03/20/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Mierzwa used a PowerPoint presentation (on file) to rebut Attorney Mandel's recommendations. He explained why in Paragraph 14.01, the County should not delete the requirement to allot sufficient funds for uniforms and protective clothing; and why the County should delete the phrase "deemed necessary by management" in providing safety equipment. He also asked to delete the phrase "as determined by management" for replacing protective clothing in Paragraph 14.02. Attorney Mandel did not support Attorney Mierzwa's requested changes. B. Article 15 — Safety and Health 15 minutes each, Union presents first 11:17 a.m. (Clerk's Note: Article 17 was heard before Article 15) Attorney Reingold called attention to the pictures in the Union's book of a burned firefighter in the hospital, and pursuant to public records law, pictures of firefighters are exempt from the public records law. He requested the pictures in the book not be presented on the screen or transmitted out, if the firefighter did not provide written authorization for his picture to be used. Attorney Mierzwa did not have a signed release from the individual. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Solari, SECONDED by Commissioner Flescher, the Board unanimously agreed to withhold the firefighter's pictures since there was no signed release from the individual. Attorney Mierzwa used a PowerPoint presentation (on file) to discuss issues dealing with vehicles; fit testing; station conditions; not being able to schedule Safety Committee meetings; problematic respiratory and safety programs; and testing in the stations for mycotoxins (toxic mold). He also spoke about an incident where a firefighter was critically injured and the State Fire Marshal was not notified. Additionally, he asked the Board to review and approve the Union's recommendation for additional verbiage to Paragraph 15.01. Attorney Mandel addressed Attorney Mierzwa's allegations and issues. He provided a timeline of what happened at the bargaining table, and stressed that the County had no objections to having dialogue with the Union or trying to find remedies. His objection was adding, what he thought, vague and undefined language into the contract. He believed the Union's proposed language would expose the County to uncontrollable costs, would take away the County's local control, and give it to an arbitrator. He said the Special Magistrate's recommendation was to keep Article 15 as status quo; and he agreed that the language in Paragraph 15.01, shown as Exhibit I, should remain unchanged. He said the mold issue had been in litigation, Impasse Hearing March 20, 2015 Page 3