D.R. NO. 79-27

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF REPRESENTATION

In the Matter of

CITY OF HACKENSACK,

Public Employer,

-and-	Docket No. CU-77-4

LOCAL 2081, HACKENSACK FIRE

FIGHTERS, IAFF, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner.

________________________________

CITY OF HACKENSACK,

Public Employer,

-and-	Docket No. RO-78-40

LOCAL 2081-A, HACKENSACK FIRE

FIGHTERS, IAFF, AFL-CIO,

Petitioner.

Appearances:

For the Public Employer

Murray, Granello & Kenney, Esqs.

(James P. Granello, of Counsel)

For the Petitioners

Schneider, Cohen & Solomon, Esqs.

(David Solomon, of Counsel)

DECISION

On July 28, 1976, a Petition for Clarification of Unit (the "CU Petitioner"), Docket No. CU-77-4, was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (the "Commission") by Local 2081, Hackensack Fire Fighters, IAFF, AFL-CIO ("Local 2081") raising a question concerning the composition of a collective negotiations unit of rank and file firefighting employees of the City of Hackensack (the "City") which Local 2081 represents. On September 9, 1977, a Petition for Certification of Public Employee Representative (the "RO Petition"), Docket No. RO-78-40, was filed with the Commission by Local 2081-A, Hackensack Fire Fighters, IAFF, AFL-CIO ("Local 2081-A") raising a question concerning the representation of certain employees of the City in a proposed collective negotiations unit which is specifically described below.1/ Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 19:11-2.6, these matters were consolidated by an order of the undersigned dated October 24, 1977.

Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated October 24, 1977, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer James F. Schwerin on December 8, 1977 and March 29, 1978, in Newark, New Jersey. At the hearing, all parties were given the opportunity to examine and to cross-examine witnesses, to present evidence and to argue orally. A post-hearing brief was filed by the City on May 22, 1978. Locals 2081 and 2081-A did not file post-hearing briefs.

The Hearing Officer issued his Report and Recommendations on September 29, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The City filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations on October 16, 1978. Neither Local 2081 nor Local 2081-A has filed exceptions; nor has either Local filed an answering brief to the City's exceptions.

The undersigned has carefully considered the entire record in this proceeding and on the facts in this case finds and determines as follows:

1.	The City of Hackensack 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 "Act"), is the employer of the employees who are the subject of this proceeding, and is subject to the Act's provisions.2/

2.	Local 2081 and Local 2081-A, Hackensack Fire Fighters, IAFF, AFL-CIO, are employee representatives within the meaning of the Act and are subject to its provisions.3/

3.	Local 2081 currently is the recognized representative of a collective negotiations unit consisting of:

all Fire Fighters employed by the City excluding craft employees, police officers, office clericals, fire superiors, supervisors within the meaning of the Act, managerial executives, officers and all others.4/

Through its Petition for Clarification of Unit, Local 2081 claims to represent in its unit: (1) uniformed firefighters serving as paramedics ("paramedic/UFD"); (2) uniformed firefighters serving as EMTs ("EMT/UFD"); (3) uniformed firefighters serving in the Fire Prevention Bureau ("fire inspectors"); and (4) the uniformed firefighter serving in the position of Fire Department Clerk ("Department clerk").

4.	Local 2081-A, in its proposed unit, seeks to represent: (1) civilian paramedics; (2) civilian EMTS (emergency medical technicians); (3) fire department mechanics; and (4) the fire signal repairs (a.k.a. police and fire signal repairer or fire alarm electrician).

5.	The City contends that the mechanics and the repairer sought by Local 2081-A have historically been included in an existing unit of blue collar employees (blue collar/DPW employees) represented by Council No. 5, New Jersey Civil Service Association,5/ and that the mechanics and repairer lack a sufficient community of interest to be in a unit with civilian paramedics and EMTS; that the fire inspectors do not possess a sufficient community of interest with all uniformed firefighters to warrant inclusion in Local 2081's firefighter unit; and that the paramedics/UFD and EMTS/UFD lack a sufficient community of interest with firefighters to be included in the firefighter unit. The City further maintains that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over certain employees who are employed under the federal Comprehensive Employment and Training Act ("CETA") and thus may not confer any representation rights upon them under the [New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations] Act.

Accordingly, as there exists both a question concerning the composition of a collective negotiations unit and a question concerning representation of employees, and as a dispute exists, the instant matter is properly before the undersigned for determination.

6.	The Hearing Officer concluded that the existing unit represented by Local 2081 -- all firefighters -- should be clarified to include the paramedics/UFD, and EMTs/UFD, the fire inspectors and the Department clerk. Further, the Hearing Officer recommended that a unit comprised of civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs is an appropriate negotiations unit, but that the mechanics and repairer should be excluded therefrom.

7.	The City filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Report and Recommendations. In exceptions 1, 4 and 5, the City disputes the Hearing Officer's recommendations that the firefighters' unit should be clarified to include paramedics/UFD, EMTS/UFD, the Department clerk and fire inspectors. The City contends that the Hearing Officer did not rely on community of interest standards and misinterpreted N.J.S.A. 34:13A-15. In exceptions 2 and 3, the City objects to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that a unit of civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs is an appropriate unit for negotiations. The City contends that CETA employees, who constitute a majority of the unit petitioned for by Local 2081-A, are not public employees within the meaning of the Act but are federal employees. Accordingly, the City maintains that the Commission has no jurisdiction over CETA employees. The City further asserts that the representation of a unit of non-firefighting employees by Local 2081-A -- which the City claims is the same organization as Local 2081 -- would give rise to an impermissible conflict of interest, and, further, that Local 2081 has evidenced hostility toward CETA employees.

Finally, in exception 6, the City maintains that inasmuch as Local 2081-A is the same organization as Local 2081, and since Local 2081 has current and recently expired agreements with the City, the RO Petition is untimely under the Commission's rules.6/

The undersigned will first address two preliminary issues: (1) the status of Local 2081-A as an employee representative; and (2) the status and rights under the Act of the CETA employees herein.

N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3(e) defines the term "representative" as including:

any organization, agency or person authorized or designated by a public employee, group of public employees, or public employee association to act on its behalf and represent it or them.

Local 2081-A has the same constitution and bylaws and the same officers as Local 2081. Local 2081-A has a representative on the Executive Board of Local 2081. The undersigned determines that Local 2081-A is an employee organization, is a branch or affiliate of Local 2081, and has close ties to Local 2081. Local 2081-A has filed an RO Petition with an accompanying showing of interest in which employees designate Local 2081-A as their representative. The undersigned concludes that Local 2081-A is an employee representative within the meaning of the Act.

The undersigned observes that the Act does not preclude non-
firefighting employees from choosing a firefighters' organization, or an affiliate thereof, as their representative, nor does the Act preclude a firefighting organization, or an affiliate thereof, from becoming the exclusive representative of such employees in an appropriate unit. The City has not advanced a compelling reason to require otherwise. Accordingly, there is no statutory or other proscription of the representation of a separate unit of non-firefighters by a firefighters' organization or an affiliate thereof.

The City claims that there is a conflict of interest between Local 2081 and CETA employees, based upon an alleged letter from the Local 2081 President, which allegedly indicated "hostility" toward CETA employees. The undersigned, in previous decisions, has distinguished between a "conflict of interest," as that concept is defined in Borough of East Orange Board of Education v. Wilton, 57 N.J. 404 (1971), and the "competing interests" among various groupings of employees as to terms and conditions of employment. See In re Mercer County Prosecutor, D.R. No. 79-
18, 5 NJPER 60 (¶10039 1979); In re Long Branch Board of Education, D.R. No. 78-24, 3 NJPER 392 (1977). The undersigned rejects the City's claim, in either context, as there are simply no record facts to support it. The Commission cannot presume that an employee representative, if chosen the exclusive representative, will fail to meet its statutory obligation to fairly represent employees. See, AFSCME v. P.E.R.C., CSA, SEA, Docket No. A-986-72 (App. Div. February 27, 1973) (unpublished).

Additionally, the undersigned rejects the City's assertion that the RO Petition is untimely filed due to the City's contract with Local 2081 in the firefighters' unit. The RO Petition filed by Local 2081-A seeks certification of Local 2081-A as the exclusive negotiations representative of allegedly unrepresented non-firefighting employees in a separate collective negotiations unit. The contract covering the employees in the firefighting unit does not bar this Petition. Accordingly, there is no contract or other timeliness bar to the instant Petition, unless it is found that petitioned-for employees, who would appropriately be included in the proposed unit, are represented by Council No. 5, and that a valid contract exists with Council No. 5 which would act as a bar.

There are 17 individuals currently employed in the City's Emergency Medical Program:

1	civilian EMT (CETA)

12	civilian paramedics (8 CETA, 1 non-CETA, 3 status unspecified)

4	paramedics/UFD

0	EMT/UFD

The City maintains that CETA employees are not employees within the meaning of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act and thus have no representation rights under the Act. Accordingly, the City excepted to the Hearing Officer's inclusion of CETA paramedics and CETA EMTs in a negotiations unit.

The undersigned has addressed the issue of the rights and status of CETA employees in several prior decisions.7/ The facts in the instant matter do not appear to materially differ from those in the prior decisions concerning CETA employees.

The hiring process for CETA employees herein, while somewhat different from that of the non-CETA employees, is substantially controlled by the employer. The record shows that the CETA administration generally does pre-hire screening of candidates and then sends them to the City for the final hiring decision. As it was somewhat difficult to locate suitable candidates for the paramedic and EMT positions, the City used other sources in addition to the CETA administration to secure potential candidates for the available positions. The CETA paramedics and CETA EMTs are stationed in the City firehouse. The City provides direction and supervision for these employees in their delivery of emergency medical services to the community -- in the field, these employees are supervised by more highly qualified medical personnel (doctors, nurses and other hospital personnel); in the firehouse, they are supervised by superior officers of the fire department. Departmental rules apply to the civilian CETA employees where the circumstances warrant. The City may, where warranted, mete out discipline to these civilian employees. The City sets their work schedule -- the days and hours of employment. The City determined the initial level of compensation and fringe benefits for the positions of paramedics/UFD and EMT/UFD, as well as the compensation and fringe benefits for civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs. The paramedic/UFD and EMT/UFD positions were compensated in a manner similar to firefighters; the civilian paramedic and civilian EMT positions were compensated in a manner more consistent with employees in the Council No. 5 unit.

Thus, it appears that in large measure the City effectively controls the hire, discharge, discipline, supervision, direction and compensation of the CETa employees who are "employed" by the City, subject to and within the restrictions imposed by the CETA legislation and the United States Department of Labor rules and regulations enacted pursuant thereto. In In re Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders, supra, n.7, the undersigned concluded that CETA personnel:

have a sufficient regularity in their employment relationship to be entitled to the protections of the Act and the right to negotiate with their employer as to their terms and conditions of employment, subject to any restrictions that the federal legislation imposes upon the employment relationship.

In In re County of Hudson, supra, n.7, the undersigned addressed the County's concern that CETA employees were employed under a financial grant which was for a term certain. The undersigned observed:

It is the judgment of the undersigned that the fact that these CETA employees are currently employed under a CETA grant for only ten months as contrasted to the CETA employees in the Passaic County matter whose CETA employment was indefinite dos not present a distinction which would warrant a change in the Commission's enunciated policy. The ten month period of guaranteed employment continues to qualify these CETA personnel as public employees . . .

Finally, in In re County of Somerset, supra, n.7, the undersigned

stated:

The continued employment for such personnel, in the absence of or in lieu of CETA funding, is dependent upon the ability of the County to substitute its own funding and its desire to offer continued employment.

The undersigned, in studying and analyzing the record, including the exceptions and the brief in support thereof, has determined that no factual or legal arguments have been advanced by the City to warrant a conclusion different from the Commission's determinations in the cases cited. Accordingly, pursuant to the foregoing findings and discussion, the undersigned determines that the CETA employees herein are public employees within the meaning of the Act, that the City substantially controls labor relations affecting these employees and, thus, that the City is the employer of the CETA personnel employed pursuant to this federally funded program.

Next, the undersigned turns to the appropriate unit placement for the titles at issue herein.

Paramedic and EMT Titles

The Hearing Officer found appropriate a unit comprised of civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs. The City excepted. There are four titles in the instant matter -- paramedic/UFD, civilian paramedic, EMT/UFD, civilian EMT -- which, taken as a whole, all perform work of a similar nature: they render emergency medical services to the community -- the paramedics rendering medical services of a somewhat more sensitive and highly technical nature than do the EMTs. The record reveals no functional differences between paramedics/UFD and civilian paramedics and no functional differences between EMTs/UFD and civilian EMTs.8/ The training for the paramedic and EMT positions is the same for the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD as it is for their civilian "brethren." Both groups -- paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD; civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs -- receive supervision and direction in the field from more highly qualified medical personnel when available. Where more highly skilled personnel are not available, the paramedic squad leader gives technical supervision. When stationed in the firehouse, both groups take direction from the fire department captain or higher ranking personnel on duty. Both groups are subject to fire department rules. The paramedic/UFD and EMT/UFD group and the civilian paramedic and civilian EMT group share many other common terms of employment. There are no differences in their work schedules based upon a UFD/civilian distinction. They have the same working conditions, operate the same equipment and receive a clothing allowance.

While there are different hiring practices for the UFD positions, different compensation and fringe benefits and different promotional opportunities, in consideration of all the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that a substantial community of interest is shared by the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD and the civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs -- largely because the UFD and civilian positions perform identical functions. This substantial community of interest may be contrasted with several important differences observed between firefighters and the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD. While both the firefighters and the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD have received training as firefighters, the latter group received further training in emergency medical service work. The two groups perform widely differing jobs. Firefighters perform firefighting functions. Paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD, as indicated above, render emergency medical services. Working conditions for the two groups differ. There are differing lines of supervision in the firehouse and completely different supervision in the field. Firefighters have a different work schedule than do the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD and the firefighters use different equipment in performing their tasks.

While paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD are certified as firefighters, they are performing a completely different and separate function, their certification notwithstanding. The record reveals that there has been no interchangeability of job functions between the firefighters and the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD, except for infrequent situations where firefighters have been assigned to drive the emergency medical vehicle due to a short-staffed paramedic/EMT shift. Of great significance is the fact that the paramedic/UFD and EMT/UFD employees, since their classification as such, have not performed firefighting duties. In effect their firefighter certification lies dormant. Thus, although certified as firefighters, the paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD do not perform firefighter tasks and in fact perform tasks substantially different from firefighting. Under these circumstances, certification as a firefighter is not a compelling factor in determining appropriate unit placement.

The inclusion in the firefighters' unit of paramedics/UFD and EMTs/UFD, who have been determined as not performing firefighting activities, would have the effect of negating the public policy of this State as expressed in N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14 et seq.9/

Chapter 85 states:10/

1.	It is the public policy of this State that in public fire and police departments, where public employees do not enjoy the right to strike, it is requisite to the high morale of such employees and the efficient operation of such departments to afford an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of disputes, and to that end the provisions of this act, providing for compulsory arbitration, shall be liberally construed.

2.	"Public fire department" means 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.

* * *

Therefore, it appears that the inclusion of non-firefighting personnel in a unit with firefighters would disqualify such units from coverage under Chapter 85 and would deprive the firefighting personnel, the public employer and the public of the "alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of disputes" provided by Chapter 85.

Given the substantial community of interest extant between the paramedics and EMTs -- both UFD and civilian -- the undersigned determines that the appropriate unit for collective negotiations would be one including paramedics/UFD, EMTs/UFD, civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs.

Mechanic and Repairer Titles

Local 2081-A seeks to include in its proposed unit the titles of fire department mechanic and fire signal repairer in addition to the civilian paramedic and civilian EMT titles discussed above. The City, in opposition, contends that the mechanics and repairer are included in the Department of Public Works blue collar unit represented by Council No. 5 and do not share a sufficient community of interest with the civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs to be included in a unit with them. The Hearing Officer recommended the exclusion of the mechanics and repairer from the unit proposed by Local 2081-A. None of the parties has filed exceptions to this recommendation. The undersigned adopts the Hearing Officer's finding that the repairer is included in Council No. 5's unit. In addition, the undersigned adopts the Hearing Officer's finding that all mechanics are part of the Department of Public Works and may be assigned to work in other garages such as police and fire. Likewise, the undersigned adopts the Hearing Officer's finding that the mechanics' benefits are consistent with the provisions of Council No. 5's contract. Therefore, the undersigned concludes that the most appropriate unit placement for the repairer and mechanics is in the Council No. 5 collective negotiations unit. Accordingly, the unit petitioned for by Local 2081-A is found to be inappropriate inasmuch as it proposes to include one title (repairer) currently in the Council No. 5 unit, and fails to include two titles (paramedic/UFD and EMT/UFD) which most appropriately belong in the same unit with civilian paramedics and civilian EMTs. Based on the findings enumerated above, the undersigned determines that the appropriate unit is a unit of emergency medical service personnel assigned to the fire department, including the following titles: paramedic/UFD, EMT-
UFD, civilian paramedic and civilian EMT; but excluding fire department mechanic, repairer, firefighters, confidential employees, managerial executives, police employees, professional employees, craft employees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.11/

Department Clerk Title

Local 2081, in its CU Petition, seeks to clarify the status of the Department clerk. The Hearing Officer recommended that the Department clerk should be included in the firefighters' unit represented by Local 2081. The City excepted, claiming that the agreement between the City and Local 2081 specifically excludes clericals, the Department clerk performs clerical functions, and inasmuch as Local 2081 failed to seek the Department clerk's inclusion in the unit for a number of years after the creation of the firefighters' unit, Local 2081 has abandoned any right to include the Department clerk in its unit.

The Department clerk was identified as a firefighter by Chief Jones. The"official" City title for this position is "Chief Chauffeur." The employee holding this title has worked as the Department clerk for at least seven years.

When in headquarters, the Department clerk performs clerical duties. In fact, most of his duties are of a clerical nature. Working conditions for the Department clerk are necessarily different from those of firefighters.

While the Department clerk is identified as a firefighter, the evidence does not indicate that he is engaged in firefighting duties. An employee's certification in a particular job title or employment in a position with a particular job description is not a compelling factor in a determination concerning unit placement where the record evidence indicates that actual job performance bears little or no resemblance to the underlying certification or job description.

The undersigned notes that the recognition clause of the current agreement between the City and Local 208112/ specifically excludes office clerical employees from the firefighters' unit. Accordingly, based on the factors enumerated above, the undersigned determines that the Department clerk is excluded from the firefighters' unit.13/

Fire Inspector Title

The Hearing Officer recommended that the firefighter unit be clarified to include fire inspectors. The City argues that Local 2081 waived its right to include the fire inspector position in its unit inasmuch as the Fire Prevention Bureau has existed for over 25 years, thus predating the formation of the firefighter unit, and inasmuch as Local 2081 has negotiated several contracts which have not included fire inspectors assigned to the Bureau. The City also contends that the fire inspectors lack the requisite community of interest necessary for their inclusion in the same negotiations unit with firefighters. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned rejects the position of the City and adopts the recommendations of the Hearing Officer.

The Fire Prevention Bureau is currently staffed by two lieutenants (certified uniformed fire officers) and three firefighters (certified uniformed firefighters, hereinafter "fire inspectors"). The fire inspectors receive the same base pay and fringe benefits as do the firefighters. However, the fire inspectors get a larger clothing allowance and receive a "stipend" in addition to a firefighter's base pay. The fire inspectors have the same promotional opportunities as are available to the firefighters. Their training is similar -- all fire inspectors have, at least, been trained as firefighters; some fire inspectors have received various kinds of additional training.14/ Schedules of work for these two groups are different in that firefighters work a full shift schedule while the fire inspectors work regular day shifts. The Bureau has always been staffed solely by firefighters. Appointment to the Fire Prevention Bureau is by decision of the Chief with the approval of the City Manager. The record reveals that a regular practice has developed in the fire department wherein temporarily disabled firefighters are assigned to the Bureau. The record also establishes that permanently disabled firefighters may be assigned to the Bureau. In addition, it appears that assignment to the Fire Prevention Bureau is not necessarily permanent inasmuch as fire inspectors may be returned to line firefighting duties.

Working conditions, while not specifically identical, are generally similar in that both firefighters and fire inspectors are engaged in different aspects of firefighting. The fire inspectors perform various tasks including inspections, issuance of licenses and permits, and conduct arson investigations.

The parties, in their negotiated agreement covering 1974-
1976, in effect when the instant CU Petition was filed, recognize fire inspection as part of firefighting responsibilities. Article XXVI of that agreement, entitled "Duties," states:15/

26.1 The duties of a fireman are as follows: During an assigned tour of duty, answers fire alarms and assists in extinguishing fires: performs the necessary tasks involved in the cleaning and maintaining of fire equipment, apparatus and building; does related work as required and such other duties as permitted by Civil Service Law....

26.2 A. Firemen may be assigned to regular public safety fire and safety patrol which would include, but not by way of limitation, the following:

1.	Fire Prevention Investigations

2.	Smoke Investigations

3.	Fire Zone Violations

4.	Elevator Calls

5.	Sprinkler Alarm Calls

6.	Bomb Investigations

7.	Public Building Inspection (Movie

Theaters and similar establishments)

8.	Answer all Fire Calls in Designated

Areas

9.	Hazards of other types to be reported: D.P.W., Police, Building, and Health.

10.	Ambulance

* * *

Thus, the duties of a firefighter, as envisioned by the parties' agreement, encompass more than answering fire calls and assisting in extinguishing fires. Firefighters may be called upon to perform, inter alia, fire prevention investigations, fire zone violation patrol or building inspections -- tasks described in the record as being performed by fire inspectors.

Tasks associated with fire prevention -- various inspections, investigations, etc. -- are elements of the broad process of firefighting. The Department of Civil Service, on March 22, 1976, stated to Local 2081: "Please be advised that it is the policy of this Department to consider the duties performed in the Fire Prevention Bureau by members of the firefighting staff to be an assignment within the Fire Department not requiring a change in title classification." (Exhibit P-1)

The recognition clauses of the parties' agreements include "...all firemen [firefighters] employed by the City...." The undersigned notes that the recognition clauses of the agreements between the City and Local 2081 not only do not exclude fire inspectors from the firefighters' unit but, in fact, Paragraph 26 of the contracts defines a firefighter duty as encompassing fire inspection.16/ The parties' failure to specifically negotiate concerning the additional stipend paid to the fire inspectors and the greater clothing allowance provided for them is not dispositive of the question of unit placement. Based upon the above, the undersigned cannot accept the position of the employer that there has been a waiver by Local 2081 of the representation of fire inspectors.

The instant Clarification Petition does not seek to add new titles or new functions to an existing unit; nor does it seek to add existing titles to a unit from which said titles had previously been excluded. Rather, the undersigned views the question raised by the CU Petition as purely a matter of identification -- i.e., whether the titles are encompassed within the inclusionary or exclusionary language of the unit description as contained in the parties' negotiated agreement. Under such circumstances, the clarification of unit petition may be filed at any time and the determination will be effective immediately.17/

Based upon the foregoing discussion, the undersigned concludes that the fire inspectors perform firefighting functions, that they share a community of interest with the uniformed firefighters and, most importantly, that the parties' agreements contemplated the inclusion in the negotiations unit of employees performing the duties performed by the fire inspectors.

Accordingly, the undersigned determines that the firefighters' negotiations unit represented by Local 2081 is clarified as including fire inspectors.

Petition for Certification of Representative

filed by Local 2081-A

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned concludes that the most appropriate unit for collective negotiations is one including all paramedics and EMTs employed by the City (including CETA employees) -- i.e., all paramedics/UFD, all civilian paramedics, all EMTs/UFD and all civilian EMTs; and excluding the fire mechanics, the signal repairer, managerial executives, confidential employees, police employees, supervisors within the meaning of the Act and all other employees. Thus, the undersigned determines that the unit petitioned for by Local 2081-A is inappropriate and substantially different from the unit determined to be the most appropriate unit herein. Accordingly, the Petition is hereby dismissed.18/

Petition for Clarification of Unit

filed by Local 2081

Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned hereby clarifies the firefighters' unit represented by Local 2081 to include all fire inspectors, i.e., all certified uniformed firefighters serving in the Fire Prevention Bureau. Finally, the undersigned determines that the Department clerk is excluded from the firefighters' unit.

BY ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR

OF REPRESENTATION

/s/Carl Kurtzman, Director

DATED:	March 27, 1979

Trenton, New Jersey