Opinion ID: 4149524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discipline as to Elliott

Text: MONOC had issued four disciplinary units to Elliott, a full-time emergency medical technician (“EMT”), for violating company policy prohibiting the carrying of a patient. Under Article 6(1)(C)(iii)(a) of the CBA, MONOC had the right to impose four disciplinary units for the first incident that causes physical harm to a person due to a violation of MONOC policies and procedures. (App. 766a.) There is no dispute that in 10 August of 2012 Elliott had carried a hospice patient in his arms in violation of MONOC Policy No. 726. The patient complained of pain at the time of the improper handling, and the patient’s wife later complained to MONOC that the improper handling had caused the patient pain and aggravated an existing back injury. Two MONOC investigators who looked into the incident spoke with Elliott and the patient’s wife about the allegations. PEMSA concedes that Elliott violated the policy by carrying the patient in his arms, the patient complained of pain during the improper handling,4 Elliott failed to file an incident report with regard to the incident, and the patient’s wife later complained to MONOC about the incident. PEMSA argues that MONOC’s decision to impose the disciplinary units was improper because (1) the evidence was insufficient to show that Elliott’s actions caused the patient harm; and (2) MONOC did not conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation into the incident. There was, however, a factual basis for MONOC’s finding that the patient suffered physical harm. The discipline imposed is not inconsistent with the terms of the CBA. Furthermore, the CBA explicitly gives MONOC investigating managers the discretion to determine credibility and whether the evidence warrants discipline. PEMSA’s disagreement with how MONOC conducted its investigation and with the weight MONOC accorded certain evidence ignores the fact that the CBA ceded to MONOC the prerogative of making credibility determinations and that “such 4 PEMSA disputes the characterization of the patient’s complaints as “crying out” in pain, but acknowledges that the patient “stated ‘[o]uch that hurts’” during the improper handling. (Appellant Br. 7) 11 determinations may form the basis in whole, or in part, for disciplinary action.” (App. 764a.) Discipline imposed based upon determinations left to the discretion of MONOC does not violate the CBA. Thus, because MONOC’s actions in imposing the disciplinary units on Elliott were in accordance with the discretion provided to it under the CBA, the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of MONOC.