EEFQRE SEAN d9 RQGERS in the Maitar 53f Arbitratien between; i QRQER 0F PQLEQE DEPARTMENT LAEGR Unim?: arid FMCS Na. PQLECE QEPARTMENTS EESTREQT SQLUMEEA Empiayen 5 {?riemnt Michaei Suggw??wams} QPENEQN AME APPEARANCES: {En behaif sf the Fraternai GE?er a? Pmiim Sem?ment Labm? Marc L. Wiihite, Saw, Presseier $1 Senftie, PC. a- reprasem?fng the U?ian. an behaif a? tha Metmm?tan Peiice ?apa?mgm, ?istrict @f Saiumbia: Senia L. Esq, Asaistam Amway Generai, Office the Generai, {District 01? Caiumbia m- represem?ing five Empfayar. PRQGEQURAL QF AREETRATEQN Thig arbitraticn ariges Gut a disgute between the Fraternai Qrder e31? Paiice??etmpeiimn Paiice Labm Department Cgmmi?ee or Unian) am? the Metmpaiitan Paiice Depa?manti Distriet 53f Caiumbia (MP3 m? Empioyer} {mi?ec?veiy the Parties). The tekee piece eursueht te the Letter Agreement Between the Gevemment ef the Qietriet ef Metrepeiiteh Petice Departmeht end the Fretemei Greer of Peiice MP9 Leber Cemmittee (SBA). etteettve FY 2098. Pursuant te (SBA Artteie 12, Seetteh 8, and Artteie 19, Grievehee the FQP Qcteher 23, 23639 terminatieh et Mteheet Sugg?Edwerde (Grieveht er Stage-Edwards). At the time evehte giving rise te the incident the beets et? eetteh SuggnEdwerds wee te the Fifth Bistrtet (5E3). The Parties were ehehie te resetve the dispute through the grievance end FQP te erhitretieh. Frem eehet et arbitraters erevtded by the Federei Medtetteh ehd Cenettietieh Service, i was seteeted by the Perttee td the dispute, The eetehitshes that as regards the Grieveht?e terminetieh, Adveree Aetteh Pehet (Pehei) hearing, DRE Ne. 432428, was hetd eh Oeteher 8, 2083: Theretere. pursuant te GSA Arttete 12, Seetteh 8, he hearing wee heid end this Award is based eeiety er: the eetehttehed in the Pehei theiedthg the Ferret hearing transcript Cite Juty 18 end August 11, 2314, MP9 submitted the Ferret errd heerihg the. The Pertiee? eeurtsets estebttehed eehedeie tersuhthieeteh ethrtets end re'piteet On September 2e14, Arhitretieh Brief Brief} was received. Oh er ehedt Oeteher ?34? 2314, Agehey Arbitratieh Brief in Support et Remevei et hitteheet Segg?Edwerde Frem the Qtetrtet et Ceiemhie Peitee Department (MPH) Brief) wee submitted. @h Nevemher 18, Emit, 2914, Grieveht?e Rehty Brief (Repty) wee received. Thereafter, the This Qpihieh and Award te hesed en the entire Pehei transcript and the Parties? tt eehsidete the Parties? etgurhehte, interprets and eppites the Agreement end werh retee er: the tests eetehiiehed at the Pehei heedth THE ESSUE Whether the Grieveht?e termtraetteh wee fer it net, whet ehett he the remedy? ANS ee SQDE the Leber Agreemeet titetween the Gevemmeet ef the District et Cetumeie Peir?ee Department and the Freternei Greer ea? Peir'ee Leber Cemmittee etteetive FY EGGS: ARTESLE QESQEPLENE Seetten 't I The parties agree that discipline is menegement right that tree net been abridged except as eetitnee in thte Article Dieetettee may he eniy fer ee eethertzee in DE. Ottietet Cede 14518.51 155? Seettee 8 Upen receipt etthe ef the Chief et? Pettee err adverse eettene, the emeieyee may te erettretten ee in Arttete 19, rnuet tree the negettetee grievance fer euepeneien than ten (tit) days? in where hearing hee been hete, any further eheti he eeiety en the eetehliehee in the Depertmentet heering. in such ease, the trihenet hes the eutherity te review the re?ne efthe Depertmentet Hearing Ferrets and may take irate eeheteeretten any evidence which wee fresh eeneteeretten by the Heertne Penet. SHARQES SPEQEFECATEGNS Frerh the undated Memerendum te Qt?eer Mteheet Stage?Edwards, Sebjeet: Net?iee et Adverse Ashen: As et yeer deserthee in the etteehee investigative repert. the Department hereby ehergee yee with the tettewthg 3 Cherge Ne. Specificatieh Ne. 1: Charge Ne. 2: Ne. t: {Sheree Ne. 3.: Vieietieh at Generei {Brazier Series @821 Tehie ei end Peheitiee: Part A, #72 Cehvietieh er ehy member of the three in any ef eempeteht iuriedietieh of any crimihei er queeimerimihei eftehee, er et arty etiehee in which the member either eieede guiity, verdict hf ghiity er eehvietieh feiiewihg piee ef heie centehdere, er is deemed to have been inveived in the ?at may eat which weetd eehetitute crime. whether er het eeurt retieete eehvietieh. Memhere whe ere ef crimihei er eheii premptiy repert, er have reported their inveivemeht it?? their eemmenctihg ettieeri Yeti were feared guiity heyehri deubt ef ehe merit of Miedemeeher Sexeei Ahuee try Judge Jehh Beyiy et Superior Court cf the District at Ceiur?hhie on June 2? 2008? Vieietieh hf Generei Order Series Attachment A, Part Amg?g whieh reeds: ?Arty eehduet net eet ferth in this ercier, which ie te the reputatieh ehri geeci ertter ef the three, er inveivihg teiiure te ehey, er preperiy eheehre any of the ruiee, reguietiehe orders reietihg he the end perfermehee {if the terse.? Ae further specified in Generei Order Series 361, Number t, Peri: i~A~i which previdee, ?tithiy pereehhei he the vehieie ere eutherizee it) ride in it except that: may ride: When eetherized by generei erriere, in ee'ee et an emergency, er it they ere eh in that, en Nevember Zti?l eiiewed Met Rezieh ith yeur vehicie fer the ef driving her to gee etetieh end there te the Leve Nighteiuh. Vieietieh ef Generei Order Series 123.21, Attachment A, Peri A42, which reeds: ?Ceriduet unhecemihg err Gttieer iheiudihg ecte detrimehtei te geed dieeipiihe; eehrtiret that would edvereeiy effect the empieyee?e er the agency?s te etfeetiveiy, er Vieietiehe of any iew e? the United States, er ehy iew! municipei erciihehee, er reguietieh er the District ef Ceiumhiei? 4t- This is further defined in Generei Qrcier Series 231, Number 26, Part 1-8-22 which previctee, ??Memhere eheii eenduet their privete iivee and lives in such rnenner e3 te eveici bringing dieerectit ueen themeeivee er the Speeifieetien New t: in that, en Nevemher 16, met, yet: invited Men inte veer vehieie end her by teuehing her in eexeei manner? (Rx STAN EARD REVEEW The eetehiiehee that rnev he eniv ee authorized in Cede $816.51 The Parties; egree, end precedent eenfirrne, thet termirtetien et? the Grievent meet be affirmed by the Arbitreter it it ie eepperteri try evidence and ie net are matter er ievv.1 Sebetentiei evidence is ?that emeunt ef evidence ee n?rinrt might accept as adequate te eupperi The Arbitreter?e rnere disagreement with the Penei?e findings; er feet ie net greunde ter everturning the Grievent?e terrninetieni Hewever, heirie that ?evidence is net eubetentiet if it ie ee ?highiy eueetienebie in Eight et? eernnten exeerienee and knewiedge? that it {is} unwerthy et EESCUSSEQN t. The Pertiee Feuncieci in met, the Metrepeiiten ei the District of Ceiemhie (MP3 er Empiever) ie the District et Ceiurnhie?e primary tew enfereement agency. The Freternei {Bitter ef Petiee, Metrepeiiten Petiee Depertment Leher Cemrnittee er Unien) ie the representative ef unit eeneieting ef: privates, inveetigetere end rieeit eergeente, detectives! end eergeente ernpieyect in the uniterrned end pieineiethee teree efihe 1 Stokes v. BC, 502 A26 1906. ?iQ?iO 1985). 2 Ferreire v. DC Eepertrnent er? Empieyrnent Services, eer Ami 310i 312 (DC ?i385; 3 if. Baker, 5654 A26 ?it55, 1180 (DC: teegjtwithout internei citetientq 5 Metreheiiten Petite Department, tn the internai Affairs Divieien, exeineing management executives, eentitientiei eupervieere? end engaged in pereennei werk in ether then pnreiy eierieai eepeeity. (SBA, Artieie At the time hi the event giving rise to this dieeute, wee working ee petrei either in Fifth Dietriet (ED) ierthe Witt) te (MSG teur et duty. Sung?Edwards ie a et the bargaining unit represented by the FOP. ti. Statement eat the The dieeneeien heiew the reieirant enri meteriei tents ?harming the heeie et te terminate the Grievant end ie en the Penei?e hit! evidentiery findings ee reenit of the June 24, 2089 Penei hearing. Sente tents are dieenten the Parties end there ere differing hi the events. ee regaree the ineidentgiving riee tn the Grievent?e terminatien. The materiei enhetenee et ehaiienge et Sugg?Edwerrie? terminatien ie haeed en the feiiere and retueei et {Biene HeineeWeiten, Directer. Human Management Divieien. the Deciding anti Cethy L. Lenier, te adhere te the hi the Penei. the eetehiiehee that the Panei that the terminatien ei? Sngg?ewert?ie he mitigated te en Reprirnentt. Gentreryte the Penei?e Heineem?iftieiten reversed the Panei?e finding et net guiity en Charge hie. 3, Specification hie. 'i te geiity end terminetien. Thereafter, the thetdeniee grievance ei HeineeWeiten?e Finai {Rx 214, and On November i6, ZGGY, white en duty ene en heirei in an MPD vehinie, the Grieveni eheerved yeeng wetnen, Rezieh MeCuiinugh, at the center ei Fenwieh Street enti West Virginie Avenue, NE. She wee crying and eeparentiy On hie inquiry. ehe teiti the Grievent thet ehe wee unehie tn get inte the neerhy Leire Nighteieh with her friends. te the Grievant, eeheti hint fer a ride in neerhy gee eiatien with a hathreeni. The Grievent that he treneperted the wemeh in hie hit-3E3 vehieie te gee etetien at rear West Virginia Avenue, NE. At this point the Grievant anti ei the incident diverge. tn the Grievant, at the gee etetien need the hethreern white 6 he eetied her a taxtu Hewever, the Grievant that MeCutteegh did meet went te wait for the taxi and she aeked fer a ride hack te Leve thhtetuh. te the Grieveht, he dreeped her at the ehtrehce at the Leve Nightetuh. Security videe confirms that the Grieveht dropped MeCuHeegh at the entrance to the Leve Nighteteh. (Rx 255. Tr 39). MeCuttedgh'e etthe evehte differs. te after her gee etetiee hathreem break, the Grieveht dreve her he a area and parked between twe tractor traders? There she asserted? the Grieveet her end ereteh, teid her that he eedtd get her irate Leve thhteiuh, end asked what was she witiing to the he returns Met?luiteegh asserted that she teid the Grievehtte etee teaching her. get eut ef the NEEDED veh?cie and wathed heck te the Leve thhtetuh. Letter, during investigatteh er? the incident, she said the Grieveht drepeed her eff eat the Leve Nightetehu MeCetieegh reperted her version etthe the Grieveht te twe SD peitee ehteere eetetde the Leve Nightciuh. he reedtt et her repent, MP3 began an investigatteh assigning MW) Etetecttvee Cermieheei ehd Engrid Herhihe, - Sexeei Unit, te the thveettgetieht As efthe ihveettgettehg the Grievehtwes charged with mtedemeeher eexeai end erreeted eh January ?it, 2038. Oh June 2, 2668, fettewthg May 29, 20598 heheh that before Judge Jehh Beyiy, DC Seperier Ceurt, the Grievehtwae teehd guitty er misdemeeher eexeet ehuee errd received a-ehenhurrdred day eeseehded eehtehee; ehenyeer supervised prehetieh; end a tide and eeurt ceete tetetihg ehentheueehd deiiars. - (3h Qcteher 8, 2998, MP3 initiated the dteeipithar?y eetterr et termihetieh of the Grieveht fer charges feehd in the Netiee et Adverse Aetieh which is ddeted eheve. (Rx 3). Or: June 24, ZGGQ, the Grievant appeared hefere eh Adverse Aetterr Hearing Ferret, knewrr as a Trtet Beard. The Ferret fedhd the Grieveht er chargee Na 1 end Ne. 2, and net guiity et Charge Na. 3, {Rx QQG). The Pane! Findihge ef Feet and at Lee with dieetptihery aetierr et en Offteiei Reprimehd.? (Rx ?g The Ferret's 0f Feet end Cehctueieh at Law is undated, On September 14, 253339, the Deciding Gtticiet, Diana HeineeWeiten, Ditecter, Human Menegement Bivieien, Finet Netiee ef Adveree Action (Finei Nettee) rejecting the Penei?e reccmmendetieh end reimpeeing the adverse ectten ei? terminetien ee in the (Rx 963). HeineeWeEteh teund that the Penei ignered evidence preving the Grievent wee guiity et Charge New 3 She reeneiyzed the {Deirgi?ee teeters te suppert et her redeterminetien that terminetten were the epereprtete peneity. (Rx 932-4 (3). {3n September 28, 29%, pursuant te the CBA, the FOP the {Brievent?e terminatien te Cathy Lt Lenier, On Oeteher t5, 2809i {Shierc Lenier rejected end the peneity et terminatien. (Rx 213?1 5). Thereafter, FOP demanded erhitretient Centehtiehe e? the Perttee MP3 eehtehde ee teiiewe: MPD that HeineewWeiten hes the euthcrity te the penetty ef terminatien despite that the Cede et District of Ceiumhte Regeietiene (CDCR) 6A~tt3dt .5 preetudee her frent deing ee RAPE) argues that the eiein iengeege et 68 EEC Municieei Regniettene "16133 reed in eenjunetien with DCMR Chapter te, erevidee thet the deciding efficiei, Heinee~Weiten, may impose the erigiheiiy erepceed pertaity witheut regard fer the Penei?e in euepert of its argument, MP3 the eveiutien et? the Cempreheheive Merit Pereennei Act (GMPA), DC Cede t?1601.0t, eteeq., in reietien he 63 DGMR 1697', 1698, 15125 1613 end 1e14, MPD rnetntetne that, reed tegethers these reguietiene etiew the deeiding te the ihitieiiy peneity et terminatien in the instant Specificeiiy, MPD argues, 88 DCMR t8t3i2 ??eietniy etiewe the deciding efficiei te the erigineiiy peneity.? (MP3 Brief e. 11). in edditien, MPG erguee that General Greer (GO) tEtLZt, end eutherizee Heinee? Weiten, es the Beeiding Qttieiet, te the erigineiiy peneity et terminatien even theegh the Penei reccmmended the peneity et en G?ieiet Reertmend. MPD stresses its arguments with the ease precedent at Hutchinseh v. (liaise at Empreyee Appears, A.2d 22?? (i363 1%8) (Heishinserri which MPH argues interprets as ?a hearty identieai regaiatien te te?i 3.2? in which the DC Fire Department deputy?tire? chiet, acting as a disinterested designee, resemmended a 99?day streperrsien tar a tire eemmunicatian (MPD Brief a. 12). However, the Fire Chief? as the deciding atheist, imeesed the eriginai ashatty at remevai. The DC: Qtiise at Emeieyee Apheais (OEA) upheid the emeieyee?s rernetrat. Furthermere an earnest, the Court deterred tc the interpretaticn at the applieahie iaw anti regutaticn and upheid the deeisienc Fer these reasehs, MPD eenctudes, decisien ta treatise the eriginaiiy proposed terminatien at the Grievant is is aseerdahee with Chapter 16, GO t20.21 and the CBA and must he asheid try the Arhitrater. MPO further asserts that sabetarrtiai evidence supperts Haines?Werner finding the Grievant guiity of Charges his and 3. As regards Charge Net tseehtraryte assertierrs, MPD argues thatthe charge {tees net require erect at the erirnirtai eendact fer which the Grievant was convicted, hat - eniy preet at a cchvictien irr any heart at eempetent jarisdietien. Netwithstahdihg argument that the Grievant was inhecent at criminai headset, Mitt) argues that 38 16033 presides; ?{ai crirninai censietien ester) the cehvicteri party tram denying the facts underiying the eehvictien.? Mereetrer, MPH.) argues that aiiegatiens at evidence and due process Vieiatien at triai are irreievaht te the Parrei hearing because the administrative diseipiinary aetien is independent etthe erirninai Fer these reasehs, MPG eeneiudes the Feast eerreetiy tease suhstaetiat evidenee ta support a gaiity verdict in Charge hie. 1. As regards Charge hie. 2, MP3 argues that Heinee-Waiten?s guiity rteterminatien, reversing the Panei?s not guilty determinatien, is within her autherity and sapperteri by sahstahtiai evidence, MPD argues that Haines~Waiten, as the deciding etiiciai, has the autherity to review the taste and circumstances speeifieatiy the Grievant?s Misdemeaner Sexaai Ahese eernrietierr. Therefere, she can determine that sahstantiai evidence supperts a gaiity finding an Charge Na. 3 and ?impiement the charge and senaity as prapesert in the Netiee.? Brief 53. t8). that terminatien ie an appropriate remedy en the etenderde eetehiiehed by Deegies v" tz?rn?erenertadministretiena 5 MSPB 3t 3 (1 eat; (Qeugiee Factors). MP3 erguee that HeineeWeiten eeneidered end eentted reievent Qeugiee Feeter. Centrery te argument, that her determinetien te terminetten wee the penetty and neither erhitrery ner eeprieteue. MPD that the FOP eententien, that Heinee~Wetten hed veeted interest in terminating the Grievent, ie eneupperted by the hit-tit) that her examination et the Deugiee Feetere wee then:th end end reeuited in the eeprepriete peneity et termination fer the Grievent?e severe . Fer eit these MP3 asserts the Grievent?e terminatien ie futiy enpnerted hy the eernpiiee with tee: and the (SBA, end eheuid he unhetd by the Arbitreter. FEW eentende ee tetiewe: Brief thet HeineeWeiten tacked the entherityte increase the Penet?e peneity here an Reprimend te termihetten. Sheeitieetiy, FOP she did not have the enthertty te dieregerd the Penei?e penalty eneiyeie, rneke teetdei findings, ehenge the Penet?e et net entity in Cherge hie. :3 to gniity end the penetty et terminatien? FQP ergnee that Ct)th ?ewtt?ttit previdee that the Chiet~et~Peitee they eentirrn the {triei heerd?e} findings end the penetty reduce the peneitys or they deetere the heerd?e veid end reterthe ease to enether reguteriy appointed that heard? in edditien, FOP argues that the fer timitetiene ie steer in thet Heinee? Weith wee net present at the hearing and theretere, eennet meite determinetiene. Mereever, FQP argues that in her Finei Netiee, HetneeuWetten inede teetuei determinetiene in Vieietien et (30 t2tt.2?t which previdee that site they ?remand the te the same er different trihunei, er deeteien . . a affirming, reducing, er setting eeide the eetien.? FOP eentende (5C3 t2tl2t net eerrnit her te increase the Peneiie penettyn ?tt} FQP eupperte this dentehtien with precedents; ineiudihg: eeuen erbitretien Awards ene (DEA 6; and ene EEC Superier {Seed heiding. 7 FQP that, even it 12321 eiiewe Heinee?Weiteh te eet eeide the Pehei?e and id make new feetuei findings-t, CDCR dA~100i5tekee precedence ever end eentrete MPO G03 whieh are mere agency directives. FOP argues ee weii that since MPD GiCie de net cemper?t with the i343 Administrative Act (APA), MPD (30$ eheuid net he afforded the weight at ?ew end are net iegeiiy binding, but mere agency peliey. Fudhermdre! FQP etguee the Chiet?e eutherity te premuigete is derived fer BC municipei reguietiene end ee G03 eenndt exceed the iegei heuhderiee etthe reguietienen it ie irretienei end te defer te MP3 {30$ when the DC municipal reguietiene ere the heeie fer the Therefore, FGP eeneiudee Heinee?Weiteh?e terminetien etthe Grieuent muet he set eeide? Next, FOP that the ehetgee against the Grievant are net suppeded by euhetentiei evidence. As regards Charge hie. ?ic FOP erguee that the Grieveht?e eenduet did net eenetitute eerime. FQP argues that the Pane! mereiy rubber stamped the DC Superiet Geurte guiity finding, erguee the Adveree Aetien Pehei Hendbeek requires the Penei te reach an independent that the Grieveht wee guiity (if crime. instead, the FOP asserts, the Grievant was feund guiity 01? Charge Me. ?i eniy because he wee feund guiity by Judge Beyiy. The FQP the Penei?e finding mereiy ineppreprieteiy ruhhete stamping Judge Beyiy?e end fer thie tea-teen? Sheree Ne. 1 meet he 5 FGP BC MPO (Wen Singieten), FMCS Case hie 921A (Arbitreter James R. Jehneen); MP3 FQP (Huang Nguyen), FMCS Case No. Micheei A. Murphy); FOP and MP5 (Maurice Mee?eneidji FMCS hie; (Arbitrator Michael Wait): MP5) it FOP (Aibede Hoided, FMCS Ne. 35 (Jereme Barrett); FOP DC MP5) {Cd/eta! Bunkins), FMCS Case Ne. {1863/31 e-A (Herbert Fiehgeid}; FOP MP5) (Heehg Nguyen}, FMCS Cese Ne. 1i~5428??A (Arbitreterehbet Keminere); end, FMCS Case hie, 0854122 (Arbitreter Steven M. Welt). 5 Wilberte Flares v. QEA Matter Ne. 1691 ~61 314 (Administrative Judge Stephenie N. Harris). 7' MP5) V. PERB, 2812 CA {353192 (June 26, 2914) (Judge Judith N. ?it in sf this eehtehtieh, FOP presehts err extensive review ef the testimony end evidence presented ts the Ferret which the Ft)? argues is exeeigetery es the erimirrs! sherges egsihst the Grievsht. FOP seheihdes this type st exeuiestery evidence sheets have been presided ts the Grieveht?s defense eeshsei she reeds khQWi?t ts the Court" Fer these ressehs, FQP argues there is het sehstehtiei evidence ts suppert the Ferret?s geiity finding err Cherge Ne. t, As regards Charge his 3, FQP asserts thet the Pehei?s het ghiity finding is suppertert by reserti evidence. FQP argues, for this reeseh, Heihes?Weiteh?s everitrrhihg at this Pehei finding is inherehtiy tisweti end is her suppertett by evidence. i=0? asserts that the Panel feuhci that the testirrierty she {testamentary eviciehse dirt hot supperi sexeei ehsse sf MsCeiiesgh by the Grieveht. FGP argues that Hsihes~Weitshs reversei at the Ferret?s desisieh err Charge his 3 is hesesi en the feiiure sf ts testify hetere the Pehei so that the Ferret wee het shie is ehserve her demeeher sheer esth. argues this seneiesieh is Heihesu?Wsiteh that net ettehd the Pehei heerihg end therefore, is sheets is reeks shy estermihetiehs. Yet, despite the Ferret?s findings, hesed en the teteiity ef the reserd, that the Grievehtwes sreriihie she set guiity, Heihesu-Weiteh spines the Grieveht is het eredihie shit guiity st Charge his. 3. eeheiudes her findings err this charge is witheut merit sect gees against the weight ef evidence. FOP asserts HsihesWsiteh?s rieeisieh ts termihete the Grievsht is net an appropriate peheity fer his eiiegeci miseehciust she ehheuheed her deeisieh teeters reviewing the Beagles Fecters. FQP argues thet Heiheszsiteh?s sheiysis hi the Deegies Factors retrievei is the ssh: eeheity that see he impesee fer first effehse crimihei eehirietieh when tehte st sensities presides remevei is the resemmehdert peheityn FQP ergues that the Ferret?s Deugiss Feetersheiysis estshiishert that the mitigating teeters ehtweigh the eggrevetihg teeters ss that her sheiysis is tieweri. FQP esserts thet the Pehei wee in the best pesitieh efter hesrihg sit the record evidence is determine the spereeriete peheity shot itsihes~Weitsh mereiy disappreves st the Ferret?s eesisieh. ts the GSA, FQP sise submitted its FOP Repiy which, fer the meet pert, reiterates its arguments in the ihitiei FQP Brief. The meteriei eere ef Repiy argument is that the (the presses preteetiehs reiterated ih CDCR heut??i .5 sect SB BCMR 12 id?i 3 are tithe er deeignee were eiiewed te dieregard the Pahei?e end mere severe peneityu Fer ati reaeehe, i??C?ah? requests that the eehaity he set aside! thet Sugg?Edwerde he reinstated with tuit heeh pay and test jeh hehetite, and thet hie. hereehrsei he eerreeted, and that etturhey tees he awarded. iv. Aheiyeie and Award itiiF?D hears the hurdert et preet te erdue that the Grievant?e terminatieh was fer As the Arbitrater, muet determine if the Grievent?e terminatieh ie eupperted hi3: euhetahtiei evidence and is net erreneeue as rnetter ef tear. Fer the reaeehe heiew? i find thet Mitt} has met its burden ef erect te shew that the Grieuent wee guiity et Charges Nd. 1 end 2, hut hee net rnet ite hurdeh et hruet te shew that the Grteuent wee guiity 0? Charge Nut 3,3 Mereuuer, i find: eeheieteht with the euerwheimihg weight ei law and ease that neither the her i?teiheeWeiteh? hed the authority te increase the Pehaity hy the Penei. {Sheree hie. hie. 1 Charge Ne: t, Specificatien hie. atiegee thet the Grievant ?30 1283.21 because he wee eehuiuted eta crime ei Miedemeeher Sexuei Ahuee hy Judge Jehn Beyiy eh Superier Ceurt et? the Dietrict ef Ceiumhie eh June 2; euee. The Pane! theiudee the DC Superier Ceurt Judgment in Crin?tihei Qaee Number 2898 Chit) which eetehiiehee that the Grieuertt wee teund guiity et rniedetneaher eexuet ahuee en June 28, 28%? Judge Beyiy eehteheed the Grievant te ?ieihenhuhdred (tuft) days in prieeh, executien ut? sentence suspended. Defendant piaee eat me it} yeareueervieed hrehetiau. Fine et W583i} (seven hundred titty) due (Rx 34). Ceur?t ef were atee egaihet the Grievant. 6 There was he meteriai dieuute ut? the Grievartt?e guiit as regards Cherge Ne. 2. The Charge deie of June 2, EGGS eepeere t0 he a typugrephieei errer en the DC Superier Ceurt recurd. 13 The ef eheiienge tn the Penei?e finding thet the Grievent wee guiity et Charge hie. 1, Specification hie. 1 ie that the Penei did net ennduet tnii evidentiery hearing eetehiiehing that the Grievent eernrnitted the criminei eerie eiieged. However, centrery te the ehelienge, fer vieietien eithe sited previeien efG?O 123.21 in that is required ie the: Cenvietien ei en};i member of the terse in eny eenri et eempetentjuriedietien et any criminei er queeiweriminei eftenee, er et eny efienee in which the member either pieede entity, receives verdict et guilty er a eenvietien teiiewing ei? neie eentendere, er ie deemed it) have been inveived in the ei any eet which wenid eenetitute erirne?, whether or net court retieete eenvie?rien. Since eenvietien eiene eenetitntee Vieietien et {30 12621, argument ie withent merit. Fer this i find that the Penei hed eehetentiei evidence he find the Grievent gniity ei Cherge hie. Specifieetien hie. t. Sheree hie. 3, Speeitieetien hie? Qherge tie. it, Speeifieetien Ne. ?i eiiegee that the Grievent Vieieted ?36 12021, Atteehntent A, Peri A42 by engaging in eenduet nnhecerning en eftieer end (30 281, Number 26, Peri by te eenduet his private the end the in such rnehner ee te eveid bringing discredit neen himeeit? er MP3 when he invited Mchiiengh inte hie vehieie end her by teuehing her in eexuei mehner. The Penei teund the Grievent wee net entity 0t Charge hie. 3, Speeitieetien Ne. Yet, HeineeuWeiten reversed this finding end determined he wee guilty ei the charge end epeeitieetien. Heineeu?WeEten?e Finei Netiee et Adverse Actien {Decieien} that her revereei ie en the feet that the cempieining did not teetify at the Penei heering. She eunedrte her eeneineien eteting thet the internei Atteire Agent; Arthur Gregery, whe thet the nempieining wee net eredihie, never epeke tn the eempieining HeineenWeiten etetee, it is instructive te point nut that the eempieining did net teetity hetere the Penei, en the Penei had net eppertnnity te pereeheiiy hear the eernpieining testin?iehy, erte eheenre her hemeener under entht 904} 14 Haihee?Weiten further etetee, in my review ei the ieete end enrrennding this i hetre determineti thet prependerenee et evidence exist that yen ere guiity of Conduct en eftieer etthis department i find thet yet: are geiity et Charge (Rx 93h), Therefere. HeineeWeiten?e deeisien tn reverse the Penei?e net gniity finding is based en the eheenee et MeGuiiengh?s testimeny end Heinee?Weiten?e review ef ?the tents enei circumstances eurrennding the ease.? Yet, she never attended er penieipetee in the Pane? hearing. Simpiy stated, her decision ie mended en the eheenee ei? evidence which ehe heiieved eheuid have been, have been er might have been presented et the Penei hearing. This is patent the trieietien et the Grievent?e right he fnii end feir Penei hearing es previeed by iew, regnietien and Gate. Heinee~Weiten?e revereei et the Panei net entity finding vitietee the Penei hearing rendering it en empty, treetigiei Fer thie reesen, i find that HeineenWeiten reversei hi the Penei?s net guiity finding is withent any evidentiery support csnetituting cine vieietien end hermfhi errer. i find as weii that the tine irieietien, etenning eiehe, is greenee te adverse action et terminetien egeinst the Grieventt Hewever, en the recent eerieenees i find that the Penei'e peneity et en Reprimend is by the evidentiery increased Penetty After reversing the Penei?s net guiity finding on {Sheree hie. 3., Heinee?Weiten?e tn the eriginei peneity et terminatien etetee, i hereby etiirrn the engine! peneity ee in the Netiee et Advertise Action, detect Geteher 8, ZGQS . . . Ferthe sited Vieietien yeti be retrieved frern the teree effective Qeteher 23, 2399. ineiudeci extensive erhitrei precedent heiding that, pursuant tn DC iew, iregnietienei MPD GOs enei the (SBA, neither the deciding nttit?:inia in this HeinesuWeiten, net the Chief~ef~Pe.iiee they the neneity by the Penei. (See: in 5, abet/e). 15 DC DEA precedent ie in with these ethittetidn Awards. {See in d, eheve). MPD te the DC PERB seeking td Awarde hdiding that neitherthe deciding in this HeineeWeiten, ner the they the penalty by the Ferret have been denied.m Finaiiy end the DC Seperiet Geurt hae denied hit-3i} eppeaie etthe DC upheiding et en ethiti?etien Award finding that neither the deciding net the may the penaity hythe Ferret.? (See: tn eheve). in td precedents, Mitt) eitee Hetehineen. However, DC Sueeder Ceer?t hee heid thet Mitt) ?inaepreptiateiy en Hutchinson because it inveived different agency end different reguietien with unigee Iegieietive t?rietety,?12 Based en the evenehetming weight et this precedents there is. rid need fer me te engage in an exhaustive enaiyeie en the euthetity ef the deciding er the Chiet~ef~ te Panei?e Simpiy eteted, iew ie weitneettied eetehtiehing that, haeed en DC: iew, regdietidtn-ss MP8 Gifts and the (SBA, neither the deciding efficiei net the Chief-ef- Pdiiee they the eeneity recommended by en Adverse Aeiidn Panei. arguments te the centred: are witheut rnerit. Therefore en the et thie end the evidenee and end the weight of precedent, i find that neither the deeiding Diene Heinee~Weiten net the hes the eetherity te the Peneiie redemm?ended peneity et en Ottieie! Reprimand. 10 See fer exampie: District at Cetumhia Metrepntiten Department v. Fraternal Order at Department Leher Ceinmittee, PERB Case No. reeds (November 8, 2:312). MP5) PERS, 2912 CA (369192 WMPA) {June 26, 2014) (Judge Judith N. Meceidee). MP5) v. PERB, 2312 CA (June 26? 2014) (Judge Judith N. p. ?39. 13 in this regard the Award at Arbitreter Mieheei Weit provides en exteneive end tuieen're eneiyeie et the iirnite ed the euthetity of the deciding end the to Penei?e discipiine. (See: tn 5, above} 16 ?nd further the grievehee ie the Grieveht?e .termi?hehee Ee he 5e he he reihetetee with fun 'heek end: bene?ts; and the Pehe??e Q?'?eiei Reerimehe ie the eepreeriete eeheiiy. en the ef Adve?ree Aetieh Fehei, Ne. 432-138, and fer the grievehee ie eue'teihee. terminetieh ef the Grieveht ?e rescinded? The he he with eh Qf?eiei Reprimeheg . REMEQY The Grievehtie he he reihetetee immeeieteiy with he: heeh pay ehe 20- MP3 meet eerreet the Grieveht?e eereehhei rem-rd Awere; 3. The Grieveht ie te he with en O?ie?ei Reerimehe; 4. reteih he ever the imeiemehtetiee ef thie Awerci; -- 5. the Pertiee the 'ef ehemey expenses, the reme?h fer te hie ,me?tieh fer ehemey within 3Q eeieh?der ef ef {hie Aware ehd Mp?mey re'eiy within days ef he receiet ef the Ft}? metieh; 5, Pefeueht ?e Artie?e 19, See?eh 5., $3633?? Ee Perty. Therefere: Arhiireiere fee and eheii'he heme by the MPD ee the ieeihg Perty. I Seer: J.) were, Eee. Meryiehe Jeheery 9, am 5