Page 18 - FOP September 2016
P. 18
FTO arbitration award yields partial victory
Oftentimes, the outcome of any grievance arbitration results in one side winning and the other losing. Occasionally, an arbitrator “splits the baby” and provides an outcome in which both sides walk away with something.
On Aug. 8, the Lodge received a decision in the class action grievance brought on behalf of field training officers (FTOs) who were, and are, being assigned
more than one probationary police officer (PPO)
per tour of duty. In October 2013, Rich Aguilar
(FOP Grievance Chair, at the time) filed the original
class action grievance, relying primarily on Section 26.1(D) of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), seeking 30-minutes-of-overtime pay for every PPO assigned to any FTO. In November 2013, Donald O’Neill (Commander of Management Labor Affairs, at the time), responded to the grievance by sending Aguilar a letter denying the grievance, taking the position that the CBA did not provide for compensating FTOs on a PPO basis. In addition to taking that stance, O’Neill indicated that he and Aguilar previously had agreed that no additional compensation would be owed to FTOs for training mul- tiple PPOs.
After going through the preliminary steps of the griev- ance and arbitration procedure, the parties selected Ar- bitrator George Roumell, who conducted a hearing on March 11. At the arbitration hearing, current FOP Griev- ance Chair Kevin Kilmer testified there was no agreement
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
FOP
between the FOP and the city about what pay FTOs should receive when they are assigned more than one PPO per tour of duty. In addition to that testi- mony, under subpoena, Aguilar also testified that he was unaware of any agreement about the issue. The city presented the testimony of O’Neill, who
offered a different version of what happened.
Lab Rep t
Roumell initially analyzed the dispute as to wheth- er or not a past practice existed between the parties, in part, because that is how the FOP framed the original grievance in 2013. In giving both Aguilar and O’Neill the benefit of the doubt, Roumell found: “Both Director O’Neill and Richard Aguilar testified honestly as to their respective beliefs as to whether there was or was not an agreement.” Roumell, in applying the criteria for whether or not a past practice existed, concluded that it did not.
To prove existence of a past practice, a party must demonstrate that the practice was unequivocal; clearly enunciated and acted upon; and ascertainable and mu-
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ SEPTEMBER 2016