A Department of Public Works employee has lost a $4,000 per year stipend he had been receiving for a part-time additional job he hadn’t done in more than a year. The employee claimed last week that the loss was retribution for a grievance he had filed against the town, but officials said the job was no longer necessary. At around 3 p.m. on Dec. 18, Dave McAdam, an employee of the Department of Public Works, was handed a letter that said his extra duties as a part-time recreation facilities maintenance coordinator/laborer-driver would no longer be needed. McAdam had begun receiving a $4,000 pay increase in 1996 to set up and close the municipal ice rink. When the facility was expanded in 1998, the town planned to give the duties to someone else, and McAdam no longer did the job. But he continued receiving the $4,000. However, McAdam said recently that the increase was part of his base salary and did not represent a stipend for the duties. He also complained that he didn’t have the proper time to appeal the decision. No due process According to the municipal employees’ union contract, McAdam had the right to appeal first to his immediate supervisor, and then through a series of steps that included the town administrator, the Town Council, and eventually, the Public Employees Relations Committee at the state level. His contract with the town said he had 10 days to appeal or forfeit his right to do so. The only problem was that by 5:30 p.m. on the day he received his notice, the Town Council had already gathered in closed session, gearing up for an 8 p.m. meeting to vote on the resolution. In protesting the move, Councilman John Bueckner voted against the resolution, claiming that he needed more information as to the reasoning behind it. Then-Mayor Anthony Just said that other people already had been hired to take McAdams’ place, and felt that McAdam was being treated unfairly. The council members who voted to take away the job were mum about the decision. But one who voted against it gave his opinion after the meeting. “It looked like retribution,” said the councilman, who did not wish to have his name used since the matter technically falls under the legal category of personnel matters. “McAdam filed a grievance over another matter and its seems to me this job was taken away from him to get even.” “That’s absolutely not true,” said Town Administrator Anthony Iacono. “This matter has nothing to do with the previous grievance. The fact in the matter is, I had an obligation to bring this before the council as soon as possible.” The first grievance was filed in 1998. McAdam was passed over over for overtime in violation of union rules, but an appeal to the state determined that the town was not responsible for the oversight. Lame mighty duck While Iacono maintained his inability to talk about personnel matters, according to a confidential report issued by the town’s labor attorney, Martin Pachman, McAdam was removed from the position because someone else had been hired to replace him over a year ago, and an oversight had allowed McAdam to remain on the payroll for the last year. “Sometime in 1995, the town determined that its previous system of providing manpower for the setup and closure of the municipal ice rink and pool complex was insufficient,” Pachman wrote in a Dec. 6 report to the Town Council. “This position essentially provided for a laborer-driver whose duties would seasonally shift over to the recreation facilities to perform the needed tasks at those sites.” As an inducement to do the work, McAdam received a salary increase of $4,000 per year in 1996, which continued through 1999. “At some point, the ice rink was enclosed and the need there increased to require a full-time employee who was also capable of welding,” Pachman wrote. “Therefore, in 1998, a new job description was created reflecting this full-time position entitled Recreation Facilities Maintenance Worker.” As a result, the part-time duty at the ice rink done by McAdam was no longer necessary – and McAdam, in fact, did not perform the duties for more than a year, even though he was paid for it. McAdam, however, said the 1996 salary adjustment was not a stipend, but something added to his base pay. “I was promoted,” he said. “This wasn’t extra money. It wasn’t extra duty. It was part of my job. A year ago, they decided to take that job away from me. On Dec. 28, they made it official.” Another town official, however, said the matter was not as simple as McAdam makes out, saying that the roof addition to the Ice Rink expanded the season as well as the programs, and required a full time employee to work there