A paid-on-call Macomb Township fire fighter who was terminated because the department's chief considered certain of his remarks to be "threatening" is back on the job, thanks to an arbitrator's ruling in a grievance brought on his behalf by MAFF.

Thomas Habel was "reinstated to his previous position and made whole for all monies lost for runs he otherwise would have made" during the period between his firing and the decision. Arbitrator William Daniel thus agreed with the position asserted by MAFF Labor Attorney M. Catherine Farrell when he found that the township had failed to make its case regarding alleged threats to Chief Raymond Ahonen.

The chain of events began when Chief Ahonen expressed concern regarding reports that Habel had made disparaging comments about the operation of the department. A subsequent meeting to determine whether Habel had violated any rules ended after the fire fighter said he felt harassed and said, in the presence of both union and command officer witnesses, wither "let's take the gloves off" or "we need to take off the gloves."

The chief, upon hearing the comment, accused Habel of threatening him. Habel and his union representatives later testified that there was no threat in the phrase. The union representatives responded to Ahonen's expressed belief he had been threatened by each putting a hand on Habel's shoulder and telling him they were all going to leave. The chief said he regarded this gesture as an action to "restrain the grievant."

A letter sent later by the chief stated that Ahonen "felt personally threatened by the grievant's remarks in the meeting" and that Habel continued to show "threatening behavior detrimental to the department" when the two men were in one another's presence the following day. Citing alleged violations of departmental policies, Ahonen concluded the letter by stating: "Because of your unpredictable and potential violent conduct...you are immediately suspended without pay."

The relationship further deteriorated in the coming weeks, until Habel was terminated. MAFF quickly responded by filing for grievance arbitration.

The employer claimed that "evidence clearly demonstrates that the grievant, in a meeting between union representatives and his superiors, made remarks of an abusive and threatening nature which rightfully caused the chief concern for his own personal security. Moreover, the grievant followed that up the next day by causing a further confrontation and making sarcastic and threatening remarks again to the chief."

Ms. Farrell countered that Habel "did absolutely nothing wrong." She characterized the "gloves off" comment as meaning only that Habel wanted the chief to become specific and get down to the details of any charge against him. Regarding the supposed effort of the union representatives to "restrain" Habel, she said that the grievant "demonstrated absolutely no inclination to approach the chief."

Arbitrator Daniel, in making his award, stated that there was no proof that Habel was guilty of misconduct, and that the employer had "failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the remarks made should be given any meaning other than that ordinarily and reasonably attached to them, or that there was implicit any threat of physical violence."