Page 11 - April2021_Magazine

There seems to be a misconception about body-worn cameras and discipline. There is be- lief that officers cannot be suspended for body- worn camera (BWC) infractions, but this is sim- ply not true. The short answer is: Yes, you can get disciplined for loss or misuse of a body-worn camera.
The misconception comes after Administra- tive Law Judge decisions were issued. The Lodge had previously filed separate Unfair Labor Prac-
tices (L-CA-17-037 and L-CA-20-024) on several issues, in- cluding implementing the city’s “last, best, final offer” while still negotiating, failing to negotiate certain terms and con- ditions of the BWCs, imposing discipline for loss, damage, misuse of the BWC during the implementation periods, etc.
Collectively, the decisions of these Admin Law Judges do require the City/Department to take certain actions; howev- er, these decisions do not grant officers amnesty from BWC infractions. In essence, the City/Department is required to bargain (negotiate) over the effect of the 2017 BWC expan- sion and to negotiate the increase in buffering time.
The Admin Law Judge also ruled that since the FOP does not have the ability to strike, the City could not implement its “last, best, final offer” on a subject of bargaining. (In unions that do have the power to strike, then the implementation could be allowed.) So as a result, the City was ordered to con- tinue negotiating outside of contract negotiations.
As far as discipline goes, the Labor Board’s executive direc- tor deferred to the grievance process. In 2018, an arbitrator then issued an award relative to the discipline portion of the BWC program—specifically, “loss” of the cameras. The arbi- trator ruled that “Officers have long been subject to at least minor discipline for equipment-related offenses, including loss of equipment,” and treated it no different from other pieces of department-owned equipment. Essentially, the ar- bitrator ruled that the Department had the ability to impose discipline for losing a BWC.
The Admin Law Judge then recognized the arbitrator’s de- cision to relate to “a broader array of equipment-related of- fenses....” The ALJ went on to state, “Additionally, it is clear that an officer’s repeated and outright refusal to activate his BWC falls squarely under the existing disciplinary framework addressing insubordination and/or inattention to duty and does not turn on nuanced interpretation of the BWC special order.”
The Admin Law Judge stated (L-CA-20-024), “At the Union’s request, the Respondent must rescind any discipline it issued to officers for the loss of BWCs under the newly-established disciplinary standards set forth in its final offer and recon-
sider such discipline under the standards previously in ex- istence.” This could be interpreted that the discipline would be reassessed under normal procedures and that nothing prohibits the penalties from being increased.
Lastly, the ALJ stated, “At the request of Union, the Respon- dent must also rescind the discipline it issued officers for other types of BWC misuse, apart from their loss, but it may likewise reconsider that discipline under pre-existing stan- dards.” This does not mean that the discipline is expunged from the record. As far as other types of “misuse” that are not clearly defined, the “just cause” standard “will provide suf- ficient protections for the unit employees while the parties bargain over more specific disciplinary provisions.” Our “just cause” clause can be found in 8.1 of our contract.
SecondVice President’s Report
Yes, you can get disciplined for ‘misuse’ of a body-worn camera
DAN GORMAN
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ APRIL 2021 11