A conversation between a grievant and the fire chief does not extend the period to file a disciplinary grievance, as limited by the bargaining agreement. IAFF L-863 and City of Newton, AAA #11-390-00347-09 (Hanson, 2010).
     A 180-day time limit for initiating disciplinary actions applies to complaints from outside the agency, and not to charges that are generated internally. McQuade v. Dept. of Corrections, #1D10-507, 32010 Fla. App. Lexis 18677 (1st Dist.).
     A conversation between a grievant and the fire chief does not extend the period to file a disciplinary grievance, as limited by the bargaining agreement. IAFF L-863 and City of Newton, AAA #11-390-00347-09 (Hanson, 2010).
     California appellate court revives disciplinary counts against an LAPD detective. The delay in initiating administrative proceedings against him was tolled by an ongoing criminal investigation, even if no criminal charges resulted. "The question of what constitutes a criminal investigation logically focuses on whether the conduct at issue is potentially criminal, not whether the resulting charges amount to crimes." An additional count of making false statements was properly filed, where the statement was made before expiration of the statute of limitations on the underlying conduct. Crawford v. City of Los Angeles, #B210821, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 1002 (2d Dist.).
     Appellate court denies relief to an ex LAPD officer who was charged a year and 13 days after discovering his misconduct. The one-year limitation in the city charter was extended by the months-long criminal investigation. Lucio v. City of Los Angeles, #B201511, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 2460 (2nd Dist).
     Arbitrator annuls suspension of an off-duty officer accused of conduct unbecoming because management failed to initiate disciplinary action within the time limits required under the bargaining agreement. Central State Univ. Police Dept., Ohio and Frat. Order of Police Ohio Labor Council, FMCS Case #08/03136, 125 LA (BNA) 981 (Sellman, 2008).
     The fact that an order or judgment previously has been reentered or revised in an immaterial way does not extend the time for which review must be sought. Peo. ex rel. Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Cmsn., #105131, 2008 Ill. Lexis 1432, citing Federal Trade Cmsn. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell, 344 U.S. 206 at 211 (1952).  
     Arbitrator finds that a grievance arising from the termination of a campus police officer was not arbitrable because union waited for more than 11 months beyond the deadline before requesting a review. Cuyahoga Community College and AFSCME C-8, AAA Case #53-390-00314-07, 124 LA (BNA) 1802 (Skulina, 2008).
     Federal appeals court rejects a former Customs Service employee's attempt, filed in March 2007, to overturn a Dec. 1998 termination settlement agreement. The employee did not bring a timely appeal and failed to provide evidence of good cause for filing an untimely petition. Whitworth v. Merit Systems Protection Board, #2008-3032, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4966 (Unpub. Fed. Cir.), affirming 2007 M.S.P.B. 190, 106 M.S.P.R. 401.
     Because an officer's improper access of criminal history information was not criminal, accesses more than two years before disciplinary charges were filed could not be punished. Chrisman v. City of Los Angeles, #B184689, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1521 (2nd Dist.).
     Arbitration of a grievance two years after it is filed is contrary to the intent of the bargaining process, but a long delay, by itself, does not necessarily make a grievance inarbitrable. Cook County/Sheriff and SEIU L-73, 123 LA (BNA) 1674 (Wolff, 2007).
     N.J. Supreme Court clarifies time limitations on disciplinary complaints. N.J.S.A. 53:1-33 requires that disciplinary charges against state troopers must be brought within 45 days from the date management obtains "sufficient information" on which to base disciplinary action -- except where there is a criminal investigation the applicable time limit begins on the day after the disposition of the criminal investigation. Roberts v. New Jersey Div. of State Police, #A-62-ST2006, 191 N.J. 516, 924 A.2d 550, 2007 N.J. Lexis 704.
     Management should object to the timeliness of a grievance at the time it is filed, or promptly thereafter. Arbitrator holds that where management fails to raise an objection prior to the arbitration hearing, the issue of timeliness is waived. Dept. of Homeland Security (Customs) and AFGE L-2724, Case #06-03893-8, 123 LA (BNA) 1524 (Skulina, 2007).
     Police officer, who was suspended indefinitely after criminal charges were filed against him did not file a timely claim for reinstatement, where he waited 11 months after expiration of a 30-day period of suspension authorized by N.Y. Civil Service Law § 75 (3). Dorsey v. Coleman, #501741, 2007 NY Slip Op 3821, 40 A.D.2d 1187, 834 N.Y. Supp.2d 743, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 5446, 26 IER Cases (BNA) 395 (3rd App. Dept.).
     The time set to file an appeal is not excused simply because the employee's attorney was negligent, unless the employee acts promptly to correct the failure to file an appeal. Helmstetter v. Dept. of Homeland Security, #PH-0752-04-0067-I-2, 2007 MSPB 147 (MSPB 2007).
     California appellate court holds that lying during an internal interview is a separate offense from the misconduct under investigation; the two do not merge and the time for counting the limitation period begins with the date of interview. Cal. Dept. of Corr. v. Cal. State Pers. Bd., #F048806, 147 Cal. App.4th 797, 54 Cal.Rptr.3d 665, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 192 (5th App. Dist. 2007).
     Appellate court orders dismissal of disciplinary charges against San Francisco police officers because (1) the statute of limitations bars the proceeding and (2) the SFPD failed to conduct a timely review of the charges in conformity with its own internal regulations. Bettencourt v. C&C of San Francisco, # A112880, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 50 (1st App. Dist. 2007). [N/R]
     Court annuls disciplinary action taken against New Jersey police officers who participated in a mass sick call because management waited beyond the statutory 45-day minimum to initiate administrative charges. Aristizibal v. City of Atlantic City, #ATL-L-289-05, 380 N.J. Super. 405, 882 A.2d 436, 2005 N.J. Super. Lexis 294 (2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court reinstates a late appeal of a former IRS employee who suffered from "severe depression" and which worsened after his firing. He was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on whether he was competent to understand and comply with the appellate deadlines. Stout v. Merit Systems Protection Board, #04-3127, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 24381 (Fed.Cir. 2004). {N/R}
    New Jersey appellate court holds in two cases that disciplinary charges should not be dismissed because the hearings were not held within the 30-day period provided by law. Where the officers were not prejudiced and the delay is not a contrivance, neither the bargaining agreement, state statutes, nor case law compel the dismissal of the charges. Goodman v. Dept. of Corrections, #A-2123-02T5, 844 A.2d 543 (NJ App. Div. 2004); and In the Matter of the Arbitration Between FOP L-97 and Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, # A-1862-02T2, 364 N.J. Super. 294, 835 A.2d 687 (N.J. Super. 2003). {N/R}
     City ordered to reinstate a municipal police officer that was convicted of abusing a citizen. The fact that management deferred to a parallel criminal by the state police did not excuse providing the officer with the complaints and other documents within the time periods required under the bargaining agreement. City of Ansonia and Stanley, Case #2003-A-0141 (Conn. Bd. Arb. 2003). [2004 FP Feb]
      Appellate court reverses disciplinary action against an officer who allegedly engaged in a sex act in a public restroom, because management delayed serving him with formal charges. The union contract required action within 60 working days after his acquittal of criminal charges. In the Matter of Piper, #18336, 142 Ohio App.3d 765, 757 N.E.2d 3, 2001 Ohio App. Lexis 2209 (2d Dist. Ohio App. 2001). [2002 FP Mar]
     For a second time, an appellate court reinstates the punishment for 28 firefighters, although disciplinary action was delayed beyond the period authorized in the bargaining agreement. In so holding, the court overturned an arbitrator's award that annulled the punishment, because it was contrary to a "well defined, dominant public policy." Chicago Fire Fighters L-2 v. City of Chicago, #1-99-2647, 323 Ill. App.3d 168, 751 N.E.2d 1169, 168 LRRM (BNA) 2194, 2001 Ill. App. Lexis 401 (1st Dist., 2001). Prior decision at 735 N.E.2d 108, 2000 Ill. App. Lexis 674, 165 LRRM (BNA) 2100. [2001 FP 100-1; see also 2000 FP 165-6 and 1999 FP 38-9]
     Appellate court overturns arbitrator's decision to reinstate an officer who had engaged in polygamy and made false statements. The fact the criminal statute of limitations applied has no application to employment terminations. Sheriff of Lenawee Co v. Police Ofcrs. Labor Council, #211705, 239 Mich. App. 111, 607 N.W.2d 742, 1999 Mich. App. Lexis 334, 163 LRRM (BNA) 2952. [2000 FP 86-7]
     A police lieutenant's appeal was not untimely where the official notice of his termination was sent to his attorney, and not to him. Statute required notification of the employee. Herman v. Los Ang. Co., 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 14 (App. 1999). {N/R}
     Grievance challenging a police officer's suspension was arbitrable, even though it took longer than 60 days specified in collective-bargaining contract to conduct the hearing. Joliet and IL FOP, 112 LA (BNA) 468, FMCS Case # 99/1020-00692-A (Perkovich,1999). {N/R}
     California rejects federal rule; time limit for filing a "constructive" termination suit begins when an employee leaves the job, not when the conditions become intolerable. Mullins v. Rockwell Intl. Corp., 1997 Cal. Lexis 2547, 936 P.2d 1246, 15 Cal.4th 731. [1997 FP 109-10]
     A stipulated 60-day period for a hearing on the breach of a last chance agreement should not be rigidly enforced, where the grievant suffered no prejudice by the delay. Detroit (City of) and DPOA, 106 LA (BNA) 1131 (Brown, 1996). [1996 FP 165-6]
     Michigan's 90-day limitation on disciplinary action starts running when the misconduct is discovered. Goodridge v. Ypsilanti Twp., 547 N.W.2d 668 (Mich. 1996). {N/R}
     Arbitrator sets aside an officer's punishment because the city violated statute of limitation. Houston (City of) and H. Police Ptlmns. Union, AAA #70-390-0075-94, 105 LA (BNA) 120 (Moore, 1995). [1996 FP 3-4]
     Arbitrator and court reinstate a Miami officer who killed two citizens; city charged him twice on the same facts. $975,000 in back pay and legal fees ordered. Miami (City of) and F.O.P. Lodge 20, FMCS #94-19742 (Abrams, 1994) and F.O.P. L-20 v. City of Miami, Dade Co. #95-721 CA 08 (Fla.Cir.Ct. 1995); 33 (1601) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 194. [1995 FP 101]
     Five years was not too long between incident and the disciplinary hearing, unless the officer could show actual prejudice; “laches” defense rejected. Van Milligan v. Bd. of Fire & Police Cmsnrs. of Glenview, 158 Ill.2d 84, 630 N.E.2d 830 (1994); 609 N.E.2d 822 (Ill.App. 1993) reversed. [1994 FP 100-1]
     Chief executive cannot extend the period to bring charges against a service member beyond the period established by statute. U.S. v. Kossman, 38 M.J. 258 (CMA 1993). {N/R}
     Delay of 15 months between the incident and complaint did not prejudice the accused officer. Civil service board should have confirmed his termination for mistreatment of a prisoner. City of Atlanta v. Bell, 425 S.E.2d 325 (Ga.App. 1992). [1993 FP 133-4]
     Delay of 2.5 years before discipline was initiated did not violate chief's rights. City of Bossier v. Gauthier, 512 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1987).
     Disciplinary action reversed; agency waited too long to charge employee. U.S. Dept. of Justice and U.S. Border Patrol Agents, 78-1 ARB ¶ 8170, 1977-78 PBC (CCH) ¶ 45,095 (Brisco, 1978).