Opinion ID: 1547613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bootlegged Towels

Text: At the commencement of the arbitration hearings RIBCO filed a motion in limine to prohibit introduction of any evidence that had been suppressed in the criminal proceedings. The arbitrator properly denied the motion and permitted the state to submit evidence of the items seized in February 1993. Among the items seized was a large garbage bag containing fourteen towels marked Prop. of MHRH and a plastic bag containing bedspreads or blankets, also signifying MHRH's proprietary interest. At the arbitration hearing George H. Truman, Jr., the former associate director of Food Services at the DOC, testified that Mr. Algasso was assigned to the Center Kitchen Facility at the ACI complex. He indicated that a corridor led from the kitchen building to the MHRH laundry room. The corridor had been blocked off, but the boards were basically loose, and we would routinely go in there    [t]o borrow towels and things they use for cleaning in the kitchen. He further testified that although DOC personnel never were given permission to take the towels, they would barter with nurses for them because nothing cleans up better in a kitchen than terry cloth. Consequently, kitchen personnel would bootleg them from the laundry. However, he said, there is no established procedure that would entitle employees to take them home for personal use; because there's not even a policy or an entitlement to use them in the kitchen, never mind take them home. Michael P. Rigney, the DOC supervisor for Food Services and Mr. Algasso's immediate supervisor, explained that the towels were used for rags and potholders. They were often used when stewards were required to use their own vehicles to transport food to various DOC facilities. Dampened towels also were used to keep certain foods, such as cooked turkeys, moist during transportation. Mr. Algasso's testimony was consistent with that of his supervisors. Although denying that he ever procured towels directly from the MHRH laundry, he acknowledged that they were available in the kitchen facility and used for food preparation, carrying pans, and washing cars. He also testified that he used the MHRH blankets when he would spend the night on ACI grounds because of snowstorms. On such occasions he would sleep in his van because there was the rats in there, the mice, the cats and cockroaches. In his award, the arbitrator said, it is reasonable to conclude that [DOC] employees engaged in extensive and long-term `bootlegging' of what was property belonging to another State department. Yet he went on to determine that, although [i]n an ideal world, Mr. Algasso should have returned the towels, his acquisition of the items fell short of theft. The arbitrator reasoned that even though Mr. Algasso clearly possessed state property, this did not amount to theft, even though some of the items were obtained through the somewhat shady method of bootlegging and removing loose boards. The arbitrator also noted that there was no evidence that the DOC ever instructed any of its employees to treat the items in any manner other than as disposable items to be used and discarded. The arbitrator opined that the method of obtaining, using, and disposing of MHRH towels and blankets was such as to encourage viewing them as essentially disposable items of little or no value, and thus, Mr. Algasso had a reasonable basis to view them as disposable. We conclude, however, that such a result is not only irrational, it also impermissibly usurps the disciplinary function of the director. The DOC Code of Ethics and Conduct, promulgated pursuant to the director's authority under G.L.1956 § 42-56-10, prohibits the following conduct: Section V(F)(7)(a): Theft. Section V(F)(9)(a): Using state property, either by intention or through negligence, in a manner which causes damage or injury, or unnecessarily diminishes its value. Section V(F)(9)(e): Removing state property from departmental premises without the permission of a superior, or for other than the performance of one's duties. The towels and linens clearly were state property, regardless of how Mr. Algasso obtained possession of them. The fact that the DOC lacked a specific policy prohibiting the use of MHRH linens does not equate with permission to remove the property from departmental premises. Furthermore, the fact that DOC employees may have considered the towels to be of little value is irrelevant. The DOC Code of Ethics and Conduct prohibits the theft or removal of state property regardless of the intent of the employee or its value. Furthermore, the DOC Code of Ethics and Conduct states that employees who violate the sections referred to above may be subject to disciplinary measures, up to and including termination. DOC Code of Ethics and Conduct Section V(F). As we previously have stated, the Legislature has delegated the determination of the extent and severity of discipline to the DOC director and that determination is not subject to review by an arbitrator. See State Department of Corrections v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, 725 A.2d 296, 299 (R.I.1999) ( Riel ) (The Legislature could not have intended to make the paramount disciplinary function of the director subject to the caprice of an arbitrator.). Director Vose determined that any one of the charges regarding theft    standing alone, warrant discharge. A violation of the DOC Code of Ethics and Conduct having been established, the appropriateness of the disciplinary measures to be invoked lies within the discretionary authority of the director. The arbitrator lacked the authority to alter or determine the discipline imposed. Thus, the arbitrator's decision to reverse the director's termination of Mr. Algasso was irrational and the arbitrator exceeded his powers by substituting his judgment for that of the director concerning the choice of discipline.