Collective Bargaining

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

By John Corbett – MSCFF President

April 21, 2004

Our firefighters and paramedics lost the ballot issue to secure a constitutional change to give our members the right to collectively bargaining in November of 2002. This was the last giant step in the struggle to secure our bargaining rights. Until 1947, public employees felt they had the constitutional right to bargain collectively as Article XIII of the state constitution gave blanket coverage of “the employees' right to bargain collectively with representatives of their own choosing”. This is the year when the Springfield-Clouse case came down from the Missouri Supreme Court and stipulated that the language in the state constitution that said employees have the right to collectively bargain was only meant for the private sector and could not be applied to public employees. This was digested slowly by public employees and finally in 1959 the Meet and Confer Law was passed and amended in 1960 giving us the law we presently live under. This allows certain public employees to meet with the employer and discuss wages, hours and conditions of employment. The next step is to reduce the results of the discussions to writing and present them to the public legislative body for rejection, modification or adoption into ordinance or resolution form. After memorandums of agreement were negotiated by public employee unions and were passed into ordinance form they were considered binding until 1981 when the Supreme Court dealt another telling blow to public employees in the Moberley Decision. This decree stipulated that since these memorandums of agreement were negotiated absent collective bargaining, they were no more binding than any other public ordinance and thus could be changed without mutual consent by the legislative body through the same legislative process that they used to adopt the original ordinance at a regular city council meeting!

Since the early seventies, public employees have met in Jefferson City to try to draft a proper collective bargaining bill to include all public employees. These first attempts proved futile as each group needed certain provisions or could not accept other provisions because of mandates by their membership at convention or their international union prevented them from accepting certain provisions such as a no-strike clause as in the case of the teachers unions. Throughout these meeting of the public employee steering committee a constant overriding theme prevailed, we must put a bill in to be heard and we did. In the early eighties, Senator Panethiere (D) Kansas City , almost passed his bill in the Senate but fell short by one vote. It never made it to the House of Representatives where Earl Schleff (D) St. Louis County was at the ready. Although we have always had a democratic majority in both the House and Senate, we were unable to garner enough votes to pass a bill and this led to much frustration in the labor community. It was apparent that public employee collective bargaining was only a real priority to public employees and not to private sector workers who already enjoyed this right!

In 1990, the frustration was at such a level that the public employee steering committee decided not to put a bill in since they felt it had no chance of passing. The firefighters seized the moment and put their own bill in as an amendment to the Fireman's Arbitration Statute allowing negotiations for contracts with binding arbitration. This bill was received well by the legislature as no other labor group contradicted the bill as in the past with their special needs. You see, if you answer all the questions about the bill and take all the problems away from the legislators, you have a good chance of passage. Even then, it took two reconsideration votes in the full Senate and one reconsideration vote in the House ( something that is unprecedented) to pass this bill. For the first time in the history of our struggle for collective bargaining rights, a bill passed the legislature and was on the governor's desk for signing. Unfortunately, the governor was John Ashcroft and he vetoed our bill during the IAFF Convention in St. Louis citing the problems with the constitutionality question cited in the Springfield-Clouse and Moberley decisions. This was a bitter setback for us and it served as a wake up call to the rest of the public employees unions never to let us put a bill in of our own. Since then, we have been included with the rest of labor in a bill that does not have the votes to pass in either house.

After the last serious attempt to pass this bill in the Senate in 1998 and the House in 1999, it was apparent that the votes are not in either chamber to pass collective bargaining. At the steering committee meetings talk of a referendum popped up but labor could not get the backing of their own international unions so they quickly backed out of this idea. All but the firefighters! It was 1990 all over again and we had another chance to go on our own with the blessing of the rest of labor. This was too good to be true and we took full advantage of this opportunity. Following MSCFF convention mandates, we filed our petition. After the initial signature campaign began it was apparent that the time frame for the November 2000 ballot was unreachable and we decided to wait until November of 2002 to pass our measure, giving us a full 17 months to collect signatures.

The reasons for our referendum were twofold: First, we could not pass the bill in the legislature and secondly, if we had done so, it would have been unconstitutional. Remember the Springfield-Clouse decision says collective bargaining is just for private sector employees and Moberly says because of this stipulation our contracts cannot be truly binding. Our only recourse is to change the constitution to allow our members to have the right to collectively bargain and negotiate binding contracts with binding arbitration. I would be remiss to suggest that the right to collective bargaining infers an automatic contract. Nothing in any collective bargaining legislation in any state or the Wagner Act itself guarantees that the employer must enter into an agreement. We still have to use our political savvy to gain these contracts, make no mistake about it. But simply put, without the passage of the referendum language, these agreements would not be worth the paper they are written on!

Secretary State Matt Blunt delayed our petition and by the time the courts allowed us on the ballot, we did not have the time nor could we raise the necessary funds to get to the rural areas and educate the people about our referendum and it costs us big. We lost by 1 per cent and our Council has suffered through membership loss with some members not being able to get over the loss of the referendum. Our Council has a renewed strength now and we will continue to advance our fight for collective bargaining when the time is right. We will never stop fighting!

I hope this brief history serves both to educate union members of the firefighters' trials and tribulations regarding this struggle for the rights we deserve and to refresh our memory of why we still fight the fight because we truly believe that we should not accept anything less than first class citizenship!

IAFF/EMPLOYER STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION

SUPERVISORY DECISIONS

St. Louis Fire Fighters Association, Local 73, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO v.
City of St. Louis , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Fire Department employees of the City of St. Louis . The Board found that the position of Deputy Fire Chief was clearly supervisory, and excluded those employees. The Board also excluded the position of Fire Marshall due to a lack of community of interest with the other employees and due to its supervisory status. The Board also excluded the position of Battalion Fire Chief, despite the fact that they work the same shift and live in the same firehouse as the Fire Fighters. They noted that the Battalion Chief's responsibility over the entire fire district with the direct authority to assign the work force. The Board concluded that Captains were not supervisory, and therefore, should be included in the bargaining unit. They noted the inability to effectively recommend personnel decision.

The Board included Equipment Dispatcher II in the bargaining unit as well, but excluded Equipment Dispatcher III. They determined that while Equipment Dispatcher II is clothed with some supervisory activities, they still have a sufficient community of interest with the other employees. Furthermore, Equipment Dispatcher II supervises few employees and spends a majority of their time working side by side those workers.

Finally, the Board included the position of Lieutenant because it exists only as an ordinance classification and as of the hearing had not been filed.

Date Issued: February 23, 1977

St. Louis County Fire Fighters Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 398 v.
Chesterfield Fire Protection District , Chesterfield, Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all the employees of the Chesterfield Fire Protection District. The Board concluded that the position of Deputy Chief was clearly supervisory. The Board concluded that the position of Captain and Lieutenant lacked supervisory status despite their ability to effectively make recommendations concerning personnel decisions. They noted that they both primarily supervised activities rather than employees.

The City also argued that the position of Fire Marshall and Ambulance personnel should be excluded since they do not have a community of interest with the Fire Fighters. The Board excluded the Fire Marshall since he worked different hours, did not perform similar duties, and operated completely independent of the Fire Fighters. Ambulance personnel were included in the bargaining unit, despite the special training they received and the dissimilarity in work performed. The Board noted that they work at the firehouse, with a similar schedule, and are trained as Fire Fighters as well.

Date Issued: February 28, 1977

St. Louis County Fire Fighters Association, Local 398, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
City of University City , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Fire Department employees of University City . The parties stipulated to the exclusion of the Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, and Fire Marshall before the hearing. The parties also stipulated to the inclusion of the Ambulance Drivers. The sole issue was the supervisory status of Captains. The Board said that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to show that the Captains possessed a community of interest with the other employees. Since the petitioner failed to address the supervisory criteria, the Board concluded that Captains were supervisors, and lacked a community of interest with the other employees.

Date Issued: July 25, 1977

St. Louis County Fire Fighters Association, Local 398, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
City of Hazelwood , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Fire Department employees of the City of Hazelwood , Missouri . The Board concluded that the Fire Chief was a supervisor. The Board also concluded that Captains were supervisors, despite the fact that they work the same shifts and live in the same house as the other Fire Fighters. Finally, the Board concluded that Lieutenants were not supervisors. They noted that Lieutenants could not effectively recommend the hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees. The record indicated that Lieutenants were more analogous to lead workers.

Date Issued: November 23, 1977

Professional Fire Fighters of Marshall, International Association of Fire Fighters,

Local 2706 v. City of Marshall , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all employees of the Marshall Fire Department. The City contended that the Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Station Captains, and Lieutenants should be excluded as supervisors. The Board concluded that only the Fire Chief was a true supervisor. The Board said that while in most cases an Assistant Fire Chief would be supervisory, the Assistant Chief in Marshall lacked the authority necessary to be a supervisor. The Assistant Chief acts as Chief when the Chief is absent. In order to be a supervisor, however, the employee must have authority of a permanent nature. When not acting as Chief, the Assistant performed the same duties as the Captains.

Captains cannot be considered supervisors because they have no authority to recommend hiring, firing, or discipline of the other employees. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Captains exercised any independent judgment. Lieutenants were also found to be non-supervisory, for those same reasons.

Date Issued: January 21, 1980

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2709 v.
City of Liberty , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all employees of the Liberty Fire Department, excluding Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief. The City argued that Captains should also be excluded as supervisors. The Board concluded that Captains were true supervisors. The Board relied on the fact the Captains are in charge of all Fire Fighters on the shift and are responsible for seeing the department policies and procedures are followed. Captains spend a substantial majority of their time supervising employees. Captains also have significant input in the hiring of new employees. Finally, the Board noted the amount of independent judgment the Captains have in directing and assigning the work force.

The Board excluded the Captains from the bargaining unit.

Date Issued: October 22, 1980

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2543 v.
City of Poplar Bluff , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for clarification of a bargaining unit. The union sought to include six (6) employees classified as Captains, Mechanics, Safety Officers, and Shift Commanders. The City argued that a valid memorandum of agreement excluded these positions from the unit. Furthermore, the City argued that Shift Commanders should be excluded because they are supervisors.

The Board concluded that reconsideration of the positions of Captain, Safety Officer, and Mechanic would not be timely because of the contract bar.

The Board also concluded that the Shift Commanders were supervisors and should be excluded. In reaching this decision, the Board looked at the Shift Commanders' pay, independent discretion, ability to transfer and assign employees, and the authority over both Captains and regular Fire Fighters.

Date Issued: March 30, 1982

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665, AFL-CIO v.
Rock Township Ambulance District , Arnold , Missouri

IAFF filed for certain employees of the Rock Township Ambulance District. The union sought a bargaining unit composed of all full-time Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians. The sole issue before the Board was whether or not Crew Chiefs should be excluded from the unit as supervisors. The Board concluded that Crew Chiefs were true supervisors. The Board relied on the Crew Chiefs' significant role in personnel decisions, including hiring, evaluating, and disciplining employees. They also noted the Crew Chiefs are often the highest ranking officers at the station. Crew Chiefs are paid more than other Paramedics and spend a substantial majority of their time supervising employees. The Board excluded the Crew Chiefs.

Date Issued: September 25, 1989

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665 v.
City of Kirkwood , Missouri

IAFF filed for a bargaining unit consisting of all Kirkwood Fire Department employees, excluding Chief and Assistant Chief. The City argued that Captains should also be excluded as supervisors. The Board concluded that Captains were true supervisors. The Board relied on the Captains' significant input in hiring, promoting, evaluating, and disciplining other employees. They also noted that Captains were usually in command of the fire scene directing and coordinating the Fire Fighters. The fact that some normal Fire Fighters earned more than some Captains was not conclusive.

The Board's decision excluded Captains.

Date Issued: October 4, 1989

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665, AFL-CIO v.
Eureka Fire Protection District , Eureka , Missouri

IAFF filed for certain employees of the Eureka Fire Protection District. The sole contested issue before the Board was whether the District's Captains and Lieutenants should be excluded from the bargaining unit as supervisors. The Board concluded that Captains were supervisors, but Lieutenants were not.

In concluding that Captains were supervisors, the Board noted their input in the hiring, promotion, and discipline decisions. They investigate suspected improper conduct and may impose verbal and written reprimands. The Captains also exercise independent judgment and discretion in directing and assigning Fire Fighters because they are often the highest ranking officers on duty. The Board concluded that while Captains only supervised a small number of workers, this factor was not conclusive, and was counterbalanced by other considerations. The Board also noted the pay differential between Captains and other Fire Fighters, and the special training Fire Fighters received.

Applying the same criteria to the position of Lieutenant, the Board concluded that they were not true supervisors. The factors which were present in favor of the supervisory status of Captains were not present in favor of Lieutenants. The Board found no substantial differences between Lieutenants and other Fire Fighters.

The Board issued its decision excluding Captains, but including Lieutenants.

Date Issued: October 16, 1989

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2543 v.
City of Popular Bluff , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for unit clarification of an existing bargaining unit. In its petition IAFF sought to include in the bargaining unit Captains and Shift Commanders. During the hearing, IAFF orally amended its petition to reflect that it was no longer seeking to represent the Shift Commanders. At the close of taking evidence, IAFF moved to further amend its petition to clarify the bargaining unit to read all Fire Fighters and Captains, excluding Shift Commanders, Assistant Chief and the Chief. The Department conceded the need for some clarification of the bargaining unit, but continued to object to the inclusion of the Captains in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that this case clearly presented substantially changed circumstances that warranted a review and clarification of the entire bargaining unit. The majority of the Board found that the Captains were supervisors. The majority of the Board clarified the entire bargaining unit to read: all Fire Fighters, excluding Captains, Shift Commanders, Safety Inspector, Mechanic, Assistant Chief and Chief.

The employer member dissented in part. The dissent would hold that the Captains were Lead Workers and not supervisors. The dissent would include the Captains in the bargaining unit.

Date Issued: May 5, 2000

NON SUPERVISORY DECISIONS

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1786 v.
City of Grandview , Missouri

The sole issue was the supervisory status of the Captains. The Board held that they were working Captains and not supervisors. The Captains were included in the unit.

Date Issued: May 28, 1969

St. Louis Fire Fighters Association, Local 73, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO v.
City of St. Louis , Missouri

Finally, the Board included the position of Lieutenant because it exists only as an ordinance classification and as of the hearing had not been filed.

Date Issued: February 23, 1977

St. Louis County Fire Fighters Association, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 398 v.
Chesterfield Fire Protection District , Chesterfield, Missouri

Date Issued: February 28, 1977

St. Louis County Fire Fighters Association, Local 398, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
City of Hazelwood , Missouri

Date Issued: November 23, 1977

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2543 v.
City of Poplar Bluff , Missouri

The Board determined that the Captains do not share a community of interest with the other Fire Fighters and excluded them from the unit. No supervisory evidence was presented to make that determination.

Lieutenants were not found to be supervisors and were included in the unit.

Date Issued: January 17, 1978

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1055 v.
City of Columbia , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Fire Department employees excluding unclassified positions and the top level of classified positions. The parties stipulated that the positions of Fire Chief, Battalion Chief, and Fire Marshall would be excluded, and that all positions below Fire Lieutenant would be included. The City objected on supervisory grounds to the inclusion of Fire Captains and Fire Lieutenants. The Board concluded that the positions were not supervisory. They noted that Captains could not effectively recommend changes in personnel.

Furthermore, Captains primarily supervised activities, rather than personnel. The Board concluded that all Lieutenants were not supervisors for the same reason.

Date Issued: April 18, 1978

Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 2618, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
City of Joplin , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all employees of the Joplin Fire Department. The Board concluded that Captains and Lieutenants were not supervisors. Although the Captains do have a role in evaluating employees for promotion, transfer, and dismissal, and are responsible for enforcement of departmental policies. Overall the Board found their role more analogous to that of a Lead Worker. A similar analysis was used to conclude that Lieutenants were not supervisors.

The Board included the Captains and the Lieutenants in the bargaining units.

Date Issued: January 23, 1979

St. Charles Professional Fire Fighters, Local 1921, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
City of St. Charles , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Captains and Fire Fighters employed by the St. Charles Fire Department. The Board concluded that Captains are not true supervisors. The Captains played no significant role in hiring, transferring, or promoting other employees, but were more akin to a lead worker. Captains oversaw only a small number of Fire Fighters, and there was only a slight difference in pay.

The Board included the Captains in the bargaining unit.

Date Issued: November 13, 1979

Professional Fire Fighters of Marshall, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2706 v.
City of Marshall , Missouri

Date Issued: January 21, 1980

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665, Professional Fire Fighters of St. Louis County v.
City of Richmond Heights , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition for all Fire Fighters, excluding the Fire Chief, employed by the Richmond Heights Fire Department. The employer argued that Captains should be excluded as supervisors. The Board concluded that the Captains were not true supervisors. They noted that Captains play no role in the hiring, promotion, transfer, or discharge of other Fire Fighters. Although they do direct Fire Fighters at the fire scene, they exercised little, if any, independent judgment. Any authority possessed by Captains is closer to that of a lead worker than that of a supervisor.

Public Case No. 81-003 Supplemental Decision

The employer filed a petition for clarification of the bargaining unit. The employer sought the additional exclusion of Captains from the bargaining unit. Local 2665 agreed to this clarification and the Board granted the change and issued an order to that effect.

Date Issued: August 19, 1981

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2861 v.
City of Neosho , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition to represent employees of the Neosho Fire Department. The City first argued that all of the employees sought by the union were also Newton County Deputy Sheriffs, and thereby excluded under §105.510. The Board, however, noted that Neosho does not employ them as Deputy Sheriffs, and therefore, they are not excluded by the statute.

The City also argued that the position of Captain is supervisory. The Board noted that Captains have no authority to hire, fire, promote, or transfer employees. Furthermore, they primarily supervise activities, not employees. Finally, the direction of employees at the fire scene requires little discretion, since the Fire Fighters are well trained and experienced.

The Board did exclude the Secretary from the bargaining unit, based on a lack of community of interest. They based the decision entirely on the dissimilarity between the work Fire Fighters do and the work done by the Secretary.

Date Issued: August 26, 1982

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2921 v.
City of Lebanon , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition to represent certain employees of the City of Lebanon Fire Department . The City contended that Captains should be excluded as supervisory employees. The Board concluded that the Captains were not true supervisors. Furthermore, the majority of the Captains' time was spent as a Lead Man or Working Supervisor. They exercised very little independent judgment and discretion in the course of their duties.

Date Issued: April 26, 1984

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 3016 v.
City of Carthage , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition to represent all non-supervisory employees of the Carthage Fire Department. The City contended that Captains were supervisors. The City also argued that its Fire Safety Officers did not share a community of interest with the other employees of the Fire Department.

The Board concluded that Captains were not true supervisors. The Captains play no role in the hiring or discharging of employees, and only have a limited role in recommending a promotion. Captains' direction of Fire Fighters at the firehouse and at the fire scene involves little use of independent judgment. Finally, Captains spend much of their time doing duties similar to those of other Fire Fighters. The Captains were included in the unit.

The Board found that the Fire Safety Officers did not share a community of interest with the other employees, and should therefore be excluded from the bargaining unit. The Board relied on the great difference in the type of work performed.

Date Issued: February 14, 1986

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665 v.
City of Frontenac , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition to represent all non-supervisory employees of the Frontenac Fire Department. The City contended that Captains should be excluded from the bargaining unit as supervisors. The Board concluded that the Captains were not supervisors. The Captains have no authority to effectively recommend discharge, transfer, or discipline employees. They play no role in the hiring of new employees. The Board found that the independent judgment exercised by the Captains in directing the work force was insufficient to ascribe to them supervisory status. Accordingly, the Board found their status equivalent to that of a Lead Worker. They were included in the unit.

Date Issued: May 13, 1986

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665 v.
Riverview Protection District , St. Louis , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition to represent certain employees of the Riverview Fire Protection District. The District contended that Captains should be excluded from the bargaining unit as supervisory employees. The Board concluded that the Captains were not supervisors. The Board relied on the fact that Captains played no role in the hiring of new employees, nor was it clear that they could effectively recommend discharge, transfer, or discipline employees. Merely filing evaluations to be used by others in the promotion process was insufficient to grant supervisory status. Furthermore, the Board noted that while Captains direct Fire Fighters at the fire scene, they exercise little independent judgment.

The Board also found that Captains were not confidential employees. In doing so, the Board re-adopted the labor/nexus test for determining confidential status. The Board issued its decision including Captains as non-supervisory employees.

Date Issued: October 16, 1987

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665, AFL-CIO v.
Eureka Fire Protection District , Eureka , Missouri

The Board issued its decision excluding Captains, but including Lieutenants.

Date Issued: October 16, 1989

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 3228 v.
City of Gladstone , Missouri

The City of Gladstone combined its Police and Fire Services into a Public Safety Department. That department consisted of three (3) separate bureaus: Law Enforcement, Fire/Emergency Medical Services, and Support Services. All three (3) are staffed by Public Safety Officers (PSO's), who are trained to work in all three (3) bureaus. IAFF petitioned as public employee representative for a bargaining unit consisting of all Fire/ EMS PSO's and Dispatchers. The City contended that all PSO's and Dispatchers were police, and excluded under §105.510. The City also argued that Sergeants were supervisors, and should be excluded even if the Board finds the unit appropriate.

In determining whether PSO's were police the Board said that the job title was not dispositive. Instead, the actual duties performed by the workers were controlling. Based on their duties, the Board concluded that the PSO's assigned to law enforcement were police within the meaning of the statute. The Board, however, said that the Fire/EMS PSO's were not police, despite the fact that they sometimes performed police duties. The Board noted that they did not primarily do police work and did not perform the day-to-day routine of patrols and responding to calls.

The Board also concluded that Dispatchers were not police within the meaning of the statutes. They are civilian employees who do not perform any of the traditional police functions. Since Dispatchers did share a community of interest with Fire/EMS PSO's, the Board included them in the bargaining unit.

Finally, the Board found insufficient evidence as to whether Fire/EMS Sergeants were true supervisors. They were provisionally included in the bargaining unit.

Date Issued: January 5, 1990

Professional Fire Fighters Association of Clayton v.
City of Clayton , Missouri

The sole issue before the Board was whether Captains are supervisory employees, and therefore, should be excluded from the bargaining unit. The Board concluded that the Captains were not supervisory employees. The Board noted that Captains had a minimal role in personnel decisions. They did not actively participate in hiring, and could not effectively recommend the discharge, transfer, or discipline of another employee. Furthermore, they are rarely the highest ranking officers on regular duty at the firehouse. Finally, Captains perform many of the same chores and duties of the other Fire Fighters, and the supervisory role they do have is limited to supervising activities rather than employees. The Board's decision included Captains.

Date Issued: November 13, 1990

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665, AFL-CIO v.
Central County Emergency 911 , Ballwin , Missouri

IAFF filed a petition seeking a unit of Dispatchers and Shift Supervisors. The employer contended the Shift Supervisors should be excluded from the unit on supervisory grounds. The Board held that the Shift Supervisors were not supervisors. Consequently, they were included in the bargaining unit with the Dispatchers.

Date Issued: June 5, 1995

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 3133, AFL-CIO v.
Sni Valley Fire Protection District , Oak Grove , Missouri

The sole issue in this case was whether or not the District's three (3) Captains were supervisors. The Board concluded they were not supervisors. They were therefore included in a bargaining unit with six (6) Fire Fighters. An election was ordered therein.

Date Issued: May 13, 1996

Fulton Fire Fighters, Local 2945, International Association of Fire Fighters v.
Callaway County Ambulance District , Fulton , Missouri

The sole issue in this case was whether the three (3) Shift Supervisors in the Callaway County Ambulance District were supervisors. The Board held they were not. They were therefore included in the bargaining unit along with the full-time Medical Transport personnel. An election was ordered in that unit.

Date Issued: October 30, 1996

International Association of Fire Fighters
Northern Warren County Ambulance District , Warrenton , Missouri

There were three (3) issues in this case.

The threshold issue concerned the scope of the bargaining unit. The Board found that a unit of all full-time and regular part-time employees in the District was an appropriate unit.

The main issue was whether three (3) on-call individuals (known as PRN) qualified for inclusion in the unit as regular part-time employees. The Board found that they did. Thus, PRN's Dieckman, Hellebusch, and Gibson were included in the unit. The other individuals on the District's PRN call list were excluded from the unit because they were deemed casual employees.

A secondary issue was whether full-time employees Box, Freymuth, and Flake were supervisors. The Board found that they were not. Accordingly, they were included in the unit along with the other full-time employees.
(ORIGINAL DECISION)

Date Issued: January 6, 1998

International Association of Fire Fighters, 2nd District v.
City of Gladstone , Missouri

The following background is pertinent. The City of Gladstone has combined its Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services into a combined Public Safety Department. The Department is divided into three (3) separate divisions: Law Enforcement, Fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and Support Services. In City of Gladstone , Case No. R 1989-023 (SBM, 1990), the Board found that all Public Safety personnel assigned to the City's Public Safety Fire/EMS Division comprised an appropriate unit. The Board further found that it would address the status of the Sergeants in that unit at a later date. However, the Union lost the subsequent election, so the Board had no occasion to revisit the Sergeants' status until now.

In this case, IAFF sought a bargaining unit of all Fire Fighters, Paramedics, and Public Safety Officers (PSO's) assigned to the City's Public Safety Fire/EMS Division, up to and including Sergeants. Given the existence of the Board's 1990 decision, the parties agreed on the appropriateness of IAFF's proposed unit.

The only question raised about the composition of IAFF's proposed unit concerned the status of the three (3) Sergeants in the Fire/EMS Division. IAFF sought their inclusion while the City wanted them excluded.

After review the record evidence, the Board found the Sergeants were not supervisors. It therefore, included them in the Fire/EMS unit.

In so finding, the Board used the same legal standard for determining supervisory status which the Board has used for over 20 years. It rejected the City's invitation to use a different legal standard, namely the standard applied under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended.

Date Issued: February 11, 1998

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 3133 v.
City of Harrisonville , Missouri

The Union sought to represent a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time Fire Department employees at or below the rank of Captain and all full-time Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Department employees at or below the rank of Shift Supervisor, excluding supervisors, confidential employees, and any full-time Secretary, Billing Clerk, and Accounts Receivable Clerk. The City objected to the inclusion of the three EMS Shift Supervisors and the full-time Fire Captain in the bargaining unit on the grounds that they were supervisors and confidential employees.

As for the issue of whether the EMS Shift Supervisors and Fire Captain were supervisors, the Board applied the traditional supervisory factors and found that the two job classifications were not supervisors.

As for the issue of whether the EMS Shift Supervisors and Fire Captain were confidential employees, the Board applied the labor/nexus test and found that the two job classifications were not confidential employees.

Therefore, the EMS Shift Supervisors and Fire Captain were included in the bargaining unit and the Board directed that an election be held.

Date Issued: April 11, 2002

International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2665 v.
Maplewood Fire Department , Maplewood , Missouri

In this case, the Union sought to represent a bargaining unit consisting of all firefighters and Lieutenants, excluding Captains, Assistant Fire Chief, Fire Chief, guards, supervisors, and all other Department employees. The Department maintained that the Lieutenants were supervisors and should not be included in the bargaining unit. The majority of the Board applied the traditional six factors to determine the supervisory status of the Lieutenants. Based upon an analysis of the factors, the majority of the Board determined that the Lieutenants were not true supervisors, but instead, were analogous to lead workers. Therefore, the Lieutenants were included in the bargaining unit and an election was ordered.

The employer representative on the Board filed a dissenting opinion. In his dissent, the employer representative pointed out that one of the Department's two Captain positions was currently vacant and that one or two of the Lieutenants regularly performed the duties of Captain. He would hold that Lieutenants who regularly performed Captain duties were supervisors and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

Date Issued: July 18, 2003

HOME