OCEAN CITY — As expected, the other shoe dropped this week when the Fire/EMS union filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint against the town of Ocean City over the impasse in contract negotiations over the proposed shift changes for resort paramedics.
The Career Firefighter Paramedics Association of Ocean City, IAFF Local 4269, filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint against Ocean City over the town’s proposed elimination of the paramedics’ long-standing 24-hour shifts. Currently, paramedics work in 24-hour shifts, followed by 72 hours off. However, citing a variety of reasons including potential missed calls or delayed responses, the town remains adamant about the elimination of the 24-72 shift rotation in favor of an alternate 12-hour shift.
When the deadline for a new contract expired at midnight on Feb. 29, the town’s “best and last” offer became the new contract effective July 1, although the complete elimination of the 24-72 shift rotation would not be implemented until October 2017.
It’s important to note the town’s “best and last” offer includes step and COLA salary increases for the paramedics, by as much as 12 percent in some cases, and an early drop program for veteran personnel. However, the proposed elimination of the 24-72 was a deal breaker for the parties and the negotiations broke off before the deadline.
On Monday, the IAFF Local 4269 filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint against the town, although the timeline for the filing is not certain. The official documents are dated Monday, March 7, but on Monday night, well over 100 red-clad firefighters and paramedics packed the Mayor and Council meeting urging the elected officials to reverse their position
The cover letter for the complaint was sent to Labor Commissioner Buck Mann and City Solicitor Guy Ayres. The letter lays out the process by which the union’s complaint can be addressed. The union proposes that the town utilize the services of an independent third-party agency, for example, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or the American Arbitration Association to provide a list of labor arbitrators. The customary practice is for the third-party agency to submit a list of seven names and for each party to alternately strike a proposed candidate to determine the arbitrator.
The formal complaint includes a laundry list of demands, including an order declaring the Mayor and Council has violated the town code, an order directing the Mayor and Council to cease and desist from bargaining in bad faith by making proposals that are extreme and designed to frustrate bargaining, an order directing the Mayor and Council to bargain in good faith, and finally, an order setting aside the Mayor and Council’s “last, best and final” offer and precluding its implementation.
While it appears the formal complaint, and the accompanying cover letter, were prepared on Monday, the timing with the Monday Mayor and Council meeting is uncertain. What is certain, however, is the conciliatory tone of Monday’s council meeting differs considerably from the tenor of the unfair labor practice complaint.
“The town is unrelenting in its position,” the complaint reads. “The totality of the town’s conduct on this topic evinces bad faith. The proposals represented a power grab. The town’s action was not negotiation. The town’s action was indicative of surface bargaining in bad faith.”
The formal unfair labor practice complaint suggests the town entered the negotiations with no intention of backing down on the elimination of the 24-72 shift rotation. However, in several instances, the town has asserted it offered alternative shift lengths and rotations and the union balked at each one before walking away from the negotiating table. It appears the truth is somewhere in the middle, and only those at the table likely know how the bargaining collapsed, but the formal complaint filed this week clearly shifts the onus on the town’s negotiation team.
“The evidence from negotiations thus far shows that the sum and substance of the town’s proposal are extreme and completely without basis,” the complaint reads. “The town does not have cause to propose such drastic changes in the working conditions of its Fire/EMS personnel. The town, by its own admission, wants to ‘be the first’ to try a new shift rotation, no matter how inconsistent it may be with the established practice of Fire/EMS departments across the country.”
The complaint points out the department’s goal is to have the first due unit on the street and responding within two minutes of the time of dispatch with a 90-percent compliance.
“The town cannot justify a change to the 24-72 shift rotation on this basis,” the complaint reads. “The town cannot show that any other shift rotation could possibly beat compliance of 99.86 percent. It offers no empirical or objective evidence or information in support of its proposal. The town, nevertheless, has insisted since the start of the negotiations that the 24-72 shift rotation should be eliminated.”