001Welcome to the Shelton Board of Education special meeting. It is Wednesday, April 2nd at 6:00 p.m. We will call the meeting to order. Can I please get a roll call? Amy Romano here. Lorraine Rosser here. James Rosetti here. Joan Littlefield here. Jason N here. Kate Coutach here. Anthony Smearagino here. Patricia Moon here. Also in attendance, Dr. Ken Sarinich, John Calhoun, attorney Fred Stannic, Steve Brick, Michael Charity, and Fred Dag. Perfect. Can we please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the republic which stands one nation under God, liberty. I please get a motion to approve the agenda. Motion to approve the agenda. Madam chair second. Motion made by James Orietti, second by Anthony Smargalino. All in favor? I. Agenda items for this evening.
002Discussion and possible action on the level three grievance by Michael Charity may be conducted in executive session. Can I get a motion, please? I make a motion, madam. Okay. Motion go in executive session. Okay. Can I just get a discussion and a motion then for discussion and possible action on the level three by motion to discuss uh possible actions on the level three grievance by Michael Charity. I'll second. We got a fight here. We'll say second by Lorraine Rosner. All in favor? I. Thank you. Okay. Um then I am going to turn the meeting over to our board attorney, Attorney Stannic. Thank you. whereby Michael Charity has requested a hearing from the board of education pursuant to agreement between the Shelton Board of Education and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30. The charity
003is claiming violations agreement by the board of education and I did not ask Steve I'm sorry I'm sorry Steve Roderick speak articulate nature of the grievance violations that are claimed of the agreement and present any evidence. Good evening everyone. I'm Steve Brderick. I am a uh business representative for the International Union of Operating Engineers. I've been in this role approximately 10 years in the trade. Uh as Fred said, this is a step in our grievance procedure and I think uh big picture, it's ultimately a good thing. This is the first time that I've been before US. I've been working with this group for about 10 years. Uh we have a good working relationship. We have a lot of respect for team. We've been able to work through some issues and and negotiate what we believe
004are really lesser collective bargaining agreements and we really value that. I'm glad we're not free. Um, also as Fred said, I do want to point out this is a step in the grievance procedure. Um, it's in our collective bargaining agreement which is current until June 2026. Uh we do have a response from step two and uh with step three there is a uh an obligation on the board to respond uh but I believe there's a 30-day window. So moving into the actual grievance are it's grievance number 1222024. It is for Michael charity and it is for the termination and the basis for the grievance is we don't believe there is just cause. There's a lot of history that goes with this grievance but out of respect for your time in this step because it's step
005three I think the appropriate place to start is at step two. So, we do have a response and um I'm not sure if that's distributed or how that would work with the the board having access to that. Uh but it's dated January 21st uh 2025. The u the reason is the Michael charity grievance meeting. This was step two. And in this step two, there was a concept of reinstatement. So in the grievance, what we looked for as a remedy was reinstatement and Michael be made whole. And in step two, uh we appreciate this movement that um has a paragraph that says we're offering Mr. Charity an open position as a second shift custodian at Perry Hill School where we will make uh the accommodations that we would not be working in a potential mold environment.
006Uh so the reason we didn't accept that and chose to escalate to this step is while we're interested in reinstatement, uh Michael worked his entire career in maintenance. Um it's not custodial, he also worked on dayshift and he also worked for a higher rate than custodial. So what we're looking for to settle the grievance would be reinstatement but in maintenance in his former shift and at his former rate. I do believe there may be a request for a little of accommodation but nothing that we think would substantially interfere with his job performance. And um that concludes what I'd like to convey to the board. Do you wish to submit the January 21st letter as an exhibit? Yes. We will mark letter as exhibit A. I'll show you my copy. You have nothing further? Nothing. Patient.
007Okay. Sure, I'd be happy to. Um, in following along with Broadick, I I I also would like to um state that we have worked on many issues collaboratively together, and I appreciate um their professionalism and ability to to work as as managed collective bar. Uh there was um an initial termination made at the first step um for reasons of job abandonment because uh Mr. Charity had not his last day of work was February 2nd of 2023. So we we had not heard correspondence with him. Um he even admitted in a meeting that he met with John Calhoun and Kristen Riley that he had not responded to HR um regarding his his absence of work. And so the decision on Mr. Calhoun's part was to terminate under job abandonment. That of course was grieved as a
008level one grievance. It came to see me as the next step as the superintendent. I met with the parties involved um regarding this We were told that Mr. Charity would like to continue work. He just could not continue in the current job he was in and he was willing to continue to work. We asked for medical documentation on his ability to return to work. Um we never received anything from their party or Mr. Charity upon that request. Um we did receive um uh medical a medical statement from Mr. Charity's um doctor that was from our attorney, Mr. Carter, because Mr. Charity was involved in a workers's comp case. The letter I can can submit to the board as as evidence. Um in such letter dated December 9th of 2024, it says to whom it may
009concern. This is to certify that Michael Charity um has now recovered sufficiently and able to return to regular duty as of December 10th, 2024 restrictions. Um he cannot go back to the previous position he worked in a potential of a mold environment. However, he is now prohibited from working in other areas of buildings. um with this medical documentation that he cannot return to the position that he had. Um obviously um and we obtained this under our our own. We did not receive anything different from from the party. Uh I did rule in to overturn Mr. Calhoun's decision of termination and bring him back um offering him employment in another position as his medical documentation because Mr. charity was out of work for so long in a duration of time. Uh when the board settled the
010budget last year because he was out of work for that long. Um this board eliminated Mr. Cher's position because he wasn't working in it. It was a vacant position and we had budget cuts. That position no longer existed. So I had communicated to the union that we would offer him to come back when I was you know um by May. And I can submit these on January 31st. Well, on January 21st is when I sent the the reply that Mr. Broadick um provided as evidence. Uh 10 days later, I did receive a communication from Mr. Broadick that said, "Good morning, Ken. While we appreciate the response of settlement at this grievance in accordance with the collective bar, Mr. Charity, the grievant feels further review is necessary and request a hearing with the board of education
011for a step-free process. That was the email response that I received that same day on January 31st. I replied, "Hello, Steve. Thank you for getting back to me. We are confused by the request of the level three grievance. The original grievance was against the termination of Mr. Charity. Yet in the level two grievance, we overturned the grievance and offered Mr. Charity employment. Please explain what collective bargaining unit would present as a level three grievance. Also, please clarify Mr. charity's position on returning to work. We received information from his attorney that he can he can work but does not wish to return to work. And that came to us from attorney Tom Carter um during the um hearing I guess for his workers comp issue. That email, as I said, was sent to Steve on January
01231st. um of this year. Of this year, on February 6th, uh sorry, I'm just kidding. No, I'm sorry. On February 3rd, I received a response from Mr. Broadick saying, "Acknowledge receipt. We'll review and respond." So, that was on the 6th. on February 6th, 6 days later from my original email, um I did receive a response that as we discussed Oh, nope. I received a response that said, "Ken, thank you for the follow-up email to the extent Mr. Cherry is being offered terms that are inferior to his former position. Local 30 believes that we we would be denial of the grievance and be forced to take the matters to the next step. Please let us know the logical and potential dates and times of scheduling the step three with the board. So on that same day,
013February 6th, I did respond to Mr. Broadick and say as we discussed, Michael's former position was eliminated in last year's budget. As such, he would be rift, which stands for reduction in force, into a position being offered. If we are incorrect with the bumping based on seniority and position, I kindly ask that local 30 please explain what position he would bump into and which employee that bumping would impact. Again, I kindly asked for clarification on Mr. Charity's position of return to work. We have received information from his attorney that he can work but chooses not to return to work. As such, we are not denying his grievance. If local 30 cannot determine which position or person is to be bumped due to the elimination of his former position, then we will take the position as
014Mr. Charity is refusing to return to work. This action would leave us no alternative other than to follow through with termination. I appreciate reply as soon as possible as Mr. charity has not been in work for almost 2 years. Uh I didn't receive a response from the union to that email. I followed up 4 days later on February 10th said, "Hello, Steve. Although we still await a response to our questions, I would like an understanding on your position regarding the move to a level three grievance. I would be happy to schedule dates and time with the board." that followed no response and then it proceeded to scheduling this this evening. So, first we we're having a hard time understanding how it became a level three grievance. The original grievance was termination and we ruled in
015the union's favor by providing him with work. When we were told that that wasn't an acceptable place because it was an inferior position, we explained that the position no longer existed and that that would require reduction in force. And I asked the union to explain to us which position would then he bump into and I received no response. This the part on management is we are willing to offer employment to Mr. Charity. We're waiting for the union to tell us what position that would be in. That's all I have to say. I'm sorry that was a I and I could provide the email communication and the doctor's notes did everyone follow because they started up steps two back to step one and step two now here step three that we're still waiting what position We
016are asking for clarification on if if he has the right to a position if and management admit it if if we are in some way misinterpreted the reduction in force. Please inform us what position he would go into. We've received no response from the union. Dr. Sternage, you could park the Sure, that's fine. This is an email chain. Um, I have postits on it because I wanted to follow it. I can I I can provide you a copy of it and I will submit. Okay. And then I have the doctor's note. Okay. Roderick, do you have any? Yes, I would like to respond. Respectfully, I believe there are some issues being conflated and I want to be clear as um as Michael's union rep and and the representative for this group, I'm not an attorney
017and I'm clearly not a workers comp. So, so there is a piece of the collective bargaining that is affected by but the union's position that is completely uh the next piece that I think is getting conflated in addition to the reference comp is the idea that a position has been eliminated or there's some kind of bumping line. Uh candidly I I don't think we're at that step for us. We're following the grievance procedure. We got a response at step two that offered reinstatement. Our position is the reinstatement doesn't put him maintenance. And whether or not a position was eliminated or whether or not seniority was followed, if there's bumping, uh, first would be, is there an appropriate decision that he would be reinstated to me? That's what the the only further just to clarify um
018workers comp has no impact on the grievance process or the decision as Mr. Broad said I only made the reference to that in terms of how we obtain the documents that we have it was it was through our our attorney on on another case Mr. Broadway, could you explain to the board claims how the contract agreement collective bargaining violated? Yes. Um in order for there to be um discipline uh which would include uh termination, any discipline would be for just call. Uh so after investigating and and um working with with Michael's case, there was a determination that the that determination was not um we filed through the steps. At step one, there was a denial. At step two, there was a uh a movement to be reinstated. Uh and and as we said in in
019the settlement, uh the remedy we saw was reinstatement and to be made. and to be told your wife. Well, everything that would be affected by the time he was terminated. No, I just I just want to I know I said this, but just to remind the board that you know the duration of time between not coming to work and the time that we are now, the position that he had because he was not at work at the time without any reason defined by HR to his supervisor and we had to make decisions in the budget, that position was eliminated. So that position no longer exists. So to give Mr. charity a position back at maintenance would mean that somebody from who's currently in the maintenance would have to be removed and I I've asked the
020union to please clarify to us which position that would be now I we have done our own due diligence and we've explained this to the union that although there are individuals who have less seniority than Mr. charity. Those two individuals that have less seniority in the maintenance field have specialized certifications. One is an electrician and one is HVAC. Neither of which Mr. Charity has. So he would not be able to fulfill those obligations for those positions if those individuals would be bumped. So that's why I turned to the union to say please explain to us which position he would be bumped into. Okay. To respond, please go ahead. Yeah. Um again I where we are in this grievance procedure uh just respectfully I I don't think we accept the idea that the position was eliminated
021um and and what that would do to bumping. Uh I will say for us this specific grievance and any grievance in general we're open to reviewing some type of settlement that would avoid a a more protracted legal proceeding. obviously the next arbitration, you know, we can't get to some kind of settlement. I'm not I'm not saying that's guaranteed that the union would take that. But what I'm suggesting is with positions, if it turns out it is a bumping situation, we would we would review that. Uh I'm also aware there may be some upcoming retirements that may be avoiding that. These are members and workers that we represent as well. So if there is some path or appetite toward reinstatement in maintenance in days in his current position, we'd be open to reviewing the defense that
022would lead to a settlement. I would just like to say to the board that at the current time we have no retirements. We have no retirement letters. Correct. So there there no such position and a retirement does exist formally. Do any board members when when we eliminate? Yes. Yes. What are you question um for for tonight's proceeding it is specifically said this what I was trying to suggest is uh possible timing. You know, we're not sure about this elimination. We're not sure about candidly, I don't want to see another member get hurt. Uh at the same time, you know, there there may be some things coming up currently tonight is just tape but even I just want to be clear. Yeah, understand other forms. I think um there would be some flexibility in the and
023if I may for the record you know um administration and the board we were transparent when the position was budget that was communicated to all collective bargaining units all collective bargaining units had some loss when we mitigated last year's budget to this year so um it wasn't something that was done enter which you know I'm just saying that it it was it was communicated transparent and publicized that the position had been okay but I make a point um so just just to clarify um Mr. charities look if if he would be looking for a settlement. He's also in the process of workman's comp, which we say is a different issue. But if he's granted workman's comp, he could also conceivably be be um entitled to two years of back pay, which would also be a
024settlement. So would be double the settlement. Just just for the record. Yeah, it's just it's just, you know, just to just to know that there's a comp case that's that's open. So, the comp case would be dropped. Then to be to be clear, the union and the union, you know, as his rep, we've got the collective bargaining. We've got the grievance procedure. We've got a pretty straightforward grievance in terms of uh termination and re anything in terms of comp payouts that's beyond the scope of the collective bargaining beyond not I got a question Mr. Broadick you to to Mr. Sarin's point we we we did work on budget cuts and we did eliminate that position. Now you said you believe that position is still a valid position. What what gives you the idea that would
025be a valid position because here at this this board we cut that position to cut funding because we were ready to cut teachers. Mr. Charity decided not to come to work so that his position was filled by someone else and we we that position doesn't exist anymore. So what makes you think that that position is valid? You said you you stated you believe that position or a position is is is open. What makes you say that the the response would be related to the timing and also what I repeated tonight with the comp piece of this obviously the timing of comp part of this. So if that didn't exist and the union was faced with a mandate from the board that there's going to be cuts, there's going to be layoffs. In the 10 years
026I've worked with this group, there has been and there is a uh organized mechanism for bumping and handling that and notifying the group. I think because of the timing with Michael out and this kind of question mark on going come um it didn't affect the unit and that that bumping and everything didn't happen. But we haven't even answered the question is is Michael or is the board willing to to reinstate him in one other piece too if I if I may. Uh, I don't want to overemphasize it or go too far, but built into the timing, there were um some changes at the HR level. There was a long-term HR person who I think was initially involved in that who retired, Carol Penult. Fantastic. Um it was it was open for a while and someone
027else was in there and that change in in that seat. Uh that's definitely part of the just So, if I may, I I'm willing to submit evidence if I have to. I have um minutes from a meeting done by um Al Bruno, who is the HR director on July 31st of 2024. In attendance of that meeting was Steve Broadick, Fred, Rick Mimmude, Mike Cherry of the discussion of Mike's inability to return to work and not hear anything um and the possible termination. So, the idea that things weren't followed through because of an HR issue, um, I have to object to that based on that. There was a meeting that was facilitated by Mr. Bruno on July 31st of last year. But, but I will have to say that even at that time it was brought
028that Mr. Charity had not returned to work, had not communicated to his supervisor HR that he returned to work. And still after that meeting, we still did not hear from him, nor did he return to work, nor there was any communication of his willingness to return to work on July 31st. And I'm sorry, I I I just need to respond to that. Um, I do recall the meeting. I do discussing this with Al Bruno. It wasn't the uh purpose of the meeting, but the intent was this is something that's open that needs to be addressed. I think Allan inherited that from Carol. It was not. No, he may not. It might have been regarding It says I just see now it says re regarding my charity. So it was about Michael charity. No. And and
029I stand corrected, but that's as I'm looking at the attendance of the meeting. Dangerous. sir, if you could just identify yourself for the record. I know. Thank you. Thanks. That's great. Dr. Mark, can I ask for a point of clarification? Yes. Um Frederick, you mentioned um that if that you imply that you have awareness of people who are close to retirement, although we know that no letters have been submitted and that that might be something to wait for. If I heard you correctly, can you clarify what you're talking about? What is it? Which would mean that I don't think I understand how that affects what decision would be made today by this Okay. Isn't that in your union regulations like call back? Don't you have automatic call back? But I think I Yeah. I'm just
030I'm just wondering why it wouldn't be an automatic call back if a position that position reopened at some time. Well, I'm just I don't have a contract in front of me, so I can't really say. Is that the way it goes? There is a recall for a lay but but in this case we're dealing this is a so is there a difference in reduction of force and a layoff um the termination would be different he'd he'd be entitled to recall if he was laid off with the termination yeah but you know I've done a couple of union things I'm not seeing a clearcut lineuction both they both mean I agree with you talk to them talk to them right but I was just clarifying though I think that that he abandoned job and then after
031the fact his position cuts on it's different terminating he wasn't laid off and then now a that's correct. That that is why we're saying he doesn't automatically just get called back terminated from this. Okay. So I'm missing a point. So terminated because of no permanent was terminated on February 2nd, 2023 for abandoning his job is what they're technically calling it. and he did not respond and then they grieved that and then Ken came back Dr. Sage came back and said we will give you your a job back but not that particular job because it's been so long that we eliminated the position. So he was just he was terminated and now he tried to get his back. But we already eliminated the job in the that's why there wouldn't be correct. Right. I think Yeah.
032And I know I'm submitting this evidence not as I'm doing just what the bumping article 5 and you're you're referring to Al Bruno. Al Bruno. Yep. Okay. Um, admittedly, again, I think I said it a few different times, I'm not an attorney, um, for the union. I do u process grievance steps, but in terms of some notes being submitted from a meeting that I attended. Um, I may have an issue with what that looks like. Okay. If if the board was to go to arbitration, then we can always ask Alberto to appear as a witness. [Laughter] a lot of time. The wheels turn. Well, just just to clarify, I over roll in the level two that he can return to work. So, in the process of the grievance at a level two, I found that
033he would not be terminated. So, what's in question is whether he terminated or not. I've already ruled in the level two that he's not terminated. What's in question here is they do not like the position that we're offering them saying he wasn't terminated. Person here again the position that was off the Mr. charity can return to work at any point in time and all the union has to do is just explain to us which position he would be returning to and what member from his unit that we would have to remove. We did move we did try to follow process by putting him in an open position so no one would be affected and and he failed to act on it. Well, they're saying that they they're they're not in agreement with that position. So
034if it's a maintenance position, then we need to know from the union which which maintenance position would he have the rights to? And the position was eliminated. We're getting into liberation. Mhm. Any questions? Good. I'm good for it. Have an opportunity following this. Okay. Want to make sure everybody understand timeline. A lot going now would be the times. Absolutely. Would ask right now. I know I feel confident I have the timeline. Everyone else feel okay with that? Just to clarify to to your point, the intent is not to make it. You have up to 30 days. Okay. Thank you. playing that there's the opportunity to nothing further Here shar said you got information from Conor if you would identify yourself by charity. I understand former employee which my job just for the record. I got
035sick on this job. Okay. I was in a hospital for two weeks. I came home on oxygen. Okay. My lungs were inflamed on both sides. We're not going to go into that because that not gonna I look forward to coming to work. I working with this guy here working for him and I had no problem with my job. Okay. Ill will against anyone here. I just wish you here what I went through for the past two years living off my wife not getting a penny in from anyone. Okay. No uh unemployment, no comp, no nothing. denied a form or comp when I called John from the hospital. No, there's no way you can prove it came from work. That's what I was told. Okay. So, I looked forward to coming to a job. I never
036had a job I loved more in my life. The hours were perfect. Everything the guys I worked with were great. So, I don't ask for any of this. I want to get back to my job. Yes, it's been eliminated. Some way I can get back to my job. That's all I'm like working for you. Sorry I'm a mess. I was in a hospital all day. I like I said, I'm sorry about um that that's all I have. I I just want you to know that I I would like to get back to my job. That's all all I got. I sent my letters in. Where they went, I don't know. They went to HR. I don't have access to my phone anymore. My uh school school email. I don't have access. I can't prove anything.
037I can't prove that I sent them. But every time I sent my doctor's note to my comp lawyer, I also sent them from my phone to the school to HR. What happened? I don't know. I don't So many HR people. I don't know. I don't know what happened. Nothing could have happened. No mistake could have been made. I'm not blaming anybody and I'm not going to. But stuff happens. I ended up on the shorts and stick for two years. I I I'd rather be a wood, believe me. Just never thought this would happen to me. It did. That's all I have. Like I said, whatever you guys decide, you decide. I can't change it. Life got Thank you. And Mr. Charity, you do not look like a slob. I'm in jeans and sneakers, so don't
038worry about it. Okay? You are in a safe space here. We don't judge based on it. I'm in jeans and sneakers. Vincent all morning and all afternoon. So, don't worry about it. We're not going to judge how you walk in. We come off of our jobs all the time. You don't want to see my hair right now. No. I just wanted to uh lighten that to say don't worry about it. I got my jeans and sneakers on. We're all comfortable here tonight. We're all amongst friends. Okay. Um, I'm I'm all set. If everyone else is, I will turn it back over to Attorney Stannic. Dr. Sinich Roderick, final comments, argument. Again, in the timeline, it'll reflect it here. His position was eliminated prior to the termination. So again, I I asked the union to explain
039to us since I ruled in his favor to not be terminated, which position would then he go to? Awesome. Fred, I know you're looking at me. I don't know if it's my place to respond. I was about to say to attorney scanning how I don't know if we able to like comment on that right now knowing we have 30 days and that's deliberation and negotiation but obviously we I think you stressed that this evening and we have obviously but um probably Mr. Broadick, do you agree that we have 30 days from today vision? Okay, provisional. Thank you. Can I also ask so yes um is it I realize that there's a decision to be made by the board but I'm also hearing from that we also would need to understand how it would work if
040the decision were rement into into the mechanical role or maintenance role, sorry. Um, so I'm not sure how that communication goes. Kind of hard to make a decision without being able visualize how it would actually work. So I don't know if there's if there's communication coming us final going to parties you want to ask and are you expecting my my question still was never asked I I would like to know the interpretation of um in a in a riff reduction in force and bumping um because I know this was discussed prior but where would Mr. by since the position was you like to submit a brief short summary of what you I would not agree that that's that's my world that would be a settlement I I think that's he had a second issue or
041is fire how the bumping work. And again, we met with the group and we Mike communicated he wanted to return to work. So we gave him a position that no impact on any members of the local 30 that he can return. So even as of tomorrow, if you would like to return to work, there's nothing further. Madam Um, right. If there's nothing else to say at this time, then I would say that we do have 30 days to make our decision. Um, what you said at another time. Um, last call. Last call. Otherwise, I'm going to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m.