Case Title: In re Brown

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Brown (2002-460); 177 Vt. 365; 865 A.2d 402

2004 VT 109

[Filed 22-Oct-2004]

       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.

                                 2004 VT 109

                                No. 2002-460

  In re Grievance of Leslie Brown	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Labor Relations Board

                                                 September Term, 2003

  Catherine L. Frank, Chair

  Michael P. Casey, Associate General Counsel, Vermont State Employees'
    Association, Montpelier, for Appellant Cross-Appellee.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and William B. Reynolds, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for Appellee Cross-Appellant.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., (FN1) Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  This is an appeal from an order of the Vermont
  Labor Relations Board (the Board), dated September 12, 2002, denying
  grievant Leslie Brown's request that a Board order made on October 24,
  2001, reinstating grievant and awarding him back pay be modified to include
  lost overtime wages.  The State of Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAT)
  cross-appeals the order claiming the Board abused its discretion when it
  reinstated grievant because the Board's determination that grievant's
  dismissal was not justified was unsupported by the record.  As to the
  September 2002 order, we reverse and remand; as to the October 2001 order,
  we affirm.

       ¶  2.  Prior to his dismissal, grievant had worked for the State of
  Vermont for over thirty years.  He began his career as a summer worker in
  1968 and worked in various positions, with increasing responsibility, over
  the next twenty-four years.  In 1992, grievant was promoted to
  transportation area maintenance supervisor in District 9, a position he
  occupied until his dismissal.

       ¶  3.  VAT employees, such as grievant, are subject to VAT's work
  rules.  Relevant here, section four prohibits employees from using state
  equipment or tools for any purpose other than state-related work.  As a
  matter of practice, however, District 9 employees did not follow this rule,
  and it was common for employees to borrow state tools and equipment for
  personal use.

       ¶  4.  In May and June 1999, grievant took a two-month leave from work
  to build a new house and garage.  During this time, he borrowed a
  state-owned tamper.  In May 1999, District 9 employees were performing work
  where a tamper was required.  One of the employees was sent to grievant's
  home to retrieve the tamper.  When the employee told grievant the tamper
  was needed for state work, grievant told the employee he should go rent a
  tamper.  The employee then contacted grievant's supervisor who stated that
  if VAT was forced to rent a tamper, grievant would be responsible for the
  expense.  Grievant subsequently relinquished the tamper.
   
       ¶  5.  When grievant returned to work in July 1999, he met with two
  of his supervisors.  The supervisors informed him that he had to ask
  permission before he borrowed state-owned equipment, but if he did so it
  would not be a problem.  Prior to this meeting, grievant was unaware he had
  to ask permission before borrowing state equipment.  Shortly after this
  meeting, grievant took state equipment for use on his home without asking
  permission.  The supervisors again met with grievant and told him he must
  stop borrowing state equipment without asking permission.  Grievant
  explained that he thought that if the equipment was under his supervision,
  he did not have to ask permission.  Grievant was informed this was not the
  case, and was told that he had been warned about this before and the next
  time it happened things would be handled differently.

       ¶  6.  In the ensuing months, grievant borrowed numerous pieces of
  state equipment without asking his supervisors' permission.  By April 2000,
  grievant had the following state-owned equipment in his home: a nail gun, a
  chop saw, a ladder, two doors, an air compressor, a wood furnace, and one
  set of torch heads.  He had many of these items in his possession for
  several months.  He borrowed some of the equipment to complete the work on
  his house and garage, while he took other items home to repair for later
  use either by the State or an individual.  In early April 2000, grievant's
  supervisors investigated a report that the above equipment was missing and
  in grievant's possession.  On April 26, 2000, after concluding their
  investigation, grievant's supervisors filed a theft complaint with the
  Vermont State Police.  A week later, a police officer went to grievant's
  home and informed him about the complaint.  Grievant showed the officers
  the state equipment he had in his home and stated that he would return the
  items the following day.  The next day grievant returned the items and then
  went to the police office where he was charged with grand larceny.  
   
       ¶  7.  Following this incident, a state personnel administrator was
  assigned to investigate the allegations against grievant.  In the
  administrator's report, which was submitted to the Human Resources Chief,
  the administrator concluded that grievant's actions should be viewed as
  "constituting gross misconduct, and rises to the level justifying that
  serious discipline or dismissal action are considered by the Agency." 
  After receiving this report, the Human Resources Chief sent grievant a
  letter informing  him that his actions constituted gross misconduct and
  that removal from State employment would be justified.  The letter stated
  that grievant had "misappropriated state owned property for . . . personal
  use" and listed the items found at grievant's home.  The letter went on to
  say that on at least two occasions grievant "refused to follow direct and
  lawful instructions" given by his supervisors and that grievant "removed
  tools, equipment and material from state property with the purpose and
  intent to retain these items in [his] possession for [his] personal use." 
  Following receipt of this letter, grievant and his Vermont State Employees
  Association (VSEA) representative met with the chief to discuss grievant's
  situation.  After this meeting, the State dismissed grievant.

       ¶  8.  In relevant part, the termination letter stated:

    This letter is to notify you that you are terminated from your
    employment with the State of Vermont, for the reasons specified
    below and as outlined in my June 29, 2000 letter, . . . . This
    action is taken after considering all aspects of your employment
    and taking into account factors including the nature of the job
    and the potential impact your continued presence can have on the
    State, public and your co-workers.  It also takes into account
    your seniority with the State and the fact that you had full and
    clear knowledge of the seriousness of your misconduct.  In my
    opinion, there is sufficient cause to warrant your dismissal. 

  Grievant was given two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
   
       ¶  9.  Grievant then appealed his dismissal to the Board.  The Board
  considered each item found in grievant's possession.  With respect to each
  item, the Board found, contrary to the employer's finding, that while
  grievant took state property without asking permission, he did not do so
  with the intent to permanently deprive the State of this property. 
  Although the Board found grievant's misconduct serious, it found it more
  significant that grievant "showed a disrespect for supervisory authority by
  disregarding instructions given to him on more than one occasion by his
  supervisors."  The Board also noted that it was common practice for
  District 9 employees to borrow state equipment for personal use and that
  grievant had a long and successful work history with VAT.  Considering all
  these circumstances together, the Board concluded that the employer
  "inappropriately bypassed progressive discipline and just cause did not
  exist for Grievant's dismissal."

       ¶  10.  Consequently, the Board found that grievant should have
  received a thirty-day suspension and ordered that grievant be reinstated. 
  The Board awarded grievant back pay, benefits, and interest "from the date
  commencing 30 working days from the effective date of his dismissal until
  his reinstatement, for all hours of his regularly assigned shift, minus any
  income (including unemployment compensation received and not paid back)
  received by Grievant in the interim."  By its cross-appeal, VAT has
  appealed the Board's decision reinstating grievant.  We begin with this
  issue.

       ¶  11.  VAT argues that the Board abused its discretion when it found
  that grievant did not misappropriate state property and ordered grievant
  reinstated.  Specifically, VAT contends reversal is warranted because the
  Board erroneously concluded that the wood furnace found at grievant's home
  was not taken for personal use.  
   
       ¶  12.  To dismiss a state employee, the employer must establish that
  just cause exists.  "Just cause means some substantial shortcoming
  detrimental to the employer's interests, which the law and a sound public
  opinion recognize as good cause for his dismissal."  In re Brooks, 135 Vt.
  563, 568,