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.
Loose lips sink ships, and the Wright County Sherriff’s Office wants their ship water-tight. In Wright County, 131 LA 410 (Befort, 2012), the termination of a Sherriff’s deputy who divulged law-enforcement information to her cousin and then clearly lied to investigators was firmly upheld. The arbitrator here also made a finding concerning the admissibility of the evidence proving the grievant had actually divulged the information in question, finding although the evidence was improperly obtained, it was done so by a private citizen and is therefore admissible and not barred by the 4th amendment.
In Carroll v. Clifford Township, 34 IER Cases 1118 (M. D. Pa. 2012), summary judgment was denied when the plaintiff, the former sheriff, had his position eliminated, his department budget reduced, and was denied entry into the Fraternal Order of Police after filing a lawsuit against the township and subsequently filing an earlier retaliation lawsuit.
In City of Crystal (131 LA 268 (Neigh, 2012)), the arbitrator determined that the City and the Union were bound by the contract language and its plain interpretation in regard to the required contribution of the City to employee’s health insurance as well as contributions to the employee’s Health Savings Accounts. The dispute arose in an unusual context in which premiums decreased after the expiration of the CBA and the City had to determine how to administer the benefit, which was reduced in its cost.
In Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach (116 FEP Cases 1973 (M.D. Fla. 2012)) a female firefighter’s alleged facts on claims of sex discrimination and retaliation were sufficient to survive summary judgment when she was suspended for using profane language. Using such language was common in the workplace and no one else had received a suspension. Additionally, a hostile work environment may exist. Taken in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the court concluded, the facts were sufficient so that a jury might find the Plaintiff was treated adversely because of her gender.
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.
In Dill v. City of Clarksville, a Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated the termination of a police officer because that officer was deprived of due process in the termination proceedings. Although there was sufficient evidence to support the decision to discipline the officer, the police chief failed to follow the procedure set out in the city code -- requiring all relevant investigation materials be forwarded to human resources prior to taking disciplinary.
