Welcome back, Paul and Ernie!
Many in the campus community have happily noted the return of Facilities staff members Paul North and Ernie Taylor. It’s rare that we share the details of individual grievances with the entire campus. Usually the grievants prefer to remain private, and the union has no wish to embarrass the administration. But Paul and Ernie are so widely known throughout the campus, they have been the target of so many rumors for so long, they’ve been subjected to such extreme foolishness and vindictiveness on the part of the administration, that we feel the need to inform our members of this unbelievable travesty.
“Go Home and Don’t Do Anything Until We Call You!”
On June 29th, 2007, towards the end of the Clark Athletic Center pool roofing project, Paul and Ernie received letters from Facilities management placing them “on paid administrative leave pending an investigation” into “allegations” that they had not exercised their “responsibilities as they relate to the Clark Center Pool Roof Replacement.” The letters also directed them to “refrain from coming onto the University of Massachusetts Boston campus and also from contacting anyone involved in the Clark Center Pool Roof Replacement project and other projects on which you have worked, including university personnel and employees of any contractor, sub-contractor, architectural, or engineering firm.”
While at first the cause was a complete mystery, a little investigation showed that, due to a variety of miscommunications shared among a number of contractors and University employees at several levels, a section of roofing membrane had been laid over some pipe hangers before a full inspection of the hangers could occur. When all was said and done, this miscommunication led to a delay of perhaps a few days in the completion of the project, which was further delayed more significantly by a contractor ordering error (having nothing to do with Paul or Ernie’s work). The pool reopened on July 12th, only two weeks late; but apparently a scapegoat was needed, and Paul and Ernie fit the bill.
The normal procedure for disciplinary investigations is as follows: an event occurs, and if management believes the event to be serious enough, an employee is suspended with pay pending an investigation. An investigatory hearing (with union representation) occurs within a couple of weeks at most, management reviews the evidence produced at that hearing, and within another week or two decides whether to proceed with formal discipline. Based on management’s decision, the employee and the union decide how to respond.
Management Paralysis
In this case, having sent Paul and Ernie home with full pay and benefits and instructions to “refrain from…contacting anyone,” the management of the Facilities Department and Administration and Finance apparently became paralyzed with indecision. Rather than proceeding to a disciplinary investigation (as promised in the initial letter of June 29), management did nothing. As the pool re-opened slightly behind schedule, Paul, Ernie and the union began to wait. We waited, inquired, waited some more, and inquired some more. And nothing happened.
People around campus began to joke about the situation, but for Paul and Ernie it was no joke. Yes, they were home with pay and benefits, but they also lived in fear that they would be fired at any moment, they knew their professional reputations were in danger, and they were unable to seek alternative employment while believing they could be called back at any moment. Believe us, this uncertain situation took its toll on both of them.
How long did this go on? They were sent home on June 29, 2007, yet it wasn’t until NOVEMBER 21, 2007 that they received a letter instructing them to appear at a disciplinary hearing! Facilities and A&F, for whatever reason, took NEARLY FIVE MONTHS to decide that it was time to bring Paul and Ernie in for some questioning.
Money to Burn
Apparently A&F has money to burn, since they were paying Paul and Ernie all this time to stay home, but we were all happy that it finally occurred to management that they needed to act to resolve this matter. We were confident that Paul, Ernie and the union would answer whatever the charges were, and that at this late date management would wake up and realize that (1) no discipline was warranted, and (2) whatever management thought their original case might be, it was now too late to prosecute it.
The hearings occurred on November 28, 2007, five months after the incident, and both Ernie and Paul provided full, detailed, and documented explanations of their roles in the events in question. At the end of each hearing, the union emphasized the destructive effects of these unprecedented administrative leaves, and implored the administration to act expeditiously and bring Ernie and Paul back to work. It was quite clear to the union after these hearings that there were absolutely no grounds for discipline of any kind, and we had every reason to expect a quick and positive outcome.
Instead, the administration went back to sleep. Or perhaps they were awake, but hoped that Ernie and Paul would quit on their own, or that somehow management could still concoct some sort of justification for their termination. In the meantime, A&F continued to pay Paul North and Ernie Taylor to stay home and worry, which is exactly what they did.
Return to Sanity?
It wasn’t until May 19, 2008—nearly eleven months after the initial incident and nearly six months after the investigatory hearings—that Paul and Ernie received letters from the Facilities Department instructing them to return to work. During the entire eleven months, the union had taken no action, either private or public, in a desire not to embarrass the University or provoke retaliatory managers into initiating what would ultimately be an indefensible termination. It seemed to us now that some level of sanity had finally been re-established in Administration & Finance, and we were overjoyed. Union representatives met quickly with Paul and Ernie, and we discussed all their concerns about re-entry—what about all the rumors and the effect on their professional reputations? What about their fear of daily retaliation by a management unable to make any charges stick? How would they continue to work with vendors and agencies who had undoubtedly been told lies about their actions? We worked through these and other issues, and remained confident that all such re-entry problems could be addressed at a meeting with Facilities management and Human Resources immediately upon their return.
Ernie and Paul returned to work on Wednesday, May 21, anxious but optimistic that a productive meeting—one at which the air could be cleared and some mutual commitments could be made—would enable them to feel welcome enough to move forward, re-join the campus community, and once again contribute to the productivity of the Facilities Department. The union representatives, perhaps more naïve than we should have been, assured them of our belief that management was also interested in putting this embarrassing episode behind them.
Saving Face
As it turned out, the need for a scapegoat remained, and given management’s incomprehensible, incompetent and inexcusable wasting of taxpayer money during the previous eleven months, it was necessary for Administration & Finance to save face. In fact, saving face proves to be more important than reconciling and moving forward.
We were informed shortly before the expected “welcome back” meeting that in fact there needed to be two meetings, and that they would be disciplinary in nature. At the first meeting, Ernie was handed a lengthy disciplinary letter, threatening “further progressive discipline, up to and including termination.” The union protested that this was outrageous and completely unacceptable, and the meeting ended. There was a brief attempt to negotiate a solution, but that attempt failed, Paul and Ernie were given their undeserved-and-eleven-months-late warning letters, and they went back to work. The union promised management that the warnings, which if left in Paul and Ernie’s files would make them extremely vulnerable to further retaliatory actions, would be grieved to arbitration if necessary. We also promised to publicize the outrageous events of this case, as we are doing here.
The grievance has been filed, along with an extensive information request, and we are once again off on a lengthy time-and-money-wasting legal process. Management is apparently prepared to spend many hours of their time and thousands of dollars on an arbitrator rather than admit that perhaps they missed the boat in this case. One must ask, where are the warning letters in the files of the top managers responsible for this travesty? Do they suffer no consequences?
The Good News
That’s the bad news. The good news is that—after eleven months of anxiety—Paul North and Ernie Taylor are back on campus, making their rounds and doing their jobs, just as before. When you see them in the corridors or on the grounds, please welcome them back. They certainly deserve it.
PSU Chapter Board