PublicSafetyLeadership.Gov Forum

New Thread

My Settings

My Posts

Forum Home

Articles of Interest

Leadership Articles of Interest

Employee Discip...

Employee Discipline: Managing the Problem Employee with a Union

7/2/2007 11:48:56 AM

melmunn

19 posts

Employee Discipline: Managing the Problem Employee with a Union
(N/A) Modified By melmunn on 7/2/2007 11:59:36 AM)

Quote

Employee Discipline: Managing the Problem Employee with a Union Contract in Effect

By: Thomas Q. Weitzel, Sergeant, Riverside, Illinois Police Department (NOTE: Weitzel is now Assistant Chief.)

Executive Summary

It is crucial to discipline police employees within the criteria established by the
department’s union contract as well as state and federal laws. This framework
defi nes what the organization legally can and cannot do in dealing with a problem
employee. Those in supervisory positions must clearly understand the union
contract and laws to be able to effectively deal with problem employee situations.
The use of progressive discipline is critical in establishing a foundation from which
the employee has an opportunity to improve his or her job performance before
further action is required by the department.

Purpose
The purpose of this article is to address the following issues:
• Dealing with a problem employee effectively
• Management’s rights to discipline versus union considerations and state
and federal laws
• Importance of progressive discipline and not allowing unions to “run the
department”

Often, management has the monumental task of managing problem employees
who enter the workplace with varying degrees of competence in relating to the
work environment. Management faces the challenge of how to effectively deal
with these employees to the satisfaction of the employee as well as the employer.
Management should have a clear understanding of departmental regulations and
the union contract if the disciplinary process is to have any chance of success.

Reasons
Once a problem employee has been identifi ed, there are some steps that can be
taken to prevent future problems. It is vital to keep the offi cer’s career path free
of dead ends by making the job interesting, challenging, and rewarding. It is
through these measures that some problem employees can be “nipped in the
bud.” Challenging the offi cer with additional responsibilities can help satisfy the
offi cer’s sense of self-esteem. Many jobs, projects, and special assignments present
themselves in law enforcement agencies. Assigning duties to patrol offi cers who
may be at or near the “burn-out” stage can imbue them with a sense of belonging
(Bruchman, 1992). These assignments will also keep the patrol officer’s job
varied and interesting. Crime prevention, school liaison, evidence processing,
and drug interdiction are some of the tasks that the chief of police can assign
to nonsupervisory personnel. It is also crucial to recognize an offi cer for a job
well-done; knowing that he or she is, indeed, a consequential part of the department
inevitably will increase the offi cer’s motivation and self-actualization.

First and foremost, the department’s goals and objectives are important to
employees regardless of their rank or grade. A mission statement plays a critical
role in establishing the goals of the department, thereby giving its offi cers a
sense of direction. The role of the individual offi cer in attaining these goals needs
to be clearly defi ned and annually updated (CALEA, 1992). The chief of police
should solicit the input of all his or her employees to establish and redefi ne the
department’s goals and in so doing, give the offi cers the feeling that they are
a part of the “big picture.” This statement will also have the added benefit of
establishing what the department expects of its offi cers in terms of conduct and
performance. Evaluation of this performance will have a major impact on dealing
with the employee should a problem develop.

Some of the ways my department effectively deals with a problem employee
include the following:
• Performance evaluation
• Counseling
• Internal investigation
• Suspension
• Termination

It is through a performance evaluation that issues deemed as problems by the
offi cer’s supervisor can be addressed and an action plan discussed. Before a
performance evaluation can be validated, certain needs must be dealt with. A
performance evaluation, by its nature, is dependent upon standards of performance
and clearly defi ned job descriptions. These must be in place before an evaluation
can be utilized. Establishing minimum acceptable levels of performance provides
the offi cer with goals to attain or surpass. The performance must be within the
offi cer’s scope of employment (Newstrom, 1993). These expectations need to be
communicated to all offi cers upon the onset of their employment and continually
re-emphasized throughout their career.

Our union contract states that the village has the right to evaluate employees as
well as to establish performance standards. The areas that an offi cer is rated on
include the following: job knowledge, quantity of work, quality of work, care
of tools and equipment, compliance with rules and regulations, safety habits,
personal appearance, physical condition, attendance and punctuality, public
relations, oral communication, responsibility, initiative, working with associates,
written communication, stability and temperament, technical knowledge, general
patrol duties, preliminary investigation, traffi c enforcement, quality of arrests, and
case preparation and presentation.

The union contract specifi cally states that the village can establish these work and
productivity standards and from time to time change these standards. The meeting
between the supervisor and offi cer allows for the opportunity to document any
areas in which the offi cer needs improvement. The supervisor can specifi cally
list those areas in which improvement is necessary and where notation is made
of what is expected to be accomplished before the next review period—typically
three to six months. By opening up the fl oor for discussion, it is hoped that
officers will acknowledge those areas in which they are deficient and take
specific steps to improve their work habits before further action is required
by the department.

The supervisor plays a crucial role, perhaps the most important one, in the problem
employee equation. The shift sergeant is the link between the patrol officer
and management. The way a sergeant deals with a problem offi cer during the
rehabilitation phase will frequently determine the need for more severe sanctions.
Immediate supervisors must know what is expected of them and employ the
tools and techniques that are at their disposal. They must provide goals for
their subordinates as well as the necessary stimulus to achieve these goals. If
the supervisor is to be a successful supervisor, it is imperative that he or she
has the skills necessary to provide an open line of two-way communication
(Nowicki, 1993).

An offi cer may be provided with counseling when a need for it is observed by a
supervisor through work productivity or through complaints received from others
about an offi cer’s conduct that do not require the initiation of an internal affairs
investigation. Counseling is designed to improve employee performance and is
not considered a disciplinary measure. It provides the opportunity to correct,
coach, and consult the offi cer. It is hoped that counseling will foster an atmosphere
that will encourage free exchanges when an offi cer is troubled so that future
problems can be diverted. A form is used to identify the reason for counseling
and states the supervisor’s comments and the counseled employee’s comments.
It is kept for one year, at which time the chief of police evaluates whether there
has been improvement; if improvement has been shown, the counseling form
will be destroyed.

My department, as well as other police departments, must adhere to bylaws
established by Uniform Peace Offi cers’ Disciplinary Act. This act is basically a
police offi cer’s “Bill of Rights.” It clearly states the rights of the police offi cer during
an investigation except when an offi cer has violated any provisions of the Criminal
Code of 1961 or when a collective bargaining agreement is in effect that deals with
the subject matter of the Act (50 ILCS 725/5 & 725/6).

If improper conduct has occurred—either witnessed by a citizen or by another
offi cer—an internal investigation is begun thereby opening a “CR number.” A
supervisor notifi es the offi cer of the charge/allegation and gives the offi cer his
or her administrative proceedings rights, waiver of counsel/request to secure
counsel, and criminal rights, which he or she is asked to sign. At this point,
a thorough investigation is conducted, and a meeting is scheduled to inform
the offi cer of the fi ndings. This investigation includes obtaining copies of all
pertinent reports, contacting witnesses and complainants, and preparing the
necessary reports.

Our department follows the steps outlined by the Uniform Peace Officers’
Disciplinary Act wherein an informal inquiry is initiated to determine if the
misconduct necessitates a formal investigation (50 ILCS 725/2 b, c). Additionally,
our union contract states that offi cers must be told the purpose of the inquiry
whether written or oral, as defi ned in 50 ILCS 725/1, prior to any questioning. Any
officer, summoned to an investigatory interview called by supervisory personnel,
has the right to request that a representative of his or her choosing be present if he
or she reasonably believes that discipline will result from the meeting (Riverside
FOP Lodge #39, Article VI, Section 6:4).

Management reserves the right to discipline per our contract provisions. The
contract clearly states that the village retains the right to discipline or discharge
any employee in accordance with the Board of Police and Fire Commission. The
contract asserts, however, that if an offi cer reasonably believes that discipline will
result from the meeting, the offi cer may request that a representative of his or her
choosing be present, provided that such a representative is reasonably available.
If the offi cer would like to fi le a grievance, which is defi ned per our contract as a
“dispute or difference of opinion raised by an employee or the Council against the
village involving meaning, interpretation, or application of the provisions of
the contract” (FOP Lodge, #39 Article XII, Section 12:1 Defi nition), he or she
may do so per our contract grievance procedures. The grievance procedure
statement in the contract is mandated by the Illinois Public Labor Relations
Act, which states, . . .

The collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the employer and
the exclusive representative shall contain a grievance resolution procedure,
which shall apply to all employees in the bargaining unit and shall provide
for fi nal and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the administration
or interpretation of the agreement unless mutually agreed otherwise.
(5 ILCS 315/8)

Suspension or termination may result from any of the previously mentioned
procedures. The union contract states that the village reserves the right to
discipline, suspend, and discharge employees for just cause. The contract states
that no offi cer may “authorize, institute, aid, condone, or engage in a slowdown,
work stoppage, refusal to cross picket line, strike, or other interference with the
village work” (Riverside FOP Lodge #39, Article VIII, Section 8.1: No Strike). If an
offi cer violates any of these provisions, the contract states that the village has the
right to discipline accordingly. Illinois Municipal Code mandates that the Board
of Fire and Police Commissioners conducts a fair and impartial hearing of the
charges within 30 days of the fi ling. If an offi cer is found guilty, the board has
the right to discharge the offi cer or suspend him or her for 30 days without pay.
If the offi cer is suspended, the suspension period must not last more than 30
days (65 ILCS 5/10-2. 1-17).

The chief of police, without first going to the Board of Police and Fire
Commissioners, may suspend an offi cer for not more than fi ve calendar days
without pay; however, he or she must notify the board in writing of such
suspension. If an offi cer has been suspended, he or she has the right to appeal that
decision within five calendar days. The board may then sustain the chief’s
action or reverse it with instructions that the offi cer receive pay for the period
involved, or it may suspend the offi cer for an additional period of time, not
more than 30 days, or discharge him or her depending on the facts in the case
(65 ILCS 5/10-2.1-17).

Progressive discipline is still used today; however, there have been many
changes in law enforcement that have compromised the professionalism of police
departments. This includes the unionization of police departments and collective
bargaining by offi cers with the municipalities. Unionizing members has become
the current trend. Some offi cers may think that this unionization offers them some
protection against the state, county, city, or village when it comes to enforcing
the rules and regulations of the police department. This can possibly become a
barrier to establishing a good disciplinary system. It is essential for the municipal
government to negotiate properly with the union so that it does not gain more
power to the detriment of the management within the agency.

Progressive discipline plays an essential role in law enforcement today. It assures
that the police department has a fi rm set of policies in place. Characteristically, a
disciplined police department represents a well-trained police department. This,
in turn, will result in a professional police department. Having a good discipline
program to which personnel closely adhere will provide the department with good
policies that are established to train rather than punish.

The term progressive discipline can be defined as an approach to modifying
undesirable employee behavior by using a range of disciplinary consequences that
are applied based on the nature and history of the particular employee’s conduct.
Our department, as described previously, relies on several union/Illinois code
laws in the event that such discipline is needed.

Not having a strict disciplinary system in existence in a police department is likely
to breed indecision, doubt, unprofessionalism, and low self-esteem among the
offi cers. Often, these are the departments that have an absence of self-policing
in them. By establishing a step-by-step discipline system, the offi cers are aware
of what to expect ahead of time in the event that discipline becomes necessary.
Progressive discipline provides an opportunity for the department to make a clear
record of the reasons for disciplinary action. Such a record could be crucial in the
event that a lawsuit is fi led if the progressive discipline path ultimately results
in termination of the employee.

The union and management must work together to clearly institute the guidelines
necessary to protect the rights of both offi cers and management to effectively deal
with any problems fairly and authoritatively.

Conclusion
Managing problem employees while taking into consideration union regulations
and state and federal laws requires the use of all sound management practices
and skills. The organization sets the tone for problem employee avoidance by
the use of the mission statement, goals, and objectives to clearly establish what is
expected of its employees in the way of performance and conduct. A performance
evaluation based on realistic and job-related appraisal criteria is an essential tool
for the supervisor to monitor an offi cer’s performance. Our union contract includes
the right of the village to determine the tools used in such criteria.

Progressive discipline can be used as a tool to motivate a marginal performer
by providing him or her with an opportunity to improve performance through
training and other step-by-step disciplinary measures. If rehabilitation of the
problem employee is unsuccessful, then a thorough documented foundation has
been established to discharge the offi cer from service. By following union, state, and
federal guidelines, it is more likely that dismissal will be validated by the scrutiny
of administrative appeals and courts if management can show that it made a “good
faith” effort to bring the marginal performer back to productive status.

Bibliography
Bruchman, W. L. (1992). Motivational aids for problem employees. APCO Bulletin,
58(8), 48-51.

Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement (CALEA). (1992). Standards
for law enforcement agencies. Fairfax, Virginia: Author.

Illinois Public Labor Relations Act and Uniform Peace Offi cers’ Disciplinary Act.
Illinois Complied Statutes General Provisions (ILCS).

Newstrom, J. W. (1993). Organizational behavior: Human behavior at work (9th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nowicki, E. (1993). Supervisory survival. Powers Lake, WI: Performance Dimensions
Publishing.

Riverside Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) Lodge #39. Union Contract.

www.fwlaw.com

www.legis.state.il.us

www.toolkit.cch.com

Thomas Q. Weitzel, detective and sergeant, currently heads the Riverside
Police Department’s Criminal Investigations Unit. He has been on the
Riverside Police Department since September 1984. Before coming to
Riverside, he served as a patrolman for the Chicago Zoological Park Police
at the Brookfi eld Zoo.

Sergeant Weitzel has held various positions within the Riverside Police
Department including breath-a-lyzer coordinator, crime prevention
coordinator, evidence technician, public information offi cer, major crime
assistance team member, fi eld training offi cer, and detective supervisor.
Sergeant Weitzel holds a master’s degree in criminal social justice from
Lewis University and is a graduate of the Illinois Law Enforcement Executive
Institute’s Executive Management program.

He is also a graduate of Northwestern University Center for Public Safety
School of Staff and Command. He served as vice president of Class 115.
Sergeant Weitzel also holds certifi cates of graduation from The Institute of
Police Technology and Management, University of North Florida, and the
National Crime Prevention Institute, Louisville, Kentucky. Additionally,
Sergeant Weitzel is a recent graduate of the Southwestern Law Enforcement
Institute’s Center for Law Enforcement Ethics in Richardson, Texas. He
is a nationally certified ethics instructor through the Southwest Legal
Foundation.

Sergeant Weitzel is a member of the Fraternal Order of Police, Police
Benevolent Association, Illinois Police Association, Northwestern University
Alumni Association, International Association for Identifi cation, and Illinois
Crime Prevention Offi cers Association. He is currently vice-president of the
Midwest Homicide Investigators Association and serves as the president of
the West Suburban Detective’s Association.

Page 1 of 1

Articles of Interest

Leadership Articles of Interest

Employee Discip...