In City of Chicago, the arbitrator found that a police officer was misled into believing her medical insurance covered her therapy. The arbitrator held that it is fundamentally unfair to put the onus on the employee to understand an incorrectly labeled doctor’s referral slip, and then reach the conclusion her treatment is not cover without a pre-certification.

In Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, the arbitrator relied on a correctional sergeant’s positive work history and the lack of conclusive evidence to determine termination was without just cause. But the arbitrator imposed a 5 day suspension concluding that the Sergeant’s use of force report, while not “intentionally dishonest,” reflected a failure of “cooperation” because it lacked “detail.”

In City of Bartlesville, the arbitrator found there was just cause to terminate an Oklahoma City police sergeant for not properly controlling officers who engaged in excessive force. The arbitrator applied the 7 tests for finding just cause and found the sergeant’s actions showed a lack of proper supervision of the officers under his watch command.

In City of Chicago, the arbitrator found that the City’s decision to demote a Chicago police officer for “problematic behavior” was arbitrary and capricious, because the decision relied solely on a complaint registered against the officer in 2007.

In Broward County Sheriff, the arbitrator found that the Sheriff’s Office did not have just cause to discharge a Florida deputy sheriff accused of domestic violence, because no reliable evidence was presented to show that the deputy head-butted his girlfriend and the little evidence that was presented had been altered at the scene.

In City of Pasadena, 131 LA 132 (Jennings 2012), the arbitrator found the City of Pasadena, Texas did not meet its burden in proving the grievant engaged in vulgar, disruptive, or obscene conduct despite the exchange of F-Bombs. The standard here, which was “substantial evidence” as prescribed by the Texas State Supreme Court, the arbitrator ruled was clearly not met by the City. The only evidence that put the grievant in any fault, apart from a single F-Bomb, was a suspect account by the other party involved, who all witnesses described as the aggressor.

The arbitrator in Osceola County, 131 LA 226 (Smith 2012) reinstated the highest ranked firefighter at a demonstration where another firefighter, the “engineer” broke from procedure in operating the boom ladder and accidentally caused serious injury to another firefighter. There was insufficient evidence to support the County’s position that the grievant had neglected his duties causing the injury of the other officer.

In Municipality of Penn Hills (131 LA 114), a 30-year EMT argued that his five-day suspension was unnecessarily harsh. The result was the reduction of the five day suspension to a one-day suspension when the arbitrator found that the intention of the greivant was to protect the life of a child. Although the employee violated two known protocols, the arbitrator concluded that the surrounding facts mitigated the severity of the violation, and thus only a minimal punishment was warranted.

In City of Mt. Vernon, Illinois, 130 LA 1677 (Heekin 2012), the arbitrator held that four instances of clear and egregious falsehoods contained in the officer’s reports as well as at least one instance where the officer verbally abused a suspect gave the City cause for termination. Further, the arbitrator rejected the union’s argument that the officer was denied due process, noting that she was fully informed of the charges against her, and was given copies of all the evidence against her and provided an ample opportunity with legal counsel to respond to the charges.

The arbitrator in Bainbridge Township (131 LA 209), upheld the termination of a female police officer who told confidential information to her lover, a married police officer from another precinct who was under a pending investigation for abusing his wife. The arbitrator found termination proper for the breach of trust resulting from the grievant giving confidential information to the officer under investigation, as well as informing him that police were “on their way” to respond to the domestic disturbance call. The grievant’s use of a personal phone in her superior’s office, as well as excessive personal cell phone use during work hours are aggravating factors supporting the termination.