K9 COMPENSATION

How much time do we spend with our K9 partners off duty exercising, feeding, cleaning, etc? Does your city/service/unit account for this extra time you spend with your partner? Some units do, however it's quite insignificant.

Of course we all do it for the love of the dogs, but they are owned by some type of government agency whether it be municipal, provincial, or federal. Only seems fair that they would pay for the extra time it takes to care for the K9's.

One unit received $600.00 per year (taxable) as K-9 compensation. This equates to $1.64 per day to care for the city owned dogs while off duty.


OFF-DUTY CARE

While off duty, K-9 handlers spend a considerable amount of time caring for their canine partners.

The dogs are sole property of the agency during their tenure. The approximate value of the trained dogs is $30,000.00. When the police dogs are off duty, they need special care and maintenance.

Exercising, brushing, feeding, watering, grooming and daily and weekly sanitation of the kennel and transport vehicle are all duties required by the handler for proper maintenance of the police service dog. Additional costs incurred by handlers are hydro bills over the winter months to provide additional warmth in the exterior doghouses by way of light bulbs, heaters, and heated water bowls for drinking water.

Handlers must monitor the dogs’ health daily. This is a nose to tail examination. It would include the examination of the skin, eyes, ears, oral cavity, limbs, feet, genitalia, body functions and attitude. It also includes observations of the movements of the dogs during exercise and training. The kennel area and doghouse need to be checked for hazards and invaders on a routine basis. The dog needs to be groomed routinely, and kept clean.

The handler also needs to provide adequate exercise and mental stimulation for the dog. All dogs need access to or participate in activities or experiences that enrich their physical and mental states. This would include taking the dog out for regular walks, and allowing more intensive exercise on a playing field or some other free roaming facility. The daily exercise by the handler optimizes the efficiency and performance of the dog. Optimally is should be done at least twice a day to maintain a healthy dog.

Not only does this maintenance start after the handlers shift ends, but also on the handler's days off as well. The daily maintenance, as described above, required for the police dogs takes a minimum of 45 minutes a day up and can easily range to 60 minutes/day. Because the dogs live outside they must have social contact with the handler and their family on a daily regular basis.


FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (USA)

The United States Department of Labour (DOL) mandates the handler compensation of “at-home care” of police dogs under the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA). An agency’s failure to compensate a handler has resulted in litigation where the agency was found liable for 2-3 years of back pay for each canine handler.

The FLSA handler compensation issue started in 1985 when this case, Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, stated that the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) was applicable to the pubic sector government.

Since then, the Federal court system has addressed the Garcia decision and what it meant to canine handlers. The courts are in total agreement that only one issue is compensable to a canine handler, the at-home care of his dog:

At-home Care:

This issue arises if the agency does not kennel the dog at the police station or some other fixed work place site. The norm is for the handler to kennel and care for the dog at the handler’s home. The Department of Labour (DOL) has consistently held that time spent in the at-home care of police dogs is compensable time and that, to the extent that these hours exceed 40 in one week, time and one-half compensation must be paid.

The cases usually show summary judgment on compensability for specific activities. After the judgment, the agency either settles or there is an un-reported verdict.
Only one case, Levering v District of Columbia, specifically states the “appropriate time” for such activity compensation. This case states “30 minutes per day”, seven days per week.

What is this compensation for? The Department of Labour (DOL) issued a “Letter Ruling” dated August 11, 1993. This ruling stated:

Bathing, brushing, exercising, feeding, grooming, cleaning of the dog’s kennel or transport vehicle, administering drugs or medicine for illness and/or transporting the dog to and from an animal hospital or veterinarian and training the dog at home are all compensable activities.

All these activities apply to workdays as well as days off duty or during vacation periods.
Using the Levering case, when do the math, the minimum compensable time owed to a canine handler for the at-home care of his dog is:
:30 minutes per day x 7 days per week = 3.5 hours per week. A lot of agencies have a problem computing the .5 hour. Those agencies typically round up the 3.5 hours to 4 hours per week.

Methods of compensation:

A) Factor all compensable time into the handler’s normal workday. The handler’s normal workday would consist of “__” hours of normal duties and “__” hours of FLSA compensable time = total workday hours.
B) Pay the handler all FLSA compensable time. The rate would be at one and one-half hourly rate for any hours, which exceed forty per week. This is expensive, averaging about $6,000 to $8,000 per handler, per year.
C) Do a combination of both methods of compensation as listed above. Factor the compensable time into the workday, but if call load prohibits letting the handler leave early, pay the handler for that day only, usually at one hour overtime.
Terry Fleck, (describe background) has polled about 12,000 canine personnel throughout the United States on this FLSA at-home care issue. About 70% of our industry not only knows about FLSA at-home care compensation, but are in compliance as well.


SPECIALITY POSITION

The role of the K-9 handler can be classified as Specialty Position. The handler and K-9 partner must complete and pass a 16 week training program before being able to work as a K-9 team. Mandatory training is continued twice a month or every Wednesday overlap, while in the K-9 unit. Additional training is required and left to the discretion of the handler in conjunction with the K-9 supervisor. No other specialty unit within the service has such an extensive and lengthy training program as the K-9 Unit.


Similar to Police Identification Specialists, K-9 handlers are required to be deemed Expert Witnesses in court.

Dog handlers will qualify to testify as an expert as long as the handler can demonstrate sufficient training, education and experience in the targeted task (i.e. tracking, drug detection). Experts draw their expertise from a broad mix of education, training, and experience. Having acceptable technical qualifications allows the K-9 handler to testify in the form of an opinion and the crown's role in court is to persuade the fact finder to give credence to the opinion. In this context, demonstrating that an expert is a specialist in the narrow issue before the court is more persuasive than just listing broad qualifications, no matter how impressive they may be.


In Canada, the seminal decision on dog tracker evidence is R. v. Haas (1962) in which a 5-member panel of the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the qualifications of a police dog and its trainer to track the accused by scent from the scene of a crime. This decision has subsequently been quoted numerous times, by numerous courts in support of this position.

The Ontario Court of Appeal is leading the way regarding this type of evidence. The most recent case is R. v. West (2005), in which a unanimous court re-affirmed its position from 2002 in R. v. Holmes, which in turn adopted the test articulated by Justice Wein in R. v. Klymchuk (2000). That test requires that before tracker dog evidence is admitted against an accused person, there must be evidence about the reliability of the dog breed and about the particular skills and reliability of the dog as a tracker. The handler must explain the process, sequence, and outcome of the tracking.

The Courts in British Columbia have also been very active in this area. In R. v. Sherman (1997), one of the more recent decisions from that province, Justice Romilly held that both the dog handler and the dog must be qualified.

In R. v. Haas (1962), Davey J.A. stated:

A dog handler should be called as an expert witness and both he and the dog must be qualified. The evidence tendered should not be admitted unless the Crown first establishes the qualifications of the dog and its trainer. It is the dog's propensities and skills that make the evidence of what the dog did admissible, just as it is a witness's qualifications and training that establishes him as an expert and makes his opinion admissible. The qualifications of the dog, like those of an expert, must be proved.
The courts have established in numerous decisions that before a K-9 handler can testify, he/she must be deemed an expert witness and that both the handler and dog must be qualified.

By way of definition, an Expert Witness is:

a witness who by virtue of education, training, skill or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.

CASE LAW

On October 23 2007 an agreement was reached by Arbitrator, Paula Knopf in the matter of Arbitration between Durham Regional Police Association v. Durham Regional Police Services Board pursuant to the Police Services Act. . (CanLII 45400 (ON L.A.) — 2007-10-23)

On of the matters the Association proposed was that three additional units be recognized as being equally eligible for specialty status and “specialist pay”: the Canine, Air Support and Nuclear Security Divisions. It was argued that these three units are comprised of constables with special training, qualifications and responsibilities that equate to the units that already have “specialty” recognition and status. The rationale for each additional unit was presented as follows:
The Canine Unit - This unit’s primary responsibility is to respond to canine calls for service, as well as the daily maintenance, training and integrity of the dogs and their kennels. These constables have specialty training. They often play a supervisory role and act as the “first support unit” at major incidents. They are designated and recognized as expert witnesses by the courts, and they perform teaching functions. They are on call 24/7 with no “off-call” status. They must also personally provide appropriate accommodation and vehicles for the dogs.
Decision: The parties did not agree to include these three units in their contract as specialty units in the past. Therefore, one has to ask why they should be included now. It would be easy to retain the status quo because the parties were content with it in the past. However, the submissions reveal that the current situation creates some inequities. The Canine and the Air Support Unit constables are required to remain on call 24/7. They have specialized training, they undertake leadership functions in difficult situations and they have additional responsibilities above and beyond the duties of their colleagues with regular patrol duties who do not have to remain on call. To assume these additional training, responsibility and time commitments without any corresponding compensation creates an internal inequity within the bargaining unit. I must note that the Tactical Support Team was included as a specialty unit in the last round of negotiations based on the rationale that they operate on an “on-call” basis.

The “threshold” for recognition as a specialty unit within this Service seems to be:

• the achievement of a higher level and focus of education, training and experience that results in expertise and leadership capabilities

• the acceptance of on call status to ensure availability

• the skills and ability to be able to respond to situations requiring specialized skills.

Arbitrator, Paula Knopf ruled,

"On the materials presented to me, it has been demonstrated that the Canine and the Air Support Units meet this definition of specialized units as it has been applied by these parties. Accordingly, I order that the Canine and Air Support units be included in Article 22.06 (a) (v)."

She rejected the Nuclear Security Division be classified as a specialty unit; "I accept that the members of the Nuclear Security Division also undertake additional training. They are also tested regularly to ensure that they maintain the required levels of knowledge and fitness. However, they do not operate on an on-call basis, they are not recognized as experts by the courts and they do not have to be first class constables. Therefore, I do not order that the Nuclear Security Division be designated as a specialty unit at this time."

The above arguments were put forward to a police executive for a review of the present K9 compensation policy.

Anyone interested in the outcome or what some unit's receive, can send me an email at K9canadian@gmail.com and I will forward the info.