed that the Village's final offer on this issue
and Equipment for New Employees
would be incorporated as part of the Arbitrator's award (Tr.
(Section 19.22)
377-79).
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 3
ISSUE
DISPOSITION
Economic Issue 11 — Reimbursement
The Union withdrew its final offer and accepted the Village's
of Costs of Providing Information to
final offer, to which the Village stated that it had no objection
the Union
(Tr. 95, 109).
Economic Issue 12 — Inoculations and
The Union withdrew its final offer and accepted the Village's
Medication
final offer, which was to not have a contractual provision
concerning inoculations and medication (Tr. 95-96, 109)
Non -Economic Issue 1 —Layoff
The Union withdrew its final offer and accepted the Village's
(Section 12.4)
final offer, which was to maintain the status quo with respect
to Section 12.4 (Tr. 96)
Non -Economic Issue 2 — Paramedics
The parties agreed that the Village's final offer on this issue
(Section 19.16)
would be incorporated as part of the Arbitrator's award but
with the years of participation as a paramedic changed from
10 years to eight years (Tr. 377-79).
Economic Issue 3 — Promotions
On May 20, 2005, the parties TA's comprehensive language
for a new promotions article, and agreed that it should be
incorporated as part of the Arbitrator's award (Tr. 753-54; JX
4).
II. ISSUE FOR RESOLUTION
One issue remains for resolution, that of pay for Fire Lieutenants.
III. POSITION OF THE FIREFIGHTERS
The Union's Final Offer On lieutenants' Pay: Section 14.2. --Fire
Lieutenants' Salaries and Merit Adjustments.
2003-2004. Effective May 1, 2003, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be
increased by 5.2652'% to $75,489. No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the
minimum of the range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid
a salary that is at least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between zero percent and 5.7652 percent. Employees
whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard
"meets standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between zero percent and 3.5 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
"exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 4.25 percent. Employees whose
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL .4
annual average annual evaluation "far exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment
of 4.7652 percent.
Employees shall also be given an additional merit adjustment of up to one percent on the
basis of an evaluation by the fire chief, which shall consist of four components: Acting
Captain or Fire Officer II; Team Leader, Station Officer or Committee Chairman; budget
activity, special projects, shift training instructor or CPR; and team member or committee
member. A lieutenant shall receive 0.25 percent for participation in any one of these
components up to a maximum of 1.00 for participation in all four components.
In addition, to the foregoing merit adjustments for the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the fire
chief and the village manager shall award a range adjustment of one percent to those
lieutenants above the midpoint of the salary range and 2 percent to those lieutenants below
the midpoint of the salary range (67025).
2004-2005. Effective May 1, 2004, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be
increased by 3.7590% to $78,327. No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the
minimum of the range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid
a salary that is at least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between zero percent and 4.2590 percent. Employees
whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard
"meets standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between zero percent and 2.25 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
•"exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.75 percent. Employees whose
annual average annual evaluation "far exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment
of 3.2590 percent. Employees shall also be given an additional merit adjustment of up to
.one percent on the basis of an evaluation by the fire chief, which shall consist of four
components: Acting Captain or Fire Officer II; Team Leader, Station Officer or Committee
Chairman; budget activity, special projects, shift training instructor or CPR; and team
member or committee member. A lieutenant shall receive 0.25 percent for participation in
any one of these components up to a maximum of 1.00 for participation in all four
components.
In addition, to the foregoing merit adjustments for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the fire
chief and the village manager shall award a range adjustment of one percent to those
lieutenants above the midpoint of the salary range and 2 percent to those lieutenants below
the midpoint of the salary range (70398).
2005-2006. Effective May 1, 2005, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be
increased by 4.25 % to $81,656. No lieutenant. can receive an annual wage below the
minimum of the range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid
a salary that is at least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 5
The merit adjustments shall be between zero percent and 4.75 percent. Employees whose
annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard "meets
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between zero percent and 2.75 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
"exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 3.25 percent. Employees whose
annual average annual evaluation "far exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment
of 3.75 percent. Employees shall also be given an additional merit adjustment of up to one
percent on the basis of an evaluation by the fire chief, which shall consist of four
components: Acting Captain or Fire Officer II; Team Leader, Station Officer or Committee
Chairman; budget activity, special projects, shift training instructor or CPR; and team
member or committee member. A lieutenant shall receive 0.25 percent for participation in
any one of these components up to a maximum of 1.00 for participation in all four
components.
In addition, to the foregoing merit adjustments for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the fire
chief and the village manager shall award a range adjustment of one percent to those
lieutenants above the midpoint of the salary range and 2 percent to those lieutenants below
the midpoint of the salary range (72881).
2006-2007. Effective May 1, 2006, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall
be increased by 4.25 % to $85,126. No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the
minimum of the range nor above the'maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid
a salary that is at least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between zero percent and 4.75 percent. Employees whose
annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor ori a numeric standard "meets
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between zero percent and 2.75 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate'supervisor on a numeric
"exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 3.25 percent. Employees whose
annual average annual evaluation "far exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment
of 3.75 percent. Employees shall also be given an additional merit adjustment of up to one
percent on the basis of an evaluation by the fire chief, which shall consist of four
components: Acting Captain or Fire Officer II; Team Leader, Station Officer or Committee
Chairman; budget activity, special projects; shift training instructor or CPR; and team
member or committee member. A lieutenant shall receive 0.25 percent for participation in
any one of these components up to a maximum of 1.00 for participation in all four
components.
In addition, to the foregoing "merit adjustments .for the 2006=2007 fiscal year,' the fire
chief and the village manager shall. award a range adjustment of one percent to those
lieutenants above the midpoint of the salary range and 2 percent to those lieutenants below
the midpoint of the salary range (75810).
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 & .
Village of Elk Grove, IL 6
The position of the Union, as outlined in its lengthy post -hearing brief, is summarized as
follows:
A. The Employer's Offer For Lieutenants' Pay Should Be Rejected Because It
Does Not Assure Pay Increases That Are Competitive In the Comparable
External Market
Average Elk Grove Lieutenant Base Pay Is Near The Bottom Of
The Comparables
1. 75% of Comparable Fire Lieutenants Are At Maximum Pay Levels
The Union first submits that more than 75 percent of the fire lieutenants in the comparable
jurisdictions in 2004 were paid at the maximum level of their respective towns' pay steps. In the
Union's eyes, this fact alone demonstrates the major financial problems for Elk Grove's lieutenants.
They have a relatively low average annual salary and are not nor will they be paid at the maximum
pay level of the fire lieutenants' pay range during the new contract if the employer's final offer is
awarded. (See, Union Exhibit 47)(Brieffor the Union at 7).
By not placing any lieutenant at the maximum pay level, argues the Union, Elk Grove has
driven down -the mean annual salary for its lieutenants compared to other towns. The Union points
out that an analysis of fire lieutenants' pay steps in the comparable communities for 2003 and 2004
shows that 69 percent of the lieutenants were paid at top pay in 2003 and 75 percent of lieutenants
were paid at top pay in 2004. (Union Exhibit 47). Of the 128 lieutenants in 2004, only 31 were not
paid at top. pay, and in 2003, 42 lieutenants out of 137 were not paid at top pay.
Int 2003, the mean annual salary for the Elk Grove lieutenants under the employer's proposal
would be $68:,712, a very large difference of $6,379 below the maximum salary of $75,091 for fire
.lieutenants offered by the employer.
The Union notes that the same pattern of not reaching the maximum pay level will be
repeated 'in each of the additional years of the collective bargaining agreement for the salary
increases proposed by the employer. The 2004 mean annual salary of $71,571 would be 92 percent
of top salary; the mean annual salary for 2005 would be 93 percent of top salary, and the mean
annual salary for 2006 would be 94 percent of annual salary.
The Union notes Elk Grove's mean lieutenant salaries for 2003 and 2004 will be well below
the average for maximum base pay for comparable fire lieutenants. Table 5 (Brief at 5) summarizes
these differences.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Greve, IL 7
TABLE 5
2003 and 200:4
MEAN FIRE LIEUTENANTS' SALARY
The 2003 mean comparable salary is $4,423 greater than Elk Grove's, and the 2004 mean
comparable salary is $5,750 higher than Elk Grove's. See Union Exhibits 17(g) and 17(0). In terms
of relative rank, for 2004 the Elk Grove mean salary is last and for 2003 it is second to last among
the comparables, and for 2004 Elk Grove's mean salary dropped $1,327 further below the mean for
all comparables. (Brief at 13).
2. Total Compensation For Elk Grove Lieutenants Is Far From The Top
The Union's total compensation charts also demonstrate that the Elk Grove lieutenants'
salaries do not rank at the top of the comparables, which is contrary to the analysis offered. by the
employer based only upon maximum pay rates. The Union's charts for total compensation, Union
Exhibits 17(i) and 17(n) (revised on June 23, 2005), show total compensation based upon maximum
base pay, maximum longevity and other compensation, which consists of holiday pay, special team
play and incentive pay, as indicated in.the footnotes of each exhibit.
These two exhibits represent the salary numbers for 2003 and 2004 and were adjusted based
upon employees' healthcare contributions. See, Union Exhibits 60 and 61. Total compensation
reduced by healthcare contributions places Elk Grove lieutenants in relative rank six among the
comparables. The Elk Grove lieutenants have the second highest health insurance contribution level
for any of the comparables. Union Exhibit 61. The range for health care contributions among the
comparable employees is zero to $2,090.64 on an annual basis. The average contribution for the
eleven comparables for which data is available is $976, which is $673 below the employee
contribution for Elk Grove. The comparables' healthcare employee contribution average is
approximately two-thirds of the annual Elk Grove employee contribution. This employee
contribution in Elk Grove reduces the relative rank for total compensation for 2003 from five to six.
Union Exhibits 17(i) (revised 6/23/05) and Union Exhibit 61. For 2004, there is a similar reduction
in rank. Union Exhibits 61 and 17(i) (revised 6/23/05). For 2005, the relative rank will drop to
seven. See, Table 6 below.
TABLE 6
2005
COMPARBLE WAGES, TOTAL COPENSATION INCLUDING
HEALTH CARE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYEES'
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 8
.-20'03
2004
Mean Fire Lieutenant Max.
73135
77321
Base Salary
Mean Fire Lieutenant Salary-
68712
71571
Elk Grove
The 2003 mean comparable salary is $4,423 greater than Elk Grove's, and the 2004 mean
comparable salary is $5,750 higher than Elk Grove's. See Union Exhibits 17(g) and 17(0). In terms
of relative rank, for 2004 the Elk Grove mean salary is last and for 2003 it is second to last among
the comparables, and for 2004 Elk Grove's mean salary dropped $1,327 further below the mean for
all comparables. (Brief at 13).
2. Total Compensation For Elk Grove Lieutenants Is Far From The Top
The Union's total compensation charts also demonstrate that the Elk Grove lieutenants'
salaries do not rank at the top of the comparables, which is contrary to the analysis offered. by the
employer based only upon maximum pay rates. The Union's charts for total compensation, Union
Exhibits 17(i) and 17(n) (revised on June 23, 2005), show total compensation based upon maximum
base pay, maximum longevity and other compensation, which consists of holiday pay, special team
play and incentive pay, as indicated in.the footnotes of each exhibit.
These two exhibits represent the salary numbers for 2003 and 2004 and were adjusted based
upon employees' healthcare contributions. See, Union Exhibits 60 and 61. Total compensation
reduced by healthcare contributions places Elk Grove lieutenants in relative rank six among the
comparables. The Elk Grove lieutenants have the second highest health insurance contribution level
for any of the comparables. Union Exhibit 61. The range for health care contributions among the
comparable employees is zero to $2,090.64 on an annual basis. The average contribution for the
eleven comparables for which data is available is $976, which is $673 below the employee
contribution for Elk Grove. The comparables' healthcare employee contribution average is
approximately two-thirds of the annual Elk Grove employee contribution. This employee
contribution in Elk Grove reduces the relative rank for total compensation for 2003 from five to six.
Union Exhibits 17(i) (revised 6/23/05) and Union Exhibit 61. For 2004, there is a similar reduction
in rank. Union Exhibits 61 and 17(i) (revised 6/23/05). For 2005, the relative rank will drop to
seven. See, Table 6 below.
TABLE 6
2005
COMPARBLE WAGES, TOTAL COPENSATION INCLUDING
HEALTH CARE CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYEES'
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 8
Cities
Total
Salary
Max.
Longevity
Other .
Comp.
Total. Salary
: Health
Care
Total Comp.
Arlington Heights
79,719
1100
476
81,294
1284
80010
Buffalo Grove
Des Plaines
82,922
2950
7979
93,851
1492
92359
Elgin
78,297
78,297
Elmhurst
78,297
78,297
Hoffman Estates
77,862
750
1575
80,187
1485
78,702
Lombard,
87,716
87,716
3324
84,392
Mt. Prospect
77,277
700
6653
84,630
948
83646
Northbrook
78,919
1200
8366
88,485
900
87585
Park Ridge .
85,341
2491
87,832
1587
86245
Rolling Meadows
82,255
1400
2600
86,255
.2400
83855
Skokie
76,262
1600
3400
81,262
1596
79,666
Wheeling
79,629
600
2000
82,229
905
81324
Elk Grove
Employer Offer
80,051
800
3300
84,151
2255
81896
Elk Grove
Union Offer
81,656
800
3300
85,756
2255
83501
Using total compensation and adjusting it by healthcare contributions is a more realistic way
of assessing the relative placement of Elk Grove among the comparables.
Maximum Pay Cannot Be Reached By Lieutenants
The Union further asserts that the maximum pay for the Elk Grove fire lieutenants cannot
be reached by any current lieutenant pursuant to the employer's proposal for the four-year contract
term. For this additional reason, the employer's salary analysis based upon maximum base pay
should be rejected. (Brief at 15-18).
4. - External Comparisons Are Extremely Important
The Union points out that the comparison of wages in comparable communities is one of the
-key factors the arbitrator is to consider in deciding this case and should be given a dominant role in
awarding pay increases sought by the Union.
The Union asserts external comparisons were a driving factor, if not the most important
factor in the -1999 collective bargaining negotiations that lead to a significant wage increase for
firefighters and lieutenants. 'The lieutenants received a 7.2 salary increase for that year "to bring
-them up in that range of comparable." (Brief at 19). According to the Union, the Employer's final
.offer does not maintain the relative ranking that the Village thought important in 1999.
Case No. S -MA -04-262 -
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 R.
Village of Elk Grove, IL - - 9
B. There Is No Historic Or Agreed -Upon $170 Pay Parity Differential Between
The Salaries Of Fire Lieutenants and Police Sergeants
According to the Union, no evidence has been presented to support the employer's claims
of a $170 pay differential either of a historic or an agreed upon nature between fire lieutenants and
police sergeants. In the Union's view, no evidence of a historical pay parity relationship of $170
between fire lieutenants and police sergeants has been presented to warrant internal comparability
being used "as a straightjacket which inhibits the consideration of separate needs of particular units."
(Brief at 20).
C. Comparison Of Final Offers .
The Employer Proposes An Unwarranted Breakthrough
In the Union's view the employer's final offer departs from the parties' past practice based
upon interest arbitration decisions and agreements of granting percentage wage increases. The
employer's May 2003 proposal for firefighters is 5.6 percent, but the proposal for lieutenants is 4.7
percent—a difference of -0.9 percent. This is the first time after the commencement of fire fighter
collective bargaining in 1992 that the employer, if its offer is accepted, will pay wage increases to
lieutenants that are lower thanwage increases paid to firefighters. In all fiscal years since 1993, the
lieutenants' wage increases were either equal to or greater than the wage increases paid to
firefighters. Although the lieutenants' percentage pay increases were no more than 1.25 percent
higher than those granted to firefighters, there has never been an instance since fiscal year 1993 in
which the -lieutenants' wage increase percentage was less than that for firefighters. Table 7 below
shows the largest difference in percentage wage increases occurred in May 1995, when the
lieutenants received a 5.25 wage increase and firefighters received a4.0 percentage wage increase.
TABLE 7
Source: Collective bargaining agreements 1993-1996; 1996-1999 and 1999 to 2003.
In contrast to this. wage _history. since the first collective bargaining 'agreement, the
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 10..
?Eire fiters
I%tW-age
'Increase •
lieutenants;
.%"Wage
Increase' -
Difference
May 1993
4.0%
3%+2%
1.00%
May 1994
3.25%
3.25%
0%
May 1995
4%"
5.25%
1.25%
May 1996
3.5% ' .
4.5%
1%
May 1997
3.0%
3.0%
0%
May 1998
10%
3.0%
0% . .
May 1999
3.5%(3.7%)
7.2%
0%
May 2000
3.5%'.
4.5%
1 %
May 2001
3.5%
4.5% ..
1%
Source: Collective bargaining agreements 1993-1996; 1996-1999 and 1999 to 2003.
In contrast to this. wage _history. since the first collective bargaining 'agreement, the
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 10..
employer's proposal for May 2003 requests the lieutenants be paid an increase of almost one percent
below the increase proposed for the firefighters.
The Union contends the employer offers no justification for this departure from the wage
pattern, and the employer's proposal for lieutenants to receive a lower percentage wage increase
than that granted to firefighters will have the adverse effect of drawing the lieutenants' salaries
further away from the fourth rank that had been sought by senior village trustee Petri when he
agreed to the 7.2 percent increase for lieutenants in 1999.
Also, by proposing to cut by one-half the percentage increase for lieutenants attributed to the
fire chief's merit points, the employer also breaks from past practice. Commencing in May 1, 2000,
the chief was allowed to grant wage increases of up to one percent based on merit. The chief created
a guideline with the Union's president to rate the lieutenants' proficiency in each of four separate
areas. The rating system divided the 1.00 percent chief's merit points into four segments. The
employer's proposal is to maintain chief points at zero to one percent effective May 1, 2003.
However, as.of May 1, 2004, May 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006, the chief's points would be limited to
.'a merit adjustment "of up to half of 1% (0.5)." As in the case of the percentage increases for
lieutenants; the employer has offered no reason why the chief's points have been reduced by one
half, nor has the employer explained why a full 1.0 percent chief's points cannot be maintained. No
problems concerning the operation of this merit component have been presented by the employer.
Therefore, it has not met its burden of justifying a change.
2. The Union Seeks A Catch -Up In. Wages And To Remedy A Severe Inequality
In contrast to the employer's proposal, the Union's final offer maintains the practice of
lieutenants' wage increases being equal to or greater than the firefighters' wage increases and does
not seek to cut the one percent range for chief's points. See, Table 9. below. The Union's offer is
also -nearer than the employer's average percentage wage increases for 2003, 2004 and 2005 for the
external comparables. See, Union Exhibit 48. For 2004 and 2005, the employer's proposals are
0.50 and 0.75 below the averages and for 2003, the employer proposal is 0.20 above the average.
TABLE 9
UNION'S PROPOSAL
Date
Firefighters
%'Wage
s IncreaseIncrease
Lieutenants' .
%YWage.
�.
:Difference
May 2003
3.5%
5.2652%
.5052%
May 2004
3.25%
3.7590%
.509%
May 2005
3.75%
4.25%
.5%
May 2006
3.75%
4.25%
.5%
No wage offer, argues the Union, should be granted if it has the effect of reversing the wage
movement about which the parties have previously agreed.
Case No. S -MA -04.-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 11
Mindful of the general arbitral admonition to maintain the status quo, the Union's
proposal to amend the third paragraph of the lieutenant pay section was designed to remedy
a very serious problem that is demonstrated by both internal and external comparisons. This
is far more modest than a wholesale elimination of the merit pay system, which in itself is warranted
by the fact that not one of the comparable contracts- covering fire lieutenants have a merit pay
system.
. The inequity sought to be remedied by the Union with this proposal lies in the manner in
which range adjustment is awarded. Under the current contract, sought to be maintained by the
Employer, range adjustment is made at the discretion of the Village manager for an amount "of up
to 2%." That adjustment is not an individual amount to be given -to each of the eighteen fire
lieutenants because it is distributed from a small pool of money made available by the employer in
an amount far less than 2 percent of individual salaries. Instead, the employer has allocated for the
term of this new contract, a pool of 0.75 percent for 2003 and 2004 and 1 percent in 2005 and 2006
of the total salaries of lieutenants in each of those years to be allocated for range adjustments.
. Maintaining the current system is also inequitable given the relatively large number of police
sergeants who received maximum pay. The analysis of police sergeants' maximum pay, Union
Exhibit. 52, shows that in 2003 eight police sergeants received salaries within 99 percent of
maximum pay. In 2004, five sergeants were paid at maximum pay, and one sergeant was paid
within one percent of maximum pay. In 2005, four sergeants were paid at maximum pay and one
sergeant was paid with one percent of maximum pay. This relatively large number of sergeants in
2004, six of fourteen -42 percent, demonstrates the disparity in pay between the two groups. For
fire lieutenants, maximum pay was not reached in 2002 and will not be reached in 2003 to 2006.
See, Tables 1-4, supra. Between 2003 and 2006, the three highest paid fire lieutenants will not be
paid within one percent of the maximum level. All three lieutenants will be at least $2,399 to $4,895
below maximum pay, as shown in Table 10 below.
Table 10
Analysis of Fire Lieutenants At Maximum Pay
2002,No: of
Lieufenants
,2003'.No of`
Lieutenants-
2004•No..of.
Lieutenants
.2005.No. of
Lieutenants
'2006,No. of
Lieutenants
$71,173 (Max -0)
$75,091 (Max -0)
$77,513 (Max -0)
$80;051 .(Max -0)
$82,653 (Max -0)
$69,429 (-2284-1)
$72,692 (-2399-1)
$77,055 (-2458-1)
$77,494 (-2557-1)
$80,012 (-2641-1)
$67,488 (4225-1)
1 $70,660 (-4,431-1)
$72,956 (-4503-1)
$75,327 (-4724-1)
$77,776 (-4877-1)
$67,473 (-4240-1)
$70,644 (-4,447-1)
$72,940 (4573-1)
$75,311 (4740-1)
$77,758 (4895-1)
The inequity in pay structure between police sergeants . and fire lieutenants is also
demonstrated by a comparison of the salary ranges. For 2003 and 2004, the median of the police
sergeants' annual salary range was $74,582 and $75,506, respectively. For fire lieutenants, the
median number would be $68,259 under the employer's offer for 2003 and $71,815 for 2004.. The
fact that fire lieutenants are not at maximum pay has also.been demonstrated by a comparison of the
mean annual pay for sergeants and lieutenants which is lower for fire lieutenants because there are
no employees close to maximum pay.
Case No: S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 12
In the context of internal comparisons, the police sergeants have received during the term
of the proposed contract MEP awards in the form of management bonuses. For 2005, the sergeants
received $850; in 2004, $800; in 2003, $750. For earlier years, the police sergeants received in
2002, $750; in 2001, $675; in 2000, $650 and $550 in 1999. Union Exhibit 45. Fire lieutenants
received no such awards. The employer's claim for pay parity of a $170 difference between police
sergeants and fire lieutenants is clearly rebutted given the size of these MEP awards. In 2003 for
instance, police sergeants pay at the maximum level would be augmented by the $750 MEP bonus,
thereby giving the sergeants at maximum pay much more than $170 above the proposed fire
lieutenant's maximum salary. The range adjustment proposed by the Union would reduce the salary
inequities and enhance lieutenants' salaries in the same manner that police sergeants' salaries are
enhanced by the MEP awards.
Under the Union's proposal, employees above the midpoint of the salary range would
receive a one percent increase, and employees below the midpoint would receive a two percent
increase. No employee may be paid more than the pay range maximum indicated in the
Union's proposal. These range adjustments are necessary to move lieutenants closer to maximum
pay in order to reach the 75 percent of lieutenants in the comparable communities who were paid
at maximum pay. Under the employer's proposal, a new lieutenant receiving top merit, top chief s
points and a range adjustment proposed by the Union would not reach maximum pay within the term
of -the current collective bargaining- agreement and in all likelihood would not reach maximum pay
in the term of the collective bargaining agreement.
With this evidence as ' to the lack of a police sergeants' and fire lieutenants' $170 pay
differential, the substantial and compelling evidence that more police sergeants are at or near -
maximum pay than fire lieutenants, the uncontested fact that 75 percent of the 2004 comparable for
fire lieutenants are at maximum pay, and the mean fire lieutenants' comparable annual salary in
2004 is. $5,750 higher than.the Elk Grove's mean fire lieutenants' salary, the Union's claim of
inequity is well demonstrated. Although the range adjustment was not intended to be a merit pay
component, as found by Arbitrator Berman in the range adjustment pay grievance, there is no
evidence that the Union agreed to create a wage system in which the range adjustment would not
be used to move senior lieutenants closer to maximum pay.
. Although the Union agreed to the word "discretion" for the third paragraph of the
lieutenants' pay section, the Union never agreed to a system thatwould minimize opportunities
for maximum pay. - The overall affect of the employer's use of "discretion". has been to reduce
incentives of a merit. system to reach maximumpay.
The -Union seeks an additional change in the lieutenants' compensation section to put in
writing a practice that has existed over the allocation of chiefs points. The Union's final offer
regarding fire chief s merit points is to add the criteria for how the one percent merit adjustment is
to -be allocated. The -Union proposes the agreement that was reached with the prior chief and had
been a past practice for granting merit points. A lieutenant is to receive 0.25% for proficiency or
participation in each of the following categories:
Case No. S-MiA-04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, 1L 13
Acting Captain or Fire Officer II; Team Leader, Station Officer or
Committee Chairman; Budget Activity, Special Projects, Shift
Training Instructor or CPR; or Team Member or Committee Member.
Participation or proficiency in each of the four categories will lead to a maximum of 1.00
chief's merit points for participation. The employer makes no such offer, even though the
distribution of components as proposed by the Union has been the stated criteria for chief's merit
points.
The Average Consumer Prices For Goods and Services, Commonly
Known As The Cost of Living.
The arbitration panel is to base its decision in part upon the average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly known as the cost of living. This is one of several factors by which
the panel is to be guided. The employer has presented evidence challenging the Consumer Price
Index of the United States Department of Labor as having an upward bias in an effort to persuade
the arbitrator that its economic offer is more consistent with the statutory factor for cost of living.
A similar argument was raised to support the employer's offer before Arbitrator Kohn in
earlier interest arbitration between these same parties. Arbitrator Kohn's"rejected this argument
based upon a holding of Arbitrator Herbert Berman that "the CPI data remains. the best cost-
of—living data available at the moment and must be considered by the parties and the arbitrator."
Village of Elk Grove V1llage, ISLRB Case No. S -MA -96-86, pp. 11-12 (Arb. Kohn) (1997) citing
Cily of Batavia, ISLRB Case No. S -MA -95-15 (Arb. Berman) (1996).
For 2005, the employer's 3.25 percent increase in maximum pay for lieutenants is less than
the three month compound annual rate of increase of 4.4 percent for May 2005. It is also less than
the 3.7 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate of inflation measured during the first five months of
2005. Union Exhibit 66. The Union suggests the arbitrator focus on the U.S. average rather than
the Chicago index numbers because the Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics cautions
users of the CPI that each local- index has a smaller sample size than a national index, and is,
"therefore, subject to substantially more sampling and- other measurement error. As a result, local
area indexes show greater volatility than a national index. ` Id. Table 3 and Table 6.
For May 2004, the CPI index increased 3.1 percent over May 2003 index. The employer's
proposed 3.25 percent increase barely exceeds the CPI number.
Stipulation of The Parties
The Union submits one of the factors to be considered by the arbitrator under the statute is
the nature of stipulations reached by the parties. In the words of the Union:
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 14
The arbitrator has noted on the record a stipulation reached by the parties on March
28, 2005. The transcript of proceeding for that day reflects a telephone call from the panel's
chairman to the court reporter in which a stipulation concerning wages, the hours and
overtime proposal and sick leave was discussed by the panel members The chairman
indicated that on that day the parties reached an agreement on these items, and the Union,
with all due respect to the chairman, requests that he not approve the stipulation reached
concerning the hours and overtime proposal for the reasons stated below. Pursuant to this
stipulation, the employer's final offer in hours and overtime was accepted by the Union, but
as in all stipulations, the arbitration panel reserves the right to approve the stipulation, and
the parties further agreed that any disputes as to the interpretation or implementation of a
stipulation would be resolved by the arbitrator. Transcript, March 28, 2005, p. 2.
In the hours of work and overtime proposal the employer seeks a new work reduction
schedule consisting of work reduction days to be taken within each 18 duty day cycle, and
the scheduling of such days within each 18 duty day cycle is "to be governed by the same
policies and practices that were previously applicable to the scheduling of holiday time off
for firefighters, with the exception that one work reduction day must be scheduled in each
eighteen (18) duty day cycle." Exhibit 3(b) p. 7. The Union has stated the most significant
problem for implementation of this schedule is the time selection of these work reduction
days. There is no specified time to determine a method when these duty days are to be
selected other -than the reference to the policies and practices previously applicable to the
scheduling of holiday time off. The Union believes the work reduction days scheduled
pursuant to these policies and practices are to be selected after annual vacation or furlough
days have been selected. Under the polices in effect for furloughs selection first issued on
November 24, 1978 with the last revision on October 19, 1998, furloughs were to be selected
prior to the selection of floating holidays. This means that furloughs -are to be selected first
and .have priority over the selection of all other time off. The employer's offer recognizes
this policy and its governing principles for the selection of furloughs have been in use since
1978.
However, the employer has indicated that it really intended for its work reduction
days to be selected prior to the selection of furloughs, and here is the essence of the dispute
and reason why the stipulation in the opinion of the Union should be rejected. There is
obviously a dispute between the parties as to the implementation of this contract section and
specifically the time at which work reduction days are to be selected. Even though the panel
chairman has been given: authority to interpret disputes over the implementation or
interpretation of the why stipulation, the Union believes that this process of reaching an
agreement would be best served for both parties to have the matter resolved prior to the
commencement of the next calendar year, the time at which the employer's proposal would
practically be implemented. The proposal does not contain a starting date, and if the
employer sought to impose a new schedule during 2005 after all vacations and floating
holidays have been selected, it would clearly cause chaos with respect to already established
or. set vacation schedules and holiday schedules. The parties would be best served to have
this question resolved now rather than later. Under the current system, furloughs are
Case No. S -MA -04.-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 15
generally selected in November and December. The public and the parties would be better
served to. have these issues resolved now rather than under the tension created by the
furlough and vacation selection process in which employees and managers would be rushing
to establish the schedules for 2006 in a very compressed period of time. For these reasons,
the stipulation should be rejected and the matter remanded - for additional
consideration and mediation for no more than the statutory period allowed under
Section 14.
III. POSITION OF ELK GROVE VILLAGE
The Administration's position, as outlined in its post -hearing brief, is summarized as
follows:
A. The Village's Final Offer On Lieutenants' Pay: Section 14.2. --Fire Lieutenants'
Salaries and Merit Adjustments.
The Village's final offer on fire lieutenant salaries is to revise Section 14.1 as follows:
Section 14.2. Fire Lieutenants Salaries and Merit Adjustments.
Effective May 1, 2003, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be increased
by four and seven -tenths percent (4.7%) to $75,091. No lieutenant can receive an annual
wage below the minimum of the range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants
shall be paid a salary that is at least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between 0 percent and 4.7 percent. Employees whose
annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard "meets
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment -of between 0 percent and 2.7 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
standard "exceeds standards", shall receive a merit adjustment of 3.2 percent. Employees
whose annual average annual evaluation from their immediate supervisor "far exceeds
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 3:2 percent. Employees whose annual average
annual evaluation from their immediate supervisor "far exceeds standards" shall receive a
merit adjustment, of 3.7 percent. Employees may also be given an additional merit
adjustment of up one percent (1.0%) on the basis of an evaluation by the Fire Chief.
In addition to the foregoing merit adjustment for the 2003-2004 fiscal year, the Fire
Chief may, with the prior approval of the Village Manager, award a range adjustment of up
to 2 percent. -
Effective May 1, 2004, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be increased
by 3.25% to $77,531. ' No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the minimum of the
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 16
range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid a salary that is at
least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between 0 percent and 3.25 percent. Employees
whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard
"meets standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between 0 percent and 2 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
standard "exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.375 percent. Employees
whose annual average annual evaluation from their immediate supervisor "far exceeds
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.75 percent. Employees may also be given
an additional merit adjustment of up to half of one percent (0.5) on the basis of an evaluation
by the fire chief.
In addition to the'foregoing merit adjustments for the 2004-2005 fiscal year, the Fire
Chief may, with the prior approval of the Village Manager, award a range adjustment of up
to 2 percent.
Effective May 1, 2005, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be increased
by 1. 5% to $80,051. No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the minimum of the
range nor above the maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid a salary that is at
least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between 0 percent and 3.25 percent. Employees
whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard
."meets standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between 0 percent and'2 percent.
Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
standard "exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.375 percent. Employees
whose annual average annual evaluation from their immediate supervisor "far exceeds
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.75 percent. Employees may also be given
an additional merit adjustment of up to half of one percent (0.5) on the basis of an evaluation
by the fire chief.
In addition to the foregoing merit adjustment for the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Fire
Chief may, with the prior approval of the Village.Manager, award a range adjustment of up
to 2 percent.
Effective May 1, 2006, the pay range maximum for fire lieutenants shall be increased
by 3.25% to $82,653. No lieutenant can receive an annual wage below the minimum of the
.range nor above the'maximum of the range. All lieutenants shall be paid a salary that is at
least 5% higher than the top step salary of firefighters.
The merit adjustments shall be between 0 percent and 3.25 percent. Employees
whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric standard
"meets standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of between 0 percent and 2 percent.
:. .. Employees whose annual average evaluation from their immediate supervisor on a numeric
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 17
standard "exceeds standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.375 percent. Employees
whose annual average annual evaluation from their immediate supervisor "far exceeds
standards" shall receive a merit adjustment of 2.75 percent. Employees may also be given
an additional merit adjustment of up to half of one percent (0.5) on the basis of an evaluation
by the fire chief.
In addition to the foregoing merit adjustment for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the Fire
Chief may, with the prior approval of the Village Manager, award a range adjustment of up
to 2 percent.
B. - THE ARBITRATOR SHOULD USE THE SAME GROUP
OF COMPARABLES THAT WERE USED IN THE PRIOR
TWO INTEREST ARBITRATION CASES
Management submits at the outset of the arbitration hearing the parties agreed to use the
same 14 comparables that had been established by Arbitrator Harvey Nathan in the initial interest
arbitration proceeding between the parties (UX 3, at pp. 28-40) and thereafter used by Arbitrator
Lisa Salkovitz Kohn in the second interest arbitration proceeding between the parties (VX 28, at pp.
5-6) (Tr. 4-5).
The jurisdictions that the parties mutually agreed to continue to use areas follows:
Arlington Heights
Bensenville
Buffalo Grove
Des Plaines
Elgin
Elmhurst
Hoffman Estates
Lombard
Mount Prospect'
Northbrook
Park Ridge
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 18
Rolling Meadows
Skokie
Wheeling
Subsequently, the Union sought to withdraw from the parties' prior agreement on the
comparables, contending that Bensenville should no longer be considered as a comparable on the
asserted ground that Bensenville now has "a public safety department in which firefighter jobs and
police officer jobs have been combined." (Tr. 62). The Village objects to the -Union's effort to
withdraw from the stipulation (Tr. 164-66).
C. Recent Collective Bargaining History With Respect to Lieutenants' Pay
In support of its position, the Administration offers the following background information
regarding prior arbitration decisions between these parties:
1. The 1997 Kohn Interest Arbitration Case
When the parties were .unable to mutually agree to :the terms for their second collective
bargaining agreement, the parties took two dozen issues to Arbitrator. Lisa Sakolvitz Kohn for
decision; including salaries for fire lieutenants (VX 28). In seeking to eliminate the pay system
lieutenants, the Union argued that lieutenants were underpaid vis-a-vis police sergeants and that
lieutenants -could not reach the maximum salary. With respect to the latter contention, the Union
asserted; as Arbitrator Kohn noted, that "[i]n 1995-1996, the Village did not pay any lieutenant the
m
maximuallowed under the contract, which was almost $1,000 higher than the salary of the
highest -'paid lieutenant" (UX 28, at P. 16). The arbitrator, however, rejected the Union's final offer
and awarded the Village's final offer for fire lieutenant salaries, relying in significant part on the fact
that Elk Grove Village's maximum base salary under the Village's final offer would rank the Village
"at seventh out of the 13 other communities for which 1996-1997 figures are in the record." (VX
28, at p.20).
2. The 1999 Voluntary Agreement
In 1999 the parties reached voluntary agreement on a new four-year contract. In addition
to re-establishing a parity relationship between police and fire by setting the top step firefighter
salary as of the first year of the contract at $170 below the top -step police -officer salary, the parties
also agreed' to increase the maximum of the salary range for fire lieutenants by 7.2% so that it
likewise was exactly $170 below the maximum of the salary range for police sergeants as of the first
year of the contract. In addition to increasing the salary range maximum by 7.2%, the parties also
agreed'that for the 1999-2000 fiscal year all fire lieutenants would receive an across-the-board salary
increase of :7.2% above the salaries they received the year before. This voluntary agreement
necessarilymeant that no fire lieutenant who was not previously at the top of the salary range would
Case No. S -MA -04-262 .
Elk.Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 19
move any closer to the top of the range. And, in fact, on an absolute dollar basis, any fire lieutenant
who was not at the top of the range would be further from the top than they were in the 1998-1999
fiscal year. If the parties in 1999 had intended to move lieutenants closer to the top of the salary
range they could have agreed to increase the maximum of the range by, say 5%, and provide for the
same across-the-board salary increase of 7.2% as long as it did not exceed the. maximum salary.
(Brieffor the Employer at 10-11).
For the three remaining years of the 1999-2003 contract, the parties agreed to continue merit
pay plan that provided specified increases based on performance evaluations, 0% to I% based on
the Chief's evaluation, and 0% to 2% for range adjustments.
3. The Berman Rights Arbitration Case
Following the initial implementation of the up -to -2% range adjustment provision for the
2000-2001 fiscal year based on the Village's policy of using the range adjustment to give newer
lieutenants a jump start in the range, the Union filed a grievance challenging the Village's
implementation (UX 36). The grievance was subsequently appealed to arbitration and heard by
Arbitrator Herb Berman. In its brief to Arbitrator Berman, the Union argued that range adjustments
were discriminatorily being granted, as the Union stated in its brief to Arbitrator Berman, to "the
newest lieutenants and least proficient" (UX 39,.at p. 12). In denying the grievance, Arbitrator
Berman reasoned as follows (VX 31, at p. 33; emphasis in original):
The range adjustment was not merit pay. To the contrary, the final
sentence of Section 14.2 not only makes the "up to 2%" range adjustment
discretionary, it clearly distinguishes range adjustments from merit adjustments.
Under Section 14.2, the Fire Chief/Village Manager could award range adjustments
"in addition to the foregoing merit adjustments. " Had the parties intended to
establish an equivalence between range adjustment and merit pay, they would not
have distinguished merit adjustments from discretionary range adjustments. On its
face, the language in question give the Fire Chief/Village Manager discretion to
award a 0-2% pay increase to employees without regard to merit .... (Emphasis
mine)..
As for the Union's contention that the parties agreed to the range adjustment language in order .
to move senior lieutenants "closer to the top," Berman concluded that "the evidence did not establish .
that the parties agreed that range adjustments would actually — as. opposed to possibly.- `move the
lieutenants up to higher salaries"' (VX 31, at p 36). Moreover, Berman ruled that "[t]he contract did
not preclude the Village Manager from determining the amount of money available for range
adjustments and then distributing it within his sound. discretion consistent with the range adjustment .
scale," noting that the "up to 2. percent". language "necessarily included- the,discretion.to determine..
(for sound business reasons) that. less than 2 percent was available for range adjustments" (VX 31, at
p. 36). In summary, he concluded that "the contract did not restrict the Village's discretion to award
range adjustments within a zero to.two,percent range" (VX 31, at p. 39).
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 8c
Village of Elk Grove, IL 20
D. Economic Issue 2 — Fire Lieutenant Salaries (Section 14.2)
1. The Arbitrator Should Accept the Village's Final Offer on Salaries Since it is
More Reasonable than the Union's Final Offer
a. Internal Comparability Considerations Support
Acceptance of the Village's Final Offer
Here Management points out that in Elk Grove Village the parties, in the last round of
negotiations, established a parity -type relationship between the maximum -of the salary ranges for the
Village's fire lieutenants and police sergeants. Thus, in the first year of the parties' 1999-2003
contract, the -parties voluntarily agreed to an adjustment of the maximum of the range for fire
lieutenants. that brought the maximum to exactly $170 less than the maximum of the range for police
sergeants. -Even a cursory review of the parties' final offers in this case shows that only the Village's
final offer. will: maintain to integrity of the parity relationship between fire lieutenants and police
sergeants that was established in the last round of negotiations. (Brief at 16).
-Significantly, this parity -type relationship is virtually identical to the parity -type relationship
that was established in 1999 between firefighters and police officers (i.e., the top step firefighter salary
is .$1.70 :less than the top step police officer) and will be maintained by the incorporation of the
Village's. mal salary offer for firefighters that was agreed to by the parties' designated Arbitrators.
_ - .. ..In addition to Quinn's.testimony in the Berman case (infra, this opinion), Trustee Petri testified
in the instant case that while external comparability was also a primary consideration, it was
"absolutely" -the case that a primary consideration in 1999 was to bring the maximum of the fire
lieutenant range to within $170 of the police sergeant salary maximum (Tr. 733, 740-41). Finally,
Union -witness McVeigh acknowledged on cross examination that the parties in 1999 discussed the
relationship- of fire lieutenant salaries to police sergeant salaries (Tr. 728). As McVeigh stated,
"Always in negotiations, you always do the comparison, Ted, as you know, to find a pay raise between
police sergeants and fire lieutenants ..." (Tr. 726).
- It's simply incredulous to think, as the Union would try to have the Arbitrator do, that it was
a, mere.,coincidence that the voluntarily negotiated maximum of the fire lieutenant salary range that
ended up being exactly $170 less than the maximum of the police sergeant salary range as of May 1,
:2003. The testimony of Kevin Quinn in the Berman case that is quoted above, as well as the
testimony of Trustee Petri in this case, shows that it was more than pure happenstance.
According to Management, this internal parity relationship unquestionably makes the Village's
final offer the -more reasonable of the two final offers and it should be accepted as such by the
Arbitrator.
-While it may be understandable that the Union wanted fire lieutenants to be paid more in line
:.with police: sergeants, as Kevin Quinn testified in the Berman rights arbitration case, it is an entirely
Case No. S -MA -04-262 - ' '
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL . - - - 2I
different matter for the maximum of the fire lieutenant salary range to be significantly above the
maximum of the salary range for police sergeants. The record evidence in this case clearly establishes
that while the maximum.base salary for fire lieutenants in a few jurisdictions may be equal to police
sergeants, there is no jurisdiction where the maximum fire lieutenant salary is above the maximum
police salary, as the following chart based on Village Exhibit 40 undeniably shows:
JURISDICTION
FIRE LT. AS OF 5/1/03
POLICE SGT. AS OF 5/1/03
Arlington Heights
$74,399
$83,167
Bensenville
$64314
$70)195
Buffalo Grove
N/A
$75,631
Elgin
$66,648
$78,840
Elmhurst
$72,390
$81,169
Hoffman Estates,
$71)624
$76,528
Lombard
$71,904
$71,904
Mt. Prospect
$70,899
$73,847
Northbrook
N/A
N/A
Park Ride
N/A
N/A
Rolling Meadows
$74,939
$74,939
Skokie -
$70,317
$74)252
Wheeling
$73,977
$74,885
Elk Grove Village (police
sergeant)
N/A
$75,271
Average for the 10
comparables (excluding
Elk Grove Village) with
maximum base salary data
for both lieutenants and
sergeants
$71,141
$75,973
Village Final Offer
$75,091
Union Final Offer
$75,489
Notwithstanding the fact that none of the comparables for which data. is available provides a
maximum base salary for fire lieutenants that is more than the maximum base salary for police
sergeants, the Union's final offer would result in the maximum base salary for Elk Grove Village fire
lieutenants being by increasingly larger margins more than the maximum base salary -for Elk -Grove
Villagepolice sergeants for fiscal years=2003; 2004, and 2005. This would constitute a dramatic
breakthrough for which there is absolutely no supporting internal or external comparability
justification. To the contrary, the internal comparability evidence conclusively establishes that
the maximum base salary of fire lieutenants in Elk Grove Village has historically been less than
the maximum base salary of police sergeants. Similarly, the external comparability evidence
conclusively establishes that no comparable jurisdiction has a maximum base salary for fire
lieutenants that is higher than the maximum base salary of police sergeants. Indeed, the external
comparability evidence establishes the average maximum base salary for police sergeants as of May
1, 2003 was $4,832 more than the average maximum base salary for fire lieutenants!
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 22
One final aspect of internal comparability needs to be discussed, i.e., the negotiated wage
adjustments for the Village's other two bargaining units. As noted at the hearing, the Village's police
officers are represented by the Metropolitan Alliance of Police and the Village's public works
employees are represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 (Tr. 607-08).
The Village has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with MAP that covers both the 2003-04
and 2004-05 fiscal years (VX 24), as well as a collective bargaining agreement with Local 150 that
covers all four of the fiscal years the will be covered by the parties' new contract in the instant case
(VX 23). The following chart summarizes the negotiated wage increases for these two contracts (VX
26):
'.BARGAINING
UNIT
MAY 1, 2003
MAY 1, 2004
MAY 1, 2005
38837
POLICE
3.5%
3.25%
N/A
N/A
PUBLIC WORKS
3.0%
3.5%
3.5%
3.25%
FIRE—
FIREFIGHTERS
5.6%
3.25%
3.25%
.3.25%
FIRE—
LIEUTENANTS
4.7%
3.25%
3.25%
3.25%
The foregoing voluntarily negotiated percentage salary increases definitely are in line with the
Village's"final offer. On the other hand, the Union's final offer provides for salary increases that are
substantially higher, not by just a little bit, but by several percentage points per year. To suggest that
havoc that would be caused if the Union's final offer were accepted is to only state the obvious.
Accordingly, the voluntarily negotiated salary adjustments with MAP and Local 150 unquestionably
support acceptance of the Village's final offer. See City of Waukegan and IAFF Local 473, Case No.
S -MA -00-141 (Arb. Marvin Hill, March 26, 2001) (City's final salary offer awarded; "1 also find that
the: City's' salary offer is fair when compared to the increases that other units in Waukegan have
received in the past").
Case No..S-MA-04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL. 23
b. External Comparability Data Supports Acceptance of
the Village's Final Salary Offer that Will Maintain
Essentially the Same Rank Among the Comparables
that the Parties Voluntarily Agreed to in the Last
Round of Negotiations
In Management's view, a good starting point to judge what is reasonable in terms of
comparability data, as Arbitrator Goldstein observed in City*of DeKalb and IAFF Local 1236 (June
6, 1988), is what the parties themselves believed was reasonable and appropriate in prior negotiations.
Thus, it is appropriate to consider as an approximate benchmark for external comparability
comparisons in this proceeding where Elk Grove Village stood in.terms of fire lieutenant salaries as.
of May 1, 2002,.the last year of the parties' 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement. Thus, as of
May -1;-2002, the negotiated Elk Grove Village maximum base salary for fire lieutenants was $71,713,
which ranked fourth out of the 15 comparable communities, including Elk Grove Village (VX 35).
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that the parties' 1999-2003 contract was voluntarily
agreed to, unlike the parties' first two contracts.
Based on the Village's final offer of a 4.7% increase in the maximum base salary effective
May 1;' 2003, Elk Grove Village's rank will move up to second out of 15, as the following chart
demonstrates (VX 36):
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 24
JURISDICTION
MAXIMUM BASE SALARY AS OF MAY 1, 2003
Park Ride
$82,616
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
$75,084 based on the Village's final offer
Des Plaines
$74,877
Lombard
$74,780
Rolling Meadows
$74,197
Wheeling
$73,977
Arlington Heights
$73,662
Northbrook
$73,318
Elmhurst
$72,390
Hoffman Estates
$71,624
Mount Prospect
$70,899
Skokie
$70,317
Elgin
$66,648
Bensenville
N/A
Buffalo Grove
N/A
RANK
2/15
-In short, as of May 1, 2003, based on the Village's final offer, Elk Grove Village actually
-moves up two'notches above where Elk Grove Village stood as of the last.year of the parties'
1999-2003 contract. .
Also, as of May 1, 2004, under the Village's final offer, Elk Grove Village will maintain
the exact same, rank that it had as of the May 1, 2002, i.e., fourth out of 15, as the following chart
shows (VX 37):
JURISDICTION
MAXIMUM BASE
Park Ride
$86,796
Lombard
$77,584
Rolling Meadows
$77,562
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
$77,531 (based on
Village's final offer
Des Plaines
$77,498
Wheeling
$76,751
Arlington Hei Dghts
$76,631
Northbrook
$76,067
Elmhurst
$75,467
Hoffman Estates
$74,668
Skokie
$73,683
Mount Prospect
$73,380
Elgin
N/A
Bensenville
N/A
Buffalo Grove
N/A
RANK
4/15
Case No. S -MA -04-262. .
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, 1L 25
Finally, as of May 1, 2005, Elk Grove Village's rank will slip one notch to be fifth out of
the 15 external comparables:
JURISDICTION
MAXIMUM BASE
SALARY AS OF MAY
112005
Park Ride
$89,834
Rolling Meadows
$81,079
Lombard
$80,493
Des Plaines
$80,210
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
$80,051 (based on
Village's final offer
Wheeling
$79,629
Arlington Heights
$79,217?
Northbrook
$78,920
Elmhurst
$78,297
Hoffman Estates
$77,841
Mount Prospect
$77,653
Skokie
$76,262
Elgin
N/A
Bensenville
N/A
Buffalo Grove
N/A
RANK
5/15
The foregoing charts unquestionably support acceptance of the Village's final salary offer,
especially when the addition of longevity pay and paramedic pay is added to the equation, as it surely
must.
Significantly, in the 1997 Kohn case, Arbitrator Kohn specifically relied on the Village's rank
in terms of maximum base salary among the 14 external.comparables in awarding the Village's final
offer on fire lieutenant salaries (VX 28, at pp. 19-20). She commented that the Village's final offer
"would create a maximum base salary of $55,249, $600 above the average and ranked seventh out of
the 13 other communities for which 1996-1997 figures are in the record" (VX 28, at p. 20).
In considering the relevance of the Kohn award, it is important to note that the Union argued,
in the same way that it has in this case, that in "1995-1996, the Village did not pay any lieutenant the
maximum allowed under the contract, which was almost $1,000 higher than the salary of the highest-
paid lieutenant" (VX 28, at p. 16). Moreover, Arbitrator Kohn observed that "the Village's current
merit.pay award practices are consistent with its historic administration of merit systems" (VX 28, at
p. 17). The exact same comment is applicable to the instant case.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 26
C. The Village's Final Salary Offer Is Definitely More
Reasonable Based on the Known Percentage
Adjustments for the External Comparables
In terms of judging the reasonableness of the parties' final offers vis=a -vis the external
comparables, it is useful to examine at the percentage adjustments that have been negotiated for 2003,
2004, 2005, and 2006, i.e., the years covered by the term of the contract at issue in this case (see
Union Ex. 48, as revised, infra, this opinion).
Since'the Union's final offer for fire lieutenant salary increases based on maximum merit plus
.a minimum range movement of 1% come to 6.7652% for 2003, 5.2559% for 2004, 5.75% for 2005,
and 5.75%'. f6r- 2006; the 'Union's final salary offer is unquestionably. the outlier among all the
comparables. On an uncompounded basis for the three years for which enough external salary_
comparability data is available, the Union's final salary offers comes to 17.77%! That is nearly 6%
above the uncompounded average percentage increases for the three years in question. In the instance
case, the. overall size of the Union's final salary offer "is clearly beyond the bounds of
reasonableness." Id.
:: Another way of analyzing the Union's final offer over the three years in question is to compare
the total percentage increase based on the parties' final offers with the total percentage increase for
all of the comparables for which data is available for the same three years, as the following chart does
(UX 48 as revised 7/5/05; see footnotes 19 and 23, supra):
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL - 27
JURISDICTION
CALENDAR
YEAR 2003
CALENDAR
YEAR 2004
CALENDAR
YEAR 2005
3 -YEAR
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E INCREASE
Arlington Heights
4.0%
4.0%
3.0%
11.0%
Buffalo Grove
4.0%
4.5%
2.5%
11.0%
Des Plaines
5.37%
3.5%
3.5%
12.37
Elmhurst
4.0%
4.25%
3.75%
12.0%
-H6ffman Estates
5.96%
4.25%
4.25%
14.460/.
Lombard
3.75%
3.75%
4.0%
11.5%
Mt:•Prospect
3.5%
3.0%
3.0%
9.5%
Northbrook
3.75%
3.75%
3.75%
11.25
Park Ridge
-4.7%
4.34%
4.77%
13.81
Rolling Meadows
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
13.5%
Skokie
4.25%
3.75%
3.5%
11.5%
Wheeling
3.75%
3.75%
3.75%
11.25
ELK GROVE
VILLAGE'S FINAL
OFFER
4.70%
3.25%
3.25%
11.2%
ELK GROVE
VILLAGE -UNION
'S FINAL OFFER
6.7652%. ,
5.2559%.
5.75%
17:77%
The foregoing chart unquestionably establishes. the Village's final salary offer is•the more
reasonable of the two final offers.- The three.year total for .the Union's final offer of 17.77.% is" .
3.3% more.than the three year total for Hoffman Estates, the comparable. with the highest three
year total of the 12 comparables for which fire lieutenant salary data is available for:all three
years. And it is almost a full 6% above the average for the -12 comparables.. On the other hand,
the.three year total of 11.2%.based on the.Village's final offer is well within the range of three
year totals for the 12 comparables, in;.question, and only six tenths of one. percent.below: the
average of 11.8% for the 12 comparables over the -three years in question. By any. measure of
comparison, the Village's final offer is clearly.more reasonable than the Uniori's final offer: ' .
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340&
Village of Elk Grove, IL 28
d. The Fact That Police Sergeants and Fire
Lieutenants Have Been Covered by the
Same Range Adjustment Policy Supports
Acceptance of the Village's Final Offer
... The record in the instant case establishes that the same range adjustment policy, including the
philosophy and the way it is administered, is applicable to both police sergeants and fire lieutenants.
Thus, the Village's attorney stated that "[t]he same philosophy, policy, practice and method of
implementation for police sergeants is what is incorporated in the Village's final offer with respect
to fire -lieutenants" (Tr..644).. Ee- further stated that the Village was willing to stipulate that the
:. Berman "award captures from the Village's perspective the manner in which it has.been implemented
and that continues to be the current philosophy of the Village" (Tr. 664). That philosophy is to
administer the range adjustment pool so as to move newer, less senior lieutenants up in the
..range,.- rather than to move more senior lieutenants closer to the maximum of the range.
Sign.ificantly,._the parties stipulated that same philosophy is applied in administering the range
adjustment pool for police sergeants (Tr. 665-66).
Whereas the Village's final offer would maintain the status quo, the Union's final offer would
constitute: a marked departure from the Village's range adjustment policy applicable to both police
sergeants and -fire lieutenants. Rather than giving the Village Manager the discretion to determine
the. pool and. to approve the disbursement of that pool among eligible employees, the Union's
final.offerwould eliminate all such discretion. Thus, any lieutenant below the midpoint of the range
evould- be : guaranteed a 2% range adjustment and any lieutenant above the midpoint would be
guaranteed a l% range adjustment. Significantly, the Union did not offer any quid pro quo for this
breakthrough item.
In summary, the Union's final offer constitutes the dismantling of a fundamental part of the
fire lieutenant• salary program and would result in fire lieutenants being covered by one program and
police sergeants by a different program. It is submitted that this fact strongly supports rejection of the
Union's final offer.
°Moreover, the magnitude of the guaranteed range adjustments, which are only subject to the
salary -range maximum, when considered together with the substantially above-average merit increases
already discussed, makes the Union's final offer even more unreasonable.. With a guarantee of I%
or. 2% depending on placement within the range, the average range adjustment will, in all
likelihood; be at least 1.5% for all four years of the contract. This will further demolish the
parityAype relationship with police sergeants. For each of the first three years for which range
adjustment data is available for police sergeants, the amount that fire lieutenants would receive under
.-the Union's. final offer would dwarf the average range adjustment percentage received by police
sergeants;... -Thus, for both 2003-04 and 2004-05, the average range adjustment percentage for fire
lieutenants' would double what police sergeants received, i.e., an assumed minimum of at least 1.5%
; . for-.lieutenatiO versus 0.75% for sergeants. And for 2005-06, the average amount would be 0.5%
Case No. S -MA -04 -262, -
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove; IL 29
higher, i.e., 1.5% versus 1.0%. When this aspect of the Union's final offer is considered along with
radical change in the range adjustment policy, it further establishes the unreasonableness of the
Union's final offer. In order to maintain the status quo with respect to range adjustments, both policy -
wise and cost -wise, the Arbitrator should accept the Village's final offer.
e. The Additional Compensation that Lieutenants Will
Receive for Longevity, Paramedic Pay and Overtime
Likewise Supports Acceptance of the Village's Final
Salary Offer
Management submits that in assessing the reasonableness of the parties' final offers on. fire
lieutenant salaries, it is important to consider the additional economic consideration that the fire
lieutenants will receive based on the following economic issues that have already been resolved:
1. Paramedic pay for lieutenants who are paramedics will increase $100 per contract
year, i.e., from $3,000 as of the end of the 1999-2003 contract to $3,400 as of May 1,
2006.
2. Longevity pay for lieutenants, as well as firefighters, will increase as follows:
YEARS OF
SERVICE
2002-03
Eff. 5/1/03
Eff.
5/1/04
Eff.
5/1/05
Eff.
5/1/06
10-15 yrs.
$400
$450
$500
$550
$575
15-20 yrs.
$500
$550
$600
$650
$675
Over 20 yrs.
$650
$700
$750
$800
$825
Effective the first pay period following issuance of the Arbitrator's award, lieutenants
will be paid [3] time and one-half for required training and attendance at
departmental meetings that occur outside their scheduled hours of work; previously,
as FLSA exempt employees they were not paid overtime for required training or
attendance at departmental meetings that occurred on non -duty days (Tr. 633; JX 1,
Section 13.5, at p. 25). Parenthetically, it should be noted that under Village
personnel policies, police sergeants do not receive overtime unless it is an emergency
hire -back or is done for staffing purposes (Tr. 633; VX 39).
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340
30
Village of Elk Grove, IL
Effective January 1, 2006, [4] the hourly rate for both firefighters and lieutenants
will be calculated on the basis of the 52.88 hour work week rather than the
current 54.16 hour work week. The net effect of this is that the hourly rate for any
:given salary will increase by 2.42%. For example, the hourly rate for a lieutenant
whose annual salary is $75,000 will increase from $26.63 to $27.27. And the overtime
rate will increase by 96 cents per hour, i.e., from $39.95 per overtime hour to $40.91
per hour.
The foregoing significant compensation improvements that fire lieutenants will be the
beneficiaries of definitely enhances the overall reasonableness of the Village's final offer for fire
:.:.:...:lieutenant salaries and should be considered by the Arbitrator in the assessing the overall
reasonableness of the parties' final offers.
Case No. S -N A-04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 31
f. The CPI Data Support Acceptance of the
Village's Final Salary Offer.
Among the criteria the Arbitrator is required to consider is "[t]he average consumer prices for
goods and services, commonly known as the cost -of -living." 5 ILCS 315/14 (h)(5). During the course
of this proceeding, both parties submitted CPI data (VX 12-17; UX 57-59, 66). Careful analysis of
this data unquestionably supports acceptance of the Village's final salary offer for fire lieutenants.
g. The Ease in Attracting Qualified Applicants and the
Virtually Non -Existent Voluntary Turnover Rate
. Support Acceptance of the Village's Final Salary Offer-
The
ffer
The Administration asserts that among the criteria used in interest arbitration cases to
determine salaries is the relative ease or difficulty in attracting qualified applicants, as well as the
turnover rate among employees involved. Significantly, the unrebutted evidence presented by the
Village during the hearing conclusively demonstrates that the Elk Grove Village Fire Department has
not experienced any difficulty in terms of either attracting qualified applicants or in retaining police
officers.
h. Other Collective Bargaining Settlement and Economic
Data Support Acceptance of the Village's Final Salary Offer
The national data concerning collectively -bargained wage increases for state and local
government employees likewise clearly supports the conclusion that the Village's final salary offer
for fire lieutenants is the most reasonable. This data taken from Village Exhibits. 20 and 21 shows the
following:
YEAR
WEIGHTED
AVERAGE.
AVERAG
E
MEDIAN
2003
2.2%
2.9%
3.0%
2004
2.0%
2004
3.0%
In summary, the foregoing settlement and wage rate adjustment data further substantiates the
conclusion that the Village's final salary offer is clearly the most reasonable since it will provide for
salary increases significantly above what is occurring in the economy at large as measured by first
year negotiated wage increases for state and local government employees and the most recent 12 -
month ECI wage increase percentage for state and local government employees. There is simply no
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters .2340,&
Village of Elk Grove, IL 32 -
justification for the Union's final salary offer which would provide for increases in salaries for fire
lieutenants that approximately double what can be supported by either national or local settlement
data.
i. The Interests and Welfare of the Public Support
Acceptance of the Village's Final Salary Offer
Section 14(h)(3) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act provides that "[t]he interest and
welfare of the public and the financial ability of the unit of government to meet those costs" is to be
taken into•account in interest arbitration proceedings. 5 ILCS 315/14(h)(3). Relevant in this regard
afe the comments of Arbitrator Edward Clark in City of Gresham and IAFF Local 1062 (September
5,..1984):
Having observed that the City has the ability to pay an increase does not mean
that the City ought to pay an increase unless it is satisfied that there will be some
public benefit from such expenditure. The City exists for the service and benefit of its
residents not for the benefit of its employees. The careful management which
characterizes the City of Gresham in matters such as this is confirmed by the high bond
ratin . from Moody's, the widely respected financial rating service. Residents need
_ many services such as police, parks, street repairs, court, in addition to fire services.
-.In our system, the elected representatives of the people of _Gresham make policy
decisions on the apportionment of funds -among a variety of public services based upon
recommendations of.its professional staff. The City must also consider the salary
expectation of other employees besides fire fighters and the reciprocal impacts from
decisions relating to one classification of employee compared to another. Decision at
2-3. (Emphasis added.)
:The -Village is not making a pure inability to pay argument in this case. Nevertheless, as the
... arbitrator properly observed in City of Gresham above, the fact that a public employer "has the ability
to pay:an-increase does not mean that the [Village] ought to pay an increase unless it is satisfied that
there will be some public benefit from such expenditure," noting further that a public employer "exists
for the service and benefit of its residents and not for the benefit of its employees." Id.
Case No. S-MA704=262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 33
E. THE UNION'S ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS
FINAL OFFER THAT WOULD PROVIDE SALARY
INCREASES THAT WOULD CONSERVATIVELY
AVERAGE WELL OVER 20% ARE TOTALLY
WITHOUT MERIT AND SHOULD BE REJECTED
BY THE ARBITRATOR
1. The Union's Total Compensation .Analysis
Is Fatally Flawed Because It Does Not
Represent What Any Firefighter Actually
Receives in Take Home Compensation
The Union introduced a series of exhibits in an effort to try to suggest that on a total
compensation basis Elk Grove Village fire lieutenants did not compare favorably with the external
comparables: (UX 17-I, 174, 61). There are serious flaws with respect to these exhibits that render
them virtually useless for any legitimate purpose in the instant proceeding, the most serious of which
are discussed below.
Norte of the exhibits show that any fire lieutenant in any of the comparables actually receives
the total compensation listed .on the Union's exhibits. That's because. the Union's "total
compensation'.' exhibits list all the various salary benefits, including salary benefits that only one.
employee or just a few employees maybe receiving, and then equally weights that amount with every.
other benefit in order to come up with what the Union labels "total salary."
2. Contrary to the Union's Assertion, the Salaries Paid
to the Village's Police Sergeants Do Not Support the
Union's Final Offer on Fire Lieutenant Salaries.
To the extent that the Union argues that the salaries paid to the Village's police sergeants
support the Union's final offer on lieutenant salaries, that argument is totally without merit. In the
first place, to rely on the salaries paid to police sergeants that are based on administration of the
Village's merit compensation plan to. support the Union's final offer which -would establish entirely
different parameters for range movements, among other things, is a non -sequitur. But,.in any event,
the record. evidence does not support the Union's argument.
At -the outset, it is important to note that the Union's attorney is in error when it asserts while
the.maximum base salary is admittedly competitive, "but the problem in this town is that no lieutenant
has ever reached that number" (Tr. 76). For example, the facts show that Lt. Denna as of May 1,
2002, was.at the maximum base salary of $71,713 for fire lieutenants (UX 41, p. 3; Tr. 479, 576).
Moreover, Village Exhibit 4,8 shows that between 1991 and 2003 more fire lieutenants than
police sergeants have been at the that
of the salary range (41 lieutenants verses 36.
sergeants).: The fact is that top -paid lieutenants tend to be promoted, like Denna who was promoted
in November 2002 "(Tr. 490).
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL .34
The actual salaries being paid to police lieutenants for the 2003-04 fiscal year ranges from a
low of $67,951 to a high of $75,071 for the 15 police sergeants (UX 27). Based on the Village's final
offer for fire lieutenants, and assuming that all lieutenants receive an at least "meet standards"
evaluation and.that the top paid lieutenant receives a 4.7% salary adjustment, the range for fire
lieutenants will be from $65,875 (Blackaller and Ferguson) to $72,692 (Guglielino). Thus, the
difference or spread on the low end is $2,374 and $2,378 on the high end. These facts, however, do
not support the Union's contention.
Management notes that the salaries for police sergeants, on average, are somewhat higher than
the salaries for fire lieutenants on average, as is the case for the external bench -marks. Thus, when
..the Village originally used the Hay Compensation System to establish its merit pay program, the
:,number:of points assigned to the police sergeant position (331 points) was higher than the.number of
points assigned to the fire lieutenant position (307 points) (UX 31). Asa result, salaries for police
sergeants -have traditionally been somewhat higher in Elk Grove Village than the average salaries for
fire lieutenants.
Apart from the observation of Arbitrator Nathan that because of "differences in group
size. and -seniority;" average salary exhibits "offer little guidance," another reason why the
average-fire:lieutenant salaries may be somewhat less than average police salaries is because the
..differential between a top -step police officer and a newly promoted police sergeant is 8% (Tr.
483), i.e., 3% more than the 5% differential between a top -step firefighter and a newly
promoted:fire; lieutenant. It stands to reason if newly -promoted police sergeants start out higher
than newly promoted fire.lieutenants, the average salaries for police sergeants, all other things being
. ...equal, will be higher. Similarly,- it stands to reason, all other things being equal, that police sergeants
will be closer to the top of the salary range than fire lieutenants. This difference, however, is based
on the parties' mutual agreement over the years to set the minimum of the fire lieutenant salary range
at 5% above the top step firefighter salary. This 5% differential was included in the parties' first
collective agreement that resulted from the Nathan award (UX 3, at pp. 63-64), it was continued as.
a result of theKohnaward (VX 28, at pp. 14-20), and it was mutually agreed to in the parties' 1999-
2003 collective bargaining agreement (JX 1, Section 14.2, at pp. 30-31). Moreover, both parties' final
offers in the instant case continue to set minimum of the fire lieutenant salary range at 5% above the
top step firefighter salary (JX 3-A; JX 3-13; Tr. 492-93, 579). Accordingly, it is submitted that any
difference in -average police sergeant and fire lieutenant salaries that is the product of the different
percentage figures used to establish the minimums of the police sergeant and fire lieutenant salary
ranges should not be considered as supporting the Union's position in this case because any such
difference is the result of the parties' mutual agreement, which neither party is seeking to change.
3. Contrary to the Union's Assertion, Past
Practice Does Not Support Granting Fire
Lieutenants a Greater Percentage Increase
Every Year Than Firefighters Receive
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL - - 35
Here, Management points out the .Union asserted that there has been a past practice of
providing greater annual percentage salary increases to fire lieutenants than are granted to firefighters
(Tr. 75, 611). While the Union's exhibit shows that in four of the seven fiscal years between 1996-97
and 2002-03, the maximum base salary for fire lieutenants was increased by I% more than the across-
the-board salary increases for firefighters, in the remaining three years the percentage increases
for both lieutenants and firefighters were exactly the same (UX 17-A). It is also important to note
that during this period of time the parties were closing the gap between the maximum base salary for
fire lieutenants and police sergeants. Since the Village's final offer wiII-maintain, in effect, the same
parity relationship in the maximum base salary for fire lieutenants and police sergeants, there is simply
no need to provide higher annual percentage increases for fire lieutenants.
Nor does the Union's contention that lieutenants should receive annual percentage increases
thdCare higher than what firefighters receive supported by the external comparability evidence.
If the Village had offered to increase the maximum base salary for lieutenant by 5.6% for the
2003-04 fiscal year, i.e., the same percentage that the Village offered for firefighters in the first year
of the contract, it would have resulted in the lieutenants having a higher maximum base salary than
police sergeants, something that would be at odds with the historic practice in Elk Grove Village, as
well as at odds with the practice among the 14 external comparable communities.
* * *
In summary, the Village's final offer is cast in the same footprint of what was previously
established through interest arbitration before Arbitrators Nathan and Kohn and subsequently through
the voluntary agreement by the parties in the 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement. It provides
for percentage increases that are well within the range of the external comparables. Moreover, it
maintains the parity -type relationship between the salary'range maximums for fire lieutenants and
police sergeants.
Om the other hand, the Union's final offer constitutes a not -so -subtle dismantling of the
previously established merit system. Moreover, the overall cost of the Union's final offer is absolutely
staggering! For the three years for which external salary data is available, the average percentage
increase encompassed in the Union's final offer is nearly 6% above the average for the external
comparables! What this Arbitrator said in City of Waukegan, supra, is even more applicable in this
case, i.e., " ..: the.Union's proposal is clearly outside the bounds of reasonableness. Moreover, the
Union's final offer would result in the fire lieutenant salary range maximum being set well above the
police sergeant salary range maximum, contrary to the historic,practice in n6t only Elk Grove Village
but in all the external comparables for which maximum base salary data was available for both police
sergeants and fire lieutenants.
Accordingly, based on the facts, precedent, and arguments contained in this post -hearing brief,
the Village respectfully requests that the Arbitrator award the Village's final offer on fire lieutenant
salaries.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 & -
Village of Elk Grove, 1L 36
V. DISCUSSION
A. PRELIMINARY MATTERS— THE STATUTE
The. parties agree that the arbitration panel is directed by Section 14 of the IPLRA (5 ILCS
315/14(h)) to decide each of the disputed issues in accordance with the following criteria:
(g) As to each economic issue, the arbitration panel shall adopt the last offer
of settlement which, in the opinion of the arbitration panel, more nearly complies with
the applicable factors prescribed in subsection (h). The findings, opinions and order
as to all other issues shall be based upon the applicable factors prescribed in.subsection
(h)•
(h) Where there is no agreement between the parties, or where there is an
agreement but the parties have begun negotiations or discussions looking to a new
agreement or amendment of the existing agreement, and wage rates or other conditions
:....:: of employment under the proposed new or amended agreement are in dispute, the
arbitration.panel shall base its findings, opinions and order upon the following factors,
as -applicable:
(1) The lawful authority of the employer.
(2) Stipulations of the parties.
::. .(3) The interests and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the
unit of government to meet those costs.
(4) . Comparison of the wages, hours and conditions of employment of the
employees involved in the arbitration proceeding with the wages, hours
and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar
services and with other employees generally:
(A) In public employment in comparable communities.
(B) , In private employment in comparable communities.
(5) The average consumer prices for goods and services, commonly known
as the cost of living.
(6) The overall compensation presently received by the employees,
: including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other
excused time, insurance and pensions, medical and hospitalization
benefits, the continuity and stability of employment and all other
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL: 37
benefits received.
(7) Changes in any of the foregoing circumstances during the -pendency of
the arbitration proceedings.
(8) Such other factors, not confined to the foregoing, which are normally
or traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages,
hours and conditions of employment through voluntary collective
bargaining, mediation, fact-finding, arbitration or otherwise between
the parties, in the public service or in private employment.
. Because Section 14 of the IPLRA provides that the decision be based on the factors only "as
applicable," some of the factors enumerated in the statute may not be relevant or controlling. Further,
under the IPLRA, other factors not enumerated may be relevant to the disposition of the case.
B. The Effect of the Arbitrators' "Settlement Agreement"
The Union cited a number of arbitration decisions at the hearing in support of its position that
the parties' settlement agreement especially on hours should not be accorded any weight in this
proceeding. To this end the Village argues that those decisions do not stand for such a proposition.
Rather, like all decisions, they are correctly understood in relation to their facts. See, e.g., Waterloo
and Illinois FOP Labor Council, ISLRB, S -MA -97-198 (Perkovich, November 1999); Oak Brook
and Teamsters Local 714, ISLRB, S -MA -96-73 (Bene, August 1996); and Peru and Illinois FOP
Labor Council, ISLRB S -MA -93-153 (Berman, March 1995).
In the Peru decision, Arbitrator Herb Berman did not find that the facts of the dispute
warranted ascribing importance to the tentative agreement, but nonetheless held that "[a] tentative
agreement may be considered, but it is not dispositive. The weight to be given a tentative agreement
necessarily varies with circumstances, but it does not have the same weight as the facts set out in
Section 14(g)." Id. at 18. In the Oak Brook decision Arbitrator Edwin Benn properly accorded a
rejected TA weight. The fact that the tentative agreement was not ratified by the union merely
mitigated against the employer's burden of proof. In Arbitrator Benn's view: "the parties' well -
framed arguments which are supported by authority serve to negate each other — the Village argues
that the Union's bargaining team agreed; the Union argues that the Village -must demonstrate why a
change in the status quo is required." Id. at 5. Finally, Arbitrator Perkovich did not reject the
importance of tentative agreements in the Waterloo decision. He simply remarked that the TA was
not relevant in that case, because - "there is no evidence in this record -that the Union acted for this
purpose [to seek more than it agreed to] or in some other -fashion indicative of bad faith." Id. at 3.
'Arbitrator Peter Meyers, in County of Sangamon, S -MA -97-54 at 6-1 (February 12, 1999)
recognized the inherent paradox that would be created if one relied on- a tentative agreement as
evidence of the hypothetical agreement that the parties would have reached if left to their own devices:
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340.&
Village of Elk Grove, IL 38
Tentative agreements reached during the course of collective bargaining sessions are just what
their name suggests, tentative. A tentative agreement on an issue has been reached by the
parties' bargaining representatives does not represent the final step in the collective bargaining
process; such an agreement instead is more of an intermediate step. For a tentative agreement
.to acquire any binding contractual effect, it generally must be presented to the parties
themselves, ratified, and ultimately executed before it may be imposed as binding upon the
parties' relationship.
Arbitrator Meyers went on to assert that tentative agreements cannot be given weight in a
subsequent proceeding:
[T]he tentative agreements cannot be given great weight, or even any weight at all, because
they do not necessarily represent what the parties would have agreed to if they had
successfully negotiated a complete collective bargaining agreement. The so-called "busted
TA's'.' therefore will not be considered in the resolution of the impasse issues presented in the
proceeding.
Arbitrator Meyers' blanket position does not reflect what I believe to be the better weight of
arbitral -authority. In Village -of Schaumberg and Schaumberg FOP Lodge No. 71, S -MA -93-155
(Fleischli, September 1994), Arbitrator George Fleischli held that in certain circumstances tentative
agreements may be relevant in assessing the reasonableness of a party's offer. In this context, the
inquiry -focuses on what the surrounding facts tell about the reasons_ for a party's rejection of a TA.
His words are instructive in this proceeding:
-It would be clearly inappropriate, under the law, to treat the terms of the tentative
=. agreement as controlling. As the Union points out, both parties understood that the terms of
that agreement were tentative in the sense that it was subject to ratification by both parties.
However; the Village does not argue that the terms of the tentative agreement should be treated
as controlling herein. Instead, it argues that they should be given great weight.
In dealing with this aspect of the dispute, a balance must be.struck. On the one hand,
it is important that.the authority of the parties' collective bargaining team not be unnecessarily
undermined. Specifically': in the case of the Union, its bargaining team ought not to be
discouraged from exercising leadership. Some risk taking must occur on both sides, if
voluntary collective bargaining is to work and arbitration avoided, where possible. Clearly,
the Union's membership had the legal right to reject the proposed settlement. However, the
Union's membership (and the Village board) must understand that, while it is easy to second
guess their bargaining teams, whenever a tentative agreement is rejected, it undermines their
authority and ability to achieve voluntary settlements.
:. -.On the other hand, serious consideration should be given to the stated or apparent
reasons for either party's rejection 'of a tentative agreement. If, for example the evidence
Case No. S -MA -04-262 .
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk -Grove, IL 39
were to show that there was a significant misunderstanding as to the terms or
implications of the settlement, those terms ought not to be considered persuasive. Under
those circumstances, there would be, in effect, no tentative agreement. However, if the
terms are rejected simply because of a belief that it might have been possible to "do a
little better," the terms of the tentative agreement should be viewed as a valid indication
of what the parties' own representatives viewed as a valid indication of what the parties'
own representatives considered to be reasonable and given some weight in the
deliberations.
Id. at 33-34 (emphasis supplied). Arbitrator Fleischli subscribed to the view that interest arbitration
is merely a continuation of the bargaining process, and, therefore, that "the function of the arbitrator
should be to try and approximate the agreement the parties would. have or:should have reached
themselves, knowing that either party could force the impasse into an interest arbitration proceeding."
Id. at 34.
I am convinced that Arbitrator Fleischli makes the better argument regarding the weight to be
accorded tentative agreements. Like Mr. Fleischli, I am on record as concluding that an interest
Arbitrator should strive to award a position the parties would have reached if both parties were
left to their own devices, including, but not limited to, a strike. See, Marvin Hill and Emily
`Delacenserie, Interest Arbitration Criteria in Fact -Finding & Arbitration, Evidentiary & Substantive
Consideration, 74.MARQ. L. REV. 399 (1991)(hereiri "Hill & Delacenserie"). A tentative agreement
indicates what the parties, or their duly -appointed representatives, thought was a result otherwise
conducive to their interests. They are the insiders and presumptively know the environment and
numbers better than any neutral. While certainly not dispositive (nor "res judicata") of a specified
result in an interest arbitration, a party would be hard-pressed to argue that a tentative agreement
should be ignored by an arbitrator. It is from this prospective, as outlined by Arbitrator Fleischli
above, that the parties' final offers are analyzed.
Applying the above principles, where does this leave the parties?
At all times, and unlike the situations in the above cases, what happen in this case was a bona
fide stipulated award executed between two of the designated panel arbitrators. As the parties know,
the neutral member of a panel can always be trumped by a decision of the other two.' This, alas, is
exactly what happen in this case. While at an executive session on .March 29, 2005, _ at .a local
.restaurant, Arbitrators Baird and Quinn reached an accord on economic issue #1 (salaries for
firefighters), economic issue #6 (hours of work), and economic issue 8 (sick leave). While this may
look like a mere settlement agreement between advocates, in this case it was one step beyond that.
This was a settlement between two designated arbitrators. As such, any notion that the agreement
' This result is not at all uncommon in airline system board cases where, after hearing all the evidence, the
employer -appointed arbitrator and the union -appointed arbitrator decides how the case is -to be resolved and directs
the neutral to execute a written opinion reflecting the decision of a majority of the arbitration board. Other common
examples include a decision by the employer -appointed -arbitrator and the union -appointed arbitrator after the
evidence record is completed, but before a draft award is.issued by the neutral arbitrator.
Case No: S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL .40
should be rejected is misplaced. Once two panel members reached a settlement, not a tentative
agreement,Z the neutral's role is really (in effect) functus officio. This issue was considered and
addressed by the National Academy of Arbitrators in the recent text, The Common Law of the Shop:
The Views of Arbitrators (second edition)(BNA Books, 2005) as follows:
May an arbitrator ignore a settlement agreement? The Sixth Circuit has declared: "It is not
arbitration per se that federal policy favors, but rather final adjustment of differences by a
means selected by the parties." Bakers Union Factory Local 326 v. ITT Continental Baking
Co.,. 749 F.2d 350, 353, 117 LRRM 3145 (6' Cir. 1984)(quoting Mine Workers v. Barnes &
Tucker Co., 561 F.2d 1093, 1096 (3d Cir. 1977)). When a party claims that a prior settlement
agreement controls the parties' obligations, the policy in favor the finality of arbitration must
yield- to the broader policy in favor of the parties' chosen method of nonjudicial dispute
resolution. The court reasoned that otherwise a party who became unhappy with a
settlement would have every incentive to breach the agreement and then submit the
controversy to an arbitrator. Even if a settlement agreement is not final and binding in the
_sense.that it can be enforced in federal court without first having been submitted to an
arbitrator, the settlement is binding on the arbitrator.
See,�Maivin R Hill, Jr., Remedies in Arbitration, in The Common Law of the Shop, supra, at 362-363.
Asking the neutral to reject "the stipulation" reached by a majority of the arbitration
panel entirely misses the point. As noted, Messrs. Baird and Quinn were functioning as board
members, -read "arbitrators," albeit not in a neutral capacity. I have'no authority to reject a
resolution voluntarily reached by panel arbitrators simply because a party subsequently argues
that .a unilateral mistake had been made.' The settlement was memorialized to a stipulated
There was nothing tentative about the settlement agreement. Indeed, when acting as a scribe, the neutral member
asked Mr. Quinn if he wanted to "sleep on it," that he could wait and talk things over with his attorney. He declined
the invitation, confident that the result was exactly what the Union desired.
' I have characterized the Union's reason for requesting the arbitrators' "stipulation" be rejected as a "mistake"
theory. The evidence record indicates that after Messrs. Baird and Quinn reached agreement, counsel for the Union
advanced numerous reasons for requesting that the stipulation be ignored, including the following: (1) a condition to
an agreement was additional information to be supplied by the employer -designated arbitrator, Mr. Baird, and (2)
(incredibly) absence of legal counsel to the union -appointed Arbitrator, Mr. Quinn, during the executive session.
The record indicates that immediately after an accord was reached with Mr. Baird, Mr. Quinn was asked by
the neutral member whether he wanted to.present the agreement to the Union for ratification (upon reflection,
ratification would have no effect since the accord was reached between two arbitrators, not two advocates, although
to an extent they functioned in this matter). Mr. Quinn indicated that he did not, that the agreement was to be a
stipulated award (of course, it would be, given that two arbitrators agreed to this outcome). Mr. Quinn was also
asked by the neutral member whether he wanted to "sleep on it" for a day and talk over the matter to counsel. This
option was also rejected. Mr. Quinn was convinced that the Employer's hours offer "would not work," which is to
say, it would not save the Village any money. Indeed, under all scenarios the Union would "make out" in the sense
it would,reap significant overtime gains. Mr. Baird's position was (in so many words), "fine, if that's the case, so be
it. The Village should understand the ramifications of what it proposes."
--Gear.and simple, the result was a stipulated award executed and agreed to by two panel arbitrators, a result
that the.neutral member cannot logically or ethically reject. The deal was done and complete with the neutral acting
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 41
award which was dictated to the court reported by the undersigned. At this point the matter
was at an end. °
Having. said the above, there is merit in remanding the. matter to the parties prior to the
commencement of this award. A critical aspect of the hours provision is the schedule of selection of
work reduction days. Management has taken the position, both at the hearing and in the March
executive session, that so-called Kelly Days must be assigned first, then vacation and furlough days.'
The Union, of course, takes the opposite position. "This means that furloughs are to be selected first
and have priority over the selection of all other time off." (Brief for the Union at 39). I agree with
the Union that the parties need to work this out and, hopefully, resolve the entire matter short of
another hearing.
C. Relevant Bench -Mark Jurisdictions
After agreeing to a group of comparables used in prior arbitration cases, the Union now seeks
to revise that stipulation regarding the relevance of Bensenville. In the Administration's view, the
facts do not substantiate the Union's asserted reason for seeking to exclude Bensenville as an external
comparable. As pointed out by the Administration, while it is true that police officers are being
trained to perform some firefighting functions, apparently firefighters are not being trained to perform
police functions (Tr. 591). Rather, Bensenville still employs full-time. firefighters to perform
firefighting functions as they always have. Whatever changes have occurred in Bensenville have been
on the police side, not the fire side. Moreover, Bensenville firefighters are represented by the IAFF
and are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Since Bensenville is a contiguous neighboring community that has been used in the past two
interest arbitration cases between the parties, I hold that Bensenville should continue to included in
as scribe for Messrs. Quinn and Baird.
At the same time, in retrospect, I have no doubt that Mr. Quinn believed he had made a mistake after
counsel briefed him on ramifications that, perhaps, he did not consider or understand when executing the agreement.
Again, I have no jurisdiction to not honor an agreement by two panel arbitrators who executed an accord on
hours (and other provisions that were not challenged by the Union) in an arms -length transaction.
" If the above is not sufficient, there is this:
Section 14 (Security Employees, Police Officer and Firefighter Disputes), subsection (d) of the statute
provides, in relevant part:
Majority actions and rulings shall constitute the actions and rulings of the arbitration panel.
Enough said.
' At the March executive session, the Union -appointed Arbitrator, Mr. Quinn, took the position that even if
Management's hours offer incorporates selection of Kelly Days first, then the other days,'such as vacation days, the
hours provision would still favor the Union in that overtime expenditures would increase. Thus, acceptance of the;
Villages' hours offer would benefit the firefighters and lieutenants.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 42
the group of communities used for external comparability purposes. I find no compelling reasons to
exclude Bensville as a comparable.
In the alternative, even if Bensville were excluded as a comparable, the end result would be
the same.
D. Decision on the Merits
1. :The Parity Argument. While the Union contends that there is no parity relationship
.'between. the salary ranges for police'sergeants and fire lieutenants (Brief for the Union at 20), the
Administration takes the opposite view.
Relevant here is the testimony of Union President Kevin Quinn in the range -movement rights
arbitration case before Arbitrator Herb Berman. Union President Quinn testified on cross examination
as follows:
-Q. [By .Mr. Clark] Now, the comparison of police sergeant salaries to fire
salaries -was something the Union advanced in the case before ... Kohn, and the negotiations
for the contract, is that correct?
MR. D'ALBA: That's not relevant to this case.
THE ARBITRATOR: Overruled. I will let you continue.
THE WITNESS: I don't know anything about Harvey Nathan's case. I wasn't
involved in that one.
Q. In terms of the Kohn. case and the last round of negotiations.-
A.
egotiations:A. Correct.
Q. And the general proposition was we believe we should be paid more in line
with police sergeants.
A. Correct.
Q. Both relatively speaking and in terms of how quickly you could move
through the range.
.,-A. On the basis that the Village keeps telling us the lieutenants are compared to
the police sergeants.
Q. Well, you were making comparisons to police sergeants, were you not?
A. Yes. Because of the Village's stance on internal comparables with the
police sergeants.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 43
Q. [B]ut the primary proponent of looking at police sergeant salaries was the
Union, was it not?
A. I don't know what the groundwork was for the first contracts. We followed
the first contracts. I don't know how that came about. But I know we used police
sergeants but we also used outside comparables.
In view of this testimony, the Union's current contention that there is no parity -type
relationship between the salary ranges of police sergeants and fire lieutenants is difficult to square
with the evidence record. (Brief for the Employer at 17-18).
I also credit the testimony of Village Trustee Petri regarding the parties' goal of bringing the
maximum fire lieutenant range to within 170.00 of the police sergeant salary maximum. (R. 733; 740-
741). To assert, as the Union did, that there is no evidence of a pay parity relationship between police
and -fire is to distort the record. There may not be a one-to-one, dispositive -type historical parity
relationship, operative for a number. of years, but police salaries for sergeants have traditionally been
higher in Elk Grove than average salaries for fire lieutenants.
2. Internal Comparability. Both parties have advanced arguments with respect to internal
and external criteria, with the Administration asserting that internal comparisons should be given more
weight than external comparisons, especially with respect to panty relationships. (See, Brief for the
Employer at 23-24). How significant is internal and external comparability as criteria in interest
proceedings? In Elk Grove Village & Metropolitan Alliance of Police (MAP)(Goldstein, 1996),
Chicago Arbitrator Elliott Goldstein noted that "the factor of internal comparability alone required
selection of the Village's insurance proposal." Arbitrator Goldstein stressed that arbitrators have
"uniformly recognized the need for uniformity in the administration of health insurance benefits."
Similarly, in Will County, Will County Sheriff& AFSCME Council 31 (Fleischli, 1996)(unpublished),
Wisconsin Arbitrator George Fleischli observed that when an employer has established and
maintained a consistent practice with regard to certain fringe benefits, such a health insurance, it
"takes very compelling evidence" in the form of external comparisons to justify a deviation from that
past practice.
While recognizing that comparisons are sometimes fraught with problems, and that one should
not use comparisons as the single determinant in a dispute (the statute precludes this result), Arbitrator
Carlton Snow nevertheless noted the value of relevant comparisons in City of Harve v. Firefighters,
Local 601, 76 LA (BNA) 789 (1979), when he stated:
Comparisons with both other employees and other cities provide a dominant method for
resolving wage disputes throughout the nation. As one writer observed, "the most powerful
influence linking together separate wage bargains into an interdependent system is the force
of equitable.comparison." As Velben stated, "The aim of the individual is to obtain parity with
those with whom he is accustomed to class himself" Arbitrators have long used
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 44
comparisons as a way of giving wage determinations some sense of rationality.
Comparisons can provide a precision and objectivity that highlight the reasonableness
or lack of it in a party's wage proposal. Id. at 791 (citations omitted; emphasis mine).
Other considerations equal, I agree with those arbitrators who, with rare exceptions, find
internal comparability equally or more compelling than external data. To this end, I find merit
in the. Village's position that internal comparisons are more relevant in this case than reference to
external comparisons, especially where a number of Elk Grove units have already reached an accord.
3. The Village's final offer versus the Union's offer and their effect on parity
relationships. Only the Village's final offer continues the same panty -type relationship that the
parties voluntarily agreed to the 1999-2003 contract, i.e., the range maximum for fire lieutenants being
slightly below the range maximum for police sergeants in the first year of the contract, as the
following chart establishes based on the parties' final salary offers (JX 3A, 313; VX 30). To this end
Management offers the following comparative table (Brief at 21):
YEAR
MAX SERGEANT
SALARY RANGE
VILLAGE MAX
LIEUTENANT
SALARY RANGE
UNION MAX
LIEUTENANT
SALARY RANGE
2003-04
$75,271
$75,091(-$180)
$75,489 (+$218)
2004-05
$77,905
$77,531(-$374)
$78,327 (+$422
2005-06
$80,332
$80,051 (4280)
$81,656 (+$1,324)
Clearly; the Village's final offer maintains the basic parity relationship between the salary
range maximums for Elk Grove Village police sergeants and fire lieutenants (approximately). The
Union's final offer results in the maximum of the fire lieutenant salary range being above the
maximum of the police sergeant salary range. And, it is not only above the maximum of the police
sergeant range. for the first year of the parties' contract, but it escalates for the next two years based
on the salary range maximums for Elk Grove Village police sergeants for the 2004-05 and 2005-06
fiscal years. Indeed, by the 2005-06 fiscal year, the last year for which police sergeant salary data
is available, the salary range maximum for fire lieutenants would be $1,324 above the salary
range maximum for police -sergeants if the Union's offer were accepted.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 45
I find it significant that the evidence record indicates no jurisdiction where the maximum fire
lieutenant salary is above the maximum police salary (see, Village Ex. 40): _The'same trend holds true
for base salaries. Indeed, an examination of external data reveals that the maximum base salary for
police sergeants as -of May 1, 2003, was $4,832 more than the average maximum base salary for fire
lieutenants.
4. Percentage Increases of External Bench -Mark Jurisdictions. Perhaps the most telling
exhibit is Union Ex. 28 as revised 7/05-05)(see, Brieffor the Employer at 29):
Although no salary information is available for calendar year 2006, the following are the
percentage increases for .fire lieutenants for calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005, i.e., the first three
years of the parties' four-year contract under the parties' offers (see, UX 48 as revised 7/5/05):
CALENDAR CALENDAR CALENDAR CALENDAR
YEAR 2003 YEAR 2004 YEAR 2005 YEAR 2006
BENCH -MARK COMPARATIVE
JURISDICTION
AVERAGE 4.16% 3.95% 3.73% N/A
ELK GROVE
VILLAGE
FINAL OFFER 4.70% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%
ELK GROVE
UNION'S
FINAL OFFER 6.76% 5.25% 5.75% 5.75%
The three-year total for the Union's final offer is 17.77% while the Employer's offer
constitutes 11.2% (see Union Ex. 48 as revised 7/05/05) indicating, other things equal, the
Employer's final offer is more in line with the external jurisdictions that the Union's final offer
and presumptively more reasonable. And while the Employer's offer represents a lower overall
percentage increase relative to the Elk Grove firefighters (.9% less in May of 2003, but equal
otherwise, see Table 8, Brief for the Union at 26), this is de minimus and hardly represents holding
back the lieutenants.' Further, I credit the Employer's argument that there is no past practice of
It's Math 101, but an across-the-board percentage increase of the same magnitude will always result in the
lieutenants gaining on the firefighters since the lieutenants start from a higher base. This, of course, is why the poor
will always be with us because they have no starting capital base comparable to the wealthy. Contrary to the
allegations of the Union, the Employer's wage proposal will'not result is a lesser overall salary increase than the
Case. No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 46
granting annual percentage salary increases to lieutenants that are greater than fire fighters (see, Brief
for the Employer at 54-56).
When maximum base salaries are considered, and compared to the external bench -mark
comparative group (see, VE 36, 37 & 38, reprinted supra at 25-26, this opinion), in May of 2003,
the Lieutenants move up two notches to second in ranking (maximum base $75,084) to Park
Ridge ($82,616). Likewise, in May of 2004, the unit will be at the exact same ranking as it
occupied in May of 2002 (supra, this opinion, at 25), fourth (4th)out of 15 comparables with a
maximum base salary of $77,531. In May of 2005, the lieutenants slips one notch to 5th out of
15 with a maximum base of $80,051 (Id. at 26).
What of the Union's argument that no lieutenant reaches the maximum (Brieffor the Union
at 15-18; "the problem in this town is that no lieutenant has ever reached that number" (R. 76)? As.
pointed out by the Employer, Village Exhibit 48 shows that between 1991 :and 2003 more fire
lieutenants than police sergeants have been at the maximum of the salary range (41 versus 36).
Additionally, what may explain some of the concerns expressed by the Union is this: the top -paid
lieutenants tend to be promoted (R. 490).
5. Other Considerations Related to the Parties' Salary Offers — The Merit System. The
details regarding the so-called discretionary point system and lieutenants' pay is outlined with
specificity in the positions of the parties and their respective post -hearing briefs and, as such, need not
be re -printed and over analyzed here. Suffice it to say the Union's final offer constitutes the
dismantling of a fundamental part of the fire lieutenant salary program and would result in fire
lieutenants being covered by one program and police sergeants by a different program. It is submitted
by Management that this fact strongly supports accepting the Employer's final offer. .
Moreover, under the Village's final offer, the range adjustment pool for fire lieutenants will
be the same as the range adjustment pool for police sergeants, i.e., 0.75% for FY 2003-04, 0.75% for
FY 2004-05, and 1.0% for FY 2005-06 (VX 42). Furthermore, the range adjustments for police
sergeants are based on the same 0% to 2% that is included in the Village's final offer (VX 42). This
outcome, along with the internal and external considerations noted, favors the Employer's proposal
over the Union's.
6. "Cost -of -Living" and "Interests -and -Welfare of the Public" Criteria. As the parties
know, the statute mandates consideration of numerous criteria by an interest neutral (supra at 37-38).
I have studied the record including the lengthy exhibits and post -hearing briefs of the parties. The
parties have asked for an opinion, not a book, and this effort is already too long. All statutory criteria
have been weighed and considered. Simply because a criterion was not specifically elaborated on in
this opinion does not mean it was not considered.
firefighters.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &.
Village of Elk Grove, IL 47
As a final note, I agree with the comments of Arbitrator Edward Clark in City of Gresham arjd
IAFF Local 1062, regarding ability -to -pay arguments. (Clark, City of Gresham, reprinted supra, at
38). Rarely, if ever, will ability -to -pay be a dispositive factor in an interest arbitration. Public -sector
spending is, in all respects, a matter of priorities. "Should the public employer build a pavilion in the
park or buy a new fire truck or increase the range of lieutenants' salaries,?" are common questions that
arise in public -sector bargaining and interest proceedings. Simply because payment of a higher salary
range is possible does not end the analysis, at least under any semblance of common sense and this
statute.
VI. AWARD
The final offer of the Village regarding Lieutenants' Salaries is awarded.
The entire matter of the hours provision, including the effective time and order of selecting
days, is remanded to the parties for possible resolution. If no agreement is reached by September 5,
2005, regarding the hours provision, this award (on salaries and hours) will become effective Tuesday,
September 6, 2005, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.'
Dated this 16°i day of August, 2005,
at DeKalb, IL 60115
QIP
Baird
Appointed Arbitrator
y]
Marvin Hill, Jr., neutral
Kevin Quinn
Union -Appointed Arbitrator
' This, of course, will leave the unresolved issues, specifically the order of selection, for another day. The parties
are urged to avoid this Draconian choice.
Case No. S -MA -04-262
Elk Grove Village Firefighters 2340 &
Village of Elk Grove, IL 48