Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon (“Agency”) and Local No. 2017 of the
Agreement effective August 15, 1985 (“LMA”), which was received into
evidence as JX 1.
The question presented is whether two plus two equals four, when
requires that fire trucks be staffed by four (4) firefighters. The Agency
the Agency’s interpretation conflicts with the plain language of the DOD
memorandum dated January 24, 1994, George T. Wilder, Chief, Army Fire
2
Protection Services, reported the following:
Manpower.
Comments.
3
Staff fire department in accordance with applicable DA Policy and
applicable standards of DoD. …
Aerial ladder truck turned over on its side due to driver/operator error
of not extending outrigger supports on the opposite from the driver
side of the truck. When the ladder was raised, extended, and rotated in
a clockwise direction the truck overturned due to the outriggers not
being in place. …
The aerial ladder truck was staffed with 2 firefighters the day of the
fire! 4 required. Understaffing was in my opinion a contributing
factor to the driver operator failing to extend all the outriggers. In
addition the driver operator had been transferred 7 months ago from
the fire prevention division due to manpower reductions in the
department. Witness statements regarding the overturned truck were
that repeated explosions were occurring at the fire scene immediately
preceding the truck overturning. Outriggers on the side of the truck
facing the fire were not extended in place.
appear to be new.
4
The Instant Grievance
Fort Gordon. In a letter dated April 24, 2001, Kay Raney, Union president,
5
grievances (Ref: letter dated 18 Feb 1999) (Letter dated 4 Feb 1999)
(Col Tuckey’s letter of March 1999). Both ended with labor and
management agreeing to not reduce in any way staffing until a risk
assessment could be performed.
The union advises that inadequate personnel create the risk of
on fire scene damage[,] risk of failure in transport[,] and places
firefighters and the personnel they protect in danger, [and] is a
violation of Article 17, Sections 1 and 2, AR420-90 and DOD 6055.6.
Finally, working below minimum standard requirements places
additional burdens and demands on responding personnel to take up
the slack and advance and apply fire streams on the fire, increasing
the risk of injury. Reduced manning also delays fire rescue attempts
and places fire fighters already in an unsafe work environment at
more risk.
The resolution that we seek is to discontinue Basic Life Support
until staffing can be maintained a[t] the initial response levels per
AR420-90 and DODI 6055.6.
The representative in this grievance will be Mr. W. L. Shipes,
AFGE Local 2017 Vice President … . … JX 2.
6
SECTION 13. An employee or group of employees who believe that
they are being required to work under conditions which are
unnecessarily unsafe or unhealthy beyond the normal hazards inherent
to the operation in question, shall have the right and are encouraged to
bring these situations to the attention of the appropriate official for
corrective action. If the situation or conditions are not resolved, the
employee shall have the right to file a grievance. … (Emphasis
supplied.)
From the foregoing provisions of the LMA, it is clear that the Union has
stated as follows:
This regulation implements statutes and DODI 6055.6, DOD Fire &
Emergency Services (F&ES) Program, requirements. It prescribes
Army policies and responsibilities covering all fire fighting
(structural, aircraft, and wildland) by civilians or military, fire
prevention (technical services), hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
7
response, emergency medical services (EMS), confined space rescue,
disaster preparedness, and ancillary services. Id., Chapter 1, Section I,
Paragraph 1—1.
8
MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES APPARATUS
1. ARFF Apparatus 3
2. Structural Apparatus 4
Only Structural and Aerial Fire Apparatus are at issue here; Air Rescue Fire
By letter dated June 29, 2001 (JX 5), the Union requested arbitration.
9
A hearing was held on December 10, 2001, at Fort Gordon near Augusta,
Georgia. Briefs were due January 10, 2002, and have been timely received,
so that the matter is ripe for decision. The parties could not agree as to the
issue presented, so the arbitrator, acting pursuant to Article 35, Section 12.d
Under the plain language of the DOD instruction and the evidence presented
Findings
supervisory firefighter and assistant fire chief since 1979, who has been at
Fort Gordon since April of 1992, and through Willford Lee Shibes, Jr., a
Union vice president, who fought fires for 27 years, 20 of them at Fort
Gordon, before retiring. The following facts may be gleaned from their
10
expanded to include confined-space rescue, hazardous materials, and
terroristic threats.
Within the past few years, management decided that fire crews could
especially since the fire station is located nearer some key sites, so a medical
each two who enter the structure to fight the fire. Instead of sending 4
firefighters out on a fire truck, the practice at Fort Gordon became to send 2
out on a fire truck and 2 in an emergency vehicle; the latter were to serve as
the outside safety personnel. Over time the practice degenerated into sending
Chief Curtis Williams, a well educated and seasoned firefighter, who came
11
to Fort Gordon only recently, July 26, 2001. His testimony did little to allay
the Union’s concerns over the safety of its members. Chief Williams
testified that a fire truck can be at the scene of any fire within 5 minutes
from the time the fire department is called, and that an emergency vehicle
can follow within 10 minutes from the time of the initial call. In case of fire,
that a fire truck lacks, such as equipment for handling hazardous materials,
emergency runs may or may not do. Chief Williams is in the process of
developing one, although the Union insists that the protocol is a matter for
may respond to a medical emergency. The first to arrive take charge of the
EAMC personnel may be informed that the arrival of the fire department’s
12
structural fire fighting crew may cross staff HAZMAT, or Rescue
apparatus. AX 3.
Discussion
understaffing of the fire trucks. The crux of the Union’s complaint is that
fire trucks are dispatched to fires with only 2 firefighters aboard, not the 4
required by the DOD instruction. Two other firefighters may or may not
arrive later in an emergency vehicle. The 2+2 rule is honored in the breach.
representative pointed out in his opening statement, the issue is really quite
simple.
ever been given anything but its plain meaning. The instruction
means 4 now, not 2 now and maybe 2 later. The definition of cross-staffing
does nothing to alter the plain meaning of four. The phrase, “without any
13
apparatus.
The arbitrator shall not have the authority to add to, delete from,
change, alter, amend, or modify this Agreement, published policies, or
regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)
firefighters.
to accept the Agency’s position. If, as he testified, the emergency vehicle has
shown that 4 firefighters really are required to staff a fire truck. The
emergency vehicle may not arrive for 5 minutes or more after the fire truck.
The 2+2 standard operating procedure simply cannot work under these
conditions. Both firefighters and fire victims are placed at increased risk.
Thus, even if the arbitrator were authorized to grant dispensation from the
Although in its grievance letter of April 24, 2001 (JX 2), the Union
14
requested that the fire department “discontinue Basic Life Support until
staffing can be maintained a[t] the initial response levels per AR420-90 and
DODI 6055.6,” in its brief, the Union asks only that “management will not
latter remedy is the appropriate one under the circumstances of this case.
While LMA Article 35, Section 8.b requires that the written grievance
specify the remedial action sought, nothing expressly limits the arbitrator’s
award to the specific remedy requested. Indeed, since the LMA authorizes
the arbitrator to frame the issue, it would seem that he should have similar
leeway in fashioning a remedy. The authorities support that view. Elkouri &
case, the Union initially sought to have the fire department’s emergency
was sketchy, the arbitrator declines to specify just how its operations should
the arbitrator’s role is not to micromanage the Fort Gordon fire department.
Chief Williams is far better qualified for that job. He may decide that
15
both a fire truck with a full crew and an emergency vehicle to fires, he may
transfer equipment from the emergency vehicle to the fire trucks, he may
6055.6.
its fire trucks. In light of the limiting language of the collective bargaining
The City has been in violation of the terms of the agreement and the
spirit of the Agreement … , by not endeavoring to maintain four
person crews on Pumpers and Aerial Ladder trucks. Because this
provision is not mandatory, this Arbitrator has no authority to direct
the City to institute four person crews. It is, however, an obligation of
the City to strive to carry out its commitment to endeavor to maintain
the four person crews … . Id. @ 386.
16
arbitrator has no discretion not to enforce the plain language of the DOD
instruction.
Award
shall be dispatched to a fire with fewer than four firefighters aboard. The
remains about the Agency’s solution to the staffing problem, then the parties
resolution.
17