The Grievant, a Police Officer with nine (9) years on the Department, was dispatched to a call where he found an intoxicated individual in the roadway during the early morning hours. The Grievant arrested the individual, handcuffed him and transported him to the county jail. During the entire ride, the individual repeatedly complained, pleading with the Grievant to let him go. Inside the jail vestibule, the Grievant directed the individual to stop complaining and to cooperate with the jail staff, telling him to “be a man and stop fucking whining” and that jail staff would “kick his ass.” With hands handcuffed behind his back, the individual lunged at the Grievant. The Grievant reacted by extending his arm to create distance, making contact with the individual’s neck area and pinning him against the wall for approximately seven (7) seconds until corrections staff arrived. Grievant subsequently said to the corrections officers that he hates his job and that he was in the “mood to snap a neck.” The Jail personnel raised concerns to the Employer. The Employer charged the Grievant with five (5) rule violations: failure to complete required report; treatment of a person in custody; use of force; conduct unbecoming; and unsatisfactory performance. The Employer imposed a thirty (30) day suspension.
The Employer argued that it had just cause to discipline for all five (5) violations. The Employer argued that neck restraints are prohibited unless deadly force is justified such as situations where an officer is fighting for his life or the life of another which was not the case when the Grievant pinned the individual against the wall with his hand on the individual’s throat and his thumb pressing into his neck for approximately seven (7) seconds. The Employer argued the Grievant escalated the incident through his verbal comments and poor control of the intoxicated inmate.
The Union argued the evidence did not establish the use of a prohibited chokehold or vascular neck restraint. A Lieutenant at the Department, who was a certified defensive tactics instructor, testified this was not a chokehold or vascular restraint, that the force did not restrict blood or oxygen flow and did not rise to the level of deadly force. The Union also argued the Grievant’s actions were objectively reasonable and that he reacted reasonably after the individual lunged at him. The Grievant merely used a defensive maneuver to create distance and regain control.
The Arbitrator determined the Employer failed to establish just cause for the use-of-force charge related to a prohibited neck restraint. The Arbitrator found the policy language regarding “neck restraints” was not sufficiently clear and concluded the evidence did not establish the Grievant intentionally applied a prohibited restraint or used deadly force. The Arbitrator further found the Grievant reasonably reacted when the individual lunged toward him. However, the Arbitrator sustained the remaining violations, finding the Grievant failed to complete required reporting, exercised poor judgment in handling the intoxicated inmate, unnecessarily escalated the encounter through his comments, and engaged in conduct unbecoming and unsatisfactory performance by failing to maintain proper control of the inmate.
The Arbitrator also addressed the parties’ dispute regarding the Grievant’s prior disciplinary history. The Employer argued the Grievant’s entire disciplinary record should be considered in evaluating the appropriate level of discipline, citing a policy as support. The Union objected, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that required discipline to “cease to be considered for future disciplinary matters” after a specified period of time. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union and concluded expired disciplinary actions could not be relied upon in determining the level of discipline and that an Employer’s policy could not override the CBA.
Grievance sustained in part and denied in part. The Arbitrator removed the use-of-force charge but upheld the remaining violations, sustaining the thirty (30) day suspension. The Grievant had an active thirty (30) day suspension on his record for conduct unbecoming.
Employer: City of Mansfield Date: November 2024
