Case study PSO jane Roberts

Case study

Name

Institution

Jane Roberts is a Public safety officer at The Astonville Police Department and has recently graduated from both police and fire academies. The cross-training exercise that Astonville offered to its officers attracted her to seek the job. The city lowered its levels of discipline so as to keep the retention rated of new officers much higher. This was after it was discovered that they lost new recruits to other areas of the state that paid better. Jane Roberts was assigned to FTO Andrew Tibbetts who was responsible for her training. Upon completion of her training, Sergeant Williams, her supervisor noticed that Roberts and her FTO might be engaged in a more than friendly relationship. Roberts later informs Sergeant Williams that she is pregnant and FTO Tibbets was responsible. She threatens to lay claim on worker’s compensation since it happened while she was on duty (More & Miller, 2015). The situation exposes some underlying issues on how the department is run and its relation to its employees.

Sergeant Williams made a sound operational decision when he assigned Roberts to Tibbetts because he was the best Field training officer in the department. This was despite Tibbetts being considered a “ladies man”. But the Sergeant had reason to believe that that she would be able to hold her own against officers like Tibbetts who liked to flirt. Roberts finished her training with very high marks. However the Sergeant was wrong and the two had an intimate relationship. This turned out to be a poor decision by the Sergeant

FTO Tibbetts is at fault because he was tasked with the responsibility of training Roberts and took advantage of this to form an intimate relationship with the recruit. He even gets the recruit pregnant. Tibbetts was supposed to serve as a role model to the trainee but displayed low levels of discipline and integrity when he engages in a sexual relationship with Roberts when she was on duty. By engaging in a relationship with a workmate FTO Tibbetts displays a poor work ethic.

PTO Jane Roberts is also at fault because she should have fended of flirtation and even sexual advances of Officer Tibbetts. Owing to Officer Tibbetts’ reputation Jane Roberts should have exercised high levels of cation when working under him. It is what the Sergeant Williams had expected her to do. Robertson should have reported any attempts of sexual advances towards her by the FTO to the supervisor. She however did not do that. The supervisor caught her in a heated argument with FTO Tibbetts and she told him that there was nothing wrong when he asked what was going on. This makes one believe that she was complicit in the affair because she only informs the supervisor when the relationship goes sour and threatens to file a suit for compensation.

Sergeant Williams has some recourse for this situation. He will have to analyze all factors that are relevant in this situation so as to come up with an appropriate action plan. This includes examining the weaknesses, failures and conspicuous behavior of the two subordinates. Sergeant Williams could document this case outlining the cause, analytics and possible disciplinary action and submit it for review to his superiors. After approval, Sergeant Williams should carry out appropriate disciplinary action against them in a way that is fair and impartial. The Sergeant could also suggest the much needed corrective action on the work policies so as to prevent this situation from happening again in future.

There were several mistakes that were made from the beginning. The first mistake was done by the administration when it “encouraged supervisors to be easy on discipline” and give officers they supervised more freedom. They allowed extra time on breaks and Officers to take time out of their shifts. This encouraged laxity amongst employees and was part of the reason why the two Officers had intimate relation while on duty. The second mistake was when Sergeant Williams assigned Jane Roberts to FTO Tibbetts who had a not so good reputation in dealing with the opposite sex. If the Sergeant would have assigned Roberts to different FTO this predicament may not have happened. Future situations like this may be avoided by making the rules stricter again through encouraging supervisors to be adamant on enforcing the departmental policies. The Sergeant should not only look at the strengths of the FTOs but also take their weaknesses very seriously when assigning recruits. For example, Sergeant Williams should not have assigned the new recruit, Roberts, a young attractive lady to Officer Tibbets who had a weakness toward women. The Officers should also be warned against having intimate relations with co-worker because it is could lead to complications at the workplace when a fallout happens as evidenced by the relationship between FTO Tibbets and PSO Roberts.

Roberts might have a workers compensation claim. She may however claim that she was coerced into an intimate relation by his former FTO while on duty. It may be seen as if FTO Tibbetts took advantage of the new Officer. This may give her a claim on the Workers’ compensation.

The sound operational decision in this case is that, Sergeant Williams should take disciplinary action against Officer Tibbetts for lacking integrity and goodwill when handling the training of Roberts when she was a new recruit. This action should be fair and constructive. I would have done just that.

Reference

More, H.W., & Miller, L.S. (2015). Effective Police Supervision (7th ed.). Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing.