Question: The State of Vermont appealed the Vermont Labor Relations Board's decision, reinstating grievant Lawrence Rosenberger to his position as a game warden and awarding him back pay after he was discharged for falsifying a time report to obtain compensation for work not done. One of the main issues for the Board to resolve at the grievance hearing in this case was how to remedy the employer's violation of a collective bargaining agreement provision requiring state employers to inform employees of their right to union representation before being called to a meeting that might lead to disciplinary action. The state argued that the board erred by adopting the criminal law doctrines-the exclusionary rule and its companion fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree corollary- to exclude from the grievance hearing not only the grievant's admissions during an initial interview without union representation, but also his admissions during later investigative interviews when accompanied by a union representative. Should the employer's error invalidate the results of its internal investigation? See In re Rosenberger, 2009 WL 350631 (Vermont Supreme Court, February 13, 2009).