Sunday, December 15, 2019

End of year Quick Hits - Public Safety, Public policy, Arbitrability and Injunctions pending arbitration

Public Safety - Sex on Duty, Facebook, Sexual Harassment, Intoxication and Domestic violence

Arbitrator Jerry Fullmer overturned the termination of a Columbus, Ohio police officer who had been dismissed for allegedly having sex with prostitutes in his police vehicle while on duty. City of Columbus and Fraternal Order of Police Capital City Lodge No. 9Arbitrator Fullmer found that the failure to call the three alleged prostitutes as witnesses undermined the case for just cause. He noted that there was no evidence that the Department made any effort to compel their testimony. He did uphold two separate charges and ordered grievant's reinstatement without back pay.

An Akron, OH police detective's Facebook postings warranted discipline, but the Department's case for termination relied improperly on events that had timed out under the cba. City of Akron and Fraternal Order of Police, Akron Lodge No. 7.  Arbitrator Jeffrey Belkin overturned the termination based, according to the City, on the "totality" of grievant's record. Because a number of the occurrences included in this "totality" could not be used for discipline, the Arbitrator focused on  Facebook posts that fell within the period for which discipline could be considered. One, which the Arbitrator found clearly referred to persons attempting to cross the border with Mexico, said "just a thought....shoot 'em all." Arbitrator Belkin found this post "represents an incitement to violence against an ethnic minority." A second contained the question "How is it that no-one has offed that dipshit asshat Farrakhan?" that the Arbitrator found "even more deplorable." Arbitrator's Belkin concluded that this post violated not only the Department's Social Media Policy but "fell squarely" within the definition of "Conduct unbecoming an officer." He determined that the appropriate discipline for these offense was a total of a sixty day suspension. The Arbitrator rejected grievant's claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment. Issues arising from an employees comments on social media are also discussed in Several recent cases address use of racial epithets or biased statements by employees - on duty, off duty and on social media

In City of Omaha and Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha, Local 385 Arbitrator Peggy McNeive largely sustained a grievance filed on behalf of an Omaha firefighter who was accused of using a racial slur and assaulting a woman while off duty in a bar. The Arbitrator found the City's investigation of the misconduct inadequate, determined that it was the City rather than grievant who brought the issue to public attention, and that the Chief failed to consider grievant's prior history of service, prior discipline of employees in similar circumstances, and discipline short of termination. She did uphold a 5 shift suspension for grievant ignoring instructions not to contact the Fire Captain. The City has sought to vacate the award. City, Stothert appeal ruling reinstating fire union president, want it vacated

Arbitrator Jane Desimone upheld the suspension and six month probation imposed on a North Franklin PA Township Police Sergeant for his failure to act on a report of sexual harassment made to him by an officer under his supervision. North Franklin Township and United Teamsters Local 205

A firefighter who showed up intoxicated at a training class after he erroneously thought the course would be canceled because of bad weather was properly terminated according to Arbitrator Robert O'Brien.  Town of Bourne, Massachusetts and International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1717

A San Antonio police officer had his termination upheld by Arbitrator Paul Chapdelaine. Police Officer Jason R. Ayers v. The City of San Antonio, Texas. The officer had been accused of striking an individual in an apparent instance of domestic violence,  causing severe bodily injury, and drinking to the point of being unfit for duty.

 Claims to vacate awards as in excess of authority/Contrary to public policy

In Veteran's Transportation Services, v. Teamsters Local Union No. 25the District Court in Massachusetts rejected the Employer's request to vacate an arbitrator's award as either in excess of his authority or as contrary to public policy. The Court concluded that the arbitrator was interpreting the cba, and that the employer failed to show that the arbitrator disregarded the language of the cba in doing so. Similarly, the Court found that reinstatement of the employee, a sedan driver for the disabled who had been terminated for reckless driving, was not contrary to public policy.


While disagreeing with the award on the merits, the District court in Nebraska confirmed an award of Arbitrator Cary Morgen ordering the reinstatement of an engineer who was alleged to have defecated on a train-car knuckle. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division The Court rejected UP's claim that the award added requirements that did not exist in its agreement, concluding that the award simply determined that, in this instance, termination was too harsh. Update: The Eighth Circuit rejected the carriers claim that the award was in exess of the arbitrator's authority. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20210217125

Injunctions Pending

In Newspaper, Newsprint, Magazine and Film Delivery Drivers, Helpers, and Handlers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 211 v. PG Publishing Co., Inc d/b/a Pittsburgh Post Gazette the District Court for the WD of Pennsylvania granted the  request of the Union for an injunction maintain the status quo pending resolution of its grievance concerning the paper's alleged violation of an "implied in fact" contract. The Union claims that the Company announced plans that will breach, inter alia, its obligation to obligation to maintain health insurance benefits for employees.

The District Court for the District of Columbia denied a request by the NALC for a status quo injunction pending resolution of its grievance claiming that a Postal Service initiative was in violation of its cba. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service. The Court concluded that an arbitration success by the Union would not be an "empty victory" and that an injunction was unnecessary to preserve the arbitral process.

Arbitrability

In a case the press has dubbed as involving "football flu," the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a decision of the State's Public Employment Relations Commission. PERC had concluded that a dispute over whether an employee should be required to submit a doctor's note for an absence on the day of the parade celebrating the Philadelphia Eagles Super Bowl victory was subject to arbitration. Matter of City of Burlington Board of Education v. City of Burlington Education Association The Board of Education had challenged the arbitrability of the dispute, claiming that it was allowed by statute to require a physician's certificate for sick leave. The Court held that the "application" of the sick leave policy may be challenged through the contractual grievance procedures to arbitration.

The District Court in North Carolina addressed a dispute over the arbitrability of a claim that an employee had breached the nondisclosure provisions of a grievance settlement.  International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, v. Transit Management of Charlotte, Inc. The settlement provided: "Should [grievant] violate the confidentiality of this agreement the agreement is voided and he is subject to termination without grievance rights as set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement." After the Company terminated grievant's employment for alleged violation of the confidentiality provisions of the agreement, the Union sought to arbitrate the issue of whether a breach had taken place. The Court rejected the Company's claim that Union had waived the right to grieve or arbitrate the issue, concluding that because the settlement agreement was ambiguous and because the cba had a broad arbitration provision the dispute should be resolved by an arbitrator.


Sunday, December 8, 2019

Arbitrator upholds termination of "Brady" officer after County Attorney declines to use him as a witness

Arbitrator Rolland Toenges upheld the termination of a Cloquet, MN police officer fired after the County Attorney notified the City that she would not use him as a witness. Arbitrator Toenges' award can be found here.

Grievant was employed as a police officer for the City of Cloquet, MN since June 1997. On February 25, 2019, the Carlton County Attorney notified the City that grievant was a "Brady Cop." This designation was premised on three incidents of alleged misconduct reflecting dishonesty and credibility issues. These incidents took place on December 22, 2004, January 3, 2005 and July 24, 2017.

On June 4, 2019, the City terminated grievant's employment "based on his inability to perform essential duties of his position." The termination was grieved and submitted to Arbitrator Rolland Toenges for resolution.

The city argued that because the County Attorney determined that grievant was an unacceptable witness to testify in court proceedings, and that she would not prosecute cases where the grievant would be a witness, it would put public safety at risk to continue to employ him. It argued further "[w]hether the County Attorney's determination is righter wrong is not a matter within the Police Department's authority. The Police Department must accept that Grievant is not qualified to perform the essential duties of a Police Officer.  ... The only remedy available to the Employer is termination of the Grievant."

The Union questioned the County Attorney's decision to bar grievant from testifying, asserting that it was premised on her personal animosity toward grievant, and noting that a judge or jury could determine whether grievant's testimony was credible. It also claimed  that termination of grievant for the three earlier incidents, for which he had already been disciplined, constituted double jeopardy. Finally it argued that "Brady designation does not require discharge."

Arbitrator Toenges denied the grievance, concluding that "the City Attorney's position to not prosecute in situations where the Grievant would be a witness, renders him unable to perform an essential part of police officer duties." He rejected the Union's double jeopardy claim, noting that he was not terminated because of the prior misconduct "but due to the County Attorney's position not prosecute cases where the Grievant would be a witness." He concluded that the small Department had no other position for which it could use grievant.

The Arbitrator's decision is summarized in his Findings:

FINDINGS

1. Court testimony is an essential duty of a police officer.

2. Essentially all police arrests or investigations either will, or will likely, involve court testimony.

3. Based on the Grievant’s disciplinary record involving untruthfulness, the County Attorney will not prosecute cases where the Grievant’s testimony would be involved.

4. The effect of the County Attorney’s decision renders the Grievant unable to perform an essential duty of a police officer position.

4 The UNION in its Post Hearing Brief acknowledges there is “No mechanism to challenge Brady designation.”

5. The Police Department does not have the resources necessary to employ an officer who cannot perform essential duties.

6. The Police Department is without authority to change the County Attorneys position.

7. The County Attorney, as a member of the Citizens Advisory Board, has direct knowledge of the Grievant’s misconduct and disciplinary history.

8. It is axiomatic that the County Attorney having direct knowledge of the Grievant’s misconduct and discipline history is qualified to assess the effect application of the Brady Law may have on the Grievant’s creditability as a witness.

9. The County Attorney has confirmed that the decision to not prosecute cases where the Grievant would be a witness is final and not subject to reconsideration.

10. The County Attorney’s decision is not subject to the Arbitrator’s review. 


Brady issues are also discussed in  the following posts:


Police dishonesty, public policy and reinstatement - Mass SJC upholds arbitrator's award reinstating police officer who filed ""intentionally misleading" report 

Termination of police officer for dishonesty overturned, disparate treatment renders discipline excessive

Termination of police officer for off duty DWI upheld

Law Enforcement: Untruthfulness, reinstatement and Brady issues

Police officers, Brady/Giglio, dishonesty, exoneration and just cause

Update: Grievant has filed a complaint in federal court challenging the County's Brady policy and its application to him.  Available here.