The Grievant was a Corrections Officer (CO) with less than two (2) years of service with the Sheriff’s Office.  As the Grievant and another CO, a black female, were preparing for a possible confrontation with an unruly inmate, the Grievant referred to the CO as a “hood rat” and “gangster.”  The Employer terminated the Grievant for violating Rules of Conduct, Workplace Harassment, and Professional Conduct.

The Employer argued that the Grievant’s comments were racial slurs that constituted serious misconduct and that termination was justified.  The Employer argued that any negative comments having to do with race or gender are inappropriate, that the Grievant showed a clear lack of respect toward the CO and that the Grievant’s comments undermined trust in his ability to perform his duties, caused potential harm to employee morale, security, and the reputation of the Sheriff’s Office.

The Union argued termination was excessive and violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which required just cause and progressive discipline.  The Union noted that the Grievant did not mean to offend the CO but intended his comments as a compliment on the way she handled the inmate situation.  Further, both the CO and the Sergeant agreed that the matter was satisfactorily resolved before the investigation was initiated and that the CO was okay with continuing to work alongside the Grievant and that his statements were not severe enough to warrant discipline.  The Union also argued disparate treatment, citing a similar case where another CO received only a verbal counseling for using a racial slur.

The Arbitrator discounted the Union’s disparate treatment argument in that the other situation involved a CO’s quote of a racial slur used by an inmate.  The Arbitrator found that the Grievant’s comments violated the Employer’s policies and procedures.  The Grievant’s comments could have had a serious and substantial negative effect on the reputation of the Sheriff’s Office and could have sparked discord and possible riots in the jail. Thus, the Grievant must bear responsibility for his failure to exercise good judgment.  However, this was not a purposeful or intentional violation.  The Grievant did not act with deliberate or calculated intent to insult or demean the CO. The Grievant’s intent was a compliment as to the way she handled the inmate.  The Arbitrator found that the Grievant’s one time lapse in judgment did not rise to the level of misconduct sufficient to warrant termination for a first offense. The Grievant had no prior discipline.

Grievance is sustained in part.  The discharge is rescinded and converted to a 7-day suspension, with reinstatement contingent on the Grievant apologizing to the CO and undergoing additional training in the policies and procedures.  Grievant is to be made whole for all back pay and benefits, subject to offsets for any interim earnings or unemployment benefits.

Employer: Allen County Sheriff’s Office                                                       Date: March 2024