The Grievant, a Jail Deputy, was terminated for allegedly violating four (4) Rules and Regulations. First, the Employer argued the Grievant violated its rule prohibiting employees from reading, playing games, watching TV or movies, or otherwise engaging in entertainment while on duty. Second, the Employer argued the Grievant violated its rule requiring employees to have a current physical address on file. Third, the Grievant allegedly violated a rule prohibiting employees from visiting with or otherwise having contact or communication with an individual in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office other than in the course and scope of the employee’s professional duties. Finally, the Employer argued that the Grievant engaged in conduct unbecoming by having a conversation with an inmate that was sexual in nature. The Grievant had no prior discipline.

The Union argued that the Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievant’s employment. The Grievant admitted to using his cell phone to play games, search the internet, etc. while on duty, but other employees engaged in the same conduct and were not disciplined. The Union argued that although the Grievant did not notify the Employer of an address change, he had a current cell phone number on file so he could be reached. Finally, the Union argued that while the Grievant had a personal conversation with an inmate while on duty, it was not sexual in nature.

The Arbitrator found there was just cause for discipline of the Grievant, but the penalty of termination was too severe. The Arbitrator found that the Grievant’s use of his cell phone while on duty was a violation, but other employees did the same and the Employer offered no evidence that they were disciplined. Due to inconsistent enforcement of the rule by the Employer, the Arbitrator determined that discipline be mitigated. The Arbitrator also found that the Grievant violated the Employer’s rule requiring employees to have a current physical address on file, but this violation did not warrant termination. The Arbitrator found the same was true for the Grievant’s conduct of having a conversation with an inmate without “official” reason – termination was excessive. For these violations, the Arbitrator reduced the discipline to a three-day suspension. Even collectively, Grievant’s offenses did not warrant termination.

The Arbitrator found that the Grievant did not engage in conduct unbecoming because there was no evidence or credible testimony to prove the Grievant made any sexual comments to an inmate. The inmate who made this claim did so while she was being “busted down” from Trustee status, showing a motive to lie so that her punishment might be lessened by her reporting. Since there was no conduct unbecoming, the Arbitrator determined the Grievant could not be terminated based on this allegation.

At the arbitration hearing, the Employer also argued that the Grievant violated its rules by requesting a female inmate to expose her breasts to him on camera. However, in its letter of termination, the Employer specifically stated that “the hearing officer did not find just cause for discipline on this charge. Therefore, none of this discipline is based on violation of Rule 21.1.”  The Arbitrator rejected that additional allegation and rendered the issue moot.

Grievance sustained in part. The Employer was ordered to return the Grievant to work with full restoration of all wages (less the three-day suspension), benefits, including but not limited to leave accruals, and seniority lost since his termination.

Employer: Summit County Sheriff                                                             Date: April 2024