By: Ed Jacques, LEJ Editor
Duane Haggerty was initially employed by Sanilac County as a full time police officer in 1958. He left and returned to employment with the County several times and was working full time when, on April 23, 1979, he injured his back in a work-related accident. He returned to work a jail coordinator but again injured his back. Haggerty last worked as an active employee on March 24, 1979 and has received worker’s compensation benefits since March 1979.
In 2003, Sanilac hired a new County Executive who promptly ordered an audit of its benefit program and participants. They discovered that Duane Haggerty was receiving medical benefits from the County but had not received income or W-2 forms since 1979 and has not received a clothing allowance, holiday pay, Christmas bonus or longevity pay since March 1979. He was not paid his pension contributions or his accrued vacation time and was never given an official notice of termination of employment. The County immediately fired off a letter notifying Mr. Haggerty that his health insurance would be canceled immediately.
Sanilac County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association President, Brad Roff got the call. Brad wanted to help but this was unchartered territory. He had never heard of Duane Haggerty before and realized that Haggerty had not been required to pay union dues in nearly 25 years. Roff immediately connected Haggerty with POAM President and Business Agent, Jim Tignanelli. When Tignanelli called the employer, the administration claimed that Haggerty was not in the collective bargaining unit and therefore POAM could not represent his interests. Tignanelli had already researched the contract and found an article that verified that while an employee is on workman’s compensation the employer will continue to pay medical insurance. That language was in place in 1979 when Haggerty sustained his injury and the same language was in the current contract. That meant that Haggerty was and is still employee of Sanilac County and there was nothing in the contract that limited the amount of time an employee could receive workman’s compensation benefits. The County disagreed and POAM filed its grievance.
In the arbitration, Sanilac County again reiterated that POAM had no right to represent Haggerty, but, Duane had fallen through their cracks and they were not looking for him to re-imburse the County for previous medical payments because the County was at fault for continuing them. They claim that Mr. Haggerty had already been the beneficiary of a significant windfall. Arbitrator Mario Chiesa ruled Duane was an employee and affirmed POAM’s contentions in the grievance. He also ordered Sanilac County to reimburse Haggerty $11,000 in out-of-pocket expenses he incurred during his lapse in coverage. The County reinstated Haggerty’s medical coverage as it appealed Chiesa’s decision to Circuit Court, where POAM prevailed.
Once again, Sanilac County attempted to vacate the Award by taking its case to the State of Michigan Court of Appeals. On April 18, 2006 in an unpublished decision, the Court upheld the Arbitrator’s decision and authority. POAM Attorney, Martha Champine, who represented Haggerty in Circuit Court commented, “Sanilac County had a clear legal obligation to abide by the arbitrator’s decision. There is plenty of case law on the books, some of it from previous POAM cases, that establishes the limitations on challenging an Arbitrator’s Award. I believe that’s why the Court of Appeals didn’t request oral arguments on this case. It was a cut and dry issue.”
This is certainly another case of POAM going “above and beyond the call of duty” to represent one of its members. In this particular case the member had not paid one penny of dues to POAM but was technically still an employee. In the past, POAM has been accused by other labor organizations of “frivolously” defending our members rights. “If fighting these kind of battles is frivolous, then we’re guilty as charged,” said POAM President Jim Tignanelli.
2 Comments on "POAM Prevails for Mystery Member"
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF ANOTHER LABOR ASSOCIATION, ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION. ” WOULD MY UNION FILE AND PREVAIL ON THIS GRIEVANCE?”
DEMSA would!