Grievant, a Lieutenant, attended a training seminar in 2014 for peer-to-peer investigations of child pornography sponsored by Ohio Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC). After the training, the Grievant requested that the Employer purchase the dedicated equipment that was needed to conduct such investigations, but that request was denied. In 2018, Grievant was assigned Officer in Charge of the department’s Family Investigative Services Unit (FISU). In 2019, the Grievant spoke with an ICAC employee about an issue concerning the city schools. That conversation resulted in Grievant being made the point of contact for ICAC. While the Grievant understood that he was the point of contact in the event ICAC had a problem with one of his FISU officers, he was not aware that he would be receiving tips for which he was responsible for investigating. FISU still did not have the dedicated equipment and workspace needed to investigate ICAC cases. During this time, another officer in the department was assigned part time with the local Human Trafficking Task Force and had a dedicated computer to conduct ICAC investigations. It was the Grievant’s understanding that officer was handling the ICAC CyberTips since she was working with the Task Force. In 2021, Ohio ICAC filed a complaint with the Employer suggesting the Grievant and other FISU officers might have mishandled ICAC CyberTips. An investigation was conducted and a pre-disciplinary hearing was held. The Police Chief drafted a letter stating that the Grievant was suspended for two (2) weeks; however, that letter was never given to the Grievant. Fifteen (15) months later, the Grievant was charged criminally with fourteen (14) Misdemeanor Counts of Dereliction of Duty. A second pre-disciplinary hearing was held after the criminal charges were filed. It was then that the Employer terminated the Grievant.
The Employer argued that it had just cause to terminate the Grievant for Neglect of Duty, Conduct Unbecoming, Incompetence, and Standards of Conduct for Supervisors. It contended that, by failing to delegate responsibility and follow up on CyberTips, Grievant failed to prevent ongoing child abuse. The Employer maintained that, given his extensive training and supervisory role, Grievant was not an appropriate candidate for lesser discipline or additional training. It argued that termination was reasonable because the seriousness of his inaction contributed to the continued exploitation and abuse of children.
The Union argued that there was no written policy or mutual aid agreement between the Police Department and Ohio ICAC. It further asserted that the Department lacked the specialized equipment and office space needed to investigate the cases, that ICAC emails were routed to Grievant’s junk folder, and that his request to purchase proper equipment was denied. Grievant believed the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) and the Police Department representative on the local Human Trafficking Task Force, both of whom had the specialized equipment, were handling ICAC tips. The Union also argued that no other FISU personnel were disciplined for failing to respond to ICAC emails, resulting in disparate treatment to the Grievant. Finally, if discipline was warranted, the Employer failed to impose it progressively under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). After the first pre-disciplinary hearing, the Employer drafted a letter indicating that a two-week suspension was appropriate. Only after criminal charges were filed and a second pre-disciplinary hearing was held was Grievant terminated. Because those charges were later dismissed, the Union maintained that termination far exceeded the alleged misconduct.
The Arbitrator found that the Employer had just cause to discipline the Grievant for failing to act upon or follow-through on the leads, either individually or by assigning them to subordinates. However, termination was unreasonable and not appropriate given the gravity of the offense, certain mitigating factors and in light of the progressive discipline policy. The Arbitrator found that the Grievant did not purposefully flout his duties but made incorrect assumptions. The Arbitrator looked at how Grievant was responsible for handling over 2000 FISU cases a year and handled them properly. The Arbitrator noted that Ohio ICAC shared some responsibility because it failed to follow up on the non-responses for a period of approximately eighteen (18) months. In light of Grievant’s length of service (26 years) with no negative evidence regarding the performance of his duties, his mistaken belief that others were handling the CyberTips, and the lack of direct, consistent notice from ICAC, the Arbitrator concluded that termination was not progressive and was unreasonable. A two-week suspension was appropriate.
Grievance sustained in part. Grievant’s termination is reduced to a two-week suspension without pay. The Employer shall reinstate him with no loss of seniority or benefits and make him whole for all losses, offset by compensation he received from other employment.
Employer: City of Youngstown Date: December 2024
