Page 20 - 01_CL7_SEP20Revised2.indd

Labor Board punts on COPA’s unilateral and unlawful actions
On August 19, 2020, after 18 months of investigation, the State Labor Relations Board took the easy route with one of the many unfair labor practice charges the Lodge has filed with the agency and chose to defer the matter to grievance arbitration.
Many of you may recall that on February 19, 2019, shortly after approval of the federal Con- sent Decree, the Lodge filed another charge over the various changes that the Civilian Of- fice of Police Accountability (“COPA”) investi-
gators implemented when taking statements during disci-
plinary investigations. In September 2017, based on a newly created ordinance, the protocol of disciplinary investigations and other investigations of alleged police misconduct was officially transferred from the IPRA to COPA.
The Lodge objected to the passage of this and raised many con- cerns, including that no part of the newly implemented ordinance could supersede any provision of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The City repeatedly informed the Lodge that the City reaffirmed its commitment to comply with its obligations un- der the CBA and would follow all the terms of the CBA, as required by state statute. Shockingly, it did not comply with such assurances.
As it became increasingly obvious how COPA morphed its investi- gatory practices to further water down the Bill of Rights protections guaranteed in the CBA, the Lodge filed a formal charge. Specifical- ly, the Lodge alleged that COPA-led investigations are inconsistent with Article 6, concerning the Officers’ Bill of Rights; Article 8, con- cerning Employee Security; and Appendix L, concerning Affidavits in Disciplinary Investigations. As it did with the other charges, the City made these changes without bargaining with the Lodge over either their implementation or effect.
For example, the City unilaterally changed how officers are inter- viewed, both as witnesses and as those targeted for (or potential- ly targeted for) a disciplinary investigation. Further, police officers were previously allowed to review all statements and documents, along with any video footage available, prior to providing any state-
ment. Not so anymore. Officers are now restricted from con- sulting with their chosen attorney as freely as they had been allowed to in the past. Various encounters with Lodge-ap- pointed attorneys and COPA investigators have resulted in
several interviews being stopped and rescheduled.
One of the more troubling changes is COPA’s refusal to comply with Section 6.1 (I) of the CBA, which requires COPA to advise Department members of their rights in a specific man- ner (and can result in dire consequences against an officer under investigation). Article 6, referred to as the “Bill of Rights,” provides very detailed procedures that COPA (and the predecessor agencies, such as OPS and IPRA) must follow when conducting an investiga- tion of officers who are under investigation based on a complaint.
Specifically, Section 6(I) states:
If the allegation under investigation indicates a recom- mendation for separation is probable against the Officer, the Officer will be given the statutory administrative proceedings rights, or if the allegation indicates criminal prosecution is probable against the Officer, the Officer will be given the con- stitutional rights concerning self-incrimination prior to the commencement of interrogation.
In the past, when officers knew they were involved in a criminal matter or the investigation could lead to criminal prosecution, the agency conducting the administrative investigation (IAD, IPRA, COPA) would provide the officers with their Fifth Amendment
PAT FIORETTO
20 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ SEPTEMBER 2020