Officer representation extends beyond mere advocacy; it encompasses a duty of commitment to fair representation treatment, transparent practices, and the preservation of integrity within the ranks. Within Police Associations, we have navigated various challenges and successes in this domain. In the complex landscape of law enforcement, the need for robust representation is ever-present. From addressing grievances and ensuring due process, to advocating for policy reforms and fostering a supportive work environment, the role of legal counsel and Association representation is indispensable. Approval of legal indemnification is a vital part of officer representation as mounting legal fees function to add an additional burden to an already stressful situation. It is complex and can often be influenced (positively or negatively) by past practices within your own organizations, along with variations in Collective Agreement language, and an Association’s process for the approval of financial assistance for legal representation. Police Associations should establish a policy for this financial support as they will be the payee of initial legal bills, and if not successful in legal indemnification, will be responsible for the fees incurred. Just as Police Services Boards need to clarify the interpretation of “on duty”, or the “lawful execution of duty” in policy, Police Associations should also clarify to protect themselves. Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Throughout Province of Ontario, we find two sections within legal indemnification Collective Agreement language that appear to have been replicated. This is not uncommon in the Collective Bargaining processes, where what is viewed as sufficient language, at the time, is borrowed and shared amongst both Policing Employers and Associations. It is also relevant to point out that there is often apathy, or aversion, when it comes to the language around legal indemnification, as it not often applied, nor is it an appealing topic of discussion due to the root cause of the invocation of the Article; charges being laid against one of your members is not something that we enjoy envisioning. In a politically charged ‘policing environment’, it is probable that the Police Board will attempt to deny the legal indemnification submission from the onset and impugn the actions of the officer with the same lens that the media will often apply: Guilty until proven innocent. Ensure the Legal Indemnification language in your Collective Agreement is updated to reflect the definition of "finally acquitted" and "acts done in the attempted performance in good faith of one's duties as a police officer". This is already well established between the Ottawa Police Association and the respective Police Board. After years of discussions and public disagreements, the Police Services Boards attempted to define the threshold of ‘good faith’, and the indemnification of the criminal legal expenses, on the basis of the result of a Police disciplinary hearing; a hearing process that the Police employer had exclusive authority over. The Ottawa Police Association successfully argued the matter in front of Arbitrator Kaplan (November 1st, 2012; Ottawa Police Association v. Ottawa Police Services Board). This case established the definition of ‘good faith’. Good faith’ is established via the criminal charges either being withdrawn, an acquittal, or a stay in the proceedings. Legal indemnification submissions remain contentious, political and litigious. The need to ensure adequate language exists within the Collective Agreement remains a priority.
0 Comments
|