03/20/2015 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hour was to put public and political pressure on the County in the hopes that the County would capitulate on the CBA issues that are really in dispute, such as wages. Had Local 2201 been truly concerned regarding matters such as station conditions, which according to Local 2201 have existed for a number of years, Local 2201 would have attempted to resolve these issues at the bargaining table during the year of negotiations prior to May 2014. That they did not speaks volumes. In fact, in the almost one year since May 2014, despite continuing to raise their "concerns" with the media, Local 2201 has still made no effort to address issues such as station conditions with the County at the bargaining table. The reason for this is simple — Local 2201 is more interested in sensationalizing the issues than resolving them. Local 2201 knows that the County is addressing the issues that have resulted from the County having to place capital improvements on hold during the Great Recession, including the County increasing the Emergency Services Fund taxes by 15.5% in Fiscal Year 2013-14, in large part, to kick start fire -rescue vehicle purchases and capital improvements. However, Local 2201 ignores the County's efforts as they do not fit within Local 2201's narrative that the County Administration and BCC do not care about the employees' health and safety. The County has no doubt that Local 2201 will continue to sensationalize its "concerns" both before and during the hearing before the BCC. The County will set the record straight at the BCC hearing, just as it did at the Special Magistrate hearing. In this regard, after hearing multiple hours of presentations by the parties over Local 2201's "concerns," and considering hundreds of pages of supporting materials, the Special Magistrate rejected Local 2201's proposed changes to ¶15.01. Putting aside Local 2201's questionable motivation for its proposal on ¶15.01, as the Special Magistrate noted, it is unnecessary as the County is already required to comply with local, state and federal law. Moreover, what the Special Magistrate failed to understand (although such failure is not dispositive as he recommended in the County's favor) is that Local 2201's proposed language allows disputes over health and safety issues to be heard and resolved by an arbitrator instead of the current system whereby such disputes are heard and resolved by the state/federal administrative agencies or the courts. It is not the role of an arbitrator, who has no training or expertise in health and safety matters, to determine whether the County violated health and safety standards/laws. That is the role of OSHA, Workers' Compensation, the State Fire Marshal's Office, etc. who are statutorily empowered to enforce the applicable health and safety laws. Turning this authority over to an arbitrator is dangerous and potentially costly — if an arbitrator deems a station unsafe and rules that the County should replace it, the County will have no avenue of appeal and will be legally required to spend the $2 million necessary to build a new station, no matter how wrong the arbitrator may be. It would be irresponsible for the County to agree to CBA language that could allow for such a result.