Title: In re Grievance of Boyde

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Grievance of Boyde  (95-644); 165 Vt 624; 687 A.2d 1258

[Opinion Filed 10-Oct-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER
                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-644
                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996


In re Grievance of Glenn Boyde       }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     Labor Relations Board
                                     }
                                     }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. 95-16

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Glenn Boyde, a correctional officer at the Chittenden Regional
  Correctional Facility, appeals a Labor Relations Board decision that his
  grievance of racial discrimination against the Department of Corrections
  was untimely.  Boyde contends the Board mistakenly rejected his claim that
  the Department's allegedly discriminatory acts constituted a "continuing
  violation" which tolled the fifteen-day filing period.  We hold that the
  record does not support the contention and, therefore, affirm.

       The material facts are undisputed.  In early September 1985, Boyde, an
  African-American and veteran correctional officer, as well as a shop
  steward for the Vermont State Employees' Association (VSEA), became
  involved as a steward in the case of a probationary officer, Sandi Raymond. 
  Raymond had received a negative assessment from the Superintendent of the
  Chittenden facility, John Murphy.  Boyde sought out Murphy to discuss the
  matter, and there ensued a heated exchange which Raymond witnessed.  The
  following day, Murphy approached Raymond to apologize for the incident, and
  according to Raymond, the following conversation occurred.  Raymond asked
  the Superintendent if there was tension between the union and management,
  and Murphy acknowledged that there was, stating that the tension derived
  mainly from Boyde's aversion to "authoritative figures."  Murphy explained
  that this aversion was probably acquired when Boyde's father left his
  mother years earlier, that Boyde was a "criminal" who had spent nine days
  in jail and had "terrorized" Vermont communities on his motorcycle, and
  that he had forced his wife to lie to state troopers.  Murphy recounted
  that the Department had dismissed Boyde for his earlier offenses, but that
  the discipline had been reduced, leaving him with a feeling of
  "invincibility."  Murphy concluded that Boyde had a "dark heart."

       Raymond later reported to Boyde the substance of her conversation with
  Murphy.  She testified unequivocally that Boyde "knew everything"
  concerning the conversation by October 10.  On November 10, thirty-one
  calendar days and twenty-three work days later, Boyde filed a grievance
  against Murphy and the Department alleging discrimination based on
  membership in the VSEA, the filing of prior complaints and grievances, and
  race.  Murphy's statements to Raymond formed the sole predicate of the
  grievance.

       Under the collective bargaining contract, a grievance is required to
  be made within fifteen working days of the underlying incident.  Boyde's
  grievance was twice denied as untimely at preliminary steps in the
  grievance process, after which Boyde filed a grievance with the Labor
  Board.  Following a hearing, the Board found that Boyde "reasonably became
  aware of the occurrence of the matter which gave rise to the grievance . .
  . by October 10."  The Board therefore concluded that the grievance, filed
  on November 10, was untimely under the contractual provision requiring that
  grievances be submitted "within fifteen (15) workdays of the date upon
  which the employee could reasonably have been aware of the occurrence of
  the matter" giving rise to the complaint or grievance.  The Board rejected
  Boyde's assertion that the grievance should be treated as timely because it
  was part of a "continuing" policy or pattern of discrimination, as
  evidenced by his contemporaneous involuntary transfer from the Women's Unit
  of the Chittenden facility, a transfer that occurred in early October and
  remained in effect

 

  through the November 10 filing.  The Board ruled that the argument lacked
  merit for two reasons: first, because the grievance as filed contained no
  reference to the ban from the Women's Unit as supportive of the
  discrimination claim; and also because the Board had previously recognized
  the validity of a "continuing" violation only in cases where pay practices
  were involved.  Accordingly, the Board granted the State's motion to
  dismiss.(FN1)

       Boyde contends the Board's reasoning was erroneous in both respects. 
  Any factual omission from the grievance was cured, he asserts, when he
  raised the job reassignment without objection at the hearing on the State's
  motion to dismiss.  He also contends there is ample authority to support
  application of federal anti-discrimination law, including the continuing
  violation doctrine, to Vermont cases.  See, e.g., Allen v. Department of
  Employment & Training, 159 Vt. 286, 289-90, 618 A.2d 1317, 1319 (1992); In
  re Harrison, 141 Vt. 215, 222,