By Anthony Rice
Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n v. City of Trenton, the Court of Appeals of Ohio upheld an arbitration award ordering the “involuntary resignation” of a police sergeant. The unusual case led to an unusual remedy which the union then unsuccessfully sought to have set aside in court.
Sergeant Matala was terminated from his employment with the Trenton Ohio Police Department stemming from six alleged violations of the Police Department’s Code of Conduct. The events leading to Matala’s termination began when Matala issued a traffic citation to Mrs. Green for running a red light. Matala’s lieutenant voided the citation, thereby prompting Matala to complain to the chief. Matala claimed that the Lt had improperly shown Mrs Green’s husband “a little love” in voiding the ticket because he was a neighboring firefighter. Over Matala’s protests, the chief instructed Matala to take no further action regarding this matter. However, Matala disobeyed that instruction when he went to the home of Mrs. Green, spoke to her husband, bad mouthed his lieutenant, and reissued the traffic citation.
Matala’s personal vendetta against his lieutenant continued when he used the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway, a database exclusively available to law enforcement personnel and strictly restricted to legitimate law enforcement use, to investigate whether his lieutenant took possession of an impounded vehicle. This investigation was not authorized and was not part of Matala’s regular assignments. Matala eventually concluded that his lieutenant’s conduct involving the traffic citation and the impounded vehicle warranted prosecution, so, Matala met with a county prosecutor while on duty. While Matala was talking to the prosecutor, only one other officer was on patrol in the city.
The arbitrator found Matala’s actions warranted “some significant disciplinary action” and constructed a unique award. The arbitrator sustained the grievance reinstating Matala, but then forced him to resign. She thus removed the termination from his personal file thereby allowing him to continue law enforcement work elsewhere.
On appeal to the trial court, the union asserted that the arbitrator exceeded her authority when she required Metala to involuntarily resign. They argued that the award was not drawn from the essence of the CBA which give the arbitrator her authority. The trial court agreed and reversed the arbitrator. The appeals court, however, disagreed and reinstated the arbitration award:
we find that the arbitrator’s decision does draw its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement. This result best provides for the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s overall principle that the “punishment fit the crime.” Based upon their ordinary meanings and their use in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the terms “dismissal” and “discharge” include the removal of an employee from employment.
As has previously been discussed, Washington Courts treat labor arbitration decisions, as this Ohio Court did, with a high degree of deference. This was established a few years in Kitsap County v. Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild and continues to be the Washington law. See our blogs here and here.
