A Deputy Sheriff’s Union (Union) filed a grievance against the Sheriff’s Department for failing to properly compensate one of its Deputy Sheriffs for work he allegedly performed as a Bonus I Field Training Officer (FTO). The Deputy was assigned as a FTO at various times between August 2017 and February 2019, but the Deputy did not have a formally assigned trainee or sufficient coverage time as a “relief” FTO to qualify for the bonus pay for that entire period. The Department inadvertently overpaid the Deputy for a seven-month period due to a late notification that his trainee assignment had ended. The Department then issued a letter requesting a return of the overpayment.
The Union’s grievance argued that the alleged overpayment was inaccurate and the Deputy should owe nothing. The Union further argued that a failure to assign the Deputy trainees while the Deputy was in the Bonus I FTO position was a “de facto removal” from that assignment.
The Arbitrator disagreed. The Arbitrator first found that the MOU language stated that Bonus I FTO pay will only be issued when the FTO has assigned a trainee. The MOU accounted for situations, such as this one, where a Deputy held a Bonus I position but was not assigned a trainee. Moreover, the three individual days of random relief assignments the Deputy took on were not sufficient to qualify the Deputy for the Bonus I FTO pay, because the MOU required 20-day relief assignments to qualify for payment of the training bonus. Finally, the fact the Deputy was assigned a trainee after the period when the Deputy alleged he had been removed from the FTO position showed that he had not been “de facto removed” from his position, as the Union alleged.
The Arbitrator decided the Department did not violate the MOU, and was contractually entitled to seek the overpayment.