A judge found that Danny Poole had ‘good cause? to leave his employment with the North Oakland Transportation Authority because of Director Pat Fitchena’s alleged actions and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits.
‘It is clear that there was a personality conflict between the director and (Poole),? wrote Administrative Law Judge Susan Payne Woodrow in her Dec. 20, 2007 order. ‘It is also clear that (Poole) felt that he was being abused on a consistent and long-term basis.?
Woodrow’s order reversed an Oct. 19, 2007 redetermination by the state’s Unemployment Insurance Agency that Poole was disqualified for benefits under the voluntary leaving provisions of the Michigan Employment Security Act.
Poole, who’s last day with NOTA was Aug. 10, 2007, ‘has established good cause to voluntarily leave his employment? and ‘is entitled to benefits,? the judge wrote.
Fitchena said NOTA is challenging the decision. ‘I’ve already sent a letter to appeal it,? she said.
In her decision, Woodrow had some critical words for Fitchena and her alleged actions toward Poole. It was stated that Fitchena would ‘continuously threaten to write-up? Poole, ‘but never presented him with any written write-ups.?
‘The director’s technique of writing (Poole) up in a disciplinary action, but not giving it to him, but purportedly keeping them in a file, is deceitful,? the judge wrote. ‘If she did not actually do the write-ups, yet attempted to place that information in the record, it is treated as not trustworthy and not admissable.?
Based on this, Woodrow concluded that Fitchena’s testimony ‘is not as reliable as that of Mr. Poole.?
‘Thus, whenever her testimony is in disagreement with the testimony of (Poole), (Poole’s) will prevail,? the judge wrote.
When asked if she did disciplinary write-ups on Poole, Fitchena replied, ‘Absolutely.?
‘You have got to understand this employee. It was nothing but a headbutt from the beginning,? she said.
Fitchena said Poole wasn’t given copies because ‘he would never sign a write-up,? thus acknowledging he received it.
‘So, I just continued to document things in his file,? said Fitchena, noting she did the write-ups and filed them as incidents occurred, she did not just add them to the record for the unemployment hearing.
Fitchena expressed her dissatisfaction with the way the free advocate representing NOTA handled the case.
‘I don’t feel that I was allowed to speak and say my piece,? she said. ‘My instructions (from the advocate) were to say ‘yes? and ‘no? to the questions and not to elaborate on anything.?
The Unemployment Insurance Agency’s Advocacy Program is designed to offer assistance at no cost to employers who seek assistance at hearings. Employers can select their own advocate from a statewide network of qualified independent consultants, who are not required to be attorneys.
Fitchena also believes the judge was biased toward Poole’s side of the story.
‘I feel that (the judge) read (Poole’s) seven-page letter and made her conclusions from that without really giving me a chance to speak,? she explained. ‘That was his opinion of what happened here. She took that as gospel.?
All of Poole’s allegations against Fitchena were detailed in writing. His allegations that she verbally and physically abused him were part of the judge’s decision.
Those allegations, along with others, are currently being investigated by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department at the request of NOTA’s board of directors.
‘She also physically assaulted him, admittedly on one occasion, when she slipped up behind him and punched him in the back twice,? Woodrow wrote. ‘He was looking at a deer and pulling an imaginary bow, when she punched him in the back and said, ‘not over my dead body.? The blows struck his kidneys. It is contested whether or not she made other physical attempts.?
It was noted that Fitchena ‘admittedly used profanity when talking with? Poole.
Based on Fitchena’s alleged actions, the judge cited prior court decisions which supported that he had ‘good cause? to leave his job. ‘A supervisor who uses profanity and assaults their subordinates is also responsible for their misconduct,? Woodrow wrote.