Page 25 - WEST FOP BlueNote Nov-Dec 2017 Issue NEW FINAL
P. 25
Kevin Tully… preferential treatment to less qualified applicants who purport-
edly “passed” the test but in reality, flunked. This arbitrariness
Cont’d from p. 21 was further magnified when Wilmington violated its own pro-
motional policy and proclaimed to Tully that: “Even if you are
17-year veteran extraordinary police officer who is a highly correct, there is nothing that can be done.” Sure there was.
decorated professional. Tully had the courage to stand up for Wilmington had the opportunity to cure the harm - but will-
fully refused to do so despite its express claim that it provides
us all by challenging the City of Wilmington and its outra- “equal employment promotional opportunities. . .” Wilming-
ton misrepresented the truth by claiming to allow appeal of
geous position that Wilmington does not have to comply with “any portion of the selection process” but then denied Tully’s
grievance by falsely claiming that “test answers are not a
its own rules, including its grievance policy that was a prom- grieveable item.”
ised benefit to all Wilmington police officers. Wilmington’s Policy is clear: “This policy estab-
Like virtually all police departments, Wilmington has lishes guidelines that govern promotional procedures within
the Wilmington Police Department and ensure procedures
a grievance policy that permits officers to grieve a wide variety used are job related and non-discriminatory…. The procedures
below will be followed… It is the objective of the city of Wil-
of injustices including the denial of promotions. When one
reads the Wilmington police grievance policy, you can’t help mington to provide equal promotional opportunities to all
members of the Police Department…” The final section of the
but think that Wilmington is a good and fair employer with a Policy provides that “[c]andidates may appeal any portion of
the selection process.” Despite these glaring promises, Wil-
process to allow officers to grieve wrongs such as safety haz-
mington reneged.
ards confronting officers, denials of equal employment oppor- Wilmington’s policies appear great on paper in the
tunity and many other problems. Sadly, Wilmington does not policy manual. But in actual practice, Tully was singled out
for adverse discriminatory treatment and arbitrariness when
practice what it preaches. In the words of Chief Justice Mark Wilmington selectively refused to enforce its personnel poli-
Martin, Wilmington’s position in the case is one grounded in cies that afford express job benefits to Tully. Wilmington just
“untruthfulness.” brushed this aside.
Police officers across the State would be fired for do- Police Officers reasonably expect their employers to
be honest and truthful with them as employees. Officers rea-
ing what Wilmington has done to Sergeant Tully. Wilmington sonably expect their employers to honor, respect and comply
has a policy that prohibits “untruthfulness” and Wilmington’s with the personnel policies provided by the employer. When
legal brief and oral argument in the Supreme Court is that Wil- these important principles are obstructed or denied, the result-
ing injuries to the police community and the public are huge.
mington claims to be free to promise a benefit to a police of-
Grievances and grievance policies are essential tools
ficer, such as a right to grieve, and just arbitrarily not allow it. to protect police officers and their families from a variety of
risks. The right to grieve is a critical need of the police com-
That is what police officers call a material lie. munity, especially for officer safety reasons.
Had I not been there in person to see and hear it, I Wilmington’s position would destroy entire police
would have never believed that the City of Wilmington would personnel systems statewide as grievance policies would be
effectively rendered null and void. Officers would no longer
stand before the North Carolina Supreme Court and have the have a regular forum to seek redress for routine problems. Of-
ficers would be left with hollow meaningless policies, and
audacity to contend that it is free to lie to its police officers. without hope for any fairness or eradication of problems con-
fronting them as police officers.
Boom: the City of Wilmington fired a direct shot at the heart
Police officers are trained to respect and obey all em-
and soul of every single police officer across our State, and the ployer policies. Everyone must respect and obey the rules –
families of our entire police community. except, according to Wilmington, it is free to lie. Wilmington
directly argued that it was free to arbitrarily pick and choose
Wilmington claimed, both in its legal brief and before when and how to apply its personnel policies. Wilmington
claimed that it can permit one officer to use its grievance pol-
the Supreme Court that Wilmington is free to just disregard its icy and also deny use of the policy to another officer. In our
own policies and procedures – in “its discretion.” Wilming- world, there is a word for that: it is called discrimination. Wil-
ton’s contentions presented to the Supreme Court amounted to mington claims that it is free to discriminate.
nothing less than a thermonuclear attack on what we stand for, Continued on P.27
both as the FOP and as Americans.
The background: The underlying facts are as fol-
lows: Kevin Tully sought a promotion and discovered that an
invalid and incorrect test was used in the promotional process.
Tully merely wanted to invoke his grievance policy and grieve
the wrong. Despite clear language in the policies drafted and
created by Wilmington, the City just arbitrarily refused to al-
low Tully to use his own grievance policy. Wilmington mas-
querades as a fair public employer with a merit based promo-
tional policy and a broad grievance policy. However, the
City’s actions show that in reality, Wilmington’s policies are
fake. Wilmington used a flawed and invalid promotional test
that was predicated upon incorrect answers, and based on out-
dated law, which doomed the constitutional validity of the pro-
motional process and further denied Tully equal employment
opportunity.
Wilmington’s testing scheme afforded wrongful
www.ncfop.org 25
