Design by Free CSS Templates
"Local 2067 I.A.F.F., Bargaining Agent for the Norman Fire Department, is making notice herewith as provided under O.S.A. 11 (1994) s51-101, et seq., of our intentions to negotiate for items requiring the appropriations of monies and other contract terms. We will look forward to you contacting us for our first meeting. In good faith and in a positive spirit; we will be looking forward to this year’s negotiations."
IAFF and the C.O.N. Headed to
the Oklahoma Supreme Court - UPDATED
02/14/12
(after Firefighters Win Ruling...) The following
are the most recent updates. Stay Informed!
UPDATE: February 17, 2012 - A tentative date of Friday, April 13, 2012 has been slated for the 'Brief Date' with the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to this grievance.
UPDATE: February 14, 2012 - The City of Norman submitted their Plaintiff/Appellant Reply Brief to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
UPDATE: January 25, 2012 - Attorney Jim Moore submitted IAFF Local 2067's Answer/Response Brief and filed the brief with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
UPDATE: January 10, 2011 - As of this date, the IAFF and the City of Norman are currently entangled in an Oklahoma Supreme Court Appeals process which has yet to begin. The wait time is undetermined. The idea this appeal to the highest court in Oklahoma should prohibit or hold back due process under which the Fire & Police Arbitration Act provides is still being debated in the legal minds of those defending the City in an attempt to circumvent those same proceedings.
The City's legal advisors and
representatives are continuing to claim the arbitration for
this grievance 'hinges on issues that will be determined in the
pending appeal before the
Supreme Court in Oklahoma'. They also believe 'the arbitration
should not proceed while
the appeal is pending'. They have gone as far as sending a
notice to chosen arbitrator,
Diane Dunham Massey, enforcing the claim that the planned
arbitration is 'improper,
duplicative and wasteful'.
The IAFF is awaiting its own conversation
with our legal representative to determine how
to respond to these attempted setbacks.
UPDATE: December 16, 2011 - The City of Norman has submitted its "Brief in Chief" to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
UPDATE: May 31, 2011 - The IAFF finds itself in Oklahoma State Supreme Court with both the City of Norman attempting to force its failed way to a higher court. The IAFF filed the following with the Oklahoma Supreme Court at the end of this May, 2011: Response to Petition in Error, Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike.
UPDATE: April 11, 2011 - This morning Judge Tom Lucas presided over a ballot language issue which insures an accurate explanation to be placed before Norman voters in a possible upcoming election. This election will finalize the FY2011 Contract between the Firefighters of Norman and the City of Norman.
The Judge was skeptical during the City's argument that brought monetary figures to the ballot that were not apart of either negotiations nor pertaining to the disagreement in which both sides found ground to argue the ballot language. Judge Lucas was quoted as saying, "...the Arbitration Board's decision was valid", concerning the language to be placed on the possible ballot.
The City Council will have an opportunity at tomorrow night's council meeting to continue the effort to take money from city firefighters; with the hope in winning a citywide election, appeal Judge Lucas' decision or simple drop the issue and move to negotiate another year.
April 7, 2011 - On Monday, April 11th, the IAFF will again appear before Cleveland County District Court Judge Tom Lucas to hear pleadings from both the Union and the C.O.N. concerning the ballot language for a possible upcoming election which would allow Norman citizens to decide the outcome of our FY2011 contract agreement.
IAFF
Memorandum Regarding Upcoming Ballot Vote Title & Hoodwinking
(City Attempts to Deceive & Mislead the Public)
December 27, 2010 - In regards to the requirement concerning submission of ballot propositions, lies generally that the question NOT be deceptive or misleading, and that it be free from uncertainty and ambiguity. The test is whether the voters are afforded an opportunity fairly to express their will, and whether the question is sufficiently definite to apprise the voters with substantial accuracy as to what they are asked to approve.
The ballot title language proposed by City management, the Mayor and 'some' members of council (by way of the City's legal department) is misleading and inaccurate. It informs the citizens that the IAFF offer will increase contract costs from last year by 6.26% or $746,915. That figure is WRONG given the fact that the IAFF proposed no changes in any of the three unresolved contract terms. In addition, management's ballot title shows an increase of 3.20% when in fact its proposal either reduced or froze $330,000 in compensation below that of the previous years contract. It was undisputed in the arbitration case that firefighters would earn less than last year with management's offer. Management is trying to use normal inflation and increases in personnel to create a deceptive picture of the offers that the Arbitration Board decided. Putting that on the ballot violates state law. (Read memorandum sent to Arbitration panel concerning these wrongful tactics...)
City Council to Decide on Special Election Against Norman Firefighters
November 22, 2010 - The IAFF Local 2067 has received notice that the Mayor and City Manager had filed a request for a 'special election'; or perhaps at the very least, reserving the right to proceed as consistent with Oklahoma Statutes; to present to the registered voters of Norman with the choice of either the last best offer of Norman Firefighters or that of the City of Norman which is not in the best interest of firefighters or those living in our community. (Read City's Request for Special Election...)
It has been purported the City Council will convene for a special meeting on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 to openly discuss exercising the above. Members are asked to reserve that evening in the event you are asked to attend, which likely would go without saying.
IAFF Favored in Arbitration Decision
November 11, 2010 - Excerpts from the Arbitration Award are as follows:
"DISCUSSION: The City’s oral testimony from its witnesses and the documentation submitted into evidence about “comparisons” outlined in factors 1, 2, 3 and 5 satisfy the Statute. What the comparisons show should not be a surprise to the City negotiator, HR Director, Financial Director, Fire Chief or City Council. It may be a small surprise to the City Manager because he only arrived in August 2007. The IAFF did not get to the level of where they are at in the comparisons in just the recent two or three contract negotiations. It has taken several and it has not been without the City’s knowledge and acceptance.
The City is trying to rebuild the ending fund balance at the cost of employee wages and benefits. Better control of expenditures is the correct way to accomplish this objective. Proceeding along this path is not in the interest and welfare of the public. Revenues are available to the City to rebuild the reserve fund. In June 2010, Council adopted the budget for FY 2011 with an ending fund balance to be $424,386. However, due to the increase in sales tax revenues for the first four months of FY 2011 the ending fund balance is projected to increase by $1,600,000 even through the sales tax revenue continues to be budgeted at the same revenue level as in FY 2010. In addition, the beginning fund balance for FY 2011 improved from the adopted budget of $3,753,850 to $5,400,00. The interest and welfare of the public and revenues available to the City were given greater weight than the other factors.
DECISION: The Arbitration Board, with one Board member in disagreement, has selected the last best offer from the IAFF." (Read Full Award Text...)
IAFF & City Await Arbitrator's Decision
IAFF BRIEF: Review here the Post Hearing Brief of IAFF, Local 2067 in FMCS No. 100609-57330-8.
CON BRIEF: Here below lies the incorrect reasoning in argumentation by way of the City. Legal staffers attempt to exploit emotional triggers or take advantage of the current social relationship between people and the national economy as a whole. In an argument from the City’s position of assumed authority, their brief is structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making it fallacious. The components of which are spread out over separate arguments.
As is characteristic, they are mistaken, and their submitted brief is logically fallible in its mistake in reasoning.
Thus found within may be factual errors; but more importantly, logical ones. This type of reasoning could be potentially deceptive and is geared to fool at least some of the people some of the time. It remains a common type of logical error and is becoming, more and more, easily identifiable by the IAFF. It is in our anticipation the Arbitrator will see it too. Review here the Post Hearing Brief of the C.O.N.
October 15, 2010 - With proceedings concluded following the 2-day FY2011 IAFF/City of Norman contract arbitration, the firefighters can only speak on behalf of themselves in terms of comfort when anticipating the outcome. All those attending for the IAFF felt good about the effect of holding our ground. Norman Firefighter's only contention was to keep the existing contract in tact; forgoing requests for further compensation this fiscal year. The City remained constant with its request to weaken our salaries by 4.6%; among other concessions.
We will all remain vigilant for the final conclusion to be announced no later than November 11, 2010.
City & IAFF Present Last Best Offer in Preparation for Arbitration
October 7, 2010 - As presented to the IAFF during the final negotiations session for FY11, perhaps in the appearance of lessening the impact when taking wages and incentives from our membership of firefighters this year, facts remain in which the City of Norman is demanding a 4.6% wage reduction! In addition, they wish to freeze merit steps for at least half our membership. In addition to this they plan to beg an arbitrator to change our current agreement and the past practice of all members eligible for 'hazmat incentive pay'. This they hope to accomplish without any clear input from the fire chief as to its logistical impact. We know nothing of what those changed numbers will become and are a major wage reduction in itself. (The CON Last Best Offer...)
The above outline being presented, your negotiating team feels the best approach is to defend our current position in the contract. Thus, the IAFF has offered as a LBO to roll over the contract. This, in spite of the last 5 months showing improving sales tax revenue! There is no crisis! We have seen through our audit and the fact this will present itself at the arbitration table.
The Arbitration will be held on October 14-15, 2010.
September 29, 2010 - In the last scheduled meeting prior to the slated October 14th arbitration hearing, both sides cleaned up their respective slates and removed previously negotiated items in which neutral ground could not be found throughout the eight month process.
In short, the IAFF & the City of Norman will present each other with a LBO (last best offer) at 4:30 p.m. on October 7, 2010. This will allow both sides to understand what will be asked from them and presented to an arbitrator for his decision.
As of this meeting to date, the IAFF is asking for a 0.00% ATB pay adjustment while folding fast to language changes to Article 21, Sick Leave allowing a conversion of unused sick-leave, upon retirement to vacation leave at a rate of '2 for 1' with a max of 1920 hours from 1440 hours.
As of this meeting to date, the City of Norman is asking for a 4.6% wage reduction along with merit freezes for those earning those merit raises in FY11. The wage reduction is being requested to begin later this fall equally an average annual reduction of 3.0%, plus merit freezes.
September 17, 2010 - The IAFF and the City of Norman took another stab at negotiating the current fiscal year contract; FY11. The items discussed, and primarily outstanding as those which could be presented as a 'last best offer' for either side heading into the fast approaching arbitration hearing, are as follows:
The last negotiating session prior to the aforementioned Arbitration Hearing is scheduled for September 29, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. in the Multi-purpose room at City Hall. The actual Arbitration hearing is scheduled for October 14th & 15th.
*Members listening to this session may or may not recognize a different voice speaking on behalf of the IAFF. We have invited our Legal Council, James Moore to join us for this/these last session(s) prior to arbitration.
August 19, 2010 - A confirmation date(s) of October 14th & 15th, 2010 have been selected for the hearing in matter of Interest Arbitration. (Confirmation of hearing...)
June 21, 2010 - Steven A. Zimmerman has been selected by both the IAFF and the City of Norman to be the neutral member of a three member arbitration panel. The IAFF Arbitrator is Jim Keese while the Arbitrator for the City of Norman is Ambre Gooch. The date of the upcoming arbitration is being scheduled. (Letter to Mr. Zimmerman concerning our pending case...)
June 7, 2010 - Today's session entailed a recap of previously held positions. The IAFF reiterated the claim of the glass being "half full"; the City released no grip of the same perceived, "half empty" vessel.
Any subsequent meetings on these negotiations will be forthcoming; yet to be arranged.
May 19, 2010 - Negotiations continued today with much discussion covering the understanding the IAFF has on the recently claimed position the City anticipates itself financially for the upcoming FY2011 contract year as relating to negotiations for its contract. The IAFF position remains growing in terms of information as to the arrival of facts to which the City maintains its projected outlook.
In short, the City has begun the process of starting the Arbitration process to help come to terms with all related developments. In progression the City has offered a 'wage reduction' in lieu of furloughs equaling that which the City hopes to skim from its firefighters. Both sides have chosen its panelist in searching for an independent arbitrator. The scheduling of the arbitration will be decided at a future date.
The IAFF made some drawbacks on previously items currently on the table, as well as removing others from discussion.
The next scheduled meeting has been scheduled for June 7, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
April 21, 2010 - While Article 17, Reductions in Force, was tapered as the literal topic of today's meeting, discussions did circle primarily around the City's previously submitted topic of Article 2, Management Rights. As presented at an earlier meeting to the IAFF, the City wished to remove the language "...as outlined in Article 17 of this contract, subject to an agreement between the employer and the Union..." at any time of financial crisis. This pertains to the topic of "furlough days", "merit freezes", and "other economic reductions" as an alternative to reductions of force.
As is constant with the IAFF, the topic of "Management Rights"; adding to them, removing or editing language as associated with the change of such; is somewhat met with obvious rejection, especially in times of a perceived or actual economic down-turn. The time to address such matters is better viewed objectively far in advance of the difficulty anticipated by those who wish to use firefighters and the safety of the general public as an easy, expendable fix to an anticipated problem. Placing rough-shot over the well-being of the aforementioned, has little to no merit in consideration.
The IAFF has proposed to hire an independent auditor to help review and understand the current topic. This perhaps would allow some comfort in addressing issues such as furloughs.
This this was the foundation of today's meeting, members are encouraged to listen for themselves to gleam further.
April 9, 2010 - Today's meeting was very informative in that we had both City Finance Director, Anthony Francisco, and City Manager, Steve Lewis present to help explain the City's budget concerns to the IAFF during this years negotiations process. In short, the message delivered was quite bleak.
IAFF members would be better served to simply listen to the meeting and gleam the basic ideas directly from what was presented in our 'members only' audio section. Little can be said here to better explain the situation at hand than to absorb it first-hand. In fact, fear of taking things out of context begs a stopping point in terms of written explanation. In addition, much of what was discussed at this meeting will also be delivered at the upcoming union meeting. All members are encouraged to partake in both. We will see you there!
The next meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
March 25, 2010 - The City of Norman took primary reign of today's negotiations by way of response to the IAFF proposals to date or by newer means of additional proposed points. In lue of much detail, since City budget projections are to be presented at a later meeting in which to better inform the negotiating team, the following are but an outline of the items discussed during the morning meeting:
The City of Norman presented/discussed:
Again, the IAFF & the City will meet
outside 'negotiations' to help understand any
anticipated/projected budget shortfalls that support the City's
claims of a possible "inability to pay" stance.
March 12, 2010 - Negotiations continue. The IAFF began discussions with the introduction of information concerning Article 15, Promotional Procedures. No changes to the contract were introduced. The provided information was in hopes of clearing up possible confusion or complication in making determination of language which might help in future cut-off dates surrounding new positions being made in the future. Consultation and membership input via the upcoming union meeting may help play a key role in helping to lay the ground work for a possible change to the current contract language.
The IAFF also brought to the table a proposal to increase Longevity Pay, Article 31, from $3.70 to $4.70 as per the current method of calculation currently found in the contract.
EMT Incentive Pay, Article 29, was also introduced as a change from $100 per month to $150 per month.
The City of Norman discussed cleanup language pertaining to Article 14 as it relates to Article 18 in light of the maximum amount of 'compensatory time' mentioned in both articles. The City wished simply to narrow the language associated with 24-hour employees to Article 18 only.
The City also introduced a secondary version to its earlier proposal to Article 29, Incentive Pay making its proposal easier to read and chart. The IAFF has yet to respond to this particular proposal.
The next meeting will be held on March 25, 2010 at 10:30 a.m.
February 22, 2010 - Negotiations picked up in pace as both the City and the IAFF brought items in which to discuss and/or offer in the way of contract changes affecting the next fiscal year.
The City and the IAFF both brought to the table suggestions in the form of contract changes pertinent to Incentive Pay, Article 29, Sec. 3. The City of Norman is offering an additional $15 per month for EMT-I's, and an additional $25 per month for an EMT-P. In addition, the City has offered Incentive Pay to Car Seat Technicians of $10 per month.
February 11, 2010 - The IAFF & the City of Norman met for the first of possibly many upcoming negotiating sessions for the 2011 contract year. Representatives for the IAFF were Butch Crawford, Dennis Mitchell, Tim McDermott, and Nick Terhune.
This preliminary meeting is typically held to settle 'ground-rules' in establishing guidelines as the meetings progress. The only change agreed upon was a time-limit in which both sides would introduce, in written form, the item to be negotiated. This date was set at March 15, 2010.
As projected, the City set the tone for a questionable year in terms of financial stability; perhaps simply mentioned to pave the way for future evidence to be presented to support this premise. The IAFF welcomes the details as we move further along in our talks.
The IAFF introduced the following topics which written changes/additions will be presented soon:
Both sides have worked to schedule in advance the following meeting date: February 22, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.
January 27, 2010 - The first session of the FY11 Contract Negotiations year will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at the City Hall study session room.
In addition, the Negotiating Team will hold a preparations meeting on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the Midtown Plaza Conference Room.
January 4, 2010 - The IAFF Local 2067 has submitted a written request to the City of Norman, as per Union Contract, indicating its desire to hold sessions to negotiation the upcoming FY11 contract in the coming months. (Union Request...)