Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards

March, 2013

Employer Name
Union Name
Arbitrator
Brooklyn Park, City of
Brooklyn Park – Dissenting Opinion
Individual Grievant Paull, David
Mendota Heights, City of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Ogata, Harley

Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards.

Gallery

Dist. 26 Taxpayers Responsible For Additional $146,000 – Journal & Topics Newspapers Online: News

Dist. 26 Taxpayers Responsible For Additional $146,000 Posted: Sunday, March 3, 2013 1:15 pm BY RICHARD MAYER Assistant Managing Editor | 0 comments River Trails Elementary School Dist. 26 taxpayers are on the hook for an additional $146,000 between this year and next due … Continue reading

Gallery

City upholds officer’s firing | Salisbury Post

SALISBURY — Salisbury City Manager Doug Paris found former police officer Kenny Lane was appropriately dismissed from the department following disciplinary actions in 2011 and 2012. Lane said he was fired after bringing to light possible safety concerns during a … Continue reading

Gallery

Dormont Council Approves Final Union Contract – Dormont-Brookline, PA Patch

Dormont Council on Monday approved the desk officers union contract, making this the first time in nearly 10 years that all of the borough’s union contracts were negotiated without going to arbitration. “I can say that is truly an outstanding task, … Continue reading

Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards

December, 2012

Employer Name
Union Name
Arbitrator
New Hope, City of (Interest Award) Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Gallagher, Thomas
Wright County Wright County Deputies Association Befort, Stephen
Wright County Wright County Deputies Association McCoy, Arthur
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 13.43, subd. 2(b) and 179A.04, subd. 3, effective August 1, 2010, the names of some grievants may have been redacted. Subd. 2(b) states:
In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.

via Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards.

Could union use disciplinary interrogations for training?

December 06, 2012

Could union use disciplinary interrogations for training?

When Montgomery County unilaterally decided to discontinue a long-standing practice of allowing police shop stewards-in-training to attend disciplinary interrogations for training purposes, the police union filed a grievance with an arbitrator. The county filed a motion to dismiss the grievance, maintaining that arbitration of the issue was preempted by state law.

What happened. In its grievance, the Fraternal Order of Police, Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., (FOP) alleged that the county had violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the county and union when it unilaterally stopped a 20-year-old practice of allowing shop stewards-in-training to attend disciplinary interrogations conducted by the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.

The union maintained that the shop stewards-in-training did not participate in such interrogations. Instead, they attended the interrogations to observe experienced shop stewards represent law enforcement officers so that they could become effective representatives themselves in future interrogations. The county, meanwhile, said its decision to terminate the practice stemmed from the fact that “the FOP was permitting veteran shop stewards to ‘tag team’ the interrogators” with stewards-in-training.

Under the CBA, the training of shop stewards is not specifically mentioned. However, the union argued that the previous policy amounted to a “past practice,” which, as a result, was incorporated into the CBA and preserved under its “Maintenance of Standards/Retention of Benefits and Conditions” provision.

The county argued that Maryland’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) governs the presence of individuals during an interrogation and that, with two exceptions, the statute preempts collective bargaining and arbitration on matters relating to the “subject and material” of the LEOBR. The union countered that its grievance involved the union’s right to train its employees and had “nothing to do with the LEOBR” and did “not deal with the procedural guarantees regarding the right of a police officer to representation at an interrogation.”

Agreeing with the union, the arbitrator concluded that the union’s grievance was not preempted by the LEOBR and denied the county’s motion to dismiss. However, the arbitrator stopped short of deciding whether the county was bound to continue letting shop stewards-in-training attend disciplinary interrogations.

The circuit court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision and granted summary judgment on behalf of the union. The county appealed.

What the court said. The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that the LEOBR “is a comprehensive statute that provides procedural protections and an exclusive remedy to police officers facing disciplinary action.”

Under the circumstances of this case, “the LEOBR does not preempt collective bargaining and subsequent arbitration of the underlying grievance [i.e., whether the “past practice” of allowing shop stewards-in-training to attend disciplinary interrogations must continue]. The grievance does not implicate the LEOBR because the union is asserting its own right to train shop stewards during interrogations, and further, there is no allegation that the practice increases, impinges upon, or otherwise affects the substantive rights of an officer.”

The court said, “The ultimate question whether the shop steward training grievance amounts to a ‘past practice’ under the CBA is an issue reserved for the arbitrator.”Montgomery County, Maryland v. Fraternal Order of Police Montgomery County Lodge 35, Inc., Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 105 (2012).

Point to remember: Employees in unionized workplaces have the right to have a representative present at an investigatory meeting that the employee reasonably believes might result in discipline. In such workplaces, grievance procedures are regulated by the union contract and are generally formal, rule-based processes. The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) will govern the handling of grievances filed by employees within the bargaining unit. Typically, CBAs contain a provision requiring arbitration of employee grievances.

Could union use disciplinary interrogations for training?.

Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards

MN Arbitration Awards for November 2012

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 13.43, subd. 2(b) and 179A.04, subd. 3, effective August 1, 2010, the names of some grievants may have been redacted. Subd. 2(b) states:

In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. A disciplinary action does not become public data if an arbitrator sustains a grievance and reverses all aspects of any disciplinary action.

November, 2012

Employer Name
Union Name
Arbitrator
Anoka, City of (Interest Award) Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Kapsch, Frank
Austin, City of United Auto Workers Local 867 Jacobs, Jeffrey
Carver County Minnesota Public Employees Association Abelsen, James
Cass County AFSCME Minnesota Council 65 Reynolds, James
Crystal, City of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Neigh, Charlotte
Crystal, City of (Interest Award) Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Wallin, Gerald
Deer River Health Care Center Minnesota Nurses Association Remington, John
Ely, City of (Interest Award) Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Orman, Anthony
ISD 196, Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan Support Staff Association of ISD 196 Jacobs, Jeffrey
ISD 728, Elk River Elk River Education Association Jacobs, Jeffrey
Hennepin County (Interest Award) Minnesota Public Employees Assn Schiavoni, Mary Jo
ISD 696, Ely Ely Principals Association Orman, Anthony
Lac Qui Parle County (Interest Award) AFSCME Minnesota Council 65 Neigh, Charlotte
Lino Lakes, City of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Dunn, Richard
Metro Transit Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005 O’Toole, Carol
Pine County (Interest Award) AFSCME Minnesota Council 65 Kircher, Andrea
SuperValu, Inc. Teamsters Local 120 Reynolds, James
Wright County Wright County Deputies Association. Befort, Stephen

via Bureau of Mediation Services :: Arbitration: Awards.