As we learned at our NPELRA Winter Conference this year, there’s been a noted decline in law enforcement disciplinary arbitrations since the new rules for peace officer discipline were created by the legislature following the murder of George Floyd.  The panel of arbitrators that presented at the conference noted that many of the cases that would previously be taken to arbitration appeared to be settling prior to the hearing, most likely due to the fear of a relatively unknown arbitrator’s preferences.

One of the arbitrators to present at the conference was arbitrator Susan Gaertner, and she was finally given the opportunity to exercise her judgment in the recent arbitration State of Minnesota Department of Public Safety and Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Association.  In that case, a long-term Technical Sergeant for the State Patrol was terminated after it was determined he falsified inspection records as part of a federal vehicle inspection program, for which the State Patrol received federal funding.

The State’s termination case was built on four separate charges.  First, the grievant did not perform the level of inspection he claimed to have performed and falsely reported the information.  Second, he failed to perform “Red-dye” inspections of commercial motor vehicles, but claimed to have done so. Third, he did not place vehicles out of service after finding significant equipment defects.  Fourth, he turned off his squad’s camera when performing traffic stops, in violation of State Patrol policy.

The State had no issue proving that the conduct had been committed – the grievant admitted to not completing the duties he was obligated to perform.  The crux of the Union’s argument fell, rather, on the fact that a civilian commercial vehicle inspector, having a similar work history, was only issued a 30-day suspension for similar violations, while the grievant in the instant case was terminated.

Arbitrator Gaertner agreed that the conduct by the two individuals was similar, but found the two employees not to be similarly situated based on their duties and expectations.  First, the union conceded that “law enforcement officers ought to be held to a higher standard than the average civilian since they are tasked with protecting the safety and security of the public.”  The arbitrator went on to state:

The powers of a sworn officer go far beyond that of a Commercial Vehicle Inspector.  A trooper enforces laws relating to critical public safety issues such as DWI’s, guns and drugs.  Troopers can conduct a probable cause search.  They can serve warrants, and seize individuals and property.  They carry a weapon.  They are authorized to use deadly force where appropriate.  None of that can be said of CVIs.  The public rightfully expects that with such authority comes great responsibility.

And while the grievant’s personal work history included exemplary performance ratings and no previous discipline, the arbitrator found that the history did “not serve to mitigate the serious misconduct for which he was disciplined.”  Therefore, the termination was upheld.

While many employers may be hesitant to dip their toes in the water of the new process for police discipline arbitrations, this is a very promising award, and helpful language for employers to rely upon for future police disciplinary actions.  If you, or your organization, need assistance in investigating or arbitrating police disciplinary matters, contact Wiley Reber Law, for experience that works.