AUGUSTA — A state investigator will recommend to the Maine Human Rights Commission on Monday that there are reasonable grounds to believe a skidder operator from Strong was unlawfully fired in 2010.

The case is one of several the commission will vote on at 8:45 a.m. Oct. 31 at No. 51 State House Station in Augusta.

Investigator Robert D. Beauchesne wrote that Daniel E. Harnden of Strong filed a complaint with the state in May 2010 that alleged he was fired from On the Edge Chipping in Phillips in January 2010 after complaining about charges put on his personal John Deere account.

The company denied the allegation and said Harnden was fired for multiple performance issues.

Harnden complained to the president of the commercial wood harvesting company about $1,478.53 charged to his account Dec. 4, 2009, for repair of company equipment Harnden had used at work, according to Beauchesne’s report. A wheel seal on a skidder that Harnden had operated let go on Dec. 3, 2009. Harnden was hired as a grapple skidder operator in 2008.

The company president told Harnden he would take care of the charges, the report states. However it was not initially taken care of and Harnden’s account was assessed $72.79 in late fees and a finance charge.

Harnden called the offices of John Deere on Jan. 15, 2010, and explained what happened to the account to see if they could assist him.

Days later, the president of the company allegedly called Harnden and left a message that he was “fired for job performance,” the report states.

The company’s position is that the parts failed because of lack of maintenance by Harnden, despite repeated reminders to do so, the report states.

The company said the bill was paid on Jan. 10, 2010, five days before Harnden called John Deere to have the issue fixed. However, John Deere did not receive the check until Jan. 19 and the check was most likely not accurately dated, Beauchesne wrote.

He wrote that most of the alleged job performance complaints made by the company occurred or existed well before the day Harnden was fired. If they were deemed serious enough to justify termination, it likely would have been far closer to the time of the incidents instead of waiting until mid-January 2010, he wrote.

It is also arguable that, he wrote, that if the extensive damage to the skidder in December 2009 was attributable to Harnden’s lack of maintenance, action or inaction alone may have justified firing Harnden then, but that didn’t happen.

Beauchesne said, in this case, Harden had ample reason to believe that it was a violation of law for his employer to require him to pay on his personal account for damage done to the company’s property during the course of employment.

“It is a violation of Maine law, for example, for an employer to withhold wages for damage done by an employee to the employer’s merchandise or property,” he said.

dperry@sunjournal.com