By Anthony Rice
In Pacific County, Arbitrator Guy Coss (PERC staff examiner assigned to arbitrate) found the County lacked just cause for suspending a sheriff’s deputy since the County failed to consider mitigating factors in a dog bite case.
The incidents giving rise to the grievance occurred when a citizen called 911 to report her dog had been bitten by the neighbor dog. The Deputy responded to the phone call and contacted the citizen who stated that “an agreement had been reached between the owners of both dogs regarding vet bills,” and that she was satisfied with the outcome. However, his Lieutenant was not as satisfied. He stated that the Deputy “needed to find out where that dog was now located” and “needed to serve the new owners.”
The Deputy attempted to locate the dog, but it had been given to new owners outside of the county. The Deputy did not file a report with the Department of Health nor file “dangerous dog paperwork” on the owners of the attacking dog. As a result, the County found his work unsatisfactory and tried to impose a 15 day suspension. Arbitrator Coss found the discipline unreasonable:
Just cause is essentially a standard of reasonableness and fairness. It requires that the penalty imposed must “fit the seriousness of the offense and must take into consideration the total circumstances, both those in aggravation and those in mitigation.” “Inherent in the concept of ‘cause’ or ‘just cause’ or ‘proper cause’ is the concept of ‘progressive discipline.” The parties’ contract specifically adopts the concept of progressive discipline. . .
The Deputy had maintained an exemplary work history since his employment by Pacific County, Washington, in 1997. During his time with Pacific County he had complied “a half inch stack of commendations, certifications, and awards.” Incredibly, the County argued these evaluations could not be used to mitigate the suspension.
Coss disagreed, the grievance was sustained and the 15 day suspension was modified to, already administered, corrective counseling. He ended with a lesson on the meaning of progressive discipline:
If the discipline imposed was designed to be remedial (versus punitive) as the employer states, that remedial goal appears to have been accomplished via corrective counseling . . . as documented in [the Grievant]’s performance evaluation.
