We start the story in mid-stream ... on page 12 of 108 total pages "In the Matter of the Arbitration AAA # 12 300 00230 08, (Robert Layman Termination) Town of New Fairfield". The story ends on page 108 wherein:
AWARD
The Employer’s termination of the grievant, Bob Layman, effective close of business on March 28, 2008 for the reasons stated in termination letter dated March 31, 2008 was not for just cause provided in Section 4.4 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.The Employer must immediately offer the grievant reinstatement his former position as Mechanic.
The Employer must make the grievant whole for lost wages and benefits resulting from his termination, less interim earnings, including any unemployment compensation benefits received.
Evidence of the grievant’s termination must be expunged from his personnel record.
___________________________
The story continues as follows highlighting Truck 27. The most interesting bit of information to note is footnote [10] and the short video ... draw your own conclusions:
Truck 27 The grievant described this as the truck whose suspension was “torn out in a snow storm.” The grievant stated that he told Hodge that he would try to repair it but that he had warned him that it would
take a few weeks, as it was “no small job.” In the meantime, there were several small storms and, whereas Truck 27 was a “spare,” “four front line trucks were down.” He finally got back to Truck 27 and made a list of parts and began ordering them from four different vendors but some manufacturers were closed for the holidays. According to the grievant’s statement, Hodge, and then Rzasa, constantly called to check up on his progress, telling him “his best wasn’t good enough.” He promised that the parts would be in on a certain Friday and that the truck would be completed by the following Wednesday and, according to Layman, he
accomplished this goal.[10]
The January 10 letter stated, in pertinent part that:
As you know, all divisions within the Public Works Department are required to submit a weekly work schedule in order to keep the First Selectman informed of daily job activities and overall departmental progress. On several occasions over the past three weeks I have asked that you submit this weekly schedule for the Vehicle & Maintenance Division. To date no schedule has been turned in. Your recent refusal to comply with this directive is considered insubordination and will not be tolerated further. As a result this written warning is being placed in your personnel file.
In addition to the weekly work schedule, you will also be required to submit an eight-hour daily activity sheet for each workday. These[10] Someone (not the grievant’s handwriting) wrote some editorial comments in the margins of this document. On the final page this person wrote “B.S.” and ”Hmmmm.Bla, Bla, Bla….” The grievant testified to the belief that Hodge made these editorial comments, because the handwriting seemed to match samples in the grievant’s personnel file. Hodge denied having written these words on the grievant’s explanation. Though not a handwriting expert, this arbitrator scrutinized the document Layman cited as showing the same handwriting as the editorial comments but did not see then as similar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW YOU MUST ASK YOURSELF ... WHAT HAS THIS COST THE TOWN AND WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE TO THE TAXPAYERS? HOWEVER, IF MEMORY SERVES, MR. HODGE WILL MAKE UP THIS LOST THROUGH PROFITS FROM OTHER LITIGATION.
