by ARI PAUL
The Board of Collective Bargaining in separate but related decisions has ruled that the Fire Department's unilateral work-schedule changes for light-duty employees were a civil service code violation in one case and a matter for arbitration in the other.
In January 2007, the Uniformed Fire Officers Association and the Uniformed Firefighters Association filed claims against a policy implementing a five-day week and an eight-hour tour for Firefighters and officers assigned to light duty. The unions argued that the city was required to bargain the scheduling changes, and there was no precedent for the eight-hour day, five-days a week schedule for light duty.
UFOA Victory
In its April 29 decision, the board ruled in favor of the UFOA, saying that "It is well established that while the city unilaterally may determine staffing levels and certain aspects of schedules, such as starting and finishing times, it must bargain over the total numbers of hours employees work per day or per work."
In the case of the UFA, the board found that the issue of creating schedules for Firefighters on light duty was covered by the existing wage pact and should go before an arbitration panel.
UFOA President John J. McDonnell said that before the change, many of his members on light duty were working four 10-hour tours per week.
"I think what will happen now is what should happen: those individuals on light duty and had their schedules changed should now be put back into the schedules that they had," he said. "That is a good thing."
Mr. McDonnell continued, "Going forward we're going to have to sit down with the department and discuss this issue. I would hope that [those discussions are] fruitful."
UFA Sees Positive Omen
The UFA saw the UFOA's victory as a comforting signal for its upcoming arbitration case.
"The city's argument against us has already been lost before the board," said Michael Axelrod, a UFA attorney. "How can we lose an arbitration case when the board already found the underlying facts to go in our favor?"
While the two unions addressed the schedule changes together, Mr. McDonnell attributed the different decisions to the UFA's choice of making the issues a contractual one while the UFOA did not. He was unsure whether the UFOA decision would aid the UFA in its arbitration case.
"We hope that there's a collateral benefit for them," he said.
 |
