Grievant was a 21-year employee with the University Police Department.  He was recently promoted to Sergeant and was still on probation when he responded to a loud music complaint at a University Apartment Building.  Two other officers were already on the scene.  Those officers reported that, when they attempted to enter the apartment where the loud party full of people was underway, the door was forcibly closed and locked, forcing the officers out of the doorway into the hall.  When the Grievant arrived, he knocked on the door and announced himself to gain entry but was ignored.  He kicked the door twice from a standing position and then took a running start and kicked the door a third time, attempting to gain entry.  However, his kicks did not force the door open.  Shortly thereafter, the door opened from the inside and the Grievant and officers were able to enter the apartment.  The Grievant then requested the on-call Lieutenant.  The Grievant was charged with having violated the policy regarding forced entry, was returned to his previous classification of a Police Officer 2 and issued a 15-day suspension.  A grievance was filed.

The Employer argued that the 15-day suspension was justified because: 1) Grievant’s attempt of forced entry was a violation of Special Order 21-001 which requires supervisory authorization or exigent circumstances to make a forced entry; 2) the Grievant did not have supervisory authorization or exigent circumstances to attempt a forced entry; 3) the Special Order was written specifically because of a previous similar incident involving the Grievant that resulted in a suspension that was then settled and reduced to a written warning; and 4) Grievant had extensive prior corrective actions, though no suspensions.

The Union argued that: 1) the demotion and the suspension were double jeopardy, since they both were based on the same incident; 2) given the large number of people in the room, Covid 19 protocols created exigent circumstances; 3) Grievant did not effectuate a forced entry because his kicks did not cause the door to open; and 4) as the supervisor on the scene, he could authorize himself to make the forced entry, since he was a Sergeant. 

The Arbitrator looked at the elements of notice, proof and reasonableness. The Arbitrator held that the Employer satisfied these elements in issuing the Grievant a 15-day suspension.  Although both the demotion and the suspension were in part a result of the same incident, the demotion was not a disciplinary action, since he was still on probation and as such it was a reserved management right.  The clear and simple reading of the Order does not allow further exceptions or self-authorization to make a forced entry.  The Order contained very specific exceptions to the policy, and Covid 19 protocols were not included.  The Grievant acknowledged in his investigatory interview that he did not follow the forced entry protocols and that he knew the meaning and intent of the Special Order.  Given his extensive prior corrective actions, including the prior wrongful forced entry that resulted in the creation of the Special Order, and the fact that he was the frontline supervisor at the scene, it was reasonable for the Employer to escalate discipline to a higher level. 

Grievance denied.

Employer: Youngstown State University                                 Date: March 2023