West Chester and firefighters still at odds about use of traveling lieutenants

Firefighters responded and extinguished a fire at Wetherington Golf & Country Club’s clubhouse Tuesday afternoon, April 18, in West Chester Twp. NICK GRAHAM/STAFF

Firefighters responded and extinguished a fire at Wetherington Golf & Country Club’s clubhouse Tuesday afternoon, April 18, in West Chester Twp. NICK GRAHAM/STAFF

West Chester Twp. and its firefighter’s union have been wrangling over the use of traveling lieutenants that have saved money in overtime costs and the township maintains the judge has no discretion to dismiss the action.

The township sued the union in Judge Dan Haughey’s court in June asking him to confirm an arbitrator’s decision, declare the continuing grievances on this issue moot, dismiss them and prevent them from going to arbitration and that the township has no obligation to bargain the matter further with the union.

The union’s attorney Bennett Allen asked Haughey to dismiss the case last month because the township is asking the court to approve something that was not in the arbitrator’s award, namely a decision on grievances filed after the award. The township recently filed a response.

“The union argues that the complaint must be dismissed because the township seeks confirmation of an award not provided by the arbitrator. But confirmation of the award is not discretionary,” the response reads, and quotes state law saying “when a party to the arbitration applies for an order confirming the award, the court ‘shall grant such an order and enter judgement thereon, unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected’.”

Overtime cost for fire lieutenants were skyrocketing over the past several years, so township officials decided to create the role of “traveling lieutenant” to fill in as needed. Annual overtime cost savings was estimated at $230,000, according to the lawsuit. The idea was to hire/promote three people to fill in when “vacancies existed due to vacation, sick leave, medical leave or other absence.”

The union filed two grievances over the issue.

“From the union’s perspective the main objection is that the parties have a contract that governs how overtime is to be apportioned under certain circumstances, how it is to be distributed,” the union’s attorney Bennett Allen told the Journal-News previously. “The township’s plan for using these traveling lieutenants ... it’s our position it violates the parties contract.”

The township denied the grievances and it went to arbitration, and the township won. The arbitrator ruled “the board has the authority to determine the size and composition of the workforce.”

The union also filed an unfair labor practices charge with the State Employment Relations Board claiming “the township unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employment” by utilizing the traveling lieutenants. SERB dismissed the complaint stating “the charge is dismissed with prejudice for lack of probable cause to believe the statute has been violated.”

The union asked for reconsideration and SERB denied the request. The lawsuit claims the union has filed grievances — a total of 103 since January — every time a traveling lieutenant was deployed and demanded that each one go to arbitration. The township has rendered them all “moot” because of the arbitrator’s decision. Township officials said the union has filed 78 grievances sine the lawsuit was filed.

The arbitrators decision was rendered before the fire union started filing all the subsequent grievances so in the dismissal request Allen said those can’t be resolved without further arbitration.

“Plaintiff has not petitioned this court to confirm an arbitration award. Plaintiff has asked the court to adopt its interpretation of an arbitrator’s legal and factual conclusions, and to adopt plaintiff’s position regarding the implications thereof,” Allen wrote.

“Even if the complaint’s allegations are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are made in plaintiff’s favor, nothing changes the fact that the arbitrator’s award does not provide the relief plaintiff seeks: the award provides no relief from subsequent related grievances. Whether the arbitrator’s final and binding award foreclosed subsequent related grievances should be decided by way of arbitration.”

Allen told the Journal-News previously the township had “a duty to bargain over the effect of that decision, how the decision effected the collective bargaining agreement.”

The township in its motion asking the court to keep the case said the township continued bargaining with the union even after the arbitrator’s award was issued and called the union’s.

“In short, to the extent the township had any bargaining obligation, it satisfied that obligation,” the court filing states. “This ‘bargaining agreement’ by the union is a red herring, distracting this court from the fact that union is attempting to avoid the final and binding effects of the award by filing additional grievances on identical issues.”

About the Author