In Arbitration Victory, Termination Reduced to Suspension with Full Back Pay
June 16, 2009
In a recent arbitration victory, Arbitrator Walter Kaufman supported the contention of IAEP Attorney Linda Ledesma-Mouzon that the punishment imposed by AMR on a paramedic was inappropriate. The arbitrator set aside the termination of the paramedic, and reduced it to a 30-day suspension.
The grievant in the case began working for AMR in Los Angeles as an EMT in 2002 and later transferred to Riverside where he became a paramedic. On March 12, 2008, at the end of a 12-hour shift, the grievant and his partner dropped off a patient at Riverside Hospital and started back to the station. They contacted dispatch and informed them that they were leaving the hospital and returning to the station.
When the grievant and his partner returned to the station they saw two parked cars, which belonged to the oncoming crew, in the parking lot. The lights were on in the station and the personal belongings of the oncoming crew were in the station; the oncoming crew was not in the station.
The grievant called dispatch and confirmed that the oncoming crew was working that night. The grievant and his partner assumed the crew was nearby getting a sandwich. After restocking the ambulance and doing some tasks, the grievant and his partner left. The grievant locked the station.
Prior to the grievant and his partner returning to the station, the oncoming crew members had arrived, clocked in, and gone to a nearby location for a meal. However, they left their keys to the station inside the station with the doors unlocked. When they returned to the station they found themselves locked out. They called dispatch and the operations supervisor was sent to let them in.
The grievant was subsequently terminated for allegedly "abandoning" his shift. The oncoming crew were given only "records of conversation," and the grievant's partner received a written warning.
As part of his investigation, Mike Van Leuven, the local president, met with the communications manager, Mark Karlin. They listened to the dispatch tapes of the calls made during the incident. At the arbitration, the Union submitted an e-mail from Mr. Karlin, in which he stated that he had listened to the tapes of the dispatch conversations, confirmed that the grievant was never advised that he was held over, and concluded that the grievant had not abandoned his shift.
Apparently, AMR disregarded this information and Mr. Karlin's opinion.
AMR argued that the arbitrator could not change the punishment imposed, as only management could decide upon the proper penalty. However, the arbitrator agreed with Union counsel and the cases she cited, that an employer must prove the alleged misconduct and that the penalty imposed was justified under the circumstances.
The arbitrator agreed with Attorney Mouzon that when the grievant contacted dispatch to confirm that the relief crew was still scheduled, dispatch failed to notify him that he was subject to a mandatory holdover—which the Union's contract explicitly calls for.
The grievant testified that, in the past, when he had been asked to hold over, he did so "many times."
The arbitrator also agreed that it was proper for the grievant to lock the station when leaving it unoccupied and that the oncoming crew were negligent in leaving their keys at the station. The arbitrator also found that there was a "glaring disparity" between the discharge imposed on the grievant and the discipline imposed on the oncoming crew.
The arbitrator concluded that the grievant was not discharged for just cause and reduced the termination to a 30-day suspension. The arbitrator ordered the company to reinstate the grievant without loss of seniority and with full back pay.
Other Top Stories and Info
