Opinion ID: 2639312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: City of Moses Lake

Text: The City asserts that the Court of Appeals holding also conflicts with Division Three's holding in City of Moses Lake v. International Association of Firefighters, Local 2052, 68 Wash.App. 742, 847 P.2d 16, review denied, 121 Wash.2d 1026, 854 P.2d 1085 (1993). Pet. for Review at 14-15. In Moses Lake, the court rejected an award of attorney fees in an appeal from an interest arbitration proceeding. Moses Lake, 68 Wash.App. at 748-49, 847 P.2d 16. In holding that attorney fees were unavailable even though the superior court order enforcing the arbitrator's award resulted in a salary increase for union members, the court focused on the purpose of RCW 41.56.450 in providing for binding arbitration and superior court review. Id. It found that the salary increase was only corollary, rather than central, to the Legislature's purpose of providing judicial review of the arbitration process. Id. at 748, 847 P.2d 16. Because Moses Lake involved an appeal from an interest arbitration award pursuant to RCW 41.56.450, we find it distinguishable. Moses Lake, 68 Wash.App. at 744-45, 847 P.2d 16. Interest arbitration and grievance arbitration serve different purposes. Interest arbitration is used to determine the terms of the contract between the parties when they cannot negotiate an agreement and results in a new agreement. Grievance arbitration is used to resolve labor disputes through the interpretation and application of an already existing collective bargaining agreement. City of Bellevue v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 119 Wash.2d 373, 376, 831 P.2d 738 (1992). Thus, when parties enter into interest arbitration, neither party is yet entitled to any specific right or remedy. However, in a grievance arbitration, an employee is seeking to vindicate an existing right. The purpose of RCW 49.48.030, therefore, is served by allowing attorney fees in grievance arbitration; whereas, it would not be served by allowing them in interest arbitration. Contrary to the City's position, the fact that the employees were awarded back pay by the arbitrator in Moses Lake is not dispositive on this issue because the employees were not entitled to that award until the arbitrator had determined the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator could just have easily determined that the salary increase was not warranted. Furthermore, the authorization of binding arbitration under RCW 41.56.450 serves a specific purpose unrelated to vindicating the rights of workers to receive wages or salary owed. In enacting RCW 41.56.400 and 41.56.450, the Legislature intended to avoid strikes by uniformed personnel. See RCW 41.56.430. Thus, any additional wages received by the union members in Moses Lake were merely incidental to the legislative purpose of avoiding strikes by providing for arbitration.