Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police And Public Safety Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears bill to expand interest arbitration to law enforcement in all jurisdictions
Summary
House Bill 1045 would remove population thresholds that limit interest arbitration for law enforcement officers, granting binding arbitration rights to officers in smaller cities and counties; police associations supported the measure while cities and counties warned of costs and arbitration effects on small governments.
House Bill 1045 would remove population thresholds in current state law so that law enforcement officers in cities, towns and counties — regardless of the employing government’s population — could access binding interest arbitration when collective bargaining reaches impasse.
Union representatives from the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs and Teamsters Local 117 said the change is largely a parity and fairness measure. Jeff DeVeer, representing the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, said roughly 10,500 officers statewide already have access to arbitration and that the change would extend the same backstop to about 120 officers who work for very small jurisdictions. “This simply allows them to have access to arbitration just like the other 10,300 or so officers across the state,” he said.
Brenda Wiest of Teamsters Local 117 added that arbitration is rarely used — staff said only two arbitrations in the last five years — but that when arbitration is used it addresses safety and equipment disputes as well as compensation.
Opponents from the Association of Washington Cities and the Washington State Association of Counties expressed concern that binding interest arbitration would impose high legal and fiscal costs on small jurisdictions, which often operate on minimal budgets and may need to hire outside counsel to participate in arbitration. Candace Bock (Association of Washington Cities) said some small-city budgets are under $1 million and that arbitration costs and outcomes could divert funds from basic services. Paul Jewell (Washington State Association of Counties) asked the committee to retain population thresholds, arguing small counties lack the resources to absorb arbitration awards and that prior policy choices reflected differences among counties’ fiscal capacity.
The committee heard contrasting testimony about fairness to officers and the fiscal burden on small governments and did not take final action during the hearing.
