The Town of Suffield has appealed a decision by the Connecticut State Labor Board, which found the town had retaliated against firefighter Lt. Brian Gauthier when the town refused to compensate Gauthier for handling fire chief responsibilities, and then voted to eliminate Gauthier’s position, essentially demoting him.

The CSLB singled out Suffield First Selectman Colin Moll when it found Moll’s statements to the board were not corroborated by meeting minutes, and the timing of the town’s decision to defund Gauthier’s position shortly after receiving a union complaint supports “a reasonable inference of retaliation.”

The Board, in its May 17, 2024, decision ordered that Gauthier be given his due compensation and returned to his position. 

However, the town appealed the decision just a month later, claiming the Board’s decision was “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record, and was characterized by an unwarranted exercise of discretion,” according to court documents. 

The Town argues the Board “ignored probative and uncontroverted evidence” that the town had held previous discussions about eliminating the Lieutenant position, and therefore the timing of the union complaint and the vote to eliminate Gauthier’s position was not motivated by anti-union animus but was rather just part of the budget process. 

The State Labor Board, however, argues that there is “substantial evidence” backing their decision and that disagreeing with the Board’s determinations on witness credibility and the weight of evidence is not sufficient reason to bring an appeal.

“The Labor Board found that the close proximity of defunding Gauthier’s position to the filing of [the union complaint], as well as Moll’s testimony concerning Gauthier’s obligation to serve without additional pay as next in the ‘chain of command,’ raised an inference of anti-Union animus, which the town failed to rebut,” the Board argued.

In its appeal, however, the Town of Suffield faces a difficult, uphill battle; arbitration decisions are rarely overturned and attempts to do so can often leave the employer in a worse position, having to pay for opposing attorneys’ fees and back pay. Labor contracts between towns and unions require both parties to abide by arbitration, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has regularly upheld arbitration decisions. 

The town has included the fire fighters’ union in the appeal, which is arguing the town has not the legal burden of proving the Board’s conclusions were “arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, or in abuse of its discretion.”

“There is no evidence or legal argument to warrant such a finding,” the Suffield Firefighters Association argued. “In fact, the opposite is true.”

While the court case over the labor board’s decision is pending, the small farming town of Suffield continues to contend with several other legal cases, including an ongoing legal battle between the Hornish family and the town over whether to euthanize the Hornishes’ dog that fatally mauled a woman five years ago. 

The dog is being held in an animal center at the cost of the town since the Hornish family ceased making boarding payments. The case has cost the town more than $150,000, and the Hornishes have appealed an August 2024 decision that found them liable for the kenneling costs that were listed as more than $75,000. 

The town has also appealed a court decision allowing Ricardo “Rick” Sotil to become a micro-cultivator of marijuana. Sotil had successfully appealed the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission decision that said Sotil’s property – which currently processes hemp – was not zoned to allow cannabis cultivation. The court sided with Sotil, but the town opted to take the case to the Appellate Court where it is still pending. 

The Town of Suffield is asking the court to reverse the labor board’s decision that they retaliated against Gauthier.

“Neither the Labor Board nor the Union disputes the fact that the Town had the authority to make budgetary decisions resulting in the loss of the rank of Lieutenant,” the Town wrote in a brief. “The timing of the decision to de-fund the Lieutenant position was purely the result of the Town’s budgetary timelines and not in response to the prohibited practice complaint.” 

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.