IAFF Local 2216 and the City of Compton, California, were bound by an MOU that included provisions for premium pay. Under Article 26 of the MOU, firefighters “regularly assigned” as paramedics received a percentage of their base pay as additional compensation, while fire captains and engineers maintaining a current paramedic certif ication but not assigned as paramedics received a $300 monthly stipend. If captains or engineers were “regularly assigned to serve as a paramedic,” they were entitled to a $600 monthly stipend. The MOU did not explicitly define “regularly assigned.”
On October 2, 2023, Battalion Chief Luis Hernandez sent an email directive stating that all employees receiving the $300 stipend were expected to function as paramedics when needed, effectively mandating such service. The Association argued this was a unilateral change from past practice, where paramedic assignments for captains and engineers had been voluntary; the $600 stipend to employees who served as paramedics for fewer than all their monthly shifts, the Association argued, was owed for any assignment, regardless of frequency.
At a hearing before an ALJ of the California PERB, Hernandez testified that before the October 2023 email, captains and engineers were occasionally mandated to serve as paramedics, though “sparingly,” perhaps once a month. Other witnesses, including Association President Daniel Salazar and Captain Daniel Gomez, claimed such mandates were rare or nonexistent before the email. Former Fire Chief Bryan Battiste acknowledged that, during his tenure, captains and engineers were sometimes required to serve as paramedics, though infrequently. The Association emphasized that daily staffing rosters did not clearly indicate whether assignments were voluntary or mandatory, calling the practice “inconsistent.”
Regarding the $600 stipend, the Association argued that any assignment as a paramedic, even for a single shift, triggered the payment. The City countered that “regularly assigned” meant serving as a paramedic for all normal shifts in a month. Testimony from Hernandez and others suggested that, in practice, the $600 stipend had not been paid for partial-month assignments. For example, Hernandez admitted he had worked as a paramedic but never received the stipend, and Gomez testified he was denied the $600 payment despite being mandated to serve as a paramedic on a few occasions.
The ALJ dismissed the Association’s unfair practice charge. On the first issue, the ALJ found the Association’s failed to prove the City deviated from the status quo by mandating paramedic service. The evidence showed no clear, consistent past practice of voluntary assignments. The ALJ noted the testimony was contradictory, with some witnesses acknowledging occasional mandates before the October 2023 email. The ALJ also rejected the Association’s argument that the new assignments were not “reasonably comprehended” within existing duties, as the MOU allowed the City to assign employees to paramedic service and no additional training was required.
On the second issue, the ALJ sided with the City’s interpretation of “regularly assigned.” The ALJ found the term “regularly” to be ambiguous but concluded the evidence did not support the Association’s claim that a single shift triggered the $600 stipend. Testimony from City officials, including Fire Chief Ronerick Simpson, indicated that “regularly assigned” meant serving as a paramedic for all normal shifts in a month. The Association’s reliance on past practice also failed, as witnesses like Gomez and Hernandez admitted the $600 stipend had not been paid for partial-month assignments.
T he ALJ dismissed the Association’s derivative claims of interference with employee and union rights, as these depended on proving an unlawful unilateral change. The decision underscored that the Association bore the burden of proof and failed to meet it.
City of Compton, 49 PERC ¶ 176 (CA PERB 2025).