Fire Dispatchers, Too
Uniformed Status For EMS Upheld

By GINGER ADAMS OTIS

The Bloomberg administration's second attempt to overturn two local laws that confer uniformed status on Emergency Medical Service workers and Fire Alarm Dispatchers failed when an Appellate Division panel upheld a lower-court ruling that they were valid.

PATRICK J. BAHNKEN: 'Very happy with ruling.'

Like former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who vetoed the legislation when it was first enacted in 2001, Mayor Bloomberg has contended that the City Council overstepped its legislative boundaries in creating Local Laws 18 and 19.

Beyond Council's Power?

He has maintained that the Council lacks the authority to grant a union uniformed status - which allows it to bargain directly with the Mayor's Office outside the citywide agreement that sets career and salary plans for clerical and administrative public employees. He said the laws curtailed his executive power.

The Bloomberg administration unsuccessfully attempted to make its case in Manhattan Supreme Court before Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, and when it lost there in January 2005, appealed to the First Judicial Department of the Appellate Division.

MAYOR BLOOMBERG: A blow to his power.

The Law Department argued that while the City Council "may, of course, amend the Collective Bargaining Law, [it] may not ... promulgate amendments that are precluded by the State Taylor Law."

But the Appellate Division, in a 3-2 opinion, ruled that while Local Laws 18 and 19 clearly curtailed the scope of the authority the Mayor had under the city's Collective Bargaining Law, nothing in them was precluded in any way by the Taylor Law.

May Affect TEAs, Others

The case has been closely watched by several other public employee groups, among them Traffic Enforcement Agents, who have also sought uniformed status for collective bargaining purposes.

The majority opinion was written by Justice James M. McGuire, who from 1997 through Feb. 2003 was Chief Counsel to Governor Pataki.

At bottom, he wrote, "the Mayor's Taylor Law claim can succeed only if the Taylor Law confers on the Mayor the right or authority not to negotiate with a particular group of city employees over certain terms and conditions of employment."

THOMAS EPPINGER: Improves leverage.

Unquestionably, he continued, the Mayor is empowered by the city's Collective Bargaining Law to negotiate matters "which must be uniform for all employees subject to the career and salary plan."

Within Council's Rights

But absent a provision of the Taylor Law conferring the same authority, he concluded, the City Council is not prohibited from exercising its "constitutional and statutory authority to amend the Collective Bargaining Law."

Mordecai Newman, Senior Counsel in the Law Department's Appeals Division, said the city would contest the Appellate ruling.

Local Laws 18 and 19 "violate the referendum provisions of the Municipal Home Rule Law and the City Charter," he contended. "The two dissents give us an appeal as of right, and we are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will reverse this decision."

Patrick J. Bahnken, president of District Council 37's Uniformed Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics Local 2507, said he was pleased with the ruling.

"We are very happy. This has been a long battle, and it's not over yet, but certainly we will continue to fight for our members and on their behalf," he said. "It's important to us, more than anything else, that our members get recognized for working side by side with police officers and firefighters in the city's 911 system."

Robert Ungar, a lobbyist and attorney for both Local 2507 and the Fire Alarm Dispatchers' Benevolent Association, added that while the unions "would very much like it to stop here, we are prepared to go forward with the appellate process at the Court of Appeals if necessary."

Still Have to Bargain

He was also quick to stress that Local Laws 18 and 19, while granting the unions the right to bargain directly with the Mayor over salary, overtime, scheduling and other issues, don't automatically confer additional benefits on the work force.

"It simply permits the unions to bargain outside the framework of the citywide agreement," Mr. Ungar said. "We can focus specifically on the types of issues that affect these members: 24-hour shifts, working weekends and holidays, emergency responses and terror attacks. These are unique challenges for uniformed personnel."

Local Laws 18 and 19 would allow the EMS and dispatcher unions to bargain following the uniformed pattern established by cops and firefighters.

Bargaining Advantages

Those workers traditionally garner slightly larger wage increases, greater shift flexibility, overtime and differential pay, as well as a different pension structure than the city's non-uniformed employees, who follow a Monday through Friday nine-to-five schedule. But even uniformed unions have been held to strict bargaining patterns under the Bloomberg administration, which has forced givebacks in the form of slashed starting pay and delayed wage increases to fund raises above those awarded in the citywide agreement.

Thomas Eppinger, president of DC 37 Local 3621, which represents EMS Officers, said he hoped the ruling survives further appeal.

"This just proves we should stand shoulder to shoulder with other first-responders," he commented. "We've bargained as uniformed unions since the laws were passed, and we should continue to bargain that way."

Home-Rule Issue

Appellate Division Judges John T. Buckley and Milton L. Williams dissented from the majority ruling. In their opinion, written by Judge Buckley, they agreed with the panel's decision that nothing in the Taylor Law prohibited the Council from adopting provisions and procedures for collective negotiations.

The City Council was empowered to enact Local Laws 18 and 19, the judges concluded. They differed from their colleagues, however, over whether either a voter referendum or state legislation was required on the matter in light of a mandatory provision in the City Charter and Home Rule Law 23.

"The Local Laws would require the Mayor to negotiate directly with the EMTs and FADs on such issues as pensions, overtime, and time and leave rules, and deprive him of his former power under the Collective Bargaining Law to bind those two employee groups to the terms of a citywide agreement or negotiate with them whether they might obtain a variation of the citywide agreement," they wrote.

'Charter' Violation

That "alteration" curtailed the Mayor's power, the judges declared, and violated Section 35 of the City Charter, which prohibits the City Council "from taking away, by means of a 'local law,' any power of an elective official without a referendum, unless provided for by state statute."

Justices Eugene Nardelli and Luis A. Gonzalez rejected that interpretation, however, and joined Justice McGuire in upholding Justice Ling-Cohan's ruling.