State Overturns Dispatcher Firing

Despite ‘Abysmal Disciplinary History’

By John Voket

Several entries in a two-and-a-half-page state Board of Mediations And Arbitrations disposition reinstating a fired Newtown emergency dispatcher reference the employee’s apparent “abysmal disciplinary history,” and states that “...the Town did a thorough investigation and had just cause to terminate the grievant,” dispatcher Jason Chickos, based on a preponderance of evidence.

Nonetheless, Mr Chickos’ union, an AFSCME / AFL-CIO affiliate, supported the termination being overturned, and won the decision based on an opinion that the terminated employee “was faced with no representation, and whether or not the grievant had proper representation at” a disciplinary hearing which resulting in his firing.

Newtown Human Resources Manager Carole Ross said the agreement between the town and the dispatchers’ union stipulates in these matters that any decisions including overturning such a termination will be final. But Ms Ross and First Selectman Joe Borst have commissioned the town’s labor counsel to research what, if any, avenues are available for further appeal.

The town believes, and has believed all along, that all procedural guidelines in the matter were followed, and can provide evidence in the form of a signed statement from Mr Chickos, in which he agrees to the union representation that was provided during the disciplinary hearing in question.

Speaking with the understanding that certain particulars of the case must remain private, Ms Ross told The Newtown Bee this week that if there was any written or legal stipulations in labor law or the union contract that a local union member must be represented in such a hearing by the union president, and that person failed to show up, that “we would have canceled the hearing and walked out of there.”

But Ms Ross said after waiting more than 30 minutes on the day of the local disciplinary hearing for the Union President Eric Hirsch to arrive, the dispatch supervisor was sent back to the dispatch office to locate another union representative, which Mr Chickos agreed in writing would be acceptable to him.

“Up to now, nobody has reported that the grievant agreed to continue the hearing, after he knew his job was at stake, and after signing off on allowing the proceedings to continue with the union representative who agreed to appear on his behalf,” Ms Ross said, adding that while Mr Hirsch failed to appear, a state AFSCME representative was on hand at that hearing.

Labor Decision ‘First’

Holding up Mr Chickos’ personnel file, which appeared to be three to four 4 inches thick, Ms Ross noted that the town has faced “numerous termination procedures” during her tenure, and that this was the first and only one that was ever overturned by the Department of Labor.

“And here the labor board says he didn’t get proper union representation, so they gave him his job back,” she said.

According to documentation in the decision, Mr Chickos was hired by the town in April 2002, and is responsible for receiving all 911 calls and dispatching appropriate fire, police, or emergency medical personnel. Mr Chickos was discharged in October 2008, after the town “considered his failure to show up for work, his failure to report such absence and the grievant’s significant disciplinary history during his short term of employment with the town.”

Furthermore, “at the time of the discharge, the grievant was under a ‘last chance’ agreement from a prior discipline.” Ms Ross said this means that after compiling 12 different violations of protocol and procedure, the town had given him a final ‘last chance’ warning that warned he would be terminated for any further violation of procedure.

“Within weeks he violated that agreement, so we fired him,” Ms Ross said.

During the state hearing it was determined that the final precipitating incident related to an alleged “swap” of a work shift, which may or may not have been honored by Mr Chickos. The documentation from the state acknowledges that the “swap” in question was approved, but on September 20, 2008 — the day in question — the originally scheduled employee showed up for work and Mr Chickos did not.

The state document states that “the grievant’s only excuse was that he forgot about the swap and there was no definite agreement between the two [dispatchers] as to what part of the shift the grievant was to cover.”

The document also notes that after researching a computerized dispatch record, Mr Chickos worked a shift on September 27, 2008 — a day he was not originally scheduled to work — which was reportedly the payback for time he owed the other employee.

Judgment Vs Management

During the state labor hearing, the town asked that the arbitrator not substitute his or her judgment for that of management unless the arbitrator finds the penalty to be excessive, unreasonable, or that management has abused its discretion. Further, the town contends it did a thorough investigation and had just cause to terminate Mr Chickos based upon the preponderance of the evidence.

In discussion, the state arbitrator stated in the record that “there is no question in the minds of the arbitrators that this grievant has an abysmal disciplinary history and that his employment had been continued under a previous ‘last chance’ agreement.

“What troubles the arbitrators, however, is the manner in which the final disciplinary hearing which resulted in the discharge was handled by the town,” the document further states.

“The grievant claims in his testimony that he was under the impression that the hearing was about the swap and he knew he had paid back the swap, so he didn’t think he needed union representation,” the record shows. “However, after the hearing began it became apparent that his job was in jeopardy and instead of having union representation the town summoned another union member, not an officer or representative, to be a witness to the proceedings.”

The state ruled that the town should have ensured that Mr Chickos had the opportunity to be properly represented and should have postponed the hearing after it became known that a proper representative of the union was not present, especially since termination was a possibility, the ruling states.

“This is not to infer that the town did not have sufficient evidence to terminate; however, the procedure was flawed,” the state decision concludes. In the final point of discussion, the state labor representative states that Mr Chickos “doesn’t seem to have a great regard for his co-workers and needs to show up for work when he is supposed to and use better judgment in his decisions when receiving emergency calls.”

The town was bound to reinstate Mr Chickos within ten days of the state’s May 29 decision without back pay or benefits, and Ms Ross confirmed he returned to work in the dispatch center on June 8. Maureen Will, the emergency dispatch center’s manager, was not immediately available for comment, and Mr Chickos was not on duty to receive a call for comment prior to The Bee going to press Thursday morning.

The news comes in proximity to a local labor hearing in which the town’s animal control officer’s firing by the first selectman was overturned, after a protracted public hearing process, by the Board of Selectmen.