Laserfiche WebLink
by arbitrators in interest arbitration pretty much alone with the <br />exception of adding a standard established by the Comparative Worth <br />Law. Consequently, in my award I have seriously considered the <br />comparative worth study of the city of Ramsey and the place of the <br />police officers of the City in their compensation relationship wit~ <br />other employees of the City above the corridor, and the need to <br />enable the city to bring the police within the corridor as required <br />by the Act on or before December 31, 1991. <br /> <br /> I have also considered comparables of the Stanton Group V <br />and note that the rates of pay as resulting from the increase I <br />have awarded are not unreasonably out of line with many of the <br />Stanton Group V cities. <br /> <br /> Also, I do point out that the award is not unreasonable in <br />comparison with the average percentage settlement of the Stanton . <br />Group V cities for 1989 and 1990 of 3.86% and 3°87%, respectively. <br /> <br /> In the making of my award I have considered the settlement <br />under AFSCME of 3%. I have considered the Comparative Worth Law <br />and its application to a greater extent than I have the external <br />comparable in this situation. However, I did give the external <br />some weight as one will note, particularly in view of the fact that <br />the AFSCME settlement was 3% and my award is 3.5%. <br /> <br /> I believe that my award is consistent with the Minnesota <br />Comparative Worth Law and in particular Section 471.992. Although <br />my award will to a certain extent increase inequity in favor of the <br />police, I do not believe that it will increase inequity requiring <br />any substantial adjustment by the City in this instance. <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />