Panel: Suspended Pittsburgh guards waited too long to appeal
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, 3:20 p.m.
Eight guards who were suspended during an investigation of inmate abuse at the SCI Pittsburgh Woods Run prison waited too long to challenge their suspensions, a seven-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court ruled Wednesday.
The collective bargaining agreement between the Department of Corrections and Pennsylvania State Corrections Officers Association gave the guards 15 days to file a grievance after they were suspended, but Harry Nicoletti, 60, of Coraopolis waited 28 working days and the other seven guards waited 87 working days, the ruling says.
An arbitrator in February ordered them reinstated with back pay. The ruling overturns that decision. Two of the eight guards were never charged and charges have been dismissed against two of the other guards. Their current employment status wasn't available.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.