Arbitrator holds that management could establish clothing requirementsfor detective rank and require officers to wear soft body armor without bargaining. Ossining (Town of) and Ossining Police Assn., NY-PERB Case #A99-195, 114 LA (BNA) 1761, 39 (1895) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 122 (Henner, 2000). [29]
     Appellate panel exonerates ballistic vest manufacturer. No duty to warn users of limited protection in areas where panels adjoined in an unconcealed manner. Sanders v. Amer. Body Armor & Eqpmt., 652 So.2d 883 (Fla.App. 1995). [1996 FP 25-6]
     Federal appeals court upholds F.L.R.A. ruling requiring mgmt. to bargain with the union before adopting a new policy that body armor must be worn under an officer's shirt. U.S. I.N.S. v. F.L.R.A., 12 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 99]
     Arbitrator rules that the Chief of Police may formulate “reasonable rules and regulations” governing the wearing of protective soft body armor. City of Pontiac and Mich. Assn. of Police/PPOA (Walt, 1980), cited in a second grievance, #23-89 89MY-215, FMCS #90/1702 at 96 LA (BNA) 284 (Roumell, 1990). {N/R}
     Duty to bargain: a union “safety” proposal specifying equipment to be maintained in police patrol vehicles was mandatorily negotiable, respecting: (1) armored vest; (2) helmet with detachable face shield; (3) head restraints; (4) lap and shoulder belts; (5) flares; (6) cable cutters; (7) fire extinguishers; and (8) clip board. Management did not have to bargain over the types of guns, other weapons, and quantities of ammunition to be provided. Twp. of So. Brunswick and P.B.A. L-166, NJ-PERC #86-115 (1986), 12 NJPER (LRP) 17,138 [Lexis]. {N/R}
     Arbitration impasse panel rules that a police union proposal to make the wearing of body armor optional was a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Dist. of Col. Office of Lab. Rltns. & Coll. Brg. and FOP, PERB Case #85-I-06, 84 LA (BNA) 713 (Rothschild, 1985). {N/R}
     Appeals court affirms termination of an on-duty police officer who loaded his firearm with blanks at a training session, then fired a round at another officer who was not wearing a ballistic vest. In his defense, he claimed he was trying to demonstrate the importance of using safety equipment. Schmitt v. City of Rialto, 164 Cal.App.3d 494 (1985). {N/R}
     Arbitrator upholds a policy directing uniformed police personnel to wear protective vest at all times while on duty (with certain exceptions). City of Fort Dodge and UFCW L-P31, Grievance #84-GA-55, 82 LA (BNA) 581 (Roberts, 1984). {N/R}