IN THE MATTER OF MICHIGAN STATE POLICE TROOPERS ASSOCIATION, Grievant Grievance No, TA-02D18/1A-007-18 and Trooper Discharge Arbitration MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, Employer. Steven T. Lett, Arbitrator ‘Timothy J. Dlugps (P57179) White Schneider PC Attomey for Grievant 1223 Tumner Si. Ste. 200 Lansing, MI 48906 Ph. 517349 7744 Inspector Matthew Bolger Michigan Department of State Police 333 S. Grand Av PO Box 30634 Lansing, MI 48909 Ph. 517 241 1399 AWARDFACTS ‘The Michigan State Police Troopers Association (MSPTA or Union) lists several issues shat ii poses must be decided in this termination case. 1. Did the Michigan Department of State Police (MSP or employer) violate Article 7, Section 18 by not adhering to the 90 day time limit for the filing of proposed disciplinary ‘action and written notice to the employee. 2, Did the 15 dey suspension for conduct arising out ofthe same transaction and ocewrrence and the subsequent termination amouat to double jeopardy under a just cause standard of i ipline. ‘Under a just cause review did Trp. commit any misconduct. 4, Ifmiseonductis proven does the punishment fit the crime under just cause. Issue number 1 will be dispositive if proven by the Union, es a violation of Article 7, Bill of Rights, Section 18, Limitation. “Disciplinary action shall be proposed, and written notice to the employee provided, within 90 days ofthe occurrence or the Employer's knowledge of the occurrence giving rise to the disciplinary action, whichever occurs last, excep that this limit shall be tolled during any periods of time that the employee is the subject of ectve criminal investigation or prosecution. However, nothing contained herein shall preclude the Employer from using suck prior employee conduct during any disciplinary proceeding or from using such conduct 0 demonstrate 2 course of unsatisfactory performance or conduct.” Tr. vas hired on July 18, 2004 and has no prior disciplinary record. termination is the result of actions or iractions that began on June 17, 2017. On that date Tr. made a waflic stop on a car with three passengers inthe ear. one of whom was the som of the county sheriff. Trp. found a backpack that contained 7 individual bags of spaxijuana. Trp. isoued a citation for no seat belt and possession of marijuana end ‘wrote a report of the incident. Four months later on October 12, 2017, a Blue Team Administrative Complaint wascentered by F/Lt, Darrow, alleging that on June 17, 2017 Trp. failed to take proper law enforcement action when conducting the trafic stop when the pessenger admitted the marijuana ‘was for the purpose of selling. Also that he contacted the county sheriff telling him his son was selling marijuana end that Trp. ‘was villing to do anything to help make this go away. In addition Trp. tumed off his in-cer video and audio during the traffic stop. F/Lt. Darrow, the Post Commander, requised Tp. to file a supplemental report which was done on October 16,2017. F/Lt Darrow did aot believe Trp. was being trothfal in this report, see 3 7, SpULt. Johnson report for |A-136-17. As 2 result of these actions on the part of Trp. hhe was charged, with among other things, violation of Article 4, Code of Conduct, Section 4.29, which states, “Members shall not intentionelly felsify any report or document in recording official department activity or intentionally omit material facts from any such report or docurnent.” ‘A sertlement agreement was reached and Trp. accepted responsibility for, among items, a violation of 4 29, intentionally falsifying 2 report. He received a 15 day suspension, 1A.007-18 was opened on January 9, 2018, the position of the Union that this 1A arises out of the same transaction and occurrence as that of A-136-17, Further that the employer knew or should have known of the untruthful statements when F/Lt, Dertow interviewed Trp ‘As early 2s October 16, 2017 F/Lt. Darrow thinks Trp. is lying and on October 25, 2017 states thet to IA. Perthe Union in order for the Statement of Charges (SOC) re ‘ee timely the employer could not have known tha: Trp. was lying andlor falsifying reports until on or after November 15, 2017, that being 90 before February 13, 2018 “The Employer states the issue as, “Was there just cause to terminate the Grievant, for lying to investigators when ordered 10 tll the truth on November 20, 2017 and January 29, 20187" “The statement of charges dated February 15, 2018 charge a violation of Offical Order 1, “Article 4, Sections 45 and 4.35 and are, “ You were involved in aa incident in October, 2017 that was investigated es 1A-136-I7. Dusing that investigation, you lied to your commanding officer on October 16, 2017, as well as an IA investigator en November 20, 2017 during your