D.R. No. 82-14

Synopsis:

The Director of Representation dismisses a Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative seeking a separate negotiations unit for fire and ambulance dispatchers employed by the County of Camden. The Petitioner asserted that the dispatchers were entitled to separate representation because of their eligibility for interest arbitration benefits accorded to firefighters under the Police and Fire Compulsory Arbitration Act. The Director concludes that the dispatchers are not firefighters because they are not engaged in firefighting activities.

PERC Citation:

D.R. No. 82-14, 7 NJPER 631 (¶12283 1981)

Appellate History:

Additional:

Miscellaneous:

NJPER Index:

03.36 15.43 33.333 33.334 33.342 33.382

Issues:

Decisions	WordPerfect	PDF
NJ PERC:	.	- DR 82-014.pdf
Appellate Division:
Supreme Court:

D.R. NO. 82-14 1. D.R. NO. 82-14 STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION In the Matter of COUNTY OF CAMDEN, Public Employer, -and- Docket No. RO-81-43 LOCAL 2778, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, -and- NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL #10, Intervenor. Appearances: For the Public Employer Dorf & Glickman, P.C. (Steven S. Glickman of counsel) For the Petitioner Trimble & Master, attorneys (John W. Trimble of counsel) For the Intervenor Joseph A. Carmen, attorney DECISION On September 15, 1980, a Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the A Commission @ ) by Local 2778, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO ( A Local 2778") seeking to represent approximately 22 fire and ambulance dispatchers employed by the County of Camden (the A County @ ). New Jersey Civil Service Association, Council #10 ( A Council 10"), the current representative of the employees in question, was granted intervenor status in this proceeding. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert Anderson, Jr., on April 9, 1981. At the hearing all parties were given an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence and to argue orally. All parties were provided the opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs. Council 10 filed a post-hearing brief in support of its continued representation of the employees in question. Thereafter, on July 30, 1981, the Hearing Officer issued his Report and Recommendations, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. No party has filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations. The undersigned has considered the entire record herein, including the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations, the transcripts and exhibits, and on the basis thereof, finds and determines as follows: 1. The County of Camden is a public employer within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 et seq. (the A Act @ ), is the employer of the employees who are the subject of this Petition and is subject to the provisions of the Act. 2. Local 2778, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO and New Jersey Civil Service Association Council #10, are employee representatives within the meaning of the Act and are subject to its provisions. 3. Local 2778 seeks to represent a unit consisting of fire and ambulance dispatchers employed by the County of Camden. Local 2778 is neither the recognized nor certified employee representative of these employees at the present time. Council 10 currently represents the employees in question within a broad- based, countywide negotiations unit. 4. The parties have stipulated that the sole disputed issue in this case is whether the County = s fire and ambulance dispatchers are employees engaged in firefighting within the meaning of Chapter 85, P.L. 1977, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14 et seq., the Police and Fire Compulsory Arbitration Act. 5. Local 2778 contends that the employees in question are firefighters by virtue of their training, experience and expertise in performing duties which are necessary to the firefighting function. Accordingly, Local 2778 argues that the dispatchers should be represented in a unit solely comprised of these A firefighting @ employees, and thus they would be eligible for coverage under Chapter 85. 6. Council 10 argues that the disputed employees are not engaged in firefighting, and therefore should remain in its existing unit. Council 10 argues that the employees in the disputed dispatcher titles are not firefighters within the meaning of the Act since they have no specific training in firefighting, there is no requirement that they have any firefighting experience, and, with the exception of a once-a- month field operation, fire and ambulance dispatchers work at the County Communications Center operating the switchboard and keeping and maintaining records. The County has not taken a position with respect to the disputed issue. 7. The Hearing Officer found that the County = s fire and ambulance dispatchers are not A employees engaged in firefighting @ within the meaning of the Police and Fire Compulsory Arbitration Act. Accordingly, he recommended that these employees continue to be in Council 10's broad-based countywide unit and that Local 2778's Petition be dismissed. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-15 defines a public fire department as A ...any department of a municipality, county, fire district or the State or any agency thereof having employees engaged in firefighting provided that such firefighting employees are included in a negotiating unit exclusively comprised of firefighting employees. @ (emphasis supplied). In In re City of Hackensack, D.R. No.79-27, 5 NJPER 150 ( & 10085 1979), the undersigned examined the duties of certain employees performing functions within a fire department and determined that they did not perform firefighter tasks and in fact performed tasks substantially different from firefighting. The undersigned concluded that the employees were not firefighting personnel and that they should not be included in a unit with firefighters since such inclusion would deprive the firefighting personnel of coverage under Chapter 85. Accordingly, in order to attain eligibility for the statutory compulsory arbitration benefits, it must be demonstrated that the individuals must actually be A engaged in firefighting. @ An analysis of the record reveals that the fire and ambulance dispatchers never participate in the physical act of fighting fires. Moreover, with the exception of an occasional on-the-scene field communications assignment, these employees are not present at the actual fire. However, on the occasion when they are present they do not engage in the physical act of firefighting, but rather they serve a communications function. Fire and ambulance dispatchers are not required to have any firefighting training or experience, and no firefighting training is provided to them during their tenure as fire and ambulance dispatchers. Instead, an examination of the record herein indicates that what is most valuable to the dispatchers in terms of education and experience are communications-related skills. Although the dispatchers, in the course of performing their function, acquire a knowledge of fire equipment, the deployment of manpower, methods employed in extinguishing various types of fires -- which knowledge is far in excess of the knowledge possessed by the average lay person -- this information is essentially utilized as part of their communications functions and does not elevate them into the ranks of actual firefighters. In In re City of Newark, D.R. No. 81-18, 7 NJPER 3 ( & 12002 1980), the undersigned considered whether identification officers, communications officers, supervising police property clerks and linemen were A employees engaged in performing police services, @ within the meaning of the Arbitration Act. With respect to police communications officers, the undersigned held: As opposed to the services of identification officers, communications officers are not trained in a special police science. Although their services require some general knowledge of criminal law and police procedures, as well as a knowledge of State Police regulations regarding the transmittal and receipt of teletype messages, their work involves the application of technical and administrative skills which are nonpolice in nature -- teletype transmissions, computer operations, filing and logging of information. The undersigned concludes, therefore, that communications officers are not engaged in providing police services and are not included in the coverage of the interest arbitration statute. In the instant matter, the dispatchers likewise are not trained in special firefighting science and although they acquire general knowledge concerning firefighting procedures, their work involves the application of technical and administrative skills which are non-firefighting in nature. Accordingly, based upon the record, and in the absence of exceptions to the Hearing Officer = s Report and Recommendations, the undersigned determines that the instant fire and ambulance dispatchers are not A engaged in firefighting. @ Therefore, the dispatchers may continue to be included in the broad-based countywide unit, currently represented by Council 10. The instant Petition is hereby dismissed. BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION Carl Kurtzman, Director DATED: October 21, 1981 Trenton, New Jersey ***** End of DR 82-14 *****