Case Title: In re Lilly

Citation: 173 Vt. 591, 795 A.2d 1163

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Lilly (2000-258); 173 Vt. 591; 795 A.2d 1163

[Filed 14-Feb-2002]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 06-Mar-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-258

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2001

In re Courtney Lilly	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }	Labor Relations Board
                                       }	 
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 99-20

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

       Appellant, the State of Vermont Department of Corrections (State),
  appeals a ruling of the  Vermont Labor Relations Board (Board) which
  granted back pay and other benefits to Courtney Lilly  (grievant) as a
  result of his improper dismissal by the State.  The State argues that the
  Board abused  its discretion by: (1) denying the State's request to reopen
  the back pay hearing to admit into  evidence an affidavit of grievant's
  former Department of Employment and Training (DET) case  manager or to
  allow for her testimony; (2) awarding grievant back pay from December 4,
  1999, to  March 11, 2000; and (3) awarding grievant back pay for the first
  month after his dismissal.  Grievant  cross-appeals arguing that the Board
  abused its discretion by refusing to consider grievant's claim  that his
  back pay award should include lost overtime.  We affirm.

       The State of Vermont dismissed grievant from his correctional officer
  position at Northern  State Correctional Facility (NSCF) on March 19, 1999. 
  At that time, grievant had been an employee  of the State for sixteen
  years.  Grievant appealed his dismissal to the Board.  After conducting 
  hearings, the Board issued an order on February 24, 2000, determining that
  grievant was dismissed in  violation of Article 14 of the collective
  bargaining agreement between the State and the Vermont  State Employees'
  Association.  The Board ordered the State to reinstate grievant on March
  12, 2000,  and imposed a ten day suspension for misconduct instead of
  dismissal.  

       The Board continued the case to determine the specific back pay and
  other benefits due  grievant from the date commencing ten working days from
  the effective date of his dismissal until  his reinstatement, for all hours
  of his regularly-assigned shift minus any income received by grievant  in
  the interim.  The parties stipulated to certain benefits due grievant but
  were unable to agree on  whether grievant mitigated his damages by
  attempting to find suitable employment during the period  his grievance was
  pending.

       On March 3, 2000, grievant filed a motion to amend the Board order of
  February 24, 2000,  requesting that overtime compensation be considered in
  determining grievant's back pay award.  On  the first day of hearings
  devoted to the damages phase of the grievance, held on March 16, 2000, the 
  Board denied grievant's motion, concluding that there was no provision for
  overtime in its original 

 

  order and that overtime work is unpredictable and not part of the regular
  work week.  The second  and final day of hearings on damages, held on March
  30, 2000, addressed, in part, the State's  contention that grievant
  forfeited his right to back pay by failing to make reasonable efforts to
  obtain  suitable employment and, therefore, mitigate damages.  On April 7,
  2000, the State filed a motion to  reopen the back pay hearing in order to
  admit the affidavit of grievant's former DET case manager or  to allow her
  to testify.  The Board's final order of May 11, 2000, denied that motion.

       The Board made the following findings of fact.  Grievant did not
  initially seek employment  after his dismissal in March 1999 because he was
  in shock from losing his job.  Grievant applied for  and received
  unemployment compensation from DET beginning on or about May 9, 1999, until 
  December 4, 1999.  In order to receive unemployment compensation benefits,
  the claimant must  make an average of three contacts with potential
  employers each week.  DET performs eligibility  reviews to ensure that
  claimants are looking for suitable employment.  Grievant met all the 
  requirements necessary to receive unemployment compensation and received
  benefits totaling  $7,414.00.  

       In May 1999, grievant started seeking employment in the Newport,
  Vermont area.  Grievant  has a degree in hotel management and had
  previously worked as a chef.  He spoke to local  restaurants about possible
  employment as a chef and contacted local building supply stores for 
  possible positions.  Grievant also traveled to Nevada during the summer of
  1999 and spoke with  restaurant managers about possible employment.  In
  addition, grievant contacted DET for help in  seeking employment, and with
  DET's assistance, found work as a chef for a private party.  The  income
  from this job, $34.80, is the only money that grievant earned during the
  time he was  dismissed.			

       After his unemployment compensation benefits were exhausted in
  December 1999, grievant  generally looked only for part-time work because
  the Board hearings were underway and he expected  a decision to be
  forthcoming.  He applied to one full-time position as assistant
  superintendent at  NSCF in February 2000.

       An employer resource consultant with DET testified that the job market
  in the Newport,  Vermont area was strong, with job offerings in the
  following areas:  truck driving, health care, part-time retail, social
  work, and numerous food preparation positions.  The consultant did not know
  how  much these positions paid or if there were chef positions available.

       Based on the above findings of fact, the Board ordered the State to
  pay grievant only half of  his regular pay from December 4, 1999, until his
  reinstatement on March 11, 2000, to reflect the fact  that grievant looked
  only for part-time work during the period in question.  In addition, the
  Board  ordered the State to pay grievant back pay for the first month
  following his dismissal.  This appeal  followed.

       On June 6, 2000, the State filed a motion for stay pending appeal,
  challenging in particular  two components of the judgment amount:  (1) the
  amount tied to the one month period following  grievant's dismissal, or
  $2,650.22 plus interest, and (2) the half-pay awarded for the period

 

  December 4, 1999, to March 11, 2000, or $4,820.71.  The Board denied the
  State's request with  respect to the one month period and granted the
  State's request with respect to the half-pay award.

       This Court accords substantial deference to the Board in
  determinations that lie within its  area of expertise, In re Merrill, 151
  Vt. 270, 272,