By Jim Cline and Kim Lowe
In Pierce County, Arbitrator Clauss reinstated a deputy police officer, finding that the County failed to prove that she was intentionally dishonest or that she withheld any information material to a separate investigation. The Arbitrator applied the usual principles of just cause and progressive discipline and found that the department did not have just cause to terminate the Deputy.
Deputy [Redacted] was an officer in Pierce County, Washington and her father was a Sergeant in the same Department. Williams had a “chronic, unexcused tardiness problem” for which she was first reprimanded in 2016. The Deputy’s father was charged with domestic abuse by her mother and the prosecuting attorney in that case had called the Deputy as a witness. The Prosecutor alleged that when he interviewed the Deputy, she withheld certain information her mother (the complainant) had shared regarding her father’s abuse and did not disclose a photograph that allegedly included some evidence of the abuse. Once she found the photo, the Deputy had shared it with her father and his attorney, who then transmitted it to the Prosecutor.
The Union argued on several bases that there were no grounds for termination in this case. The Deputy did not attempt to withhold or lie about material information, she had simply answered questions as trained and elaborated only when asked to elaborate. The County claimed that she withheld information her mother shared, and a photo taken, while both were highly intoxicated at a bachelorette party. The Union argued that these are therefore special circumstances and also argued that none of the information or photograph was material to the case.
Pierce County countered these claims, stating that the work rule requiring honesty was clearly broken. The decision of the Attorney General not to charge the Deputy with perjury is immaterial since criminal law has a higher burden of proof.
Arbitrator Clauss agreed with the Union that there was no evidence that the Deputy intentionally withheld any material information:
“When the evidence is considered in context, and not by picking isolated statements from the record, it is apparent that Grievant was answering questions during the investigation and subsequently testifying at trial, to the best of her recall. There is nothing in the record to suggest that she intentionally omitted or withheld pertinent information in her initial statement to detectives.”
However, Arbitrator Clauss reduced the termination to a 40-hour suspension because he found that the department had a valid interest in the mishandling of evidence that occurred when the Deputy failed to properly handle the photograph, which she had instead given to her father who shared it with his attorney.
“The Department has proven that Grievant mishandled evidence. As discussed above, Grievant forwarded a relevant photograph to her father, the defendant in a criminal prosecution for which Grievant had been subpoenaed to testify. Although Grievant stated that she felt ‘alone and confused,’ she was nonetheless a Sheriff’s Deputy with a duty to preserve evidence.”
The Arbitrator therefore reinstated the Deputy with a 40-hour suspension, in line with the Department’s usual progressive discipline.
Obviously, this was a mess of a case and the arbitrator had to sort through a lot of emotional evidence to arrive at a just result. The ruling reflects the requirement that management must present solid proof on all charges. It also underscores how essential progressive discipline is. While there may have been some errors in judgment by the Deputy, they were not severe enough to warrant termination.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Dishonesty**
