The union for the City of Bradford Department of Public Works
has filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the state Supreme
Court in the case of a former garbage man fired for stealing while
on duty.

Teamsters Local Union 110 has filed an appeal on behalf of James
Taylor, 30, of Bradford, challenging a ruling by the Commonwealth
Court which upheld Taylor’s dismissal from his job.

The Teamsters, represented by attorney Joseph S. Pass of
Pittsburgh, argued that a collective bargaining agreement between
the union and city did not allow for termination as a penalty for
theft.

The theft occurred May 23, 2003, when Taylor saw a purse in the
trash and took $239 that had fallen out of it. After questioning,
he later turned the money over to police.

On May 29, 2003, the city issued a disciplinary report and
Taylor was ultimately terminated. The union filed a grievance and
arbitration followed. The arbitrator sided with the union,
reinstated Taylor to his job and decided the maximum penalty
allowed for under the disciplinary schedule in the collective
bargaining agreement was a 10-day suspension.

The city appealed the arbitrator’s award to McKean County Court.
President Judge John Cleland overturned the arbitrator’s award,
saying preventing the city from firing Taylor for stealing from a
city resident while on duty “would seriously interfere with the
city’s ability to perform a core municipal function.”

The Teamsters appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which upheld
Cleland’s ruling. Now the Teamsters are petitioning for permission
to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

The union is arguing that the city had negotiated away its
authority to fire employees in some circumstances, that the ‘core
function’ standard should not apply because of the disciplinary
schedule agreed to in the collective bargaining agreement, and that
the arbitrator’s award should never have been vacated by
Cleland.

“It should be noted that the union’s argument is factually
inaccurate as well as legally without merit,” argues attorney
Christopher Gabriel of Pittsburgh, representing the city. The
disciplinary schedule does include termination as a possible
penalty for theft, reads a brief in opposition to the appeal. “The
union’s argument proceeds as if it were clear that the city had
bargained away its right to terminate employees for theft.”

That is not the case, the brief reads.

“Arbitrators are prohibited from interpreting collective
bargaining agreements in a manner that takes away a public
employer’s ability to rid itself of employees who threaten the
performance of functions that are inherent and essential to their
operation,” the brief reads. “An employee that pockets cash from a
citizen’s purse while he is working for the city certainly fits
within that rule.”

Gabriel goes on to note that labor unions represent the
interests of their employees, no matter what the facts of the case.
And, he states, the union takes issue with the fact that the ‘core
functions’ rule exists at all.

“As such, it is worth understanding that unions will pursue
every case overturning the reinstatement of an employee to this
court, no matter how bad the conduct at issue, in the hope that the
rule will be limited or abandoned,” Gabriel wrote. “The fact that
unions are dissatisfied with the law on this point is not a valid
reason to review the case.”

Therefore, the city asks that the allowance for appeal be
denied.