By Jordan L. Jones
In State of Florida, the Arbitrator held that there was not just cause to discharge a Corrections Supervisor (Supervisor) who unknowingly brought a firearm into her office, because of the unequal discipline she received compared to another Employee for a similar incident.
In this case, the Supervisor’s husband accidently packed an unloaded firearm into her bag before she went to work. The Arbitrator noted that the Supervisor had been driven to work by her husband and that when they got to her work he grabbed her stuff in the backseat that had fallen on the ground, including a firearm that was supposed to remain in the vehicle and to be used after work for shooting practice with co-workers. The firearm was eventually discovered by another Employee who thought a bag of stuff on the Supervisor’s desk looked suspicious.
The Agency argued that there was just cause to discharge the Supervisor given that she was on notice of “the rule concerning possession of an unsecured weapon in the office, a rule that was necessary to insure the orderly, efficient and safe operation of the Agency’s business.” The Supervisor’s office was an area that felon offenders, although escorted, were often around.
The Union argued that the Supervisor’s discharge was without just cause, because it was not intentional and was human error and that the Supervisor had a 27-year work history with the Agency prior to termination. The Union also pointed out that the “Agency disciplined another employee with just an 80-hour suspension when her offense [i.e., knowingly bringing a firearm into the office and placing it in a unsecured file cabinet] was more serious, and thus the discharge [of the Supervisor constituted] . . . inconsistent treatment.”
The Arbitrator noted that:
If this were the total record before the Arbitrator, the Agency’s case would be a strong one. Bringing a weapon into the office and leaving it unsecured is an extremely serious mistake. On the other hand [the supervisor] . . . acted without purpose or intent . . . . There are also significant factors in mitigation present here that should be taken into account . . . . [The Supervisor] was a 27-year veteran with only a few minor transgressions . . . .
In the end, the Arbitrator held that the Supervisor should be reinstated, because her discharge constituted unequal treatment since another Employee only received an 80-hour suspension for a similar incident involving a firearm. The reinstatement was to be with no loss of seniority, but the Supervisor was not to receive back pay as she was still negligent in her actions.
Employers must treat like cases alike . . . . Without question, [the Supervisor] . . . had more supervisory authority than [the Employee only disciplined with an 80-hour suspension for bringing an unsecured firearm into the office] . . . and thus she may have deserved more serious discipline because of the leadership role she plays, but there is a difference in kind between a two-week suspension and a discharge after 27 years on the job.
Editor’s Note (Jim Cline): This case demonstrates some fairly important principles. The violation here was serious and, under other circumstances, the discharge likely would have been sustained.
But here there were two factors that led to a different result. First, the progressive discipline element was especially strong where the Employee had a 27 year record of service.
Second, the Employer had already established the presumptive penalty for such conduct by imposing an 80-hour suspension in a previous case. In considering discipline appeals you should always closely examine discipline offenses for “like offenses,” because just cause includes a requirement that discipline be “proportionate” — that is, that “similarly situated” Employees be treated similarly.
In this case, the Employer presented an argument that, because the involved Employee was a Supervisor, a higher standard applied. In other contexts that argument might have carried some weight. But this case involved poor judgment, not the abuse of Supervisor authorities. While some Arbitrators might have sustained this discharge, the majority likely would not.
