New Haven Independent

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 28, 2007 3:03 PM

Mr.Smuts Than Cliff Pettiway Should Get His Job Back.

Posted by: Common Sense | November 28, 2007 3:39 PM

Since 1862 discipline in the New Haven Fire Department has been handled by the Fire Chief and the Board of Fire Commissioners. Since the 1960 era the Municipal Employee Relations Act in the State of Connecticut permitted collective bargaining with municipal unions. The process for discipline has worked very well both for management and the union. Lets not stray away from this process with political or outside interference. We have too many Monday Morning Quarterbacks trying to replay the incident. Its been resolved.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 29, 2007 3:23 AM

COMMON SENSE (Tom Paine?) Not that I want to see our politicians messing with the Department or the fireighters, nor do I want to pick a fight with them myself (I already have visions of the new Bearcat rolling up to my door) but, I did keep hearing the Taking Heads David Byrne singing, "Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was," as I read your comment.

You ever read the book or see the movie, "Ragtime"?

Posted by: concernedone | November 29, 2007 7:59 AM

HHmmm a one time incident? check the Hamden Daily News. Bad boys,Bad girls, September 9th 2007, one month to the day of the Aug 9th assault, Sept. 9: Kennedy, Matthew, 40, of 83 Robertson Drive, Hamden, was arrested for disorderly conduct.

Posted by: Come on | November 29, 2007 10:43 AM

I am sorry. This is ridiculous. New Haven will no longer be able to discipline anyone for violence in the workplace. If a strong man (assuming in this case a firefighter is generally quite strong) gets NO DISCIPLINE WHATSOEVER for trying to strangle another employee, then what happens when a smaller woman slaps a larger man across the face?

Let's be clear New Haven's unions have now gotten a get out of any violence free card. And anyone previously terminated for violence can now get a lawyer and get their job back. That's the way the law works -- a public employer cannot treat employees differently in the administration of discipline for the same act or category of acts.

This is absurd. Is there a written policy on not killing a co-worker or engaging in sexual harassment? Is there one on not driving a car onto the front steps of city hall? How about a policy on employees not running naked through board of aldermen meetings? To say that there is "no policy" and thus I can't do anything is silly and shameful.

Employers, including governments, all over America would have terminated this individual, with or without a policy and would have been sustained in court. You see it's simple. Hitting another individual is BATTERY and you can always successfully terminate someone for such acts.

And here's one more problem, which will now come up and cost taxpayers millions. When New Haven does not terminate someone who is violent (and from this point forward, it cannot), that will allow the person who receives the violence (or the next act of violence) to sue. And they will win because outside the meeting in Mr. Smuts office (what is called the real world) an employer who tolerates a violent workplace loses lawsuits and pays millions. New Haven might want to check with Madison Square Garden and the New York Knicks in this regard.

Shame.

Posted by: Rob Smuts | November 29, 2007 3:07 PM

There are two things that govern violence in the workplace currently - the state law specifically on this topic and normal disciplinary procedures. A specific city policy would be used to standardize how possible incidents are investigated across city departments, and recommend consistent disciplinary actions (though the authority to take action would likely stay with the Chiefs and Commissions for the two sworn departments). It would also provide an opportunity to reiterate what expectations are, though by no means is a new policy necessary to do that.

The reporter asked why the specific procedures laid down under the policy were not followed, and the answer was that that policy was not in effect. The incident was handled appropriately and satisfactorily, however.

The City has no "No setting your desk on fire" policy, but if that were to happen, existing provisions would be sufficient to take disciplinary action. If there arose a felt need to address some component - say, specifying the desk would not be touched until a designated person examined it - then we would consider drafting a specific policy. In the case of workplace violence, there are specifics like that best codified in a policy, but none central to the City's ability to ensure a safe workplace.

The City of New Haven does not tolerate violence in the workplace. Where action is necessary to enforce that based on the specifics of the incident, the City has and uses its authority to take appropriate action.

Posted by: Come on | November 29, 2007 7:21 PM

You say that the City of New Haven does not tolerate violence in the workplace?

In this case, for you not to have tolerated violence in the workplace, this would have had to have:

1. Not been in the workplace;
2. Not been violence;
3. Or Not been tolerated.

Which wasn't it? One employee choked another at work and no discipline was administered. Really I'd be interested in your answer.

More importantly, your comment talks around the issue while saying nothing that will protect yourself or taxpayers in the future.

You may want to respond to this Mr. Smuts but let me provide some free advice first. Go talk to your lawyers. You are literally digging your own grave. Not only is your "policy" indefensible in court but your choice to comment in writing in a public forum has effectively created a policy which the city will own going forward in any court proceedings, and that policy appears to be . . . I will choose whom to enforce unwritten rules against at my discretion.

That's not the way the due process rules which apply to public managers work. You might start by reading an introductory book on your due process obligations as a public manager. And you may want to examine when taxpayers no longer have an obligation to indemnify your actions.

There is nothing magic because people wear badges or are "sworn." The law (based on the 14th Amendment, 42 USC 1983 and a bunch of similar state laws) treats them and you as their ultimate supervisor the same as if you all worked for Metro-North or any other local government entity.

One last thing, if it is okay to choke someone as a city employee, what level of violence would violate your unwritten policy?

Hey and aside from being legally unsound, allowing people to choke each other at work is not too smart from the getting good people to come work for you perspective. If you care about that sort of thing.

Posted by: Steve | November 29, 2007 10:15 PM

Rob,

How do explain the City Of New Haven accepting Federal Funds and Grants which require that you have you Sexual Harrasment, Discrimination and Violence in The Workplace policies in place and attested to by the City Adminstrative Officals, as a requirement of accepting these funds?

Are City managers required to complete training on these policies and procedures?

As the CAO for the city it sure should be a priority to get current with the rest of the employment world before we again are sued for Millions!!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | November 30, 2007 10:47 AM

There is a sign in the tax collector's office which warns any beseiged taxpayer not to use abusive language in dealing with Batman the Taxman's employees. There is zero tolerance, it says. Perhaps that's not real either.

When I go down to that office in City Hall to once again, be robbed in January - I'm sure I'll feel like trying it out, particularly since it will be with the knowlege the mayor is collecting enough extra pay in one year to cover the tax increases of everybody on my block.

Posted by: steve beck | November 30, 2007 12:32 PM

I have been following this story with keen interest as I had a personal experience with workplace violence within the hallowed halls of 165 Church St.
Granted, my boss did not try to strangle me, but threatened to "make my life hell." Long story short,
I received an apology and a handsome severance package, signed away any legal recourse and am so relieved that I do not work there anymore that I have been able to stop taking my anti-anxiety medicine!
The bottom line is that nothing was done to this particular individual by any higher-ups and it continues. My overall impression is one of sadness for the City of New Haven. I assume that if the policy never took effect it was appropriate behavior and seems to be part and parcel with all the other shenanigans coming out of city hall.
Such is life in the big city!

Posted by: Sins of New Haven | November 30, 2007 9:43 PM

Get ready for the first lawsuit based on the fact that the city admin knows LR, CC and HR (that's Labor Relations, Corp Counsel and Human Resources) are clearly not capable of enforcing any policies of any kind whatsoever. It's just easier to pay someone off, like lets say the soon to be millionaire Clifton Petteway. Following in the footstep of fellow the New Haven Fire Department's John Brantley and Sheryl Broadnax, etc.

The important thing to keep in mind about the cases of the aforementioned fire department personnel is not whether someone was guilty or not of violations, but that the City is incapable of enforcing it CONSISTENTLY. That's the problem. Well actually our problem. The tax payers.

The fact is it that yet again this is going to cost us, meaning the contributors of the general fund, millions.

Wonderful.

COME ON is right on the money. While I do agree that the Chiefs should have some say the bottom line is that Fire Department personnel are paid for by the General Fund and anything that happens is public pervue. They receive the same paycheck as do the lunch mothers, custodians, math teachers, kennel workers, clerks, lifeguards, tree trimmers and any other City job.

To say that there is no policy is a total failure to serve the public. It's cowardice and fraudulent and it cheats the taxpayers.

CALL THE STATION GET OL CLIFFY"S LOCKER READY!

He'll be driving to report back to active duty in his new Bentley we all buy him with new law suit just cooking up as we speak. i'm sure BK will get involved now, won't he?

SINS OF NEW HAVEN
never ending because we're paying for it!

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 1, 2007 2:22 AM

Can you say Tammany Hall?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | December 2, 2007 9:33 AM

I think mediation should be a part of this rule. When you spend more time with the people you work with than you do with your family there maybe be disagreements. I realize this is the work place and it should not be allowed, but I also know that there is always that time were you do not get along with the people you work with. Firing someone right off the get go may not be the right action for all situations. Other wise you are going to have people pushing other peoples buttons to make them lose there jobs. Sorry just thinking out loud on this one.

Posted by: Come on | December 3, 2007 10:47 AM

Cedarhill -- I think your mediation point is a good one. While I think termination is appropriate in this case because of the sheer level of violence, I am less concerned with that than with:

- lack of consistency
- absurd precedence that this establishes
- the uninformed view that there is something unique in the law about "sworn officers"
- the general apparent misunderstanding of the law on human resource matters
- the risk to taxpayers from such either inexperience, incompetence or wishful thinking
- the danger to city employees' safety

But your point that a lot can be done with mediation is a good one. A manager could certainly decide that punishment less than termination is appropriate -- say a 1 month suspension without pay. I would disagree but I think most of the 6 concerns I raised above are addressed by this.

In such a case, before returning the employees to the same workplace, it might indeed be worthwhile to engage in mediation. Sounds like there may have been some substantial pent up issues in this case. Getting those out in the open and getting both parties to agree to behaviors that did not incite similar action in the future would be a good thing.

And if the situation had been mush more minor, say a shouting match that did not threaten to escalate to violence, mediation alone might be appropriate. But the idea that one human being can put his hands around the neck of another person simply has to have no place in our working lives -- unless we are paid to fight for a living -- and fighting fires does not count.