|
Snohomish County was wrong in terminating two corrections officers, arbitrator rules
An arbitrator has ruled that the termination of two Snohomish County juvenile corrections officers was unjustified.
The arbitrator, Joe Henderson, ordered that the officers be reinstated to their former positions. He also ordered that they receive back pay, seniority rights and benefits that they would have earned had they been employed after they were terminated.
Describing the officers as “exemplary employees,” Henderson said the penalty of termination was too severe in this case. The officers had been placed in an untenable situation because of the actions of their supervisor, he added.
The arbitration hearing was told the officers started working at Juvenile Court Aug. 21, 2000. Each obtained a required statement of fitness for participation in the Physical Training Basic Corrections Academy. They were notified they had been accepted into the Academy for Oct. 30 to Nov. 10, 2000.
But, before the Academy started, the officers asked to postpone their attendance for personal reasons. They were accepted into the Academy that would begin May 12, 2001.
In the meantime — on April 30, 2001— taking a Physical Abilities Test had been made a requirement for the Academy.
The officers were told that they would not need to take the test if they would sign a waiver form. The officers refused to sign the waiver as they believed that signing the waiver would mean they would not have health coverage.
At subsequent meetings, the officers took the same position and they were not admitted to the academy.
The County terminated the officers’ employment and charged them with neglect of duty, insubordination, failing to deal with officials in a courteous and professional way, and violating a lawful order of a superior.
The officers filed a grievance against the County.
Council 2 represented the officers in the arbitration hearing.
The County told the hearing that the officers were required to attend the Academy, but were unable to do so because they had refused to sign the waiver. Because attendance at the Academy was a requirement of service, they had been terminated.
County officials said they had told the officers they should not be worried about medical coverage as they would be covered by Labor and Industries regulations while on the job. The officers denied being told this.
Henderson found that the officers did not willfully or deliberately refuse to obey a direct order to file a statement of explanation. Requiring them to sign a broad waiver violated the fair investigation standard, he added.
The penalty of termination was too severe in this case, Henderson said.
“The grievants’ actions, at worst, consist of failure to verify the
directions of their supervisor with someone higher in the management chain Those actions do not amount to insubordination.
“The grievants were exemplary employees who were placed in an untenable situation by the negligence of their supervisor.”
Termination for a one-time incident is excessive and punitive rather than corrective, Henderson added.
Henderson also ruled that a letter of reprimand be placed in the file of each grievant for failure to timely submit a written statement explaining why they refused to sign a waiver of liability.
David M. Kanigel, Legal Counsel, appeared for Council 2 in the hearing.
|
 |
