Case Title: In re Barney

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Barney (99-538); 172 Vt. 530; 772 A.2d 1074

[Filed 01-Mar-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-538

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2000

In re Grievance of Norma Barney,        }       APPEALED FROM:
Brenda Chamberlain, and                 }	
Sgt. Gloria Danforth	                }
                                        }
                                        }	Labor Relations Board
                                        }	
                                        }
                                        }	DOCKET NO. 98-65

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       This is an appeal from a decision of the Labor Relations Board finding
  that grievant, Detective  Sergeant Gloria Danforth, (FN1) was
  discriminated against by the Department of Public Safety  because she was
  suspected of making public allegations of state police impropriety.  The
  Board  sustained the grievance under Article 53 of the State Police
  Bargaining Unit contract, which protects  state employees from retaliation
  because of whistle blowing activities.  The State does not appeal the 
  finding of discrimination, but takes issue solely with the Board's
  interpretation of Article 53.  The  Board interpreted Article 53 to require
  protection against retaliation for whistle blowing whether or  not the
  State knew or merely suspected that the employee had been responsible for
  public criticism  of the Department. We affirm.  

       The Board's findings show that grievant made an internal complaint
  that false time sheets were  being signed by the station commander of the
  Bethel barracks, Lt. Bruce Lang, on behalf of a  custodial employee who was
  in the hospital.  The time sheets were sent to the Department of 
  Buildings, which actually employed the custodian.  Grievant learned of this
  from Norma Barney, a  dispatcher, and complained within the chain of
  command.  There was no action on grievant's  complaint and thereafter
  Barney notified the Department of Buildings of the false time sheets.  The 
  Department of Public Safety began an internal investigation into Lang's
  conduct.  In the meantime,  Lang was transferred to the St. Johnsbury
  barracks and Lt. Glen Cutting was named station  commander of the Bethel
  barracks.  By this time, Barney had filed a grievance alleging retaliation
  for  her complaint.  The grievance and the facts underlying the Public
  Safety investigation came to the  attention of a local newspaper, the
  Valley News, and a reporter called the barracks for comment.   Although Lt.
  Cutting did not know who had notified the press, he suspected Danforth,
  among others.  The Labor Board found that immediately after Cutting talked
  to the reporter, Danforth's working  conditions changed to her detriment,
  and that the change was motivated by Cutting's belief that she 

 

  had publicized the facts underlying the internal investigation.  In fact,
  the Labor Board found  that Danforth had not done so and that Cutting's
  actions were based on mere suspicion.

       Article 53 provides:

    A "Whistle Blower" is defined as a person covered by this
    Agreement  who makes public allegations of inefficiency or
    impropriety in  government.  No provision of this Agreement shall
    be deemed to  interfere with such an employee in the exercise of
    his or her  constitutional rights of free speech, and such person
    shall not be  discriminated against in his employment with regard
    thereto.

  The Board noted that, ordinarily, it has held that allegations of
  impropriety made within the chain of  command and not published beyond the
  employer do not come within the protection of Article 53,  but it
  recognized that this case presented a somewhat different issue from past
  cases.  While previous  cases centered on whether an allegation was public,
  publicity is not the issue here.  The Labor Board  found that it was only
  after the reporter for the Valley News telephoned Lt. Cutting and revealed 
  what she knew about the Lang investigation that Cutting took action against
  Danforth.  In other  words, it was the publicity of the charges, not the
  charges themselves, which had been pending  internally for some time, that
  prompted the retaliation. 

       The Board decided that its decision turned on the motive of the
  employer in carrying out  retaliation against the grievant based on its
  suspicion that she was a whistle blower.  Ultimately, the  Board's
  interpretation of the contract was guided by numerous federal cases that
  have held that  whistle blowing employees are protected from adverse
  actions by their employers even if the adverse  action is based on mere
  suspicion rather than actual knowledge.  See Reich v. Hoy Shoe Co., 32 F.3d 361, 368 (8th Cir. 1994) (Secretary of Labor not required to show
  employer's actual knowledge;  mere suspicion or belief is enough); NLRB v.
  Richie Mfg. Co., 354 F.2d 90, 98 (8th Cir. 1966)   (adverse action based on
  mere belief that terminated employee was union activist was sufficient to 
  establish violation); Brock v. Richardson, 812 F.2d 121, 125 (3d Cir. 1987)
  (erroneous belief that  employee engaged in protected activity was
  sufficient to protect employee from discharge under Fair  Labor Standards
  Act); Donovan v. Peter Zimmer America, Inc.,