Austin firefighters contract to be decided by binding arbitration

Austin Firefighters Association President Bob Nicks has made no secret of how angry he is with city negotiators. The union and those negotiators could not reach an agreement on a labor contract, and the matter must now be decided at an arbitration proceeding, as noted in a memo from interim Assistant City Manager Bruce Mills to Mayor Kirk Watson and City Council last week.

Mills noted that a three-member arbitration panel heard evidence over eight separate days of hearings between late March and early June. On Friday, the parties submitted briefs to the panel, which is expected to make its final award by mid-September, according to a city spokesperson. “The arbitration panel’s award is binding on the parties with no right to approve or reject the award” by either the city or the union, the spokesperson said.

The city and the union disagree on how much Austin firefighters are paid, as compared to other firefighters in the same category.

Nicks said Monday that the city used to brag about having the highest-paid firefighters in the state. But now, he said, Austin Fire Department ranks 10th in pay for beginning firefighters among departments in Travis and Williamson counties. The department ranks seventh for the highest-paid fire department lieutenant, he said. Nicks said firefighters and their families are suffering because their wages are not keeping up with the cost of living.

The city did not offer a direct comparison between Austin Fire Department and other fire departments in the area but included this statement in response to questions from the Austin Monitor: “While it is possible to say that some individual pay elements for some firefighters in some other cities at some individual points in their careers may exceed the pay for a comparable Austin firefighter … analysis clearly establishes that Austin firefighters are overall the best paid fire department among comparator cities in Texas.”

Nicks provided charts showing a 10-year comparison of city of Austin employee groups. According to that document, the city’s civilian employees, police and emergency medical services employees all got higher raises than firefighters.

The city disputes Nicks’ assessment but did not provide a definitive rebuttal by the end of the day on Monday.

The department has had a personnel deficit for some time. In April, the Monitor reported that the department had 78 unfilled positions. That deficit means that firefighters are often called upon to work overtime.

According to a spokesperson for the department, there were 56 vacancies as of Aug. 4, but after adding 44 new cadets on Aug. 11, the number of vacancies now stands at 12. (Of course, that number goes up every time a firefighter retires.)

The other major bone of contention between Austin Firefighters Association and the city is over what Nicks would tell his members about his support of the deal. He released a lengthy statement on that:

“I ran for AFA President on a reform platform in 2009. This reform platform was based on the premise that the Union Leadership should NOT tell the members what to do and particularly how to vote. Soon after becoming the AFA President, the Austin Firefighters Association, (International Association of Fire Fighters) Local 975, became the first IAFF local in the Nation to get online voting.

“Our reform platform was simply to NOT be the ‘expert’ and tell the membership what to do, but instead educate the membership, provide an online discussion board so the membership can confer with each other and establish their common interests, and then conduct a secret ballot vote (online).

“I explained to the City that I have never told the membership how to vote and it goes against the basic platform of my administration to do so. Then I told the City that I would discuss, along with the other members, pros and cons and then, ultimately, the will of the membership will decide. The City told me that is not good enough so they will not approve the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for vote, which was a requirement of our AFA motion to bring the vote forward to our members.

“So again, the firefighters are being treated very unfairly, now to the point where the City tries to dictate our internal processes or they will further withhold wages and benefits. This and so much more mistreatment and disrespect to the firefighters by the City is why the firefighters fought so hard for binding arbitration. Unfortunately, the City has done everything in their power to halt binding arbitration and they continue to treat firefighters terribly. The firefighters only seek fair wages and benefits and perhaps a modicum of respect for the great services the firefighters provide the community every day.”

A city spokesperson disputed Nicks’ version of events, telling the Monitor via email:

“The City has always achieved its labor contracts with the unions representing its public safety employees by negotiating a ‘tentative’ agreement between the City Manager’s bargaining team and the union’s bargaining team, then submitting that tentative agreement to the union membership and the City Council for final approval. A ‘tentative agreement’ means that the negotiating teams have agreed between them that the proposed contract overall represents a fair bargain and should be approved by the union membership and the City Council.

“In this instance, the City and the AFA engaged in discussions for a tentative agreement while awaiting the completion of the interest arbitration proceeding. This would have allowed us to ‘settle’ the Arbitration. The City has been clear with the AFA throughout those discussions that an acceptable result would require tentative agreement by the parties on a complete labor contract. Thus, after reaching agreement with the AFA on all contract terms, it was a surprise to the City when the AFA declined to say that it would support that contract with its membership.”

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.