Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michigan Trooper Arbitration Award

    Uploaded by

    jckc107l
    57 views8 pages
    Award of Arbitrator Steven Left Discipline overturned. Employee not disciplined in a timely manner

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Award of Arbitrator Steven Left Discipline overturned. Employee not disciplined in a timely manner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    57 views8 pages

    Michigan Trooper Arbitration Award

    Uploaded by

    jckc107l
    Award of Arbitrator Steven Left Discipline overturned. Employee not disciplined in a timely manner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    IN THE MATTER OF MICHIGAN STATE POLICE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, Grievant Grievance No, TA-02D18/1A-007-18 and Trooper Discharge Arbitration MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Employer. Steven T. Lett, Arbitrator ‘Timothy J. Dlugps (P57179) White Schneider PC Attomey for Grievant 1223 Tumner Si. Ste. 200 Lansing, MI 48906 Ph. 517349 7744 Inspector Matthew Bolger Michigan Department of State Police 333 S. Grand Av PO Box 30634 Lansing, MI 48909 Ph. 517 241 1399 AWARD FACTS ‘The Michigan State Police Troopers Association (MSPTA or Union) lists several issues shat ii poses must be decided in this termination case. 1. Did the Michigan Department of State Police (MSP or employer) violate Article 7, Section 18 by not adhering to the 90 day time limit for the filing of proposed disciplinary ‘action and written notice to the employee. 2, Did the 15 dey suspension for conduct arising out ofthe same transaction and ocewrrence and the subsequent termination amouat to double jeopardy under a just cause standard of i ipline. ‘Under a just cause review did Trp. commit any misconduct. 4, Ifmiseonductis proven does the punishment fit the crime under just cause. Issue number 1 will be dispositive if proven by the Union, es a violation of Article 7, Bill of Rights, Section 18, Limitation. “Disciplinary action shall be proposed, and written notice to the employee provided, within 90 days ofthe occurrence or the Employer's knowledge of the occurrence giving rise to the disciplinary action, whichever occurs last, excep that this limit shall be tolled during any periods of time that the employee is the subject of ectve criminal investigation or prosecution. However, nothing contained herein shall preclude the Employer from using suck prior employee conduct during any disciplinary proceeding or from using such conduct 0 demonstrate 2 course of unsatisfactory performance or conduct.” Tr. vas hired on July 18, 2004 and has no prior disciplinary record. termination is the result of actions or iractions that began on June 17, 2017. On that date Tr. made a waflic stop on a car with three passengers inthe ear. one of whom was the som of the county sheriff. Trp. found a backpack that contained 7 individual bags of spaxijuana. Trp. isoued a citation for no seat belt and possession of marijuana end ‘wrote a report of the incident. Four months later on October 12, 2017, a Blue Team Administrative Complaint was centered by F/Lt, Darrow, alleging that on June 17, 2017 Trp. failed to take proper law enforcement action when conducting the trafic stop when the pessenger admitted the marijuana ‘was for the purpose of selling. Also that he contacted the county sheriff telling him his son was selling marijuana end that Trp. ‘was villing to do anything to help make this go away. In addition Trp. tumed off his in-cer video and audio during the traffic stop. F/Lt. Darrow, the Post Commander, requised Tp. to file a supplemental report which was done on October 16,2017. F/Lt Darrow did aot believe Trp. was being trothfal in this report, see 3 7, SpULt. Johnson report for |A-136-17. As 2 result of these actions on the part of Trp. hhe was charged, with among other things, violation of Article 4, Code of Conduct, Section 4.29, which states, “Members shall not intentionelly felsify any report or document in recording official department activity or intentionally omit material facts from any such report or docurnent.” ‘A sertlement agreement was reached and Trp. accepted responsibility for, among items, a violation of 4 29, intentionally falsifying 2 report. He received a 15 day suspension, 1A.007-18 was opened on January 9, 2018, the position of the Union that this 1A arises out of the same transaction and occurrence as that of A-136-17, Further that the employer knew or should have known of the untruthful statements when F/Lt, Dertow interviewed Trp ‘As early 2s October 16, 2017 F/Lt. Darrow thinks Trp. is lying and on October 25, 2017 states thet to IA. Perthe Union in order for the Statement of Charges (SOC) re ‘ee timely the employer could not have known tha: Trp. was lying andlor falsifying reports until on or after November 15, 2017, that being 90 before February 13, 2018 “The Employer states the issue as, “Was there just cause to terminate the Grievant, for lying to investigators when ordered 10 tll the truth on November 20, 2017 and January 29, 20187" “The statement of charges dated February 15, 2018 charge a violation of Offical Order 1, “Article 4, Sections 45 and 4.35 and are, “ You were involved in aa incident in October, 2017 that was investigated es 1A-136-I7. Dusing that investigation, you lied to your commanding officer on October 16, 2017, as well as an IA investigator en November 20, 2017 during your jnitial interview, and a different LA investigator on Jenuary 29, 2018 during you second interview. (Note: the date, “October, 2017” should have been June, 2017.” ‘The facts of the traffic stop in June 2017 arc not in dispute. Trp. stopped 2 car with 3 people in the car. He found a beckpack which contained 7 baggies of marijuana and eamed that the bag belonged to the son of the county sheriff. There are disputed facts. The employer says that Trp. called the county sheriff and told him his son was selling mariuna and that he would do whatever to make this go away for the son, “just between you and ine.” Trp. also wrote a report that downplayed the selling ofthe marjuans and feiled to inchnde that the son admitted to selling marjuans ‘The dispute of these “facts” arise fiom an interview of Trp. by F/Lt Darrow om October 12,2017 and Octeber 16,2017. Trp. 1 When confronted by what he admutted was not his best report writing and thatthe som had admitted he was selling marjuans and that he had told the father the he would do what ever to make this go away, claimed thas he «did not remember those “facts”. Afterreviewing the video and audio recordings the employer claims that his memory improved. T=p. also claimed to have forgotten that be had tumed off his in-car recorder for almost one balf hour during the stop. The Union's position is that this was smply acase of nor recalling until Tp. -_=had a chance to review the recordings. The Employer's position is that Trp. was lying. ‘Agavesot Trp. , Was cherge in JA-136-17 with, among other charges, oF violation of Anticle 4, Section 4.29, Falsifying Reports or Documents, Trp, secepted responsibility for this charge in a settlement agreement which resulted in a 15 day suspension. ‘On November 20, 2017 the Employer initiated LA-007-18 to investigate Trp- antauhfulness in his interview on November 20,2017. This interview was about, “his actions during the June 17, 2017 incident, as well as his fies to Spl/Lieutenant Johzson regarding his filge statements to FiLieutenant Darrow in October, 2017."(Pg 3 of Employers brie) “The result ofthis IA investigation was a SOC issued on February 13,2018 alleging @ violation of Article 4, Sections 4.35 and 4.5. Sestion 4.35 being the prohibition against lying Tp. eas eminated on March 1, 2018. The Union’s position is that the Employer did pot bring the SOC within the 90 day time limit imposed by Aricle 7, Section 18 and the + Employer's position is thatiit did. The question for this arbitrator is at what point does the 90 clock start to run. ANALYSIS ‘The CBA provides in Article 7, Section 18 thet, “Disciplinary action shall be proposed, and written notice to the employee provided, within 90 days of the occurrence or the Emaployer's knowledge of the occurrence giving rise to the disciplinary action, whichever occurs last, except that this limit shall be tolled during any periods of time that the employee is the subject of active criminal investigation or prosecution.” There is no dispute that Txp, ‘was not the subject of a eriminal investigation or prosecution. Thus the only question is when the employer knew of the occurrence giving rise to the disciplinary action. The occurrence that started this entire process was the traffic stop in June 2017. In October 2017 the presecuting aitorney contacted the Employer with conceras about Trp. report when compared with the video and audio recordings. This then resulted in Trp. ___ being interview by the Post Commander F/Lt. Darrow on October 12, 2017 and again 0a October 16, 2017. Oa October 12, 2017 F/Lt. Darrow filed an administrative complaint on Trp. . GEx.6) ‘The Employer's position is that the lies that Txp. made were to Split, Johnson and to Spl'Lt. Sekely beginning on November 20, 2017 and continuing on January 29, 2018, lis the Employer's position that the November 20, 2017 is the date that the 90 days begins to nm, If this is accurate then the SOC was timely. Ifit is not accurate then the SOC was filed to lete end the Employer did not bring the SOC in « timely manner as is required by the CBA. Ia SpI/Lt. Johnson’ investigation report, (J Ex. 7), he states what he was told by Post Commander F/Lt. Darrow: “

    You might also like