By Kate Acheson
In City of Stillwater,130 LA 913 (Chapdelaine 2012), an arbitrator found continued bad driving constituted just cause for an officer’s termination, citing six previous accidents, the last of which resulted in his discharge that had just been overturned by a previous arbitrator. Arbitrator Chapdelaine concluded ,continued driving procedure violations upon his return was enough to uphold the discharge.
In July of 2011, the grievant, who has just returned from a two year absence due to poor driving, was riding with a Patrol Sargent. After receiving a “Burglary in Progress” emergency call while driving a marked police car, the officer began to drive toward the scene at approximately 45 miles per hour when he came upon an intersection.
After completing the burglary call, the Patrol Sergeant told the officer it had been unsafe for him to drive between the two stopped vehicles and not come to a stop or near stop at the intersection. Although there was no accident, the Sargent reported the officer’s unsafe actions and an internal investigation were launched. The Officer was ultimately terminated for violating Standard Operating Procedure.
The arbitrator found the termination to be proper on for three reasons. First, the officer’s failure to stop and failure to pass on the left was a clear violation of standard operating procedure. Although there was some dispute about whether passing on the left was commonly followed, the officer admitted on cross-examination that “[o]ur training is to always go to the left.”
Second, the notice of termination was found to be sufficient despite its lack of specific details because the union’s grievance on behalf of the officer acknowledges both the failure to stop and improper passing rationales for the discipline. The arbitrator concluded that there was little doubt that the officer knew or should have known about both causes of discipline and had adequate time to prepare a defense.
Third, and finally, the Arbitrator concluded that termination was a proper extension of progressive discipline. Although an officer’s length of service may be a mitigating factor in determining the severity of discipline, he reasoned that this officer’s 15 years of service had already been tainted by six previous on-duty automobile accidents, for which the officer had been given progressive discipline and counseling. Because the officer had received progressive discipline and remedial training, and because the officer gave no indication that he would take action to correct his pattern of unsafe driving habits if reinstated, his termination was proper.
