Pennsylvania Labor Board Reverses Firing of Chambersburg IAFF VP
The abuse of firefighter union officials in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania has been well chronicled here on Fire Law Blog. At every juncture of its multi-year struggle with the borough’s elected and appointed officials, The Greater Chambersburg Area Paid Fire Fighters, IAFF 1813 have prevailed. Here are a few of the headlines:
- Pennsylvania Labor Board Reaffirms Chambersburg IAFF Again
- Sanity Finally Prevails in Chambersburg
- Chambersburg Union President Disciplined Over Two Hatter Request
So it comes as no surprise that the firing of Local 1813 vice president Scott McNew back in 2012 has been overturned and the borough found to have committed yet another round of unfair labor practices by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.
You may recall that VP McNew’s termination came on the heals of the suspension of Local 1813 President Pat Martin for allegedly encouraging a “secondary boycott” by sending a letter to IAFF members in October, 2011 reminding them of their obligations under the IAFF constitution and bylaws not to volunteer in the Borough, which at the time was seeking to lay off members of Local 1813. The local filed unfair labor charges with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board against the borough over President Martin’s suspension.
In April, 2012, VP McNew initiated internal IAFF charges against 11 members who ignored President Martin’s request. The borough responded by terminating McNew and again suspending President Martin. That prompted a second round of unfair labor practice charges.
In October, 2013, President Martin’s original discipline over his letter was overturned by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board who specifically found that Martin had engaged in protected concerted activities that did not constitute encouraging a secondary boycott.
So what did the borough do in October 2013 about the terminated Scott McNew, who seemingly should be rehired? You guessed it… nothing. They let him ride out another nine months without a job until the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board could investigate and issue a ruling on the second round of charges.
That ruling was issued on August 21, 2014 and orders the borough to rehire McNew, and compensate him for all lost wages (note to taxpayers – McNew could have been riding on a fire truck at least since last October given it was obvious what the outcome was going to be. Now he will be compensated for the time without having worked it due to the borough’s poor leadership).
Some of the key language from the ruling:
- The Borough defends McNew’s termination by arguing that the discipline was not for protected activity and not because of anti-union animus but was because he engaged in a secondary boycott.
- However, in the earlier case, IAFF v. Chambersburg Borough, supra., the Board rejected the Borough’s argument that Martin’s letter was a secondary boycott.
- The Borough also defends its actions by arguing that its motivation was to stop a threat to the safety of Borough residents.
- The Borough’s argument that McNew’s termination was motivated out of a desire to protect the public safety is not persuasive.
- The Board has held in the earlier case that Martin’s first warning letter was not a secondary boycott and was a form of protected activity.
- McNew’s filing of charges was not a secondary boycott and was protected activity. Therefore, it follows that for the Borough to discipline Martin for not stopping McNew from filing charges also is interference and retaliation for engaging in protected activity and constitutes a violation of Section 6(1) (a) and (c) of the PLRA and Act 111.
- Furthermore, [the borough’s] action is an improper interference with the operation of a labor organization. The Borough is interfering with the Union by disciplining Union President Martin for not properly supervising the Union’s vice president, Scott McNew.
Here is a copy of the ruling: 2014 8 21 Proposed Decision and Order – Case No. PF-C-12-94-E
It is an interesting read. Congratulations to President Martin, VP McNew and all of the members of Local 1813 on this hard fought battle. It should have never got this far – but as we have seen in a number of jurisdictions – from North Kingstown, RI, to Taylor, Michigan, and Lockport, NY to Chambersburg, PA – there are elected officials who use the public’s funds to play a high stakes version of political poker in order to advance their own political ideology. If they were gambling with their own money – like the owner of a company in the private sector – it would be one thing. But they are not. They are gambling with other people’s money, and it’s wrong. In the end the taxpayers have to foot the bill for these foolish anti-employee attacks.
Correction…VP McNew also works as a PT paramedic with Waynesboro Area Advanced Life Support in Waynesboro, PA and a now FT paramedic with the Fayetteville Volunteer FD in Fayetteville, PA…and has had these jobs for a number of years. Isn’t that a by-law violation? Right or wrong…just my 2 cents!
I would hope he was doing something so he didn’t lose his house and could feed his family. A by-law violation? My understanding is the IAFF Constitution draws a distinction between workplaces where everything is functioning properly and one where there is a labor dispute, and particularly one where IAFF members are being laid off. In that case the bylaws prohibit an IAFF member from any affiliate local from volunteering their services to that community. So unless Waynesboro and/or Fayetteville were laying off IAFF members, an IAFF member could serve there. In addition the bylaws would not prohibit taking a paid position in those departments.
I do not have access to a copy of the bylaws so this is based on my recollection. If you have a copy and can provide the language you suggest is being violated – I’d be happy to post it.
wheelin’182’s comment seems to be the prevailing public sentiment when it comes to public servants. The problems created in jurisdictions like Chambersburg, PA are almost ALWAYS created by bad/poor management, aka, politicians. They are the ones who foolishly squander taxpayer money yet public servants get blamed while the politicians get to skate away unscathed.
No, it’s not a violation of the IAFF by-laws. There are no established IAFF Locals in either of these agencies. To the best of my knowledge, neither agency is attempting to take work away from any IAFF Local. As such, there is no violation of the by-laws for an IAFF member to work or volunteer at either agency.
The IAFF Constitution & By-Laws prohibit volunteering in departments in which an IAFF Local is established. There are additional prohibitions regarding “rival organizations”, which are agencies who’s actions negatively impact members of a specific Local – whether it involves the loss of or threat of the loss of jobs or not.
Contrary to some opinion, volunteer fire departments in general are not rival organizations. There is a process to having an organization formally declared as a “rival” and there needs to be evidence to prove it qualifies as such.
I think the way the rules are written, it could be interpreted to preclude taking paid positions in departments with an established IAFF Local but, for the most part, I don’t think there’s much concern about that unless the person is acting in a manor that negatively impacts that specific Local or its members.
The IAFF essentially takes a hands off approach regarding enforcement unless an affected Local raises an issue.
Article XV- Mis Conduct & Penalties
Section 1
Subsection N
Wouldn’t this mean that VP McNew is in violation due to working these jobs, because these jobs run BLS calls into the Boro of Chambersburg (mutual aid agreements)
Could you include the language – we cannot tell what Art. XV, Section 1 Sub. N states.
Article XV, Section 1 (N) is as follows:
“Working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or the IAFF. Upon a finding of guilt of working a secondary job in violation of this subsection, it is recommended that the penalty include disqualification from holding office in any affiliate and/or expulsion from membership for the period that the misconduct persists. Charges filed for the misconduct described in this subsection shall be preferred by a member of the charged party’s local and/or a member of an adversely affected affiliate.”
No.
It is my understanding that Chambersburg FD only provides primary BLS ambulance services in Chambersburg and are the only ones to do so. Fayetteville EMS provides mutual aid response into their district when CFD does not have a unit to send, not primary response. Doing so also does not negatively effect the members of Local 1813. As such, working there is not a violation.
I’m not very familiar with Waynesboro ALS and not sure if they are an ALS response service, provide ambulance response or both. Regardless, they also do not provide primary BLS response to Chambersburg. For the same reasons as above, working there would not be a violation.
If either are providing primary ALS response into Chambersburg, working there would also not be a violation since CFD does not provide ALS.
According to this language: “where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which
adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or the IAFF” – unless Waynesboro and/or Fayetteville had an IAFF local and by taking the jobs VP McNew was adversely impacting that local – taking a position with either department is not a violation. Unless I am missing something…
You’re not missing anything here. Unfortunately, far too many people that are not members of my union think they know what my union’s rules are and try to create problems where there aren’t any.