CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO IN INTEREST ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS, PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTIONS A8.590-5 ‘The San Francisco Deputy Sherif's'/ Association 1 Union 1 1 1 OPINION AND AWARD. and 1 I ‘The City and County ' of San Francisco 1 Employer / } } ‘Members of the Board of Arbitrators John LaRocco Neutral Chairperson Emily Prescott City Board Member Scott Osha Union Board Member Appearances (On Behalf ofthe Union (On Behalf ofthe Employer Peter Hoffmann ‘Lauren Monson Rains Lucia Stem, PC San Francisco Attomey’s Office 2300 Contra Costa BIvd, Suite S00 Deputy City Attomey, Pleasant Hill, CA 1390 Market Street, 5” Floor, 94523, San Francisco, CA, 44102 1 ‘CCS and DSA Arbitration Award, 2014INTRODUCTION ‘The Board of Arbitrators “Board) was convened pursuant fo Section A8.590-S of the Charter (Charter) ofthe City and County of San Francisco (“City”). John B, LaRocco, arbitrator/medistor, was agreed upon by parties to act as the Neutral (Chairperson of the Board. Emily Prescott, Fmployee Relations Manager for the City’s Department of Human Resources (“DHR"”) was selected by the Employer as its Board Member, ‘and Scot Osha, Treasurer of the San Franciseo Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (*DSA" or “The Union”) was selected by the Union as its Board Member, ‘The City was represented by Lauren Monson, Esq., Deputy City Attomey. The Union ‘was represented by Peter Hoffmann, Esq. of Rains Lucia Stern, PC, The partes were afforded full opportunity to present and call witnesses, to cross-examine the witnesses ofthe other party, and to present evidence and arguments in support of their positions within a format agreed to by the parties, The partes were at impasse on the following issue and the parties agreed that the proposals below were properly before the Arbitration Board. Following a hearing held on May 1, 2014, the parties submitted the matter for decision upon submission ofthe final offers on May 2, 2014. L ISSUE During the proceedings ofthe Board, the partes made tentative agreements on most all subjects which had been unresolved up to arbitration, In addition, one issue was submitted to the Board for final and binding, arbitral resolution. Ths issue concems Longevity Pay. a LAST, BEST AND FINAL OFFERS/DEMANDS OF THE PARTIES, ‘The last, best and final offer (*LBFO") of DSA on the disputed Issue of Longevity Pay is as follows Longevity Pay (i) Effective July-1,-2007, employoes who-have-completed Members hired by the Department on_or before June 30, 2014 shall_reseive two percent 2%) 2 (CCSF and DSA Arbitration Award, 2014more than five (5) years of serviee as a sworn rember of the Departmen &) Members hired_by_the Department on_or_afier_July_1, 2014 who_have ‘completed_cighfeen_(18)_years_of_serviee_as_a_sworn_member_of_the ‘Department shall receive fo percent (2%) longevity paY. (iL) Longevity pay shall be included for purposes of retirement benefit calculations snd contributions, ‘The LBFO of the City on the disputed Issue of Longevity Pay is as follows: Longevity Pay. Effective July 1, 2014 2007, employees who have completed more than fifteen (15) Sve-{5) years of service as a sworn member of the Department shall receive ‘wo percent (2%) longevity pay. Longevity pay shall be included for purposes of retirement benefit calculations and contribution. Mm. ‘TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS Having been achieved during the Board's proceedings, the Board approves each of the tentative agreements, consisting of Joint Exhibit 3, as a mediated award and directs the inclusion of the tentative agreements into the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (*CBA"). wv. RELEVANT CHARTER PROVISIONS, Under the City Charter, unresolved differences in negotiations between the City and a recognized employee organization which persist to th point of impasse are submitted to a final ‘and binding medistion-arbtraton procedure, tobe heard and decided by a three-member board, ‘The City appoints one member thereto, the union gppoints its member, and these two members selec a ted, neutral person to chair the board. 3 CSF and DSA Arbitration Award, 2014‘Charter Section AB.590-5 requires the Board to decide each issue in dispute by “selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds most nearly conforms to those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of the public and private employment, including, but not limited to: changes in the average ‘consumer price index for goods and services; the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employces performing similar services; the ‘wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of other employees in the City and County of San Francisco; andthe formulas provided for inthis Charter forthe establishment and maintenance of wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions ‘of employment. The impartial Arbitration Board shall also consider the financial condition of the City and County of San Francisco and tis ability to meet the costs of the decision ofthe Arbitration Board.” ‘This charter interest arbitration system is referred to in the labor world as “ssue-by-ssue, high-low, baseball-style arbitration.” The Charters arbitration board may only select the offer on ‘each disputed issue made by one party, The Board may not modify o alter any proposal but may -spprove only one ofthe competing proposals on each subject still at impasse. AWARD Based on the preponderance of the evidence presented by the partis athe relevant criteria of Charter Sestion A8.590-5(8), the DSA"s Longevity Pay propos is adopted and the Ciy’s Longevity Pay propos isrejctd Dated: May 2, 2014 ee Lior season von ente-tevn — LICL. aT fi es Emily Prescott, City Member —I dissent CCSF and DSA Arbitration Award, 2014