From Connecticut
Question: Can an employer make a unilateral change in the uniform policy (new/different uniforms) if they issue a clothing allowance?
Answer: Virtually all states hold that a change in a uniform policy that has an economic impact on employees must be bargained. While the employer’s decision may be a management right, the “effects” of the decision – additional costs that might be incurred, for example – would likely be negotiable.
From California
Question: What type of restriction is an employer allowed to place on outside employment? If an employee can show up to work rested and ready to work, what difference would being employed outside of their firefighter position make? (Assuming, of course, that the outside job is not one that will bring disrepute upon the department, i.e. stripper, adult film star, escort, etc).
Answer: Usually, these issues are controlled by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding. Absent such a provision, there’s little case law on the issue of the extent to which a fire department employer can regulate work performed by the firefighter while off duty. Based on law enforcement cases, we suspect the result would be that the employer could control activities that either pose a conflict of interest or which in some fashion diminish the performance of the firefighter’s primary job (e.g., make the firefighter too tired).
From Florida
Question: In your opinion, is it a violation of an officer’s Garrity Rights to require him to provide a statement when he is involved in a motor vehicle accident? We’re talking about a simple accident. There will be no criminal charges; however, the officer could receive discipline if he is found to be at fault for a second time in a two-year period.
Answer: If the underlying subject of a disciplinary interview is something dealing with on-duty conduct or the officer’s fitness for duty, then the employer has the right to compel the employee to answer questions about the issue. Under the rules that have developed under Garrity v. New Jersey, when an employer uses its disciplinary authority to compel an employee to answer questions, it must give the employee what are now known as “reverse Garrity” warnings, advising the employee of their rights and obligations.
From Kansas
Question: Our department supervisors and I.A. has a history of telling officers “what we discussed stays in this room,” or “not to talk about this with anyone.” Is this a constitutional violation?
Answer: In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, such orders would be lawful to the extent that they do not impair privileged relationships. For example, an employer could not order an employee not to talk to an attorney about an IA investigation, or a spouse.
From Nevada
Question: Our Fire Department currently has a minimum staffing plan that has been in place for four years. In this plan, leave is covered by overtime. Fire administration is planning on hiring extra personnel, deviating from the minimum staffing plan. They are accomplishing this by transferring funds from an overtime account to hire these personnel, not placing them on additional apparatus. Do you believe that a minimum staffing plan must be bargained? Can overtime be defined as a benefit concerning wages; therefore be subject to bargaining without unilateral change? Do you know of any case findings that speak of this type of issue? Thanks.
Answer: There are several cases that establish that a change in the number of “vacation slots” for firefighters is a mandatory subject for bargaining, even if done for staffing reasons. Beyond this, there’s not much law in the area, so the question you ask is an open one. We suspect that changes in minimum staffing that have an impact on overtime compensation may well have at least mandatorily negotiable “impacts,” even if the decision to change staffing levels is not mandatory for bargaining.
We’re curious, though, as to what you mean by “extra personnel.” If the extra personnel are in the union’s bargaining unit, the issue might not be negotiable. If the extra personnel are outside of the bargaining unit (volunteers, for example), then we think there’s little doubt the issue would be bargainable.