Attorney Leah Barrault Successfully Defends Andover Fire Fighters Arbitration Victory; Superior Court Lets Stand Award That Found Fire Chief Violated Contract By Giving Fire Work to Other Towns.

For at least 15 years, the Town of Andover has responded to first alarms in a consistent manner: first recalling all off-duty Andover Fire Fighters, and, as necessary, using fire departments from other towns under the concept of “mutual aid” to supplement the response. Andover fire fighters have been the principal responders for first and second alarms. The collective bargaining agreement between the Town and Local 1658, IAFF recognized that bargaining unit work is performed by Local 1658 members only.

In 2009, the Fire Chief unilaterally changed this procedure to rely more heavily on Mutual Aid departments and less on off-duty Fire Fighters after a first alarm. The change did not improve the quality of fire department services provided, but, at most, decreased the Town’s costs. An independent arbitrator agreed with Local 1658, IAFF that the Chief transferred bargaining unit work traditionally performed by Andover fire fighters and thereby violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

Although arbitration is supposed to be a “final and binding procedure” not subject to further litigation, the Town asked a Superior Court to vacate, or reverse, the arbitrator’s decision. The Town argued that this straightforward decision violated public policy by interfering with the Fire Chief’s managerial rights and statutes supporting mutual aid. The Superior Court disagreed, reasoning that the Fire Chief’s authority was untrammeled by the arbitrator’s decision, as the Fire Chief still can utilize mutual aid and deploy mutual aid at his direction.

The arbitration decision affirms that transfers of bargaining unit work can be remedied through work preservation or recognition clauses of collective bargaining agreements. It also affirms that transfers of bargaining unit work usually are economic decisions that have nothing to do with managerial decisionmaking. Last, the Superior Court’s decision affirms that “management rights” arguments are not infallible trump cards that management can wield to overturn an arbitration decision it does not like.