The Grievant began his employment with the City as a Police Officer in July 2018.  In October 2021, the Grievant was activated by the Naval Reserves and deployed to Connecticut.  Throughout his employment, Grievant was married to CH.  The marriage was strained, and the strain was exacerbated while on deployment.  During a visit with the Grievant in Connecticut in February 2022, CH alleged that the Grievant threatened her, physically assaulted her and drove a knife into a dresser in their hotel room which caused him to cut himself. CH reported the incident to the Employer and the Department of the Navy.

CH filed for divorce on May 6, 2022.  On May 13, 2022, Grievant drove to the marital residence to retrieve his firearms and his retired K-9 dog. CH immediately applied for and was granted a Civil Protection Order (CPO).  Two Deputies proceeded to the residence to serve the Grievant with the CPO. The encounter between the Grievant and Deputies was recorded on dashcam.  Throughout the approximately hour-long encounter, the Grievant engaged in threatening behavior, damaged a patrol vehicle, and threw his departmental firearm on the ground.  The incident was prolonged due to the Deputies waiting for a signed copy of the CPO to be brought to them.  The Grievant was ultimately served with a signed copy of the CPO and charged with a misdemeanor for damaging the patrol vehicle.

The Employer’s position: Regarding the February incident: The Grievant choked CH and threatened CH, resulting in an abuse determination by the Navy and a CPO from the Court.  Regarding the May 13 incident:  The Grievant acted recklessly, dangerously, and criminally by damaging the patrol vehicle, weaponizing his K-9, and being dishonest during his interview with the Employer.  Police are held to a higher standard and the Grievant’s actions warrant termination.

The Union’s position: Regarding the February incident: The Employer did not conduct a investigation and instead relied on the documents that they obtained from the Navy.  Furthermore, CH was not a credible witness.  Regarding the May 13 incident: The Grievant concedes that he damaged the hood of the patrol vehicle which he paid for.  While he concedes that his behavior towards Deputies was inappropriate, he followed their commands, turned over his firearms, remained on the property, and did not deploy the K-9. The Grievant’s actions warrant some punishment, but not termination.

The Arbitrator’s Decision:

The Grievant was fired for just cause based upon the May 13th incident, not the February allegation.  During the May 13th incident, the Grievant was “an out of control individual” who engaged in a tirade with the Deputies, damaged their vehicle, refused to comply with numerous orders, threw his department issued firearm out of anger and refused to properly secure his K-9. 

Grievance denied.

Employer: City of Eastlake                                                    Date: August 2023