Arbitrator denies Town’s firefighter grievance

An arbitrator has denied a grievance by the Town of Orangeville against the local firefighters association over the issue of “two-hatters;” firefighters working full-time for one department while volunteering for another.

In a decision issued late last week, arbitrator Kenneth Swan said he could find no breach of the collective agreement by the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association (OPFFA) or its executive members.

The grievance was filed by the Town in November 2007 in response to actions taken by union representatives concerning the Orangeville department’s seven two-hatter firefighters. On receiving letters from union representatives advising them they were violating the union’s constitution by being employed full-time by one fire department while acting as a volunteer firefighter in another jurisdiction, all seven resigned in the fall of 2007, fearing they could lose their full-time employment.

Article 15, Section 3 of the OPFFA constitution allows charges against members who also serve as volunteer fire fighters. If they are ejected from the OPFFA, which represents all municipal Ontario full-time fire fighters, they cannot work as a full-time fire fighter in the province. This provision is enshrined in the Ontario Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The association has stated

that the reasoning behind this stance is a concern that firefighters serving in two jurisdictions at the same time could find themselves overworked and, therefore, at risk of not performing up to standard. “We respect the arbitrator’s decision,” Orangeville Fire Chief Andy Macintosh said in a press release. “This decision will in no way affect the current day-to-day operation of the Orangeville Fire Department.” The Town now has 32 volunteers, 10 full-time fire fighters, the chief, one deputy chief, two fire prevention personnel, and one training officer. Since 2007, when the seven resigned, the department has had no twohatters. Volunteers have replaced those seven fire fighters, and another five volunteers have subsequently left the department on obtaining fullt ime employ- ment with other fire departments. In his 32- page ruling, Mr. Swan acknowledged the long-time “Your questions See 181 Broadway, 519.941.3900 dispute between the International Association of Fire Fighters, the parent organization of the present association, and various fire departments in Ontario over the use

of two-hatters by some municipalities. In Orangeville’s case, he found that the local association was simply taking steps to notify the home associations of a potential breach of the international constitution. He determined there was no breach of the collective agreement, and as a result could not deal with claims that the conduct of the association was improperly motivated, was dangerous to the safety of the community or caused any financial loss. In an interview this week, OPFFA president Fred Leblanc was not sure what impact Mr. Swan’s decision would have on future two-hatter issues. “It might have been precedentsetting, insofar as Ken Swan is a highly respected arbitrator,” said Mr. Leblanc. “Is it precedent from a legal point of view? Probably not, but it could Your tax influe n c e answered” othearbit r a page 2 Broadway, Orangeville are 519.941.3900 looking at similar situations.” In October 2008, a grievance was filed by the Town of Innisfil after a full-time firefighter and union member sought to invoke a condition of

the union’s constitution that would deny a member the right to work as a volunteer firefighter in one municipality while employed full time as a firefighter with another.

In Innisfil, the arbitrator found the action of the union member not only to be intimidating for the would-be volunteer, but contrary to the union’s collective agreement with the town, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Code and Innisfil’s workplace policies, “which are binding upon this bargaining unit.”

The major difference between the Innisfil and Orangeville situations was that, in Innisfil, the firefighters were moving to block a hiring, while the issues in Orangeville dealt with firefighters already with the department.

Mr. Leblanc said the association normally has cordial relations with municipal fire department officials when it comes to resolving a two-hatter issue. The Orangeville case, he said, was among “the minority (of cases) where it becomes adversarial. In these cases, it often ends up with the two sides digging in their heels and it usually ends up with the two-hatters quitting with little, or no, notice.”

Chief Macintosh replied at the time, and still argues, that the OPFFA’s offer to work with the department, and allow a negotiated period of time to phase out the two-hatters, was not the problem. His point is that the loss of two-hatters involved the loss of invaluable experience.

When the seven local firefighters resigned in 2007, Chief Macintosh lost a collective 100 years of firefighting experience.

As well, he pointed out in the interview this week that the five volunteers who have since left for full-time jobs elsewhere might not have needed to do so if they had the option to remain as two-hatters.

Chief Macintosh added that it takes a year to train a firefighter to be ready to “ride the truck,” and the costs of this training are repeated every time someone leaves the department.

“This is really an Ontario government problem and not a municipal one,” he said. “Our town council did an excellent job of standing up for us. But, even if we had been successful (in arbitration), it wouldn’t have made difference as far as twohatting is concerned.”

Chief Macintosh says the provincial government may have to address the issue as other municipalities deploying two-hatters come in conflict with the OPFFA. “It’s going to come to head very shortly in other municipalities. Then, the government will take another look at this.”

In 2002, Tory MPP Ted Arnott, (Wellington- Halton Hills) introduced Bill 30, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, which would have protected firefighters from termination of their employment if they seek to volunteer in areas outside their coverage zone. Mr. Arnott presented the bill in October 2002, but it failed to win government support.