OCEAN CITY- Just four days after Ocean City’s Fire/EMS union filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint against the town of Ocean City over the impasse in contraction negotiations over proposed shift changes, the town fire off a strongly-worded letter outlining why the complaint should be dismissed.
The Career Firefighter Paramedics Association of Ocean City, or IAFF Local 4269, this week 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 or some hybrid of the two.
Eliminating the 24-72 shift became a point of contention in the negotiations for a new contract of the IAFF 4269, forcing the union to walk away from the bargaining table. When the deadline for a new contract expired at midnight on February 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.
On March 7, the IAFF Local 4269 filed a formal unfair labor practice complaint against the town of Ocean City over the shift schedule change issue. The cover letter for the complaint, sent to Labor Commissioner Buck Mann and City Solicitor Guy Ayres, lays out a proposed process by which the union’s complaint can be addressed. 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.
Last Friday, however, the town of Ocean City, through its attorney Marc Sloane of Miles and Stockbridge, fired off its own letter to Mann, outlining several reasons by which the union’s unfair labor practice complaint should be dismissed. Furthermore, the town’s letter calls out the union for allegedly denigrating the good faith bargaining process on its own.
“The town disagrees strongly with the assertions contained within the IAFF’s complaint and is distressed with the tactics employed by the IAFF,” the letter reads. “The IAFF is attempting to turn this matter into a fight concerning who is right regarding the 24-hour shift issue.”
In simplest terms, the schedule change issue boils down to a 24-72 rotation employed by the department for decades with nearly flawless results versus the town and the department’s leadership’s contention the 24-hour shift has resulted in slower response times during the late night and early morning hours and even missed calls in some rare cases.
Not surprisingly, the safety of the paramedics and the response times to EMS calls for the public are paramount for both sides, but neither can currently agree on how to best achieve that. However, the town contends the merits of the 24-hour shift cannot be argued in a formal unfair labor practice complaint.
“That question, which shift schedule best serves the department, the town and the employees, may not be addressed in a failure to bargain unfair labor practice complaint and hearing,” the letter reads. “The only question that may be addressed is, did the parties bargain in good faith. With regard to the town, the answer is a definitive yes.”
The town’s strongly-worded letter rebuking the labor complaint reasons the union is attempting to collectively bargain with the city.
“Furthermore, although styled as an unfair labor practice complaint, the IAFF is clearly seeking to engage in binding interest arbitration, a process not allowed for these employees,” the letter reads. “On that basis also, the complaint should be dismissed.”
The union proposes that the town utilize the services of an independent third-party agency 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. However, the town’s letter in opposition dismisses that process.
“The IAFF is asking that the parties be ordered back to the table to continue bargaining,” the letter reads. “The IAFF has overlooked the charter’s mandate that bargaining may only take place between November 1 and March 1. Accordingly, the relief requested may not be granted. With regard to the third party agency, the town disagrees that an arbitrator can fill that role, so it rejects the IAFF’s suggestion in that regard.”
In conclusion, the town’s letter continued its aggressive tenor for the most part, but left the door open for conciliation.
“Although the IAFF appears determined to load this matter onto a bus and drive it off a cliff, the town is still hopeful that a quick resolution can be reached,” the letter reads. “Accordingly, the town requests that pursuant to your authority under the code, you order mediation between the parties on the Unfair Labor Practice Complaint and assist in that regard.”