By David E. Worley
T
he arbitrator in Osceola County, 131 LA 226 (Smith 2012) reinstated the highest ranked firefighter at a demonstration where another firefighter, the “engineer” broke from procedure in operating the boom ladder and accidentally caused serious injury to another firefighter. There was insufficient evidence to support the County’s position that the grievant had neglected his duties causing the injury of the other officer.
The incident occurred at an equipment demonstration for children involving raising and lowering the ladder on the fire truck. All three firefighters had performed the same demonstration three weeks prior without incident. Three weeks prior, the ladder was raised and lowered, but not rotated, as rotation was more dangerous, needed more clearance, and caused lateral stress to the truck itself. On the day of the incident, the engineer rotated the ladder while raised, contacting a power line and causing a near-fatal electrocution to a third firefighter in contact with the truck.
The fire department procedure dictated that firefighters be clear of the truck when the ladder is in motion. Under that procedure, it was also common for a spotter to be used, although this is not a policy, but merely a practice. The investigator determined the grievant was negligent in failing to ensure the truck was clear before the ladder was operated, and also failing to use a spotter. Further, the investigator believed the grievant intentionally made false statements, as his testimony did not match that of the engineer.
The arbitrator vigorously disagreed with the conclusions of the investigator that supported the termination.
None of the circumstances existing on July 15, including the communications between [the grievant] and [the engineer] should lead one to conclude that it was reasonable for [the engineer] to raise and swing the ladder without receiving a signal from [the grievant] that the crew and children had all moved away from the truck and returned to the pavilion, as was done during the June 24 demonstration. [The engineer] acknowledged that he knew where the power lines were located, so the only logical way for [the grievant] to have prevented [the engineer] from hitting the line with the ladder was for [the grievant] to be on the turntable while [the engineer] was operating the ladder. [The grievant]’s testimony makes sense, that the truck would not have been parked where it was located if the demonstration was to include rotating the ladder in the direction of the power lines.
With regard to the grievant’s supposedly false statements, the arbitrator found the only evidence the statements were false was the testimony of the engineer. Further, the greivant’s testimony was actually confirmed by testimony of uninterested bystanders, but the investigator did not review these witnesses testimony in coming to his conclusions.
