Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Officer’s unsafe firearm handling justified termination, (Oct 15, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

During a disciplinary meeting, the officer inadvertently directed the muzzle of his firearm first toward the commanding officer and then toward the peer support deputy sitting nearby.

Denying the grievance filed by a union on behalf of a police officer contesting his termination after he unintentionally pointed his duty firearm toward two superior officers during a disciplinary meeting, an arbitrator found his conduct was a serious violation of performance standards and workplace safety. The arbitrator also found the incident was supported by just cause under the collective bargaining agreement (King County and King County Police Officers Guild (Mayne, Arb. Feb. 10, 2025)).

Handling of firearm. The disciplinary meeting was convened to notify the officer that he was being placed on paid administrative leave. After being instructed to turn in all issued equipment, the officer stood up and attempted to clear his weapon by removing the magazine and chambered round. During this process, he inadvertently directed the muzzle of his firearm first toward the commanding officer and then toward the peer support deputy sitting nearby. Witnesses described the officer as visibly distressed and testified that the weapon was pointed for one to two seconds, causing fear and alarm.

The officer had a strong record of service. He received departmental awards, earned consistently high-performance evaluations, and was regularly trusted to act in supervisory roles. Multiple witnesses confirmed that the lasering incident appeared unintentional and the result of emotional stress. Even so, those present considered the act highly dangerous and in violation of both safety protocols and the department’s general orders regarding firearm handling.

Unsafe environment. The department contended that while the conduct may not have been deliberate, it created an unsafe and traumatic environment and violated fundamental firearm safety principles. Moreover, the officer failed to issue any immediate apology or express remorse. The employer argued that this lack of accountability made progressive discipline inappropriate.

The union countered that termination was excessive under the circumstances. It emphasized the officer’s commendable service history, the absence of any intent to harm, and the acknowledgment by multiple witnesses that the action was likely the product of stress. The union requested a lesser disciplinary response, such as retraining or suspension.

Just cause. The arbitrator concluded that the department had just cause for termination. While the act may have been unintentional, it caused significant distress and posed a real risk to those present. The arbitrator emphasized that the officer’s failure to apologize or accept responsibility demonstrated that progressive discipline would not be rehabilitative in this instance. Citing prior dissimilar cases, the arbitrator declined to apply comparative discipline analysis.

Attorneys: Devon Shannon for King County. Laura Alspach for King County Police Officers Guild.

Companies: King County King County Police Officers Guild

Cases: Labor Arbitration UnionsMembers PublicEmployees Discharge