CAUSE NO. FORT WORTH IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS v. Defendant.

Similar documents
UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

No. TEXAS AMERICAN FEDERATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OF TEACHERS and TEXAS STATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION. v. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

SUIT NO. 342-D TARRANT COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT MICHAEL P RILEY TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED PETITION

SUIT NO. 096-D TARRANT COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT CHARLES R CARTER, DECEASED, ET AL TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN DANIEL TRISTAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff. v. TRAVIS COUNTY

CAUSE NO PC IN PROBATE COURT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Plaintiff,

10/30/2017 7:04 PM 17CV47399 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PARTIES

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. NOW COMES Plaintiff, Stephen Torres, and files this, his Original Petition

STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE ALLEN SUPERIOR/CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF ALLEN ) CAUSE NO.

PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION

CAUSE NO. Mark S. Wolfe, in his Official Capacity as Texas State Historic Preservation

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

OPINION. No CV. CITY OF LAREDO, Appellant. Homero MOJICA and International Association of Firefighters Local 1390, Appellees

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

TEXAS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION AND THE ARBITRATION PROCESS BILL HELFAND CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE, WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION. Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No. Defendants.

Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec Sec

Case 2:11-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. PLAINTIFF, TIMOTHY PETERS, complains of RICHARD TAMARO, CASEY

Case 5:11-cv Document 1 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SUIT NO. 096-D CITY OF FORT WORTH, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT NEVIA BURLESON, DECEASED, ET AL TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DEVELOPMENT, IX, LTD., VS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendant JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through the Texas General Land Office, by and

NO. DC V. 160TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, DEFENDANT. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORIGINAL PETITION FOR EXPEDITED DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

CAUSE NO. JANE DOE, Individually and as IN THE DISTRICT COURT Next Friend of JOHN DOE, a Minor Child, Plaintiffs,

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT. vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

SUIT NO. TARRANT COUNTY, ET AL IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORIGINAL PETITION

Case 1:18-cv Document 2 Filed 06/18/18 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 3:13-cv JAH-KSC Document 1 Filed 02/06/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1. No.: Defendants.

Attorney for Plaintiff San Diego Police Officers Association SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

No CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Third Judicial District Austin, Texas. MARC T. SEWELL, Appellant

IV. The State hereby gives notice to the Court and to counsel for the Respondent that the State moves for disclosure of the name, address and curricul

Case 4:15-cv Y Document 1 Filed 03/15/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 5:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

Plaintiff s Original Petition

v. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

NO. D-1-GN-19- SALLY HERNANDEZ, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION

C CAUSE NO. ARBUCKLE MOUNTAIN RANCH IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS, INC.,

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A MAY 29, 2009 IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

Interlocutory Appeal Update

Case dml11 Doc 6977 Filed 03/13/12 Entered 03/13/12 15:13:05 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 5

NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION ON CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS

NO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CAUSE NO. C E RICARDO DIAZ MIRANDA IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF. vs. HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER OF PLAINSCAPITAL BANK

DENISE CANTU, IN THE DISTRICT COURT. VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., LIONOR DE LA FUENTE and CARLOS I. URESTI

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/18/10 Page 1 of 9

CAUSE NO. PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND APPLICATION FOR UNOPPOSED EXPEDITED RELIEF

Case 3:14-cv B Document 8-2 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 24 PageID 68 EXHIBIT B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION S COMPLAINT FOR

Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAUSE NO. LELAND PENNINGTON, INC. IN THE COUNTY COURT V. AT LAW NO.

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant/Appellant,

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 95 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 11

DC PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL PETITION COME NOW, PLAINTIFFS DEE VOIGT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

OPINION. No CV. Matthew COOKE, President, and Alice Police Officers Association, on behalf of similarly situated officers, Appellants

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

Case 4:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/06/10 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CAUSE NO. SUSAN DAVIS and IN THE DISTRICT COURT PRASHANTH MAGADI

CAUSE NO. v. FALLS COUNTY, TEXAS I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL

into joint election agreements and contracts for election services with Tarrant County

MEMORANDUM OPINION. No CV. KILLAM RANCH PROPERTIES, LTD., Appellant. WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee

NABORS INDUSTRIES, INC. HUMAN RESOURCES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

THE LATEST TORT REFORM: THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

DC CAUSE NO. CDK REALTY ADVISORS, LP IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS v. Defendants JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION, JURY DEMAND AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT. between the CITY OF CREVE COEUR, MISSOURI, and the

CAUSE NO. JANE DOE IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, JUDICIAL DISTRICT v.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. COME NOW Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local

hcm Doc#150 Filed 07/10/15 Entered 07/10/15 19:14:59 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF [ ], TEXAS AND [WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT OR MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT]

Case 6:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

t! CAUSE NO ORIGINAL PETITION FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now the Lower Colorado River Authority, Plaintiff, (hereinafter referred to as

No CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS. Appellants, Appellee. APPELLEE S OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT

CAMINO REAL REGIONAL MOBILITY AUTHORITY BOARD RESOLUTION

NO. 89-CR-0000 STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. ) 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JOE SMITH ) BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

DEFENDANT S 1st AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE files this his Defendant s

CAUSE NUMBER PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED ORIGNAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

GUIDE FOR SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY AUDIT PRIVILEGE ACT

CAUSE NO. MELANIE MENDOZA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: 1. BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT 2. TRESPASS TO CHATTEL

Transcription:

CAUSE NO. 048-270181-14 FILED FORT WORTH IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,, TEXAS v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, Defendant. JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, the Fort Worth Professional Firefighters Association, and complains of Defendant City of Fort Worth as follows. I. DISCOVERY LEVEL Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this case under Rule 190.4 (Level 3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. II. PARTIES Plaintiff, the Fort Worth Professional Firefighters Association, also known as Local 440 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO-CLC ( the Association ), is a labor organization that does not claim and specifically disavows the right to strike. It represents and seeks to represent fire fighters employed in the Fort Worth Fire Department. Defendant City of Fort Worth is a municipal corporation operating under its home rule charter within its geographical boundaries in Tarrant, Denton, Johnson, 1

048-270181-14 FILED Parker, and Wise counties. Defendant City may be served with process by serving its City Secretary, Mary J. Kayser, at her office address located at City Hall, 1000 Throckmorton, Third Floor, Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas 76102. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction of this case under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.109, 174.251 174.252. The City s immunity, if any, is waived by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.008. Venue is proper in this county under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.251 174.252 and TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS At all times relevant herein, Defendant City has had a population in excess of 10,000 and has been governed by the Fire Fighter and Police Officer Civil Service Act, Texas Local Government Code Chapter 143, its voters having previously adopted the Civil Service Act in an election held for that purpose. Defendant City is also governed by the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act ( FPERA ), Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, its voters having adopted the FPERA in an election held for that purpose. Defendant previously has recognized Plaintiff as the exclusive bargaining agent for Fort Worth s fire fighters. The parties have entered into a collective bargaining agreement governing the wages, hours, and employment conditions for Fort Worth s fire fighters. The current collective bargaining agreement was set to expire on September 30, 2013, if a successor agreement was reached by that time. Because no successor agreement has been reached, the current collective bargaining agreement will remain in effect until September 30, 2014. In May 2012, Plaintiff notified Defendant that it wished to engage in negotiation of a successor collective bargaining agreement. Defendant City planned to reach an 2

048-270181-14 FILED impasse with Plaintiff before even beginning the bargaining process. Defendant City strategized about how to reach impasse and actions to take after reaching impasse. Defendant City refused to meet to engage in negotiations for a 5-month period, from April 2013 to August 2013. When Defendant City did agree to meet, it was often late and/or unprepared to present or discuss proposals at the designated start time for each bargaining session, in violation of the parties agreed ground rules for negotiations. Plaintiff made proposals on all issues in October 2012. Defendant City did not present a counterproposal on wages until more than a year later. That proposal included a modest wage increase for most employees of the Fire Department, but a 35% increase for Assistant Chiefs, which are appointed by the Fire Chief rather than being selected through a competitive examination process. Defendant City did not present a counterproposal on the pension issue until December 18, 2013. Defendant s proposal was, in effect, a refusal to bargain in good faith on pension contributions and benefits, which are mandatory subjects of bargaining. Defendants only proposal on the pension issue provided that pension contributions and benefits would be determined by Defendant City s unilateral action, rather than by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. That same day, December 18, 2013, Defendant City refused to negotiate further on any issue, presenting its Last, Best and Final Offer. Plaintiff responded to each provision in that offer on December 30, 2013. The parties reached impasse under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.152 on December 31, 2013. Despite the manner in which Defendant City approached negotiations, the parties were able to tentatively agree on several items. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement with respect to the following issues: 3

Definitions Article 5 Maintenance of Standards Article 9 Wages Article 10 Overtime Article 15 Retiree Health Benefits Article 16 Pension Article 21 Disciplinary Procedures Article 24 Miscellaneous Article 28 Battalion Chief Promotional Process Article 29 Sick and Family Illness Leave Article 30 Perfect Attendance Benefit Article 34 Duration and Termination 048-270181-14 FILED At the conclusion of the statutory bargaining period, the parties mutually agreed to extend the bargaining period for a number of additional 15-day periods as authorized by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.152. During that time period, Plaintiff offered to engage in mediation with Defendant through the auspices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The Defendant declined mediation. At the conclusion of the extended statutory bargaining period, having tried in good faith but failing to achieve agreement with Defendant, Plaintiff requested that Defendant agree to interest arbitration to resolve disputed issues as provided for by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.153. Defendant declined Plaintiff s request to engage in interest arbitration as allowed by the FPERA. Under these circumstances, the FPERA authorizes Plaintiff to file suit in district court seeking judicial resolution of all issues in dispute. The court is authorized by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.252 to enforce the requirements of TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.021 as to any unsettled issue relating to compensation or other conditions of employment of fire fighters. Plaintiff now seeks such resolution. 4

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION JUDICIAL RESOLUTION Pursuant to TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.252, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court resolve all collective bargaining issues in dispute between the parties and impose a collective bargaining agreement as authorized by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.252. 048-270181-14 FILED VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FAITH BARGAINING Defendant s actions described above constitute a violation of Defendant City s obligations under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.105 to bargain collectively with Plaintiff in good faith. The Court has the power to enforce TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.105 under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.251. VII. PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein and, upon hearing, that the Court award Plaintiff the following relief: 1. Resolve the collective bargaining impasse between the parties by imposing wages and working conditions on Fort Worth fire fighters with regard to all disputed issues in accordance with the standard set forth in TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.021. 2. Impose upon the parties a collective bargaining agreement not to exceed one year containing those tentative agreements reached between the parties during negotiations and those issues resolved by the Court in accordance with TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.021. 3. Make the agreement imposed upon the parties retroactive to October 1, 2013, and order Defendant to make the affected fire fighters whole as to their past losses. 5

4. Enter a temporary injunction requiring Defendant City to adhere to the terms of the current collective bargaining agreement with Plaintiff until the Court has imposed a new collective bargaining agreement on the parties. 5. Declare that the Defendant violated TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.105 by failing to bargain collectively with Plaintiff in good faith. 6. Enter a temporary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to comply with its obligation under TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.105 to bargain collectively with Plaintiff in good faith following the Court s imposition of a new collective bargaining agreement on the parties. 7. Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff s attorney fees and to pay court costs, including costs for a master, as authorized by TEX. LOC. GOV T CODE 174.252. 8. Order such further relief, whether legal, equitable, or injunctive, as the Court deems necessary and just. 048-270181-14 FILED Respectfully submitted, DEATS, DURST, OWEN & LEVY, P.L.L.C. 1204 San Antonio, Suite 203 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 474-6200 (512) 474-7896 (Fax) /s/ Matt Bachop B. Craig Deats State Bar No. 05703700 Matt Bachop State Bar No. 24055127 6

048-270181-14 FILED James Jim Lane State Bar No. 11879200 LAW OFFICE OF JIM LANE 204 West Central Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76164 (817) 625-5582 (817) 625-5881 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF REQUST FOR DISCLOSURES Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2. /s/ Matt Bachop Matt Bachop 7