On July 20, 1998, in a 3-2 decision against the City
of Alhambra Fire Department, the Alhambra Civil Service commission ruled
in favor of fire engineer/paramedic Ronald Thurston in his appeal of
discipline imposed upon him by the Alhambra Fire Department.
Thurston was disciplined with a six-month pay step
reduction for charges, the most serious of which was alleged
"insubordination," after he engaged in a four-minute,
union-related debate with a temporary, off-duty, non-union member
captain.
While the commission made it clear in its
decision that it does not condone "disrespect' in any form, the
commission held that the evidence submitted by the city was inconclusive
and, further, that the discipline imposed by the city was not warranted.
At the hearing, Thurston was represented by the Petersen Law Firm.
At the time of the alleged incident, Thurston, who
comes from a long line of firefighters in Southern California, had been
with the department 11 years. In addition to an impeccable record with
the department, and no history of discipline, he was an active member of
the board of directors in the Alhambra Firefighters' Association.
Furthermore, based upon his charity work within the
community, rank-and-file members of the department chose him to receive
an award for Firefighter of the Year by Assemblywoman Diane Martinez of
the 49th Assembly District.
The entire discipline, and resulting five full nights
of hearings, was based upon a four minute debate regarding union issues
which turned into a heated discussion between Thurston and the then
off-duty, non-member temporary captain. Thurston contended that as he
was walking through the hallway he overheard his name mentioned through
an open door in a conversation.
As he approached the open doorway the
nonmember captain also provided false information regarding the union to
the then on-duty captain, attempting to persuade him to leave the union.
The discussion became heated when this non-union captain retorted with
personal slanderous insults directed at Thurston.
Thurston candidly admitted to the commission that at
this point he might have used profanities directed toward the non-member
captain in response. In keeping with the paramilitary structure and
order, the then on-duty captain who was present appropriately took
control of the situation and ordered Thurston to leave the room
immediately. In his statement regarding this incident, this captain
stated that Thurston "quietly walked away" when he received
this direct order.
Over strenuous and continued objection by the
Petersen Law Firm, the commission refused to hear any evidence regarding
union animus throughout the course of the hearings, ruling that it was
irrelevant. However, strong inferences demonstrated that from the
beginning, the charges against Thurston, an active member of the union,
wreaked of retaliation and possible discrimination.
This was based upon his expression of views regarding
union issues during this incident with a non-union member in direct
violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code 3300, et.
seq., as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution
and the California Constitution. Although the Petersen Law Firm was not
permitted to introduce any evidence of union animus during the hearings,
it did elicit testimony and evidence during the hearings from which it
later argued potential union animus and potential violations in the
closing argument.
First, while the evidence demonstrated that the
non-member captain slandered Thurston during this exchange, he was never
investigated nor disciplined for his part in this incident. Second, the
evidence showed that this non-member captain did not initiate a
complaint against Thurston, as is often done during the ordinary course
of business.
Rather, he was encouraged to go forward by other
non-member officials within the department. One witness who testified on
behalf of Thurston told the commission that this non-member captain
actually told him that he did not want to pursue this but that he was
being forced to do so by another nonmember superior.
Third, Alhambra Fire Chief James Ballard refused to
attend Thurston's award ceremony last year for Firefighter of the Year.
In his letter to Assemblywoman Martinez, Ballard openly denounced
Thurston as a candidate for the award, suggesting that he be nominated
to further "the current conflicting union activities."
To add insult to injury, Ballard thereafter
flagrantly posted a copy of this letter for public view by all members
of the department. Finally, during Thurston's Skelly
hearing, Ballard indicated that while he understood that the incident
involved essentially an argument between two members of the department,
that he was pressed to go forward with this discipline because he had a
corroborating statement by the then present on-duty captain, which
supported the non-member captain's version.
However, Ballard was unable to meaningfully
reveal during cross-examination any portions of this statement, which
purportedly corroborated the non-member captain's version.
The City of Alhambra Civil Service commission
"did the right thing" in this case. Thus, the commission
deserves kudos for taking a tough political stand and rendering a fair
and just decision.
Also noteworthy was union President Robert D’Ausilio's
active participation in seeing this case through to its completion. His
commitment and contribution were significant to the outcome of the case.
