Page 16 - December 2019 FOP Magazine

A favorable 2019 arbitration docket outcome
As we have written in the past, most collective bargaining agreements (especially in the public sector) provide for a mechanism to address
and resolve disputes arising from the inter- pretation or application of contract provi-
sions. Indeed, even the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act requires that any collective bar- gaining agreements that have a no-strike and no-lockout clause must also contain a grievance and arbitration procedure culminating in final and
binding arbitration. The current agreement between the City and the Lodge is no different.
Article 9 of the parties’ agreement sets forth the procedures to be followed when an aggrieved police officer (or “grievant”) files a grievance. In other words, the grievance procedure dic- tates how any issues over the contract will be resolved. As the grievance works its way through the process, it may be resolved to the grievant’s satisfaction. This can occur either at the district level or through an informal mediation process. Again, most bargaining relationships contain a system in which the parties attempt to resolve such disputes prior to submitting the matter to final and binding arbitration. A vast majority of the Lodge’s grievances do get resolved without the need for a formal arbi- tration hearing.
If not resolved, the grievance will be submitted to the Lodge 7 Grievance Committee, which meets monthly. At that point, a decision is made regarding whether to process the unresolved grievance to arbitration, based on the specific facts of the griev-
ance; any prior, relevant decisions; supporting case law; and past practice. Indeed, Lodge 7 does not proceed to arbitra- tion when a set of facts might lead to a loss, an adverse ruling impacting a large group of officers or, possibly, the
entire membership.
Once arbitration is demanded, the parties select an
arbitrator and a hearing is scheduled. Arbitration is the last step in the grievance process. Arbitration has long been the preferred method of resolving labor disputes be- tween management and labor. As a reminder, both the Lodge and the City endeavor to select an arbitrator from a panel of full-time arbitrators whom the parties use regularly to preside over the matter and conduct a hearing on the merits. Under the
contract, the losing side pays the arbitrator fees.
At an arbitration hearing, the parties must present their re- spective cases and carry the burden of proof. In a contract inter- pretation case, the burden rests on the Lodge to prove that the City violated the agreement. On the contrary, in a disciplinary case, the City bears the proof that it acted in accordance with the parties’ agreement. In such disciplinary matters, the City must prove that it has clear rules of conduct that are reasonably related to its operations and, moreover, such rules must not be arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory. Moreover, the City also must establish that a thorough, timely, fair and unbiased investigation of the underlying allegations occurred — which the City regularly fails to establish. Additionally, any findings of wrongdoing must be supported by the evidence. Finally, if discipline is warranted, then any discipline imposed must be
PAT FIORETTO
16 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ DECEMBER 2019