koschman police arbitration clarification

3
GEORGE T. ROUMELL, JR. Attorney at Law, Arbitrator and Mediator Member, National Academy of Arbitrators [email protected] 615 Griswold St., Suite 1717 Detroit, MI 48226-3986 Telephone: (313) 962-8255 Facsimile: (313) 962-2937 Cell (313) 510-7101 September 2, 2015 David A. Johnson, Esq. Thomas J. Pleines, Esq. Franczek Radelet P.C. PBLC Chicago Metro Legal Counsel 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 206 South Jefferson Street, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60606 Chicago, IL 60661 Re: City of Chicago -and- PB&PA Unit 156 - Sergeants and Lieutenants James Ade - Sgts. 14-023 Michael Ryan - Lts. 14-004 (Article 6 OIG Affidavit Override Procedures) Gentlemen: At your request on behalf of your respective clients, you asked to have a telephone conference with me concerning the Opinion and Award that I issued in the above case. The telephone conference took place on Friday, August 28, 2015. I write this letter in response to the telephone conference only for the purposes of clarifying the Award and not to make any substantive changes in the Opinion and Award. As you know, the first five paragraphs of the Award provided: 1. The Office of Inspector General may investigate any alleged misconduct on the part of Department members in connection with the Koschman investigation. 2. The IPRA shall have sixty (60) days from the date of this Award to obtain or seek to obtain in good faith an affidavit from Dan Webb. If the affidavit is so obtained within sixty (60) days or after a good faith attempt to obtain same the IPRA is unable to obtain an affidavit from Mr. Webb within said sixty (60)

Upload: thewatchdogs

Post on 10-Dec-2015

13 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Arbitrator's ruling on whether members of the Chicago Police Department are subject to investigation by the city's Office of the Inspector General. The ruling came in a case involving an investigation of police involved int he David Koschman case.

TRANSCRIPT

GEORGE T. ROUMELL, JR.

Attorney at Law, Arbitrator and Mediator Member, National Academy of Arbitrators

[email protected] 615 Griswold St., Suite 1717 Detroit, MI 48226-3986

Telephone: (313) 962-8255 Facsimile: (313) 962-2937

Cell (313) 510-7101

September 2, 2015

David A. Johnson, Esq. Thomas J. Pleines, Esq. Franczek Radelet P.C. PBLC Chicago Metro Legal Counsel 300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 206 South Jefferson Street, Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60606 Chicago, IL 60661

Re: City of Chicago -and-

PB&PA Unit 156 - Sergeants and Lieutenants James Ade - Sgts. 14-023 Michael Ryan - Lts. 14-004 (Article 6 OIG Affidavit Override Procedures)

Gentlemen:

At your request on behalf of your respective clients, you asked to have a telephone conference with me concerning the Opinion and Award that I issued in the above case. The telephone conference took place on Friday, August 28, 2015. I write this letter in response to the telephone conference only for the purposes of clarifying the Award and not to make any substantive changes in the Opinion and Award.

As you know, the first five paragraphs of the Award provided:

1. The Office of Inspector General may investigate any alleged misconduct on the part of Department members in connection with the Koschman investigation.

2. The IPRA shall have sixty (60) days from the date of this Award to obtain or seek to obtain in good faith an affidavit from Dan Webb. If the affidavit is so obtained within sixty (60) days or after a good faith attempt to obtain same the IPRA is unable to obtain an affidavit from Mr. Webb within said sixty (60)

David A. Johnson, Esq. Thomas J. Pleines, Esq. September 2, 2015

days, then the grievances will be denied, subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 below.

3. The affidavit obtained from Dan Webb can be on information and belief.

4. If no good faith attempt is made by the IPRA to obtain an affidavit from Dan Webb, then the grievances shall be returned to the Arbitrator for further disposition.

5. The Arbitrator will keep jurisdiction of this matter for one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of this Award to resolve any disputes as a result of Paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Award, but if the Arbitrator does not hear from the parties that there is a dispute within said time limits, the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator will end.

In Paragraph 5, this Arbitrator did keep jurisdiction and in doing so only to clarify the Award:

1. Since the Office of the Inspector General is the investigating entity, it would be appropriate if the affidavit referenced in Paragraph 2 of the Award is obtained by the Office of the Inspector General.

2. I want to make it clear that, in the future, my Award of August 21, 2015 should not be interpreted as allowing the City or any of its agencies, including the Department, to not comply with the affidavit requirements of Section 6.10.

3. The failure to make a good faith effort to obtain an appropriate affidavit from a complainant is a violation of the parties' Agreement. However, I decline to impose the remedy requested by the Unions. That remedy does not fit the violation. The remedy in this case for failure to make a good faith effort to obtain the affidavit is that the Office of the Inspector General must make a good faith effort to obtain the affidavit from Mr. Webb. In any future investigations by the City in which there is a demonstrated noncompliance with the affidavit requirements, the parties will be free to argue for any appropriate remedy.

4. As noted at page 63 of the Award, there has been no finding of a violation of any policies, procedures, rules or regulations of the Department by Sergeants Mills and Cirone and Lieutenant Walsh. If, in the future, the Employer seeks to impose discipline on them, nothing in this Award shall be interpreted as precluding them from raising any substantive defenses to the discipline, as well as any procedural defenses other than the procedural issues decided in this

David A. Johnson, Esq. Thomas J. Pleines, Esq. September 2, 2015

Award.

Very truly yours,

GTR.Jr./bs