Case Title: In re Robins

Citation: 169 Vt. 377, 737 A.2d 370

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Robins (98-107); 169 Vt. 377; 737 A.2d 370

[Filed 16-Jul-1999]

       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. 98-107

In re Grievance of Jeffrey Robins	           Supreme Court

                                                   On Appeal from
     		                                   Labor Relations Board

                                                   March Term, 1999

Catherine L. Frank, Chair

       Samuel C. Palmisano, VSEA General Counsel, and Mark Heyman, Deputy
  Legal Counsel, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant

       William Sorrell, Attorney General, and George E.H. Gay, Special
  Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.  Grievant Jeffrey Robins, an employee of the Department
  of  Environmental Conservation (DEC), appeals the decision of the Vermont
  Labor Relations Board  dismissing his claim that his employer retaliated
  against him for his exercise of free speech and  whistleblowing activities
  when the DEC ordered him to sign a permit certification which he  believed
  contained untrue statements.  We affirm the Board's decision.  

                                     I.

       Grievant is an environmental engineer in the Residuals Section of the
  Waste Water  Management Division of the Department of Environmental
  Conservation, Agency of Natural  Resources.  The Residuals Section is one
  of five sections which comprise the Waste Water 

 

  Management Division.  At all relevant times, grievant's primary job
  function was to review and  make recommendations on permits for the
  disposal of residual matter gathered in waste water  treatment by
  determining whether permit applications complied with technical standards 
  established by the DEC to address potential health hazards of residual
  disposal. The director of  the Waste Water Management Division, Marilyn
  Davis, had the responsibility for and authority  to interpret the technical
  standards.  In his capacity as permit reviewer, grievant was responsible 
  for reviewing and signing certification documents and providing them to
  Davis and Catherine  Jamieson, the section chief of the Residuals Section,
  for issuance of permits on behalf of the  Secretary of the Agency of
  Natural Resources.

       This matter arises out of grievant's review and preparation, in July
  and August 1996, of  the certification documents on a permit application
  for the disposal in the Mad River valley of  waste ice cream and
  manufacturing by-products from Ben and Jerry's ice cream plant.  In August, 
  grievant informed Jamieson that he objected to signing the draft
  certification because he did not  believe the technical standards had been
  met, and he understood his signature on the certification  to signify that
  he agreed that the application complied with the technical standards and
  warranted  the granting of a permit.  The standard signature block read:

     The Department staff has reviewed the above project and 
     application and finds it to conform with  current technical standards. 
     It is recommended that the foregoing findings be made and the 
     Solid Waste Management Facility Certification be issued.

       During August and September, grievant, Jamieson and Davis discussed
  grievant's  concerns that Ben and Jerry's had failed to demonstrate
  compliance with the technical standards.  Grievant indicated that, in light
  of his objection to the issuance of the permit, he would be  violating the

 

  ethical standards of a professional engineer by signing the document. In
  September 1996,  Jamieson requested William Bress, the State toxicologist,
  to provide an opinion on the need to  restrict access to the sludge
  disposal site, one issue that concerned grievant.  Bress responded with  a
  memorandum to the DEC in which he submitted that if the sludge material
  were incorporated  into the soil within forty-eight hours, no public health
  threat would be posed at the disposal site.  On November 18, 1996, Davis
  sent a memorandum to grievant in which she indicated that she  had
  considered each of grievant's concerns, enumerated those concerns and her
  analysis thereof,  and determined that issuance of the permit was in
  compliance with the DEC's interpretation of  the technical standards.  In
  an effort to address grievant's objection to recommending findings that 
  were contrary to grievant's interpretation, Davis proposed removing the
  second sentence from the  standard signature block.  She requested that
  grievant revise the signature block as she suggested,  and sign the draft
  certification.

       Grievant responded with another memorandum in which he again expressed
  disagreement  with the DEC's interpretation of the technical standards and
  indicated that the memorandum from  William Bress did not change his
  opinion.  Although grievant acknowledged that Davis made the  final
  decisions for The DEC, he refused to sign the revised signature block,
  stating that "it still  implies I think the project conforms to the
  technical standards."  Grievant then proposed two  signature blocks he was
  willing to sign.  Davis responded with another memorandum, dated  December
  2, 1996, which stated in pertinent part:

     This is a direct order.  Prepare the certification as directed, sign the 
     certification, and forward it by Friday, December 6, 1996 to your 
     supervisor as is customary practice.  Failure to comply with this 
     order can result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

 

  On December 4, 1996, grievant sent a memorandum to Davis and Canute
  Dalmasse, Director of  the DEC's Office of Water Resources, which stated
  that Davis was requiring him to sign  statements he did not believe were
  true, and that Davis's insistence was unethical and a potential  breach of
  standards relating to professional engineering.  Dalmasse informed grievant
  that the  directives contained in Davis's two memoranda remained in effect.  

       On December 6, 1996, grievant signed his name on the signature page of
  the draft  certification, but wrote "under protest" next to his signature. 
  He submitted the document to  Jamieson who told him that the signature was
  unacceptable.  Jamieson suggested that he submit  a separate protest letter
  in lieu of writing "under protest."  Grievant again signed his name to the 
  draft certification document, this time omitting the words "under protest." 
  As per Jamieson's  suggestion, he submitted to her a memorandum detailing
  his disapproval of the permit's issuance  and indicating that he signed the
  document under protest.  He sent copies of this memorandum  to Davis,
  Dalmasse, DEC Commissioner William Brierly and Agency of Natural Resources 
  Secretary Barbara Ripley.  

       Thereafter, grievant filed a grievance against the DEC alleging a
  violation of Article 5  ("No Discrimination or Harassment") and Article 71
  (the "Whistleblower" provision) of the  collective bargaining agreement
  between the State of Vermont and the Vermont State Employees'  Association. 
  Grievant also alleged that by ordering him to sign the certification
  document, the  DEC interfered with his First Amendment right to freedom of
  speech and refused to honor his  right as a professional engineer to comply
  with the professional engineering canons.  The Board  concluded that
  grievant was engaged in free speech activities; however, it denied the
  grievance,  holding that the employer exercised its legitimate management
  rights in ordering grievant to sign 

  

  the certification.  The Board declined to consider grievant's claim under
  the professional  engineering canons concluding that such consideration
  falls outside its grievance jurisdiction as  set forth in the State
  Employees' Labor Relations Act (SERLA).  SERLA identifies the Board's 
  grievance jurisdiction as limited to "dissatisfaction . . . with aspects of
  employment or working  conditions under collective bargaining agreement." 
  3 V.S.A. § 902(14).  The Board's analysis  deemed the engineering canons
  outside the statutory definition of grievance, and declined to  address
  this aspect of the claim.

                                     II.

       We emphasize the limited nature of our review.  We treat the Board's
  decision with  substantial deference and will not reverse its conclusions
  where the findings of fact, taken as  whole, support them.  See In re
  Grievance of Butler, 166 Vt. 423, 425,