HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A2 - LELS Police OfficersSTAFF AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
7A-2 ~
FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER"~,- \ ~//
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF LABO.~," AGREEMENT
REPRESENTING POLICE OFFIC~
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
FOR LELS
BACKGROUND:
DISCUSSION:
After numerous negotiation sessions last year it became apparent to both
parties that it would not be possible to reach agreement on certain issues.
The issues of particular concern to both parties were: Pay for
performance/longevity, caps on city health and dental contributions and
wages.
Under state law police officers may not strike. In lieu of strike they may
request binding arbitration. Accordingly, arbitration was requested and a
hearing was held in November, 1994. In December the arbitrator
rendered his decision. Unfortunately, the decision contained an important
mathematical error with respect to wages and had to be referred back to
the arbitrator for clarification. On Tuesday, January 31 we received a
copy of the arbitrator's clarification to the award and I am therefore
placing this item on the February 6 agenda in order that it can be
addressed expeditiously.
Initially fourteen issues were referred to the arbitrator. Prior to the
arbitration, the parties resolved four issues including:
1. Duration - agreed to a 1994/1995 contract.
.
Life Insurance Maximum Benefit - agreed to a $40,000
benefit to be paid from city contributions previously made
toward the discontinued short term disability.
3. Dental Insurance Benefits - The benefit will be unchanged
for the 1994/1995 contract.
4. Retroactivity - The wages and benefits for the contract will
be retroactive to January 1, 1994.
The arbitrator considered ten issues which are outlined in his award
(attached) dated December 13, 1994. Shown below for Council
information is a summary of the arbitrator's final award including his
January 27, 1995 revision to wages:
1. 1994 Wages - Increased by 2.84% from $3305 per month for
a 36 month employee to $3399 per month.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ISSUES:
ALTERNATIVES:
2. 1995 Wages - Increase by 3.0% for a 36 month employee
from $3399 to $3501 per month.
3. 1994 Health Insurance - City pays 100% of the cost.
4. 1995 Health Insurance Contribution - City contribution
capped at $380 effective January 1, 1995.
o
Long Term Disability Insurance - Add an employer
contribution of up to $25 per month to be applied to a long
term disability policy or to the health insurance contribution if
an LTD policy is not available.
6. 1994 Dental Insurance Contribution - City pays 100% of the
cost of the insurance.
7. 1995 Dental Insurance Contribution - City contribution
capped at $40.00 per month.
8. Skill/Physical Fitness Pay Option - not implemented.
9. Longevity - To remain as set forth in the 1993 contract.
10. Interest On Retroactive Wages - None.
Arbitration is always a risk for both parties since the matter is placed in a
third party's hands. The city did make progress with respect to capping
its contributions for both health and dental insurance. This is particularly
important since our contributions ranked among the highest in the
metropolitan area, and given the volatile nature of insurance premiums.
With respect to Pay for Performance/Longevity, the arbitrator did not elect
to adopt our proposal to delete longevity for new police officers only and
offer those individuals a revised Pay for Performance system. The
arbitrator relied primarily on external comparisons between police
departments rather than internal city comparisons.
With respect to wages, the arbitrator sought to retain the existing
relationship between the pay for Prior Lake police officers and the cities in
the group 5 and 6 DCA Stanton Survey. These are cities that are
approximately the same size as Prior Lake from a population perspective.
The arbitration award is binding on both parties. Therefore, there is no
action the council can take but to authorize implementation of the award.
The State now requires that the attached Uniform Settlement Form be
completed for each contract settlement. Based upon the methodology
used in this report the cost of the 1994 agreement is 7.25%, the cost in
1995 is 3.69%
The alternatives are to:
.
Approve the attached labor agreement which incorporates
the arbitration award of December 13, 1994 as modified by
the arbitrator's letter of January 27, 1995, and authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
ACTION REQUIRED:
.
Defer approval for a future date if Councilmembers have
additional questions.
Alternative #1.
Motion and second to:
.
Adopt the arbitrator's award as modified by his January 27,
1995 letter.
.
Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a labor
agreement for 1994 and 1995 with Law Enforcement Labor
Services, Inc. representing police officers and detectives.
A copy of the unsigned contract will be provided to the council on Friday
together with the update memorandum. I hope to have copies of the
signed agreement at the Council meeting on Monday night.
FB7A2.WRT
DEC-!9-!95~
R~T:~!K, ~OSZmK. ET ~L.
P.A_!
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION
between
City of Prior Lake, Minnesota
-and-
Law Enforcement Labor Services
))))))))))))) ;) ))))))))))))))));)))
APPEARANCES
__
INTEREST ARBITRATION
BMS Case No. 94-PN-1849
December' 13, 1994
For Cit~ of Prior Lake
Peter Bergstrom,
Minneapolis,
Bonnie Carlson,
Attorney, Ratwik, Roszak,
Minnesota
Assistant City Manager
_Fo~ La__~w Enforcement Labor Services
_
Roland Miles, Business Representative
Tom Erickson, Steward
Dennis Leff, Police Officer
Fred Bock, Police Officer
Bergstrom & Maloney,
JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATOR
The Law Enforcement Labor Services (hereinafter referred to
as the "Union") is the certified bargaining representative for
all employees of the Prior Lake Police Department employed by the
City of Prior Lake (hereinafter referred as the "City" or
"Employer") for more than 14 hours per week, and more than 100
work days per year, excluding the Chief of Police, supervisory and
confidential employees.
The Parties have been signatories to several collective
bargaining agreements dating back to a~ least January 1, 1984.
Prior to that time, the Police Department employees were
DEC-19-199~ 16:!6 PRO~ RAT~IK, ROSZ~K. ET ~L. TO
organized and duly represented by Minnesota Teamsters Local No.
320.
The Parties have been unable to reach a negotiated settlement
of the 1994 and 1995 contract. The Parties negotiated and
mediated their disputes but did not find common ground for
settlement. The issues remaining at impasse are subject to
conventional interest arbitration under the provisions of the
Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act, Section 179, as
amended.
A hearing in the matter convened on November 17, 1994, at
10:00 a.m. at the Prior Lake City Hall, Prior Lake, Minnesota.
The Parties were afforded full opportunity to present evidence and
arguments in support of their respective positions. The Parties
waived the £iling of post hearing briefs, after which the ~ecord
was considered closed on November 17, 1994.
BACKGROUND
The Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services ("BMS") certified
fourteen issues to impasse on June 28, 1994. The
Commissioner, Peter E. Obermeyer, stated in his June 28, 1994
letter to Union Business Representative Roland Miles and City
Attorney Peter D. Bergstrom that "[e]ach party shall submit their
final positions on these items to the Bureau not later than July
13, 1994." The Union complied with that directive by submitting
their final positions on June 30, 1994. The City did not comply
with Mr. Obermeyer's directive, even after the Union attempted on
DEC-!9-!99~ ~P,:~, ~RO~ R~TW!K. ROSZ~K. E~ ~L. TO ~?~5 P.05
several occasions to obtain the City's final position beyond June
30, 1994. It was not until the arbitration hearing that the Union
first learned of the City's final positions on the issues
certified at impasse. As a result, the Union claims that the
Arbitrator should rule that all of the City's final positions
offered at the hearing are inualid, illegal and unlawful.
The Arbitrator does not have the authority to rule on the
Union's contention since it deals with an interpretation of the
Minnesota statutes. Such interpretation of statutory matters are
within the jurisdiction of the courts and the Arbitrator. The
Parties, however, agreed that the Arbitrator should rule on the
unresolved impasse items certified by BMS, pending possible appeal
by the Union.
Prior to the start of the arbitration, the Parties [esolved
four of the issues, namely duration (issue 1), life insurance-
maximum benefit (issue 7), dental insurance - benefit (issue 8)
and ~etroactivity (issue 13).
AS to duration, the Parties agreed to the Union's final
position for a two year agreement from January 1, 1994, to
December 31, 1995.
With regard to life insurance-maximum benefit, the Union
agreed to the City's final offer to increase the Employer paid
life insurance benefit to $40,000, contingent upon the elimination
of the current short term disability program.
There is no issue regarding any Union proposed change in the
current dental insurance benefit. The Parties have agreed that
the current dental insurance benefit shall remain unchanged for
the 1994-95 contract.
Finally, the Parties agreed that the Employer shall pay all
back pay retroactive to January 1, 1994. Any change in benefits
or benefit levels awarded by the Arbitrator shall be commended as
soon as possible after receipt of his decision or that date shall
be determined by the Arbitrator.
As a result of the Parties resolving four of the items
certified at impasse by BMS, there are only ten issues left for
decision by the Arbitrator. The ten remaining issues at
impasse are as follows:
2. Wages - 1994
3. Wages - 1995, if applicable
4. Health Insurance - 1994, Employer Contribution
5. Health Insurance- 1995, Employer Contribution, If
Appl icabl e
6. LTD Insurance
9. Dental Insurance - 1994, Employer Contribution
10. Dental Insurance- 1995, Employer Contribution, If
Applicable
11. Skill/Physical Fitness Pay Option
12. Longevity
14. Earned Interest on Retroactive Wages
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Union proposes to increase the 1993 wage rates by 4%,
e~fective January 1, 1994, and increase the 1994 wage rates by 4%,
effective January 1, 1995. The City proposes for 1994 to increase
the 1993 wage rates by 1%, plus step increases under ~he contract,
as applicable. The City's final offer for 1995 is no wage
increase, ~ut s~ep increases, as applicable.
· DEC-!9-!99~ 1~:17 ~RO~ R~TI~[K, ROSZ~K, ET ~L. TO ~2~5 P.OS
The City proposes that the Employer's contribution toward
employee and dependent health insurance be capped at $380 per
month, effective October l, 1994. The Union proposes to maintain
the current contract language in Article XXII, Sections 22.1 and
22.2, wherein the Employer shall pay 100% of the premium for
employee and dependent health insurance.
The Union proposes that the Employer shall provide and pay
for a Long Term Disability (LTD) insurance policy that shall pay
benefits at least 60% of salary after a 90 calendar day waiting
period per injury and pay benefits until the age of 65 years as
long the injured is unable to perform the substantial and material
duties of his/her regular occupation. The City opposes the
inclusion of this new fringe benefit.
The City proposes that the Employer's contribution to
employee and dependent dental insurance be capped at $40 per
month, effective October 1, 19~4. The Union proposes to maintain
the current contract language in Article XXII, Section 22.3,
wherein the Employer shall pay 100% of the pcemium for employee
and dependent dental insurance.
The Union proposes that employees be allowed the option of
maintaining current longevity payment or an alternative pay
program that recognizes an officer's worth based on wellness,
education, physical fitness and community service in lieu of
longevity. The City opposes the alternative pay program.
The City proposes that longevity be eliminated for new
employees hired after January 1, 1994. The Union seeks to
DE,3-19.-!99~-~-,:- _,_,~':, FRAm RAT~.~[K_ · RA~Z4K. __ , PT_ ~._ TF~_ 4~n, ~2~5 P. AP,__
maintain the current longevity pay plan which appeared in Article
)IIX of the contract as follows:
Effective 1-1-84
Three percent (3%) after four (4) years of service
Five percent (5%) after eight (8) years of service
Seven percent (7%) after twelve (12) years of service
Nine percent (9%) after sixteen (16) years of service
The Union proposes that the Employer shall pay interest at
the legal rate for all retroactive pay. The City opposes an
interest payment.
AWARDS
The 1994 wage rates for Top Patrol shall be increased to
$3399 (3.18%), effective January 1, 1994. The 1995 wage rates
for Top Patrol shall be increased to $3485 (2.53%), effective
January 1, 1995.
The Employer's contribution toward employee and dependent
health insurance shall be capped at $380 per month, effective
January 1, 1995.
The Employer's contribution to employee and dependent dental
insurance shall be capped at $40 per month, effective January 1,
1995.
The Employer shall provide and pay for a Long Te~m DisaBility
(LTD) insurance policy, effective as soon as the Employer can
find an insurance carrier and the Parties agree upon LTD benefits.
The City's payment toward LTD insurance shall not exceed $25 per
month, effective January 1, 1995. If a LTD plan is not available
DEC-19-199~ I~,:~A PRO~ R~T~IK. ROSZAK, ET AL. TO ~'?~5 P.~9
or if the Parties cannot agree upon the benefits, employees are
entitled to use up to $25 per month, effective January 1, 1995, to
offset the difference Detween the cost of the employee and
dependent health and/or dental insurance premium and the capped
amoun ts.
Employees are not entitled to an alternative pay program that
recognizes an officer's worth based on wellness, education,
physical fitness and community service in lieu of longevitY.
The longevity pay plan which currently appears in the
contract shall remain unchanged.
Employees are not entitled to receive the legal rate of
interest for all retroactive pay.
RAT I ONALE
The role of an interest a[biurator is to predict what the
parties would have agreed to had negotiations been continued to
finality.
In any interest arbitration dispute there are generally three
factors that should be considered. The first is the financial
ability of the employer to fund the economic proposals made by the
bargaining unit. members. If there is adequate funds available,
the case then generally falls on internal and/or external
comparability. Finally, pas~ bargaining history of the parties is
a valid consideration.
The City is in healthy financial condition when one considers
total tax capacity, per capita tax capacity, Homestead &
DEC-!9-!99~ 16:19 PRO~ RATIO!K, ROSZAK. ET ~L. TO ~9~5 P.08
Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA), Local Government Aid (LGA),
budgeted to actual expenditures, unreserved, undesignated general
fund balances, property taxes and property taxes levied. In light
of this evidence, the City never raised an inability to pay
argument, but only that the Arbitrator should use financial
constraint when making his awards in light of the two other
factors (comparability and past bargaining history). The
Arbitrator adhered to this principle in rendering his decision.
The Employer believes that wages, hours and othe~ terms and
conditions of employment for City employees must be determined by
an examination of its unique facts and circumstances. While the
wage and benefit rates in a neighboring or distant community may
be of interest, the City contends that the determining factors
must be those generated within the City.
The Union, on the other hand, contends that the Arbitrator
should concentrate more on the external market, i.e. comparing the
salaries and fringe benefits paid to patrol office~s in Prior Lake
to those in othe~ surrounding cities contained within Stanton
Group Five and Stanton Group Six.
The City is located on the southern edge of the Twin City
metropolitan area, with a population of 11,876 and is one of the
smallest cities in the Stanton Group Six survey grouping.
The City borders the City of Savage on the north and the City of
Shakopee on the northwest. Both of these cities are on the
developing southern and western edges of the metropolitan area;
each borders Prior Lake; and each represents circumstances,
DEC-19-!99~ 16:!9 PROM RATt~!K, ROSZ~K. ET ~L. TO 449424~ P.~9
including population, location and scope of development, similar
to those found in Prior Lake.
In the 1993 Stanton survey, Prior Lake was in Group ~ive -
Suburbs over 10,000. Stanton Group Six contained cities under
10,000 people. In 1994, Stan=on changed its groupings to include
Group 5 - Suburbs over 25,000; Group Six - Suburbs under 25,000
and over 10,000; and Group Seven - Suburbs under 10,000. Prior
Lake now falls under Group Six.
Past bargaining history shows that the Parties have
negotiated using the cities contained within former Stanton Group
Pive, which is now combined into Groups Five and Six, for
comparison purposes. There is no evidence that the Parties
narrowed their scope of comparison to only Savage and Shakopee in
the past or agreed to only these cities during current
negotiations. For these reasons, Prior Lake should be compared to
those cities now contained in Stanton Group Five and Group Six
(old Group Five cities).
The trend has been since 1991 that Prior Lake has been
slightly above the average for Top Patrol monthly salaries
compared to the comparison cities. In 1993, the last year of
expired contract, the City was $11 per month above the average.
The Arbitrator's award of $3399 (3.i8%) for 1994 and $3485.
(2.53%) for 1995 maintains the bargaining history established by
the Parties. The award for both years is $11 above the average
of those comparable cities with settled contracts for 1994 and
1995.
DEC-!9-!99~ 16:~ FRO~ RATWiK. ROSZAK, ET ~L. TO ~9~5 P.!O
The Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGP£A) requires the
City to establish equitable compensation relationships between its
female dominated, male dominated and balanced classes of employees
or suffer a 5% reduction in local ~overnment aid. Minn. Stat.
Section 471.9981 (1992). An arbitrator must consider the City's
comparable worth plan when settling an interest arbitration
dispute. Minn. Stat. Section 471.992, subd. 2 (1992). The unit
involved in this case is defined by the LGPEA as being composed of
male-dominated classifications.
The underpayment ratio is the most important number in the
statistical analysis under LGP£A. TO pass the ssatis[ical
analysis test, the underpayment ratio must be 80% or greater.
Another important consideration is the T-Test and Degrees of
Freedom. These numbers are used only for jurisdictions with an
underpayment ratio below 80%, at least six male classes and at
least one class with a salary range. If an underpayment ratio is
80% or more, these numbers are not used nor are they used for
jurisdiction in the alternative analysis.
The Salary Range Test and the Exceptional Service Pay Test
are valid considerations for comptiamce. These numbers must be
either 0% or 80% or more to pass these tests.
Under all of the above tests, the City remains in compliance
under the salary awards rendered by the Arbitrator. In fact, even
if the Arbitrator would have awarded that which was sought by the
Union, which is greater than awarded by the Arbitrator, the City
would have remained in compliance.
10
DEC-19-199~ 16:20 PRO~ RAT~d!K~ ROSZAK, ET ~L. TO ~9~d5 P.!i
In that the City is in compliance with LGPEA, external
comparability is more important than internal comparability.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the City has maintained any
consistent historical internal settlements among its employee
groups. The other units within the City (administration, AFSCME,
management and Teamsters) have negotiated or received increases in
the 1.25% to 7.5% range for 1994 and only AFSCME has settled for
1995 (2.42% increase). In addition to wages, these settlements
include cost of living adjustments, longevity, education incentive
pay and performance increases.
The maintenance of the current wage schedule (without the
Arbitrator's salary award) provides the unit with more than a 14%
increase in total package costs for 1994, which is about twice as
much as the next highest unit (administration - 7.50%). The
greater increases (including cos~ of living adjustments,
longevity, education incentive pay or performance increases)
enjoyed by this unit for many years were a product of negotiations
between the Parties and were never used against the unit when
establishing a wage settlement with comparable cities that in
recent years have been above the average.
Wa~es, like longevity, have been compared externally rather
than internally by the Parties. Arbitrators, in general, adhere
to this philosophy.
The current longevity p=ogram, which was negotiated by the
Parties many years ago, applies to all employees and is far more
consistent with that provided for in comparable cities than the
11
DEC-19-!99~ !6:21 PRO~ R~T~!K, ROSZAK. ET AL.
City's proposal to eliminate the current longevity program for
those employees hired after January 1, 1994. Although there are
some cities in which new employees must choose between a longevity
~rogram or a pay for performance program, the City nas ~esisted in
this arbitration the option of an employee choosing between a
performance program or maintaining the current longevity plan. As
such, there are no convincing reasons to change f~om the current
longevity pay plan, which provides this benefit to all employees
who are now in the employ of the City or will be in the future.
Employee groups within the City have enjoyed for many years
the benefit of fully paid employee and dependent health and dental
insurance. The City pays mo[e for these insurances than the vast
majority of the comparable cities. The cos~ of these benefits
have risen so steeply in the past several years that the City has
negotiated a cap of $380 per month for medical and a $40 per month
cap for dental insurance with the AF$CME unit for 1994 and 1995.
The City has also adopted the same caps for its non-union
employees. All other City employees have had these caps since
October 1, 1994.
The $40 dental cap currently covers the entire cost of this
insurance. If employees elect to participate in family coverage
under Group Health (cheapest monthly plan), their current co-
payment will only be $5.58 per month. If they elect to
participate in one of the other three health plans, their co-
payment per month will be greater, up to $59.54 per month (Blue
Plus) .
12
DEC-19-199~ 16:2! FROm RAT;~[K, ROSZAK. ET aL. TO ~2~5 P. IJ
Although bargaining history is important, so too is the
l~hilosophy held by many arbitrators that fringe benefits should be
standardized among employees within the employ of the public
employer. The Arbitrator is also uery mindful that this unit has
enjoyed fully paid health and dental for many years by virtue of
negotiating these benefits into the contract. The City s=ated
that if these insurance benefits could be capped there could be
the possibility to venture into other fringe benefits. One of
these benefits proposed by the Union was LTD insurance. Although
LTD insurance is not common among other City employees, it is
common among other comparable cities that employ police officers.
In that the Parties were at a stalemate over these issues,
the Arbitrator has awarded an equitable quid pro quo by grantin9
the City's request to cap both health and dental insurance, in
exchanqe for a new LTD insurance benefit, with a maximum
contribution by the City of $25 per month. The Arbitrator has
essentially awarded that which most likely would have evolved in
contract negotiations through tradeoffs in the absence of
arbitration.
The Arbitrator has provided some protection to the employees
if LTD insurance is not available from the Employer selected
insurance carrier or if the Parties cannot negotiate the benefits
o4 the LTD plan. In that regard, if a LTD plan is not available
or if the Parties cannot agree upon the benefits, employees are
entitled to use up to $25 per month, effective January 1, 1995, to
offset the difference between the cost of the employee and
13
DEC-19-199~ 16:22 PRO~ R~T:~!K. ROSZ~K. ET
dependent health and/or dental insurance premium and the capped
amounts. The Union stated that a LTD plan such as the one in the
City of Lakeville would be acceptable and the cost of that plan is
approximately $23 to $25 per month.
The Parties created a task force for the purposes of
studying, reviewing and recommendin9 an alternative pay program
to the existing longevity plan. In other words, the employee
would have the option to receive longevity or be paid compensation
under the skill/physical fitness pay plan. The task force was
successful in drafting a skill/physical fitness pay but the City
has not yet implemented the plan because it is too expensive. The
City would be willing to implement the plan if the Union would
agree to the elimination of longevity, which the Union ~efuses to
do.
The Arbitrator denies the inclusion of the skill/physical
fitness pay option in lieu of longevity as an alternative pay
program because the City never agreed to it. It must be
remembered '~ '
-~,at zn the Letter of Understanding dated April 1,
1992, both the Union and the City agreed to make an independent
decision on whether or not to participate in the optional pay plan
developed by the task force. The City has chosen not to
participate and the Arbitrator cannot compel enforcement.
This issue is better left to the Parties for future resolution.
The Arbitrator, afte: review of all the evidence relating to
the issue of whether the City should pay interest at the legal
rate for all retroactive pay, must deny the Union's demand. There
14
·
DEC-19-i99~ 16:22 PROM R~TI~IK. ROSZ~K. ET ~L.
is no evidence that the City or its attorney intentionally delayed
the .scheduli, ng of the arbitration hearing to the detriment of the
Union. The l~rocess of negotiations, mediation and finally
interest arbitration ali contributed to the delays in this case,
but such delays were not excessive under the circumstances.
Both Parties are to be complimented on their professional
conduct at the hearing and the comprehensi-4eness of their written
and oral presentations.
~r
Dated December 13, 1994, at Maple Grove, Minnesota.
15
ARBITRATOR
7919 ORCt4ID LANE NOR'I'll '.
MAPLI'~ GR(~/E, MINNESOTA 35311 --
PHONE & FAX: (012) 494.-3260
January 27, 1995
Mr. Roland Miles
Business Representative
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc.
2051 KilleDrew Drive, Suite 403
Bloomington, Minnesota 55425-1867
Mr. Peter Be~gstrom
Attorney "
Ratwik, Roszak, Bergstrom & Maloney
300 Peavey Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: Interest Arbitration between
City of Prior Lake -and- LELS
BMS Case No. 94-PN-1549
Representat ives:
By letter dated December 23, 1994, Mr. M~].es submitted a
request for clarification of my award in the above-captioned
matte~ dated December 13, 1994. As indicated by Mr. Miles,
copies of this lette~ were $~bl~itted to Mr. Be~gstrom, and Union
Stewards Chris Olson and Tom Erickson. The clarification
requcs~ is made pursuant to M.$. 572.16 and M.S. 572.20, Subd.
1, clause 1. The City did not respond to Mr. Miles' request for
clarification.
S.S. 572.20, Subd. 1, clause 1 states:
There was an evident miscalculation of figures or
an evident mistake in the description of any person,
thing, or property referred in the award;
On page 6 of my award, the following is stated:
The 1994 wage rates for Top Patrol shall be increased
to $3,399 (3.18%), effective January 1, 1994. The ].995
wage '~a~eS for Top Pat£ol shall be ~ncreased to $Z,485
(2.53%), effective January 1, 1995.
Messrs. Miles and Bergstrom
January 27, 199 5
Page 2
The intent of the arbitrator's award was to maintain the
City of Prior Lake at $11 per month above the average and as
close to the 5.8% two-year settlement rate (1994 and 1995) for
Stanton Group V and VI cities. For 1994, the dollar figure
awarded of $3,399 is correct but the percentage contains an
error. The stated, percentage of 3.18% was incorrectly
calculated. The 3.18% was based on the average of the Stanton
~rou~ v and.VI cities for 19.93 of $3,294 and then compared to
the award of $3,399. This was an error on the arbitrator's
partr since the percentage increase should have been calculated
by taking the difference between the 1994 and 1993 wages rates
of the City. When this calculation is completed ($3,399 - 3,305
= $94 divided by $3,305), it results in a 2.84% increase and not
a 3.18% for 1994.
The percentage error in 1994 is compounded for 1995.
Kather than having a percentage increase of 3.18% (1994) and
2.53% (1995) for a two-year total of 5.71%, the error in 1994
reduced the two-year total to 5.37% ('2.84% - 1994 and 2.53% -
1995). The percentage settlement rate for the comparable cities
is 2.8% (1994) and 3.0% (1995) for a total of 5.8% for both
years. As noted previously, it was not the intent of the
arbitrator to award less than the percentage or dollar average
of the comparable cities but to keep the City at slightly above
the average. The difficulty, of course, is one does not know
what the average of the comparable cities will be for 1995 at
this time, since less than one-half of the cities are not
settled for that year. One method to rectify this error would
be to wait until all of the comparable cities settle for 1995
and then give the Top Patrol an amount which is $11 above that
average. A better method would be to give them a 3.0% increase
for 1995, which is the current settlement rate. A 3.0% increase
for 1995, coupled with a corrected 2.84% for 1994, yields a two-
year total of 5.84%, which is slightly above the average of
5.80% of the comparable cities. This corrected award should
place the City about $11 above the average, which complies with
the intent of the arbitrator's award. Thus: the corrected award
is to ~.rant To? Patrol a wa~e increase of 2.84% for 1994 and a
3.0% for 1995.
I am sorry for making this error.
Sincerely,
Ric~rd John Miller