francescone decision

7/27/2019 Francescone Decision

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/francescone-decision 1/32

American Arbitration Association

VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

In the Matter of Arbitration Between

HAVERHILL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

-and-

HAVERHILL SCHOOL COMMITTEE

CASE NUMBER: 11 390 01025 12

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

The UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR(S), having been designated in accordance with the arbitration agreement entered into by the above-named Parties, and

dated and having been duly sworn and having duly heard the proofs and allegations of the Parties, AWARDS as follows:

The Haverhill Public Schools had just cause within the meaning of M.G.L. c. 71, §42 to

terminate the employment of Daniel Francescone. The grievance is denied.

Date: August 17, 2013

Philip Dunn, Arbitrator



Haverhill Education Assoc. and Haverhill Sch. Comm., AAA# 11 390 01025 12

On many factual issues, some collateral and others more ce ntral, the grievant’s testimony was at marked1

variance with the testimony offered by several different witnesses. For the reasons discussed at length in the

“Discussion” section of this opinion, in these areas of evidentiary conflict, I have almost exclusively credited the

testimony of the Employer’s witnesses, over the co nflicting testimony offered by the grievant.

Appearances: Thomas G. Guiney, Esq., counsel for the Haverhill Education Association

David F. Grunebaum, Esq. & William D. Cox, Esq., counsel for theHaverhill School Committee

STIPULATED ISSUE

Did the Haverhill Public Schools have just cause within the

meaning of M.G.L. c. 71, §42 to terminate the employment of

Daniel Francescone? If not, what shall the remedy be?

SUMMARY OF PROVEN FACTS1

Prior to the termination of his employment in April 2012, the grievant, Daniel

Francescone, had served as a science teacher at the J.G. Whittier Middle School in the Haverhill

Public Schools for over 13 years. He had received positive evaluations over the years. He had

never been disciplined for anything, prior to the events that occurred after the start of the 2010-

2011 school year. He had taught at the Whittier under the direction of several different

principals, including Principals Powers, Beth Kitsos (fall 2006 to spring 2010), and finally Toni

Donais from and after August 2010.

In addition to his regular teaching duties, the grievant over the years (and under various

principals) also performed a number of advisory and extra-curricular functions. One such

function was the organization of student dances that would occur at the Whittier School

throughout the school year. Another was serving as the faculty advisor to the Junior National

Honor Society. He also supervised the student-run “School Store,” and he further served as one




This was an initiative which Kitsos and the staff had developed, to upgrad e the technology at the Whittier.2

of the co-advisors of the annual, eighth graders’ trip to Washington D.C. He also oversaw the

sales of lollipops at the school, with profits from those sales helping to defray the cost of the

Washington D.C. trip. In each of those advisory and extra-curricular roles, the grievant had

frequent occasion to receive, secure, spend, and account for funds that were generated out of,

or/or needed to finance, those various activities. Some of the most serious charges that

ultimately were made against Mr. Francescone late in the fall of 2010 involved his handling, or

alleged mishandling, of these funds.

When Kitsos became principal at the start of the 2006-2007 school year, Francescone and

another teacher, Jennifer Torrisi, basically were running the school dances. Kitsos as principal

would attend, and sell tickets at the door. She relied on the grievant, however, to secure the cash

from those sales; when she had accumulated a bunch of $20 bills, she would hand a wad of them

over to the grievant for safekeeping. Tickets also were sold in advance, by students during the

lunch hour. Cash collected from those advance sales went into a cash box, which the grievant

locked in a closet in his classroom. From the cash so collected from advance sales, the grievant

would buy at BJ’s snacks, bottled waters, and other items that would be sold at a snack counter at

the dance. The disc jockey was paid in cash, by Kitsos, so she did count that specific sum before

giving it to the DJ at the end of the dance.

When a dance ended, neither she nor anyone else counted all the other collected cash

before the evening ended. Rather, the grievant would take the collected cash home, and count it

there. The grievant then would bring to Kitsos “the profits,” as she understood it, which profits

she would use to support the school’s technology account.2




When Kitsos was principal, she and the grievant obtained from the parents of the JNHS students open-3

ended perm ission slips, which authorized their children to leave ca mpus with the grievant to attend to JNH S

business.

The grievant testified at the arbitration hearing that in the spring of 2010, as Kitsos was preparing to leave4

as principal of the Whittier Schoo l and transfer to a different assignment, he spoke with Kitsos and informed her that

he was planning to step down from his role of advisor to the JNHS. Kitsos was recalled in rebuttal, and testified that

she did not recall that he so informed her, nor that she urged him not to so step do wn; rather, she presumed that he

would be continuing as the JNHS advisor for the 2010-11 school year.

Kitsos was aware that the grievant was keeping cash locked in his classroom closet. She

presumed that he was only keeping a kitty of a maximum of $200 in his closet, which kitty would

be used as the cash register start-up cash for the next dance. She as principal had no problem

with that, and she was not aware at the time of any school department rule or policy which would

have prohibited that manner of securing cash from the dances.

Under Kitsos’s principalship, the grievant also was overseeing the school store, which

was run by students who were members of the Junior National Honor Society. Cash profits from

the school store were intended to support various JNHS activities, including the induction

ceremony, a couple of JNHS field trips, and the grievant’s stipend ($540/year) for serving as the

JNHS advisor. The grievant would go to BJ’s with students to purchase the merchandise which

was sold at the school store, using cash that had been generated by earlier sales out of the store.3

The grievant at times would show Kitsos certain receipts for items purchased for the school store,

but Kitsos did not receive from the grievant any year-end accounting regarding income and

expenses from the various cash-generating activities which the grievant was overseeing. As far

as Kitsos was aware, the school store and school dance cash was all intermingled.4

On another matter, Kitsos’ promulgated policy at the Whittier was, “No students will eat

lunch anywhere but in the cafeteria. We are trying to limit where we have food in the building.”




The grievant stated with certainty that this issue of students eating lunches in classrooms was n either 5

discussed by Kitsos nor addre ssed in her Power Point presenta tions at the all-faculty meetings before the start of

school years. He explained that for years, he had kids eating lunch in his classroom, so such discussion or Power

Point presentation would have stuck out. This matter never was covered in those fall meetings, the grievant testified

assuredly.

This quoted language is taken directly from the Power Point presentation which Kitsos gave at

the all-faculty meeting on the day before the start of each school year. However,5

notwithstanding this promulgated policy, Kitsos was aware that the grievant was allowing

students to eat in his classroom. Kitsos put a stop to this activity for a period of time, but then it

started up again, and Kitsos took no further action to stop the grievant from sharing lunches with

students in his classroom.

On still another matter, Kitsos’ policy at the Whittier School was that the windows on the

classroom doors could not be covered over with anything. She wanted to be sure that she always

could see into the classrooms through those windows, for the safety of all concerned. This was

the policy during her administration, but this subject was not covered in the pre-school year

Power Point presentation.

Toni Donais became the principal of the J.G. Whittier Middle School in August 2010.

Her predecessor in that role was Beth Kitsos. Ms. Donais at that point had completed 28 years of

service in the Haverhill Public Schools. Prior to her 2010 appointment as the principal at

Whittier, she had served a math teacher, and in that capacity, she and Francescone back some

years earlier had worked together as fellow teachers at the Whittier Middle School.

When Donais became principal of the Whittier in the fall of 2010, she had not previously

served in the role of school principal. Her appointment to this new role came late in the summer

of 2010, so she got a late start in preparing for the opening of the school year. In August, 2010,




The grievant had provided similar support to Beth Kitsos when she had become the Whittier School’s6

pr incipal in the summer of 2006 , and she too had grea tly appreciated F rancesc one’s assis tance.

The grievant stated with certainty that this issue of students eating lunches in classrooms was n either 7

discussed by Dona is nor addressed in her Power Po int presentations at the all-faculty meetings before the start of

school years. He explained that for years, he had kids eating lunch in his classroom, so such discussion or Power

Point presentation would have stuck out. This matter never was covered in those fall meetings by either Kitsos or

Donais, the grievant testified assuredly.

Mr. Francescone very graciously provided a lot of assistance to Principal Donais in preparing

schedules and making room assignments for each of the students. Ms. Donais was very

appreciative of this support which she received from Mr. Francescone, and they started off the

school year in that very positive manner.6

As Kitsos had done before her, Principal Donais at the end of the summer held an all-

faculty meeting on the day before students commenced classes in the fall, made comments in

person, and showed a Power Point presentation. She had received from Kitsos the Power Point

which Kitsos had utilized, and Donais re-used many of the slides with only cosmetic but not

content changes, though with the order of presentation changed. In particular, she re-used,

without change, the Power Point slide about no lunches being eaten in classrooms. Donais7

instructed the teachers that she did not want students eating in classrooms, and there would be no

more ordering out from sub shops.

Donais also amended some slides, and added slides which had not been included in

Kitsos’ presentations. On a slide addressing field trips which Kitsos had utilized, Donais added

an additional “bullet” which stated, “Send all money to office – do not keep large sums of money

in your classroom.” Donais also substantially revised the closing slide of the Power Point

presentation, so that it read as follows:




The grievant testified that he was 100% positive that this slide was not part of Donais’ fall 2010 Power

8

Point presentation, and that the handling of mone y was not discussed at all in that pre-school year, all-faculty

meeting. He explained, “I was directly responsible for handling money, so if money had been discussed, I would

have remembe red, it would have stuck out for me; money wasn’t discussed.”

In contrast, his prior friend and co-worker Jean To rrisi testified that she never kept money co llected for the

Washington D .C. trip locked in her closet, but rather had turned all cash into the office on a daily basis, “because

we’d been told, that’s the way it has to be done.” Torrisi testified that the teachers had been so advised by the

pr incipal a t the teacher o rie nta tio n day. To rri si was not aware of any teacher , excep t the grievant, who was keeping

money in his closet or classroom.

Looking forward to another great year!

• Staff: You are 100% responsible for what you say. Nocomments on students in the teacher’s room or outside of

school.

• Do not put anything in e-mail that you would not put on the

front page of the newspaper.

• All money must be turned into the office at the end of

each school day. No money should be in classroom

closets at any time. (Emphasis added).

• BAND will be on Tuesdays.

• Please let us know what we can do to help you continue to

do the great job you are all doing.8

Notwithstanding her directive about no ordering out for lunches and no eating in the

classrooms, in mid-September, an order from a local sub shop was delivered to the office at the

Whittier School. Students from Francescone’s class came to the office to pick up the delivered

lunches. Principal Donais asked the kids where they were going with the delivered lunches.

They responded, to Mr. Francescone’s classroom. Donais replied that the kids could eat the

delivered lunches, but only at a cafeteria table. She presumed that this would be the end of the

matter. The students followed Ms. Donais’ directive, and went to the cafeteria and there ate the

food which had been delivered.




Soon after the students left the office, the grievant came in. In the presence of School

Secretary Spiro, the grievant angrily stated, “This is ridiculous, I’ve done this for years, I’m not

going to stop!” He then turned and marched out, slamming the door shut behind him, and took

off toward his classroom. After he departed, Spiro commented, “You need to write him up. That

was the rudest thing I’ve ever seen a teacher do, that was insubordination.” Donais waited for a

few minutes, then went to the grievant’s classroom. He was still angry. Donais told the grievant,

“There is a protocol, I want it followed.” The grievant replied, “I’ve done this for years, I’m not

going to stop it.” And indeed, he continued thereafter to allow students to eat in his classroom.

Moreover, on Fridays, he continued to order pizza for the JNHS students, and they continued to

gather and eat the pizza in the grievant’s classroom.

Donais did not impose any discipline upon the grievant at these times – notwithstanding

the expression of dismay which had come from Secretary Spiro, and the grievant’s continued

rejection of Donais’ directive about all eating to be in the cafeteria. One has to wonder if Donais

was disinclined to impose any discipline upon the grievant because he had in August been

generous in helping her get prepared for her first year as principal, and/or because of her newness

in the role of principal. In any case, as will be further noted on a number of issues below, she did

not take any formal disciplinary action on any grounds against the grievant until January 2011,

when matters had escalated especially regarding fiscal matters.

Also in mid-September, Donais noticed that the window into the grievant’s classroom

had been frosted over. She learned that the grievant had asked the custodian to frost his

classroom window, after the custodian (at Donais’ request) had frosted over the window on the

door into the school’s conference room. Donais directed the custodian to remove the frosting off




The grievant acknowledged that after the frosting was removed, he did place cardboard over the window9

on his classroom door. He asserted, however, that this was done when MC AS testing was going on, and testing

protocol called for the window to be covered at tha t time .

Presumably Do nais had a separate amo unt of starter money at the front desk for ticket sales, especially10

given the door ticket price of $6 p er ticket.

of the grievant’s classroom window, which he did. She spoke to the grievant, and told him that

the windows on classroom doors are not to be covered. She presumed that was the end of the

matter. However, a couple of weeks later, Donais saw that the window on Francescone’s

classroom door was covered over with red construction paper. She removed the paper from the

window, but she did not speak to Francescone about it. This is another instance, then, when9

Donais at the time could have formally disciplined the grievant for disobeying her instruction,

but she refrained from imposing any formal discipline, and indeed did not even informally

counsel the grievant at the time about this repeat rule infraction.

Also in mid-September 2010, the first school dance was held – from 6 to 9 p.m. on

Friday, September 17, in the gymnasium at the Whittier School. Tickets were sold by students

during the preceding week, at $5 each. Tickets also were sold at the door, for $6 each, by Ms.

Donais and Jean Torrisi. Tickets were not numbered. In addition to the proceeds from ticket

sales, there also were refreshments (bottled water, Gatorade and candy bars) sold at a refreshment

table, staffed by JNHS students, in the gym. A commercial disc jockey, Mr. Phillips, spun the

tunes.

Before the start of the September dance, Donais placed into a cash drawer $200 which

would be used to make change at the refreshment table. At some point during the evening,10

Donais put the net proceeds from the front table ticket sales into a zipper back and placed it into

the school safe in her office.




At the conclusion of the dance, Francescone asked Donais where the money from ticket

sales was. She responded that it was in the safe. Francescone then explained that it was his

practice to take all the money from both the ticket sales and refreshment table to his home, where

he would count it. He further explained that the following Monday, he would bring to the

principal the profits from the event.

Donais suggested that the money be counted in school, either then or on Monday

morning. The grievant responded that this was not the way he was used to doing it, but rather he

had done the counting at home over a number of years. For whatever reason, Ms. Donais

reluctantly agreed, and she gave to Francescone the money from the front table which she had

secured in the office safe. No counting occurred before the money went home with the grievant,

and the grievant did not at that time present to Donais any receipts for items purchased for the

dance, so there was no way to confirm independently what the gross or net proceeds were from

that September dance.

On the following Monday, the grievant brought to Principal Donais $325 in cash. She

asked, what had been done with the remainder of the money. The grievant explained that the

remaining money – whatever that amount was – would be used to purchase items for the

Junior National Honor Society.

The second school dance was held in on Friday, October 22, with a Halloween theme.

On the preceding Monday, October 18, the grievant spoke to Donais about the arrangements for

the upcoming dance. Before the dance, Donais directed the grievant to pay the disc jockey, Mr.

Phillips, by check, and to get a receipt. The grievant replied that Phillips only works for cash.

The grievant never turned in any receipts from the D.J. He asserted that he was paying the D.J.




After the grievant had been pla ced on administrative leave, the school con tinued to use Phillips as the D.J.11

for school dances. He accepted paymen t by check, in the amount of $213 per dance.

Lollipop money was ge nerated by students’ sales of lollipops either through the school store or in the12

cafeteria. Francescone would buy cases of lollipops at wholesale pricing, and students would sell them for $1 each.

Francescone wo uld pay the bill to the lollipop compan y from gross receipts from those retail sales. The profits were

used to help finance the 8 grade trip to Washington D.C.th

$350 in cash per dance.11

Francescone in that same conversation further informed Donais that he was storing a

“great deal” of cash in the locked closet in his classroom. That news was greatly troubling to

Donais, since many people had keys that could open that closet. Also, of course, the fact of

money being stored in his classroom closet was directly contrary to the school policy which

Donais had announced at the all-faculty meeting prior to the start of the school year. She told the

grievant that he was not supposed to have cash in his closet. The grievant replied that the money

was locked, and under his control.

Being concerned about the grievant’s October 18 statement about having large sums of

cash in his classroom closet, Ms. Donais on Tuesday, October 19 had School Custodian Louis

Gonzales accompany her to the grievant’s classroom. They unlocked the closet door, and found

and together counted what indeed were large amounts of cash in that closet. All teachers have

that same key. One blue lunch back labeled “lollipop money” contained $451. A second blue12

bag contained additional cash, and there also were some batches of coins and a small number of

loose bills in the closet. All told, the amount of cash in the closet was slightly over $1,000.00.

On Thursday, October 21, Principal Donais at her request met with Assistant

Superintendent for Finance Kara Kosmes, and Donais reported that Francescone was keeping

large amounts of money in the locked closet in his classroom. Kosmes confirmed that this was




The grievant after the dance opined that about 80 students had attended, an estimate that Donais13

characterized as “ridiculous.”

If the grievant had taken Kosmes’ admonition to heart, perhaps the grievant would have avoided the14

predicament that he e nded up finding him self in.

contrary to school department policy; the fact that the closet was locked did not matter. They

agreed that they should meet together with Francescone, to discuss this situation. That meeting

was scheduled for the following Monday, October 25.

In the meanwhile, for the October 22 dance, ticket and refreshment sales were handled in

the same manner as at the September dance, with Torrisi and Donais staffing the ticket sales at

the entrance door into the gym. Donais estimated that about 150 students attended the dance –

the gym was jammed – but since tickets were not numbered, an exact count of tickets sold could

not be made. After the dance, Francescone followed the same procedure of taking all the cash13

home, doing a count, and on Monday bringing to Donais the school’s “share” of the proceeds.

Once again, Donais retrieved from the school safe the money which had been collected at the

ticket sales table, and allowed Francescone to take all the money home to count it. On Monday,

October 25, he turned in $365, the school’s “cut,” as Francescone called it. He told Donais that

he kept the other half to cover JNHS induction costs. Donais expressed surprise at that; “Those

are awfully expensive cakes,” she commented.

On Monday, October 25, at about 1 p.m., Kosmes and Donais met with Francescone.

The meeting proceeded in a cordial manner. Kosmes explained that she was concerned about

any money being stored in his closet. She noted that such retention of cash in his closet was

contrary to Haverhill School Department policies and procedures, and state law. She added, with

remarkable prescience, “I don’t want you to be at risk of accusation....” She directed that all14




Kosmes testified that her directive was to do so “immediately.” Donais gave slightly different testimony,15

that Kosmes directed the grievant, “Before you leave today, you shall turn into Ms. Donais all the money in your

posse ssion.” The g rievant’s reco llection on this point was consistent with tha t of K osmes, a nd based o n that

common recollection, I have made my finding of fact on this narrow point based upon that common recollection of

Kosmes and the grievant. In any case, the difference in meaning is a subtle one, at most.

student activity monies needed to be turned into the office and placed into the school safe on a

daily basis. Money was not to be taken home, nor was it to be stored in the closet in his

classroom.

Francescone indicated that he liked to keep cash in his closet so that it would be readily

available as necessary to promptly purchase supplies and make other necessary payments to

support the various student activities (including the dances, school store, and lollipop sales)

which he supervised. Kosmes responded that there were several ways in which the grievant

could without delay make such expenditures, consistent with school department policies. When

purchasing supplies at BJ’s or elsewhere, he could front the money and then present a receipt to

Donais for immediate reimbursement. Or, Donais could give him a check in advance, in a

known amount or all made out except as to the amount, and then he could bring back a receipt to

Donais. Or, they could obtain a BJ’s credit card in the name of the Whittier School – which

would generate receipts for all purchases. The bottom line, Assistant Superintendent Kosmes

stated, was that “we need receipts” for all expenditures of student activity funds. The grievant

appeared somewhat surprised by all the options Kosmes had laid out, and indicated that he would

follow that process of turning in all cash on a daily basis, and following one of the discussed

options that would generate receipts for all expenditures.

Kosmes directed the grievant that she wanted all of the money currently in his closet

removed, reconciled, and turned into the office with accounting “immediately.”15




Regarding this $451, the grievant testified as follows. This was lollipop money, which was used to16

subsidize the cost of the Washington D.C. trip. Accordingly, he wanted to check with the leadership of the PTO,

specifically Christine Buco, to see if they wanted to take over the retention and safekeep ing of these lollipop funds.

He asked to B uco about this, but it took her “a few days” to check this issue out with the other leaders of the PTO

group and get back to Francescone. Ultimately, Buco got back to the grievant and told him that the PTO did not

want to take over the lollipop fundraising nor control of the money, and that he should keep control of it. So at that

po int, he turned in the $ 45 1 to D onais.

Ms. Buco was called as a rebuttal witness, and testified as follows. She was vice president or secretary of the Whittier School PTO in the fall of 2010, when her children were attending that school. She also was employed

as a paraprofessional at the Whittier, and she was aware of the lollipop fundraising that was going on. That lollipop

fundraising had nothing to do with the PTO ’s fundraising activities at the school. The grievant did not in October

2010, or at any other time, talk to her about the PTO taking over the lollipop sales and funds. Moreo ver, if he had

done so, she would have had to raise that issue with the entire PTO assembly, in a meeting of the organization. It

would have been an issue resolved by a group vote, recorded in the minutes. She before testifying reviewed all the

fall 2010 minutes of the PTO , and found no reference to any discussion abo ut the lollipop issue. [From her demeanor

when testifying, and immediately thereafter, it was readily apparen t that it saddened Ms. Buco greatly that

Francescone ha d been terminated, and/o r that she had been called to testify in a manner unhelpful to his defense.]

On the afternoon of October 25, Francescone turned no money into Donais, though she

remained at the school until 5 p.m. that afternoon. On October 26, Kosmes and Donais spoke,

and Donais informed Kosmes that the grievant had not turned in any funds. Kosmes advised

Donais to tell the grievant, bring all the money from the closet today, which Donais did. The

grievant on October 26 brought $300 to Donais, and stated that this was all the money he had in

his closet. He stated that this $300 represented the profits from the school store since the start of

school; he gave no further accounting. Donais was aware from her count on October 19,

however, that there had been over $1,000 in the closet. She did not say as much to Francescone

when he gave her the $300.

Donais reported to Kosmes that the grievant had turned in $300, but that was not all the

money in the closet. At Kosmes’ direction, Donais thereafter told the grievant that they were

aware that he had not yet turned in all the money from his closet, and that he must do so. On or

about November 5, he turned in $451 to Donais. He stated that this was all the money from his

closet, including the lollipop money. Donais did not say to the grievant at that time, that she16




The grievant did later turn in a bag of change, which he said was from his desk. He testified that what was17

left in his closet was “a few one dollar bills for pizza Friday,” a cup of pennies he used when teaching ab out

buoyancy, a roll of quar ters he use d when tea ching about probab ili ty, and loose change in a b lue b ag which he h ad

forgotten was there.

knew that there had been over $1,000 in his closet – even before considering operating profits

from the school store and lollipop sales over the past couple of weeks.

Donais thereafter called and reported to Kosmes that the grievant at that point had given

her the $300 plus the $451, but it was Donais’ belief that there was still more in the closet. Even

as of November 5, some $250 still had not been turned into Donais. Upon receiving that report

from Donais, Kosmes realized that she had to proceed with more formal action. She asked

Donais to give to her documentation about all the funds that were in the closet, from what

activities. She further directed Donais to go back to the grievant’s classroom closet, and confirm

what was still there. Donais went back to the grievant’s classroom closet, and observed still

more money in a blue lunch bag, plus some loose quarters and some loose dollar bills. That

remaining cash that was still in the closet never was turned into the office.17

The next dance, and the final one that the grievant was involved with, was held on

November 19. It was a “reunion” dance held for high school kids who had graduated from the

Whittier School. It was a special fundraiser for the Adam Troy Scholarship Fund. Because

attendees were graduates, there were very few advance ticket sales; most tickets were sold at the

dance itself.

Prior to the dance, Ms. Donais had urged the grievant to use numbered tickets so that

there could be a better accounting of all tickets sold. However, the grievant resisted the idea, and

un-numbered tickets again were sold. Mr. Francescone asked Ms. Donais for start up cash, in the




At the arbitration hearing, the grievant testified as follows. At the end of the 2009-10 school year, he had18

told Principal Kitsos that it was his intention to step down as advisor to the JNHS a nd the school store, and as the

organizer of the school dances. Thus, his implementation of that decision in mid-Novemb er was not, as Donais

suggested, motivated by the fact that he could no longe r be in charge of the money and “steer his own ship.”

However, Kitsos when called a s a rebuttal witness testified that she recalled no such discussion with the grievant in

June 2010, nor did she recall trying to persuade him to stay on at least for the start of the next school year. Rather,

she testified, she expected that in the next school year, under the principalship of Dona is, the grievant would be

continuing to serve in these various advisory/extracurricular roles.

amount of $200, to be placed in the cash drawer and available to make change at the refreshment

table. Donais called Kosmes and asked if that was an appropriate cash kitty to set up for the

refreshment table, and Kosmes replied that $200 was too much, but rather that $50 to $60 in

smaller bills should suffice. Ms. Donais then responded to Francescone that $60 would suffice

as the start up cash, and she provided him with 40 $1 bills and four $5 bills for the cash table

cash drawer.

After that exchange, Francescone told Donais that he was no longer going to be involved

in organizing the school dances after this November 2010 event. He further stated that he cease

being involved with the Junior National Honor Society, and in the supervision over the school

store. He stated that if he could not be in charge of the money and “steer his own ship,” he did

not want to be involved in any of these matters.18

Because the attendees at the November dance would be of high school rather than middle

school age, and no longer directly subject to disciplinary control by Principal Donais, she

arranged to have a Haverhill police officer, Bill Alvarado, on duty for security throughout the

November dance. He was stationed at the front desk where tickets were being sold, and from

where he could monitor the comings and goings of the attendees.

Also stationed at the front door, and overseeing the cash drawer there, were Jennifer




Torrisi, a teacher at the Whittier, and Ms. Donais, as well as Building Custodian Louis Gonzales.

Ms. Torrisi and the grievant were good friends, both at work and outside of school. During the

course of the dance, the grievant at one point brought to Torrisi a $10 bill, and obtained in

exchange ten $1 bills that could be used in making change at the refreshment table. Other than

that, Torrisi, Gonzales and Donais all testified, the grievant did not over the course of the

evening deliver any other cash to any of them who were stationed at the front desk.

Although the dance was continuing until 9 p.m., at about 8:30 p.m., Francescone came

out to the front desk, and announced that he was leaving at that point, to go out for dinner with

some of the high school students who had come to the dance. He handed to Donais the cash

drawer from the refreshment table. He saluted toward Ms. Donais, and left.

Donais glanced down at the contents of the cash drawer from the refreshment table, and

noted that it appeared to contain only a small sum of money. She asked Police Officer Alvarado

to accompany her to the office, where they together counted the cash that the grievant had

delivered from the refreshment table. There was only $85 in the cash drawer. Since Donais had

given the grievant a start up kitty of $60, that appeared to suggest that only $25 of refreshments

had been sold to the roughly 150 youngsters who were attending the dance.

That small amount of cash from the refreshment table troubled Ms. Donais, since in prior

dances, the refreshment table had generated $200 to $300 in sales. To investigate further how

many sales had in fact occurred at the refreshment table, she took a couple of steps after the

dance had ended at 9 p.m. First, she had Custodian Gonzales, in the presence of Donais and

Officer Alvarado, count the number of discarded water and Gatorade bottles that were in the

trash barrels in the gym. Gonzales carefully counted out the discarded bottles, and found that 97




Gonzales had set up the barrels in the gym just prior to the dance, so he knew that there were no empty19

water or Gatorade bottles in the barrels before the start of the dance. Donais did not have Gonzale s try to count out

the candy wrappe rs, since they were torn and sticky; counting them would have been inexact, and me ssy.

bottles had been discarded. Then, Principal Donais went with Gonzales to the grievant’s19

classroom where the full, unsold bottles of water and Gatorade, and cartons of unsold candies,

were stored, as another way to measure the gross sales that had been made at the refreshment

table at the November 2010 dance. From that count, they were able to determine that 74 candy

items had been sold, in addition to the 97 bottles of beverages. That meant that there should have

been $171 in sales, which along with the $60 starting kitty should have resulted in $231 in the

cash drawer when the grievant turned the drawer into Donais. Yet, there had been only $85 in

the cash drawer which the grievant had turned in as he left.

On Saturday, November 20, Donais called Assistant Superintendent Kosmes, and

reported that it was her belief that the grievant had not turned in all the moneys which had been

collected at the refreshment table at the dance on the preceding evening. Upon receiving that

report from Donais, Kosmes called Superintendent Scully, and moved the matter to his level.

On the following Monday, November 22, the grievant brought into Donais receipts from

BJ’s in the amount of $279, for items which had been purchased for the refreshment table at the

November dance, and asked for reimbursement. Donais responded, how could she do that when

he had only turned in $25 in gross sales (plus the $60 start up kitty). The grievant replied that

she was incorrect, he had in fact turned in much more than $85. They argued about the amount

of cash he had turned in. Ms. Donais then stated that she knew exactly how much had been

turned in, since she and Police Officer Alvarado had together counted it to be $85 in total.




However, when asked by Donais on that Monday, and again in her testimony at the arbitration hearing,20

Torrisi flatly and certainly denied that the grievant had given her any cash on the even ing of the November da nce,

other than the $10 bill which she receive d from him in exchange for ten $1 bills to be used in making chan ge at the

refreshment table.

Howeve r, before the police commen ced the interview, they gave the grievant a written printout of his21

Miranda rights, and he signed that he had r eceived and und erstood those rights, but still was willing to answer

questions without the assistance of counsel.

Upon hearing that, the grievant paused and then stated, “Oh, that’s right, I kept a wad of

cash.” Donais asked where that “wad of cash” was, and the grievant replied that he had given it

to Torrisi. Later that day, the grievant returned and spoke further with Donais. He then20

indicated that his thinking that day was a little foggy because this was the one year anniversary of

his grandmother passing away; he had been very close to her, and this weekend had been a hard

one for Francescone. He stated that while he believed he had given the wad of bills to Torrisi, he

was not sure about that.

On the next day, Tuesday, November 23, the grievant came to see Donais once again. He

stated at that time that he and his wife had talked it over, and had decided to treat as a donation

the $279 which he had spent on supplies at BJ’s for the dance. So, he said, Donais should not

reimburse him that $279, but rather should just treat it as a donation.

In the meanwhile, because of rising concern that the grievant may have diverted school

activity funds to his own use, the superintendent asked the Haverhill police to commence an

investigation. On November 29, the grievant was directed to go, with a union representative, to

the police station, at which time he was interviewed by Detective Benedetti. The grievant

testified that as he understood it, the questioning was only about the funds that had been collected

at the November 19 dance; and moreover, the police did not suggest that he personally was

suspected of any theft of funds. The grievant testified that he offered to help in any way to sort21




The grievant testified that on the day following this interview, he called Benedetti and told the d etective22

that he had further receipts and a certain accounting records that would show the monies received and expended.

According to the grievant, Be nedetti replied that he would not be in, but he could drop this package of pa pers off

with the officer at the front desk at the police station, which the grievant d id.

In contrast, Detective Benedetti testified as follows. No such conversation between the grievant and him

occurred on November 30 or at any other time, and Benedetti never received the package which the grievant testified

he had dropped o ff. In all his years on the police force, there never had been an instance when someone had dropped

off a package at the front desk for Ben edetti, but the package did not get de livered to the detective.

out whatever questions there might be about the moneys collected at that dance.22

On January 4, 2011, Superintendent Scully and Principal Donais met with Francescone,

and placed him on administrative leave pending further investigation of possible misconduct.

On the next day, January 5, 2011, the grievant received a “Summons to Defendant” from the

Haverhill District Court, which listed four criminal charges against the grievant: three counts of

larceny over $250, and one count of larceny under $250. That Summons directed the grievant to

appear at an arraignment on January 19, 2011.

The grievant continued to be held out of work on administrative leave pending the

outcome of the criminal proceedings which had been initiated against him. Two counts of

larceny over $250 were dismissed on motion in December 2011. Ultimately, a criminal trial was

held on the two remaining criminal counts on March 21 and 22, 2012, more than a year after the

grievant had been placed onto administrative leave. On March 22, 2012, the jury returned a

verdict of not guilty on those two remaining counts.

By letter dated March 28, 2012, Superintendent Scully notified the grievant “that it is my

intention to terminate you....” The grounds for the intended termination were listed in a

“Schedule A” which read in part as follows:




Insubordination:

1. Failure to obey directive of Principal ... to cease having students

eat lunch in classrooms and order lunches from sub shops....

2. Failure to obey directive of Principal ... to have the glass panel

of his classroom door uncovered....

3. Failure to obey directive of Principal Donais set forth during the

first day of school meeting that no money was to be kept in any

classroom closets – all money was to be turned into the office each

day.

4. Failure to obey directive of Principal not to take students off

school grounds without parental permission slips.

5. Failure to obey directive of Asst. Superintendent Kosmes to

turn over all money in his closet by the end of the day on October

25 , 2010. Money was not turned in until October 26 andth th

November 5 .th

6. Failure to obey directive of Principal to obtain prior approval or

permission from her for two orders of lollipops ... purchased on

credit billed to the Whittier School from September through

November 30, 2010.

7. Failure to obey directive of Principal to pay the DJ (Michael

Phillips of American Entertainment) for dances on September 17

and October 22, 2010 with a school check and obtaining a receipt.

DJ was paid in cash and no receipts were ever provided.

8. Failure to obey directive of Asst. Superintendent Kosmes on

October 25 2010 that dance money was to be turned over to theth

school office by 3 p.m. that day and placed in the school safe and

deposited on the following Monday. Instead, he continued to hold

dance money in his possession.

Untruthfulness

1. Untruthful in stating that he gave Mrs. Torrisi cash from the

refreshment table cash drawer at the school dance on November

19, 2010.




2. Untruthful in stating to Principal Donais on October 26, 2010

that he was giving her all the money he had in his closet, namely

$300, when in fact he still had $700 left in the closet.

3. Untruthful in stating to Principal Donais on November 5, 2010

that he was giving her all the money he had in his closet, namely

$451, when in fact he still had $250 left in the closet.

4. Untruthful in misrepresenting the amount of student activity

monies that were collected at the school dances, lollipop fund and

school store from September through November 30, 2010.

5. Untruthful in misrepresenting the amount of student activity

monies that were spent for supplies, materials or services for

various school activities, such as National Honor Society, schooldances, lollipop fund and the school store, from September through

November 30, 2010.

6. Untruthful in misrepresenting to Principal Donais that he had

permission slips from parents or guardians to take students off

school grounds. He took students to BJs in September, 2010 and

had no such permission slips.

Incompetency

1. Failure to properly supervise the handling and collection of student activity monies (dances, lollipop fund and school store)

from September through November 30, 2010.

2. Failure to properly collect and account for student activity

monies (dances, lollipop fund and school store) from September

through November 30, 2010.

3. Failure to properly follow procedures for the handling of

student activity monies (dances, lollipop fund and school store)

from September through November 30, 2010.

Conduct Unbecoming a Teacher

1. Misappropriation of student activity funds from the ticket sales

for the September 16 and 17, 2010 student dance ($322).

2. Misappropriation of student activity funds from the refreshment




table proceeds of the September 16 and 17 student dance

(Unknown amount).

3. Misappropriation of student activity funds from the ticket salesfrom the October 22, 2010 student dance ($365).


table proceeds of the October 22, 2010 student dance (Unknown

amount).


table proceeds of the November 19, 2010 student dance ($154).

6. Misappropriation of student activity funds from the school store

from September through November 30, 2010 ($2,800).

7. Misappropriation of student activity funds from the lollipop

fund from September through November 30, 2010 ($2,128).

A pre-termination meeting before Superintendent Scully was held on March 30, 2012, at

which time the grievant was afforded the opportunity to present any defenses to the charges listed

above. After that hearing, the superintendent by letter of April 11, 2012 terminated the

employment of Mr. Francescone, effective immediately.

By letter dated April 23, 2012, President Marc Harvey of the Haverhill Education

Association timely grieved the termination of Mr. Francescone. That grievance remained

unresolved through the lower steps of the grievance procedure, leading to this arbitration

proceeding.

DISCUSSION

As noted in footnote one at the very beginning of this opinion, given the sharply divergent

evidence regarding certain key facts in this case, it is necessary at the outset to determine the

relative credibility of the grievant on the one hand, in comparison to the several witnesses called




by the Employer who provided testimony which conflicted with that offered by the grievant. In

these areas of evidentiary conflict, I have almost exclusively credited the testimony of the

Employer’s witnesses, over the conflicting testimony offered by the grievant. I have done so for

the following reasons.

Were there to be only a single person who gave testimony contrary to that of the grievant,

it could be a harder task to sort out which witness to credit. In such a case, the sole Employer

witness could simply have mis-observed the event in question, or mis-remembered it, or could be

flat-out lying. However, in many different important respects, the grievant’s testimony was

directly contradicted, by a large number of different Employer witnesses. It is implausible that

all these witnesses had mis-perceived or mis-remembered these various events in question, or

worse, were conspiring to collectively lie so as to support the grievant’s termination. None of

these witnesses started out with any animosity toward the grievant. On the contrary, Donais (like

Kitsos before her) was deeply appreciative of the extra help that he offered to her as she started

her principalship in the fall of 2010. Torrisi was a close friend of the grievant’s, both at work

and in their families’ personal lives. Not one of these Employer witnesses, who testified from

personal knowledge about the disputed facts in this case, harbored any animosity or other reason

to lie in a manner that would support the termination of his employment.

In the end, it is the collective weight of the testimony offered by Prior Principal Kitsos (as

corroborated by the Power Point presentation she had showed), Principal Donais (similarly

corroborated by her Power Point presentation), prior close friend and Co-Worker Torrisi, PTO

Leader Christine Buco, Custodian Gonzales, and Police Detective Benedetti, which caused me to

discredit the grievant’s testimony. All of those Employer witnesses offered first-hand testimony




which contradicted the grievant on one key point or another. Their testimony was credible, and

collectively caused me to base my findings of fact upon the testimony they gave, rather than that

offered by the grievant.

With those credibility findings in mind, it is helpful to continue the analysis of this case

with some general comments. As to many if not all of the counts against Mr. Francescone, the

Union repeatedly asserts that there was a notable lack of progressive discipline. The Union notes

that amongst the various counts are many acts of supposed misconduct that occurred

commencing in early September 2010, and that Principal Donais was fully aware of many of

these events at the times they occurred. Yet, the Union emphasizes, no lower levels of formal

discipline were applied, not once, until the grievant was placed on administrative leave in early

January 2011, and ultimately terminated. The Union suggests that this total lack of progressive

discipline is fatal to the Employer’s claim that it then acted with just cause when it then

summarily terminated the employment of Mr. Francescone.

The Union certainly is correct that the proper application of progressive discipline is a

necessary prerequisite to termination of a long service employee, unless the termination is for a

proven offense of such egregiousness as to warrant termination in the very first instance. Some

of the allegations made by the Employer against Mr. Francescone involved alleged misconduct

which one would expect to be addressed, in the first instance, by lower levels of progressive or

corrective discipline, not summary termination. Examples that come to mind are the alleged

offenses of allowing students to eat in his classroom, notwithstanding the principal’s directive

that this practice cease; having the glass window pane on his classroom door covered over;

keeping modest amounts of student activity funds locked in the closet in his classroom; or taking




students off of school premises without producing permission slips. Of course the principal had

every right to issue these instructions, but when and if violations occurred, then lower levels of

progressive discipline could and should have been applied, before summarily terminating the

grievant for these cited reasons.

What happened instead was that events transpired which troubled Ms. Donais, but for

whatever reason, she repeatedly failed to apply lower levels of progressive discipline that might

well have helped Mr. Francescone appreciate the absolute necessity of conforming his behavior

to the policies she had established. One has to wonder if Donais was disinclined to impose any

discipline upon the grievant because he had in August been generous in helping her get prepared

for her first year as principal, and/or because of her newness in the role of principal. In any case,

she did not take any disciplinary action on any grounds against the grievant until January 2011,

when matters had escalated especially regarding fiscal matters.

To then cite this collection of relatively minor offenses which occurred months prior the

grievant’s placement on administrative leave, as part of the rationale for summary termination,

looks more like improper, “cumulative” discipline rather than the progressive discipline which is

an integral part of the just cause standard. It is inconsistent with the concept of just cause to

knowingly allow a bunch of lesser offenses over time to go undisciplined at a lower level, but

then to add them all up and assert that as accumulated, they justify summary termination.

That having been said, there are certain offenses which do warrant summary termination

of employment without an initial application of progressive discipline. Theft or misappropriation

of funds in any amount from one’s employer is one example of an offense which is generally

recognized as warranting summary termination; in the case of teachers with professional teacher




status regulated by M.G.L. c.71, §42, such proven misappropriation of funds would constitute

“conduct unbecoming a teacher. “Insubordination” is another basis for termination under

c.71,§42.

In this case, some of the most serious allegations against Mr. Francescone involved

misappropriation of student activity funds. Certain of these alleged acts of misappropriation of

funds ultimately led to criminal prosecution for larceny. Quite clearly, if the grievant had been

convicted of the criminal offense of larceny of student activity funds, that conviction would have

provided more than ample justification for summary termination of Francescone’s employment.

As the Union notes, though, the four criminal counts of larceny brought against Mr.

Francescone either were dismissed on motion before trial, or he was found not guilty of larceny

after a trial before a jury. Those dispositions in the criminal proceedings, the Union suggests,

should have ended the inquiry, and the Employer thus lacked just cause to proceed with its action

of terminating Mr. Francescone’s employment.

However, the standard of proof applied in those criminal proceedings, proof beyond a

reasonable doubt, is a significantly higher burden of proof than the one which the employer must

meet in order to establish just cause for termination of the grievant’s employment. The findings

of not guilty in the criminal proceedings, then, do not foreclose the Employer from seeking to

prove by clear and convincing evidence that a misappropriation of funds occurred, thus

establishing just cause for summary termination for that offense.

Moreover, some of the more serious charges of misconduct cited as the reasons for

termination in this case involve alleged misdeeds that are not criminal in nature, but if proven

constitute disciplinary misconduct in the employment context. Insubordinate behavior toward a




supervisor, incompetence, or conduct unbecoming a teacher might well not constitute criminal

misconduct, but could provide grounds for discipline up to and including summary termination

of employment if egregious in nature. For all these reasons, the fact that the criminal charges

against Mr. Francescone were dismissed or resulted in jury findings of not guilty does not

foreclose the Employer from arguing that it nonetheless had just cause within the meaning of

M.G.L. c.71, §42 to terminate the grievant.

In the final analysis, although the Employer alleged a wide variety of misdeeds by the

grievant, it is only necessary to focus in on one factual area, since this one area alone establishes

that the Employer acted with just cause within the meaning of M.G.L. c.71, §42, when it

terminated the employment of Mr. Francescone.

Regarding this one decisive area, the key, proven facts can be summarized as follows. In

Principal Donais’ fall 2010, pre-school Power Point presentation to faculty, Principal Donais

clearly informed and directed the staff, “All money must be turned into the office at the end of

each school day. No money should be in classroom closets at any time (emphases added).”

However, on October 18, Donais heard from Mr. Francescone that notwithstanding her directive

to all staff, he was keeping large amounts of cash in the locked closet in her classroom. Later

that day, Donais with Custodian Gonzales went to the grievant’s locked closet, opened it, and

found just over $1,000 in cash stowed away there. Gravely concerned, she promptly conferred

with Assistant Superintendent Kosmes.

On Monday, October 25, at about 1 p.m., Kosmes and Donais met with Francescone.

Kosmes explained that retention of cash in his closet was contrary to Haverhill School

Department policies and procedures, and state law. She also warned the grievant, with




The Union argues that the grievant needed time to he needed time to do an accounting, so “immediately”23

meant, once he could find the time to complete the necessary accounting and paperwork. Of course, the money

could have been cou nted and turned in that very afternoon – i.e., “immediately” within the normal meaning of that

remarkable prescience, “I don’t want you to be at risk of accusation....” She directed that all

student activity monies needed to be turned into the office and placed into the school safe on a

daily basis. Money was not to be taken home, nor was it to be stored in the closet in his

classroom.

Kosmes also clearly described various methods by which the grievant could still

expeditiously expend school activity funds to carry out his ongoing advisory functions, but

consistent with the absolute requirement that “we need receipts” for all expenditures of student

activity funds. There is no doubt that the grievant understood that directive. Moreover, he

understood, or certainly should have understood, the gravity of the directive, coming as it did

from the assistant superintendent who had been called to this meeting at the Whittier School

specifically to address this matter personally with him. He said that he would comply.

The assistant superintendent further directed the grievant that she wanted all of the money

currently in his closet removed, reconciled, and turned into the office with accounting

“immediately.”

The grievant, however, failed to comply with those clear directives. He did not turn in

the money from his closet “immediately,” which in common usage would mean at once, that very

afternoon. Only after a further demand, he on the next day turned in less than a third of the

money which he had stored in his closet. Only after still another demand, he on or about

November 5 turned in only another $451, still leaving about $250 in his closet (or unaccounted

for).23




word – and then he would have worked on back-up accounting after the fact. He did not need to sit on the cash,

contrary to the assistant superintendent’s directive, in order to complete any accoun ting that he intended to produce .

More over, even when he did belatedly turn in cash, no accounting came with it. He only turned in the $300, then

about a week later, another $451. Since he gave no accounting, even then, needed time for accounting obviously was

not the reason for his substantial delay in complying (only partially) with Kosmes’ directive.

Nor did he turn in on a daily basis any of the cash which was coming into his hands every

day from lollipop and school store operations. Rather than complying promptly and completely

with the clear and forceful directives of the assistant superintendent, he continued to store student

activity monies in his classroom closet, and perhaps elsewhere, but not in the school safe as he

had been directed.

Then, the last straw occurred on the night of the November 19, “Reunion Dance.” Rather

than turn in all monies which had been collected at the refreshment table, the record evidence

clearly and convincingly establishes that he took about $150 in cash from the refreshment table

net sales, and walked out of the dance with that cash, announcing upon his exit that he was going

out to eat with some of the graduates who had returned for the dance. Then, when questioned

about that missing cash on Monday, he presented the following series of claims which he knew

were not truthful: he had turned in far more than the $85 which Donais had stated (which

testimony was rebutted by Donais, given that she and Officer Alvarado had counted the money

together); he gave a wad of bills to Torrisi (which testimony she convincingly rebutted); or, he

from time to time brought money from the refreshment table and put it into the cash tray at the

front table where tickets had been sold (which testimony was convincingly rebutted by Torrisi,

Donais and Gonzales).

One can only speculate what the grievant did with the missing $150. Did he feel it was

within his rights to use some of the proceeds of the reunion dance to treat some of the returning




The grievant, however, never has acknowledged as much.24

graduates to a bite to eat? It does seem that Mr. Francescone felt it was his within his sole24

discretion to expend student activity funds in whatever way he deemed appropriate, without any

documentation or accounting to anyone. If that is what happened, he unquestionably violated the

firm and clear directives which he had received from Assistant Superintendent Kosmes, that the

grievant was to turn in all student activity funds on a daily basis, and provide receipts for all

expenditures of such funds. Regardless of what he did with the missing $150, then, at a

minimum, he was grossly insubordinate in his mishandling of the monies from the refreshment

table on that evening of November 19. Moreover, his mishandling of those missing monies, and

then his lying to Donais and others about what he did with that cash, compels the additional

conclusion that the grievant misappropriated those funds, which constituted conduct unbecoming

a teacher.

It is bitterly ironic that the very blunt warning which Assistant Superintendent Kosmes so

forcefully voiced to Mr. Francescone at the meeting of October 25 – and which he brazenly

ignored – turned out to be exactly what transpired. The grievant failed to comply with the clear

directives to turn in all student activity funds in his possession each and every day, and to follow

procedures to assure receipts and the ability to track all expenditures of such student activity

funds. The result, just as Kosmes warned, was that he put himself at risk of accusation, and that

risk in fact came to harsh fruition when criminal charges were filed against him and he had to go

through a criminal trial. Moreover, it was not just he himself who was placed at risk; the

Whittier School and the Haverhill Public Schools collectively were placed at risk as well – at

risk of being dragged through a senseless scandal about financial mis-management. It matters




little that the criminal charges filed against the grievant ultimately resulted in not guilty findings;

the damage to the Haverhill Public Schools was not avoided by the fact of that disposition of the

criminal charges against Mr. Francescone.

The Union strenuously argued that there was in this case a total absence of progressive

discipline. However, in the case of egregious insubordination and misappropriation of student

activity funds as occurred here, after and notwithstanding the clear and forceful directives from

Assistant Superintendent Kosmes; and then followed by dishonesty as the school administration

tried to learn what had in fact transpired; the Employer was justified in moving directly to

termination of employment, without any progressive discipline. Moreover, given these facts, the

best interests of the pupils in the school district were properly served by the summary termination

of the grievant’s employment, notwithstanding his many years of service to the Haverhill Public

Schools.

The Employer based its termination action upon many other allegations as well, some

quite serious such as alleged misappropriation of quite substantial sums of monies generated in

such school activities as the school store and the lollipop sales program. It is not necessary to

address these various claims and allegations, since the facts as discussed above clearly and

convincingly establish that the Employer acted with just cause within the meaning of M.G.L. c.

71, §42 when it terminated the employment of Daniel Francescone. Accordingly, the grievance

brought by the Haverhill Education Association on Mr. Francescone’s behalf is denied.

ArddecCD:HaverhillPS&Francescone102512Dec.wpd

francescone decision

Documents