Were two security officers at Lancaster County's Youth
Intervention Center fired because they were caught on video taking snacks from
a co-worker, or were they canned for backing a drive to unionize their jobs?
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board concluded that Tommy
Epps and Adam Medina were axed by county officials out of anti-union spite in
June 2010.
But on Monday, Commonwealth Court in a split decision
overturned the labor board's ruling, finding instead that there is not
sufficient evidence that Epps and Medina's firings were linked to their union
activities.
The court's stance marks a victory for county officials, who
argued that Epps and Medina were terminated not because they were pro-union,
but because they set bad examples for the juveniles, including criminal
offenders, they were charged with supervising.
The case revolves around action, reaction and timing.
Three years ago, Council 89 of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees was trying to bring security guards at
the juvenile center into the AFSCME bargaining unit that already included
Lancaster County's prison guards.
Epps and Medina favored unionization and told their
immediate supervisors they backed the AFSCME effort. In June 2010, AFSCME filed
a petition with the PLRB to represent the juvenile center guards.
Less than two weeks later, a co-worker of Epps and Medina
reported to her supervisor that someone had stolen snacks from her workplace
mailbox. The supervisor reviewed video surveillance recordings, which showed
Epps, Medina and a part-time worker taking cookies and chips from the
co-worker's box.
Epps and Medina admitted taking the snacks, although Epps
said he thought the box belonged to another worker who had given him permission
to take the food. Medina said he believed he had removed the snacks with
permission.
The co-worker who reported the thefts told her supervisors
she didn't consider the food removal to be a big deal.
Still, Epps, Medina and the part-timer were fired. "We
work with residents that are detained, some of them for theft charges, and we
expect our staff members to come and be role models for these residents,"
center Director Drew Fredericks wrote of the decision to axe the three.
Medina and Epps filed grievances challenging their firings
with the county, but lost. AFSCME then filed an unfair labor practice charge
against the county.
County officials appealed to the Commonwealth Court in 2012
after a state hearing examiner and the PLRB both concluded there was something
fishy about the firings and ruled that the county had violated the state Public
Employee Relations Act.
The hearing examiner found the timing of the firings to be
suspicious, given the nature of the offenses and the simultaneous union
organization drive. The examiner noted that the county fired Epps and Medina
rather than employing its progressive discipline policy that allows for lesser
penalties like suspensions. That added up to an anti-union act in the
examiner's view.
In overturning the PLRB's ruling and upholding the firings,
the Commonwealth Court majority found a lack of proof that Fredericks, who made
the firing decisions, knew about Epps' and Medina's pro-union activities.
"There is no evidence in this case of anti-union
sentiment," Judge Patricia A. McCullough wrote in the majority opinion.
Lack of a link between the firings and the union drive is
bolstered by the fact that the part-timer who was caught taking snacks also was
fired, and she had not engaged in union activity, McCullough noted.
She concluded that the timing of the terminations doesn't
prove county officials were out to get Epps and Medina for their union backing,
either.
"If the timing of the county's discipline in this case
were a strong indicator of anti-union animus, then employers would be
prohibited from disciplining their employees for legitimate reasons just
because the employee engaged in pro-union conduct prior to committing
work-related infractions," McCullough wrote.
The lone dissenter on the court, Judge Bernard L. McGinley,
argued that his colleagues ignored plain evidence.
The PLRB was not wrong in concluding that Fredericks likely
knew that Epps and Medina were union advocates, McGinley wrote, and the timing
of their firings seems to provide evidence of retaliation.
He noted that, while they axed Medina and Epps for taking
snacks, county officials didn't probe other reports that a cell phone had been
stolen, claiming no investigation was done in that case because the victim
didn't file a written report. "If the theft of snacks warranted dismissal
of two employees, it would follow that the theft of something more
valuable…would merit an investigation," McGinley wrote.
The firing of Epps and Medina, therefore, must be regarded
as examples of "disparate treatment" and the PLRB had grounds to find
that the firings had to be based on anti-union bias, he concluded.
Source: PennLive.com
No comments:
Post a Comment