Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and
such employment, officers wear their police uniforms, carry their service
pistols, and drive police cars. They are paid a fixed $20/hr. by the secondary
employer. The officers must pay the City $2/hr., to cover the costs of
City and its police officers. Through it, officers are able to supplement their
incomes, and the City is able to increase its police presence throughout the
pool of trained security personnel, and the employers and their customers
and other employees enjoy increased safety. The public benefits, and the
City has an interest in the conduct of its police officers working in the
program.
that the employer's personnel needs are met. Officers who work off duty for
the employer record their time biweekly on sheets provided by the Sheriff's
1
The workers’ compensation arrangement was not explained.
2
Office. An officer records his secondary hours worked, totals his time,
computes the amount due him, signs his time sheet, and turns the sheet into
TIME SHEET”. Completed time sheets are sent to the employer, who pays
the officers directly. An officer receives a copy of his time sheet with his
paycheck.
scheduled officers to work at the complex. In late October, Officer [IW], the
Estates Complex. This finding led Sergeant Hughes to check the time sheets
grievant had submitted two time sheets covering the same period, 10/30/95-
2
Now Lieutenant.
3
Section. The memorandum was introduced as Employee's Exhibit #1. The
submitted two time sheets covering the same period and, as a result, was
paid twice for the same hours worked. The amount of the overpayment was
1996.
Charges
May 13, 1996, and introduced as Sheriff's Exhibit #5 (“SX5”). The four
#1 (“CBA”). Although §9.3 of the CBA provides an accused officer the right
4
waived his right. The Sheriff then imposed a 20-day suspension without pay
arbitration pursuant to CBA §§9.3(c) and 8.1, Step IV; his suspension has
hearing before the Sheriff’s Disciplinary Hearing Board. Counsel agreed not
to file briefs.
Decision
explication.
Charge II
and Regulations for the Organization and Government for the Office of the
Secondary Employment
5
I. Policy
Inasmuch as the General Orders were not introduced in their entirety,3 resort
LIII.2 appears to be to ensure that the City gets its $2/hr. from officers’
be kept, and the charges shed no light on the issue. The evidence is
uncontradicted that both the grievant and the employer kept records. The
grievant recorded his hours on a calendar and paid the City its hourly fees
officers (including grievant) recorded date, shift, and name (EX3), as well as
(EX2). These records are in addition to the biweekly time sheets previously
3
There was testimony that the General Orders are 4” thick, and counsel confirmed their voluminosity.
6
discussed (SX1-2).
The charges do not specify what records were not kept. In fact, ample
records were kept to satisfy GO LIII.2. The Sheriff has failed to establish
Charge I
Rules and Regulations for the Organization and Government for the Office
Code of Conduct
General Orders were not introduced into evidence, the language of GO XI.2
7
employment which are not the employee's responsibilities as a police
officer.4
(SX5 at 6, ¶14):
See also Detective Givens’ report, SX3 at 9. Grievant is being charged with
a two-part offense: failing to document and compare hours worked and paid.
Charge I, the Sheriff seeks to expand that responsibility through the more
general language of GO XI.2. This the Sheriff may not do, under the rule of
construction that the particular governs the general. See Elkouri & Elkouri,
How Arbitration Works (4th ed, 1985) at 356, Cum Supp (1985-89) at 92.
4
There is no suggestion that GO XI.2 may not apply to an officer's responsibilities in secondary
employment, if they are the same as his responsibilities as a member of the Sheriff's Office. For example, if
an off-duty officer operates his vehicle or discharges his firearm in secondary employment, in a manner
below standards set by the Sheriff for on-duty police officers, then the conduct may come within the ambit
of GO XI.2. However, that is not this case.
8
This leaves so much of Charge I as pertains to grievant's alleged
the burden of proof is on the employer. See How Arbitration Works at 661-
663, and CBA §4.1 (“proper cause“). In this case, the Sheriff offered no
Charge III
III, beyond those alleged in Charges I and II, so that nothing further need be
5
There may, of course, be cases in which an overpayment is so glaring that the recipient is charged with
notice of error, but this is not one of them. In this case, grievant, Imperial Estates, and the Sheriff's Office
all had ample opportunity to detect the mistake.
9
Charge IV
Service and Personnel Rules and Regulations Rule 9.05(1) which reads:
This case does not make a lot of sense. Grievant has been with the
Sheriff's Office 7 years. Except for this one incident, he has a good record.
needs to buy a house. It doesn't seem reasonable that he would jeopardize his
regular job and $1,000 per month in outside income just to cheat Imperial
oversight.”
brought to his attention was hardly exemplary. Although he did repay the
money, it was not until months later. In the meantime, he engaged in denials
10
the duplicate time sheets, although the signatures clearly are his.6 Denials
It would have been so simple for grievant just to have admitted his
mistake, paid the money back, and gotten on with business. Instead, he
accept responsibility for one's mistake and to take prompt corrective action
is not proper conduct, especially for an officer of the law. Such a failure
therefore, sustained.
Four charges were leveled against grievant, only one of which can be
the notice of misconduct averred that charges were being brought in the
alternative, then upholding any one of the charges might provide a basis for
sustaining the entire penalty assessed. However, the charges were not pled in
the alternative.
6
Much of the hearing was devoted to defense attempts to demonstrate that Imperial Estates’ payroll
procedures were disorganized. Such evidence cannot obscure the fact that this case stems from grievant's
own submission of duplicate time sheets.
11
sustained pro rata, were the charges of equal gravity. However, they are not.
To the contrary, they range from the serious (incompetence) to the criminal
against imposing their own brand of justice and substituting their own
Cum Supp at 5-6. In an effort to avoid these arbitral pitfalls, guidance may
seems reasonable that the penalty should relate to that employment. A six
12
only the least serious charge against grievant can be sustained. Grievant's
1996.
13