An arbitrator found a Township Police Department had just cause to terminate a 15-year police officer for dishonesty and insubordination, among other offenses. The termination stemmed from a troubling story involving the officer’s off-duty conduct the officer told at a morning briefing prior to beginning his patrol for the day. The grievant told a few supervisors and fellow officers about an altercation that occurred with his son that morning just prior to coming to work. According to the grievant, he took away his son’s cell phone and his son then threatened to kill himself. Upset with his son’s reaction, the grievant went into his son’s bedroom, threw a gun on his son’s bed, and told him to go ahead and, “do it.”
An officer asked if the gun was loaded, and the grievant stated it was. Another fellow officer then asked what would have happened if he actually did it, and the grievant stated, “oops.” All officers who heard the statements believed the grievant. Troubled by the comments, a lieutenant who was in the room notified the Police Chief about the grievant’s statements. The Police Chief asked the grievant if he said and did those things, and the grievant stated he did. The Police Chief notified the grievant that there would likely be an investigation. When the grievant was served notice of the investigation by the lieutenant, the grievant told the lieutenant he would just recant his story so he would not be disciplined.
As the grievant predicted, throughout the course of the internal investigation, the grievant denied throwing the loaded gun on the bed. The grievant told the investigator that he “embellished” the story by telling his fellow officers and supervisors that he threw a loaded gun on his son’s bed, and had been doing it to impress them. Yet, when questioned, the grievant admitted the seriousness of a law enforcement officer lying repeatedly and acknowledged he made untruthful statements. Because of the investigation, the grievant was terminated for gross misconduct for giving untruthful statements, failure of good behavior, dishonesty, and insubordination, as well as violating his employer’s standards of conduct.
The Union filed a grievance on behalf of the grievant, alleging that the termination lacked just cause. At the arbitration hearing, the grievant again admitted that his statements were untruthful, but again argued the story was simply embellished by the grievant. As FHKAD argued on behalf of the Township at the arbitration, the grievant either was untruthful when describing his troubling actions to his co-workers and supervisors, and thus violated his employer’s policies, or was untruthful throughout the internal investigation, and the Township should not have to prove which untruthful statement was the lie.
The arbitrator sided with the Township, agreeing the Township did not have to prove which statement was the lie, and the grievant’s conduct was so egregious and unreasonable the Township would not be able to trust the grievant in the future. At a minimum, the arbitrator held the grievant’s dishonesty caused the employer to commit resources and manpower to an investigation, and that the lie itself and the subsequent impact on the employer was enough to warrant termination.
FHKAD attorney Stephanie Schoolcraft represented the Township at the arbitration. Any questions regarding this case or employee disciplinary issues, contact Stephanie at (614) 221-1216 or sschoolcraft@fishelhass.com.