Representatives of volunteer fire companies in the Washington, D.C., metro area are protesting a new union policy that requires paid fire fighters to choose between a union card and part-time volunteer work. The policy in question, long on the books of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), AFL-CIO, prohibits union members from volunteering in jurisdictions that operate paid fire departments. At the IAFF convention last August delegates passed a resolution declaring volunteer companies in Prince George's County, Maryland, "rival organizations," which cleared the way for IAFF locals to enforce national policy.
Tom McEachin, president of IAFF Local 1619, reportedly sent letters to dozens of career fire fighters in Maryland, Virginia, and the District accusing them of providing free labor at rival firehouses — especially 38 volunteer stations in Prince George's County that are also staffed by the county fire department.
For many years career fire fighters have come home to the suburbs and worked
night and weekend shifts at the volunteer companies. McEachin said the
rule in
question, Resolution 43, is not meant to discourage volunteerism. "What
you do on your own time is fine," he said. "Just turn in your union card."
IAFF officials view the career/volunteer conflict as a jobs issue. "I always ask volunteer fire fighters what they would do if a group of people started volunteering in their workplace," IAFF spokesman George Burks told The Baltimore Sun newspaper.
Volunteers view the IAFF position as unreasonable and contrary to President Bush's recent call for citizens to give time to their communities. Representatives of the Maryland State Firemen's Association, which represents volunteers, were scheduled to meet with personnel from the federal Office of Homeland Security to discuss the dispute.
Meanwhile, IAFF members are faced with the choice of ceasing their volunteer fire fighting or incurring union discipline. Most are likely to withdraw from the volunteer companies.
An estimated 70 percent of all career fire fighters nationwide volunteer at community departments.
In the last month, two different actions in two different southern states will impact bargaining rights of fire fighters. Kentucky is moving toward granting such a right while Mississippi appears to be more reluctant.
In the Blue Grass State, the House voted to grant all full-time fire fighters the right to unionize and bargain collectively with governmental entities. Current law limits that right to the largest of cities only. No person would be required to join a union and fire fighters would remain barred from striking. The bill has been referred to the Senate for further consideration.
Prospect for labor groups appear less rosy in Mississippi. The Mississippi
Supreme Court ruled in March that the City of Biloxi was under no obligation
to bargain with its fire fighters. In 1992 the mayor and city council approved
a resolution recognizing the fire fighters' union and granting bargaining
rights. In 1996,
however, a different mayor vetoed the resolution. A city council override
of the veto failed. The Biloxi Firefighters' Association sued to force bargaining.
The state Supreme Court ruled that operation of the fire department is
a discretionary activity and Mississippi law prohibits one city administration
from binding future administrations in the exercise of their discretionary
authority.
"One city council cannot legally adopt a resolution binding a successor
administration on discretionary matters. A collective bargaining agreement
is policy-oriented, reflecting the will of a certain administration. To
hold that such action as a matter of law binds a subsequent administration
would violate well-settled Mississippi case law," wrote Justice George C.
Carlson, Jr., in the majority opinion. The ruling leaves Mississippi as
a permissive bargaining state.
At a White House ceremony March 11, President George W. Bush and Postmaster General John E. Potter unveiled a new "semipostal" stamp that will raise funds to provide assistance to families of emergency relief personnel killed or permanently disabled in connection with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The price of the Heroes of 2001 semipostal stamp will be 45 cents. The 11-cent difference between the sales price of the stamp and the underlying postage in effect at the time of purchase consists of a contribution. Funds raised in connection with sales of the stamp, net of the Postal Service's reasonable costs, are to be transferred to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The stamp is expected to be available in post offices nationwide starting in late spring.
The unveiling marked both the six-month anniversary of the September 11
terrorist attacks and the start date for the production of 205 million Heroes
of 2001 stamps. "The Postal Service is proud to honor the men and women
who gave their all in the rescue efforts following the terrorist attacks
of September 11," said
Potter. "Sadly, many of these true American heroes paid the ultimate
sacrifice. We hope this stamp will be a lasting tribute to them and a testimony
to the spirit and resolve of our great country."
Also participating in the unveiling ceremony were firefighters William Eisengrein, George Johnson and Daniel McWilliams and photographer Thomas E. Franklin. Eisengrein, Johnson and McWilliams participated in rescue efforts in New York City. Franklin, a staff photographer for The Record in Bergen County, New Jersey, took the now famous photograph of the three firefighters as they raised the U.S. flag at "ground zero" at the demolished World Trade Center. The design is contrary to normal Postal Service policy prohibiting depiction of living persons on stamps.
The self-adhesive, non-denominated Heroes 2001 stamp is a semipostal, which means it will be valid for postage at the first-class first-ounce letter rate in effect at the time of purchase (currently 34 cents). The remainder is a tax-deductible contribution and may not be used to pay postage.
A recent study conducted by USA Today newspaper concludes that ambulances rushing to and from the scene of an accident potentially cause more harm than good. The researchers concluded that there is no scientific proof establishing that "running hot" - operating with lights and sirens - actually saves lives.
Previously reported data found that use of lights and sirens by ambulances reduced average response time by 106 seconds in big cities and by 43.5 seconds in rural areas. Yet ambulances are 13 times more likely to be involved in an accident than other motor vehicles in terms of accidents per miles driven.
Ambulances also are unforgiving vehicles in a
crash. According to data obtained from the National Highway Traffic Administration,
between 1980 and 2000, in multi-vehicle ambulance crashes a person in the
other vehicle was killed 21 times more often than the ambulance driver.
Many of the incidents occurred as ambulances raced to the hospital while
transporting relatively healthy and stable patients.
One estimate places the total number of ambulance crashes at 15,000 annually.
Some jurisdictions are attempting to reduce the risk of accident by equipping ambulances with "black box" data recorders and exercising better judgment in when to dispatch the emergency vehicles.
"That's not my job - - that is my job" might well be the refrain of fire fighters in Iowa and Illinois as complaints have arisen over both who gets to fight fires and which tasks are not appropriate for fire personnel to perform.
In Oak Brook, Illinois, two fire fighter/paramedics have filed suit to
prevent the village from using outside personnel to treat patients and put
out fires. The plaintiffs claim that the practice of using contract personnel
is unsafe because of inferior training. However, the owner of Paramedic
Service of Illinois, Earl Field, said his company's 350 paramedics and
fire
fighters go to the same training schools as sworn personnel. Village manager
Steve Veitch said that the labor agreement with the fire fighters' union
specifically allows for use of outside fire and medical personnel. He characterized
the issue as a "labor dispute."
Fire fighters in Clinton, Iowa, have a bit of the opposite problem. Local
609 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, has filed
a grievance asserting that member fire fighters should not be required to
perform construction work on a fire station remodeling project. The union
filed the grievance a few weeks after a fire fighter-led project started
to build a new administrative office. While fire fighters have previously
worked to improve firehouse living quarters,
the union asserts that the current construction activity violates its
labor contract.
Union president Jeff Chapman quotes the contract as saying that fire fighters should do "normal station maintenance as established by past practice." "Major projects such as those normally requiring the work of skilled tradesman should not be performed by fire fighters."
The same contract language has been in place since 1978 and many remodeling jobs have been handled by fire fighters. Use of fire personnel on the current project is an effort to control costs.
A hearing on the grievance is scheduled for the end of March.
Providence, Rhode Island fire fighters who say they were ordered to ride in last year's gay pride parade, despite moral and religious objections, are threatening to sue the city unless officials stop forcing municipal employees to march in the parade. The men from Engine Company No. 7 rode on a fire engine last June along the parade route through downtown Providence.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on behalf of three fire fighters who participated, has sent a letter to the fire chief demanding that only volunteer employees march in the parade. The letter argues that forcing participation violates the First Amendment right of association.
The objecting fire fighters claim that last year some male spectators
whistled and shouted come-ons and others yelled, "Look at the gay firemen."
Captain Stephen DeNinno said he has never asked a burning building's owner
his sexual preference. "The issue we're making is that the city government
has no right to send
us into a private situation where the participants are all gay and the
spectators assume that we're gay, and that's what happened to us."
Fire Chief James Rattigan said that the fire department's policy is to send personnel and apparatus to public events whenever organizers request them and personnel are otherwise available. "We don't ask them [fire fighters] to march or support a cause or wear a ribbon. . . we just ask them to ride in a truck and support a particular fire department function," Chief Rattigan said.
Steven Brown of the state ACLU said that if the city is sincere in its position, it means that a city fire truck would appear in a Ku Klux Klan parade and black fire fighters would be ordered to participate.
The city's privately run gay pride parade began in the 1970s and will be held again in June. The incumbent mayor rides in the parade and this year will serve as grand marshal.
Sausalito, California, voters recently turned down a proposed $7.8 million public safety building. This is not a particularly newsworthy item as, sadly, bond proposals for such buildings are sometimes rejected by the electorate. The reason for the Sausalito rejection is interesting _ opponents campaigned that the proposed facility would destroy the town's appearance and violate its feng shui!
Feng shui is the ancient Chinese art of placing
buildings and furniture in a manner to ensure the harmonious flow of energy.
The concept has been used in recent years by some architects and interior
designers as an aesthetic guide. More traditional designers reject the
concept as nonsense.
Opposition leaders in the upscale Bay-area community said they were not
against a new building for police officers and fire fighters but simply
opposed the placement and design of this particular structure.
In 1995, some 2,600 employees of the Houston Fire Department brought suit against the city claiming violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were paramedics and emergency medical technicians along with fire suppression and dispatch employees. A partial summary judgment was awarded to the suppression and dispatch employees and a monetary award granted. The paramedics and emergency medical technicians filed a separate suit claiming they were not fire protection employees within the meaning of the FLSA. They argued that although being trained fire fighters, their assignments to emergency medical services put them within the scope of non-fire protection personnel and they were subject to the standard 40-hour workweek under the FLSA. Thus, they argued that they were entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per week. The city countered that the individuals were exempt from overtime until after 53 hours of work in a week. Alternately, the city argued that the plaintiffs were exempt from overtime compensation under the Learned Professional exemption or the Executive/Administrative exemption of the FLSA. Trial court granted summary judgment for the city and fire fighters/paramedics appeal.
HELD: The FLSA establishes a general rule that all employees must receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 during a seven-day workweek. The city counters that as EMS workers the plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime compensation because they fall within three FLSA exemptions. The first exempts individuals engaged in fire protection activity while the second exempts individuals who are members of a learned profession, and the third exempts executive and administrative personnel. Under federal law the employer has the burden to prove that an employee is exempt from the FLSA general rule. The fire profession exemption as embodied in Section 7(k) of the FLSA provides a partial exemption for individuals employed by a fire department who are engaged in fire protection activities. Their work, however, must be an intrical part of an agency’s fire protection activities. For an EMS employee to fall within the exemption, he must have received training in the rescue of fire, crime, and accident victims and be regularly dispatched to fires, crime scenes, riots, natural disasters, and accidents. While no specific frequency of occurrence establishes “regularity”, the determination must be on the facts of each case. Here, the evidence indicated that only 17 percent of the dispatches were related to fires, crimes, and accident victims. Eighty-three percent of the EMS dispatches were solely medical or health related. While a large number of the dispatches did involve crime scenes and motor vehicle accidents, no evidence was presented as to the relative proportion of those dispatches. The idea of “regularity” is best determined by showing the number of responses relative to the total number of incidents. Since only 17 percent of the EMS incidences were related to FLSA-covered emergencies, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were regularly dispatched as a matter of law. Failure to satisfy the regularity prong of the test insures that the EMS personnel are not exempt under the general overtime provisions of the law. Congress, in 1999, amended the FLSA by adding a definition of “employee in fire protection activities” to specifically include paramedics and emergency medical technicians. There is no indication that Congress intended to apply that law retroactively and the court will refuse to give it retroactive effect in this case. The city argues nonetheless that the EMS personnel are members of a learned profession. The Learned Professional exemption requires advanced training and education and the consistent exercise of discretion in the performance of the job. The facts in this case show a level of training but not a level required at an academic level or that would be required of individuals such as nurses. Likewise, the personnel lack the consistent exercise of discretion. The overwhelming bulk of their work involves following standardized protocols or operating under the direct control of an emergency care physician. EMS personnel exercise a small amount of discretion on their job and thus do not fit the Learned Professional exemption. Likewise, the evidence fails to show that they fit within the executive/administrative exemption. To qualify for this exemption an individual must be paid on a salary basis and be primarily involved in the management of the particular enterprise. To qualify for this exemption the employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work, once again involving the exercise of discretion. The city argues that at least the paramedics who hold the rank of captain are bona fide executives. While the city offered into evidence job descriptions of captain, senior captain, district chief, and deputy chief, the job descriptions specifically stated that not all tasks would necessarily be performed. The generic job descriptions tell nothing about the specific duties of each manager or the percentage of time spent on management activities. While prior case law holds that in certain cities individuals holding the ranks of captain, district chief, or battalion chief were exempt employees, the mere title provides no guidance on whether the administrative exemption applies. Rather a fact-sensitive inquiry is required in each case. In this instance, the city has not carried its burden of proving that the paramedic captains were exempt executives or administrative employees. Reversed for fire fighter/paramedics and monetary judgment awarded. [Vela v. City of Houston, Texas, 276 F.3d 659 (5th Cir. 2002)]
Montemayor, a female, applied for a position as a fire fighter. She passed the physical exam, the agility test, and the written exam. She was then interviewed by three senior department employees. During the interview she was asked a series of inappropriate questions regarding what her reaction would be to pornographic films being shown in the firehouse or how she would react to unwanted sexual advances. Based on her answers the fire review board determined that she had failed the interview. Montemayor complained about the sexually inappropriate questions and the fire chief ordered her re-interviewed by a new board. She passed the second interview but the fire chief, upon review of her application decided that Montemayor was not of “good moral character” and recommended she not be hired by the department. The prospective fire fighter filed suit claiming that she was denied admission to the fire academy because of her race and sex. State court ordered her admitted to the fire academy. While in the academy she was terminated for substandard performance. Montemayor then filed a federal suit claiming illegal gender discrimination. The trial court jury awarded her $23,000 on the basis that her sex was a motivating factor in the city’s initial decision not to admit her to the academy and another $877,000 on her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaining about the alleged discriminatory hiring practices. The trial judge vacated the second monetary award, holding that it was not supported by the evidence. Montemayor appeals.
HELD: Trial court upheld the jury’s determination that the fire chief
had rejected Montemayor’s application for admission to the academy because
of her complaint about the initial interview experience. The city had
justified the decision, however, claiming that she had used an expired driver’s
license, possessed a bad work history, poor attendance in high school, a
low grade point average in college, and was perceived to be dishonest in answering
whether she had been terminated from a job. Montemayor introduced substantial
evidence that candidates with worst backgrounds than she had been allowed
into the training academy. There was sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to find the chief harbored animus against Montemayor for her complaints
and that that was the real reason not to admit her to the academy.
Thus, that portion of the trial court ruling is affirmed. As to the
retaliation complaint, Montemayor must demonstrate that she engaged in protective
activity, experienced an adverse employment action, and a causal link existed
between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. She
carried this initial burden. Proof requirements then shift to the city
to show that she was terminated because she was a substandard cadet.
At that point Montemayor must prove that her termination from the fire department
would not have occurred but for her protected conduct. Here, the evidence
in support of the city’s non-discriminatory reason for her termination is
overwhelming. She failed three written exams, a hose pump test, and
was unable to operate the power saw. In each instance the fire chief
followed appropriate departmental policies. She was given opportunities to
retake the written test pursuant to academy policy and still failed.
Likewise, the only other person in department history to have failed the three
written exams was also terminated. Her failure of the pump test and
power saw test showed that she performed poorly during these required activities.
The city has carried the burden of proof to establish that a reasonable jury
could not conclude that she would not have been terminated but for the protected
conduct. Trial court affirmed as to retaliation claim. [Montemayor
v. City of San Antonio, Texas, 276 F.3d 687 (5th Cir. 2001)]
In 1995, Travis went to work as a fire fighter for the city. She was a certified emergency medical technician (EMT). She had passed the necessary hours to qualify to test to become a paramedic but never passed the test. Indeed, she failed the paramedic test six times. Nonetheless, she held herself out as a paramedic and signed forms with abbreviations following her name indicating she was a paramedic. She wore decals on her helmet indicating her status as a paramedic and apparently told at least eight individuals that she was a paramedic. When the fire chief asked for proof of her paramedic certification, she could only produce proof that she was an EMT. Travis had previously been suspended earlier for improperly billing the city for the cost of the helmet decals and then delaying reimbursement. Upon learning that she was not a certified paramedic, the fire chief recommended she be terminated. Travis appealed the termination to the civil service board, which, following a hearing, unanimously found cause for her disciplinary action. One member thought that termination was too harsh a penalty. Travis appealed her termination to the trial court, which found no error in the action of the civil service board. She appeals.
HELD: Judicial review in such cases is limited to determining whether
the conclusion reached by the civil service board was arbitrary or capricious
or characterized by abuse of discretion. Disciplinary action against
civil service employees will be deemed arbitrary and capricious unless there
is a real and substantial relationship between the improper conduct and the
efficient operation of the public service. In this case, a lengthy hearing
was held and the board obviously believed the testimony that clearly established
that she had lied about the fact that she was a paramedic and had falsified
public records, representing in her signature that she was a paramedic.
Travis does not seriously contest these facts but rather argues that the
penalty was too severe in that she did nothing to jeopardize the department.
The civil service commission, however, reached the conclusion that the intentional
representation affected the efficient operation of the department.
The court in reviewing that record cannot say that the board acted in an
arbitrary and capricious manner. The board’s ruling is clearly supported
by the evidence and was not arbitrary. Dismissal of fire fighter affirmed.
[Travis v. DeRidder Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board, 801 So.2d
445 (La. Ct. App. 2001)]
fire fighters
Members of Local 279 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, and the Cheyenne city officials have reached accord on a new two-year labor contract. The pact grants a two percent pay hike in July and eligibility for another three percent wage boost in January, depending on their performance. This is the same wage package granted to all other city employees. This year marks only the second year since the Wyoming legislature authorized municipal labor contracts.
fire fighters
The first labor contract ever between the Village of Roselle and its fire fighters will net the fire personnel a 2.5 percent raise retroactive to May 2001. Another 3.5 percent wage increase is granted retroactive to January 1. In the future, 3.5 percent will be received next January 1 while a final 4 percent wage boost will come in January of 2004. The contract comes after fire fighters voted to unionize in the summer of 2000. They subsequently formed Local 4051 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO.
A key word searchable archive of all monthly newsletters published by Justex
Systems, Inc. since 1996 is located online at our web site: www.justex.com.
Also available are the four most recent Salary Tracker issues
covering updated information on ranks included in this quarterly report.
Each subscriber is given a user name and password. If you have misplaced
yours, just call or email our office, identify yourself or your department
as a subscriber, and your user name and password can be located. We hope
you find this service useful.