City of Des Plaines v. Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter No. 240
2015 IL App (1st) 140957
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Officer John Bueno was fired by the City of Des Plaines after an internal investigation identified three incidents (2009–2010) in which he used unnecessary force, failed to report the incidents per Department General Order 10.01, and in one instance lied during a 2011 interview.
- The Union grieved Bueno’s termination under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and the dispute proceeded to arbitration after a three-day hearing.
- The arbitrator found Bueno committed the misconduct (unnecessary force, failure to report, and untruthfulness) but ordered reinstatement without back pay, treated his time away as a disciplinary suspension, imposed a three-year ‘‘last chance’’ condition (any similar misconduct = immediate discharge), and allowed the City to provide reasonable retraining.
- The City moved in circuit court to vacate the arbitration award, arguing it violated well-defined public policy (policies against police battery and dishonesty by officers); the circuit court vacated the award and denied the Union’s motion to remand for additional findings.
- On appeal the First District reversed and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to remand to the arbitrator for clarification limited to whether the arbitrator found, expressly or implicitly, that Bueno is unlikely to reengage in similar misconduct upon reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award must be vacated as contrary to public policy (policies forbidding police battery and officer dishonesty) | City: The arbitrator found egregious misconduct but made no finding that Bueno is unlikely to reoffend; reinstatement therefore violates dominant public policy and must be vacated | Union: No public policy requires automatic termination; arbitrator properly considered employer delay and condonation; award permissible | Court: Public policy against officer battery and dishonesty is well-defined; but award is ambiguous/incomplete because it lacks a finding on likelihood of recidivism, so remand to arbitrator for clarification required rather than outright vacatur |
| Whether employer delay or departmental condonation justified reinstatement without a recidivism finding | City: Delay/condonation do not override public policy if employee likely to reoffend | Union: Delay and condonation prejudiced City’s process and support mitigation; can justify reinstatement | Court: Delay/condonation can mitigate but cannot displace the need to assess future threat to public safety; they do not obviate the need for an explicit or inferable recidivism finding |
| Whether courts should remand ambiguous/incomplete arbitration awards for clarification | City: Arbitrator lacked authority to make recidivism findings beyond submitted questions | Union: Arbitrator’s remedial terms implicitly show amenability to rehabilitation | Court: Remand is appropriate to clarify an ambiguous/incomplete award; arbiter can and should address likelihood-to-reoffend where public policy is implicated |
| Whether the Union forfeited the argument that the City destroyed video evidence | Union: City destroyed video evidence and should be sanctioned | City: (implicit) no sanction warranted; issue not decided below | Court: Forfeited—Union never sought sanctions before arbitrator and failed to cite record; cannot be raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- American Fed. of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Servs., 173 Ill. 2d 299 (Ill. 1996) (establishes public-policy exception to enforcement of labor-arbitration awards; requires a well-defined dominant public policy and evaluation whether award violates it)
- Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. American Fed. of State, County & Mun. Employees, 197 Ill. App. 3d 503 (Ill. App. 1990) (recognizes public policy prohibiting battery of prisoners)
- Valio v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 311 Ill. App. 3d 321 (Ill. App. 2000) (explains importance of truthful officer statements to integrity of internal investigations and public service)
- State v. AFSCME, Council 31, 321 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (Ill. App. 2001) (arbitrator’s express or implicit findings on rehabilitation/rehabilitative potential support reinstatement where public policy is implicated)
- Federal Signal Corp. v. SLC Techs., Inc., 318 Ill. App. 3d 1101 (Ill. App. 2001) (approves remand to arbitrator to correct or clarify incomplete or ambiguous awards)
- M&C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 326 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2003) (federal policy favors remanding ambiguous arbitration awards for clarification)
- Rich v. Spartis, 516 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008) (courts should remand ambiguous awards to arbitrators when meaning is unclear)
- Tri-State Bus. Machines, Inc. v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc., 221 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 2000) (district courts should not interpret ambiguous arbitration awards but remand for clarification)