Opinion ID: 1288529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: upholding the grievance panel

Text: It must always be kept in mind that Douglas was not fired ; he was laid-off in a reduction of force. He was not summarily terminated as an at-will employee, nor was he dismissed for cause. It is clear that Director White considered Douglas subject to termination only through appropriate disciplinary action or as an incident to a reduction in force. Director White made this clear to Douglas in his April 21, 1990, letter to Douglas in which he wrote that it must be clearly understood that this reorganization and reduction of force, as it affects your prior position is not a disciplinary action  (Emphasis added.) After the Grievance Panel reinstated Douglas, the Authority tried to characterize Douglas as an at-will employee subject to groundless, summary dismissal, but this position was taken in a last-minute, after-the-fact attempt by White and the Airport Authority Board to justify its decision to deny Douglas his right under the personnel manual to continue in his prior position. Douglas successfully persuaded the Grievance Panel that under the terms of the reorganization crafted by White, Douglas was entitled to continued employment in a position comparable to his prior position, namely, the newly-named position of Senior Engineer. As recited in the Board's Findings of Fact, the three member [Grievance] panel issued its decision finding that the Authority violated its Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual when it failed to offer Douglas the position of Senior Engineer in lieu of laying him off. The Grievance Panel made its holding in accordance with the Airport Authority's official personnel policies and procedures, which disfavored job losses when lay-offs became necessary and which encouraged readjustment of personnel through transfer, if qualified, to other open positions within the authority. When the Authority changed the title of Douglas' position to that of Senior Engineer, there was no one around who was more suited to fill the newly-named position than its former holder, Douglas Clements; and the official personnel policy of the Authority dictated that he continue his job under its new name. There was, of course, no way that supposed whistle-blower Douglas was going to be allowed to stay on the job; so, in violation of Airport Authority policy, he was refused continued employment with the Authority. In the scramble to find an excuse for getting rid of Douglas, the Authority gave Douglas two different reasons for getting rid of him. In its review of the Grievance Panel, the Authority's Findings of Fact recite that Douglas was terminated on April 7, 1989 pursuant to a Plan of Reorganization and Reduction of Force. If this were the real reason for Douglas' termination, then, under Section 9 of the official personnel policies and procedures, he would be entitled to continue his employment under the new title of Senior Engineer. In the very same Findings of Fact, however, the Authority claimed also that Douglas was an at-will employee and that he could, therefore, be terminated at the pleasure of the Executive Director. The position of the Authority seems to be, then, that it laid-off Douglas as part of a reduction of force; but, if that does not work, the Executive Director had the right to fire him anyway because he was an at-will employee. I submit that the Authority cannot have it both ways: it either laid him off or it fired him. It is clear from the record that Douglas was not fired by the Executive Director as an at-will employee (The Authority did not assert this at-will argument until after Douglas' lay-off) and that Douglas was in fact laid-off under the excuse that there was a necessary reduction of force. This being the case, Section 9 of the policy manual requires that he be given preference for the new Senior Engineer position. This is exactly what the Grievance Panel correctly ruled. I cannot imagine how the district court failed to see the obvious injustice inherent in the way that both the Executive Director and the rubber-stamp Board appears to have trampled on Douglas' employment rights. The majority opinion adopts the Airport Authority's fall-back argument, position number two, that Douglas was an at-will employee who served at the pleasure of White and that, therefore he was not a civil service employee and not entitled to his rights under the reduction in force provisions of the employment manual. If White had really considered Douglas to be an at-will employee, all White had to do was fire Douglas and get on with it. White did not do this; instead, he went about contriving what appears to me to be an elaborate subterfuge for dismissing Douglas. White himself made it very clear to Douglas that he was not firing him, but that Douglas was, rather, the unfortunate victim of a reduction of force that was necessary for a more efficient operation. Even if I were to agree with the majority that Douglas was subject to being fired at the pleasure of the executive director, [1] the issue of whether Douglas was or was not an at-will employee was never brought up as a basis for dismissing him until this matter got to the stage where the Authority Board was reviewing the decisions of the Grievance Panel and of its executive director. It was not until September 7, 1989, five months after he had been laid-off for the supposed reduction of force, that the Authority raised the at-will issue and urged that Douglas could be terminated at any time without cause. As far as Douglas was concerned, up until the aforementioned Board action, he was acting under the assumption that the only issue to be resolved was whether he was entitled to be transferred to the Senior Engineer position, as decreed by the Grievance Panel. For the Authority to say, all of a sudden, that Douglas was not eligible to be considered for the Senior Engineer position because he supposedly was an at-will employee at the time that prior position had been eliminated, is so far out of touch with the earlier proceedings and so far out of touch with reality as to have serious due process implications. Douglas was not defending against summary at-will dismissal, he was defending against the Authority's refusal to give him the Senior Engineer position that, under the personnel manual, he was entitled to. Further due process problems are presented by the fact that the Grievance Panel decision was nullified by a stroke of the pen of Director White, whose very decision the Grievance Panel was reviewing. It appears that when the Grievance Panel overturned White's decision to refuse the position to Douglas, White simply nullified the Grievance Panel's ruling. Ordinarily, decision-makers are not permitted to reverse the action of the appellate tribunal which is responsible for reviewing their decisions; and I find it to be quite extraordinary that White was able to nullify the Grievance Panel's decision relating to his administrative ruling. The contention that Douglas was an at-will employee rather than a civil service employee is a new one and one that Douglas was never given an opportunity to oppose. When Director White wrote to Douglas on April 21, 1989 (two weeks after Douglas was laid-off), he advised Douglas that the Authority would accommodate his request to pursue the grievance process in accordance with the Airport Authority Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. Obviously White thought that Douglas was entitled to the review procedures set forth in the manual. When Douglas was hired, he was given the manual and other documents which established his civil service status; and even if his abolished position were considered to be management-related, rights and obligations of managers are provided for in the manual. There is testimony in the record from the Authority's former chief of human resources that all Authority personnel were part of the classified system and that the manual was designed to apply to all non-contract employees, including managers and supervisors. I would note further that the Grievance Panel made an express finding of fact that the Personnel and Procedures Manual granted civil service status to Douglas. I see no question relating to Douglas' civil service status, nor to his right to be appointed to the new job classification. I see no reason why the decision of the Grievance Panel should not be upheld.