title
Labor Policy related to interest arbitration
body
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The binding interest arbitration process established by state law in chapter 41.56 RCW is limited to certain defined classes of employees, such as "uniformed personnel."
2. Court protection officers (operationally referred to as “King County Sheriff Marshals”) do not fall within the statutory definition of “uniformed personnel” in RCW 41.56.030 or within any of the other classes of employees who are eligible for interest arbitration under state law.
3. On a limited trial basis, the county council is open to the county’s bargaining agents negotiating contract language extending binding interest arbitration to court protection officers. Any trial agreed to by the county’s bargaining agents should be limited to one interest arbitration, after which the council, in consultation with the county’s bargaining agents, may consider whether the trial should continue.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, LP 2010-031, Section I.6, and LAB 3-020 are each hereby amended to read as follows:
It shall be the policy of King County that binding interest arbitration only be extended to those represented groups of County employees ((where the provision of service by those employees is essential and absence of which would pose an immediate and dire threat to the public health, safety and welfare.)) who are eligible for interest arbitration under state law, except as otherwise provided in county labor policy.
On a trial basis and subject to the following conditions, the county council supports allowing the county’s bargaining agents to negotiate binding interest arbitration for court protection officers (operationally referred to as “King County Sheriff Marshals”). It is understood that such a concession by the county would be made in exchange for a corresponding concession or concessions by the court protection officers in collective bargaining. Any interest arbitration provision in a collective bargaining...

Click here for full text