Veil Service Appeals Board votes 3–2 not to hear Lieut. Hutchinson’s appeal, citing jurisdictional and timeliness issues

The Veil Service Appeals Board in Fort Pierce voted 3–2 not to hear Lieutenant Jordan Hutchinson’s appeal, determining at a preliminary hearing that the board likely lacks jurisdiction and raising timeliness concerns about the notice and filing dates.

The board considered only two threshold questions: whether it has authority to hear the appeal and whether the appeal was filed within the board’s mandatory seven-calendar-day deadline. Kim Sable, who said she represents the Saint Lucie County Fire District and Fire Chief Jeff Lee, told the board that “any fire district employee who has achieved regular status shall have the right to to appeal any suspension, demotion, or dismissal,” but argued the petitioner never obtained regular status as a lieutenant and that the chief’s action on Jan. 16 was a promotional-probation determination governed by the collective bargaining agreement, not a disciplinary demotion.

Sable also presented a timeline to argue the appeal was untimely: she said the chief’s letter was issued Jan. 16 and that, under the board’s rules, the appeal deadline was Jan. 23. She noted that petitioner first contacted city HR on Jan. 26 and that the city attorney advised at 3:48 p.m. on Jan. 26 that he could file appeal paperwork then, but that the appeal was not submitted until the morning of Jan. 27.

Counsel for the petitioner, identified in the record as Anastasio, urged the board to find jurisdiction and to excuse any late filing. He argued there is a conflict between the city’s seven-day rule and the collective bargaining agreement’s repeated 14-day grievance and arbitration periods and said Hutchinson pursued multiple avenues for guidance. “He diligently tried to prosecute this appeal,” Anastasio said, describing efforts to contact union representatives, the fire district’s HR office and the city of Fort Pierce to determine filing procedures and deadlines.

Lieutenant Hutchinson testified that the chief’s letter did not explain how to appeal and that he sought guidance from union leaders and HR. Hutchinson said he found an updated copy of the board’s rules on the city website late on Jan. 26 and “immediately wrote out my appeal, submitted it the morning of the 27th,” telling the board his notice was sent at 9:23 a.m. on Jan. 27.

Board members questioned the timing and the relevance of the collective bargaining agreement. During legal argument Sable pointed to page 35 of the board rules (section 11.07) and to Article 28 of the collective bargaining agreement; she insisted that the district’s rules and the CBA, read together, showed the action was a non-disciplinary promotional determination and that the seven-day filing requirement applies.

After discussion, the board called a roll vote on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case. On the roll, the recorded responses produced a 3–2 result against hearing the matter; the chair announced the motion carried 3 to 2 not to hear the case. The board then excused the petitioner and closed the proceeding.

What the ruling means going forward was not decided in the hearing: the board’s preliminary vote stopped short of a merits hearing on the underlying promotional decision. The transcript records the board’s jurisdiction and timeliness determination; the petitioner and his counsel argued the filing should be excused or governed by longer CBA periods, while the district urged dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and untimely filing.

The hearing record cites specific rules and contract provisions (board rules section 11.07; collective bargaining agreement Article 28; rule 7.03b and section 7.05 referenced by counsel) that the board reviewed while weighing whether the action was a disciplinary demotion or a promotional probation determination.