Members of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), AFL-CIO, will attend September 11 memorial services after all. A boycott of national memorial services had been a possibility after the union announced plans to challenge President Bush’s decision to withhold hundreds of millions of federal dollars to assist emergency service personnel.
Earlier this month, delegates at the IAFF convention in Las Vegas passed a sense of the convention motion that authorized General President Harold Schaitberger to take a range of possible actions to protest the President’s decision. Among the options was to forego attendance at an October 6 memorial for fallen fire fighters to be held in Washington. President Bush has been invited to speak at the event.
Schaitberger apparently rejected that option. “We would never ever boycott any of the memorials that are going to honor my members,” the union leader said August 16. “There is nothing this union will do to bring any kind of disrespect to the events that are going to be a celebration of their service and sacrifice.”
The President said he had a strong commitment to fire fighters but needed to cut federal spending. “I chose not to spend the $5 billion because, one, we didn’t need to and two, it is important for this country to be fiscally disciplined as our economy begins to recover,” Bush said. The $5.1 billion is part of a $28.9 billion supplemental anti-terror emergency spending bill that the President signed August 2. Most of the $5.1 billion was allocated to homeland security measures but also included funds for election reform, overseas AIDS assistance, flood prevention, and various military projects.
The withheld funds included $150 million for fire fighter training, $100 million for improvements to public safety communication systems, and $25 million for long-term monitoring of the health of Ground Zero workers.
IAFF convention delegates did authorize striking Bush’s name from the minutes and returning a video message he had prepared for conventioneers.
The annual analysis of deaths of U.S. on-duty fire fighters by the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) shows that last year 439 fire fighters died, including 340 fire fighters from the New York City Fire Department in the World Trade Center attack. (The fire department also lost two paramedics and a chaplain in the incident.) The report, released in July, states that more full-time career fire fighters perished on September 11 than were killed on-duty over the previous 20 years.
However, while noting the tragic loss of life on that single day, the
analysis focuses on the 99 on-duty deaths that occurred elsewhere over the
last year. In seven of the last 10 years, fewer than half of fire fighters’
deaths occurred while they were at fires. For 2001, nearly two-thirds
of the on-duty deaths were volunteer personnel. The death rate for
career fire personnel has trended downward in recent years.
A quarter of all deaths happened as fire fighters were traveling to or from
fires or other emergencies. The top killer of fire fighters in 2001,
as it has been in recent years, was overexertion or stress that led to on-the-job
heart attacks.
These were the main causes of those 99 fire fighters’ deaths:
§ Heart attacks killed 40. In all cases, the heart
attacks were attributed to stress or overexertion. Twelve of those
heart attacks occurred at a fire scene.
§ Twenty-seven died from being struck by an object
or coming in contact with an object. These include 17 killed in vehicle crashes.
The chief activities that led to fire fighters’ deaths were:
§ Fighting a fire, 38 deaths
§ Traveling to or from a fire, 24 deaths (This includes
both crashes and heart attacks.)
§ Performing non-emergency duties, such as maintenance,
23 deaths.
Older fire fighters were more likely to die than younger ones. Fire fighters in their 30s had the lowest death rates, while those in their 50s died at twice the average rate, and those in their 60s at four times the average.
“We all know firefighting is a dangerous profession,” says Rita Fahy, Ph.D., manager of fire databases and systems at NFPA. “But some of the biggest dangers occur away from fires. That’s why prevention efforts must involve not just training and equipment, but helping fire fighters stay in shape and cope with stress. The men and women who protect us deserve no less.”
The report’s authors observe that improvements in personal protective clothing and equipment, training, and incident management have not gone as far as might have been expected in reducing the number of fire fighter deaths at structural fires. “The drop in the number of structure fires themselves may have had a greater role in reducing fire fighter deaths,” the report notes. Additionally, given the large share of fire fighter deaths involving persons with known histories of serious medical conditions, attention to fitness and health “is essential.”
The full report is available in the current issue of NFPA Journal, or
in downloadable format for members only on NFPA’s Web site, www.nfpa.org.
Summer election time was not kind to fire fighters seeking bargaining rights with their employers. One community rejected fire fighter efforts to gain a labor contract while a missed deadline thwarted an entire state of fire fighters.
Voters in Morgantown, West Virginia, last month rejected a ballot initiative that would have granted all city employees, including fire fighters, collective bargaining rights. The proposal failed 1,593 to 662. Under the initiative, Local 313 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, would have been allowed to negotiate wages and working conditions for its members.
West Virginia is a permissive bargaining state, lacking a law that requires municipalities to negotiate with their workers. Approximately one-half dozen of the state’s communities currently negotiate with their public safety personnel.
Meanwhile, a statewide vote on bargaining fizzled in Missouri when the state’s chief election officer rejected as insufficient the petition calling for the ballot measure. Secretary of State Matt Blunt ruled in early August that irregularities in the signatures, including apparent forgeries as well as signatures of non-eligible electors, dropped support for the initiative below the constitutionally required minimum.
“At this point it does not appear that fire fighters or any other union that supported this initiative was involved in any of these irregularities,” Blunt stated. “I know that the sponsors are disappointed but I believe that the initiative petition process is important, and to retain it we need to make sure we are protecting the integrity of that system,” he added.
The collective bargaining petition took the form of a proposed constitutional amendment. Under state election rules, just over 125,000 signatures were needed to move the item to the ballot. However, the signatures must equal eight percent of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election in six of the state’s nine congressional districts. Despite supporters turning in more than 206,000 signatures, invalid signatures caused the petition to fall 226 voters short in one of the congressional districts.
“We’re shocked and obviously very disappointed,” stated John Corbett, president of the Missouri State Council of Fire Fighters, an IAFF affiliate. “This is another terrible setback for the 5,000 fire fighters who work in Missouri without the protection of a collective bargaining agreement,” Corbett added. An appeal through the court system is being considered.
Nearly a year after the World Trade Center (WTC) tragedy, insurance companies are showing signs of moving away from covering fire service personnel and activities. Even the fire fighters’ union in New York City has felt the pinch.
Fireman’s Fund Insurance recently notified the United Firefighters Association, which represents the city’s 9,000 rank-and-file fire fighters, that it was dropping its property and casualty coverage.
“It’s hard to believe that the company called ‘Fireman’s,’ with the fire hat logo, is throwing out the fire fighters’ union, but it’s true,” said Ken Hehir, the union’s independent insurance agent.
“Our understanding is that they think Manhattan’s too great of a risk and they don’t want to insure labor unions anymore,” union spokesman Tom Butler said.
But Mia Benedict, of Fireman’s Fund, said the company could no longer insure some Manhattan clients because of the unpredictable risk of terrorist attacks, but she called Butler’s characterization incorrect. “We do not find Manhattan to be too great of a risk,” she said. “We do want to insure both Manhattan and unions.”
Apparently sensing a public relations nightmare over the non-renewal, Fireman’s Fund issued a press release August 16 announcing that it originally planned to non-renew the union in November of 2001 but because of the WTC disaster postponed sending the notice. Additionally, the company said it would extend the union’s coverage until it could find a replacement carrier. Fireman’s Fund noted that the policy in question covers the union hall, 11 automobiles and 20 service staff — it does not cover fire fighters.
Meanwhile Utah fire fighters are facing a different insurance challenge. This summer fire fighters along with 21,000 state workers were notified that the nonprofit program that provides them life insurance has been forced to reduce coverage.
The Utah Public Employees Health Program (PEHP) found it necessary to seek a new re-insurance carrier last January. Lloyd’s of London agreed to provide the re-insurance at a cost tens times the PEHP’s previous premium. Additionally, total coverage was reduced by half to $50 million. Most importantly, Lloyd’s refused to insure risks from terrorism, and chemical, biological, or nuclear agents.
PEHP decided to self-insure the terrorism-related risks but only at ten percent of the face value of any policy. Likewise, the fund has capped the benefit to a total of $5 million for all victims. The PEHP, a self-funded trust, purchases re-insurance to cover losses above those the assets of the fund can pay.
Chris Lampkin, who manages the term life insurance program for PEHP, said, “They [public safety personnel] have the front line risk, and they are concerned about their family being taken care of. It’s very understandable, but it’s a situation we can’t do anything about. It’s become the way things have gone after September 11 and we are doing the best we can with what we have got.”
Congress is reportedly considering a study of the effects the 2001 terrorist attacks have had on the insurance industry.
Chanting “too much praise, too little raise,” thousands of off-duty New York City fire fighters and police officers packed Times Square August 15 and demanded salary increases that the city has resisted. A crowd estimated at over 15,000 invoked the sacrifices of September 11 with placards that read, “They say, ‘Never forget.’ We say, ‘Already forgotten.’”
The two-hour rally was organized by the Uniformed Firefighters Association (UFA) and the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association. UFA members have been without a contract for 27 months and without a pay raise for 40 months. The city and the UFA had a tentative agreement in place last year which would have awarded a five percent hike. UFA officials chose not to hold a ratification vote after the events of September 11.
The PBA, whose contract expired over two years ago, are awaiting an award from a state arbitration panel. The New York Daily News reported that the panel is poised to award only five percent annually and increase the number of workdays by ten per year. This is in line with a proposal by the financially strapped city.
Newly elected UFA head Stephen Cassidy told the crowd, “We’re tired of politicians coming to our funerals and telling our widows how great we are.”
Reading a prepared statement, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “We have the best police officers and fire fighters in the world and the mayor has no problem with them peacefully exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.”
Meanwhile U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged President Bush to allow the city to use $500 million in federal aid to supplement raises for fire fighters and police officers. The money would fund an additional 10 percent pay hike over two years, on top of whatever fire fighters and police officers gain under current wage negotiations. Fire and police union officials endorsed the proposal while a White House spokesman said only that the request will be reviewed.
Shapiro was employed by the town for fifteen years, first as a police dispatcher and later as an emergency medical technician (EMT). While working as an EMT he injured his back lifting an elderly patient. He was out of work for some months due to the injury. The injury resulted in a disability which limited his ability to perform certain physical tasks. Consequently, Shapiro requested accommodation from the town to allow him to work in either a light duty capacity with the emergency medical service or in another position. Several times he made written requests to the town for reasonable accommodation. He received no response other than being advised to go to the town hall and fill out a job application. It had been the informal policy of the town regarding interdepartmental transfers that vacant positions were posted on a bulletin board in the municipal building. Employees desiring a new position could apply for a transfer by responding to the posting. Shapiro never went to the municipal building to apply for any vacant position. He did, however, identify an opening for police dispatcher. However, because of his lack of application, the town did not consider him for the position despite hiring several dispatchers over the time frame. Ultimately, Shapiro filed suit claiming that the town had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Trial court granted summary judgment for the town on the basis that Shapiro had not formally applied for any of the vacant positions. Former EMT appeals.
HELD: The ADA requires an employer to make reasonable accommodations to an employee’s known physical or mental limitations if the employee is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Regulations derived from the ADA state that it may be necessary for an employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation. Prior case law holds that if an employer fails to engage in the interactive process, it may not discover a way to accommodate the disability and thereby risks violating handicap discrimination law. Here, the township argues that to excuse Shapiro from the obligation of submitting an application would violate its policy regarding transfers. However, prior case law also holds that the burden is initially on the employee to show the accommodation is a type that is reasonable in a run of cases. If that circumstance is established, the burden shifts to the employer to show that granting the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Here there is no indication in the record that the town would suffer an undue hardship by responding to Shapiro’s deviation from the standard transfer application process. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. [Shapiro v. Township of Lakewood, New Jersey, 292 F.3d 356 (3rd Cir. 2002)]
DeSantis, a 20-year veteran of the fire department, petitioned in his own behalf for an order compelling the city to arbitrate his grievance. The collective bargaining agreement between the fire fighters’ union and the city provided a grievance procedure. DeSantis alleged that the union had authorized him to request arbitration. The city moved to dismiss the request, but the trial court rejected the city’s efforts. City appeals.
HELD: Prior Florida law holds that where a certified bargaining agent retains contractual control over the arbitral step of the grievance procedure and it declines to process a grievance to arbitration because it believes the grievance to be without merit, the public employer is not obligated to arbitrate the dispute if the grievant individually submits it to arbitration directly. DeSantis argues that this rule is inapplicable in his case because the union authorized him to pursue the grievance to arbitration. That argument will not stand, however. The union’s contractual control of the grievance process extends to and includes the arbitral step. By having the union control the arbitration process, the employer benefits by increasing the likelihood that grievances lacking merit will be screened out. Additionally, if individual employees were allowed to submit their own grievances, it would violate the union’s right to exclusive representation. Thus, the determination of whether to request arbitration is a significant part of the union’s responsibility in exercising its contractual control over the grievance procedure. Where a union has initiated the grievance process on behalf of a public employee, the arbitral step including the obtaining of an order compelling arbitration must be undertaken by the union as part of its exclusive representation. The union can not avoid that responsibility to its members or to the employer by simply authorizing the grievant to request arbitration. Reversed with directions to dismiss the proceeding. [City of Pembroke Pines v. DeSantis, 816 So.2d 1198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)]
Under Illinois law, an employer of a full time fire fighter who suffers a catastrophic injury or is killed in the line of duty shall pay the employee’s health insurance plan costs as well as that of his spouse and dependent children. Krohe, a fire fighter, was awarded a line of duty disability pension based on injuries he sustained as a fire fighter. He requested that the city continue to pay the health insurance premiums for him and his family. The city denied the request stating that it was not required to pay such premiums. Krohe filed suit seeking an order that he was entitled to the insurance premiums. Trial court was faced with defining the meaning of “catastrophic injury” since the statute did not define the term. Krohe presented evidence that the sponsor of the bill in the legislature had on the floor of the legislature stated that it was the intent of the law to cover fire fighters and police officers who are forced to take line of duty disability. Trial court concluded that indeed the legislative debate clearly indicated that individuals disabled in the line of duty were entitled to the health insurance premiums. City appeals.
HELD: Statutory construction is a matter of law. The words of a statute are to be given a plain, commonly understood meaning. When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it will be given effect without resort to the other tools of statutory construction. Here the phrase in question is not defined by the law. Thus, the court must look elsewhere to determine the intent of the legislature. A resort to legislative history reveals that the legislature sought to fulfill an important state interest by enacting a statute providing additional benefits for public safety officers. The legislative branch of government is responsible for making public policy and the judiciary should give effect to those enactments. Here, there is no challenge of constitutional infirmity and the deference to the clearly expressed will of the legislature is required. Injured fire fighter is entitled to the insurance benefits. [Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 769 N.E.2d 551 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)]
The city had a substance abuse ordinance which provided that upon testing positive, a fire fighter could participate in an employee assistance program (EAP) and upon successful completion of the program be allowed to return to work. The ordinance further provided that follow-up testing would be conducted on a random basis for the next twelve months. If an employee were found to have tested positive after completing the rehabilitation program, then the employee would be immediately terminated. Aguilera was a fire fighter who tested positive for cocaine in late 1998. He was suspended from duty. Aguilera filed notice of appeal and requested to participate in the EAP. His request was granted and he began a rehabilitation program. Aguilera was allowed to return to work while he completed the program. The civil service commission, however, failed to adequately notify Aguilera regarding his appeal hearing. As a result, the commission dismissed the proceedings against him and restored all back pay. The commission denied Aguilera’s request to expunge the test results from the record, however. Meanwhile, while Aguilera’s motion to dismiss the discipline against him was pending, he was subjected to a follow-up drug test. Once again, he tested positive for cocaine. The same day that the civil service commission dismissed the original charges against him, the fire chief notified Aguilera about the second positive test results and indicated that a hearing would be conducted regarding the charges. At the hearing the fire chief found that Aguilera had violated the ordinance for a second time and terminated his employment. The former fire fighter filed another request for an appeal with the civil service commission and another request for participation in the EAP. This time the commission sustained his dismissal on the grounds that he had twice obtained a positive result on the substance abuse test. The former fire fighter sought judicial review of the two charges. Trial court affirmed the ruling of the civil service commission and former fire fighter appeals.
HELD: Aguilera’s first defense is that the substance abuse testing ordinance is unconstitutional. However, over a decade ago, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of government testing programs very similar to the ordinance in this case. The decision relied on the Fourth Amendment and held that urinalysis is a search within the meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that neither a warrant, probable cause, nor any measure of individualized suspicion is necessary when conducting drug screens of individuals engaged in safety-sensitive tasks. Such is the case here and the ordinance is constitutional. Aguilera further argues that his rights were violated because the original charge that had been dropped was essentially used against him in the second instance to sustain his dismissal. He claims this violated his due process rights. Aguilera certainly has a property interest in continued employment as a fire fighter and must be afforded due process before that interest is terminated. It is a basic principle of due process that a deprivation of property be preceded by notice and opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. It is clear that Aguilera was afforded his full due process rights. Although negative consequences eventually befell Aguilera as a result of the first drug test, the negative consequences were not the product of the fire department’s failure to provide him with adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. Following his positive drug test, he was given a pre-termination hearing where he was afforded the opportunity to respond to allegations against him and challenge the original drug test as well as argue against termination. Following that hearing, he was given a full appeal. The civil service commission is not required to have expunged the original drug test from the record. That decision was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor otherwise illegal. The commission correctly upheld Aguilera’s dismissal based on his second drug test results. Dismissal of fire fighter affirmed. [Aguilera v. City of East Chicago, 768 N.E.2d 978 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)]
The Michigan Veteran’s Preference Act (VPA) states that no veteran shall be removed from public office except for incompetence and such veteran shall not be removed except after a full hearing before the township board. The statute further provides that at least fifteen days before the pre-termination hearing, the veteran must be given written notice of the cause for removal and the fact that he has the right to a full hearing. The statute additionally states that when the veteran has been removed from his job, he must file a written protest in thirty days or shall be deemed to have waived his rights under the act. Grant, a Vietnam veteran, was discharged from his position as a paramedic. His discharge occurred even though he never was given notice nor a pre-termination hearing. He was given a post-termination hearing. The former paramedic filed suit seeking to assert his veteran’s rights. Trial court rejected his efforts and he appeals.
HELD: The record reflects that the township violated the VPA when it failed to afford Grant a full hearing before discharge. The fact that he received a post-termination hearing was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the VPA. The question presented, however, is the remedy to be afforded Grant for this statutory violation. The remedy that the VPA provides for violation of a right to notice and a hearing is not automatic reinstatement with back pay. Michigan law entitles veterans removed from public employment to back pay only in situations where they are reinstated. The court is reluctant to award back pay in situations where a discharge is substantially proper but procedurally deficient. Because Grant was discharged for cause, he suffered no economic loss. An award of back pay would serve only to penalize the township. The delay in holding the VPA hearing resulted primarily from confusion over who would hold the rather unusual hearing. Award of back pay would not deter future procedural errors. Since there was no intentional violation of the act, Grant is entitled to no relief under the VPA. [Grant v. Meridian Charter Township, 645 N.W.2d 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002)]
An individual suffered a cardiac arrest. While administering CPR and restoring his pulse, a family member telephoned the local emergency service (EMS) number and requested an ambulance. The family member gave the correct street address on Raintree Lane and provided accurate driving directions. Emergency services operator radioed both the Longwood Fire Company, which provided volunteer fire services and ambulance service in the geographical area, and the county medical center that maintained a mobile critical care unit. The operator also relayed the driving directions. Nevertheless, both sets of EMS personnel responded to information from the Longwood Fire Station that Raintree Lane was located at a different location than given in the directions. Consequently, the EMS response was delayed and when personnel reached the scene, the individual was dead. The deceased’s estate brought suit against the fire company and the hospital alleging negligence in failing to familiarize themselves with the geographic area they served. After much preliminary litigation, the matter ended on appeal as to whether the hospital was immune from suit under Pennsylvania law and whether the circumstances fit within an exception to general governmental immunity.
HELD: Pennsylvania statute provides that no first responder or other emergency medical technician who in good faith attempts to render emergency medical care is liable for civil damages as a result of their acts unless guilty of gross or willful negligence. The plaintiff in this case argues that that immunity is limited to individual EMS personnel and not to the employing organization. The hospital argues that since emergency service providers can only act through their agents, immunity must extend to institutional entities to accomplish the statute’s fundamental purpose of removing disincentives to the provision of high quality emergency medical care. This argument is meritless. Traditional case law holds that an agent’s immunity from civil liability does not in and of itself confer immunity upon the principal. The immunity statute in question evidences an intent on the part of the Pennsylvania legislature to confer immunity upon emergency medical personnel, but not upon their corporate or institutional principal. The statute also waives immunity in cases involving the operation of motor vehicles by governmental agencies. Here, the plaintiff seeks to place its circumstance within that exception. The estate argues that the failure of the ambulance drivers to follow the directions relates to the “operation of a motor vehicle” within the meaning of the statutory waiver of immunity. However, the vehicle liability exception to governmental immunity is to be narrowly construed. The term “operation” has been strictly construed to mean the placement of a vehicle in motion. While prior case law establishes the legal liability exception as encompassng more than merely negligent driving, no prior case supports the proposition that any and all decisions made during the physical operation of a vehicle relate to the statutory exception. The allegation that the fire department and its agents were negligent for failing to maintain adequate familiarity with their service area is more closely associated with the operation of an ambulance service than it is with the physical operation of the vehicle itself. The argument put forth by the plaintiffs in this regard is not in keeping with the legislature’s intent regarding waiver of immunity on operating vehicles. Trial court ruling affirmed. [Regester v. County of Chester, 797 A.2d 898 (Pa. 2002)]
fire fighters
After some debate and a few pickets, the Huntsville City Council has granted its fire fighters a pay raise. Fire fighters and drivers will receive $1,500 to $3,000 more per year depending on experience. No wage boost was awarded to fire officers or dispatchers.
fire fighters
A new three-year contract will protect West Warwick fire fighters from
rapidly rising health insurance costs. The pact, retroactive to July 1,
also grants annual raises of 2.75 percent. In recent years, members of
Local 1104 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO, had
garnered raises of four percent. But, rather than accepting an increased
medical co-payment, union members opted for the lower wage boost. The pact
moves a fire department private to a base wage just over $40,000.