Page 20 - May 2017 Newsletter

Litigation updates
Since our report in the April issue, sever- al significant developments on the legal front have occurred that are worth not-
ing. First, on April 17, 2017, the State
Labor Relations Board issued a formal complaint against the City over two
unfair labor practice charges which the Lodge filed involving the City’s pattern of unilaterally changing terms and conditions of
employment.
In early January, MLAS informed the Lodge that the De-
partment intended to unilaterally implement its “Com- plaint Register Matrix Guidelines,” which set forth new parameters for discipline to be imposed for several gen- eral categories of misconduct, without having bargained with the Lodge. Since these new guidelines directly im- pact how the Department disciplines all bargaining unit employees, the Department is prohibited from unilateral- ly implementing them.
At around the same time, the Department also an- nounced that it would expand the Body Worn Camera Pilot Program citywide, which the parties had memo- rialized in a 2015 Letter of Understanding. The Letter of Understanding (which is legally binding for both parties) required that the Department do three things: create a dis-
trict-level committee consisting of appropriate supervi- sorsandOfficerswhousedthebody-worncamerasto provide input and advice concerning the pilot pro- gram; provide notice and (most important) meet and engage in discussions with the Lodge prior to anyexpansionofthepilotprogram;andcontinue to bargain with the Lodge over any impact or effect of the pilot program as it relates to an Officer’s safe- ty and/or discipline. Clearly, the Department failed on all
three requirements.
The Lodge quickly responded by filing charges with the
board. After a full investigation, the board determined that both charges have merit and, since they are similar, consolidated both matters and issued a complaint. The Lodge also claimed that the City’s conduct amounts to a “pattern” of engaging in such improper behavior. As part of its defense during the investigation stage, the City was required to produce whatever evidence it had to convince the board to dismiss the underlying unfair labor practice charges without the need to go to a formal administra- tive hearing. Once again, the City failed to overcome its burden, and the board issued a consolidated complaint. The City had until May 9 to file a formal written answer to the consolidated complaint, detailing the City’s posi- tion on each and every allegation. Presumably, the City
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
FOP
Lab Rep t
20 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ MAY 2017