PAX Centurion - Summer 2014

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • Summer 2014 • Page 5 Vice President’s Message: Ronald McGillivray, BPPA Vice President Dennis Simmonds O n Thursday, April 10, 2014, the Boston Police Department suffered the loss of on-duty Police Officer Dennis Simmonds. Officer Simmonds was appointed to the BPD in 2008. Officer Simmonds was a highly-decorated member having received the Schroeder Brothers Memorial Medal for his actions in the Watertown shoot-out following the 2013 Boston Marathon. Dennis was scheduled to be honored nationally at theWhite House at a Top Cops event sponsored by NAPO (National Association of Police Officers) for his bravery. Dennis’ send-off was impressive in that thousands of officers honored both Dennis and his family in celebrating his life. Dennis had done so much in such a short time as evidenced by the turnout of his peers. It is hard in retrospect not to realize that everyday going forward is a gift. Dennis will be missed, but never forgotten. A special recognition to the 22 members of Local 589 who handled the transportation to and from the staging area(s) on their own time. Our appreciation and gratitude cannot be properly expressed in words. Thank you all. Future bargaining possibilities? M ost of the intrigue has settled within public safety though the Detectives are scheduled for mediation in mid-June. The recent arbitrated BPPA contract wasn’t a one size fits all and left younger officers based on their time on the job question- ing their parity within the ranks compared with their 20 and 25 year counterparts. Getting roughly speaking ten bargaining opportunities in one’s contractual lifetime one can appreciate why each result is put under the microscope. This arbitrator was tasked with shaping a prospective pattern that would be fair to all parties given a disparate landscape that needed direction. The arbitrator’s decision limited base wages in the first 36 months and enhanced those closer to retirement after 48 months (this July) so as to parallel a similarly situated firefighter approaching retire- ment but not hurt the City with retro monies keeping in mind the Fire averaged over 30 thousand in retro monies in the prior arbitration. In doing so, he took care of the City and veteran officers with the final piece(s) left for the next bargaining cycle. If the Bargaining Committee is to follow the arbitrator’s thought process, that was too expensive to fully reconcile in the last cycle, the 15-, 10- and 5-year officers without the education incentive would be the centerpiece of the next phase of bargaining. Advancing those officers to the $8,000 longevity range would begin the collec- tive parallel of similarly situated firefighters. Closing the remaining 25% gap left by the Governor’s takeaway of those with the educa- tion incentive would allow future bargaining teams to deal with base wages for all. These are two large segments of our population that do not overlap assuring better range of monetary distribution. There are other smaller constituencies in the next cycle that should be consid- ered up front that could affect the educational incentives timing for full implementation. See Vice President on page 34 The Detectives and Superiors might argu- ably make a better bargaining fit with the City in that both have a high percentage of those with degrees and would issue-wise be easier to deal with given their demographic uniformity. There are both pros and cons for all parties in shaping the basis for what everyone will receive as we can see as this cycle endures. The Mayor is a strong proponent of an educated police force and whether this influences the vetting process or other moving parts is still un- clear but it is assured that the process will be fair and reasoned as to the final outcome. As the City weighs its options for July of 2016, there will be a collective urgency from the police groups to get a deal done with an awareness as to the last cycle’s lack of retro and the first six months of wages that were eliminated entirely. There will likely be a defined window so as not to put the Fire’s last year, which would be our first year, in retroactive doubt. With the JLMC (Joint Labor Management Committee) as the backdrop who the City chooses as the primary trendsetter will be interesting with a quicker rather than measured pace expected. Replacement traffic vests I n January of 2012, theAssociation filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) with the Department of Labor Relations (DLR) alleging the City unlawfully required officers to purchase replacement traffic vests. Prior to October of 2008, the Department provided the initial traffic belts and replaced them at no cost. Since October of 2008 when the Department eliminated traffic belts in favor of traffic vests, the Department’s position was that Special Order 08-035 and the revised Rule 306 was sufficient notice of the change that prospec- tively had officers paying to replace the vests as needed. A timeliness argument was forwarded by the City asserting the six-month period for filing charges with the DLR begins when the party actually receives notice of the conduct alleged to be an unfair la- bor practice. TheAssociation argued that it became aware in October of 2011 when Central Supply had denied an officer’s request for a re- placement vest. “To determine whether a binding past practice exists, the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB) analyzes the combination of facts including whether the practice clearly oc- curred with regularity over a period of time so that it is reasonable to expect that the practice will continue.” There was no argument from the city regarding the practice of officers receiving traffic belts at no cost. They defended the change by pointing to the special notes section of revised Rule 306 contending that the Department’s exclu- sion of traffic vests from the list of issued items constitutes sufficient notice. The City’s main argument of “waiver by inaction” fell short when it had to prove that the Union had “actual knowledge or notice of the proposed change; a reasonable opportunity to negotiate prior to the employer’s implementation of the change and unreasonably or inex- plicably failed to bargain or request bargaining.” It has to be “clear and unmistakable.” It was not according to the hearing officer and a W for the Union. The “make whole” portion of the Order requires a receipt or “Form 26” stating that you were ordered to purchase a vest