Union Position. The Union requested that all matters, with the exception of a wage adjustment for the Terminal Access Control, Backflow, Access Control (TAC) classification, be accepted as agreed upon in the Memorandum of Settlement that was rejected on February 17, 2017. The Union also asked that the interest arbitrator remain seized to adjudicate any matters that might arise from the implementation of this instant award, prior to the conclusion of the renewal collective agreement by the parties. The Union revisited the established consensus from interest arbitrators that the primary objective of interest arbitration was to replicate, as closely as possible, the result that might have occurred through collective bargaining, had the parties been free to enact the ultimate industrial sanction of either strike or lockout. That process, the Union urged, relied on the consideration of objective factors only, and not ad hoc or subjective speculation about what the outcome of bargaining might have entailed. Therefore, the Union continued, while the role of the interest arbitrator was to ultimately establish the terms of a renewed collective agreement, it nevertheless remained a pursuit that must be adjudicative in principle. In Re Building Service Employees, Local 204 and Welland County General Hospital (1965) 16 L.A.C. 1, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx considered the subject, and explained that the process of interest arbitration should address “adjudication” and not “adjustment.” Such an objective approach would, it was reasoned, measure the aspirations of the parties with regard to wages and working conditions based on relevant comparisons, and not abstract notions of social justice or fairness: A central issue which we faced at the outset was whether this board was to adjust or to adjudicate the differences between the parties. If we were to attempt adjustment, we would seek to reach a result agreeable to both parties. This we might do by proposing a series of compromises to them directly, or by their “proxies”, the two board members nominated by them. By a process of negotiation within the board or between the board and the parties, we would reach an acceptable mid-point. Failing of success, the board would compel “consensus” on the basis of a reasonable compromise between the negotiating positions of the two parties. Adjudication is a different kind of process. Here, the board applies evidence to pre- determined and rational standards, as does a Court of law or a board of arbitration ...
Union Position. Upon written notice of thirty (30) calendar days the Employer will grant Leave of Absence without pay to employees who are appointed or elected to Union position for a period up to and including three (3) years. Further Leave of Absence may be granted by mutual consent. The employee who obtains his/her leave of absence shall return to his/her Employer within thirty (30) calendar days written notice after the completion of his/her term of employment with the Union, without loss of seniority. Upon return, Article 13.1 – Bumping Process will be invoked. The Employer shall not be required to grant Leave of Absence to more than one (1) employee at a time.
Union Position. An employee elected or appointed to a full-time executive position within the Union will be granted a leave of absence without pay as herein provided of a period of one (1) year. Requests for such leave of absence will not be unreasonably denied, provided suitable replacements are available.
Union Position. The Union argues that the City’s proposal would not even accomplish its stated purpose of minimizing overtime, since firefighters on light duty cannot be used to supplement shift suppression or fill overtime vacancies. The Police have no similar light duty requirement. Moreover, there is not history of utilizing firefighters on light duty to perform dispatch function.
Union Position. The Union has produced a chart based on City exhibits measuring compensatory time use and overtime. It suggests that there is no relationship between of comp day usage and overall overtime costs. In general, during the years in which comp time was the highest overtime costs were lower than in years in which comp time usage was lowest.
Union Position. The Union points out that the firefighters are the only City employees who are not awarded five weeks of vacation after 15 years of service. Although the Police contract also tracks § 111D benefits, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Holyoke decision, 358 Mass. 350 (1970) interpreted the statute as requiring 28 working days of vacation. Although the City’s firefighters work a 24-‐hour schedule rather than the 4 and 2 schedule addressed in Holyoke, the move to a five week vacation benefit for the most senior firefighters is supported by the internal and external comparables. The firefighter schedule is compressed into 48-‐hour blocks, but the result is that firefighters work the equivalent of over 30 more 8-‐hour shifts per year than do the patrol officers. Even many of the City’s external comparable communities, which also largely work 24-‐hour shifts, provide a five-‐ week vacation benefit to their most senior firefighters.
Union Position. The City awards 15 annual sick days to all of its full-‐time employees in all bargaining units and the City has offered no evidence that firefighter sick leave use is meaningfully different from use among its other employees or its designated comparable communities. It points out that in Belmont, one of the City’s comparables, firefighters are awarded a paid shift off if they use less than 60 hours per year of sick leave, yet the four-‐year average hourly use among bargaining unit members in Woburn is only 50.1 hours. The second of the City’s proposals to Amend Article 8 § 1 would amend ¶ 5 as follows: Sick leave shall only be used for legitimate sickness. The Chief will review sick leave on an annual basis. Discipline may result from abuse of sick leave, e.g., repeated use of sick leave without medical evidence, e.g. four or more separate incidents of sick leave, etc. or any use of sick leave for absences not related to illness or injury, etc.
Union Position. The current language is already sufficient to allow the City to discipline employees if sick leave abuse can be established. The City offered no evidence that any firefighter has been disciplined or counseled for sick leave abuse under the current language. The City’s documentation related to sick leave abuse was incomplete and inaccurate. Discussion The proposed move from fifteen (15) to twelve (12) sick days per year is not supported by internal or external comparability. All other City employees accrue fifteen sick days per year. While the firefighters work a different shift schedule than do employees in any other bargaining unit, the 24-‐hour shift schedule is common among firefighter units based on the nature of their work. The City has provided no internal or external precedent for offering fewer sick leave days to firefighters in other communities based on the 24-‐hour shifts they work. With regard to the proposed sick leave language change, the current contract has permitted the Chief to review sick leave and to discipline employees found to have abused sick leave through quantity or pattern of absences or any use of sick leave for absences not related to illness or injury. AWARD No changes to the current sick leave provisions are awarded.
Union Position. The Union argues that the City’s proposal to increase the percentage paid by employees toward health insurance premiums must be analyzed in the context of its wage proposal. When combined, the 0%, 1.5%, 1.5% wage proposal and the 5% increase in employee contributions to health insurance premiums would the result in a net base wage decrease of 1.97%. There is no justification for the disparity between the Police settlement, which committed over $300,000 in annual expenditures for Xxxxx Xxxx benefits, the settlements with all other bargaining units in the City, which utilized a 1%, 2%, 2% wage pattern, and the offer wage/health insurance contribution package that has been offered to this bargaining unit. If the proposed increase in health insurance contributions is awarded it must be coupled with a fair wage proposal.
