.NTM0OQ.NTM0OQ

(2) The firemen came before a meeting of the Fire Committee under the chairmanship of Alderman Milton Farris. The Committee agreed to ~ore than was recommended by the arbitrator, They agfeed to grant ~ 2-step 8,8% wage increase effective January 1 (the first legal date; as Dr. Ed Harris6n, as arbitrator, had double-checked the f egality and had gotten a written opinion from the City Attorney and other legal counsel), In addition, the City agreed to begin employing,in October, 72 additional men so that they would be trained and, effective January l, they would cut the work-work from 60 to 56 hours. It would require 72 additional men to fully man the stations and reduce the hourly work-week to this extent, From the standpoint of the overall -cost to the City, the new men reflected an equivalent of 7,2% increase in wages. This, added to the 8,8% offered, meant a 16% increase to the City. The firemen let the meeting without comment and walked off the job the next day, The City had anticipated this, had drawn the necessary injunctions, and had secured a legal injunction that evening preventing the firemen from leaving their jobs. This injunction was publicized and made effective, but the men refused to return to work, A meeting was held with the Mayor, City Attorney, and the chief of the Firefighters. Chief Hildebrand was authorized and did issue direct orders to each of the men to return to work under the authority of the ~njunction, and further gave direct orders that if they did not they would be either fired or suspended, depending upon their status under Civil Service rights. �~ .,__ (3) \\ After this action was taken, the Mayor received a personal letter irom Archbishop Hallinan, apparently instigated at . the request of ~he Firefighters. He suggested that the Mayor appoint Judge Sam ~ cKenzie to review the legal opinions involved in the granting of ¥age increases during the year 1966. The Mayor declined to accept i his sug g estion, b~cause they had already taken the steps of ~upportin g Chief Hildebrand in the notification of each member of Fhe Fire Department ordering them back to work witr the alternative pf suspension. Secondly, if the opinion of the City Attorney and other counsel had been overturned by Judge MiKenzie, they were not ~\ ble to financially meet the demands of the union. The felt the ~nly course open to them was the one taken of fifing those who iefused to work and repla~ing them with recruits. I , thought you would want to have these facts as presented by the City. R.H • • �