Opinion ID: 2807507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The arbitration award effects a rebate

Text: Having concluded that health insurance premiums are wages, we now consider whether the decrease in the deputies' wages for the payment of retroactive health care premiums constitutes a rebate. [A] 'rebate' occurs when an employer or its agent collects or receives a portion of an employee's wage after the wage has been paid. LaCoursiere, 181 Wn.2d at 744 (emphasis added) (citing RCW 49.52.050(1 )). Employees have [t]he right to a salary for work performed at the rate admittedly effective during the period when the work was performed. Foley v. Carter, 526 F. Supp. 977,985 (D.D.C. 1981); Navletv. Port of Seattle, 164 Wn.2d 818,828 n.5, 194 P.3d 221 (2008) (In the employment context, an employee who renders service in exchange for compensation has a vested right to receive such compensation. (citing Leonard v. City of Seattle, 81 Wn.2d 479, 487, 503 P.2d 741 (1972))). In analyzing whether there was a rebate, we must first determine the effective rate of pay during the period when the work was performed. PECBA, chapter 41.56 RCW, governs collective bargaining negotiations for public employees. Specifically, as uniformed personnel, 2 the deputies' wages during the interim period are defined as the existing wages, hours, and other conditions of employment, which were defined by the expired CBA. RCW 41.56.470. Therefore, the expired CBA became the deputies' effective rate of pay. The plain language of PECBA supports this conclusion: 2Uniformed personnel includes [l]aw enforcement officers as defined in RCW 41.26.030. RCW 41.56.030(13)(a). RCW 41.26.030(18) defines a law enforcement officer as any person who is commissioned and employed by an employer on a full time, fully compensated basis to enforce the criminal laws of the state of Washington. This definition applies to the deputies. 7 Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County, No. 89344-6 (Wiggins, J., dissenting) During the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitration panel, existing wages, hours, and other conditions of employment shall not be changed by action of either party without the consent of the other but a party may so consent without prejudice to his or her rights or position under chapter 131, Laws of 1973. RCW 41.56.470. The language of RCW 41.56.470 is mandatory; the imperative shall does not permit either party to change the existing wages, hours, or conditions of employment without the consent of the other. The intent and purpose of PECBA support the premise that RCW 41.56.470 controls the effective rate of wages for work performed: The intent and purpose of [PECBA] is to recognize that there exists a public policy in the state of Washington against strikes by uniformed personnel as a means of settling their labor disputes; that the uninterrupted and dedicated service of these classes of employees is vital to the welfare and public safety of the state of Washington; that to promote such dedicated and uninterrupted public service there should exist an effective and adequate alternative means of settling disputes. RCW 41.56.430. The PECBAadvances a balance between uniformed employees and employers. So long as the deputies remain employees, the deputies are required to continue working the same hours under the same conditions of employment. Under PECBA, a uniformed employee's right to strike, or engage in a work slowdown or stoppage, is rescinded, but in return PECBA guarantees that existing wages will continue until a dispute is resolved. RCW 41.56.490. The quid pro quo for the deputies' dedicated and uninterrupted public service is that the County continues to pay the deputies existing wages. As discussed, the deputies' existing wages included health insurance payments. Even the lead opinion appears to acknowledge that RCW 41.56.470 8 Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County, No. 89344-6 (Wiggins, J., dissenting) required the County to maintain the same level of pay and benefits provided under the 2008-2009 CBA. Lead opinion at 3 (emphasis added). We should hold that RCW 41.56.470 governs our analysis of the deputies' effective wages during the interim period because the arbitration proceedings were pending and the statute explicitly prohibits either party from changing the existing wages and conditions of employment. Because the compensation the County paid the deputies during the interim period is statutorily defined, [t]he promised compensation for services actually performed and accepted ... may undoubtedly be claimed. Butter v. Pennsylvania, 51 U.S. (1 0 How.) 402, 416, 13 L. Ed. 472 (1850). The deputies had the right to the wages they received. We conclude that deputies' health insurance premiums are wages and that the deputies received no more than their due. By allowing the County to rebate these wages, the arbitration award violates the WRA.