• August 15, 2018

    Follow Us!
              
  • News
    Jul 17, 2018

       Franklin Park

          By Gary Bailey, Attorney - Monday, July 17, 2018


     Franklin Park Police Officers, Police Sergeants and Police Commanders have a new four-year agreement.

    Wage increases of 2.0%, 2.25%, 2.25% and 2.5% were negotiated.  The officers bargained improvements to retiree health insurance, educational reimbursement, promotions and specialty pay.  The officers also bargained an extra holiday.

    Of major importance, the members bargained an extended pay scale so that officers retiring after 25 and 30 years of service will receive increased salaries for purposes of retirement pensions.

    The Union Bargaining Team, comprised of Russ Klug, Tom Ferris, Steve Ross and Vito Busse fought hard to achieve these significant improvements.  Attorney Gary Bailey assisted the team in negotiations.


    Jul 11, 2018

       A Message from National FOP - Labor Service Division

          By IL FOP Labor Council, Staff - Wednesday, July 11, 2018


    The long awaited Supreme Court decision is here and it is what we expected.  The Supreme Court ruled that Fair Share Fees are unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the Constitution.  However, there is some interesting language in the heart of the decision concerning the Duty of Fair Representation, but more about that later.  Here are some general observations about the decision:

    • This decision effects only the issue of Fair Share and the collection of dues under the Fair Share doctrine.
    • If you have a fair share clause in your Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), this decision invalidates that clause.
    • Since most CBAs have a severability clause ensuring the continuation of the CBA in the event some part is ruled invalid or unenforceable, the invalidation of a fair share clause should have no effect on your CBA.
    • If you do not have a severability clause in your CBA, you may have to go back to the bargaining table to discuss this issue.
    • Your employers are required to stop taking Fair Share Fees from non-members as of June 27, 2018. Any fees collected after that date and sent to the lodge are required to be returned to the non-member. 
    • If you have language on the form you use for payroll deduction referencing Fair Share Fees, those forms should be replaced with forms indicating the payroll deduction for union dues is voluntary.
    • The Janus decision did not stop a public employer from participating in payroll deductions for union dues from members.

              In the Janus decision there is a section discussing the Duty of Fair Representation.  The Court during this discussion opened the door to the prospect of charging non-members a fee for services or denying service altogether, as long as it is reasonable.  However, it qualified that statement by saying union decisions cannot be arbitrary or in bad faith. In the coming months we will be examining ways to handle the question of Duty of Fair Representation.  I believe a threshold might be the representation of a non-member during the initial processing of a grievance but once the grievance requires the use of attorneys and experts then the issue of payment or non-performance comes into play.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    1. What does the Janus decision do? It effects the ability of a lodge to collect monies from non-members as a condition of employment.

    1. Does the Janus decision effect the ability to have dues deductions from members? No, where state and local laws allow, the deduction of dues from member’s paychecks is left unchanged.  In other words, if your local jurisdiction is now deducting dues from your paycheck that will not change.

    1. Will the Janus decision cancel out the right of members to have their dues deducted from their paycheck? No, although it may require you to fill out a new dues deduction form, if your old one mentioned fair share from non-members.

    1. Can non-members still pay a fair share fee and have it deducted from their pay check? Yes, but the authorization form will have to clearly state the non-member is doing it voluntarily and is not required to do so based upon the Janus decision.

    1. Will our union have to renegotiate any of the clauses in our Collective Bargaining Agreement? Yes, if you have clauses in your CBA that refer to fair share payments by non-members.

    1. Does my lodge have to represent non-members under the Duty of Fair Representation? Yes, to a certain extent.  We are still evaluating the language in the Janus decision to see how it might affect the Duty of Fair Representation.  At the very least you will be required to represent non-members during the initial processing of a grievance.  However, at such time attorneys or expert witnesses may be needed it may be possible to charge the non-member for those services. Please keep in mind each state may have different rules as far as the duty of fair representation and you should consult your own state law.

    1. Does the lodge have the responsibility to bargain collectively for non-members? Yes, all bargaining unit members, even non-dues paying bargaining unit members, must be represented fairly in contract negotiations.

    Jul 09, 2018

       Supreme Court Issues Anti-union Decision

          By John Roche, Attorney - Monday, July 9, 2018


    As expected, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with anti-union activists and overturned 40 years of precedent to hold that public sector bargaining unit members who do not want to belong to a union can choose to pay nothing for the costs of bargaining a collective bargaining agreement but must still be provided all the benefits of that collective bargaining agreement. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466. This case was originally started by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner in his unrelenting effort to break public sector unions (including law enforcement unions). Rauner was early on dismissed out of the suit because he lacked standing and was replaced by anti-union activist Mark Janus. Public Sector employees were never required to belong to a union if they chose not to. Before Janus, however, bargaining unit employees who chose not to belong to the union were required to pay a portion of the union dues, their “fair share,” for the costs of bargaining and administering the collective bargaining agreement. The Janus Court found that requiring non-members to pay any money for the costs of collective bargaining violated their First Amendment right under the U.S. Constitution. Now, under the Janus decision, non-union members pay nothing and their fellow employees, who are union members, will shoulder all the expense of bargaining those benefits. Governor Rauner aimed to undercut the unions’ ability to fund collective bargaining, thus giving him free rein to massively cut employee benefits. This will not happen if employees stay together and continue to support the idea of collective bargaining and maintain their union membership. If union membership is maintained, the Janus case will have very little impact.

    In overturning Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (which previously required employees to pay their fair share for the costs of collective bargaining), the Janus Court indicated that unions going forward could charge non-bargaining unit employees the costs of processing, for example, discipline cases. This would include the costs of legal representation during department interrogations, challenging discipline through the grievance arbitration procedure, and the costs of a court reporter and a portion of the arbitrator’s fee. Such cases typically cost thousands of dollars. For union members, these fees are covered by the member’s monthly union dues. While employees who choose not to belong to a union will be entitled to the negotiated benefits available to union members, such as wages and insurance, they can be expected to be charged for certain costs should they decide, for instance, that they need representation in a disciplinary matter or otherwise wish to challenge discipline.

    Law enforcement employees understand the importance of belonging to and supporting their union. The unions protect their backs in a generally hostile world of employment relations. For bargaining units that simply maintain their union membership, the Janus case will have very little impact and the unions will continue to fight for their rights and to secure better wages and working conditions.


    Jun 27, 2018

       We Will Always Serve You

          By IL FOP Labor Council, Staff - Wednesday, June 27, 2018


    The 12,000 Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council members recognize the strong and diverse services we provide and have faith that we always have their backs.

    We are even more committed to that level of service in the wake of the Supreme Court's Janus decision. We will continue to be there when you need us the most, for critical incident responses, training, fighting bad legislation, when your contracts and benefits are on the line, and numerous other supports that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We will not slow down, hesitate or falter.

    The Supreme Court case was never about Mark Janus. It was simply a planned effort by many ultra-conservative factions to weaken organized labor.

    We look forward to remaining your fiercest advocate as union members. Together we are strong. Together we are successful. And together we will continue to proudly represent the noblest and most dedicated profession in the State of Illinois.


    Jun 17, 2018

       Bloomingdale Civilians

          By Kevin Krug, Field Supervisor - Tuesday, June 17, 2018


     The parties completed negotiations for a sucessor Labor Ageement prior to the existing Labor Agreement expired. The team was successful in increasing compensatory time. Expanded who can provide a medical certification when requested to include nurse practitioner and nurses assistant. Expanded the use of sick time per the The Illinois Employee Sick Leave Act (Public Act 99-0841). Improved text for selection of an arbitrator. Want to thank the team that worked hard in presenting reasonable proposals to the Employer and having explanations why the Employer should accept the changes.  


    Jun 01, 2018

       Fulton City

          By Jay Titus, Field Representative - Friday, June 1, 2018


    The City of Fulton Police Department has a new three-year Agreement. The team secured a wage increase in each of the three years, increased the maximum accrual of compensatory time, added a step to their wage step scale and was able to obtain a 12-hour work schedule.  Many beneficial language changes were made throughout the contract which have a positive impact on all the members.  The bargaining team of Jeremy Leitzen, Casey Simpson and Dwayne Hamilton did an excellent job representing the members.  The team was assisted by Field Representative Jay Titus.


    Jun 01, 2018

       Greene County

          By Doug Crawford, Field Representative - Friday, June 1, 2018


     Greene County FOP #113, composed of Deputies, Corrections and Telecommunicators, reached a three-year deal with the County and Sheriff.  Wages increased 2% each year; insurance remains at 100% paid for the employee.  Classification seniority, family sick leave use, and part-time deputy work sharing were defined.  Jason Havlin represented the unit along with Field Representative Doug Crawford.


    Jun 01, 2018

       Savanna

          By Jay Titus, Field Representative - Friday, June 1, 2018


     The Savanna Police Department completed a new three-year Agreement.  The team secured a wage increase in each of the three years, significantly increased Lieutenant pay, limited part-time officer use, streamlined the grievance procedure, increased personal and compensatory time, increased uniform allowance and the percentage between the last three longevity steps were increased.  Beneficial language changes were made throughout the contract which have a positive impact on all the members.  The bargaining team of Dan Neville and Mitch Ottenhausen did an excellent job representing the membership.  The team was assisted by Field Representative Jay Titus.


    May 31, 2018

       LaSalle Co Court Security Officers

          By Bruce Wisniewski, Field Representative - Thursday, May 31, 2018


     After a protracted period of bargaining with the County of LaSalle, an amicable and mutually beneficial contract was reached. Wages (with retroactivity) will increase 12.75% over the term of the Agreement. Also the salary schedule was reduced from 18 steps to 16 with no reduction of salary and a $2,500 wage adjustment will be implemented for those with 10 or more years of service. Remaining contract improvements include, establishing new overtime language that segregates Bond Ct from all other OT; ensuring that 5 vacation days can be carried over to next year; creating an annual insurance opt out of $2,000; and incorporated OIS language and SAMHSA standards for drug testing. Congrats to bargaining team members Donna Ortiz and Tom Kramirsic for their persistence and perseverance in ensuring that workplace conditions were improved. 


    May 17, 2018

       Improving the Lives of Those Who Serve

          By Sander Weiner, Attorney - Thursday, May 17, 2018


     Police Officers who also serve with any Armed Forces Reserve components, including the National Guard, may want to keep a watchful eye on SB 3547. The Illinois FOP Labor Council along with its lobbyists from Leinenweber, Baroni, and Daffada and several other interested parties have been assisting the Attorney General's office with the proposed legislation to ensure that citizen soldiers in Illinois are getting a fair shake. There are currently several Illinois State laws meant to protect the rights of service members and their families, particularly those employed in the public sector. If the bill becomes law, several of these statutes will be repealed. The intent of those currently on the chopping block were well intended when enacted. However, due to ambiguous language and less than ideal drafting, the current laws, as written, have led to unnecessary litigation and unjust outcomes. Naturally, when it comes to overhauling such a crucial body of legislation the tendency to be overcautious is warranted. But, sometimes it is necessary to lose something good in order to gain something great. This senate bill has been long overdue considering the state of current legislation and present-day "total force" policies.

    The Labor Council has been focused on ensuring that the essential benefits from Illinois statutes in line to be repealed will not be diminished. The current bill is intended to clarify, consolidate, and when appropriate, develop current service member benefits as well as incorporate and supplement the federal law. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) is the principal federal law, ensuring that persons serving in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other "uniformed services" are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service. 38 U.S.C. § 4301-4335.

    Service member employment rights and benefits provided by USERRA are plentiful and include: entitlement to return to the employer, with accrued seniority, after returning from military service; entitlement to the most favorable seniority rights provided to other employees on non-military leave of absence; additional paid time options; health insurance coverage up to 30 days; continued service credit for pension plans and; other job protections. However, USERRA acts as the floor, not the ceiling. For citizen soldiers to have the ability to carry on with their duties, State and local law must supplement the minimum requirements set forth in USERRA. The proposed legislation focuses less on what USERRA provides and concentrates on areas where protections are lacking.

    In a perfect world, we would not need to meticulously scrutinize statutory language that is solely intended to protect service members. While most employers proudly support their service member employees, there are still those few unscrupulous public employers in Illinois who insist on holding onto nickels as though they were manhole covers. In their effort to save a few dollars, they take no issue in harming those who have answered the call and put aside civilian pursuits to serve our country and state in times of need.

    Earlier this May, a federal judge granted a motion to dismiss an Illinois National Guardsman's case after he was forced to resign from the National Guard Counter Drug Task Force in order to pay his bills. The Joliet Police Sergeant was activated for Full Time National Guard Duty under Title 32 to serve on the task force. Though it is the soldier, not the lawyer, who gives us the right to a fair trial, and the guardsman's orders clearly stated the authority for his leave, he was not afforded federal protection under USERRA. His service was purportedly solely under the authority of State and not Federal law. Since any state claims would have been brought into federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, the judge ruled that, without a federal issue, he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear state claims and dismissed them without prejudice. To summarize, the Judge bought the employer's argument that he was not entitled to differential pay or any other benefits that ought to have accrued while on leave for active duty. We at the Labor Council do not buy this argument. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident of a public employer finding a kink in the citizen soldier's statutory armor. With the new legislation, we hope to make it more difficult for them to do so.

    To tackle some of the major issues that have arisen over the years, the senate bill will repeal the Military Leave of Absence Act which states that "during leaves for annual training, the employee shall continue to receive his or her regular compensation as a public employee." Instead, it will be explicitly stated that public employees will receive concurrent pay for annual training up to 30 days. There have been attempts by public employers to limit concurrent pay to 15 days, as the Military Leave of Absence Act does not define "annual training." SB 3547, as written, ensures that service members will be provided their full pay, plus military pay (concurrent) for up to 30 days.

    Additionally, the Local Government Employees Benefits Continuation Act would be repealed. The language in section II of this Act was unclear, especially regarding Guard Members called into service by the Governor. Instead, the language is simplified by stating that "during periods of military leave for active service, public employees shall receive differential compensation" with a few limited carveouts. Perhaps more importantly, a fair amount of thought and language went into clarifying the muddied issue of continued health insurance benefits while on active duty. If the bill becomes law, service members will no longer have to worry about their spouses and children being forced into TRICARE or increases in their insurance premiums while serving.

    An additional highlight to the bill is that it would provide additional enforcement rights and remedies that are currently not available. A private right to sue and authority for the Attorney General to enforce the Act is supplementary to the current cause of action for human rights discrimination, which has routinely caused confusion and hindered any semblance of a speedy resolution. It can be difficult for service members to prove a human rights violation due to their status as such, which is why it is paramount that additional enforcement rights are available. Moving forward, we will continue to strive to find ways to increase protections and benefits for all service members and Union members alike.

    While we would like to believe SB 3547 is a perfectly written piece of legislation, a tree does not always fall with one blow. As always, unforeseen issues will arise. The legislative intent is imprinted into the senate bill and statutes can always be amended. Should any of our members take issue with some of the language in the bill, or just need clarification on an issue or specific language, do not hesitate to contact one of our attorneys at the Labor Council.

    _____________________________________________

    1-Charles Michael Province, U.S. Army, Copyright Charles M. Province, 1970, 2005.

    2-"Annual training" means any active duty performed under Section 10147 or 12301(b) of Title 10 of the United States Code or under Section 502(a) of Title 32 of the United States Code.

    3-Sec. 2. Any employee of a unit of local government who is a member of any reserve component of the United States Armed Services, including the Illinois National Guard, who is mobilized to active military duty on or After August 1, 1990 as a result of an order of the President, shall for each pay period beginning on or after 1990, continue to receive the same regular compensation that he receives or was receiving as an employee of the local government by which he is employed at the time he is or was mobilized to active duty, plus any health insurance and other benefits he is or was receiving or accruing at that time, minus the amount of his base pay for military service for the duration of his active military service. 50 ILCS 140 (Emphasis added). 


    Apr 06, 2018

       West Frankfort

          By Amy Rose, Attorney - Friday, April 6, 2018


    The West Frankfort Patrol Officers finished their wage reopener with a wage increase, along with a reduction in the length of time a newly-hired officer receives full pay.  The negotiations were held in West Frankfort and Rich Bernardini and Ron Howard did an excellent job for their members.  The unit was assisted by Attorney Amy Rose.




    Page Last Updated: Aug 08, 2018 (09:21:00)
  • Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council

    Copyright © 2018.
    All Rights Reserved.

    Powered By UnionActive



  • Top of Page image