[Nfb-kzoo] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] boone arbitration decision

[J.J. Meddaugh]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] boone arbitration decision


For those who have difficulty with the internet or pdf documents here is the 
arbitration ruling:

American Arbitration Association

Voluntary Labor Arbitration

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:

CHRISTINE BOONE

Appellant,

Table with 3 columns and 2 rows-and

AAA No.:

Issue:

Grievant:

Arbitrator: 54 390 00896 10

Discharge

Christine Boone

Michael P. Long MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY, LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH

Appellee,



Table end________________________________________________________/

BACKGROUND

An arbitration tribunal was convened according to the Voluntary Labor 
Arbitration

Rules of the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the State of 
Michigan

Civil Service Rules and Regulations as they apply to the Michigan Department 
of

Energy, Labor & Economic Growth (“Appellee” or “Employer”) and Christine 
Boone

(“Appellant” or “Grievant”). Four days of hearing were held on January 12, 
19, 20

and 21, 2011 in a meeting room at the Department of Natural Resources and

Environment Kalamazoo District Office in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The subject

matter of this case concerns the termination of the employment of Christine 
Boone,

who served as Director of the Michigan Training Center for the Blind.

At the arbitration hearing, the parties had the opportunity to articulate 
their

positions and offer argument, as well as the opportunity to present sworn

testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and submit exhibits into evidence. 
Appearing

on behalf of Christine Boone are Joseph B. Espo, Attorney at Law of Brown,

Christine Boone Page 2 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Goldstein & Levy in Baltimore Maryland and Mary Ellen Gurewitz, Attorney at 
law

of Sachs, Waldman, P.C. in Detroit, Michigan. Appearing on behalf of the 
Employer

are Michael O. King, Jr., Attorney at Law and Jeanmarie Miller, Attorney at 
law,

both of the Department of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan. 
A

verbatim transcript of the hearing was taken by a Certified Shorthand 
Reporter and

Notary Public and made available to the parties and arbitrator.

The hearing record contains forty-five exhibits and the sworn testimony of 
nine

witnesses, including the Appellant, Christine Boone. At the conclusion of 
the

evidentiary portion of the hearing, the parties determined to close by way 
of written

briefs followed by written reply briefs. A briefing schedule was established 
by the

arbitrator facilitating the simultaneous filing of briefs by both parties 
through the

Case Manager of the American Arbitration Association. Upon receipt of the 
briefs

and reply briefs, the proceedings were closed. The matter is now ready for 
decision.

The arbitrator reviewed the applicable Rules and Regulations of the Michigan

Department of Civil Service as well as all of the evidence presented and 
arguments

put forth by the parties in making this decision. The fact that each and 
every piece

of evidence and or argument of the parties are not specifically addressed in 
this

decision does not mean that such was not considered in making a 
determination.

The Appellant is charged with violation of Michigan Civil Service Commission

Regulation 2.05 which references Rule 2-20 – Workplace Safety: Violence, 
Firearms

and Explosives. It states in pertinent part:

1. PURPOSE V The purpose of this regulation is to provide direction 
regarding workplace safety and

the reporting of violations involving acts or threats of violence or 
possessing orcarrying firearms or explosives.

Christine Boone Page 3 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Rule 2-20 Workplace Safety: Violence, Firearms, and Explosives

2-20.1 Acts of Violence and Threats of Violence

(a) Prohibited Acts. An employee shall not commit an act of violence or a 
threat of

violence. (b) Requirement to Report. If an employee becomes aware of an act 
of violence or athreat of violence, the employee shall immediately report 
the act or threat to theappointing authority or the appointing authority's 
designee. (c) Action by Appointing Authority. An appointing authority or 
designee who receives

a credible report of an act Of violence or a threat of violence shall take 
reasonableactions to protect employees. 2-20.2 Firearms and Explosives

(a) Carrying and Possession Prohibited; Exceptions. An employee shall not 
carry or

possess a firearm or explosive at a state workplace or during actual-duty 
time, exceptas authorized below: (1) Firearm. An employee may carry or 
posses a firearm at a state workplaceor during actual-duty time only under 
one of the following circumstances: (A) The employee is (I) employed in a 
law enforcement, correctional,

investigative, security, or military capacity and (2) permitted orrequired 
by agency work rules to carry or possess a firearm at a stateworkplace or 
during actual-duty time. (B) The appointing authority has specifically 
authorized the employeein writing to carry or possess a firearm at a state 
workplace or duringactual-duty time. (C) Except when prohibited by law or an 
agency work rule, theemployee carries or possesses a firearm inside a 
personal vehicle

while the firearm is completely unloaded and enclosed in a case in 
thevehicle or carried in the trunk of the vehicle. (2) Explosives. An 
employee may carry or possess an explosive at a stateworkplace or during 
actual-duty time if the employee is authorized by the

appointing authority to carry or possess the explosive as part of 
theemployee's official duties. (3) Requirements. An employee authorized to 
carry or possess a firearm orexplosive under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) 
must carry or possess the firearmor explosive in a reasonable manner and in 
compliance with (1) all applicable

laws, including the civil service rules and regulations, (2) all agency work 
Christine Boone Page 4 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

rules; and (3) any instructions or limitations imposed by the appointing

authority.

(b) Requirement to Report Violations. An employee who becomes aware that 
anyperson possesses or is carrying a firearm or explosive in violation of 
this rule shallimmediately report the matter to the appointing authority or 
the appointingauthority's designee. (c) Action by Appointing Authority. An 
appointing authority or designee who receivesa credible report of a 
violation of this rule shall take reasonable actions to protect thesafety of 
employees. 2-20.3 Effect of Other Laws

This rule regulates the ability of employees to carry or possess firearms 
andexplosives (1) at any state workplace at any time and (2) in any place 
during actual-

duty time. Except as specifically authorized in this rule, a constitutional 
or statutoryprovision that otherwise permits a person to carry or possess a 
firearm or anexplosive does not authorize an employee to carry or possess a 
firearm or explosive

during actual-duty time or at a state workplace.

2-20.4 Penalty

If an employee violates this rule, an appointing authority may discipline 
the

employee, up to and including dismissal.

2-20.5 Agency Work Rules

An appointing authority may issue agency work rules related to firearms, 
explosives,

and workplace safety that are not inconsistent with this rule.

3. DEFINITIONS A. Civil Service Commission Rule Definitions 1. Act of 
violence means any intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent act that 
would

reasonably be expected to cause physical injury or death to another person. 
2. Actual-duty time means the time that an employee is scheduled to 
receivecompensation, benefits, or benefit accruals for the performance of 
the employee’spublic duties as a member of the classified civil service. 
Actual-duty time includes all

scheduled work time and overtime. Actual-duty time does not include the time 
anemployee is on approved leave from the employee's public duties as a 
member of theclassified civil service, even if the employee receives 
compensation, benefits, orbenefit accruals for the time. 3. Appointing 
authority means each of the following: Christine Boone Page 5 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

(a) A single executive heading a principal department or autonomous entity. 
(b) A chief executive officer of a principal department or autonomous 
entityheaded by a board or commission. (c) The state personnel director. (d) 
A person designated by any of the preceding as responsible for

administering the personnel functions of the department, autonomous entity,

or other agency. 4. Explosive means any bomb, grenade, missile, or other 
dangerous device deigned toexpand suddenly and release internal energy 
resulting in an explosion. 5. Firearm means a weapon from which a dangerous 
projectile may be expelled by anexplosive, gas, or air. 6. State workplace 
means an office or building owned or leased by the state in whichclassified 
employees are assigned or work. State workplace includes any state-owned

or leased common grounds or parking areas used by classified employees 
assigned toor working in the office or building. 7. Threat of violence means 
any intentional communication or other act thatthreatens an act of violence 
and would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized,

threatened, or fear physical injury or death to oneself or another person. 
STANDARDS

A. Agency Work Rules.

An appointing authority may promulgate work rules not inconsistent with rule 
2-20.

B. Imminent Risk.

An employee who observes or learns of an imminent risk of serious physical 
injury ordeath due to (1) an act of violence or a threat of violence or (2) 
the carrying or

possession of a firearm or explosive at a state workplace or during 
actual-duty timeshall immediately take the following actions:

1. Take measures to ensure his or her personal safety. 2. Report the matter 
to law enforcement. 3. Notify the immediate supervisor, manager, or 
appointing authority of theincident as soon as possible. Christine Boone 
Page 6 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

C. Reporting Obligation. 1. What to Report a. All Employees. An employee is 
obligated to report to managementor to the appointing authority any of the 
following circumstances: (1) If the employee is subjected to acts or threats 
of violence. (2) If the employee witnesses acts or threats of violence. (3) 
If the employee becomes aware of acts or threats ofviolence. (4) If the 
employee observes or is made aware that anemployee possesses or is carrying 
a firearm or explosive at astate workplace or during actual-duty time, 
unless thereporting employee knows that the appointing authority 
hasauthorized the employee to carry the firearm or explosive. (5) If the 
employee receives a protective or restraining orderthat lists a, state 
workplace as a protected area, the employeemust provide a copy of the order 
to the appointing authorityresponsible for the state workplace. b. 
Supervisors and managers. A supervisor or manager who observesor learns of 
(1) an act subordinate employee explosive at a statesubordinate employee or 
(2) the carrying or possession of a firearm orworkplace or during 
actual-duty time by a subordinate employee shalltake prompt and appropriate 
remedial action and shall report

observation or information to the appointing authority. 2. To Whom to 
Report. An employee who is obligated to report under this regulation shall 
report theincident to any available supervisor or the appointing authority.

3. When to Report. An employee who is obligated to make a report must make 
the requiredreport immediately upon learning of or observing the reportable 
incident or

as soon thereafter as it is reasonably possible to make the report.

4. Confidentiality. To protect the interests of all involved, the appointing 
authority shallmaintain confidentiality to the extent practicable and 
appropriate under the

circumstances.

Christine Boone Page 7 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

D. Action to Stop Violations. 1. Acts or Threats of Violence. If an act or 
threat of violence is alleged to be continuing or the target of theact or 
threat needs, protection, the appointing authority shall takeappropriate 
immediate action it deems reasonably necessary to stop the

alleged acts or threats of violence. Possible actions include, but are 
notlimited to, (1) notice to law enforcement, (2) change of location of the 
workstation of the alleged violator or person affected, (3) "no contact" 
orders toboth parties, (4) temporary reassignment of the alleged violator or 
the personaffected, and (5) suspension of the alleged violator with or 
without pay to

conduct an investigation, as authorized in rule 2-6.4.

2. Possession of Firearms or Explosives. If an appointing authority learns 
that an employee is carrying or inpossession of a firearm or explosive at a 
state workplace or during actual-

duty time in violation of rule 2-20, this regulation, or an agency work 
rule,

the appointing authority may notify law enforcement or take otherappropriate 
action.

E. Discipline. The appointing authority may discipline an employee for (1) 
engaging in an act orthreat of violence or (2) carrying or possessing a 
firearm or explosives at a stateworkplace or while on actual-duty time in 
violation Of rule 2-20, this regulation, oran agency work rule.

F. Education and Training. Each, appointing authority is. encouraged to 
provide appointed employeesinformation regarding an employee’s dutiesto all 
current, and newly employee’s duties and responsibilities under rule 2-20, 
thisregulation, and any applicable agency work rules.

Christine Boone Page 8 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Table with 2 columns and 14 rows5. PROCEDURE Responsibility Action Employee 
who observes orlearns of (1) an act orthreat of violence or (2)

carrying or possession of a

firearm or explosives 1. Imminent Risk of Dangera. Immediately takes 
appropriatemeasures to ensure his or her personalsafety.

b. Contacts law enforcement official to

report incident, if appropriate.

c. Notifies immediate supervisor,

manager, or appointing authority ofincident.

2. No Imminent Risk of Danger

Notifies immediate supervisor,

manager, appointing authority ofincident. Supervisor or Manager 3. Conducts 
any necessary interviews orinvestigations to obtain specific facts

regarding the reported incident.

4. Forwards a report to the appointingauthority. Appointing Authority 5. 
Reviews information to substantiate or

dismiss reported incident.

6. Takes appropriate remedial or disciplinaryaction.

7. Consults with law enforcement or other

appropriate agencies. CONTACT

Table endQuestions regarding this regulation should be directed to Office of 
the GeneralCounsel, Civil Service Commission, P.O. Box 30002, 400 South Pine 
Street, Lansing,

Michigan 48909; or by telephone, at 517-373-3024.

Christine Boone Page 9 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH

WORK RULE FOR WORKPLACE SAFETY

OCTOBER, 2007

POLICY

It is the Department of Labor & Economic Growth's policy to promote a safe 
environment for its

employees. The department is committed to working with its employees to 
maintain a work

environment free from acts of violence and threats of violence.

DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this work rule, the following definitions shall apply:

Act of violence means any intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent act 
that would reasonably be

expected to cause physical injury or death to another person.

Threat of violence means any intentional communication or other act that 
threatens an act of

Violence and would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, threatened, 
or fear physical injury

or death to oneself or another person. Any threat of violence, whether 
verbal, written, visual, or by

gesture, will be presumed to be an expression of intent to do harm to 
another person.

Workplace means an office or building owned or leased by the state in which 
employees are

assigned or work. It includes any state-owned of leased common grounds or 
parking areas used by

employees assigned to or working in the office or building.

Explosive means any bomb, grenade, missile, or other dangerous device 
designed to expand

suddenly and release internal energy resulting in an explosion.

Firearm means a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be expelled by 
an explosive, gas,

or air.

ACT OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE

An act of violence or a threat of violence that is work-related or occurs in 
the workplace or while

engaged in work related activities is prohibited. Any employee who is 
subjected to or is aware that

another employee is being subjected to an act of workplace or work-related 
violence or a threat of

imminent violence shall immediately take appropriate measures to ensure his 
or her personal

safety. The employee shall then promptly report the incident to appropriate 
Jaw enforcement

personnel and his/her supervisor. The supervisor shall immediately notify 
the Human Resource

Office of the incident.

Non-imminent acts or threats of violence shall be reported to the employee's 
supervisor. If the

employee's supervisor is the individual engaging in violence or making a 
violent threat, the

employee shall report the incident to the designated Workplace Safety 
Coordinator or Labor

Relations Manager.

All reports of an act of violence or a threat of workplace or work-related 
violence will be

investigated and appropriately addressed. The appointing authority shall 
take reasonable actions to

protect employees when a credible report of a violent act or threat of 
violence is received.

If the department receives information regarding an alleged act of violence, 
receives a threat of

Christine Boone Page 10 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

violence, or has a reasonable suspicion that an employee may have 
transported a firearm or

explosive on state property without authorization, the department or other 
appropriate authority

may conduct a search of desks, lockers, and any other storage space located 
on state property as

part of the department's effort to investigate and appropriately address the 
situation.

Employees shall not sabotage or cause malicious destruction of or damage to 
state property,

resources, work products, electronic files, or the property-of another 
employee or a member of the

general public.

FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

An employee shall not carry or possess a firearm or explosive at a state 
workplace or during

actual-duty time except as specifically, authorized in this work rule and as 
authorized by law.

Except as provided by law, employees are not prohibited from carrying or 
possessing a firearm

inside a personal vehicle while the firearm is completely unloaded and 
enclosed in a case in the

vehicle or carried in the trunk of the vehicle. The firearm must remain 
inside the personal vehicle.

This work rule covers all department employees' ability to carry or possess 
firearms or explosives

at any state workplace, at any time and in any place, during actual 
duty-time. Except as

specifically authorized by this work rule, a constitutional or statutory 
provision that otherwise

authorizes an employee to carry or possess a firearm or explosive does not 
authorize the carrying

or possessing of the firearm or explosive during actual duty-time, at a 
state workplace, or in a

state vehicle.

Reporting

Employees are obligated to report to management if any of the following 
circumstances occur:

a. The employee is subjected to workplace or work-related violence by a 
supervisor, manager,

co-worker, or other person. b. The employee witnesses a supervisor, manager, 
co-worker, or other person in the

workplace engaging in workplace or work-related violence involving another 
person. c The employee receives a. protective or restraining order, which 
lists state-owned or leased

premises as a protected area. (A copy of such order shall be provided to the 
immediate

supervisor and the Human Resource Office.)

A supervisor or manager who witnesses, or is made aware of by one who 
witnesses, a subordinate

employee engaged in workplace or work-related violence, threatening 
behavior, or making threats

of violence or has unauthorized possession of a firearm or explosive is 
obligated to report the

behavior to the Human Resource Office and to take prompt and appropriate 
remedial action.

REPORTING PROCEDURES

1. An employee who is directly affected by or witnesses workplace or 
work-related violence

directed at another employee shall report the conduct to a supervisor, 
Workplace Safety

Coordinator, or the Human Resource Office. 2. An employee who is directly 
affected by or witnesses workplace or work-related violence

by the employee's own supervisor shall report the conduct of the supervisor 
to a higher-level Christine Boone Page 11 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

supervisor, Workplace Response Coordinator, or the appointing authority.

3. An employee who is directly affected by or witnesses workplace or work 
related violence

caused by a Workplace Response Coordinator shall report the conduct directly 
to a

supervisor, another Workplace Response Coordinator, or the appointing 
authority. VIOLATIONS

Any violation of this work rule may result in discipline, up to and 
including termination of

employment.

ISSUE

The issue in this arbitration:

Was the termination of the employment of Christine Boone for justcause, and, 
if not, what is the appropriate remedy?

DISCUSSION

This case concerns whether there exists just cause for the termination of 
the

employment of Christine Boone, Director of the Michigan Commission for the

Blind’s (MCB) Training Center, for violation of Civil Service Rules and

Regulations, as well as work rules, when she allowed her staff to purchase 
and use

two Ruger Spring Operated Break-Barrel Pellet Rifles on the Training Center

grounds to conduct a marksmanship training class for students.

Ms. Boone was officially discharged for violating Michigan Civil Service 
Rule 2-20

and the DELEG workplace safety rule concerning firearms (each set forth 
above).

There is no dispute that it was agreed that the marksmanship training was a

good experience for the students, that Ms. Boone authorized the conducting 
of

Christine Boone Page 12 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

marksmanship classes by her staff or that she approved the purchase of the 
pellet

rifles for use in the classes at the MCB Training Center. MCB and DELEG 
state

that there is just cause to terminate the employment of the Appellant 
because

she allowed “firearms” to be brought onto state property without the proper

authorization, and that this was done in violation of Civil Service Rule 
2-20.2(a).

Counsel for Appellant argues that the Appellant did not knowingly violate 
any

rules or regulations, and, in fact, took a number of reasonable steps to 
insure that

she was acting carefully, reasonably and within the law in initiating the

marksmanship classes. Appellant asserts that the regulation defining a 
firearm

in the Rules and regulations was so difficult to understand or apply that 
when the

issue arose as to whether the Ruger Spring Operated Break-Barrel Pellet 
Rifles

used in a marksmanship program at the Training Center were "firearms" 
according

to the regulation's definition there was no agreement. Only hours and hours 
of

research by the DELEG Director of Human Resources led her to the conclusion

that the pellet rifles constituted “firearms,” and that the rule had been 
violated.

Counsel for Appellant asserts that Christine Boone was guilty of no 
misconduct and

no discipline was warranted.

Appellant, Christine Boone, is 51 years old, married and the mother of two 
college-

age children. Ms. Boone is blind and has been so since birth. Her only 
visual

perception now is light perception. She uses email and other text-based 
computer

programs (such as Word) through the use of a program that converts text to 
speech.

She reads and takes notes in Braille with a manual slate and stylus device.

Ms. Boone earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Colorado 
and a

law degree from Creighton University. Over the course of her career she has

Christine Boone Page 13 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

worked for public libraries, practiced law, and worked as a rehabilitation

counselor and vocational rehabilitation counselor. She served as the 
Director of

the Bureau of Blindness and Visual Services in the Pennsylvania Department 
of

Labor and Industry. As such, she held a position that is at the same level 
as that

held by Patrick Cannon, who is the director of the Michigan Commission for 
the

Blind.

Ms. Boone was recruited for and hired as Director of the Michigan Training 
Center

for the Blind ("MCBTC" or "Training Center") in October, 2006 by the 
Michigan

Commission for the Blind ("MCB"). Ms. Boone testified that that Mr. Cannon 
told

her during recruitment that he wanted someone who could run the Training

Center and that he would be happy to provide less supervision of the next 
Training

Center director than he had of the previous one.

In addition to soliciting Ms, Boone's application to be director of the 
Michigan

Training Center Mr. Cannon was a member of the selection committee. At the

time Ms. Boone was selected to become the Training Center director, Mr. 
Cannon

wrote that "Christine L, Boone began working in the field of public 
rehabilitation

programs 25 years ago and since then has developed a most impressive record 
of

knowledge, experience and achievements in effectively administering 
vocational

rehabilitation programs." The job description, authored by Mr. Cannon, 
requires

the person who directs the Training Center to “function independently within

federal, state, and agency guidelines in establishing program priorities."

The Michigan Training Center for the Blind is a residential facility of 
nearly

50,000 square feet with dormitory rooms, classrooms and related facilities. 
It can

house up to 50 students who are legally blind and eligible for vocational

Christine Boone Page 14 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

rehabilitation services. It also provides personal adjustment training. The

Training Center is set on approximately 23 acres of land and is located in

Kalamazoo, Michigan. When Ms. Boone began her work as director of the 
Training

Center there were 36 employees there. Most of those employees reported 
directly

to Ms. Boone, including rehabilitation counselors and the teaching staff. 
Id. All

but two others reported to a nurse-supervisor. In March, 2007 the nurse-

supervisor left the Training Center and from then until April 2008, when 
Bruce

Schultz was promoted to be assistant director, all of the individuals who 
had

reported to the nurse-supervisor then also reported directly to Ms. Boone, 
except for

one maintenance employee, who reported to the maintenance supervisor and one

clerical person who reported to Ms. Boone's assistant.

The Training Center provides vocational rehabilitation for those who attend 
it.

The mission of the Training Center is to prepare its students for gainful

employment. Vocational rehabilitation counselors work with the students, or

clients, to provide services that will help a client achieve a vocational 
goal, taking

into consideration the client's strengths, abilities, talents, skills and 
choice. The

Training Center also provides training in cane travel, access technology and 
other

skills needed by the blind. During the school-year all Training Center 
participants

are adults. During the summer there are programs for college-age and high 
school

students. Upon her arrival, Ms. Boone found an absence of career-based

programming at the center, and with Mr. Cannon's support, developed a core

curriculum of Braille, orientation and mobility (traveling with a cane), 
cooking

and computers. Non-core classes were in subjects such as access technology,

fitness, such as swimming and bowling, and other activities.

Christine Boone Page 15 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

As director of the Training Center, Ms. Boone was expected to provide 
direction,

management and control of all aspects of the Training Center, including 
planning,

development and implementation of programs, recruitment and management of 
staff,

operation of the physical facility, program evaluation and financial 
management.

Ms. Boone was also responsible for working with universities and other 
vocational

rehabilitation programs in developing "mutually beneficial programs for 
students

and agencies."

Ms. Boone was tasked with maintaining or developing a good relationship with 
the two

consumer organizations of the blind, the National Federation of the Blind 
and its

Michigan affiliate, and the Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually 
Impaired,

affiliated with the American Council of the Blind.

Ms. Boone's immediate supervisor, Patrick Cannon, was located at the 
Michigan

Commission for the Blind offices in Lansing, about 78 miles away. Because it 
was

her job to provide for the curriculum at the Training Center, Ms. Boone's

understanding was that she did not need Mr. Cannon's approval to begin 
classes.

When Ms. Boone first began working at the Training Center, she would see Mr.

Cannon monthly for executive management team meetings which were held in

Lansing.

Initially, Ms. Boone had frequent telephone conversations with Mr. Cannon, 
but the

frequency of those calls diminished over time. Ms. Boone also communicated 
by

email with Mr. Cannon when she first began working at the Training Center, 
but

was then told by Mr. Cannon that he would rather discuss things instead of 
having

them presented in writing and having to write a response. Ms. Boone 
testified

that "for a long time" there was no particular schedule for conversations 
because

they spoke frequently. At some point, holding those frequent conversations 
became

Christine Boone Page 16 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

more difficult because of Mr. Cannon's schedule, so Ms. Boone asked her 
secretary to

set up a weekly telephone appointment between Mr. Cannon and Ms. Boone,

Though those meetings were "usually held" thereafter, they were generally 
short.

During the course of her employment Ms. Boone received periodic performance

reviews. Initially, as a probationary employee, she was reviewed quarterly. 
Ms.

Boone received written employee evaluations conducted or prepared by Mr.

Cannon on four occasions. In her initial performance review, for the period

October, 2006 through January, 2007, Ms. Boone was rated "high performing" 
for

most of her job functions and "meets expectations" for the others. Mr. 
Cannon

wrote in that initial evaluation that, "In just three months Christine Boone 
has

proved to be a high performer who has actively and effectively engaged 
Training

Center staff and agency staff to begin setting higher standards and positive

change." Ms. Boone's next evaluation, for the period January 6, 2007 to 
April 5,

2007 was similar with Ms. Boone receiving mostly ratings of "High 
Performing"

with a few "Meets Expectations."

Ms. Boone was given her third evaluation for the period April, 2007 through 
October

5, 2007. Ms. Boone again received high marks from Mr. Cannon for her

performance, again being assessed in most categories of her review as "high

performing." Mr. Cannon's summary of his evaluation of Ms. Boone was that 
"The

wisdom of selecting Christine Boone to be our new Training Center Director 
is

clearly evident and I am very pleased with her work during her first year 
with the

Commission."

Following her one-year anniversary, Ms. Boone's performance evaluation 
schedule

was changed to annual reviews. The final annual review Ms. Boone received 
was

for the period October, 2007 through December 1, 2008. In that performance

review Ms. Boone was rated mostly either high performing or meets 
expectations,

Christine Boone Page 17 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

as in the past, with a single rating of "Needs Improvement," which related 
to Ms.

Boone's not completing her direct reports evaluations in a timely manner. 
The

reason for her difficulty in completing that task, as Ms. Boone testified, 
was her

own absence from work following a serious injury she suffered in a fall. In

addition, as discussed above, Ms. Boone had an unusually high number of

direct reports (more than 30) and was responsible for preparing the 
extensive

evaluations for each of them. Even with that, Mr. Cannon wrote in the final

performance review that "Christine has brought innovation at the center to a

new level and has been most impressive." These positive reviews are the only

documents in Ms. Boone's personnel file reflecting on the quality of her 
work. Ms.

Boone's personnel file contains no record of any disciplinary action before 
the

events surrounding the marksmanship class, which led to the termination of 
her

employment with which we are concerned in this arbitration.

Ms. Boone also received high marks from her subordinates. Assistant Training

Center Director Bruce Schultz testified that he had an "extremely good 
working

relationship" with Ms. Boone and that he thought she had a very good rapport 
and

working relationship with everyone at the center.

Regardless of her better than satisfactory performance, the relationship 
between

Mr. Cannon and Ms. Boone was not tension-free. Mr. Cannon was annoyed with

Ms. Boone over comments in a draft monitoring report from the Federal

Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). Cannon sent an email to

Department of Energy Labor & Economic Growth ("DELEG") Human Relations

Manager Patty Gamin asking how to respond to what Mr. Cannon considered

issues that should not have been raised with the RSA. In fact, as Mr. Cannon

acknowledged, Ms. Boone had a legal obligation to respond to questions from 
the

Christine Boone Page 18 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

RSA monitoring team. Ms. Boone testified that the she noticed a change in 
her

relationship with Mr. Cannon after the RSA monitoring team visited Michigan.

Mr. Cannon also was frustrated with Ms. Boone's perceived inability to 
smooth

the relationship between the Michigan Commission for the Blind and the 
National

Federation of the Blind's Michigan affiliate. He told several members of the 
NFB

that he hired Christine Boone so she could "settle down" the NFB of Michigan

and that she had failed in that task. As Mr. Posont testified, the 
relationship

between the MCB in general, and Mr. Cannon in particular, and the NFB had

grown bad.

As noted above, although the primary function of the Training Center is to 
prepare

its participants for employment, there is a personal adjustment and 
recreational

component as well. The aide who had long led the recreation program is Karen

Cornell (often referred to as KC in the testimony). Ms. Cornell has 
demonstrated

herself to be a caring, competent employee who has worked at the Training 
Center

since 1974. Over the course of her career, Ms. Cornell's job duties have 
expanded.

Originally she and another teacher took students into the community for 
activities

like bowling swimming, horseback riding and meals. Eventually, Ms, Cornell 
was

the only recreation person at the Training Center, and she also began 
working

with students in the gym.

Ms. Cornell was raised on a farm where "there were always guns in the house"

and she began shooting as a child. She did some hunting but mostly target

shooting with shotguns and deer rifles. She now owns two handguns and has a

State of Michigan concealed weapons permit. Though she had never used them,

she was familiar with BB guns. Not counting her work at the Training Center, 
Ms.

Christine Boone Page 19 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Cornell estimated that she had taught "dozens and dozens" of extended family

members how to shoot without any of them suffering any injuries.

Over the years the idea of having a shooting or marksmanship class was 
raised with

Ms. Cornell by her students. She testified that she knew blind individuals 
can

hunt in Michigan and that in 2008 she had taken some students to an archery

range. The archery activity increased interest in deer hunting and target 
shooting

and wondering how a blind or visually impaired person could safely go back 
to

target shooting." Before the marksmanship class was undertaken, Ms. Cornell

took her students paint ball shooting, but that did not satisfy the students 
and

they continued to ask whether there was a more realistic way they could 
shoot.

In early 2009, Ms. Cornell discussed the students' desire to shoot with Ms. 
Boone.

The conversation led to the development of a performance objective on Ms.

Cornell’s annual evaluation to explore opportunities for target shooting 
and/or

paint ball in the area. Karen Cornell’s Evaluation dated 2/26/2010 noted 
that the

objective had been met by helping to create a marksmanship class at Training

Center. During Ms. Cornell's 2008 evaluation it was decided that she would

investigate how such a program might be conducted while Ms, Boone would 
speak

with Mr. Cannon about having such a program. Ms. Boone testified that she 
did

speak with Mr. Cannon about the idea of a shooting class in early spring 
2009. It

was Ms. Boone’s testimony that in a telephone conversation Ms. Boone told 
Mr.

Cannon about Ms. Cornell's idea, and he asked what Ms. Boone and Ms. Cornell

had in mind. Ms. Boone stated that she told Mr. Cannon that Ms, Cornell 
didn't

want to do a "one time thing" but wanted to look into teaching a class. Ms. 
Boone

told Mr. Cannon that Ms. Cornell was going to check with places in the 
community

about shooting opportunities at ranges and that they would also explore the

possibility of having something on the Training Center grounds. Ms. Boone

Christine Boone Page 20 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

testified that Mr. Cannon voiced some concern about safety, which Ms. Boone

addressed, and that Mr. Cannon's conclusion was "we're all about combating 
the

soft bigotry of low expectations, and . . . doing things that are not 
necessarily

commonplace. So you have my permission to go ahead. . . ."

Mr. Cannon acknowledged at the hearing that he had had a conversation with 
Ms.

Boone about students engaging in some sort of marksmanship or shooting 
activity,

although he had earlier denied any recollection of such a discussion. He 
testified

that he thought Ms. Boone was discussing some sort of a field trip involving

shooting rather than a "class." Mr. Cannon admitted that he had a discussion

about shooting with Ms. Boone that was held in early 2009, and that he told 
Ms.

Boone the matter could be explored further. Mr. Cannon testified that he

commented that the shooting had to be safe, but it is noted that he did not 
address

any matter involving any DELEG work rule or Civil Service regulations 
regarding

firearms.

Ms. Cornell took steps to meet her performance objective by discussing the 
issue of

where and how students might shoot with employees at a local gun shop and 
with

the Training Center's assistant director Bruce Schultz. Ms. Cornell asked a 
gun

shop employee if there was a firing range or other location where blind 
students

could target shoot and, although the person said he would check and pass any

information onto Ms. Cornell, she never heard back from him. In February 
2009,

Ms. Cornell had a conversation about a shooting class with employees at the

Training Center, including Dan Grover, a maintenance employee, and he 
suggested

that target shooting could be done at the center. As Cornell remembers the 
events,

Mr. Grover said that with 23 acres of land on the Training Center site there 
was

plenty of space to safely use pellet guns. He specifically recommended a 
spot in a

ravine with a large dirt hill behind it as being suitable for pellet gun 
shooting. After

Christine Boone Page 21 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

discussing the idea further with Mr. Grover and another maintenance 
employee,

Ms. Cornell spoke with Ms. Boone about the suggestion. Ms. Boone instructed

Ms. Cornell to call the local authorities to investigate whether it would be 
legal to

hold the marksmanship class at the Training Center.

Following Ms. Boone's instructions, Ms. Cornell called both the Kalamazoo

Department of Public Safety and the local Michigan State Police post to ask

whether it would be legal to conduct a shooting class on the Training Center

grounds with Ruger pellet guns, which she had decided were the appropriate 
guns

to use. Ms. Cornell was told by the state police officer with whom she spoke 
that the

Ruger pellet guns were BB class guns under state law, were not considered

firearms, and, therefore, there was no legal reason that the class could not 
be

held. He also said that he was familiar with the spot on the Training Center

grounds that had been suggested. He recommended that Ms. Cornell should 
check

with the Kalamazoo Public Safety Department because the Training Center is

located in the city. Ms. Cornell called the Kalamazoo Police Department and

received the same answer from an official there as she had from the state 
police;

that the pellet guns were not firearms and there was no reason the 
marksmanship

class could not be held at the Training Center. A contemporaneous note by 
Ms.

Cornell reflects her conversation with the Kalamazoo Public Safety 
Department.

The Appellee asserts that Mr. Cannon was duped, and that the decisions to 
hold the

class on the Training Center grounds and to use the Ruger pellet rifles were 
made

before Ms. Boone’s call to Mr. Cannon. The contacts with the state and local

police agencies had also been completed by this time. The Appellee quotes 
Ms.

Boone’s arbitration testimony:

Christine Boone Page 22 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

“I let [Director Cannon] know that Karen said she did not want tohave a one 
time thing but she wanted to look into doing a class. Soshe was going to do 
some checking with places in the community,

like shooting ranges and that and see what they had to say. And thatwe would 
also explore the possibility of having something on thecenter grounds since 
we did have 22 and a half acres, which when Icame was virtually unused, and 
ever since the time of my coming

we've been increasingly bringing that property in to use so that itcould 
benefit our students.”

The Appellee in alleging a conspiracy to dupe Mr. Cannon argues that Ms. 
Boone

testified that she told Director Cannon that "we would explore the 
possibility of

having something on the center grounds" even though Boone knew that Cornell

was already planning on having the class on the Training Center grounds, and

while she also knew that Ms. Cornell had already contacted "places in the

community" – one gun shop in January of 2009. Ms. Cornell’s testimony 
indicated

that she had decided where on the Training Center grounds to have the class, 
and

had not pursued any other avenues after February of 2009, but it is not 
known

whether Ms. Boone knew of this. In addition, Ms. Cornell had already

contacted the local police agencies and received approvals, and had already

determined the type of gun to be used – the Ruger air rifles. Mr. Cannon 
stated

that the “notion of a class was never discussed for students, a shooting 
class, it

never came up in our conservation. There was discussion about taking 
students on

a field trip for a target practice experience like at a shooting gallery.”

The Appellee asserts that Ms. Boone deliberately misled Mr. Cannon about an

issue she deemed important, and that this deception combined with other 
lapses in

Boone's judgment warranted termination.

Christine Boone Page 23 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

It appears that there may well have been a misunderstanding or

miscommunication between Ms. Boone and Mr. Cannon. Ms. Boone believed she

had Mr. Cannon's approval for the marksmanship class, while Mr. Cannon

believes he had not approved the class. Given the pattern of contacts 
between

Mr. Cannon and Ms. Boone before the marksmanship class, oral approval (which

was not actually required for Training Center activities) was the way in 
which the

two officials operated. If one assumes both witnesses are telling the truth, 
there

was simply a misunderstanding, and not a work rule violation. Ms. Boone 
testified

that initially she communicated with Mr. Cannon frequently by e-mail, until 
he

said that he would rather speak on the phone with her instead of 
communicating

in writing. Ms. Gamin testified that there was no written protocol dealing 
with how

classes for the Training Center were approved.

The Appellant, however, was not charged with deliberately misleading Mr. 
Cannon.

The Appellee only charged Ms. Boone with violation of the Michigan Civil 
Service

Commission Regulation 2.05 which references Rule 2-20 – Workplace Safety:

Violence, Firearms and Explosives and the DELEG Work Rule for Workplace

Safety. Absent a determination that discipline or discharge is appropriate 
for the

charged violation, factors of mitigation or exacerbation are not relevant.

It is undisputed that in the spring of 2009 Mr. Cannon and Ms. Boone spoke 
during

one of their periodic telephone conferences about students engaging in some 
sort of

marksmanship or shooting activity, and there was no mention by either of any

trepidation regarding possible violation of Michigan Civil Service Rules or 
DELEG

Workplace Safety regulations.

Christine Boone Page 24 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

By the time the investigation into holding the class was completed it was 
spring

and it was decided to hold off on the class because during the summer they 
had

minor students at the center and they wanted to wait until those students 
had

returned home to their high schools. Over the summer, however, Ms. Cornell

made targets for the class, finalized where to hold it, and purchased two 
Ruger

spring operated break-barrel pellet rifles. Ms. Cornell and the maintenance

employees built the targets out of a 4' by 8' 3/4 inch sheet of plywood 
mounted on

wooden posts and covered with two inches of foam. For shooting, the target 
was

covered by brown paper and by paper targets of various sizes. When the 
shooting

was conducted, the pellets would come to rest at the back of the target in 
the

plywood.

The Ruger pellet rifles were purchased from Meijer storewith a state 
purchasing

card. There was not the necessity any sort of background check or other

investigation such as one would experience when purchasing an instrument

classified as a firearm under state or federal law. Ms. Cornell submitted 
the

purchase receipt through the state purchasing bureaucracy, which prompted a

request from the centralized purchasing office asking for a written 
justification of

the purchase. Bruce Schultz, Assistant Director of the Michigan Training 
Center

for the Blind, was also involved in the email exchange about the pellet guns 
with

the DELEG purchasing unit. As Mr. Schultz described it, DELEG called months

after the purchase for an explanation about the purchase, it was provided; 
and

after that everything was fine as there were no more inquiries. The response 
of

Mr. Schultz to the purchasing department stated:

“Hi. Karen Cornell asked me to clarify the above named purchase you

were inquiring about.

The Training Center has been expanding our fitness and recreational

activities programs extensively this past year. Many students have

expressed the desire to learn non-visual methods for the safe handling

Christine Boone Page 25 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

of firearms. Since it is legal in Michigan for blind people to hunt andto 
own firearms for self protection in their homes, providing thistraining is 
consistent with the goals of our rehabilitation program.

Learning mastery of firearms also increases the self confidence ourstudents 
are building, which will assist them in obtaining competitiveemployment in 
Michigan.

Two moderately priced pellet rifles were purchased, along with 
theappropriate ammunition. We have built backstops for paper targetsand have 
identified a safe shooting area on the Center grounds. All

local authorities have been contacted and have provided their approvalfor 
these activities to occur on the Center property. The class is alwaystaught 
by two instructors, as an added safety precaution.

Thanks.

Bruce M. Schultz, Assistant Director

Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center”

Ms. Cornell testified that the Ruger pellet guns were openly displayed on a 
bottom

shelf in the sporting good section of the store where she purchased them and 
that she

was allowed to walk them to the front register herself.

Before the shooting classes began, Ms. Cornell bought safety glasses for the

students and set up the target. The target was equipped with an audible 
device,

so students could hear its location, as had been done for the archery and as 
is

done in games. The target was set up in a ravine so that there could not be 
anyone

behind it on the level of the target. After the 2009 Labor Day holiday the

marksmanship class began. First, there was gun safety instruction. The 
classes

usually consisted of one or two students. Sighted "spotters" were used to 
help the

students aim, to make sure the pellet guns were never pointed up and to make

sure that nobody was in the area where the shooting was taking place. Safety 
was

further assured by making sure that each shot was lined up before the 
"safety" that

prevented inadvertent firing of the pellet gun was placed in the position 
that

Christine Boone Page 26 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

would allow firing. Students were taught not to place their fingers inside 
the

trigger guard until they were ready to shoot.

Bruce Schultz, Training Center Assistant Director, testified that he has had

extensive personal experience with firearms, having participated in 
"shooting

sports" for 10 to 15 years. He testified that he, too, has a concealed 
weapons

permit from the State of Michigan. He, like Ms. Cornell, believed the class 
was a

good idea. He examined the targets that were built and the location where 
the

class would be held and concluded that the location and targets made the 
class

location safe. Based on Ms. Cornell's research, Mr. Schultz also believed 
the pellet

guns used in the marksmanship class were not firearms. It was Mr. Schultz 
who

told Ms. Cornell in June that it was okay for her to go ahead and purchase 
the

pellet guns. Mr. Schultz was unaware of any DELEG work rule that would have

prohibited the class from taking place using the pellet rifles on Training 
Center

property.

There was nothing presented in any of the steps that led up to the 
marksmanship

class to alert anyone that the pellet guns might be considered firearms, 
either

under state law or the Civil Service Commission rules or regulations. The

Operation Manual for the pellet guns, stated; "This airgun is not a toy. 
Treat it

with the same respect you would a firearm." Later on in the same manual it 
states:

"Warning: Do not brandish or display this product in public -it may confuse 
people

and may be a crime. Police and others may think it is a firearm. Do not 
change

the coloration and markings to make it look like a firearm. That is 
dangerous

and may be a crime." The Appellant asserts that these statements suggest 
that

while the Ruger pellet rifle may look like a firearm, and perhaps should be 
treated

as though it is a firearm, it is not, in fact, a firearm.

Christine Boone Page 27 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Jason Nairn, the Director of Security for the Michigan Department of 
Management

and Budget, was consulted by the Department regarding the status of the 
pellet

rifles. He testified that he had to undertake some investigation to 
determine

whether the pellet rifle was a firearm under Civil Service regulations. He, 
like

Mr. Schultz and Ms. Cornell, is experienced with firearms and owns "a couple 
of

shotguns, a rifle, two rifles, and a hand gun." Mr. Nairn indicated that he 
also

used pellet guns when he was a child. He never took lessons on how to use 
them

and did not own one himself, but testified that he borrowed the guns from 
cousins

or brothers or sisters or friends since a 'lot of people in my neighborhood 
had

pellet guns."

Students of the Center were pleased with the class. A number of them wrote 
letters

about their experience and praised the program. While this discussion 
concerns

itself mostly with the marksmanship classes, it must be remembered that the

marksmanship classes were not by any means the only activity being 
undertaken

at the Center. There were many more activities occurring concurrently as 
part of

the full range of the curriculum.

There is no indication that Ms. Boone was attempting to keep the 
marksmanship

classes a secret from Mr. Cannon or anyone else. As part of her job duties 
Ms. Boone

attended the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan state convention 
in

November 2009, where she had been invited to speak. Ms. Boone was well aware

that Mr. Cannon and other MCB employees were in attendance at the

convention. During her convention speech, Ms. Boone discussed with pride the

marksmanship class at the Training Center as an example of the kinds of work

being done there. Ms. Boone had earlier discussed the class at meetings with

MCB staff. A participant in at least one of those meetings was Leamon Jones,

Christine Boone Page 28 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

who spoke with Mr. Cannon daily. While Ms. Boone believed that Mr. Cannon

knew about and had approved the marksmanship class, he indicated that he was

surprised when he heard Ms. Boone speaking about it and testified that her 
speech

was his first knowledge that the class was being held.

The day after Ms. Boone gave her convention address Mr. Cannon called her at

her home. For the first time he raised the issue of the pellet rifles being 
considered

firearms and there being a rule about no firearms on state property. Mr. 
Cannon

instructed Ms. Boone to report to his office the following day with the 
pellet rifles.

Ms. Boone went to meet with Mr. Cannon, but was alarmed by Mr. Cannon’s

comments about the pellet rifles being "firearms," and was concerned how 
they

might be viewed by state office building guards. Thus, she and did not take 
the

pellet rifles to the meeting. At the meeting Mr. Cannon directed that the

marksmanship class be stopped immediately and Ms. Boone immediately ordered

Center employees to comply.

Just a few days later, on November 16 or 17 Ms. Boone went out on sick leave 
due

to a serious medical condition. Ms. Boone was suffering from an ulcer on her 
foot

that resulted from a congenital absence of veins in her legs. The ulcer was

extremely painful and increasing in size and Ms. Boone was warned by medical

caregivers that it could lead to the need for amputation of her foot. The 
situation

was so serious that her doctor in Kalamazoo did not believe that he could

successfully treat it, and referred her to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. She 
went

there on November 16 or 17. She had anticipated that it would be a short 
leave

but she was not cleared to return to work until January 11, 2010, and then 
only for

a limited day. While on leave due to this disability, Ms. Boone was notified 
on

Christine Boone Page 29 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

December 29, 2009, of an "investigatory hearing" with DELEG human resources

director Patty Gamin and Mr. Cannon to be held on January 12, 2010. Ms. 
Boone

returned to work earlier than her doctor had originally recommended because 
of

the scheduled investigatory hearing. She attended the meeting in 
considerable

pain as she could not stand or walk and had to be pushed to the meeting 
location

uphill through the snow in a wheelchair. She described her condition at the 
time

as physically still feeling "not great" and still suffering from 
considerable pain.

On January 26, 2010 after the January 12 investigative meeting, Ms, Boone 
received

a letter saying there would be a disciplinary conference on January 28, 
2010. That

was changed, at Ms. Boone's request, to February 4, 2010, so her counsel 
could

attend. At the disciplinary conference Ms. Boone’s employment was terminated 
for

violation of Michigan Civil Service Commission Regulation 2.05 which 
references

Rule 2020 – Workplace Safety: Violence, Firearms and Explosives.

Ms. Boone was discharged for violation of Civil Service Commission Rule 
2-20.2.

Rule 2-20 is titled "Workplace Safety." Rule 2-20.2 is titled "Firearms and

Explosives" and states at subparagraph (a) "Carrying and Possession 
Prohibited;

Exceptions. An employee shall not carry or possess a firearm or explosive at 
a state

workplace or during actual-duty time, except as authorized below: . . ." The

exceptions then set forth are not applicable.

Rule 2-20 is further explained by Regulation 2.05. Section 3.A.5 of 
Regulation

2.05 defines firearm as follows: "Firearm means a weapon from which a 
dangerous

projectile may be expelled by an explosive, gas, or air." It is important to 
determine whether Ms. Boone or any of the other employees of the

Christine Boone Page 30 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Training Center, who were involved in planning and implementing the

marksmanship class, would understand that this rule and regulation 
prohibited the

class at the Training Center using Ruger spring operated break-barrel pellet

rifles. The proofs do not include any evidence that either Ms. Boone or any 
other

employee involved in developing the marksmanship class had any reasonable 
belief

that the pellet guns could be considered firearms. Neither Ms. Cornell nor 
Mr.

Schultz, both of whom had long and extensive familiarity with firearms, 
thought

that the Civil Service regulation was being violated by the marksmanship 
class,

because they did not think that the pellet guns were firearms. Christine 
Boone

reasonably relied on Karen Cornell and Bruce Schultz. Karen Cornell 
reasonably

relied not only on her own knowledge of firearms but also on the information 
which

she obtained from the Michigan State Police and the Kalamazoo Public Safety

Department. Mr. Schultz had independently evaluated the situation in

consultation with Ms. Cornell and concluded that the purchase and use of the

pellet rifles were not in violation of any law or regulation.

The employees of the Center believed in reliance on opinions from 
knowledgeable

law enforcement authorities that it was lawful to use the pellet guns at the 
Training

Center. In addition, the operation manual for the Ruger air rifles also 
supported

the employees' understanding that the air rifles, also called pellet guns or 
BB

guns, were not firearms. The Ruger manual says at its first page "This 
airgun is

not a toy. Treat it with the same respect you would a firearm." Later on in 
the

same manual it states: "Warning: Do not brandish or display this product in

public -it may confuse people and may be a crime. Police and others may 
think it

is a firearm. Do not change the coloration and markings to make it look like 
a

firearm. That is dangerous and may be a crime." As the employer's witness,

Christine Boone Page 31 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

Jason Nairn, admitted, that language would be taken to suggest that the 
Ruger

pellet gun is not a firearm.

There was confusion in Ms. Boone’s chain of command over the meaning and

applicability of the rule with which Ms. Boone is charged with violating. On

November 10, 2009, after Mr. Cannon heard Ms. Boone’s comments at the 
National

Federation of the Blind of Michigan state convention regarding the 
marksmanship

classes, he instructed an assistant to bring the pellet rifles to his 
office. Director

Cannon had Jason Nairn, head of DMB Security, come to his office examine the

pellet rifles. It was immediately determined that the pellet rifles could 
easily

mistaken for more powerful rifles. Nairn examined the pellet rifles, and 
made the

determination that they constituted “firearms” under the Civil Service 
Rules. Mr.

Nairn communicated his conclusion to Director Cannon. Mr. Nairn later sent

Director Cannon an e-mail with a Wikipedia article about how air rifles 
operate

that he had found on line during his research.

Ms. Patty Gamin, the DELEG Human Resources Director and final decision maker

as to the termination of the employment of Ms. Boone, testified that it was 
not

readily apparent to her that the Ruger pellet guns used in the marksmanship

classes violated the Civil Service Commission rule or regulation. Ms. Gamin

testified that trying to determine whether the pellet rifle was a firearm 
within the

regulation's definition was a time consuming endeavor which required a 
number of

hours of research. She stated that she researched using a number of websites 
to

learn more about how air rifles work. She consulted Mr. Nairn to get his 
opinion

on whether the air rifles were forearms under the Civil Service Rules, and 
Mr.

Nairn shared his opinion that the pellet rifles met the definition of 
“firearms”

Christine Boone Page 32 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

under the Civil Service Rules. Ms. Gamin acknowledged in her testimony that

the definition of a firearm can be different to many individuals and that 
there are

many definitions of firearms. She testified that she is the “appointing 
authority”

as it applies to the authority under Civil Service Regulation 2.05, Section 
2-20.2

(a) 1 (B) of the Rules to allow firearms on state property. Ms. Gamin 
consulted the Civil Service Rules and DELEG Work Place Safety

Rules on firearms. Ms. Gamin, using the definition: “Firearm means a weapon

from which a dangerous projectile may be expelled by an explosive, gas, or 
air.”

determined that the air rifles were firearms because they expelled a 
dangerous

projectile using air. She relied on Mr. Nairn's assessment and her own 
research,

including the operator's manual that came with the air rifles. The Operator’s

manual states in pertinent part:

“Ruger Operation Manual

Spring Operated Break Barrel Pellet Rifles * * *

This airgun is not a toy. Treat it with the same respect that you would a

firearm.” * * *

WARNING. This airgun is recommended for adult use only. Misuse or

careless use may cause serious injury or death. May be dangerous up to 575

yards.” * * *

Director Cannon and Mr. Nairn testified that the air rifles had the look and 
feel of

a rifle. The air rifles even could be mistaken as real firearms.

Ms. Gamin, testified that she believed that Ms. Boone failed to act with due

diligence, because as an attorney, a state employee, and a senior-level 
manager,

Boone had an obligation to ensure that her actions and the actions of her 
staff

complied with Civil Service Rules and DELEG work rules. Ms. Boone indicated

that she did not look at the Civil Service Rules when she authorized the

Christine Boone Page 33 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

marksmanship class and the purchase of the air rifles; and her reliance on 
state

law and local ordinances is misplaced. Ms. Boone was discharged for 
violating

Civil Service Rules, not state law or the Kalamazoo local ordinance. Ms. 
Gamin

stated that safety is not an issue because the violation of the firearm rule 
is strict

liability. The mere violation of the firearm rule exposes a person to the 
penalty for

their violation. Here, Boone allowed and authorized her staff to hold a

marksmanship class and to purchase firearms for that class. Thus, she is

automatically subject to the penalty associated with that violation. Ms. 
Gamin

indicated that Ms. Boone's past performance and evaluations were not 
relevant to

her own decision to terminate the employment of Ms. Boone. Ms, Gamin did not

review Ms. Boone's job description to see if Ms. Boone had the authority to 
give the

go-ahead to the marksmanship class without Mr. Cannon's approval, if , in 
fact, it

had not been given.

It is axiomatic under the standard of just cause that in order for an 
employee to be

disciplined or discharged for acts or omissions, the employee must be 
provided

reasonable notice of what the expectations of the employer are. It is well

recognized that before an employee can be justifiably disciplined for breach 
of the

employer’s rules or regulations, the employee must have knowledge of the 
rule or

regulation with which the employee is charged with violating. In most cases, 
such

knowledge cannot be inferred, but is required to be evident by direct 
instruction

and/or accessible, clear and concise rules and regulations to which the 
employee

has ample and reasonably easy access.

Negligence for which discipline may be imposed is not established merely by 
proof

that a rule violation occurred or that the employee erred in her judgment; 
there

must be proof that the employee failed to comply with a prescribed standard 
which

Christine Boone Page 34 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

in fact was, or reasonably should have been within the employee’s knowledge. 
An

error in judgment in encountering a situation with which the employee is

unfamiliar and which in itself is complicated and/or unclear does not amount 
to

negligence which justifies discipline even though deviance from the rule may 
have

occurred. Each case turns on its own facts.

In this case, there is no dispute that it is reasonably clear to employees 
that

employees are not allowed to possess firearms on state property. The 
question

arises as to whether the reasonable employee would understand the pellet 
rifles to

constitute firearms, and with what diligence an employee made the effort to

determine the propriety of action. As to whether it is readily discernable 
that the

pellet rifles constituted “firearms” prohibited by the rules and 
regulations, there

was either a complete breakdown in the system, or a situation where as a 
general

rule, employees did not understand the pellet rifles to be “firearms” nor 
their use

for marksmanship classes to constitute a violation of any Workplace Safety 
rule or

regulation. Mr. Cannon, after informing Ms. Boone that the pellet rifles 
were

“firearms,” which are not allowed on state property, ordered Ms. Boone to 
transport

the pellet rifles to his office on state property in Lansing so that he 
could examine

them -disconcerting taking into account the testimony of Ms. Gamin, who 
testified

that she was the “appointing authority” as it applies to the authority under 
Civil

Service Regulation 2.05, Section 2-20.2 (a) 1 (B) of the Rules to allow 
firearms on

state property.

The Appellant makes a cogent argument that Ms. Boone’s termination for her

alleged violation of the work rule and regulation at issue violates her due 
process

rights because the policies, as they are applied to the specific facts and

Christine Boone Page 35 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

circumstances in this case, were impermissibly vague. The regulation and 
work

rule relied upon for the termination of Ms. Boone’s employment are so 
complicated

that it took both Jason Nairn and Patty Gamin hours of research to determine

whether the rule was violated. Mr. Cannon wasn’t sure and relied on their 
opinions.

Automatically terminating the employment of an employee for violation of a 
rule

where the application of such rule is not clear and readily understandable 
violates

the concept of just cause. Due process requires that noncompliance with a 
rule

can only be relied upon in administering discipline if the rule is clear and

accessible enough to be readily relied upon by the subject of the 
discipline.

After careful review of all the facts and circumstances, it is clear that 
Ms. Boone

performed her work in good faith and with reasonable diligence. It has not 
been

shown that the Appellant purposely violated any of the rules or regulations 
with

which she is charged. There is not just cause for discipline or discharge in 
this

matter. Although there are allegations that the Appellant intended to 
embarrass

Mr. Cannon by deceiving him about the marksmanship classes and then did

embarrass him at the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan state

convention, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate this – and it is 
not with

what the Appellant is charged. Accordingly, Ms. Boone must be reinstated to 
her

employment and made whole as to lost wages and benefits. As there is no just

cause for discipline or discharge proven, there is no need to discuss other 
issues

including exacerbating or mitigating circumstances.

Pursuant to the request of the Appellant, the arbitrator shall retain 
jurisdiction

for the purpose of resolving any disputes regarding the “make whole” portion 
of

the remedy.

Christine Boone Page 36 of 36.

Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic GrowthAAA 54 390 00896 10; 
Termination of Employment / Christine Boone

DECISION

For all the above stated reasons, the grievance is granted. Ms. Boone shall 
be

reinstated to her former employment and made whole as to lost wages and 
benefits.

Dated:

May 23, 2011

American Arbitration Association

VOLUNTARY LABOR ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

In the Matter of the Arbitration Between:

Table with 3 columns and 6 rowsCHRISTINE BOONE Appellant, AAA No.: 54 390 
00896 10 -and

Issue:

Grievant: Discharge

Christine Boone

Arbitrator: Michael P. Long MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF



Table endENERGY, LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH

Appellee,

________________________________________________________/

AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR

The UNDERSIGNED ARBITRATOR, having been designated in accordance with the 
arbitrationagreement entered into by the above-named Parties, and having 
been duly sworn and having duly heardthe proofs and allegations of the 
Parties, AWARDS as follows:

For all the above stated reasons, the grievance is granted. Ms. Boone shall 
be reinstated to

her former employment and made whole as to lost wages and benefits. Pursuant 
to the

request of the Appellant, the arbitrator retains jurisdiction for the 
purpose of resolving any

disputes regarding the “make whole” portion of the remedy.

Dated: May 23, 2011
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
nfbmi-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/jj%40bestmidi.com