DAC Employees Seek Unionization; Employee Fired Jan. 6 Reinstated Thursday

Peyton Place has nothing on the District Animal Control (DAC) serving the towns of Orange, Bethany and Woodbridge.

Nearly three and a half hours after it started, DAC board members, who still had not worked completely through the original agenda, threw in the towel on Thursday evening and adjourned its meeting at 10:47 p.m., but not before reversing last week’s firing of a part-time DAC worker.

This, after a grueling open session where members considered the case of a terminated part-time DAC employee, Ryan Sheehy of East Haven, who is among a group of DAC employees who last week signed cards seeking representation from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union.

According to a letter from DAC Treasurer Joseph F. Hellauer dated Jan. 10, Sheehy was “terminated” on Jan. 6 “for unsatisfactory work performance and improper use of the [DAC] computer.” The case has already been appealed to the state labor board.

In that same letter, Sheehy was invited to appear before the DAC board on Jan. 13 “to appeal his discharge.”

At Thursday’s meeting, Sheehy had the option of having his appeal heard in public or private session and he opted for a public airing. He was represented at the meeting by AFSCME Field Representative Dena Fleno, who charged DAC officials with improper hiring, oversight and termination procedures, and attempting to bust the unionization effort. She repeatedly asked DAC officials to produce a written job description, copies of progressive discipline warnings and other materials related to Sheehy’s employment.

More than once, Fleno noted the ironic timing of the firing, just days after Sheehy and at least two other DAC employees signed cards seeking AFSCME labor representation.

After a series of pointed exchanges between DAC board members and Fleno, the board went into an executive session that lasted more than an hour. And in a stunning reversal of its termination action just six days ago, the board offered Sheehy his job back with certain parameters and conditions, including newly fixed hours and specifically defined duties. Sheehy was told he could report to work at 8 a.m. Friday.

However, in a move that surprised board members, Fleno asked for a copy of the new duties for Sheehy to sign off on, and when told it would not be ready for a week to 10 days and that Sheehy would not have the luxury of “signing off” on anything, Sheehy, on the advice of Fleno, declined the offer for an immediate return to work, preferring instead to wait until he could review his new job description before returning to his duties cleaning the kennels and caring for the animals.

Acting as legal counsel for the DAC board was Attorney Michael J. Dorney of the firm Leclair Ryan of New Haven. Dorney defended the action of DAC board member Hellauer in conducting the firing after personally investigating Sheehy’s conduct including alleged poor work performance, tardiness and unauthorized use of a DAC computer.

Attorney Dorney opened the discussion by outlining the events preceding the decision to terminate.

“Joe [Hellauer] became aware of a particular violation … and after looking into it he decided that termination was appropriate, with an option to appeal at this meeting to present evidence,” so the board can make a judgment and take final action.  

The “particular violation,” Hellauer then explained, was Sheehy’s alleged unauthorized use of the DAC computer and “blocking off” Animal Control Officer (ACO) staff from accessing it. “Mr. Sheehy was supposed to be cleaning up and taking care of the animals … he was not supposed to be on the computer.”

However, Fleno argued that Sheehy was entering animal medical record information into the computer, as did other ACO staff, including the former staff person whom he replaced. She also questioned whether lead ACO Paul Neidmann was in fact Sheehy’s “supervisor,” a term that DAC board members and Fleno sparred over for several minutes before Attorney Dorney interjected, “The lead ACO is in charge of the facility and in charge of the operation of the building and the people working there,” adding several times during the meeting that the conversation was getting off-track. “We don’t recognize anyone here on behalf of a union representing Ryan.”

Simmering under the surface of the entire meeting was the fact that all the DAC part-time employees are seeking to join the AFSCME union. Also complicating matters is the fact that another part-time DAC staffer, ACO Gail Evanko, is Sheehy’s mother. Both Evanko and a third part-time ACO, Dave Dorsa, signed union cards on Tuesday, Jan. 4, a fact that DAC board members said they were unaware of until this week. All expressed some dissatisfaction with the level of support and lack of recognition in general they are receiving from the DAC board for the work they are doing.

Fleno, Evanko, Dorsa and Sheehy said during the closed door executive session that they were skeptical of the denial by the DAC board that the firing was not an attempt to head-off possible unionization. They said that the real reason behind Sheehy’s termination was an attempt to break the unionization effort.DAC board members strongly denied this was the case, with DAC board member and Orange First Selectman Jim Zeoli, Chair Joan Blaskey, Dr. Brian Lobstein and Hellauer all expressing that opinion at certain points during the meeting.

Caught in the cross-fire was lead ACO Neidmann, who several times during the meeting and also afterwards expressed exasperation. When asked by Fleno about Sheehy’s work performance and any written documentation he kept, Neidmann said, “I told him he was tardy several times.”

 “Did he have set hours?” Fleno asked.

 “Yes, set hours,” Neidmann said loudly, explaining the shelter opens to the public at 10 a.m. and that the kennel cleaning needs to be completed by 10 a.m. He complained that when he attempted to set fixed hours for Sheehy that Sheehy couldn’t comply because he had, “child care issues."

“I told him 9 a.m.,” Neidmann said, and when he was asked whether Sheehy was timely for 9 a.m., he responded, “sometimes. I tried 8 a.m. and he said he had child care issues.”

Neidmann added that if he had his way then the part-time person, “should be there at 7 a.m.” Clearly annoyed with Sheehy’s alleged lack of commitment, he added, “Anyone with the right frame of mind and who is on the straight and narrow would know that.”

Neidmann also expressed similar sentiment to DAC members after the meeting ended.

Fleno asked Neidmann if he documented any of the problems he had with Sheehy, who responded that he didn’t have the responsibility for written documentation but rather the DAC board did.

And when Fleno continued to pursue the tardiness angle, the lack of documentation and the absence of “progressive discipline” practices, Neidmann said to check Sheehy’s timesheets.

 Blaskey noted that the issue of Sheehy’s tardiness has been a subject at previous DAC member discussion. “The records show that he has been quite tardy,” she said, even after his start time was adjusted from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. She later added, “he was hired to clean and maintain the kennels and take care of the animals and nothing else.”

For his part, Sheehy told the board at one point, “My arrival depended upon how many animals” were in the shelter.

When Zeoli asked him whether he was ever reprimanded for lateness, Sheehy said, “No.”

“I find that hard to believe,” Zeoli replied, adding later to Fleno, “Your accusation of anti-union sentiment is unfortunate.”

Zeoli said that no one on the DAC board knew of Fleno’s nor AFSCME’s involvement last week. If they had, Zeoli quipped, “we might have bought the coffee.”

The DAC board also accused Sheehy of charging DAC with vet bills for a cat he adopted, which Sheehy strongly denied, citing that he was “fostering” the cat at the time. The formal “adoption” came later.

 The board also was critical of Sheehy’s alleged poor job performance immediately preceding and during the Christmas holiday weekend, a subject they said they would revisit in the coming weeks.

After the board came out of its hour-plus executive session and announced Sheehy’s reinstatement along with a plan to formally put in writing a detailed job description, Fleno cautioned that the state labor board would, “frown upon job changes from the time the [labor complaint] petition was filed [on Jan. 7] to reinstatement [this evening].”

Attorney Dorney shot back, “This will greatly improve his job situation.” This was followed by a discourse by Zeoli, who said, “We’re agreeing with you” that job details were not in writing. “We’re not changing anything,” Zeoli said, mildly objecting to Fleno’s “veiled threat” to hold the board’s good faith attempt to get to the bottom of the situation against them.

“Ryan now knows what he has. Paul knows what he has and this board knows,” Zeoli said. “If Ryan fails on any of this, we will address that.”

Fleno responded, “Ryan needs to agree to this. He needs to read it and sign it …” to which one member shot back, “we’re not asking him to sign anything.”

Attorney Dorney interjected, “It’s a fair disposition. We’re not here to debate it any further. He never signed a job description when he started. The employee doesn’t sign a job description,” with Fleno quickly replying, “Not yet.”

Finally, after Sheehy said he would not report for work Friday morning, Lobstein, who presented DAC’s decision post-executive session said, “He’s expected to come to work tomorrow. If he wants to wait, that’s OK,” adding that it would be unpaid and that paperwork would be sent to Sheehy via certified mail, “and then he will have to call Paul.”

After the meeting, Fleno said she did not have a date when the labor complaint would be heard. Stay tuned.