February 28, 1999
Firefighters progressing through grievance process
By David Crawford
Staff Writer
Three Tiffin firefighters have progressed through two levels of the union grievance process in response to being disciplined.
The appeals of Captains William Wilkins and Matthew Palmer, the two firefighters who filed union grievances, have been denied by both Fire Chief William Ennis and City Administrator Wayne Stephens. Their next step would be an independent arbitration hearing on their grievances.
Firefighter Mark Wagner's grievance was denied by Ennis because it was filed after the 10-calendar-day grievance filing period had expired. On Friday, Stephens said he had not received an appeal of Ennis's decision on Wagner.
Each of the firefighters filed a grievance with the firefighters' union regarding the discipline they received from Stephens Feb. 9 as a result of disciplinary hearings and an independent investigation of behavior within the fire department.
The investigation was a city response to a Ohio Civil Rights Commission complaint filed by a female firefighter. The investigator reported that Wilkins, Palmer and Wagner contributed to creating a hostile work environment within the department. Wilkins and Palmer each received demotions and suspensions. Wagner received only a suspension.
The discipline has already been imposed, but each is seeking through their grievances a reversal or reduction of the discipline.
Wilkins
In his grievance, Wilkins stated the city has unfairly singled him out in a city attempt to weaken the fire union and that the charges against him are broad, ambigious, and without merit.
''The so-called 'evidence' is from 'nameless, faceless' witness,'' Wilkins stated.
On the specific incidents uncovered in the investigation, Wilkins answered them individually.
Wilkins stated he had no knowledge that Mark Wagner was violating the city guideline on sleeping attire. He further stated that Wagner's violation has never been proven or that Wilkins allowed Wagner to violate the guideline.
On his insubordination and intimidation of other firefighters, Wilkins stated that these charges are based on one person's words against another's. In addition, Wilkins stated, if he was such a subversive and intimidating employee, why is there no record of this behavior in his more than 20 years of service in the department?
Wilkins disagreed with the charge that he improperly conducted the evaluations requested by Ennis. He stated he was one of only two captains to conduct the evaluations during the time requested by Ennis.
Wilkins stated he expressed concern in conducting an evaluation for a female firefighter. Ennis never scheduled an evaluation where Wilkins, Ennis, and the female firefighter would be present at the same time for evaluation, Wilkins states.
Finally, he was accused of continuing to respond to an emergency, even though others told him he was not needed.
He stated that as senior officer, it was his option to respond to an emergency call if he decided it was necessary. Because he was closely behind the on-scene squad, he stated he decided to continue the call.
In responding to Wilkins' grievance, Ennis stated the grievance has not changed his original findings.
As captain, Ennis stated that Wilkins was responsible for enforcing guidelines. Because Wagner admitted to not following the sleeping attire guidelines, Wilkins was responsible for enforcing them.
Ennis stated there was not a record of Wilkins' insubordination and intimidation because this was the first substantiated incidence.
As for the evaluations, Ennis stated that Wilkins was disciplined for failure to follow the instructions of the chief. Ennis stated that Wilkins did not follow his instructions for conducting the evaluation. Wilkins only asked for Ennis's help after the female firefighter filed the initial complaint.
Finally, Ennis agreed that it was Wilkins' choice to continue to proceed to the emergency call. However, he stated that Wilkins created a safety problem by continuing an emergency response that threatened the unit and community when Wilkins had been informed that the injury of the victim was not life threatening.
In his denial of Wilkins' grievance, Stephens stated that the thorough investigation of the allegations proved that Wilkins was guilty of violating rules, regulations and policies of the department. The city was not trying to weaken the union, but was trying to work with the union on improving relations, Stephens stated.
Palmer
Palmer's grievance began with the charge that the city has unfairly singled him out in an attempt to weaken the union. The city is trying to break the weaken the union by punishing Palmer, who was union president, for a statement he made at a union meeting.
He stated the comment was never meant to be a threat to one or a group of individuals and this was substantiated by a majority of the members present at the meeting.
Along with Wilkins, Palmer stated that the charges against him were ''overly broad and ambigious.'' He stated he has never been given any factual, non-subjective evidence to support any of the claims against them.
''At no time has Captain Palmer or the (firefighter's union) local 322 been given any specifics as to the who, what, when, where, when, and why of these charges,'' Palmer stated.
Responding to Palmer's grievance, Ennis stated that there was no evidence to change his original findings. Ennis restates thata number of personnel at the meeting reported to the city investigator that they felt Palmer'sstatement was a threat.
Stephens also stated that numerous witnesses, all identified, substantiated the charge. Since the city is meeting with the union to attempt to improve relations, with Palmer's cooperation, then the city cannot be trying to weaken the union, Stephens noted.
Wagner
In his grievance, Wagner stated he was also unfairly singled out by the city for ''violating an abstract SOG (standard operating guideline).'' He further states that he was not the only one to violate such ''a minor SOG.''
The only response from Ennis on this charge was that the grievance was void, because the filing period had expired when it was delivered to the chief.