Arbitration Award. Saundria Bordone, Arbitrator, selected by parties through procedures of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Arbitration Award. Saundria Bordone, Arbitrator, selected by parties through procedures of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service"

Transcription

1 Arbitration Award In re Multi-County Correctional Center and Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council 124 LA (BNA) 1519 FMCS Case No. 07/03923 December 7, 2007 Saundria Bordone, Arbitrator, selected by parties through procedures of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service I. Introduction The parties stipulated that this grievance is properly before the Arbitrator and that the issue is: Was the Grievant terminated for just cause? If not, what is the appropriate remedy? II. Relevant Contract Language The parties collective-bargaining agreement concerned in this matter is effective by its terms from January 1, 2007 to December 31, Its relevant provisions follow: Article 2 Management Rights Section 2.1 Except as specifically limited herein, the Employer shall have the exclusive right to administer the business of the Multi-County Correctional Center wherever located, and to perform other functions and responsibilities which are required by law. Specifically, the Employer s exclusive management rights include, but are not limited to: i) The management and direction of its employees, including the right to select, hire, promote, transfer, assign, evaluate, layoff, recall, reprimand, suspend, discharge, or discipline for just cause, and the maintenance of order among employees;

2 ii) The promulgation and enforcement of reasonable work rules and regulations and the right to otherwise exercise the prerogatives of management;. Section 2.2. The Union agrees that all rights of the Employer not expressly restricted or modified by this Agreement and as permitted by law shall be retained by the Employer. Article 3 Work Rules Section 3.1. The Union recognizes that the Employer, in order to carry out its statutory mandates and goals, has the right to promulgate work rules, policies, procedures and directives consistent with its statutory authority, to regulate the personal conduct of employees as it may relate to their employment or affect the Multi-County Correctional Center, and the conduct of the Employer s services and programs. Section 3.2. It is agreed that, where the Employer has determined that written work rules are necessary, and to the extent any work rules have been or will become reduced to writing, the Employer will make them available to the employees. Copies of newly established work rules, or amendments to existing work rules, will be furnished to the Union and posted a minimum of seven (7) calendar days prior to their implementation. Furthermore, the Employer agrees to discuss any such work rules with the Union upon the Union s request prior to implementation except in cases of emergencies, and if that is the case, then as soon as practicable after the emergency has passed. The notification of the work rules shall not diminish the Employer s ability to effectively operate the facility. In instances where the seven (7) day notification cannot be adhered to due to the emergency nature of the work rule as reasonably determined by the Executive Director, the notification time shall be waived. Section 3.3. The Employer shall inform the employees in advance of any change in work rules. This notice may be by posting a notice on the bulletin board(s) or through general distribution of a memorandum. Section 3.4. This Article shall not be interpreted in any manner to relieve an employee of his responsibility to follow established rules and procedures of good conduct and common sense whether or not such rules and procedures have been reduced to writing. Article 9 Corrective Action and Personnel Files Section 9.1 The tenure of every employee in the bargaining unit shall be during good behavior and efficient service. No member of the bargaining unit shall be suspended, discharged or removed without just cause. Examples of such cause shall be incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, insubordination, immoral conduct, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty or other failure of good behavior and efficient

3 service, or other act of misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance of duty. Section 9.2. Disciplinary action may include, depending upon the severity of the offense: i) Verbal warning; ii) Written warning; iii) One or more days suspension without pay; iv) Discharge III. Facts 1 The Grievant was hired by the Employer as a corrections officer on June 19, On June 15, 2007, the Employer s Executive Director and the Grievant entered into a Last Chance Agreement which the Union had a hand in negotiating. The agreement is in evidence as Joint Exhibit 2 and states: This agreement is being written as a mutual agreement between [the Grievant] and Multi-County Correctional Center. It is understood and agreed to by both parties as shown below. Whereas, [the Grievant] has shown an overwhelming personality trait that is intimidating and threatening to other officers; and Whereas, on April 28, 2007 [the Grievant] was involved in a verbal confrontation with Officer [S] in the Male Control area and Whereas, on May 2, 2007 [the Grievant] was told by Executive Director Osborn that this type of behavior would not be tolerated in anyway in the future; and Whereas, on Saturday, June 9, 2007 he once again had a verbal confrontation with Officer [C] in the Male Control room; and Whereas, after the above warning from the Director and a thorough internal investigation it was determined that [the Grievant] did in fact attempt to intimidate and coerce Officer [C] in violation of Policy (II). 11. Therefore, the Last Chance agreement is being agreed to with the following conditions. [The Grievant] will serve a 10 day unpaid suspension from June 12, 2007 forward 10 working days. [The Grievant] will be placed on a shift at the sole discretion of MCCC until such time this agreement expires, then he will be able to bid a shift at the next following shift bid

4 process. [The Grievant] understands that he will be terminated immediately for any acts similar in nature to the above referenced events including acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, insubornation, [sic] intimidation, threatening behavior, or acts unbecoming an officer within the Multi-County Correctional Center. This agreement shall expire 18 months from the date of signature. [The Grievant] will not grieve this matter in any way. In evidence as Joint Exhibit 3 is the Employer s Policy number , entitled Jail Entry/Exit Security. Relevant portions of it follow: II. Policy: All staff are concerned about the safety of personnel, prisoners and visitors and security of the jail facility. To ensure that staff are doing their part they are to adhere to contraband laws, rules, regulations, directives, post orders and policy & procedures. This policy sets forth guidelines to minimize opportunities for breaches in safety and security at this facility. Any violations of this policy will result in disciplinary action and/or criminal charges. III. Definitions: Contraband: Anything possessed by prisoners or within the confinement facility which is declared illegal by law or which is expressly prohibited by those legally charged with the responsibility for the administration and government of the jail. Security Perimeter: A secure boundary which encloses the entire portion of the facility in which prisoners are confined, including any area to which prisoners may have access. Passage through this boundary must be strictly controlled. Staff: Any person employed by the Multi-County Correctional Center IV. Procedures: A. Items Considered as Contraband (Examples) This is not an all-inclusive list and it may be updated at any time. Common sense must prevail when bringing items into the jail. 16. Cell Phones

5 In evidence as Joint Exhibit 4 is the Employer s Policy number entitled, Employee Discipline. Relevant portions of it follow: I. Policy: The Multi-County Correctional Center recognizes that, from time-to-time, the policies and procedures, post orders and directives of this agency will not be followed, either willfully, or through negligence. The policy is designed to deal, in a fair and equitable manner, with employees who fail to follow such policies, procedures, post orders and directives. Recognizing that each instance of potential discipline involving a violation of established policy, procedure, directives and/or post orders may differ in some respect, the Executive Director retains the right to treat each violation of policy. procedure, directives and/or post order upon individual merit and without creating any precedent. II. Discipline: There are four levels of discipline that may be given to employees who violate policy, procedure, directives and/or post orders at the Multi-County Correctional Center. 1. Verbal reprimand: These will remain effective for future discipline for 12 months. 2. Written reprimand: These will remain effective for future discipline for 12 months. 3. Suspension without pay: Suspensions from 1-5 days shall remain effective for future discipline for 24 months. For suspensions greater than 5 days will remain effective for future discipline for 36 months. 4. Removal: (from employment) Disciplinary Grid II. General Violations 2. Insubordination and/or disobedience of a direct order: disrespectful attitude, language and/or behavior toward a supervisor or higher ranking individual regarding the carrying out of an assignment. The disregarding of an order either verbally or otherwise given by a supervisor or higher tanking individual. 1st Offense Written reprimand up to removal 2nd Offense Three day unpaid suspension up to removal 3rd Offense Removal

6 11. Threatening, intimidating, coercing, striking, fighting or any other physical or verbal confrontation with another employee or member of the general public. 1st Offense Five day unpaid suspension up to removal 2nd Offense Removal 19. Conveyance, distribution possession or consumption of any alcoholic beverage, drug of abuse or prescription drug (without authorization) or the unauthorized conveyance, distribution or possession of any firearm, knife, or any other type of contraband. 1st Offense Removal The events which triggered the discharge at issue here occurred on July 9. The Grievant s direct testimony regarding what occurred follows: A: Roughly approximately 0145 on the 9th, I believe was the date, I was working central control. I had taken a break. I had gone out the employee entrance out here and I was checking my messages on my phone because I was waiting for an important phone call. I had accidentally kept my phone. Q: You didn t bring a phone in originally? A: No. I did not. Q: But you went out to check it because you were worried about messages? A: Yeh. I was waiting for a phone call from my attorney. Q: And then you said you forgot about it? A: Yeh. Well, I walked to my car and I walked back up to the employee entrance you know so I m not sitting out there in my car doing who knows what. I intended on taking it back to my car and it just slipped my mind and I came back to work. I was in the control room. I realized I had my phone and I knew I was already under the radar for for what not. And I decided I would just turn my phone off and stick it in my pocket and take it out on my next break. No big deal. No harm, no foul. Sergeant [A] had been coming through the door. I let him through the door. I was turning my phone off at the same time Apparently he had seen me. He had I had let him into the control room. He said, [Grievant], do you have your cell phone? I said, Yeh, I do.

7 I accidentally brought it in when I went on break. He said, Give to me now. I said, Can I take it out to my car? I don t want to give you my phone. I don t 100 percent trust you with my phone. I said, It was expensive. He said, Give me your phone. I said, I ll take it up to the Director myself. I said, You can walk me out to my car. I said, Why not? I said, It doesn t bother me if you tell him. I m not trying to hide it Said, If somebody calls the signal and drops my phone, who s going to pay for it? The jail s not, because it wasn t supposed to be there to start with. He said, Well, I m going to go tell the Director. I said, That s fine. I ll give it to him. He went and got the Director. They came back. I mean it was within minutes, 2 or 3 minutes. Director Osborn had walked in the control room and he said, [Grievant], do you have your phone? I said, Yeh, I do. It was an accident. He said, Well let me see it. I said, I didn t make a call on it, but here you go. I powered it back on. He asked me to show him where it showed my recent calls. I showed him and the recent call was the day before at ten something. He d handed it back to me. He had asked me if I had said the F word to Sergeant [A]. I said, No, I did not. And that when I was asked to leave the facility. Q: And had you had a confrontation with the Sergeant prior to that on that day? A: Yes, I did. It was roughly 2 hours earlier. We were out the sally port door. I was taking a little break and he had asked me I believe I had called in the day prior to that. The first one I d called in er the second day I had called in in the year that I ve worked there. He had made the statement that I might get fired for pattern abuse because it happened to be two Sundays, I believe, in a row. Q: Was this related to any prior conversations that you were having with him? A: No. No. I mean That was just the first thing out of his mouth. He and I were just standing out there. He and I don t talk a whole lot. He Q: So he s not one of your friends? A: Yeh. No. I, I, I, I would go tooth and nail I would take a bullet for him here at work. I would stand up for any of my fellow officers. But he is not somebody that I would probably talk to outside of the jail. I don t look at him any different inside the jail. I don t dislike him. But if I had a choice to sit at a table by myself and sit with him, chances are I would sit by myself. On cross-examination, the Grievant was asked whether it ever occurred to him to notify his supervisor that he had mistakenly brought his cell phone into the secured side. The Grievant responded that Sergeant A was his supervisor, that Sergeant A had just made supervisor, and in the Grievant s opinion, Sergeant A had a chip on his shoulder. The

8 Grievant also said that with his previous discipline he would just as soon not tell anybody and take the phone out on his next break in all hour or so. Sergeant A testified that on July 9, as he was walking past the central control area, he saw through the window that the Grievant was holding a cell phone in his hand. Sergeant A entered central control and asked the Grievant for his cell phone. According to Sergeant A, the Grievant responded saying, You re not getting my fucking cell phone. The Sergeant testified that he told the Grievant that, at this point, it was no big deal that the Grievant could get his phone back from Director Osborn at the end of his shift. According to Sergeant A, he could not recall how many times he asked the Grievant for his cell phone, but that it was more than once; and the Grievant never did give him the phone. Sergeant A finally went to get Director Osborn. When asked what exact words he used to ask for the cell phone, as well as he could recall, Sergeant A said: A: I believe I said, I m going to need your cell phone to take it to Director Osborn. I believe I said, You know you re not supposed to have that in here. Q: Is that what you said when you asked repeated times or did you say different things? A: I m sure I said different I know I said, Give me your cell phone. At this point it s no big deal, Director Osborn will talk to you and you ll get it back at the end of shift. I don t know if it was in them exact words order but it all was referring to On cross examination, the Sergeant conceded that, at some point, the Grievant offered to take the phone to his vehicle or locker, and also offered to let the Sergeant go out with him to his vehicle. On cross examination, the following exchange took place between the Union s attorney and the Sergeant: Q: He even offered to let you go out with him to his vehicle to make sure he left it didn t he? A: Yeh. I Q: And why wasn t this acceptable? A: Due to the fact, when I asked for it, he told me he wasn t going to give me his fucking cell phone. At that point, it becomes a part where, what I ask is going to be done. Q: You had a confrontation with him earlier in that day, didn t you? Didn t you threaten him with trying to get him fired for pattern sick leave abuse earlier that day? A: No. I don t recall that.

9 Dale Osborn, the Employer s Executive Director, testified regarding the July 9 incident: On that date, Sergeant [A] came to my office, explained the situation, that he had given a directive he had found that [the Grievant] had a cell phone in the central control area and that he had given him a directive twice to turn the cell phone over and that he was refusing to do so. So therefore he was asking for my assistance. I then went to the central control area, confirmed that [the Grievant] did have a cell phone back there. He handed it over to me for the purpose of looking at the recent calls that may or may not have been made on it. I then handed the cell phone back. We talked briefly about the fact that [Sergeant A] had given him the directives to turn the cell phone over. We didn t get into the exact words of what were being said but I, at that time, asked [the Grievant] to come with me, we were leaving the facility, and said that I was putting him on administrative leave at that time pending a pre-disciplinary conference. According to Director Osborn, the rule against cell phones on the secured side of the facility is enforced, and, during his about two years there, one corrections officer had been disciplined for having a cell phone in the central control area. Director Osborn testified that the officer immediately surrendered the phone when his supervisor asked for it, and the officer was given a 5-day suspension for having the cell phone on the secured side. Although the Grievant s Garrity Warning Notice in evidence states that the Grievant would be questioned about having a cell phone on the secured side and refusing to give it to a supervisor when directed, ultimately, the Grievant was charged only with insubordination and/or disobedience of a direct order. Director Osborn testified that he made the decision to terminate the Grievant for insubordination and/or disobedience of a direct order. According to the Director, whether or not the Grievant used the F word in the exchange with Sergeant A did not have any bearing on his decision. He said he decided on removal rather than a lesser discipline because of the severity of this event as well as that we were operating under the last chance agreement. According to the Director, the Grievant had been facing discharge for the alleged misconduct which led to the execution of the June 15, 2007 last chance agreement. Joint Exhibit 5 is a letter dated July 13, 2007, from the Executive Director to the Grievant with two subject lines: one says Pre-Disciplinary Conference; and the other says Alleged Violation Insubordination and/or disobedience of a direct order. The body of the letter states: As a result of the pre-disciplinary conference held on this date your employment has been terminated with the Multi-County Correctional Center. It has been determined that your actions on July 9, 2007 were deemed to be in direct violation of the above referenced allegations.

10 These actions (acts of insubordination) were also found to be in violation of the Last Chance Agreement signed on June 15, IV. Positions of the Parties A. The Employer s Position The Employer contends that, in accordance with the collective-bargaining agreement s management rights clause, it has the authority to discharge employees for just cause, and that the Grievant s termination was for just cause. The Employer argues that the Grievant was insubordinate in that on two occasions he blatantly refused the Sergeant s directives to surrender his cell phone. The Employer urges that this result is not changed because the Grievant wanted to deal with the situation his way. According to the Employer, the insubordination alone subjected the Grievant to discipline ranging from a written reprimand to removal. But, the Employer argues there is also the last chance agreement, with the ink barely dry on it, which states that further acts of misconduct including insubordination will result in discharge. According to the Employer, were it not for the Union s intervention and negotiation of the last chance agreement, the Grievant would have been terminated in June. B. The Union s Position The Union contends that the Grievant s termination was not for just cause, the termination should be set aside, and the Grievant should be reinstated. The Union argues that the Employer s discipline policy in evidence does not control here, but rather Article 9 does. It urges that just cause is more than just simply showing that an incident occurred. [but] is a circumstance of viewing the whole picture and not myopically focusing on one or the other aspect of it. According to the Union, a finding of insubordination requires an actual direct order and an absolutely clear understanding between the parties. The Union contends that this cannot be shown in this case where, according to the Sergeant s testimony, he did not give a direct order to the Grievant. The Union argues, There s no evidence that the Grievant was being obstreperous or otherwise difficult that day. As soon as the Director came, he handed the phone over. The Union contends there is no showing of prior severe discipline or that the last chance agreement was entered into in lieu of termination. It also notes that the Director even admitted that the language that was used in the exchange between the Sergeant and the Grievant was not a significant factor in the decision to terminate the Grievant. Regarding the last chance agreement, the Union argued that, when read as a whole document, it is apparent that the purpose of that had to do with these confrontations with employees which was not related to this issue. And in fact you will notice that while there was some problem with Sergeant [A], there was no direct confrontation with him like is alleged to have occurred in the last chance agreement.

11 V. Decision and Discussion Despite the Union s valiant efforts to frame the issue otherwise, the Grievant s conduct on July 9 was contrary to the well accepted obey now-grieve later doctrine. The principle of this doctrine is that employees must previous obey management s orders, then turn to the grievance procedure for any relief they believe might be due. 2 The rule is based on a presumption that the parties to a collective bargaining agreement intend to refer all their disagreements to the grievance procedure and that no self-help is to be tolerated. 3 Generally, an employee who refuses to previous obey now (and grieve later) is considered insubordinate. 4 Six qualifications, however, have been placed on this basic definition. (1) the refusal to obey must be knowing, willful, and deliberate; (2) the order must be both explicit and clearly given; (3) the order must be reasonable and work related; (4) the order must have been given by someone the employee understands to have the authority to give it; (5) the employee must be made aware of the consequences of failing to follow the directive; and (6) if practical, the employee must be given or have time to correct his purportedly insubordinate behavior. 5 Here, these six qualifications are met. The Grievant testified that initially the Sergeant asked if he had a cell phone and said Give it to me now; and later in the conversation the Sergeant said to him Give me your phone. Thus, the order was explicit and clearly given. The Grievant s version of the conversation shows that his failure to obey the direction to give up his phone was knowing, deliberate and willful, and that he insisted that the situation be handled differently. The Grievant also testified that Sergeant A was his supervisor, and there is no contention that the Sergeant did not have the authority to direct the Grievant to hand over his phone. The order was reasonable and work related. Having the phone in the central control area where the Grievant was assigned to work was prohibited and that prohibition itself was enforceable by serious discipline according to the Employer s disciplinary policy in evidence. The consequences of the Grievant s conduct should have been obvious. The Employer s written work rules in evidence state that cell phones are not allowed on the secured side and violation of those policies will result in disciplinary action and/or criminal charges; 6 and that the disregarding of an order either verbally or otherwise given by a supervisor or higher ranking individual is insubordination and is punishable as a first offense with a written reprimand up to removal. 7 There is no contention that these rules were not properly promulgated. Additionally, less than a month earlier, the Grievant had entered into a last chance agreement which

12 explicitly stated that insubordination would cause his immediate termination. Finally, the Grievant was given several chances during his conversation with the Sergeant to comply and give his cell phone to the Sergeant. As to the last chance agreement, valid last chance agreements are generally strictly construed and enforced by arbitrators. They are usually found to be valid and enforceable if the Grievant was represented by the Union and entered into the agreement with understanding and of his own free will; the period of time it is to be in effect is fair; and the terms and requirements of the agreement are clearly outlined in the agreement. If the agreement is valid and enforceable, the agreement is generally viewed as having waived the employee s normally applied rights to just cause due process considerations, procedural protections, or a progressive discipline scheme under the collective-bargaining agreement, and the arbitrator s role is limited to determining whether the employee engaged in the conduct which under the terms of the agreement would cause termination. 8 Here, the Union did not challenge the last chance agreement on any of the above stated enforceability grounds or present evidence showing that any of these requirements for enforceability were not met in this case. However, by contending that the Grievant s July 9 alleged misconduct was not insubordination, the Union did indirectly contend that the agreement did not specifically state that the conduct which the Grievant engaged in on July 9 would trigger termination under the agreement. Additionally, more directly the Union contends that the last chance agreement does not apply to the July 9 situation because the Grievant s alleged misconduct on July 9 is different from that which resulted in the last chance agreement. The Union s argument in this regard is based on the content of the last chance agreement. The Union provided no additional evidence of the situation(s) which led to the agreement and it strenuously objected when the Employer tried to introduce such evidence. I find that the last chance agreement does apply in this case. The Grievant s July 9 conduct did constitute insubordination, both as insubordination is defined in the Employer s work rules 9 and as generally accepted in the labor relations community as discussed above. Further, contrary to the Union s contentions, the Grievant s July 9 conduct at issue here is sufficiently similar to his conduct in the two situations which resulted in the last chance agreement. Thus, the last chance agreement characterizes the two situations which resulted in its creation as verbal confrontations with fellow employees, and the July 9 exchange that the Grievant had with Sergeant A could also be fairly characterized as a verbal confrontation. 10 Of course the Union contends that it was Sergeant A who made the July 9 conversation a confrontation, if anyone did. However, the Grievant s testimony shows that it was the Grievant s failures to comply with clear, reasonable, work-related orders from Sergeant A, the Grievant s admitted supervisor, that caused the verbal confrontation.

13 VI. AWARD The Grievant was terminated for just cause. The grievance is denied. Notes: 1 Facts not attributed to their source, are not contradicted by record evidence. 2 See generally Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration, (Norman Brand ed., BNA Books 1998); Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration 2001 Supplement, (Anne L. Draznin, ed., BNA Books 2001); Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, 1023 (Alan Miles Rubin ed., 6th ed. 2003); and cases cited therein. 3 Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration, supra note 3. at Id. at Id. at and cases cited therein. 6 Employer Policy number , entitled Jail Entry/Exit Security, set forth in relevant part in section III, above. 7 Employer Policy number , entitled Employee Discipline, set forth in relevant part in section III, above. 8 See generally Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration, (Norman Brand ed., BNA Books 1998); Discipline and Discharge in Arbitration 2001 Supplement, (Anne L. Draznin ed., BNA Books 2001); Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, (Alan Miles Rubin ed., 6th ed. 2003); and cases cited therein. 9 Employer Policy number , entitled Employee Discipline, set forth in relevant part in section III, above. 10 Webster s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (Philip Babcock Grove ed., Merriam Webster 20002) defines confrontation as the act of confronting; the state of being confronted. It gives as its first definition of the verb confront, to stand facing or opposing esp. in challenge, defiance, or accusation.

WAS THE DISCHARGE OF THE GRIEVANT FOR JUST CAUSE, AND IF NOT, WHAT SHOULD BE THE REMEDY?

WAS THE DISCHARGE OF THE GRIEVANT FOR JUST CAUSE, AND IF NOT, WHAT SHOULD BE THE REMEDY? IN THE MATTER OF THE Glazer #2 VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION Employer, And Union. * * * * * * * * * * * ARBITRATION OPINION AND AWARD * * * * * * * * * * * ISSUE WAS THE DISCHARGE OF THE GRIEVANT FOR JUST CAUSE,

More information

CORRECTIVE ACTION/DISCIPLINARY-GRIEVANCE ACTION POLICY Volunteer Personnel

CORRECTIVE ACTION/DISCIPLINARY-GRIEVANCE ACTION POLICY Volunteer Personnel Virginia Beach Department of Emergency Medical Services CASS # 106.03.01/ 106.3.01 Index # Administration CORRECTIVE ACTION/DISCIPLINARY-GRIEVANCE ACTION POLICY Volunteer Personnel PURPOSE: To provide

More information

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between SHEBOYGAN COUNTY INSTITUTIONS EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2427, AFSCME, AFL-CIO Case 265 No. 52330 MA-8920 and SHEBOYGAN COUNTY Appearances:

More information

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN

ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN Daniel #2 ARBITRATION APPEAL PROCEDURE OF MICHIGAN IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN: EMPLOYER and EMPLOYEE Gr. Termination 7/29/96 ARBITRATOR: WILLIAM P. DANIEL FACTS The claimant worked as a Switch

More information

ARTICLE 4 Grievance Procedure

ARTICLE 4 Grievance Procedure ARTICLE 4 Grievance Procedure A. Definition: Any claim by an employee(s), or the Union, that there has been a violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of any provisions of this Agreement may be processed

More information

COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL

COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL Prepared by the Office of the General Counsel 109443 in conjunction with the Legal Rights Committee of the National Executive Council 12-1-2001

More information

The objectives of corrective discipline can be stated as follows:

The objectives of corrective discipline can be stated as follows: Article IX.A.3.n. Corrective Discipline A. Intent This program of corrective discipline is intended to help promote and maintain a high level of acceptable performance on the part of all regular secretaries,

More information

ESCAMBIA COUNTY FIRE-RESCUE

ESCAMBIA COUNTY FIRE-RESCUE Patrick T Grace, Fire Chief Page 1 of 5 PURPOSE: Personnel that fail to follow established ECFR rules, policies, or guidelines will be subject to disciplinary action. OBJECTIVE: To provide personnel with

More information

CHAPTER Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1543

CHAPTER Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1543 CHAPTER 2008-296 Council Substitute for House Bill No. 1543 An act relating to the Jackson County Sheriff s Office; providing permanent status for certain employees of the Sheriff; specifying rights of

More information

RULES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. Faculty: Definition of Just Cause, Termination, Suspension, and Other Disciplinary Action,

RULES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. Faculty: Definition of Just Cause, Termination, Suspension, and Other Disciplinary Action, RULES OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 6C1-7.048 Academic Affairs; Suspension, Termination, and Other Disciplinary Action for Faculty: Definition of Just Cause, Termination, Suspension, and Other Disciplinary

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY [Cite as Portsmouth v. Fraternal Order of Police Scioto Lodge 33, 2006-Ohio-4387.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY City of Portsmouth, : Plaintiff-Appellant/ : Cross-Appellee,

More information

ARTICLE 21 JUST CAUSE, DUE PROCESS AND PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FTA COUNTER SEP 12, 2013

ARTICLE 21 JUST CAUSE, DUE PROCESS AND PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE FTA COUNTER SEP 12, 2013 ARTICLE 21 - JUST CAUSE, DUE PROCESS AND PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE 1. No unit member shall be disciplined, reduced in rank or compensation, nor otherwise subjected to adverse action as a result of alleged

More information

Statement of the Case

Statement of the Case REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ( T. Davis -and- ( S7N-3Q-D 22055 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER ( Baton Rouge, LA CARRIERS, AFL-CIO ) BEFORE : Norman Bennett, Arbitrator APPEARANCES

More information

DATED DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

DATED DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DATED ------------ DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURE AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 1 CONTENTS DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURE 1. Policy statement...3 2. Who is covered by the procedure?...3 3. What is covered

More information

Chapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal

Chapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal Chapter 19 Procedures for Disciplinary Action and Appeal Bargaining unit refer to contract 19.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS ON DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 19.1.1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION ONLY PURSUANT TO THIS RULE: A permanent

More information

Procedure for Adjusting Grievances

Procedure for Adjusting Grievances Procedure for Adjusting Grievances 8 VAC 20-90-10 et seq. Adopted by the Board of Education effective May 2, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I Definitions...3 Part II Grievance Procedure...5 Part III Procedure

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Shannon Cummins, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1944 C.D. 2017 : No. 1945 C.D. 2017 Unemployment Compensation Board : Submitted: December 14, 2018 of Review, : Respondent

More information

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015)

UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015) UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS UNION DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE (SEPTEMBER 2015) Disciplinary Procedure 1 Sabbatical Officer Trustees... 2 Disciplinary Procedure 2 Elected Representatives... 12 Disciplinary

More information

Model Rules and Regulations 2nd Edition

Model Rules and Regulations 2nd Edition Division of Criminal Justice Police Bureau Model Rules and Regulations 2nd Edition November 1992 INTRODUCTION This edition of the Model Rules and Regulations represents a major revision from the previous

More information

SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE OF ADOPTION: 10/17/2011

SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE OF ADOPTION: 10/17/2011 DEERFIELD COMMUNITY CODE: 527 ADM(1) SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE OF ADOPTION: 10/17/2011 EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (DISCIPLINE, TERMINATION AND WORKPLACE SAFETY) The purpose of this procedure is to provide

More information

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-19-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT

More information

Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Staff

Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Staff Linacre College Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Staff Version: 4 August 2015 Introduction All employees are expected to behave in an appropriate manner, to act with honesty and integrity, and to

More information

N. A. L. C. RECEIVED MEMPHIS REGION IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) GRIEVANT : Ray A.

N. A. L. C. RECEIVED MEMPHIS REGION IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) GRIEVANT : Ray A. a IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) GRIEVANT : Ray A. Boykin AND ) CASE NO. : H90N-4H-D 95000488 GTS NO. : 007744 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ) PLACE : Mobile, AL LETTER

More information

Handling Complaints Against Police. March 25, 2015

Handling Complaints Against Police. March 25, 2015 Handling Complaints Against Police March 25, 2015 Your Cooperation is Needed Please mute your phone *6 To ask questions and open your line *6 This will help all of our friends! PSAB s Blended Training

More information

Employer, Grievance: FMCS: T. BOAT DECISION AND AWARD. PATRICK A. McDONALD Arbitrator

Employer, Grievance: FMCS: T. BOAT DECISION AND AWARD. PATRICK A. McDONALD Arbitrator CASE: McDonald #2 ARBITRATION SOMEPLACE and Employer, Grievance: FMCS: 06-540 T. BOAT UNION / DECISION AND AWARD PATRICK A. McDONALD Arbitrator TABLE OF CONTENTS I. APPEARANCES...Cover II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION...3

More information

Davidson County Sheriff s Office, Petitioner, vs. William Howell

Davidson County Sheriff s Office, Petitioner, vs. William Howell University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 1-6-2010 Davidson County Sheriff

More information

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Table of Contents Section 1.0 Objective Page 1 Section 2.0 Coverage of Personnel Page 1 Section 3.0 Definition of a Grievance

More information

Take me back to the Home Page. NotaryClasses.com Sample Notary Exam 1 FINES and PENALTIES

Take me back to the Home Page. NotaryClasses.com Sample Notary Exam 1 FINES and PENALTIES Take me back to the Home Page NotaryClasses.com Sample Notary Exam 1 FINES and PENALTIES PLEASE READ THIS SECTION BEFORE BEGINNING THE SAMPLE EXAM Our program is designed to help you pass the notary exam

More information

Boston Police Department Rules and Procedures Rule 400C January 8, 2007

Boston Police Department Rules and Procedures Rule 400C January 8, 2007 CONSTABLES This rule is issued to establish the Department s policies for Constables. The provisions of this rule are effective immediately, superseding all previously issued rules, procedures, orders

More information

City of Miami. City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL Meeting Minutes. Tuesday, May 14, :00 AM

City of Miami. City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL Meeting Minutes. Tuesday, May 14, :00 AM City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Tuesday, 10:00 AM Commission Chambers Civil Service Board Gerald Silverman, Chairperson Sean Moy, Chief Examiner Lillie

More information

an Opinion and Award in its case number A Hearing was held at the University, on

an Opinion and Award in its case number A Hearing was held at the University, on 12-21-1998 09:58 P.02 In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: CASE: Frankland #1 University -and- UNION Re: Brian FISH - 10 Day Suspension The undersigned, Kenneth P. Frankland, was mutually selected

More information

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES Frankland #6 FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICES In the Matter of the Arbitration Between: Union -and- Employer --------------------------------------------------------- Gr: Vacation Schedule/

More information

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP-07-14DOYLE WITCHER, Grievant/, Respondent

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP-07-14DOYLE WITCHER, Grievant/, Respondent University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-26-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT

More information

HANDLING EMPLOYEES PENDING CRIMINAL ACTIONS

HANDLING EMPLOYEES PENDING CRIMINAL ACTIONS HANDLING EMPLOYEES PENDING CRIMINAL ACTIONS Presented by Alexander L. Ewing & Thomas B. Allen Frost Brown Todd LLC Ohio Council of School Board Attorneys School Law Workshop November 15, 2016 STATUTORY

More information

Standard of Conduct for Student Organizations Adapted from Missouri University of Science and Technology

Standard of Conduct for Student Organizations Adapted from Missouri University of Science and Technology Standard of Conduct for Student Organizations Adapted from Missouri University of Science and Technology 8-28-2013 A student organization approved (i.e., registered or recognized) by the University of

More information

SAPUTO DAIRY PRODUCTS CANADA MILK AND BREAD DRIVERS, DAIRY EMPLOYEES CATERERS AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 647

SAPUTO DAIRY PRODUCTS CANADA MILK AND BREAD DRIVERS, DAIRY EMPLOYEES CATERERS AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 647 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: SAPUTO DAIRY PRODUCTS CANADA AND: MILK AND BREAD DRIVERS, DAIRY EMPLOYEES CATERERS AND ALLIED EMPLOYEES, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 647 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRIEVANCE

More information

DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION & DEMOTION

DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION & DEMOTION AR 4218 A. Purpose and Scope To provide guidance and direction for the Governing Board and appropriate administrative personnel regarding the dismissal, suspension, and demotion of classified employees.

More information

Professional Standards and Internal Affairs Discipline Matrix

Professional Standards and Internal Affairs Discipline Matrix CITY OF MADISON POLICE DEPARTMENT Professional Standards and Internal Affairs Discipline Matrix Eff. Date 12/06/2017 Purpose This procedure outlines the guidelines and expectations for the Madison Police

More information

COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY POLICY

COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY POLICY COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY POLICY No: BE524 Issue: 2 Date: February 2016 Author: M. Scott Approved: Sports Sub Committee 27.01.2016 Glossary of terms In this policy the following terms have the meanings

More information

WARREN COUNTY NEW YORK, Employer BRIEF AND CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF KATHLEEN PLUMMER

WARREN COUNTY NEW YORK, Employer BRIEF AND CLOSING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF KATHLEEN PLUMMER STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WARREN IN THE MATTER OF THE HEARING UNDER 75 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW BETWEEN WARREN COUNTY NEW YORK, Employer against KATHLEEN A. PLUMMER, Employee BRIEF AND CLOSING STATEMENT

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny County Airport Authority, : Appellant : : v. : No. 1413 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 1, 2005 Construction General Laborers and : Material Handlers Union,

More information

SECTION 31 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

SECTION 31 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE SECTION 31 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 31.01 Policy. It is the policy of the County to treat all employees fairly and equitably in matters affecting their employment. Employees who believe they have not been treated

More information

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION. and

BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR. In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION. and BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION and MILWAUKEE COUNTY (SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT) Case 546 No. 63374 Appearances: Eggert Law

More information

Anderson Hutsell vs. Dept. of Health

Anderson Hutsell vs. Dept. of Health University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 12-20-2013 Anderson Hutsell vs.

More information

DERBY POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURE

DERBY POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURE DERBY POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY & PROCEDURE TITLE: INTERNAL AFFAIRS and CITIZEN PROCEDURE: 6.1 COMPLAINTS ALLEGING POLICE MISCONDUCT EFFECTIVE: 01 JUL 15 REVISED: POST-C STANDARD: 1.2.34; 2.2.17; 2.2.35;

More information

JUN 2 0 Z005 REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL

JUN 2 0 Z005 REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL 1 1 c zs99~ REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL In the Matter of Arbitration ) Grievant: Lnenicka between ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) (hereinafter "USPS") ) and ) Post Office: Yakima, WA Case No : EO1N-4E-D

More information

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Petitioner, vs. LINDA A. JOHNSON, Grievant

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Petitioner, vs. LINDA A. JOHNSON, Grievant University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 6-2-2008 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT

More information

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 482. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 482. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 482 UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO EMPLOYER: Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Allen Correctional Institution DATE OF ARBITRATION: December 3, 1992 DATE OF

More information

CHAPTER House Bill No. 601

CHAPTER House Bill No. 601 CHAPTER 2004-404 House Bill No. 601 An act relating to Palm Beach County; amending chapter 93-367, Laws of Florida, as amended; revising provisions relating to employees of the Palm Beach County Sheriff;

More information

CHAPTER House Bill No. 815

CHAPTER House Bill No. 815 CHAPTER 2000-388 House Bill No. 815 An act relating to Osceola County; providing Career Service status for certain members of the Osceola County Sheriff s Office; providing for codification of chapter

More information

Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination

Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination Policy Against Harassment and Discrimination Introduction The College is committed to providing both employment and educational environments free of harassment or discrimination related to an individual's

More information

DISCIPLINARY CODE & PROCEDURE

DISCIPLINARY CODE & PROCEDURE DISCIPLINARY CODE & PROCEDURE Updated: August 2013 Page 1 of 18 CONTENT A. Introduction 4 B. Definitions. 4 C. Guidelines. 4 D. Substantive Fairness... 5 E. Procedural Fairness... 5 F. Sanctions.. 6 i.

More information

CHAPTER XIV DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEAL. Rule 14.1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION - SUSPENSION, DEMOTION AND DISMISSAL

CHAPTER XIV DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEAL. Rule 14.1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION - SUSPENSION, DEMOTION AND DISMISSAL CHAPTER XIV DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEAL Rule 14.1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION - SUSPENSION, DEMOTION AND DISMISSAL 14.1.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS (EDUCATION CODE 45302) A. A regular classified employee shall be

More information

ARTICLE X: STUDENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Section 2. Policy on Student Conduct. Policy 2.1: Grievance Procedures Issued: May 1, 2001

ARTICLE X: STUDENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Section 2. Policy on Student Conduct. Policy 2.1: Grievance Procedures Issued: May 1, 2001 Chicago State University is a community where the means of seeking truth are open discussion, free discourse, spirited debate and peaceful dissent. Free inquiry is indispensable to the purposes of the

More information

Arbitration Award. Lehigh Specialty Melting Inc. and United Steelworkers Local LA (BNA) 1422 July 31, 2009

Arbitration Award. Lehigh Specialty Melting Inc. and United Steelworkers Local LA (BNA) 1422 July 31, 2009 Arbitration Award Joseph P. Fagan Sr., Arbitrator Contract Provisions Section 12. Suspension and Discharge Lehigh Specialty Melting Inc. and United Steelworkers Local 1537-3 126 LA (BNA) 1422 July 31,

More information

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHING STAFF AT LOCALLY MANAGED SCHOOLS

DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHING STAFF AT LOCALLY MANAGED SCHOOLS LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING AND DAGENHAM DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND LIBRARIES DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE FOR TEACHING STAFF AT LOCALLY MANAGED SCHOOLS Department of Education, Arts and Libraries Town

More information

Ohio Legislative Service Commission

Ohio Legislative Service Commission Ohio Legislative Service Commission Bill Analysis Nicholas A. Keller S.B. 183 131st General Assembly () Sens. LaRose, Thomas BILL SUMMARY Modifies the licensing process for private investigators and security

More information

HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT

HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY SUPPORT OPERATIONS j February 26, 2016 I COMPLAINTS AND INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS POLICY Anyone who reports a complaint (administrative or criminal) about the Honolulu Police

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE, AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE, AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, STATE OF FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE, AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, STATE OF FLORIDA SECOND AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2017-03 (Supersedes Administrative

More information

(:::--: at / 6 4 ~_3 6

(:::--: at / 6 4 ~_3 6 (:::--: at / 6 4 ~_3 6 REGULAR ARBITRATION PANEL In the Matter of the Arbitration ) GRIEVANT : Daniel L. Corban ( between ) POST OFFICE: Lakeland FL ( UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ) USPS CASE NO: H94N-4H-

More information

Our Lady s Catholic Primary School

Our Lady s Catholic Primary School Our Lady s Catholic Primary School DISCIPLINARY POLICY DISCIPLINARY POLICY FOR OUR LADY S CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL This policy explains the process which management and Governors will follow in all cases

More information

Concord School District Policy #520 Safe School Zone

Concord School District Policy #520 Safe School Zone Concord School District Policy #520 Safe School Zone Introduction It is the policy of the Concord School District that all school buildings, property, bus stops and routes and associated areas shall be

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARCUS CARTER Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-04521 Arthur

More information

POST SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OR LEGION FAMILY

POST SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OR LEGION FAMILY POST SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION OR LEGION FAMILY Of late, there have been many posts, within the Department of Texas, which have imposed suspensions of various individuals from the post

More information

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1995 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1- PRELIMINARY

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1995 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1- PRELIMINARY PUBLIC SERVICE ACT 1995 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1- PRELIMINARY Section 1. Short title and Commencement 2. Object of the Act 3. Application 4. Interpretation 5. Act is ancillary to the Constitution

More information

Judges, Juries and Public Employment Litigation Issues. Carl Ericson ICRMP Risk Management Legal Counsel Association of Idaho Cities June 22, 2016

Judges, Juries and Public Employment Litigation Issues. Carl Ericson ICRMP Risk Management Legal Counsel Association of Idaho Cities June 22, 2016 Judges, Juries and Public Employment Litigation Issues Carl Ericson ICRMP Risk Management Legal Counsel Association of Idaho Cities June 22, 2016 Judges and Employment Litigation LESSONS WE HAVE LEARNED

More information

City of New Britain POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY

City of New Britain POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY City of New Britain POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY Number: 1.03 Effective Date: 07/01/84 Revision Date: 03/15/16 TITLE: CITIZEN COMPLAINTS -- I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this policy is to establish the guidelines

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANA SABATINO, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANA SABATINO, Appellee, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DIANA SABATINO, Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal

More information

7. Self-Assigned Police Action Undertaking of self assigned police action. (For the purposes of this article, "self assigned", means action taken at the discretion of a member of the Department under less

More information

This code is applicable to all employees of Finbond Mutual Bank, including temporary employees.

This code is applicable to all employees of Finbond Mutual Bank, including temporary employees. POLICY NUMBER 1 DISCIPLINARY CODE OF CONDUCT A) Purpose The Disciplinary Code of Conduct acts as a guide and regulatory tool to both management and employees in the handling of disciplinary matters. The

More information

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 193. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Department of Transportation DATE OF ARBITRATION:

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 193. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Department of Transportation DATE OF ARBITRATION: ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 193 UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO EMPLOYER: Department of Transportation DATE OF ARBITRATION: DATE OF DECISION: August 2, 1989 GRIEVANT: Gary Snyder OCB GRIEVANCE NO.:

More information

RULES & REGULATIONS ON STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE

RULES & REGULATIONS ON STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE RULES & REGULATIONS ON STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE (As approved by the Board of Regents at its 876 th meeting on September 2, 1976 superseding all provision rules on the subject, and as amended at the

More information

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 423. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Department of Natural Resources Senacaville State Fish Hatchery

ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 423. UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. EMPLOYER: Department of Natural Resources Senacaville State Fish Hatchery ARBITRATION DECISION NO.: 423 UNION: OCSEA, Local 11, AFSCME, AFL-CIO EMPLOYER: Department of Natural Resources Senacaville State Fish Hatchery DATE OF ARBITRATION: December 13, 1991 DATE OF DECISION:

More information

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F JAMES BRAGG, EMPLOYEE CITY OF STUTTGART, EMPLOYER

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F JAMES BRAGG, EMPLOYEE CITY OF STUTTGART, EMPLOYER BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION CLAIM NO. F312185 JAMES BRAGG, EMPLOYEE CITY OF STUTTGART, EMPLOYER ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WORKERS COMPENSATION TRUST, INSURANCE CARRIER CLAIMANT

More information

CODE OF CONDUCT & DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES POLICY for West Jefferson Youth Athletic Association, Inc.

CODE OF CONDUCT & DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES POLICY for West Jefferson Youth Athletic Association, Inc. CODE OF CONDUCT & DISCIPLINARY GUIDELINES POLICY for West Jefferson Youth Athletic Association, Inc. For Kids, About Kids Adopted June 2015 Page 1 of 5 Adopted June 2015 By Law- CODE OF CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY

More information

Keokuk Police Department

Keokuk Police Department Keokuk Police Department Mission Statement: The Keokuk Police Department is committed to providing Quality Professional Law Enforcement Services to the community. History: The Keokuk Police Department

More information

Arbitration Decision i United States Postal Service in Case No. S1N-3D-D The Issue

Arbitration Decision i United States Postal Service in Case No. S1N-3D-D The Issue #-6x713 In the matter between Arbitration Decision i United States Postal Service in Case No. S1N-3D-D-9534 Mobile, Alabama (C. C. Fountain) t and i Mobile, AL National Association of ;fail Carriers i

More information

CHAPTER 11 1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEALS, DISMISSALS, SUSPENSION AND DEMOTION

CHAPTER 11 1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEALS, DISMISSALS, SUSPENSION AND DEMOTION CHAPTER 11 1 DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND APPEALS, DISMISSALS, SUSPENSION AND DEMOTION 11.1 DISCIPLINARY POLICY 11.1.1 DEFINITION OF DISCIPLINE 11.1.2 PROHIBITED ACTS RELATED TO DISCIPLINE 11.1.3 DISMISSAL

More information

Schedule Six Discipline Code

Schedule Six Discipline Code Schedule Six Discipline Code 1. Introduction This Code provides guidance on the standards of behaviour expected at all times of members of the University of Stirling Students Union, hereinafter referred

More information

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure NOTICE 10-01-13 The following By-Laws, Manual and forms became effective August 28, 2013, and are to be used in all Disciplinary cases until further notice. Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. JUDITH E. LUCKE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. JUDITH E. LUCKE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent. FILED: January, 01 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON JUDITH E. LUCKE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STANDARDS AND TRAINING, Respondent. Department of Public Safety Standards and

More information

SELF-EXECUTING RlJL. The consequences of self-executing rules can be se-

SELF-EXECUTING RlJL. The consequences of self-executing rules can be se- SELF-EXECUTING RlJL There are a few rules in almost every agreement which provide that when a given circumstance occurs, certain specific results must automatically follow. Most such rules simply state

More information

By-Laws of the Panel for Educational Policy of the Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York PREAMBLE

By-Laws of the Panel for Educational Policy of the Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York PREAMBLE By-Laws of the Panel for Educational Policy of the Department of Education of the City School District of the City of New York PREAMBLE The Board of Education of the City of School District of the City

More information

APPEARANCES. At an arbitration on March 6, 1985 in the conference room of the First National

APPEARANCES. At an arbitration on March 6, 1985 in the conference room of the First National b IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN REGULAR ARBITRATION Q Of'f # 1 * THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE * Re : Billy Stephen Lancaster "Employer" * Emergency Suspension and the * S1N-3F-D-42521 NATIONAL

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA GREENE COUNTY and GREENE : COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH : SERVICES : : v. : : DISTRICT 2, UNITED MINE : WORKERS OF AMERICA and : LOCAL UNION 9999, UNITED MINE : WORKERS

More information

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194

STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD. Decision No. 194 STATE OF VERMONT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY BOARD In Re: Norman R. Blais, Esq. PRB File No. 2015-084 Decision No. 194 Norman R. Blais, Esq., Respondent, is publicly Reprimanded and placed on probation

More information

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER

FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER T h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d l e g a l a d v i c e. P l e a s e s e e a n A t t o r n e y i f y o u h a v e a d d

More information

2. During the complaint intake process, no questions shall be asked of a complainant regarding their immigration status.

2. During the complaint intake process, no questions shall be asked of a complainant regarding their immigration status. Distribution: All Personnel Number of Pages: 1 of 11 I. Purpose The purpose of this policy is to comply with Public Act No. 14-166 and to provide a uniform policy to accept, process, investigate, take

More information

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY Disciplinary Review Board Docket No. DRB 02-434 IN THE MATTER OF SCOTT WOOD AN ATTORNEY AT LAW Decision Argued: Decided: February 6, 2003 April 8, 2003 Melissa A. Czartoryski

More information

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS

STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS STATE OF CONNECTICUT LABOR DEPARTMENT CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF LABOR RELATIONS IN THE MATTER OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 443 -AND- MAURICE W. SMITH DECISION NO. 4572 JANUARY 25, 2012 Case No. MUPP-29,177 A P

More information

Teacher Fair Dismissal Law Effective July 1, 2014

Teacher Fair Dismissal Law Effective July 1, 2014 Teacher Fair Dismissal Law Effective July 1, 2014 Sec. 10-151. Employment of teachers. Definitions. Tenure. Notice and hearing on failure to renew or termination of contract. Appeal. (a) For the purposes

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Robert J. Romanick, : Appellant : : v. : : Rush Township and the : No. 1852 C.D. 2012 Rush Township Board of Supervisors : Argued: March 12, 2013 BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

Michigan Employment Relations Commission

Michigan Employment Relations Commission Michigan Employment Relations Commission City of Oak Park, Respondent-Public Employer, and Police Officers Association of Michigan, Charging Party-Labor Organization Docket No. C95 J-204 10 MPER (LRP)

More information

Disciplinary procedure

Disciplinary procedure Disciplinary procedure This procedure sets out the process for dealing with disciplinary matters for all employees working for Consilium Academies. The procedure was approved by the Trust Board of Directors

More information

ARTICLE 11 GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 11 GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ARTICLE 11 GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE 11.1 Policy/Informal Resolution. The parties agree that

More information

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI & ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ASSOCIATION, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 111

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI & ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ASSOCIATION, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 111 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN: ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI & ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ASSOCIATION, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, LODGE 111 11/16/2016 Final Draft for Approval TABLE OF CONTENTS PREAMBLE

More information

TOWN OF LAKEVIEW CHIEF OF POLICE APPLICATION

TOWN OF LAKEVIEW CHIEF OF POLICE APPLICATION TOWN OF LAKEVIEW CHIEF OF POLICE APPLICATION The Town of Lakeview is an equal employment opportunity employer. The Town considers applicants for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, sex,

More information

Section VI.F.: Student Discipline Procedures for Non-Academic Misconduct

Section VI.F.: Student Discipline Procedures for Non-Academic Misconduct Section VI.F.: Student Discipline Procedures for n-academic Misconduct These procedures supplement and clarify Section VI.F of the Lone Star College System District Policy Manual ( Policy Manual ) last

More information

Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN

Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESTIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN Medical Staff Bylaws Part 2: INVESIGATIONS, CORRECTIVE ACTION, HEARING AND APPEAL PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION

More information

STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION. vs. R.A.A.C. Order No Referee Decision No U Employer/Appellee

STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION. vs. R.A.A.C. Order No Referee Decision No U Employer/Appellee STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION In the matter of: Claimant/Appellant vs. R.A.A.C. Order No. 13-01389 Referee Decision No. 13-641U Employer/Appellee ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE

More information