By Anthony Rice
In City of Chicago Police Dep’t,, 132 LA 641 (Bierig 2012), the arbitrator found the parties’ intent defined an ambiguous word being used by the City to deny an officer’s widow her life insurance.
The grievance stems from the death of Police Officer Roger Reyes. Reyes was a “duty disabled officer” with the Department. It is uncontested that Reyes’ widow received his life insurance benefit check from the City in the amount of $25,000. The Union claims that Reyes’ widow should have received $75,000, which was the amount of life insurance that became effective under the CBA ratified while Reyes’ was on disability leave. The City disagreed and contended that officers who are on duty disability were not entitled to any life insurance beyond the.
amount of insurance that was in effect at the time that the officer initially went on duty disability.
At arbitration, the Union presented testimony that duty disabled officers are subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Police Department, and thus are subject to termination and are entitled to the same benefits that active officers enjoy. A witness for the Union also testified that officers on duty disability are treated as being on a leave of absence; that duty disabled officers’ seniority continues while on disability; and that they are entitled to the pay raises and benefit increases that they would have incurred had they remained active.
In an attempt to distinguish Reyes from bargaining-unit members, the City drew the arbitrator’s attention to the ambiguity in the CBA. The relevant language of the CBA states: “The Employer agrees to provide a $75,000 life insurance benefit at no cost to the officer.” The arbitrator did find ambiguity, but the intent of the parties—shown through Union testimony—prevailed:
I find that the Grievance is sustained. The Contract states that each “officer” is entitled to life insurance benefits. However, while I agree with the City that the term “officer” is ambiguous, a review of the evidence shows that duty disabled officers are effectively active. They are considered on leave from the Department, and therefore subject to the Rules and Regulations of the Department, and still accumulate seniority. Based on the evidence, duty disabled officers are presumed active and are treated as such.
Thus, the City paid Officer Reyes’ widow the difference between the $25,000 that she already received, and the $75,000 identified in the CBA.
Editor’s Note (Jim Cline): The lesson for Employers is not to argue ambiguities in a labor contract when the issue concerns life insurance for a widow. The case apparently stems from some unusual leave arrangements in the Chicago Police Department that allowed for long term leave. If the City had intended to preclude those long term leave officers from this benefit, they should have tightened up the CBA language.
