I have before me, the actual ACT 111 Award document. This details the firefighter's contract as awarded in arbitration signed by arbitrator Thomas W. Jennings on December 2, 2011 between Fire Fighters Local Union No. 1400 and the City of Chester.
It confirms that base wage of the bargaining unit shall be increased as stated in my earlier post, with appropriate adjustments to ranking positions within the bargaining unit.
Based on what's been reported in the Daily Times and Chester Spirit, this 2011 arbitration award is exactly what the fire fighters received. I don't see where much, if any, negotiation between the new administration and the fire fighter union resulted in any changes since 2011.
Also attached to the package is salary information.
2006 fire fighter base pay was $42,634.87. Captains earn 10% more than base. Battalion Chiefs earn 20% more than base. That confirms that they are union covered employees. Apprentice 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year earn 30%, 20% and 10% less than base pay respectively.
At the end of the contract in 2016, base pay will be $59,555.48.
Based on these numbers, the base salary for fire fighters in 2006 (the contract they've been working from for the past 5 years) is $20.49 and for a Battalion Chief $24.59.
You may have read that several replies to the earlier post on this topic were correct when they claimed that fire fighters earn about $21 an hour. No one knew where the $28.83 came from that I used in my example. Well, it came from the Chester Spirit if you really want to know.
Ok, I think we're straight now on salary, and with a little math, you can figure what the city owes the fire fighters in retro pay.
However, there is one clause in the contract that confuses me.
Under no circumstance shall the City unnecessarily endanger the health or safety of a bargaining unit member by requiring the bargaining unit member to be subjected to a managerial or physical condition that could have been anticipated and/or prevented by the City by the expenditure of moneys or other City action.
I'm not a legal beaver, but that sounds like a potentially expensive clause with a lot of grey matter.