PAX Centurion - Summer 2017

Page 20 • PAX CENTURION • Summer 2017 617-989-BPPA (2772) EXTRA! EXTRA! Read All About It! SJC upholds Arbitrator’s decision regarding Boston Police Officer Dave Williams W hile preparing this edition of the PAX for print today, we were greeted with some wonderful news that reaffirmed my belief in the Court System. I’m very happy to report that the Supreme Judicial Court today upheld the arbitrator’s decision reinstating Officer DaveWilliams. If you’ve ever worked with Dave, you know that he’s a good cop, a good guy and just the Officer you want backing you up on a call. Dave was fired in 2012 based on a claim that he used excessive force in 2009 when he arrested a drunk, hostile individual who had just assaulted Officer Diep Nguyen. The BPPA challenged the termination in arbitration, and in 2013 the Arbitrator ruled that Dave had used reasonable force and ordered he be reinstated. Rather than comply with the arbitrator’s decision, ( the City often ignores its agreement in our CBA that arbitration is “final and binding” ), the City appealed, first to Superior Court ( where we won ) and then to the SJC. The most troubling argument that the City raised was that the Commissioner’s Statute prohibited an arbitrator from reviewing the Commissioner’s decision to discipline for excessive force, even where that decision was not supported. As you know if you’ve been around, the Commissioner and his legal staff are constantly claiming that he has “nondelegable authority” to take whatever action suits him. The Superior Court rejected this absurd assertion of power, and today the SJC rejected it too ( bolstering the Union’s arguments in these unjust cases going forward ). Here’s the actual language of the SJC decision, which makes clear that the Union has a right to challenge unjust discipline: “The city asserts that the so-called ‘police commissioner’s By Patrick M. Rose, BPPA President statute’ leaves discipline and discharge of officers for excessive force or untruthfulness to the commissioner’s exclusive managerial control…This argument fails for three related reasons. First, the terms of a CBA trump any authority enumerated under the State’s collective bargaining law…Accordingly, the CBA’s just cause provision permits the arbitrator to interpret regulations promulgated pursuant to the commissioner’s statute, and usurps no authority in so doing… Second, this conclusion is consistent with courts’ reluctance to allow broad discretionary powers to subsume bargained-for provisions. Finally, although we have recognized the breadth of the commissioner’s authority in a long line of cases, those cases have largely confined nondelegable matters to the administrative realm and have never reached the core matters of discipline and discharge … Indeed, where the parties bargained to arbitrate “any dispute concerning the interpretation or application” of the CBA, such a broad arbitration clause leaves discipline well within the arbitrator’s ambit. ” The City also argued that the arbitrator’s decision somehow violated public policy. The SJC rejected this claim as well; as the arbitrator found that Officer Williams’s use of force was reasonable: “We are aware of no prior application of the public policy exception to vacate an award ordering reinstatement where the arbitrator found no underlying misconduct…Because the arbitrator found that Williams used reasonable force and was not untruthful in subsequent investigations, the award reinstating him must be upheld.” Finally, the SJC admonished the Department for taking over two years to investigate the allegations against Officer Williams. We all know that delay in the IA process is unfair to officers and denies us the right to a speedy investigation. It is gratifying to see the SJC recognize this: “[T]he city must investigate allegations of excessive force with substantially more alacrity than was evidenced here. Pursuant to its own existing rules, the department owes a duty, both to the public and to its own officers, to investigate allegations of excessive force thoroughly and promptly …There was a two-year delay on meaningful internal investigation; the department concedes, as it must, that it mishandled an inquiry that took entirely too long. Officers deserve notice of allegations against them, and citizens deserve investigations not contingent on the filing of Federal lawsuits.” I look forward to seeing DaveWilliams back in uniform, and I sincerely hope that the Department will begin to focus on conducting prompt investigations and making fair decisions regarding discipline, rather than focusing on defending bad discipline and trying to undermine the BPPA’s right to defend its members. The City and the Department must recognize that the old adage of ‘OPM’: (Other People’s Money), can no longer drive their sorted ambition to unjustly discipline innocent Officers. Taxpayers have got to demand that this Department stop wasting millions and millions of dollars of TAXPAYER money with these frivolous appeals of mutually selected neutral arbitrators decisions. When managers and staffers are not held personally financially responsible, they are more apt to ‘ Blow Money ’ because it’s ‘OPM’! THE BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT PEER SUPPORT UNIT We are a peer-driven support program for police officers and their families. Our program is completely confidential and is available to ALL police officers and their families. Group or individual help with handling family and life issues, alcohol, drugs, anger and domestic issues. Referral for specialist as needed. 251 River Street, Mattapan, MA 02126 Office: 617-343-5175 (M-F 9 am-5 pm) Off-Hours, On-Call Peer Counselor: 617-594-9091 Sometimes even WE need a little help from our friends!