So, About That Advice...

Someone brought up some points that we figure need to be addressed concerning our post:

• NEVER EVER meet with a Sergeant / Watch Lieutenant / Captain / Commander alone where he or she can threaten you.

We figured it was clear what we meant - meeting alone where he or she can threaten you. Evidently, it wasn't.

• What a ridiculous statement. If you're given an order to report to the W/C or Commander's office what are you going to do, bring your partner or watch rep with you? So let's say you do just that, then the boss tells you to step in and close the door. Are you going to refuse unless your witness is present? You don't have the right to refuse an order. And you don't have the right to have a "representative" present since it's not part of an investigation or hearing. This is very bad advice that could get someone a big suspension for disobeying an order. I've seen first hand someone refuse to report to the Sergeant's office when ordered to do so and they got 30 days for disobeying a direct order after the CR investigation was completed.
  
  SCC, you're generally on point but on this one you're way off. You should think through your advise before posting.

So let's address it. If there is something to be said to officers in general regarding activity, or lack thereof, then Roll Call is an appropriate locale for the supervisors to bring it up. That's the purpose of Roll Call - to take the roll, inform officers of ongoing events, conflicts, changes in policy, etc. Get the word out there bosses - with 10 or 20 or 30 coppers present to witness it all.

For any sort of individual meeting though, it would be in the Officer's best interest to have a witness present. Supervisors do it all the time, especially when they have to give a direct order. There's always a second white shirt in the room. Always. So why can't an officer have a witness present? Well, does this apply?

Weingarten Rights provide the following:

• During an investigatory interview, the Supreme Court ruled that the following rules apply:
  
  Rule 1: The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making this request.
  
  Rule 2: After the employee makes the request, the employer must choose from among three options:
  --grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives and (prior to the interview continuing) the representative has a chance to consult privately with the employee;
  --deny the request and end the interview immediately; or
  --give the employee a clear choice between having the interview without representation, or ending the interview.
  
  Rule 3: If the employer denies the request for union representation, and continues to ask questions, it commits an unfair labor practice and the employee has a right to refuse to answer. The employer may not discipline the employee for such a refusal.

Do Weingarten Rights exist in CPD? If not, there's something called the Uniform Police Officers' Disciplinary Act that is codified in Illinois State Law (50 ILCS 725). There's plenty of loopholes to hang your hat on if you feel like trying, and in this atmosphere, why wouldn't you? Any "closed door meeting" is an invitation to abuse. It comes down to a "(s)he said, (s)he said" argument that you will almost always come out on the losing end of. So our caution to not get roped into a situation like that would be good advice.

We suppose we could offer the following advice instead:

• If you are "ordered" into an office with the door closed for a private threat session or berating, pull out your phone and tell the boss you'll be recording this for your own and his/her own safety, just so there isn't any misunderstanding of what was said. That way, both parties are aware of existence of a recording. The supervisor can then choose to back down or continue with the meeting.

There's nothing in the Contract or Orders that say you have to sit for threats. In fact, there are numerous items that say you will be treated respectfully and professionally. We'd hate for there to be an unfounded accusation that threats were made without an impartial witness present. That couldn't possibly happen in this day and age, right?