The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Grievance filed... what say you?
[quote]Northampton firefighters claim salvage duty is unfair
By DAN CROWLEY
Staff Writer
Login to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
NORTHAMPTON - Work to salvage an elderly man's belongings after his roof collapsed under snow this winter is the subject of an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Northampton firefighters union.
While the union says such work falls outside their job description, city officials liken it to salvaging the possessions of city residents whose homes are ravaged by fire or flooding, which firefighters do regularly.
"I don't see it as any different," Mayor Clare Higgins said. "This is a salvage operation. This is an elderly gentleman in desperate need of help from the city."
Meantime, the city faces another complaint filed by the International Association of Firefighters Local 108 over the transfer of money in April from the Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services fund to cover overtime expenses in the department, which the City Council approved. The money in that fund is generated by ambulance revenues.
The latter grievance was denied by Fire Chief Brian P. Duggan in May and is now before Glenda Stoddard, the city's human resources director. Depending on how Stoddard responds, the matter could move to arbitration.
The complaints come as the mayor negotiates a new contract with the firefighters union, which is the only union not to opt into a new health insurance plan for the next fiscal year. The union is working under a contract that expired a year ago.
"There's often more grievances when we're in the middle of negotiations," said Higgins, when asked whether the two complaints might be driven by difficult labor talks.
Laurel Park operation
The roof of John Masloski's red, two-story home in Laurel Park caved in under the weight of snow in February and city officials later ordered the house demolished for safety reasons. Masloski, 77, lives in Florence and his Laurel Park home, while uninhabited for years, contained many of his belongings.
Duggan dispatched a crew of four firefighters to the scene Feb. 24. The union says the firefighters were "ordered" by the city to help remove personal items from Masloski's small house and put them into a U-Haul truck. They say they shouldn't be doing that work, according to a complaint filed with the state Division of Labor Relations.
Northampton Firefighter Michael Hatch, president of IAFF, Local 108, could not be reached for comment, but the union's complaint states the city "changed the job duties" without providing notice to the union or an opportunity to negotiate, "and thereby bargained in bad faith." Timothy Belcher, an attorney representing the union in the labor complaint, could not be reached Monday for comment.
The demolition project cost Northampton approximately $15,000 as Masloski did not have homeowner's insurance or the financial means to pay for the work. At the time, Building Commissioner Louis Hasbrouck said the city would try to save many of Masloski's possessions, which included old tools, a hand-carved cigar store Indian, an antique Dr. Pepper sign and an old record player. The salvaged items also included an unused Whirlpool washing machine that Masloski won in a contest years ago.
"The building commissioner asked if an engine company could assist, which I assigned," Duggan said. "They were there for the demo and could be pulled away" in an emergency.
Duggan said he viewed the task as "protecting property and salvage," something firefighters do routinely.
"The (firefighters union) sees it as a change in the fabric of what their job description and role is," he said. "The city's perspective is it's salvage of a person's property who really needed assistance. I share the view that this is a project of saving someone's property as we do with fire, flooding, etc."
The City Council last Thursday transferred $2,500 into the city's Legal Services budget, funds Higgins said are directly related to defending the complaints filed by Local 108.
EMS funds
In a separate complaint, the firefighters union alleges the city wrongly used $60,000 from the Fire Department's EMS reserve or ambulance receipts fund to pay for an overtime deficit in the Fire Department. The union contends that money should be spent only for operating and maintaining the department's emergency medical services.
The union points to an article in its contract, which states: "In order to successfully develop EMS within the Northampton Fire Department, the city and union agree that all (EMS) receipts and budgeted surplus will be transferred and held in an EMS Reserve Account." The union is requesting the city pay back the money immediately, its complaint states.
Higgins said the city did not have the cash on hand to pay for Fire Department overtime, which is historically underfunded at approximately $90,000 but hits about $300,000 per year.
Duggan said the Fire Department estimated it would take in $1.56 million in ambulance revenues this year, but that figure is expected to top $1.9 million.
Higgins said it was a tough year financially and she had to use the money with little to no free cash or rainy-day funds on the city's books to pay for the Fire Department's overtime deficit.
Duggan said tapping the EMS reserve fund means less cash will be available in the future to pay for EMS equipment and ambulances, however. He denied the union's grievance on several grounds.
"It's something that clearly was not well received by my people, but it's a decision that was made and implemented," Duggan said. As for city councilors who approved the financial transfer, several said that EMS funds can be used for any lawful municipal purpose, including paying for Fire Department overtime.
"I don't know what they would be complaining about this for," said Ward 7 City Councilor Eugene A. Tacy, who serves on the Finance Committee.
Ward 5 City Councilor David A. Murphy, who serves on the Public Safety Committee said this: "I'm assuming they don't think it's going to be transferred and held forever, or reserved indefinitely."
Dan Crowley can be reached at dcrowley@gazettenet.com.[/quote]
[b]The roof of John Masloski's red, two-story home in Laurel Park caved in under the weight of snow in February and city officials later ordered the house demolished for safety reasons. Masloski, 77, lives in Florence and his Laurel Park home, while uninhabited for years, contained many of his belongings.
The demolition project cost Northampton approximately $15,000 as Masloski did not have homeowner's insurance or the financial means to pay for the work. At the time, Building Commissioner Louis Hasbrouck said the city would try to save many of Masloski's possessions, which included old tools, a hand-carved cigar store Indian, an antique Dr. Pepper sign and an old record player. The salvaged items also included an unused Whirlpool washing machine that Masloski won in a contest years ago.[/b]
Click on the video link to this story.
My humble opinion.... the only reason to enter this structture was to search for victims. As a command officer, the thought of putting someone into a house that was abandoned abandoned decades ago with a structural collapse that caused its demolition to look for "stuff" compromised the safety of the personnel of the Northhampton firefighters.
PS: I know Chief Duggan. He used to be the Chief in the town of Northborough.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
There's one key difference. In the Tennessee case, the homeowner's property was in a jurisdiction where there was no tax-supported fire department, by overwhelming choice of the citizens who lived there.
I agree that the homeowner is primarily responsible to ensure that their property is protected, but there's a difference between "won't" and "can't". In the Obion County case, it was clearly a case of "won't".
In the Northampton case, I haven't heard enough evidence to make a definite call, but this one appears to be a case of "can't".
Just wondering - where's your usual sympathy for the underpriveledged, poor, and downtrodden on this one?
In our case, the Mayor and City Manager probably wouldn't have gotten involved, and we have municipal engineers, building codes officials, and public works types who would have been more likely to get involved. However, if there was a need for, say, shoring, we might have taken the chance to do some OJT while helping out a citizen.
As for policy - no, we don't have a specific one for this kind of incident. We would at least do a non-emergency response and assess the situation.
-
-
The over-arching problem here is that we can pretty clearly define what we can do and what we will do, but it's more difficult to state what we can't and won't do.
If this collapse had involved life safety, would the FD have done their best to do a rescue, then applied the "S" from RECEO-VS after the rescue was complete? That's both hypothetical and unknown, but it is food for thought.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
If this collapse had involved life safety, would the FD have done their best to do a rescue, then applied the "S" from RECEO-VS after the rescue was complete? That's both hypothetical and unknown, but it is food for thought.
Ben, I would have to say if life safety was involved, then yes they would have done their best to facilitate a rescue. It is a life safety issue and thus the dynamics of the call would be changed. I think that is the issue at bay here is this situation was not a life safety and was property recovery, using public resources for private gain, ordered by the elected officials, under the guise of "salvage".
Now the FD did follow orders and filed the grievance afterwards in which case can be a precidence setter for the future.
A couple months ago we had a consignment shop have a roof collapse at night. The FD responded and surveyed the building, ensured there was no life safety issues, no hazards, and did utility control. In fact our tech rescue was never dispatched to the scene and quite simply, there was no reason to. The building is still there, roof inside the store, with goods still in place. A private company did some raker shoring and insurance is in charge. Even after a couple months, there is no reason for us to go in and thus recover property. Since we had a prior issue and a grievance was filed, even if the mayor ordered us to recover property we have the precidence to say no.
-
-
So what happened to Protecting Lives and Property?
Have we given up on protecting property unless it's on fire now?
-
-
Have we given up on protecting property unless it's on fire now?
Property is not worth a life at all. This is a non-emergency and no longer in the realm of the FD. Maybe if you go back and read what I wrote about salvage and the difference between that and what was being tasked, you would see a difference.
In the case here as well as the example from my community, yes absolutely, such property is given up on because it does not fall under the realm of the FD. Just like when a tornado hits an area, it is not the job of the FD to go door to door to recover property, this is now outside the realm of an emergency response. The FD's responsibility lies within the scope of emergency work, not just fire, but an emergency. When the emergecy is mitigated, no more hazrds or life threats or even victim recovery, the scene can thus be handed over to the insurance company.
So to turn it around....what basis is there to thus utilize emergency personnel and emergency services in a case where no emergency exists. Why place emergency responders at risk, as well as the rest of the taxpaying public for an issue that no longer falls in the realm of emergency services?
-
-
I did read it. That's why I'm asking the question.
What's the difference from this and doing salvage after a fire is out? In the case of fireground salvage, it's no longer an emergency, either?
The other issue here is that the definition of "emergency" may vary from place to place. Just because you don't define a specific call type as an emergency doesn't mean that someone else uses exactly the same definition.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
The other issue here is that the definition of "emergency" may vary from place to place. Just because you don't define a specific call type as an emergency doesn't mean that someone else uses exactly the same definition.
Case in point- this is our LEGISLATED definition:
(a) an earthquake, flood, wind-storm or other natural event; and
(b) a fire; and
(c) an explosion; and
(d) a road accident or any other accident; and
(e) a plague or an epidemic; and
(f) a warlike act, whether directed at Victoria or a part of Victoria or at any other State or Territory of the Commonwealth; and
(g) a hi-jack, siege or riot; and
(h) a disruption to an essential service;
The purpose of our Emergency Management Act:
prevention— the elimination or reduction of the incidence or severity of emergencies and the mitigation of their effects;
response— the combating of emergencies and the provision of rescue and immediate relief services;
recovery— the assisting of persons and communities affected by emergencies to achieve a proper and effective level of functioning.
And finally, an Emergency Activity is defined as:
(a) performing a role or discharging a responsibility of an agency in accordance with DISPLAN or the state emergency recovery plan; or
(b) training or practising for an activity referred to in paragraph (a) or being on active standby duty; or
(c) travelling to or from the place where an activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) has occurred or is to occur;
It's not uncommon here in Australia to have emergency services undertaking this type of salvage work for many weeks (literally!) after a major event such as Cyclone, Bushfires, etc. The response doesn't affect normal service operations as the salvage work is undertaken by by back up units, often from areas totally unaffected such as from the other side of the State or even from Interstate.
-
-
What's the difference from this and doing salvage after a fire is out? In the case of fireground salvage, it's no longer an emergency, either?
Difference being the FD was called for the initial emergency and took actions to mitigate. Salvage work then is to help limit the damage and is done if there is enough personnel, etc.However, once the FD leaves and turns the place over, it is no longer an emergency and no longer the dept's job to go back. Just like the example I posted, the roof is still collapsed, the emergency and investigation is over, it is not an emergency and not the FD's job to go back and recover property.
Even after a house fire and the investigation is done, property turned back over, it isn't the FD's job to go back and start hauling furniture and other property for the property owner, such task befalls their insurance company. After all that is why we are to have insurance right? As the adage also goes "poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine".
I mean look at all the salvage work done by the FD's after Katrina, all the personal property the FF's went in to retrieve months after. I guess in Joplin, we can expect the FD to go door to door to retrieve personal property under the guise of "salvage". Or do such priorities lay with only those where the elected officials says to do?
The other issue here is that the definition of "emergency" may vary from place to place. Just because you don't define a specific call type as an emergency doesn't mean that someone else uses exactly the same definition.
And in this instance, what to you consitutes this as an emergency? The collapse occurred months ago, there is no life safety issue, there is nofire or other hazard at bay, there is no body recovery to be done....where is the emergency? The only gist I heard elsewhere is the owner did not have insurance and this is not a primary residence. So why should public emergency crews thus be placed in harm's way for property? What deems this person's property more important than other taxpayer's lives or property? When is the FD going to start being a recovery and private moving source for any other taxpayer under the guise of "salvage"?
-
-
The response doesn't affect normal service operations as the salvage work is undertaken by by back up units, often from areas totally unaffected such as from the other side of the State or even from Interstate
Bit different there than here
-
-
Then there's the question about who decides that the fire department only does "emergency" work.
If that were the case, then there would be no Fire Marshals, no Fire Inspectors, no Fire-Based Public Safety Education, no Fire-Based Injury Prevention programs like Risk Watch...
As for "So why should public emergency crews be placed in harm's way for property?" that's a confused argument, since part of the fire service's mission is to protect property.
If we're not supposed to take any risk for property, then as soon as we know that all occupants are out of any fire building, then we should immediately go defensive to avoid risk to firefighters...right?
-
-
Then there's the question about who decides that the fire department only does "emergency" work.
If that were the case, then there would be no Fire Marshals, no Fire Inspectors, no Fire-Based Public Safety Education, no Fire-Based Injury Prevention programs like Risk Watch...
Way to stretch out a bunch of other garbage. Did I say that depts only do emergency work? No I did not, and you know it. I said this incident was not an emergency and does not warrant a public emergency response for a private matter which insurance and private business should handle. So where do you come up with such stuff as prevention, marshals, pub ed? Please.
I guess if you want to stretch out that line of thinking then if a public entity is called for such non-emergency situations to move personal property because one doesn't have insurance, then I guess every taxpayer can thus cancel their insurance since the dept will be a nanny state and handle everything for them under the guise of "salvage"? Perhaps we can thus say that all private business and every taxpayer can thus have the municipality come and plow out all their driveways and parking lots since they pay taxes and it would be "customer service"? Perhaps we can thus conclude that the govt entity can take care of other issues like healthcare and such, because there is no need for private business or insurance for that stuff, right?
As for "So why should public emergency crews be placed in harm's way for property?" that's a confused argument, since part of the fire service's mission is to protect property.
Yes, part of the mission is to protect property, but not do the job of insurance or private business under the guise of salvage work. Are you confused about the part that this collapse occurred awhile back and that possible the owner had no insurance? Where is the threats that garners an emergency response to recover personal property? So does this mean that you and your dept go to a fire scene days to weeks later, after the property has been turned over and remove property under the guise of salvage? I'm doubting so.
Sure we do protect property, when we are called to an emergency and damge has to be done to mitigate the emergency. Salvage also plays in after and sometimes during suppression to limit damage. A big difference is the fire is an emergency, a couple months old collapsed building is not.
If we're not supposed to take any risk for property, then as soon as we know that all occupants are out of any fire building, then we should immediately go defensive to avoid risk to firefighters...right?
Nice stretch of the imagination. So I'm seeing that you are confused about the difference between a fire and that of a collapsed building several months old.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
