By Kate Acheson
In City of Tulsa, 130 LA 1163 (Williams, 2012), the Tulsa Police Department terminated an officer for bringing a domestic violence victim to his home. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union’s argument, that the termination was too harsh, based on other Department discipline measures and the officer’s good record.
By Kate Acheson
The Employment Relations Board of the State of Oregon (“ERB”) found in UP-023-12 that the City of Portland violated state law by refusing to implement Arbitrator Wilkenson’s award reinstating Officer Ronald Frashour. The ERB ordered the City to comply with the arbitrator’s award and to post notices of its violation due to its “calculated” avoidance. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
In Central State University, 130 LA 1351 (Bell, 2012), Arbitrator Langdon Bell was precluded from awarding monetary damages against Central State University for a violation of their collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with their security officers because the union did file a written request for a specific remedy. Thus, although a violation with associated monetary damages was properly alleged, the Arbitrator could only direct the University to adhere to the CBA staffing guidelines in the future. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
An arbitrator in State of Iowa, 130 LA 1130 (2012, Jacobs) found the Iowa Department of Corrections has just cause to terminate an Iowa State corrections counselor for failing to do enough interviews with inmates. [Read more…]
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Tulsa, 130 LA 1039 (Arb. 2012), a police officer responded to an incident involving an intoxicated person in a parking lot on the Tulsa campus of Oklahoma State University. During the ensuing incident, the officer handcuffed the intoxicated person, and because he was not cooperating, the officer dragged him to a police vehicle. At some point, prior to being placed in the vehicle, the intoxicated person fell and hit either the concrete, or a bumper on the police vehicle.
By Kate Acheson
An arbitrator reduced a 24-year veteran firefighter’s termination for use, despite a previous last chance agreement arising from previous cocaine use in City of Cleveland, 130 LA 1077 (Cohen 2012). Arbitrator Hyman Cohen cited the City’s improper application of the last chance agreement and mitigating factors concerning the recent marijuana use to justify his reinstatement order.
By Kate Acheson
In City of Stillwater,130 LA 913 (Chapdelaine 2012), an arbitrator found continued bad driving constituted just cause for an officer’s termination, citing six previous accidents, the last of which resulted in his discharge that had just been overturned by a previous arbitrator. Arbitrator Chapdelaine concluded ,continued driving procedure violations upon his return was enough to uphold the discharge.
By Rick Gautschi
In City and County of San Francisco, 130 LA 1043 (Arb. 2012), Until September 2010, several police officers served in the employer’s Ground Transportation Unit (GTU). Their duties ranged across a number of areas. For example, they had responsibility for enforcing licensing requirements for taxis and limousines that serve the San Francisco airport and for assisting TSA personnel regarding security and terrorism issues. In September 2010, the employer transferred three long-serving GTU officers, who had previously filed complaints alleging a hostile work environment, out of that unit to patrol duty. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the union and the employer specified that officers would have the opportunity to sign up for watches based on seniority. Consequently, the union argued that the transfer violated the MOU’s seniority sign up provision because, as the result of past practice, the GTU was a specialized unit within the police department.
By Rick Gautschi
In Woodford County, 130 LA 843, May 12, 2012, since prior to 2004, under a collective bargaining agreement, correctional officers in Woodford County, IL were authorized up to 12 sick days in a given fiscal year. In December 2004, the Sheriff’s Department revised an existing policy (Policy) to authorize requests for medical certification from correctional officers after the officers had used five sick days in a given fiscal year. Consistent with that revision, between 2004 and 2008, the Sheriff’s Department routinely made requests for medical certification of correctional officers who reached that threshold. In addition, during the same period the employer took disciplinary action in the form of issuing letters of caution to several corrections officers who had used five or more sick days during a fiscal year. When the parties negotiated a 2008-2011 collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the union agreed to include language that would give the employer authority to request medical certification from a correctional officer if the employer suspected the officer had abused the sick leave policy. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the employer issued a letter of caution to an officer, who had used five days of sick leave during that year, two days of which were consecutive and the other three of which were not. The union grieved the issuance of the letter. The basis for the grievance was language in the CBA that was the subject of the amendment to which the union had agreed during the negotiations on the 2008-2011 CBA. According to the union, absent suspected sick leave abuse, a request for medical certification was authorized only if the three sick leave days were consecutive. Consequently, the issuance of the letter was an unfair labor practice in violation of the CBA.
By Rick Gautschi
In City and County of Denver, 130 LA 837, May 21, 2012, a police officer began his regular shift during the afternoon of the day, immediately preceding a holiday. He ended his shift at 2:00 a.m. on the holiday, which was the officer’s scheduled day off. For the holiday, initially, the employer paid the officer for eight hours of work at his base rate of pay, i.e., holiday pay, plus pay at one and one-half times his base rate for the two hours that he actually worked on the holiday, i.e., holiday premium pay. Subsequently, the employer debited his pay for two hours, at the base rate, on the ground that applicable provisions in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required the employer to pay a total of eight hours for any combination of holiday pay and holiday premium pay. Consequently, the officer was entitled to receive two hours of holiday premium pay and six hours of holiday pay. The union argued that the same provisions in the CBA obligated the employer to pay employees who worked on a holiday eight hours of holiday pay plus holiday premium pay for the hours that the employees actually worked on the holiday.
