CHICAGO (CN) — Chicago's largest police union made its case in court Wednesday for misconduct claims to be privately arbitrated, nearly a month after the city council rejected the proposal.
The legal maneuver was no surprise: Leader of Chicago John Dineen Lodge #7 John Catanzara indicated that he planned to fight the measure in court immediately after the Chicago City Council handily scrapped the union's efforts to privatize misconduct proceedings in a 18-32 vote against the ordinance, under which all reports of police misconduct would go to private arbitration, rather than to the city’s civilian police board.
Nearly two months after the Fraternal Order of Police filed a lawsuit against the city in which they lambasted the city council's rejection of private arbitration, attorneys for the union and the city presented their cases to Cook County Circuit Court Judge Michael Mullen on Wednesday, who indicated that he plans to issue a ruling as soon as Thursday.
The ordinance was born out of an October 2023 award, or legal decision, by independent Illinois labor arbitrator Edwin Benn that unionized police officers have a right to arbitration under the 1984 Illinois Public Labor Relation Act.
Council members had previously debated and voted down police misconduct arbitration in December, when they also voted to approve 20% raises for Chicago police members. Benn issued another ruling on Jan. 4, in which he said the city violated the Illinois Constitution when it voted against the measure.
The police union argued in its Jan. 4 lawsuit against the city, and again in court on Wednesday, that the city didn't have the authority to strike down police arbitration because any challenge to arbitration must be filed within 90 days of the decision's issuance, which was on Oct. 13, 2023.
Attorney Matt Pierce argued on behalf of the union, saying there was no language in the state law, or even in the collective bargaining agreement, that gave the city the unilateral authority to shut down the arbitration proposal.
Pierce said the city council is required by law to ratify the union's collective bargaining agreement. He added that if the court found any of Benn's bases to be proper, the entire contract would be void and it would go back to the parties for further negotiation.
He maintained that the city's refusal to accept Benn's ruling was a matter of politics, and there was no legal basis to do so.
"They don't like the law, so they chose not to follow it," Pierce said.
Pierce's characterization of the city as cherry-picking how the law should be followed was also at the cornerstone of Benn's arguments. “Adherence to the rule of law is not a request or a cafeteria selection process for the city to choose which state of Illinois laws should apply and which should not," Benn wrote. "Compliance with the rule of law is an obligation."
Pierce repeatedly argued that Benn's ruling was determined by the procedural status quo: that police have a right to private arbitration. He added that Illinois and federal courts have concurred that arbitration review is the most narrow standard of judicial review, and following that standard, if there's any basis for Benn's findings, the court must finalize it.
James Franczek, one of the city's lawyers, flipped Pierce's status quo argument on its head. He said the status quo for police misconduct proceedings has been open and public hearings for the past 60 years and that Benn took those status quo elements and effectively reversed them.
"If Benn had actually followed the status quo, we wouldn't be here," Franczek said.
Franczek leaned into the idea that Benn's suggestion was that Chicago should treat its police misconduct proceedings like some Chicagoland suburbs. He noted that Benn lives in what he described as the isolated and frankly bucolic Village of Glencoe, so he couldn't understand the full context of police misconduct proceedings in Chicago.
He also noted in a motion filed ahead of court on Wednesday that the city didn't challenge the arbitration award in a timely manner was baseless and inconsistent with applicable case law.
"Under the Arbitration Act, when a party files a timely application to modify an arbitration award, the party is allowed 90 days from delivery of the arbitrator's disposition of petition to modify the award to request vacatur of the award in circuit court, regardless of whether the modification was granted or denied," Franczek wrote.
Judge Mullen indicated that he plans to issue his ruling on the matter before the week ends, but he added that he thinks neither party will be thrilled with the outcome.
"Is this the end of it? I don't think so," Mullen said.
Follow @RosenCaitlyn
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
