Court Opinion

ID: 9716043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:24:11.815856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:40.856673
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE ZWICK, specially concurring: I concur with my colleagues that the public policy concerns posed require the cause be remanded to arbitrator Benn for further proceedings. I write separately merely to emphasize several important points. First, and foremost, it has been clearly stated time and again that the public policy of this state is to promote and support collective bargaining agreements (American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31 v. County of Cook, 145 Ill. 2d 475, 482, 584 N.E.2d 116 (1991); City of Decatur v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 268, 122 Ill. 2d 353, 364, 522 N.E.2d 1219 (1988)), and that arbitration provisions in labor contracts are to be enforced (J&K Cement Construction, Inc. v. Montalbano Builders, Inc., 119 Ill. App. 3d 663, 667, 456 N.E.2d 889 (1983), quoting Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 287-88, 123 N.W2d 371, 374 (1963) (fundamental objectives of Uniform Arbitration Act was to change common law rule and facilitate arbitration of disputes, including between labor and management)). For much of our nation’s history, the right of employees to collectively bargain with management has been denied, and such agreements have often been earned by the employees they protect through generations of hard work and struggle. This court must not set aside an arbitrator’s decision cavalierly merely because the City utters the mantra that “public policy” requires a different outcome. Nonetheless, significant public policies favoring enforcement of collective bargaining and arbitration agreements must occasionally be balanced against public policy concerns favoring public safety. Considerations of the health and safety of our citizens must sometimes prevail over bargained-for contract rights. I agree with my colleagues that this is such a case. Municipalities must not be hamstrung in their ability to discipline drunken and disorderly employees whose sole function is to protect the lives and property of their citizens. This is true even when municipal administrators fail in their obligation to promptly investigate allegations of such misconduct. This case was submitted to the arbitrator, by agreement of the parties, solely for a determination of the threshold issue as to the timeliness of the City’s disciplinary action. There has not yet been a determination of whether the City had just cause to discipline the firefighters involved. I therefore concur with my colleagues that this matter must be remanded to the arbitrator for a full and complete hearing on the individual infractions alleged and for consideration of the appropriateness of the discipline imposed. As the majority has noted and the City has conceded, this determination will require that the arbitrator specifically consider, inter alia, the likelihood that the conduct will recur, the extraordinarily long passage of time since the stationhouse incident, as well as the subsequent work records of the firefighters involved.