Payback

I'm not sure what exactly this picture
is supposed to depict, but it somehow
seems to hit all the bases for this case

Bennington v. Knight, 2020 VT 17

By Andrew Delaney

What happens when a police officer agrees to do a three-year stint with a town police department in exchange for training but doesn’t make it quite three years?

I’m so glad you asked because that’s exactly what this case is about! Officer Knight was hired by the Bennington Police Department. As part of that employment, he signed an employment agreement that provided, in exchange for receiving full-time training, he would repay the Town a portion of his salary if he was unable or unwilling to remain employed by the Town for three years.

When Officer Knight left with seven months left on his three year bid (I like the irony of calling a job with a police department by the same slang term used to refer to a jail sentence—don’t ask me why), the department informed him that he owed just under four grand in salary and benefits.

So, the Town sued Officer Knight in small claims court. As a defense, Officer Knight argued that his repayment obligation contradicted the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA sets pay levels and addresses adjustment based on training, but is silent on any form of reimbursement related to training or early termination. The small claims court was not swayed. It found in favor of the Town because the employment agreement didn’t conflict with the CBA and the court didn’t see a federal labor standards violation either. Officer Knight appealed to the superior court, civil division, which noted the Town’s legitimate interest in getting a benefit from the expense of training and affirmed the small claims court.

Officer Knight requested a SCOV appeal and SCOV accepted the appeal. So, here we are.

SCOV notes that whether the CBA and the employment agreement conflict is question of law, which it reviews de novo. The review goes back to the small claims court’s decision because review in the superior court is limited to the small claims court’s record.

SCOV agrees with Officer Knight that “the employment agreement conflicts with the CBA’s salary terms and is therefore not an enforceable side agreement.” Because it reverses on this issue, SCOV doesn’t address the federal-labor-standards argument.

SCOV begins by observing: “In the context of collective bargaining, side agreements or contracts that affect only one employee raise special issues.” The very purpose of a CBA is to supersede individual contracts. Side agreements that affect only one employee violate the general rule that union members can’t be singled out for better or worse treatment. Even so, sometimes side agreements are okay—as long as they don’t violate the terms of the CBA.

SCOV holds that the agreement here “conflicts directly with the salary provisions of the CBA.” Under the CBA, Officer Knight was entitled to a “Step I” salary as an uncertified trainee. Nonetheless, the side agreement required him to pay back a portion of that salary. SCOV reasons, “This payback requirement directly conflicts with the CBA, which unconditionally promised defendant a specified salary during his training period without any provision for repayment of the salary and benefits to the Town.” In other words, the Town can’t promise specified wages in the CBA, “and then condition or retract those wages in a side agreement.”

The Town tries to argue the CBA didn’t promise Officer Knight free training and certification—he’s just being asked to repay the costs of this benefit. SCOV acknowledges that the CBA does not mandate free training and certification. Indeed, it “would be a very different case if the side agreement required the defendant to repay the Town’s out-of-pocket costs for his tuition at the police academy, or other such incidental expenses.” That might fly. Here we’re mixing the bargained-for-in-the-CBA salary requirement with the payback provision and that’s a conflict.

SCOV also rejects the Town’s agreement-predated-the-CBA argument. That logic only works for a “unique appointment” or a “special benefit.” In this case, SCOV reasons that no matter the timeline, the CBA would have superseded the side agreement. So that’s that. Officer Knight’s situation—being hired before receiving police training—is typical for new police officers and specifically addressed in the CBA. And the employment agreement wasn’t bargained for, exactly—it was a “Here, sign this” situation.

SCOV is careful to qualify this one, noting that while it holds the employment agreement unenforceable in light of the terms of the CBA, it doesn’t suggest that its goals were unfair or unreasonable. The cost of training new officers is a legitimate concern for towns and it’s fair to try to reduce costs and employee turnover. The only reason this attempt to contract for the cost of training fails is because it directly conflicts with the express salary terms of the CBA.

SCOV reverses. Judgment for Officer Knight.