[ back ]
Did the Corrections Department Unfairly Make Harsh Rules Permitt
The State Department of Corrections issued new work rules, telling the Governor doing so was necessary to put the department in a stronger position to hold employees accountable for misconduct. The Commissioner predicted the new rules would cause “a loud and... pitiful noise from VSEA Headquarters.” He was right about that. VSEA convinced the Vermont Labor Relations Board to find the Department guilty of an unfair labor practice and order it to rescind the new rules. Three Justices of the Supreme Court, Justices Dooley, Skoglund and Johnson agreed with the Board. Chief Justice Reiber and Justice Burgess dissented.
The labor contract between the State and VSEA requires that discipline for misconduct be for “just cause” and be progressive – that is beginning with warnings and ending in dismissal. It also provides the “work rules” cannot override the contract. Implicit in the concept of “just cause” is a sliding scale matching the severity of the misconduct to the severity of punishment. The new rules provided that certain newly specified conduct would be grounds for immediate dismissal, they included failing to protect an inmate from abuse, engaging in unlawful discrimination, and failure to “fully and truthfully report events” under investigation. They also include smuggling contraband, and having sex with inmates.
The majority of the Court ruled that the rules made dismissal an absolute consequence for some conduct which has a spectrum of severity such as abuse, and discrimination, and “fully” reporting events. For example omission of one trivial fact in a report could get an employee fired. Therefore the rules changed the disciplinary process and could not be imposed unilaterally by the Department. It was required by law and the Collective Bargaining Agreement to negotiate content with the VSEA. The Department committed an unfair labor practice.
The dissenters’ argument was that rules permitting firing employees who didn’t prevent inmates from being attacked, or who had sex with prisoners, or who smuggled contraband, defined conduct which was clearly just cause for dismissal. So neither the law nor the contract has been changed by the rules. Fair enough, but it isn’t up to the Court to accept some rules and reject others – to rewrite rules promulgated by the executive branch which is required to bargain all changes with the VSEA. The whole historical development of worker’s rights to form unions and make binding contracts for mutual protection was at issue in this case. Vermont State Employee’s Association v. State of Vermont and Robert Hoffmann 2009 VT 21
| Comments (1) |
On March 4, 2009 Mary said:
And how much did this violation, and subsequent appeals, of the contract by the administration cost the Vermont taxpayers? Is this why so many Vermont workers need to be laid off? So, the current administration can engage in rights violations and litigation against its workers? |
| |
[ back ]
