Chicago police union takes discipline fight to state Supreme Court

Police misconduct cases were historically adjudicated by the city's police board, but the police union has maintained that these proceedings should be determined by a private arbitrator.CHICAGO (CN) — The Chicago police union took its fight over public access to officer discipline proceedings to the Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday.For decades, serious cases of police misconduct were adjudicated publicly by the city’s police board. During 2023 collective bargaining discussions, the Fraternal Order of Police looked to overhaul police disciplinary proceedings so that they’d be determined by a union-backed private arbitrator. This triggered a yearslong legal battle, itself part of a longstanding power struggle between the police union and City Hall.The police union cited an award from independent Illinois labor arbitrator Edwin Benn, who found unionized police officers have a right to arbitration under the 1984 Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. Both a Cook County court and a state appellate court upheld Benn’s opinion in part, but determined that any arbitration proceedings for officers facing a yearlong suspension or termination should be open to the public.Matt Pierce, the Fraternal Order of Police’s attorney, told the seven-justice panel there’s no public policy that requires labor arbitration proceedings to be open to the public.Pierce said police have always had the option of having misconduct cases heard before the Chicago Police Board or a private arbitrator. He added that any type of labor dispute under the collective bargaining agreement, such as pay or benefits issues, have always been sent to private arbitration.“All of the disputes that we are talking about in this case arise from the employer-employee relationship. These are all disciplinary cases where the employer, the city of Chicago, seeks to impose discipline on an employee because of an alleged workplace rule violation,” he said. “In contrast, any matters involving criminal allegations to the extent, criminal charges are brought against a Chicago police officer. Those proceed through the state’s criminal justice system. Those are wholly separate from any sort of grievance arbitration or police board proceedings that we’re talking about in this case.”Progressive advocates have long maintained that allowing the police to use private arbitration would erode public trust and move the city back in terms of accountability. Aya Barnea, corporation counsel for the city, argued the city’s longstanding use of the public police board for misconduct proceedings has enshrined a policy of transparency and a First Amendment right of access.“The fact that we’ve done this done it this way for 60 years, the fact that in Chicago, it is just a reality that there is a deep distrust among many members of the community of the police department, that these are the cases that raise the most serious concerns in people’s minds is is the officer I’m going to call to my house, is this a person of integrity?” Barnea said. “And it’s important that the public have confidence in this police department and having these hearings be public is a key piece of building that public confidence and making sure that the public has the trust in CPD so that CPD can do its job.”She cited the federal consent decree, which was first proposed by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office in an August 2017 federal lawsuit against Chicago amid outrage about police officers using excessive force or abuses of power.“The consent decree is formal recognition by the state that public access and public engagement with CPD is a critical importance,” she said.Pierce, however, disagreed with Barnea’s characterization of the consent decree, and called it more of a settlement agreement“It certainly may be the case that that consent decree incorporates and references existing public policies that exist in the state, but it does not serve as a basis to create public policy,” he said. “If a document like a consent decree can establish the public policy for the state of Illinois, that means two parties can set policies that are then binding on the entire state.”The panel of seven justices took the case under advisement after about an hour of arguments. They did not indicate when they might rule.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads