BCB Concludes EMS’s Posting of Response To Union No Violation

JOHN PERUGGIA: Rule he didn’t cross the line. Emergency Medical Service chief officer John Peruggia’s decision to publicize a letter to a union president did not violate civil service law or undermine the union, the Board of Collective Bargaining has determined.

In March, Patrick J. Bahnken, who as president of Local 2507 of District Council 37 represents Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics, sent a letter to members stating that Fire Department officers were violating a recent agreement on alternative work schedules while the union was busy lobbying Albany for funding streams for the agency.

Warns Against ‘Job Action’

Chief Peruggia fired back in a letter that was sent throughout the EMS system and publicly posted in agency stations. In it, he stated that EMS officials had also helped to bring in more funding and that Mr. Bahnken’s allegations about violations of the shift schedule were false. He concluded by saying, “I remind you that actions invoked by members that may adversely affect normal EMS Operations may be construed as a ‘job action’ which could have ramifications.”

He continued, “Both the local and the leadership of the EMS Command have always enjoyed a positive and healthy working relationship and yet despite our differences at times, have always been able to achieve an amicable solution that best serves the department, the union and its membership, but more importantly, the men and women of the City of New York who count on us being at our best when they need us the most.”

Local 2507 argued before the BCB that posting the letter publicly was meant to “belittle, intimidate, harass and undermine the [union] leadership” while directly threatening the members. The board noted, “The union argues that Chief Peruggia’s letter contained bargaining demands and positions regarding the alternative work schedule. Thus, [according to Local 2507] by issuing the letter, the FDNY dealt directly with bargaining unit members as the letter set forth bargaining positions and demands and also contained threats of reprisal, thereby violating its obligation to bargain in good faith on mandatory subjects of bargaining pursuant to [Civil Service Law].”

City: Just a Clarification

The city argued, “The letter from Chief Peruggia was a permissible management action; it was ‘a reasonable clarification’ in response to the union’s memos, and it did not contain threats of reprisal and did not subvert rights to representation.”

The board found that the letter did not constitute a violation of the union’s rights.

“We have considered Chief Peruggia’s authoring of the letter in question, and we find that it in no way may be construed as interference and domination of the union,” the board’s decision stated.