![\"Expedited](\"https:\/\/communicator.pef.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2024\/11\/Gavel-Header.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
November 15, 2024 —<\/em> For members who are suspended without pay, time is of the essence \u2013 the longer the case goes, the harder it is to stay financially afloat, and in some cases, that hardship leads to members settling cases they otherwise would have contested.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Under President Spence\u2019s leadership, PEF\u2019s Contract Team zeroed in on the issue and negotiated and entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state allowing for an Expedited Suspension Review process.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBeing suspended without pay is an incredibly difficult thing for anyone to go through and we used to have to wait until the conclusion of the state\u2019s case-in-chief at an arbitration hearing before we could argue that the standard of probable cause had not been met for suspension,\u201d said PEF Assistant General Counsel Alison M. Thorne. \u201cThis MOA allows us to challenge probable cause for suspension at the beginning of most disciplinary suspension cases. Prior to the MOA, it could have taken several months before the suspension could be reviewed by an arbitrator. The addition of this process has been an incredible benefit to our members who are suspended and facing disciplinary action.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n PEF Director of Contract Administration Debra Greenberg, who worked closely with the PEF Contract Team, said: \u201cHaving the quick suspension review, if successful, can free the employee facing a notice of discipline to contest\/defend it at arbitration instead of being financially pressured to settle, since they remain at work (or at least on the payroll) while the disciplinary case is pending.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This contract provision applies to Article 33 cases where an employee served with disciplinary charges is suspended, while the Notice of Discipline (NOD) is pending, due to the agency\u2019s determination that the employee\u2019s continued presence on the job is either a danger to persons or property, or a severe interference to operations. It does not apply to cases where charges allege patient abuse\/neglect or in cases where the member has been charged with a crime.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n