Page 18 - 01A2_CL7_DEC16.indd

Board issues complaint on unilateral release of videos
On February 16, 2016, the Mayor issued a press release stating that the Task Force on Po- lice Accountability recommended a new policy regarding the release of video recordings, and that the City would work to implement those recommendations. In early June 2016, the City, unilaterally and voluntarily, released hundreds of video recordings contain-
ing images of rank-and-file Police Offi-
source has all of the information, a modest effort can piece together a fairly complete picture of an Officer’s life, mak- ing the Officers and those they love all the more vulnera- ble. The jeopardy Police Officers face is all too real.
As many of you know, the Illinois Labor Relations Board is the State agency that administers the State Labor Rela- tions Act (“Act”) and guarantees that Police Officers have the right to bargain collectively with their em- ployer over a contract; once bargained, those terms cannot be changed during the duration of the con- tract. The current contract expires on May 31, 2017. Presently, Lodge 7 alleges that the City violated the Act by unilaterally changing the status quo on man- datory subjects of bargaining without giving the Union the opportunity to bargain. At issue is a mandatory subject of bargaining when it involves the wages, hours, terms and
conditions of employment.
By implementing the Video Release Policy and making
video recordings publicly accessible, the City unilaterally has impacted the terms and conditions of employment of Police Officers. The City has an obligation to bargain both the initial implementation of its Video Release Policy and its effects on the bargaining unit. An employer violates the Act by unilaterally changing the status quo on mandatory subjects of bargaining without giving the Union the oppor- tunity to bargain.
It remains Lodge 7’s position that the recording of Police Officers performing their jobs, and the public release of such recordings, is a condition of their employment. Unlike Police Officers, most employees are not recorded while do- ing their jobs. Generally speaking, most employees would find such recording to be intrusive, to the point where some would quit or refuse to accept such a job because of that condition of employment. Nevertheless, Police Offi- cers accept that being recorded is a condition of their em- ployment. They further understand that such recordings can be used to evaluate their performance and may result in discipline. However, acceptance of the existence and use of those recordings does not equate to acceptance of their uncompelled public release and disclosure.
The public release of video recordings, many of which are incomplete or out of context, often cast Police Officers in a negative light. This publicity directly impacts an Offi- cer’s current and future employment. Ultimately, if the re- cording of public employees is a condition of employment, then how those recordings are used (including their public release) is likewise a condition of employment.
Despite the City’s contention, the use and release of video recordings is not an issue of “inherent managerial authority,” which might allow the City to act unilaterally. However, Lodge 7 is not claiming that the City can never produce recordings of Police Officers in the course of their employment. Indeed, litigation discovery and FOIA often
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
cers to the general public, jeopardizing
these individuals’ privacy, safety and job security, pursuant to the Chicago Police Department’s Video Release Policy. The video recordings were made avail-
able to the public on a website supported by the Inde- pendent Police Review Authority (soon to become COPA, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability), and have been widely reported on by local media—often with colorful commentary. That internet portal went live and the public continues to have access to these videos. The portal ini- tially contained more than 300 separate video recordings, with future releases anticipated.
These video recordings were not released in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request or pursuant to a lawful subpoena or other legal process. Further, these video recordings were released without an opportunity to bargain being given to Lodge 7, despite its impact on the privacy, safety and job security of bargaining unit employ- ees identified in the video recordings.
Significantly, one of the videos released contained an Officer’s home address. After the Lodge raised that issue, the City scrambled to take down that one video for further editing. It is unknown how many times the unedited vid- eo was viewed or downloaded. When Lodge 7’s objections continued to fall on deaf ears, Lodge 7 filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Illinois Labor Relations Board.
Lodge 7 also raised various serious safety concerns with the City’s actions. In August 2016, the media widely report- ed that several Chicago street gangs plotted to assassinate Police Officers in retaliation for the shooting death of Paul O’Neal. The City’s unilateral decision to release the videos surrounding Paul O’Neal’s death made the plot to target Police Officers directly involved in the shooting substan- tially easier, without obscuring the identity of the Officers depicted therein.
These video recordings, at various times, clearly show the faces, names and/or star numbers of the Police Offi- cers involved; the un-redacted videos can be captured by a screen-grab and readily circulated to the gang members involved in the plot. With this information, gang members can identify and target Officers, whether in or out of uni- form. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that gang members can, with minimal effort, identify Officers’ fam- ily members, making them targets as well. While no one
18 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ DECEMBER 2016
FOP
Lab Rep t