20 N, Wacker Drive, Ste 1660 15010 5. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10 Chicago, inois 60606-2903 (Orland Par, lino's 60462-5353 7-312 984 6400 F 312.984.6444 708-349 3888 F708 349 1506 KLEIN, THORPE & JENKINS, LTD. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Edwenna Perkins and Board of Trustees, Village of Maywood FROM: James P. Bartley DATE: September 13, 2017 RE: Arbitration Order re Backpay to Robert Jay - Request for Approval of Payment of $101,385.93 Backpay plus Medical of $4,742.20 = $106,128.13 ‘As you may recall, on February 29, 2016, Arbitrator Vonhof, rendered her decision in the grievance arbitration hearing (see attached) challenging the dismissal of Robert Jay and Steven Slaughter. The Award reads (on page 35): “The grievance of Grievant Robert Jay is sustained, for the reasons set forth above. He will be reinstated with full backpay and made whole for any other benefits lost as a result of his termination. The Arbitrator will retain jurisdiction solely over the remedy portion of this award, The grievance of Grievant Steven Slaughter is denied, for the reasons set forth above.” On September 29, 2016, the Union sent its backpay calculations to the Village, which totaled $123,201.87. After numerous exchanges, the Union altered its settlement demand on May 15, 2017 to $101,385.93 backpay and medical bills of $4,742.20. We recommend this settlement because, if the issue goes back to the arbitrator to decide, it could result in a larger amount. Approval is requested. Yin Bartley Enclosure cc. Viola Mims, Village Clerk (w/ encl.) Willie Norfleet, Jr., Village Manager (w encl.) David Myers, Assistant Village Manager (w/ encl.) Lanya Satchell, Finance Director (w/ encl.) Val Talley, Police Chief (w/ encl.) 38460_1INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 705. In the Matter of Arbitration Between: ) ) VILLAGE OF MAYWOOD, ) ILLINOIS ) rievanees: Jay Termination ) Slaughter Termination and ) Arb. Docket No. 151102 ) ) ) INTRODUCTION ‘The undersigned Arbitrator was appointed according to the rules of the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The hearing was held on December 3, 2015 in Maywood, Illinois. Mr. Emil P, Totonchi, General Counsel, represented the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 705, hereinafter referred to as the Union or the Local, Mr. Robert Jay, Grievant; Mr. Steven Slaughter, Grievant; and Mr. Darius Jenkins, Union Steward; testified on behalf of the Union. Mr. James P. Bartley, of Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, represented the Village of ‘Maywood, hereinafter referred to as the Employer or the Village, Ms. Lanya Satchell, Village Director of Finance; Mr. David Myers, Assistant Village Manager; and Ms. Wilhelmina Dunbar, Coordinator of Human Relations; testified on behalf of the Employer. Each Party had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence at the hearing. Both parties submitted post-hearing briefs by or around January 31, 2016, at which time the hearing was declared closed. Issue(s Was Steven Slaughter terminated for just cause, and, if not, what shall the remedy be? ‘Was Robert Jay terminated for just cause, and, if not, what shall the remedy be?ARTICLE VIL LAY OFF, RECALL AND DISCIPLINE NOTICES Section 7.2. The Employer shall not discipline, discharge nor suspend any employee without just cause but in respect to discharge or suspension shall give at least one (1) warning notice of the complaint against such employee to the ‘employee in writing, and a copy of the same to the Union affected by certified mail, except, that no warning need be given to an employee before he is discharged or suspended if the cause of such discharge or suspension is dishonesty, drunkenness, violation of the Drug and Alcohol Policy as set forth in Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, or recklessness resulting in serious accident while on duty, or the carrying of unauthorized passengers. Any warning notice will not remain in effect for more than twelve (12) months after issuance. Probationary employees may, during their probationary period, be discharged without cause. ARTICLE XVII PRECEDENCE OF AGREEMENT. ‘The provisions of this Agreement shall prevail in all employment matters with respect to members of Local 705 and take precedence over any conflicting provisions or rules of the Village of Maywood, its personnel code, or other regulations, Background In this dispute, the Union challenges the terminations of two Employees of the Village. A separate grievance has been filed for each Employee, and both grievances are being heard in this, single proceeding. However, the facts surrounding each grievance are different in part and the Parties have agreed that each grievance is to be addressed on its own merits ‘The facts underlying these grievances are as follows. The Village provides water service to its residents, and the residents are billed for this service. Ms. Lanya Satchell, who has worked for the Village for about 18 years, and has spent the last seven years as Director of Finance,testified that the situation at issue here was triggered when the Village received a request from a law firm for a refund for a duplicate payment for a water bill. She traced the payment and found that it had been broken up into partial payments and credited to several apparently unintended accounts. Satchell turned the matter over to the Village Manager at the time, Mr. William Barlow, Barlow employed an outside auditing firm, Gould & Pakter, to conduct a forensic audit of payments in the Village’s Water Department. Gould & Pakter prepared a report, dated November 12, 2013. A cover letter accompanying the report summarizes their findings, in part, as follows: G & P analyzed 31 sets of payments by water customers of the Village that were received by the Water Department after January 1, 2012.... Using the check number, we identified the customer accounts that were actually (some wrongly) credited for each payment received. We found that portions of the 31 customer payments were misallocated, i, portions of the payments were credited to different (unintended) customer accounts. ‘Accordingly, for each of the 31 customer payments, the designated (intended) account ‘was not credited in full — instead other customer accounts were given improper credit for the payments received, The report concluded that the 31 sets of customer payments totaled $60,598,79.' Of that amount, the audit concluded that the accounts of “village employees and/or affiliates” were credited with $26,982.11 of the misallocated payments. Thus, the audit concluded that checks received by the Village to pay off debts to its Water Department on certain properties were improperly credited instead to other water accounts, including the accounts for properties owned by or associated with certain Village employees. The two Grievants in this case, along with four * Many of these were checks that law firms, banks, or mortgage companies sent to pay off debts to the Water Department, which had ripened into liens on properties or mortgages that were being sold or otherwise transferred In some cases, payers sent checks for liens that had already been rcleased, resulting in duplicate paymentsother Village employees, were identified by the audit as having had their water bills or those of their associat ? reduced through payments misapplied in this manner. Ms. Satchell presented evidence showing that Water Department Clerk Larraine Waller produced handwritten bill payment stubs misallocating portions of certain large checks to the wrong accounts, Waller was not called to testify at arbitration, but Satchell testified that there is no question about the fact that the handwriting on these payment stubs is that of Ms. Waller. The stubs were then given to the cashier for proce: ing. The processing of most of these stubs was done by Cashier Norma Hernandez, Satchell determined that the payments sent in were intentionally credited to different accounts which were not intended by the payer to be credited. These stubs show that payments from some of the 31 misapplied checks were applied to an account listed in the name of Ms. Andrea Slaughter, at the address provided by Grievant Steven Slaughter to the Village as his home address. Ms. Andrea Slaughter is his wife, Other payments made in the same manner were allocated to an account listed in the name of Grievant Robert Jay, for an address that he listed with the Village as his home address. The evidence also demonstrates that some of the misallocated payments were paid to an account in the name of Ms. Barbara Jay. Satchel testified that she believed that Barbara Jay was Grievant Jay’s mother. She testified further that she believed that the Grievant had an ownership interest in the property at that time, Witness Satchell testified that the Village sends out water bills on a monthly basis, and that these bills record payments which have been made during the previous month, She said that she did not consider as a good excuse the statements allegedly made by the two Grievants that ? The report identified credits which were impropetly allocated to accounts in the names of Grievant Slaughter's wife and Grievant Jay's deceased mother. Other credits were improperly allocated to accounts associated with boyfriends of other Village Employees.Ms. Waller had offered them some kind of program of financial assistance to pay their water bills, She stated that the Village was not in a financial position to offer any such programs. In addition, she testified that such programs are usually limited to low-income individuals and the individuals must apply for them, She also said that Ms. Waller did not have the authority to offer any such programs. She testified further that neither of the two Grievants came to her and asked her about such programs Satchell testified that the misallocation of the water payments is broadly known by Village Employees and by the community. She testified that when it first occurred several Employees called her to inquire about it, with concems about their own water bills. She also testified that community members have raised these issues at Village Board meetings. She testified that the Village also has suffered adverse effects because of having to make restitution to the payers whose checks were misallocated. Under questioning from the Union, Satchell admitted that as of June 2015 about one half of the water accounts in the Village (about 3200 accounts) were delinquent. She refused to concede that the Village had been dragging its feet on bill collection. Instead she said that the failure of the two Grievants to shut off water on delinquent accounts was "a large reason that the Village is in the crisis that i's in." ‘The Union introduced several newspaper articles regarding the Village. One article described a dispute over expenditures by the current Mayor to pay for a temporary employee to supplement her regular Executive Assistant, Ms. Johnette Greenhow. Another included a comment by current Village Manager Willie Norfleet that the Village dragged its feet for years on collecting delinquent water payments. Satehell said that she disagrees with him on this point. She acknowledged that there are no newspaper accounts of the Grievants’ conduct,Mr. David Myers, Assistant Village Manager, testified that the former Village Manager retired in January 2014, shortly after the release of the audit report. Myers took over as Acting Village Manager at that time and decided to address the issue with Employees then, rather than waiting for a new Village Manager to be appointed. Letters dated March 3" were sent to both Grievants here directing them to meet with Myers on March 5, 2014, "to address your possible involvement in and knowledge conceming the misallocation of water bill payments from the customer account for which the payment was intended to other customer accounts in which you have a direct or indirect interest." The letter went on to say that, "this matter is most serious and it could result in discipline." Similar letters were int to Ms. Maria Pagan, Supervisor in the Water Department; and Ms. Johnette Greenhow, Executive Assistant to the Mayor. On the same date, a different letter was sent to Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Waller, which immediately placed them on administrative leave. Their letters stated, "this charge is of misconduct that is most serious and it could result in your termination." The two were asked to return all Village property immediately. Myers testified that he placed these two Employees on ad strative leave so that they would have no further interaction with Village financial transactions, while still offering them an opportunity to explain their conduct Myers testified that he interviewed all of the employees except for Waller, who refused to cooperate, She invoked the Fifth Amendment, and resigned. Myers testified that he believed that she moved to Georgia, and no attempt was made to subpoena her to testify at the arbitration hearing. Hernandez. and Pagan were interviewed and said that they knew nothing about thesituation, Myers said that he nevertheless concluded that both were directly involved in handling the money that was misallocated.’ Ms, Greenhow was not terminated after the Village's investigation, According to Myers, she told the Village that the account that was credited was connected with her mother’s home, and that she had no knowledge of the payments, as she did not take care of water bill payments for this address, Myers saw Greenhow and Waller talking together, and was suspicious of their relationship with regard to the payments on Greenhow’s mother’s bill. However, he said that Greenhow was not on the house deed and finally the Village decided that they did not have sufficient evidence to conelude that she knew about the misallocations to her mother’s address. No discipline was imposed upon Greenhow. Myers testified that when he met with Greenhiow over the misdirected water payments, he remembered Greenhow repeatedly saying that she did not live at her mother’s property during the time when the water account was being credited. Later the Village discovered that she had been living there during that time period. The Village did not continue the investigation of Greenhow, after discovering that she was living at her mother’s home during the appropriate time period. According to Myers, when he interviewed Grievant Slaughter, the Grievant told him that he knew that credits were being made to his account. However, Slaughter stated that Waller had approached him and asked him if he needed help with his water bill, because she had noticed that he was behind in his payments, and he told her that he did, According to Myers, Slaughter told hhim that he thought that there was some kind of program and also that Waller was making the payments “out of the kindness of her heart.” » Pagan filed a grievance over her termination, which was denied, progressed to arbitration, and was not sustained by the arbiteator. Neither testified at this arbitration‘Myers went on to say that Grievant Jay also stated that he thought there was a program, because Ms. Waller had approached him and asked him if he needed help with his water bill. Myers testified that Jay told him that he started receiving credits and that he hadn't talked t0 Waller since then regarding the matter. According to Myers, the two Grievants’ statements were “virtually identical,” although he interviewed them one day apart. Under questioning from the Union, Myers said that he thought that he had notes from these interviews. No such notes were provided at arbitration, although the Union had requested such information. Myers testified that he did not ctedit the Grievants’ explanation for their conduct because there should have been an application process for any aid program. He said that he asked Slaughter whether he had offered the program to other residents whose bills were in arrears, since his job was to shut off water for residents whose water bills we e delinquent. Slaughter said “no” and that his only contact with regard to this program had been with Ms, Waller. Myers also testified that Employees may be terminated for not paying their water bills. No evidence was introduced demonstrating that Employees have been disciplined or terminated for non-payment of their water bills. Mr. Slaughter had entered into an agreement with the Village in 2008, agreeing to a biweekly payroll deduction to pay off a past-due balance on his water account. Myers testified that the Village has suffered because the community has made comments, at public Board meetings. The community knows that there is a "water scandal... A situation within the Village related to the water department and the water department cannot be trusted. There are some of our residents that have high water bills. just pointing back to this situation, ‘ell the employees are taking the water, people stealing the water....t puts the Village in a bad light.” He acknowledged that there are no minutes for board meetings that mention the twoGrievants here, The Village introduced testimony that the Village attorney explained the scheme at issue here in detail to concerned community members during a Board meeting. Ms. Wilhelmina Dunbar, Coordinator of Human Relations, testified that her offi is next to the Water Department Office. She testified that in the past she has seen both Grievants going into the Water Department office and talking to Ms. Waller, and that this was not uncommon. She testified further that is very common for Employees to come to her and ask questions about benefits or pay. She stated that neither Grievant came to ask her about a program for funding delinquent water bills, and she would have expected them to do so if they had heard about such a program. She testified that Waller had no authority at all with regard to any kind of fund or program, Grievant Robert Jay testified that he has worked for the Public Works Department from November 2004 until he was terminated in April 2014. He has never been disciplined prior to his termination, Primarily he performed duties for the Public Works Department, including driving trucks, plowing snow, and performing street repairs. He testified that he also rarely worked as the back-up driver for the water truck, perhaps a couple of days per month. According to Jay, he rarely went to the Water Department Office. He testified that he typically started work at 7:30 ‘AM, and by the time the Water Department opened at 8:30 AM he was out on assignment. He testified that he rarely received assignments from the Water Department, or Ms. Pagan, instead receiving them through Grievant Slaughter or from the Public Works room. Mr. Jay testified that he did not interact socially with members of the Water Department outside of work, and in general he only spoke to them in p ing at the Village. According to Jay, Grievant Slaughter occasionally attended his church, which has as many as 500 attendees on10 ‘a given Sunday. Jay testified that until the investigation arose he had no reason not to trust any of the Employees who worked with the water bills, Jay testified that on or about March 25, 2014, he received a letter from the Village at his home address listing six payments to his water account with the Village that were made erroneously. He testified that at the same time, his brother received a similar letter at his residence; the water account at that location is listed in the name of Ms, Barbara Jay, their deceased mother. The Grievant had already been interviewed by the Village at that time and asked his sister, who was also living at his deceased mother's residence, whether she knew Ms. Waller. His sister told him that she and Ms, Waller used to belong to a social club together, and ‘went to parties together. Grievant Jay testified that his wife was responsible for determining how much to pay on bills every month, His role was to physically make the payments to the Village. He said that on one occasion, probably in early 2012, Ms. Waller approached him and asked him why his water bill had grown so large. He said that she told him that there was a possibility that he had toilets running in his house that were running up his bill, and as she walked away she made a comment, “YI see what I can do." Jay testified that the matter never came up again with Waller. He also testified that he was not aware at any time prior to March 2014—when he was interviewed—that he was receiving credits to his water account. Grievant Jay testified that when he received the letter on March 3, 2014, he did not understand what was going on and went to Mr, Myers office to discuss it with him. According to Grievant Jay, Myers told him that he could not discuss it with him until the meeting to be held several days later. Grievant Jay said that before he met with Myers and other Village representatives on March 6, he talked with his Union Representative Bill Sullivan (since retired), who gave him auw little more information about the investigation. Jay said that Sullivan mentioned Waller’s name, and that her name was also raised by the Village in the meeting. He said that he was shocked ‘when he leamed that his account was being credited, and told the Village about that one conversation he had with Waller. He said he offered in the meeting to pay back the improperly credited amounts. The Grievant testified that he was not told at that meeting that he could be terminated or even disciplined. Grievant Jay also stated that the Village Representatives indicated in that meeting that they believed that Barbara Jay was his wife. He told them that Barbara was his deceased mother, ‘and that he did not pay the water bills at the property in her name. According to Jay, on March. 28, as soon as he received the March 25 letter detailing the amounts wrongly credited to his ‘account, he went to Ms. Satchell to make arrangements to pay it off. He signed an agreement to repay the amounts, dated April 4, 2014, and continues to make payments at this time, Under questioning from the Village, the Grievant was asked whether he had told the Village during his March 5 meeting that his sister knew Waller. He denied that he did so. He also denied that he said at that meeting that he did not think it was unusual that there was a program, because he said that Waller never mentioned any program. He said that he never had a conversation with Waller about what she was going to do to help him. In rebuttal testimony, Myers testified that although he could not recall Jay’s statements during that meeting word for ‘word, Jay had said that he believed that there were “funds or help available or program, something to that effect.” Jay also denied that after his mother died, he obtained an ownership interest in her property. He said that it went to probate, and he just let his sister and brother deal with the house. As far as he knows, the deed is still in his mother’s name, he testified.2 Grievant Steven Slaughter testified that he has worked for the Village since 2002. His only past discipline is a written reprimand for failing to purchase a Village vehicle sticker for his, car, He testified that his job with the Public Works Department was to address residents! issues, with water reads; to repair or replace meters; and to disconnect water and service if necessary. In response to Satchell’s statement that he had not been doing his job properly, Slaughter testified that he did shut off residents’ water when required to do so. He said that he also felt he went “above and beyond” in his job duties, using his own personal vehicle for his job when his work vehicle was not operable. Slaughter testified that he performed water service shut-offs on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. On those days he would generally be in the Water Department about three times per day, and also spoke to Ms, Waller, Ms. Pagan, or the other customer service representative, Ms. Andre House during the day, in order to discuss issues with resiclents’ water accounts. He generally picked up his work orders in the morning at the Water Department before the other Employees arrived, or in his mailbox in the Public Works office. He testified that if he had 12 work orders in a day, he probably talked to the Department regarding 5 or 6 of them. If he could ‘not reach them on the telephone, he went into the Office to discuss eases with them. Slaughter testified that he had casual conversations with Employees in the Water Department office that were not work-related; for example, conversations about each other's, families. He said that Jay only worked with him about once a month, and they would converse about sports and family matters. He said that he has not had social interactions with anyone from the Water Department, other than to say “hi,” since he was terminated. Both Jay and Slaughter deny ever talking to each other about the credits to their water accounts,13 Grievant Slaughter testified that he had about three conversations with Ms. Waller about his water bills. He said that early in 2012, he was turning in work orders to her in the evening and she told him that the Village had funds available to help residents with their water bills. According to Slaughter, she asked him if he wanted help, he said “yes,” and she said she would get back to him. He said that he felt great because he was behind on his bills and needed help, but he assumed that he would still be required to pay portions of his water bill, According to Slaughter, she approached him two more times in 2012 and 2013 and stated that the Village stil had funds available if he needed assistance. She spoke in a normal tone at work and never gave him the impression that the assistance was improper. He stated that he had no reason to doubt her intentions and did not find the lack of paperwork odd, He said that he never told any other coworkers about the assistance because he felt that his finances were a personal matter. Grievant Slaughter testified that when he received the letter telling him about the ‘Village's investigation, he did not know that it was connected to the assistance Waller told him about. When he went into the meeting on March 5, the Village Representatives informed him. about a misallocation of funds, and showed him the documents. He said that he raised his address associated with his water account, once he was shown the documents from the forensic audit. He said that he thought the matter was related to the conversations he had had with Waller, and so he raised her name. Although no one at the interview told him that he was subject to discipline or termination for this situation, once they explained the misallocation of funds, situation to him, he felt the right thing to do was to repay the improper credits. After he received the letter describing the amounts misallocated to his water account, he made an arrangement to pay them back, and has done so, Until he became aware of the forensic investigation in March 2014, Slaughter said that he did not know that accepting the credits was wrong, He said that he4 regrets accepting Waller’s help but up until that time, he had never had any reason not to trust her. Under questioning from the Village, Grievant Slaughter acknowledged that he agreed to accept help from Ms. Waller and did not wonder how she got the funds to offer it to him. He said that he knew that she had been terminated by the Village on a prior oceasion and rehired, but he tumstances. He said that he was not aware of Ms, Waller did not know anything about the ci having any supervisory authority, but said he trusted her because of the knowledge and information she had about people's water accounts. Mr. Darius Jenkins testified that he has worked in the Public Works Department for the Village since 2002, and has also served as Union Steward for about the past three years. He was present for the meetings held with the Grievants on March 5 and 6, 2014, as was retired Union Representative Bill Sullivan. When they entered the room with Grievant Slaughter on March 5, the Village presented them with the results of the forensic audit and told them that Grievant Slaughter’s name came up with regard to the misallocation of water bills. Jenkins said that the Union Representatives left the room with Grievant Slaughter and told him just to tell the truth, He said that when they returned, Slaughter told the Village Representatives that Waller had approached him and told him that he was in arrears on his water bills and asked him whether he needed help. Jenkins reported that Slaughter told them at the time that because Waller asked him so openly, at work, he did not think there was anything wrong with it. According to Jenkins, the Village attorney told Slaughter that he would have to repay the amounts eredited, and Mr. Slaughter said he had no problem with repaying the amounts. With regard to the meeting with Grievant Jay, Steward Jenkins testified that when presented with the documents, Jay said he had no idea what they were talking about. He stated15 that he was not aware that his account was being credited. When asked to explain how he did not notice the credits on his water bill, Grievant Jay told them that at that time his wife received the mail, handled the bills, and told him when to go pay the bill, According to Jenkins, Grievant Jay stated in that meeting that he did have one quick passing conversation with Waller about his, water bill being in arrears, and her possibly offering help. Jenkins testified further that he did not recall any discussion in this conversation on March 6 about the Grievant's sister havin relationship with Ms. Waller. Jenkins also testified at arbitration, as Jay had, that in this meeting Village representatives said that they believed Barbara Jay was the Grievant's wife and he replied that this was in fact his deceased mother. The Grievant and the Union argued at that meeting that the house associated with the water account in his mother’s name was not the Grievant's, according to Jenkins, Grievant Slaughter was terminated with a letter dated April 2, 2014, from Acting Village Manager Myers, which stated: “{iJtis my determination that at the very least you had knowledge of the fact that another employee or employees in the water billing department credited the account of your residence... with water bill payments that you did not make. Given the fact that this, occurred on a number of occasions and at a minimum in an amount over $1600.00, itis my conclusion that you knew or should have known that the acceptance of these credits was wrongful, Your termination is in my judgment warranted due to your acceptance of the credits to your account.” Grievant Jay received a similar letter, charging that credits were accepted in an amount over $1,200.00 for his residence. His termination letter also included the credits made to the water account associated with his mother’s residence, claiming that that residence received credits of $2,600.00. Grievances were filed over both terminations, and both terminations are before the Arbitrator.16 Position of the Employer Grievant even Slaughter was terminated for just cause The Forensic Investigation Report, indicates four dates on which money sent to the Village to pay off water liens for a certain address was diverted and used to pay the water bill for the home of Grievant Slaughter. ‘The Union does not dispute that a grave wrong was committed against the Village in this case. However, the Union contends that Grievant Slaughter is an innocent vietim of scheming on the part of Waller, Hemandez, and Pagan. At her interview, Waller invoked the Fifth Amendment and resigned. Her current location is unknown but she is thought to be in Georgia. The Union's argument that the Village should have asked the Arbitrator to issue a subpoena to Waller is without merit under the circumstances, Both Pagan and Hernandez stated that they knew nothing about the misallocations in this case. The Union’s criticism of Myers for not “directly” asking these employees whether they knew that Jay and Slaughter were scheming with them does not make sense given that Hernandez and Pagan denied knowledge of any such scheme. Johnette Greenhow’s case is not like the Grievants here. She stated that she knew nothing of her mother’s account or any credits to her mother’s account and that she did not live with her mother. Long after this interview and well after the new Manager was hired, Myers heard that Greenhow may have lived with her mother. + Myers testified that Greenhow’s role as the Mayor’s assistant played no part in his decision. Therefore, the Union’s disparate treatment assertion has no merit The letter sent to Slaughter was more than sufficient in its attempt to advise him of the reason for the interview, the fact that the matter was serious, and that it could result in discipline. Similar letters were issued to Pagan, Jay, and Greenhow. The letters issued to Hernandez and Waller varied slightly and put them on immediate administrative leave, Hernandez and Waller needed to be removed to prevent continued misallocations. The Union's argument that the difference in the letters issued to different employees is significant in this case has no merit. The basis for the decision to terminate Slaughter is summarized in the termination letter from Myers to Slaughter. The letter states that following Myers’ review of interviews, forensic repor's, and related information, he concluded that atthe very least, Slaughter had knowledge of another employee or employees in the water billing department, crediting the account connected to his home address, 1500 S. 3" S7 In this termination letter, Myers further stated his conclusion that this had occurred on a number of occasions in an amount over $1600. He stated that even if Slaughter did not have direct knowledge of or involvement in this scheme, he should have known that to accept these credits was wrong, Slaughter was in the Water Department office three times a day each work day. Slaughter stated that Waller approached him one day and asked him whether he needed help with his water bill, explaining that there were funds and programs to help with this. Slaughter knew Waller to be a clerk, not a supervisor. He never asked a supervisor or any Village official about any fund or program to help with his water bill. When he had to turn off residents’ water, Slaughter never informed these residents or anyone else about funds or programs to help with payment of water bills. Slaughter knew that the Personnel Manual stated the possibility of termination for failure to pay water bills. Slaughter knew that he was receiving credits on his water bills. His monthly water bills, showed these misallocated payments. ‘Myers stated that in his interviews with Slaughter and Jay, they admitted that they knew their water bills were receiving credits from Waller. Slaughter stated to Myers that he believed this to be part of a program to help with water bill payments, “Myers stated that he did not believe Slaughter’s assertions regarding a program to help with water bill payments. If there had been such a program, there would have been an application, documentation, and information on the Village website. Village Finance Director Satchell stated that she determined that Slaughter knew of and allowed his water account to be credited with monies sent to pay other accounts. She further stated that Slaughter never came to her to ask about any program to pay water bills. Coordinator of Human Relations Dunbar testified that Slaughter has come to her office to ask questions about benefits, but did not come to her about this program, Slaughter’s acceptance of misallocated credits had a serious detrimental effect on the Village. The Village must work to return the misallocated payments, which requires a great deal of time and effort. This situation adversely affects residents” trust in the Village's water department and billing, Public employees should be held to a high standard, especially when it comes to taxpayers” money. Robert Jay was also terminated for just cause.18 The Forensic Investigation Report, indicates that on four separate dates, money sent to the Village to pay off water liens on certain addresses was diverted and used to pay the ‘water bill for the home of Robert Jay. The Report also documents six diversions to the home of Jay’s deceased mother, Barbara Jay. ‘The facts regarding Jay’s case are distinct from those of Greenhow’s case in several ‘ways. In her case, credit only went to her mother’s house, and in Jay’s case, credits were allocated to both his house and his mother’s house ‘The basis for the decision to terminate Jay was summarized in the termination letter sent by Myers, in which Myers stated his determination that Jay at least had knowledge that another employee or employees in the water department had credited the accounts for his home and his mother’s home with payments that neither he nor his mother had made, Because this occurred on a number of occasions and at minimum in an amount above $1200 for Jay’s residence and $2600 for his mother’s residence, Myers conchided that Jay should have known that it was wrong to accept these credits, Myers further stated that whether or not Jay was more directly involved in the misallocation scheme or had more specific knowledge of it, his termination was ‘warranted for wrongly accepting these credits to his account Jay testified at the hearing that Waller had approached him one day to ask about his water Dill, discussed how he may have had a leak, and said she would see what she could do. Waller was a clerk, not a supervisor, and Jay never asked a supervisor or Village official about any fund or program to help with the payment of water bills. As stated above, the Personnel Manual provides for possible termination for failure to pay water bills, Jay’s monthly water bills showed misallocated payments. Jay’s testimony at the hearing differed from what he told Myers at the interview on March 6, 2014, ‘At the hearing, Jay testified that he did not know his water bill was being credited before his interview on March 6, 2014; that Waller had never mentioned a fund or program to him; and that Waller had simply said she would “look into” his water bill. ‘The Village submits that Slaughter and Jay made similar statements at theit interviews: both acknowledged receiving credits on their water bills, and both told Myers that they thought this was due to some fund or program. It is not credible to suggest that Myers and Dunbar would both state that Jay and Slaughter had attributed the credits to some fund or program in their interviews had they not in fact done so. ‘As stated in their termination letters, Myers concluded that both Jay and Slaughter knowingly accepted credits to their water bills. Even if they did not know of or19 participate in Waller’s scheme, the Village contends that to accept these credits was wrong and that Jay and Slaughter should have known this This conduct had a serious detrimental effect on the Village, and the Village rejects the contention that Jay and Slaughter were simply victims of Waller’s scheme. ‘The Village requests that both grievances be denied. When an employer alleges that a grievant committed an act of moral turpitude, the employer bears a heavier burden of proof because such allegations may severely affect the employee’s current and future reputation, along with the loss of current employment. In this case, the Village has essentially charged both Grievants with theft, for participating in a scheme which misallocated funds from others’ accounts to their own, as well as for dishonesty, for lying in interviews about their involvement. These alleged offenses constitute acts of moral turpitude, and carry a greater stigma than do ordinary discharge cases. For this reason, the burden is on the Employer to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that each Grievant committed the alleged wrongdoing and that the penalty is appropriate. Should the Arbitrator determine that a standard below reasonable doubt is appropriate in this case, she should maintain that the Village bears the burden of proving its case clearly, and that proven conduct constituted just cause for the subsequent penalty. ‘The Arbitrator should credit Slaughter’s testimony that he performed his duties properly prior to his termination. The Arbitrator should discredit Satchell’s attempt to place blame for the Village’s water crisis on Public Works employees, as there is no evidence that the Village ever disciplined employees or informed them that they were underperforming in any way. While Myers cited a public trust concern with the Grievants’ behavior, he did not provide evidence or examples. Satchell admitted that while there was significant media coverage of the delinquencies issue, there was no media coverage of the misallocations at issue here. Slaughter testified that Waller approached him and, speaking at a normal volume for about three minutes, told him that the Village had funds to assist residents with their water bills.20 Slaughter states that Waller approached him on two other occasions and told him ina normal tone that the Village still had funds available if he needed assistance. Slaughter testified that he did not discuss this assistance with colleagues or anyone else because he viewed it as a personal matter pertaining to his family's financial situation, Even if Slaughter had wanted to help other residents, Waller had given him no paperwork or details regarding the program to provide to others. It is not unreasonable for the Grievants to consider Waller an authority on water department issues. Slaughter testified that he viewed her as very knowledgeable on such matters. Whether or not Waller truly had sch authority, she presented herself to others as an authority figure, and it is therefore not unreasonable that Employees would have believed she had the power to provide assistance. Itis undisputed that Satchel! determined that both Grievants were guilty of intentional wrongdoing based on the audit and Village records alone. Satchel! made this determination prior to interviewing the Grievants. ‘The Union is unaware of any evidence that the Grievants knew that their accounts were being credited with payments made by other people. The Village did not produce copies of any of the bills Satchell described, either the Grievants? actual bills or even samples of the Satchell’s contention is based on the assumption that Jay handled his bills during the dates of the misallocations. However, it is undisputed that Jay did not handle his bills at this time, ‘There is no evidence of the Village asking either Grievant who handled the bills in their households. ‘The Water Department employees made most of the misallocations to accounts of individuals with suspicious ties to these employees. There are connections between Waller and Reyes, Waller and Magnus, Moises Pagan and water supervisor Pagan, and Waller, Pagan, and Hernandez. No such suspicious ties existed between these employees and the Grievants. Jay testified that while he knew the office employees, he rarely interacted with them, Slaughter testified that while he too knew the office employees and interacted with them regarding work assignments and normal “chit-chat,” neither he nor anyone in his family had any suspicious ties to any of these employees.21 Despite the fact that this hearing was scheduled for months, that Waller would have had relevant information to provide in this case, and that the Employer bears the burden of proof, the Village did not subpoena Waller. The Arbitrator should also view the Village’s failure to interview House—who was, around the scene of the crime throughout its duration—as a flaw in their investigation and the overall case. The Village did not present Hernandez or Pagan as witness personal knowledge of this case. although they have Pagan’s discharge was sustained in arbitration, However, there are key undisputed facts in her misallocations which are absent in the case of either Grievant here. ‘The lack of action against Greenhow demonstrates that the Village disparately treated the Grievants, despite similarities in their situations and Greenhow’s. Like Greenhow, Jay did not handle his household's water payments and was unaware of credits being made to his home account and that of his deceased mother. Although Slaughter was aware of the payments, his water account, like Greenhow’s, was not under his name. Myers expressed concern about Greenhow’'s connection to Waller, as both were office employees working down the hall from one another, unlike Public Works employees who perform most of their duties outside the Village Hall, Further, Greenhow’s mother was credited with approximately $3000, an amount substantially higher than that credited to cither Grievant. Greenhow was also caught in a lie about whether she was living at her mother’s home while her mother’s account was receiving credits, unlike either Grievant. ‘The best explanation is that Greenhow was spared due to her close relationship with the Village Mayor. ‘The Arbitrator should credit the following as what actually transpired in Jay's interview: that he was shocked to learn the credits were being granted to him, and that after the Village raised Waller’s name, he recalled his brief interaction with her about his water account. Union Steward Jenkins corroborated Jay’s testimony, ‘There are specific misallocations which further corroborate Jay’s testimony that he had no knowledge of credits being made to his household account. ‘The Arbitrator should further draw a negative inference regarding the Village’s account of Slaughter’s interview. She should credit Slaughter’s and Jenkins’ accounts of that interview. The Village believed that Slaughter was motivated to accept the eredits due to the Village Personnel Manual stating that employees can be terminated for failing to pay their water bills. Myers admitted that the appropriate level of discipline for failing to pay a water bill would be a written warning, not termination, Myers further testified that he did not know of any member of Local 705 being terminated for not paying a water bill22 In spite of the Personne] Manual provision, it is clear that Slaughter would not have feared being terminated without warning for failing to pay his water bill. There is no evidence that the Village questioned either Grievant about who handled the ‘water bills in their households, although this information would have been helpful in determining their guilt It is an undisputed fact that Jay only began handling his water account around late December 2013, when his wife’s health had deteriorated. At this point all but one of the credits had been made to his account. His wife had handled the water bills prior to that point. Myers admitted that before the Grievants knew that they might be terminated, both agreed to make full restitution. Slaughter agreed to make this payment because he knew that something wrong had transpired and he wished to make it right. The Village’s assertion that Slaughter agreed to pay back the funds simply to save his job should be rejected, because before going to Satchell the Village never mentioned the word “termination” in connection with Slaughter and the misallocations. When Jay received a letter dated March 25, 2014 listing the improper credits, he went directly to Satchell to resolve it Village officials stated that they had no need to meet with Jay after meeting with Slaughter because they felt the same way about both cases. No grievance meeting was held for Jay. This is further evidence that the Village confused Jay’s situation with Slaughter’s, and failed to conduct a fair investigation, Although the Village argues that proving the Grievants’ receipt of credits is enough to justify discharge, this case is in fact a factual dispute as to whether the Grievants knowingly engaged in misconduct. ‘The Forensic Audit report did prove that misallocations were made; however, it did not prove that the Grievants knowingly engaged in misconduct. ‘The evidence and Union witnesses’ testimonies should lead the Arbitrator to conclude that the Grievants did not knowingly engage in wrongdoing. ‘The Union asks that the Arbitrator find that the Village failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to each Grievant in this case, thus violating the just cause provision in Article VII, Section 7.2 of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. ‘The Union further asks that the Arbitrator reinstate each Grievant with full seniority to their positions in the Public Works department, and that the Arbitrator make each Grievant whole from April 3, 2014, Should the Arbitrator determine that there is just cause to terminate only one of the Grievants, the Union asks that she reinstate and make whole the other.23 Findings and Decision In this arbitration, the Union has challenged the grievances of two Employees who have been terminated because improper credits were made to the water accounts of their homes. The Village presented convincing evidence at this hearing about its findings regarding how the improper credits were made: large checks sent in to the Village's Water Department to pay off liens imposed on properties for overdue water bills on certain properties were instead improperly applied by Village employees to the accounts of other properties. The Village concluded that the heme was employed to pay off portions of water bills for a number of Employees of the Village and their associates, including the Grievants here. In the termination letters sent to Grievants Slaughter and Jay, Myers said that the Grievants’ acceptance of the credits alone was grounds for their termination, “even if you were not more directly involved or had exact knowledge of the scheme used to misallocate water bill payments, a fact I find hard to believe...” Thus, although Village Management suspected that the Grievants knew about the entire scheme, they did not terminate Grievant Slaughter or Grievant Jay based upon evidence that they knew or understood the way the checks were mishandled, or the way that credits came to their own water accounts.‘ Instead, they were terminated only because the Village concluded that they knew about and accepted the credits to their accounts, and because they knew or should have known that they were improper. Therefore, the issue before the Arbitrator largely focuses on the Grievants’ state of mind: whether the evidence demonstrates that the Grievants knew about the credits and knew that they were improper. “The evidence demonstrates that large checks were received, and instead af being folly applied to the intended accounts, were broken up and smaller portions of them were improperly credited toa numisr of other accounts that ‘were not intended by the payer to be credited24 Under the just cause standard, the Arbitrator also must examine whether termination is an appropriate remedy for such conduct, if proven. ‘The charges that led to the termination of the Grievants are very serious. Public employers may reasonably expect their employees to maintain a high standard of conduet in regard to their service, especially with regard to their financial arrangements for services provided by the employer. According to the Village, the Grievants knowingly accepted improper financial benefits, to which they were not entitled, and which came to them only because of their position as public employees. Thus the Employer bas charged the Grievants with a breach of the public trust, and financial misconduct enriching themselves at the expense of the Village. Because of the seriousness of the charges against the Grievants, and the effect such charges, if proven, may have on their future careers and employment, the Employer must establish their guilt by very clear evidence,’ In addition, because the facts surrounding each Grievant's case are different, each grievance must be addressed separately. Grievant R. Jay’s Grievance Grievant Jay was terminated on the basis of credits that he received on the water account at his own residence, as well as credits received at a residence where other family members live. He testified at arbitration that he was not aware that any credits were being made to either The Arbitator does not apply a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” tothe evidence in such cases, boeause that standard arises fom and is more appeopriately applid in criminal cases, However, when matters of trast and financial misconduct are involved anda sine serious Violation may result in termination, a strict standard of proof is appropriate25 account until he was called into the meeting with the Village in March 2014. He said that once he was made aware of the credits in that meeting, he agreed to pay them back. The Parties presented significant differences in their testimony over what the Grievant said in that meeting in March, 2014. In his direct testimony about these meetings, Acting Village ‘Manager Myers testified in more detail about what Grievant Slaughter said in his meeting with the Village than what Grievant Jay said in his meeting, which was held a day later. The Village’s Witness testified that Grievant Jay’s testimony was “virtually identical” to Grievant Slaughter’ in these meetings, that both raised a program or fund that Ms. Waller had told them about, and and both indicated that they believed that the credits on their accounts were coming from that source However, Grievant Jay testified that he did not discuss any kind of program at that ‘meeting because he did not know about the credits until that meeting, and never knew about a “program.” He acknowledged at arbitration that, after the Village described the misallocation scheme to him and raised Ms. Waller's name, he discussed with the Village a fleeting, conversation he had had with her about his high water bills. However, although he said that Waller told him in that conversation that she might be able to help him with what she had observed in his account, a sudden increase in his water bills,” Jay said that he did not think that anything came of that conversation — at least until he was informed about the credits on his account, and Waller's name was raised as a part of that scheme. His account of his statements at that meeting is thus significantly different from what Management reported at arbitration, Neither Party presented at arbitration notes from these meetings, although Myers testified that he believed he had such notes. However, the Union Steward who was present at the “He also testified that Waller told him thatthe sud increase in his bills might be due ois oles running, ‘without him being aware of it26 meetings for both Grievants testified in detail about them at arbitration. He said that when confronted with the evidence about the credits made to his account, Grievant Jay said that he was ‘not aware of any such credits, and maintained that position throughout the March 2014 meeting. It is possible that the Union Witnesses have forgotten what was said, or are trying to present the Grievant in the best possible light with their testimony. However, the Union Steward ‘was not present when the Grievants testified and his testimony with regard to Grievant Slaughter mirrors that of the Village’s Witnesses, lending credibility to his overall account that was acknowledged by the Village at the hearing. In addition Jenkins provided details of that meeting that corroborate with other evidence in the record, e.g, that the Grievant gave the same reason in that meeting as he did in arbitration for his lack of awareness of the credits: that his wife handled the bills, and his role was to pay the amount she told him to pay.” It is possible that, without the benefit of notes, Manager Myers may have simply confused the statements of the two Grievants, ‘made one day apart from each other, nearly two years ago. Also, since both Grievants discussed in their meetings that Waller had had conversations with them about helping them, the Village may have leapt to the conclusion that Grievant Jay was providing this information as an explanation for credits which he knew about, as Grievant Slaughter had done on the previous day, rather than credits he had just found out about. On the basis of this record, however, there is, not sufficient convineing evidence to conclude that Grievant Jay admitted in March 2014, that he was aware of the credits to his account, This is a s jons of the two snificant difference in the p ” Although Director Satchell testified thatthe Grievants should have known, from looking at their bills, what ‘payments had been made in the previous month, no actual bills were inteodiced into evidence, showing the credit payments a issue here, Nevertheless, neither Grievant testified thatthe bills were confusing, or did no list payments ‘made in the prior month; Grievant Jay said that he did not sce them, during this period, and Grievant Slaughter said that he was aware ofthe eredits made to his accountea Grievants, as Grievant Slaughter had candidly admitted knowing about the credits during his meeting with the Village. ‘There is also other evidence in the record supporting Grievant Jay's testimony that he was, not aware of the credits to his account. When he received the letter informing him about the meeting to be held on March 5, he went to see Mr. Myers to determine what was going on. It is unlikely that he would have done so if he knew or even suspected that improper credits had been applied to his water account Furthermore, the record of cash payments made by Grievant Jay to his water account undermines the Village’s conclusion that he was aware of the payments, For example, the record shows that on March 5, 2012, the Grievant made a cash payment of $304.93 to his account, on the same day that a check, in the same amount," was improperly credited to his account. Since $304.93 was the full amount due on his account at that time, itis highly unlikely that he knew about the check amount improperly credited to his account for that same amount. Itis also unlikely that he would have paid off his account in full, with this large payment, if he believed that the account was going to be credited (and in this case, paid off in full again) as part of the improper scheme. Similarly, on April 11, 2013, he made another payment in cash that was very close in amount to an improper amount that was credited to his account from another misallocated check on the same day. ‘The record also shows that he continued to make substantial cash payments to this account throughout this period, instead of making small nominal payments. For example, in August 2012, his account showed a balance of $298.57. He made two cash payments that month, one for $200 and a second one for $98.57, bringing his account balance to 0. Nevertheless, an improper check credit of $420.90 was applied to his account later * Actually the second payment was made as one of a group of smaller payments to multiple aecounts carved aut of a larger check intended for another snele account28 in the month, Again, itis not clear why he would have continued to make large payments to his account, and to pay it off in full, if he knew that he were receiving improper credits to his account. In addition, a final improper credit was made on his account after he already had received the letter instructing him to appear to discuss the misallocations in relation to the water department. It is not sufficient for the Employer to establish simply that credits were made to the Grievant's water counts. The Village also must prove that he knew about the credits, that he intentionally accepted improper payments to his account, On the basis of the record described above, the Arbitrator concludes that there are serious weaknesses the Village’s evidence that Grievant Jay was aware of the credits going to his account. Furthermore, there is even less evidence that he knew about the credits going to the account of his dk -ased mother, Village Management mistakenly assumed that “Barbara Jay”” was the Grievant’s wife, after the forensic investigation, When the Grievant told them that Barbara Jay was in fact his deceased mother; that other relatives lived in her house; and that he ‘was not responsible for paying the bills there, the Village continued to hold him accountable for the credits that were directed to that account. Village Management asserted that the Grievant was, on the deed for that property, but he denied that, and the Village did not produce the deed, or even a Witness saying that they had seen a deed in his name. In addition, he provided information that his sister, who did live at their deceased mother’s home, knew Waller socially; therefore, that relationship may have been the reason Waller provided credits to that account, However, the Village continued to hold the Grievant as the responsible party for that account, and discharged him in part on the basis of credits made to that account, even though it has not29 established a convincing connection between him and his deceased mother’s property, on this, record.” The Village's treatment of Grievant Jay differed significantly from its treatment of Employee Johnette Greenhow. Greenhow also was questioned about the credits going to her mother’s property, and like Grievant Jay, denied any knowledge of them. The evidence indicates that her asserted lack of knowledge of the credits was based in large part upon her claim that she ‘was not living at her mother’s residence during the time period when the eredits were received. Myers testified that the Village discovered later that that was not true. Her failure to tell the truth about this important fact suggests that she may have had something to hide, ie. that she may have been aware of the credits when they were issued to the account at the place where she was living, However, the Village failed to conduct further investigation and failed to go back to Greenhow and ask her why she had not told the truth about the fact that she was living in her ‘mother’s home, at the time when the water account there was credited with misallocated funds. The only reason offered by the Village for not submitting Greenhow to further investigation is that some (undefined) time had passed before they discovered that she was living in the home, However, five Employees were terminated or resigned as a result of this very serious situation, and the sixth employee was also in a position where it appeared that she had benefitted from improper credits. It is difficult to understand why the Village would not pursue further investigation of this employee after discovering that she had concealed that she was, living in a property that received some of the improper credits. Grievant Jay was in a similar position to Greenhow: he denied knowing about credits going to the house where he was living, ” Furthermore, the patern of ash payments on Barbara Jays account is significantly different than the pattern of payments onthe acount in Grievant Jay's aecount, with few cash payments being made on Barbara Jay's account, fle the credits stated being applied tothe account.30 and also denied knowledge of credits going to the account of a relative. He did not lie about where he was living, however, as Greenhow did. In addition, there is not evidence that he had much contact with Waller, compared with the amount of contact which Myers observed between Waller and Greenhow. Nevertheless, Greenhow’s explanation was accepted and she received no discipline; Grievant Jay’s explanation was not accepted and he was terminated. ‘The Village’s failure to terminate Greenhow was based upon its conclusion that it could ‘not terminate an Employee who was not aware of the credits being made to the account where the Employce was living.” The Village concluded, however, that Grievant knew that he was receiving improper credits to his water account. There is not sufficient convincing evidence on this record to support that conclusion, however, in order to meet the standard of proof necessary to terminate an Employee for such a serious offense, especially when the Employee has a long and very good record with the Employer, as this Employce does. Furthermore, the evidence establishes that another Employee was in a situation similar-or worse. than that of the Grievant, with regard to this situation, yet the Village treated her much more favorably than him, as she was not terminated or even disciplined. The Union has argued that the reason for the unequal treatment was the political favor enjoyed by Greenhow, because of her close relationship with the Mayor. However, the motive for treating the two Employees differently does not matter, if their conduct is the same or similar; disparate treatment in that situation violates the tenets of just cause. The evidence does not establish a significant difference in the conduct of the two. Employees here. "The Village suggests that Greenhow's situation differs from Jay's because the account was in Grievant Jay's name, However, the Village held Jay accountable forthe account in his mother's name, and held Slaughtce accountable forthe account in his wife's name.31 Forall of the reasons discussed above, the termination of Grievant Jay does not meet the standards of just cause, and must be reversed. The evidence does not clearly establish that he knew that he was receiving the credits. In addition, his position is not significantly different from the situation of another Employee, who was treated more favorably. Grievant S. Slaughter’s Grievance Unlike Grievant Jay, Grievant Slaughter testified that he told the Village during its investigation that he knew about the credits to his account. When he went into the meeting with the Village, he said that he first raised his home address, and acknowledged that it was his, even though the account listed at that address is in his wife’s name. He candidly admitted that credits were made to his account, and never claimed that because the account was in his wife’s name, he did not know about them. He testified that he raised his address and Ms. Waller’s name in that ‘meeting because he believed that his multiple conversations with her were related to the credits, on his account, and were, in fact, the reason for these credits. The reports of Mr. Myers and Mr. Jenkins and the Grievant about what occurred at the March 5 meeting are very similar, and do not disagree in any significant details, as do the accounts relating to Grievant Jay's meeting, Mr. Slaughter’s grievance is based upon his argument that he accepted the credits to his account because he trusted Ms, Waller when she told him that there was a program to help him reduce his high water service account. It is true that there is no evidence in the record that Waller had ever given him any reason to mistrust her, before the events which took place here. The Grievant said that he thought that she was helping him out, out of “the goodness of her heart.” However, some offers are too good to be true, and it is not believable that the Grievant, in his32 position, did not recognize that this was one of them. It is not credible that he believed that Waller, who was not in any position of supervision or authority, would have the authority, on her own, to forgive a debt of more than $1,000.00 that he owed to the Village. It is difficult to believe that the Grievant truly concluded that just because Waller had knowledge about and processed residents’ water accounts, she also would have this far greater authority, under some program that was not named, had no written paper or brochure describing it, and no forms to fil out to apply for it, He also did not provide his understanding of the details of the program. The Grievant testified that he knew that he had to continue to make some payments to his account, for example, but he did not provide any details about his understanding of how much he was required to pay, and how much he would be receiving in credits. ‘The Grievant's position with the Village also makes it less likely that he believed that there was a legitimate program of the nature he thought was funding the credits to his account. It is difficult to believe that anyone who works for the Village does not know of its significant financial problems, In addition, the Grievant's job in part was to process shut-off of water service for residents who were far in arrears on their water accounts. He likely had some idea that a large number of water accounts were in arrears at the Village. If there were a legitimate program that was available to significantly reduce a resident’s water service debt to the Village, it is difficult to believe that the Grievant would not have made residents aware of the program, ‘This is especially true since he had shown a sensitivity, Ms. Satchell reported, to the consequences of residents’ inability to pay their water account debts. ‘The Grievant reported that he did not discuss the matter with any other co-workers, supervisors, managers, Village officials or residents, because he viewed his receipt of the credits as a private financial matter. The Arbitrator understands that he may have been embarrassed to33 discuss his debt to the Village with other co-workers. However, he would not have had to divulge that he was a beneficiary of such a program in order to offer information about it to other residents of the Village. The fact that he did not do so strongly suggests that he knew that the substantial credits he was receiving to his account were improper. ‘The Union disputes some of the negative consequences of the Grievant’s actions which ‘were argued by the Village in this case. There is not convincing evidence in the record that his name was specifically raised in Board meetings or that the matter was discussed in newspaper articles. And the Union argues convincingly that public attention was paid to other aspects of the Village’s Water Department problems, such as a long-term institutional lack of effort and/or success in collecting its water service debts. In addition, the Union pointed to publicity concerning other expenditures by the Village which have been criticized as unnecessary or excessive. In the midst of bad publicity for a number of the Village’s actions, it is difficult to parse out exactly how much of that negative publicity or public ill-will is attributable to the improper behavior of the Village’s Water Department Employees that is at issue here. However, there was convincing evidence that the Village's attomney had described the scheme in some detail during at least one Board meeting where residents were complaining about high water bills, and itis reasonable to conclude that some ill feeling resulted from this information, In addition, it is likely that other Employees knew about the situation, and the special benefits that some Employees had taken. However, even if there were no bad publicity about the Grievant’s conduct, it would still be conduct for which significant discipline is warranted. Public employees are not permitted to use their positions to receive special financial benefits. Fven if the Grievant did not seek out such special treatment, he accepted it when it was offered by a co-worker, and received credits on his34 debt to his Employer for a Village service that amounted to more than $1600.00. The same benefits were not made available to other co-workers or residents of the Village, in connection with the vital water service it provides, except for a select few residents who were friends or associates of certain Employees. The Grievant may not have known about the scheme that funded the credits, but that fact does little to diminish his culpability. He should have known that he needed to seek clear approval from Management for any such financial aid for his debt to his Employer, and not rely upon a co-worker’s informal offer of help, especially a co-worker who had no apparent authority to offer it, His failure to seek any such approval, and his failure to share his knowledge of such benefits with any other residents, strongly indicates that he knew that receiving these credits in this fashion was not proper. Such conduct destroys the trust that ‘must be present in the employment relationship. The Employer's conclusion that discharge is the appropriate penalty for such conduct is not unreasonable, ‘The Arbitrator has considered that under this ruling Grievant Slaughter is receiving the ultimate penalty of termination, and that Employee Greenhow was not disciplined at all and Grievant Jay’s termination will be overturned by this Award, However, the record of evidence presented to this Arbitrator is not sufficient to establish that either Jay or Greenhow did know about the credits. Therefore, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Grievant Slaughter has been treated more harshly than other Employees in the same position, since the evidence has, not established that these other Employees were in the same position of knowing that they were receiving improper credits, as was Mr. Slaughter.35, AWARD ‘The grievance of Grievant Robert Jay is sustained, for the reasons set forth above. He will be reinstated with full backpay and made whole for any other benefits lost as a result of his termination, ‘The Arbitrator will retain jurisdiction solely over the remedy portion of this award ‘The grievance of Grievant Steven Slaughter is denied, for the reasons set forth above. Jeanne M. Vonhof Labor Arbitrator Decided this 29" day of February, 2016.