NEWS

Mayor, firefighters disagree over alleged over payments

By ALEX MALM
Posted 11/25/21

Should more than 80  firefighters pay back the unused sick time under an amendment to their contract that was never ratified?

Mayor Frank Picozzi says yes, but the Warwick Fire Union feels …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
NEWS

Mayor, firefighters disagree over alleged over payments

Posted

Should more than 80  firefighters pay back the unused sick time under an amendment to their contract that was never ratified?

Mayor Frank Picozzi says yes, but the Warwick Fire Union feels differently.

In 2013 then Fire Chief Edmund Armstrong signed a deal with the Union which was witnessed by then Solicitor Peter Ruggiero.

However, that amendment to the contract was never ratified by the City Council or signed by then Mayor Scott Avedisian.

That practice ended under the late Mayor Joseph Solomon.

In 2018 the City Solicitor John Harrington wrote a 10 page brief which stated the  "2013 document that purported to be an agreement between the Union and the City modifying the payment of excess unused sick leave is void and unenforceable."

It goes on to read, "Any credit for additional sick leave or additional compensation that was paid to employees based on that 2013 document was credited or paid in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that was in effect from 2012 to 2018."

That legal brief was part of a report from the accounting Marcum, commissioned by the City Council more than three years ago but not released until the end of August.

Liz Tufts, spokesperson for Picozzi released a statement Monday reading, "following the release of the Marcum report and after much legal research Mayor Picozzi has determined that in 2013 the firefighter contract was amended contrary to the proper process and was not binding. The city must seek reimbursement of any monies paid out under that amendment."

According to the YKSM (now Marcum) report, depending on the calculation used, firefighters were collectively paid $385,875 in excess payments.

Rob Cote who brought the issue to the Council's attention in 2016 hopes Picozzi follows through with getting the money back but isn't holding his breath.

"I would be delightfully surprised if in fact he follows through with it, without making any other type of deal," Cote said in an interview on Tuesday. He said that he also doesn't want the City to say something to the effect that it would be too costly for a legal challenge.

"It's indisputable you have the legal precedent, you have the State law and the Mayor needs to get all the money back," Cote said.

Michael Carreiro, president of the Warwick Firefighters Union said that they feel differently about what happened. 

He said that the matter  “involved a contract interpretation dispute over the terms of an ambiguous provision in the collective bargaining agreement,” between the Union and the City. 

“That provision allowed for payment of unused sick time for up to 10 days, but did not address what happened to the other 10 days that accrued during the year. In 2013, the parties attempted to clarify the ambiguous language in the CBA via a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which permitted members to carry over any sick time that was not paid out that did not exceed the contractual cap. In 2015, the parties executed a successor agreement that permitted the payout of up to 15 unused sick days. The CBA did not specifically address whether the additional 5 sick days could be carried over but, in accordance with the MOU and the parties' past-practice, members were permitted to carry over the 5 sick days that were not paid out, provided they did not exceed the contractual cap of 140.”

Carreiro said that the Union disagreed with Harrington’s opinion that the MOU was invalid because it didn’t get ratified by the City Council. 

“Because the MOU did not amend the CBA, but rather clarified the parties' understanding of what the CBA provision meant, it did not need to be ratified by the Council,” Carreiro  said. “Further, even if the MOU was ‘invalid,’ it could still be used as evidence of past-practice between the parties as to the interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision. To the extent Attorney Harrington claimed that past-practice jurisprudence did not apply, he was wrong.”

Carreiro said that in August 2018 Solomon “unilaterally discontinued the parties long-standing practice of permitting the Union to carry over up to 5 earned, but unused, sick days a year. Because the Mayor's action violated the CBA, MOU and the parties' past practice, the Union filed a grievance. The City claimed that its practice of permitting members to carry over up to 5 days of accumulated sick time per year was not consistent with the CBA.”

He said that the Union disagreed and believed that the MOU and the past- practice “was evidence that the ambiguous contract provision permitted the carryover of days that were not used, or paid out.”

Carreiro said in October 2019 the grievance was resolved through a settlement.  He said that it is specified in the current contract. 

“As part of that settlement agreement, the language of the CBA was changed,” he said. “Notably the Union gave up four sick days per year in the new contract and agreed to cap any payout of unused sick days at 12. That language was ratified by the City Council.”

“Given that this matter was amicably resolved by all parties nearly two years ago, and the agreement was ratified by the City Council, the Marcum report is meaningless,” Carreiro said. “The report is based on an interpretation of the CBA that the Union disagreed with, challenged, and, ultimately was resolved through a settlement agreement and subsequent CBA.”

Carreiro said that this isn’t the first time the Union and Harrington haven’t agreed on an issue. 

“Mr. Harrington also advised the council to change pension benefits through an ordinance without negotiating through the collective bargaining process. He was wrong regarding that matter cause we challenged those pension changes and ultimately prevailed. Mr. Harrington gave bad advice then and continues to do so now.”

While the Mayor feels that the City should be reimbursed it may not be the end of the story.

Tufts said, "The administration has met with the union and they dispute the Mayor's opinion and said they will present documentation to corroborate their view. When received, the administration will review it with the solicitor and decide how to proceed."

Carreiro, said that he doesn’t think any of the Union’s rank and file members should have to reimburse the City. 

“I don’t fault him for this issue. I understand where he’s coming from,” Carreiro said about Picozzi’s comments regarding the City seeking reimbursements. “We will share our report that was done by ward fisher with the city admin and solicitor. And if any members have any of their wages garnished.. that will be considered wage theft and we will seek for any penalties and attorneys fees.”

When asked for a copy of the report Carreiro said he has to let the City review it first. 

Council President Steve McAllister said on Wednesday morning that a judge might be the one who determines the final outcome.

“There has been no consensus on the issue,” he said. ”The court may have to decide.”

mayor, firefighters, over payments

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here