Kitsap County Deputy Sheriffs' Guild v. Kitsap County
183 Wash. 2d 358
| Wash. | 2015Background
- PECBA channels binding interest arbitration after impasse for Kitsap County deputies and sergeants; last CBA (2008-2009) required county to pay full health insurance and 10% of dependents' premiums.
- Arbitration panel held in Oct 2012 and issued a Feb 2013 award increasing deputies' health care premium contributions to 3% of their own and 15% of dependents', retroactive for July–Dec 2012, offset by a 0.5% retroactive wage increase.
- Between 2009 expiration and 2013 award, the County maintained the 2008-2009 CBA level, constituting the interim status quo under PECBA.
- Guild sued in superior court to void the retroactive premium increase; trial court struck the retroactive portion, found a taking, WRA violation, and arbitrary/capricious conduct, and denied attorney fees.
- County sought direct review; Guild cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees; the court ultimately reversed, upholding the award and denying fees on appeal.
- Concurrently, the lead opinion and dissent debated whether retroactive health-premium increases constitute a wage rebate or unlawful taking under the WRA and due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive premium increases violate due process as a taking | Guild contends a property interest existed in pre-expired benefits and retroactive increases take wages. | County asserts no property interest in the expired package; status quo maintained during interim, allowing retroactive adjustments. | Retroactive increases do not amount to a taking; no vested property interest in expired terms during interim. |
| Whether retroactive premium increases violate the wage rebate act | WRA prohibits rebates of wages; deputies paid health premiums previously and now must repay; this is a rebate. | Wages can be withheld when lawfully authorized; the premium changes were offset by retroactive wages and were lawful under the statute. | Arbitration award did not violate the WRA; premiums are wages and offset by wage increase under PECBA. |
| Whether the arbitration award was arbitrary and capricious | Argues award improperly relied on outdated terms and failed to consider statutory authority. | Panel conducted a lengthy hearing, provided detailed rationale, and considered required statutory factors; deference owed. | Award not arbitrary or capricious; panel carefully analyzed facts and statutory factors. |
| Whether the Guild is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Guild seeks fees as prevailing party on wage recovery from an interest arbitration review. | This is an appeal of an interest arbitration; any wage effects are corollary and not recoverable as fees. | Fees denied; underlying action did not prevail on appeal and wage effects were corollary. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Bellevue v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 119 Wn.2d 373 (1992) (arbitration review standards and status of PECBA terms during interim)
- LaCoursiere v. Camwest Development, Inc., 181 Wn.2d 734 (2014) (definition of wage and rebate under WRA; bonuses as wages)
- Navlet v. Port of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 818 (2008) (benefits conferred in CBA; vesting of welfare benefits context)
- Christie v. Port of Olympia, 27 Wn.2d 534 (1947) (retroactive wage increases and constitutional considerations)
- Ellerman v. Centerpoint Prepress, Inc., 143 Wn.2d 514 (2001) (WRA purpose to protect wages from diminution or deduction)
- Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. (Local 589) v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 414 Mass. 323 (1993) (retroactive award may be detrimental to union members)
- Wis. Admin., v. Wis. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 90 Wis.2d 426 (1979) (retroactive wage adjustments as component of interim negotiations)
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (arbitration as instrument of collective bargaining; deference to panel)
- Conard v. University of Washington, 119 Wn.2d 519 (1992) (procedural guarantees and substantive predicates for property interests)
- Local 2052, International Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Moses Lake, 68 Wn. App. 742 (1993) (attorney fees in appeal from interest arbitration are generally unavailable)