- 7 -
While we find no basis upon which to disagree with the
quoted description, we disagree that it has the effect ascribed
to it by petitioner. The quoted description merely states that
the ordinance covers duty-connected disability. As we understand
it, there is no dispute between the parties that the City
ordinance covers, "in part", duty-connected disabilities. The
difficulty, from petitioner's standpoint, is that the language of
the ordinance does not exclude from coverage non duty-connected
injuries or sickness. We find, therefore, that St. Germain v.
City of Pawtucket, id., is not authority for determining that the
City ordinance is in the nature of a worker's compensation act.
Consistent Application of the Ordinance
The parties have vaguely stipulated that the City ordinance
has been consistently applied to grant benefits to firefighters
only for disability due to work-related injury or sickness.
Petitioner argues that the ordinance, as applied in practice, is
therefore in the nature of a workmen's compensation act.
We also note that the parties have entered into two other
ambiguous stipulations, agreeing at the same time that petitioner
"was awarded a pension" under the City's "municipal pension plan"
(attaching a copy of the City ordinance), and that he received
pension payments "In accordance with the provisions of a
collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Union".
Petitioner argues in his brief that the agreement "has no bearing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011