Page 18 - FOP_Magazine_ February2019

Another improperly initiated CR investigation, another victory for Lodge 7 members
For those wondering, I am not simply repeating an article I wrote a month or so ago. However,
the subject will sound remarkably familiar,
due to the City’s insistence on violating the contract and due process rights of Lodge 7 members — once again. The most recent
case involves an arbitration hearing con- ducted by one of my partners, Brian Hlavin. The FOP prevailed in enforcing Article VI - Bill
of Rights of the collective bargaining agreement and had 60- day suspensions issued to two detectives rescinded, due to the City’s investigation of an “anonymous complaint” in violation of specific language contained in the contract.
After a full arbitration hearing conducted in September 2018, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Lodge and the two grievant officers by rescinding the suspensions. In this case, both griev- ants were detectives and had been on the job for more than 20 years, spending half of their careers serving as detectives. Nei- ther had any prior sustained discipline during the time period relevant to the arbitration, yet the Department accused both of them of improperly utilizing Department computers in viola- tion of the Department’s policy.
In essence, former Commander Eugene Roy submitted a To/From claiming that he had received an “anonymous com- plaint” that one of the detectives (“Detective 1”) had been ac- cessing “inappropriate” websites on Department computers
and requested that the Bureau of Internal Affairs commence an investigation. (As a side note, the arbitrator acknowledged that Lodge 7 “proffered evidence that former Command- er Roy harbored animus towards the grievants and that the City of Chicago inspector general recommended that former Commander Roy, who is now retired, be terminated because of allegations that he lied during
investigations.”)
The Department initially classified the situation as a “log
investigation” and assigned a BIA sergeant to conduct the in- vestigation. The sergeant then confiscated the CPD computers utilized by Detective 1 and sent them to a forensic lab for anal- ysis. The result of the analysis found no inappropriate websites or materials accessed by Detective 1, but it did claim to find other inappropriate websites or images associated with Detec- tive 2’s “PC” login number. It was at this point that the log inves- tigation was converted into a “CR iinvestigation,” with the ser- geant naming himself as the complainant. Shortly thereafter, the sergeant confiscated additional CPD computers associated with Detective 1 for a time period unrelated to the period set forth in the anonymous complaint and sent them for forensic analysis. In response, the forensic lab claimed to have found in- appropriate websites and/or images associated with Detective 1’s “PC” login number on the later confiscated computer.
Article VI - Bill of Rights, Section 6.1, titled “Conduct of Disci- plinary Investigations,” specifically provides as follows:
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
FOP
Labor Report
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ FEBRUARY 2019