The Grievant had been employed as a Deputy with the Sheriff’s Office for approximately 2.5 years when he was on patrol and observed a suspicious vehicle in a field at night near a construction site where construction materials and equipment were kept. Believing the vehicle could be involved in criminal activity, the Deputy pursued the vehicle at high speeds, reaching 74 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. After passing a road-closed barricade and driving left of center on an unopened road, the Deputy entered a farm field at approximately 10 MPH. While navigating rough terrain, the Deputy struck an erosion ditch at 17 MPH, causing damage to the cruiser. The Grievant ultimately made a traffic stop in the field and discovered that the driver was an elderly individual who was lost and trying to make his way back to a main road. The Employer imposed a five (5) day suspension for unsafe driving that resulted in preventable damage to a cruiser.

The Employer argued that the Deputy violated multiple policies regarding safe driving, disobeyed directives on speed limits, and failed to follow emergency response protocols. The Employer argued that the Deputy had a history of prior preventable collisions during his 2.5-year tenure. Previous driving related incidents resulted in a verbal reprimand, a written reprimand and additional driver’s training at OPOTA, and a one-day suspension and advanced driver’s training at OPOTA. The Employer asserted that repeated accidents demonstrated a pattern of unsafe driving that warranted stronger progressive disciplinary action.

The Union countered that the Deputy acted in a responsible and reasonable manner, inadvertently damaging the cruiser, that he acted within his training and used justified speeds given the circumstances. The Union argued that the Deputy’s judgment was reasonable at the time and that the discipline was based on hindsight. Additionally, it was argued that the prior discipline for damage to the Deputy’s cruiser was unrelated and does not establish a pattern of misconduct.

The Arbitrator looked at the elements of notice, proof, and reasonableness. The Arbitrator determined that the element of notice was proven by establishing that the Deputy was aware of workplace rules as reflected in his signed acknowledgment of receipt of the policies and standards of conduct. The element of proof was shown by the Employer in the dash-cam video of the incident showing that the Deputy had engaged in unsafe and improper driving that contributed to preventable damage to his cruiser. Lastly, the element of reasonableness was established because of the three (3) prior preventable collisions resulting in damage to his cruiser during the Deputy’s short tenure. The Arbitrator found that the steady escalation of discipline to be commensurate with the proven rule violations and in keeping with the principles of progressive discipline.  Additionally, another employee was disciplined in a similar progressive manner.

Grievance denied.

Employer:  Union County Sheriff’s Office                    Date:  January 10, 2023