Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
Review In the Matter of an Act 111 Interest Arbitration between City of Philadelphia and International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 22, AAA Case No. 14 360 L 00532 09, Issued July 2, 2012.
Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.
See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.
To view the full decision copy and paste the following web address into a web browser: http://media.philly.com/documents/Local+22+Remand+Award+w+Dissent+and+Concurrence+(July+2).pdf
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 22, has been pursuing payment of its $200M arbitration award for a number of years. The initial award was reviewed and vacated by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and then remanded back to the arbitration panel.
Discuss whether you agree or disagree with the panel’s final decision in light of the dire budget issues facing Philadelphia. Should the city’s budget woes be taken into consideration by the panel, and, if so, how much weight would you give to the situation? Describe the dispute resolution provision in your collective bargaining agreement or, if you do not have one, describe the provision for one of your local firefighters’ unions. Discuss whether you believe such a provision is fair and equitable for both parties. Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.
Please submit your Case Study 1 and 2 responses as one Word document.
Information about accessing the Blackboard Grading Rubric for this assignment is provided below.
Unit VIII Case Study
Case Study 1: 50 points
Review Case Study 18-1: EMT Injured by Toxic Fumes – Files Suit Against Chemical Company, found on page 231 in the textbook. Kapherr v. MFG Chemical, Inc., No. A06A0184, December 28, 2005.
The full decision is available at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1005355.html
In Kapherr, the Georgia Court of Appeals found that the fireman’s rule does apply to emergency medical technicians. Address the argument that Kapherr maintained regarding treating the injured only if the scene had been secured. Do you agree with the court’s reasoning in responding to this defense? Explain why, or why not.
Describe a set of circumstances under which it would not be reasonable to consider that the emergency responder has assumed the risk of the hazardous circumstances at the scene.
Research and determine the status of the fireman’s rule in Georgia. Identify whether there has been any change to the law since Kapherr. Research and determine the status of the Fireman’s rule in your state. If your state is Georgia or Florida, please select a neighboring state. Has the rule been adopted and enacted into law? Have there been any exceptions enacted into law?
Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.
FIR 4301, Political and Legal Foundations of Fire Protection 8
Case Study 2: 50 points
Read Espinoza v. Schulenburg, CV-05-0158-PR, Arizona Supreme Court, 2006.
To view the full decision copy and paste the following web address into a web browser: http://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/PDF_Articles/0706appellate.pdf
Espinoza was an off duty firefighter and emergency medical technician who was injured while providing roadside assistance to the Schulenburgs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Schulenburgs, holding that the firefighter’s rule bars Espinoza’s claim. The court of appeals reversed that decision, holding that the firefighter’s rule should be narrowly construed so as not to bar the claims of off duty firefighters.
To see the full Court of Appeals decision, copy and paste the following web address into a web browser: http://statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/CV040438.pdf
However, the appeals court remanded for determination of whether Espinoza had a duty as part of her job as a firefighter to render assistance, in which case the court would apparently conclude that the rule should apply to bar her suit. On appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court, a more conclusive decision was handed down. That Court made the clear distinction between on-duty and off duty, finding that Espinoza volunteered to render aid and, therefore, the fireman’s rule did not apply.
Discuss how the Arizona Supreme Court distinguished between on-duty and off duty. Do you agree with this distinction? Can you suggest other distinguishing factors that should have been considered? Should the fact that one receives workers’ compensation for the injury enter into the distinction? Describe how your department addresses rendering aid off duty. Is it part of your “duty” as a firefighter, or is it more so an ethical duty? Also, describe how your department addresses off duty injuries incurred as a result of rendering aid.
Your response should be at least 300 words in length. You are required to use at least your textbook as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.
Please submit your Case Study 1 and 2 responses as one Word document.
Information about accessing the Blackboard Grading Rubric for this assignment is provided below.
