Local Firefighters Face Prolonged Court Battles
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Firefighter’s from around the state, on Friday anxiously awaited major court decisions, heard in two separate courts, affecting their ability to maintain and continue to perform their work duties.
Both the Central Coventry Fire District and North Kingstown Firefighter’s Association have been mired in legal battles that include collective bargaining agreements, station and district shutdowns, work stoppage, and unilaterally imposed changes to wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment.
Central Coventry Fire District
Superior Court Judge Brian P. Stern, on Friday afternoon, denied a request for permission to enter into a short-term loan to cover operating expenses for the Central Coventry Fire District.
Attorney Richard Land, Special Master for the Central Coventry Fire District was in Superior Court on Friday, on an emergency petition to enter into a short-term financing agreement with Centreville Bank.The petition putting forth the "perilous financial condition" of the district, requested allowance for a short-term line of credit to be financed through Centreville bank in an amount not to exceed $1.5 million.
"There were several objections to the petition," said Land. "Patricia Morgan objected based on the argument tht the District shouldn't take on any more debt. The judge asked that I talk to other lenders and obtain other options.The judge didn't deny it completely. He left it on the table in case we want to bring forth again."
The loan was requested as a stop-gap measure to defray operating costs pending receipt of fire tax revenue to be collected over the remainder of the current fiscal year.
A second issue before the judge was whether or not to grant a request to elect a new board for the District.
The new board would act in a support role to the special master while he remained in place. The judge said he would render his decision as to the new board on Tuesday.
North Kingstown Firefighters Association
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST
The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld a request by the Town of North Kingstown for stay in a Superior Court ruling that would have resulted in the North Kingstown Firefighters returning to their original work schedule held prior to the town's implementation of unilateral changes affecting their wage, shift and platoon structure.
“It’s unfortunate that our case has required the attention of our Supreme Court, given three decisions issued by the Superior Court, the multiple issued complaints by the RI State labor Relations Board, and the findings of a neutral arbitration panel,” said Raymond Furtado, President of the North Kingstown Firefighters Association (NKFFA), IAFF Local 1651.
President of NKFFA since 2008, Furtado has been a North Kingstown firefighter for fifteen years.
“More importantly, our residents spoke by referendum to increase their fire protection, and contrary to our Town Council’s assertions, we were there on their behalf as well. That said, as a layperson it was a privilege to be before Rhode Island’s highest legal authority.”
Furtado and union members were hopeful that a swift decision would come forth, restoring the department to the original shift and wage structure maintained prior to March 2012 when the Town unilaterally implemented changes to wages, hours, platoon structure and terms of employment.
Furtado didn't believe that the Town had made a case of irreparable harm and maintained his belief that granting of the stay was contrary to the public interest.
"We have been in this system for over a year and have managed to avoid disaster, despite being ordered to work 72, 96 or 100 hours straight. That has to end. The Town has not followed a single initiative it presented in the last arbitration to ensure our safety or the safety of our residents," he said in a statement. "We are continuing to lose members and can’t find new employees. There must be a return to normalcy at some point; hopefully an avoidable tragedy doesn’t occur in the interim.”
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling extended the stay of a December 2012 ruling by Superior Court Judge Brian J. Stern, who in a 28-page opinion, restored the Town’s firefighters to all terms and conditions of employment in effect prior to March 4, 2012. Stern in his opinion said that the unilateral implementation of the twenty-four (24) hour shift structure fell outside the realm of collective bargaining, in place to protect public safety personnel and paid fire departments otherwise prohibited by state law in seeking alternative remedies to labor disputes in the form of striking, work stoppage or slowdown.
The lower court decision also directed that the town “may be required to compensate the firefighters for the period since those unilateral changes were made.”
This corrective action, amounting to more than $1.3 million in damages, triggered reactionary movement by the Supreme Court. In its opinion the court stated:
“…the town has adequately demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted. The town argues that it will be unable to recover the funds paid to the firefighters during the period of the mandatory preliminary injunction, if, on appeal, this Court holds that the town had the right to implement the changes outlined in its unilateral ordinance.”
Contrary to that statement, the court went on to say that the Town did have the ability to recover damages under state law.
“Although pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28-14-24(d),7 the town, as an employer, is not precluded from recovering any overpaid funds to the firefighters, it is our opinion that the town’s ability to actually recover any of those funds is doubtful at best.”
The court premised its decision on the fact that the granting of the stay in essence maintained the status quo between the parties since the unilateral implementation took effect.
The court further emphasized that it did not disagree with the union as to the changes made by the implementation, requiring the firefighters to work 24 hour shifts, resulting in a 56-hour average work week often extended due to mandatory shift ordering.
“We do not disagree with the union that, under the terms of the town’s unilateral ordinance, the firefighters are forced to work increased hours at a decrease in hourly pay,” the court opinion stated.
The opinion went on to say that Stern was without authority to affirmatively set the terms and conditions of employment and that it did not believe that the granting of the stay would have any adverse effect on public interest.
The case was sent back down to the Superior Court in order to address the outstanding collective bargaining issues.
