NK Firefighters Victorious Yet Again
Not to be remiss in reporting important fire law headlines, North Kingstown Firefighters IAFF Local 1651 have won another round of their epic battle with the town of North Kingstown by prevailing at the state labor board on their unfair labor practice change. The ruling was made on July 31, 2013.
Unfortunately, the formal written decision has yet to be drafted by the board, so we do not know what the board’s reasoning was, nor what the remedy for the unfair labor practice will be. That is not stopping NK Town Councilwoman Elizabeth Dolan from vowing to appeal the ruling to court.
The essence of the union’s complaint is that the town failed to bargain in good faith over a major restructuring of hours and shifts. As is the case every state that recognizes collective bargaining (not to mention the entire private sector in all 50 states) when it comes to matters affecting “wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment”, the employer cannot unilaterally impose its will. Such mandatory subjects have to be negotiated, bargained to impasse and (in the case of firefighters) taken to binding arbitration. That is labor law 101.
Instead, NK Firefighters were forced to go from a four shift 42 hour per week schedule to a three shift 56 hour per week schedule. Shifts were changed from 10 hour days and 14 hour nights to 24 hours shifts… all without being bargained. That is an extra 14 hours per week… every week…and pretty clearly is a change in hours… AT A MINIMUM!!!!
We hope to have the formal ruling in hand in 60 to 90 days and at that point there will be more to discuss.
"The board's reasoning"? Come on Curt. The town played this badly from the word go. But let's not kid ourselves about the labor board. With the recusal of one of it's management representatives for this vote (Ms Dolan, coinciderntally), the makeup of the board was 3 labor representatives to 2 management.
"Reasoning". Right.
The crux of the issue is the elmination of a platoon, really. If the town had offered a 24/48 schedule on a 4-platoon system, the union wouldn't have been able to sign the contract fast enough. Their arguments about safety are hokem.
BH
You characterize blatanly flouting very clear and settled law as "played this badly"…. ??? You are much too kind.
Labor versus management political perspectives on the Labor Board should be irrelevant in a case like this. It shouldn't matter if there were 6 management reps and no union reps on the Labor Board – the law is the law and it can’t get much clearer. How can anyone in good conscience decide that unilaterally implementing the changes to hours and work conditions that the town of NK implemented did not violate state labor laws?
It is one thing to have a certain political ideology that trivializes the rights of workers to bargain collectively. It is another entirely to ignore state law because of one’s political ideology.
RI law grants certain rights to public employees. If the Labor Board voted to allow NK to do what they did – then we would be in the same situation as NC, SC, AL and the other non-collective bargaining states – where management can do as they please when ever they please. If elected officials in NK support that kind of labor law, they should seek to change the law at the state house. Instead they chose to simply ignore the law… and then tried to pretend they really didn't violate it. Give me a break. It is bad enough our court system allowed the town to get away with ignoring the law this long… If the Labor Board did the same… well.. the collective bargaining law might as well be repealed.
At any rate… yes… the board's reasoning is not clear to me. State law prohibits unilaterally implementing changes to "wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment".
Did the board find that the town merely changed the firefighter's hours… or was it a change in wages (because the hours changed but the pay did not)… or was it the working conditions that changed. These distinctions may seem irrelevant to you but their reasoning is important when it comes to the issue of remedies. If the board finds the violation was one of hours only, but not compensation – it will have an impact on the remedies. If the board finds it was a change in working conditions (eg workload, safety, assignments, responsibilities, etc.) but not a change in hours, it will have an impact on remedies. Personally I think the change impacted all 3 mandatory subjects for baragining: wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment… but we don't know what the board will say.
As for your comment: "Their arguments about safety are hokem"… I am dumbfounded. If the Patriots went from a 16 game schedule to a 20 game schedule… would the safety of the players be affected? Or what if they had to play five 15 minute periods instead of four 15 minute quarters. The players safety would be impacted in a material way and the players union would insist on negotiations (including some additional compensation for the additional work). Maybe the risk of injury per play remains the exact same (which is what you are likely saying) – but the fact is the players will be exposed to more plays… Another reality is fatigue at some point will also become a safety factor. Some people tend to discount the fatigue-safety connection – and perhaps that is what you meant by hokum… but whether you agree or disagree with that – the risk of injury to a given employee increases the more times (or longer duration) he/she is exposed to the risk-producing condition.
An hourly employee example: If a coal miner (or a tow truck operator) was forced to work 56 hours instead of his normal 40 hours, would his safety be affected? The number of hours one is exposed to a risk has an impact on their safety.
Labor versus management political perspectives on the Labor Board should be irrelevant in a case like this.
You're right, they should be. How often are they? Hard to say. If you think about it, if what we want is a group of people to decide labor disputes based on the law, why do some of them need to represent one special interest group and some of them an opposing group, each with a potential stake in the outcome? Doesn't seem like that kind of a system lends itself to much more than a Bush v. Gore-type decision. But then, when the laws that create and regulate things like the Labor Board are written and passed by people with an interest in the outcomes of its decisions…..
Did the board find that the town merely changed the firefighter's hours… or was it a change in wages (because the hours changed but the pay did not)… or was it the working conditions that changed.
Since they changed the hours AND wages ($10,000 raises all around), you got me there.
As for your comment: "Their arguments about safety are hokem"… I am dumbfounded.
Pretty simple; I'll cop to not being clear earlier. Under a 2/2/4 schedule, overtime occurs frequently in such a way so that if Firefighter Curt comes in for his first day of the rotation, he catches overtime that night and works his regularly-schedule day shift the following morning. This results in FF Curt working 10+14+10 hours in a row. Overtime on the back half of the roatation is even longer- 14+10+14. Why was that never a safety issue, but 24-hour shifts are the Devil's work and requires legal action because it's unsafe? That's all I want to know. I don't disagree that fatigue is a serious concern; the nursing profession has had that concept documented for a long time and used it to limit their hours as an industry. Even medical residents, famous for being forced to work insane hours as part of their training, are now time-limited, although 24-hour call for surgeons is still common. I just want someone to tell me why 24 hours caused an uproar but nobody blinked at 34 or 38.
Thanks BH
There are questions that labor conservatives and labor liberals will agree and disagree on (probably more they disagree on) – but when an employer unilaterally changes an employees hours – I just do not see how anyone with a straight face can conclude it is consistent with bargaining in good faith… no matter how pro-management conservative someone is.
Either you have laws that require collective bargaining – or you do not. A state cannot have collective bargaining – and allow an employer like North Kingstown to get away with what it has done. It is fine to disagree on finer points but this case goes to the heart of the matter.
As for hours – your point is well taken. If a firefighter routinely works 56 hours a week (42 regular and 14 overtime) who is he to complain about working 56 hours regularly.
The problem to me is – choosing to work versus being forced to work. I may choose to work 1-2 overtime shifts a week, when I am feeling like I can handle the extra hours. There may be days/nites that I turn OT down because i am too tired or have other commitments (family functions, etc.) When your schedule mandates those extra 14 hours you do not get to choose when you have the extra energy to work the extra hours.
But here is the point you overlook: Once the regular workweek goes to 56 hours, the overtime does not end. It gets added to the 56. If I work 42 hours a week and work OT 24 hours extra I am at 66 hours. If I work 56 hours a week and work an extra 24 I am at 80 hours.
That is where the NK guys are at now.
As for the extra $10k… If it was 1 1/2 times their normal compensation for the 14 extra hours worked every week – the town would be in a stronger position to say – we have made them whole. That is not what happened. The economics of the town's move would not have worked if it paid the firefighters for the extra hours… so they didn't. They paid them less. Admittedly they provided something – but I have to believe if they town paid their attorneys less than what the attorneys had bargained for… they would not be so enthusiasticly supporting the town's position.
THanks Curt.