Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Manuals; Weather; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working a sector Radar position. Weather was impacting the facility. We primarily handle southbound departures but due to the weather we were also working many aircraft to westbound destinations. The sector is the first Center sector which receives aircraft departing and they are responsible for reviewing proposed flight plans to ensure aircraft are filed over the appropriate routes. This is especially important when we're working weather avoidance routes; as many companies file incorrect routes to tie into their westbound destinations. This review of proposals did not happen; and the result was two major conflictions; but luckily; no loss of standard separation. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were in trail on one route. Aircraft Z should have been over the same route to [ZZZZZ Intersection]; which would have put them in trail with 1 and 2. Instead; their inappropriate route was ignored; then Aircraft Z was climbing out alongside Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. Aircraft Z's route is approximately a 235 heading; a 45-degree right turn that overflies a fix placing these 3 aircraft in direct conflict with each other over this fix as they cross paths.Aircraft A and Aircraft B were in trail on their route. Aircraft C should have been over the same track to put them in trail with Aircraft A and Aircraft B. Again; the inappropriate route was ignored; leading to Aircraft C climbing alongside Aircraft A and Aircraft B. Their route was approximately a 260 heading; and a 60-degree right turn; which crosses placed these 3 aircraft in direct conflict with each other. These two events happened only a few minutes apart from each other. The first one I was able to notice earlier on because traffic was lighter at that time. Volume and pilot requests picked up while trying to solve confliction 1; that I completely missed confliction two until about 5-10 miles before the 60-degree turn was about to take place. Luckily; I was able to positively separate all aircraft using altitude in sufficient time.Failure to review these routes has been an ongoing issue in our area for years. Numerous reports have been filed on this subject. There are a few individuals in the area who just refuse to review the proposals at all; which is what happened here. But just as serious; is the lack of attention given to these proposals on a regular basis. Many controllers swiftly scan the proposals; but only highlight those that are incorrect with the 'intent' of dealing with it when they depart; rather than fixing the route while the plane is on the ground. There is a wide spread cavalier attitude that they can't be bothered with correcting these routes; especially if making the change would require them to call the tower for coordination. It is almost as if most think they are too cool to call the tower; or changing routes is a sign of a weak controller. It has been ongoing for years; and after repeated attempts to have the issue addressed; it seems nothing has changed.This scenario had all the ingredients for a disaster. Bad weather; complexity; volume; and break in the route structure chain; which was only a few minutes and clearances away from multiple losses of separation. Most days; there is ample time to catch and correct minor problems. But on these types of days; we must be able to depend on our route structure; and trust that the aircraft will not be allowed to depart with routes that contain unexpected major changes in direction. When instructed to do so; our area management has given a 'refresher' briefing to the area about their responsibility to check and correct the routes; but there is never any follow through and never any performance management of those who willfully choose not to. I believe this is a systemic issue that will eventually result in a very dangerous situation one day. So much of what we do is to protect for even the most obscure and far-fetched possibilities; because safety is priority number one. Am I wrong in thinking this is a matter of safety?




Synopsis: ATC Center Supervisor reported aircraft on the wrong routings and in conflict with other aircraft.