If enacted into law as expected, the new statute would directly affect fire fighters, police officers, and public school personnel and their respective labor organizations. 

Michael McCoy, General Counsel for the Utah Education Association, labeled the bill "a civil rights attorney's dream," asserting that it violated both the state and federal constitutions. Even the legislature's legal staff recognizes the potential constitutional problems. In a legislative review note the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel observed that the bill was subject to challenge on First Amendment and equal protection grounds. The legal advisor noted, however, that in 1998, a federal appeals court upheld portions of a similar Ohio law. 

Voluntary donations to PAC by public employees would be permitted under the new law. 

According to The Buffalo News, the fire fighters are only two of several questionable examples of IOD status based on stress. The two fire fighters took advantage of a New York statute that grants IOD disability benefits solely for mental stress without a corresponding physical injury. Many states do not fund so-called "mental-mental" injuries, requiring a physical injury as a predicate to mental disability. 

"The vast majority of fire fighters are honorable, hard-working people. We're talking about a handful of misfits," said Buffalo Fire Commissioner Cornelius Keane. The commissioner said he is certain some fire fighters are manipulating the system. 

Under the current labor agreement between the city and the fire fighters' union, the department must disprove an IOD claim before the fire fighter 

Changing the agreement is a priority with the city, according to city officials. The procedure requiring the city to disprove the claim was originally negotiated in 1993 as part of a plan to expedite IOD determinations. Under the agreement hearings are supposed to occur within seven days of the injury but rarely do. 

The problem is insufficient hearing officers and overloaded schedules, according to Vincent Gugliuzza, president of the Buffalo Professional Fire Fighters Association, who favors the requirement that the city disprove claims. 

Last year, about 500 IOD claims were filed with the fire department, many being minor in nature. City officials estimate that 18 percent of those claims could qualify as worker's compensation cases because the injuries did not directly relate to fire fighting. 

Last year, the city agreed to raise police officer pay by 33 percent over three years, beginning with 7 percent this year. During negotiations the city's two fire unions sought a pay parity provision in their contracts. The city refused, saying that parity was not a mandatory bargaining subject despite the fact that parity clauses had been included in fire fighter labor contracts since 1992. When the contract went to binding arbitration, the city sought a court order barring a parity requirement. The court refused to consider the matter until the arbitration panel made its decision. Subsequently, the panel adopted the fire fighter unions' parity proposal. 

On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals found that the question of parity was included within the statutory duty to bargain over terms and conditions of employment. The court rejected the 

The city estimates that paying its 1,650 fire fighters a retroactive 4 percent wage hike would cost $3.2 million. Baltimore is already facing a $28 million budget shortfall. A payment to fire fighters could affect the city's ability to fund the 8 percent raise due police officers in 2002. 

Baltimore fire fighters are represented by Baltimore City Fire Fighters, Local 734, of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), AFL-CIO, while the fire officers bargain through the Baltimore City Fire Officers, Local 964 of the IAFF. The fire unions negotiate annual contracts while police officers operate under a multi-year pact. Bargaining sessions for the upcoming year will begin in the next few weeks. 

Don Derning, a member of the village fire and police commission who proposed the requirement, said, "It's gotten to the point where you need a degree in immigration law to determine whether someone is a citizen or not." Derning noted that illegal aliens seeking jobs is not yet a widespread problem. Village Attorney Katherine Janega told the council that the fire and police board 

If the plan is adopted, Winnetka would apparently be the first municipality in the country to take such a step. 

A spokesman for the state American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told the Chicago Sun-Times that a mandate from the government compelling a person to register to vote is "troubling." Ed Yohnka of the Illinois ACLU suggested that some persons express their political beliefs by purposefully not registering or voting. 

No date has been set for the village council's consideration of the proposal. 

During 2000, about 400 of the city's 1,600 fire fighters claimed IOD status at some point. The monthly number was down to about 150 for December. According to Acting Fire Commissioner Dennis DiMarzio, abuse of injured on duty (IOD) status has caused city overtime costs to balloon to over $9 million in recent years. 

Union officials claim the city's numbers on disability and overtime are phony because half of the IOD fire fighters have filed for disability retirement and the city has failed to maintain 

For its part, the fire fighters' union, which angered the mayor when it picketed his Christmas tree lighting ceremony and the state-of-the-city speech, apparently is changing its strategy. The union sponsored a Valentine's Day "Have a Heart" peaceful gathering at City Hall Plaza and is launching a public awareness campaign. "We're going back to the people. We intend to . . . do a grassroots campaign that gets to the heart of what we do," McKenna said. Fire fighters will be meeting with neighborhood groups and distributing information pamphlets. 

Fire fighters, who have worked without a contract since June 1999, are anxious to wrap up a pact with pay raises. Mayor Menino is set to run for a third term in November and apparantly wants to regain labor support. 

Meanwhile, both sides met with the state labor board to prepare for arbitration proceedings. 

HELD: Barringer contends that the pension board's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. He argues that he is entitled to occupational disease disability benefits because his stroke was caused by on-duty injuries that aggravated his otherwise dormant, preexisting congenital heart condition. It is not the function of an appellate court to reweigh the evidence presented to an administrative agency. Instead, the court's function is to ascertain whether the agency's findings and decision are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The decision of an administrative agency is against the manifest weight of the evidence only if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. The agency is due great deference in its determination. A review of the record in this case reveals that the board's decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. The statute in question provides for disability benefits for a fire fighter who suffers certain injuries "resulting solely from his 

Supreme Court update 

A recently filed matter awaiting a review decision by the court is Firefighter's Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 00-1164. A group of African-American fire fighters are attempting to challenge a lower court ruling that the city did not violate federal fair employment laws in the manner in which it selected personnel for promotion to battalion chief. 

Cases of interest 

HELD: An Indiana statute in place for 150 years provides that the district attorney, upon learning of a criminal violation, shall cause process to issue to the appropriate officer directing him to subpoena persons likely to be acquainted with the commission of the offense. This procedure is known as the prosecutor's investigative subpoena power. Oman contends that such subpoenas require court approval. A review of the scant case law existing on the power of prosecutors to issue investigative subpoenas leads the court to establish a new rule of criminal procedure. A prosecutor acting without a grand jury must first seek permission of the court before issuing a subpoena duces tecum to a third party for the production of documentary evidence. When such application is made to the court, the requirement of probable cause, such as necessary for a warrant, need not be met. The Fourth Amendment does, however, provide an overriding requirement of reasonableness. As such, subpoenas must pass a three-part test. The evidence sought must be relevant, admissible, and specific. This standard of reasonableness incorporates appropriate constitutional safeguards designed to limit overzealous prosecutors and at the same time minimize judicial second-guessing that would unnecessarily bog down pre-charge investigations. When applied to the case at hand it is clear that the subpoena was sufficiently limited in scope in that only Oman's test results and not those of the other driver were requested; it was specific in that it only sought the one set of test results and not others maintained by the lab; and finally, it was relevant to a valid criminal prosecution. Just as the subpoena was validly issued, also valid is the city's substance abuse testing ordinance. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that substance abuse testing is constitutional for public employees engaged in safety sensitive tasks. The Supreme Court has left 

HELD: The evidence presented to the arbitrator showed that 16 fire fighters had been granted a total of 53 IOD leaves over the previous decade. With the exception of Thomas, all 16 fire fighters continued to accrue and be paid for vacation and sick leave. Only six of the leaves, including Thomas's, extended for two months or more. On this evidence the arbitrator concluded that there was a significant past practice of allowing a fire fighter on IOD leave to accrue and be paid for vacation and leave time. The city urges overturning of the arbitration award. However, Massachusetts's law contains a strong public policy favoring arbitration. Arbitrators have broad discretion in interpreting collective bargaining agreements and in providing complete relief to an aggrieved party. The role of courts in reviewing an arbitrator's award is limited. Thus, the court defers to the arbitrator's 

HELD: Determining arbitrability requires a two-pronged inquiry. First a court must decide whether arbitration claims with respect to a particular subject matter of the dispute are authorized, and, second, the court must ascertain whether the authority to arbitrate was in fact exercised and the parties consented by the terms of their contract to refer disputes in this area to arbitration. Under the first prong, the court must determine that there is nothing in the statute, decisional law, or public policy that would preclude referring the matter to arbitration. The question of public policy is relevant in this case. The public policy at stake is DOI's ability to conduct a criminal investigation. The legislature has recognized that cities have the power to investigate corruption. Such power is vested in New York City to the DOI. The courts have long recognized the important role DOI 

HELD: In Rhode Island, the power of a court to review the merits of an arbitration award is very limited. Absent a manifest disregard of the contractual provisions or a completely irrational result, the arbitration award shall be upheld. It is only when the arbitration award fails to embody even a passably plausible interpretation of the contract that it must be struck down by the court. As long as the award draws its essence from the contract the court will uphold it. The arbitrator's award here was passably plausible because it was consistent with the plain language of the contract. Nothing in the contract restricts or defines what is meant by "gross pay." Given that words in a contract should be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meanings, the arbitrator could plausibly have determined that gross pay included holiday pay. Prior case law expressly states that past practice may not form the basis to prevent enforcement of an award unless the contract itself contains a sufficiently clear past practice provision. Such was not the case here. The traditional rule is that in event of conflict between the language of a contract and past practice, the language of the contract, which represents the most direct and best evidence of the parties' intentions, must govern. The arbitrator's award was grounded in the essence of the collective bargaining agreement. Affirmed for fire fighters' union. [Town of North Providence v. Local 2334, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, 763 A.2604 (R.I. 2000)] 

HELD: Under Tennessee law, municipalities are generally immune from suit for any injury resulting from tortious actions except in instances where the immunity is expressly removed by the GTLA. One such instance of express removal of immunity involves injuries through negligent acts. Even there, governmental employees are generally immune from individual liability. An exception exists to this rule, however. Individual liability still exists when the claim is one for medical malpractice brought against a "health care practitioner." The question raised by this case is whether EMTs are "health care practitioners" within the meaning of the GTLA and subject to suit. The statute does not provide a definition of "health care practitioner" and, thus, the court must resort to basic rules of statutory construction. The court must ascertain the intent of the legislature in making its ruling. The legislative intent and purpose are to be ascertained primarily from the natural and ordinary meaning of the statutory language without a forced or subtle interpretation that would limit or extend the statute's application. Courts are not authorized to alter or amend a statute. In this case it is clear that the EMTs are "health care practitioners." They are licensed under a state statute that defines an EMT as "an individual licensed to practice emergency care." Statute further defines an EMT paramedic as "an individual licensed to practice advanced emergency medical care." Given that the defendants in this case were licensed EMTs under state law and 

HELD: The airport first contends that the union lacks standing to bring action for monetary damages. Under Washington law, a union has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members if it satisfies three elements: (1) its members have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose; and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of the individual members in the lawsuit. Under this test, traditionally unions have been barred from bringing suits for monetary damages. This bar arises from the third prong of the associational standing test: the requirement that neither the claim nor the relief require the participation of individual members of the association. The logic is that a court would still have to determine the individual claims of union members if the suit were brought on behalf of the members by the union. However, in this case the evidence reflects that the records are easily available to determine the amounts due for each union member. As such, judicial efficiency suggests that allowing the union to maintain the lawsuit is a convenient and efficient method of litigating the issues. On the reimbursement issue, the airport contends the trial court erred because it ignored a prior case of virtual identical facts holding to the contrary. That case found that a pension granted to an employee is not a gratuity but a deferred compensation for services rendered. Under Washington law, a pension agreement is contractual in nature and once an employee has a vested right in a pension or retirement system, the employer cannot alter the system to the employee's detriment without corresponding benefit. Prior case law holds that pension plans are necessarily included in the total compensation package found in private collective bargaining agreements. The employer is