When asked about the anti-raiding rule, Jim Santangelo, president of Teamsters Joint Council 42 and a Teamsters international vice president, characterized the IUPA affiliavion as having been improperly done. "As far as our attorneys are concerned, this isn't a raid," Santangelo said.
LAPPL officials took a contrary view. Union
president Mitzi Grasso said the LAPPL intends to file a complaint with the
AFL-CIO. She asserted that the Teamsters did not have the background to represent
police officers, a claim that union officials deny. A Teamster spokesman said
the union represented officers in 297 police departments in 19 states.
The Los Angeles officers heading the movement to change representation believe that the Teamsters would create a stronger bargaining unit. "It's not the pay right now, it's the working conditions. We're scrutinized right and left," said Craig Lally, an LAPD sergeant who is one of the officers seeking Teamster affiliation. Lally said he has a "gut feeling" that enough dissatisfied officers exist to force a vote on representation.
The campaign comes at a time when LAPD Chief Bernard C. Parks is seeking to retain his job. The LAPPL has strongly opposed another five-year term for Parks. Mayor James Hahn, who the LAPPL supported in last year's election, also opposes Parks' reappointment. The city's police commission will make the final decision on Parks' future.
The court reference relates to a judicial ruling two years ago that blocked the promotion of 2,000 officers to the detective-specialist rank as being contrary to the labor agreement. At the time the then-Police Commissioner Howard Safir was trying to reward some, but not all, officers for the historic drop in the city's crime rate.
Promotion of the ESU personnel removed them from PBA representation and places them in the Detectives Endowment Association bargaining unit.
The PBA has traditionally objected to economic rewards that benefited only some of its members.
In an unusual move, the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) went to court in February to try to block the promotion of 15 members of the NYPD's elite Emergency Service Unit (ESU). Police Commissioner Ray Kelly promoted 15 of the 465 ESU members to the rank of detective-specialist as a reward for their efforts during the September 11 tragedy. The union takes exception to the plan on the grounds that it circumvents their labor contract with the city. Meanwhile, the city's new mayor is proposing to reduce the size of the department in order to meet budget goals.
"The PBA believes that those 15 Emergency Service cops and thousands of
other officers deserve to be rewarded for their work before, during, and after
September 11," said PBA president Patrick Lynch.
Currently, the department can deploy 38,100 sworn personnel. To maintain current levels of police service the NYPD plans to hire 800 lower paid civilians to perform clerical tasks now done by officers. These officers will be reassigned to the street.
The events of September 11 have placed enormous financial pressures on a city that expects a $4 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year.
Meanwhile, recently elected Mayor Michael Bloomberg's budget trims the number of police officer jobs by 1,600. Lowering the number of positions is necessary to attain a requested five percent reduction in the overall budget of the department. The reduction in force, to be gained through not filling vacant positions, would bring NYPD authorized strength down to 39,110 officers from a peak of 40,710.
In May 2000, the DOJ filed suit alleging that the city discriminated against the officers by failing or refusing reasonably to accommodate their religious observance, practice and belief as Muslims, including wearing a beard. The suit also alleged that the city threatened the Muslim officers with termination, transferred them to undesirable assignments, and denied them opportunities to work special overtime events.
Under the agreement, the city will offer back pay and compensatory damages totaling $53,600 to ten current and former police officers. In addition, the city will implement non-discriminatory employment policies designed to accommodate the employees' religious practices.
"Religious freedom is one of the bedrock principles of our democracy," said Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. "The settlement recognizes than an employee's religious expression is not checked at the workplace door when the employer can reasonably accommodate the employee's religious practice."
As part of the settlement, the city will also expunge from the officers' disciplinary records any references to the disciplinary action taken against them.
Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said if Dible is being fired because of the Website, the department's actions amount to government punishment for a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
Dible is not the first Chandler officer to face discipline over the Website. Earlier this year a reserve officer was terminated because his wife posed for the same site.
Regulation of the off duty conduct of police officers is one of the more problematic personnel issues to arise in recent years. Generally, in order to subject an officer to discipline for off-the-job conduct, an employer must show that the behavior adversely affected the operations of the police department. But what about the conduct of a spouse? May a male officer lawfully be disciplined for his wife's behavior? A recent incident in Arizona is raising that unusual question.
The Chandler Police Department has fired an officer whose wife posed for
an adult content internet site. Officer Ron Dible was terminated after an
investigation into whether he violated the department's code of ethics, according
to published reports.
Local government remained the job sector with the highest share of union members at 43.2 percent, with police officers, fire fighters, and teachers enjoying the highest union membership rates. Only about one in ten private sector workers are union members.
While about 2,400,000 protective service workers were union members, less than half that number of workers - just over 1,000,000 - were covered by a labor contract.
In examining all workers' pay for 2001, union members nationwide had a median weekly wage of $718 while non-union workers earned a median weekly wage of $575, a 25 percent differential. The difference at least partially reflects the influence of collective bargaining on wages.
BLS statistics aggregate police officers, fire fighters, and correctional officers into the protective service category and do not report data for the individual occupations.
The officers must undergo specialized training in analyzing potentially
dangerous situations while in the air and reacting appropriately, including
the possible use of firearms. The plan calls for federal experts to train
groups of CHP officers who, in turn,
will train other officers until the entire 6,700-member force is qualified
in airline protection tactics.
Unlike the east coast where railroads move passengers from Boston to Washington, D.C., extensive air service is provided connecting the San Diego - Los Angeles - San Francisco corridor. These shuttle planes operate solely within California.
Davis' plan was originally seen by some as political grandstanding after September 11 but others welcomed it as a commonsense innovation. The Governor pressed the issue with the Bush administration which finally gave its okay in February.
Also rejected for review were McLin v. Board of Police Commissioners of Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, No. 01-755 and City of Lynn, Massachusetts v. Thompson, No. 01-834. The inaction in McLin leaves in place a 15-day suspension a police officer received for making statements asserting that applicants that the department recruited from rural areas lacked racial sensitivity and were "sissies" until they became a police officer. In Thompson , the Supreme Court declined to consider the city's argument that a lower court should not have reinstated a physically abusive officer. The officer's actions had resulted in two large monetary judgments against the city. A lower state court found no explicit public policy permitting the termination of a police officer who violates federal civil rights law.
HELD: It is well-established law that a governmental employer cannot condition
public employment on a basis that infringes on the employee's constitutionally
protected interest in freedom of expression. Under prior law, a court must
determine whether an employee's speech touches upon a matter of public concern.
If so, the employee's interest in speaking out as a citizen upon the matter
of public concern must be balanced against the interest of the state in promoting
the efficiency of the public service. Matters of public concern are those
that can fairly be considered as relating to any matter of political, social,
or other concern to the community. Speech that discloses any evidence of corruption
and impropriety or malfeasance on the part of city officials is of public
concern. Thus, Branton's comments that touched upon alleged improper acts
of a public official were a matter of public concern. Although Branton's speech
occurred at work, because her job required her to report false testimony at
official hearings, she had not only an invitation but a duty to speak out.
The evidence shows that her statement caused no unanticipated delays or disruption
or interference with the disciplinary proceedings or the functioning of the
police department. Similarly, there was evidence that other instances of
communication with the hearing officer after the end of a hearing had occurred
in the past. The efficiency and morale of the department had not been adversely
affected by these prior incidents. The chief of police testified he took
the action because she should have known through her experience that such
ex parte discussions with the assistant city manager would lead to
unfair hearings and loss of confidence among police officers. Concern for
maintaining harmony and eliminating disruption, however, cannot be the sole
measure of government interest when an employee's speech furthers other important
state interests. Branton's comments served the important interest of preventing
perjury or other false testimony and corruption within a law enforcement
agency. This interest outweighs any concerns about maintaining internal harmony.
Thus, Branton's First Amendment rights were affected in this case. Likewise,
the chief does not have qualified immunity from suit because for some 30
years before, the law had been clearly established that public employees
cannot be sanctioned for their constitutionally protected interest in freedom
of speech. A reasonably objective public official in the chief's situation
would have known that an adverse employment action against an employee for
her speech concerning false testimony by a fellow officer would violate a
clearly established constitutional right. Reversed for officer and remanded
for further proceedings. [Branton v. City of Dallas, Texas, 272 F.3d 730
(5th Cir. 2001)]
HELD: Illinois law provides that a fulltime law enforcement officer who
suffers a catastrophic injury or is killed in the line of duty shall have
provided to him or his surviving family the entire premium of the employer's
health insurance plan. The statute does not define the meaning of "catastrophic
injury." A term that is undefined in a statute must be given its ordinary
and properly understood meaning. A dictionary
definition of the term "catastrophic" is ordinarily understood to mean a
momentous tragic, usually sudden, event marked by effects ranging from extreme
misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin. In the context of an illness the term
is defined as an act that is financially ruinous. A "catastrophic injury"
which contemplates a ruinous impact on an individual's finances does not encompass
Villarreal's knee injury. It is undisputed that he is not rendered incapable
of engaging in any gainful employment. He has lost stability and flexibility
in his knee but that does not prevent him from working in a wide range of
occupations. The mere fact that he cannot currently perform the work of a
police officer does not qualify his injury as catastrophic. Other jurisdictions
around the country have taken a similar approach to defining catastrophic
injury. Since the former officer did not suffer a "catastrophic injury" he
is not entitled to the health insurance benefits. [Villarreal v. Village
of Schaumburg, 759 N.E.2d 76 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)]
Ingram, a city police officer, was sued in federal court by Williams. Williams was a dancer at a nightclub and in her lawsuit complained that on two separate occasions Ingram violated her constitutional rights. She alleged that he improperly detained her and solicited sexual favors from her. In one incident, the officer allegedly pulled her over and administered a breath test. In a second incident, he allegedly extracted her from a taxi, handcuffed her, and placed her inside the police car. City lawyers appeared in court to defend Ingram but subsequently moved to withdraw from the case and refused to further defend him. State law provided that the city shall defend its officers in civil suits if the action complained of was within the scope and arising out of the performance of official duties and responsibilities. The city's refusal to defend the police officer was based on the claim that his conduct was not in the performance of his official duties. Ingram sought a court order to compel the city to provide legal defense. The trial court similarly concluded that his acts were outside the scope of his employment and the city owed him no obligation of a defense. Officer appeals.
HELD: It is undisputed in this case that Ingram is a sworn member of the Indianapolis Police Department and that the lawsuit complains that he used his powers as a police officer to solicit sex. The question presented is the scope of duties of an officer that give rise to the right to be defended in subsequent suits. The city argues that the allegations against the officer would never be viewed as being in the scope of his official duties. However, prior law holds that to be within the scope of employment, conduct must be in the same general nature as that authorized or incidental to the conduct authorized. Such is the case here as the alleged action involved Ingram engaging in his official police duties even if his conduct was improper under the circumstances. Given the way the statute is written, it forms part of the contract of employment of the police officer. Thus, the city is obligated to defend him in the federal court suit. [Ingram v. City of Indianapolis, 759 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)]
HELD: In Louisiana, an employee who gains permanent status in civil service
cannot be subjected to disciplinary action by the employer except for cause
expressed in writing. Such disciplinary action is subject to review by the
city civil service commission. The commission has a duty to independently
decide whether the employer had lawful cause for the action and whether the
punishment imposed was commensurate with the violation. Legal cause for disciplinary
action exists whenever an employee's conduct impairs the efficiency of the
public service in which that employee is engaged. When reviewing whether the
punishment is commensurate with the infraction, the commission shall be given
deference, except if it acts in an arbitrary or capricious manner. "Arbitrary
or capricious" means that there is no rational basis for the action taken
by the commission. In this case, the commission found that the police department
met its burden of proof by showing sufficient cause for the discipline. Rather,
it based its alteration of the punishment solely on the fact that it had
heard numerous appeals concerning the same rule and that in the past a fine
was all that had been meted out. Even if this is true, the fact that the
police department may have imposed different penalties on other officers for
similar violations is not sufficient justification for the civil service commission
to alter the penalty in a case where the department has shown sufficient
cause for disciplinary action. Additionally, there was no evidence presented
at the hearing regarding the prior disciplinary action in similar cases.
The commission exceeded its authority
court rendered a judgment in favor of the police officers. City appeals
and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Reversed with one-day suspension
reinstated on police officer. [Williams v. New Orleans Police Department,
800 So.2d 1086 (La. Ct. App. 2001)]
HELD: The city argues that civil service rules limit the use of
sick leave to active employees who are legitimately ill or injured. Thus,
any alleged contract would be contrary to law and consequently null and void.
Additionally, the city argues that no policymaker of the city ever officially
approved the practice of running out sick leave. Prior case law holds that
a governmental employer's policy of granting paid leave for overtime if well
known and routinely followed constituted a legally enforceable contract with
the employees subject to it. A similar view must be taken of the matter in
hand. The policy of running out sick leave in this case was well known. The
evidence indicated that no one was ever disciplined for running out sick leave
and that the city was aware of the actual benefit it would receive by discouraging
frivolous sick days and preventing manpower shortages. Although the policy
was never formally approved by the city, the individuals with authority to
make such a policy knew about the practice and did nothing to hinder it or
punish participating officers. Indeed, the practice was presented as an option
to possible recruits and rookie officers as an inducement to work for the
police department. The city should not be credited for any sick leave amounts
usually paid to the officers. Affirmed for police officer upholding the policy
of permitting the use of sick leave prior to retirement. [LaFleur v. City
of New Orleans, 800 So.2d 1112 (La. Ct. App. 2001)]
A four-year contract previously rejected by Chicago police officers has been imposed upon them by an arbitrator. The retroactive agreement provides a two percent pay boost as of July 1, 1999, and three consecutive four percent increases on January 1 of each of the following years. A final two percent will be awarded on January 1, 2003. When compounded over the life of the agreement the pay hikes will equal 17 percent. As of January 1, 2002, starting base wage becomes $38,462 while veteran officers draw a base over $67,900. The clothing allowance will be increased by $200 in both 2001 and again in 2002. In addition, officers will receive an increase of $300 per year in duty availability allowance, a form of shift differential pay. The contract extends the probationary period for new officers from 12 months to 18 months. Lodge 7, Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the bargaining representative for patrol officers and detectives, will now be required to reimburse the city for the salaries of seven individuals temporarily assigned to the FOP.
After more than a year of negotiations the 54-members of the Tigard Police Department have obtained a new contract. The three-year pact between the Tigard Police Officers Association and the city is retroactive to July 1, 2001. In the first year, sworn officers take a wage pass while non-sworn gain a 3.5 percent pay hike. The city does pay a six percent contribution to the employee retirement system for the sworn. In the remaining two years, all personnel will receive between a 2.5 and 5 percent wage boost depending on changes in the Consumer Price Index. In addition, equipment allowance was jumped from $50 to $100 annually.
Raises of 3.4 percent in 2002 and 2003 along with a 3.5 percent pay boost in 2004 highlight the new contract between the Wauwatosa Peace Officers Association and the city. In exchange for the pay boosts, the association agreed to concessions on health care coverage and expenditures. The agreement marks the first time in a quarter of a century that a new agreement has been reached before the existing contract expired.
An arbitrator's decision has given members of Local 378 of the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers a new three-year contract. The pact provides
a four percent wage hike in each year retroactive to July 2000. On the last
day of the contract, June 30, 2003, officers will receive an additional three
percent pay raise. With the pay boosts senior patrol officers will now draw
$46,130 annually with another four percent coming in July.