Page 18 - FOP August 2019 Magazine

Another grievance arbitration victory
As we have written in the past, the Lodge typical- ly schedules up to four grievances a month for full arbitration.
Initially, once a grievance is filed, if not resolved, the grievance will be submitted to the Lodge’s 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.
Most of those grievances, once selected to proceed to arbi-
tration, settle prior to the arbitration hearing. Settlements often are good for all parties involved, but especially the grievant(s) involved.
As a reminder, both the Lodge and City endeavor to select an arbitrator from a panel of full-time arbitrators that the parties use regularly to preside over the matter and conduct a hearing on the merits. Under the contract, the losing side pays the ar- bitrator fees.
After an arbitrator conducts the hearing and the parties are allowed to present all of their evidence, both sides will file a post-hearing brief. The Lodge’s attorney will incorporate the facts from the hearing and combine them with legal support as to why the grievance should be sustained.
Arbitrators typically (but not always) issue a decision within 30-60 days after the briefs are filed. Once issued, a decision gen- erally is final and binding on the parties. This process plays out
on a regular basis, often leading to positive results.
On July 8, the Lodge received another overall favorable de- cision involving a set of grievances the Lodge brought on
behalf of a field training officer (FTO).
Here, the Lodge filed three separate grievances, all
stemming from an incident that took place in January 2016, and the parties agreed to consolidate them into a
single hearing.
In essence, the FTO grievant engaged in some conduct that
led to him being issued a suspension, and the department in- voluntarily detailed him to another police district (without any investigation into what had occurred).
Then, the department further disciplined him by involun- tarily and permanently reassigning him to another district two years later. You are not the only one who thinks this was exces- sive — the arbitrator did, too.
First, some background. The grievant had an impeccable work record. For nearly 14 years, he had worked throughout the City in different specialized units. For several years prior to the 2016 incident, the grievant was an FTO.
In mid-January 2016, the grievant, his sergeant and other members of the department had been participating in a group text exchange that had been going on for a few days. On a Sun- day, while both the grievant and sergeant were off duty, the text exchange continued.
At the two-day arbitration hearing, it became clear that the sergeant and those police officers in the same unit often en- gaged in such banter. The type of jokes they shared were often
PAT FIORETTO
BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS
Available to Practice In:
Labor Relations Law • Employee Welfare & Pension Benefit Law
Worker's Compensation Law• Personal Injury Law Construction Related Injuries
JAMES M. NEUMAN PASQUALE A. FIORETIO CATHERINE M. CHAPMAN
STEPHEN J. ROSENBLAT
BRIAN C. HLAVIN LAURA M. FINNEGAN
PATRICKN. RYAN CECILIA M. SCANLON
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ AUGUST 2019
200 W. ADAMS STREET, SUITE 2200 CHICAGO, IL 60606
(312) 236-4316
WWW.BAUMSIGMAN.COM