Page 17 - January 2020 FOP Magazine

City tried to rely upon the consent decree in an attempt to avoid bargaining the effects of the changes in the use of force orders.
However, the Lodge quickly pointed out to the Labor Board investigator that in approving the consent decree, the District Court indicated that the City cannot act unilaterally. Instead, the court properly noted that “the consent decree cannot impair the CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chi- cago Police Officers.” This includes the City’s obligations to bargain with the Lodge, pursuant to its obligation under the State Labor Relations Act. The Lodge presented enough facts to have the charge proceed further.
Since the investigation revealed the existence of an issue of law and/or fact, on Dec. 9, 2019, the Labor Board’s exec- utive director presented the Lodge with an early Christmas gift: the issuance of another formal complaint (the fifth, if anyone is keeping count).
The executive director would later set the matter for hear- ing before one of the board’s administrative law judges. The complaint specifically sets forth allegations of how the City’s unilateral actions changed past policies and procedures regarding use of force (in particular, the bill of rights pro- tections afforded police officers and the standard by which police officers are to evaluate use of force options). Despite the Lodge’s repeated attempts to have the City bargain any impact or effect that the changes to the Use of Force General Orders may have on unit members’ safety and discipline, the City refused.
The complaint clearly alleges that the City’s “changes to the Use of Force General Orders affects the safety of unit employees and relates to wages, hours and terms and con- ditions of employment and is a mandatory subject of bar- gaining.” Moreover, the complaint also alleges that the City’s “changes made to the Use of Force General Orders affects the discipline of unit employees and relates to wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment and is a mandato- ry subject of bargaining.” By failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the Lodge over these issues, the City has violated the act.
Not surprisingly, the City denied any wrongdoing when it filed its formal answer to the complaint on Dec. 19, 2019. A recent order issued by the Labor Board has set the matter for hearing on Feb. 20.
The Lodge remains confident that after a full hearing, the administrative law judge will find the City in violation of the law — just as it has done with body-worn cameras and the CR Matrix. As with the other charges, the City fails to under- stand (or accept) its obligation to bargain with the Lodge over the impact any new policy will have on bargaining unit members.
Let’s hope that this time the board, in finding the City’s propensity to knowingly engage in illegal conduct, will put an end to such practices once and for all. Who knows? This time a new decade might lead to a meaningful change. If not, the Lodge will be prepared to take any necessary action to protect our members.
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ JANUARY 2020 17