Page 19 - December 2018

Article 6 — Bill of Rights, Section 6.1, Conduct of Disci- plinary Investigation specifically provides as follows:
Whenever an Officer covered by this Agreement is the subject of a disciplinary investigation other than Sum- mary Punishment, the interrogation will be conducted in the following manner:
***
D. . . . No anonymous complaint made against an Of- ficer shall be made the subject of a Complaint Register investigation unless the allegation is a violation of the Illinois Criminal Code, the Criminal Code of another state of the United States or a criminal violation of a Federal statute.
***
No anonymous complaint regarding residency or medical roll abuse shall be made the subject of a Com- plaint Register investigation until verified. No ramifi- cations will result regarding issues other than residen- cy or medical roll abuse from information discovered during an investigation of an anonymous complaint regarding residency or medical roll abuse unless of a criminal nature as defined in the preceding paragraph.
Here, Meyers agreed with the Lodge’s position as argued by Lodge Counsel Hlavin that the City violated Section 6.1 D of the parties’ agreement by conducting the CR investigation without first verifying the allegations made within the anony- mous complaint. As Meyers stated:
“The problem for the City is that Section 6.1 D of the agree- ment is very clear in stating that an anonymous complaint about residency or medical roll abuse shall not be made the
subject of a CR investigation until verified. This language plainly requires that anonymous allegations relating to these two subject areas must be verified prior to the initiation of a CR investigation. Such verification is not supposed to be part of a CR investigation.”
Further, Meyers stressed that “pre-investigation verifica- tion of this type of anonymous complaint is a critical part of the due process that must be afforded every Department member.” In order to afford the officer due process, Meyers highlighted that such verification must not only occur pri- or to the CR being initiated but also must be “thorough and unbiased” and “allow for an independent determination of whether there is enough merit to the anonymous complaint to justify moving forward.” Accordingly, he rejected the City’s argument that Section 6.1 D can be satisfied by having the same assigned investigator do both the initial verification and then the subsequent investigation.
Here, Meyers found that the City’s violation of the agree- ment, especially because of the due process implications, was so severe that it justified sustaining the grievance in its entirety and overturning the 30-day suspension issued to the grievant. However, it is further worth noting that Meyers also reviewed the underlying merits and found that the investigation failed to produce any “competent and credible evidence” to support the suspension. Simply put, the grievant, by volunteering his time without compensation at his father’s business, did not engage in secondary employment while on IOD status.
We hope this recent arbitration decision will remind the City that it must comply with all terms of the agreement. If not, the Lodge will continue to challenge any such violations through the grievance process.
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ DECEMBER 2018 19