By David E. Worley
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.
The relevant portion of the CBA made it a terminable offense to “[m]isuse or remov[e] documents or information of a confidential nature or reveal such information without prior and appropriate authorization.” The arbitrator found that the actions of the grievant clearly fell under this provision. It was noted that the particularly serious offense was the notification to the alleged domestic abuser that the police were “on their way.” This could further aggravate an already serious conflict. In addition, cell phone records confirmed that the grievant had notified her lover of the details of the domestic disturbance call. Also necessitating termination was that the grievant habitually lied concerning every accusation, losing the trust of her superiors.
Also considered by the arbitrator, was the excessive cell phone usage by the grievant while on duty, amounting to 143 hours over a six month period (mostly to her lover).
In the absence of a specific “personal cell phone use while on-duty offense, the Arbitrator concludes that [grievant]’s conduct did not constitute “dishonesty” within the meaning [the CBA], nor “wanton or willful neglect in the performance of assigned duties” within the intendment of the Township Policy and Procedure Manual. Of course, even though subject to a penalty of less than discharge for a first infraction, this misconduct can be viewed as an “aggravating factor” in determining whether, if [grievant] is properly found to have committed a [terminable offense], discharge or a lesser penalty is appropriate.
Lastly, the grievant’s use of a private, non-monitored phone in her supervisors office without permission was discussed. Like the cell phone use, the arbitraror considered this an aggravating offense, but not terminable in itself. Despite setting aside the phone usage charges, the arbitrator concluded that the confidentiality breach was sufficient on its own to justify discharge.
The grievant claimed that she did not know her actions were wrong, and therefore should be given progressive discipline. However, the arbitrator disagreed. “A Township Policy Manual cannot be expected to cover every conceivable form of inappropriate conduct, and there are certain situations which everyone having a modicum of common sense would know to avoid.”
