on-call. Members of the bomb squad earned over a thousand hours of extra
compensatory time each year, and this continued until March of 1987.

In 1987 the deputy chief said that the bomb squad was no longer
required to be on-call when they were not on regular duty. He cited
economic justification for the discontinuance of the prior practice and said
that some alternative form of compensation would be provided.

The union did not take action until it was clear that the stand-by pay
would not be forthcoming, but on April 18, 1990 the union filed a
grievance, asserting that the employer had violated that bargaining agree-
ment. The union demanded retroactive pay.

The City asserted that it had the right to terminate the practice even
though the contract gave the City the right to require bomb squad officers
to provide on-call duty. In March of 1987, the City had revoked that
practice for economic reasons.

Arbitrator James L. Reynolds had to decide whether or not the City had
violated the collective bargaining contract when it unilaterally terminated
the on-call practice. He listened to testimony as to past practice, and he
studied the contract.

There was no disagreement as to the facts. The question was not whether
the City had the right to require the officers to respond to calls during their
off-duty hours. Rather, the issue was whether an established compensation
practice, such as the practice of two hours of compensatory time, could be
discontinued unilaterally. Did the employer violate the contract when it
denied compensatory time to members of the bomb squad?

The employer took its chances by discontinuing this practice, because
it took the risk that it would not have the ability to respond to a bomb
incident. Since the employer accepted that responsibility, arbitrator Reyn-
olds denied the grievance.

The cases in this chapter relate to determining which issues are subject
to collective bargaining. Mostly, they involve the interplay between man-
agement rights and the city's obligation to negotiate certain changes in
advance. Usually, the arbitrators upheld the right of police departments to
make changes in their operation, which follows the normal trend of
decisions. Arbitrators recognize the need for management to operate their
organization but are sensitive to the contractual rights of employees in the
bargaining unit.

-131-