CITY OF LOCKPORT: City loses fire staffing case

<b><i>Arbitrator orders more men to work at LFD</b></i>

By Joyce Miles<br><a href="mailto:joyce.miles@lockportjournal.com">E-mail Joyce</a>

An arbitrator has ruled the city must have at least 10 firefighters on the job per shift, not nine or fewer as it has since 2006.

Arbitrator Dennis J. Campagna sided with Lockport Professional Fire Fighters Association in a long-running legal battle with the city about minimum shift manning.

His ruling, dated Oct. 7, finds the City of Lockport is violating its contract with LPFFA by not maintaining shift strength sufficient to assure firefighters’ safety while they’re working.

The ruling was e-mailed to the city Thursday. It will be challenged, Mayor Michael Tucker vowed.

“What (Campagna) really is saying is hire more men or watch your overtime go through the roof. Jesus, it’s absurd,” he said. “He can’t tell us how to staff our department.”

LPFFA has lodged upwards of 30 complaints against the city stemming from its reduction of fire department minimum manning to nine per shift from 10, effective Jan. 1, 2006.

For many years, the minimum was 10 firefighters per shift per tradition and, between late 2002 and late 2005, per temporary written agreement of the union and the city.

Before that side agreement was struck, the fire board issued a directive lowering the minimum to nine, however; so when the side agreement expired Fire Chief Tom Passuite put the lower number into effect.

Cutting minimum manning reduces the amount of overtime generated by firefighters. The department is organized as four platoons of 12 or 13 men, each working 10- or 14-hour shifts. An LPFFA contract provision allows for up to four men to be off-duty per shift; so in a 12-man platoon, if four are off duty and minimum manning is 10, two firefighters are called in on overtime to fill in the gaps. Cutting manning to nine per shift cut the number of automatic overtime call-ins.

Lockport Fire Department overtime began surging in the late 1990s as eight firefighters retired and were not replaced. Between 2002 and 2005, the overtime tab well exceeded $300,000 a year. By late 2005, Tucker ordered Passuite to do whatever was necessary internally to get the expense under control.

In conjunction with reduced shift manning, Passuite directed changes in the way firefighters man equipment and rescue calls. The changes included: Two-man staffing of ambulances, down from three; assignment of the same two-man teams to both an ambulance and a fire truck, with orders that when a call came in, one vehicle or the other would be left behind; and assignment of assistant fire chiefs to interior firefighting duties, where their duty previously had been to keep track of the other firefighters from outside.

LPFFA claimed reduced staffing and the consequent operational changes violated a clause in its contract calling for the city to “man all equipment with adequate manpower to assure” firefighters’ safety while they’re performing duties.

The city argued a specific number can’t be enforced because minimum manning is not addressed in the main contract. There’s only the clause regarding “adequate manpower” to assure firefighters’ safety, and the union couldn’t demonstrate that reduced shift manning had put them in harm’s way.

Campagna sided with LPFFA, citing testimony by the union’s “expert” witness, retired Buffalo firefighter Anthony Hynes, retired Lockport firefighter/longtime union leader Charles Morello, and Passuite — who actually was the city’s witness in the proceedings.

Morello testified shift manning of 10 was the norm during his tenure and the adequate-manpower clause, which he negotiated, was the city’s written promise to put firefighters’ safety above all other considerations.

Campagna noted that when the fire board directed reduced shift manning in 2002, it had done so for “economic reasons. ... While the prudent use of taxpayer dollars is a laudable objective, (the adequate-manpower clause) requires that in the process, the city is obligated to place the safety and well-being of its firefighters first above all else,” he wrote. “The city’s decision to reduce (minimum manning) falls short of this important obligation.”

Hynes, the retired Buffalo firefighter, testified minimum manning of nine is less than the accepted national standard for minimum fire suppression staffing requirements. He said that, given the types of buildings and fire/disaster risks in the City of Lockport particularly, the national standard is minimum manning of 15 men; and that in the event a two-man rescue crew leaves a vehicle behind (either fire truck or ambulance) and later needs it, time is wasted retrieving it.

“Given the various hazards present in the city ... a real or potential delay of any kind is clearly not in the best interest of those firefighters left to suppress fire activities in a short-handed fashion, or in the best interests of those they serve,” Campagna wrote.

Passuite testified that when up to four men may be off duty in a 12-man platoon, it’s impossible for the platoon to staff a shift properly. Campagna saw a formula for chronic understaffing and more proof the city violated the adequate-manpower clause of the LPFFA contract. However, his ruling did not note the fact that when a platoon comes up short in terms of minimum manning, firefighters are called in from other platoons automatically until the minimum is met.

Campagna ordered restoration of the 10-man shift minimum but rejected LPFFA’s claim that members are entitled to cash awards for “lost overtime” when the minimum is nine men. “It has not been established that (members) witnessed a loss in income and that such loss is directly attributable to the reduction,” he wrote.

LPFFA President Randy Parker could not be reached to comment on the ruling late Thursday.

The city likely will challenge the ruling in state Supreme Court. Submitting without a fight isn’t an option, Tucker said.

“When the arbitrator sides with the union, typically the city gets a fine (an order to compensate members affected by a city action); we’d pay it and let the chips fall where they may,” he said. “I’ve never seen a ruling like this. It takes control of this city away from (administration) — and hands it over to (LPFFA).”

Meanwhile, city-LPFFA negotiations on a new multi-year contract have ground to a halt. The union declared impasse recently, signaling it wants a mediator to recommend settlement of its wage, benefit and working-environment demands.

Text Only