Three Late Arrivals, a Deadline, and a Cousin in the Union
You are the evening-shift sergeant in a 96-officer suburban department. Officer Diaz, a 14-year veteran with no prior discipline, has been late three times in 45 days: 10 minutes on March 3, 25 minutes on March 21, and 40 minutes on April 12. Eight months ago a different sergeant gave him documented verbal counseling for lateness. Department policy lists excessive tardiness as a Category I minor violation carrying an oral-to-written reprimand range for a first offense and requires progressive discipline "absent documented mitigating circumstances." Diaz is well liked, is the FOP delegate's cousin, and told a corporal last week that "the new lieutenant has it in for me." The watch commander wants a written reprimand on your desk by Friday. The CBA requires discipline to be imposed within 45 days of discovery and requires that the officer receive a copy of any written counseling.
1. Outline how you would run the meeting with Diaz and what documentation you would produce. Identify any representational or compelled-statement issues.
Read the worked answer
Before the meeting. Pull the discipline log and check what other officers in the last 12–24 months received for a third tardiness offense with one prior counseling. Disparate treatment is the most likely basis for a grievance, and you need the comparator data before you pick a sanction. Confirm the date of discovery of the April 12 event so the CBA clock is documented.
Run the meeting. Notify Diaz in advance that it is a counseling/discipline meeting, not an ambush. State the facts and the policy language, show him the three dates, ask for his explanation, and listen without arguing. Keep it short and neutral - no editorializing about his attitude or his cousin.
Weingarten/Garrity. Weingarten gives a represented employee the right to a union representative in an investigatory interview he reasonably believes may lead to discipline - but he must request it, and routine counseling is not an investigatory interview. If he asks for a rep, adjourn and reschedule rather than refusing outright. Garrity applies only if you compel a statement under threat of discipline for an administrative investigation; a voluntary explanation here is not compelled, but say so on the record so no one later claims it was.
Documentation. Produce a written counseling/discipline memo: dates, policy cite, his statement, the comparator findings, the sanction and its rationale, EAP referral, and signature blocks for him and you, with a notation if he declines to sign. Give him a copy that day.
2. How do you weigh the watch commander's Friday deadline against the CBA's 45-day rule, and what level of discipline do you recommend?
Read the worked answer
The two clocks are not in conflict. The 45-day rule runs from discovery of each violation; the April 12 incident is only days old, so a Friday decision is comfortably timely. The deadline is a reason to move, not a reason to rubber-stamp - if the comparator review shows a written reprimand is out of line with practice, the correct answer is to say so to the watch commander in writing, not to impose a sanction you cannot defend at a grievance hearing.
My recommendation, absent contrary comparator data, is a written reprimand plus a documented performance-improvement conversation. Reasoning: three events in 45 days is a pattern rather than an isolated lapse; there is a prior documented counseling; and the policy's progressive ladder supports it. But two things must be nailed down first: (1) the eight-month-old verbal counseling was documented by another supervisor - verify it exists and that Diaz received a copy, or it may not survive the CBA's notice requirement; and (2) the comparator check.
If the log shows others received only an oral reprimand for comparable conduct, I would recommend a documented oral reprimand with a clear written notice that the next occurrence moves to written reprimand, and I would put that reasoning in the memo to the watch commander. Consistency is what makes the sanction enforceable.
Do not let the FOP-cousin relationship move the outcome in either direction. Being harsher to look tough and being softer to avoid friction are the same error, and both are visible to the squad.
3. Mid-meeting Diaz says, "I've been dealing with a medical thing - I can't always get here on time," and asks you not to put anything in writing. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
Do not probe for a diagnosis and do not promise silence. Both create liability. Say plainly: "I can't agree to keep this out of writing, and I won't ask you what the condition is. What I can do is keep medical detail out of the discipline file and route the medical side through the right channel."
Then take three steps:
Refer, don't advise. Give him the EAP number and the HR contact for FMLA/medical leave and for a reasonable-accommodation request. Tell him that if the lateness is connected to a condition, the accommodation or leave process can protect dates going forward, but it does not retroactively erase March 3 or March 21.
Separate the records. The discipline memo documents conduct: dates, times, policy, his statement, the sanction. If he opens an accommodation request, the medical documentation goes to HR, not into your file. A narrative entry like "officer cited a medical condition" invites a later claim that you disciplined him for being ill.
Preserve the timeliness issue. Ask him to submit any request for accommodation or leave in writing by a date certain, and tell him what happens if he does not. If HR confirms a covered condition or pending leave request, revisit the sanction for the dates actually covered - and document why you modified it.
Finally, do not treat the disclosure as an excuse to drop the matter or as an admission to hold against him. Note in the file only that he was referred to EAP and HR and that the disciplinary process continued on the conduct record.