Case Title: In re McCort

Citation: 162 Vt. 481, 650 A.2d 504

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-09-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN_RE_MCCORT.93-237; 162 Vt. 481; 650 A.2d 504


[filed 2-Sep-1994]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609- 0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press. 


                                No. 93-237


 Grievance of Gene V. McCort                 Supreme Court
    
                                            On Appeal from
                                            Labor Relations Board

                                            May Term, 1994
    
  
 Charles H. McHugh, Chair
 
 Gene V. McCort, pro se, Montpelier, plaintiff-appellee

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Michael Seibert, Assistant Attorney
 General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


         DOOLEY, J.   The State of Vermont appeals from a decision of the
Vermont Labor Relations Board rescinding grievant Gene McCort's dismissal,
reducing the penalty to a six work-week suspension without pay, and
ordering him reinstated to his position as an auditor with the Agency of
Transportation.  With the exception of a September 6, 1991 written
reprimand of grievant, which we reverse and remand for further proceedings,
we affirm.          

Grievant originally filed three separate grievances with the Vermont Labor
Relations Board (Board),  alleging that the Agency of Transportation (AOT
or employer) had violated various provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement between the State and the Vermont 



State Employees' Association (VSEA) in effect for the period July 1, 1990
through June 30, 1992.  The Board consolidated the three grievances for
hearing. See Grievance of McCort, 16 V.L.R.B. 70 (1993) (Docket Nos. 91-57,
92-9, 92-26). 

         Grievant began his career with the AOT in July 1989 in the
position of Auditor B.  He was a member of a four-person staff of "external
auditors" responsible for reviewing the records of companies having
contracts with AOT to determine whether the companies were in financial and
contractual compliance.  This position, and the position of Auditor C to
which grievant was promoted after six months, required grievant to have a
great deal of direct contact with contractors.  During his three-year
career with AOT,  with the exception of one interim appraisal, AOT rated
grievant's work performance as "Satisfactory" in each of his annual
performance appraisals.  Following a series of disputes with AOT management
dating back to just over a year after grievant began his job, however, AOT
dismissed grievant in May 1992. 
                                    I.
                                    A.
         Employee's first grievance arose out of his conduct on May 24,
1991.  This grievance was covered by Board Docket No. 91-57, and we will
refer to it later as the No. 91-57 grievance.  On May 24th, grievant had
completed an audit of Company A, in which he expressed serious concerns to
AOT management concerning certain company reporting practices and the
company's unwillingness to provide grievant access to what he considered
necessary financial documents.  As discussed in more detail below, grievant
believed that his superiors improperly intervened in this audit and
prevented him from pursuing an important line of inquiry.  On the day in
question, grievant improperly took from his supervisor's desk a



confidential memo from the AOT Assistant Director for Financial Services
which criticized grievant's audit.  In a meeting that day, grievant made
inappropriate remarks to the AOT Director of Administration.  In another
meeting, he made derogatory remarks about Jewish businessmen.  As a result
of grievant's conduct on the 24th, his supervisor issued him a written
reprimand on May 31st. 

         Grievant challenged this decision on June 20th, and it went
through the grievance process.(FN1)    Some time prior to August 26, 1991,
grievant informed his supervisors that he intended to appeal the denial of
the grievance to the Board, which he did on September 10, 1991. 

         This grievance is significant primarily because the Board found
later State actions were motivated, at least in part, by response to the
Board appeal in this grievance.  The State prevailed on this grievance and
as a result, did not include it in its appeal.  Although grievant did not
file a cross-appeal, he has argued in his brief that the Board should have
upheld his grievance, and this Court should reverse the Board's failure to
do so.  Since this decision is not before us in the State's appeal, we are
unable to consider it.  See Miller v. A.N. Deringer, Inc., 146 Vt. 59, 60,