Page 19 - January 2018

a grievance. As the grievance works its way through the process, it may be resolved to the grievant’s satisfaction. This can occur either at the District level or through an informal mediation process. If not resolved, the grievance will be submitted to the Lodge 7 Grievance Committee, which meets monthly.
At that point, a decision is made whether or not to proceed to arbitration, based on the specific facts of the grievance; any prior, relevant decisions; supporting case law; and past practice. Indeed, Lodge 7 does not proceed to arbitration when a set of facts might lead to a loss, an adverse ruling impacting a large group of officers, or possibly the entire membership. Needless to say, the article did not even mention how many grievances Lodge 7 decided not to pursue any further.
Once arbitration is demanded, the parties select an arbitrator and a hearing is scheduled. Arbitration is the last step in the process. It has been the preferred method of resolving labor disputes between management and labor since the late 1800s. As the concept of collective bargaining and unions grew in this country, formal arbitration began to grow in popularity. In large part, grievance arbitration is intended to maintain labor harmo- ny and stability. Most grievance arbitration provisions found in today’s collective bargaining agreements have multiple steps, which all end in a final and binding award issued by a mutually selected third party (arbitrator/umpire).
At an arbitration hearing, the City must prove that it acted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. And here is where the City regularly fails when it imposes discipline. The City must prove that it has clear rules of conduct that are reasonably re- lated to its operations and, moreover, such rules must not be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory (more often than not, the City is found to be in compliance with these requirements).
However, the City must also establish that a thorough, timely, fair and unbiased investigation of the underlying allegations oc-
curred — which the City regularly fails to establish. Additionally, any findings of wrongdoing must be supported by the evidence (which again, arbitrators often find that the City has not done). Finally, if discipline is warranted (based on all of the above), then any discipline imposed must be applied equally and with- out discrimination. This removes the unfortunate reality that a well-liked or “connected” Police Officer may receive a lesser discipline, while one who might not have the best relationship with a commander is doled out a harsher penalty for the same conduct.
It is no wonder that of the 147 suspension grievances over the past seven years referenced in the article, arbitrators sustained 112 (76%). The real story is that the City is not complying with its obligations under the contract. Contrary to the slant which the authors of the article try to take, the mutually selected arbitra- tors are seasoned, well respected neutrals. All are scholars in the labor field, and each arbitrator gets paid regardless of whether a grievance is sustained. The tragedy would be if the arbitrators began to rule in a way meant simply to appease the mood of the community or certain special interest groups — like the Police Board has been doing since being led by President Lori Lightfoot (but I’ll save that story for another article).
As I previously wrote in another article: no process is perfect and not all outcomes are favorable. As a labor lawyer, I believe that grievance arbitration works — and routinely works well. Lodge 7 will keep fighting to ensure that the City complies with the process. If we have no faith in the process, then the rest does not matter. Perhaps that is a lesson which should have been in- cluded in the special report issued by the Chicago Tribune/Pro- Publica Illinois. Sadly, that does not sell in today’s climate. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ JANUARY 2018 19