In this case, an Educational Service District terminated a well-respected speech language pathologist with no history of discipline for “theft of services.” The dispute arose because the educator often worked away from her assigned work space, which is extremely noisy and distracting. As a professional who had historically travelled from work site to work site, she believed that she could do so. During the investigation, the ESD did not consider any of her explanations and When her supervisors first became concerned about where she was working, they did not contact the educator or ask any questions. Rather, they conducted a secret forensic style investigation and then her with their conclusions. During the investigation, they refused to consider the educator’s reasonable explanations and ultimately accused her of dishonesty and “theft of services.” The union alleged that the termination lacked just cause and that the ESD had violated the complaint procedure. The arbitrator agreed. It found that the investigation was not fair and that the educator explanations had generally be consistent and credible. Accordingly, the ESD failed to prove “theft of services” and the educator was reinstated with back pay.
Arbitrator Orders Reinstatement of Speech Language Pathologist
