In 2022, voters of Vancouver, Washington, approved a property tax levy known as Proposition 2. The levy was designed to address chronically slow emergency response times by the Vancouver Fire Department. The Department’s plan was to use specific units for low-priority medical calls, freeing larger engines and ladders for serious emergencies.
During 2023 contract negotiations, the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 452 and the City discussed deployment. A “Squad Response Framework” shared in January 2023 outlined an initial plan: for low-priority calls, a squad would be dispatched with an engine or ladder truck added if it was the closest unit; if an engine or ladder was closest, it would respond alone. The final collective bargaining agreement executed in June 2023, contained only a staffing clause, stating squads would be staffed with a firefighter and a firefighter-paramedic. It made no reference to the deployment framework.
The first squad was deployed on June 1, 2023. Department practices soon shifted. By August, captains were instructed they could clear calls when a squad arrived first and no assistance was needed, even if a second apparatus never arrived.
In June 2024, the Department moved to formalize this practice. After one meeting with Union leaders on June 13 to present data, Deputy Chief Tige Harmon emailed a directive to all staff on June 24. It stated the squads’ “trial period” was ending and it was “time to utilize the squads as originally promised.” The new response plan specified that for certain low-priority EMS calls, the response would now be “primarily a single unit response with Squad first out.”
The Union demanded to bargain over the change on July 8, arguing it impacted safety and working conditions. The City refused on July 15, asserting that the “operational deployment of apparatus is a management right.” The Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint on October 15, 2024.
The question before Washington Public Employment Relations Commission Examiner Christopher J. Casillas, who found that the City had changed the status quo, was whether the deployment change was a mandatory subject of bargaining. Applying the required balancing test, Casillas weighed the impact on employees against managerial prerogatives and the public interest.
The Union argued that dispatching two-person squads alone, without a captain as an on-scene incident commander, increased safety risks and workload. It contended that mis-prioritized calls could leave an under-resourced duo managing a dangerous scene.
The City countered with data from its internal safety committee, which showed no measurable increase in accidents or injuries linked to squad operations since their deployment. Casillas noted that while the change clearly affected safety and workload concerns, these impacts were hypothetical and not borne out by the safety record.
On the other side of the scale, Casillas found strong managerial and public interests. The City had a compelling need to deploy the squads as originally envisioned to combat slow response times and call concurrency — a key reason voters approved the funding levy. The public interest in achieving improved emergency response times weighed heavily.
Casillas concluded the decision on how to deploy the squads was a permissive subject of bargaining. While the City had no duty to bargain over the decision itself, a duty to bargain its effects remained. The record showed that the City had expressed a willingness to discuss impacts in its July 15 response, and the Union did not pursue that discussion. The complaint was dismissed.
IAFF Local 452 v. City of Vancouver, Decision 14220 – PECB (WA PERC 2025).