The Grievant has been a Deputy with the Sheriff’s Office since 1999.  In 2008, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the Grievant bid for and was selected for the position of Canine Handler at the Airport. Since then, the Grievant has worked exclusively at the Airport as the Explosive Detection K-9 Handler. During his time in this bid position, a foundation funded Grievant’s three (3) canines and various equipment for the purpose of having a K-9 work at the airport.

On December 27, 2021, the Grievant was reassigned four (4) hours to general patrol due to a staffing shortage. His Lieutenant ordered the reassignment to comply with a standing order limiting Patrol Deputies to twelve (12) hours “behind the wheel” of a cruiser in any twenty-four (24) period.  A Patrol Deputy, who had already worked twelve (12) hours, needed to continue working due to the shortage.  The Lieutenant directed the Grievant and the Patrol Deputy to swap their posts. Additionally, the Employer scheduled the Grievant for general patrol duty on January 9 and 10, 2022, citing a need for him to receive on-the-job training in a newly implemented computer reporting system.  On December 30, 2021, the Grievant filed a grievance asserting that these reassignments violated the CBA

At arbitration, two (2) issues were addressed: (1) whether the scheduled reassignments on January 9 and 10, 2022 were ripe for adjudication since the grievance was filed on December 30, 2021, before the dates of the reassignments; and (2) whether the Employer violated the CBA by reassigning the Grievant from his bid position as the Airport Canine Handler to general patrol duties.

On the first issue, the FOP/OLC argued that the January 2022 reassignments were ripe for adjudication because they had already been scheduled at the time of filing the grievance. The Employer argued the January 2022 reassignments were not ripe for adjudication because they had not yet occurred when the grievance was filed. The Arbitrator ruled that the January 2022 reassignments were ripe for adjudication because scheduling an alleged improper reassignment constitutes an adverse action that is subject to the filing of a grievance, particularly when the CBA starts the clock to run when an employee gains knowledge of a contract violation.

On the merits of the grievance, the FOP/OLC argued that the Employer lacked authority under the CBA to remove an employee from a bid position unless performance was unsatisfactory or extenuating circumstances existed—neither of which applied here. It argued that allowing unilateral reassignments would render the bid process meaningless. Additionally, the FOP/OLC claimed that the airport was deprived of its full value of a bomb dog when the Grievant and his K-9 were reassigned to general patrol instead of performing their intended explosive detection services. Regarding the training justification, the FOP/OLC maintained that the Grievant was never informed of deficiencies in his report writing or that he needed additional training.

The Employer asserted that temporary reassignments for operational needs were within its management rights. The Grievant’s temporary reassignment on December 27th was necessary to ensure compliance with safety policies and prevent another Deputy from exceeding driving limits. Similarly, the Employer justified the January 2022 reassignments as necessary training. The Employer also maintained that the Grievant suffered no financial loss and was promptly returned to his bid position after the reassignments.

The Arbitrator found that the Employer did not violate the CBA. While routine reassignments would undermine the CBA’s bid process, the CBA was silent on short-term reassignments. Given the operational necessity, brief duration, and lack of financial harm, the Arbitrator determined the Employer acted within its management rights.

Grievance denied.

Employer: Summit County Sheriff’s Office                                                 Date:  January 2023