City, firefighters union clash after Pawtucket, R.I. firefighters fired

Tensions emerged between the city of Pawtucket, R.I. and a firefighters union after the city investigated eight Pawtucket firefighters for misconduct.

The investigation, conducted by the city’s human resources department, found that the eight firefighters had “engaged in possible criminal activity resulting in violations of the public trust,” according to a city statement.

Four of the firefighters were fired Tuesday, and the other four resigned, three of whom also applied for retirement. The four fired department employees are challenging their terminations, according to Vincent F. Ragosta Jr., the city’s attorney.

The city didn’t comment further about the alleged criminal activity because the criminal investigation is still ongoing.

Ragosta also said he couldn’t reveal the details about what criminal activity the firefighters were involved in, but he did confirm that the nature of their crimes “implicates unfitness for duty.”

At a series of pre-deprivation hearings April 9, the four firefighters who were later terminated were given the opportunity to defend their employment. The terms and conditions of these hearings created the controversy between the city and IAFF Local 1261, Pawtucket’s firefighters union.

Erik Cordeiro, the union’s president, said in a press release Wednesday that the firefighters were “unjustly terminated” and had “impeccable and unblemished service records within the department.”

Cordeiro criticized Ragosta and alleged that he “willingly expressed he withheld evidence” at the pre-deprivation hearings. The evidence presented at the hearings came from text messages from three years ago, Cordeiro said.

“The binding arbitration process protects our membership from this form of ill-advised and unjust terminations,” Cordeiro said in the press release. “The Union will vigorously defend the wrongfully terminated fire fighters in the arbitration arena, we will most certainly present our case, unlike Mr. Ragosta, in the court of public opinion.”

Ragosta and the city responded to the union in a press release, stating that Cordeiro misunderstood what evidence needed to be presented at the hearings.

At pre-deprivation hearings, also known as Loudermill hearings, only the necessary evidence and an explanation of that evidence need to be presented, rather than a complete list of all the evidence brought forth.

“At no point was any evidence ‘withheld’ by any city representative, especially Attorney Ragosta, who was very forthright in explaining to Cordeiro that the law only requires an explanation of the evidence supporting the contemplated firings, and not an exhaustive recitation and inventory of all the evidence justifying firing the deviant firefighters,” the city said in the press release. “Indeed, Attorney Ragosta patiently and politely educated Cordeiro that a Loudermill-pre-deprivation hearing is not a full-fledged evidentiary hearing where all formal evidence must be presented. Rather its purpose is to provide due process to employees before a termination decision is made, not to determine the facts definitively.”

The union has not yet responded to the city. Ragosta could not confirm exactly when more information on the criminal investigation will be released.