RETURN TO WORK AGREEMENT...A CITY SETUP?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, elaws - Section 9, dated September 16, 2007 a Return-to-Work Agreement (RTWA) is a written document that sets forth the expectations that the employer and the employee assistance/medical professional have of an employee who has completed mandated treatment for alcohol and or drug problems. It also sets forth consequences if the expectations are not met.

Section 9 also requires that in developing a RTWA "coordination between the employee, employer, union, Employee Assistance Program and treatment professionals" take place. It also requires that "prior notification through company policy that a RTWA would be expected as a condition of continued employment."

All of the above seems perfectly reasonable except that:

1. It presumes that the underlying primary problem was one of an alcohol or drug nature and not one of a physical nature caused by two separate in-the-line of duty injuries to the individual involved. The first being witnessed by other individuals and the second officially documented at the time of injury.
2. There also was no "coordination between the employee" and the other individuals mentioned in Section 9. He or his attorney were not included in any way in drawing up this so called RTWA.
3. Prior notification that a RTWA would be necessary as a condition of his continued employment was never given before he started his relationship with the Employee Assistance Program.

The above being dully noted it also should be noted that on review of the unilaterally created document of self destruction (RTWA) that there was NO way that the Sergeant could live up to the unilaterally created document. He signed it under alleged duress from an alleged order of the Police Chief...something to the alleged affect of "sign it or you will never return to the police department". The document was a totally "loose-loose" one for the Sergeant. You judge for yourself. The agreement states in pertinent part:

"I will not use any substance containing the (named medications). I will not use any controlled substance other than that which is prescribed by a licensed physician......." this places the Sergeant in an impossible position; if he uses said medications for control of pain he is in violation of the unilateral agreement but then the agreement goes on to say that he can if prescribed by a licensed physician. This makes absolutely no sense.

I question the judgment of the people involved in this whole process of prosecution of Sergeant Steven R . Gorski. The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners found 3 to 0 in the Sergeant's favor but the Chief and the City persist in costly further litigation at the taxpayers of Woodstock's expense. When are the citizens of Woodstock going to say STOP !!! Enough already!!!!