The Atlanta Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 134, filed suit in Fulton County Superior Court alleging that the City of Atlanta is refusing to honor a collective bargaining agreement that was duly negotiated and which both sides approved, by claiming that it is unenforceable because the mayor never signed it. If valid, the contract would have been the first in the history of Atlanta Fire Rescue.
According to the complaint, the dispute traces back to Georgia’s Firefighter’s Mediation Act, O.C.G.A. § 25-5-1 et seq., which allows municipalities to engage in collective bargaining with firefighters if adopted by local ordinance. In 2021, Atlanta enacted Ordinance 21-O-0661, codified as Section 78-36 of the city code, making the Firefighter’s Mediation Act applicable within the city.
The union alleges that after months of negotiations, it ratified a collective bargaining agreement on February 26, 2025. Atlanta City Council then adopted Resolution 25-R-3283 on April 21, 2025, authorizing the mayor to execute the agreement, and Mayor Andre Dickens approved the resolution on April 24, 2025. The complaint contends that council ratification and the mayor’s approval made the agreement effective under both the contract’s own language and the Firefighter’s Mediation Act.
The agreement covers sworn Atlanta Fire Rescue Department employees through the rank of captain and includes provisions addressing work schedules, promotional eligibility, labor-management meetings, grievance arbitration, and pay administration. Among the provisions cited in the lawsuit are a requirement for a 106-hour, 14-day work period for FLSA-overtime eligible firefighters, automatic implementation of salary tiers and incentives at the beginning of the pay cycle, and a grievance procedure culminating in arbitration through the American Arbitration Association.
The union alleges that the city began operating under the agreement after ratification, and points to several public actions and statements to support its position. On June 9, 2025, Fire Chief Roderick Smith distributed the agreement to department members through a department-wide memorandum titled “Issuance of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.” In that memorandum, Chief Smith wrote:
- This agreement, which has been ratified by the Union and approved by the City of Atlanta City Council, is a testament to the hard work and dedication of both negotiating teams.
- This CBA is a living document, and its effectiveness will depend on our collective commitment to its principles.
- The AFRD leadership team and I are dedicated to upholding our responsibilities within this agreement, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with each of you to serve our city with excellence.
The complaint further alleges that the city implemented contract provisions in other contexts. In July 2025, Chief Smith issued a memorandum regarding eligibility for the Fire Sergeant promotional examination, stating that the three-year service requirement would be enforced because it was required by the “existing CBA” and that the decision was made “in strict adherence to the binding terms of our Collective Bargaining Agreement.”
The dispute escalated in September 2025 when Local 134 filed a grievance alleging that the city had failed to implement the contractually required 14-day pay cycle and failed to automate salary increases required under the agreement. The grievance was advanced through the contractual process in October.
According to the complaint, on October 29, 2025, AFRD Chief of Staff Raymondo Hampton responded by email stating:
- Please note that it is my understanding the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) referenced has not yet been signed.
- As such, the items outlined cannot be implemented until the agreement is fully executed by all required parties.
The union alleges this was the first time the city asserted that the agreement was not in effect, despite months of conduct treating it as binding. The complaint claims the city thereafter refused to participate in grievance arbitration and effectively repudiated the agreement.
Local 134 asserts three counts: breach of contract, breach of contract under the Firefighter’s Mediation Act, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The union seeks damages, an order requiring the city to perform under the agreement and engage in the grievance process, and attorneys’ fees. Here is a copy of the complaint:
