Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />! <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Group V. The city argues that the Comparative Worth Law provision <br />requires that the arbitrator give the comparative worth study <br />greater weight than the external comparables and is to be given <br />preference if there is a conflict. The Union argues that the <br />Comparative Worth Law is just one of the factors to be considere~ <br />as specifying and noted in Section 471.992, Subd. 2, and 471.993 <br />of the Act. <br /> <br /> The arbitrator does recognize that prior to the advent of <br />the Comparative Worth Law in 1984 interest arbitrators as a general <br />rule and. as. applied to-compensation reference to law enforcement <br />personnel looked to external comparables and not internal. This <br />is not to say however that they were not influenced by internal <br />comparables such as the settlement of a major portion of the work <br />force of a city or county. <br /> <br /> It is obvious that the parties disagree as to the effect to <br />be accorded the wage evaluation study of the City under the <br />Comparative Worth Law. <br /> <br /> Section 471.992, Subd. 2 of PELRA establishes the standards <br />that interest arbitrators are to use in determining compensation <br />issues. <br /> <br /> Section 471.992, Subds. 1, 2 and 3 provide as follows: <br /> 471.992. Equitable compensation relationships <br /> <br /> "Subdivision 1. Establishment. Subject to <br /> sections 179A.01 to 179A.25 but notwithstanding any <br /> other law to the contrary, every political <br /> subdivision of this state shall establish equitable <br /> compensation relationships between female-dominated, <br /> male-dominated, and balanced classes of employees. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />