Scranton Police Chief Dan Duffy said Tuesday that an unfair-labor-practice complaint filed against him by the police union over an arrest he made in March will not change his "hands-on" approach to running the department.

Meanwhile, Detective Sgt. Bob Martin, police union president defended the complaint as a means of holding the city administration to a 2002 state labor board ruling that classified the chief of police position as managerial rather than supervisory. The ruling was the result of the administration's successful effort to exclude the position from the collective bargaining unit.

The complaint alleges that Chief Duffy violated the department's collective bargaining agreement when he pursued a citizen's tip last month and made an arrest.

By following up on the tip and making an arrest, Sgt. Martin said Chief Duffy violated the state labor board's ruling, prompting the union's labor complaint.

"All we're doing is holding their feet to the fire," Sgt. Martin said of the administration of Mayor Chris Doherty. "This is all about negotiating a contract with the city. ... We want the law followed."

Sgt. Martin said he spoke with Chief Duffy in December about the chief pursuing criminal activity on his own and that the chief agreed to pass along tips to collective bargaining unit members rather than following them up personally.

"I thought we had an agreement," Sgt. Martin said.

Chief Duffy said he remembers that conversation differently.

He said he agreed with Sgt. Martin that, while participating in a special detail, he would turn over any arrests that came his way to a bargaining unit member.

"When I go out on these details, will I call a bargaining unit member to make that arrest? Absolutely," Chief Duffy said. "When I'm out by myself, I'm not committed to turn it over to them. That's absurd."

Sgt. Martin said Chief Duffy violated the agreement on March 20 when he heeded a citizen's complaint of possible drug activity in West Side.

On that day, Chief Duffy ultimately took John J. McHugh, 1371 N. Washington Ave., into custody - first for an outstanding warrant and then, after Mr. McHugh allegedly threw a cigarette pack containing a marijuana joint to the ground, for marijuana possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

"The problem with this is it crosses over the line. He's managerial," Sgt. Martin said. "We don't want anything except for him to obey the order."

Chief Duffy said he is only doing his job.

"As far as I'm concerned, it's just me doing my job," he said. "I just believe that the public should expect their police chief to work 24/7."

Moreover, Chief Duffy said that he had forwarded the citizen's complaint to union members and only later decided to scan the area himself.

When he made the arrest, Chief Duffy said he called a union member to assist him and another to transport Mr. McHugh once he was in custody.

"I gave two bargaining unit members work that they probably never would have encountered ... because they can't be everywhere at one time, it's common logic," Chief Duffy said.

Sgt. Martin said that in cases in which criminal activity occurs in front of Chief Duffy, he is "legally and morally obligated" to react. It was his proactive response to the complaint in March that the union takes issue with.

"To me, the perception is he's out doing collective bargaining (unit) work," Sgt. Martin said.

The union does not oppose Chief Duffy making arrests when he happens upon criminal activity, but he should not proactively pursue criminal activity by order of the union's collective bargaining agreement, Sgt. Martin said.

Chief Duffy maintained that his actions have been about crimefighting, not taking work away from union members.

"Do I drive around West Side? Absolutely. Am I looking for trouble? Absolutely I'm looking for trouble. That's my job as police chief," Chief Duffy said.

"If there are problems, I'm going to spot check them and I'm going to snoop around, but I'm certainly going to forward the information to the body of the organization. It's not like I get a secret tip and I go and try to play hero. It doesn't work like that."

For now, a resolution to the complaint will have to wait.

Tom Jennings, the union's attorney, said the state labor board first needs to issue a letter to the city and union acknowledging its receipt of the complaint and offer a proposed hearing date.

That hearing would most likely not happen for two to three months, Mr. Jennings said, at which point a hearing examiner would hear testimony from both sides and issue a proposed decision and order.

Whichever side loses can then file exceptions to the state labor board, after which the board would render a final decision.

Following that decision, the only recourse left for the losing side would be an appeal to Commonwealth Court, Mr. Jennings said.

Contact the writer: domalley@timesshamrock.com