By Anthony Rice
In City of W. Carrollton, Ohio, the Arbitrator found the City terminated an officer for Just Cause, because he was filing 6 to 10 late reports a month. Noting previous suspensions for the same violation, the Arbitrator concluded the officer had received the progressive discipline he was due.
The Officer was hired into the West Carrollton Police Department as a Road Patrol Officer. Department procedures dictate that after an incident requiring a police report, a summary is to be completed within one day, and a detailed narrative completed within five days. During his tenure, the Officer was disciplined for multiple violations of this requirement.
The first incident resulted in a one-day suspension, along with the forfeiture of two vacation days, for the failure to timely submit fifteen reports. As time progressed, the Officer was again disciplined for the same procedural violation. This time the city manager suspended the Officer for ten days, based on seven untimely reports. Finally, the Officer failed to submit timely reports in two cases where it was determined timeliness was crucial; the Department had had enough.
One report was the result of a vehicle accident where a timely report would have provided additional time for locating the suspect. The second untimely report resulted from a burglary. The Officer’s superior, Sgt. Wessling, was made aware of this untimely report after being called by the victim of the burglary, who required a copy of the police report to present to his insurance carrier. The victim indicated he had attempted to contact the Officer by leaving messages, but received no response. Sgt. Wessling looked into the complaint, and found only a summary report. The detailed narrative was not complete. The Officer’s employment was then terminated.
The Union grieved, contending the City lacked Just Cause for the termination. In support of its contention, the Union claimed a department-wide problem with late reports. Sgt. Wessling “testified that there [were] 6-10 reports not timely completed on a biweekly basis.” Thus, the Union argued, the Officer/Grievant faced disparate treatment when he was terminated.
The Arbitrator rejected that claim, noting:
“Evidence of record does not support the Union’s contention. Evidence of record establishes that while Sgt. Wessling checks for missing reports on a bi-weekly basis, the six to ten figure estimated by Sgt. Wessling was on a monthly basis.”
The Arbitrator also added:
“That is, record evidence fails to establish the Grievant was subjected to disparate treatment for the untimely filing of reports. Evidence of record does establish, however, that the Grievant, through training, through progressive discipline, and as a result of the PIP, was well aware of the time frame in which to file reports, yet continually failed to meet the requirement. The City adhered to the steps of progressive discipline set forth in Article 8, Section 8.1, and the Grievant’s continued violation of the above noted General Orders established Just Cause, as mandated by Article 8, Section 8.1, for the termination of his employment.”
Editor’s Note (Jim Cline): This is a classic progressive discipline case. The Department had repeatedly stated its expectation to the Officer and he was unable to meet it, despite repeated suspensions for the same violation. Had the intervening 10 day suspension not been imposed as it had, and had the City jumped from 3 day suspension to termination, the Union likely would have had a strong progressive discipline argument.
