Page 15 - October 2015

PAT FIORETTO
BA
U
M SIG
MA
, LT
D.
U
N
NA
U
UE
ER
BA
CH & NEU
MAN
T
OR EY
S
N
SN
A
w ● Em
S
t
i
i ti
o
N
D LL
ORS
ia e m
p
a
ee a ensne
v
a ab
bet
o Pr
p
pl y
pensa
t
on a
a
w
w r a
l
l In
C
o str
uc
oR
ela
t
e jur
ies
nju
PA
SQU
A
N ON
CA ST
N L
JA
MES M. N
N
U
RA M. FIN
T
AL
T
EPHEN J. R
HER
IN
E M. C OSEN
LE A
T
T
EU
. FIOR
MA ET
HA
PMAN
NL
BLA
T
N
.A C
WW
IN
BR
I
ER
DAM HI A
E,
IL 60606
A O PA
NC
EC
A
TK
R
ISTI
IA
N
N C
. HL
.AG
MAN
.COM
R
2 6-43
L
A
A
A
V
V
I
N
R
N
EG
A
TR
ILIA M. SC
ICK N
. RY
IN M. R
E
YAN
A EEPMEY
A
LODGE 7 LABOR CORNER
A recap of action taken on the Tattoo Grievance
As I reported briefly in the last issue, on Sept. 9, Lodge 7 participated in an Arbitration Hearing involving the Class Action Tattoo Grievance, filed by Representative Al Francis, Jr., on behalf of all police officers impacted by the Department’s uni- lateral decision to ban visible tattoos while on duty without bargaining with Lodge 7. I would like to use this month’s article to provide more detail and to thank those who helped make the presen- tation of the case so successful.
For those not familiar with the events leading up to the new practice, on June 8, the Department released, among other things, a revised directive regarding Personal Appearance, Uniform/Citizen’s Dress and Equip-
ment (U04-01); along with a General Message to all units announcing the revisions. This new directive, for the first time in the history of the Department, implemented a tattoo prohibi- tion, forcing all sworn officers with visible tattoos to cover them up “while on duty or representing the Department,” or face disci- plinary action. Prior to the revised Directive U04-01, no Depart- mental Directives existed prohibiting or regulating in any way the display of tattoos or body brandings. For years, officers have worked without incident, despite having visible tattoos or body brandings, both prior to joining the Department and after being employed by the city. That all changed on June 12. Other changes to the Directives included deletions and restrictions regarding
wearing baseball hats and knit caps.
Lodge 7 considered such actions to be not only a violation of
the parties’ contract, but also a clear violation of the State Labor Relations Act, which prohibits an employer from unilaterally changing the status quo on mandatory subjects of bargaining without giving the union the opportunity to bargain. A mandatory subject of bargaining, in essence, involves an employ- ee’s wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment. The only notice the city provided the Lodge was on May 21 when the
Department conducted its Uniform Committee Meeting, where it distributed what would become the final order to
the Lodge’s Uniform Committee.
Despite what the Department is now claiming, this was
not a bargaining session. Both Trustee Jay Ryan and Ser- geant-at-Arms Al Francis, Jr. offered uncontroverted testi- mony that the Department did not show up to bargain with the Lodge 7, but simply to tell the union what it would be doing. Although Lodge 7 filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Labor Board (and requested injunctive relief ), the Board decided, at this time, to defer the matter to the arbitration process to see if the Arbitrator could resolve the underlying dispute. It is important to note that the Labor Board still has jurisdiction of the charge and will wait until after the Arbitration Award is issued before it
makes a final determination on Lodge 7's charge.
At the arbitration hearing, Lodge 7 presented five witnesses to support its claim that the Department’s unilateral decision to
CONTINUED ON PAGE 18
16 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ OCTOBER 2015