2020.06.30 Response to DLR re CERB-0001

Town of Winthrop · from StateReference · 36 pages · 4.8 MB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
HAROLD L. LICHTEN*
SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN**° 729 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 2000 WWW: DERLAW:COM.
MATTHEW W. THOMSON* BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116
ADELAIDE H. PAGANO* [eee
ae TELEPHONE 617-994-5800
ne : eee FACSIMILE 617-994-5801
ANNE KRAMER*4 x ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS

A ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
© ADMITTED IN NEW YORK

MICHELLE CASSORLA*?
ln + ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY
+ ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT

OF COUNSEL ¢ ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MATTHEW D. CARLSON¢¢* co ADMITTED IN TENNESSEE
BENJAMIN J. WEBER*®

June 30, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Philip T. Roberts

Director

Department of Labor Relations
Charles F. Hurley Building

19 Staniford Street, First Floor
Boston, MA 02114

efile.dlr@mass.gov

RE: MUP-14-4210/Town of Winthrop and Winthrop Police, MassCOP Local 421

MUP-15-4652/Town of Winthrop and Ferruccio Romeo
Show Cause Letter

Dear Director Roberts:

I write on behalf of Charging Party Ferruccio Romeo in response to your Show Cause
letter of June 19, 2020. In your letter, you explained that the DLR has determined that Charge
MUP-15-4652 should be consolidated with MUP-14-4210 before the Commonwealth
Employment Relations Board (“CERB”), because the two charges raise an identical issue arising
from the same set of facts. As will be explained below, Mr. Romeo objects to the consolidation
of these two charges before CERB, because the DLR should first take the opportunity to consider
MUP-15-4652 in light of the union arbitration decision of February 26, 2016.

Mr. Romeo filed Charge MUP-14-4210 in order to challenge his placement on
administrative leave, alleging that the Town of Winthrop had retaliated against him for his
protected conduct pursuant to G.L. c. 150E, §§ 10(a)(1), 10(a)(2), 10(a)(3), and 10(a)(4). Mr.
Romeo was then terminated on January 9, 2015. The DLR conducted an in-person interview of
the charge on January 14, 2015. On March 5, 2015, the Investigator dismissed the charge
(attached hereto as Exhibit A), and Mr. Romeo filed a request for review with the CERB. In Mr.

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Romeo’s brief before the CERB, he argued that the charge should be deferred to his then
pending union arbitration. Notably, at the time that the in-person investigation had been
conducted, Mr. Romeo’s union arbitration had not yet been initiated.’ Mr. Romeo argued that
deferral to arbitration was appropriate, because in order for the arbitrator to determine the
existence of just cause, the arbitrator necessarily had to consider whether or not the Town’s
termination of him was a disproportionate reaction to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, and
whether the Town treated Mr. Romeo differently than other officers that it has disciplined in the
past. Obviously, those considerations would also impact the question of whether the Town’s
non-retaliatory explanations for Mr. Romeo’s termination were pretextual. As such, the DLR
issued a decision on May 21, 2015, deferring the charge to arbitration.

In order to ensure that he had timely challenged his termination (as his initial charge was
filed prior thereto and challenged only his placement on administrative leave), Mr. Romeo filed
Charge MUP-15-4652 on June 24, 2015 and requested that it also be deferred to arbitration. On
August 4, 2015, the DLR deferred this charge to Mr. Romeo’s pending arbitration.

The Arbitrator issued his decision on February 26, 2016 (attached hereto as Exhibit B),
holding that the Town did not have just cause for his termination. As such, on March 2, 2016,
Mr. Romeo submitted requests that both charges be revived. The DLR allowed Mr. Romeo’s
requests on August 9, 2019.

Despite the fact that both charges stem from the same operative facts, it is important that
the DLR consider Charge MUP-15-4652 rather than send it directly to the CERB. MUP-14-4210
was investigated before Mr. Romeo’s arbitration was even initiated and decided without the
benefit of the Arbitrator’s decision. Without the benefit of a hearing or witness testimony, the
Investigator found that Mr. Romeo did not support his claim of unlawful retaliatory motivation.
The Investigator merely took the Town’s word for it with respect to its proffered non-
discriminatory rationale for terminating Romeo.

Recognizing that the DLR has discretion to consolidate the two charges, see 456 CMR
12.04, it should not do so. Instead, the DLR should now seize upon its opportunity to conduct an
Investigation with the benefit of the Arbitration decision. The Arbitrator made several important
findings that ought to impact whether or not there was probable cause that the Town committed a
violation of the law. The probable cause burden is relatively modest, and is defined as ‘such a
state of facts in the mind of the . . . [Investigator] as would lead a [person] of ordinary caution
and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest and strong opinion” that a violation of the law
could have occurred. Massachusetts Correction Officer Federated Union v. Labor Relations

! The Union filed its demand for arbitration to challenge Mr. Romeo’s termination on

February 13, 2015.

LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Com’n, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 1114, at *2 n.3 (2002) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, it is
not the Investigator’s role to make a “prejudgment of the merits.” In the Matter of Mahar
Teachers Association and Michael Magee, MUPL-14-3671, CERB Decision on Appeal of
Hearing Officer Decision, 2017 WL 930092, at *5 n.16 (Feb. 28 2017) (internal citation
omitted).

The Town’s proffered reason for terminating Mr. Romeo was that he supposedly
submitted a payment slip for a detail he did not actually work. The Arbitrator, however, found
specifically that Mr. Romeo “was performing all the tasks of working the detail for some 5 hours
that day... .” and that Mr. Romeo “was acting honestly when he submitted the DCR bill for [the
detail on] November 24, 2014.” (Arbitration Award at 20, Exhibit B.) These findings make it
much more likely that an Investigator would find that Mr. Romeo can demonstrate probable
cause that the Town harbored unlawful retaliatory motivation for terminating him, since one
major consideration in evaluating unlawful motivation is “triviality of reasons given by the
employer.” City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-04-4503 (Jan. 9, 2009).

In addition to the detail slip, issue, the Town also grounded Mr. Romeo’s termination on
an accusation that Mr. Romeo had lied to Chief Delehanty during the course of his investigation
of the detail slip incident as well as the Due Process hearing held by the Town of Winthrop to
determine his discipline. (Arbitration Award at 11, Exhibit A.) The Arbitrator also found those
justifications to be specious, stating “I find that [Mr. Romeo] did not lie to the Chief during the
investigation on December 1, 2014.” (Arbitration Award at 22, Exhibit A.) Furthermore, the
Arbitrator found that although the Town had attempted to paint Mr. Romeo’s failure to
accurately recollect a few details of the sequence of events on the morning of November 24,
2014, this failure was not deliberate misrepresentation and instead merely a mistaken
recollection. (Arbitration Award at 22-23, Exhibit A.) Particularly damning, the Arbitrator noted
that the Town had not permitted Mr. Romeo to review records that would permit him to refresh
his recollection of the sequence of events prior to his hearing. (Arbitration Award at 23, Exhibit
A.) This failure by the Town suggests that the Town was more concerned with ousting Mr.
Romeo than developing a factually accurate record, further supporting the notion of unlawful
retaliatory motive.

The CERB should not have to consider these findings for the first time on appeal when
the DLR Investigator did not have the opportunity to address them. Additionally, the briefing
before CERB was submitted back in 2015, and it is not clear that Mr. Romeo will even have the
opportunity to supplement his briefing in light the Arbitration Award. If anything, it would be
more appropriate for the CERB to remand consideration of MUP-14-4210 to the DLR for
reconsideration in light of the Arbitration Award. In light of the foregoing, Mr. Romeo

eo

LICHTEN &LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

respectfully requests that the DLR proceed with an in-person investigation of Charge MUP-15-
4652.

Thomas Fowler

cc: Patrick Bryant, Esq.
Pyle Rome Ehrenberg, P.C.
2 Liberty Sq., 10" Floor
Boston, MA 02190
pbryant@pylerome.com

Howard Greenspan, Esq.

220 Broadway, Ste. 304

Lynnfield, MA 01940
hgreenspan@greenspanlawyers.com

EXHIBIT A

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS
19 STANIFORD STREET, 15’ FLOOR
BosTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114
Email: efile.dir@state.ma.us
Telephone: (617) 626-7132
FAX: (617) 626-7157
www.mass.gov/dir

CHARLES D. BAKER COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT
GOVERNOR RELATIONS BOARD
KaRYN E. POLITO MARJORIE F. WITTNER
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR CHAIR
ERICA F. CRYSTAL ELIZABETH NEUMEIER
DIRECTOR BoaRD MEMBER
HARRIS FREEMAN
BoarD MEMBER

March 5, 2015
Ferrucio Romeo
Winthrop Police, MassCOP Local 421
9 Hitching Hill Road
Saugus, MA 01906

Howard Greenspan, Esq.
220 Broadway, #204
Lynnfield, MA 01940

RE: MUP-14-4210, Town of Winthrop
Dear Mr. Romeo and Mr. Greenspan:

On December 12, 2014, the Winthrop Police, MassCOP Local 421 (Union) filed a
charge of prohibited practice with the Department of Labor Relations (Department),
alleging that the Town of Winthrop (Town) had engaged in prohibited practices within
the meaning of Sections 10(a)(1), 10(a)(2), 10(a)(3), and 10(a)(4) of Massachusetts
General Laws, Chapter 150E (the Law). Pursuant to Section 11 of the Law, as amended
by Chapter 145 of the Acts of 2007, and Section 15.04 of the Department's Rules, |
conducted an in-person investigation of the allegations contained in the charge on
January 14, 2015. Based on the evidence presented during the investigation, | have
decided to dismiss the charge for the reasons explained below.

BACKGROUND

Ferrucio Romeo (Romeo) has served as Union President for eleven years.
During his time as Union President, he has reviewed, filed, and supported numerous
grievances and filings against the Town.' Romeo made a practice of posting Union
grievances and responses from Town Manager James McKenna (TM) or Chief of Police
Terry Delehanty (Chief) to a bulletin board.

1 The Union submitted into evidence a series of grievances that include various
allegations of violations of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties and
filings at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

One of these grievances was filed on August 15, 2014, and concerned Officer
Judy Racow (Racow). Romeo posted a response to the grievance by the Chief dated
August 21, 2014. On or about September 8, 2014, Racow sent a letter to the TM stating
that the Chiefs response included unnecessary comments and caused her
embarrassment and humiliation. Racow requested that her grievance be moved to step
two of the grievance procedure. On September 11, 2014, Town Human Resources
Director Stacy DiChiara (DiChiara) sent Romeo an email stating:

Judy Racow has come to us saying she is being harassed by her co-workers due
to the chief's response to her grievance being hanged on a bulletin board in the
station. | have spoken to the Chief as well as [TM] and it has been concluded that
neither of them hanged the response. We would like to request the response be
taken down to avoid Officer Racow feeling harassed or uncomfortable in her
place of work.

On September 12, 2014, Romeo responded to DiChiara stating that he would not take
down the response, and that this request and any future similar requests may be
considered a violation of Section 10(a)(1) of the Law.

On November 20, 2014, the Chief sent an email to Romeo stating:

On November 19", 2014, | noticed on the shared Bulletin Board between the
Union and the Department dated November 18", 2014 a letter from Officer
Racow to [TM]. This letter is not in compliance with Article VII Section 2 of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and therefore should be removed. We also
express concern that this posting is not in compliance with above-mentioned
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement as it is not from the union and
is not a notice of routine nature according to the terms of our collective
bargaining agreement.

As you are further aware that your member has expressed concern that my
grievance response dated August 21, 2014 was posted on the same bulletin
board and you should honor her request to have that response removed as well.

On November 22, 2014, Romeo emailed the Chief and stated that the letter to the TM
and his response would not be removed from the bulletin board.

On or about November 24, 2014, Romeo was assigned to work a detail with the
Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) from 7:00 AM until 3:00 PM. Romeo
had completed this same detail on other occasions. The Union argues that DCR
representatives told Romeo that he only needed to be “on call” and available in case he
was needed during his detail. That same day, Romeo spent from approximately 10:00
AM until 3:00 PM attending a mediation session held between the Town and the Union
for a successor collective bargaining agreement under the auspices of the Joint Labor
Management Committee.

On or about November 25, 2014, the Chief reviewed outside detail records to be
submitted for payment and found a detail slip submitted by Romeo for payment for eight
hours of detail work between 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM on November 24, 2014.

On or about December 1, 2014, the Town placed Romeo on paid administrative
leave pending an investigation regarding the paid detail on November 24, 2014.

The Union argues that the Town treated Romeo differently than another
employee who attended the November 24 meeting when he was assigned to a detail
but was not investigated or disciplined. The Town responded that this employee also did
not submit a pay slip for the hours that he attended the meeting.

On or about December 18, the Town held a discipline hearing for Officer Romeo.
The Town argues that it held the hearing was because Romeo submitted a false detail
slip, was untruthful in his statements during a discipline investigation, and violated rules
and regulations of the Police Department.

On or about January 7, 2015, the TM called Romeo and told him that the Town
had drafted a termination letter and wanted to discuss settling the case. During this
conversation, TM asked Romeo to meet with the Chief the following day.

On January 8, 2015, the TM called Romeo and set a meeting for 4:00 P.M. later
that day. Romeo went to the meeting but the Chief and TM did not attend. That evening,
Romeo saw two emails from Union counsel, Joe Sandulli, regarding a settlement offer
and a forwarded email from Town counsel, Howard Greenspan, confirming the 4:00
P.M. meeting.

The Town issued a letter dated January 9, 2015 to Romeo notifying him that he
was dismissed from his position as a police officer with the Town.

Analysis
Retaliation

The Union alleges that the Town violated Section 10(a)(3) of the Law by
terminating Romeo in retaliation for his protected, concerted activity. To establish a
prima facie case of a 10(a)(3) retaliation violation, a charging party must show that 1)
the employee engaged in concerted activity protected by Section 2 of the Law; 2) the
employer knew of the concerted, protected activity; 3) the employer took adverse action
against the employee; and 4) the employer's action was motivated by a desire to
penalize or discourage the protected activity. City of Holyoke, 35 MLC 153, 156, MUP-
04-4503 (January 9, 2009).

There is no dispute that Romeo participated in protected, concerted activity in his
role as Union President, and that the Town had knowledge of this activity. Further, there
is no dispute that being dismissed from a position is an adverse action.

The Union did not support its claim of unlawful motivation. To support a claim of
unlawful motivation, a charging party may rely on circumstantial evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. City of Holyoke 35 MLC at 156.
Several factors may suggest unlawful motivation, including the timing of the alleged
discriminatory act in relation to the protected activity, triviality of reasons given by the
employer, disparate treatment, an employer's deviation from past practices, or
expressions of animus or hostility towards a union or the protected activity. Id. at 157.
Timing alone is insufficient to support a finding of illegal employer motivation. Id.

The Union argues that the Town was unlawfully motivated because it dismissed
Romeo after he signed and supported a series of grievances. The Union argued that the
Town treated Romeo differently than another employee who attended the November 24
meeting when he was assigned to a detail but was not punished. However, the Town
established that the other employee did not submit a pay slip for the hours that he
attended the meeting. This difference undermines the Union’s argument of disparate
treatment because the Town argues that it disciplined Romeo because he submitted the
pay slip, not for attending the mediation. The Union did not provide any other evidence
of anti-Union animus in the Town's dismissal of Romeo. Thus, the Union has not
established that the alleged adverse. action was motivated by a desire to penalize
Romeo for his protected activity, and has not established a prima facie case.
Accordingly, | do not find probable cause to believe that the Town Niolated the Law in
the manner alleged, and | dismiss this portion of the Union's charge.”

10(a)(2)

Section 10(a)(2) of the Law provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an
employer to dominate, interfere, or assist in the formation, existence, or administration
of any employee organization. The Commonwealth Employment Relations Board
(CERB) will find employer domination when an employer initiates or provides the
impetus for the formation of an organization, dictates its form and structure, or selects
its representatives. Blue Hills Regional Technical School District, 9 MLC 1271, 1277,
MUP-4613 (September 10, 1982).

Interference in the existence and administration of an employee organization
occurs when an employer deprives a union of an economic benefit, or grants a union an
undeserved economic advantage. City of Boston, 14 MLC 1606, 1617, MUP-5574
(March 25, 1988) (citing New Bedford School Committee, 13 MLC 1009, 1016, MUP-
5363 (June 9, 1986)).

Unlawful assistance arises when an employer's actions aid one employee
organization at the expense of another employee organization. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, 7 MLC 1228, 1235, SUP-2380 (August 22, 1980).

The facts that the Union presented at the investigation did not establish that the
Town violated Section 10(a)(2) of the Law. The Union did not provide any cases that
support any of their allegations as a violation of Section 10(a)(2) of the Law, and | have
found none. Since the Union has not presented any evidence of specific allegations or
case law that would support a finding of probable cause that the alleged actions
constitute a violation of Section 10(a)(2) of the Law, | dismiss this portion of the Union's
charge.

2 | dismiss the Union's 10(a)(4) allegation under the same analysis as | used with the
Section 10(a)(3) allegation. See City of Boston, 35 MLC 289, MUP-04-4077 (May 20,
2009)(the same elements of proof apply to alleged violations of both Section 10(a)(3)
and Section 10(a)(4) of the Law).

Independent 10(a)(1)

The Union additionally alleges that the Town independently violated Section
10(a)(1) of the Law by requesting that the Union take down communications between
Racow and the TM or the Chief from the bulletin board. An employer violates Section
10(a)(1) of the Law if it engages in conduct that tends to restrain, coerce or interfere
with employees in the free exercise of their rights under Section 2 of the Law. Town of
Mashpee, 11 MLC 1252, MUP-5141 (November 20, 1984). Section 2 of the Law
provides that employees shall have the right to form, join, or assist any employee
organization for the purpose of bargaining collectively through representatives of their
own choosing on questions of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment. Unlawful interference will be found if the employer's speech contains an
expressed or implied threat or promise of benefits with regard to employees’
participation in protected, concerted activities. See Watuppa Oil Co., Inc., 2 MLC 1032,
1038, CR-3466 and UP-2280 (July 18, 1975). The pertinent inquiry regarding a Section
10(a)(1) violation is the effect that the employer's conduct would tend to have on
“reasonable employees.” Mass. Board of Regents (U.Mass. Medical Center), 14 MLC
1397, 1401, SUP-2901 (December 21, 1987). Even without a direct threat of adverse
consequences, the CERB has found a violation when an employer makes disparaging
remarks about an employee's exercise of protected activities. Athol-Royalston Regional
School Committee, 26 MLC 55, 56, MUP-1832 (November 2, 1999). Here, there was
nothing implied or directly stated within the emails from DiChiara or the Chief that would
tend to restrain, coerce, or interfere with a reasonable employee’s rights under Section
2 of the Law.

The Union’s primary argument regarding the Town’s dismissal of Romeo is that
the Town retaliated against him. The Union additionally alleges that the Town’s
dismissal of Romeo independently violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Law . The CERB has
held that allegations focusing on the intent of an employer rather than the effect the
action has on employees are more appropriately analyzed under Section 10(a)(3) rather
than Section 10(a)(1). City of Cambridge, 30 MLC 31, 32, MUP-01-3033 (September 3,
2003)(citations omitted). Nexus in time between Romeo's participation in negotiations
and the grievance process and his termination alone, does not support a finding of an
independent 10(a)(1) violation of the Law. The Union has cited no cases, and | know of
none, holding that an alleged adverse action that did not violate Section 10(a)(3) of the
Law could independently violate Section 10(a)(1) of the Law merely by the proximity in
time between the termination and the alleged protected activity. Consequently, | find no
probable cause to believe that the Town violated the Law in the manner alleged and |
dismiss this portion of the Union’s charge.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATIONS

[filo

AARON SWINDERMAN, ESQ. INVESTIGATOR

APPEAL RIGHTS

* The charging party may, within ten (10) days of receipt of this order seek a review of
the dismissal by filing a request with the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board,
pursuant to Department Rule 456 CMR 15.04(3). The request shall contain a complete
statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which such request is based. The
charging party shall include a certificate of service indicating that it has served a copy of
its request for review on the opposing party or its counsel. Within seven (7) days of
receipt of the charging party's request for review, the respondent may file a response to
the charging party's request.

EXHIBIT B

In the Matter of the Arbitration between:
WINTHROP POLICE LOCAL 421 
TOWN OF WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS 
Re: AAA No. 01-15-0002-6830 (Discharge ofFeruccio Romeo) 
AWARD 
There was not just cause for the termination of Officer Ferruccio Romeo. He shall
be given a Letter of Warning for failing to receive authorization for an alternative
location for performing the Pump Detail on November 24, 2014, prior to working
the detail.
He shall be made whole for all lost w ges and benefits, less offsetting income. I
shall retain jurisdiction for 30 days to resolve any disputes arising from the award.
February 28, 2016 
Scituate, Massachusetts 
~h-- A ruce Fraser 7 
Arbitrator

I 
2
Winthrop Police Local 421 Arbitration Decision & Award
AAA No. 01-15-0002-6830 
Grievance: F. Romeo
Town ofWinthrop, Massachusetts February 26, 2016 
Hearings were held in the Town ofWinthrl p, MA on August 24, September 24, October 21 ,
and November 2, 2015. The Union was represented by Patrick Bryant, Esq. , and the Town was
represented by Howard Greenspan, Esq. Post-hearing briefs were received by the Arbitrator on
January 28, 2016. 
THE ISSUE 
The parties agreed upon the following issue:
Was there just cause for the termination of Officer Ferruccio Romeo? 
If not, what shall be the remedy? 
THE FACTS 
In 2014, the Town of Winthrop, Massach~setts undertook the Winthrop Beach Nourishment 
Project funded by the Massachusetts Depart+ nt of Conservsation and Recreation (DCR). This
project involved moving considerable sand and rock to the Winthrop beach area. In mid-Fall,
2014, it became necessary to add a detail to tHe daily Winthrop Police Department details in or-
der to assist the traffic in connection with the work being carried out. This detail, known as the 
Pump Station detail, required an officer with a cruiser to work out of the D.P.W. pumping station
at the end of Crest Avenue, with license to mor e about the area as needed.
The Pump Station detail required the officer who had signed up for it on any given day to be
on duty from 9 am until 3 pm-a total of 6 hour ~ -although he was authorized to indicate 8 hours at

3
his signing in at 7 am when he was to report o the DCR office. After signing in, the Pump Sta-
tion detail officers were free to spend the firs two hours of the detail as they wished, as long as
they arrived at the pump station by 9 am. The detail required that the officer was to be available
if there was an incident along the truck route that required attention. The detail officer was not
required to remain at the Pump Station, but could cruise along the route as long as the police ra-
dio was on and was able to respond quickly t1 an incident. A one hour lunch bread was author-
ized as were bathroom breaks, as needed. Generally, work for this detail ceased about 2:30pm 
and the detail officer present was not required ~hereafter , and was free to leave.
At the time of the incident leading to this grievance, Ferruccio Romeo, the Grievant, had
been a Patrolman for 19 years with the Winthrop Police with an unblemished record, had been
the Union President for some 11 years, and had acquired a law degree and passed the Massachu-
setts Bar during this time. He was not sche~uled for a day shift on November 24, 2014, and
signed up for the Pump Station detail for that day. However, as the Union President, he was
scheduled to attend a negotiation session on that date, beginning at 10 am. [Note: The term nego-
tiation will be used throughout to refer to both negotiation and mediation sessions.] He attended
the negotiation session from approximately 10 am to 2:30 pm on November 24, 2014, and did
not go to the Pump Station between 10 and 2+ that day. He submitted a Pump Station detail slip
for 8 hours of work on November 24, 2014. 
On November 25, in checking over the detail slips from the day before, Police Chief Terence
Delehanty noticed that Romeo had submitted a slip for 8 hours worked on the Pump Station de-
tail, while for 5 hours of that time, he was engaged in Union-Town negotiations along with the
Chief 
- ...

4 
On December 1, 2014, the Chief had questioned a number of individuals, including Romeo, 
to whom he later wrote the following:
I am writing to inform you that I am placing you on Administrative Leave with 
Pay pending the outcome of an internal investigation of a detail you worked on
8/24/14 (sic) 
Please tum in your firearm, badge, radio, and I.D. to Sergeant Rogers the Admin-
istrative Sergeant while you are on leaJ e.
I am also ordering you not to discuss this matter with anyone except for your legal
representatives while the investigation is ongoing. .
You will be notified when and where your employee interview will take place by
my office. 
On December 9, 2014, Town Manager James McKenna wrote to Romeo informing him that
he would hold a Town Due Process hearing to consider Romeors actions on November 24, 2014, 
"which might result in discipline including dismissal for just cause." The hearing was held on
December 18, 2014. 
[Note: The following testimony was taken either at the Due Process hearing or at the Arbitration
hearing and is interpolated unless indicated otherwise.] I 
At the Town hearing, the Chief testified tJ at on November 25, 2014, he realized that he saw 
Rome'O at the negotiation session while the detail slip indicated he was on detail duty. On De-
cember 1, 2014, he called Romeo to his officJ, offered him Union representation, which here-
fused, but stated that he wanted to explain the matter. The Chief stated that Romeo explained
that it was his understanding from speaking J th Manager Steve Colometo and Mike Vickery of
DRC that the Pump Station detail was a floating detail, one where you didn't have to remain in
one place, but as long as you were available to respond, you need not remain in a specific loca-

5
tion. The Chief stated that Romeo felt that becj use he understood it was a floating detail, that he
hadn't done anything wrong.
Pursuant to his investigation, the Chief tel phoned a number of individuals with Lt. Perrin in
the room. [Perrin presumably heard only one side and was not asked to be a witness at either
hearing.] The Chief testified that he called the DCR Resident Manager Steven Colometo who is
in charge of the Winthrop Beach Project. According to the Chief, Colometo explained that the
purpose of the detail was to monitor truck traffic specifically from the Pump Station location,
and when asked if it was a floating detail, re~lied that no, it was a stationary detail. Colometo
said he did not recall talking to other officers about it being a floating detail. His memo, dated 
October 6, 2014, states, in part, that "Winthrop shall have 1 detail at Short Beach near D.P.W.
building with a cruiser. " 1 
The Chief also spoke with DCR Inspector Jruce Vickery who works for Colometo who stated
it was a stationary detail to monitor truck traffib on Crest Ave. When asked specifically whether
or not he informed the detail officers if they cohld perform their duties on a floating basis, he did
not directly answer the question, but said that i was a stationary post.
When questioning Officer Feeley about hisj understanding of the detail, Feeley stated that it
was a stationary post and that the officer was expected to remain on the post except for bathroom
and lunch breaks. When Officer Defreitas, he replied that the detail was called the "Pump Sta- 
tion" and that's where he thought he should be. Inquiring of Lt Frank Scarpa what he believed
that pump station detail entailed, he replied tha~ you were assigned there to respond to emergen-
cies, "that you were like a one-man strike force, that if anything happened along the truck route
that, you would respond and take care of it. wBen asked by the Chief if it was his understanding

6
that it was a stationary post, Scarpa said "You had to be there.'' From these responses, the Chief
stated that he drew the conclusion that Romeo ' s version was not viable.
When questioned at the arbitration hearing whether or not the Pump Station detail was dif-
ferent from the other details, Sergeant Arthur Hickey stated, "The job is to go to the pump house,
take a cruiser, go to the pump house and just sit there. And should an emergency arise, they send
you for anything along the truck route involvmg the DR C." When asked if Romeo, while at the
negotiation at the Town Hall, would be able to respond if there were a call to Pump Station de-
tail, Hickey' s response what "Oh absolutely ... We're talking a short distance here had there even
been an issue along the truck route or anywhe! e else in town for that matter." When asked if it's
a "roaming detail," he did not answer directl , but pointed out that it's kind of crazy sitting in
one spot for eight hours." On cross examinat~ n , he acknowledged that he never advised an of-
ficer assigned to the Pump Station detail that they didn't have to go there.
When questioned under cross-examination, the Chief admitted he did not have any docu-
ments describing what the Pump Station detail consisted of, and stated that he was not aware
that the officer on this detail is seldom called pon to do anything. He did acknowledge that after
the Romeo incident, he ordered a supervisor to be hired for these details
When cross-examined about the discipline imposed on various officers, the Chief acknowl-
edged he followed a policy of progressive diseipline, although he stressed that where you began
would depend on the severity of the event, and the person' s willingness to accept responsibility,
and their willingness to be retrained.
The Chief stated that discipline is commensurate with the infraction, and "when a person
recognizes they have done something wrong and is willing to accept responsibility for that is dif-

7 
ferent, much different in my view, than a person who as not accepted responsibility. He contin-
ued, that "when you' ve recognized you did something wrong and you recognize that you
shouldn't have done that, you won't repeat it. A person who doesn't recognize that will repeat it 
I 
(the behavior), and I think the goal is to make sure the behavior' s not repeated." He did not agree
that the fact that he had assigned a supervisor for these details after the Romeo incident meant
that the failure of supervision bore some respohsibility for Romeo' s event.
At the Town hearing on December 18, 2014, the Grievant, Ferruccio Romeo, testified that he
had never put a slip in for a detail he didn't work, that he had worked that detail on November
24, 2014, and stated that he had worked the PJnp Station detail three times before that week.
Romeo testified that his understanding of lthe detail is that it was a mobile detail, it did not
have a fixed post." He continued that
My belief, based on the information that I had, was that I would be able to fulfill
the requirements of that detail because it was a mobile detail and because of the
distances involve ... in case any emergency responded (sic), I would be available
within a general radius of the actual wdrk site.
Romeo testified that when he met with the Chief in his office along with Lt. Perrin, he was
informed that he was being placed on Administrative Leave pending an investigation involving
the detail slip he had submitted. After receiving the Chiefs permission to explain his position,
he explained what he had been informed of ~he detail and stated to the Chief that he "should 
know that I would never put in for a slip wit~out actually working a detail." Romeo continued
that he then explained to the Chief his understanding of what the detail consisted of, in particu-
\
lar, that he had been informed by Colometo, v· ckery, and Lessard that the only responsibility for
that detail was to be available for emergencies.

8 
At this point Romeo stated that the Chief left the room saying "Let me see if I can at least re-
scind the Administrative Leave portion." He returned a short time later, explained that he was
counseled against doing it, and thereupon implbmented the Administrative Leave.
Romeo testified on direct examination that on November 24, he followed his usual practice:
he arrived at the station at 7 am, picked up an available cruiser (in this case Winthrop 9-4), then
went to the DCR trailer at Mermaid and ShoJe where he submitted his slip for the day, putting
the start time of 7 am on the slip but leaving the end time for the DCR official to enter. He then
left, keeping his radio on, and returned to the Police Station about 9:45 . When asked on indirect
examination to repeat the events of the morning, he repeated the same chronology, although ad-
mitting that his recollection was perhaps at ti, es faulty. 
On redirect examination at the Due Process hearing, the Chief testified that the video and
card access controls for November 24, show that Romeo had arrived at the Police Station park-
ing lot at about 7:24 am in his personal vehic ~ e , entered the police building at 7:29, and left the
building at 8:21 . Then, at 9:28 he entered the police parking lot again, entered the police build-
ing at 9:32, and at 9:54 he exited the building to attend the negotiation.
At the arbitration, hearing Romeo agreed with the chronology given by the Chief, explaining
that he had been asked to recall a morning of nearly a month earlier after he had already per-
formed the Pump Station detail three times before that week, and was upset and concerned with
the actual details of the day that followed. H explained further that because the Chief had for-
bade him access to the relevant documents, he just repeated his usual routine. Once he checked
the documentation which was made available to him only in mid-January 2015, he recognized
his error, which he acknowledged at the arbitration.

9
Romeo testified at the arbitration hearing about the morning prior to the negotiation. He stat-
ed that he entered the Winthrop Police Stafon wearing his uniform and carrying a radio, he
spoke with Lt. Perrin, informing him that he i as going over to the negotiation, but did not men-
tion specifically that he was on a detail. He also did not notify either Colometo or Vickery that
he would be attending a negotiation for part df the day. He noted that, looking back on the day,
he should have informed them.
Romeo testified that the negotiation lasted until about 2:30, much longer than everyone had
expected. He left the Town Hall, turned in his keys to the cruiser, and left the area. He drove by
the pump station on his way out of town, abou 2:30, but he saw no activity. He stated that he re-
\
ceived no detail calls on that day and submitted the DCR slip for the detail, for 8 hours.
Romeo once again testified at the arbitrati ~n hearing that it was his understanding that it was
a mobile detail and not fixed. When asked what various people told him to lead him to believe it
was a mobile and not a fixed worksite, he stated that when he inquired of Colometo the respon-
sibility of the officer with the cruiser, Colometo replied that he just wanted the officer to be 
I available if something should happen, stating, "I don't want to get one of your shift officers tied
up. So just be available. " Romeo reported th~t when he checked with Lt Lessard, the officer
stressed that you have to be available. He added that he had not received any information from
the Chief or Lieutenants as to what responsibiliries were attached to this detail.
Romeo again stated that it was his belief that he "could perform the detail being mobile pret-
ty much anywhere in town because it's only 1. 8 square miles. " He added that when he previously
had worked this detail, he spent roughly severrl hours at the Pump Station, and the rest of the
time was mobile throughout Winthrop.

10 
When asked on cross examination if, according to his understanding, it would permissible to
stay in a house in Winthrop all day as long as he were available, Romeo responded that it could 
I satisfy his detail obligation but he would not do it- it would be inappropriate.
Lt. Scarpa was asked what he would do if he had been in charge of Romeo when he came in
to the negotiation in uniform, with a cruiser and a radio: how would he deal with it? He stated
that he would determine where Romeo was supposed to be working, and if he had permission to
leave the post. When asked how he would ~andle Romeo' s case specifically, he would have
counseled Romeo that he should leave or get back to where you were or whatever. He stated, 
"but I assumed everybody at the meeting kne4 that he was on that detail." He stated further that
if he were not notified but became aware that f omeo was on detail, he would talk to him, would
tell him that he had been at the negotiations for an awful long time and that he should notify the
appropriate people so they could make arrangements. I guess r d give him a warning, I would
counsel him. "I would say that you would start off with a verbal, written, and then go from there. 
On cross-examination, Scarpa stated that he had done several Pump Station details and that
the Chief had asked him what his understandinlg was concerning the responsibilities of the detail.
He replied that it would be a fixed post, but ou could from time-to-time leave it to check the
route. He stated that he would leave it occasionally during the course of an eight hour shift but
he felt that his obligation was to be in the general area of the pump station. "It said pump station;
otherwise it would have just said patrol." And when asked if he would sanction an officer bill-
ing for a private detail that he wasn't present f, r, Scarpa said no.
As a result of the Due Process hearing, on lfanuary 9, 2015, McKenna dismissed Romeo as a
Police Officer for the following reasons:

1. On November 24, 2014, you submi ed a voucher for a detail slip for pay for 8
hours pay in the total amount of $344 for a detail at the Short Beach Pump Sta- 
tion. During the time that you billed for this detail, you were not present at the de-
tail. Billing for services rendered without being present constitutes unacceptable
judgment fraud, and conduct unbecoming a police officer.
2. The above referenced conduct constitutes a dishonest act which is contrary to
the trust that citizens put in public safeey officers.
3. You specifically stated that the eng:ineers from the Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts stated to you that it was unnecessary for you to be physically present at
the detail. Your statement was specifically contradicted by the DCR resident en-
gineer as well as the DCR inspector. r our assertion that you didn't have to be
present at the detail was also specifically contradicted by other members of the
Police Department.
4. Your statements during the disciplinary investigation and the hearing were un-
truthful which in and of itself constitutes just cause for your dismissal.
5. The above referenced conduct vio ates the rules and regulations of the De-
partment, specifically 1.4.8 integrity, 1.11.2 personal behavior, and 1.11.113 con-
duct unbecoming an officer.
The above referenced conduct constitutes just cause for your dismissal as a police
officer. Specifically, there is a strong J ublic policy against employing police of-
ficers who are untruthful.
11
The Town had never previously notified Romeo that he was contemplating discipline for un-
truthfulness. 
On January 16, 2015, Officer Romeo grieved his dismissal. It reads, in part, as follows : 
On January 12, 2015, I received, via U.S. Mail, written Notice from Town Manag-
er James McKenna, dated January 9, 20j l5, that he had decided to dismiss me after
he allegedly reviewed all the evidence presented at a disciplinary hearing he pre-
sided over as the Appointing Authority on December 18, 2014 .... The Notice did
not include an effective date of dismissal. I was never interviewed during the in-
vestigation that was initiated and condl!lcted by Chief Terence M. Delehanty and
Chief Terence M. Delehanty was the only witness to testify on behalf of the Town.
I was ordered not to talk about the alleged investigation or the alleged incident on
December 1, 2014, except for my legal counsel, by Chief Terence M, Delehanty,
which is a violation of my due procesi rights to prepare a defense and confront

witnesses. I was never allowed or able to cross examine any alleged parties inter-
viewed for the alleged investigation. lfhe disciplinary hearing conducted on De-
cember 18, 2014 was biased and not !factual. The facts are in dispute and Chief
Terence M. Delehanty testified untru~hfully and has been biased against me for
several years that further create suspicion of his evil motives and intent. This deci-
sion is also after I was threatened by Town Manager James McKenna on January
7, 2015 during a phone call discussion that he placed ~o me at my home at 9:15
p.m. that if I did not accept a 30 day suspension he would be forced to terminate
me as long as I released the Town of all my pending legal matters against them.
(sic) He also attempted to coerce me by mentioning my loss of healthcare and
pension ... The decision to dismiss me is without just cause, procedurally flawed,
and contrary to Law
When the parties were unable to resolve the 4 evance, the Union appealed to arbitration.
The following provision of the parties Agreement is relevant
Article XXXV - Disciplinary Action
No permanent employee shall be removed, dismissed, discharged, suspended or
charged in any manner except for just l cause and at any hearings or interviews at-
tendant thereto the police officer will have an opportunity to have an attorney pre-
sent on his behalf.
12
The following provisions of the Winthrop Police department- Rules and Regulations are rel-
evant
Section 1.4.8 Integrity - no Department member shall under any circumstances
make any false official statements or intentional misrepresentation of facts;
Section 1.11.2 Personal Behavior - Each member shall while on duty conduct
him/ herself in a manner that will reflect credit on themselves and the Winthrop 
Police Department. No employee shall engage in conduct which tends to bring the
Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the members of the Depart-
ment or which tends to impair the operation or efficiency of the Department or
the employees;
Section 1.11.13 Conduct Unbecomin9 an Officer- Members shall not commit
any specific act or acts of immoral, i~proper , unlawful, disorderly, or intemper-
ate conduct, whether on or off duty, which reflect(s), discredit or reflect(s) unfa-
vorably upon the member, upon other members, oruponthernlicecEpartment. Members shall

conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to re-
flect most favorably on the department r nd its members.
Conduct unbecoming a member shall include that which tends to indicate that the
member is unable or unfit to continue as a member of the department, or tends to
impair the operation, moral integrity, reputation or effectiveness of the depart-
ment or its members.
The following article of the Winthrop Police Department - Detail Policy, is relevant. 
ARTICLE IX. VIOLATION GUIDELINES 
Progressive discipline shall apply for all violations of these rules and regulations,
policy and procedures or orders of the Chief of Police. 
CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN 
13
The Town contends that the removal of the Grievant was for just cause. Specially, it charges
him with (1 ) filing a false detail slip; 2) lying ~o the Chief during the course of his investigation;
and (3) lying at the Due Process hearing held by the Town of Winthrop to determine his disci-
pline. I will consider them in turn. 
Charge 1. 
The charge of filing a false detail slip was based on Romeo' s submission of a detail payment
slip for the amount of $344 for a day' s work op November 24, 2014, in which he indicated that
he had worked 8 hours of detail duty, whereas for at least 4 of these 8 hours he was attending a
negotiation session in Town Hall.
Romeo claimed that the detail was a "floa ing detail," which permitted him license to roam
in the vicinity of the truck route in his cruiser bile waiting for a call from the dispatcher that he
was needed, and argued that the Town Hall was positioned in an acceptable location to wait for a 
_j__

14
radio summons. His contention that the detail was to be labeled a "floating detail" was not sup-
ported by other police officers or DCR employees and must be considered a false claim.
The Chief testified that officers on a shift for the Town or detail duty could participate in ne-
gotiations, usually over their lunch break, but he was aware of no policy that would allow an of-
ficer on detail for the third party to participate in negotiations. Based on this testimony and facts, 
I 
Romeo was charged with filing a false detail slip. 
I 
The Town contends that the submission of the detail bill by Romeo for service not rendered
constituted unacceptable judgment, and cond ct unbecoming a police offer, and that his conduct
also violated Department Rules of Conduct. The Town maintains that the Grievant violated these
rules and regulations when he submitted a fal e detail slip for 8 hours of work on November 24,
2014. It maintains that Police officers are reqlllired to refrain from indictable conduct .. . they im-
plicitly agree that they will not engage in con<duct which calls into question their ability and fit-
ness to perform their official responsibilities. 
Charge 2. I 
The Town contends that Romeo lied to thJ Chief during the course of the investigation, spe-
cifically with respect to the duties and responsibilities of the detail. According to the Chief at the
investigation on December 1, 2014, Romeo tor him that the detail was a "floating detail" and he
was not required to be at a specific location. He also informed the Chief that he had spoken with
Manager Colometo as to his responsibilities o~ the detail. The Chief stated he also interviewed
Colometo (by phone) who told him that the purpose was to monitor truck traffic specifically
from that location. The Chief also reported that when he asked if it was a "floating detail," Co-
lometo said no and that he had not advised officers that it was a floating detail.

15
The Town further claims that Romeo' s testimony to the Chief of what Colometo had told 
him was completely contradicted by Colometo at the arbitration who, among other things, testi-
fied that he never told Romeo that he wasn't sLpposed to be either at the Pump Station or on the
truck route. 
Charge3. 
The Town contends that Romeo lied durin~ the Town hearing when he testified as to his ac-
tivities on the day before the negotiation be, an. According to Romeo' s testimony at the Due 
Process hearing, he got his slip signed at the DCR offices, picked up a coffee and bagel, went to
the pump station, and remained there until abcut 10 am when he went to Town Hall for the ne-
gotiation.
The Town revealed at the end of the Due Process hearing that the video and door access con-
trois on the Police Station show that Romeo entered the police parking lot at 7:24 am in his per-
sonal vehicle, entered the police building at 7 29, and left the building at 8:21. Then, at 9:28 he
entered the police parking lot again, entered the police building at 9:32 and at 9:54 he exited the
building to attend the negotiation next door. The Town contends that this recitation of his
whereabouts for the 3 hours (7-10 am) before!the negotiations began, is a complete fabrication
and lie.
More generally, the Town continues that if the only misconduct of Romeo was filing a false
detail slip (Charge 1), there would be some grounds for reversing the dismissal based on the
principles of progressive discipline. However, it argues that due to this untruthfulness, it would
violate public policy to reduce the discipline and to reinstate Romeo.

16
The Town offers several cases where there has been a ruling against a police officer who has
lied. The Town states that police officers who lie on a police report filing criminal charges and
lying under oath are all felonies and Courts ha¥e ruled that it would be a violation of public poli-
cy permitting someone who committed such as act to work as a police officer. Put simply, the
Town asserts that Romeo ' s proven record of dishonesty prevents him from useful service as a
law enforcement officer.
In sum, the Town concludes that Romeo submitted a fraudulent request for detail reim-
bursement, lied about the lack of need for an officer to be present during this detail, and further
lied about his whereabouts on the day in quest" on.
Finally, the Town rejects the assertion by he Union that the Town' s actions were in retalia-
tion for carrying out his duties as Union Presjdent. Although there was evidence presented that
the Grievant and the Chief had locked horns a I umber of times, there was no evidence of retalia-
tion against Romeo for his diligence doing his Union President's job. 
CONTENTIONS OF THE UNION 
The Union contends that Officer Ferruccio Romeo, a veteran police officer and Union Presi- 
dent with a spotless personnel record, was not terminated for just cause when he attended a ne-
gotiation while assigned to a detail. It maintains that he violated no actual or known policy, his
conduct was consistent with conduct allowed by other officers, the investigation of the matter
ignored contrary evidence, and the punishmen far exceeded progressive discipline, in particular
the punishment meted out to officers for similar or more severe conduct, such as for insubordina-
tion, lying, or unexcused absences. The Union also maintains that the animosity between the

17
Chief and Romeo which has existed for years, surely contributes to the severity of the punish-
ment.
The Union contends that the Town failed to establish that Romeo violated a policy of the
Department, or that it was completely unreasonable for him to believe that officers could attend
a negotiation while assigned to a detail (especially a non-stationary detail). The only dispute
about the mobile nature of the detail is, witln radio contact in case Romeo was needed and a
cruiser at his disposal, whether he could go to a negotiation meeting in Town Hall and remain
for an extended period of time. There is no q~estion that officers on detail have spent their lunch
hour at negotiation sessions, some for longer stretches.
The Union further contends that the Town' s contention that Romeo was untruthful during the
investigation, the Town' s termination hearing, or the Arbitration hearing, do not rise to the level
of deliberate lies, intended to deceive the Town about the facts at issue here. In particular, Ro-
meo' s statements about the Pump Station were consonant with the DCR representative and fel-
low police officers. In addition, his original statements concerning his whereabouts during the
period of7-10 am on November 24, while in~ccurate , were not intended to mislead, and were a
byproduct of the Town preventing him from adequately preparing for the hearing. Moreover, the
Town Manager did not point to this discrepan) y as contributing to his decision to terminate.
In addition to failing to provide requisite notice of the untruthfulness charges, the Union
agues the Town' s case suffers from the following defects: 1) The Chief never formally inter- 
' viewed Romeo, despite a written promise to do so; 2) The Chief never interviewed the supervi-
sors on the shift in question, which would ha e confirmed that they knew Romeo was at the ne-
gotiations; 3) The Chief did not interview all he people who worked the Pump Station detail, or

18
examine the past practice of officers attending negotiations while on a detail; 4) The Chief never
disciplined supervisors for allowing Romeo to attend negotiations while assigned to a detail.
Finally, the Union contends that the termination of Romeo was inconsistent with the com-
mitment to progressive discipline. The offehse of attending a negotiation while on a non-
stationary detail cannot be regarded as an inherently serious act, as illustrated by the Chiefs
permission for other officers to do so in past negotiations. Moreover it is inconsistent with the
discipline imposed on other officers found t9 be AWOL, or untruthful, and the penalty is not
supported by Romeo' s blemish-free performance history. In fact, Romeo's forthright admissions
about his conduct argue against termination.
Here, the Town claimed it terminated Romeo for attending contract negotiations while as-
signed to a detail, and for making false state+ nts about the nature of the detail and his wherea- 
bouts that morning. While the Town phrased its charges in various ways, the case boils down to
two charges: 1) attending negotiations while assigned to a detail is conduct unbecoming and/or
dishonest; and 2) Romeo' s December 1 statement about his conversation with Colometo and his
December 18 statement about his November 24 whereabouts from 7:30-8:20 am, were untruth-
ful. Both charges fail on procedural and substj tive grounds. 
DISCUSSION I 
The Town contends that the removal of t~e grievant was for just cause. Specially, it charges
the Grievant with (1) filing a false detail slip; 12) lying during the course of the investigation; and
(3) lying at the hearing held by the Town o Winthrop to determine his discipline. I consider
them in tum.

19
The first charge is that Officer Romeo Jubmitted a false detail slip. Referring to Black' s
Law Dictionary, we find the following: I 
FALSE- In law, this word usually means something more than untrue: it means
something designedly untrue and deceitful and implies an intention to perpetrate
some _ treache~ or fr_ aud ... The wor~ "f ~lse" has _two distinct and well recogniz~d 
mearungs: (1) mtentwnally or knowm~y or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mis- 
take or accident or; honestly after the ~xercise of reasonable care ...
False Token - a false document or sign of the existence of a fact
The statements above capture the essence 0f what I take is meant by the Town' s accusation
that the Grievant submitted a "false slip." The claim is that the Grievant knowingly and deliber-
ately submitted a document stating that he had worked the Pump Station detail from 9-2+ on
November 24, 2014, when in fact he had not.
What is meant by "working the Pump Stafion detail"? The Grievant correctly believed that
he should be on the ready to respond to any incident along the truck route. He also believed that
being present in the Town Hall on November 24 would fulfill the requirements of working the
detail: he had radio contact with the dispatcher, although he was not called that day; he was in
very close proximity at all times to the truck route he was assigned to assist in case of difficulty;
he had a cruiser at his disposal ; and he was freJ to respond if called. 
It was Romeo' s belief that his physical location, while waiting for a call, was flexible: he be- 
l 
lieved that the Town Hall was an acceptable location, and that it was reasonable to position him-
self there, given the requirements of the deta · . He offered the following: "I could perform the
detail being mobile pretty much anywhere in town because the town is only 1.8 square miles." 
When asking DCR manager Colometo to characterize the responsibility of the Pump Station de-
tail, Romeo recalled him saying words to the effect, I just want you to be available if something

20 
happens. I don't want to get one of your shift officers tied up. So just be available. Colometo 
I 
made it very clear that a primary requisite of this detail is that the officer assigned should always
be available to respond.
The critical question here is the following: Was Romeo working the Pump Station detail
when he was working the detail from the Town Hall? I find in the affirmative. He was perform-
ing all the tasks of working the detail for somJ 5 hours that day, albeit from an unapproved loca-
tion. There was no protestation from either the Town or DCR that the detail had not been per-
formed satisfactorily.
However, Romeo did not ask for nor receive approval from the DCR personnel or the shift
commander for this change of venue before he opted to make the change. It was a mistake not to
do so, disobeying the verbal instructions he had been given by Colometo. But I do not find him
dishonest when he acted on his belief that he ould use the Town Hall as his base from which he
could execute the detaiL He was, in the wor1s of Colometo, ''available" the entire shift. I find
that he fulfilled the tasks of working the Pump Station detail that day, albeit from a location that 
I 
had not been approved, and was acting honestly when he submitted the DCR bill for November
24, 2014. 
It is worth noting that because he was engaged in working the Pump Station detail while at-
tending the negotiation, the issue of detail ti111;e spent by him at the negotiations that was raised
is not relevant. He was carrying out the detail for the hours required, while at the same time, par-
ticipating in the negotiations.
The second charge brought by the Town is that Romeo lied to the Chief during the course of
the investigation conducted by the Chief on d ecember 1, 2014. According to the Chiefs testi-

21
mony, Romeo explained that it was his understanding of the detail, gained from speaking with
Manager Steve Colometo of DCR, that he characterized the detail as a floating detail: a detail
where you didn't have to remain in one place as long as you were available. Because he under-
stood it to be a floating detail in this sense, he didn't believe that he had done anything wrong on
November 24 when he worked the detail from the Town Hall.
Romeo also informed the Chief that he had spoken with Manager Colometo as to his respon-
sibilities on the detail. When asked what he said to Colometo, he responded,
I asked Mr. Colometo what was required of the officer with the cruiser. I did not
say anything about a location. I asked him what's the responsibility of the officer
with the cruiser. And he stated to me ~s I just want it to be available if something
happens. I don't' want to, you know,] don't want to get one of your shift officers
tied up. So just be available.
In addition, Romeo testified at the Due Process hearing in response to a question about how he 
I I 
could work the detail on November 24 and ye attend the negotiation, replied,
My beli~f , based on the inf~rmation t~~t I had, was that I w?uld be able to fulfill
the reqwrement of the detail because It was a mobile detail and because of the
distance involved; [and] in case [of] any emergency response, I would be availa-
ble with[in] a general radius of the actl!lal work site.
I can find no testimony from Romeo where ~ asserted that Colometo gave him permis-
sion to work the detail from other than the Pwpp Station.
According to the Chief, Colometo, who 'tas interviewed on the telephone on the same day,
December 1, explained that the purpose of t~e detail was to monitor truck traffic and emergen-
cies along the truck route primarily from the Pump Station location. When he inquired if it was a 
floating detail, the Chief stated that Colometo replied no, it was a stationary detail.

22
No one, neither Romeo, Colometo, nor thj Chief, provided a definition (or definitions) of a 
floating detail as it applies to police work. (Black Law Dictionary and Google also fail to do so.)
But in my view, a definition is irrelevant. It is clear that Romeo believed, albeit erroneously, that
the detail gave wide latitude as to where the fficer might work from, and this is what he con-
veyed to the Chief Colometo, on the other hand, expected the officer to sit at the Pump Station
or drive on the truck route. This was ColometJ, s testimony at the arbitration hearing a year later. 
On December 1, 2014, Romeo simply gave his opinion to the Chief about the detail based on
conversation with Colometo. He did not state affmnatively that the detail was a "floating detail," 
and never asserted that Colometo agreed with him, but only offered that as a way of describing
it. I find that he did not lie to the Chief during he investigation on December 1, 2014. 
The third charge brought by the Town is the contention that Romeo lied during the Town
Hearing on December 18, when he testified to his pre-negotiation activities on November 24.
According to Romeo 's testimony at the Due Process hearing, he picked up his cruiser, got his
slip signed at the DCR offices, picked up a coffee and bagel, went to the pump station, and re-
mained there until about 10 am when he went to Town Hall for the negotiation. The Town re-
vealed at the end of the Due Process hearing hat the video and door access controls on the Po- 
lice Station show that Romeo entered the police parking lot at 7:24 a.m. in his personal vehicle,
entered the police building at 7:29, and left thJ building at 8:21. Then, at 9:28 he entered the po-
lice parking lot again, entered the police buildt g at 9:32 and at 9:54 he exited the building to at- 
tend the negotiation next door. The Town contends that his recitation of his whereabouts for the
3 hours (7-10), the time before the negotiations began, is a complete fabrication and lie.

23
Romeo testified at the arbitration hearing that the Town' s statement of his whereabouts on
November 24th were indeed correct, and he had erred on his recollection on December 18. He
pointed out that the testimony he gave at the time recalled from events of almost a month before,
that this was the fourth Pump Station detail he had worked that week, and because the Chief
froze his access to all documents until JanualJf 22, 2015, he was not able to refresh his memory
using the video and door access monitor records before the lfown hearing on December 18,
2014. Instead, he simply repeated what he had l one the previous times he had worked the detail.
Although Romeo' s testimony at the Town hearing was inaccurate, I do not fmd it was in-
tended to deceive. Rather I find that it was a failure to recollect accurately what had occurred on
the morning in question. He had nothing to g'*n by offering this incorrect account of his activi-
ties between 7-1 0 am that morning. His time i as his own between 7 am and 9 am and returning
at about 9:30 am to prepare for the negotiationJ with his lawyer would be expected.
Moreover, the Grievant is a lawyer, he has dealt with interrogations and lying for years in his
capacity as the Union President, and he is well aware of what perjury is, and what damage per- i 
jury can bring to a police officer. He was aware that lying in these circumstances could potential-
ly jeopardize his career as a police officer. o r ce he saw the video and keycard records infor-
mation from that morning, days after the Due Process hearing, he realized that he had misspoken
during the Town hearing.
I find the inaccuracy of the testimony reflecting what actually occurred the morning of No-
vember 24 was contributed in large part due to the Town preventing him access to the video and
keycard records before the Due Process hearihg. I find no deliberate misrepresentation on his
part.

24 
In summary, I fmd that Charge 1, that the F rievant filed a false detail slip on November 24, 
2014, was not proven. Romeo worked the Pump Station detail from start to fmish, albeit from an
unauthorized location, the Town Hall, with no apparent defect.
He was aware that the intention of Colometo was to have an officer at the Pump Station or
on the truck route, yet he chose not to seek pp or authorization for a change of location to the
Town Hall, from either the OCR or his shift + rnmander, but worked the detail from that unau-
thorized location. For this action, he shall be given a Written Letter of Warning for not following
the Pump Station guidelines.
I fmd that Charges 2 and 3 were not prove1 by the Town. 
AWARD 
There was not just cause for the termination of Officer Ferruccio Romeo. He shall
be given a Letter of Warning for failing to receive authorization for an alternative
location for performing the Pump Stafon detail on November 24, 2014, prior to
working the detail.
He shall be made whole for all lost wJges and benefits, less offsetting income. I
shall retain jurisdiction for 30 days to resolve any disputes arising from the award.
Scituate, MA
February 26, 2016 
~ ~~ ;"Bruce Fraser
Arbitrator