Posts Tagged arbitrator sides with Firefighter union on staffing in Oak Lawn

Oak Lawn Fire Department news

Apr 2

Posted by Admin in Fire Department News, Fire Service News | Comments off

Legislation that could turn the tide in Oak Lawn’s long-standing effort to reduce minimum manpower requirements for its fire department has again been introduced in the Illinois General Assembly.

Two identical bills introduced in the House this year — retreads of past bills that failed — would require arbitrators to give primary consideration to a municipality’s ability to fund proposals when resolving contract disputes.

Passage of a bill into law would breathe new life into Oak Lawn’s long-stated mission to reduce fire department shift staffing from 21 to 19 — a cost-cutting measure that officials say could save nearly $1 million annually on overtime without impacting public safety.

The village, unable to make headway with the firefighters union in its past two contract negotiations with the bargaining unit, has taken the issue to an interest arbitrator.

In both cases an arbitrator sided with the union, in favor of the status quo of 21 firefighters per shift.

“It is clear, based on the evidence presented, that the reason that the village wishes to reduce manning, is primarily economic, and not operational,” arbitrator Steven Bierig wrote in his Jan. 1 decision. “This is not a valid reason to obtain a breakthrough change in interest arbitration.”

When a municipality’s ability to pay for union proposals is not the primary concern, proponents of the bills argue, elected officials lose their sovereignty over the allocation of municipal finances.

An arbitrator may rule in favor of a union proposal under the premise that a city has the ability to raise taxes, dip into reserves or take out loans to pay for any cost increases, Oak Lawn Village Manager Larry Deetjen said. That is akin to stripping an elected body of its power to make the crucial fiscal decisions that should be its purview.

In January, Rep. Joe Sosnowski, R-Rockford, introduced HB797, which gives primary consideration to an employer’s financial ability to fund proposals based on existing available resources. Sosnowski said he supports reforms of the arbitration process that give decision-making control back to local authorities.

But the bill, stalled in a House subcommittee for the past month, has its detractors. At issue is the language of the amendment it makes to the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.

The proposed amendment states that an arbitrator should not base his decision on an assumption that lines of credit or reserve funds are available or that the employer may or will receive or develop new sources of revenue or increase existing sources of revenue.

Pat Devaney, president of the Associated Fire Fighters of Illinois, said that, as written, the bill would eliminate an arbitrator’s ability to perform a comprehensive assessment of any impasse in contract negotiations. Because an arbitrator would be required to primarily base his decision on a municipality’s “existing available resources,” elected officials could simply shift funds into reserve or lower revenue levels prior to entering arbitration to create the illusion of financial hardship where it doesn’t exist, Devaney said.

“This would allow a local unit of government prior to entering into collective bargaining, even if only on paper, to lower existing revenue sources,” he said. “Now that the law is changed, (an arbitrator) couldn’t consider what was previously done or what they might do in the future in terms of increasing revenue. They could only look at a snapshot of what exists today.”

He argues that the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act is not in need of a change. The law already compels arbitrators to consider a government’s financial state when rendering a decision, albeit not as the “primary consideration as the proposed bills would require.

Oak Lawn officials reject the assertion that arbitrators already seriously consider a municipality’s ability to pay and point to the village’s own case with its firefighters as a prime example.

Skyrocketing annual pension obligations, which have more than doubled since 2013 to $5.91 million, are the primary reason that Moody’s downgraded Oak Lawn’s credit rating in February, Deetjen said.

“If we were able to get this legislative change, and change the manning for the fire department, we would take those monies into the pension,” he said, noting he thinks passage of the proposed arbitration reform bill would likely result in a credit rating upgrade for the village.

thanks Dan

Tags: Arbitrator backs union on minimum manning in Oak Lawn, arbitrator sides with Firefighter union on staffing in Oak Lawn, changes to arbitration rules proposed in Illinois, firefighters battle politicians over minimum manning, IL HB797, Oak Lawn FIre Department

Oak Lawn Fire Department news (more)

Jan 19

Posted by Admin in Fire Department News | 3 Comments

Excerpts from the Oaklawnleaf.com:

While the Village of Oak Lawn and the Oak Lawn Firefighters Union had 10 disputed issues in its recent arbitration litigation the main issue of minimum manning was decided in favor of the firefighters with the village once again losing the argument for fewer employees in the fire department.

On January 1, 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.

Minimum manning is the most hotly contested issue between the parties and has been the subject of numerous arbitration and court hearings. Bierig wrote, “After a review of the evidence and arguments in this matter, I find that the village’s proposal regarding manning is not a breakthrough and that the village has failed to meet its burden to show that such a breakthrough is appropriate. For the reasons discussed below, the union’s status quo proposal is granted.” As noted by Bierig, the party that seeks a change in the contract has the burden of proving that a change is necessary in the status quo.

Bierig cited a Will County Case and applied a long standing test stating, “Arbitrators typically apply a 3-prong test that a party must meet in order to demonstrate that a major change in the status quo is needed: 1) the old system or procedure has not worked as anticipated when originally agreed to; or (2) the existing system or procedure has created operational hardships for the employer or equitable or due process problems for the union; and (3) the party seeking to maintain the status quo has resisted attempts to bargain over the change (i.e., refused a quid pro quo).”

Despite the village arguing that the minimum manning number was in excess of what is necessary to protect the village, the arbitrator applied the three factors 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 village could function with three rather than four employees 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 firefighter’s union argued that the Village of Oak Lawn is obtaining excellent fire protection and the current staffing is working exactly as it was intended. Further, the union contends that the 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.

As an example, the union noted that with 4 employees on an engine, one company can arrive at a fire and immediately begin to fight it. “Further, if the village’s proposal was implemented, it would require 2 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 union also presented an expert witness who testified that 4 employees on an engine is far preferable to 3 in terms of fighting fires. The expert explained that the fact that some departments do use 3 firefighters on an engine does not mean that 4 is not a preferable number.

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 opinion stated:

The union has also presented substantial evidence to show that by moving from 4 to 3 employees on an engine, the residents of the village would be placed in a vulnerable situation that would endanger lives.

Bierig noted that the amount of employees on a shift has dated back for over 24 years to 1992 when the late Mayor Ernie Kolb served in office. Bierig wrote that the change from the existing number of 21 would be “a significant departure from the existing provision” based on the long standing agreement. In finding for the union on the issue, the arbitrator stated that the village’s wish to reduce the minimum manning was based on an economic reason and not an operational issue.

The arbitrator rejected the village’s claim noting that he could not find that the existing minimum manning number created operational hardships for the village. The arbitrator also rejected the village’s long standing contention that the union has refused to address the issue at the bargaining table. Village Manager Larry Deetjen has stated many times that the union would not bargain with the village.

The union, according to the decision, contended that while the village has made proposals to the union regarding manning, those proposals were not of sufficient value for the union to seriously consider reducing the number of personnel on an engine.

Bierig 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.”

The union won 7 issues outright, while the village won 2 of the disputed issues. One issue, regarding out of state residency will be decided by the courts in February. The village’s offer on wages was accepted. The village’s proposal on extra duty pay and responsibilities to keep the status quo in the contract was also accepted by the arbitrator.