By David Worley
In Federal Bureau of Prisons, 131 LA 536 (Betts, 2012), the arbitrator held the 14 day suspension of a corrections officer was too severe when one of the three alleged instances of misconduct was unsupported, and a fellow officer disciplined for the other two instances of misconduct only received a three day suspension. Finding that just cause requires similar misconduct to require similar discipline, the arbitrator found the penalty had to be reduced and required the officer be compensated for the days of unjust suspension.
The incident giving rise to the discipline began when the grievant failed to observe “human flesh” in each prison cell when making his rounds. Video showed he walked through the halls with his head down and irregularly checked random cells, missing others entirely. Unfortunately, one inmate had passed away and the failure of the grievant caused this to be undiscovered for up to six hours. The video also showed that the grievant had failed to check the cells every thirty minutes as required, as there was a period of well over an hour when no rounds had been conducted. Finally, the grievant recorded that the deceased inmate had been given breakfast, as he had been informed by another officer as such.
The employer based its discipline on three charges: failing to follow policy, failing to follow post orders, and providing inaccurate information. Another officer was disciplined for the same incident, but was only charged with the first two and received a three day suspension.
The first two charges were easily supportable by the evidence. A feeble case was made by the union, but the video evidence was incontrovertible. The third charge, providing false information, was not as clear cut.
While it was undisputed that the information entered by the grievant, that the deceased inmate had been given breakfast, was false, the grievant was following regular procedure when he entered that information. The grievant was responsible for entering the information, but was not responsible for actually delivering the breakfast to the inmates. He was informed by an inferior officer that the breakfast had been delivered, and merely recorded what he had been told. Thus, the third charge was unsupportable, as the grievant had merely followed procedure and recorded what he thought to be the truth.
The charge against the other officer involved the first two charges levied against the Grievant; Failure to Follow Policy and Failure to Follow Post Orders, but did not include the third charge of Providing Inaccurate Information. In assessing the reasonableness of disciplinary action in this matter, the Arbitrator will use the same standard that was applied to the other officer. The grievance is therefore sustained.
