by another six months of bureaucratic compunctions however the arbitrator found that there was no violation because the parties not agreed to a hard and fast timeline but what about the fact that as they're attempting to do this investigation there are additional problems that that then get wrapped up and yes you are and that was the arbitrator's argument is that the subsequent conduct appellant was actually the cause of the of the delay however the parties agreed to timely disposition disciplinary actions and investigations and so even though it was there  additional cut the charges additional conduct by the appellate they had every right in fact a contractual obligation to timely dispose of the investigation but it sets up kind of a perverse a concept here that that as long as the employee keeps doing things head and therefore delays the overall consideration of his behavior that that that then the employee at the back end can say well you took too long correct your honor however again that the parties did agree to progressive disciplinary actions and timely just so timely disposition of investigations and disciplinary actions if they'd followed the collective bargaining agreement and complied with these terms they would have enforce progressive discipline charging him and disciplined him for each charge as opposed to combining all three do you have any case law that says that that that's an obligation under a collective bargaining agreement written like this that you have to to separate the disciplinary infraction no your honor i've found no federal case because i don't think that would have been an appeal issue for this court there were arbitrated cases which of course not binding on this court looking at a sixty two and sixty two subsection c stating that the party's indorse the concept of progressive discipline print designed primarily to correct and improve behavior and then subsection d stating that the parties indorse the concept of timely disposition of investigation and disciplinary actions that those arbitration cases you cited do make the point that that progressive discipline is is appropriate but they don't say anything about and obligation to address each infraction before you get to the other infraction that's correct ok however again it's our contention that the green was timely disposition of each infraction and according to the arbitrator's own words in this  case it seemed as though they were combining all three charges an effort to make the charges against the appellant seem more than what they were what is progressing doesn't want me well the parties in the contract is does not define that and of investigations in disciplinary actions what's what but if you had three if it was permissible permissible two to go on and then two comes along and you want to see what too is it's obviously going to take longer to that it does if you if you write one after the other yes you're on i mean you can imagine a situation where there's a charge won that they're in the process of investigating and something comes up and there's a charge to and they investigate that and they determine that in church too there really wasn't a problem they misunderstood something and that might be to the benefit of the employee because when they say well gee in that second charge which we're looking at we we realize we made a mistake and that and  also and so can may i was lying to us in that same inmate was the one that was blowing the whistle on the first charge that we had to go back and talk to him again it could benefit the employer yes your honor but in this case it did not and that's what we recognize  because each one standing alone might not support the terminations is that what you're saying your honor it was the athletes on testimony that the reason they proposed removal was because all three charges together and the ultimate decision maker in this case ronnie chandler also stated that it was the repetitive behavior the fact that all three charges came to him at once that was a motivating factor for him to sustain the removal i got i understand you factors to the arbitrator fly the table penalties as a controlling factor and three that the arbitrator added charges that were never brought and compared to similar offenses to the table penalties due to time constraints i'm  to discuss the first argument in the first argument is the arbitrator fail to consider two very important douglas factors in this case the first would be the consistency of the penalty with other charges against similar ploy he's and the ultimate decision maker in this case admitted that he did not review the disciplinary logs for this very institution and if he had he would have seen that similar charges against other employees resulted in much lesser penalties also the second important douglas factor the arbitrator failed to consider with the effect of the offense upon the employee's ability to form a satisfactory level and its effect on the supervisors confidence in the employee's ability to perform assigned duties you mention in your br make which one was that on a one eighty four i couldn't find that you know you're on i think what you're referring to and i noted that mistaken preparation was kind of upset not included but  have to be considered that douglas factors are just that they're factors and not in every case they don't necessarily have to be listed you don't have to go through the let me so how do you get around  are of course you don't have to address each and every douglass factor however i believe the cases from him as p b tell us that if there are important and relevant factors those must be discussed and must be analyzed by the arbitrator and again the two would be the first one and  the second one the effect of the conduct on the abilities of the employee's ability to perform a job the appellate testified that there was no evidence that the supervisors had lost trust there or confidence in his ability to but that was before he knew that he was building dark ages with the prisoners and by him fried chicken and i mean it's hard to relight a performance evaluation when it doesn't it it didn't take into account a lation of the collective bargaining agreement because although the investigation was slow the collective bargaining agreement didn't have hard and fast timelines and the pace here did not violate anything in the collective bargaining agreement pretty early because mr williams own conduct did exacerbate the time frame within which the investigation could take place i would point out that before the investigation was actually clue did mr williams second the second specification of misconduct had been committed by mr williams and within only ten days after the official the office of internal affairs investigation being completed the third evidence of misconduct had come to light so  additional instances of misconduct this is not case where the agency completed an investigation and then did absolutely nothing for a period of time and as time was going by they dug up a couple of other infractions this is something where during the investigation mr williams went ahead that and commit it more misconduct and more misconduct came to life so first of all i don't believe there is any case that precludes an agency from including more than one charge if additional instances of misconduct happen to occur while the agency's investigation is occurring seven why did it take so long for the first investment well the agency was extremely thorough they got affidavits from not only all of the inmates they got affidavits from every individual who worked at the prison who had access to that area or to keys as and and tourney who does litigation as well as appellate argument i know that sometimes getting an affidavit from an individual can take three or four meetings the year you have to identify the person you meet with them the first time you might draft an affidavit you might go back with them to make sure that the wording of the affidavit is accurate according to them and then if there are any changes you make changes so it took about four months to get a substantial number of affidavits that was in the bed the first four months the agency continued so that was i think through june they got the first batch of affidavit and there were a few more that they got toward the january of two thousand and nine was when mr williams second incident of misconduct occurred so the agency began investigating that and taking affidavits from the individuals involved in that is kind of act and then when the investigation was finally have even resulted in any kind of investigation or discipline if the if the dog cage incident wasn't still hanging over his head possibly not but the fact is that it was then that the the agency's proposing exciting official define that that indicated a pattern they could in fact removed mr williams from his position that he held at the time of the dog cage building was as foreman of the garage in charge of the garage area they took him out of that  moved him to the construction foreman area as an interim sort of action if you will well it was an appealable action but it was an action to deal with the charges against him and it was when he was in this new k other people that have done the same thing in this very prison have received less patently ordinarily and that much b b q she would see that subject matter discussed new plan well not if the arbitrator didn't find that it was something that weighed heavily on the deciding and i have to check on the time frame to see if that was indeed afterwards but the deciding official was questioned by mr williams attorney about the consistency of the penalty in the log disciplinary logs were put before the deciding michel and he was able to identify other employed in the agency and i just say maybe ridiculous and i hear someone who spent all this money to her lawyer to really try to fight at least if not to upset all the charges to get not fired to save their job better way of saying would be to say actions if you really want to be remain employed the appear charged with this dark age of this dark age incident is under investigation anybody who sincerely wants to follow the rules of they are employed employment and remain employed is going to do absolutely everything they can to dot every i cross every t follow every possible regulation and instead mr williams was sitting there playing cards and so you're saying that what the  course of self destructive activity i think that's a much better way of saying and i think that probably is exactly what the arbitrator meant that the arbitrators discussion again and it may not have you know explicitly identified the doctors factors by factor and then discussed each fac r very neatly but the arbitrator clearly discussed his position as a lawyer and this is me a law enforcement officer and how his conduct and his ongoing conduct was not indicative of someone who was aware of the obligations attending to that in the seriousness of the misconduct with which he was charged cage builder pun intended yes in an effort to secure the germination by cumulatively charging the grief and for various offenses simultaneously to create a weighty effect upon the oversight tribunal so that is what happened in this case and as far as procedures stating that you specifically cannot add different charges that's true that's not in the collective bargaining agreement but again the purpose of that agreement with the timeliness and the progressive discipline is again to keep from this from happening what happened in this case where somebody is hit with all these charges again apparently to create a weighty effect on the oversight dr you know as far as the consistency of the penalty  the decision maker in this case run chandler admitted that he had not even reviewed the disciplinary logs before making this decision so as far as whether he was making an accurate decision with that regard again he admitted he hadn't even seen these for the institution but it's not a question of whether they knew they were being consistent it's a question of whether they actually work and so i would agree with that and a final point is regarding the statement from the arbitrator that it didn't appear as though this employee want to keep his job and it was really more than self destructive activity if you look back to two charges the two subsequent charges were very minimal i mean that the card playing it which we don't have in an argument sufficient evidence to prove that that conduct even occurred there were cards on the table supervisor walks in and there was a dispute as to whether even it carves and so we we can't question whether it occurred there that that's a factual finding who is a stranger was an inmate another institution it again is not a serious charge nor misconduct in this case very well thank you