By Anthony Rice
In City of Sunrise, the Arbitrator concluded his hands were tied by a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) signed by a dispatcher, where the LCA was enforceable and the dispatcher violated its terms.
The Grievant was employed for nearly 13 years as a Medical Services Dispatcher prior to his initial termination. He grieved that termination, which led him to enter into a Last Chance Agreement with the City. The LCA reduced the original termination to a 30-day suspension without pay. The terms of the LCA, among other things, required the Grievant to ask key questions of potentially sick callers.
When a dispatcher (like the Grievant) receives a 911 call for assistance, the computer generates a series of dropdown boxes in response to entry of the “Complaint Description” by the call-taker. For example, should the dispatcher indicate that the emergency stems from chest pain, a dropdown box will appear with questions the call-taker is to ask the caller that specifically relate to the issue of chest pain. The program is designed to ensure that all key questions are asked in order to relay to the paramedics/fire rescue/medical response teams, critical information while en route to the scene of the emergency. The key questions are also important to instruct the caller about actions to take while awaiting the arrival of the emergency response team, such as how to conduct CPR, control bleeding, perform the Heimlich maneuver, or to deliver a baby. The Grievant is charged with failure to ask these key questions in 11 different incidences.
The Arbitrator described the limited scope of his grievance review:
Many arbitrators, including the undersigned arbitrator, have held that after determining that the Last Chance Agreement is enforceable, the arbitrator’s role usually is limited to determining whether the employee, or in some cases, the employer, violated the terms of the agreement.
The Arbitrator then found the LCA enforceable, as it was entered into by the Grievant and his attorney. Next, the Arbitrator analyzed whether the Grievant, in fact, violated the LCA:
It is critically important for a provider of emergency medical services to have employees who follow procedures. It is difficult to understand why [the Grievant] didn’t follow the policies and procedures after having been provided a second chance, and extensive re-training. An 18-month period is a reasonable amount of time to require [the Grievant] to demonstrate that he can follow procedures set forth in the Last Chance Agreement.
Editor’s Note (Jim Cline): Last Chance Agreements may be a useful tool to resolve a discharge grievance when the likelihood of reinstatement is remote. But entering a LCA must be a thoughtful decision with care to the details of the agreement. In particular, LCA proposals from management might propose a sweeping range of violations that could trigger the LCA, sometimes even saying that “any policy violation” is a violation of the LCA. Such a broad LCA is to be avoided as it would be virtually impossible for any employee to go indefinitely without a single violation of broadly written policy manuals.
In this instance, the terms of the LCA were limited appropriately to the issues that caused the discharge. As the Arbitrator noted, this employee was simply unable to meet the requirements of the job. The second discharge was simply the result of the tightly drafted LCA that the parties entered into to avoid the first discharge. Once that LCA was entered, the Arbitrator’s authority was very limited, and he was only allowed to address whether in fact the Dispatcher had violated policy.
