Page 10 - 01D_CL7_APR20.indd

Among fear and uncertainty, a glimmer of hope
On March 16, as COVID-19 spread throughout the country like wildfire, Lodge 7 President Kevin Graham and labor attorney Brian Hlavin drove separately down a nearly
empty highway to Springfield, Illinois. While nearly all other local, state and fed-
eral offices, including courthouses, were closing down, the beacon of democracy in
the state of Illinois forged ahead: The Illinois
Supreme Court would hear previously scheduled oral argu- ments, set for Tuesday, March 17.
Many who read this article know that an appeal to the Su- preme Court of Illinois is neither automatic nor common. Remember, only between 2 and 4 percent of requests to ap- peal are heard by the Illinois Supreme Court. Yet, on Sept. 26, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court, at its discretion, formally granted Lodge 7’s appeal from the Appellate Court’s decision over the enforcement of an arbitration award dealing with the destruction of disciplinary records within the contractu- ally mandated time frame set forth in the collective bargain-
ing agreement. By the end of 2019, briefs had been filed and Lodge 7 (and the City) expected a written decision to be
issued at some point in 2020.
However, in early March 2020, something even
more unusual happened: Attorney Hlavin received
notification from the Illinois Supreme Court’s Clerk that the justices wanted oral arguments the following week — on St. Patrick’s Day. An even smaller percentage of cases is selected for oral arguments. Armed with the rel- evant case law and strong arbitral precedent, Lodge 7 deliv-
ered an argument worthy of “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
As a reminder, the case centers around Lodge 7’s efforts to enforce three arbitration awards issued by Arbitrator Roumell (in January, April and June 2016) over grievances challenging the City’s failure to destroy complaint register (“CR”) files and other disciplinary records in a timely manner, as required by Section 8.4 of the parties’ contract. Although the arbitrator initially enforced Section 8.4 of the parties’ agreement, which he found to be “consistent with state law and not contrary to
state public policy,” his decision would be short-lived.
PAT FIORETTO
10 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ APRIL 2020