The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Kentucky Firefighter Punished For Refusing Third Consecutive Shift
GABRIEL ROXAS
WKYT
Reprinted with Permission
WINCHESTER, Ky. (WKYT) - Doing more with less is an expectation put on workers across nearly every industry these days, but a Winchester firefighter says when it comes to emergencies, his department has gone too far.
WKYT Update:
Winchester Mayor Ed Burtner tells NEWSFIRST the hearing concluded around 11:30pm with the city commission deciding to place letters of reprimand in Raymond Patrick's city employee file after finding him guilty of violating the following two rules: 1) Violation of or refusal to obey an official order, policy, procedure, or regulation; 2) Insubordination or disrespect to a supervisor or failure to cooperate with a supervisor. The mayor says Patrick will not face a loss of income or suspension of duties.
Related
Firefighter faces punishment for refusing third consecutive 24-hour...
Back in October there was a stretch when the Winchester Fire Department responded to five fires in four days. Firefighter and paramedic Raymond Patrick thought one of those fires would be the end of 48 hours on duty, but as he prepared to go home at the end of his shift, his boss ordered him to start all over again. "If you're not rested and feel that you're up to the job, and you're in there in a structure fire fighting fire, your crew members depend on you," Patrick said, "and if you fail, then they fail."
That's why Patrick says he told his superiors he wouldn't last 72 hours straight. The 8-year veteran of the department and newly elected union president says because Winchester is understaffed, many firefighters have had to work back to back 24-hour shifts even though the standard schedule is 24-hours on, 48-hours off. "The 24-48-hour schedule was developed to give you two days away from it, so those toxins have time to clean out of your system," Patrick said.
Patrick's refusal led to a hearing before the Winchester City Commission. "What we are here about is as the mayor read in the charges, the question of whether or not Mr. Patrick violated the rules of the personnel code," Winchester City Attorney Bill Dykeman said at the hearing Tuesday night.
But Patrick says the bigger issue is the effect the department's mandatory overtime policy has on public safety when firefighters and especially paramedics are forced to work without sufficient rest. "It's not about me. It's about the department," Patrick said.
The city will decide how to discipline Patrick, but he hopes the next decisions will be about a change in policies.
That city commission hearing began at 5:30pm and was still in session late Tuesday night.
WKYT
Reprinted with Permission
WINCHESTER, Ky. (WKYT) - Doing more with less is an expectation put on workers across nearly every industry these days, but a Winchester firefighter says when it comes to emergencies, his department has gone too far.
WKYT Update:
Winchester Mayor Ed Burtner tells NEWSFIRST the hearing concluded around 11:30pm with the city commission deciding to place letters of reprimand in Raymond Patrick's city employee file after finding him guilty of violating the following two rules: 1) Violation of or refusal to obey an official order, policy, procedure, or regulation; 2) Insubordination or disrespect to a supervisor or failure to cooperate with a supervisor. The mayor says Patrick will not face a loss of income or suspension of duties.
Related
Firefighter faces punishment for refusing third consecutive 24-hour...
Back in October there was a stretch when the Winchester Fire Department responded to five fires in four days. Firefighter and paramedic Raymond Patrick thought one of those fires would be the end of 48 hours on duty, but as he prepared to go home at the end of his shift, his boss ordered him to start all over again. "If you're not rested and feel that you're up to the job, and you're in there in a structure fire fighting fire, your crew members depend on you," Patrick said, "and if you fail, then they fail."
That's why Patrick says he told his superiors he wouldn't last 72 hours straight. The 8-year veteran of the department and newly elected union president says because Winchester is understaffed, many firefighters have had to work back to back 24-hour shifts even though the standard schedule is 24-hours on, 48-hours off. "The 24-48-hour schedule was developed to give you two days away from it, so those toxins have time to clean out of your system," Patrick said.
Patrick's refusal led to a hearing before the Winchester City Commission. "What we are here about is as the mayor read in the charges, the question of whether or not Mr. Patrick violated the rules of the personnel code," Winchester City Attorney Bill Dykeman said at the hearing Tuesday night.
But Patrick says the bigger issue is the effect the department's mandatory overtime policy has on public safety when firefighters and especially paramedics are forced to work without sufficient rest. "It's not about me. It's about the department," Patrick said.
The city will decide how to discipline Patrick, but he hopes the next decisions will be about a change in policies.
That city commission hearing began at 5:30pm and was still in session late Tuesday night.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Raymond Patrick on
-
Our OT rotation is similar. Everyone is ranked on the list by seniority, and whoever has the least amount of overtime is solicited first with the most senior being asked first. If you are off on vacation, sick, or comp time, your name is skipped for that round. This shows that you are "behind" a day for OT. It gets kind of complex because everyone is on the "firefighter"overtime list. However only Lieutenants are on the Lt. overtime list, and paramedics are on the paramedic OT list. So in effect, everyone gets asked if it's firefighter OT, only paramedics get asked for paramedic OT, etc. The way our mandatory policy works is that you can only be mandatoried for the day after your regularly scheduled shift day. However, there is no method to determine if you are "fit" for duty. The mandatory list works similar to the OT list with the exception that a person can only be mandatoried for their position (i.e. firefighters for firefighter OT; paramedic for paramedic OT; and so on. This prevents paramedics from being mandatoried for EMT slots). Everyone is listed by seniority, and if no one accepts the overtime, then the next guy on the list gets hit. Some guys here never work any overtime unless a mandatory day hits them. Some even go to the extreme of checking the vacation calendar to evaluate whether or not they may get hit for mandatory on their next shift, and then they call in sick for that shift if they don't want to be mandatoried for the next day. We also have guys that work several days in a row, but the department does limit us to 5 consecutive days. They will split the shifts if personnel want to. The paramedics here are being hit about 5 to 1 versus anyone else because of the skill set and licensing we possess. They can ride "acting officers" for leiutenant or battallion chief openings, but you can't have an "acting paramedic". We've been subjected to mandatory overtime for about 2.5 years now, and it's not solving the problem. Our problem is retention. If you recall in my earlier post, we've lost 5 paramedics since September 1st. One of which was forced to resign due to a medical condition that caused the paramedic to fall asleep without warning. Our department pays about $2 less an hour than other agencies around us, however, our city commission doesn't think our pay is that bad. I have been employed here 8 years; seven of which as a paramedic. My current base pay rate is $10.15 an hour. I make about forty cents more an hour than an EMT with the same time in service.
We are all taught during training that if we feel an order is illegal, immoral, or unsafe, we have a right to refuse. So, that's what I did. I felt I was within my right to refuse an unsafe order. What most people also do not know is that I basically forced this issue to the city commission. The chief wanted to suspend me, but I disagreed based on the grounds of safety. So, when I would not sign the disciplinary action, it was automatically forwarded to the city commission for a hearing. I then requested the hearing to be public because: 1) I have nothing to hide. 2) The public really needs to know how over worked we are, and the city isn't in any hurry to hire new employees. They began taking applications around the end of September, and haven't hired the first person yet. In fact, they just closed another hiring process for paramedics, and after my hearing Tuesday, the HR manager stated they were going to re-open the application process for paramedics again. They just don't get the point that good quality paramedics don't want to work here. Reasons: 1) low pay 2) poor treatment. They validated the "poor treatment" by upholding the mandatory overtime policy. When paramedics see they can be forced to work 72 hours without adequate rest, they are less likely to come here to work. I turned down two full time offers at a neighboring EMS only agency in November. This other agency will be STARTING me out at least 2 bucks more an hour than what I'm making here after eight years. Plus, they don't have a mandatory overtime policy. The reason I turned them down is to follow through with what I started. I can't honestly say that I won't accept the next position they offer me.
Another point I would like to make is that for the last two to three months, I have been volunteering for at least 24-36 hours of extra overtime a week (not a pay period). The pay period in which I refused the mandatory day, I was already signed up for 48 hours extra overtime. And as far as my hearing goes, the chief ordered the on duty crews to not attend the hearing, although it was an open meeting of the city commission, and we are constantly attending city commission meetings while on duty for promotions, awards presentations, retirements etc.
Finally, I would like to publicly thank the attorney that represented me in my case, and is the attorney that is retained by my IAFF local. Mr. Irwin "Buddy" Cutler of Priddy, Cutler, Miller, and Meade in Louisville, KY, did an excellent job in presenting my case.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I will say this Patrick, as a u brother I support your cause. It seems as though in the first three weeks of office you may have come off as a strong arm to the city, filing mulitple charges against BC's, when the previous union president avoided confrontation.
That being said, as others have mentioned, for every action there is reaction and your swap/trade system goes against federal labor laws. FLSA does not allow you to swap in May and pay back in November. Therefore when you eventually win the battle you should expect that you will lose the trade system and have only a 28 day swap cycle, both the dates will need to be put in writing and approved by department administration. Labor department will not accept that you were working out of pocket or on a trade... That will most likely piss off your membership.
Your department or the u-contract should include maximum # of hours being held "on shift" excluding an emergency for firefighters and the publics well being.
Best of luck
-
Permalink Reply by Mario Campos on
-
This why collective barganining is important. I also work in a "right to work" state and this types of unfair practices are a prime example how this was not about overtime. This was about management showing how they're in control even if the idea is unethical. This is an example of management making unfair and unethical decesion and using policies to say they'er right. I encourge your local to bombared the fire chief and city managers with monthly certified letters in all unfair and mandated issues. This way if something bad ever happens the fire chief and the city manager can never say they "I did not know". It's time to play hard ball.
-
-
The complaints I filed were before I was elected president. It wasn't until after I was elected that the chief pursued disciplinary actions.......three weeks after the incident occurred. From a management point of view, would any other manage have waited three weeks to pursue disciplinary actions? If it was as cut and dry as the chief made it sound, then "no" would be the appropriate answer. I manage about 40 employees for an EMS and 911 agency in a neighboring county where I live. If I had an issue with an employee, I certainly would not wait three weeks to apply disciplinary actions. Especially if I had already investigated it within a couple of days after the incident, as the chief claimed in my hearing. Also, I want to thank everyone for their support on this forum and other forums. It seems the only people with negative comments are the ones that either don't fully understand the situation, or they just want to make ludicrous statements while hiding behind an obscure username because they are too afraid to post their real name.
-
-
I am not afraid of anything Patrick, all I was saying was you made a comment that the previous union president was non-confrontational on past issues and you were the newly appointed president in the barrel.
I fully understand how the system works as I am a union member in a collective bargaining unit. Previous E-Board experience and have managed to successfully defend some brothers from "issues". In my department, I have seen things investigated for 2 or 3 days but that is just the preception, I have seen follow up investigations last quite some time (months) I have also seen disciplinary action delivered in as short as 2 or 3 weeks for an infraction, but seen some go upwards 3-6 months. Some so long that the person almost felt they got away with the accusation.
Discretionary Time has no time limit, and Fire Chiefs and legal counsel will use their discretionary time to "their" advantage to cover all the by-laws, rules, policies and contractual verbage.
Don't get me wrong, I feel you should have never been placed into the situation to begin with, but your union contract, and your department's lack of a set policy on the maximum number of hours you can work without a period of non-working rest or break (away for the department) is the root problem. Now as far as defense for the situation, management also understands that firefighters work multiple jobs and when we go off, we go to the other places of employment. You have mentioned how you manage another agency. Word of caution would be using the rest needed defense and they seek to know how much you actually work at another secondary place of employment instead of resting. You see you can easily have created another management rights policy on "all outside employment" will be subjected to management approval due to the possibility of conflict of interest or ability to perform your primary job to the fullest. Seen a few of those policies. Management rights takes effect on all non-contractual verbage issues and we all can be subjected to the outcome of managements decisions.
You have some issues there, some of which you mention fellow brothers are screwing one another by checking the vacation books and then calling in sick to avoid the mandate. If that is truly the case, as you know management needs to assure a certain number of paramedics are on duty to protect the public, so they "management" is not the only one's causing the hardship. So you have some work to do on some different levels. I do understand labor law and FLSA is in effect in every state as far as swap and trade pertinent to civilian fire departments.
Can I ask a question... Why air your defense via the internet?
Bill Greenwood
L-3265
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Can I ask a question... Why air your defense via the internet?
My guess is he is responding to those who posted here with "more information is needed" aspect.
Word of caution would be using the rest needed defense
I agree here, because of how other aspects of one's life can be impacted, such as a moonlighting clause, or defined consecutive hours worked, etc, and to tread lightly. I didn't delve into the "other" job aspect here because for the most part that should be a wash. I don't agree with having a defined consecutive hours worked either because that can start to impact on trades, etc.
Instead I see more of the problem here being about being ordered in for a 24 hour shift. If one states they are too tired to function because of busy consecutive nights etc, that DOES put others in jeopardy. As I mentioned before he could use sick time, because an individual should know their limitations, but could be sent to the doctor or sick time questioned. Instead I would say the issue is the mandatory OT call in procedures and the simple fact they are short paramedics. Phone records etc can show others were called before, but really if ordering in, the time should be broken down into at least 12 hour shifts and split the mandatory OT.
management needs to assure a certain number of paramedics are on duty to protect the public, so they "management" is not the only one's causing the hardship
I do agree and that there are many aspects to really look at here with this fight. I can understand the sentiment and the importance of making this a public issue, but the union side of the house needs to be set in order as well. It is difficult to make a fight if many issues are found to be because of the membership.
I agree with the fight and there does seem to be a need to address the issue, but it should be a calculated fight and a hard look needs to be taken by the membership as to the fight. Basically, don't make this about "rest needed" but moreso how mandatory OT is set up, and the shortage of paramedics creating the issues. The fight will take more than one person though and by this I mean looking at issues of those on vacation subsequently using sick time if they may be ordered. It is hard to blame mgmt if the OT is created by other members, because there is so much that could stem from this that may actually harm the membership. Again tread lightly.
-
-
I never said anyone on here was afraid of using their real name. It was primarily pointed to other forums that I have read where people are intentionally trying to twist this situation way out of proportion. I posted on here to share more of the story. The news article really only scratched the surface. The way our policy works is if one is on vacation, or is scheduled off due to vacation, comp time, or a trade day, they are exempted from being mandatoried. Additionally, we have 4 paramedic staff officers (the chief, two battallion chiefs, and the EMS major) that are specifically exempted by policy from being forced to man an EC unit. The EMS Major regulary volunteers for some of the open shifts, but the other 3 will not help pick up the slack. As far as my other job is concerned, it was proven that I was not working that day, nor the day aftwerwards. This is about rest needed. How many people do you know that can work for 72 hours straight with 4 hours of sleep? However, this issue isn't solely based on union membership, nor is it solely based on the mandatory overtime policy. It's a culmination of several different factors that the Chief and the City Commission refuse to deal with. Their perception is "we are the boss, and you do what we say regardless." In part, it is this perception that has put this department in this position as many others will attest because they are unwilling to compromise on anything. A perfect example is our lawsuit pending against them regarding overtime back pay. The KY Court of Appeals ruled long before we filed our suit that the entities were responsible paying the back due wages. However, it has been two years since that ruling, and they have yet to even try to work out an agreement to settle that issue. Any paramedic that knows anything about the agencies in their area knows which departments are the good ones to work for, and which ones are not necessarily the most desireable. When I first hired on in 2002, paramedics were beating down the doors to come here to work. However, due to the city's refusal to keep up with surrounding agencies pay and benefits, we are less desireable to work for. Therefore, either people don't apply, or they stay just long enough to get hired somewhere else. When the quit after a short time, then the city has a lengthy hiring process, and then a 10-12 week recruit class to train the new hires, even though they already meet state certification requirements.
-
Permalink Reply by Vincent Webster on
-
In my department you are allowed to work 48 hours straight...then you must take off 12 hours, no questions. I don't think it is a question of whether he worked alot of calls or not, or if he did alot of work other than responding on calls. I think the biggest obstacle to fight when pulling extra shifts is dealing with the mental aspect of the job. I can speak for alot of people I work with, but after two days I am ready to go home and relax for a little while and spend time with my family. You may be rested and ready physically, but if you are not mentally ready that is as dangerous, if not more so than if you are physically tired.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
