Excerpts from the oaklawnleaf.com:
The Oak Lawn Leaf has learned that the Village of Oak Lawn has offered the firefighter/paramedics a buyout of $5.3 million dollars in exchange for the union dropping the minimum manning provision from its contract. The $5.3 million dollars would apparently be split among the current firefighters and paramedics although details of how that money would be divided was not provided to the Oak Lawn Leaf by our sources, who asked that they not be identified.
Minimum manning has been a controversial sticking point between the union’s membership and the village manager who has pursued litigation in an attempt to rude the number of employees in the department.
The village board recently changed attorneys for negotiating the next labor contract with the firefighters in perhaps a sign that the village was considering an alternative strategy to the one that has been unsuccessful for almost a decade.
The village, which currently pays approximately two million dollars to the firefighters in overtime every year, would recoup the money through the elimination of overtime. The union has previously contended that the village’s failure to hire enough firefighters and paramedics has made the overtime necessary.
In January of 2017, only months before the mayoral election, Arbitrator Steven M. Bierig, issued a 195 page decision that found in favor of the union on minimum manning and six other issues, while finding in favor of the village on two issues and allowing the court to determine the final issue regarding out of state residency.
Despite the village arguing during the arbitration hearing that the minimum manning number was in excess of what is necessary to protect the village, the arbitrator applied three factors from case law to uphold the number. He said the minimum manning number has worked as intended. He noted that it was uncontested that the village has been fighting fires with 21 employees on a shift. The village argued that the number should be reduced to 19 members per shift and that the number was imminently reasonable. The village presented an expert witness who testified that the they could function with three rather than four per engine. The firefighter’s union countered the argument noting that the system of having 21 employees has worked well for the village’s safety.
The union contended evidence shows that by implementing the plan that the village requested would be counter intuitive. According to the union’s argument, “It would actually impede the ability of the village to effectively respond to fires.” The union also presented an expert witness who testified that four employees on an engine is far preferable to three in terms of fighting fires.
As an example, the union noted that with four on an engine, one company can arrive at a fire and immediately begin to fight it. “If the village’s proposal was implemented, it would require two pieces of equipment in order to begin to fight a fire, which is not the most efficient approach to fire fighting. By having to rely more heavily on mutual aid, it places the citizens of the village in a vulnerable position in which, at times, it must rely upon the willingness of a neighboring community to assist. This is not feasible and should be rejected.”
The village’s argument that the change in minimum manning was a minor change was discarded by the arbitrator finding that the proposal to reduce the minimum manning number was a major modification.
The arbitrator referred to previous arbitration disputes between the parties and noted that Arbitrator Benn was confronted with the same issue in the prior case between these parties. Bierig wrote, “In rejecting the same issue, he held: The village seeks a sea change to the manning system – specifically, the ability to reduce minimum manning from four to three employees on an engine, i.e., a 25% reduction – when the system has been in place for 20 years and was formulated with the mutual intent ” … for purposes of efficient response to emergency situations and for reasons of employee safety… ” with a mandate that if those agreed upon levels are not met, ” … employees shall be hired back pursuant to Section 6.4. ‘Overtime Distribution’” as expressed in Section 7.9(a) of the Firefighter Agreement [emphasis added]. The village does not seek this sea change because the manning system is operationally broken. Rather, the village seeks this sea change because the manning system is costly. That is not a basis for an interest arbitrator to change such a safety provision as important as minimum manning. Where one party (here, the Union) seeks to maintain the status quo and there is no demonstration by the party seeking the change (here, the village) that the system is broken, that kind of change must come through the bargaining process.”
thanks Dan
