Vallejo Fire Fighters Awarded Favorable Staffing Arbitration

September 20, 2007 – An arbitrator in California has put a stop to the City of Vallejo’s attempts to reduce Vallejo Local 1186 minimum staffing from 28 to 24. This latest victory is one of many in a series of battles between the Vallejo fire fighters and the City in the last 32 years.

“I am proud of the members of Local 1186 for not backing down when safe staffing is at stake,” says IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger. “Our brothers and sisters in Vallejo are like many other IAFF affiliates who must do more on the job with less.”

The City has put fire fighter and citizen safety at risk by ignoring a contract-mandated meet and confer provision.

Section 7 of the Local 1186 contract dictates that minimum staffing levels cannot be altered unless there is (1) a meet and confer and (2) it is proven that fire fighter safety and/or workload would not be jeopardy as a result of the reductions. Section 7 was established in 1975 when the California Supreme Court ruled that there must be a “constant staffing procedure” in the Vallejo fire fighters’ contract with the City.

This latest dispute over minimum staffing between the City and Local 1186 began in December 2006 when the City claimed it was in financial distress and threatened budget cuts.

In January 2007, the City notified Local 1186 that it would need to reduce fire department minimum staffing from 28 to 24. The City said it would retain all apparatus, but that the fire fighters assigned to Station One would be laid off. The Station One truck would be moved to Station Seven and serve as a reserve truck. Each truck would be cross-staffed with engine personnel.

After much back and forth between the two sides, the City declared an impasse and invoked arbitration.

In an official pre-arbitration hearing discussion, Local 1186 asked the City if it would present evidence that it couldn’t pay fire fighter salaries. But the City insisted it had the management right to select how many fire fighters would be cut, maintaining that fire fighters could only negotiate how the new staffing would be deployed – a complete misinterpretation of Section 7.

During the hearing, the IAFF provided documentation pertaining to the issue of whether cutting four fire fighters would impact fire fighter safety and workload. The IAFF report – as well as a study conducted by an independent company – demonstrated that a staffing reduction would, in fact, put public safety at risk and concluded that the workload would be negatively impacted.

“I cannot thank the IAFF, President Schaitberger and 10th District Vice President Jim Ferguson enough for their help,” says Kurt Henke, president of Local 1186.

In addition, the IAFF provided direct testimony regarding the cross-staffing aspect of the City’s proposal. “That testimony was priceless,” says Henke. “The evidence presented, I believe, was key in getting us the favorable ruling we received.”

The studies and testimony proved that the fire department needed to increase staffing. In some circumstances, it takes us between nine and 10 minutes to respond to an emergency. “Our citizens there deserve better,” notes Henke.

After hearing both sides, Arbitrator Thomas Angelo ruled in favor of Local 1186, noting that Section 7 permits the local to challenge the City’s proposed staffing cuts as they pertain to safety and workload. Since the Vallejo fire fighters did prove that both safety and workload would negatively be affected by cuts, the arbitrator said that the City must keep minimum staffing at 28.

Despite this positive ruling, however, the battle may not be over. City officials have publicly said that the case was heard by the “wrong arbitrator” and that the three-person arbitration panel chaired by Angelo “exceeded its powers, resulting in a decision that will surely be found repugnant to public policy.”

Before this dispute, Local 1186 had been in arbitration proceedings with the City several times – in 1975, 1978-79 and 1988 – over minimum staffing issues. Each time, the arbitrator upheld the provisions of Section 7.

Meanwhile, Local 1186 is awaiting three additional arbitration hearing dates with the City regarding other violations of the contract unrelated to staffing.