In City of Ada, Arbitrator Zane Lumley ruled that there was just cause for the termination of an Ada, Oklahoma firefighter who engaged in a tirade of angry and offensive Facebook posts in response to a police officer arresting his wife for public intoxication. Ultimately, the Arbitrator ruled that termination was proper because the firefighter showed a clear disregard for the City’s anti-harassment policy and his actions had made it very difficult for him to work with the Ada police department in the future.
In Town of Stratford (Connecticut), the City attempted to vacate an arbitration decision that had reinstated a police officer who was discharged for lying to an independent neurologist by withholding medical information about his seizures and alcohol abuse. The City argued that the police officer must be fired because there is a public policy against intentional dishonesty in connection with police employment. The Court agreed that while there was a public policy against intentional policy officer dishonesty in connection with employment, the dishonesty at issue here was not so extreme as to make the arbitrator’s award a violation of public policy.
In Yahnke v. Kane County, an Illinois deputy sheriff was terminated after he continued to hold a second job despite being asked to discontinue the work. The deputy sheriff believed the termination was due to his potential run for Sheriff and his political affiliation. The Seventh Circuit agreed, finding the deputy sheriff was entitled to a trial.
In Island County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild, Arbitrator Gary Axon found that the Employer, Island County, lacked just cause to terminate a deputy sheriff who had 13 years on the job for sexually harassing a coworker. He instead ordered a 30-day suspension and a final warning notice that future sexual harassment will result in termination.
An arbitrator found that while a Portland police captain committed the numerous offenses at issue during the grievance hearing, the city did not have just cause for the indefinite demotion of the officer. Given the Police Captain’s 23 year history without discipline and the fact that the officer was in counseling to address some of the issues, the arbitrator found that a 60-day suspension was more appropriate.
In City of Sparks, an arbitrator ruled that while the Nevada city had improperly denied an Officer access to an attorney during an investigation, the city still had just cause to terminate him when he voluntarily consented to a drug test, which later tested positive for Methadone. Furthermore, the arbitrator found that fact two months after his termination the officer was still illegally abusing methadone confirmed that he was still unfit for light duty.
In the City of Piqua, an Ohio Arbitrator found just cause for the discipline of an off-duty police officer who violated several departmental policies in an attempt to “catch” the teens who toilet papered his house. The arbitrator held that while the officer was within his rights to chase after the perpetrator, he nevertheless went beyond his legal authority and disobeyed the orders of on-duty police officers on the scene.
In Island County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild, Arbitrator Gary Axon ordered that a Corrections Lieutenant be reinstated, but demoted to Officer. Arbitrator Axon held that the Sheriff terminated the Lieutenant without Just Cause because she was fired for not following rules that the Jail management had never implemented and that would have been impossible to follow as written.
In the City of Bay City, a arbitrator ruled that Michigan Fire Department’s unilateral implementation of a new social media policy for firefighters was appropriate under the management rights clause as it was within managements purview to give employees guidance on their conduct. However, the arbitrator did find the provision which required firefighters to report violations of the policy or else face discipline as being unreasonable and therefore unenforceable.
In Cuyahoga County Court, an arbitrator ruled that County did not meet its burden of proving just cause when it fired a detention officer for insubordination and excessive force. The arbitrator found that it was improper to fire the officer for insubordination because he did not explicitly understand the order, and he was not informed of the consequences of failing to follow the order. The arbitrator also ruled the court did not have just cause to discharge the officer for excessive force when he was only defending himself.
