26, the chief sent him a disciplinary letter and suspended him for three
days for failing to submit a report at the time of the incident.

The officer's union filed an arbitration, pointing out that the rule was
too ambiguous to be enforced. It was impossible to tell when a report was
required and, based on past practice, the officer had not thought that a
report was necessary.

The City took the position that its rule was reasonable. The grievant
should have known that what started out as a personal matter became
something that required official police attention when he helped to arrest
someone in another jurisdiction. After nineteen years, the officer should
have known that such an incident would require an official report.

Arbitrator Norman Prusa was asked to decide whether or not the rule
could be enforced. He read the rule with great care, and its obscurity was
obvious. The testimony of the grievant's superiors was equally ambiguous.
One said that reports were made only when Brook Park police provided
assistance to police in other jurisdictions and only when a report was
requested. The other stated that he had never been required to file such a
report when he worked with other police departments. The arbitrator
upheld the grievance, ordering that the grievant be paid for the three lost
days.

It is appropriate for police officers to be disciplined for violating
departmental rules but not when the rules are unclear or enforced in a
capricious way. As the cases in this chapter illustrate, police officers
deserve to be told in advance what rules and regulations must be observed
and should be treated with justice and equality.

Among the many rules that are imposed upon American police officers,
at least some are totally unfair. Arbitrators are well placed to sift the wheat
from the chaff, because they are familiar with other areas of employment.
Ambiguous rules that are capriciously imposed upon police officers add
still another level of stress to an already difficult job.

-108-