Court Opinion

ID: 9626946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:28:57.291579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:37.085746
License: Public Domain

LEADBETTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In this case, the City of Easton proved that Daiello had, on at least one occasion,1 knowingly received wages from both the City and another employer on the same day and during the same period of two and one-half hours. The Board of Arbitrators2 found as a fact that this conduct had occurred, but held *1115that the City had failed to establish willful misconduct soley because the City could not prove at which employer’s premises (if either) Daiello actually worked during the time in question. It stated, “Clearly, there was a theft of time from one the employers, [sic] however the evidence presented was not conclusive as to whom. While the City alleged this theft occurred at the expense of the City, Coley Security could just as easily have been the victim of this theft.” (Decision of the Board of Arbitrators at 10.) Clearly, the Board reasoned that unless the City could show that it was the entity which was in fact cheated out of a day’s services, there was no willful misconduct.
I strongly disagree with this analysis. Averring entitlement to two salaries for working in two places at the same time is dishonesty directed to both employers, and I believe either or both can fire him for willful misconduct. As the majority points out, the collective bargaining agreement allows immediate termination for behavior which either has an adverse effect on the City or amounts to willful misconduct. Whatever conclusions the Board may have articulated, it in fact required a showing of both when it held that Daiello’s fraud did not amount to willful misconduct absent proof that the City suffered an actual loss of his services. I believe this is manifestly unreasonable, and I would therefore reverse.

. While the evidence gave rise to a suspicion that this was not an isolated incident, the City could prove only one occurrence of “double dipping."

. One of the three arbitrators dissented, noting that:
The testimony presented at the arbitration hearing by the City certainly confirmed the City’s position that Mr.Daiello was working for Coley Security Agency while he was being paid by the City and was expected to be working at the Water Plant. This "double dipping’’certainly was willful misconduct which could have placed the citizens of Easton in a serious situation. The citizens must be assured that their drinking water is safe and healthy to use. Mr. Daiello’s blatant disregard for his duties could have jeopardized the City's water supply and placed our citizens at risk.
Although the City could only document one shift and part of another where Mr. Daiello left the plant while on duty to work for Coley, that information coupled with testimony that he left the plant on numerous occasions without permission, should have been sufficient to justify the termination. When the additional evidence of not filling the chemical bins as required and falsely documenting that the chemicals had been used is considered, there is no doubt in my mind that the City acted appropriately in terminating Mr. Daiello.