Page 19 - February 2017

terms and conditions of employment of police officers. Accordingly, on Jan. 3, less than 48 hours after learning of the City’s unlawful action, the Lodge filed yet anoth- er unfair labor practice charge. The Department has a history of making unilateral changes without bargain- ing with the Lodge — leading to the Lodge successfully challenging the Department’s actions. Interestingly, as this issue of the magazine arrives at your homes, the Lodge and City already participated in another unfair labor practice hearing involving the City’s unilateral implementation of its video release policy, which the Lodge challenged. That hearing occurred on Jan. 24 and Jan. 25, and we expect to receive a decision from the ad- ministrative law judge in the next month.
Some of you may also recall the Department’s attempts by former Superintendent Gary McCarthy that required all police officers to cover up any visible tattoos while on duty, as part of revised directives regarding person- al appearance, uniform/citizen’s dress and equipment. Once again, the Lodge filed both a Labor Board charge and a grievance. After a full hearing, Arbitrator Zimmer- man determined that the Department’s sudden change to ban visible tattoos while on duty amounted to an ar- bitrary change in working conditions, thus violating the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, as well as the State Labor Relations Act. Accordingly, the arbitrator or- dered the Department to rescind the policy, reimburse
those officers who spent funds to comply with it and remove any discipline imposed as a result of the new policy — which the Department eventually did.
In the most current charge, the Lodge is requesting that the Board order the Department to cease and de- sist from implementing the Complaint Register Matrix Guidelines until it has bargained with the Lodge, consis- tent with its obligations under the State Labor Relations Act. Once the charge is fully investigated, the Lodge ex- pects that the Labor Board will schedule an administra- tive hearing in which another administrative law judge will make a formal finding that the Department, once again, has violated the law.
Equally significant, even the Department of Justice, in its most recent report issued on Jan. 13, indicated that the City must work with the Lodge in developing a draft disciplinary matrix to guide the Department in assigning appropriate discipline for various misconduct violations. In its report, the DOJ aptly observed that the union has not signed off on any type of disciplinary matrix. In a future article, we will address the 164-page DOJ Report and its findings more in-depth. For now, the Lodge will continue to hold the Department account- able and make sure that the rights that all police officers currently have in the collective bargaining agreement are protected and not changed at the unilateral whim of the Department. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ FEBRUARY 2017 19