Since we have, in the past, noted cases where Austin Police Department (and Austin Fire Department) officers have won arbitrator’s rulings over disciplinary actions, simple fairness requires us to note this article in yesterday’s Statesman:
Certainly not the impression I had. However, if you read down a little more in the article…
So if the arbitrators have upheld 10 of 23, that implies they haven’t upheld the remaining 13, right? So is it fair to say “employees have lost that battle more frequently than not”?
In fairness to the author of the article, he goes on to state:
• Arbitrators have overturned only a single police disciplinary case.
• Arbitrators have agreed that officers erred in five cases but reduced their punishment.
My impression is that he’s grouping those as “wins” for the employees. That accounts for six out of 13. What of the other seven?
I think the author is counting the five settlements as “wins” for the city, where I would count a settlement as a “win” for the employee. Reasonable people can differ on this, and I’m not sure there’s enough evidence in the article to resolve that difference. Let’s be fair and count a settlement as a “tie”. By that count, I make it 11-6-5 (counting the withdrawn appeal as a “win” for the city).
Also interesting: