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 twenty (20) 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 two (2) 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
Union Position. Any employee elected to the union position of:
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. Employees elected to a full-time paid position in the Union shall be leave of absence without pay for the term of office. During the leave of absence such employees shall maintain all accumulated rights and benefits to which they are entitled under the Collective Agreement. The benefits of any group plan shall be extended to such employees and the Union reimburse the Employer for any costs involved. Such employees shall advise the Employer as soon as possible when an extension of the leave of absence is applicable due to re-election. Upon termination of their leave of absence such employees be offered as a minimumthe position they held with the Employer before they commenced the leave of absence. When such employees wish to invoke this clause of the Collective Agreement they shall provide the Employerwith a three month notice of their intent to do so. Notwithstanding clause the Employer may make an offer of employment to such employees to a position inside the Bargaining Unit should such employees bid on a competition and be the successful candidate.
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.
