By RUSS OLIVO

PROVIDENCE — Testifying in Superior Court Wednesday, union firefighters from Woonsocket asserted that threatened job cuts are illegal and undermine the Woonsocket Fire Department's ability to function effectively — a claim the fire chief disputed.

Lt. Steven Reilly, the president of Local 732 of the International Association of Firefighters, said current agreements with the city guarantee that there must be no fewer than 132 firefighters — a figure the city says it wants to reduce by 16 to 20.
The cuts would impose a “severe disability” on the fire department's ability to function, causing a spike in overtime, on-the-job injuries and worker burnout that would eventually touch every firefighter, Reilly maintained.
But Fire Chief Kenneth Finlay testified that he could get by with 112 firefighters, enough to supply at least 28 firefighters for each of four rotating platoons that respond to emergencies — the minimum allowed by contract.
“I would need 112 shift personnel,” said Finlay.
“Some functions of the administrative staff would have to be picked up by other people.”
The testimony in Associate Superior Court Judge Susan E. McGuirl's courtroom came in a hearing to determine whether to let stand – or quash - an order issued a week ago prohibiting Woonsocket Mayor Susan D. Menard from laying off any firefighters.
The hearing finally began late Wednesday afternoon after McGuirl had unsuccessfully tried to persuade the IAFF and the city to come to terms on a new collective bargaining agreement for nearly two full days. But McGuirl made no decision, recessing the hearing until this morning to allow Woonsocket officials to call witnesses.
The dilemma for the city is how to make up for a mid-year cut of $3.6 million in state aid without risking insolvency in a matter of days. Menard has already negotiated new contracts with two unions representing City Hall workers to save money, but similar efforts with the IAFF and the police union, local 404 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, have so far failed, and Menard says the only alternative is sharp cuts in personnel.
The last offer on the table to both unions was a five month deal calling for a 5 percent pay cut, with contributions of 15 percent of gross pay toward annual health insurance premiums. When talks reached an apparent impasse, the IAFF last Thursday asked Superior Court Judge Richard Israel for a temporary order prohibiting any layoffs – the figure threatened at the time was 55 to 60 -  and Israel granted it, saying the cuts would jeopardize public safety and violate the collective bargaining agreement. If the order stands, the IBPO is expected to petition the court for similar treatment.
Reilly and Finlay were the only witnesses to testify so far – both called by the IAFF lead counsel, Edward C. Roy Jr. Although he used to be a president of the IAFF, Finlay is no longer a union member but an administrative appointee of the mayor and Roy called him to the stand as an “adverse witness.”
But he and Reilly did not dispute the essential manpower math of the fire department. They said the union contract currently in effect calls for 134 members. A memorandum of agreement allowed a reduction of two members, leaving the department with a guarantee of 132 members, a figure which has been further clipped to 125 by recent retirements.
That's enough to fulfill the contractual mandate for no less than 28 firefighters for each of four platoons – enough manpower to generally provide two to three workers  for each piece of firefighting apparatus in the city. There are also 10 administrative personnel, nine of whom are firefighters performing various functions within the department, plus the chief's secretary.
Some of those positions, such as the emergency medical services coordinator, bring revenue into the city by serving as liaisons to a private company that sends out bills for rescue service, Finlay said. If the administrative positions were cut, some of their chores, such as the investigative duties of the fire marshals, would likely be absorbed by state officials, but others simply wouldn't get done, he said.
At one point,  Finlay conceded that the cuts proposed by the Menard administration appear to violate the collective bargaining agreement. But under cross-examination by the Chris Lambert, the city's lawyer, Finlay emphatically denied that they would compromise public safety.
“Could the fire department operate safely with 112 shift positions?” Lambert asked.
“Yes,” Finlay said.
The gist of Lambert's case is that the union is simply misinterpreting the minimum manning provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. With Reilly on the witness stand, Lambert argued the collective bargaining agreement was never intended to short-circuit the city's “management rights” to reduce the workforce – rights spelled out in the personnel code and City Charter and which are implicit in the union contract.
Lambert also argued that the temporary order prohibiting layoffs is inappropriate because no layoff notices had been issued when Israel imposed it. Further, he maintained that any layoffs are not intended to permanently alter the minimum staffing levels of the workforce, and that if they were, the proper forum to challenge such a move would not be Superior Court, but before an arbitration panel.