Ill wind on sick, family-leave policy; Union claims workers cheated.

Byline: Nick Kotsopoulos

WORCESTER - When Fire Lt. Donald Courtney had an operation last year and was out of work for six weeks, he was told upon his return that he had used half of the family medical leave to which he was entitled.

What had confused Lt. Courtney was that he had never asked to be put on family medical leave; instead, he thought his absence from work would be simply covered under the contractual sick-leave policy firefighters have with the city.

But the city administration has been putting those municipal employees who are out of work for an extended period of time on family medical leave, and having it run concurrently with the employees' use of sick days, injured-on-duty or workers' compensation status.

Some municipal employee union members contend the way the city is administering the use of family medical leave negates that federal benefit for employees and robs them of time they are entitled to spend away from their jobs during times of family health emergencies.

One city councilor also believes that the city is also violating the spirit of the law the way it is administering family medical leave.

"What the city is doing is unethical and immoral," said Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain. "It's the most unconscionable policy this city has now. The city does not have to do this."

The Family Medical Leave Act is a federally mandated benefit for job protection and health benefit purposes. It allows an eligible employee to take reasonable unpaid leave for medical reasons - up to 12 weeks of leave in a rolling calendar year.

Kathleen G. Johnson, the city's director of human resources, said as an employer covered under the Family Medical Leave Act, the city is obligated to designate FMLA leave once it receives notice that an employee is out of work for more than three days because of a serious health condition to the employee or an immediate family member.

"The city designates FMLA leave per the federal requirements for all city employees," Ms. Johnson said. "Those requirements state that in all circumstances, it is the employer's responsibility to designate leave, paid or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying, and to give notice of the designation to the employee."

Frank Raffa, president of Local 1009, International Association of Fire Fighters, said the city had never done that until recent years, even though the Family Medical Leave Act goes back to 1993. He said the city has been putting firefighters who were injured on the job on family medical leave concurrently with their injured-on-duty status.

"They are taking a federal benefit away from us," Firefighter Raffa said. "The city has changed its policy in how this benefit is administered without any bargaining. Our firefighters are not asking to be put on family medical leave when they are injured while on the job. They continue to be compensated while on injured-on-duty status."

But Ms. Johnson said the city is simply following the provisions of the federal act. She said the only union the city has had problems with over the matter is the firefighters' union, which has filed multiple grievances.

She said if an employee happens to use up his or her allotted family medical leave time because an injury forced them out of work for a prolonged period, other leave policies within the city can be used for other family medical emergencies.

"The city tries to work with every employee during family medical emergencies and work them through their appropriate leaves," Ms. Johnson said.

But Mr. Germain contends there is nothing in the federal law that requires the city to put employees on family medical leave concurrently with their sick leave, injured-on-duty or workers' compensation status. He said the law states the city can do that, and he is unaware of any other municipality that chooses to administer the law the same way the city has.

He added that the use of other leaves for employees is at the discretion of department heads, and he believes he only opens up loopholes for the city to get rid of an employee.

"The spirit of the law is completely, 100 percent being violated by the city," Mr. Germain said. "What is being done is not in the best interests of our employees and I would like to see it stopped."

Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton contends that the city is using family medical leave as a tool to lower sick leave among employees. He said if employees are abusing sick leave, then they should be dismissed. District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr. also questioned what the downside would be if the city did not concurrently run family medical leave with employees' sick leave.

"If they're not sick, fire them," Mr. Rushton said.

Ms. Johnson said the Human Resources Department historically received 150 to 200 FMLA requests per year, with an estimated annual cost in excess of $500,000 and an average time lost of 30 days per request.

NAME: WORCESTER FIRE DEPARTMENT; WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL