Grievant, a Police Officer who had been employed for approximately a year and a half, was off-duty, driving his personal vehicle at a high rate of speed at approximately 3:00 am when he struck a curb causing the vehicle to become disabled. This occurred in front of a police station, was observed by police officers and caught on camera. Grievant was asked several times by the responding officers if he was a police officer. Grievant responded inconsistently, first responding “no” on two occasions, then finally confirming that he was an officer. Grievant refused to take a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer test. Grievant was argumentative and verbally abusive to the officers, calling them names, using profanity, using the n-word, etc. During a search of Grievant’s vehicle, the officers found Grievant’s firearm, a plastic cup that smelled of alcohol, and the box, ribbon label and cork from a bottle of tequila. Grievant was arrested for OVI, failure to control and using/possessing weapons while intoxicated.
The Employer conducted an investigation and placed the Grievant on paid administrative leave. He was later placed on unpaid administrative leave pending the outcome of his criminal case but was allowed to use his accrued paid time off. The Grievant later filed an affidavit with the appellate court claiming indigency. The Grievant listed $0.00 as his income from all sources for the last 26 weeks, despite having received approximately $22,000 during that period from the City. The Grievant also listed no assets despite owning a house, two (2) vehicles, bank accounts and a pension account. Following a pre-disciplinary hearing, the Grievant was terminated.
At arbitration, the Employer argued that termination was justified because the Grievant engaged in conduct that was unbecoming toward officers of another department, was dishonest during the arrest as well as on the affidavit he filed with the appellate court, and for his criminal conduct resulting from the OVI case. Grievant also had disciplinary issues in his short tenure and a past OVI case which ended in a plea to physical control of a vehicle while under the influence.
The Union asserted several defenses, including a number of due process arguments. The City did not conduct a fair and objective investigation; the pre-disciplinary hearing notice did not include any mention of a dishonesty charge regarding the affidavit; the City violated policy by not having superior officers who were involved with charging the Grievant testify at the pre-disciplinary hearing; the City had already made up its mind about termination prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing. The Union argued that Grievant was not dishonest on the affidavit of indigency but merely indicated that he was not working and had no income since being placed on unpaid administrative leave. The City failed to impose discipline in a progressive manner and treated Grievant differently from similarly situated employees.
The Arbitrator found that the Grievant was dishonest from the beginning when he provided the officers with inconsistent statements. The Arbitrator found the Grievant was dishonest again by filing the affidavit of indigency with the appellate court stating, “the Grievant was dishonest and disingenuous” and that there was a “gross display of dishonesty in a court of law”. The Arbitrator found the Grievant’s behavior to be shameful, ill-mannered, dishonest and that he fell far short of what is expected of a police officer. The Arbitrator rejected the Union’s disparate treatment argument, stating that the conduct of the other officers during their arrests was not comparable. The Arbitrator noted Grievant’s employment record as being brief with several performance issues. The Arbitrator found that the City had been very patient with the Grievant given his frequent rule violations and that the City had been progressive with their approach toward the Grievant, giving him numerous opportunities to improve.
Grievance denied.
Employer: City of Lakewood Date: January 2025
