Romeo Arbitration Award.pdf

Town of Winthrop · from the Town's request portal · released Dec 13, 2023 · 24 pages · 1.4 MB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗

In the Matter of the Arbitration between:

WINTHROP POLICE LOCA!

L 421

TOWN OF WINTHROP, MASSACHUSETTS

Re: AAA No, 01-15-0002-6830 (Discharge of

AWARD

Feruccio Romeo)

There was not just cause for the termination of Officer Ferruccio Romeo. He shall
to receive authorization for an alternative

be given a Letter of Warning for failin,
location for performing the Pump Deta

the detail.

He shall be made wh
shall retain jurisdictio

February 28, 2016

Scituate, Massachusetts

Brite

Axbitrat

il on November 24, 2014, prior to working

ole for all lost wages and benefits, less offsetting income. I
n for 30 days to resolve any disputes arising from the award.

Lee Foo

Taser
or

Winthrop Police Local 421

Town of Winthrop, Massachusetts

Arbitration Decision & Award

AAA No. 01-15-0002-6830
Grievance: F. Romeo

February 26, 2016

Hearings were held in the, Town of Winthrop, MA on August 24, September 24, October 21,

and November 2, 2015. The Union was repre

represented by Howard Greenspan, Esq. Post;

January 28, 2016.

THE ISSUE

The parties agreed upon the following issu

Was there just cause for the termination
If not, what shall be the remedy?

THE FACTS

In 2014, the Town of Winthrop, Massachu

ented by Patrick

of Officer Ferruce:

Bryant, Esq., and the Town was

hearing briefs were received by the Arbitrator on

o Romeo?

setts undertook the Winthrop Beach Nourishment

\ Project funded by the Massachusetts Department of Conservsation and Recreation (DCR). This

project involved moving considerable sand a
2014, it became necessary to ‘add a detail to th
der to assist the traffic in connection with the
Pump Station detail, required.an officer with a
at the end of Crest Avenue, with license to mo'

The Pump Station detail required the offic

on duty from 9 am until 3 pm-a total of 6 hour

e daily Winthrop
work being carri
cruiser to work 9
ve about the area

er who had signe

nd rock to the Winthrop beach area. In mid-Fall,

Police Department details in or-
ed out. This detail, known as the
ut of the D.P.W. pumping station
as needed.

d up for it on any given day to be

s-although he was authorized to indicate 8 hours at

his signing in at 7 am when he was to report t
tion detail officers were free to spend the firs’
they arrived at the pump station by 9 am. The
if there was an incident along the truck route

required to remain at the Pump Station, but cd

3
‘0 the DCR office. After signing in, the Pump Sta-
two hours of the detail as they wished, as long as
detail required:that the officer was to be available
that required attention. The detail officer was not

uld cruise along jthe route as long as the police ra-

dio was on and was able to respond quickly to an incident. A one hour lunch bread was author-

ized as were bathroom breaks, as needed. Geherally, work for, this detail ceased about 2:30 pm

and the detail officer present was not required
At the time of the incident leading to th

been a Patrolman for 19 years with the Winth

i
thereafter, and was free to leave.

S grievance, Ferruccio Romeo, the Grievant, had

1rop Police with bn 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 sched
signed up for the Pump Station detail for th
scheduled to attend a negotiation session on th;
tiation will be used throughout to refer to both
the negotiation session from approximately 1
not go to the Pump Station between 10 and 24
for 8 hours of work on November 24, 2014.

On November 25, in checking over the det;
Delehanty noticed that Romeo had submitted
tail, while for 5 hours of that time, he was en}

Chief.

|
uled for a day shift on November 24, 2014, and

i
at day. However, as the Union President, he was

at date, beginning at 10 am. [Note: The term nego-
}
|

negotiation and mediation sessions.] He attended
|

0 am to 2:30 pm on November 24, 2014, and did

that day. He submitted a Pump Station detail slip

ail slips from the, day before, Police Chief Terence

a slip for 8 hours worked on the Pump Station de-

paged in Union-Town negotiations along with the

On December 1, 2014, the Chief had ques!
to whom he later wrote the following:
lam writing to inform you that 1 am
Pay pending the outcome of an intern

8/24/14 (sic)

Please turn in your firearm, badge, rad
istrative Sergeant while you are on leav

Tam also ordering you not to discuss th
representatives while the investigation

You will be notified when and where y
my office.

On December 9, 2014, Town Manager Jan
he would hold a Town Due Process hearing to
“which might result in discipline including d
December 18, 2014.

[Note: The following testimony was taken eith
hearing and is interpolated unless indicated oth

At the Town hearing, the Chief testified th

Romeo at the negotiation session while the detail slip indicated he was on detail duty. On De-

cember 1, 2014, he called Romeo to his offic:

fused, but stated that he wanted to explain the matter. The Chief stated that Romeo explained

that it was his understanding from speaking w
DRC that the Pump Station detail was a float

one place, but as long as you were available t

ioned a number
placing you on

0, and LD. to Se
le.

consider Romeo

smissal for just

erwise. ]

at on November
e, offered him U
th Manager Stev

0 respond, you ni

s ongoing. \

nes McKenna wrote to Romeo informing him that

er at the Due Process hearing or at the Arbitration

ing detail, one where you didn’t have to remain in

of individuals, including Romeo,

dministrative Leave with

al investigation of a detail you worked on

|
rgeant Rogers the Admin-

is matter with anyone except for your legal

our employee interview will take place by

s actions on November 24, 2014,

cause.” The hearing was held on

}

25, 2014, he realized that he saw

ion representation, which he re-

e Colometo and Mike Vickery of

eed not remain in a specific loca-

tion. The Chief stated that Romeo felt that bec

hadn’t done anything wrong.

Pursuant to his investigation, the Chief telephoned a numbe

the room. [Perrin presumably heard only one
hearing.] The Chief testified that he called the
in charge of the Winthrop Beach Project. Ace

purpose of the detail was to monitor truck tra

ause he understo.

ording to the Chi

ffic specifically

od it was a floating detail, that he

r of individuals with Lt. Perrin in

side and was not asked to be a witness at either

DCR Resident Manager Steven Colometo who is

icf, Colometo explained that the
|

from the Pump Station location,

and when asked if it was a floating detail, replied that no, it was a Stationary detail. Colometo

said he did not recall talking to other officers
October 6, 2014, states, in part, that “Winthro
building with a cruiser.”

The Chief also spoke with DCR Inspector N
it was a stationary detail to monitor truck traffi
or not he informed the detail officers if they co’
not directly answer the question, but said that i

When questioning Officer Feeley about his
was a stationary post and that the officer was ex
and lunch breaks. When Officer Defreitas, he
tion” and that’s where he thought he should be
that pump station detail entailed, he replied that
cies, “that you were like a one-man strike force

that, you would respond and take care of it. Wh

uld perform their

about it being a fleating detail. His memo, dated

p shall have 1 detail at Short Beach near D.P.W.

(ike Vickery who works for Colometo who stated

ic on Crest Ave, When asked specifically whether

duties on a floating basis, he did
was a stationary, post.

understanding of the detail, Feeley stated that it

pected to remain

!
|

. Inquiring of Lt

on the post except for bathroom
teplied that the detail was called the “Pump Sta-
Frank Scarpa what he believed
t you were assign ed there to respond to emergen-
. that if anything happened along the truck route

en asked by thé Chief if it was his understanding

that it was a stationary post, Scarpa said “You

stated that he drew the conclusion that Romeo

When questioned at the arbitration hearing whether or not

ferent from the other details, Sergeant Arthur
take a cruiser, go to the pump house and just s

you for anything along the truck route involv:

negotiation at the Town Hall; would be able to respond if ther

tail, Hickey’s response what ‘Oh absolutely...

Hickey stated, “T

had to be there.

it there. And sho’

’ From these responses, the Chief

's version was not viable.

the Pump Station detail was dif-

he job is to go to the pump house,
uld an emergency arise, they send
ng the DRC.” When asked if Romeo, while at the
e were a call to Pump Station de-

We’re talking a short distance here had there even

been an issue along the truck route or anywhere else in town for that matter.” When asked if it’s

a “roaming detail,” he did not answer direct]

one spot for eight hours.” On cross examination, he acknowle
ficer assigned to the Pump Station detail that they didn’t have 't

When questioned under cross-examination, the Chief adm

ments describing what the Pump Station deta

that the officer on this detail is seldom called

y, but pointed ou

it that it’s kind of crazy sitting in

dged that he never advised an of-

go there.

itted he did not have any docu-

il consisted of; and stated that he was not aware

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 dis:
would depend on the severity of the event, an
and their willingness to be retrained.

The Chief stated that discipline is comm

recognizes they have done something wrong a

vipline, although

d the person’s wi

ensurate with the

nd is willing to a

he stressed that where you began

llingness to accept responsibility,

infraction, and “when a person

ecept 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 Agesn’t recognize that will repeat it
(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 Roino's event.

At the Town hearing on December 18, 20114, 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 Pump Station detail three times before that week.

Romeo testified that his understanding of the 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...inicase any emergency responded (sic), I would be available
within a general radius of the actual work site.

}

Romeo testified that when he met with the Chief in his oflice 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 Chief’s permission to explain his position,
he explained what he had been informed of the detail and stated to the Chief that he “should
know that I would never put in for a slip without 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, Vickery, and Lessard that the only responsibility for

that detail was to be available for emergencies.

At this point Romeo stated that the Chief |
scind the Administrative Leave portion.” He
counseled against doing it, and thereupon imp

Romeo testified on direct examination tha
he arrived at the station at 7 am, picked up an
went to the DCR trailer at Mermaid and Shor
the start time of 7 am on the slip but leaving t
left, keeping his radio on, and returned to the
examination to repeat the events of the mornit
mitting that his recollection was perhaps at tim

On redirect examination at the Due Proce
card access controls for November 24, show t
ing lot at about 7:24 am in his personal vehic

building at 8:21. Then, at 9:28 he entered the

8
eft the room saying “Let me see if can at least re-

eturned a short time later, explained that he was

lemented the Administrative Leave.

on November 24, he followed his usual practice:

available cruiser|(in this case Winthrop 9-4), then
‘e where he submitted his slip for the day, putting
he end time for the DCR official to enter. He then

Police Station about 9:45. When asked on indirect

|
ng, he repeated the same chronology, although ad-
es faulty.
ss hearing, the Chief testified that the video and

hat Romeo had arrived at the Police Station park-

e, entered the police building at 7:29, and left the

police parking lot again, entered the police build-

. 1
" ing at 9:32, and at 9:54 he exited the building to attend the negotiation.

At the arbitration, hearing Romeo agreed with the chonoloy given by the Chief, explaining

that he had been asked to recall a morning o
formed the Pump Station detail three times be;
the actual details of the day that followed. He
bade him access to the relevant documents, he
the documentation which was made available

his error, which he acknowledged at the arbitra

t nearly a month earlier after he had already per-

ry
fore that week, ahd was upset and concerned with
explained further that because the Chief had for-
just repeated ‘| usual routine. Once he checked
to him only in mid-January 2015, he recognized
tion. |

Romeo testified at the arbitration hearing about the morning prior to the negotiation. He stat-

ed that he entered the Winthrop Police Stati
spoke with Lt. Perrin, informing him that he v

tion specifically that he was on a detail, He ai

as going over to

so did not notify

ion wearing his uniform and carrying a radio, he

the negotiation, but did not men-

either Colometo or Vickery that

he would be attending a negotiation for part of the day. He noted that, looking back on the day,

he should have informed them.

Romeo testified that the negotiation lasted
expected. He left the Town Hall, turned in his
the pump station on his way out of town, abou’
ceived no detail calls on that day and submitted

Romeo once again testified at the arbitratio
a mobile detail and not fixed. When asked wha
was a mobile and not a fixed worksite, he stat
sibility of the officer with the cruiser, Colom
available if something should happen, stating,
up. So just be available.” Romeo reported th
stressed that you have to be available. He add
the Chief or Lieutenants as to what responsibili

Romeo again stated that it was his belief th

ty much anywhere in town because it’s only 1.8 square miles.”:

had worked this detail, he spent roughly sever

time was mobile throughout Winthrop.

keys to the cruis

m hearing that it

t various people

eto replied that

at when he chec

at he “could pe

al hours at the

until about 2:30, much longer than everyone had

er, and left the area. He drove by

2:30, but he saw no activity. He stated that he re-
the DCR slip i detail, for 8 hours.
as his understanding that it was

told him to lead him to believe it

ed that when he inquired of Colometo the respon-

|
he just wanted the officer to be
‘I don’t want to get one of your shift officers tied

ked with Lt Lessard, the officer

>d that he had not received any information from

ies were attached to this detail.
tform the detail being mobile pret-
He added that when he previously

Pump Station, and the rest of the

When asked on cross examination if, acco’

stay in a house in Winthrop all day as long as

ding to his unde

tstanding, it would permissible to

he were available, Romeo responded that it could

satisfy his detail obligation but he would not do it — it would be inappropriate.
|

Lt. Scarpa was asked what he would do if

to the negotiation in uniform, with a cruiser a

that he would determine where Romeo was supposed to be wo

leave the post. When asked how he would handle Romeo’s

counseled Romeo that he should leave or get

“but I assumed everybody at the meeting knew

nd a radio: how

he had been in charge of Romeo when he came in

would he deal with it? He stated
king, and if he had permission to
case specifically, he would have

back to where you were or whatever. He stated,

that he was on that detail.” He stated further that

if he were not notified but became aware that Romeo was on detail, he would talk to him, would

tell him that he had been at the negotiations fo

appropriate people so they could make aandements I guess

counsel him. “I would say that you would start

On cross-examination, Scarpa stated that h

‘off with a verbal

ie had done seve:

an awful long time and that he should notify the
I'd give him a warning, I would
written, and then go from there.

ral Pump Station details and that

the Chief had asked him whatihis understanding was concerning the responsibilities of the detail.

He replied that it would be a. fixed post, but y
route. He stated that he would leave it occasio
he felt that his obligation was to be in the gene
otherwise it would have just said patrol.” And.
ing for a private detail that he wasn’t present fo

As a result of the Due Process hearing, on

Police Officer for the following reasons:

‘ou could from t
nally during the

ral area of the pu

r, Scarpa said no:

January 9, 2015,

me-to-time leave it to check the
course of an eight hour shift but
ip station. “It said pump station;

when asked if he would sanction an officer bill-

McKenna dismissed Romeo as a

i. On November 24, 2014, you submitted a voucher fot 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 sishonel act which is contrary to
the trust that citizens put in public safety officers. : |

|
3. You specifically stated that the engineers 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 specifi cally contradicted by the DCR resident en-
gineer as well as the DCR inspector. Your 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 violates the rules and regulations of the De-
partment, specifically 1.4.8 integrity, 111.2 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 public policy against employing police of-
ficers who are untruthful.

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. Af Mail, written Notice from Town Manag-
er James McKenna, dated January 9, 20115, 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 Conducted by Chief Ti erence 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 Chiéf Terence M, Delehanty,
which is a violation of my due process rights to prepare a defense and confront

witnesses. I was never allowed or able
viewed for the alleged investigation.

‘|
|
|

to cross examine any alleged parties inter-

he disciplinary hearing conducted on De-

cember 18, 2014 was biased and not factual. The facts are in dispute and Chief
Terence M. Delehanty testified untruthfully and has: been biased against me for

several years that further create suspic
sion is also after I was threatened by 1
7, 2015 during a phone call discussio:
p.m. that if I did not accept a 30 day
me as long as I released the Town of
(sic) He also attempted to coerce me
pension... The decision to dismiss me
and contrary to Law

When the parties were unable to resolve the gr
The following provision of the parties Agri
Article XXXV - Disciplinary Action

No permanent employee shall be rem
charged in any manner except for just
tendant thereto the police officer will h
sent on his behalf.

The following provisions of the Winthrop P
evant:

Section 1.4.8 Integrity — no Departm
make any false official statements or in

Section 1.11.2 Personal Behavior — }
him/ herself in a manner that will refl
Police Department. No employee shall
Department into disrepute or reflects

ment or which tends to impair the op
the employees;

on of his evil motives and intent. This deci-
Town Manager James McKenna on January
n that he placed to me at my home at 9:15

suspension he would be forced to terminate

all my pending legal matters against them.
by mentioning my loss of healthcare and
is without just cause, procedurally flawed,

ievance, the Union appealed to arbitration.

eement is relevant:

oved, dismissed,| discharged, suspended or
cause and at any, hearings or interviews at-
lave an opportunity to have an attorney pre-

ent member shall under any circumstances
tentional misrepresentation of facts;

Each member shall while on duty conduct
ect credit on themselves and the Winthrop
engage in conduct which tends to bring the
Jiscredit upon the members of the Depart-
eration or efficiency of the Department or

any specific act or acts of immoral, i

proper, unlawful, disorderly, or intemper-

Section 1.11.13 Conduct mmo, Officer — Members shall not commit

ate conduct, whether on or off duty,
vorably upon the member, upon othermemi

hich reflect(s), discredit or reflect(s) unfa-
ers, orupon thepolice department. Members shall

‘olice department — Rules and Regulations are rel-

conduct themselves at all times, both 9
flect most favorably on the department

Conduct unbecoming a member shall i
impair the operation, moral integrity,
ment or its members.

The following article of the Winthrop Polio
ARTICLE IX. VIOLATION GUIDE

Progressive discipline shall apply for al
policy and procedures or orders of the G

CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN

The Town contends that the removal of the

him with (1) filing a false detail slip; 2) lying to the Chief durin

and (3) lying at the Due Process hearing held
pline. I will consider them in turn.

Charge 1.

The charge of filing a false detail slip was based on Romeo’

slip for the amount of $344 for a day’s work on November 24,

he had worked 8 hours of detail duty, whereas

negotiation session in Town Hall.

LINES

I violations of th

by the Town of

nm and off duty, in such a manner as to re-
and its members,

nclude that which tends to indicate that the
member is unable or unfit to continue as a member of th
reputation or éff

e department, or tends to
fectiveness of the depart-

e Department ~ Detail Policy, is relevant.

ese rules and regulations,
hief of Police.

Grievant was for just cause. Specially, it charges
g the course of his investigation;

Winthrop to determine his disci-

s submission of a detail payment

2014, in which he indicated that

for at least 4 of these 8 hours he was attending a

Romeo claimed that the detail was a “floating detail,” which permitted him license to roam

in the vicinity of the truck route in his cruiser ¥

was needed, and argued that the Town Hall was

hile waiting for a call from the dispatcher that he

positioned in an|acceptable location to wait for a

radio summons. His contention that the detail

ported by other police officers or DCR employees and must be

The Chief testified that officers on a shift
gotiations, usually over their lunch break, but
ficer on detail for the third party to participate
Romeo was charged with filing a false detail s

The Town contends that the submission of

constituted unacceptable judgment, and conduct unbecoming 'a

he was aware of

was to be labele!

or the Town or d

d a “floating detail” was not sup-

considered a false claim.

etail duty could participate in ne-

no policy that would allow an of-

in negotiations. Based on this testimony and facts,

. :
ip.

the detail bill by Romeo for service not rendered

police offer, and that his conduct

also violated Department Rules of Conduct. The Town maintains that the Grievant violated these

tules and regulations when he submitted a fals
2014. It maintains that Police officers are req
plicitly agree that they will not engage in con
ness to perform their official responsibilities.

Charge 2.

duct which calls

e detail slip for 8 hours of work on November 24,

hired to refrain tn indictable conduct...they im-

nto question their ability and fit-

The Town contends that Romeo lied to the Chief during the course of the investigation, spe-

cifically with respect to the duties and respons

investigation on December 1, 2014, Romeo told him that the de

was not required to be at a specific location. H

Manager Colometo as to his responsibilities on the detail. The

Colometo (by phone) who told him that the
from that location. The Chief also reported thi

lometo said no and that he had not advised offi

e also informed
purpose was to

cers that it was. a

ibilities of the detail. According to the Chief at the

tail was a “floating detail” and he

he Chief that he had spoken with

Chief stated he also interviewed

monitor truck traffic specifically

ht when he asked if it was a “floating detail,” Co-

floating detail.

The Town further claims that Romeo’s te
him was completely contradicted by Colomet
fied that he never told Romeo that he wasn’t s
truck route.

Charge 3.

The Town contends that Romeo lied durin;
tivities on the day before the negotiation beg
Process hearing, he got his slip signed at the D
the pump station, and remained there until ab
gotiation.

The Town revealed at the end of the Due F
trols on the Police Station show that Romeo e
sonal vehicle, entered the police building at 7
entered the police parking lot again, entered th
building to attend the negotiation next door,
whereabouts for the 3 hours (7-10 am) before;
and lie. |

More generally, the Town continues that i
detail slip (Charge 1), there would be some
‘principles of progressive discipline. However,

violate public policy to reduce the discipline ay

out 10 am when

grounds for reve

15
stimony to the Chief of what Colometo had told

at the arbitration who, among other things, testi-

upposed to be either at the Pump Station or on the

g the Town hearing when he testified as to his ac-

an. According to Romeo’s testimony at the Due

CR offices, picked up a coffee and bagel, went to

he went to Town Hall for the ne-

rocess hearing that the video and door access con-

ntered the police parking lot at 7:24 am in his per-

|
29, and left the building at 8:21. Then, at 9:28 he

|e police building at 9:32 and at 9:54 he exited the

The Town conitends that this recitation of his

|
the negotiations began, is a complete fabrication

the only misconduct of Romeo was filing a false
rsing the dismissal based on the
it argues that du

e to this untruthfulness, it would

d to reinstate Romeo.

The Town offers several cases where there

lied. The Town states that police officers wh¢

lying under oath are all felonies and Courts have ruled that it w

cy permitting someone who committed such
Town asserts that Romeo’s proven record of
law enforcement officer.

In sum, the Town concludes that Romec
bursement, lied about the lack of need for an
lied about his whereabouts on the day in quest

Finally, the Town rejects the assertion by
tion for carrying out his duties as Union Presi
the Grievant and the Chief had locked horns a
tion against Romeo for his diligence doing his
CONTENTIONS OF THE UNION

The Union contends that Officer Ferruccio
dent with a spotless personnel record, was not
gotiation while assigned to a detail. It maintai|
conduct was consistent with conduct allowed
ignored contrary evidence, and the punishmen

the punishment meted out to officers for simila

tion, lying, or unexcused absences. The Union also maintains

as act to work as

ion.
dent. Although t

Union President’

has been a rulin

lie on a police

submitted a fra

he Union that th

terminated for j

ns that he violate

by other officer
far exceeded pr

r or more severe

Romeo, a veterai

16
g against a police officer who has
eport filing criminal charges and
ould be a violation of public poli-

a police officer. Put simply, the

dishonesty prevents him from useful service as a

udulent request for detail reim-

Officer to be present during this detail, and further

e Town’s actions were in retalia-

here was evidence presented that

number of times, there was no evidence of retalia-

s job.

n police officer and Union Presi-
ust cause when he attended a ne-
d no actual or known policy, his
s, the investigation of the matter
ogressive discipline, in particular
conduct, such as for insubordina-

that the animosity between the

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

Department, or that it was completely unreas:

a negotiation while assigned to a detail (esp

about the mobile nature of the detail is, with radio contact i

cruiser at his disposal, whether he could go t

nable for him to

ecially a non-sta

t Romeo violated a policy of the
believe that officers could attend
tionary detail). The only dispute

h case Romeo was needed and a

o a negotiation meeting in Town Hall and remain

for an extended period of time. There is no question that officers on detail have spent their lunch

hour at negotiation sessions, some for longer st

The Union further contends that the Town
investigation, the Town’s termination hearing.
of deliberate lies, intended to deceive the To
meo’s statements about the Pump Station wei

low police officers. In addition, his original

retches.

s contention that Romeo was untruthful during the

or the Arbitratio

wn about the fac’

Statements conce

n hearing, do not rise to the level

s at issue here. In particular, Ro-

ial A
€ consonant with the DCR representative and fel-

rning his whereabouts during the

period of 7-10 am on November 24, while inaccurate, were hot intended to mislead, and were a

byproduct of the Town preventing him from adequately prepar

Town Manager did not point to this discrepane

In addition to failing to provide requisite notice of the u

agues the Town’s case suffers from the foilo

ng for the hearing. Moreover, the

y as contributing to his decision to terminate.

ntruthfulness charges, the Union

wing defects: 1) The Chief never formally inter-

viewed Romeo, despite a written promise to do so; 2) The cet never interviewed the supervi-

sors on the shift in question, which would hav

gotiations; 3) The Chief did not interview all

e confirmed thi

he people who

at they knew Romeo was at the ne-

worked the Pump Station detail, or

examine the past practice of officers attending
disciplined supervisors for allowing Romeo to
Finally, the Union contends that the term

mitment to progressive discipline. The offe

negotiations while on a detail; 4) The Chief never

lattend negotiatio
nation of Romeo

nse of attending

stationary detail cannot be regarded as an inherently serious

permission for other officers to do so in past

discipline imposed on other officers found to

ns while assigned to a detail.
was inconsistent with the com-
a negotiation while on a non-

act, as illustrated by the Chief's

negotiations. Mo reover it is inconsistent with the

be AWOL, or

intruthful, 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 statem
bouts that morning. While the Town phrased
two charges: 1) attending negotiations while
dishonest; and 2) Romeo’s December 1 state
December 18 statement about his November
ful. Both charges fail on procedural and substa
DISCUSSION |

The Town contends that the removal of th

the Grievant with (1) filing a false detail slip;

(3) lying at the hearing held by the Town of Winthrop to de

them in turn.

ents about the nature of the detail and his wherea-

its charges in various ways, the case boils down to

ssigned to a detail is conduct unbecoming and/or

ent about his co

24 whereabouts f

ntive grounds.

e grievant was fo

2) lying during th

nversation with Colometo and his

rom 7:30-8:20 am, were untruth-

r just cause. Specially, it charges
e course of the investigation; and

ermine his discipline. I consider

The first charge is that Officer Romeo submitted a false

Law Dictionary, we find the following:

FALSE - In law, this word usually means something im

something designedly untrue and dece

some treachery or fraud... The word “false” has two dis

meanings: (1) intentionally or knowin

detail slip. Referring to Black’s

ore than untrue: it means

tful and implies|an intention to perpetrate

listinct and well recognized
gly or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mis-

take or accident or; honestly after the exercise of reasonable care...

False Token — a false document or sign’
The statements above capture the essence

that the Grievant submitted a “false slip.” The

ately submitted a document stating that he had worked the P

November 24, 2014, when in fact he had not.

of the existence of a fact

f what I take is meant by the Town’s accusation

claim is that the

Grievant knowingly and deliber-

ump Station detail from 9-2+ on

What is meant by “working the Pump Station detail”? The Grievant correctly believed that

he should be on the ready to respond to any incident along the

being present in the Town Hall on November

24 would fulfill

tuck route. He also believed that

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 r

he had a cruiser at his disposal; and he was free to respond if al

It was Romeo’s belief that his physical location, while waiti
lieved that the Town Hall was an acceptable location, and that i

self there, given the requirements of the actu He offered the

detail being mobile pretty much anywhere in

ute he was assigned to assist in case of difficulty;

‘own because the

led.
ng for a call, was flexible: he be-

t was reasonable to position him-

following: “I could perform 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 waht you to be available if something

happens. I don’t want to get one of your shift officers tied up. So just be available. Colometo

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 followin
when he was working the detail from the Tow
ing all the tasks of working the detail for some
tion. There was no protestation from either th
formed satisfactorily.

However, Romeo did notiask for nor rece
commander for this change of venue before he
do so, disobeying the verbal instructions he h:
dishonest when he acted on his belief that he c:
could execute the detail. He was, in the word
that he fulfilled the tasks of working the Pump
had not been approved, and was acting honest,
24, 2014.

It is worth noting that because he was eng:

ig: Was Romeo working the Pump Station detail

m Hall? I find inthe affirmative. He was perform-

5 hours that day, albeit from an unapproved loca-

Town or DCR! that the detail had not been per-

ive approval from the DCR personnel or the shift
opted to make the change. It was a mistake not to
ad been given by|Colometo. But I do not find him
‘ould use the Town Hall as his base from which he
favailable” the entire shift. I find

is of Colometo, ‘

Station detail that day, albeit from a location that

ly when he submitted the DCR bill for November
|

the Pump Station detail while at-

aged in working

tending the negotiation, the issue of detail time spent by him at the negotiations that was raised

is not relevant. He was carrying out the detail
ticipating in the negotiations.
The second charge brought by the Town is

the investigation conducted by the Chief on I

for the hours required, while at the same time, par-

that Romeo lied to the Chief during the course of

ecember 1, 2014. According to the Chief's testi-

mony, Romeo explained that it was his understanding of the

Manager Steve Colometo of DCR, that he characterized the

detail, gained from speaking with

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, hé

November 24 when he worked the detail from

the Town Hall,

didn’t believe th at he had done anything wrong on

Romeo also informed the Chief that he had spoken with Manager Colometo as to his respon-

sibilities on the detail. Wheniasked what he sa

id to Colometo, he responded,

asked Mr. Colometo what was required of the officer with the cruiser. I did not

say anything about a location. I asked

with the cruiser. And:he stated to me fs I just want itt

happens. I don’t’ want to, you know,
tied up. So just be available.

In addition, Romeo testified iat the Due Proce

could work the detail on November 24 and ye'

him what’s the responsibility of the officer

be available if something

don’t want to get one of your shift officers

attend the negptation, replied,

My belief, based on the information that I had, was th: it I would be able to fulfill

the requirement of the detail because

distance involved; [and] in case [of] any emergency re

ble with[in] a general radius of the act

: |
I can find no testimony from Romeo asserted that C

sion to work the detail from other than the P

According to the Chief, Colometo, who v
December 1, explained that the purpose of thi
cies along the truck route primarily from the P

floating detail, the Chief stated that Colometo

ual work site.

p Station.

ump Station loca

it was a mobile} detail and because of the

sponse, I would be availa-

olometo gave him permis-

replied no, it was a stationary detail.

ss hearing in response to a question about how he

as interviewed. qn the telephone on the same day,
do
e detail was to monitor truck traffic and emergen-

tion. When he inquired if it was a

No one, neither Romeo, Colometo, nor the Chief, provided a definition (or definitions) of a
Jloating 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 officer 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 Colometo’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 affirmatively 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 the 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 f or the negotiation. The Town re-
vealed at the end of the Due Process hearing that 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 the building at 8:21| Then, at 9:28 he entered the po-
lice parking lot again, entered the police building at 9:32 and at,9:54 he exited the building to at-
tend the negotiation next door. The Town contends that his redo tation 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 24" 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 January 22, 2015, he was not able to refresh his memory
using the video and door access monitor records before the Town hearing on December 18,
2014. Instead, he simply repeated what he had done the previous times he had worked the detail.
_ Although Romeo’s testimony at the Town hearing was inaccurate, I do not find 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 gain by offering this incorrect account of his activi-

ties between 7-10 am that morning. His time was his own between 7 am and 9 am and returning

at about 9:30 am to prepare for the negotiations 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-
jury can bring to a police officer. He was aware that lying in these circumstances could potential-
ly jeopardize his career as a potice officer. Once 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 prevel ting him access to the video and

keycard records before the Due Process heari ng. I find no deliberate misrepresentation on his

part.

24
In summary, I find that Charge 1, that the Grievant filed a false detail slip on November 24,
2014, was not proven, Romeo worked the Pump Station detail from start to finish, 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 prior authorization for a change of location to the
Town Hall, from either the DCR or his shift commander, 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 find that Charges 2 and 3 were not proven! 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 Station detail on November 24, 2014, prior to

working the detail.

He shall be made whole for all lost wages and benefits, less offsetting income. I
shall retain jurisdiction for 30 days to resolve any disputes arising from the award.

deo Peewee

Scituate, MA / Bruce Fraser
February 26, 2016 Arbitrator