COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Twuan Harris : State Civil Service Commission

:

v. :

:

State Correctional Institution at Mercer, :

Department of Corrections : Appeal No. 30192

Twuan Harris Jocelyn G. Schultz

Pro Se Attorney for Appointing Authority

ADJUDICATION

This is an appeal by Twuan Harris challenging his three-day suspension

from regular Corrections Officer 1 employment with the State Correctional

Institution at Mercer, Department of Corrections. A hearing was held on June 4,

2019, at the State Civil Service Commission’s Western Regional Office in

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, before Hearing Officer Odelfa Smith Preston.

The Commissioners have reviewed the Notes of Testimony and

exhibits introduced at the hearing.1 The issue before the Commission is whether

there is just cause for appellant’s three-day suspension.

1 At the hearing, both parties rested on the record. After the record was close, appellant requested to file a Brief. The

appointing authority opposed appellant’s request. No Brief was received.

2

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By letter dated February 27, 2019, appellant was

notified of his three-day suspension from his

position as Corrections Officer 1, regular status,

effective March 2, 2019, for violating Section B.8,

B.9, and B.10 of the Department of Corrections

Code of Ethics. Specifically, on October 25, 2018,

appellant failed to report to his assigned post at

UPMC Presbyterian Hospital for his regular shift,

after being given a direct order and without being

properly relieved or receiving proper authorization

from his supervisor. Additionally, appellant

refused direct orders from his supervisors to appear

for mandated overtime on November 23, 2018,

November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018, and

he acted unprofessionally and insolent toward his

supervisors when he refused the direct orders.

Comm. Ex. A.

2. The appeal was properly raised before this

Commission and was heard under Section 951(a) of

the Civil Service Act, as amended.2

2 Appellant’s request for a hearing under Section 951(b) of the Civil Service Act was denied due to an insufficient

allegation of discrimination.

3

3. Appellant is employed by the appointing authority

as a Corrections Officer 1. Comm. Ex. A.

4. Corrections Officer 1 employees are required to be

available to work all shifts and to work whichever

shift they are assigned. N.T. p. 32.

5. Correction Officer 1 employees are required to

work posts to which they are mandated with little or

no advance notice. N.T. p. 32.

6. Mandated shifts are first filled using the voluntary

overtime list. All officers are afforded the

opportunity to sign up for voluntary overtime. Once

the voluntary overtime list is exhausted, all officers

presently working inside the institution are asked if

they wish to volunteer to work overtime. If there

are no volunteers, then the mandate list is used.

N.T. p. 22.

7. The mandate list is a list of officers organized by

seniority and date of last mandation. N.T. pp. 22-

23.

4

8. On October 25, 2018, appellant was assigned to

work the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift at the UPMC

Presbyterian Hospital. N.T. p. 66; AA Ex. 4

(Tab A.)

9. Appellant failed to report for his 10:00 p.m. to 6:00

a.m. shift at the UPMC Presbyterian Hospital on

October 25, 2018. N.T. p. 67; AA Ex. 4 (Tab A.)

10. On November 23, 2018, appellant was mandated to

work the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift at the UPMC

Presbyterian Hospital. N.T. p. 52; AA Ex. 1

(Tab A).

11. Appellant failed to report for his mandated 2:00

p.m. to 10:00 p.m. shift at the UPMC Presbyterian

Hospital on November 23, 2018. N.T. p. 69.

12. On November 26, 2018, appellant was mandated to

work the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. N.T. p. 82;

AA Ex. 2 (Tab A).

13. Appellant failed to report for his mandated

6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift on November 26, 2018.

N.T. p. 82; AA Ex. 2 (Tab A).

5

14. On December 23, 2018, appellant was mandated to

work the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. N.T. pp. 54,

58; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A).

15. Appellant failed to report for his mandated

8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift on December 23, 2018.

N.T. pp. 54-55, 87; AA Ex. 3 (Tab B).

16. When appellant failed to appear for the mandated

shift on December 23 2018, Lieutenant Michael

Stull telephoned appellant. During this call,

appellant used “a bunch of expletives.” N.T. pp. 87-

88; AA Ex. 3 (Tab B).

17. On January 25, 2019, appellant received written

notification that a pre-disciplinary conference was

scheduled for January 28, 2019. The written

notification also informed appellant that he was

charged with violating Sections B.8, B.9, and B.10

of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics

based on his failure to report for shifts on

October 25, 2018, November 23, 2018,

November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018. N.T.

pp. 99-100; AA Ex. 7.

6

18. The pre-disciplinary conference was held as

scheduled on January 28, 2019. N.T. pp. 98-99.

19. Section B.8 of the Department of Corrections Code

of Ethics provides:

No employee shall leave his/her

assigned post or leave the institution or

grounds without being properly

relieved and receiving proper

authorization from a supervisor.

Proper relief involves communicating

any special observations or orders to

the relief personnel.

AA Ex. 5 (p. 3).

20. Section B.9 of the Department of Corrections Code

of Ethics provides:

Lawful orders by a supervisor to a

subordinate must be executed

promptly and faithfully by the

subordinate even though the employee

may question the wisdom of such

order. The privilege of formally

appealing the order may be done at a

later date through either the

supervisory command structure, civil

service appeal, or the grievance

machinery.

AA Ex. 5 (p. 3).

7

21. Section B.10 of the Department of Corrections

Code of Ethics provides:

Employees are expected to treat their

peers, supervisors, and the general

public with respect and conduct

themselves properly and

professionally at all times;

unacceptable conduct or insolence will

not be tolerated.

AA Ex. 5 (p. 4).

22. Appellant signed an acknowledgment on

November 17, 2018 that he received, read, and

agreed to abide by the Department of Corrections

Code of Ethics. N.T. p. 96; AA Ex. 6.

DISCUSSION

The current appeal was brought under Section 951(a) of the Civil

Service Act, 71 P.S. § 741.951(a), as a challenge to a three-day suspension of

appellant from regular status employment.3 Comm. Ex. A. In an appeal brought

under Section 951(a), the burden of proof is for the appointing authority to present

3 The suspension, relevant events at issue, and the filing and acceptance of the appeal in the present matter occurred

prior to the full implementation of Act 71 of 2018, P.L. 460, No. 71, codified as 71 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-3304. Full

implementation of Act 71 occurred on March 28, 2019, the date on which all sections of Act 71 of 2018 went into

effect. See Act 71 of 2018, Section 3. Consequently, the substantive provisions of the Civil Service Act (Act 286 of

1941, P.L. 752, No. 286, 71 P.S. §§ 741.1-741.1005) and implementing regulations apply to the present appeal because

that is the law in effect at the time of the suspension and acceptance of the appeal. However, authority to convene the

hearing on the present appeal is under section 3003(7)(i) since the hearing commenced after the implementation of

Act 71.

8

evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the decision to impose the adverse personnel

action was made for cause. Under Section 803 of the Civil Service Act, a regular

status employee may only be suspended for “good” cause. Hargrove v.

Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (Department of Corrections), 851

A.2d 257, 260 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004); 71 P.S. § 741.803; 4 Pa. Code §§ 101.21,

105.15. Accordingly, the matter before the Commission is whether the current

suspension was for good cause.

Appellant was charged with failing to report to his assigned post at

UPMC Presbyterian Hospital for his regular shift on October 25, 2018, after being

given a direct order and without being properly relieved or receiving proper

authorization from his supervisor. Comm. Ex. A. Additionally, appellant was

charged with refusing direct orders from his supervisors to appear for mandated

overtime on November 23, 2018, November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018, and

acting unprofessionally and insolent toward his supervisors when he refused the

direct orders. Comm. Ex. A.

In support of its disciplinary action, the appointing authority presented

the testimony of Captain Theron Robbins, Lieutenant Alan Claypoole, Captain

William Ayers, Lieutenant Scott Whitesell, Lieutenant Michael Stull, and Field

Human Resource Officer Lori Mahlmeister. Appellant did not present any

witnesses, nor did he testify on his behalf. The unchallenged relevant facts

pertaining to the charges are summarized below.

9

II. Unchallenged Evidence

Appellant is employed by the appointing authority as a Corrections

Officer 1. Corrections Officer 1 employees, such as appellant, are required to be

available to work all shifts and to work whichever shift they are assigned. N.T. p. 32.

This includes posts to which they are mandated with little or no advance notice. N.T.

p. 32.

Mandated shifts are first filled using the voluntary overtime list. N.T.

p. 22. All officers are afforded the opportunity to sign up for voluntary overtime.

N.T. p. 22. Once the voluntary overtime list is exhausted, all officers presently

working inside the institution are asked if they wish to volunteer to work overtime.

N.T. p. 22. If there are no volunteers, then the mandate list is used. N.T. p. 22. The

mandate list is a list of officers organized by seniority and date of last mandation.

N.T. pp. 22-23.

The appointing authority presented the following unchallenged

evidence establishing that appellant failed to report for his shift on October 25, 2018,

and refused direct orders to appear for mandated overtime on November 23, 2018,

November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018.

October 25, 2018 incident

On October 25, 2018, Captain William Ayers4 was conducting the

check-in for the evening shift when he noticed appellant was in the hall. N.T. pp. 65-

66; AA Ex. 4 (Tab A). Appellant had worked overtime from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

4 Captain Ayers is the Shift Commander for the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift. N.T. p. 64. Appellant was one of the

officers assigned to Captain Ayers’ shift on October 25, 2018. N.T. p. 65.

10

for firearms training and was mandated to report to the UPMC Presbyterian Hospital

for the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift. Captain Ayers asked appellant why he was not

on his way to his next post and ordered him to go to his next post. N.T. p. 66; AA

Ex. 4 (Tab A).

Upon learning the officer at the UPMC Presbyterian Hospital post was

not relieved, Captain Ayers called appellant’s home telephone number, which is the

only telephone number that the appointing authority had on file for the appellant.

N.T. pp. 66-67; AA Ex. 4 (Tab A). There was no response at the telephone number

Captain Ayers called, and appellant did not report for the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

shift, to which he was assigned. N.T. p. 67; AA Ex. 4 (Tab A).

November 23, 2018 incident

On November 23, 2018, Lieutenant Alan Claypoole5 telephoned

appellant and informed him that he was mandated to report for the 2:00 p.m. to 10:00

p.m. shift prior to his 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift at the UPMC Presbyterian

Hospital. N.T. p. 52; AA Ex. 1 (Tab A). Appellant told Lieutenant Claypoole that

he could not take the mandated shift because he had a doctor’s appointment. N.T.

p. 51; AA Ex. 1 (Tab A). Lieutenant Claypoole found it odd that appellant had a

doctor’s appointment scheduled for a Saturday afternoon and asked appellant, “Do

you have a doctor appointment?” N.T. p. 51; AA Ex. 1 (Tab A). Appellant

5 Lieutenant Claypoole is assigned to the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift and oversees the daily operations of the Restricted

Housing Unit, which includes ensuring compliance with daily operations. N.T. pp. 45-46.

11

responded, “Yes,” and hung up. N.T. pp. 52-53; AA Ex. 1 (Tab A). Subsequently,

Lieutenant Claypoole informed Captain Ayers of his conversation with appellant.

N.T. p. 53; AA Ex. 1 (Tab A).

Captain Ayers contacted appellant and explained to him that under the

Collective Bargaining Agreement, appellant was expected to work mandated shifts

with little or no notice. N.T. pp. 68-69; AA Ex. 1 (Tab B). Nevertheless, appellant

failed to report for his mandated shift on November 23, 2018. N.T. p. 69.

November 26, 2018 incident

On November 26, 2018, Lieutenant Scott Whitesell6 spoke with

appellant and mandated him to work the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. N.T. p. 82;

AA Ex. 2 (Tab A). Appellant failed to report for this mandated shift. N.T. p. 82;

AA Ex. 2 (Tab A). Appellant did not give Lieutenant Whitesell any reason for his

failure to report. N.T. p. 83; AA Ex. 2 (Tab A).

December 23, 2018 incident

On December 23, 2018, Lieutenant Claypoole contacted appellant via

radio at the institution where he was working and informed appellant that he was

mandated for an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. N.T. pp. 54, 58; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A).

Appellant indicated he would get back to Lieutenant Claypoole after he called home.

6 Lieutenant Whitesell is the desk Lieutenant for the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift. N.T. p. 81. In that capacity,

Lieutenant Whitesell is responsible to assigning officers to various posts, including overtime. N.T. p. 81.

12

N.T. pp. 54, 58; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A). Appellant called Lieutenant Claypoole back and

indicated he could not work an 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift, but he was willing to do

a 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. N.T. pp. 54, 58; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A).

Lieutenant Claypoole tried to “juggle the schedule,” but could not give

appellant a 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift and informed him of such. However,

Lieutenant Claypoole told appellant that he would assign appellant to the hospital

on the following night, which would give appellant more non-work time at home.

N.T. pp. 54, 58-59; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A). Appellant indicated he would work the

mandated 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. N.T. pp. 54, 58, 87; AA Ex. 3 (Tab A).

Lieutenant Claypoole informed Lieutenant Michael Stull7 that he talked

to appellant at the beginning of his shift and appellant had accepted the mandate for

the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift. N.T. pp. 87-88; AA Ex. 3 (Tab B). However,

appellant failed to appear for the mandated shift. N.T. pp. 54-55, 87; AA Ex. 3 (Tab

B). When appellant failed to appear for the mandated shift, Lieutenant Stull

telephoned appellant and asked him if he was aware of the mandate. N.T. pp. 87-

88. Appellant responded he was not aware of the mandate, denied talking to

Lieutenant Claypoole, and stated he was not coming in. N.T. pp. 88-89; AA Ex. 3

(Tab B). During this conversation with Lieutenant Stull, appellant used “a bunch of

expletives.” N.T. p. 88; AA Ex. 3 (Tab B).

7 Lieutenant Stull is the scheduling Lieutenant for the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. N.T. p. 86. In that capacity,

Lieutenant Stull is responsible for filling the complement needed for that shift. N.T. p. 86.

13

Disciplinary Investigations

Lieutenant Claypoole and Captain Theron Robbins8 were responsible

for investigating the incidents discussed above. Specifically, Lieutenant Claypoole

conducted the investigation regarding the October 25, 2018 incident, and Captain

Robbins conducted the investigations regarding the incidents that occurred on

November 23, 2018, November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018. N.T. pp. 16-18,

24-25, 27-28, 46-47; AA Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4.

During his investigation of the October 25, 2018 incident, Lieutenant

Claypoole gathered the following evidence: sworn written statements; the in-service

training roster; the overtime justification for appellant to attend the training; and a

roster reflecting appellant’s overtime for the training. N.T. pp. 50-51; AA Ex. 4.

Based on the investigation, Lieutenant Claypoole concluded appellant violated B.8

and B.9 of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. N.T. p. 51; AA Ex. 4.

With regard to the investigations of the remaining three incidents,

Captain Robbins obtained sworn written statements from the supervisors who

mandated appellant to work overtime, the shift rosters, and mandated overtime lists

for each of the dates that appellant refused to work mandated overtime. N.T. pp. 19-

22, 25-26, 28-29, 40; AA Exs. 1, 2, 3. Based on the investigations, Captain Robbins

recommended discipline for violation of B.9 and B.10 of the Department of

Corrections Code of Ethics and Article 18, Section 5 of the Collective Bargaining

8 Captain Robbins is the Alternate Shift Commander for the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. In that capacity, he oversees

approximately 100 Corrections Officers and other staff members and is responsible for the daily running of the

institution during his shift. N.T. p. 15.

14

Agreement. N.T. pp. 24, 30; AA Exs. 1, 2, 3. Captain Robbins’ recommendations,

along with evidence collected during the fact-finding investigation, were provided

to the chain-of-command. N.T. pp. 30-31.

Subsequently, on January 28, 2019, a pre-disciplinary conference was

held regarding the above incidents. N.T. pp. 98-99. Appellant received written

notification of the pre-disciplinary conference on January 25, 2019. N.T. pp. 99-

100; AA Ex. 7. The written notification informed appellant of the charges against

him, the time and date of the pre-disciplinary conference, and his right to respond to

the charges. N.T. p. 100; AA Ex. 7. Specifically, the charges against appellant were

violations of Sections B.8, B.9, and B.10 of the Department of Corrections Code of

Ethics. N.T. p. 100; AA Ex. 7.

Field Human Resource Officer Lori Mahlmeister chaired the three-

person panel that presided over the pre-disciplinary conference. N.T. p. 100. The

panel determined all of the charges against appellant were substantiated. N.T.

pp. 100-101. In substantiating the charges, the panel considered appellant’s

admissions to refusing the mandates, as well as appellant’s failure to provide good

reasons for his actions. N.T. p. 101.

After the pre-disciplinary conference was conducted, the

Superintendent determined the level of discipline to be imposed. N.T. pp. 97, 101.

While the discipline is typically progressive, a higher level of discipline may be

imposed depending on the egregiousness of the violation. N.T. pp. 97-98. Prior to

the issuance of the discipline, which is the subject of the present appeal, appellant

received a written reprimand for refusing mandates. N.T. pp. 102-103; AA Ex. 8.

This written reprimand was issued in August, 2018. N.T. p. 102; AA Ex. 8.

15

Following the pre-disciplinary conference in the present matter,

appellant was issued a three-day suspension for violating Sections B.8, B.9, and B.10

of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics. Comm. Ex. A. Section B.8 of the

Department of Corrections Code of Ethics provides:

No employee shall leave his/her assigned post or leave the

institution or grounds without being properly relieved and

receiving proper authorization from a supervisor. Proper

relief involves communicating any special observations or

orders to the relief personnel.

N.T. pp. 33-34; AA Ex. 5 (p. 3). Captain Robbins explained appellant violated this

section when he failed to contact the appointing authority and inform them that he

was not going to be able to assume his post. N.T. p. 34. Captain Robbins stated this

puts a burden on the shift Lieutenant to find immediate overtime coverage so that

the officer from the prior shift can be relieved. N.T. p. 34.

Section B.9 of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics provides:

Lawful orders by a supervisor to a subordinate must be

executed promptly and faithfully by the subordinate even

though the employee may question the wisdom of such

order. The privilege of formally appealing the order may

be done at a later date through either the supervisory

command structure, civil service appeal, or the grievance

machinery.

N.T. p. 35; AA Ex. 5 (p. 3). Captain Robbins explained appellant violated Section

B.9 when he either refused or failed to show for his mandated posts on November 23

and 26, 2018 and December 23, 2018. N.T. pp. 35-36. Captain Robbins further

16

explained when an officer refuses or fails to show for a mandated post, it affects the

security and operation of the facility because another person must be found to cover

the post. N.T. p. 36.

Section B.10 of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics provides:

Employees are expected to treat their peers, supervisors, and the

general public with respect and conduct themselves properly and

professionally at all times; unacceptable conduct or insolence

will not be tolerated.

N.T. pp. 36-37; AA Ex. 5 (p. 4). Captain Robbins explained appellant violated this

section when he either refused or failed to show for his mandated posts. N.T. p. 37.

Captain Robbins noted such behavior hinders the effective management of the staff

because the officers may start to perceive that it is permissible to refuse orders and/or

not appear for mandated posts. N.T. p. 37.

III. Good Cause for Suspension

In an appeal challenging the suspension of a regular status employee,

the appointing authority has the burden to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate

the suspension was for good cause. White v. Commonwealth, Department of

Corrections, 110 Pa. Commw. 496, 532 A.2d 950 (1987); 71 P.S. §§741.803,

741.951(a); 4 Pa. Code §105.15. Good cause must relate to an employee’s

competence and ability to perform his job duties, Department of Corrections v.

Ehnot, 110 Pa. Commw. 608, 532 A.2d 1262 (1987), or must result from conduct

that hampers or frustrates the execution of the employee’s duties. McCain v.

Department of Education, 71 Pa. Commw. 165, 454 A.2d 667 (1983).

17

Having fully reviewed the record compiled in this appeal, we find the

appointing authority has presented sufficient evidence to establish good cause for a

suspension under the Civil Service Act. In support of our conclusion, we find

credible9 the testimony provided by the appointing authority’s witnesses.

Appellant’s duties require him to be available to work all shifts,

including shifts to which he is mandated with little or no advance notice. N.T. p. 32.

Appellant failed to perform this duty when he did not appear for his regular shift on

October 25, 2018 and when he failed to appear for mandated shifts on November 23

and 26, 2018 and December 23, 2018. Furthermore, in order to perform one’s work

duties, one must be available for work. Zielinski v. Luzerne County Assistance

Office, Department of Public Welfare, 107 Pa. Commw 414, 528 A.2d 1028 (1986).

The Commonwealth has the right to have employees present at work to perform

needed services. Id. We find appellant’s failure to appear for his assigned shifts

frustrated his ability to perform his work duties, which is good cause for the three-

day suspension, which is the subject of the present appeal.

Additionally, we find appellant’s failure to appear for his assigned and

mandated shifts violates Sections B.8 and B.9 of the Department of Corrections

Code of Ethics. Section B.8 prohibits employees from leaving their assigned post

without being properly relieved and receiving proper authorization, whereas Section

B.9 requires employees to promptly and faithfully execute lawful orders. N.T.

9 It is within the purview of the Commission to determine the credibility of the witnesses. State Correctional

Institution at Graterford, Department of Corrections v. Jordan, 505 A.2d 339, 341 (Pa. Commw. 1986).

18

pp. 33-35; AA Ex. 5 (p. 3). We find appellant violated these provisions when he

failed to comply with the lawful orders requiring him to appear for shifts on October

25, 2018, November 23, 2018, November 26, 2018, and December 23, 2018. N.T.

pp. 54-55, 67, 69, 82, 87. We further find there is no evidence that the orders

requiring appellant to appear for these shifts were unlawful.

We also find appellant violated Section B.10 of the Department of

Corrections Code of Ethics, which requires employees to conduct themselves

properly and professionally at all times.10 N.T. pp. 36-37; AA Ex. 5 (p. 4).

Specifically, appellant violated this section when he used expletives during his

conversation with Lieutenant Stull on December 23, 2018.

Nonetheless, appellant appears to be arguing: 1) the appointing

authority did not issue the charges in a timely manner; 2) the appointing authority

did not consistently discipline employees who refused mandated shifts; and 3)

management should take into consideration the employee’s travel time when

mandating an employee to work. N.T. pp. 60-61, 103; Comm. Ex. B. First,

regarding the timeliness of the charges, there is no evidence that the appointing

10 We note, even if the appointing authority did not present evidence sufficient to establish a violation of Section B.10

of the Department of Corrections Code of Ethics, there was sufficient evidence to establish the substance of the

remaining charges. We further find the remaining charges alone are sufficient to establish good cause for the

suspension. See generally Lewis v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Health (Lewis II), 70 Pa. Commw.

531, 534, 453 A.2d 713, 714 (1982)(holding where the appointing authority bases a removal action upon several

charges and some, but not all of the charges are proven, the Commission may uphold the removal if there is just cause

for removal based upon the charges that are proven).

19

authority was required to issue the charges within a specific period of time.11 Field

Human Resource Officer Lori Mahlmeister testified the appointing authority’s

policy requires the charges to be brought within a “reasonable amount of time.” N.T.

pp. 103-104. Lieutenant Claypoole explained this merely means the charges need

to be issued as soon as possible. N.T. pp. 61-62. As Field Human Resource

Officer Mahlmeister observed, some investigations take longer than others. N.T.

p. 104.

Appellant did not present nor is there any evidence to suggest the

investigations which resulted in the present discipline were not conducted within a

reasonable amount of time. Based upon the date each investigative summary was

issued, it took less than a month to complete each investigation, which consisted of

interviewing witnesses and the appellant, as well as obtaining the relevant

documentation. AA Exs. 1, 2, 3, 4. The investigative summary for the October 25,

2018 incident was issued November 23, 2018. AA Ex. 4. The investigative

summaries for the November 23 and 26, 2018 incidents were issued on

December 21, 2018. AA Exs. 1, 2. The investigative summary for the December

23, 2018 incident was issued December 29, 2018, which was less than a week from

the date of the incident. Therefore, we find the appointing authority conducted the

investigations within a reasonable amount of time.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the discipline imposed was

inconsistent with other disciplines issued by the appointing authority. Field Human

Resource Officer Mahlmeister credibly testified other employees have been

11 While Section 101.21(c) of the Rules of the Civil Service Commission provides suspensions pending internal

investigation may not exceed an aggregate of more than sixty workdays in a calendar year, this section does not apply

to appellant because he was not suspended while the investigations were being conducted. See 4 Pa. Code § 101.21(c).

20

suspended for refusing mandated shifts. N.T. p. 103. Therefore, we are not

persuaded by appellant’s claim that the appointing authority failed to impose

consistent discipline.

Likewise, we are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion that

management should take into consideration the employee’s travel time when

mandating an employee to work. As a Corrections Officer 1 employee, appellant is

required to be available to work all shifts, including posts to which he is mandated

with little or no advance notice. N.T. p. 32. There is no evidence to suggest, nor did

appellant present any such evidence, that there are any recognized exceptions to this

requirement.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes the appointing

authority met its burden to show good cause to issue appellant a three-day

suspension for violating Sections B.8, B.9, and B.10 of the Department of

Corrections Code of Ethics. It was appellant’s responsibility to follow lawful orders

mandating that he appear for work. We find appellant’s failure to follow such orders

on October 25, 2018, November 23, 2018, November 26, 2018, and December 23,

2018. hampered and frustrated his duties as a Corrections Officer 1, thereby

providing good cause for a three-day suspension. McCain, supra. Furthermore, the

Commonwealth has the right to have employees present at work to perform needed

services. Zielinski, supra. Appellant cannot perform his duties if he is not available

for work. Therefore, we find appellant’s failure to appear for his assigned shifts was

good cause for the three-day suspension. Accordingly, we enter the following:

21

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The appointing authority has presented evidence

establishing good cause for suspension under

Section 803 of the Civil Service Act, as amended.

ORDER

AND NOW, the State Civil Service Commission, by agreement of its

members, dismisses the appeal of Twuan Harris challenging his three-day

suspension from regular Corrections Officer 1 employment with the State

Correctional Institution at Mercer, Department of Corrections, and sustains the

action of the State Correctional Institution at Mercer, Department of Corrections in

the three-day suspension of Twuan Harris from regular Corrections Officer 1

employment effective March 2, 2019.

State Civil Service Commission

____________________________________

Teresa Osborne

Chairman

____________________________________

Gregory M. Lane

Commissioner

____________________________________

Bryan R. Lentz

Commissioner

Emailed: May 29, 2020