Norwood Selectmen Uphold Fire Department Staffing Levels Amid Labor Disputes-July 12, 1978

Fire Department Manning Shifts and Physical Exam Standoff

On July 12, 1978, the Norwood Board of Selectmen stepped directly into a complex municipal and labor dispute, voting 3–1 to reaffirm a long-established minimum manning policy of 13-man shifts within the Norwood Fire Department. The decision effectively determined that any budgetary economies or cost-cutting measures targeted at the department would not be achieved by reducing shift strength. Selectman Walter J. Dempsey, driving the majority decision, forcefully argued that the board must not gamble with public safety, colorfully stating that they should not be “shooting dice” on the assumption that a downscaled shift could safely handle an emergency.

The vote provided a partial victory for Acting Fire Chief Robert T. Capeless Jr., who noted that his roster of six ranking fire officers strongly opposed any reduction in shift numbers. Paradoxically, Capeless had actually requested that selectmen eliminate the rigid minimum manning policy altogether. He argued that future fire chiefs required structural flexibility to adjust staffing levels based on real-time operational needs—noting that while some shifts could safely operate with fewer than 13 men, complex emergencies might require 15 or more.

The rigid 13-man shift policy, maintained via a verbal agreement between the selectmen and the firefighters’ union, had become a significant driver of municipal overtime costs. Whenever a shift fell below 13 due to injury or illness, a substitute firefighter had to be called in at time-and-a-half pay. While the finance commission and town officials had previously recommended hiring new full-time firefighters as the only viable method to curb these overtime expenses, the recent June Annual Town Meeting had flatly refused to authorize the additional headcount. Voting as the lone dissenter, Board Chairman Martin J. Lydon expressed amazement at the decision to uphold the policy, arguing that the 13-man minimum was precisely what had trapped the town in its current fiscal predicament. In response, Selectman Joseph F. Curran successfully secured a unanimous 4–0 vote directing Capeless to compile definitive cost projections for hiring eight to ten additional full-time personnel to present at a future session.

Compounding the staffing debate was a long-simmering standoff regarding mandatory physical examinations ordered by Chief Capeless, which the rank-and-file firefighters had collectively refused to undergo. Both the Town Counsel and a specialized labor attorney advised the board that the legal path forward required seeking a declaratory judgment through the state Labor Relations Commission or the court system to clarify municipal rights. Capeless indicated he would withhold any disciplinary actions or punishments against the non-compliant personnel until a formal legal determination was reached.

The issue further escalated into local controversy, drawing resentment from the local medical community. Selectmen received a formal letter signed by five local physicians who took offense at the implication that Norwood Hospital was better suited or more cost-effective to conduct these specialized exams than private local practitioners. In an attempt to mend relations, Selectman Curran personally apologized to Dr. John J. O’Day and Dr. Charles L. Lynch, reassuring them that the town had no intention of invading privacy and viewed the physicals strictly as a supportive health service. Drs. O’Day and Lynch countered by emphasizing the critical nature of a family physician’s personal relationship with municipal employees, particularly those managing stress, cardiac, or hypertension issues, arguing that local doctors felt a closer professional bond with Norwood personnel than an outsourced clinician. Ultimately, Norwood Hospital Administrator David P. Buchmueller removed the institution from the crossfire entirely, submitting a letter advising the board that the hospital would not provide the examination services due to the disruptive “misunderstandings, acrimony, harsh words, threats, and intimidation” that had come to define the public debate.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger