Page 21 - FOP March 2017 Newsletter

(through a press release), it first sent MLAS a letter, de- manding that the Department bargain, and later filed an- other Unfair Labor Practice Charge. This is now the third time the Department has failed to bargain with the Lodge over a unilateral change—and the third ULP charge. Does anyone else see a pattern here?
It should come as no surprise that prior to filing the charge, the Department members of the District-level Committee never shared with the Lodge any information gathered during the BWC Pilot Program—despite repeat- ed requests made by the Lodge. Moreover, the Depart- ment never provided any notice to the Lodge, nor did it ever meet and engage the Lodge in any discussions prior to any expansion of the use of BWCs beyond the parame- ters set forth in the Pilot Program. Finally, the Department did not bargain with the Lodge over any impact or effect of the Pilot Program as it relates to an Officer’s safety and/ or discipline.
In addition to seeking an order directing the Depart- ment to cease and desist from such conduct, the Lodge also is requesting that the Board pursue injunctive re- lief (an extraordinary remedy under the Act)—especially since the expansion of the BWC Program occurred short- ly before the parties are set to bargain over a successor agreement. In order to obtain injunctive relief, the Lodge must establish that if preliminary relief is not sought, it will suffer irreparable harm, and that the traditional rem- edies available from the Labor Board will be inadequate. It remains the Lodge’s position that injunctive relief is not
only appropriate, but imperative.
The Lodge is suffering irreparable harm. The longer the
Department’s unilateral change is allowed to remain in place, the more the remedial purposes of the Act will be frustrated. Moreover, allowing the Department to contin- ue acting on such unilateral changes undermines the col- lective bargaining process. Indeed, such unilateral actions undermine the Lodge’s strength at the upcoming bargain- ing table and potentially erode the Union’s support among bargaining unit employees by suggesting that the Depart- ment will take unilateral action regardless of the Lodge.
The Lodge also is asking the Labor Board to look at all of the Department’s recent actions. The Department’s ongo- ing conduct amounts to a pattern of engaging in multiple unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining. Never in the most recent history between the parties has the Lodge seen more blatant examples of the Department making unilateral changes so close to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. The Department can show no great need for the unilateral implementations so close to bargaining the successor agreement. Any regular remedy will not be available for quite some time. By that time, the Lodge will have suffered harm at the bargaining table—harm that cannot be undone. On the other hand, the Department will suffer little harm, if any, by waiting to bargain such issues in a few months. Given the serious- ness of the Department’s violations, the Lodge remains confident that injunctive relief is warranted and should be sought by the Labor Board as quickly as possible. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ MARCH 2017 21