In the City of Poulsbo, the arbitrator ruled the Chief of Police reasonably disciplined a Poulsbo officer with a one-day suspension without pay for issuing a retaliatory parking ticket to his neighbor.
The grievant officer owned two large, friendly dogs that often escaped from his house. One of them escapes, went to the Neighbor’s house, ate cat food left on the porch, and urinated. The Neighbor’s ring camera captured the event, after which he emailed the officer. He responded sarcastically, saying it was “not a big deal” and that he could spray off the porch since he knew “how difficult that can be” and reimburse the “50 cents of cat food” that his dog ate.
The Neighbor then filed a complaint with animal control for the loose dog which led to a $250 fine.
Not long after, Grievant noticed the Neighbor’s camper van had been parked on the street for more than 12 hours, and he issued a parking ticket. He told the Police Chief what he did and recognized that it wasn’t a great idea. The Neighbor complained leading to a one-day suspension for the issuance of the retaliatory ticket.
In Arbitration, the Poulsbo Police Officers Association contended that the City did not conduct a fair investigation, there was not enough evidence to find Grievant guilty of misconduct, the Grievant did not have notice of the rule violation, and the discipline was not progressive.
The City argued the Chief was justified in disciplining Grievant with a one-day suspension because the Grievant should have known that his actions would appear retaliatory—a serious offense that undermines the reputation of law enforcement—and therefore the Chief could impose a non-progressive disciplinary action per their CBA.
The arbitrator ruled for the City finding the investigation was fair because it was completed by a dedicated investigator and management team over several months, there was enough circumstantial evidence to show Grievant’s wrongful intent in issuing the ticket and noted discretion in applying progressive discipline.
The arbitrator cited circumstantial evidence showing Grievant issued the parking ticket was retaliatory. Grievant described the Neighbor using unflattering adjectives in his email to his other neighbors and his interactions with animal control and even testified that the Neighbor was an “unhappy whiner.”. The Arbitrator noted that Grievant issued this ticket days after the dispute but that he had only issued five parking tickets in his career. The arbitrator also accepted the City’s claim that the officer had shown no remorse and did not apologize The arbitrator also reasoned that even if Grievant did not issue the ticket out of retaliation, the arbitrator held that a reasonable person would view the action as retaliatory.
Progressive discipline is a significant requirement of just cause. While progressive discipline is often discussed in terms of steps, in reality there is not a specific formula for progressing through steps. The overarching concept is that the discipline be proportionate to the offense and corrective in nature, not punitive. Once the arbitrator found sustained an ethics violation, it was predictable that she would find a short suspension on these facts. Justified.
** Visit our Premium Website for more information on Notice of Charges, Legal and Contractual Due Process, Thorough and Fair Investigation, Proportionality, Progressive Discipline, and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. **
