Posted on 11/28/2004 5:06:07 PM PST by Arkinsaw
News Cop Fired While On Active Duty Wants Job Back
By Terry Groover TIMES RECORD • TGROOVER@SWTIMES.COM
A former Mulberry police officer who was fired while on active military duty says he wants his job back, and the U.S. Department of Labor has agreed.
However, Mulberry Mayor Jeff Marvin says Jerry W. Cunningham cannot return to work as a Mulberry officer.
Cunningham, who is serving near Baghdad with the 39th Infantry Brigade, was fired from the Mulberry Police Department on June 24, 2003.
At the time, Cunningham was on active duty with a National Guard unit and was serving Homeland Security duty in Fort Smith. He was activated on Jan. 31, 2003.
According to a letter from Marvin, Cunningham was notified on June 24 that he was being terminated because he was an “at will” employee.
Cunningham appealed his firing both to the city and to the U.S. Department of Labor.
A letter from the city’s attorney, Charles Baker, dated Feb. 17, states that the city had the right to terminate Cunningham based on his conduct while on military duty.
Baker declined, by telephone, to elaborate on what conduct prompted Cunningham’s dismissal, and Marvin said he could not release details about his decision because the case is pending litigation.
A letter from Bryan A. Gallup, director of Veterans’ Employment and Training Division of the Department of Labor, states that Cunningham’s rights were violated and the city should return Cunningham to his job.
The city has rejected the Labor Department’s recommendation, according to a letter from Gallup.
(Excerpt) Read more at swtimes.com ...
"However, Mulberry Mayor Jeff Marvin"
Seems this person needs to be fired.
The next time the town of Mulberry has a tornado, or a flood, the Governor should refrain from calling out the Arkansas National Guard to saw up trees and guard against looters and such, IMO.
Its only my opinion mind you. but the mayor should be arrested by the feds .
I'd like to know what an "at-will" employee is, and exactly what this police officer did.
What a moron. He was an "at will" employee? WTF does that mean? Then he says it was because of an domestic incident. Then he says....oh I lose track of that much @sscovering. He would go if called, my butt. I don't believe it for a second. If I were the fired officer, I'm not sure I would want to go back to work for someone like that, hometown or not. At least he will be compensated.
Yeah, that got my knickers in a twist, lol!
ping
"at-will" employee
In plain English, the Employment At-Will Doctrine means that employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for both employees and employers. As an at-will employee, you may quit your job whenever and for whatever reason you want, usually without consequence. In turn, at-will employers may terminate you whenever and for whatever reason they want, usually without consequence.
Either party may end the relationship without prior notice, but neither party may breach contracts. Employers cannot violate state or Federal laws, and generally cannot rightfully terminate employees who refuse to do something that is contrary to public policy and sound morality, such as breaking the law. But with these few exceptions aside, it's pretty much open season on employees year round.
If the fellow messed up, then he's fired. I assume here that the JAG has had their way with him.
Otherwise, I wonder about the presumption of innocence.
Also known as a Right-to-Work Law. Makes sense. IWO he has no union representation, which is not a bad thing IMHO.
Article says it was a domestic disturbance, and he was never charged.
Maybe the mayor's nephew needed a job.
A few people are hurt by the Right-To-Work laws, but I'll take them any day over a union mob. I'm even more stongly opposed to any government employees being unionized. When a company goes union, quality goes down, costs go up, and only the union benefits. When government employees unionize, costs go up, quality is non-existant, public services are a disaster and the union leaders rob both the members and the public.
Outrageous?
If he was fired because he was away on an active duty call-up, that is illegal IIRC.
If he was fired for any other reason, that would be OK by me. Nobody has a RIGHT to any job.
Yep to have much of an opinion here we need to know:
1. What the mayor thinks he has done to "abuse his position."
2. Where or not it is a crime.
If what he did was merely immoral but not a crime, then he certainly could be fired as a police officer. If it is a crime and he was never even charged, well that does not seem that fair to me, but if say he murdered someone but was not convicted because the only evidence was a non-Mirandized confession, then he does not need to be a cop for sure.
Whatever the case, the mayor is likely to have to be more public. That too is fine since the employee made this public by appealing/litigating.
Presumption of innocence then, just like the rest of us.
What we need is a law that makes it a felony punishable by $100,000,000 fine and 76 years imprisonment to violate the provisions of the Veterans' Readjustment Act, it's amendments, and any successor legislation.
The Mulberry headman would think twice about doing this again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.