CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

LABOR DEPARTMENT

38 WOLCOTT HILL ROAD

WETHERSFIELD, CONNECTICUT

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM
Hartford, City of
and
HMEA
Local

Case# 2009-A-0156 Vilma Rivera-Saez #

ARBITRATION AWARD

Copies were sent to the following parties:

Stephen F. McEleney, Esquire Joseph Parker, Ph. D.
f \/""?
Ivan Ramos, Esquire Marc S. Mandell, Esquire*- ----
Santiago Malave, Dir. Of Pers. Frank Krzywicki
C~ ro -"o
Rhonda Moniz-Carroll, President ^^ co
Town Clerk* ^ j>
File vj^ n
§_
%) -^
*When applicable, this transmittal is filed with the town CONTACT PERSOlV
clerk in accordance with Section 3 1-98, Chapter 560, of Ivette Hernandez
the Connecticut General Statutes.
 TOWN & CITY CLERR
HARTFORD

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR -.
BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION DEC 28 A Hr U I

ARBITRATION AWARD

In the Matter of: ) CASE NO. 2009-A-0156

)
CITY OF HARTFORD ) HEARING DATES: May 26, 2009
) June 19, 2009
-AND- £WARD DATE: December 9, 2009
HARTFORD MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION J

AWARD DATE:

LOCATION OF HEARING:
Department of Labor
Wethersfield, Ct.

Appearances:

For the City: Ivan A. Ramos, Esq.

For the Union: Stephen F. McEleney, Esq.

ISSUE

Did the City of Hartford terminate Vilma Rivera-Saez for just cause?

If not, what shall the remedy be?

 CASENO.20Q9-A-0156 PAGE 3

system. This task, which is usually performed at the end of the day, is referred to as "closing out".

As part of the closing out process, the cashiers are required to prepare a document called "Daily

Deposit Reconciliation Record". This document lists all the checks and cash received by a

particular cashier and certifies that monies received are properly accounted for and that the

deposits in the box match the deposits recorded in the Munis system. A printout of the Munis

report is attached to the Daily Deposit Reconciliation Record. The cash and the checks itemized

in the Daily Deposit Reconciliation Record must match the checks and the cash in the Munis

report. The adding tape used in the closing out process is also attached to the Deposit

Reconciliation Record.

Deputy Finance Director Lydia Rosario testified that the grievant received extensive

training during the time that she worked for the City. She attended a supervisor's training

provided by an independent firm known as Skill Path. She also received on-site training provided

by a representative of the Bank of America and attended a lengthy series of seminars organized by

the Connecticut Tax Collector's Association. In addition, Ms. Rosario indicated that the grievant

received "on the job training" by Linda Savitsky, a service consultant hired by the City to assist

the Tax Collector's Office. Moreover, Mr. Thomas Bowley, an internal auditor with the City of

Hartford, testified that he provided guidance and assistance to employees in the cashier's area on a

regular basis.

In the summer of 2008, Patrick Campbell, the City's Chief Auditor, was asked to

investigate a series of cash shortages in the Tax Collector's Office. The investigation revealed the

existence of a scheme in which checks were substituted for cash in several daily deposits made

during the month of November of 2007. Mr. Campbell found that someone in the Tax Office had

taken cash out of a cashier's box and replaced it with checks that had been received through the

mail. In his testimony, Mr. Campbell gave a general description of how the scheme operated:
 CASE NO. 2009-A-0156 PAGE 5

lea've his cash register open while he went for lunch of for a break. Subsequently, the grievant

admitted that she told Mr. Vazquez to leave the cash register open.

Mr. Campbell found that checks were also exchanged for cash on November 28, 2007.

The Daily Deposit Reconciliation Record on this date was prepared by Yordano Vazquez, an

employee that she supervised. Employment records show that the grievant gave Mr. Vazquez very

good evaluations. She indicated that Mr. Vazquez's job performance was commendable in most

areas. Moreover, the grievant failed to present any records or documents that show that Mr.

Vazquez was disciplined or even counseled by her.

On or around January of 2008, a taxpayer by the name of Talish A. Graves came to the Tax

Collector's Office to complain that a $200.00 check that she had paid to the City, back in

November 2007, had not been credited to her account. It turns out, that this $200.00 payment was

one of the checks that had been substituted for cash back on November 15, 2007. Coincidentally,

this check was endorsed by the grievant and deposited with the Daily Deposit Reconciliation

Record that she prepared on November 15, 2007. When the grievant became aware of the fact of

this issue, she proceeded to credit the $200.00 towards Ms. Graves' account without conducting

any investigation to determine the reason why the check was not deposited properly. The grievant

used a Daily Deposit Reconciliation Record for the transaction but did not notify any of her

superiors of the problem.

Patrick Campbell testified that the grievant was responsible for doing the office's daily

deposit to the Bank. This deposit included all the monies collected during the day by all the

cashiers in the office. At the end of the day, she would gather all the money in a sealed bag and

hand it over to a courier from an armored car service. Mr. Vazquez was not involved in this

process at all. On two occasions, the bags contained shortages; one for $2,400 and another for

$100.00.
 CASENO.2009-A-0156 _ PAGE 7

Vazquez for his failure to do his job. The grievant was clearly negligent in this respect,

particularly in light of the fact that she had to go out of the way to close out for Mr. Vazquez. She

went as far as endorsing the back of the checks that had not been endorsed. Curiously, these

checks were not received at the cashier's window. These checks came from the mail and were

later substituted for cash in Mr. Vazquez's locked box.

The grievant's testimony was contradictory with respect to Mr. Vazquez's job

performance. She indicated that he had "prior problems", however, Mr. Vazquez's performance

history reveals that he had very good evaluations.

The grievant showed that she was a poor supervisor when she criticized Mr. Vazquez but

failed to articulate the precise nature of his problems. She did not explain why she had to close

out for Mr. Vazquez on three occasions within a period of seven days.

The grievant did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to why she had to assume Mr.

Vazquez's responsibilities on November 15th, 16th and 21st, Unfortunately, she failed to use these

three occasions to teach Mr. Vazquez or to help him improve his skills. Indeed, Mr. Vazquez's

skills probably worsened as a result of his supervisor's intervention. She showed Mr. Vazquez the

wrong procedures when she allowed the cash register to be closed out without balancing the

checks and the cash with the Munis report. This omission on her part could have confused a

subordinate employee and lead him to believe that the Munis report was not important. Therefore,

the grievant failed miserably as a supervisor because she allowed Mr. Vazquez to use improper

closing procedures.

The grievant also failed as a supervisor when she instructed her subordinate employee to

keep his drawer open during lunch and during break. Allowing a cash register to remain open is

clearly wrong and highly suspicious. There should be only one cashier per cash register. Any

person responsible for a cash drawer should know that cashiers cannot share cash registers. If a
 CASE NO. 2009-A-0156 PAGE 9

Mr. Lee Erdmann, the decision-maker in the grievant's termination, was unequivocal in the

allegation contained in his August 4, 2008 termination letter in which he stated that

"The misappropriation of cash through the substitution of seven checks for cash in a cashier's

daily batches totaling $6,657.73 on four separate occasions even though there was no need for you

to be involved in any of the batches or to have completed the Daily Deposit and Reconciliation

Record form for any of the cash shortages;" Mr. Erdmann fired the grievant because he claimed

she stole $6,657.73 on four separate occasions.

The City does not dispute the grievant's testimony that Mr. Vazquez brought the grievant

the cash and checks on the three occasions. The grievant was assisting Mr. Vazquez because he

had so many prior problems. Mr. Vazquez handed the grievant the cash and checks which the

grievant then totaled up and put on the Daily Deposit and Reconciliation Record. The cash was

correctly totaled. The checks were correctly totaled. The combination of dash and checks was

correctly totaled. The grievant then checked the total deposit against the Munis system which

showed up on the screen at her desk. Her screen only showed the total. Mr. Vazquez then took

the form, in each instance, and printed out the pages from the Munis system. The grievant never

saw a hard copy of the Munis report. No one testified she did.

Mr. Vazquez took the checks and cash from his drawer, handed them to the grievant for

counting and tallying, took the checks and cash back to his workstation, printed out the Munis

report and attached it. Despite his responsibility for his drawer, Mr. Vazquez allegedly never

noticed the fact the checks did not reconcile with the checks or the cash with the case. Mr.

Vazquez faced no discipline whatsoever. The grievant was fired.

It was the City Auditor, Mr. Campbell, who discovered the "swap" of cash for checks. Mr.

Campbell admitted he "can't say" who took the money.

 CASENO.2009-A-0156 PAGE 11

Again, there is absolutely no documentary or testimonial evidence of any shortcoming by

the grievant in regard to filling out shortage reports. This, once again, evidences the City's

eagerness to make unsubstantiated allegations against the grievant.

There is no evidence whatsoever the grievant was warned that it is "unacceptable work

performance' for a supervisor to assist a subordinate who is having trouble in preparing

reconciliation reports by filling out a deposit report. The record is also devoid of any directive

whatsoever to the grievant that she should not engage in this conduct. How would a rule

prohibiting a supervisor from assisting a subordinate having problems in filling out records

reasonably relate to the efficient operations of the employer?

It is true the grievant assisted Mr. Vazquez with the records. However, there is no proof

there was any rule or directive precluding this conduct.

Assuming there was a rule against this conduct, there was no verbal or written warning to

the grievant she would be disciplined if she violated this theoretical rule. It would be absurd to

suggest termination as an appropriate remedy for assisting a subordinate.

Another allegation involves the $200.00 check which was brought in by a taxpayer on

January 17, 2008. This was the same customer who paid $200.00 by check number 1512 on or

about November 12, 2007 which was one of the checks swapped for cash.

When the taxpayer came in with the cancelled check two months later, the grievant dealt

with the customer. The grievant determined from the cancelled check the $200.00 had indeed

been deposited into the City's account and not credited to the taxpayer. Hence, the grievant gave

the taxpayer a $200.00 credit and created a record of the transaction noting "CK Dep. But not in

Munis system -proof of @R attached." The grievant then attached to this report a copy of the

cancelled check. Both Mr. Greco and the grievant testified the document was passed on to the
 CASE NO. 2009-A-0156 . PAGE 13

It is undisputed the grievant did, on occasion, tell Mr. Vazquez to leave his cash drawer

open when he took lunch at lunchtime. The grievant was instructed by Ms. Rosario to personally

assist in covering windows at lunchtime. The grievant was not instructed she could not ask a

cashier to leave a drawer open so she could assist with the customers. The grievant never saw any

written policy or procedure prohibiting a cash drawer from being open to cover for customers

during lunchtime. None of the City's witnesses were aware of any written policy or procedure in

the City of Hartford prohibiting this practice.

The best the City could offer on this point was the testimony of Mr. Bowley, a City

auditor. Mr. Bowley was dispatched by the Auditor's Office to attempt to address the chaos in the

City of Hartford Tax Department. Mr. Bowley was in the Tax Office between October and

December, 2006. At that time, the grievant was a cashier, not a supervisor. The supervisor was

Marlene Fleeting at the time. Mr. Bowley testified he told all of the cashiers they were expected

to look after their cashboxes, were not to share them and were "100% responsible for the cash that

was in there". At the time, the grievant was a cashier and no doubt took the admonition to mean

she was responsible for her own drawer.

However, that instruction from someone not in the Tax Office and not a supervisor, was

given in the fall of 2006, when the grievant was a cashier. She was promoted to supervisor in

early 2007 and the incidents in question took place at the end of 2007.

It is unfair to assume that because someone from the Auditor's Office, attempting to help

the Tax Office with numerous problems, suggested to cashiers they are responsible for their

drawers, that the grievant must interpret that to mean she could not ask a cashier to keep a drawer

open at lunchtime once she was a supervisor.

The City alleges the grievant engaged in this practice on several occasions. If this practice

was in violation of a rule or regulation, why didn't anyone point out to the grievant that she was
 CASENO.20Q9-A-0156 PAGE 15

To terminate this grievant based upon the allegations of failure to follow unwritten, vague

or non-existent "policies and procedures" without prior written warning or prior discipline is

simply unacceptable.

DISCUSSION

The Panel met in Executive Session to discuss the issue put before it by the parties based

upon the evidence submitted to it for consideration.

The Panel concluded that there was no question that the grievant had failed to perform her

supervisory duties correctly. Specifically, it is accepted fiscal practice that any cashier is held

accountable for his/her cash drawer and not to pass this responsibility to a third party even if it is

his/her supervisor.

The grievant's satisfactory rating of her subordinate's performance despite her claims that

he "had problems" was baffling to the Panel. As supervisor, she is required to document an

employee's work performance and to coach/counsel the employee in steps to improve

performance. No such evidence of any coaching, counseling or documentation of performance

deficiencies was offered.

Although the City implied that the grievant had "stolen" money through an improper

deposit scheme, there was no evidence offered to show the grievant was, in fact, a thief thus this

implication was quickly put aside by the Panel. Had the City been able to prove what it apparently

believes to be true, the disciplinary action taken in this case would have been supported.

Therefore, the Panel had to review the City's argument that the grievant had been "grossly

negligent" in the performance of her duties. Here the Panel agreed with the City's position that

the grievant's inappropriate handling of a cashier's accounts was fiscally irresponsible. When she

directed an employee to leave his cash drawer open, this employee was no longer offered a safe

and secure work environment. Regardless of the reason claimed, it was wrong and improper.
CASEN0.2009-A-0156 PAGE 17

to leave it open during his break or lunch period? The Panel does not support the Union's

contention that the grievant did not have to follow an auditor's previous admonition regarding

cash drawers once she became a supervisor simply because it was said before she became a

supervisor. She was well aware of the importance to have secure cash drawers and had received

training in collection procedures.

In light of the above, the Panel rules that the termination of the grievant was too harsh a

level of discipline but that the grievant is also culpable for deficiencies and is deserving of

discipline therefore, the discipline is reduced to that of an indefinite suspension without back pay

and/or benefits.

AWARD

The grievance is sustained. The City of Hartford did not have just cause to terminate

Vilma Rivera-Saez. The discipline shall be reduced to that of an indefinite suspension. She shall

be restored to her position sans back pay and/or benefits. Additionally, she shall be trained in the

department's current practices and procedures.

Joseph A. Parker, PhD

Panel Chair

Marc S. Mandell, Esq.

Management Member

rank R. Krzywicki
Labor Member
 Dissenting Opinion

I respectfully dissent because I believe that there was overwhelming evidence that

the grievant engaged in misconduct including taking money that residents had paid to

to the City of Hartford's Office of Tax Collector. The residents thought reasonably that

the money they were sending to the Office of Tax Collector was being used to pay their

property taxes, primarily for motor vehicles. Instead the money was used in a scheme to

deprive the City of Hartford of its tax dollars and to deprive the residents of Hartford

from receiving proper credit for having paid their property taxes. I therefore believe that

restoration of the grievant to her supervisory position in the very office where the

misconduct took place and where she played a leading role in the scheme is improper

in light of the contract and in light of public policy.

The scheme was not terribly sophisticated or difficult to understand. When taxes

are paid, the cashier makes an entry into the Munis system that states how much money

was taken in and by what means (cash, check or money order). At the end of each day,

the cashier does a reconciliation to make sure what is in his or her cash register matches

what is recorded into the Munis system. If things do not match, then an investigation is

needed to reconcile the Munis system report with what was in the cash register.

In the three instances which were brought before the panel by the City of Hartford,

it was proven by uncontroverted evidence that checks were received and

routed to the cash register of a hapless cashier named Vasquez. In each of the

instances, there was uncontroverted evidence that the grievant instructed Vasquez to

leave his cash register open.1 In each of the instances, checks were put into the cash

1
Vasquez was the grievant's subordinate. As supervisor, the grievant could and did require Vasquez to
leave his cash drawer open. Vasquez made no independent decisions.
Hartford to reduce the grievant in rank. When she returns, she will once again be

supervising all of the cashiers and the cashiers will be required to obey her

instructions. I find that troublesome and therefore dissent.