EVEN KEY EMPLOYEE MAY BE DISCIPLINED FOR MISCONDUCT IN ARMY TANK COMMAND

Case: AFGE Local 1658 and Army Tank-Automotive Command

Arbitrator: E Frank Cornelius, PhD, JD, Website: arbitrator.org,

full text accessible from OPINIONS icon on website

Email: frankcornelius@alum.MIT.edu

Decision Date: September 6, 2011

Citations: 11-2 ARB ¶ 5361, 2011 WL 7637774, 111 LRP 61232

US Soldiers in an Army Tank

The Grievance

The case involved a grievance filed by American Federation of Government Employees Local 1658 against U.S. Army Tank Command concerning a five-day suspension imposed on a GS-13 Logistics Management Specialist with more than 35 years of federal and military service. The employee had originally faced a proposed ten-day suspension for two alleged offenses: unprofessional conduct during temporary duty travel in London, Ontario, and misuse of a government travel credit card. Management later reduced the discipline to five days, but the union challenged it through the grievance process and proceeded to arbitration.

A Central Issue

A central issue was whether management had properly identified the employee’s misconduct. The arbitrator found that the agency initially charged the employee with “unprofessional conduct” but later attempted, during arbitration, to characterize the conduct as “fighting/creating a disturbance,” a more serious allegation carrying harsher penalties. The arbitrator held that changing the charge late in the process violated due process principles because federal employees are entitled to clear notice of the specific allegations against them before discipline is imposed.

Arbitrator's Analysis

The arbitrator also gave little weight to the government credit-card issue, viewing it as a minor mistake rather than serious misconduct. The employee had inadvertently used the wrong card for a personal expense, promptly disclosed the error, and reimbursed the government. The opinion stated that the incident should not have been treated as a meaningful disciplinary offense.

Another major issue involved an earlier “Polanco” incident that management attempted to treat as a prior offense for purposes of progressive discipline. The arbitrator questioned whether the prior event counted as discipline because it had never been formally documented as a reprimand or suspension and had instead resulted in anger-management counseling without a clear written agreement. Because there was no proper documentation, the arbitrator viewed management’s reliance on it as problematic.

Due Process and Procedural Fairness

Overall, the opinion emphasized procedural fairness and due process. The arbitrator criticized the agency’s shifting rationale and weak documentation and signaled that discipline must be based on clearly stated charges and established procedures rather than retroactive reinterpretation of events.