By: Jim Cline and Sarah E. Derry
In Port Orchard Police Guild, Arbitrator James Lundberg found that a detective, who received a written reprimand for mishandling a cheek swab seven years before, was disciplined without just cause. The Arbitrator reasoned it was an old mistake, and that disciplining him now “serves no reasonable purpose.”
The detective had been assigned to interview and obtain a cheek swab from a rape suspect in 2007, but had left the cheek swab on the desk of the senior detective who was assigned to the case. The senior detective then let the entire rape case file sit for seven years without investigation. In July, 2014, the rape case was reopened when an unprocessed “rape kit” from the case was found in the evidence room refrigerator. The employer investigated and disciplined the Grievant because he broke the chain of custody by leaving the swab on a desk rather than logging it in the evidence room.
The Guild, represented by Cline & Casillas, argued the Grievant was a scapegoat the department wrongfully blamed for the embarrassing delay. The Guild argued the employer targeted the detective in its investigation, even though he had no part in the improper handling of the “rape kit” or in the fact that the investigating detective allowed the case to sit for seven years. Further, the Grievant left the cheek swab on the senior detective’s desk because the senior detective instructed him to do so. The Employer responded that the Grievant should have known how to properly handle evidence.
The Arbitrator focused his analysis on the purpose of discipline, which “is to correct an employee’s behavior.” The Arbitrator determined this was a one-time mistake that should have been used as a learning opportunity back in 2007 and that the “seven-year gap between sampling was not caused by the grievant. In fact, the breakdown in the investigation is readily traced to [the senior detective.]” Furthermore, other detectives who made similar evidence errors were not given written reprimands. The Arbitrator concluded:
“In this case there is clear evidence of disparate treatment, the incident for which the discipline was imposed was so remote that meaningful behavioral correction is unlikely, there is no evidence that the rule violation reoccurred over a period of seven years and the level of discipline is too harsh based upon discipline imposed upon other similarly situated employees.”
Arbitration over written reprimands are uncommon. But in this case the Port Orchard Guild correctly assessed that such stale discipline cannot and should not stand. There were many problems with the City’s case but waiting seven years to impose discipline rose to the top as a reason to overturn this reprimand.
