Opinion ID: 2343876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Interference with Spannbauer's right to a predisciplinary hearing

Text: The City and the Department contend that substantial evidence does not support the EMRB's conclusion that the Department improperly deprived Spannbauer of a predisciplinary hearing. While conceding that Spannbauer might have been told by his union representative that the Department was considering treating him as a probationary employee, the City and Department deny any further conversation on the subject with Spannbauer or his representative until being informed that Spannbauer had decided to resign. And pointing out that Spannbauer voluntarily resigned, the City and the Department argue that nothing in the record supports the conclusions that resignation was thrust upon Spannbauer and that the City and Department interfered with, coerced, or restrained Spannbauer from pursuing a predisciplinary hearing. We disagree. The record reveals that the City and Department discouraged Spannbauer from proceeding with a hearing and prompted his resignation by indicating that he might be treated as a probationary employee, which could severely limit his future career prospects. Moreover, he was allowed to resign only after signing a waiver of his rights to pursue claims against the City and Department. By doing so, the City and Department interfered with Spannbauer's right to a predisciplinary hearing, which is a violation of his undisputed rights under the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Department. Accordingly, the EMRB's findings are not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious, and there exists substantial evidence to support its finding that the City and Department violated Spannbauer's right to proceed through the grievance process.