Page 23 - Sept 2017

•
forth in the BWC Pilot Program–Phase 1.
The Department will continue to bargain with the Lodge over any impact or effect of the BWC Pilot Program as it relates to a Police Officer’s safety and/or discipline.
ment justified its actions, we remain confident that the ALJ will find that such circumstances do not convert a man- datory subject of bargaining to a permissive subject or a non-bargainable subject: in the end, the City’s conduct un- dermines the very existence of the Lodge as the Police Of- ficers’ exclusive bargaining representative. The City could not show any great need for the unilateral implementations so close to bargaining the successor Agreement.
The City, however, seems to have a habit of making uni- lateral changes without regard to its obligations. This is now the third time that the Department has failed to bar- gain with the Lodge over a unilateral change. When the City issued a new Video Release Policy in June 2016, which im- pacts officers’ discipline, the Lodge filed a charge, the board issued a complaint, and another administrative law judge conducted a hearing. Although that case has been pending now for well over a year, the Labor Board has not issued a decision. Given the delay in issuing the decision in the Vid- eo Release Policy, the Lodge does not expect a decision over the body-worn cameras and CR Matrix case anytime soon. One thing has become clear: allowing the Department to continue acting on such unilateral changes undermines the collective bargaining process. The Lodge will continue to protect its members’ rights and force the City to comply with its legal obligations.d
At the hearing, it became clear that the City never bar- gained with the Lodge over these issues; yes, discussions took place, but despite the Lodge’s repeated demands to engage in meaningful bargaining, the City refused. Interest- ingly, the City spared no expense in utilizing multiple attor- neys — one from the City of Chicago’s Corporation Coun- sel Office and one from the go-to City law firm of Franczek Radelet (not surprisingly, the same firm that is engaged in the negotiation process).
As the Lodge expected, the City presented evidence that it had no obligation to bargain with the Lodge because the management rights provision contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement somehow grants the City such an inherent right. Instead, the Lodge presented evidence that the CR Matrix is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the Act. Similarly, the decision to implement the extension of the body-worn cameras throughout the City highlights a pattern by the City to take issues related to discipline and attempt to remove them from the bargaining process. Both are prohibited under the State Labor Act.
At the hearing, the evidence showed that the City intend- ed to avoid bargaining these issues and merely requested “input” from the Lodge, despite the City’s statutory obliga- tion to bargain such subjects under the Act. Although the City introduced evidence that political pressure and the gravity of the issues faced by the Chicago Police Depart-
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ SEPTEMBER 2017 23