PAX Centurion - September / October 2014

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • September/Octoberr 2014 • Page 5 Vice President’s Message: Ronald McGillivray, BPPA Vice President Injured On Duty See Vice President on page 13 N o matter how many meetings “Injured on Duty” status is discussed there are still some cases that fall through the cracks and for newer officers it is extremely important to follow the letter of Rule 110 or you will be burning sick time that you have yet to accumulate. A quick summary of what the Department requires for officers to be considered INJURED ON DUTY. An officer is injured while on duty, reports injury and is treated at a medi- cal facility, is relieved from duty and surrenders his/her equipment, and does not return for the next tour of duty. There are two reports, a Form 26 and a 1.1 needed for the Captain or Commander, describing the incident. Without that combination there is a very good chance that you will be carried “sick pending medical opinion”. There are many “what if” situations: An off-duty officer activates him/herself and follows the above instructions…they will be covered if the activation is related to a police function and occurred before the injury and the investigation substantiates that fact pattern. Same scenario but outside the City…officer will be carried “sick” pend- ing a completed investigation at which time the Commissioner will make the call. To and from court in a private M/V is covered if there is a direct route to and from the officer’s residence and court. Same scenario to and from a detail…officer will be carried SICK. Ordered or mandated overtime will be covered again only if the individual is directly going to or from their residence to the workplace. A recent arbitration decision involved an off-duty officer partici- pating in a department sponsored event who was injured. The officer attempted to work through the injury till it became unbearable. An operation was needed and paperwork was past-posted. The Depart- ment carried the officer sick. Fast forward to the arbitrator’s decision…three questions had to be answered to determine IOD eligibility: 1) Did the timing of the Grievant’s injury report preclude him from injury leave eligibility. 2) Did the record support the contention that the grievant’s back pain and subsequent absence constitute a recurrence of an earlier back injury? 3) If the grievant’s injury is a separate event, was it incurred in the performance of his duties. The grievant’s rationale for the lack of a report at the time of injury was credible and persuasive according to the arbitrator. The injury report was filed when the injury left the officer totally incapacitated. The arbitrator found in this case because of the strong testimony that there was no dispute as to the causation of the injury and subsequent- ly the timing of the filing. The arbitrator did not consider this injury to be related to an earlier injury and credited Dr. Arnold’s testimony and reasoning as to that determination. Did the injury occur during the performance of his duties was a large hurdle. The nature of the event along with the encouragement to participate within the Department went a long way in helping to determine the decision. Being an annual event since 2009 there had been an underlying pressure to participate with the Department re- ceiving both tangible and intangible benefits according to the arbitra- tor. The arbitrator ruled favorably for our member mainly because of his plausible testimony and the presentation of the case byAttorney Ken Grace. Quinn Bill… enrolled vs. attended I n July of 2002, the legislature amended the Quinn Bill. To para- phrase “The Board of Higher Education shall only certify career incentive pay increases earned through the completion of programs that meet the board’s guidelines, but police officers enrolled , prior to the implementation of the quality guidelines… (shall be eligible). ” The Board implemented the amended guidelines on January 1 st , 2004. Certain institutions chose not to comply with the more rigid guidelines and dropped out of the program and so the story begins. At least two officers enrolled in classes for the spring semester prior to January 1 st , 2004 without the knowledge that the institution had withdrawn. They both had not attended classes till after January 1 st . Boston University and Springfield College were the two institu- tions where one officer began a Master’s program and the other officer began a Bachelor’s program. Both completed their respective programs and applied to the Board only to be denied. The denials were similar in that the reasoning by the Board of Higher Education was that the officers’were not enrolled in the pro- grams until early January. The Board took the position that “taking courses” constituted being enrolled and “acceptance” into a program would not be given consideration as being enrolled in a program. Fast forward: Suffolk Superior Court determined the meaning of the term “enrolled” is clear and unambiguous. The common meaning of the word “enrolled” is registered or recorded…the court deter- mined the Board’s interpretation as being contrary to the common meaning. The Board was found to lack the authority to append the intent of the legislature by adding the term “and taking classes” to the word enrolled. This decision occurred in September of 2010. The second officer is currently going through the grievance process and will hopefully attain the same resolution. Both officers proceeded in good faith from the beginning to end, let’s hope the department/city make this right for the second officer without the courtroom drama. Body Cameras and Policy A s law enforcement entertains the idea of “body cams” being a future means of transparency in determining guilt or innocence. Touting the ability to disprove excessive force complaints is one posi- tive with a bunch of negatives that do not benefit the working officer. With the concerns of management policy, the insatiable appetite of the media for the extreme and the public protest regarding privacy issues this will be a nightmare of epic proportion for the officers burdened with functioning on cue before one’s possible adjudicators. Policy rationale is not going to take officer’s interests into consid- eration because the concept for implementation is obvious in the aftermath of Ferguson…the officer will always be defending his/ her actions. This will inhibit an officer’s situational response. Second guessing one’s reaction in real time is not a good thing in policing. If proactive policing is not a thing of the past…it will be. The “dash- cam” should be reason enough for the department to distance itself from the “bodycam”. Lawsuits and discipline will increase consider- ably despite opposing claims.