A Phoenix labor-relations board is scheduled to hear testimony Wednesday from police crime-lab employees after the union representing crime-scene specialists raised questions about mismanaged evidence and supervisor misconduct.
The five unfair-labor-practice charges stemmed from a woman who claimed supervisors wrongfully blamed her for filing inaccurate reports on 18 investigations since 2007, including homicide cases.
Since her reassignment earlier this winter, Ana Lucero - a crime-scene specialist who worked for more than eight years processing evidence for Phoenix homicide detectives - claimed the lab was so disorganized that it could put criminal cases at risk. Lab leaders denied the claims.
The Phoenix Employment Relations Board scheduled four days of hearings to collect facts from Lucero and lab supervisors. But her union, Local 2960 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, could agree with the city to withdraw the charges and cancel the hearings.
Meanwhile, Phoenix police detectives continued with an internal investigation into crime-lab employees as the department probes allegations of misconduct, rather than the functions of the crime lab itself.
No room for error
Phoenix Cmdr. Harry Markley, who took command of the crime lab in June, said he didn't know of any employee errors that could jeopardize criminal cases.
He added that lab supervisors closely monitor the work of 38 non-sworn crime-scene specialists to maintain a high level of accreditation and to ensure prosecutors receive accurate evidence to move forward with cases.
"In some fields there might be an acceptable error rate," Markley said. "There's none in this field. We discover our errors because we do the reviews."
The crime lab completed 40,357 requests for scientific analysis in 2009, including those for DNA, fingerprints and toxicology. The number marked a 35 percent work increase from the previous year, when the lab completed 29,884 requests.
Markley added that the total number of backlogged cases is going down, though the lab continues to operate with the same number of employees.
In 2007, the crime lab reported a backlog of 15,895 cases, Phoenix records show. By 2009, the number dropped to 10,982.
Lab complaints
Lucero and her AFSCME Local 2960 representatives claimed crime-lab staff members have enough time on their hands to make popcorn and watch movies on city time, to take long breaks at Starbucks at City Hall and to take two-hour lunches.
Such complaints came out months after Lucero was first disciplined, according to crime-lab leaders. They said the complaints reflected the stance of a handful of disgruntled employees rather than a pervasive problem among the lab's 147 employees.
According to disciplinary records, Lucero's supervisors warned her multiple times last year to reduce her report backlog. She admitted she had more than 100 unfinished reports dating back to 2006.
One supervisor characterized Lucero's lack of detail on her reports as a "lack of willingness to take the initiative to verify the accuracy of statements," including missing or mischaracterized evidence collected at crime scenes.
Frank Piccioli, a Local 2960 representative, said Lucero's discipline and reassignment to a police department records office incorrectly portrayed her as lazy and incompetent.
In January, the union filed a civil lawsuit notice of claim with Phoenix, alleging Lucero has been "severely, continuously and repeatedly harassed and retaliated against" since she became a Local 2960 steward more than a year ago.
Members leaving union
A group of crime-scene specialists filed a petition with Phoenix to leave Local 2960.
The petition, filed in July, would reclassify the city's crime-scene specialists under a new professional ranking that some feel is long overdue, based on the highly technical forensics work. The new ranking would enable crime-scene specialists to become part of a new union.
Local 2960 responded by filing its first unfair-labor complaint with the Phoenix Employment Relations Board in August. Four other unfair-labor charges followed.
John Charland, the attorney representing the petitioners, said the process - which goes to hearing in March - has been marked by accusations and attacks.
"It seemed so straightforward that these people were not properly categorized, and that it should be adjusted," Charland said. "I did not anticipate I was going to get into this type of dogfight. But now that I'm in it, I'm going to fight it out."
*As always, if you locate any Piccioli's Points in your daily searches that I have missed, please send them to me so I can add them!*
No comments:
Post a Comment