California Firefighters Sue for Retaliation
Threats, demotions, increased hours with no additional compensation, and numerous punitive changes in working conditions. That is what four California firefighters allege their fire chief did to them earlier this year upon learning they were forming a union. They have filed a civil rights action in Federal court.
Fire Captains Dustin Kuntz and Jeromy Nottingham and Fire Engineers Jason Keune and Frank Lee filed suit on May 16, 2012 against the Vacaville Fire Protection District and fire chief Howard F. Wood claiming the chief’s retaliation against them violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights (freedom of association). The suit also alleges that the chief’s retaliation violated California Government Code §3502, and the California Firefighter’s Procedural Bill of Rights.
Section 3502 of the California Government Code states that “public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations” and that “[n]o public employee shall be subject to punitive action or denied promotion, or threatened with any such treatment, for the exercise of lawful action as an elected, appointed, or recognized representative of any employee bargaining unit.”
Section 3252, called the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights, provides that “A firefighter shall not be subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with that treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights under this chapter…”
According to the complaint, after learning that the four firefighters were forming a union the chief:
- Informed Captain Kuntz that he now had a “target on his back”, would suffer certain consequences, and would not be promoted to battalion chief as previously planned
- Referred to Captain Kuntz as a “selfish union thug”
- Removed Captain Kuntz as training captain, and reassigned him to report to a volunteer captain who was placed in charge of training
- Demoted Wood was from Engineer to firefighter
- Threatened to demote Lee from Engineer to firefighter
- Threatened all four members saying he would eventually stop the union by getting rid of all of them
- Increased their hours from 40 per week to 53 per week with no additional compensation
- Initiated a disciplinary campaign over minor matters to create a pretext for further disciplinary measures, including discipline over the presence of dust behind a stove, and for a member removing his uniform shift while eating dinner.
- Prohibited members from working out while on duty, a departure from a long standing practice
- Issued numerous other threats including future discipline, changing hours and schedules, and worsening work conditions.
The suit seeks injunctive relief to prohibit future retaliation and restore conditions to the way they were prior to the chief learning about the formation of the union. The plaintiffs are also seeking compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees.
Here is a copy of the complaint: Kuntz v Vacaville
I see a new Local in vacville and a Chief looking for a new job… let his reputation precede him.
Ron
I am sure there are 2 sides to this story – but I gotta tell ya – reading the complaint I thought I was reading something out of the 1950s… It’s just appalling if its true.
Section 3502 is part of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, a piece of legislation signed into law in 1968 by then-governor Ronald Reagan. In a nutshell, it provides many of the rights that public employees in California enjoy, including collective bargaining.
As you mentioned, 3502 protects the right of public employees to form and join unions. The California Supreme Court has found that this section “provides strong protection for the right of employees to be represented by unions of their own choosing.” (Gridely, 1983, 34 Cal. 3d 191). Digging deeper, you’ll find that the courts give much weight to this section.
Section 3506 of that same legislation states that “public agencies and employee organizations shall not interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of their rights under Section 3502”. A quick westlaw search (if you can afford that kind of stuff) will give you a run-down of the sanctions a city might face should they violate this part of the law.
As you stated, there is another side to this story. But the facts so far don’t look good. If the story we have heard so far is correct, it is not only the beginning of a costly lawsuit, but a prime example of what happens when a chief possesses a complete lack of leadership (bullying, threatening, name-calling, and refusing to let crews work out? What a dreadful work environment THAT must be).
Since I’m in California, my feelings are;
Terminate the Current Chief from employment and Make the Firefighters “Whole”.
Since its a Fire Protection District, the the Chief probably violated other rules related to disciplinary action.
The FF’s Bill of Rights was about the only thing former Governor Arnold Schartzenegger
did to benefit public employees.