BEFORE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD
EDWIN H. BENN (Neutral Chair)
CICELY PORTER ADAMS (City Appointee)
JOHN CATANZARA, JR. (Lodge Appointee)
____________________________________
In the Matter of the Arbitration
between
CITY OF CHICAGO
(“CITY”) CASE NOS.: L-MA-18-016
AAA 01-22-0003-6534
and Arb. Ref. 22.372
(Interest Arbitration)
FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7
(“LODGE”)
____________________________________
FINAL OPINION AND AWARD
APPEARANCES:
For the City: James C. Franczek, Jr. Esq.
David A. Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer A. Dunn, Esq.
For the Lodge: Joel A. D’Alba, Esq.
Margaret A. Angelucci, Esq.
Dated: October 19, 2023
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 2
CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................................... 3
I. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 6
II. ARBITRATION OF PROTESTS TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN EXCESS OF
365 DAYS AND SEPARATIONS (DISMISSALS) ..................................................... 10
A. “Behind Closed Doors” ........................................................................................ 10
B. “The Rule Of Law” ............................................................................................... 14
1. Arbitration Of Discipline Grievances As A Right Under The Rule Of Law ... 14
2. The Privacy Of Arbitration .............................................................................. 20
3. The Right To Remain On The Payroll ............................................................. 23
4. Retroactivity ..................................................................................................... 25
III. THE FEDERAL COURT CONSENT DECREE................................................... 25
IV. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? .................................................................................... 26
V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 28
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 30!
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 3
SYNOPSIS
This is an interest arbitration under authority of the Illinois Public Labor Re-
lations Act (“IPLRA”) setting the terms of the parties’ successor collective bargaining
agreement to the contract which expired June 30, 2017.
Through use of a mediation and arbitration process (“med-arb”) where the Neu-
tral Chair of this Board acted as both a mediator and an arbitrator, the parties have
now agreed upon all terms for their successor Agreement, with the exception of a
proposal made by the Lodge concerning arbitration of protests to certain disciplinary
actions. The parties’ negotiated agreements for the many agreed-upon provisions of
their new Agreement are attached to this Award as an appendix and are incorporated
into this Award.
Prior to the negotiations for this Agreement, protests over disciplinary actions
given to police officers in excess of 365 days and separations (dismissals) were heard
exclusively by the Chicago Police Board. For the new Agreement, the Lodge proposed
that it be given an option to arbitrate grievances protesting those disciplinary actions.
The City did not agree to that proposal.
By Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards dated June 26, 2023 and August
2, 2023, respectively, the Lodge’s proposal to have the option to arbitrate grievances
for that class of cases was adopted by a majority of this Dispute Resolution Board
appointed by the parties to hear this case. The City Member of this Board dissented.
This Opinion and Award incorporates the parties’ total agreements for the new
contract and further addresses the issue concerning arbitration of grievances protest-
ing disciplinary actions in excess of 365 days and separations which issue was previ-
ously decided by this Board. The necessity for issuing this Award further discussing
the arbitration provisions previously decided by a majority of this Board was deemed
necessary by me in my capacity as the Neutral Chair of this Board because of some
public reaction to the prior awards which, in my opinion, showed a misunderstanding
of the arbitration process or a desire to dismantle that process – a process that has
long been the statutory requirement in the State of Illinois as well as the public policy
of this state and at the federal level.
First, Section 8 of the IPLRA requires that unless agreed otherwise, final and
binding arbitration of disputes must be a term in the collective bargaining agree-
ments covering police officers, firefighters and security employees [emphasis added]:
Sec. 8. Grievance Procedure. The collective bargaining agree-
ment negotiated between the employer and the exclusive repre-
sentative shall contain a grievance resolution procedure which
shall apply to all employees in the bargaining unit and shall pro-
vide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 4
administration or interpretation of the agreement unless mutually
agreed otherwise. ....
Second, long and well-settled case law in Illinois developed in interest arbitra-
tion decisions issued by this Neutral Chair (going back to 1990) and many other ar-
bitrators has established that if a party requests arbitration of discipline in an inter-
est arbitration proceeding, that party is entitled under Section 8 of the IPLRA to have
final and binding arbitration of discipline adopted as a contract term. There are 17
published interest arbitration cases upholding the right to have binding arbitration
in collective bargaining agreements (and there are more).
Third, under collective bargaining agreements for police officers (who are pro-
hibited from striking), final and binding arbitration is the policy of this state as pro-
vided in Section 2 of the IPLRA [emphasis added]:
Sec. 2. Policy. ... To prevent labor strife and to protect the public
health and safety of the citizens of Illinois, all collective bargain-
ing disputes involving persons designated by the Board as per-
forming essential services and those persons defined herein as se-
curity employees shall be submitted to impartial arbitrators, who
shall be authorized to issue awards in order to resolve such dis-
putes. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois that where the
right of employees to strike is prohibited by law, it is necessary to
afford an alternate, expeditious, equitable and effective procedure
for the resolution of labor disputes subject to approval procedures
mandated by this Act. To that end, the provisions for such awards
shall be liberally construed.
Fourth, Section 15 of the IPLRA is a supremacy clause negating any statutes
or ordinances that deny or limit final and binding arbitration as sought by the Lodge:
Sec. 15. Act Takes Precedence.
* * *
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) above [not relevant for the
final and binding arbitration issue], any collective bargaining con-
tract between a public employer and a labor organization executed
pursuant to this Act shall supersede any contrary statutes, char-
ters, ordinances, rules or regulations relating to wages, hours and
conditions of employment and employment relations adopted by
the public employer or its agents.
Fifth, the Illinois Constitution now provides for the protection of workers’
rights, which includes the statutory right of police officers to have final and binding
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 5
arbitration as sought by the Lodge and prohibits any ordinances passed or in exist-
ence which deny or limit that right [emphasis added]:
SECTION 25. WORKERS’ RIGHTS
(a) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize
and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working
conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at
work. No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or di-
minishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collec-
tively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and work place safety, including any law or ordi-
nance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements
between employers and labor organizations that represent em-
ployees requiring membership in an organization as a condition
of employment.
Therefore, as argued by the Lodge and as ordered by the Interim and Supple-
mental Interim Awards, a majority of the Dispute Resolution Board adopted the
Lodge’s position that for grievances protesting disciplinary actions in excess of 365
days and separations (dismissals) issued to police officers, the Lodge can have the
option to have those grievances heard and decided in final and binding arbitration
rather than by the Police Board.
Arbitration proceedings are private. The practice of the parties for arbitrations
of grievances for disciplinary actions between 11 and 365 days is that those proceed-
ings are private and not open to the public. There is no reason that the same practice
should not apply to arbitration proceedings for grievances protesting discipline in ex-
cess of 365 days and dismissals. Unless allowed by the arbitrator hearing a specific
case and at the request of either the City or the Lodge, the arbitration proceedings
are private between the City and the Lodge because they are the parties to the col-
lective bargaining agreement and therefore those proceedings are not open to the
public. That privacy of arbitration proceedings is also consistent with and required
by ethical obligations imposed on arbitrators by the American Arbitration Association
and the National Academy of Arbitrators to preserve the privacy of arbitrations.
Further and again consistent with the practice of the parties for disciplinary
actions between 11 and 365 days issued to officers and the legal presumption of inno-
cence until proven otherwise, for officers who are subject to discipline in excess of 365
days and separations, those officers shall also remain on the payroll until the disci-
plinary actions are resolved through arbitration.
Objections have been raised by some that my prior rulings concerning arbitra-
tion of discipline are inconsistent with a belief that arbitration proceedings are some-
how improper because the proceedings are held “behind closed doors” thereby
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 6
preventing transparency and hindering a desire for police reform. The argument that
arbitrations of discipline of police officers should be prohibited or limited because they
are conducted “behind closed doors” relies upon slogans and catch phrases. Slogans
and catch phrases such as “behind closed doors” do not determine outcomes in these
interest arbitration proceedings. The “Rule of Law” quoted above and further de-
scribed in detail below determines the result in this case.
The Lodge’s proposal on arbitration was therefore adopted as found by the In-
terim and Supplemental Interim Awards.
The results in this case – the parties’ negotiated terms coming from the med-
arb process which have been incorporated into this Award and the arbitration provi-
sions previously decided by this Board which end an over six-year labor dispute be-
tween the City and the Lodge – now go to the City Council for ratification. With this
Final Award, the arbitration provisions have now been decided three times. Should
the City Council decline to ratify and if the dispute comes back to this Board for con-
sideration of any objections raised by the City Council, this Board is obligated to con-
sider the City Council’s objections – which we will do. However, the arbitration dis-
pute has now been decided three times in this process. The parties can therefore
rationally assess the outcome of any further proceedings before this Board.
Should ratification not be obtained and litigation instituted, not only will this
already remarkably prolonged labor dispute be further prolonged to the detriment of
all involved (including the citizens of the City), but in light of decided law requiring
great deference be given by the courts to interpretations of arbitrators chosen by the
parties to resolve disputes, prolonged litigation will, in the end, prove futile.
This remarkably long labor dispute must now come to an end.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an interest arbitration proceeding between the City and the Lodge un-
der the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, 5 ILCS 315/1 et seq. (“IPLRA”) to the ex-
tent adopted by the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“Agreement”) in Section
28.3 to complete the terms of the parties’ successor Agreement to their prior 2012-
2017 Agreement which expired June 30, 2017 and covers full-time sworn police offic-
ers below the rank of sergeant.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 7
The history and procedural background of this proceeding are described in In-
terim and Supplemental Interim Awards previously issued on June 26, 2023 and Au-
gust 2, 2023, respectively.
1
The Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards adopted two of the Lodge’s pro-
posals for the Successor Agreement – only one of which remains relevant for discus-
sion in this Award.
2
The relevant issue that will be discussed in this Award is the
Lodge’s proposal which was adopted concerning arbitration of grievances protesting
disciplinary actions in excess of 365 days and separations (dismissals):
The ability of the Lodge to have the option to have certain griev-
ances protesting discipline given to officers in excess of 365-day
suspensions and separations (dismissals) decided by an arbitrator
in final and binding arbitration or by the Police Board as opposed
to the current procedure of having all such disciplinary actions
decided by the Police Board.
Prior to my involvement in this proceeding, the parties negotiated a number of
changes to their 2012-2017 Agreement which were ratified by the Chicago City Coun-
cil on September 14, 2021 (referred to by the parties as “Phase I”).
3
At the
1
The Interim Award is posted at:
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/L-MA-18-016_Interim_Award.pdf
The Supplemental Interim Award is posted at:
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/L-MA-18-016_Supp_award.pdf
2
Aside from the arbitration provisions, the Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards adopted a
retention bonus proposal made by the Lodge:
That officers who have served more than 20 years should receive an annual retention bo-
nus of $2,000 payable on September 1st of each year of service after the completion of the
20th year of service.
As shown by the negotiated terms of the parties’ agreements attached to the Appendix of this
Award, during the mediation process which followed issuance of the Interim and Supplemental In-
terim Awards, the parties agreed to negate the ordered retention bonus for officers serving more than
20 years and provided a monetary stipend for all bargaining unit members. That agreement has been
adopted into this Award.
3
City Exhibit 1.
https://www.civicfed.org/sites/default/files/o2021-3449.pdf
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 8
commencement of this proceeding (“Phase II”), there were numerous issues that re-
mained in dispute, which, after consultation with the parties, caused me to issue a
Scheduling Order dated October 31, 2022 which established a process to govern the
orderly development of a record for presentation and resolution of those many issues.
4
In addition to a hearing process, the Scheduling Order also provided for medi-
ation. However, mediation under the Scheduling Order was different from typical
mediation in that by acting as mediator I did not just transmit offers and counter-
offers and attempt to persuade the parties to settle. Because the Scheduling Order
established a procedure for developing a complete record prior to the mediation step
with identification of issues, submissions of final offers, along with filing of briefs and
reply briefs – I had the ability and authority at the mediation step to advise the par-
ties which proposals were likely to be granted or denied in the event further hearing
proceedings under the Scheduling Order were required. This type of mediation with
my functioning as the mediator and Neutral Chair arbitrator in this case is known
as a “med-arb” – mediation and arbitration. This type of mediation process is not just
designed to persuade parties to settle, but is designed to force parties to settle because
under the med-arb process the parties know going into the hearing and decision pro-
cess which follows mediation whether their positions are likely to finally prevail.
Thus, if the parties are told by me that specific offers will be rejected but there is still
desire by one or both parties to pursue certain offers, the parties must negotiate for
4
As of the mediation step in the Scheduling Order, the parties had developed a voluminous record
which contained:
• 15 issues identified by the City;
• 17 areas of issues with over 50 sub-issues identified by the Lodge;
• Final offers with appendices submitted by the City;
• 32 pages of final offers submitted by the Lodge;
• A 66-page Pre-Hearing Brief submitted by the City with an appendix and 43 exhibits;
• A 270-page Pre-Hearing Brief submitted by the Lodge with 110 exhibits;
• A 21-page Reply Brief submitted by the City with 13 more exhibits; and
• A 71-page Rebuttal Brief submitted by the Lodge with 10 more exhibits.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 9
their proposals because they will not be prevailing on those issues through the inter-
est arbitration process.
During the mediation process and in making my determinations on the merits
of the parties’ offers, I followed the rules that are applied in interest arbitration pro-
ceedings which emphasize that interest arbitration is a very conservative process
which frowns upon breakthroughs and requires that changes to the status quo sought
by one party are only allowed if the party seeking the change can show that the ex-
isting condition is broken (i.e., “good ideas” are not good enough.) See Interim Award
at 16-18 describing those rules.
Following those rules, I advised the parties during the mediation process that
with the exception of several areas in dispute which I believed deserved discussion,
the parties’ specific offers would be rejected because those offers fell into categories
of breakthroughs (with no showing that the existing status quo was broken); good
ideas (which are not good enough to justify a change); issues that were really disputes
that could be resolved through the grievance and arbitration process which, if meri-
torious, could be remedied given the broad remedial authority of grievance arbitra-
tors; management rights; or potentially permissive subjects of bargaining – all of
which are not issues that are resolved through the conservative interest arbitration
process.
The parties clearly understood the message. After being told “no” at the com-
mencement of the mediation step on the vast majority of their remaining proposals,
the parties negotiated to agreement or dropped many of the proposals that I indicated
they would not achieve through further proceedings before this Board. The parties
also negotiated on other topics that were not specific proposals in this matter, again
reaching agreements.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 10
The med-arb process worked. With the exception of handling the previously
awarded right to arbitration of grievances protesting discipline in excess of 365 days
and separations (dismissals) all remaining issues were resolved by the parties or
dropped. The tentative agreements are attached to this Award as an Appendix and
incorporated into this Award.
II. ARBITRATION OF PROTESTS TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN EXCESS
OF 365 DAYS AND SEPARATIONS (DISMISSALS)
While the parties were able to agree upon many items for their new Agreement,
the City did not agree with my Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards ordering
that the Lodge have the option to present grievances protesting suspensions in excess
of 365 days and separations (dismissals) to final and binding arbitration instead of
having the Police Board decide those disciplinary actions. Interim Award at 43-70;
Supplemental Interim Award at 12-27. In their Tentative Agreements at par. 21, the
parties provided that “Arbitrator Benn’s Interim Award with respect to the issue of
the Police Board and Arbitration will be submitted to the City Council.”
Although the arbitration issue has been decided in the Lodge’s favor by the
Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards, I offer this further explanation for the
City Council’s benefit as this dispute now moves to the City Council for ratification.
A. “Behind Closed Doors”
Publicly, those objecting to my ordering final and binding arbitration for these
disciplinary actions have used an argument that arbitrations are inappropriate for
disciplinary actions in excess of 365 days and dismissals because those proceedings
are conducted “behind closed doors”. See The Chicago Sun-Times (September 14,
2023) [all italicized emphasis mine]:
5
5
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/9/14/23873944/chicago-city-council-reject-ruling-serious-police-misconduct-out-public-view
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 11
City Council members urge colleagues to reject ruling that
would keep serious police misconduct hearings out of pub-
lic view
Several members of the City Council urged colleagues Thursday
to reject a controversial ruling that would allow cops to have the
most serious disciplinary cases decided behind closed doors —
joining a chorus of critics who warn the move will erode transpar-
ency and community trust.
Independent arbitrator Edwin Benn ruled in June that officers
facing dismissal or suspensions over a year could opt to move
their proceedings to arbitration instead of going before the Chi-
cago Police Board.
* * *
See also, The Chicago Tribune (September 17, 2023):
6
Chicago aldermen, activists call for city to keep police
hearings public
Several progressive aldermen and activists have joined a growing
list of critics calling for the Chicago City Council to reject an ar-
bitrator’s ruling that would allow Chicago police officers accused
of serious misconduct to have their disciplinary cases decided be-
hind closed doors.
* * *
Earlier this year, as part of the ongoing contract negotiations be-
tween the Fraternal Order of Police and the city, an arbitrator
ruled that CPD officers accused of the most serious misconduct
should have the option to have their cases decided by the Chicago
Police Board or an independent third party. If an officer chose
the latter, the hearings would be conducted behind closed doors
and not open to the public.
* * *
And on September 21, 2023, the Chicago Sun-Times published an editorial:
7
6
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-fop-city-council-20230917-qfas7r5fybeknm5o2oa4nowihu-story.html
7
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/9/21/23883009/chicago-police-arbitration-firings-suspensions-discipline-secret-police-board-editorial
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 12
Chicago police facing serious discipline should not have
cases decided in secret
The City Council should reject a ruling by an arbitrator
that would allow police officers facing firings or long sus-
pensions to dodge the Chicago Police Board and move
cases to arbitration — outside public view.
The City Council will vote on a ruling by an arbitrator that would
allow police officers to dodge the Chicago Police Board for the
most serious disciplinary cases and move them to arbitration.
The Chicago Police Department still is a long way from gaining
the trust of many Chicagoans.
So it would be a mistake for the City Council to accept a ruling by
an arbitrator that would allow police officers to dodge the Chicago
Police Board for the most serious disciplinary cases, by moving
them to arbitration.
We’re talking about officers facing firings or suspensions longer
than a year whose cases would be decided behind closed doors,
out of public view.
*!*!*!
“Behind closed doors” is a slogan – a catch phrase (perhaps, even the creation
of a public relations effort) designed to defeat arbitration as a dispute resolution pro-
cess.
Slogans and catch phrases that attempt to simplify complex and divisive issues
have been rightfully criticized. See Thomas A. Bailey, “Voices of America The Na-
tion’s Story In Slogans, Sayings, and Songs” (Macmillan Publishing Co., The Free
Press, 1976) at viii, 501-502:
Slogans are comforting shorthand for thinking, which is usually
avoided as hard work; and for this reason they are open to criti-
cism. Even so, they are an essential part of the nation’s history.
* * *
... Catch phrases are undoubtedly foes of sober reasoning; they
implant the comfortable but illusory feeling that the user is think-
ing when only mouthing. ...
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 13
Catch phrases are almost invariably one-sided, with little or no
room for qualifiers or argument. They often contain untruths or
half truths, such as “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
Some slogans not only serve as drugs for the brain but also as
opiates for the conscience, notably when “Remember Pearl Har-
bor” rendered more righteous the dropping of two atomic bombs
on Japan.
Slogans also encourage voters to think with their lungs ....
8
For purposes of this case, the phrase “behind closed doors” has added meaning
to those of us who have grown up, lived or worked in Chicago as that expression gives
the image of smoke-filled closed rooms of the past with politicians, criminals and the
powerful cutting deals to line their own pockets without regard to rights of ordinary
citizens.
However, no matter how attractive the simplistic phrase “behind closed doors”
may seem to those who do not understand or seek to defeat the arbitration process
for police officers, that phrase and the illusions it conjures cannot succeed to defeat
the Lodge’s contract proposal for binding arbitration in this case and my prior awards
adopting that proposal. That is because there is a more powerful and accurate “truth”
in a phrase that is the bedrock of our democracy which washes away that simplistic
“behind closed doors” expression along with its images of shady and secretive deal-
making in smoke-filled rooms. And that phrase is the most relevant (especially these
days) – ”The Rule of Law.”
8
See also, Newsome, “The Use of Slogans in Political Rhetoric,” The Corinthian, Vol. 4, Article 3
(2022) citing Bailey.
https://kb.gcsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=thecorinthian
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 14
B. “The Rule Of Law”
1. Arbitration Of Discipline Grievances As A Right Under The
Rule Of Law
A basic dictionary definition tells us what “The Rule of Law” is:
9
... The rule of law, sometimes called “the supremacy of law”, pro-
vides that decisions should be made by the application of known
principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their
application.
My decision to order an option for the Lodge for arbitration of grievances chal-
lenging discipline of greater than 365 days and dismissals issued to police officers
strictly follows “The Rule of Law”.
First, Section 8 of the Illinois Public Labor Relation Act requires, as a matter
of statute, “final and binding arbitration of disputes” in collective bargaining agree-
ments for police officers [emphasis added]:
Sec. 8. Grievance Procedure. The collective bargaining agree-
ment negotiated between the employer and the exclusive repre-
sentative shall contain a grievance resolution procedure which
shall apply to all employees in the bargaining unit and shall pro-
vide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the
administration or interpretation of the agreement unless mutually
agreed otherwise. ....
While in the past, the parties “mutually agreed otherwise” to not have arbitra-
tion for this class of cases, in this case the Lodge has no longer “agreed otherwise”
and made a contract proposal to extend the existing arbitration provisions in the prior
Agreement (grievances protesting disciplinary actions between 11 and 365 days) to
include disciplinary actions greater than 365 days and separations (dismissals).
Therefore, under Section 8 of the IPLRA, “The Rule of Law” requires that if the Lodge
9
Black’s Law Dictionary (West, 5th ed.).
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 15
proposes an option to take grievances protesting discipline in excess of 365 days and
dismissals, “final and binding arbitration of disputes” must, consistent with that pro-
posal, be placed into the parties’ Agreement for these cases that in the past would
have gone to the Police Board for decision. In accord with the mandate in Section 8
of the IPLRA, that is how I ruled – a ruling joined in by the Lodge’s Member of this
Board thereby constituting a majority decision of the Board.
Second, the IPLRA has a supremacy clause giving Section 8’s mandate for final
and binding arbitration as a contract term supremacy over laws and ordinances to
the contrary. Section 15(b) of the IPLRA states [emphasis added]:
Sec. 15. Act Takes Precedence.
* * *
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) above [not rele-
vant for the final and binding arbitration issue], any collective
bargaining contract between a public employer and a labor organ-
ization executed pursuant to this Act shall supersede any contrary
statutes, charters, ordinances, rules or regulations relating to
wages, hours and conditions of employment and employment re-
lations adopted by the public employer or its agents. ...
The City therefore cannot rely upon any ordinances it has that provide for this
class of cases to be decided by the Police Board. The requirement for final and binding
arbitration of disputes found in Section 8 of the IPLRA “Takes Precedence.”
Third, the IPLRA states a public policy requiring final and binding arbitration
as I ordered in this case:
Sec. 2. Policy. ... To prevent labor strife and to protect the public
health and safety of the citizens of Illinois, all collective bargain-
ing disputes involving persons designated by the Board as per-
forming essential services and those persons defined herein as se-
curity employees shall be submitted to impartial arbitrators, who
shall be authorized to issue awards in order to resolve such
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 16
disputes. It is the public policy of the State of Illinois that where
the right of employees to strike is prohibited by law, it is necessary
to afford an alternate, expeditious, equitable and effective proce-
dure for the resolution of labor disputes subject to approval proce-
dures mandated by this Act. To that end, the provisions for such
awards shall be liberally construed.
Arbitration of disputes as public policy in Illinois as stated in Section 2 of the
IPLRA follows the long-held similar federal policy. See e.g., United Steelworkers of
America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 578 (1960) [footnotes and
citation omitted]:
... The present federal policy is to promote industrial stabilization
through the collective bargaining agreement. ... A major factor in
achieving industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision for arbi-
tration of grievances in the collective bargaining agreement.
The Illinois Supreme Court states that “... Illinois public policy is shaped by
our statutes, through which the General Assembly speaks.” State of Illinois v. Amer-
ican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, 51 N.E.3d 738, 747
(2016). Through Sections 2 and 8 of the IPLRA requiring arbitration of disputes for
the officers in this case, the General Assembly has clearly spoken. In this interest
arbitration, I can take note of the General Assembly’s policy concerning the require-
ment for final and binding arbitration.
Fourth, the case law developed since the passage of the IPLRA issued by this
arbitrator and other arbitrators has followed the mandate of Section 8 of the IPLRA
that if, as here, a party requests arbitration of discipline in an interest arbitration,
as a matter of plain statutory language in Section 8 and Section 2, that request must
be adopted and that adoption is required even if boards of police commissioners sim-
ilar to the Police Board deciding disciplinary matters have long been part of the par-
ties’ collective bargaining agreements or relationships. Further, whether those
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 17
boards functioned well or did not function at all is just not a relevant consideration
under Section 8’s statutory mandate requiring final and binding arbitration of dis-
putes in collective bargaining agreements. That is because the language in Section 8
that collective bargaining agreements “... shall contain a grievance resolution proce-
dure which shall provide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the
administration or interpretation of the agreement unless mutually agreed otherwise”
leaves nothing to discretion. See Village of Bartlett and Metropolitan Alliance of Po-
lice, S-MA-21-145 (Benn, 2023) at 6-10;
10
Village of River Forest and FOP, S-MA-19-
132 (Benn, 2021) at 4-8;
11
Village of Maywood and Illinois Council of Police, S-MA-
16-119 (Benn, 2017) at 2;
12
Village of Lansing and FOP, S-MA-04-240 (Benn, 2007)
at 16-21;
13
City of Highland Park and Teamsters Local 714, S-MA-219 (Benn, 1999)
at 9-12;
14
City of Springfield and PBPA, Unit 5, S-MA-89-74 (Benn, 1990) at 1-5;
15
Will
County Board and AFSCME, S-MA-009 (Nathan, 1988) at 56, 64-65;
16
City of Mark-
ham and Teamsters Local 726, S-MA-89-39 (Larney, 1989);
17
Calumet City and FOP,
S-MA-99-128 (Briggs, 2000) at 13-16 (2000);
18
City of Elgin and PBPA, S-MA-00-102
(Goldstein, 2001) at 66-72;
19
City of Markham and Teamsters Local 726, S-MA-01-232
10
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/S-MA-21-145_arb_award.pdf
11
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-19-132-arb-award.pdf
12
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-16-119-02arbaward.pdf
13
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-04-240.pdf
14
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-98-219.pdf
15
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-89-074.pdf
16
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-88-009.pdf
17
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-89-39.pdf
18
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-99-128.pdf
19
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-00-102.pdf
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 18
(Meyers, 2003) at 14-15;
20
Village of Shorewood and FOP, S-MA-07-199 (Wolff,
2008);
21
Village of Western Springs and MAP, S-MA-09-99 (Meyers, 2010) at 63-66;
22
Village of Montgomery and MAP, S-MA-10-156 (Camden, 2011) at 26;
23
Village of
Maryville and FOP, S-MA-10-228 (Hill, 2011) at 10-12;
24
Village of Oakbrook and
FOP, S-MA-09-017 (McAlpin, 2011) at 13-19;
25
Village of Bolingbrook and MAP,
FMCS No. 101222-01003-A (Newman, 2011) at 9-10.
26
The fact that an “option” for the Lodge to choose whether grievances protesting
disciplinary actions of greater than 365 days and dismissals should go to arbitration
does not change the result. See e.g., River Forest, supra at 3-4; Village of Maywood,
supra at 2; Village of Lansing, supra at 17-18; City of Highland Park, supra at 9-10;
City of Springfield, supra at 1-2; Will County Board, supra at 15, 44, 65-66; City of
Markham (Larney award), supra at 5, 19; Calumet City, supra at 18; City of Markham
(Meyers award), supra; Village of Shorewood, supra; Village of Western Springs, su-
pra at 63; Village of Maryville, supra at 10-12; Village of Bollingbrook, supra at 10,
footnote 2.
Fifth, I recognize that, typically, arbitrators do not interpret constitutional is-
sues because that is a function for the courts.
27
However, in this case I can take notice
of constitutional rights of employees because Section 14(h)(1) of the IPLRA provides
20
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-01-232.pdf
21
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-07-199.pdf
22
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-09-019.pdf
23
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-10-156.pdf
24
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-10-228.pdf
25
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/s-ma-09-017.pdf
26
https://ilrb.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilrb/arbitration/documents/101222-01003-a.pdf
27
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, Co., 415 U.S. 36, 57 (1974) (“... the resolution of statutory or consti-
tutional issues is a primary responsibility of courts ....”).
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 19
that in resolving interest arbitration disputes, an “applicable” factor is “[t]he lawful
authority of the employer.”
The recently adopted “Workers’ Rights” amendment to the Illinois Constitution
provides [emphasis added]:
28
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
* * *
SECTION 25. WORKERS’ RIGHTS
(a) Employees shall have the fundamental right to organize
and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own
choosing for the purpose of negotiating wages, hours, and working
conditions, and to protect their economic welfare and safety at
work. No law shall be passed that interferes with, negates, or di-
minishes the right of employees to organize and bargain collec-
tively over their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment and work place safety, including any law or ordi-
nance that prohibits the execution or application of agreements
between employers and labor organizations that represent em-
ployees requiring membership in an organization as a condition
of employment.
Police officers are “employees” having rights under the Workers’ Rights provi-
sions of the Constitution. Those “rights” include the statutory mandate compelling
arbitration of discipline as ordered in this case which rights are found in Sections 8
and 2 of the IPLRA.
For the City to rely upon City ordinances that conflict with the statutory right
of police officers under Sections 8 and 2 of the IPLRA to have in their collective bar-
gaining agreement an option for the Lodge to take this class of cases to final and
binding arbitration is therefore also prohibited by the above provisions of the Illinois
Constitution. Given the statutory requirements in Sections 8 and 2 of the IPLRA and
28
https://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 20
the supremacy clause in Section 15 of the IPLRA requiring final and binding arbitra-
tion and the applicable factor under Section 14(h)(1) of the IPLRA that I can consider
“[t]he lawful authority of the employer”, the above-quoted provision of the Illinois
Constitution precludes the City from relying upon its ordinances that require this
class of cases to be decided by the Police Board as opposed to final and binding arbi-
tration before arbitrators.
2. The Privacy Of Arbitration
Arbitrations are private and not open to the public. That again is “The Rule of
Law.”
Unless agreed otherwise, it has long been held that “[a]rbitration is, however,
a private proceeding which is generally closed to the public.” Hoteles Condado Beach
etc. v. Union De Tronquistas Local 901, 763 F.2d 34, 39 (1st Cir. 1985) [with the court
citing Elkouri and Elkouri, How Arbitration Works, (3rd ed. 1973) at 202]. How Ar-
bitration Works (BNA, 5th ed.) at 338-339 explains [footnotes omitted]:
Privilege to Attend Hearing
Arbitration is a private proceeding and the hearing is not, as a
rule, open to the public. However, all persons having a direct in-
terest in the case ordinarily are entitled to attend the hearing.
Other persons may attend with permission of the arbitrator or the
parties. ...
As required by the parties’ Agreement at Section 28.3(B), this is a case decided
under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The AAA Rules
follow the requirement that arbitration hearings are not open to the public. See AAA
Rule 21 (“The arbitrator and the AAA shall maintain the privacy of the hearing unless
the law provides to the contrary”).
29
29
https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Labor_Arbitration_Rules_3.pdf
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 21
The obligation to maintain privacy is an ethical obligation on the part of arbi-
trators serving in AAA proceedings. Indeed, without agreement of the parties to
make these arbitration proceedings public, for me to order that arbitration proceed-
ings be open to the public is an ethical violation on my part as imposed by the AAA.
See the AAA Statement of Ethical Principles:
30
Confidentiality
• An arbitration proceeding is a private process. In addi-
tion, AAA staff and AAA neutrals have an ethical obli-
gation to keep information confidential. However, the
AAA takes no position on whether parties should or
should not agree to keep the proceeding and award con-
fidential between themselves. The parties always have
a right to disclose details of the proceeding, unless they
have a separate confidentiality agreement. Where pub-
lic agencies are involved in disputes, these public agen-
cies routinely make the award public.
Consistent with this principle, the privacy of arbitration proceedings is also
part of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management
Disputes of the National Academy of Arbitrators (of which I am a member and there-
fore bound by its Code of Professional Responsibility):
31
2. Responsibility to the Parties
* * *
C. Privacy of Arbitration
All significant aspects of an arbitration proceeding must be
treated by the arbitrator as confidential unless this requirement
is waived by both parties or disclosure is required or permitted by
law.
30
https://www.adr.org/StatementofEthicalPrinciples - :~:text=An arbitration proceeding is a,and award confidential between themselves.
31
https://naarb.org/code-of-professional-responsibility/
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 22
a. Attendance at hearings by persons not representing the parties
or invited by either or both of them should be permitted only when
the parties agree or when an applicable law requires or permits.
...
I have no intention of committing an ethical violation because of the unwar-
ranted use of the slogan and catch phrase “behind closed doors” by those who oppose
arbitration.
The City points to no law requiring that arbitration proceedings be open to the
public. The City’s pointing to rules of the Police Board
32
does not rise to a “law” re-
quiring that these arbitration proceedings be open to the public. Section 8 of the
IPLRA and the Interim Award have removed the Police Board from the discipline
process should the Lodge exercise its right to progress grievances protesting suspen-
sions in excess of 365 days or separations to arbitration. The City cannot rely upon
a provision of a process (i.e., the Police Board’s procedures) which has been eliminated
from the dispute resolution procedure for a case to justify its position that a “law”
exists requiring the arbitration be open to the public. Either party is obviously free
to request an arbitrator in an individual case to open the proceedings to the public.
But unless agreed otherwise, there can be nothing in the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement that requires such a result. If there is any doubt about whether the Police
Board’s requirement must be adopted for arbitration hearings, again, Section 15 (Act
Takes Precedence) of the IPLRA provides, in pertinent part, that “... the provisions of
this Act or any collective bargaining agreement negotiated thereunder shall prevail
and control.”
Further, the Lodge points out that “... the parties’ past practice” is that “arbi-
tration proceedings under this collective bargaining agreement shall be private and
32
City Comments on Language Proposals at 6-8.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 23
not open to the public.”
33
The City has not disputed that assertion. Therefore, for
discipline up to 365 days, nothing in the Agreement or the practice of the parties
requires having those hearings open to the public. If that is the case, why should a
grievance over discipline of 366 days (or more) be open to the public when the past
practice of the parties has been that arbitrations for significant disciplinary actions
have not been open to the public? The Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards
merely extended the IPLRA’s statutory right for arbitration to include an option for
grievances protesting disciplinary actions in excess of 365 days and separations to
the parties’ already existing arbitration process for protesting disciplinary actions –
that’s all. There is no reason to change the practice for hearings being open to the
public for the extended right of arbitration for certain cases when that practice did
not previously exist.
3. The Right To Remain On The Payroll
Under the parties’ Agreement, Appendix Q(C) provides (with exceptions not
relevant here) that for grievances challenging suspensions from between 11 and 365
days, “... the Officer will not be required to serve the suspension, nor will the suspen-
sion be entered on the Officer’s disciplinary record, until the Arbitrator rules on the
merits of the grievance.” That same provision is found in Sections 9.6((B) and (C) of
the Agreement as those sections refer to the procedure in Appendix Q(C) which does
not require the officer to go into a non-pay status.
As discussed, the extension of the statutory right of arbitration for grievances
protesting discipline for suspensions in excess of 365 days and separations is merely
an extension of the right to arbitrate the class of cases involving discipline between
11 and 365 days as provided in the Agreement. Focusing particularly on Appendix Q
33
Lodge Final Offers on language submitted July 13, 2023 at 1.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 24
as currently written which explicitly provides that disciplinary actions falling under
those provisions do not require the officer be put in non-pay status prior to decision
by an arbitrator on the grievance, there is no reason to deviate from the practice
agreed to by the parties for the lesser disciplinary actions. The line drawn by the
City at 365 days as to whether an officer is suspended without pay and kept on the
payroll is not reasonable. Why should an officer who is suspended for 365 days re-
main on the payroll until the arbitration is decided and the officer who is suspended
for 366 days be put in non-pay status until that officer’s arbitration is decided? There
is no rational basis for such a line drawing.
Another bedrock “Rule of Law” is “the presumption that a defendant is inno-
cent until proven guilty.” People of the State of Illinois v. Wheeler, 871 N.E.2d 728,
748 (2007). As discussed, the parties have adopted a practice for proposed discipli-
nary actions against an officer less than 365 days of keeping that officer on the payroll
until the disciplinary action is adjudicated and there is no rational basis to change
that practice because an officer is facing a potential disciplinary action greater than
365 days and dismissal. That practice for officers facing disciplinary actions less then
365 days recognizes “the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven
guilty.” To place officers in non-pay status for proposed disciplinary actions greater
than 365 days and dismissals throws that presumption of innocence out the window.
While arbitrators have broad remedial powers including awarding lost backpay and
damages and other financial harm that is a direct or foreseeable consequence of a
disciplinary action that lacks just cause, an officer being out of work until a case is
decided can never be fully rectified – particularly given the stress placed on officers
and their families as they suddenly have lost income.
If there is a concern that an officer has committed sufficiently serious miscon-
duct to warrant a suspension greater than 365 days or dismissal and therefore should
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 25
not be compensated while the officer’s alleged misconduct is investigated, there is an
obvious simple answer for that concern. And that is for the City to timely investigate
the matter and get the case in front of an arbitrator for decision.
4. Retroactivity
For purposes of retroactivity, on September 14, 2022, I was notified by the
American Arbitration Association that I was selected as the Neutral Chair of the
Board. It was at that time that the three-member Dispute Resolution Board was
composed and had authority to act. Given the Lodge’s demand for interest arbitration
which the record shows was held in abeyance by the Lodge, it cannot be found that
the City was solely responsible for the delays in getting this case before me for deci-
sion.
34
Under the circumstances, the retroactivity date for the arbitration provision
shall therefore be concurrent with the date that this Board had authority to act –
September 14, 2022.
III. THE FEDERAL COURT CONSENT DECREE
The Federal Court Consent Decree (State of Illinois v. City of Chicago (17-cv-
6260 (N.D. Ill.))
35
carves out collective bargaining agreements and interest arbitra-
tions such as this proceeding from coverage by the Consent Decree as follows [empha-
sis added]:
711. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to (a) al-
ter any of the CBAs [collective bargaining agreements] between
the City and the Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collec-
tive bargaining rights of employees in those units under the
IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as
obligating the City or the Unions to violate (i) the terms of the
34
The Lodge began the interest arbitration process on October 25, 2019 and then held that process
in abeyance as of May 12, 2020. Lodge Pre-Hearing Brief at 41, footnote 18.
35
City Exhibit 5, posted at:
https://chicagopoliceconsentdecree.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FINAL-CONSENT-DECREE-SIGNED-BY-JUDGE-DOW.pdf
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 26
CBAs, including any Successor CBAs resulting from the negotia-
tion process (including Statutory Impasse Resolution Procedures)
mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the subject of wages,
hours and terms and conditions of employment unless such terms
violate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy, or (ii)
any bargaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive any
rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating Successor CBAs
and during any Statutory Resolution Impasse Procedures, the City
shall use its best efforts to secure modifications to the CBAs con-
sistent with the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent nec-
essary to provide for the effective implementation of the provisions
of this Consent Decree.
As discussed in the Interim Award, the Supplemental Interim Award and this
Award, these proceedings and the final successor collective bargaining agreement to
the 2012-2017 Agreement obviously fall under the carve-out provisions specified in
Paragraph 711 of the Consent Decree. Given the City’s proposals and strenuous ad-
vocacy for those proposals (although not always successful), clearly, any objective ob-
server to this process must conclude that the City met its obligations under Para-
graph 711 – i.e., that “the City shall use its best efforts to secure modifications to the
CBAs consistent with the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent necessary to
provide for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Consent Decree” as
required by the Consent Decree.
IV. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The entire negotiated package including the Interim and Supplemental Inter-
ims Awards adopting an option for the Lodge to progress grievances protesting disci-
pline greater than 365 days and dismissals to arbitration rather than having the Po-
lice Board decide those cases are all incorporated into this Award and that package
now goes to the City Council for ratification. Should the City Council reject the terms
of this Award establishing the parties’ successor Agreement to the 2012-2017 Agree-
ment and the matter is returned to this Board based on objections to the arbitration
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 27
requirement, given that the arbitration provisions have now been determined and
discussed on three occasions, the parties can rationally assess the outcome of this
Board having to reconsider its prior rulings – but we will listen to and consider those
objections (and any other objections the City Council may have).
The parties have adopted the statutory impasse procedure under the IPLRA
as a matter of contract. Section 14(p) of IPLRA allows parties to collective bargaining
agreements falling under Section 14’s impasse resolution procedures to agree to al-
ternative methods of resolving disputed issues in interest arbitration (“Notwithstand-
ing the provisions of this Section [14] the employer and exclusive representative may
agree to submit unresolved disputes concerning wages, hours, terms and conditions
of employment to an alternative form of impasse resolution.”). In Section 28.3(B)(11)
of the Agreement, the parties have chosen as a matter of contract to resolve their
disputes through such an alternative method. While the parties have adopted por-
tions of the IPLRA as part of their contractual impasse resolution procedure, this
interest arbitration is really a quasi-contractual and statutory process. And as to
court review of contractual interpretations made by an arbitrator, review is quite
limited. See e.g., Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen v. Union Pacific
Railroad Co., 707 F.3d 791, 796 (7th, Cir. 2013) [quoting Hill v. Norfolk & Western
Ry., 814 F.2d 1192, 1194-95 (7th Cir. 1987)]:
As we have said too many times to want to repeat again, the ques-
tion for decision by a federal court asked to set aside an arbitra-
tion award — whether the award is made under the Railway La-
bor Act, the Taft-Hartley Act, or the United States Arbitration
Act — is not whether the arbitrator or arbitrators erred in inter-
preting the contract; it is not whether they clearly erred in inter-
preting the contract; it is not whether they grossly erred in inter-
preting the contract; it is whether they interpreted the contract.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 28
See also, American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees v. Depart-
ment of Central Management Services, et al., 671 N.E.2d 668, 672 (1996) [citation
omitted]:
... [A]ny question regarding the interpretation of a collective-bar-
gaining agreement is to be answered by the arbitrator. Because
the parties have contracted to have their disputes settled by an
arbitrator, rather than by a judge, it is the arbitrator’s view of the
meaning of the contract that the parties have agreed to accept.
We will not overrule that construction merely because our own
interpretation differs from that of the arbitrator. ...
With the City Council’s ratification, this remarkably protracted labor dispute
which has gone on for over six years will now be over. And, for what it’s worth, this
remarkably complex process with the final outcome resolving an extraordinarily long
labor dispute occurred with the parties acting in complete good faith “behind closed
doors”.
This Board has interpreted the IPLRA and the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement. The Rule of Law is clear showing that slogans and catch phrases do not
set contract terms of collective bargaining agreements, but statutes and precedent
do.
It is really time to move on.
V. CONCLUSION
All tentative agreements between the parties from the med-arb procedure con-
ducted under the Scheduling Order along with the arbitration issue resolved by the
Interim and Supplemental Interim Awards are adopted into this Award.
With Mayor Johnson’s election and a new administration along with a new
Superintendent of Police, it is hoped that relations between the police and communi-
ties along with the morale of the officers will improve – they must. However, this
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 29
Board’s function is limited to apply statutory and contractual requirements to set the
terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement – which we have done. If fur-
ther reform is needed to be accomplished, that is beyond the authority of this Board.
36
Edwin H. Benn
Neutral Chair
The Lodge’s Board Member concurs.
The City’s Board Member concurs with the terms of this Award found in the Appen-
dix, but dissents to the arbitration requirements adopted by this Award (Dissent at-
tached after Appendix).
Dated: October 19, 2023
36
The City has maintained throughout that I did not have authority to issue the Interim and Sup-
plemental Interim Awards. For reasons discussed in the Interim Award at 20-26 and the Supple-
mental Interim Award at 27-30, clearly, I did have authority to issue those awards as this Board acted
with majority rulings. Given that the parties have now negotiated a full contract and this Award
incorporates the parties’ agreements and the provisions of the prior awards with respect to arbitration
and constitutes a full and final award, the City’s arguments that I could only issue a final award and
not interim awards are moot.
City of Chicago and FOP Lodge 7
Final Opinion and Award
Page 30
APPENDIX
1
3257050.1
BEFORE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD
Edwin H. Benn (Neutral Chair)
Cicely Porter-Adams (City Appointee)
John Catanzara, Jr. (Lodge Appointee)
In the Matter of the Arbitration )
)
Between )
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, )
)
(“CITY”) ) CASE NO. AAA 01-22-003-6534
) Arb. Ref. 22.372
-and- ) (Interest Arbitration)
)
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, )
CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7, )
)
(“LODGE”) )
CITY OF CHICAGO’S COMPREHENSIVE
OFFER TO RESOLVE TERMS OF COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT
1) Term
Section 28.1 — Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective from July 1, 20127 and shall remain in full force and effect until
June 30, 201727. It shall continue in effect from year to year thereafter unless notice of termination
is given, in writing, by certified mail, by either party no earlier than February 1, 201727 and no
later than March 1, 201727. The notices referred to shall be considered to have which case the date
of notice shall be the written date of receipt. It is mutually agreed that the Articles and Sections
shall constitute the Agreement between the parties for the period defined in this Section.
2) Salary Schedule
Section 26.1 — Salary Schedule
A. Effective July 1, 20127, the basic salary of all Officers covered by this Agreement shall be
increased as follows: effective July 1, 20127, two one percent (21%); effective January 1,
20138, two and one quarter percent (2.25%); effective January 1, 201419, two and one quarter
percent (2.25%); effective January 1, 201520, one two and one-half percent (12.50%);
effective January 1, 201621, one two and one-half percent (12.50%); effective July 1, 201622,
two and one-half percent (2.50%); effective January 1, 201723, one two and one-half percent
(12.50%); effective January 2024, five percent (5.00%); effective January 1, 2025, five
2
3257050.1
percent (5.00%); effective January 1, 2026, three to five percent (3.00% to 5.00%)⁎; effective
January 1, 2027, three percent (3.00%) to five percent (5.00%)*.
⁎ In 2026 and 2027, the percentage increase varies between 3.00% and 5.00%
depending on the CPI-U. If CPI-U is 3.00% or less, then the percentage increase is 3.00%. If
CPI-U is 5.00% or more, then the percentage increase is 5.00%. If the CPI-U is between
3.00% and 5.00%, the percentage increase will be equal to the CPI-U, rounded to the nearest
tenth. The U.S. City Average June CPI-U release in July of the preceding year will be used
to determine the percentage increase in 2026 and 2027.
The salary schedule for employees with more than thirty (30) years of service prior to January
1, 2006 is set forth in Appendix A, "Salary Schedule for Officers on Step 11 Prior to January
1, 2006."
B. Officers covered by this Agreement who are assigned as Armorer, Canine Handler, Evidence
Technician, Explosives Detection Canine Handler, Extradition Officer, Fingerprint
Examiner, Field Training Officer, Marine Unit Officer, Mounted Patrol Unit Officer, Police
Agent, or Police Technician or Traffic Specialist shall receive D-2 pay as base salary.
Effective January 1, 2015, Officers covered by this Agreement who are assigned as
Helicopter Pilots shall receive D-2 as base salary and shall not forfeit their grade and pay
status if such status is higher than D-2 pay.
C. Officers covered by this Agreement who hold the position of Detective shall
receive D-2A pay as base salary. Effective January 1, 2024, Officers covered by this
Agreement who are assigned as Evidence Technician, Field Training Officer, Major Accident
Traffic Specialist or Special Weapons and Tactics Officers shall receive D-2A pay as base
salary.
D. Officers covered by this Agreement who hold the position of Detective shall receive D-2A
pay as base salary through December 31, 2023. Effective January 1, 2024, they shall receive
D-2B pay as base salary. The D-2B rate shall be midway between the D-
2A and D-3 rates.
E. Officers covered by this Agreement who are assigned as a Field Training Officer shall
continue to be allowed to work up to an additional one-half (1/2) hour per day prior to or at
the conclusion of his or her tour of duty which time is to be compensated in accord with
Article 20-Overtime. Effective January 1, 2024, a Field Training Officer may exchange (cash
in) accumulated compensatory time not to exceed one hundred (100) hours each year of this
Agreement at the FTO’s hourly rate at the time of payment. Application for such exchange
shall be on a form provided by the Employer and at a time each year set by the Employer. In
no event shall payment be made any later than March 1 of the year following application.
F. Officers covered by this Agreement who are assigned as Explosive Technician I, Firearms
Identification Technician I, Legal Officer I, Police Forensic Investigator I, Security
Specialist, or Supervising Substance Abuse Counselor shall receive D-3 pay as base salary.
F. During the term of this Agreement, should there be enacted into law legislation pursuant to
which Officers covered by this Agreement are required to increase their contributions to the
Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of the Illinois Pension Code (40 ILCS 5/5-101 et seq.)
or any successor pension fund in an amount above the amount of the current annual
contribution of 9% of salary, the Lodge may reopen this Agreement solely on the issues of
base salary and percentage increases (“Salary”) and Duty Availability Pay for the purpose of
3
3257050.1
renegotiating the Salary and Duty Availability Pay increases which shall be paid to Officers.
The Lodge shall have thirty (30) days from the date it receives notice that the contributions
will increase to notify the Employer, in writing, by certified mail, of its intent to reopen this
Agreement. The notice referred to shall be considered to have been given as of the date shown
on the postmark. Written notice may be tendered in person, in which case the date of notice
shall be the written date of receipt. In the event this Agreement is reopened pursuant to this
provision, the Salary and Duty Availability Pay increases set forth in this Agreement will not
be changed or reduced without the written consent of the Lodge. The Employer and the Lodge
shall have ninety (90) days to renegotiate the Salary and Duty Availability Pay increases set
forth in this Agreement. In the event the parties are unable to resolve these issues during the
ninety (90)-day negotiation period, or within any mutually agreed to extension, the dispute
shall be submitted to the impasse resolution procedure set forth in Section 28.3(B).
H. Effective January 1, 2024, Officers certified for LEMART, CIT, or Bike Officer shall receive
an annual stipend of $1,000. The CIT and Bike Certification stipends shall be paid on a
quarterly basis ($250/quarter). Payment of the stipend shall be made in the last pay period of
the quarter following the quarter in which the stipend was earned.
3) Bidding for Mass Transit
Section 23.8 — Filling Recognized Vacancies
This Section shall apply only to the Public Transportation Section including the Public
Transportation Canine Unit, Public Housing Sections North and South, the Special Activity
Section, Traffic Section/Detail Unit, Traffic Enforcement Unit, Traffic Court/Records Unit,
Traffic Safety & Training Unit, Major Accident Investigation Unit, Loop Traffic, District Law
Enforcement, Airport Law Enforcement North and South, Mounted Unit, Marine Unit, Gun
Registration Section, Records Inquiry Section, Field Inquiry Section, Evidence & Recovered
Property Section, Police Document Services Section, Central Detention Section, Auto Pound
Section (D-1 Officers), Electronics and Motor Maintenance Division (D-1 Officers), Office of
Emergency Communications (excluding the Alternate Response Section), Area Criminal
Investigations, Missing Persons Section, Juvenile Court Liaison Section, Youth Investigation
Group Areas (excluding Youth Investigation Group Special Investigation Unit and Youth
Investigation Group Administration), Auto Theft Section, Bomb and Arson Section (except bomb
technicians), excluding the immediate staff of each exempt commanding officer not to exceed two
(2) staff members.
A vacancy for purposes of this Section ("recognized vacancy") exists when an Officer is
transferred, resigns, retires, dies, is discharged, when there are new units created, or when the
Department increases the number of employees in a unit, except for details for not more than three
(3) months and the Summer Lakefront Bike Detail. The Employer shall determine at any time
before said vacancy is filled whether or not a recognized vacancy shall be filled. If and when the
Employer determines to fill a recognized vacancy, this Section shall apply.
In order to avoid the inefficiency of chain-effect bidding, the vacancy created by the reassignment
of a successful bidder shall be a recognized vacancy herein; however, subsequent vacancies
created thereby shall be filled within the Department's discretion. Further, there is no recognized
vacancy created as a result of emergencies, or when an Officer is removed for disciplinary reasons
4
3257050.1
for up to 30 days. When an Officer is removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 30 days, a
recognized vacancy is created.
The Employer shall post a list of recognized vacancies, if any, stating the requirements needed
to fill the opening, at least 14 days before the start of the 28-day police period. A copy of such
postings shall be given to the Lodge. Non-probationary Officers within the same D-1 salary
grade or D-2 job classification, within 72 hours of the time the list has been posted, may bid on
a recognized vacancy in writing on a form to be supplied by the Employer. One copy of the bid
shall be presented to the Employer; one copy shall be forwarded to the Lodge; and one copy
shall be retained by the Officer. Bidding under this Section 23.8 may only be for a recognized
vacancy in a specific unit without regard to shift, day off, unit duty assignments, etc. The
Employer shall respond to the successful bidder and the Lodge no later than 3 days prior to the
change day for the new 28-day police period. During the bidding and selection process, the
Employer may temporarily fill a recognized vacancy by assigning an Officer to said vacancy
until the recognized vacancy is filled.
An eligible bidder shall be an Officer who is able to perform in the recognized vacancy to the
satisfaction of the Employer after orientation without further training. The Employer shall select
the most senior qualified bidder when the qualifications of the Officers involved are equal. In
determining qualifications, the Employer shall not be arbitrary or capricious, but shall consider
training, education, experience, skills, ability, demeanor and performance, except that the parties
recognize that the unique operational needs of the Employer require flexibility in the delivery of
public service and to meet this need the Employer may fill 20% of the recognized vacancies
within its discretion, provided that, if the Employer does not utilize any or all of its 20%
exception in any personnel order, the remainder of the unused exception may be carried forward
and used to fill future recognized vacancies within a twelve (12)-month period.
An exception to the above paragraph will apply to Airport Law Enforcement North and South, and
the Traffic Section/ Detail Unit and the Mass Transit Unit, fifty percent (50%) of all recognized
vacancies in each of these units shall be filled by bid.
Bidding procedures will be done in conformance with the Memorandum of Understanding in this
Agreement. The successful bidder may not bid for another recognized vacancy for one (1) year
unless reassigned by the Employer during that year. A successful bidder may not be reassigned
except for (1) emergencies for the duration of the emergency, (2) for just cause or (3) where the
Superintendent determines that the Officer's continued assignment would interfere with the
Officer's effectiveness in that assignment. When there are no qualified bidders, the Employer may
fill the recognized vacancy within its discretion.
Side Letter Re: Mass Transit Unit
President John Catanzara, Jr.
FOP Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7
1412 West Washington Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60607
Dear President Catanzara,
5
3257050.1
This letter will confirm our agreement, reached during negotiations for a successor
to the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 2017, concerning
implementation of the fifty percent (50%) bidding provision applicable to the Mass Transit
Unit in Section 23.8. The parties agree that this provision applies only to recognized
vacancies occurring after the ratification of this Agreement. Nothing in this modification
of Section 23.8 shall be relied upon to involuntarily remove any Officer currently assigned
to the Mass Transit Unit.
4) Details
Section 23.11 — Details
Officers assigned to units designated to provide personnel to the Summer Mobile Force,
Expressway Detail, Auto Snow Tow Detail, and the Winter Holiday Season Traffic Detail will be
permitted to bid for this detail on the basis of seniority. If and to the extent that there are insufficient
qualified bidders from a designated unit to meet that unit's allocation, the Employer will select
Officers who are deemed qualified by reverse seniority from the designated unit to fill that unit's
allocation.
If the Employer decides to assign an Officer to a detail outside the area, district, or unit, to a sports
event, parade, festival, or labor dispute; or to another event detail which constitutes a tour of duty,
the Employer shall announce the detail at a roll call preceding the event, which roll call is for the
same roll call on the same watch in the same unit from which Officers are to be assigned to the
detail. If notification at roll call is not feasible or appropriate, the Employer shall determine the
method of notification. The Employer shall select Officers to work the detail on the basis of
seniority from among those qualified Officers on said watch who are not in bid jobs and who
volunteer for the detail. If and to the extent that there are insufficient qualified volunteers, the
Employer shall select Officers on the basis of reverse seniority. The Employer may assign
probationary officers during their initial twelve (12) month period of probation without regard to
seniority. For purposes of this paragraph, the Employer may retain a Field Training Officer(s)
(FTO), for the period of time during which the FTO(s) is (are) training a probationary officer(s).
When the Employer decides to assign an Officer to a detail outside the Officer's unit of
assignment for more than ten (10) days to a unit listed in Section 23.8 to provide relief for a
temporary manpower shortage due to furlough, medical, or suspension, the Employer shall
select Officers to work the detail on the basis of seniority from among those qualified Officers
who volunteer for the detail. If and to the extent that there are insufficient volunteers, the
Employer shall select Officers on the basis of reverse seniority, provided that the Employer
may assign probationary officers during their initial twelve (12) month period of probation
without regard to seniority.
When the Employer decides to assign an Officer to a detail outside the Officer's unit of assignment
for more than thirty (30) days to a unit listed in Section 23.8 to provide relief for a temporary
manpower shortage due to the actual strength being more than ten (10%) percent below authorized
strength, the Employer shall select Officers to work the detail on the basis of seniority from among
those qualified Officers who volunteer for the detail. If and to the extent that there are insufficient
volunteers, the Employer shall select Officers on the basis of reverse seniority, provided that the
Employer may assign probationary officers during their initial twelve (12) month period of
probation without regard to seniority.
6
3257050.1
The Employer's right to assign Tactical Teams, Mission Teams, District Gang Tactical Teams, or
other specialized units shall not be restricted in any way by this Section. In emergency situations,
or situations where the Employer reasonably anticipates civil disorder will occur, or does occur,
this Section shall not apply.
For purposes of bidding, the Employer may disregard seniority if and to the extent necessary to
achieve the balance of experience and qualifications the Employer determines to be desirable in
the detail and unit involved.
For purposes of selecting Officers on the basis of reverse seniority, the Employer may retain a
junior Officer if and to the extent necessary to fulfill operational needs.
If the Employer assigns an Officer to a detail or denies an Officer(s) assignment to a detail in any
manner contrary to the provisions of this Agreement, the affected Officer(s) will be entitled to
compensation at the rate of time and one-half in quarter hour increments for the duration of the
detail.
Any time the Employer designates a unit to provide personnel to fill any detail by reverse seniority,
all Officers that have been detailed into that unit for more than ninety (90) days shall be included
as though they were assigned to the unit providing the detail.
5) Homicide Teams
To be included in a Memorandum of Understanding:
In acknowledgment of their shared commitment to devise procedures and mechanisms to
increase the homicide clearance rate, the parties agree to implement a pilot program in the
Detective Division. Detectives will be selected to participate in the pilot program pursuant to the
Notice of Job Opportunity (“NOJO”) process. Homicide Detectives participating in the pilot
program will be assembled into teams. The objective of the pilot program is to enable each team
to focus on solving homicide cases by removing distractions, providing a work schedule geared to
the operational needs of the team, and with additional resources. The following provisions shall
be applicable to Detectives assigned to the Homicide Teams:
1. They shall work a Ten (10) Hour schedule;
2. They shall be treated as Fourth Watch for purposes of Section 20.7 of the
Agreement;
3. A rotating “on call” system shall be established pursuant to which Detectives will
be available to respond to homicides while off-duty;
4. Individual Detectives will be provided with take-home cars when on-call;
5. Detectives assigned to the Homicide Team(s) shall have priority for receiving
specialized and advanced training focused on investigations and new techniques.
7
3257050.1
6. Detectives assigned to the Homicide Team(s) shall be entitled to two (2) hours of
compensatory time for each RDO in on-call status. In the event such Detective is
called out when in on-call status, the Detective shall be entitled to overtime
compensation in lieu of the two (2) hours of compensatory time.
The pilot program shall remain in effect for one (1) year, from January 1, 2024 through
December 31, 2024. Nothing shall prevent the parties from terminating or modifying the
provisions of the pilot program by mutual agreement prior to expiration of the one-year
period. At the conclusion of the one-year period the Department may, within its sole
discretion, elect to terminate the pilot program. Upon request, the Department shall
promptly meet with the Lodge to discuss the rationale for its decision. If the Department
elects to continue the pilot program, it may do so. If the Lodge objects to the continuation
of the pilot program, it may submit the dispute to expedited arbitration. The issue before
the arbitrator shall be whether the Department was unreasonable in deciding to continue
the pilot program.
6) Probationary Police Officers
Article 2 – Recognition
The Employer recognizes the Lodge as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining
representative for all sworn Police Officers below the rank of sergeant (herein referred to as
"Officer") excluding probationary officers employed by the Employer in its Department of
Police, provided said probationary period shall not extend beyond an eighteen (18) month
period.
The normal probationary period shall consist of eighteen (18) months of actual presence
during active duty. Consequently, time absent from duty or not served, for any reason, shall not
apply toward satisfaction of the probationary period, except as provided in Appendix P.
Notwithstanding any provision in this Article or in Appendix P to the contrary, under no
circumstances shall an Officer who has not completed Field Training be deemed to have completed
the probationary period, regardless of the reason(s) for not completing Field Training. During the
probationary period, an officer is not entitled to any rights, privileges or benefits under this
Agreement, except as provided in Appendix P.
Officers covered by the Agreement who have completed their probationary period as
defined in Article 2 of the Agreement and thereafter commence disability or approved leaves of
absence but subsequently return to active duty shall not be considered probationary and shall be
entitled to all rights and benefits provided for in the Agreement, including, but not limited to, the
right to invoke the provisions of Article 9 of the Agreement.
8
3257050.1
Appendix P
BENEFITS DURING PROBATIONARY PERIOD
In connection with the extension of the probationary period from a twelve (12) month period to
an eighteen (18) month period, the following rights, privileges and benefits shall apply upon the
completion of the first twelve (12) months of the probationary period:
Article 3 - Lodge Security
Section 7.1 - Administration of Summary Punishment
Article 8 - Employee Security
Article 10 - Non-Discrimination
Article 11 - Holidays
Article 12 - Promotions
Article 18 - Disability Income
Article 19 - Bereavement Leave
Article 20.1 - Work Day and Work Week
Article 20.2 - Compensation for Overtime
Article 20.3 - Sixth and Seventh Day Work
Article 20.4 - Call-Back
Article 20.5 - Court Time
Article 20.8 - Stand-By
Article 20.11 - Accumulation of Compensatory Time
Article 20.12 - Back to Back Shifts on Change Day
Article 21.3 - Uniform Allowance
Article 22 - Indemnification
Article 24 - Educational Reimbursement
Article 25 - Life and Health Insurance Provisions
Article 26 - Wages
Article 27 - Residency
Article 29 - Baby Furlough Days
Article 29.A. - Furloughs
Article 30 - Personal Leaves of Absence
Appendix A - Salary Schedule for Sworn Police Personnel
Appendix D - Dental Plan
Appendix E - Network Changes
Appendix F - In-Network/Out-of-Network Care
Appendix G - Health Care Contributions for Active Officers
9
3257050.1
Appendix H -
Appendix I -
Appendix K -
Appendix N -
Appendix O -
Prescription Drug Costs
Chemical Dependency and Mental Health Co-Insurance &
Limits High Risk Pregnancy Screening Program Procedures
for Injury on Duty and Recurrence Claims Subrogation
Language for City of Chicago
LOU Regarding Retroactivity of Wage Increases to Retirees
LOU Regarding One-Half Hour Lunch Period
LOU Regarding Article 22 Indemnification
MOU Regarding Health Care Plan
LOU Regarding Health Care Plan/Election by Married Employees
Any dispute or difference between the parties concerning the interpretation and/ or application
of any of the above provisions shall be subject to the Grievance Procedure of Article 9.
The parties further agree that an Officer who successfully completes his or her probationary
period after having been placed on I.O.D. shall be entitled to the benefits under the contract on
the same basis as police Officers who were in that Officer's class who did not have his or her
probationary period extended.
Finally, the parties agree that in the event a probationary police officer during after completion
of his or her final first six (6) months of the probation period and a non-probationary police
Officer are involved together in a situation which gives rise to the non-probationary police
Officer and the probationary police officer each receiving discipline of a five ten (510) day
suspension or less and the discipline for the non-probationary police Officer is subsequently
rescinded or reduced, any discipline imposed on the probationary police officer may be reviewed
in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and the City will not assert timeliness
provided the Officer has completed successfully his or her probationary period.
7) Foot Pursuit Policy
Section 8.xx --Discipline for Foot Pursuits
An Officer shall not be disciplined for engaging or not engaging in, or terminating, a foot
pursuit so long as done in accordance with the foot pursuit policy as determined by the
Department.
8) Body Worn Cameras
Memorandum of Understanding
The City of Chicago Police Department (“City” or “Department”) and the Fraternal Order
of Police, Lodge No. 7 (“Union” or “Lodge”) enter into this Memorandum of
Understanding with respect to certain issues relevant to Body Worn Cameras.
10
3257050.1
The Lodge and the City have reached the following agreements and understandings:
a) BWCs shall not be intentionally activated to record conversations with other
employees with or without their knowledge during routine, non-law enforcement
activities “Law enforcement activities” are those as defined in the Law
Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, 50 ILCS 706, including but not
limited to surreptitious recordings of conversations with other members;
b) BWCs shall not be used in places where, or at times when, a member has a
reasonable expectation of privacy, such as locker rooms and restrooms, or other
facilities in which private activities of Officers occur, and post-incident
conversations with any Department members or supervisors;
c) BWCs shall not be used to record a member’s privileged communications as
recognized under law. Conversations between a Lodge representative, unit
representative or other person authorized by the Lodge to discuss collective
bargaining or representative matters with an Officer may not be recorded. Any
recording of such privileged communication may not be the subject of a
disciplinary investigation or discipline except where such use of the recording is
permissible under 735 ILCS 5/8-803.5.
d) Recordings captured by inadvertent camera activation that are prohibited by the
foregoing shall be identified, protected and reviewed by the appropriate
Departmental authority to determine proper action (including but not limited to
deletion upon determination that the recording is not a public record and therefore
not required to be maintained) No disciplinary action in response to any conduct
captured on the recording may be taken unless it is in conformance with the Law
Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act (50 ILCS 706/10-1 et seq) and the
collective bargaining agreement.
e) The Department acknowledges that current technology does not permit BWCs to
be remotely or automatically activated. In the event technology evolves to the point
where BWC can be automatically activated (e.g., as is the case with in-car cameras,
which are automatically activated when the emergency lights are activated), it shall
not implement the technology without prior notice to and negotiating the impact
with the Lodge. The Department acknowledges that it has no intention of
implementing a system whereby the BWC can be activated remotely and without
the Officer’s knowledge, unless such activation is necessary for purpose of Officer
safety and to prevent imminent risk of death or bodily harm to an Officer.
f) Within ninety (90) days of the date of execution of this MOU, the Department will
implement a mechanism to ensure that the review by the Watch Operations
Lieutenant of BWC recordings, as provided for in Section V.D.3 of Special Order
S03-14, is effectuated on a random basis. Videos viewed by the Watch Operations
11
3257050.1
Lieutenant pursuant to this section shall be limited to videos generated in the seven
(7) calendar days preceding the viewing.
1. The City will continue its practice of providing advance notice to
Officers when videos will be uploaded on COPA’s portal.
g) It is agreed that there are circumstances where BWC footage can be helpful for
training purposes (e.g., training recruits in the Academy, etc.). Where BWC footage
is used for such purposes, the Department will notify the Officer(s) involved and
will blur the face(s) and other identifiers of the Officer(s) appearing in the footage.
This provision shall not apply in the case of re-enactments created for training
purposes.
h) In the event the Department seeks to use a BWC recording to discipline an Officer
covered by the collective bargaining agreement, such use shall conform to the
requirements of Section 20(a)(9) of the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body
Camera Act, 50 ILCS 706/10-20(a)(9) and the provisions of the collective
bargaining agreement.
i) Unless prohibited by law, Department members may review their BWC recording
of an incident prior to writing any report related to the incident. The member will
document this fact in the narrative portion of the report. This includes but is not
limited to case reports, arrest reports, TRRs, and investigatory stop reports.
j) An Officer required to wear BWC has the option to turn off the BWC during times
in which the officer is not actively engaging the public (e.g., while on break, or
attending court).
k) The City will continue its practice of blurring the faces and other identifiers of
undercover Officers on BWC footage before releasing them to the public.
l) The City will continue the practice of allowing Officers to flag their own recordings
for purposes related to their duties.
m) In the event an Officer loses his or her BWC while in the performance of duties,
any discipline for the loss of the BWC shall be subject to the same standards
applicable to the loss of other equipment.
AGREED AND APPROVED:
City of Chicago Fraternal Order of Police,
Lodge No. 7
By: ___________________________ By: _______________________
Date: _________________________ Date: _____________________
12
3257050.1
9) Tuition Reimbursement
Add new subsection (J) to Article 24:
Effective January 1, 2023, the Employer will issue tuition reimbursement payments as a
direct deposit within 120 days from submission to the Comptroller’s Office.
10) Payment of Wages
Section 26.4 — Payment of Wages
Except for delays caused by payroll changes, data processing or other breakdowns, or other
causes outside the Employer's control, the Employer shall continue its practice with regard to
the payment of wages, which generally is: (1) payment of wages provided herein shall be due
and payable to an Officer no later than the 1
st
7th and 16
th
22nd of each month, (2) holiday
premium pay shall be due and payable to the Officer no later than the 22nd day of the month
following the month in which the holiday premium was earned, (3) other premium pay shall be
payable to the Officer no later than the last day of the period following the period in which the
premium work was performed. The Employer shall not change said pay days except after notice
to, and, if requested by the Lodge, negotiating with the Lodge. "Negotiating," for the purposes
of this Section, shall mean as it is defined in Section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Effective no later than July 1, 2015, printed check stubs given to Officers on each payday shall
include the Officer’s PC number and no personal identifiers and Officers shall have the option
of receiving check stubs online. Effective January 1, 2023, the Employer agrees to allow access
to “GreenSlips” from Officers’ personal computers with internet access.
11) Payment of Time
Section 26.5 — Payment of Time
An Officer covered by this Agreement who resigns, retires, or dies or is separated, shall be
entitled to and shall receive all unused compensatory time accumulated by said Officer
including furlough time, baby furlough days, personal days, and holidays. An Officer who is
separated for cause shall be entitled to receive only unused compensatory time accumulated as
a result of earned overtime for hours worked in excess of 171 per 28-day period. Whenever an
Officer shall be entitled to a monetary payment from an arbitration award or settlement
agreement, monetary payment shall be made within six (6) weeks of the time of the final
determination of the amount owed by the Employer.
12) “Peoples’ Court”
New Section 9.3(D):
An Officer may pursue a grievance to challenge a reprimand or a suspension of thirty
(30) days or less in an expedited grievance procedure in which an arbitrator shall conduct an
abbreviated hearing in which the Officer and a Lodge representative will be allowed to present
13
3257050.1
their argument as to why there was no just cause to support the discipline. A representative of
the Employer shall be allowed to present a rebuttal argument in support of the discipline that has
been issued. The record before the arbitrator shall be the same as in a Binding Summary Opinion
matter pursuant to Section 9.6(A), except that the parties will not be allowed to file written
arguments in support of their positions, and the arbitrator will be required to issue an oral
decision on the same day as the presentation of the grievance. The arbitrator’s decision shall be
final and binding on the parties and there shall be no further review of the reprimand or
suspension under this Agreement.
The expedited hearings shall be conducted at least six (6) times per calendar year. Cases
presented under the Section shall be subject to mutual agreement of the Employer and the Lodge.
The arbitrator shall be selected from a panel of five arbitrators of the discipline panel selected
by the parties on an annual basis. The arbitrators selected on an annual basis for this expedited
arbitration shall agree to adjudicate cases in accordance with the expedited terms of this section.
In the event the parties are unable to agree upon a panel of arbitrators, for each vacancy on the
panel they will contact the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) and request a
panel of seven (7) arbitrators. Upon receipt of the panel, either party may strike the first panel
and request a second panel of seven (7) arbitrators. No subsequent panel may be requested except
with the mutual written agreement of the Employer and the Union. Upon receipt of the panel,
the parties will alternately strike names, with the party striking first to be determined by coin
toss, until one (1) arbitrator remains, who shall then be notified of his selection.
Subject to the approval of the Lodge, an Officer may exercise a right to pursue a
grievance that has been previously filed pursuant to Section 9.6 to challenge a suspension under
this expedited procedure and by doing so will be considered to have waived any right to pursue
a grievance on this matter pursuant to Section 9.6 of this Agreement.
The proceedings before the arbitrator shall not be recorded by a court reporter, but the
parties may tape record the arguments and the oral decision of the arbitrator.
13) RDO Cancellations
To be included in a side letter :
President John Catanzara, Jr.
FOP Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7
1412 West Washington Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60607
Dear President Catanzara,
This letter will confirm our agreement, reached during negotiations for a
successor to the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 2017,
concerning the cancellation of regular days off.
1. The notice requirement set forth in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Side Letter shall apply
to Memorial Day, Father’s Day, Juneteenth, July 4
th
, Labor Day, Thanksgiving,
14
3257050.1
New Year’s Eve, the Festival of Lights, the Tree Lighting Ceremony, and any other
known event.
2. No less than twenty-eight (28) days before the effective date of deployment, except
where operational needs preclude doing so, for each of the four Holidays set forth
in Paragraph 1, the Department will send an Anticipatory Notice apprising Officers
of the then-anticipated deployment needs. It is understood that this Notice is
anticipatory and subject to change. The Notice shall be communicated to the official
email accounts of Officers. In addition, an AMC message will be sent and will be
required to be read at roll call, if applicable. As part of the Notice, Officers will be
offered the opportunity to volunteer to work on days during the scheduled
deployment they are not scheduled to work (e.g., RDO or furlough). In the event of
a need for additional manpower for the Department, the Department will first utilize
the Officers who volunteered to work pursuant to the Anticipatory Notice.
3. No less than fourteen (14) days in advance of the scheduled deployment, the
Department will send (via email and AMC message) an Effective Notice,
containing the then-anticipated length of the deployment, whether RDOs will be
cancelled, which units will be subject to the deployment, and whether 12-hour
workdays will be implemented. It is understood that this Notice is subject to change
in order to respond to operational needs that were not anticipated.
4. If the supply of such Officers who volunteered pursuant to Paragraphs 2-4 is not
sufficient, the Department may cancel RDOs. If RDOs are cancelled, the
Department will make a reasonable effort to maintain the normal (8.5 hours or 10
hours) schedule of RDO-cancelled Officers and assign them as needed, which could
be 3
rd
watch, while in cancelled RDO status.
5. Officers represented by the FOP who have had both RDOs cancelled pursuant to
one of the deployments referenced above will receive priority treatment of time due
requests submitted pursuant to the negotiated time due MOU between the City and
the FOP. This priority will extend through the twelve (12) months following the
deployment.
6. Officers whose RDOs are being cancelled pursuant to the deployment will be given
the opportunity to find another Officer on furlough to work in their stead.
7. The Department will continue the practice of giving good faith consideration to
Officers who request to retain their RDO where good cause is shown. An Officer
whose request is denied by his, her or their exempt Commanding Officer may
appeal the denial to the appropriate Deputy Chief and Chief.
8. Officers on a 4/2 schedule will not be required to work more than ten (10)
consecutive days. Officers on a 5/2 schedule will not be required to work more than
twelve (12) consecutive days. Officers will have a minimum of nine (9) hours off
between shifts.
15
3257050.1
9. a. Probationary Police Officers (“PPOs”) are not subject to the provisions of
this Side Letter, except that the parties agree that PPOs shall have a minimum of
nine (9) hours off between shifts.
b. The provisions of this Side Letter do not apply to Officers assigned to the
4
th
and 5
th
watches, and to the specialized units, except that the provisions of
Paragraph 1, the Notice requirement set forth in the first four sentences of
Paragraph 2 (except that such requirement is subject to change in order to respond
to Department operational needs that were not anticipated), and Paragraph 13 shall
apply to such Officers.
10. If the Department decides to cancel RDOs on a Department-wide basis because
crime has increased based on statistical analysis, the Department must give fourteen
(14) days’ notice so as to permit a survey for volunteers and Officers to obtain
substitutes.
11. The Notice provisions are subject to change to respond to Department operational
needs that were not anticipated.
12. The provisions of this Side Letter do not apply if the Superintendent and the Mayor
determine in writing that a serious emergency condition exists. Any such notice
shall be sent to the Lodge.
13 No more than one RDO will be cancelled per work week except during the
following operational periods, when two RDOs may be cancelled: Memorial Day,
Father’s Day, 4
th
of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and New Year’s Eve.
14 Officers will be guaranteed two consecutive days off each police period.
If the above accurately reflects our agreement, please so indicate by signing your
name below.
14) Parental Leave
Per the attached policy, retroactive to January 1, 2023, in the same manner as agreed to
with the three PBPA units.
15) Upgrades and Stipends
To be included in a Side Letter:
President John Catanzara, Jr.
FOP Chicago John Dineen Lodge No. 7
1412 West Washington Blvd.
16
3257050.1
Chicago, IL 60607
Dear President Catanzara,
This letter will confirm our agreement, reached during negotiations for a
successor to the collective bargaining agreement that expired on June 30, 2017,
concerning the upgrades of certain classifications provided for in Section 26.1(B) – (D)
and stipends provided for in Section 26.1(H).
In consideration of the Employer’s agreement to move Special Weapons and
Tactics (“SWAT”) Officers to D-2A, the Lodge agrees that in order to qualify, the SWAT
Officer must be in a deployable status. For purposes of eligibility for this stipend, an Officer
eligible for call out shall be considered to be in deployable status.
In consideration of the Employer’s agreement to move Evidence Technicians to
Grade D-2A, the Lodge agrees to waive, effective January 1, 2024, the provisions of the
arbitration award issued January 29, 2017, by Arbitrator Daniel Nielsen in the matter of
Grievance No. 129-15-002 (Evidence Technicians Out of Grade Pay), entitling Evidence
Technicians to out of grade pay at the D-3 grade for processing homicides, police-
involved shootings, and other crime scenes.
With respect to LEMART stipend, eligibility is conditioned upon the Officer
carrying the IFAK (individual first aid kit). With respect to the CIT stipend, the parties
agree that eligibility for the Stipend is limited to those Officers who voluntarily participate
and remain in the CIT program. To be eligible for the Bike Officer stipend, the Officer
must be available for events that necessitate the assignment of Bike Officers. All three
stipends will be paid on a quarterly basis ($250 per quarter). Payment of the stipend shall
be made in the last pay period of the quarter following the quarter in which the stipend was
earned. As a further condition of eligibility for any of the three stipends, the Officer must
have been eligible for field assignments during at least half of the preceding quarter. In
calculating eligibility pursuant to the preceding sentence, time in pay status due to furlough,
baby furloughs, personal days, and approved injury on duty leave under Section 18.1 shall
be included.
16) Summary Punishment Order
The parties agree to amend the Summary Punishment Order (Special Order S08-
01-05) to incorporate the modifications set forth in the parties’ Tentative Agreement of
October 11, 2022.
17) Section 9.6B and C/Appendix Q
B. Suspensions from Eleven (11) to Thirty (30) Days
Officers who receive a recommendation for discipline from eleven (11) to thirty (30)
days as a result of a sustained Complaint Register investigation (CR#) shall have one of
three options, the selection of which shall preclude the Officer, or the Lodge acting on his
or her behalf, from selecting any of the other options listed below, except that the Officer
17
3257050.1
is permitted to accept the recommendation at any time. Within ten (10) working days of
receiving the recommendation for discipline the Officer shall elect one of the following
options:
1. The filing of a grievance challenging the recommendation for discipline; or
2. Submission of a grievance to, and in accordance with the provisions of, the
Summary Opinion process set forth in Paragraph A(1) above; or
3. Accept the recommendation
In the event an Officer does not make an election within ten (10) working days, the
recommendation for suspension will be deemed accepted, absent a written agreement
between the Lodge and the Department to extend the election period.
When an Officer elects to file a grievance, the Lodge will have sixty (60) ninety (90)
days from receipt of the investigative file to inform the Department whether the Lodge
will advance the grievance to arbitration, and if so, whether the grievance will be
advanced to arbitration, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
In the event the Lodge decides not to advance the grievance to arbitration, the Officer
will have ten (10) working days to elect review of the recommendation for suspension by
the Police Board as set forth in the Police Board’s Rules of Procedure, Article IV, Section
B, paragraphs 3 through 9 (published November 1, 1975). In the event the Officer elects
review of the recommendation for suspension by the Police Board, the Officer will not be
required to serve the recommended suspension, nor will the suspension be entered on the
Officer’s disciplinary record, until the Police Board rules on the merits of the
recommended suspension.
Arbitration of suspension grievances pursuant to this Paragraph B shall be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Appendix Q.
C. Suspensions from Thirty-One (31) to Three Hundred Sixty-Five (365) Days
Officers who receive a recommendation for discipline from thirty-one (31) to three hundred
sixty-five (365) days as a result of a sustained CR# shall have one of three options, the
selection of which shall preclude the Officer, or the Lodge acting on his or her behalf, from
selecting any of the other options listed below, except that the Officer is permitted to accept
the recommendation at any time. Within ten (10) working days of receiving the
recommendation for discipline the Officer(s) shall elect one of the following options:
1. A review by the Police Board as set forth in the Police Board's Rules of Procedure,
Article I, II and III (published November 1, 1975); or
2. The filing of a grievance challenging the recommendation for discipline; or
3. Accept the recommended discipline.
In the event an Officer does not make an election within ten (10) working days, the
recommendation for suspension will be reviewed by the Police Board.
When an Officer files a grievance, the Lodge will have sixty (60) ninety (90) days from the
receipt of the investigative file to inform the Department whether the Lodge will advance the
grievance to arbitration. Arbitration of suspension grievances pursuant to this Paragraph C
shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Appendix Q. The parties will
cooperate in the scheduling of all arbitration hearings.
18
3257050.1
In the event the Lodge decides not to advance the grievance to arbitration, the Officer will
have ten (10) working days to elect review of the recommendation for suspension by the Police
Board as set forth in paragraphs 9.6.C.1 above. In the event the Officer elects review of the
recommendation for suspension by the Police Board, the Officer will not be required to serve
the recommended suspension, nor will the suspension be entered on the Officer’s disciplinary
record, until the Police Board rules on the merits of the recommended suspension.
In the event an Officer does not make an election within ten (10) working days, the
recommendation for suspension will be deemed accepted, absent a written agreement between
the Lodge and the Department to extend the election period.
APPENDIX Q
GROUND RULES FOR ARBITRATION OF SUSPENSION
GRIEVANCES PURSUANT TO SECTION 9.6.B AND 9.6.C
The following procedures shall apply to arbitrations of grievances challenging suspensions
of eleven (11) to three hundred sixty-five (365) days.
A. The Lodge and the Employer have agreed to a panel of five (5) Arbitrators who shall
comprise the exclusive list of Arbitrators to preside over the suspension grievances. The five
(5) Arbitrators for the calendar year 202123 are: George Roumell, Jr., Dan Nielsen, Jaclyn
Zimmerman, Robert Perkovich, Peter R. Meyers, Brian Clauss, Jeffrey Winton. After 202123,
the parties agree to consult with their counsel responsible for scheduling to obtain any updated
list of five (5) arbitrators. Each December the Lodge and the City shall each be permitted to
strike one (1) Arbitrator from the panel for any reason. In the event an Arbitrator is removed
from the panel, the parties shall attempt to agree upon a replacement Arbitrator. If the parties
are unable to agree upon a replacement, they shall request a list of seven (7) Arbitrators from
the American Arbitration Association Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”),
each of whom must be a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators. Within ten (10)
days after receipt of the list, the parties shall select an Arbitrator. Both the Employer and the
Lodge shall alternately strike names from the list. The remaining person shall be added to the
panel. In the event the Lodge and the City each strike an Arbitrator from the panel as part of
the December process, and if the parties are unable to agree upon replacement Arbitrators, the
parties shall request two lists from the American Arbitration Association FMCS to be used to
select the two replacement Arbitrators.
B. Within ten (10) days of the Lodge electing to forward the suspension grievance to
arbitration, the parties shall meet and select an Arbitrator from the panel. The parties shall
inform the Arbitrator of the Arbitrator’s appointment and request a hearing date within sixty
(60) ninety (90) days, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. If the Arbitrator is unable
to provide a hearing date within sixty (60) ninety (90) days from the date of being contacted,
the parties shall select another Arbitrator from the panel who is able to provide a hearing date
within sixty (60) ninety (90) days, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Upon
appointment of the Arbitrator, but prior to the date on which a cancellation fee would be
incurred, and unless they have already done so, the parties shall schedule a date to conduct a
settlement conference to attempt to resolve the grievance. More than one suspension grievance
19
3257050.1
may be discussed at the settlement conference. If the parties are unable to resolve the
suspension grievance, they shall proceed with the Arbitration Process outlined in this
Memorandum of Understanding.
C. Provided the Lodge accepts a hearing date within sixty (60) ninety (90) days of
appointment of the Arbitrator, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, the Officer will
not be required to serve the suspension, nor will the suspension be entered on the Officer’s
disciplinary record, until the Arbitrator rules on the merits of the grievance. In the event
additional day(s) of hearing may be required to resolve the grievance, such additional day(s)
shall be scheduled within thirty (30) days of the first day of hearing. If the Lodge is not ready
to proceed on a scheduled hearing date, the Officer shall be required to serve the suspension
prior to the Arbitrator ruling on the merits of the grievance.
D. The authority and expenses of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the provisions of
Sections 9.7 and 9.8 of the Agreement.
E. The provisions of this Appendix Q supersede Appendix S of the predecessor collective
bargaining agreement. However, nothing shall prohibit or require the parties agreeing upon
an expedited or “fast track” arbitration procedure for a specific grievance or category of
grievances.
18) Section 8.10 – Investigation Time Limits
With respect to grievances challenging the recommended discipline on Officers for non-
criminal misconduct, the Employer and the Union mutually acknowledge the principle that
investigations of suspected employee misconduct are to be carried out on a timely basis, and that
unwarranted delays in completing disciplinary investigations may prejudice the employee’s ability
to respond to or defend against allegations of misconduct. Accordingly, the Arbitrator is vested
with specific authority to inquire into the reason(s) for any delay in completing an investigation,
whether the Officer has been harmed by the delay in the investigation and, further, the parties
mutually acknowledge that the Arbitrator, in the process of applying the tenets of the “just cause”
principle, possesses the authority to reverse or reduce any disciplinary penalty where the evidence
demonstrates that a disciplinary investigation was unreasonably delayed and that an Officer was
prejudiced thereby.
Effective for disciplinary investigations concluding forty-five (45) days after the date of
ratification of this collective bargaining agreement, in the event the Employer recommends a
disciplinary penalty upon an Officer as a result of a disciplinary investigation that took more than
eighteen (18) months to conclude, as measured from the date on which the disciplinary
investigation was opened, upon request of the Union, the Arbitrator, who shall be the same
Arbitrator selected to hear the merits of the disciplinary penalty, shall convene a hearing,
preliminary to the hearing on the merits, to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the
investigation to take longer than eighteen (18) months. At this preliminary hearing the Employer
shall bear the burden of demonstrating the existence of reasonable cause. “Reasonable cause” may
include, but is not limited to, such factors as unavailability of the accused Officer or a critical
witness, delays attributable to the Officer or his or her attorney, the unusual complexity of the
matter under investigation, the need to investigate claims or new evidence arising in the course of
20
3257050.1
the investigation, the pendency of a criminal investigation involving the matter under
investigation, the pendency of civil litigation involving the matter under investigation, etc. If the
Arbitrator determines there was reasonable cause for the investigation to take longer than eighteen
(18) months, the Arbitrator shall proceed to the hearing on the merits of the disciplinary penalty
against the Officer.
Nothing in this sub-section C shall apply in any instance where the allegation against the
Officer is of a criminal nature within the meaning of Section 6.1E.
19) Retirement Credentials
In accordance with the current policy, the Superintendent has the discretion to decide
whether the Officer’s personnel file should state that the Officer resigned or retired “while
under investigation” based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the investigation,
including, but not limited to, the likelihood that the investigation will result in a sustained
finding accompanied by a recommendation for the substantial disciplinary penalty, the
possibility that the investigation may result in the decertification of an Officer as a peace
officer and/or the extent to which the Officer has cooperated in the investigation both before
and after his/her separation from employment.
In the event that the Lodge disagrees with the Superintendent’s decision, the Lodge
may submit the grievance to arbitration. The Arbitrator may set aside the Superintendent's
decision only if the Arbitrator determines that the Superintendent’s decision was arbitrary -
or capricious i.e., without a rational basis or justification - at the time of retirement.
20) Retention Bonus
Dear President Catanzara,
This letter confirms our understandings, as follows:
1. The parties agree that the Retention Bonus ordered by Arbitrator Benn in his
Interim Award will not be implemented.
2. During the first quarter of 2024, all bargaining unit members shall receive a one-
time non-pensionable bonus of $2,500.
3. Effective January 1, 2024, Officers may exchange (cash in) accumulated compensatory
time not to exceed fifty (50) hours each year of this Agreement at the Officer’s hourly
rate at the time of payment. Application for such exchange shall be on a form provided
by the Employer and at a time each year set by the Employer. In no event shall payment
be made any later than March 1 of the year following application.
21) Effective in 2024, the amount of the physical fitness premium shall be increased to
$450.
FOR THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO
Lodge No. 7
21
3257050.1
By:___________________________________ By:_____________________________
John Catanzara James C. Franczek, Jr.
22) Section 15.1A Safety Issues
A. The Employer and the Lodge agree to cooperate to the fullest extent reasonably
possible to provide the use of safe equipment and facilities, and to ensure that
the safest possible working conditions are provided to the Officers, the
Employer shall provide the following:
1. To protect Officers who may have been injured and who have suffered
bodily injury, the Employer shall provide all Officers with LEMART
training, emergency medical assistance training and the necessary
medical supplies to enable them to tend to injured Officers or citizens.
2. During a pandemic or mass public health emergency, the Employer shall
provide to all Officers the necessary training and necessary personal
protective equipment.
3. Officers will be provided with appropriate training on the use of force
rules that are consistent with the Department’s General Orders.
23) Arbitrator Benn’s Interim Award with respect to the issue of the Police Board and
Arbitration will be submitted to the City Council.
24) All Other Proposals Not Included Herein
Are deemed withdrawn.
1
3258721.1
BEFORE
DISPUTE RESOLUTION BOARD
Edwin H. Benn (Neutral Chair)
Cicely Porter-Adams (City Appointee)
John Catanzara, Jr. (Lodge Appointee)
In the Matter of the Arbitration )
)
Between )
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, )
)
(“CITY”) ) CASE NO. AAA 01-22-003-6534
) Arb. Ref. 22.372
-and- ) (Interest Arbitration)
)
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, )
CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7, )
)
(“LODGE”) )
CITY OF CHICAGO’S DISSENT FROM FINAL OPINION AND
AWARD INCORPORATING INTERIM AND SUPPLEMENTAL
INTERIM AWARDS
The Neutral Chair has labored valiantly, and successfully, to assist the parties in reaching
agreement on a broad range of issues, as set forth in the Appendix attached to the Neutral Chair’s
“Final Opinion and Award” (“Award”). It is the City’s belief that these agreements are in the best
interest of all parties, especially including the residents of Chicago, and will prove instrumental in
advancing the City’s continuing commitment to embedding principles of constitutional policing.
We are grateful to the Neutral Chair for his efforts in helping the parties get to this outcome.
However, the Neutral Chair has rejected the City’s repeated requests to modify his June 26, 2023
“Interim Opinion and Award” and his August 2, 2023 “Supplemental Interim Opinion and Award”
(“Supplemental Interim Award”), directing that the successor collective bargaining agreement
2
3258721.1
(“Agreement”) include an arbitration option for disciplinary actions in excess of 365 days and
separations.
1
As the City Appointee to the Dispute Resolution Board, it is my firm belief that the
substantive provisions regarding resolution of separations and suspensions in excess of 365 days
mandated by the Supplemental Interim Award are not justified by the record in this case or the
parties’ history, are likely to frustrate the City’s efforts to bring about fundamental and necessary
reforms in the Police Department, will sap public confidence in the disciplinary process applicable
to police officers, will ultimately work to the detriment of police officers covered by this
Agreement, and at bottom are inconsistent with the “interests and welfare of the public” as required
by Section 14(h)(3) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. (5 ILCS 315/14) Accordingly, I
respectfully dissent from the Interim and Supplemental Awards (“Interim Awards”). My reasons
follow.
The Interim Awards include these provisions governing the resolution of disputes over
separations and suspensions over one year:
i) the right of the Lodge to submit such actions to binding arbitration in lieu of the
Chicago Police Board, which up until now has had exclusive jurisdiction over those
actions;
ii) the arbitration is to be closed to the public, unlike the case with hearings before the
Police Board;
iii) there is no requirement that arbitrators hearing these cases are to have completed
the same training required of members of the Police Board pursuant to Paragraphs
540-542 of the Consent Decree between the City and the Attorney General of
Illinois;
iv) officers whom the Department is seeking to separate are entitled to remain on the
payroll while the arbitration process plays itself out, contrary to decades’ long past
practice; and
1
The Supplemental Interim Award was preceded by the Neutral Chair’s June 26, 2023 “Interim Opinion
and Award” (“Interim Award”), in which he adopted the Lodge’s proposal for the arbitration option and
remanded to the parties for the purpose of drafting language consistent with the Interim Award. It was the
parties’ inability to agree upon language that led to the August 2 Supplemental Interim Award, in which
the Neutral Chair mandated the language to be included in the successor Agreement.
3
3258721.1
v) the arbitration option is retroactive to September 14, 2022.
These provisions are extraordinary and far-reaching. I will address them in sequence.
These parties have engaged in formal collective bargaining since 1981, negotiating 12
collective bargaining agreements over that span. Throughout this period, separations and
suspensions in excess of one year were within the Police Board’s exclusive province. On four
previous occasions
2
the Lodge resorted to interest arbitration to resolve the terms of the collective
bargaining agreement. In none of those proceedings did the Lodge seek an option to submit such
disciplinary actions to arbitration. We submit that one of the principal reasons for the absence of
bargaining activity for an arbitration option is that neither party viewed the Police Board process
as broken or in distress. As we argued in our pre-hearing submissions, the statistics bear this out.
The Superintendent has traditionally been very judicious in pursuing the ultimate sanction of
separation and the Police Board has not been anything like a rubber stamp. Between 2013 and
2017 a total of 78 separation cases proceeded to hearing before the Police Board. The Board
imposed separation in 39 of them—exactly 50%. In more than 20% of the cases the Police Board
determined that the officer was not guilty, resulting in no discipline. The percentage of cases
resulting in separation increased somewhat between 2017 and 2021, but not unreasonably so. Of
49 separation cases decided over that period, 32 (or 65%) resulted in separation. Statistics like this
are hardly the mark of a biased tribunal. By their conduct over the years, the parties acknowledged
that the arbitration option was a solution in search of a problem.
This time around the Lodge saw fit to seek the arbitration option. We argued (and indeed
demonstrated, we contend) that there is no factual justification for the option. The Neutral Chair
2
Interest arbitration awards were issued by George Roumell in 1993, Steven Briggs in 2002, and by this
Neutral Chair in 2005 and 2010.
4
3258721.1
responded that this is beside the point: “if a party requests arbitration of discipline in an interest
arbitration, as a matter of plain statutory language in Section 8 of the IPLRA, that request must be
adopted . . . [f]urther, whether those boards functioned well or did not function at all are just not
relevant considerations under Section 8’s statutory mandate . . .”. (italics in the original).
3
With
due respect, that view of the matter simply is not responsive to the needs of the moment.
We acknowledged in these proceedings the authorities the Neutral Chair assembled for the
proposition quoted in the preceding paragraph. But as we pointed out at the time, all of those cases
involved municipalities that just do not bear comparison to Chicago and the circumstances in
which it finds itself. Contrary to the Neutral Chair’s dismissal of our position, characterizing it as
a claim that “Chicago is different because we are bigger”
4
, our argument goes considerably beyond
size. We defy anyone to point to another city or village in this state that is in the same ballpark
when it comes to complexity of the issues, diversity of communities served, or the intensity of the
public focus on how the Police Department operates. Our fundamental proposition, one with which
the Neutral Chair fails to come to grips, is that the collective bargaining agreement, and especially
its provisions with respect to accountability, must be perceived by the public as fostering and
advancing the cause of legitimacy in policing in our city. Anything less impedes the ability of the
Police Department to fulfill its mission. In our submissions on this issue to the Neutral Chair we
strived to craft an arbitration option that satisfied this need, understanding that our insistence on
the status quo would be deemed impermissible. The flat rejection of our proposals leaves us with
no alternative but to dissent. Below I address four aspects of what we had proposed.
3
Interim Award at 44-45.
4
Interim Award at 56.
5
3258721.1
First and foremost is the question of whether the arbitration hearing (should there be one)
addressing a separation or suspension in excess of one year should be open to the public. Our
proposed language providing for transparency was attached to the Supplemental Interim Award in
Appendix B. The City proposed that the arbitration hearing “shall be open to the public in the same
manner as hearings before a hearing officer employed by the Board.” We pointed out that the
Police Board’s Rules of Procedure mandate open hearings but specifically contemplate closed
proceedings where appropriate, such as the pre-hearing conference and other occasions “for good
cause shown”. The Neutral Chair’s response, candidly, is disappointing in the extreme:
“Arbitrations are private and not open to the public. That again is the ‘Rule of Law’.”
5
The Neutral
Chair goes so far to suggest that he would commit an “ethical violation” were he to provide that
the arbitration hearings be open to the public.
6
We have deep respect for the Neutral Chair and his
long history of accomplishments in the field, but this is nonsense. Every Police Board hearing in
living memory has been open to the public and we are unaware of any horrible (or even mildly
uncomfortable) consequence flowing from that. Neither is it the case that a police arbitration
hearing open to the public is without precedent. San Antonio is the nation’s seventh largest city.
Its collective bargaining agreement with its police union directs that all arbitration hearings be
open to the public.
7
There is no basis in experience or logic to believe that an arbitration hearing
open to the public somehow becomes a flawed proceeding by virtue of being public.
5
Final Award at 20. This is more than a little reminiscent of the exchange in the Ring Lardner story, “The
Young Immigrunts” (sic):
“Are you lost daddy I arsked tenderly.
Shut up he explained.”
(Spelling and punctuation (or lack thereof) in the original)
6
Id. at 21.
7
Article 28, Section 10(c) of the 2022-2026 collective bargaining agreement with the San Antonio Police
Officers’ Association mandates that “All hearings shall be public unless it is expressly agreed in writing by
the parties that the hearing shall be closed to the public.” It can be accessed at
https://www.sa.gov/Directory/Departments/CAO/Collective-Bargaining.
6
3258721.1
The Neutral Chair’s prioritization of the private interests involved overlooks the vital
public interest at stake in an open hearing. The Neutral Chair can make light of it all he wishes,
but the fact remains that substantial portions of the citizenry are deeply suspicious of the process
by which the Police Department seeks to hold its officers accountable on those occasions where
they engage in misconduct. It is not sufficient for an arbitrator to say: trust me. Absolutely no good
can come from a situation where the disciplinary process refuses to acknowledge this reality. For
our part, the City stands willing to present our disciplinary cases in the bright light of day.
Second, we believe it a grave mistake not to require that arbitrators hearing such serious
disciplinary matters first acquaint themselves with the training materials required of Police Board
members pursuant to ¶542 in the Consent Decree. The required topics include constitutional and
other relevant law on police-community encounters, including law on the use of force and stops,
searches, and arrests; police tactics; investigations of police conduct; CPD policies, procedures,
and disciplinary rules; etc. How does this training not enhance an arbitrator’s ability to resolve
these cases appropriately?
Third, the Neutral Chair engages in a radical restructuring of the status quo by requiring
that officers remain on the payroll while the arbitration process is ongoing. We had proposed (if
there is to be an arbitration option) continuation of the existing process, where a Police Board
hearing officer determines whether to suspend (without pay) an officer against whom charges
seeking separation have been filed. None of the City’s 40-plus collective bargaining agreements
provide for such a right. The Neutral Chair has created an incentive for the Lodge to find itself
“unavailable” for arbitration hearings, knowing that the longer it can drag out the process, the
longer the officer remains on the payroll. The Department cannot make use of officers while in
this status; it would be preposterous to send an officer on an emergency call while simultaneously
7
3258721.1
seeking to terminate that individual’s employment as a police officer. There is no unfairness in the
City’s position: in the event the arbitrator finds the separation not to be for just cause, she has the
authority to fashion an appropriate remedy. But there is no remedy for the City when the arbitrator,
many months later, determines that the separation is for just cause.
Fourth, we do not understand how the arbitration option is to be retroactive to September
14, 2022, more than a year before the date of the Final Award. We suggest this is unworkable and
will only lead to confusion.
Finally, at the outset of this Dissent I observed that the Interim Awards will work to the
detriment of police officers. That was not cant or rhetoric. It is a basic fact of life in Chicago
(something which serves to distinguish us from other municipalities) that police officers,
especially, are at risk of being named as defendants in civil lawsuits arising out of claimed
misconduct. The fact that one has been named as a defendant, standing alone, is not proof of
misconduct; that is what the judicial process is for. But that process relies on juries drawn from
residents of Cook County. When the defendant officer confronts the jury, if that jury is composed
of individuals who are skeptical of the integrity and legitimacy of the system by which the Chicago
Police Department holds its officers accountable, the outcome of the process is not likely to favor
the officer. Every CPD officer has a strong interest
8
in ensuring that the wider public accepts the
credibility of the Department’s disciplinary process. Each officer is entitled to a fair shake from
the jury, and the best guarantee of that is a disciplinary process that is open and transparent. The
8
Most civil lawsuits include a claim for punitive damages against the defendant officer(s). Section 2-302
of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act provides: “It is hereby
declared to be the public policy of this State, however, that no local public entity may elect to indemnify
an employee for any portion of a judgment representing an award of punitive or exemplary damages.” 745
ILCS 10/2-302.
Interim
Awards
work
in
the
opposite
direction.
The
result
is
bad
for
the
City,
for
the
officers,
an
d
for
the
residents
of
Chicago.
I
dissent.
City
Appointee
October
19,
2023
3258721.1
