FORT PIERCE cir ArvoRNEY’s OFFICE — ved nm 9 ao I see ee ret bere tn trae fey VP } Please be advisec that the Arbitration decision concerning the above referenced case has been received by this office. A copy ofthe decision is attached {or your review. The arbitrator found in essence that while the Act was a violation, it id not rise to the level of a terminatle offense, The arbitrator ordered that Mr. MacNaught be reinstated with back pay and benefits to begin no later than June 1, 2018, If you have any questions you may address them to Attorney lola Mosley. ce Linda Cox, Cy ClerkFEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ARBITRATION AWARD Inthe Matter of Arbitration Between ‘Award Date: ‘April 18, 2018 Avtitrator: Wiliam Serda Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association PBA FMCS Case Number Union 170830-54263 Issue: Brian MacNaught - Termination Date of Hearing ‘March 20 & 21, 2018 Employee Hearing Location And Ft. Pierce, FL City of Ft. Pierce, FL Briofs Received NIA. Employer FILE: AWD FCS PBA ( MacNaught) City of Ft. Pierce, FL APPEARANCES: For the City of Ft. Piorco: lola T. Mosley, Esq Senior Assistant Cy Attorney City of Ft. Pierce City Attorney's Office 400 North U.S. 1 Ft. Pierce, FL 34950 For the Union: Costal Florida PBA/PEA: Grog Fothan, Esq, General Counsel 810 Fentress Court Suite 150 Daytona Beach, FL 32117 PAGE ONE OF SIXTEENARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT, PIERCE - MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE TWO OF SIXTEEN TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page A Background 3 B Framing the Issue 5 c Contentions of Employer — City of Ft. Pierce, FL 6 D Contentions of Union — Coastal FL PBA 8 E Discussion — Critical Issues 10 F Conclusions — Findings of Arbitrator 13, G Award 14ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE - MACNAUGHT - TERMINATION — APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE THREE OF SIXTEEN. ‘A. BACKGROUND (THESE ISSUES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE): 1. The Grievant, MacNaughi, was a 14 year career police officer, achieving the rank of Sergeant. He was trained as a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Officer. 2. Grievant's work record indicates no outstanding disciplinary issues. 3, On the evening of April 28, 2016, very close to midnight, a traffic stop occurred. 4. During this trafic stop, a complex situation developed, and, as a result, Grievant MacNaught fired his sidearm and killed the vehicle driver. 5, Subsequently, during the investigation ofthe traffic stop, and the shooting of April 23, 2016, a police body camera was found in the police vehicle driven by Grievant, MacNaught. 6. Earlier, in January, 2015, year and four months before the April 23, 2016 traffic stop, instructions had been given to MacNaught, by his superior Lieutenant, to secure all body cameras and place them in a locked and restricted location — because specific procedures had not been developed and promulgated as to their use. 7. The shooting victim was a personal friend of the City Manager, and the City Manager's son, The understandable and obvious emotional impact ofthis incident and death were clearly demonstrated in video recorded remarks by the City Manager at a subsequent City Council Meeting. 8. The City Manager is the final and deciding authority forall discipline of City Employees. 9, The St, Lucie County Grand Jury, Fall Term of 2016, after a thorough investigation of documentary evidence and witnesses, of the April 23, 2016 incident, returned a NO TRUE BILL, finding that the actians of the two involved police officers were “objectively reasonable". The respecive Grand Jury Presentment of this decision was released ‘September 20, 2016, approximately five (5) months after the incident 10.Uttimately, an Internal investigation ensued, to determine if any City or Police Department requirements were violated. These investigations concluded in late April, 2017 and termination of MacNaugh: was recommended by both the Deputy Chief of Police, Norris and the Chief of Police Hobley-Burmey. 11. The gist of the allegations concerned, not the traffic stop activity and incident, but, rather, the circumstances surrounding the Police Department Taser Body Camera which was discovered in the trunk of the police car used by Grievant MacNaught.ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT, PIERCE — MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE FOUR OF SIXTEEN BACKGROUND (THESE ISSUES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE) : (CONTINUED): 12.The Professional Standaids Case #2016-0006 (by Deputy Chief Noris\(Sergeant Brian MacNaught), dated April 24, 2017, (City Ex XVI, XVII and XVIII cites the following specific ‘matters Investigative Violations: During this investigation, it revealed that Sergeant MacNaught was in possession of tnauthorized Body Worn Camera (BWC) System that was purchased for SWAT in 2013. In January, 2015, Sergeant MacNaught was directed by a commanding officer to collect all of the Body Wom Cameras and place them into the SWAT storage locker. Based on the above: He is in violation of City of Fort Pierce Police Department Policy and Procedures: Code of Conduct 26.100 D. Procedures 3. Insubordination ‘a, Employees will promptly obey any lawful order or direction of a supervisor. This includes any lawful order or direction relayed from a supervisor by an employee of the ssame or lesser rank. if an employee does not understand the direction given to them, the employee will sook guidance from a supervisor. 98. Neglect of Duty |. Department personnel shail not wilfully ignore or violate official directives, policies, procedures, orders or supervisor instructions or knowingly fall to property execute the ‘duties and responsibilities of their assigned position. City of Ft. lerce Rules and Regulations D. Procedures 10.05-Code of Condi 12, Insubordination by refusal to perform work assigned or to comply with written or verbal instructions of the supervisory force; may include the use of abusive language or behavior directed toward a supervisor.ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL, PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE - MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE FIVE OF SIXTEEN BACKGROUND (THESE ISSUES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE): (CONTINUED) 18.The same City Manager who expressed his normal and easily understandable angst ‘concerning the Apri, 2016 shooting death of his friend, by MacNaught — was now faced with the final decision of discipline for the body camera incident involving Grievant MacNaught, 114.The City Manager's decision was to terminate Grievant MacNaughton May 8, 2017, 16.1is this action by the City Manager, the prior and surrounding circumstances ~ and the level (or degree of the discipline - all of which, are the core and gist ofthis dispute. 16.A timely Grievance was fled by the Coastal Florida PBA Union on behalf of Grievant MacNaught. 17-The Grievance was processed, as provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, without resolution - leading to this arbitration hearing. 18.,All Parties assembled in Ft, Pierce, Florida, March 20 and 21, 2018, for the appropriate arbitration hearing, on the merits 19.Both Parties agreed that his matter was propery in arbitration and properly before this arbitrator, 20. In the absence of a court reporter, the arbitrator's personal handuriten notes are designated ‘as the official record of the proceeding 21. The evidentiary portion ofthe hearing concluded at approximately 1:30 p.m., March 21, (the second day of hearing) 2018. 22.Post hearing written briefs were waived by the Parties, and, instead, each Party took a one hour break, to prepare, and made an oral summary presentation 23.Oral presentations concluded at approximately 3:00 p.m. on March 21, 2018. At that point, the proceeding and the record were closed. B, FRAMING THE ISSUI ‘The Parties agreed in general, and the Arbitrator articulates the issue before us as: Did the City, Ft. Plorce, FL., have just cause to terminate/discharge Grievant MacNaught, on May 8, 2016, for the “body camera incident of April 23/24, 2016 2” Hf not, what shall be the remedy?ARBITRATION AWARD. COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY o' FT. PIERCE ~ MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE SIX OF SIXTEEN CONTENTIONS OF THE EMPLOYER - FT. PIERCE POLICE MANAGEMENT: In regard to the Body Cameras: 1. Grievant MacNaught is an experienced 14 year veteran of the Ft. Pierce Police Department. 2. His instructions to collect and secure the subject body cameras was clear and unequivocal 3, His choice to, nevertholess, take two cameras out of storage, despite the clear instructions. to collect and Secure then, is a wanton disregard for those instructions from his Supervisor, Lt Gillette. 4, The claim, by the Grievant, that he assumed his duty to continue the Police Department Citizen Outreach program was a valid exception tothe instructions, is disingenuous and an attempt to justify a clear and insubordinate fallure to follow lawlul orders from a superior officer. ‘To use the cameras in a display of Police equipment to civilians, defeats the very purpose of the instructions, in the fist place. Since the problem with the cameras was the lack of an established method, technique and protocol for their use; including them in a display for citizens Is clearly contrary to the very essence of the instructions issued to “collect and ‘secure them” 6. Such disregard for those clear instructions, fortunately caused no significant harm, but the possibilty of a substantial misunderstanding by the citizens and, perhaps, an embarrassing ‘explanation for the Police Department, could have been caused by the display of body cameras that the Ft, Pierce Police Department has, but does not use — and is still working ‘on how they might be used ~ and meanwhile keeps them in secure storage, unavailable for use, In regard to the shooting incident of April, 2016: 7. While the St, Lucie Courty Grand Jury has returned a NO TRUE BILL finding, in connection “with its investigation ofthe April, 2016 incident, there remains a serious procedural issue regarding the actions ofthe Grievant, in that incident 8. Specifically, the Grievant's partially entering the vehicle to check for weapons, drugs etc. created a vulnerable situation when the driver chose to move the car forward, effectively ‘rapping the Grievant beeen the car and the open door — and creating the serious possibilty of injury, especialy ifthe car was drive near a structure or tree etc. and would crush the Grievant inthe process. 9. Additionally the failure to require the driver to turn off the car engine and leting the engine ile, alowed the driver to move the car, and ereated the chaos which led to the confusion, and the shots fred by both officers.ARBITRATION AWARD. COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE ~ MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE SEVEN OF SIXTEEN ©. CONTENTIONS OF THE EMPLOYER - FT. PIERCE POLICE MANAGEMENT: (CONTINUED) 10,WWhile there is no established protocol or methodology which was violated by the actions of the Grievant, an experienced officer, applying common sense, should never have created ‘and placed himself in, such a situation, 11. The totality of the events, the shooting and the body cameras, cumulatively create clear just cause for termination and meet the requirements of the commonly used “seven management tests for just cause’ 12, On October 6, 2016, Officer Ippolito failed to report for duty, at 0600 hours, during an ‘advancing hurricane, despite a direct order to report. Ippolito's reason was that he needed to be home and prepare his family for the hurricane. Utimatoly, he reported late, at 1200 hours. He was suspended wio pay for one day, 13.The Union cites this example as a case of disparate treatment. But the circumstances are entirely different, and the specific Ippolito offense is diferent, than the issues in the MacNaught incident. 14. The above outlined events provide overwhelming violations and foundation for just cause ~ ‘and consequently, there should be no Award to disturb the discipline/discharge of Grievant Brian MacNaught.ARBITRATION AWARD. COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE ~ MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE EIGHT OF SIXTEEN D. CONTENTIONS OF THE UNION — COASTAL FL PBA & MACNAUGHT: In regard to the April, 2016 traffic stop: 41. The St. Lucie County Grand Jury, after an exhaustive and comprehensive investigation, issued a NO TRUE BILL finding, regarding the April, 2016 traffic stop and shooting, 2. The Chief of Police identified the “standing in the doorway’, the entry into the “passenger seat ofthe car” and the fallure to have the “car engine shut off” - as "common sense" violations, and part of the totality of the incident — further compounded by the body camera instructions and violations. While the "common sense" matters have impact, they are not necessarily substantial matters of a disciplinary violation. 3. Deputy Chief Norris identified no violations with the Apri, 2016 traffic stop in his Professional Standards Case # 2016-0006 (Sergeant Brian MacNaught) Memorandum, ated April 24, 2017. But he did find violations in the body camera matter. 4. "Common Sense’ is valuable but is not a clear standard of conduct, nor is simple omission of a better way or an absence of a common sense action, always, 2 legitimate violation. 5. Itis very easy to second guess specific actions of a traffic stop and shooting, from a ‘constructive viewpoint, but one must be mindful that stress is high and the officers do not have total control of events nor the actions of the civilian on site. Mast all cases, when reviewed microscopically, wil involve actions which could have been taken, done differently, or not done. 2erfection is most difficult to achive, 6. The City Manager's personal involvement (a friend of the shooting victim) is an inappropriate factor in the discipline determination process. He should have stepped aside and withdrawn himself from the process. Its impossible to evaluate the emotional influence of his personal involvement. There is, at least, the appearance of emotional conflict of interest. In regard to the issue of the body cameras: 7. ‘The decision by Grievant MacNaught to display department body cameras was based upon his responsibilty to intiace and reach out to citizens and increase understanding of the work ‘and environment of the Police Department 8, He felt, perhaps in error, that such a responsibilty and objective was substantial and ‘overrode the instructions to secure the cameras under lock and key.ARBITRATION AWARD. COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE = MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE NINE OF SIXTEEN D. CONTENTIONS OF THE UNION ~ COASTAL FL PBA & MACNAUGHT: (CONTINUE! 9. tis important to realize that the action to use the two cameras was neither intended to, nor resulted in, any personal benefit to Grievant MacNaught. While the action to use the ‘cameras might be labeled as a violation, it would be a most unusual violation ~ as it had only a professional motive and resulted in absolutely no personal benefit. So, why did he do it? ~ because he thought it was appropriate, given his responsibilities. 10,0n October 6, 2016, just few months after the MacNaught incident, Officer Ippolito disobeyed a direct order to report for police hurricane preparation duty at 0600 hours, Claiming that he needed to be home preparing his family forthe storm. Ultimately he reported late, at 1200 hours. 111.He was given a one day suspension w/o pay. MacNaught, also accused of disobeying a lawful order (concerning body cameras), is terminated. 12.Cleatly, the two instances have some parallels and some differences — but not enough difference to justily a termination verses a one day suspension. This is a classic example of disparate treatment. Could it be that the inability to substantiate a violation in the shooting accident, is remedied, unlawfully, by maximizing and exaggerating the punishment for a ‘separate, but minor offense, in the body camera incident. 13. Ippolito receives the least serious discipline, while MacNaught receives the most serious discipline — for not identical violations ~ but for similar violations — both are accused of disobeying a lawful order. 14. It should be noted that MacNaught’s only motive was to do a better job with the citizen ‘outreach program, one cf his responsibilities. There is absolutely no personal motive or personal gain, but, mostly, simple carelessness. 16. Officer Ippolto’s violation was conscious, pre-meditated and for his personal self benefit, 16. The Grievance should be sustained in its entirety, and Grievant MacNaught reinstated and ‘made whole forall losses due to this erroneous discipline.ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE - MACNAUGHT — TERMINATION — APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE TEN OF SIXTEEN DISCUSSION ~ THESE MATTERS ARE CRITICAL IN ANALYZING THIS DISPUTE: In regard to the traffic stop: 1 ‘The County Grand Jury has investigated this incident and found no violation of law, issuing a finding of NO TRUE BILL. ‘The Clty of Ft. Pierce and its Police Management, have found, subsequently, that there was, in fact, a substantial violation of Police and City Rules, Regulations and Policios - and have terminated the Grievant, then Sergeant MacNaught - and now bear the responsibilty for ‘establishing the just cause foundation for its action to terminate Sergeant MacNaught for his actions during the trafic stop and fatal shooting incident of April 23, 2016, and the Taser Body Camera discovered in the trunk of his patrol car While the incident involved unspeakable horror, angst, frustration, devastation, loss and controversy within the community ~ the elements of faimess, honesty, maturiy and clear thinking must not be sacificed or abandoned in the wake of, and in the process of ‘administering fair and proper justice ~ admittedly within an emotional and most complicated environment. ‘The presentation by the City of Ft, Pierce directed considerable emphasis to the actions of the Grievant concerning his placing his head initially, and subsequently his entire body into the victim's vehicle; and in Grievant's failure to have the victim “turn off the automobile tengine — both issues, admittedly, critical to the events which transpired immediately thereafter. This foundation for the “ust cause effort, related to these “in car” and “engine turn off” ‘matters is seriously diluted for three reasons: 4) the detail, exhaustive, professional and comprehensive investigations conducted of the incident do not find fault with, nor establish any substantial basis for those alleged violations, b) there are no established procedures or standards of conduct in these matters. 6) the terminating documents do not even mention such issues — rather, the “just cause" basis for termination, is Imited to the Grievant's removal and use of the body cameras for citizen demonstrations, ‘Additionally, while its esy to blame those two issues for the horrible conclusion, there is no evidence that the issues are taught as critical to the process, and considered as a requirement in a traffic stop. They may appear “obvious” and “common sense” to us now, but, unfortunately, MacNaught, did not have, on April 23, 2016, the advantage of hind sight, the time and the ceolness, that we have now.ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE — MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION — APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE ELEVEN OF SIXTEEN E, DISCUSSION — THESE MATTERS ARE CRITICAL IN ANALYZING THIS DISPUTE (CONTINUED) In regard to the body cameras: 7. Lt. Caleb Gillette authored and sent out an email to then Sergeant MacNaught and copied Officer Holmes, on January 15, 2015. Said email contained the following instructions: ‘Sergeant MacNaugh:, please collect all issued Taser Cams and place them into the SWAT locker. We cannot use them for training or operations purposes until we get a policy/directive, 8. Sergeant MacNaught responded with his own email to his officers, also on January 15, 2015 —as follows, Please have your Teser Axon cameras with you on the 22". I have to collect them until ‘we have a policy covering the camera system. 8. When asked about the body camera (also refer to as a Taser camera) found in the trunk of his police car, at the Apri 23, 2016 incident, Grievant MacNaught admitted knowing of the ‘emails, and the instructions to lock them in the SWAT locker — but interpreted the instructions to prohibit use of the cameras for ‘training and operational purposes” ~ and Grievant was using the cameras for “demo” purposes in his citizen outreach responsibilities; not for “training or operations". 10. Grievant MacNaught’s statement that he used the cameras numerous times, for demo purposes, only, for his ciizen responsibilities, was accepted and never disputed as inaccurate, by investigators. 11.And, ifone accepts the interpretation by Grievant MacNaught, that he did not understand the restriction to apply toi citizen outreach events, that he never used the camera, never turned it on etc. - then the allegation of insubordination, neglect of duty etc. begins to look more like a simple judgment error, for not clarifying the intent of the email instructions and being so bold as to assume the camera use as a demo was OK. 12. Insubordination requires a clear “intent to refuse to obey"; not an accidental misinterpretation of instructions - and especially in this matter, where there is no “gain” for the Grievant, Why woule he intentionally disregard an order s0 he could use the cameras. for a demo in a legitimate police function 7? 13.The Union contention thet termination for this relatively minor judgment error by MacNaught, 's totally inconsistent with the discipline meted out in the Ippolito matter, has substantial meritARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE ~ MACNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE TWELVE OF SIXTEEN E, DISCUSSION ~ THESE MATTERS ARE CRITICAL IN ANALYZING THIS DISPUTE (CONTINUED) 14. There is no doubt that, i the Ippolito matter, he is consciously choosing to not obey Instructions from his superior officer, to report for duty at 0600 hours. Ippolito comes to his senses and reports six hour late. A'one day suspension seems quite appropriate, given the litle information that we nave. It's an isolated and minor violation, "Correct it and move on"! 15.This instant case, with MacNaught is equally minor. He made a simple mistake and should have, just to be sure, doubled back and checked with Lt. Gillette. I's an isolated and minor Violation — but a common problem whenever “we assume”. “Correct it and move on II" 16.Given the circumstances, as sensed in the arbitration hearing, the decision by the City and the City Manager to allow the City Manager to exercise his normal authority as final decider in this horrific incident, wth his emotional connection to the fatally injured victim ~ must have been driven by unique factors which did not surface during the arbitration hearing, 17.While we, and the City Vanager, can never be sure of what influences affect our decisions — ‘one cannot deny that, whatever decision is made, the “appearance” of an emotional conflict of interest would certainly exist, in this incident, Being a close friend of the victim, and ‘emotionally proclaiming same, does not give the appearance of clear objectivity in the final decision — even though, avery effort was made and intended, to be clear and objective,ARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT, PIERCE — MACNAUGHT — TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE THIRTEEN OF SIXTEEN F, CONCLUSION — FINDINGS OF THE ARBITRATOR: In General: 1. Within this terrible disastar, all Parties have done their best to fulfill their responsibilities as they believe best - facing obstactes and controversy at every turn. 2. This arbitration hearing will, hopefully, close one chapter and aid in the normalizing process. In Regard to The Shooting Incident: 3, There is no clear action by the Griovant that would rise to the level ofa Violation. There are actions which could have been done differently and a lot of “ifs” - “if not done or “i” done differently ~ not the least of which is “f the young manvietim would have conducted himself differently, and, especially, if he had not atiempted to flee". We can only guess "WHY?" In Regard To the Body Cameras: 4, The incident involving the Taser Body Cameras and Grievant MacNaught’s use of same is much ado over a very minor incident — and provides no basis for termination, any more than the oft referenced Ippolito incident. 5. Rather than a matter of blatant and intontional disregard for authority and the instructions from a supervisor, we have a simple case of a competent and responsible Police Sergeant, MacNaught, carelessly assuming he understood the instructions conceming the Body ‘Cameras, and believing his actions to use them for demonstration purposes were ‘completely OK. And s0 he innocently used them numerous times over the ensuing fifteen (15) months, without deceit and without any incident — until April 23, 2016, 6. And strangely enough, forall we know, he may have been absolutely correct — but since he did not confirm with the Lieutenant, who issued the original instructions; and since the cameras became embroled in a much more serious incident, we will never know. 7. But we do know that the whole camera issue was a gigantic misunderstanding, and while minor discipline may be appropriate — it does not justify terminationARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE - MACNAUGHT — TERMINATION — APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE FOURTEEN OF SIXTEEN G. AWARD: 1. The grievance submitted by the Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association, on May 9, 2017, on behalf of Ex-Sergeant Brian MacNaught, for the incident of April 23, 2016, is, partially sustained and partially denied. 2. Grievant MacNaught's termination is to be reversed and Grievant is to be reinstated at the ‘same pay, pay grade, seniority and benefits etc. as existed at hs termination onfabout May 8, 2017 — and modified with any changes, as would have occurred, were he normally employed, in good standing, during the period between termination and reinstatement 3. Grievant is to receive all back pay, benefits, seniority etc. which he lost due to the termination (made whole). 4, Reinstatement is to occur at the discretion of Ft. Pierce Police Management, but no later than June 1, 2018 - appropriate professionalism, courtesy and maturity is expected of all Parles. 5. The termination is to be replaced with a one (1) day suspension w/o pay. The date of this suspension to be determined by Police Management. The Basis of this suspension is the lapse in sound judgment exhibited in an assumption of an exception to Lt. Gillette's instructions, without the effort of verifying said assumed exception. 6. Due to the complexity ofthis case and the complexity of the AWARD, the arbitrator il retain jurisdiction ofthis dispute for ninety (90) days beyond the date of this Award — to resolve any questions concerning implementation or clatfcation of the Award ~ not for further argument of the merits, as the case is closed. 7. Should questions or protioms develop conceming the implementation, interpretation, or Clarification of this Award (not further argument ofthe merits), please contact the arbitrator only through written inquiry (via email or US Mail), either jointy or with copy to opposing Counsel. The arbitrator’ reply will be likewise. END OF THIS DOCUMENT Ccces C Sade orl 18,2018 William C. Serda ‘Arbitrator Date 463 NE 100 Street Miami Shores, FL 33138-2446 FAX: 3057567042 CELL: 3057857760 EMAIL: weserda@aol.comARBITRATION AWARD COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE — MACNAUGHT — TERMINATION ~ APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE FIFTEEN OF SIXTEEN THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKARBITRATION AWARD. COASTAL FL. PBA vs CITY of FT. PIERCE ~ MCNAUGHT ~ TERMINATION — APRIL 18, 2018 PAGE SIXTEEN OF SIXTEEN ‘THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK