An Arbitrator recently upheld an employer’s denial of continued injury leave to an employee with a workers’ compensation injury. In FOP, Cap. City Lodge 9 & City of Whitehall, AAA 01-17-0007-4184 (Johnson, June 11, 2018), the Arbitrator found it was not an abuse of discretion to deny an additional amount of injury leave to a police officer with an allowed workers’ compensation claim.
A City patrol officer sustained an on-the-job injury on October 16, 2016 when chasing a suspect. The City placed the member on injury leave pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the City and Union. After six months, the officer was still on injury leave despite the employer’s attempts to return him to light duty. The officer requested an additional 1040 hours under the CBA, which states: “A member shall be granted up to 1040 hours of injury leave for each service connected injury. In cases where more than 1040 hours of injury leave is required, the Safety Director, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Police, may extend the injury leave time up to an additional 1040 hours.” The City denied the extension of injury leave.
The Union grieved the denial and argued that the City abused its discretion to deny the additional injury leave. The Union argued there was no justification for the City to deny the leave. It alleged that, through the officer’s absence, the City was provided with medical documentation of his inability to work. His claims were approved by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and temporary total disability compensation was also ultimately allowed by the BWC, which confirms his inability to work. The Union also argued that City was acting in bad faith in denying the extension of injury leave.
The Arbitrator denied the grievance, holding that the City did not abuse its discretion when it denied the grievant’s injury leave extension request. The Arbitrator noted that at the time of the denial, the City was in possession of a medical opinion “which did not substantiate the allowance of the requested conditions,” and that “subsequent allowance of the BWC claim does not render” the City’s consideration of the previous medical opinion unreasonable or arbitrary.
The Arbitrator also noted that the City produced evidence that it was not financially helpful to the City’s workers’ compensation premiums to extend salary continuation in this instance. The City’s witness testified that costs was a primary factor, one of “many moving pieces”, and expense to the City alone is sufficient justification for denial of extended injury leave.
Attorneys at FDAR routinely advise and represent employers regarding labor law, workers’ compensation and all other aspects of the employment relationship. This employer was represented by FDAR attorneys David Riepenhoff (driepenhoff@fisheldowney.com) and Daniel Sabol (dsabol@fisheldowney.com). Please feel free to call either of them with any questions.