this is a public policy exception case this is also a discipline case like criminal trials there are two issues in employee discipline cases first of all is the employee guilty as charged secondly if the if the employee is guilty what shall the punishment be the public excuse me the public policy exception cases generally involve employee discipline situations and of the public public policy cases where an arbitrator's award has been overturned there are generally two varieties the first variety is this where the employee was found guilty of misconduct  the policy and by doing so the trial court did not apply the public policy exception described in numerous decisions the general rule is that you war should be deferred to and generally that means the face of the war is unassailable the question under the public policy exception is what it was that the war as written violates public policy now the words as in force in the contract  as interpreted by the arbitrator against public policy and in the trial court below the terms of the contract remember discussed in the court's order likewise in the defendant's brief on appeal the argument section over mentions the terms of the contract that means at a minimum this isn't the second sort of public policy case where some sort of regular d p chili every technicality of the contract communications transmitted to or my recollection of supreme court rule sixty three is that the trial judge i think had a couple different options either recusal or immediately notify the lives shopping and doing other stuff that other people do it let's assume i've got it i was the trial judge in this case and i met well a sporting event champaign if i recall correctly it was two or three or maybe even four different options of trial judges and that situation there's no requirement that you think there's no requirement for my recollection is never acquirements for a purpose sixty three i think some of the disclosed with no opportunity for the parties to respond is that impact your analysis of the issue that's what i said violated supreme court rule sixty three so the judge should have simply before ruling said by the i think there are plenty of other judges available oh i don't think that's the the stand that i should be more clear my concern is a small enough community so that judges out and about town are likely to be recognized and identified or even spoken to exception you're taking the position that there is no public policy regarding the protection of children no  what is your position obviously there's there there is a generalized public interest detecting children i mean it's in everybody's interest to protect i think at a minimum under the public policy exception we should be operating on the same sheet of music that we should be identifying where the source of public policy is a particular case so that we all know what statute what rule what court decision  do well i think with the i don't know that we need a law the arbitrator suggested that the school and the police department three evaluate their policies which they can do which probably they should have done and can't make this but my question is what needs to be in place for the public policy exception to apply for planning that there is a public policy in favor of the protection of children and you're saying it doesn't have to go as far as being a law that specifically regulates conduct between police outs in children on the other hand you're saying what's been advocated here by opposing counsel is too general so what you need well i think there's the there's a reference to the police training and that talks about the criminal procedure aspects that police officers must be trained on when handling juveniles it doesn't mean physically handling it means if they are arrested by the his under the age of eighteen they have and that's just wrong the question is whether or not the arbitrators award now are liars of some sort of public policy and this award does not do so in fact the ward suggests that there is a class clash cultures here there may be a gap policy review should be evaluated policies but it's too far stretch to say that this war on encourages not only similar behavior in the future but more thank you may please the court my name is jim powers and i represent the apple leave the city of bloomington in this matter this case involves the question of whether a grievance arbitration of word and its interpretation of the underlying clucked of bargaining agreement specifically the just clause section of the collective bargaining agreement violates the well defined and dominant public policy that favors the seat development preschool age children this question can be subdivided into two questions first question as it was just described is whether or not there actually does exist a well defined and dominant public policy that favors the safety of elementary school age children the second question then becomes assuming that public policy exists does the grievance arbitration and wording question as it interpreted an implied party's collective bargaining agreement does that award violate public policy if it doesn't provide an assurance that the actions in this case the actions of a police officer who for all intensive purposes perceive that he was dealing with a normal seven year old child lifted the child off the ground in the child against the wall for five to eight seconds it minutely says by his own admission during the hearing simply to stop the child from screaming and mentioning to the child shut up you're giving me a headache does th arbitrators call it the case law is clear that the judiciary is the body that has the role for determining whether or not something by a leeds public policy the arbitrator is a creature of contract in a sense if you will and the award in this case the focus of the city's appeal which was accepted by the trial court was public policy yes there is another avenue of attacking or challenging our grievance arbitration awards that's challenging that finding and whether  public policy analysis the first prong would be does a public policy exist you would take the facts as found by the arbitrator and that's what i think both parties have been doing in this case is we've taken the facts as they are summarized in that award the work rules of the city of bloomington and the just cause standard of the of the collective bargaining agreement i believe what the arbitrate are and what we've argued in the brief is that she figured simply lost sight of the forest through the trees in that she was so focused on the analyzing the continuum of force regulation in the departments work rules she was so focused on deciding whether or not the officer had choked or didn't show the employ that she lost sight thing i would respectfully disagree if you recall slee the first ogles the decision it was simply analyzing a set of facts that was generated in an administrative proceeding applying those facts to a statutory standard and see crack there's no inconsistency there is no inconsistency for two reasons number one you were dealing with a different statutory standard you were trying to figure out whether the record in that case rose to the level of the standard now is higher the public policy is a higher standard than just should someone be on the watch list of the seriousness well no because in that case it wasn't on the watch list you're trying to determine whether or not abuse actually occurred here sweltered is actions abuse occurred to put them on the watch introduced in that case is this arbitrator was able to uncover and actually address so the facts were different and the standard was different as well analyzing the two power parts of the house i just wanted to briefly comment on the first part and some questions worse just asked about what it takes to actually identify a well established and dominant public policy the city would respectfully submit that the union is roni asli analyzing into near analyzing what it takes to qualify as a public policy the decisions hold that you don't need an actual statute to actually address or prohibit the actions that took place in a particular cont two case law has found that you don't even need a statute in the very same context or employ context a classic example is the city of chicago firefighters case where the first district appellate court found very clearly that there was a public policy favoring a quick and efficient emergency response in by the city of chicago firefighters throwing a party in that case the first district among other things relied on several statutes that really didn't seem to apply to the city forest fire act of illinois as well as a fire protection district act which really didn't apply to the city the point being that the courts and the judiciary are permitted to look beyond simply a statute that discreetly applies to the fact catarrh into the type of employee in question in this case the fourth district as well as the supreme court have been several cases found that there is a dominant and well defined public policy  oring the safety of elementary school age children as for the second prong of the test just briefly again as i mentioned the key is whether or not the remedy or the resulting action of the arbitrator  has provided any assurance that the same actions will not repeat again in the future in this case the supreme court has his i'm sorry in the ask me case no risk of the employee repeating his or her conduct maybe possibly because of some penalties or some prophylactic measures the supreme court has indicated that those types of findings must be honored and respected by the judiciary in this case your head were no findings indicating that the dangerous conduct that the grievance hitting teachin will possibly or will not repeat itself again the city would submit that when you read the factual findings that the arbitrator made in her award there is a real risk that this may happen again especially when you accept the premises the arbitrator did they have a grievance it was simply an observation and simply reacting to what he believed in his mind was a normal seven year old child who various witnesses describe the simply throwing temper tantrum without some sort of prophylactic measure in the award assuring the city of bloomington  like to finalize my comments about the rule sixty three and the recusal issue the city would submit that it's really i think you have a rather easy way of resolving that matter without having to swear really address whether or not the judge actually should or shouldn't have recused herself number one the union did have as we explained in our brief at least six to seven days to file some sort of a motion challenging her failure to recuse herself judgement was an issued until several days later and number two as was pointed out this is a good overall standard of review you're not necessarily bound by any credibility terminations or facts as rendered by the trial court so even if assuming argue i know that there was some harm or some error in the judge not recusing herself what's the harm if this court is reviewing those legal issues do novo in any event so there are some easy ways out without having to grapple those thorny issues in conclusion i would just request on behalf of rebuttal i think the first comment the council made was that this is just a just cause it's not a just cos case it's similar but it's not a just cause case page of the record see one fifteen  appendix that's worth a contractual one if you just look at the case of the public policy cases you can assume that there's a just cause provision in the contract but if you actually read the award which