New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Arbitrator upholds firing of three former East Haven town employees
EAST HAVEN — The firing of three former town employees for receiving unemployment and pandemic-related benefits while still being paid by the town has been upheld by an arbitrator, documents show.
The three employees — Zack Barker, an account clerk in the Tax Collector’s Office and former AFSCME Local 1303-159 union president; Loribeth Rodriguez, an administrative assistant in the Engineering department; and Jamie Maturo, administrative assistant and secretary to the director of Public Works and daughter of former Mayor Joe Maturo Jr. — were fired in June 2020.
All three employees were fired after an investigative report by an outside labor law firm found that they had collected unemployment compensation while still being paid by the town, did so “knowingly and improperly” and provided “dishonest answers” about it to the town.
Maturo, Barker and Rodriguez filed grievances after being fired in the hopes of having their jobs reinstated in July 2020 but an arbitrator found the former employees filed for unemployment despite being ineligible and that Maturo did not try to cancel her unemployment claim until the town had become aware of the situation, according to documents.
“It is clear that Grievant M [Maturo] improperly filed for UI [unemployment insurance] while she was being paid and she provided virtually no reason to mitigate the discipline,” arbitrator Michael Ricci wrote in his decision. “Her total defense is, that she did not file for UI, but somehow, she received $982 per week (inclusive of dependent allowances) for every week from April 11, until at least her termination.”
One defense the grievant gave under testimony was that she did not know she filed for unemployment insurance but the town argued that Maturo received a debit card from unemployment and spent money off it, thus knowing it was an unemployment benefit, the findings read.
Ricci wrote that this argument was “illogical” as Maturo acknowledged she knew where the debit card came from but that she thought it was stimulus money.
“Like the other grievants, the common excuse is that she did not file a weekly claim, therefore, she did not file for UI,” Ricci. “However, the various DOL [Department of Labor] correspondences clearly convey she has an active UI claim paying $982 a week.”
All three employees were never laid off but filed as though they had been.
There also was an allegation that the three employees conspired when filing for unemployment but Ricci wrote that there was enough factual evidence on which to base a ruling so there was no need to conjecture on intent.
Ricci stated that all three former employees gave strikingly similar answers on certain issues and the “barely plausible” assertion from all three that they had no recollection or record of any group responses to a text from Barker that the three employees said led them to file for unemployment.
The text Ricci referred to in his findings was sent in April 2020 by Barker to a group of union members telling them to file for unemployment as he had and encouraged others to do the same.
On March 17, when Town Hall closed due to the pandemic, employees received an email that they may be eligible to file for unemployment; however, the following day, all employees, including Barker, received an email stating the town had decided to keep all employees on their full regular pay through
April 17.
That date was later extended to May 1 as the pandemic continued.
“If there was a conspiracy, it failed: only three of the 25 bargaining unit members filed for and collected UI while being paid, and only 30 percent of the text recipients (including the author) did,” Ricci said. “One would assume the group that did not file realized it was improper to file and collect UI benefits while they were being paid to stay home.”
The union, ASFCME, AFL-CIO, argued the former employees’ actions should be mitigated by the Department of Labor’s determination that over-payments are mistakes not fraud and employees should not be penalized.
Ricci said the issue is not the over-payment but that the employees improperly filed for unemployment, which he said is well documented.
The arbitrator wrote that the town had cause to act and that the union’s arguments were not persuasive enough to prove the town’s discipline against the three former employees was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.
“We are pleased with these decisions. Mr. Ricci is a highly respected arbitrator,” said David Ryan of Ryan & Ryan, which conducted the initial investigation for the town and represented it throughout the arbitration process.
A request for comment to Paul Lavallee, staff representative for the union listed on all three decisions, was not immediately returned.