INTEREST ARBITRATIONS

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1433

And

City of Pasco

Interest Arbitration

Arbitrator:      Thomas F. Levak

Date Issued:   07/05/1991

 

 

Arbitrator:         Levak; Thomas F.

Case #:              08351-I-90-00189

Employer:          City of Pasco

Union:                IAFF; Local 1433

Date Issued:      07/05/1991

 

 

BEFORE THE INTEREST ARBITRATION PANEL

THOMAS F. LEVAK, NEUTRAL

 

 

In the Matter of the Interest

Arbitration Between:                                     PERC No.       8351-90-189

                                                                                    FMCS No.      90-09735

CITY OF PASCO

           

The City                                                                      NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR 'S

                                                                                    OPINION AND AWARD

and

 

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1433

 

            The Union

 

            On  October 4, 1990, the Neutral Arbitrator (herein the

Arbitrator) rendered an Opinion and Award between the

parties covering a number of subjects.  The subject of "fire

code enforcement work, however, was not a part of that

arbitration   by  the  Executive   Director  of  the  Public

Employment  Relations Commission (herein  PERC), pending the

resolution   of  certain   unfair  labor   practice  matters

involving  the parties. subsequently,  by letter dated April

11, 1991, the  Executive Director notified  the parties and

the  Arbitrator that the withdrawal  was terminated and that

the  matter  was  remanded to the  interest arbitration panel

for further proceedings

 

            The   parties  subsequently  decided  to  litigate  the

remanded matter through written briefs. The City's brief was

received on May 14, 1991, and the Union's brief was received

on  June 16, 1991. Based upon the evidence and the arguments

of  the  parties,  the  arbitrator  decides  and  awards  as

follows:

 

I.          THE EMPLOYER'S PROPOSAL

 

            The  Arbitrator's October 4, 1990 Award established the

term  of the subject collective bargaining agreement (herein

the Agreement) as January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1991.

The  City proposes that the  following. provision be added to

that Agreement:

 

                        FIRE CODE ENFORCEMENT WORK

 

            The employer  and  the  union  acknowledge  that

enforcement  of the Uniform Fire  Code (UFC) is an

extension and  part  of  the  enforcement  of the

Uniform Building Code (UBC) and does not require a

firefighter   trained   in   the   performance  of

emergency  fire  suppression  or  other  emergency

duties to perform the code enforcement duties. The

employer  and  the  union  agree  that  fire  code

enforcement  work may be  performed outside of the

bargaining unit at the direction of the employer.

 

The  Union opposes the adoption of that proposal, and offers

no counterproposal.

 

II.        EMPLOYER CONTENTIONS.

 

            First, this issue in not whether the City should employ

a  fire marshall; the issue is whether fire code enforcement

work  should be performed by  the City's building inspection

department, which is responsible for enforcement of the UBC,

or by fire personnel.

 

            Second,  the  evidence  is that  fire  code enforcement

duties  do not require the skills  of a firefighter, but can

be  performed  by  the  building  inspector.  In  fact,  the

building  inspector   had no  difficulty enforcing  the fire

code  along with the  building code during  the 2 years that

those  duties were in his office  prior to June, 1989  There

is  no need for duplicate inspection work to be performed by

a  firefighter.  Further, such  duplication is  very costly

Furthermore,  the  building  inspector  cannot  perform  UBC

duties without training in the UFC.

 

            Third,  continuity of inspections  is often interrupted

because fire personnel work, at best, 1 24-hour shift out of

every  3. Those shifts also  interrupt fire code enforcement

training  programs, and will also  result in overtime pay to

lieutenants who  attend training programs on their days off.

Also, there simply is not sufficient time available for the

adequate  training  of  employees in  the  understanding and

interpretation of the UFC. See Employer Exhibits 38 - 49.

 

            Fourth,  Union costs  have not  addressed the  issue at

hand.  Those costs were aimed  primarily at forcing the City

to fill the vacant fire marshall position.

 

            Fifth, the transfer of fire code enforcement work would

not cost any bargaining unit members their jobs. In fact, it

would free up time for physical fitness activity.

 

III.       UNION CONTENTIONS.

 

            Preliminarily,  as  a  matter  of  factual  background,

during  the  1970's  and 1980's  fire  code  enforcement was

performed  by a  bargaining unit member,  the fire marshall.

Thus a long history and past practice existed whereunder the

disputed  work was bargaining  unit work. In  1984, the City

promoted  the person  holding the  fire marshall  job to the

position   of   assistant   fire   chief   and  unilaterally

transferred  the disputed  work to that  position. The Union

grieved  the matter and its position  was upheld  on May 21,

1987, when an arbitrator ordered the City to cease assigning

the  work to non-bargaining unit personnel. The City refused

to  honor the arbitration award,  and the Union was required

to  seek court enforcement, which  it obtained and which was

affirmed  on appeal  by the Washington  State Supreme Court.

Still,  the City  made no attempt  to comply  with the award

until  several  months  after its  petition  for  review was

rejected  in June, 1989.  Since then, however,  the City has

assigned the disputed work to lieutenants and captains.

 

            Turning  to  argument,  the  City  has  failed  to come

forward  with the "strong evidence'  required to justify the

changing  of a long established past practice. See Elkouri &

Elkouri,  How arbitration Works,  BNA 4th Ed., 1985,  pp 817

and 843.

 

            First  of all, bargaining  unit members have sufficient

available  time to  perform the  disputed work, particularly

since  the arbitration  panel's earlier award  allowed for 2

additional  hours per day for  the performance of that work.

Further,  Union Exhibit No. 27, examples of monthly activity

reports,  show that those duties  have been performed easily

within the time that is available

 

            Second,  the evidence established  that bargaining unit

members  have been performing the  disputed work without any

apparent deficiencies in their training. The City's fears in

that  regard  are  just  that:  fears  with  no  evidentiary

support.

 

            Third, the public is better served by having bargaining

unit members perform the disputed work. The UFC and Employer

Exhibit  No. 90 (NFPA Standard No. 1031) make it clear that,

at  the very least, fire code  enforcement should be done by

someone   who  has  firefighting   training,  knowledge  and

experience.

 

            Fourth,  firefighters have a special interest in seeing

to  it that the disputed work  is performed correctly. It is

their lives that are on the line.

 

            Finally,  the City produced no evidence that it is more

costly  to have bargaining unit members perform the disputed

work.   Even  assuming, for  the sake  of argument,  that it

would  be slightly more costly, that factor is outweighed by

the public interest factor.

 

IV.       ARBITRATOR'S AWARD

 

            The  Arbitrator awards  that the  City's proposal shall

not be incorporated into the new agreement.

 

            Preliminarily,   the  Arbitrator   adopts  the  Union's

factual  background, summarized above in the first paragraph

of  the  Union's  contentions.  Those  facts  establish  the

existence  of  a  long  standing  custom  and  practice. The

unilateral   change  in   that  practice   and  the  ensuing

interruption  cannot be considered a  break in that practice

because the Union's position that the disputed work belonged

to  the bargaining unit was ultimately sustained through the

final  action of the Washington State Supreme Court.  As the

Union  has  correctly asserted,  any change  in such  a long

standing  custom and  practice through  interest arbitration

must  be  supported by  strong evidence  from the  City. How

Arbitration  Works,  supra, p.  817. In  the opinion  of the

Arbitrator,  the City has  failed to come  forward with such

strong evidence.

 

            First  of all,  while the  parties' witnesses disagreed

dramatically  on  whether  the  disputed  work  required the

services  of  trained  firefighter  personnel,  and  also on

whether it would best serve the public interest to keep that

work  in  the  bargaining unit,  the  only  neutral evidence

supported  the Union's position.  specifically, as the Union

argues, both the UFC and NFPA Standard No. 1031 indicate the

desirability  of  having  the  disputed  work  performed  by

individuals  who have  firefighting training,  knowledge and

experience.  The Arbitrator  finds that evidence  to be very

persuasive.

 

            Second ,  the City 's primary argument at hearing -- that

there  is insufficient time available for training -- is not

supported   by  the  evidence.  As  the  Union  argues,  the

additional  2 hours  per day  carved out  by the arbitration

panel clearly creates the need time for training.

 

            Third,  there  is  no persuasive  evidence  that  it is

excessively costly for the City to provide the disputed work

through the fire department rather than through the building

inspection  department.  Such  purported costs,  if  they do

exist,  have not been  presented in a  manner that is either

understandable  or  convincing  Similarly,  there  simply is

insufficient  evidence  to  support  the  City's  redundancy

argument.

 

            Fourth,  There  is  some  logic  to  the  argument that

firefighters  have  a special  interest  in seeing  that the

disputed  work is  performed correctly.   While this factor,

standing  alone,  would  not be  sufficient  to  sustain the

Union's  position, it  is entitled to  some weight. Further,

this  factor tends  to help  outweigh the  City's redundancy

argument.

 

            For  all  the above  reasons,  the Union's  position is

adopted

 

 

            Dated this 5th day of July, 1991,

 

 

            Thomas F  Levak, Neutral Arbitrator,

            Portland, Oregon.