Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies firefighters’ grievance seeking reinstatement of non‑work‑related 'light duty' assignments
Summary
After a grievance hearing, the Michigan City Board of Public Works and Safety denied a union grievance asking the city to reinstate a practice of offering non‑work‑related 'light duty' assignments for firefighters, finding no contractual entitlement in the current agreement.
The Michigan City Board of Public Works and Safety held a grievance hearing Oct. 6 after IAFF Local 475 filed a grievance on Aug. 26 asking the city to restore restricted- or “light‑duty” assignments for firefighters with non‑work‑related injuries. The union presented its case, arguing that the historical practice and a 2007 departmental memorandum supported continued light-duty assignments and that contract language referencing restricted duty implied the right.
Union President Christopher Zuboothis and Lieutenant Joe Gungeon testified that firefighters had routinely been assigned administrative or other light-duty tasks (filing, inspections, administrative assistance) for years and that the practice posed no operational difficulty. They asked the board to order restoration of the practice and restoration of any leave time or back charges they said were improperly applied when light duty was denied.
City Human Resources Director Melissa Jones Henderson and city counsel explained the mayor’s office had directed a citywide change effective Sept. 1 that withdrew informal light-duty assignments for non‑work‑related injuries. HR staff said current collective-bargaining language mentions restricted duty only in the sick-leave context and that light duty is not an explicit, binding entitlement in the parties’ current contract; they said the city offers leave and FMLA protections and that providing administrative light duty for firefighters raises staffing and overtime effects because firefighting is a safety-sensitive and physically demanding role.
After hearing testimony and questions from board members, the board and its counsel framed the matter as one of contract interpretation: because the current agreement does not explicitly provide a right to non‑work‑related light duty and because the change was issued citywide by the mayor’s office, the board voted to deny the grievance. The vote to deny was unanimous among members present.
The board noted that the union may pursue contractual changes in future negotiations to secure light-duty provisions, and that the city will continue to apply FMLA and other leave options for injured employees.
No immediate change in practice occurred as a result of the hearing; the board’s action was a final decision on the grievance at the meeting.
