Implementation Plan for Collective Bargaining in the ...

Collective Bargaining for the City of Scottsdale Fire Department 1

DEVELOPING AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT

Planning for the Implementation of Collective Bargaining in the City of Scottsdale Fire

Department

Garret M. Olson

City of Scottsdale Arizona Fire Department


Certification Statement

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of

others is set forth, quotation marks indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have

used language, ideas, expressions or writings of others.

Signed: _____________________________________________


ABSTRACT

If enacted into law, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009 mandates

significant changes in labor-management relations for the City of Scottsdale Fire Department.

The problem addressed was the organization does not have a plan to effectively respond to

pending federal legislation regarding collective bargaining for public safety officers. The

purpose of this action research was to develop a plan for implementing collective bargaining for

fire department employees identified in the current legislative bills. Utilizing action research, the

following research questions were answered:

1. What are the key components of the proposed legislation?

2. What City and/or Department policies are influenced by the pending legislation?

3. What are the characteristics of successful formalized labor-management

relationships?

Research established the gap between the proposed federal legislation and City of

Scottsdale Code as well as best practices in labor-management relations. A convenience survey

of 154 fire service labor and management professionals identified successes and failures of

various labor-management arrangements. In analyzing the pending legislation, current local

codes, and best practices in labor relations, the research supported a proactive approach to

collective bargaining, policy decisions made at the city council level, and utilization of a labor-

relations specialist. Furthermore the research supported a concerted effort to bring together a

team of management and labor representatives willing to work in a respectful, trusting

environment, establish common goals and definitions, and disseminate meaningful information.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................5

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................7

LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................14

PROCEDURES..............................................................................................................................28

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................36

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................52

RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................59

References ......................................................................................................................................63

Appendix A Online Fire Service Labor-Management Survey .....................................................65

Appendix B Online Fire Service Labor-Management Survey Results .........................................68

Appendix C Implementation Plan Recommendations to Fire Chief McDonald ..........................82


INTRODUCTION

The City of Scottsdale is situated on the western boarder of the City of Phoenix in

Arizona’s “Valley of the Sun.” The City of Tempe is located to the south of Scottsdale, and the

Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community dominates Scottsdale’s southeastern boarder.

Scottsdale’s remaining boarder governments include several unincorporated towns and Arizona

State land.

Since July 1, 2005, the Scottsdale Fire Department has been responsible for fire and

emergency medical services. Prior to the inauguration of the Scottsdale Fire Department, these

emergency services were provided through a contract with the Rural Metro Corporation (Rural

Metro). In 2003, Rural Metro announced it would not seek a contract renewal beyond 2005, thus

ending 54 years of service in Scottsdale. With approximately two years to develop a municipal

fire department, Scottsdale attracted a diverse group of Chief Officers to do everything from

hiring over 200 sworn firefighters and officers to purchasing all new equipment for thirteen fire

stations. The vast majority of the new fire department’s emergency response personnel provide

fire and emergency medical services in the City of Scottsdale as employees of Rural Metro. At

midnight on July 1, 2005, the responsibility for fire and emergency medical services transitioned

from a private provider to the municipal government. Prior to this transition, firefighters serving

the City of Scottsdale enjoyed collective bargaining rights with their employer, Rural/Metro.

With an operating budget of $27,427,862, the Scottsdale Fire Department provides a

broad spectrum of emergency and non-emergency services to the community. The Fire

Operations division oversees all emergency response activities. The city is divided into two

geographic regions, which are managed by two field response battalion chiefs. The department

operates twelve full-time engine companies and four full-time ladder companies from its


fourteen fire stations. All front-line response engines and ladders are equipped and staffed for

advanced life support service delivery. A staffed specialty apparatus provides aircraft rescue

capabilities at Scottsdale’s regional airport. Hazardous materials and technical rescue teams

operate from two fire stations located in the central corridor of Scottsdale.

The Scottsdale Fire Department’s Fire and Life Safety division is active in plans reviews,

construction inspections, and post-construction code compliance for target hazard occupancies.

Public education personnel in the Scottsdale Fire Department deliver community risk reduction

curriculum focused on children and seniors. Emergency Management, a division within the fire

department, assists all Scottsdale departments with developing individual yet coordinated

emergency operating guidelines. Additionally, Emergency Management is the focal point for

planning of and responding to major city events and incidents.

The State of Arizona is a right-to-work state in accordance with the Taft-Hartley Act of

1947 amendment to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. As a right-to-work state,

Arizona State Law prohibits agreements between employers and trade unions making labor

union membership a condition for employment at any time (Arizona State Legislature, 2009).

The City of Scottsdale, a conservative community in central Arizona, does not formally

recognize labor unions. The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) United Maricopa

County Firefighters’ Association Local 3878 (Local 3878) provides voluntary membership

opportunity to Scottsdale firefighters. The Scottsdale Fire Department informally works with

Local 3878 as a means of enhancing employee involvement in internal processes such as fire

station assignments and development of department guidelines; however, formal recognition of

Local 3878 is not established.


Two bills are under consideration in United States Congress that would significantly

change labor-management relations in the City of Scottsdale. These bills are House of

Representative Bill HR413 and Senate Bill S1611. If passed into law as written, these bills

would mandate the implementation of collective bargaining rights for public safety personnel,

including firefighters in right-to-work states like Arizona.

The problem in the City of Scottsdale is the organization does not have a plan to

effectively respond to pending federal legislation regarding collective bargaining. The purpose of

this research is to develop a plan for implementing collective bargaining for fire department

employees identified in the current legislative bills.

Action research will be employed to develop a plan for implementing collective

bargaining for the City of Scottsdale Fire Department. This plan will be based on City code and

policy changes necessary for compliance and the characteristics of successful labor-management

relations in current fire service organizations. The following questions will be answered:

4. What are the key components of the proposed legislation?

5. What City and/or Department policies are influenced by the pending legislation?

6. What are the characteristics of successful formalized labor-management

relationships?

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

On July 1, 2005, Rural/Metro’s contract to provide fire and emergency medical services

in the City of Scottsdale ended, and the City of Scottsdale assumed direct responsibility for the

provision of these services. In forming its new municipal fire department, the City of Scottsdale

sought the opportunity to hire Rural/Metro firefighters with experience in serving the City. The

first phase of hiring for suppression personnel for the new Scottsdale Fire Department was a non-


competitive process whereby Rural/Metro employees were eligible to interview for their parallel

rank assignment in the Scottsdale Fire Department. Of the 211 sworn position openings in the

new Scottsdale Fire Department, former Rural/Metro personnel filled 184.

Currently, 84.8% firefighters in the Scottsdale Fire Department worked under collective

bargaining rules while providing fire and emergency medical services under the Rural/Metro

contract prior to July 1, 2005. Of the other 229 sworn personnel who joined the Scottsdale Fire

Department on or since July 1, 2005, four have work experience in other fire departments that

operated under collective bargaining rules. The vast majority of Scottsdale firefighters are

familiar with the collective bargaining process; however, none of the City’s other departments,

such as the Scottsdale Police Department or Scottsdale Human Resources, have ever operated

under collective bargaining. Employees in only one other department, the City of Scottsdale

Police Department, formed a labor union. Notably, the Police Department has two labor unions;

the City and the police department formally recognize neither police union.

As established by Arizona Revised Statute Title 23 Chapter 8 Article 1, the State of

Arizona is a right-to-work state. The statute states:

No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment because

of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the state or any subdivision

thereof, or any corporation, individual, or association of any kind enter into an

agreement, written or oral, which excludes a person from employment or

continuation of employment because of non-membership in a labor organization

(2009).

Under the auspices of right-to-work state legislation, the City of Scottsdale does not

formally recognize labor unions. Many Scottsdale firefighters, fire engineers, and fire captains,


(henceforth referred to as firefighters) maintain membership in IAFF Local 3878, which received

its charter in 1998. At that time, Rural/Metro provided all fire and emergency medical services

to the City of Scottsdale under a contract. In 2000, IAFF Local 3878 successfully negotiated

formal recognition by Rural/Metro. From that time until July 1, 2005, IAFF Local 3878 and

Rural/Metro operated under collective bargaining rules. The formation of a municipal fire

department ended collective bargaining rights for firefighters serving the City of Scottsdale.

On January 9, 2009, Michigan Democratic Congressman Dale Kildee of Michigan’s 5th

Congressional District introduced House Bill 413: Public Safety Employer-Employee

Cooperation Act of 2009. On August 9, 2009, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg

introduced Senate Bill 1611: Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009.

These two bills are very similar in scope and call for “collective bargaining rights for public

safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions” (H.R. 413, 2009). Specifically,

the bills “encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and maintain

agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all reasonable

efforts through negotiations to settle their differences” (2009).

Scottsdale Fire management meets regularly, albeit informally, with members of IAFF

Local 3878’s executive board. Employee pay has yet to be a specific agenda item in these

meetings although peripheral topics relating to compensation are discussed. Determining

firefighter base pay is not within the scope of the Scottsdale Fire management team. Rather, pay

studies and recommendations are the responsibility of City Human Resources. Employee hours

have been discussed, and a labor-management team is currently evaluating shift options. As with

all labor-management initiatives or discussions, the Fire Chief may override any

recommendation. Working conditions for Scottsdale firefighters are, with few exceptions,


generally good. Labor-management discussions on working conditions typically focus on long-

range goals such as improving fire station facilities. Again, the Fire Chief has the authority to

override recommendations on working conditions from labor-management teams.

Current labor-management topics in the Scottsdale Fire Department process through two

primary paths: the correlating committee and labor-management teams. The correlating

committee consists of executive members of both labor and management. Representing

management are the Fire Chief, both Assistant Fire Chiefs, the Deputy Fire Chiefs of Operations

and Resource Management, and the Senior Management Analyst. Representing labor are the

union president and three members of his executive board. Correlating committee members

meet monthly to discuss current topics including budget status updates, legislative issues, and

employee issues that have not been resolved at a lower level. The correlating committee does

not vote on items, rather it serves in an informal advisory capacity to the Fire Chief.

The second method for processing labor-management issues is through labor-

management teams. The fire department organizes labor-management teams around major

issues of employee concern. All teams follow the same organizational structure. The Team

Sponsor is a member of the fire department’s senior staff. The Team Sponsor provides policy

direction when necessary and assists with keeping the team operating within its scope. Two

Team Co-chairs take primary responsibility for establishing meeting agendas and coordinating

work efforts. One co-chair represents labor while the other represents management. The labor

co-chair is selected by IAFF Local 3878’s executive board and holds the rank of firefighter, fire

engineer, or fire captain. Most management co-chairs hold the rank of battalion chief and

volunteer for their co-chair assignment. The other members of these teams are fire department

members who volunteer for team involvement based on interest and/or expertise. Off-duty


participation in department teams is voluntary and uncompensated. The ability to participate on

duty is heavily influenced by daily staffing levels and crew configuration. Attendance at labor-

management team meetings is typically lackluster. The fire department currently maintains

eleven active labor-management teams to increase collaboration on the following programs:

training, emergency medical services, staffing and deployment, aircraft rescue firefighting,

hazardous materials response, technical rescue response, safety, internal policy review and

recommendations, wellness, apparatus, and facilities.

Lacking a researched implementation plan for adopting collective bargaining as the

Scottsdale Fire Department’s labor-management process, the probable future of labor-

management relations is uncertain. Pending federal legislation is sufficiently vague to allow for

variation in interpreting the nature of labor-management cooperation under collective bargaining.

For example, much of the primary language in both the House of Representative Bill and the

Senate Bill use non-specific terms and phrases such as, “the Federal Government needs to

encourage conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration” (2009). Use of the phrase “needs

to encourage” rather than “mandates” or “directs” allows for much interpretation. Without a

plan for implementing collective bargaining in the City of Scottsdale, these interpretations may

be inconsistent among key players and thus lead to conflict.

Developing a plan for the implementation of collective bargaining is significant to the

author of this research study for several reasons. First, the author is the Deputy Fire Chief of

Operations. All field responders ultimately report to this position, and the focus of both pending

bills before Congress is for collective bargaining rights of these employees. Implementing

collective bargaining would have a significant impact on the Deputy Chief of Operation’s

leadership and management of field responders through the adoption of a contract that has the


potential to limit the author’s authority. Second, the author is a member of the labor-

management correlating committee. Implementing collective bargaining would dramatically

change the formality, scope, membership, and authority of this labor-management process.

Third, since pending legislation mandates negotiated pay, the fire department budget could be

significantly impacted by collective bargaining. The Operations division budget accounts for

74.3% of the fire department’s total budget. Finally, the author is extremely interested in

proactively negotiating change and developing processes that enhance employee morale.

Planning early for such a sweeping potential change in business practices may decrease

uncertainty and conflict while providing a smooth path to common understanding and efforts.

The National Fire Academy course “Executive Leadership” addresses topics germane to

this research. Unit three, “Developing Self as a Leader,” presents characteristics of successful

executive leaders. Listed first among those characteristics is vision, which is more clearly placed

in context as “the ability to create and articulate a vision that empowers others to transform

vision into action” (National Fire Academy, 2005, p. SM 3-3). Forecasting industry trends and

preparing contingency plans develops organizational vision and creates opportunity for

transformative action.

Unit three lists fatal flaws of unsuccessful leaders as well. Among these flaws is the

inability to think strategically. A primary goal of this research effort is the development of a

strategic plan for implementing collective bargaining for the City of Scottsdale Fire Department.

Finally, unit three discusses characteristics of transformational visionary leadership. Such

leaders consider “how a specific plan of action might be extended to benefit others… clear and

short-term goals… [and] long-range plans and goals” (p. SM 3-12). The collective bargaining

implementation plan will address both long and short-term goals. Additionally, the plan will


reflect best practices identified by existing fire service organizations currently operating under

formalized labor-management relationships, such as collective bargaining. This component of

the plan extends its scope beyond a mechanical implementation plan into a quality plan seeking

to maximize value to all parties.

Unit four discusses the development of decision-making skills in the executive leader. A

diagnostic tool for executive leadership decision-making directs leaders to consider if they have

“sufficient information to make a quality decision” and whether “the leader makes the decision

alone, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted” (p. SM 4-3). These two questions

combine to heavily influence the scope of involvement considered for this research project. The

perspectives of senior executives in the City of Scottsdale’s municipal government as well as in

Local 3878 are included in the development of an implementation plan that seeks broad

acceptance.

“Executive Leadership” explores transitions in leadership in unit six. A transition in

leadership occurs when “moving from one stage or event (or nonevent) to another with varying

degrees of instability in the adaptive process, and altering our roles, relationships, routines, and

assumptions” (p. SM 6-4). For the Scottsdale Fire Department and all its members, the

movement from an informal relationship with the labor union to formal relationship presents a

significant transition. The labor union will have a formal role in defined decision-making

processes and negotiation situations not currently existing. This will create new routines and

potentially redefine current relationships. An entirely new set of assumptions will be

established. This transition is categorized as an organizational, anticipated change (p. SM 6-5).

Unit six also introduces William Bridges’ philosophy on managing transitions. Bridges

presents a checklist for managing the turbulence of the neutral zone of transition. One of


Bridges’ suggestions for managing the neutral zone is developing new procedures to more

smoothly move the organization through the neutral zone. Implementation of collective

bargaining may bring about the organizational uncertainty Bridges proposes. An implementation

plan provides the procedures necessary to assist the organization through the neutral zone with

greater stability.

The United State Fire Association (USFA) maintains five broad goals and objectives for

fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Two of these goals are particularly germane to this research

effort. Goal four is to “improve the fire and emergency services’ professional status” with an

objective of enhancing the professionalism of fire and emergency service leaders (USFA, 2009,

p. 10). This research effort will put Scottsdale Fire Department leaders, both management and

labor, in a position to prepare for and enact federal legislation while taking advantage of best

practices from throughout the nation, thus seeking to maintain professionalism during a period of

significant change. USFA goal five seeks to “lead the Nation’s fire and emergency services by

establishing and sustaining USFA as a dynamic organization” and specifically to “maintain a

positive work environment to ensure the organization’s well-being and productivity” (p. 12).

Additionally, goal five aspires to “continuously improve our business systems and processes” (p.

12). This research effort intends to provide the greatest possible opportunity for improved

business processes while simultaneously maintaining a positive work environment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research Question One: Key components of the proposed legislation

With very few and minor exceptions, the language of House of Representatives Bill 413

(H.R. 413) mirrors the language and intent of Senate Bill 1611 (S. 1611), which was introduced

approximately eight months later. Both bills, entitled the “Public Safety Employer-Employee


Cooperation Act of 2009,” have at their core the provision of “collective bargaining rights for

public safety officers by States or their political subdivision” (H.R. 413, 2009).

The Senate and House of Representatives bills agree on the purpose of the Public Safety

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. With regard to purpose, both bills reference five major

areas of focus. First, the bills site formalized labor-management relationships as a key to

ensuring the “institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go” (H.R. 413, p.

2, 2009). Second, the bills establish employer-employee cooperation in public safety as essential

to the National interest. Third, the bills identify the process of collective bargaining as the

process that ensures the health and safety of public safety entities, which are vital to the National

interest. Fourth, the bills both focus on collective bargaining specific to “agreements concerning

rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts through

negotiations to settle their differences” (p. 3). Finally, both bills identify the absence of

employer-employee cooperation in public safety agencies as a potential impact to the “health and

well-being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire and police departments, and can

affect interstate and intrastate commerce” (p. 3).

H.R. 413 and S. 1611 agree on the definitions which put context to the respective bills.

With regard to the term “public safety officer,” both bills define an employee in this class as a

police or fire first responder who may have temporary supervisory or management

responsibilities but who “does not include a permanent supervisory or management employee”

(p. 4). Both bills define the term supervisory employee with similar verbiage. Both maintain

that an employee in this class “devotes a preponderance of employment time exercising” (p. 5)

the authority to “hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough, lay off, recall, suspend,

discipline, or remove public safety officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively


recommend such action” (p. 5). The bills differentiate a supervisory employee from a

management employee by illustrating the authority the latter class has in formulating,

determining, or influencing the policies of the employer (p. 5). Finally, both bills agree that the

term labor organization refers to “an organization composed in whole or part of employees, in

which employees participate, and the purpose of which is to represent such employees before

public safety agencies concerning grievances, conditions of employment, and related matters” (p.

6).

If enacted into law, H.R. 413 and S. 1611 will engage identical timelines and authorities.

Within 180 days of becoming a law, the bills establish the responsibility of the Federal Labor

Relations Authority (the “Authority”) to determine if a State provides employment rights and

responsibilities consistent with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. To

make this determination, the opinions and perspectives of labor organizations and employers will

be considered. States with a legal foundation that secures the minimum rights of the Public

Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act will be permitted to continue with their established

laws. States without this legal foundation will have until either two years after enactment or “the

date of the end of the first regular session of the legislature of that State that begins after the date

of enactment,” (p. 9) whichever is later. Furthermore, H.R. 413 and S. 1611 mandate that within

one year of enactment, “the Authority shall issue regulations establishing procedures which

provide the rights and responsibilities… for public safety employers and officers in States” (p.

10) which have been determined to be deficient in providing the rights and responsibilities under

law.

The five rights and responsibilities afforded under both bills are essentially identical.

First, public safety officers have the right to create and belong to a labor organization,


recognized by the employer as the “exclusive bargaining representative of such employees”

(p.8). The inclusion of management and supervisory employees is optional. Second, public

safety employers are required to bargain with the employee organization and capture agreements

in written form, either a contract or a memorandum of understanding (p. 8). Third, employers

are required to bargain with the labor organization “over hours, wages, and the terms and

conditions of employment” (p. 8). Fourth, a mechanism must be put in place to resolve

impasses. This may include mediation, arbitration, or other similar procedures. Fifth, the bills

require enforcement of all rights, responsibilities, protections, and written agreements through

State law (p. 8).

Both bills identify the Authority as the agencies responsible for evaluating and directing

compliance by States and their political subdivisions. In the capacity, the Authority has eight

main objectives. These objectives coalesce around the actions of evaluating the appropriateness

of labor representation, ensuring sound elections, conducting hearings, and ensuring various

employee rights (p. 10-11).

Under the proposed language for both bills, States may maintain their right-to-work

status. The bills are not intended to “prevent a State from enforcing State law which prohibits

employers and labor organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require

union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment” (p. 14). In other

words, the existence of collective bargaining does not mandate that all employees join the

bargaining unit or pay like fees in lieu of union membership.

The House of Representatives and Senate bills are not intended to replace current rights

and responsibilities afforded to employees. States whose laws afford equal or great rights and

responsibilities shall be permitted to keep such laws in effect (p. 14).


Both versions of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act maintain certain

specific prohibitions, not withstanding contrary specific State law. Within these prohibitions the

lone, albeit relatively minor, difference between the two bills exists. Both bills mandate that

employers “may not engage in a lockout of public safety officers,” employees “may not engage

in a strike against” the employer, and labor organizations “may not call for a strike” by

employees against the employer (p. 13). The Senate bill lists several other prohibitions including

sickouts, work slowdowns, “or any other organized job action that will measurably disrupt the

delivery of emergency services” (S. 1611, p. 15, 2009). Other than this one exception, both bills

maintain the same focus: guarantee the collective bargaining rights to non-supervisory, non-

management public safety employees for hours, wages, and working conditions, while

preserving the rights of States to provide guarantees that meet or exceed the minimum threshold.

Research Question Two: local policies influenced by the pending legislation

The City of Scottsdale is a conservative organization in a right-to-work State. As such,

none of the City’s Codes and regulations specifically addresses formal relationships with labor

organizations. Based on the scope of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act,

the local codes and regulations pertaining to employee work hours, wages, working conditions,

and dispute resolution are particularly relevant to this literature review. Employment rules and

responsibilities are codified in two primary locations: Scottsdale Revised Code (the Code)

Chapter 14 “Human Resource Management” (Chapter 14) and City of Scottsdale Administrative

Regulations. Administrative Regulations provide greater detail to the major topics defined in the

Code.

The last update to the Code occurred over 22 years ago. None of the City leaders listed

as “officials” on this version of the Code are currently with the organization. Revisions to the


Code require voter approval. Of the 27 chapters of the City Code, Chapter 14 is specific to

employment issues such as compensation, work hours and leave, and employee rights.

With regard to employee compensation, Article II of Chapter 14 identifies the human

resources director as the person responsible for establishing and maintaining the classification

plan. This classification plan sets the salary ranges for all job titles. The plan is adopted

annually. The city manager is responsible for establishing the guidelines for salary increases

based on the City’s performance management merit increase system. When this system is

funded, employees who are not at the top of their salary range are eligible for a salary increase of

up to five-percent based on performance until they reach the top of their range. The exact

amount awarded to an employee is not appealable (p. 2).

All City employees may be required to temporarily fulfill the responsibilities of a higher

classification, such as a firefighter fulfilling the role of an engineer. The human resources

director is responsible for determining if a change in responsibility is eligible for a salary

increase (p. 4).

Administrative Regulation 354: Overtime Management and Utilization provides greater

detail on overtime compensation. This regulation directs managers to control their department’s

utilization of overtime. Specifically, the regulation puts a cap on the number of overtime hours

an employee may work in a year. For fire department employees, this cap is 25%; therefore a

56-hour firefighter is forbidden from working greater than 728 hours of overtime per year (p. 2,

2001). This rule includes all causes for overtime including mandatory training, emergency

response staffing, late-incident holdover, and special event staffing.

Chapter 14 provides specific language for 56-hour fire department employees work

hours. Fire department emergency response personnel work a 56-hour workweek with overtime


eligibility calculated on a 27-day work period. Leave accrual and reserves for these employees

are decreased by a factor of 1.4 when transferring from a 56-hour workweek to a 40-hour

workweek. When transferring from a 40-hour workweek to a 56-hour workweek, leave accrual

and reserves are increased by this same factor (p. 3).

City Administrative Regulation 300: Alternative Work Schedules and Work Week also

provides details on the approval process for employee work hours. Written in 1994, the

regulation places the authority for approving alternative work hours with each employee’s

supervisor with concurrence required by the department’s general manager (p. 1).

Chapter 14, Administrative Regulation 344: Corrective and Disciplinary Actions, and

Administrative Regulation 345: Open Door Policy all provide detail pertaining to employee

rights for potential disciplinary matters. In addition to listing the 33 events that are grounds for

discipline, Chapter 14 addresses employee rights during and after a personnel investigation. In

accordance with Chapter 14, employees may be placed on unpaid leave during an investigation if

the department manager believes that the investigation may result in the employee’s termination

(p. 7). If a termination is recommended after a thorough investigation, the human resources

director conducts a pre-termination hearing. A labor organization representative is not listed as

one of the hearing attendees (p. 8).

The city council appoints members to the personnel board. The board reviews appeals

for terminations, demotions and suspensions by non-probationary, classified employees.

Unclassified employees may not appeal these actions to the personnel board (AR344, p. 3). As

defined by job class, firefighters and engineers are classified. Fire captains and all chief officers

are unclassified. When the personnel board hears an appeal from a non-probationary, classified

employee, the board’s findings are provided to the city manager. The city manager issues a final


ruling that may be contrary to the board’s recommendation. The city manager’s decision is final

and is not appealable through further city processes.

Classified and non-classified employees may exercise their rights under Administrative

Regulation 345: Open Door Policy. This policy states, “Each management employee has the

responsibility to hear complaints, problems, suggestions, or recommendations of any employee

and attempt to resolve or address them, or refer them to the appropriate management employee”

(p. 1, 1994). Employees seeking resolution may confer with any management employee in the

City, even those outside the employee’s home department. Employees may continue to exercise

this open door philosophy up to and including interaction with the city manager.

Chapter 14 provides details regarding an employee’s rights for grievances. Chapter 14

establishes grievance eligibility as “any alleged violation of a specific provision of this chapter…

are subject to review through the grievance procedure” (p. 9-10). Four matters are not eligible

for the grievance process: civil rights complaints, matters appealed to the personnel board,

matters appealed through the open door policy, and “a means of collectively bringing about

changes in wages, hours, or other conditions of employment” (p. 9).

Research Question Three: Characteristics of Successful Formalized Labor-Management

In the 2006 International Association of Fire Chiefs Chief Fire Officers’ Desk Reference,

Shreveport Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran asserts, “Adversarial relations between labor and

management do not benefit the community or members of fire departments” (p. 461). Cochran

identifies five essential commitments between members of management and labor that are the

keys to success. First, there must be a shared vision and mission. Second, the relationship must

exist within an environment of unity and harmony. Third, labor and management must engage in

joint initiatives that support the needs of all personnel and the goals of the department. Fourth,


the labor-management team must meet regularly and proactively. Finally, fifth, the labor-

management team must share problem solving and decision making responsibilities (p. 461).

President and chief executive officer of Scandinavian Airlines (SAS), Jan Carlson

orchestrated an amazing corporate turnaround in the mid-1980’s. In his 1987 book, Moments of

Truth, Carlson’s focuses primarily on delivering the kind of customer service that engenders

overwhelming customer satisfaction and loyalty. The airline industry is highly unionized, and

SAS is no exception. Carlson’s respect for and relationship with his labor unions is a key to

SAS’s success. Carlton defines the three roles he expects the unions to play: cooperator, internal

auditor, and work force negotiator (p. 101). Carlton works with union officials to set the vision

of the organization and then looks to the union and its membership to work collaboratively with

management to accomplish this shared, articulated vision. Carlton states, “For the vision to

become a reality, it must be their reality, too” (p. 105). Carlton confronts the traditional roles of

the labor union by expecting, rather than resisting, the unions role in confirming that

management is following proper personnel management rules and laws as the organization’s

internal human resource auditor. Additionally, Carlton accepts the fact that the union is expected

to negotiate on behalf of its members. Carlton contends:

The unions have helped shaped the company’s operations and investments; they can no

longer pursue an adversarial role that undermines the company’s overall strategy. To do

so would serve no purpose since they have been participating in the construction of the

company’s strategic foundation all along” (p. 101-102).

Jody Hoffer Gittell recounts a more recent account of labor-management success in the

highly unionized airline industry in her 2003 text The Southwest Airlines Way. Hoffer Gittell

dedicates an entire chapter to Southwest Airlines philosophy of viewing labor unions as partners


rather than adversaries. Colleen Barrett, President and Chief Operating Officer (COO) of

Southwest Airlines, says of her management team and philosophy, “We walk into the room not

as adversaries bust as working on something together. Out attitude is that we should both do

what’s good for the company…. [Unions] have their constituency, their customer base. We

respect that” (p. 165). Complimenting the management philosophy, the union’s parallel

philosophy is expressed by Southwest Airlines Union Activist Marcie Means, “I am not looking

to abuse the company or take advantage. I just want the right thing…. We don’t need to

strike…. We don’t need to fight. We belong to this company” (p. 165).

Trust and respect are paramount qualities of Southwest Airlines’ culture and are the keys

to successful union relations. Hoffer Gittell finds, “The respect that Southwest managers

demonstrate for employees and their elected representatives reinforced frontline employees’ trust

for the company and their identification with the company’s goals” (p. 170). Southwest Airlines

management seeks what is best for all their employees. Employees do not have to seek out union

representation to be treated respectfully, consistently, or generously. Perhaps the most striking

example of this philosophy is Southwest Airlines response during the one and only employee

strike in 1980. COO Barrett recalls management’s response: “We had one strike – a six-day

strike with the mechanics in 1980. We got them temporary jobs with the census during the

strike…. We are a loving but very realistic and very pragmatic” (p. 171). When their mechanics

went on strike, Southwest Airlines management helped them to find jobs to bridge the gap in

employment and income. The influence of this style of employee relations is summed up by

Donna Conover, executive vice-president of customers: “It is easier to walk out on people who

do not give you respect than to walk out on a friend” (p. 172).


Southwest Airlines seeks to establish unquestioned credibility at the negotiations table.

Understanding the personal financial interests of employees and the connection between

employee satisfaction and corporate success, Southwest Airlines begins contract negotiations by

putting their best offer on the table. Said Southwest Airlines general counsel Jim Parker, “I go to

Herb [now chairman of the board] before the union negotiations, then I put as much money on

the table as I can, right at the start” (p. 171).

James Kouzes and Barry Posner’s 1993 book, Credibility, discusses the fragility and

importance of credibility in leadership. Kouzes and Posner present four reflective questions

leadership should ask themselves about their credibility: “Is my behavior predictable or erratic?

Do I communicate clearly or carelessly? Do I treat promises seriously or lightly? Am I forthright

or dishonest?” (p. 109). The four core skills Kouzes and Posner drive leaders to evaluate is their

communication skills, their decision making and philosophical consistency, their reliability, and

their trustworthiness. According to Kouzes and Posner, leaders must earn the willingness of

their followers to follow by embodying these core skills.

According to Steven Edwards from his perspective on fire service unionization in the

Fire Service Personnel Management (2005), there are six primary reasons why employees seek

to unionize. First, employees seek recognition and appreciation for their work. Second,

employees seek some degree of control and empowerment in their work environment. Third,

unionization appears to afford employees with increased job security. Fourth, employees desire

representation in their individual and collective interaction with managers. Fifth, unions may

provide a degree of fairness in the workplace, thus decreasing double standards and management

inconsistencies. Finally, employees long for respect and the opportunity to negotiate with

management as equals on a level playing field (p. 213).


Former Mesa, Arizona, Fire Chief Dennis Compton discusses the topic of labor-

management collaboration in his 1999 text, When in doubt, lead! Compton asserts that a healthy

relationship is the most important component of the labor-management process. Paramount to

this relationship is trust in the labor-management process and in the participants (p. 6).

In his 2002 text, It’s Your Ship, Captain D. Michael Abrashoff, United States Navy,

discusses the importance of unity in organizations as a means of engaging the labor force in

accomplishing the activities that support the company’s strategic foundation to which Carlton

refers. Abrashoff identifies, “the task of the leader is to assemble the best team possible, train it,

then figure out the best way to get the members to work together for the good of the

organization” (p. 168). Recognizing that his team of sailors to be a diverse group, Abrashoff

sought the kind of unity that allowed for uniqueness. For Abrashoff, “unity is about maximizing

uniqueness and channeling that toward the common goals of the group” (p. 171).

Jim Collins addresses the issue of building a solid team as a means toward unity and

performance in his 2005 text, Good to Great and the Social Sectors. Collins maintains “getting

the right people on the bus” (p. 13) is more important than determining your ultimate destination.

Without the right people on your team, organizations are less likely to successfully implement

change on the path to a meaningful goal. Collins further defines what to look for in getting the

right people on the bus. Organizations should be:

Focused on getting and hanging on to the right people in the first place – those who are

productively neurotic, those who are self-motivated and self-disciplined, those who wake

up every day, compulsively driven to do the best they can because it is simply part of

their DNA (p. 15).


In Leadership Without Easy Answers, Ronald Heifetz (1994) discusses channeling an

organization through change. Heifetz identifies this effort as adaptive work, and he finds that

“adaptive work involves not only assessment of reality but also a clarification of values” (p. 31).

Heifetz maintains that organizations cannot afford to disagree on values. “With different

values,” Heifetz states, “we screen reality for different information and put the facts together into

a different picture” (p. 31). With shared values, organizations become a community in which,

“various persons or groups coordinate their efforts and take on specialized roles and functions”

(p. 70) to accomplish shared objectives.

In a December 8, 2009, webinar entitled “Today’s Difficult Times Call for Real

Collaboration,” the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) in analyzing the current

political and economic landscape maintain that healthy labor-management relations have never

been more important. Establishing healthy relations is a key strategy to the kind of adaptive

work necessary to survive current labor market realities such as furloughs, lay offs, and budget

shortfalls (2009). Tangibles in good labor-management relations include: “better

communication, better understanding of issues, collaborative relationships, joint planning, joint

problem solving, job security, and better service to citizens and community” (2009). IAFC

advocates the philosophy that “It is more productive for you to change than to have change

forced on you” (2009). Processes identified to enhance labor-management relations include joint

labor management committees, training for supervisors and union stewards, problem solving

using interest-based techniques, and removing traditional barriers (2009).

A January 15, 2008 editorial in The Boston Globe illustrates that collective bargaining, in

and of itself, it not the answer to enhanced employee or employer satisfaction or cooperation.

The article points to the riff between labor and management as the cause of significant cost


overruns and the loss of “public confidence in the integrity of the department” (Fotinos, p. A10).

Key aspects of this Boston experience include the failure of both sides to meet with each other

on pertinent issues and the absence of shared values and goals. The dismal state of affairs in this

collective bargaining relationship is captured in the articles opening statement: “Taxpayer money

is pouring out of the Boston Fire Department as if from the powerful high-pressure hose that

firefighters call the ‘blitz line’” (p. A10).

In The Transformation of American Industrial Relations (1986), Thomas Kochran, Harry

Katz, and Robert McKersie identify the quality of labor-management relationship to be more

significant to organizational performance than is the structure of the labor-management

arrangement. In poor labor-management relationships, Kochran, Katz, and McKersie find a

marked decrease in quality, efficiency, and financial performance (p. 23). Conversely, healthy

labor-management relationships afford the best opportunity for organizational success.

Summary

The literature review influenced key aspects of this applied research. First, the scope of

the two bills under consideration influenced which City of Scottsdale codes and regulations

would be reviewed. Since the focus of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act

is collective bargaining for hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment, only those

City Codes and regulations pertinent to these rights were reviewed. Second, the scope of the

pending legislation influenced the key stakeholders interviewed for this research effort. Finally,

the characteristics of successful employer-employee relations influenced the inclusion of an

online convenience survey and the qualitative feedback sought in the survey. Specifically, the

literature review illustrated that collective bargaining alone does not meet the intent of the Public

Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act to maintain positive morale in a safe, healthy


organization. The online survey seeks to identify industry best standards in formal labor-

management relations that could be incorporated in the Scottsdale implementation plan.

PROCEDURES

The purpose of the applied research project is to develop an implementation plan for

collective bargaining in the Scottsdale Fire Department. A literature review focused on key legal

aspects, City policy, and major topics related to successful practices in labor-management

relations. The literature review identified several key labor-management relationship issues that

influenced the development of the online labor-management survey. The online labor-

management survey qualified labor-management practices in existing fire service organizations.

Finally, communications with several key stakeholders connected the proposed Federal

legislation with City policy as well as individual interpretations and expectations.

Literature Review

The literature first focused on three primary areas: pending Federal legislation, current

City of Scottsdale code and regulations, and characteristics of successful formalized labor-

management relations. House Bill 413 and Senate Bill 1611, both titled the “Public Safety

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009,” mandate implementation of collective

bargaining rights for public safety personnel, including firefighters. A review of House Bill 413

and Senate Bill 1611 produced a mix of Federal Government mandates and recommendations.

The next step in the literature review focused on City of Scottsdale Codes and regulations. This

facilitated a gap analysis between the actions required under the Federal proposal and current

City administrative practices. These gaps provided much of the material discussed in

communications with key Scottsdale stakeholders.


The final step of the literature review focused on qualitative characteristics of labor-

management relations. This review identified best practices in formalized labor-management

relations as a roadmap for developing a healthy labor-management relationship in the City of

Scottsdale as the organization moved forward with implementing collective bargaining.

Fire Service Labor-Management Survey

A convenience survey of fire service labor and management personnel provided data on

successful and unsuccessful characteristics of labor-management relations. A web-based survey

tool was developed utilizing an online survey website, Survey Monkey. This online survey tool

provided a consistent platform for posing questions to participants, sorting responses, and

grouping trends. John Whitney, the vice president of IIAFF Local 3878, reviewed the language

of the survey to help ensure no pre-context existed that would slant the responses from survey

participants with a labor background. The author reviewed the language of the survey to help

ensure no pre-context would exist for management participants.

To solicit participation in the convenience survey, an email request was sent to

management personnel to solicit their participation in the survey. The email, with an embedded

hyperlink to the online survey, was sent to over 500 current and past participants in the

Executive Fire Officer Program. An electronic delivery confirmation tool indicated the email

successfully reached over 450 recipients.

A second email request was sent to the 16 IAFF District Vice Presidents to solicit their

assistant in obtaining participation from labor officials at the Local level. The IAFF contacted

IAFF Local 3878 President Steve Springborn to confirm Local 3878’s knowledge and support of

the survey effort. President Springborn advocated for IAFF participation.


The online survey was published on December 8, 2009. For four weeks, labor and

management personnel could access the survey to enter their responses. On January 9, 2010, the

survey was closed for further entry. The data was downloaded into a spreadsheet for analysis.

There were 154 responses captured in the survey.

The survey presents several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the survey

relied on a participant’s access to and competence with a computer connected to the Internet. It

is possible that the trends found were skewed based on the lack of participation by individuals

and/or organizations who lack computer access or whose Internet settings do not allow access to

web sites not specifically sanctioned by their employer, such as Survey Monkey. Second, since

Management participation in the online survey was tied to an organization’s involvement in the

Executive Fire Officer Program, it is possible that the data was skewed since the sample

population only included organizations with current or past Executive Fire Officer candidates.

Third, since a representative of “management” developed the survey, it is possible that this alone

applied pre-context to how survey participants structured their responses. Fourth, it is possible

that the perspective of the individual completing the survey for his/her organization did not

accurately represent the perspective of the entire organization with regard to the organization’s

labor-management relationship. Fifth, it is possible that some of the16 IAFF District Vice

Presidents contacted did not forward the survey to their representative union locals. Finally,

since this convenience survey was not sent to all fire service organizations, it is possible that the

results are inconsistent with the total population of fire departments with a formalized labor-

management system.

The online survey contains nine questions. The first four questions are designed to elicit

data about the respondent’s organization that would permit a like-for-like comparison to the


Scottsdale Fire Department in terms of organization size, career-volunteer configuration, and

legislated labor-management configuration. Question five identifies the respondent’s affiliation

to labor and management. Question six establishes the labor-management process utilized by the

respondent’s employer.

Question seven asks respondents to rate ten aspects of their labor-management process.

IAFF Local 3878 Vice President Whitney reviewed these aspects to ensure labor and

management’s interests were included, and further that the language didn’t apply a pre-context

that would skew responses. Respondents rate each labor-management aspect as either

“excellent,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor.”

Questions eight and nine require a narrative response. Question eight inquires about the

most significant key to success in the respondent’s labor-management relationship. Question

nine inquires about the most significant detriment to the respondent’s labor-management process.

Utilizing tools within the Survey Monkey website, the author was able to format questions seven,

eight, and nine as mandatory responses. A respondent could not close out the survey and submit

his/her results without answering each of these questions.

Interviews

Personnel communications were conducted with four key stakeholders for

implementation of collective bargaining in the City of Scottsdale: City of Scottsdale Human

Resources General Manager La Verne Parker Diggs, City of Scottsdale City Attorney Jay

Osborn, Scottsdale Fire Department Fire Chief William L. McDonald, and IAFF Local President

Steve Springborn.


Human Resources Director La Verne Parker Diggs

La Verne Parker Diggs is the General Manager of Human Resources for the City of

Scottsdale. The General Manager of Human Resources is responsible for overseeing all aspects

of recruitment, compensation, benefits, human resource management, diversity, and citywide

human resource management training and development. Parker Diggs is also a member of the

City of Scottsdale Executive Team. On a weekly basis, Parker Diggs meets with members of fire

department management to discuss the human relations aspects of on-going department business

including personnel management and labor relations issues. Interview questions were sent to

Parker Diggs prior to the interview to assist in her understanding of the scope of the interview

and to allow time to consider her responses. The questions posed are:

1. What experience do you have in human resources management related to collective

bargaining or other formal relationship with labor unions?

2. Based on your experience and expertise, what do you feel are the key characteristics of

successful relationships between employers and employees (such as Labor Unions)?

3. If Federal Government legislation passes mandating collective bargaining rights for

firefighters, what would be your role in implementing collective bargaining?

4. How would collective bargaining for firefighters change the work being done by City of

Scottsdale Human Resources?

Parker Diggs responded in writing to the questions. Her responses spurred additional

questions and the need for a follow-up interview to explore her thoughts. The follow-up

questions sent to Parker Diggs are:

1. What kind of preparation do you envision the City of Scottsdale needs if preparing for

collective bargaining? Is that something you would lead – based on your experience


from the CSU system – or something that would be assigned to someone else or perhaps

go out to contract for those services/training?

2. If you weren’t the chief negotiator, who would you recommend serve in that function?

I’m not necessarily looking for a name – perhaps just your criteria if you were to

recommend someone.

3. When Rural/Metro entered into collective bargaining with the firefighters in Scottsdale,

they hired a labor consultant to facilitate the process. Is that something you would want

to consider or would you prefer to facilitate the process with City personnel?

4. If collective bargaining were to be mandated for public safety officers – and based on

how that may change the workload in HR and assuming budget wasn’t an insurmountable

hurdle – would you envision using existing staff or needing a new staff member(s)?

5. What is your perspective on the “trigger” for the City of Scottsdale to begin considering

an approach to collective bargaining? How would you envision that coming about?

Subsequently an interview was conducted to allow Parker Diggs to expand her responses.

During the interview, Parker Diggs provided her professional opinion about these questions and

related topics. The interview with Parker Diggs took place in her office and City Human

Resources on January 12, 2010.

City Attorney Jay Osborn

Jay Osborn is the City Attorney assigned to the Scottsdale Fire Department. In this

capacity, Osborn is the primary legal advisor to the fire department. On a weekly basis, Osborn

meets with members of fire department management to discuss the legal aspects of on-going

department business including personnel management and labor relations issues. Interview

questions and links to House Bill 413 and Senate Bill 1611 were sent to Osborn prior to the


interview to assist his understanding of the scope of the interview and to allow time to consider

his responses. The questions posed are:

1. How does the proposed Federal Government legislation on collective bargaining impact

the City of Scottsdale’s City Code and/or Charter?

2. How does the implementation of collective bargaining for public safety personnel impact

the roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney’s Office?

3. What legal steps would be required to make the City compliant with the proposed Federal

Legislation?

4. If Federal Government legislation passes, mandating collective bargaining rights for


5. What legal challenges does the proposed Federal Government legislation pose for the

City of Scottsdale?

During the interview, Osborn provided his professional opinion about these questions.

The interview with Osborn took place at the Police-Fire Headquarters building on January 14,

2010.

City of Scottsdale Fire Chief William L. McDonald

William L. McDonald is the fire chief for the City of Scottsdale. Chief McDonald is the

first City of Scottsdale Fire Chief having been selected to lead the fire department through its

transition from Rural/Metro to the City of Scottsdale. Fire Chief McDonald singularly occupies

the highest level of the fire department’s rank structure. Interview questions were sent to Fire

Chief McDonald prior to the interview to assist in him understanding of the scope of the

interview and to allow time to consider his responses. The questions posed are:


1. What experience do you have relating to collective bargaining or other formal

relationship with labor unions?

2. What have you learned from this experience that you would want to bring to the City of

Scottsdale?

3. What have you learned that you would want to avoid seeing repeated in the City of

Scottsdale?



5. How would collective bargaining for firefighters effect the management of the Scottsdale

Fire Department?

During the interview, Fire Chief McDonald provided his professional opinion regarding

these questions. The interview with Fire Chief McDonald took place at the Police-Fire

Headquarters building on December 31, 2009.

IAFF Local 3878 President Steve Springborn

Steve Springborn is the president of IAFF Local 3878, the chapter that represents

Scottsdale Firefighters. Springborn has been the president of Local 3878 since its inception in

1998. Local 3878, under Springborn’s leadership, also represents union firefighters in four other

communities as well as unincorporated areas of Maricopa County. Springborn continues to serve

as the primary labor negotiator for those members of Local 3878 who continue to work for

Rural/Metro. Interview questions were sent to Springborn prior to the interview to assist in his

understanding of the scope of the interview and to allow time to consider his responses. The

questions posed are:


1. What experience do you have relating to collective bargaining or other formal labor-

management relationship?

2. What have you learned from this experience that you would want to bring to the City of

Scottsdale?

3. What have you learned that you would want to avoid seeing repeated in the City of

Scottsdale?



5. How would collective bargaining for firefighters affect Local 3878’s roles and

responsibilities with the City of the Scottsdale?

During the interview, Springborn provided his professional opinion about these

questions. The interview with Springborn took place at fire station 14, Springborn’s assigned

duty station on January 4, 2010.

RESULTS

Relationship between the key components of the proposed legislation and City Codes

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 poses a dramatic change

to employer-employee relations in the City of Scottsdale. The most significant distinction

between the language of City of Scottsdale’s City Code and the language of H.R. 413 and S.

1611 is evident in the main focus of the pending bills and the basic tenant of human resource

management in Scottsdale. The basic tenant of the bills is for employers to implement

“agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all reasonable

efforts through negotiations to settle their differences” (H.R. 413, p. 3) in a formal collective

bargaining structure. For the City of Scottsdale, Chapter 14 of the City Code denies employees


the ability to bring forth issues through the grievance process as “a means of collectively

bringing about changes in wages, hours, or other conditions of employment” (p. 9). The

proposed bills significantly change current City policy with regard to employee’s rights to

organize and negotiate.

References in the proposed bills to organized labor organizations also conflicts with City

policy. The City does not have guidelines for formal interaction with employee representative

groups such as labor unions. Additionally, the targeted focus of H.R. 413 and S. 1611 for public

safety employees presents a unique hurdle for the City. Chapter 14: Human Resource

Management does not differentiate between public safety and non-public safety personnel in

terms of employee rights or representation.

City Code and regulations affords the city manager, the human resources director,

department general managers, and all City management employees with the authority and

responsibility to ensure employees’ rights are met. This is spelled out in Chapter 14: Human

Resource Management, AR344: Corrective Action and Disciplinary Actions, and AR345: Open

Door Policy. H.R. 413 and S. 1611 require employers to formally work with labor organizations

to ensure employees’ rights. The fruits of this collaboration will be committed “to writing in a

contract or memorandum of agreement” (H.R. 413, p. 8). Additionally, under both bills the

Federal Labor Relations Authority becomes the oversight body to ensure these mandates are met

in a consistent manner. Neither written employee contracts of this nature nor planned interaction

with Federal Labor Relations Authority is a component of current City code or regulations.

Scottsdale City Code and bills H.R. 413 and S. 1611 differ in how employees are

classified for purposes of determining the grievance rights. The City refers to employees as

either classified or unclassified, with unclassified employees in an at-will work status. These


unclassified employees do not have appeals rights to the personnel board. However, the City’s

determination that fire captains in the City of Scottsdale are unclassified employees does not

clearly translate to the language in H.R. 413 and S. 1611 when referring to supervisory

employees, despite a fire captains traditional supervisory role. Under both bills, supervisory

employees may be excluded from the rights of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of

2009 (H.R. 413, p.8). While fire captains in the City of Scottsdale supervise their crews, they do

not have the responsibilities or authorities of supervisors as defined by the Public Safety

Employer-Employee Act of 2009. Under the proposed legislation, supervisory employees have

“the authority in the interest of the employer to hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer,

furlough, lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety officers, to adjust their

grievances, or to effectively recommend such action” (p. 5). Of these supervisory duties, fire

captains have the autonomy to direct their crewmembers. Authority for the other supervisory

duties listed in H.R. 413 rests at a higher level in the organization. While fire captains serve a

limited role in these other supervisory duties, they do not spend “a preponderance of their

employment time exercising such authority” (p. 5). Of these 13 supervisory duties, nine are

duties of and/or require the signature from the fire chief.

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 maintains Arizona’s

right to continue as a right-to-work State. Implementing collective bargaining does not have the

effect of mandating an employee’s membership in a union as a condition of employment (p. 14).

While Scottsdale firefighters will need to confirm Local 3878 as their bargaining unit, those

employees who do not wish to join the union may exercise that right without fear of reprisal.


Characteristics of Successful Formalized Labor-Management Relationships

From the results of the literature review, the success of employer-employee cooperative

relationships hinges less on the formality of the relationship’s title than on the health of the

relationship between parties. Articles and texts related to employer-employee relations identify

the key characteristics of a healthy, productive work environment. These include trust, respect,

open communications, and employee advocacy by both labor and management. A healthy

relationship between labor and management influences organizational success more than the

structure of or term given to the labor-management process.

The results of the online survey also suggest that the success of employer-employee

cooperative relationships hinges on the health of relationship between parties. Of the 154 survey

responses gathered, 39 of 50 U.S. States are represented. The majority of the responses (51.6%)

come from right-to-work states. Union States represent 46.4% of responses, and two

respondents are uncertain of their State’s labor law.

In terms of fire department size, 13.0% of responses come from departments similar to

the Scottsdale Fire Department. The largest number of responses comes from smaller

departments with 30.5% of reporting agencies having a sworn force of 51-100 members.

Departments with 101-200 members represent the next larger group with 22.1% of the total

while 16.9% of responses came from fire departments with less than 50 sworn members. Of

those responses from larger departments, 13.6% have less than 1,000 sworn members, and 3.9%

have greater than 1,000 sworn members.

The vast majority, 73.5%, of departments responding, represents all-career forces. Mixed

fire departments where the majority of the force is career firefighters represent 18.5% of

responses while volunteer and majority-volunteer departments represent 1.3% and 6.6%


respectively. Over three fourths of responses come from persons identifying themselves as

members of management while the remainder identify themselves as members of labor. Of those

identifying themselves as management 7.8% are members of an officers’ union.

The greatest number of responses, 49.4%, comes from organizations operating under

collective bargaining. Other formal labor-management relationships such as meet and confer

account for 22.6% of responses. Organizations, whose labor-management relations are similar to

the informal relationship in the Scottsdale Fire Department, account for 13.0% of responses.

Survey question seven asks respondents to rate ten qualitative characteristics of their

labor-management relationship. Overall, the highest number rates each of the ten qualitative

categories as “good.” In six of the ten categories, more respondents rate their labor-relationship

as “excellent” than as “poor.” Table 1 lists the responses to the respondents’ evaluation of the

labor-management relationship in these ten qualitative categories: Table 1 Question 7: Please evaluate the following aspects SPECIFIC TO YOUR LABOR-MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION AND RELATIONSHIP n=154 Excellent Good Fair Poor Clear procedures for our interaction 16.9% 58.4% 16.9% 7.8% Defined roles and responsibilities between Labor and Management 15.7% 54.2% 22.2% 7.8%

Efficiency in our Labor-Management system 12.3% 45.5% 27.9% 14.3% Productivity in our relationship 14.3% 44.8% 29.9% 11.0% Consistency in our outcomes 9.7% 45.5% 33.1% 11.7% Mutual respect between Labor and Management reps 21.1% 43.4% 21.1% 14.5%

Shared goals between Labor and Management 10.4% 44.8% 31.8% 13.0% Communication flow between Labor and Management 13.0% 41.6% 34.4% 11.0%

Satisfaction and morale with the Labor-Management process 4.5% 44.8% 37.0% 13.6%

Field personnel interests are represented on key issues 16.2% 50.0% 24.7% 9.1%


When question seven is broken down into categories based on labor or management

affiliation, an interesting split in perspective occurs. While the majority of management

respondents continue to rate all characteristics as excellent or good, labor respondents have a

lower overall appreciation for these characteristics as illustrated by higher rating averages. Table

2 quantifies this difference in rating between labor and management respondents. Management

respondents are more satisfied with the characteristics of their labor-management relationship

than are their labor counterparts. Table 2 Evaluation of question seven by affiliation based on scoring average. Scale: Excellent = 1 point; Good = 2 points; Fair = 3 points; Poor = 4 points All

respondents n=154

Labor respondents

n=30

Management respondents

n=119 Clear procedures for our interaction 2.16 2.20 2.12 Defined roles and responsibilities between Labor and Management 2.22 2.33 2.20

Efficiency in our Labor-Management system 2.44 2.70 2.37 Productivity in our relationship 2.38 2.57 2.29 Consistency in our outcomes 2.47 2.80 2.39 Mutual respect between Labor and Management reps 2.29 2.73 2.19

Shared goals between Labor and Management 2.47 2.73 2.41 Communication flow between Labor and Management 2.44 2.63 2.37

Satisfaction and morale with the Labor-Management process 2.60 2.93 2.48

Field personnel interests are represented on key issues 2.27 2.60 2.18

Another divergence in rating is evident when filtering responses to question seven based

on how respondents describe their labor-management arrangement in question six. The greatest

degree of satisfaction is experienced in organizations without a labor union. The overall average

score for non-labor organizations is 2.53 points. While this seems counterintuitive on the

surface, a reasonable explanation may exist: when no labor union exists, the satisfaction with the


relationship is the sole value of management. Management in this case has all the rights and

privileges in the relationship. The next greatest level of satisfaction, with an overall average

score of 2.28, is realized by organizations operating under collective bargaining. Other formal

labor-management relations place third in satisfaction with an overall average score of 2.43. The

least satisfaction with labor-management relations is realized by organizations with an informal

relationship with the firefighters’ union. The overall average for these departments is 2.76. This

is the labor-management arrangement in the City of Scottsdale Fire Department. Table 3

illustrates the individual averages based on the labor-management configuration.

Survey question eight asks for respondents to list the most significant key to success in

their labor-management relationship. The most frequent response, listed 67 times, is open

communications. As one respondent put it, “Communications has been the key to our internal

Table 3 Evaluation of question seven by affiliation based on scoring average. Scale: Excellent = 1 point; Good = 2 points; Fair = 3 points; Poor = 4 points Collective

bargaining n=76

Other formal relationship

n=35

Informal relationship

n=20

No labor organization

n=14 Clear procedures for our interaction 1.92 2.11 3.00 3.00

Defined roles and responsibilities between Labor and Management 1.99 2.31 3.05 3.05

Efficiency in our Labor-Management system 2.41 2.49 2.80 2.80

Productivity in our relationship 2.34 2.40 2.65 2.65 Consistency in our outcomes 2.38 2.49 3.00 3.00 Mutual respect between Labor and Management reps 2.18 2.44 2.50 2.50

Shared goals between Labor and Management 2.49 2.51 2.55 2.55

Communication flow between Labor and Management 2.39 2.54 2.60 2.60

Satisfaction and morale with the Labor-Management process 2.53 2.74 2.85 2.85

Field personnel interests are represented on key issues 2.18 2.26 2.55 2.55


success.” The second most referenced characteristics are honesty and trust, which appear 18

times in respondents’ comments. The third most listed characteristic is respect among labor and

management representatives. Respect appears 15 times in the survey. On six occasions a

specific person is listed as the most significant key to success. In four of these cases, the fire

chief is listed as the key person, and in two instances the fire chief is acknowledged as the former

union president. In the other two cases, the union president is listed as the key person. Sixteen

respondents were unable to think of a positive response to this question.

Survey question nine asks the respondents to list the most significant detriment to their

labor-management relationship. Of those detriments listed, a lack of communication including

rumor control is the most frequent response. Communication is listed 20 times. The next most

listed response is a general state of poor relations between involved parties. This appears in 17

responses. A specific individual, such as the fire chief, the union president, or the city manager,

is referenced 14 times as the most significant detriment to the labor-management process. A

specific group of people is listed seven times as a relationship obstacle. These people include

subgroups of management or labor and groups of elected or appointed persons. The lack of trust

in the labor-management process is referenced 11 times as the most significant detriment, while

poor leadership and absent respect each are referenced five times. Surprisingly, especially due to

the state of the economy during this survey, financial constraints are identified as the main

problem only five times.

The results of the personal communications explore the background of key City leaders

and assist in identifying processes and expectations for the implementation of collective

bargaining in the City of Scottsdale Fire Department. Human Resources General Manager La

Verne Parker Diggs has extensive experience in formal labor-management relations. Of primary


significance is Parker Diggs’ role in the employee relation division while employed by the

California State University (CSU) system. Parker Diggs guided CSU through the

implementation of collective bargaining following California State law mandating this right for

institutions of higher education. Parker Diggs worked with the CSU legal department to prepare

her staff for successful labor-management relations serving the 19 CSU campuses and the nine

bargaining units in the system. In addition to training her staff and providing guidance to

leadership, Parker Diggs served as chief negotiator in many of the contract negotiation sessions.

Subsequently, as the human resources director for the City of San Jose, California, Parker Diggs

was responsible for all collective bargaining contract negotiations. Parker Diggs states, “I have

had a very positive relationship with labor unions; these relationships have been with the local

union officials as well as the union officials representing the union at the national level” (2010).

Seeking to maintain a positive relationship with the labor union representatives, Parker

Diggs would assume an active support role for collective bargaining in the City of Scottsdale.

Parker Diggs would prefer not to be selected as the chief negotiator as this may jeopardize her

ability to maintain healthy relationships. As Parker Diggs points out, it can be confusing to labor

representatives to see the human resources general manager as both the contract negotiator for

management and the leader of a department who must hold fairness and impartiality at such a

high level.

If the City of Scottsdale begins work toward collective bargaining, Parker Diggs

advocates hiring an outside specialist to facilitate the City’s first contract negotiation. Ideally,

the City would support a full-time position under the City Manager or Human Resources General

Manager to focus on labor-management relations and contracts, the former being the preferred

reporting relationship. It would be ideal, according to Parker Diggs, to bring on this new full-


time staff member prior to the first contract negotiation period. This would allow the new City

labor-management specialist to shadow and learn from the consultant brought in to facilitate the

first contract negotiation. Parker Diggs advocates selecting an employee for this position based

on the employee’s education and experience in labor contract negotiations. This would not,

according to Parker Diggs, be an opportunity for an inexperienced employee to develop his or

her skills on the job. After the first successful contract negotiation, Parker Diggs envisions the

City being self-sufficient for subsequent negotiations.

In terms of a trigger to begin discussions around collective bargaining, Parker Diggs

looks to the Fire and Police Chiefs to bring this issue forward to the City Manager. Parker Diggs

would serve in a support role for this discussion. If the City Manager supports moving this issue

forward for policy consideration, the next step would be meetings with individual city council

members. This would facilitate the kind of informal question and answer sessions necessary to

evaluate the desires of the city council. Subsequent actions would be based on policy direction

provided by the city council. In the CSU system, Parker Diggs facilitated a similar background

and preparation process two years before the system was required to implement collective

bargaining. Thus far, Parker Diggs has not been privy to any discussions at the Executive Team

level or above pertaining to the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009.

From Parker Diggs vast experience in formal labor-management relations, she identifies

trust and mutual respect as two essential pillars of a healthy contract negotiation process.

Unfortunately, Parker Diggs worked for previous employers who directed her, as the chief

negotiator, to start the negotiation process from a defensive position of denying all labor

proposals and requests. Parker Diggs experienced the polarizing, unsuccessful, contentious


outcomes of that philosophy. Developing a respectful, trusting environment in labor-relations, as

well as all other employee relations, is a primary focus of Parker Diggs and her staff.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Jay Osborn has practiced law for 35 years, 24 of which

have been as a City of Scottsdale employee in the City Attorneys Office. Osborn is the attorney

assigned primary responsibility for advising the fire department on legal issues. Osborn’s

interview focuses on the legal aspects of compliance with State and Federal law. Osborn

provides his professional opinion on the steps of a proposed implementation plan but is very

forthright about the context of his opinion. Osborn’s opinions are based on his assessment of the

current facts and are not intended to represent the position, opinions, or subsequent policy

decisions that would be made by the city council, the city manager, and the city attorney.

Prior to our conversation, Osborn reviewed documents pertaining to H.R. 413 and S.

1611 and demonstrates a solid understanding of the key components of the proposed legislation.

At one point, the city attorneys’ office was more actively focusing work efforts in evaluating the

Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009. Since then, there has been a change in

leadership at the city attorneys’ office and increased local attention to the downturn in the

economy. Osborn is not aware of current action by the city attorneys’ office on this issue. Based

on the workload of the city attorneys’ office, Osborn states a high workload on other pressing

issues has been a factor in determining work priorities for his office.

Osborn attributes much of our current situation to a lack of guidance and laws from the

State of Arizona. Absent guidance from the State, individual cities have implemented dissimilar

employer-employee systems. Some of these systems, such as the interaction between the City of

Phoenix and the IAFF Local 493, may be consistent with the requirements of the Public Safety

Employer-Employee Act of 2009. Other systems, such as the informal relationship between the


Scottsdale Fire Department and IAFF Local 3878, are mostly like not in compliance with

pending legislation. Osborn attributes the lack of planning progress at the national, state, and

local level on this specific issue to the focus and workload created by the current financial crisis.

Osborn advocates for continuing to monitor the progress of H.R. 413 and S. 1611 to

ensure the City is prepared to comply when required. Osborn believes the City would be best

served by implementing a compliant system prior to a federal deadline. This proactive approach

provides the best opportunity for the City to develop a program that meets its needs rather than

allowing State or Federal government to dictate the structure and conditions for the City.

To assist the City in developing and implementing a successful collective bargaining

system, Osborn feels the City would benefit from outside assistance. First, Osborn advocates for

a contract with a labor attorney to assist his office. Based on current workload and experience,

this function may be best secured through an outside vendor contracted to the City. This labor

attorney may also provide guidance and assistance to the City by making recommendations to

City Codes and administrative regulations. In reviewing the Public Safety Employer-Employee

Act bills, Osborn concludes that there is more language missing from current City Code and

regulations that would support the pending legislation than there is specific language in conflict

with the pending legislation. Second, Osborn believes the City’s best interests may be secured at

the negotiating table by hiring or contracting with a non-attorney labor-relations specialist. This

person would assist the management and labor chief negotiators in smoothly developing a sound

collective bargaining contract.

A graduate of the Executive Fire Officer Program, Fire Chief William McDonald has

served the City of Scottsdale since 2004, one year prior to the transition of fire and emergency

medical services from Rural/Metro to the City of Scottsdale. Prior to coming to the City of


Scottsdale, McDonald gained his career experience in fire departments for four California

communities: Fresno, Foster City, San Mateo and Fremont fire departments. McDonald served

as fire chief in Foster City, San Mateo and Fremont.

McDonald first joined the International Association of Firefighters in 1978 as a

firefighter with the City of Fresno. McDonald remained a moderately active member until his

promotion to deputy chief at which time he became an association member of the labor union.

As a deputy chief with the Fresno Fire Department, McDonald became the management

representative for collective bargaining negotiations. Fresno employed a labor-relationship

manager who oversaw citywide contract negotiations. McDonald partnered with this staff

member to negotiate the firefighters’ contract.

Before completing his first contract as the management representative for negotiations,

McDonald accepted the fire chief appointment in Foster City. The Foster City firefighters’ had a

contract agreement in place when McDonald took the help as their new fire chief. As the fire

chief in Foster City, San Mateo, and Fremont, McDonald stayed actively informed in contract

negotiations but did not serve as the chief negotiator. McDonald found this to be advantageous

as it afforded him a buffer in which to better exercise his fire chief roles and responsibilities.

From McDonald’s experience in labor relations, he evaluates the health of the

organization based on the size of the contract. McDonald believes a thick contract is indicative

of less trust between labor and management. Brief, simple, broad contracts allow for more

interaction and flexibility between contract negotiations and are a sign of a trusting, healthy

environment. McDonald identifies a trusting relationship as the key to successful labor-

management relations. Working with employees on issues that are not included in the contract is


a good sign of true collaboration and trust. These qualities, according to McDonald, facilitate the

development of smaller contracts, which are good for management and employees.

When he learned that he would be the fire chief in the City of Scottsdale, a community

without formal labor-management relations, McDonald thought to himself, “Man, that will be

easy.” Ultimately he came to the conclusion that the current Scottsdale labor-management

system is actually harder. McDonald qualifies this finding in his observation that without a

formal agreement, “nobody knows what the rules are.”

In assessing the current state of affairs in the City of Scottsdale, McDonald feels the time

to act is now. To initiate that process, he advocates bringing in a contract and labor-relations

specialist. This specialist would guide the City through its first preparation for and

implementation of formalized labor-management relations. To facilitate this process, McDonald

acknowledges the importance of working with the city manager and city council to establish the

vision and philosophy of labor-relations. This may require focused time with the council,

providing them the background information they may need to make these policy conclusions.

While respecting the knowledge and experiences of the individual city council members,

McDonald believes that information should be readily available to council members with the

assumption that some may have little experience with formal labor-management negotiations.

A parallel effort should be made to educate the members for the negotiating team. This

team should, according to McDonald, include decision makers from city human resources

department, the city attorneys’ office, a senior analyst, representatives from affected

departments, and the labor-relations specialist. The specialist may be a labor attorney or an

experienced arbitrator. Training provided to management’s negotiation should be extended to


members of the labor negotiating teams. This aids in developing consistent understanding, team

cohesiveness, and enhanced trust.

McDonald strongly feels the time to act is now. In fact, McDonald believes, “We should

have started this process already.” McDonald advocates starting the development of the City’s

implementation plan for the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act before the pending

legislation become law. From his experience with other labor negotiations and contracts,

McDonald contends the closer a negotiating team gets to its deadline, the more difficult it

becomes to work well together and to develop a healthy contract.

Scottsdale Fire Engineer Steve Springborn has served as the president of Local 3878

since its inception in 1998. Previously a firefighter with Rural/Metro, Springborn, in his

capacity as union president, assumed the role of lead labor negotiator in the development of the

2000-2003 contract between IAFF Local 3878 and Rural/Metro. This contract applied to

Rural/Metro firefighters throughout Maricopa County and included the operations in the City of

Scottsdale. In addition to Scottsdale firefighters, Local 3878 represents firefighters in Rio Verde,

Queen Creek, Fort McDowell, and unincorporated areas of Maricopa County.

Springborn’s experience in labor-management relations has taught him several key

philosophies he would like to formally bring to Scottsdale. Springborn believes trust and

openness must be foundations of any healthy labor-management relationship. These qualities

facilitate better collaboration that leads to a better end product for all parties. On labor-

management issues, Springborn contends that labor and management share the same goals in

most cases. The path to these goals is what differentiates the two parties. Maximizing the

strengths of these different paths is what produces successful outcomes.


On the issue of labor-management impasses, Springborn has found these to be attributed

more to relationship issues than taboo topics. In his experience regionally, Springborn has found

the greater Phoenix metropolitan area more conducive to collaboration than he has witnessed in

other areas during his labor travels. The region tends to be more focused on achievements

through a team approach.

Although Springborn feels Local 3878 could be ready to sit down with management

within a few months of established formalized labor-management relations, he feels the largest

hurdle to this effort rests with the City of Scottsdale. Currently, Scottsdale police officers may

join one of two labor unions. These members would need to select the one organization that

would represent them in collective bargaining. Springborn foresees that as a long and potentially

contentious issue to resolve.

If Springborn is still serving as Local 3878 president when collective bargaining comes to

the City of Scottsdale, he envisions serving as the lead negotiator and primary contact for the

local. He sees collective bargaining as an opportunity for the City to place more responsibility

and work assignments on Local 3878. The nature of those work assignments and the initiatives

the local will seek to collaborate on will be identified by the membership. Springborn would

advocate for a labor survey to identify key issues important to members of Local 3878. This

survey would provide Springborn with his major areas of focus when interacting with

management. In addition to surveying the membership, preparation for collective bargaining

would include an independent audit of the city’s financial situation. This would assist Local

3878 in being aware of the financial constraints and opportunities for negotiations.


DISCUSSION

The results of the literature review and personal conversations establish that current City

of Scottsdale Code and regulations are not compliant with the proposed federal legislation

requiring collective bargaining rights for public safety officers. While H.R. 413 mandates

employers to implement “agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions”

(p. 3), City of Scottsdale Code Chapter 14: Human Resource Management does not permit an

employee or employee representative group the right to collectively bring “about changes in

wages, hours, or other conditions of employment” (p. 9). Additionally, City Code places with

the city manager the authority to set wages based on the recommendations of the human

resources director. H.R. 413 and S. 1611 mandate collective bargaining negotiations for wage

considerations. While these two components of the City Code are in direct conflict with H.R.

413 and S. 1611, the majority of rights mandated in these bills are not specifically refuted by

City Code.

Assistant Senior City Attorney Osborn maintains that little of the City Code’s existing

language will need to be removed to become compliant with the Public Safety Employer-

Employee Act of 2009; rather, it is more often the case that new language will need to be added

to bring the City to compliance. In addition to City of Scottsdale Code Chapter 14: Human

Resource Management, the literature review identified the following administrative regulations

as being influenced by the pending legislation and requiring a compliance review:

Administrative Regulation 344: Corrective and Disciplinary Actions, Administrative Regulation

345: Open Door Policy, and Administrative Regulation 354: Overtime Management and

Utilization.


The literature review indicates staff time is needed to clarifying employee classification

differences between the pending legislation and current City definitions. The City of Scottsdale

defines the ranks of firefighter and engineer as classified employees and the rank of fire captain

and above as unclassified employees. Classified employees have more options available to them

for grieving discipline. Unclassified employees have less job security, as they are “at will”

employees. The delineation of classified and unclassified status appears to mirror the philosophy

of H.R. 413 and S. 1611; however, the level at which employees are afforded increased job

security differs. The bills in Congress differentiate employees into three classes: public safety

officer, supervisor, and manager. While fire captains supervise their crewmembers, the

responsibilities and authorities of fire captains are not consistent with the responsibilities and

authorities the bills attribute to supervisors. Fire captains, unlike supervisors as defined by the

bills, do not spend “a preponderance of their employment time” (H.R. 413, p. 5) performing the

tasks of hiring, assigning, promoting, rewarding, transferring, furloughing, laying off, recalling,

suspending, disciplining, removing, or adjusting the grievances of their direct reports (p. 5).

Based on H.R. 413’s description of a supervisor’s authority and responsibility, a case could be

made that the Scottsdale Fire Department has very few supervisor since the fire chief maintains

authority and responsibility for the bulk of these functions.

The literature review reveals that individual employees may retain their right to decide

the extent to which they choose to belong to their bargaining unit. Arizona is a right-to-work

State, and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009 would not change that position.

While public safety employees covered by collective bargaining would be required to select their

bargaining unit by popular vote, employees are not required to join the bargaining unit or pay

similar fees in lieu of membership.


Comparing the results of the literature review and online survey reveals an interesting

correlation between collective bargaining and the health of the labor-management relationship.

Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran, in the Chief Fire Officers’ Desk Reference (2006), identifies five

commitments members of labor and management must integrate into their business practices for

long-term success. In addition to creating a shared vision and mission, Cochran maintains that

the relationship must exist within “an atmosphere of unity and harmony” (p. 461). While the

online convenience survey shows an increase in employee satisfaction and morale for collective

bargaining agencies over non-collective bargaining agencies, the increase is of minor

significance. Both the collective bargaining and non-collective bargaining agencies rate

satisfaction and morale with their labor management as “good,” with a slightly more positive

rating for collective bargaining agencies. A more pronounced difference is evident when taking

into account the difference in labor-management roles. Labor representatives are much less

satisfied than their management counterparts and rate morale only slightly better than “fair.”

Embracing the management philosophies of SAS and Southwest Airlines may minimize

the gap in employee satisfaction and morale that exists between the ratings of labor and

management representatives. SAS Airlines Chief Executive Officer Jan Carlson identifies the

relationship with labor as a key to organizational success and employee satisfaction. Carlson

advocates full collaboration with labor in developing organizational vision and goals. Once

complete, labor and management personnel equally embrace and work toward the completion of

shared goals. According to Carlton, “For the vision to become a reality, it must be their [the

labor group’s] reality” (p. 105). Southwest Airlines takes the philosophy of collaborating with

employees to an even greater height. In addition to collaborating with the labor force, Southwest

Airlines management negotiators bring forward a good faith, best offer package as the opening


offer. When negotiating over wages, Southwest Airlines comes to the table with an initial offer

that reflects the greatest possible financial contribution the company can support (p. 171). This

style of negotiating may positively influence three of the top four obstacles to a successful labor-

management relations identified in the online convenience survey: a general lack of honesty,

trust, and respect.

Retired United States Navy Captain D. Michael Abrashoff discusses the importance of

unity in teams. Abrashoff establishes a primary function of leaders is the selection and training

of team members who will work toward common goals. Unity, according to Abrashoff is not

about finding a group of homogeneous thinkers; rather unity is “about maximizing uniqueness

and channeling that toward the common goal” (p. 171). Cochran (2006) advocates a labor-

management environment of unity and harmony in which communications are open and problem

solving shared. Cochran does not believe an adversarial relationship is necessary or beneficial to

either labor or management.

Carlson (1987), Hoffer Gittell (2003), and Compton (1999) agree that mutual respect

between labor and management is the key to success and collaborating to create one vision is

necessary for a unified approach to meeting shared organizational objectives. Respondents to the

online convenience survey rate respect as the third most important key to labor-management

success. Human Resource General Manager Parker Diggs, Fire Chief McDonald, and union

president Springborn agree that mutual respect is a paramount characteristic of a healthy labor-

management relationship. Even those organizations without collective bargaining represented in

the online convenience survey rate mutual respect in their organizations as “good” with only a

slightly lower rating than respondents from collective bargaining organizations.


There is room for improvement in establishing unity and shared organizational objectives

in fire service collective bargaining. When rating the category of goal sharing between labor and

management, respondents from the online convenience survey responded similarly despite

different labor-management systems. The presence of collective bargaining rights did not

significantly impact the unity or shared goals within the reporting organizations. Despite a

formal labor-management structure that requires negotiation, organizations with collective

bargaining do not experience an appreciable enhancement to the development of shared goals or

the unity that fosters accomplishment of those goals.

Edwards (2005) discusses the reasons why employees seek unionization. One of those

reasons is to obtain some degree of control and empowerment in the workplace (p. 213). This is

the one area of the online convenience survey that shows the most significant improvement

between collective bargaining organizations and non-collective bargaining organizations.

Respondents from collective bargaining organizations have more clearly defined responsibilities

and could rely on established procedures for interaction. Organizations with an informal

relationship between labor and management, like the relationship found in the City of Scottsdale,

experience the same level of disappointment with labor-management responsibilities and

procedures as do organizations that have no union at all.

According to Edwards, another reason why employees seek unionization is to obtain the

right of representation in their individual and collective interactions with managers (p. 213).

Again, organizations with an informal relationship between labor and management experience

the same level of disappointment with having their interests represented on key issues, as do

organizations that have no union at all. While employees were more satisfied with how their


interests are represented on key issues in organizations with collective bargaining, the degree of

greater satisfaction is marginal.

Abrashoff (2002) and Collins (2005) address the issue of selecting the right people for a

team and providing training to channel the team toward common goals. This is consistent with

the results of the online convenience survey. The fourth most common reason attributed to a

healthy labor-management relationship is the influence of a specific individual. Coincidentally,

the third most common obstacle to a healthy relationship is a specific individual or small group

of individuals. Collins refers to this as “getting the right people on the bus” (p. 13). In personal

conversations, Human Resources General Manager Parker Diggs, Fire Chief McDonald, and

Union president Springborn all acknowledge the importance of cohesive, respectful labor-

management team players. McDonald advocates training members of labor and management to

maximize the health and effectiveness of contract negotiations.

Heifetz (1994) speaks to the challenge of leading a team through adaptive change and

identifies shared values as a key to success in this transformative process. Human Resources

General Manager Parker Diggs, Senior Assistant City Attorney Osborn, Fire Chief McDonald,

and Union president Springborn all support the proposal to bring in outside talent to facilitate the

initial contract negotiations. A labor-relations specialist with experience in leading organizations

through adaptive change would be sought.

Assessing the current state of the nation and the fire service, the IAFC (2009) establishes

that healthy labor-management relations have never been more important than now. Fire Chief

McDonald and Human Resources General Manager Parker Diggs advocate initiating steps

toward compliance with the pending legislation immediately. McDonald observes that the closer


the organization gets to a deadline, the more difficult is will become to work harmoniously

together.

Cochran (2006) asserts that labor and management must be committed to working on

shared initiatives that meet members’ needs and departmental goals (p. 461). SAS Airlines Chief

Executive Officer Jan Carlson (1987) addresses this issue in the highly unionized airline

industry. Carlson maintains that labor officials should be at the planning table early so they may

help in setting the organization’s vision and path. When labor helps write the plan, subsequent

actions by labor officials and the workforce will most assuredly support the strategic vision of

the organization and the needs of its members (p. 101-102).

The author interprets the results from the online convenience survey, the literature review

and personal conversations to support the conclusion that collective bargaining affords a greater

opportunity for organizational success than the informal labor-management system currently in

place in the City of Scottsdale Fire Department. However, the author finds that the differences in

performance and relationships between organizations with collective bargaining and those

without collective bargaining are less than staggering or conclusive. This underscores the

assertion that the health of the labor-management relationship is more important to

organizational success than is the labor-management structure. Collective bargaining is an

enhancement to employer-employee cooperation, but collective bargaining is not the cure for

poor organizational performance. While organizations can be highly successful while embracing

collective bargaining, organizations that adopt collective bargaining are not guaranteed success.

The literature review and online convenience survey identify similar findings: success is found in

a respectful, trusting environment with open communications between people with a sincere

interest to realize organizational success.


The most significant impact of this research for the City of Scottsdale is the conclusion

that current City Code is non-compliant with pending Federal legislation. Sections of City Code

Chapter 14: Human Resource Management as well as several City administrative regulations will

need to be revised and/or augmented to gain compliance. The timelines referenced in H.R. 413

and S. 1611 provide the City with a sense of the level of urgency.

Another implication of this research for the City of Scottsdale Fire Department is that the

anticipated passage of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009 will not, in and of

itself, result in a significantly healthier work environment between labor and management.

Those involved and affected by the implementation of collective bargaining should not expect to

find nirvana in the structure of a new law. The characteristics of successful labor-management

relations are connected less to organizational structure and more to interpersonal relationships.

An enlightened, inclusive, respectful work environment will be realized only if the organization

and the players work toward that goal. Collective bargaining will change the nature of employee

involvement. The degree to which that process enhances the workplace is a separate issue and

one that must be fully explored by selecting the right people, establishing an environment of

respect and honesty, and collaborating early to develop and implement a shared vision.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on this research effort, the City of Scottsdale should immediately begin planning

for the passage of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009. Appendix C captures

these recommendations in the author’s collective bargaining implementation plan memorandum

to Fire Chief McDonald.

The first step in this process is bringing this issue to the attention of City leadership.

Since the current language of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009 applies only to


police and fire personnel in the City of Scottsdale, the police chief and fire chief should engage

the human resource general manager and the city manager in dialogue around this issue. If the

city manager is supportive of planning for these bills being signed into law, the next step would

be to brief the other members of the city manager’s executive team and the city council

members. A decision to dedicate city staff time to developing an implementation plan for public

safety collective bargaining is a policy decision requiring city council action. Initial

conversations with the council members should be in small groups to provide information

tailored to the needs and desires of individual council members. Based on these interactions, the

city manager may put this issue on the city council’s agenda as either a work-study session topic

or a regular agenda item.

Contingent upon city council approval to move forward, City staff would assemble a

development team to focus on this issue. This team may include the fire chief, police chief, a

labor leader from the police department and the fire department, human resources general

manager, city attorney, a representative of city leadership, a labor attorney, and a labor-relations

specialist. Contracts for the labor attorney and labor-relations specialist will be coordinated

through the City’s existing procurement procedures. The city attorney and human relations

general manager or their designees would develop the request for proposal necessary to secure

these contracts.

Based on the direction of the city council and the components of the pending legislation,

this development team would define the City’s response to the pending legislation. The outcome

from the development team is a document providing direction and guidance on subsequent

collective bargaining negotiations. This would include recommended changes to City Code and


administrative regulations. This team would also develop the plan for selecting, training, and

engaging negotiating teams for police and fire.

Based on the work of the development team, members of management and labor will

begin assembling the negotiation teams. Separate teams would be formed for police and fire

negotiations. The fire department negotiating team would include representatives from fire

department management, human resources, labor, the city attorney’s office or a contracted labor

attorney, and a labor-relations specialist. Careful consideration should be taken by labor and

management to select members of the team who have the greatest potential to work well together

under the philosophy established by the city council and further defined by the development

team.

Based on direction from the city council, the negotiating teams may begin meeting before

passage of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009. This research effort advocates

negotiating team interaction as early as possible. The labor-relations specialist would be

responsible for setting the agenda for the labor-management negotiating teams. This agenda,

which will take a series of meetings to fully address, would cover a broad variety of topics,

including: the philosophy of the city council surrounding this issue; negotiating teams’ values;

team building and interpersonal dynamics awareness exercises, particularly those that focus on

trust, respect, and open communications; background on the Public Safety Employer-Employee

Act of 2009; legal and human resources implications, parameters, and standard definitions; roles

and responsibilities of the negotiating team members; identification of timeline and key mile

markers; and development of an internal and external communication plan. Based on the

experience and advice of the labor-relations specialist, these agenda items may be redefined;

however, these items reflect the components of labor-management relations absent from the


City’s current process and reflective of best practices identified from the online survey and

personal communications. Supporting materials for team members would include copies of H.R.

413, S. 1611, City of Scottsdale Code, relevant administrative regulations, the formal direction

provided by the city council, and enrichment material such as a copy of The Southwest Way,

excerpts from Chief Fire Officer’s Desk Reference, Credibility, Moments of Truth, and other

sources of pertinent information and guidance.

The consistent theme of these enrichment materials as well as the team building and

interpersonal exercises is the most profound research finding: while collective bargaining

mandates greater interaction between employer and employee, it does not ensure an organization

may meet its goals of a successful employer-employee relationship. A unified approach to a

trusting, respectful group process by engaged, credible team members predicates this goal.


References

Abrashoff, Michael D. (2002). It’s Your Ship. New York: Time-Warner Book Group.

Arizona State Legislature (2009). Arizona Revised Statutes, Retrieved on December 1, 2009,

from http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp.

Carlson, Jan (1987). Moments of Truth. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing

City of Scottsdale (2009). Administrative Regulation 344: Corrective and Disciplinary Actions.

City of Scottsdale: author.

City of Scottsdale (1994). Administrative Regulation 345: Open Door Policy. City of Scottsdale:

author.

City of Scottsdale (2001). Administrative Regulation 354: Overtime Management and

Utilization. City of Scottsdale: author.

City of Scottsdale (1987). City Code Chapter 14: Human Resource Management, Scottsdale

Revised Code. City of Scottsdale: author.

Collins, Jim (2005). Good to Great and the Social Sectors. New York: Harper Collins

Publishing.

Compton, Dennis (1999). When in doubt, lead! Stillwater, OK: Fire Protection Publications.

Edwards, Steven T. (2005). Fire Service Personnel Management. New York: Pearson Prentice

Hall Publishers.

Fotinos, Dennis (2009). “Empowering City Unions Would Help Toronto.” The Boston Globe,

July 12, 2009.

Heifetz, Ronald A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp�


Hoffer-Gittell, Jody ( 2003). The Southwest Airlines Way. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill

Publishing.

International Association of Fire Chiefs (2006). Chief Fire Officer’s Desk Reference. Boston:

Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

International Association of Fire Chiefs (2009). Webinar: Today’s Difficult Times Call for Real

Collaboration. Retrieved December 12, 2009 from

http://www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=41292

Kochran, Thomas A., Katz, Harry, and McKersie Robert (1986). The Transformation of

American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books.

Kouzes, James M. and Posner, Barry Z. (1993). Credibility. San Francisco: Josey-Bass

Publishing

Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, H.R. 413, 111th Cong., 1st Sess.

(2009).

Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, S. 1611, 111th Cong., 1st Sess.

(2009).

National Fire Academy. (2005). Executive Leadership (student manual). Emmitsburg, MD:

Author.

National Fire Academy. (2007). Executive Fire Officer Program, Operation Policies and

Procedures, Applied Research Guidelines. Emmitsburg, MD: author.

United State Fire Administration. (2009). Strategic Plan, Retrieved December 1, 2009, from

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/about/strategic/

http://www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=41292�

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/about/strategic/�


Appendix A

Online Fire Service Labor-Management Survey

1. What State do you work in?

a. [Drop down list of all U.S. States and territories]

2. My State is:

a. A Union State

b. A right-to-work State

c. Unknown

3. The size of my fire department is (sworn members only):

a. Less than 50

b. 51-100

c. 101-200

d. 201-500

e. 501-1,000

f. Greater than 1,000

4. The configuration of my fire department is:

a. All career

b. All volunteer

c. Mix of career and volunteer with career being the majority

d. Mix of career and volunteer with volunteer being the majority

5. I am a member of (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

a. Labor

b. Management


c. A firefighters’ union

d. An officers’ union

e. Other labor organization

6. The following best describes my organization’s labor-management arrangement:

a. We operate under collective bargaining

b. We operate under binding arbitration

c. We operate under meet and confer

d. We operate under meet and discuss

e. Although a firefighters’ union exists, we do not have a formal labor-

management process, but our field personnel and management work together

in an informal environment

f. Our firefighters are not organized as a Union

g. Other (please specify)


7. Please evaluate the following aspects SPECIFIC TO YOUR LABOR-

MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION AND RELATIONSHIP: Excellent Good Fair Poor Clear procedures for our interaction Defined roles and responsibilities between Labor and Management

Efficiency in our Labor-Management system Productivity in our relationship Consistency in our outcomes Mutual respect between Labor and Management reps Shared goals between Labor and Management Communication flow between Labor and Management

Satisfaction and morale with the Labor-Management process

Field personnel interests are represented on key issues

8. What is the most significant key to success in your labor-management relationship?

a. [Text box for narrative response]

9. What is or has been the most significant detriment to your labor-management

relationship?

a. [Text box for narrative response]


Appendix B

Online Fire Service Labor-Management Survey Results

154 total results

1. What State do you work in? AK 1 AZ 13 CA 14 CO 3 CT 3 FL 9 HI 1 IA 3 ID 2 IL 10 IN 1 KS 9 KY 2 LA 4 MA 4 MD 2 ME 1 MI 3 MN 1 MO 7 NC 2 NE 1 NH 1 NJ 1 NV 1 NY 3 OH 4 OK 5 OR 3 PA 1 RI 1 SD 1 UT 2 VA 9 VT 1 WA 11 WI 4 WY 2


2. My State is:

a. A Union State: 46.4%

b. A right-to-work State: 51.6%

c. Unknown: 2.0%

3. The size of my fire department is (sworn members only):

a. Less than 50: 16.9%

b. 51-100: 30.5%

c. 101-200: 22.1%

d. 201-500: 13.0%

e. 501-1,000: 13.6%

f. Greater than 1,000: 3.9%

4. The configuration of my fire department is:

a. All career: 73.5%

b. All volunteer: 1.3%

c. Mix of career and volunteer with career being the majority: 18.5%

d. Mix of career and volunteer with volunteer being the majority: 6.6%

5. I am a member of (PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

a. Labor: 19.5%

b. Management: 77.3%

c. A firefighters’ union: 35.7%

d. An officers’ union: 7.8%

e. Other labor organization: 3.9%


6. The following best describes my organization’s labor-management arrangement:

a. We operate under collective bargaining: 49.4%

b. We operate under binding arbitration: 11.0%

c. We operate under meet and confer: 9.7%

d. We operate under meet and discuss: 1.9%

e. Although a firefighters’ union exists, we do not have a formal labor-

management process, but our field personnel and management work together

in an informal environment: 13.0%

f. Our firefighters are not organized as a Union: 9.1%

g. Other (please specify): 5.8%

7. Please evaluate the following aspects SPECIFIC TO YOUR LABOR-

MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATION AND RELATIONSHIP: Excellent Good Fair Poor Clear procedures for our interaction 16.9% 58.4% 16.9% 7.8% Defined roles and responsibilities between Labor and Management 15.7% 54.2% 22.2% 7.8%

Efficiency in our Labor-Management system 12.3% 45.5% 27.9% 14.3% Productivity in our relationship 14.3% 44.8% 29.9% 11.0% Consistency in our outcomes 9.7% 45.5% 33.1% 11.7% Mutual respect between Labor and Management reps 21.1% 43.4% 21.1% 14.5%

Shared goals between Labor and Management 10.4% 44.8% 31.8% 13.0% Communication flow between Labor and Management 13.0% 41.6% 34.4% 11.0%

Satisfaction and morale with the Labor-Management process 4.5% 44.8% 37.0% 13.6%

Field personnel interests are represented on key issues 16.2% 50.0% 24.7% 9.1%

8. What is the most significant key to success in your labor-management relationship? • We are not union so I don't know if this applies but communication has been the key

to our internal success between the chief's office and line personnel


• Communication • Communication • A letter written by our union and sent to the city manager opened communication

between labor and management. Very ugly at first but then yielded good results. • Following the contract word for word. • Managements communication with labor. • unknown • Communication; flexibility by both parties • communication and providing labor with a seat at the table. • Communications • They talk on a regular basis and management considers labor when decisions are

made • Bi-monthly labor management meetings and open door policy. • Communication between the 2 groups. There also needs to be a clear understanding

of the roles of Union and Management. The Union has to understand that they do not run the department.

• Communication. Open lines to address issues as they occur. • open communication and the best arrangement for the masses • An established system that is respected by labor and management. • Maintaining the relationship through hard times • Trust. • We have adopted a Labor Management Committee process to discuss and approve

many department changes not covered by the contract agreement. • communication it is forefront in our mission statement and core values. • Open communication and keeping everyone in the loop. From this trust is gained. • The fire chief holds a monthly meeting with the executive board every month to hear

any concerns from the membership allowing him the opportunity to address them. They also work together in employee improvement areas together with the fire chief meeting with the city administration together on some of these concerns.

• communication, trust, effort from all sides • general day to day communication has lead to only a few grievances in the last 15

years • Keeps management in check and does not allow them to circumvent the work rules

the union fought hard to have in place • Contract is new so not a lot of time to assess for this answer. • As a past Union President, I like to remember where I came from and respect the

ideas and direction of the Union, while communicating management's ideas and direction.

• the ability of labor to be flexible • Overall collaboration within the Labor Management Steering Committee. • Being a good listener and having mutual respect for ideas and people. • Communication • Open communication. • mutual communication before an issue escalates


• There is little success. • Approaching all issues as a partnership. • The town finally stopped closing companies and eliminating positions. But they may

start again. • Trust • Can't ID any. Ambilant relationship • n/a • The relationship is strained and failing due to lack of leadership within the

administration, and the inability to guide the organization. • Open communication; meeting on large issues • Working together on issues • Both side need to be REASONABLE • We can focus are efforts and resources on the service needs of the community and

organization and not get hung up on the "I, me, and mine" aspects all too often associated with mandatory collective bargaining.

• Focus on communication and Leadership • The open lines of communications • Lots of time together. We discuss nearly everything to try and head off formal

actions. The Agency is benefitting from this new found cooperation by working together to refine work rules and agreements. We are also improving training standards and officer development.

• Developing a "shared" vision for the future success of our department. • N/a • Participative management precludes the need for active feedback from labor • Communications • NA • Contractual agreements • Our Chief gets us what we need to be successful. • The fact that before I was the Fire Chief, I was the chief union steward for 12 years. • We are the second highest paid department in our state. • Safety Committee (ironically - the union chairmen of the Department Safety

Committee, was appointed by the Town Manager as Chairmen of the Town Wide Safety Committee which is mostly management), Strategic Planning, Fire Department Merger, various policy committee's.

• willingness to work toward a common goal • realizing that both sides need each other to be effective and productive • Talking. If one group cuts that off all is lost. • Communications • Open line of communications • Good Communication Respect for each other and respect for the process • communication, not just top down • Willingness to work together toward a common goal • Honesty and integrity • we have very little success in the labor management relationship


• Engaging and treating labor as a valued stakeholder in the organization; transparency of processes; purposeful relationship building/maintenance; purposeful communications

• Honesty and fair representation. • We seem to battle with management on everything... • Open communication between the Administration and labor group representatives • respect • unknown • Interest based approach to negotiations and problem solving. • poor success • Communications (2-way) and mutual respect • Open communication between labor and management. • In the past ten years or so, there has been a gap between union management due to

persistant budget cuts. A joint governance committee was formed to address issues but it has not been as successful as it could be.

• Successful contract negotiations without having to got to binding arbitration. • Shared vision for how the department should be • Management always supports firefighter pay as compared to other agencies in the

area. • Openness, honesty, respect • Political influences on the management side. • Continued communications. Labor Management meetings monthly. • The union President's relationships with the city management and Chief officers.

The union President's determination to solve problems and find a middle ground on key issues.

• The ability for each to bring issues to the committee for evaluation. • There really hasn't been a success per se. • WE do not have one. • Trust • Our fire Chief is the former union President. He has a clear understanding on the

importance of a positive labor-management relationship, that being said, members of his management team has not fostered the same relationship thus creating problems with his perceived relationship with labor in the eyes of his leadership team. This relationship is less than a year old and it is a work in progress.

• Openness, sharing ideas/concepts/disagreements early • We do not have a union because if management does what is right there is no need

for one. • Our relationships with city council members • Mutual respect and frequent communication. • Having to come to the table. • Collective Bargaining • Mutual respect between the fire chief and the union's representatives • Open Communications - with truthfulness

• The fact that labor management issues have not been taken personally by either


side. They both seem to respect each others positions, though they may not agree on them.

• Honest communications • We are just implementing our meet and confer process • open negotiations • There are two: 1. Constant, open communications 2. Mutual trust • Very clear and defined roles and relationships. • Trust and a long term history of success in the process • Communications and common goals. • A good working relation between Union president and Fire Chief • Communications, respect, & understanding from both perspectives; and the

understanding of what we are all here for in the first place! • Knowing that some communication exists and heads are not buried in the sand. • More recent success is a result of letter sent by the Association (as they are called by

the City) to the Mayor regarding numerous safety, ethical and fiscal responsibility concerns. This caused a great deal of tension and eventually paved the way for the Chief to leave. Since then better relationships have begun and dialog now exists between both sides.

• People • Communication • There is no successful relationship. No negotiated contract in over 8 years. Binding

arbitration has resolved contracts for 5 of those 8 years. • Communications • Communication and respect • Open communication between labor and department management. • Maintaining communication on "key" issues within the union, and getting away

from past management styles that "skirt" hard, cultural bastions within the department.

• The Board of Directors supports working together • Need qualified Management and Labor leaders with actual job experience and

education. Not just political experience which is used to gain a promotion or political appointment.

• The respect each side has for the others role in the process. • Open dialogue and honesty about pending bad news. • Both sides listening and understanding each others position. • Communication and open door • Putting aside past differences! Being open on both sides. For our County

Commissioners to really understand how a union works and their part in the process!

• Open communications. • Mutual respect of duties. • patience; it seems that it takes a huge amount of time to resolve even the smallest of

issues. • Trying to keep an open mind and open door relationship • Changed the process for Incumbent Physical Ability test which was creating morale


issues. • Keeping the level of involvement high from the labor side. • none • Access of the fire chief for the union president • Communication. They don’t. • Shared goals for the organization understanding that the members' success is tied to

the success of the organization. • The (few) folks that care, are fair and are open minded. • Our union president attends our monthly officers' meetings. • Much of the discussion outside wages is done unofficially between the Union and

Department management. Most of these issues are found to be mutually desirable and are brought into negotiations with both a labor and management endorsement.

• Memorandums of understanding • Our department is relatively young with excellent facilities, equipment and salaries.

We have had no significant issues arise. • Ongoing, open communication between labor and management, not just at

negotiations time. • Honesty • Previous leadership ground work • Communication between the two sides. • Good communications • Union owns Council; get along or else. • Open communication and being able to understand each other's side. • Open communications and bringing them in early on problems. • Communication and pride kept in check. • Communication between both sides • open communication and confidentiality • open, honest communications • Open lines of communication and honesty • Good relationship between the union and management • Consistency, honesty

9. What is or has been the most significant detriment to your labor-management

relationship? • Change-our chief is very proactive and sometimes doesn't do a good job of letting the dust

settle between initiatives. • economy • Leadership • Managements inability to listen to the crews and the "us versus them" mentality. Labor has

no voice in decisions and no representation. • The union's idea that they should defend even the worst employee in the worst of

circumstances. Overtime is king!


• Labor understanding of management's limitations with budget and communication. • Too many pay scales • Decision making without discussing between both parties • Lack of communication • Lack of communications • No collective bargain • Manning issues with budget cuts and laying off of personnel • The Union believes that they run the department and forget that management was selected for

that reason. The Union leadership does not understand the extent of their power. • Lack of understanding/education of union members regarding the mission of the department. • Favoritism and behind the scenes arrangements that have come from leaders promoting their

pet ideas and thoughts and not always representative of the union members! • Lack of an informal meeting process. • Maintaining the trust from Senior management • Lack of confidence. • Management still at times does what they want to and then looks for agreement by labor. • The CBU dealing with the town management in negotiations where a stereotypical game is

played by both sides instead of fruitful communications. I would fault both sides equally depending upon point. The money issues seem to be settled typically with much less strife than something as fundamental as NFPA 1582/83 Wellness.

• Rumors that are not controlled. When there is assumptions being made without going to the source and getting to the facts.

• We have had a significant number of personnel leave the union in the past year based on endorsement of political candidates. This is attributed mostly to many members with conservative values that mean more to them than their pocketbook. Some have also left based on how union dues are spent and how the executive board is reimbursed for their services. Those who have left have been completely severed from any Union supported function (such as awards banquets, fish fry's, etc.) which in my opinion creates more decisiveness and does not encourage them to re-join.

• The 20/80 rule. 20% of the people are doing 80% of the work, whether it be department related or labor / management related. It's usually the same people. This can lead to burnout among those involved. Also on a periodic, but regular basis, either labor or management seems determined to make a bonehead decision which requires the expenditure of much time, effort, and accumulated good will to correct.

• No shared goal or vision each party if out for themselves • Time it takes to get issues resolved • Administration and governing body seem unwilling to work with union. • We have had a great working relationship with our labor-union members. The hardest

challenge has been the city's ability to pay median salaries and the union's discomfort with it. • negotiating for contract after budget has been set • The issue with union members and other members of management not involved with the

Labor Management team, and in return feel that they are without power and a voice due to the steering committee making decisions.

• Inconsistency - in having meetings and in follow-thru on both parties • Lack of honesty and consistency from the former chief.


• Failure on either side to fully disclose their intentions. In other words, lack of open communications.

• Unsubstantiated Rumors • Everything goes to arbitration. • Initial reluctance to believe in the value of a partnering approach. • Closing companies and eliminating positions. • Lack of trust • Can't ID any. Ambilant relationship • n/a • There is NO leadership. Managers are untrained and we have few policies, SOPs of SOGs.

There is no Mission Statement, no Vision, and no formal goals. We use the management by crisis method of running the department. Two of our BCs lie abut everything that goes on, and communication is poor. We have no consistency in anything that is done. This dept is in dire need of an overhaul in the administration asap.

• Appearance of deception by either parties • Attitudes, entitlement • When unions try to go beyond their responsible areas and management does not communicate

relevant issues to the membership • Depending on the personalities leading the union we can experience a "hard core" union

mentality whereby misinformation is communicated to union members and the public. As a result we need to refocus our efforts on accountability and rebuilding eroded trust.

• Poorly trained supervisors • Lack of interest from the line staff in the process • When we get crossed-up on a single issue it tends to snowball into several grievances and an

occasional ULP. Almost all are settled informally and quickly, but the damage to moral is immediate and sometimes has a longer lasting effect.

• Lack of communication due to divergent agendas • N/A • Determining the true feelings of the union members due to their internal issues/lack of

consensus • Different priorities • NA • Lack of respect for each other’s position • Push to meet and confer, mostly labor side wanting everything but not understanding how

everything goes together to make the whole city a success. • Terrible economic times in Michigan • Some folks are carried along by the work of others, often the union feels obligated to defend

someone who might not truly deserve that protection. • Wage and Benefits BC Jack Webb (Former Union President, VP, and Sec. Treasurer) Derry

Fire Department Derry, NH [email protected] • Obstructionist attitude of key union leaders, thankfully both recently retired. • Neither side not willing to give up something to get something. • Lawyers getting involved. The union and management stop talking and the lawyers take over.

Not productive. • Personality conflicts


• The number of changes we have went through with regard to payroll procedures and the pay plan in just a few years.

• During last year's negotiation process, management brought a hardball, hardnosed, expensive lawyer to negotiate for the City. This was a change from past practice when the City utilized an Asst. City Manager as the primary negotiator for the management. The change caused hard feelings, lack of trust, and really seemed to hurt the process and relationship. This year, the City has returned to past practices.

• Lack of communication • Employee expectations. We have a limited number of personnel which require employees to

fulfill a variety of responsibilities. Compensation is usually an issue. Also some members of the department do not believe the department is doing enough to address apparatus staffing concerns.

• Power struggles between the two. • Things were good until a new fire chief was hired and a new union president was elected. The

two of them have issues dating back to grade school and the are constant antagonists of each other.

• None • Taking care of select individuals at the cost of the union membership as a whole. • We seem to battle with management on everything... • None • Occasional stubbornness. usually from not communicating underlying issues • Unknown • Interference from city manager and personnel department. • Out of control union that is very militant, used to getting its own way, complete disregard for

serving the public and out of touch with reality • Lack of communications and mutual respect • Poor or no communications between labor and management. • The last two fire chiefs have carried out service reductions and staffing cuts. Interaction

between the two has been strained at best. The unrepresented battalion chiefs are attempting to join the union due to a reduction of benefits to city management. Past practice was to give management the same raise in pay and benefits that the union got. Over the past few years there has been a reduction in pay and benefits for chief officers, leading to difficulty in attracting candidates for these jobs.

• Lack of communications between management and labor which has lead to a lack of trust. • Poor communications, differing perceptions on how to get to #8 above. • Lack of representation from all groups(BC, Captain, Engineer, Paramedic, Firefighter) • Personal Agendas, lack of follow through from labor • Changes at management and labor - takes time to establish trust • Communication. The Chief and the City manager's office no wanting to discuss issues with

the Union before making decisions. The union always has to seek information out, rather than the Chief or City Manager keeping the union in the loop. Not being officially recognized

• Personal agendas sometimes drive the issues! • Animosity and distrust between the two. • Good Old Boy System is extremely strong. Union and Management relationship is much like

a bitter divorse.


• Effective communication • Dealing with a leadership team that is not willing to work cooperatively with labor. This has

created some problems between the leadership team and the Chief. • Allowing small minority on board dictate what is important to union body • The department tried to organize a couple of years ago and it caused a lot of turmoil. They

really have very little to be organized over, so it died away. • Our City Manager • The length of time since the Fire Chief has visited your fire station and had a conversation

about the department. • Open and honest communication. • Breaking the contract • The city manager being a part of it. • New City Manager - with a stated goal to cut staffing and bring in volunteer staffing in future. • Some of the changes to the labor side caused problems because there was no defined roles and

procedures by labor. It seemed like anyone was bringing issues up. • A previous shop steward who did not represent the wishes of his bargaining unit members. • Old relationships that can't seem to move forward • lack of understanding • In the past, trust issues. • Lack of a shared vision and mutual respect between city management and the labor

organizations. • Relationships and Ego's • It was lack of trust, but issues were resolved and both the management (Chief &

Commissioners), are working towards common goals with the executive board and labor. • Nothing, we communicate and work through the issues together. • When #8 above is not followed. • Bringing in the city--or city managers office during conflicts with issues. • The biggest detriment is that our City is extremely conservative. As such the do not

"officially" recognize the union, however they do want us to find ways to work with them. We are not civil service or collective bargaining.

• Not being able to think outside the box • Lack of respect towards one another • The mayor is an asshole. • Politics and personal agendas • At odds with how to get to end goals • City management not seeking or considering labor's input on issues • Allowing our company officers (middle managers), who are part of the same labor local as the

firefighters, to not take active roles as managers. This was a deteriorating aspect within the organization.

• The Fire Chief does not support the system and is a difficult road bump. • Politics by both Management and Union • The lack of continually fostering a relationship during non-bargaining years. • The "honey-moon" period. We've experienced changes in Fire Chief and Union President

positions over the past decade which lead to a high learning curve for both when it comes to


negotiations.

• We do not trust each other • None as of yet, our department knows that I as the chief am open to an organized labor union,

they know that was my background. • Our County Commissioners leaking information to the press which was to be kept behind

closed doors!! • Inconsistent decisions and thought processes. • A long term contract for labor before the global economic crisis. Pay scale was frozen for

management by the governing body. We now have labor positions that pay better than management positions (Lieutenant's making more than Captain's).

• The power struggle of the union to control every aspect of the organization. • Adversarial approach to issues. • Poor communications and accountability • The lack of involvement from union members in regard to their union reps. The union

firefighters don't want to be active and place a huge burden on their leadership. When the union does not communicate within itself the labor/management discussions and actions suffer.

• Both labor and management despise each other! • We have not had a grievance in over 7 years. We used to have a thing called "breakfast with

the chief" once a month and the union executive board would have breakfast with the chief and his assistant. That has ceased over the past two years with a new chief, but communications still occurs.

• Unknown • Since we are a right to work state with no contract, the relationship between the union and the

fire chief's administration is highly variable depending on the issue. There is not much routine conversation, but instead usually centers around grievances or input to organizational issues such as re-organization, etc.

• Lack of respect. • The current budget crisis. • The appearance has always been that firefighters do not produce anything or have

measurable work. This has led to a constant fight over the lazy overpaid firefighter. This is complicated by the grouping of city jobs into wage bands. A constant fight has been over the wages firefighters deserve/ get.

• Trust issues • The mistaken perception of "tradition" in the fire service. An organization should build it's

own tradition, not live off the imagination and fables of others. • Lack of trust. Union doesn't always trust management due to past practices of management. • Misunderstandings • Communications • Lack of communication of issues before they become issues. • Benefits • Back Door Deals by Union/Council; end runs; lack of trust; Union trying to make paint

manage in a negative light to bolster for position. • Elected Officials.


• New leadership and lack of understanding how Labor fits into the management process. • Management dictates from above the Fire Chief level. • Not have defined roles for both sides • Changes in the personalities on the E-Board. • Lack of open, honest communications • Ineffective leadership • No contract or binding arbitration • Union ff's from other dept.


Appendix C

Implementation Plan Recommendations to Fire Chief McDonald

To: City of Scottsdale Fire Chief William L. McDonald

From: Garret Olson, Deputy Fire Chief, Operations

Date: January 20, 2010

RE: Recommendations based on Executive Fire Officer Program applied research on

pending legislation related to collective bargaining for sworn fire department

personnel

This memorandum of recommendations related to employer-employee relations in the

City of Scottsdale Fire Department is the product of research pertaining to two pending bills in

the United States Congress, House Bill H.R. 413 and Senate Bill S. 1611. As written, these bills

mandate collective bargaining rights for public safety personnel, including various fire

department sworn ranks. The recommended actions below are based on an analysis of these

bills, pertinent literature, personal conversations with key City staff, and a survey of fire service

organizations throughout the United States. The purpose of this recommendation is to

implement a system compliant with pending legislation and reflective of best practices in

employer-employee relations. The full research report is available.

The first step in this process is bringing this issue to the attention of City leadership.

Since the current language of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009 applies only to

police and fire personnel in the City of Scottsdale, the Fire and Police Chiefs may start this

process by discussing this issue with Human Resource General Manager Parker Diggs and


Acting City Manager Richert. Pending their support for developing a plan to address the

pending legislation, the next step would be to brief the other members of the city manager’s

executive team and the city council members. The decision to dedicate city staff time to

developing an implementation plan for public safety collective bargaining is, as you known, a

policy decision requiring city council action. Initial conversations with the council members

may be in small groups to provide information tailored to the needs and desires of individual

council members. Based on these interactions, the city manager may put this issue on the city

council’s agenda as either a work-study session topic or a regular agenda item.

Contingent upon city council approval to move forward, City staff may assemble a

development team to focus on this issue. This team may include the fire chief, police chief, a

labor leader from the police department and the fire department, human resources general

manager, city attorney, a representative of city leadership, a labor attorney, and a labor-relations

specialist. Contracts for the labor attorney and labor-relations specialist will be coordinated

through the City’s existing procurement procedures. The city attorney and human relations

general manager or their designees may develop the request for proposal necessary to secure

these contracts.

The outcome from the development team should be a document providing direction and

guidance on subsequent collective bargaining negotiation efforts. This would include

recommended changes to City Code and administrative regulations. This team would also

develop the plan for selecting, training, and engaging negotiating teams for police and fire.

Based on the work of the development team and the direction of the city council,

members of management and labor may begin assembling the negotiation teams, with separate

negotiation teams for police and fire. The fire department negotiating team may include


representatives from fire department management, human resources, labor, the city attorney’s

office or a contracted labor attorney, and a labor-relations specialist. Labor and management

should take careful consideration to select members of the team who have the greatest potential

to work well together under the philosophy established by the city council and further defined by

the development team.

Based on direction from the city council, the negotiating teams may begin meeting before

passage of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2009. The labor-relations specialist

would be responsible for setting the agenda for the labor-management negotiating teams. This

agenda, which will take a series of meetings to fully address, should cover a broad variety of

topics, including: the philosophy of the city council surrounding this issue; negotiating teams’

values; team building and interpersonal dynamics awareness exercises, particularly those that

focus on trust, respect, and open communications; background on the Public Safety Employer-

Employee Act of 2009; legal and human resources implications, parameters, and standard

definitions; roles and responsibilities of the negotiating team members; identification of timeline

and key mile markers; and development of an internal and external communication plan. Based

on the experience and advice of the labor-relations specialist, these agenda items may be

redefined; however, these items reflect the components of labor-management relations absent

from the City’s current process and reflective of best practices identified from the online survey

and personal communications. Supporting materials for team members would include copies of

H.R. 413, S. 1611, City of Scottsdale Code, relevant administrative regulations, the formal

direction provided by the city council, and enrichment material such as a copy of The Southwest

Way, excerpts from Chief Fire Officer’s Desk Reference, Credibility, Moments of Truth, and

other sources of pertinent information and guidance.


The consistent theme of these enrichment materials as well as the team building and

interpersonal exercises is the most profound research finding: while collective bargaining

mandates greater interaction between employer and employee, it does not ensure an organization

may meet its goals of a successful employer-employee relationship. A unified approach to a

trusting, respectful group process by engaged, credible team members predicates this goal.

Thank you for your time in your background and perspective on this topic and for your

consideration of this recommendation.

Implementation Plan for Collective Bargaining in the ...

Documents

Transcript of Implementation Plan for Collective Bargaining in the ...