By Jim Cline and Abagail Klonsinski
In City of Port Angeles, Arbitrator Susan Bauman found there was just cause to terminate a patrol officer who failed to meet the Department’s standards of ethical conduct. The Officer had failed to timely file a report regarding a potential sexual assault and was untruthful throughout an Internal Affairs investigation, which she concluded supported termination rather than lesser progressive discipline.
In March 2022, the Officer responded to a call during which a woman alleged that a physician at Olympic Medical Center had wrongly touched her and made inappropriate comments about her breasts. The officer initially closed the call HBO (“handled by officer”), indicating no follow-up was needed. Several days later, the Officer again met the woman, where she repeated the allegations of inappropriate conduct by the physician. The officer again closed the case as HBO.
The Officer later learned other women alleged similar complaints against the same physician. The Officer brought this to the attention of another detective and eventually, the Detective Sergeant searched for the report on the allegations. The Officer then created a report on the prior incidents. Upon review, the Detective Sergeant discovered the allegations had been made months prior. This finding was reported to the Deputy Chief and an internal investigation followed. Throughout the investigation, the Officer offered numerous reasons for failing to complete a report about the possible sexual assaults. The Officer was terminated, a grievance was timely filed, and arbitration ensued.
The Union argued that, considering the Officer’s years of service and lack of prior written warnings or suspensions, termination was too harsh a punishment under progressive discipline. They further argued that the City could not prove the Officer had lied or been dishonest.
The City argued there was just cause to terminate the officer. He had notice of the probable consequences for a finding of dishonesty in an internal investigation, the investigation was fair and objective, and there was substantial evidence supporting the termination. The Officer’s inconsistent reasoning for why he failed to file a report could “only be construed as an intent to deceive,” and his actions were “a cascading snowball of dishonesty.”
In her decision, Arbitrator Bauman discussed that despite whether the Officer intended to lie, his actions were untruthful. By continually changing his reasoning for why he failed to file a report, the Officer proved his initial responses were incomplete. Further, the Officer had multiple time blocks in which to write a report, yet he failed to do so. The Arbitrator identified that lying was a serious problem for the Department and could impact its ability to call on certain members. Thus, PAPD had just cause to terminate the officer. She concluded that:
“There can be no progressive discipline, no lesser penalty, when a police officer cannot provide complete and honest answers to questions asked of him.”
In this case the arbitrator’s analysis seemed a bit muddled but so were the presented facts. Did the officer intentionally lie or was he sloppy in reporting facts? It seems that ultimately the fact that the officer was also sloppy in filing critical reports.
There does seem to be support for the union’s argument that the overall problem of the officer here was incompetency, not dishonesty. But after hearing all the witnesses, that wasn’t the arbitrator’s conclusion. Often what is pivotal in termination arbitration cases is intangible whether the grievant is presented as an officer worthy of returning to employment. If a grievance comes across as dodgy or insensible, many arbitrators may conclude that the employer is bearing to great a risk if forced to accept the employee back.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Employee Misconduct**
