Oct. 18 -- WATERTOWN, NY -- The city’s firefighters’ union might know before the end of the year whether an arbitrator will decide if a “minimum manning” clause can continue in its labor contract.
On Wednesday, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Rochester, heard oral arguments from attorneys for the city and the Watertown Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 191.
Last January, state Supreme Court Judge James P. McClusky ruled in the city’s favor to block arbitration over the “minimum manning” clause, which requires that 15 firefighters must be on duty at all times.
It’s been the main sticking point during the city’s more than four-year contract stalemate with the firefighters’ union.
The union hopes to reverse the decision by Judge McClusky, who ruled that minimum manning violates public policy because elected officials should control the budget through managing the costs of employees. Judge McClusky also concluded that minimum manning is unenforceable.
The union’s attorney, Nathaniel G. Lambright, on Wednesday argued that the minimum manning clause is not a job security clause and doesn’t prohibit layoffs.
He contended that a 2015 appellate court decision allowed the city of Lockport to go to arbitration over fire department manning issues.
During the 20-minute proceeding on Wednesday, one of the justices asked Terry O’Neil, the Long Island lawyer representing the city, how his case “differs from Lockport.”
“Many, many ways, Your Honor,” he answered.
The five-judge panel should consider prior case law that he believes has bearing on the dispute between Watertown and the firefighters’ union.
He told the judges that a 1976 case — Burke v. Bowen — involves a job security provision that applies to the Watertown situation.
That case specifically spells out safety concerns as the reason for the minimum staffing levels and a total number of employees is needed to function, while the stipulation in Watertown is not enforceable, he said.
“My feeling is that the judges seemed very skeptical,” Mr. Lambright said after the court proceeding ended.
He said he believes that the Lockport case set a precedent that allows for arbitration. The union believes it can win its case if it goes to arbitration.
Mr. Lambright took just a few minutes to present his case, while the judges asked Mr. O’Neil a series of questions and interrupted him a few times.
Mr. O’Neil believes the city will prevail against the union, insisting minimum manning is seen as a no-layoff, job security clause.
He was surprised that the appellate judges were more interested in the Lockport case, noting their questions revolved around that case.
“I like my chances if all the questions were about Lockport,” he said after arguing his case.
Mr. O’Neil also was surprised that Mr. Lambright told the judges that he didn’t think that the safety issue was needed for his case, that it would win on the other merits of the case.
“I don’t think it satisfied that burden,” Mr. O’Neil said.
Mr. Lambright predicted that it will end up costing the city more than $1 million in legal bills and back pay if the city loses the arbitration case.
As of August, the city has paid $739,248.20 in legal bills to Mr. O’Neil’s law firm of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC. Mr. O’Neil said the legal expenses have been capped.
In 2015, the city demoted eight fire department captains, leaving firefighters to cover those duties. The move caused the dispute to become more contentious.
To cut down on escalating overtime expenses, the city decided in November 2017 to prohibit firefighters being called into work when their colleagues called in sick.
Under the sick pay directive, the daily staffing level cannot fall below 13 firefighters. Firefighters will be called into work if it falls below that number.
Over the four years, the union also has filed a series of grievances and arbitration cases regarding other issues related to the contract dispute.
Meanwhile, the nuts and bolts of the contract dispute between the city and its firefighters’ union could be decided today during an “interest arbitration hearing.”
The city and the union will meet in City Hall on an “interest arbitration” proceeding regarding the overall firefighters contract.
The 68-member union has been without a contract since July 2014.
___ (c)2018 Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, N.Y.) Visit Watertown Daily Times (Watertown, N.Y.) at www.watertowndailytimes.com Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
