Auburn’s firefighters are fighting the city over a promised 2 percent pay raise. The case is pending before an arbitrator, but the firefighters’ union plans to file a civil lawsuit to force the city to defend itself against what amounts to breach of contract charges on two fronts.

In February, the city signed a new contract with the union. Part of that contract guaranteed a 2 percent raise for the 61 firefighters covered by the bargain. The raise was to kick in July 1. So far, the city has refused to honor the deal, citing changing economic circumstances that would allow the contract to be reopened.

That’s wrong. The firefighters should get their raise.

The city signed the contract knowing full well the economic outlook for the coming fiscal year. And if they didn’t, they should have.

Now, as the city negotiates new contracts with other municipal employees, it finds the terms of the firefighters’ deal difficult to justify. City negotiators are presenting a hard line to other unions, including the one that represents the police department.

It could be months before an arbitrator rules on the dispute, so the union decided to ratchet up the pressure by suing. According to union President Mike Scott, while doing research for the arbitration case, a state law was discovered that requires towns and cities to pay their workers in a timely and reliable fashion. Because the raises were due to begin in July, Scott says the city is illegally withholding pay. A victory in Superior Court could win the firefighters more than the raise. They can also be awarded legal fees and damages, which would increase the costs for the city if it loses.

We don’t know if the suit will be successful, but the grounds sound legitimate. Agreed upon salaries are not being paid despite a contract.

The raise amounts to about $42,000 total, or roughly $600 per firefighter. That’s nothing to sneeze at, but it doesn’t present the economic hurdle that would make a protracted labor dispute worthwhile.

As the struggle between the city and the firefighters’ union continues, the legal bills will surely mount. The costs for both sides are likely to exceed the total amount of the raise.

Firefighters say the issue is a matter of principle, not money. The city made a deal, signed a contract and now must live up to its terms.

The city and the firefighters have had a positive relationship. Beginning in 1995, a quality council made up of union and municipal leaders has met once or twice a month to improve department efficiency, structure and health and safety. By all accounts, it has been a good working relationship.

That relationship is now in jeopardy. By trying to change the terms of the firefighters’ contract signed so recently, city leaders give the appearance of acting in bad faith.

Contracts should mean something. If they don’t, why should the firefighters – or any other union, organization or business – trust the city to fulfill its obligations.

There’s more than $42,000 at stake here. The city risks its credibility.


[email protected]