 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
|
Rule FDNY Can’t Compel EMS Staff to Wear Boots
Called Injury Hazards
Patrick J. Bahnken, who as president of District Council 37 Local 2507 represents Paramedics and Emergency Medical Technicians, said that the new boots made by Pro-Warrington issued with the Personnel Protective Equipment more than a year ago had caused numerous foot injuries, stress fractures and back pain for members. Last year, EMT Peter Capetanos was assigned to light duty after complaining that he had an allergic reaction to the boots’ interior lining. Boots Hinder Driving Mr. Bahnken maintained that while the boots were made for hazardous rescue operations, the footwear— a pound heavier and wider than the old gear issued to EMS members— was impractical for day-to-day operations, claiming that the boots were so cumbersome that some members have fallen down stairs. Members who drive ambulances, he said, have reported the boot “gets stuck between the brake and accelerator. It’s like wearing a piece of wood.” Arbitrator Gayle Gavin said in the Sept. 2 decision that the department’s order went outside the bounds of the collective-bargaining agreement and that such a major equipment change had to be agreed upon with the unions. “This wasn’t a change in vendor or color,” she wrote. “This was new equipment being introduced to EMS personnel, new equipment with [a] very specific purpose in mind. Parenthetically, it seems obvious, based on the record including various orders, e- mails, etc., that at some point the department felt it could ‘kill two birds with one stone,’ if you will. It could make the PPE boot the new EMS boot or shoe. Financially, it might make sense. However, while laudable in terms or purpose, it was impermissible in terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.” Objectors Denied Overtime DC 37 Local 3621 President Vincent Variale, who represents EMS officers, noted that even if members were not disciplined for refusing to wear the new boots, some were reassigned to administrative duties if they complained, which posed a financial burden because members could not earn overtime pay. “There are members, including officers, that were restricted from duty and [EMS was] taking overtime pay from them, their differential pay from them, which is a big hit,” he said. “You’re talking 10, 20 percent of their pay coming off of them, so it’s like being disciplined for not wearing a boot that’s causing pain and harm to their foot.” Mr. Bahnken added, “That’s why these people have said, ‘I haven’t reported it to the department because they’ll crucify me’: the threat of discipline or financial harm.” Claiming that more than 200 members had complained to the union about the boots in the past year, Mr. Bahnken challenged the notion that the new boots saved the department money if members were getting injured as a result. Cites Comp, OT Costs “You lose money in the form of lineof duty [injury pay] and the back-filling of overtime,” he said. FDNY spokesman Steve Ritea said while the majority of EMS members did not complain about the boot, the department was planning to meet with the two unions about implementing the terms of the arbitrator’s decision. “Throughout this entire process our main concern has been the safety and protection of our members,” he said. “We went through an extensive process that went through two years to make sure every member had the opportunity to be fitted, refitted and even have custom boots made before use of these new boots was ever mandated by EMS Command.” Ms. Gavin ordered that old EMS boots be reissued and that the department “rescind and expunge from all records and all disciplinary actions taken against any EMS member” regarding resistance against wearing the PPE boots. Mr. Bahnken noted that a state Department of Labor investigation into injuries associated with the department footwear was ongoing. “It’s a huge victory,” he said. |
      |
||||
