Halden Regional Transit District v. Marceline Osgard and Meridian Alliance of Public Workers, Local 7 (Arbitration)

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT OSGARD

Statement of Marceline Osgard (Grievant)

Given to counsel, Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP. Norsholm, Meridian.

My name is Marceline Osgard. I am forty-seven years old and I worked as a mechanic for the Halden Regional Transit District for eleven years, from 2014 until they fired me in October of last year. For about the last six of those years I was the lead mechanic on brakes and air systems. I know those buses. I have pulled more brake drums than anybody in that shop.

I take the brake work seriously because it is the one system where being wrong gets somebody killed. A city bus is forty thousand pounds. If the service brakes are losing air, you do not put it on the road with kids and old folks on it. That is not me being difficult. That is the job.

In early 2024 we got a new maintenance superintendent, Gerald Rennick. From the start it was all about "pull-out" — getting the buses out of the garage on time in the morning. He watched those numbers like a hawk. Everybody in the shop felt it. You were supposed to turn buses around fast, and a real brake inspection takes the time it takes.

On September 22 I inspected three buses that were slated for the next morning — units 411, 418, and 426. All three had weeping air lines and were losing pressure on the rear service brakes. I red-tagged all three and wrote them up in the repair system. That afternoon Rennick came and told me to clear at least two of them so they would make the pull-out. I told him I would not certify those buses safe until the lines were fixed. He said they looked fine to him and that I was making a service problem out of nothing.

It went back and forth for days. On October 1 I put it all in an email — the brakes, the pressure to send them out — and I sent it up the internal safety chain and copied the Regional Transit Safety Oversight Board, because I did not trust it to be handled inside. That is when things really turned. To them, copying an outside board was going around the chain of command.

On October 9 Rennick told me to leave the brake bay and go to another assignment. I did — but first I walked to the parts room to lock up my tools and log out of the repair terminal, because you do not just walk away from an open repair. That took maybe fifteen minutes. He wrote it up as me "leaving my post" and refusing an order. On October 15 they fired me. The letter says insubordination and leaving my post, and it drags in a note from my file from 2024 calling me argumentative — a note that never would have existed in my first nine years.

I want my job back. I want the back pay. But more than that I want it on the record that I was right to refuse those buses. I am not going to take a check to walk away and let them say I was the problem. Later a contractor checked the three buses and found the leaks on 411 and 426 — so I was right about those. They will make noise about 418 holding pressure, but you tag first and verify second when it is brakes.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT DELLWOOD

Statement of Theo Dellwood (Coworker, Fact Witness)

Given to counsel for the grievant. Norsholm, Meridian.

I am Theo Dellwood. I have been a mechanic at the Halden Regional Transit District for six years, and I still work there. I want to say up front that I like Marceline and I think she got a raw deal, but I also have a family and I need this job, so I am trying to be careful and just say what I actually saw.

On the morning of September 22 I was working the bay right next to Marceline. I saw her put red "Out of Service" tags on three buses. I remember it because three at once is a lot, and it was going to blow up the morning pull-out. A little later Gerald Rennick came through. I heard him tell her, pretty plainly, to get at least a couple of them back in service for the run. She told him no, that the air lines were leaking and she was not going to sign off on them. He said something like they looked fine to him and she was turning nothing into a service problem.

That is really the part I can swear to, because I saw and heard it. Marceline is not somebody who cries wolf. In six years I have never seen her tag a bus that did not deserve it. If anything she is more careful than the rest of us.

I will also be honest about the part that does not help her, because I would rather you hear it from me. Of those three buses, one of them — 418 — ended up passing the outside inspection. It held pressure. So the District is going to say she over-tagged, that two out of three does not justify shutting down the whole line. I get why they will say it. But from where I stand, when you are not sure about brakes, you tag it and you check it. You do not guess and hope.

The other thing I can tell you, and this is the part I am nervous about, is that the pull-out pressure was real and everybody felt it. It was not just Marceline. I have felt it too — the sense that if you slow the line down you are the problem. I just cannot be the guy who stands up and says that in a hearing and then finds himself managed out a few months later. I do not know how much of that I can put my name to.

I did not measure any pressures myself. Whatever the exact readings were on 411 and 426, that is on the contractor's report, not something I did. I can tell you what I saw and heard that morning, and I can tell you Marceline knows brakes better than anyone in that shop. Beyond that I have to be careful.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT RENNICK

Statement of Gerald Rennick (Maintenance Superintendent, Halden Regional Transit District)

Summary of the District's management witness account, as reflected in the grievance record and the District's step responses. Provided for the file; Mr. Rennick is a management witness represented, for this matter, by the District's counsel.

Gerald Rennick has been the District's maintenance superintendent since early 2024. He was hired to bring discipline to a maintenance operation that, in the District's view, had grown loose, and part of his mandate was to improve the on-time pull-out rate. He does not deny that pull-out is a priority; he considers it a legitimate operational goal and part of running a reliable transit system.

Rennick's account of the discharge is straightforward and, to him, has nothing to do with brakes or safety complaints. His position is that Marceline Osgard refused a direct and lawful instruction from her superintendent, and then, when reassigned, walked away from an assigned work post. On September 22 he asked her to clear buses for the morning run; she refused. He maintains that he never told her to put an unsafe vehicle on the road — only that he wanted the units available, which he says is his job to want. He characterizes her red-tagging of three buses at once as excessive and points to unit 418, which later passed inspection, as proof that she over-tagged and manufactured a service crisis.

As to October 9, Rennick says he gave Osgard a clear instruction to leave the brake bay and report to a different assignment, and that she did not comply promptly. He describes the delay as leaving her post and treats it as another instance of insubordination rather than, as Osgard frames it, securing an open repair.

On the personnel note from 2024 that describes Osgard as argumentative and resistant to direction, Rennick's position is that it reflected a genuine performance concern about how she took direction and had nothing to do with any safety email. He resists the suggestion that the note appeared only after Osgard began raising concerns, and he is not inclined to help the grievant connect those dots.

He was aware that Osgard sent an email outside the District copying an external oversight board, and he and the operations director regarded that as going around the chain of command. He does not know whether the oversight board ever opened a file; he says that is not his department.

The District's step responses in the grievance track Rennick's framing, emphasizing insubordination and the reassignment episode. The grievant contends that the emphasis in those responses shifted over the course of the grievance steps, moving away from the original safety dispute and toward the conduct narrative.

WITNESS STATEMENT · STATEMENT BEXLEY

Statement of Loretta Bexley (Union Steward, MAPW Local 7)

Given to counsel for the grievant. Norsholm, Meridian.

My name is Loretta Bexley. I am a steward for the Meridian Alliance of Public Workers, Local 7, and I have represented maintenance and operations employees at the Halden Regional Transit District for about nine years. I processed Marceline Osgard's grievance from the day she was discharged, and I sat in on every step meeting with the District.

Marceline came to me the afternoon they walked her out, October 15. We filed the grievance on October 20. The grievance says what I believe: that there was no just cause for firing an eleven-year mechanic with a clean record, and that the real reason was that she refused to certify unsafe buses and then put her safety concerns in writing to an outside board.

What I want counsel to understand is how the District's story moved as we went up the steps. At Step 1, the conversation was very much about the buses and the pull-out — the supervisor was defensive about the safety email and spent most of the meeting explaining why copying the oversight board was inappropriate. By Step 2 and Step 3, the written responses had shifted. They barely mentioned the safety dispute anymore. It became almost entirely about "insubordination" and "leaving an assigned post" and that 2024 note in her file. It was like watching them settle on the story that sounded best.

I keep contemporaneous notes of every grievance meeting — date, who was there, what was said. I wrote down at Step 1 that the superintendent said the buses "looked fine" and that the issue was Marceline "not respecting the chain of command." By Step 3 the District's written answer did not use the word safety at all. I think those notes are going to matter, because they show the reason for the discharge is a moving target.

On the record itself: Marceline had no discipline at all for her first nine years. The timekeeping reminder from 2023 was minor and everybody in that shop has one. The 2024 note calling her argumentative is the only thing in there with any teeth, and it shows up right around the time she started pushing back on rushed brake work. That timing is not lost on any of us.

We took it to arbitration because the internal steps went nowhere and the agreement gives us a neutral. Frances Eklund was selected as the arbitrator. Marceline's goal has always been reinstatement and clearing her name, not just money. She has been clear with me that she does not want a deal that pays her to go away and lets the District keep the discharge on the books.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 001 CBA EXCERPTS

Exhibit 001 — Collective-Bargaining Agreement (Excerpts)

Agreement between the Halden Regional Transit District and the Meridian Alliance of Public Workers, Local 7. Term: January 1, 2024 – December 31, 2026.

Excerpted for the case file. Reproduced as relevant to the grievance.

Article 8 — Discipline and Discharge

8.1 No employee who has completed the probationary period shall be disciplined, suspended, or discharged except for just cause.

8.2 Discipline shall ordinarily be progressive, and the degree of discipline shall bear a reasonable relationship to the seriousness of the offense, except that serious misconduct may warrant more severe discipline without prior warnings.

8.3 An employee disciplined or discharged shall be given a written statement of the reasons at the time the action is taken.

Article 12 — Health and Safety

12.1 The District shall maintain safe equipment and working conditions. No employee shall be required to operate or certify as roadworthy any vehicle the employee reasonably believes to be unsafe.

12.4 An employee shall not be disciplined or retaliated against for raising a good-faith safety concern through the District's safety-reporting procedures.

Article 22 — Grievance and Arbitration

22.1 A grievance is a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement, including any claim that discipline or discharge was without just cause.

22.2 Grievances shall be processed in three steps: (1) the immediate supervisor; (2) the operations director; (3) the District administrator. Each step response shall be in writing.

22.5 If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3, the Union may submit it to arbitration. The parties shall select a neutral arbitrator by mutual agreement or through the standard strike-list procedure.

22.7 The arbitrator shall have authority to interpret and apply this Agreement and to fashion an appropriate remedy, which may include reinstatement and back pay, but shall not have authority to add to or modify the terms of this Agreement. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.

22.8 In a discharge grievance, the District bears the burden of establishing just cause.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 002 NOTICE OF DISCHARGE

Exhibit 002 — Notice of Discharge

HALDEN REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT Office of Maintenance Operations Norsholm, Meridian

Date: October 15, 2025 To: Marceline Osgard, Lead Mechanic, Brake and Air Systems From: Gerald Rennick, Maintenance Superintendent Re: Termination of Employment

Ms. Osgard,

This letter confirms that your employment with the Halden Regional Transit District is terminated effective today, October 15, 2025.

The decision is based on repeated insubordination and failure to follow direct supervisory instructions, and on leaving an assigned work post. Specifically:

1. On September 22, 2025, and on subsequent occasions, you refused a direct instruction from your superintendent to return assigned vehicles to service.

1. On October 9, 2025, after being instructed to leave the brake bay and report to a reassignment, you did not comply promptly and left your assigned post.

1. Your conduct is consistent with a documented performance concern regarding your acceptance of supervisory direction, as reflected in your personnel file, including a supervisory note dated November 2024.

The District considers this conduct to be a serious and repeated failure to follow direction that cannot be tolerated in a safety-sensitive maintenance operation.

You are entitled to any accrued benefits payable under District policy. You may grieve this action under the collective-bargaining agreement.

/s/ Gerald Rennick Gerald Rennick Maintenance Superintendent

cc: Operations Director; Human Resources; Personnel File

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 003 SAFETY EMAILS

Exhibit 003 — Safety-Complaint Email of October 1, 2025

From: Marceline Osgard To: HRTD Safety Reporting; Gerald Rennick; Operations Director Cc: Regional Transit Safety Oversight Board — Intake Date: October 1, 2025, 6:42 AM Subject: Unsafe condition — brake air lines, units 411 / 418 / 426 — pressure to return to service

To the safety reporting line and to the Oversight Board,

I am the lead brake mechanic at the Halden Regional Transit District. I am reporting an unsafe condition and pressure to return unsafe vehicles to service, because I do not believe it is being handled properly inside the shop.

On September 22 I inspected three buses assigned for pull-out — units 411, 418, and 426. All three showed weeping brake air lines and were losing pressure on the rear service brakes. I placed each out of service with a red tag and entered the defects in the repair system.

That afternoon my superintendent, Gerald Rennick, directed me to clear at least two of the three so they would be available for the morning run. I declined. I told him I could not certify these buses as roadworthy until the air lines are repaired and the brakes hold pressure. He told me the units looked fine to him and that I was creating a service problem.

I am escalating because the pressure to meet pull-out targets is being placed ahead of a brake condition that puts passengers at risk. A bus that cannot hold air on the rear service brakes should not carry passengers. I am asking that these units remain out of service until they are repaired and verified, and that the practice of pressing mechanics to clear tagged brake defects be reviewed.

I am copying the Regional Transit Safety Oversight Board because this concerns public safety on vehicles carrying passengers.

Marceline Osgard Lead Mechanic, Brake and Air Systems

Reproduced for the case file. No reply from the Oversight Board appears in the District's records; the grievant is not aware whether the Board opened a file.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 004 REPAIR LOGS

Exhibit 004 — Repair Orders and Red-Tag Records (Units 411, 418, 426)

Reproduced from the District's repair-order system. Entries dated September 22, 2025, entered by M. Osgard, Lead Mechanic.

Repair Order RO-25-3341 — Unit 411

• Date/time entered: 2025-09-22, 05:58
• Reported by: M. Osgard
• Defect: Rear service brake air line weeping at fitting; audible air loss; system slow to build and slow to hold pressure.
• Action: Placed OUT OF SERVICE (red tag #R-0912). Awaiting air-line repair and pressure verification.
• Status: Open.

Repair Order RO-25-3342 — Unit 418

• Date/time entered: 2025-09-22, 06:11
• Reported by: M. Osgard
• Defect: Suspected rear air-line weep; pressure appears to drop slowly on parked test. Flagged for verification.
• Action: Placed OUT OF SERVICE (red tag #R-0913). Awaiting verification.
• Status: Open.

Repair Order RO-25-3343 — Unit 426

• Date/time entered: 2025-09-22, 06:19
• Reported by: M. Osgard
• Defect: Rear service brake air line weeping; visible moisture at fitting; pressure loss on hold test.
• Action: Placed OUT OF SERVICE (red tag #R-0914). Awaiting air-line repair and pressure verification.
• Status: Open.

Supervisor Override Log

• 2025-09-22, 14:30 — G. Rennick: Reviewed RO-25-3341 through -3343. Directed lead mechanic to prioritize clearing units 411 and 426 for AM pull-out; unit 418 to be re-checked. Note: "Units appear serviceable; verify and release. Pull-out impact unacceptable."
• 2025-09-22, 14:52 — M. Osgard: "Declined to release. Will not certify until lines repaired and pressure verified."

Note for the file: the red-tag numbers and repair-order timestamps are business records generated at the time of the events. The supervisor override log reflects the disputed instruction.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 005 PERSONNEL FILE

Exhibit 005 — Personnel File Excerpts (M. Osgard)

Excerpted from the District's personnel records for Marceline Osgard. Reproduced for the case file.

Performance Reviews (summary)

• 2016–2023: Annual reviews rated "Meets or Exceeds Expectations" in each year. Narrative comments repeatedly note strong technical skill on brake and air systems and reliability.
• Safety recognition: Shop annual safety-record recognition awarded to M. Osgard in two years (2019, 2022).

Disciplinary and Supervisory Entries

• 2023-03-14 — Timekeeping reminder (written): Verbal-to-written reminder regarding three late clock-ins over a two-month period. Classified as minor; no further action. Employee acknowledged.

• 2024-11-08 — Supervisory note (G. Rennick): "Ms. Osgard has been argumentative and resistant to direction on several occasions this fall, including pushback on turnaround expectations. Coaching provided. Expect improved responsiveness to supervisory direction." No formal discipline attached; entry is a supervisor note.

• 2025-10-15 — Termination: See Notice of Discharge (Exhibit 002).

Notes for the File

The personnel record contains no formal discipline for the period 2014 through early 2024 other than the March 2023 timekeeping reminder. The November 2024 supervisor note is the only entry characterizing the employee as resistant to direction. The grievant contends this note first appeared after she began raising concerns about rushed brake work in the fall of 2024; the District contends it reflects an independent performance concern. The chronological placement of the note is a contested issue and is offered here as it appears in the file, without characterization.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 006 GRIEVANCE RECORD

Exhibit 006 — Grievance Form and Step Responses

Grievance Form (filed October 20, 2025)

• Grievant: Marceline Osgard
• Union: Meridian Alliance of Public Workers, Local 7 (steward: L. Bexley)
• Provisions cited: Article 8 (just cause); Article 12 (health and safety; anti-retaliation)
• Statement of grievance: The District discharged the grievant without just cause. The discharge was in retaliation for the grievant's good-faith refusal to certify unsafe vehicles and for reporting a safety concern to the District and to the Regional Transit Safety Oversight Board. The grievant has an eleven-year record without prior formal discipline.
• Remedy requested: Reinstatement to the grievant's position, full back pay and benefits, and removal of the discharge and related entries from the personnel file.

Step 1 Response (immediate supervisor — October 27, 2025)

Grievance denied. "The grievant refused a direct instruction to return assigned vehicles to service and did not respect the chain of command in taking her concerns outside the District. The units in question looked serviceable. This is a conduct issue."

Step 2 Response (operations director — November 6, 2025)

Grievance denied. "The termination was based on repeated failure to follow supervisory direction and leaving an assigned post on October 9. The District maintains safe equipment and takes safety reports seriously through proper channels, but the discharge rests on the grievant's insubordination, not on any safety report."

Step 3 Response (District administrator — November 18, 2025)

Grievance denied. "After review, the District finds just cause for discharge based on the grievant's documented pattern of resistance to direction, culminating in the refusal of instructions and the abandonment of her post. The matter is a personnel and conduct matter." (The Step 3 written response does not reference the September safety dispute.)

Referral to Arbitration (December 2, 2025)

The Union referred the grievance to arbitration under Article 22.5. The parties selected Frances Eklund as the neutral arbitrator. A merits hearing has been scheduled.

Steward's note appended to the file: contemporaneous meeting notes reflect that at Step 1 the District's emphasis was on the safety email and "chain of command," and that by Step 3 the written rationale had narrowed to insubordination and the reassignment episode.

CASE-FILE DOCUMENT · EXH 007 BRAKE PHOTOS

Exhibit 007 — Contractor Brake-Inspection Report and Photographs (Described)

Prepared by: Independent fleet-inspection contractor (retained jointly for the file) Inspection date: October 24, 2025 Units inspected: 411, 418, 426

The report and its photographs are described here for the case file. The photographs referenced are held as image exhibits and are summarized in words below.

Findings

Unit 411

• Photograph 411-A: Close view of the rear service-brake air-line fitting showing a bead of moisture and staining consistent with a slow weep at the compression fitting.
• Test result: Parked hold test showed measurable pressure loss over the timed interval, outside the acceptable tolerance. Air-line leak confirmed.

Unit 426

• Photograph 426-A: Rear air-line junction showing visible moisture and residue at the fitting.
• Photograph 426-B: Wider view showing the tagged unit in the bay.
• Test result: Pressure loss over the timed hold test outside tolerance. Air-line leak confirmed.

Unit 418

• Photograph 418-A: Rear air-line fitting; surface appears dry on inspection.
• Test result: Parked hold test showed pressure loss within acceptable tolerance. No leak confirmed; unit held pressure.

Summary

Of the three units the grievant red-tagged on September 22, 2025, the contractor confirmed air-line leaks outside tolerance on units 411 and 426, and found unit 418 within tolerance on the inspection date. The report does not opine on whether unit 418 had a condition on September 22 that had resolved or was intermittent; it records only the condition as found on October 24.

The mixed result is a contested exhibit: the grievant relies on the two confirmed leaks; the District relies on unit 418 holding pressure.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · ENGAGEMENT LETTER

Engagement Letter

ELLINGBOE & RAVNDAL LLP 310 Riverwalk Plaza, Suite 400 Norsholm, Meridian 55901

November 5, 2025

Marceline Osgard 1148 Foundry Row Norsholm, Meridian 55902

Re: Representation in labor-arbitration grievance — discharge from Halden Regional Transit District

Dear Ms. Osgard,

Thank you for asking Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP to represent you. This letter sets out the terms of our engagement.

Scope of representation. We will represent you as the grievant in the arbitration of your discharge grievance against the Halden Regional Transit District, brought under the collective-bargaining agreement by the Meridian Alliance of Public Workers, Local 7. Our work includes case assessment, factual investigation and witness interviews, preparation of the statement of the case, and preparation for and representation at the arbitration hearing. This engagement does not include any separate court action, appeal of the arbitrator's award, or unrelated matter, which would require a separate agreement.

The Union's role. We understand that the Union is advancing your grievance and that your interests and the Union's are aligned in seeking to overturn the discharge. We represent you. If any divergence of interest arises between you and the Union, we will discuss it with you promptly.

Fees. Our fees are charged on an hourly basis. The rate for the responsible senior attorney, Amara Ellingboe, is $250 per hour; the rate for associate attorney Marcus Ravndal is $225 per hour. Time is recorded in tenths of an hour. You will receive an itemized statement periodically showing the work performed, the time, and any costs advanced (such as the contractor inspection). Payment is due upon receipt of each statement.

Costs. Reasonable out-of-pocket costs incurred on your behalf will be billed as incurred.

Your role. You agree to be candid with us, to provide the documents and information we request, and to keep us informed of any developments. Complete candor — including about anything that concerns you — allows us to represent you effectively, and our communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

Ending the engagement. You may end our representation at any time. We may withdraw as permitted by the applicable rules of professional conduct. Either way, you remain responsible for fees and costs incurred through the end of the representation.

If these terms are acceptable, please sign below and return one copy.

Sincerely,

/s/ Amara Ellingboe Amara Ellingboe Ellingboe & Ravndal LLP

Marceline Osgard Date

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INTAKE & CONFLICTS

Intake (2025-11-03). Represent discharged transit mechanic and grievant in a final-and-binding labor arbitration challenging her discharge for alleged insubordination; grievance brought by MAPW Local 7 asserting the discharge lacked just cause and was retaliation for safety complaints.

Conflicts check (2025-11-04) — CLEAR. No prior or current representation of the Halden Regional Transit District. The grievant and the Union share an aligned interest in overturning the discharge; the Union consents to the firm's representation of the grievant. No adverse relationship identified.

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · BILLING STATEMENT (18 TIME ENTRIES)

BUSINESS EXHIBIT · INVOICES