cityol

CINCINNATI
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet

August 15, 2016

FOR YOUR INFORMATION
To:

Mayor and Members of City Council

From:

Harry Black, City Manag~j~~)

Subject:

Response to FOP Regarding BWC Program

As you are aware, thanks to the diligent efforts of a cross-cutting team of sworn and
civilian City employees, the Cincinnati Police Department body worn camera (BWC)
program was successfully launched last week.
Since that time we have received the attached letter from the FOPs representatives
requesting that management not assign BWCs or implement the program due to their
claim that management had not bargained in good faith regarding the program.
As you will see from our response (also attached), management maintains that
implementation of such a program is a management right. As such, I am hopeful the
FOP will support the Administrations efforts to fully implement this City Council
mandated program. Having a body camera program fosters transparency, allows the
City to better protect the public, and protects officers from frivolous and fraudulent
claims.

..

~ .~

1]Ai~ni~, LAzARus & Li~rwis, .i.adc

ATTORNEYS AI~D COUNSELORS AT LAW

~.

DONALD E. ITARDIN

~l

.~.:.
~

~
.

~.

,,~ ~
.~

~
1

rj~~! :..:~s!~(~
Ii
.

915 CINcXNNATI CLuB Bun

Nd~
I
DAVIDE.JL%RDIN
... ~
~
30 GARFIELD PLAcJE
~
;~~iq ~
GARYR~LEWIS
.,~-
,.
CINCI)NNATI, OHIO 452024322
~.,...i; :v
Km SERLY A. Ruowsiu
~
TELEPHONE: (513) 721-7300
.
.
.
R.JEssup GAGE
. ..::~::~
FACSIMILE: (513) 721-7008
STEPHEN s i~z~~s*

~so~r~rrx~n
INKEN~UCKy

Ross M. GmLINGHAM

August 11,2016

Mr. Harry Black

Cincinnati City Manager
801 Plum St.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(Sent via e-mail transmission to

CityManager ctcincinnati-oh.gov
with hard cop J~ follow-up)

Dear Mr. Black:

The City of Cincinnati (Employer) and Fraternal Order of Police, Queen City Lodge
#69 (Union) began collective bargaining for a new labor agreement between the Parties on or
about May 31, 2016. Prior to negotiations, Union repre entatives were informed that the
Fmployer ~.as considering adding body-worn cameras (~ BWCs) to the equipment used by
Cncinnati Police Officers. However the issue of addmg B\\Cs had not been bargained with the
iion. Accordingly, the Union made proposals at the bargaining table that were either directly
or indireLtly related to the potential addition of BWCs in the C incinnati Police Department.
On May 31, 2016 the Union proposed new language in Article X, Police Officers
Rights in Disciplinary Investigations, that concerned the notice officers receive prior to a
disciplinary interview. The notice language proposed by the Union in Article X will affect the
potential use of BWCs in the event the Employer intends to use BWC recordings during the
investigatory process. More importantly, the Union proposed a new article be added to the labor
agreement that is expressly tied to the potential use of BWCs, titled Body Camera Allowance.
The Unions proposal for a Body Camera Allowance would change the officers wages and their
retirement benefits in the event the Employer issues BWCs and implements new operating
procedures related to this new equipment.
As of the date of this correspondence, the Employer has not accepted the Unions
proposed changes to Article X or its proposal for a new article titled Body Camera Allowance.
The Union has also not withdrawn either of those proposals. On about August 11, 2016, the
Union received notice from Ohios State Employment Relations Board that the Employer
declared impasse in negotiations by requesting a panel of fact finders. Thus, the Parties are
proceeding to fact-finding. Moreo er, as neither of the Union proposals relating to BWCs were
resoI~ed prior to fact finding, the potential addition of BWCs and what impact this new
equipment will have on the employees wages, hours, or other terms and other conditions of
employment will be resolved through the statutory impasse procedures.

Page Two
Mr. Harry Black
August 11,2016

On July 14, 2016, the Employer published a staff note indicating it has unilaterally
decided to begin assigning BWCs and implementing related policies before the Parties exhaust
the statutory impasse procedures. The Employer must cease and desist from its plan to assign
bargaining unit employees BWCs, and from adopting policies relating to the use of BWCs at this
time. Requiring employees to wear BWCs will change several aspects of their job and regularly
assigned duties. The adoption of new BWC policies will also have a significant impact on the
employees wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, such
changes are mandatory subjects that must be bargained to impasse with the Union before they
are implemented.
Furthermore, the Employers unilateral decision to assign employees BWCs and adopt
new policies related to their use at this particular point in the negotiation process is a failure to
bargain in good faith. As previously discussed, the Employer only formally notified the Union
that it will add BWCs and implement related policies after the Parties had begun bargaining over
Union proposals related to the implementation of BWCs. As such, this decision is clearly
intended to impact the Unions position during collective bargaining and it is an inappropriate
attempt to interfere with the employees exercise of collective bargaining rights, contrary to R.C.
4117.1 1(A)(l).
Please confirm to me in writing on or before August 17, 2016 that the Employer will not
assign BWCs or implement policies for their use until after the Parties have resolved these issues
through the statutory impasse procedures. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions
concerning the information contained herein.
Sincerely,
HARD[N, LAZARUS & LEWIS, LLC

Stephen S. Lazarus
SS L :j mj
cc:
Mr. Dan Hils, President

city of

CINCINNATI
OFFICE OF THE
CI FY MANAGER

Harry Black, City Manager

August 15, 2016

Stephen S. Lazarus
Hardin, Lazarus & Lewis, LLC
915 Garfield Club Building
30 Garfield Place
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4322
Re:

Body-Worn Cameras and Queen City Lodge #69

Response to August 11 Letter

Dear Mr. Lazarus:

I have received your letter dated August 11, 2016 concerning the desire of the Fraternal Order of
Police, Queen City Lodge #69 (FOP) to bargain over the issue of body-worn cameras
(BWC5).
In response to your concerns, the City believes that the implementation of BWCs is a
management right. Ohio Rev. Code 4117.08(C)(1) specifically states that the utilization of
technology is a matter inherent to managerial policy, and therefore not a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
BWCs constitute an advance in technological resources which are being
implemented for the safety and security of police officers and citizens. A decision regarding
technology used by the Citys employees for these purposes is quintessentially a management
prerogative. Accordingly, the City acted within its inherent management rights when it
implemented the use of BWCs.
Furthermore, the City provided the FOP with advanced notice regarding its intent to utilize
BWCs and sufficient opportunity to bargain. City Council and the Police Department committed
to phasing in BWCs at a Law and Public Safety Committee meeting on June 27, 2016. As stated
in your letter, additional notice was provided to staff on July 14. The FOP had ample
opportunity to bargain over its proposal at various bargaining sessions and during mediation.
The FOP did not focus bargaining towards its BWC proposal. Considering that this is the FOPs
proposalnot managementsthe burden is on the FOP to raise this issue during bargaining.
Because the City has provided the FOP with notice and opportunities to bargain, there is no
evidence that the City has refused to bargain.

801 Plum Street, Suite 152 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-5706

P 513 352 3241 F 513 352 6284 www.cincinnati oh.gov

In short, the City has been and remains open to discussing the issue of BWCs and their impact on
FOP bargaining unit members terms and conditions of employment. If the FOP would like to
discuss this specific issue further, the City is willing to continue discussions regarding the BWC
issue. If not, the City presumes that the FOP will bring its issue before a Fact-Finder in
accordance with the impasse resolution procedures.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,

Harry
City Manager