May 2006
VCOPS’ Spring/Summer Newsletter
This newsletter is the first in a series of quarterly newsletters designed to supplement the VCOPS Website and bring important news to the Leaders of VCOPS locals in Virginia. Please use this information and pass it on to your membership. The newsletter will also be available online at and
Message form the Executive Director (Continued)
In states like Massachusetts, and Ohio small groups of police officers and deputies can become IUPA members without forming a local. They join a state or regional local. We have done this in Virginia by forming Virginia LEO Local 1000, IUPA. As Virginia LEO membership grows around the stateso will VCOPS/IUPA influence. As membership expands and small groups become larger they can form their own IUPA locals if they desire. VA LEO should significantly decrease the likelihood that the smaller cities will target individuals trying to form a local because there will be no “leaders” to target. More importantly it will allow individuals to become union members and get union benefits and job protections.
What do we need from you? We need every VCOP local leader and local member to begin a systematic attempt to approach communities without VCOPS/IUPA union membership in their vicinity. We also need them to approach their friends in jurisdictions outside of their local areas where they have friends in law enforcement. We have brochures and a website ( and a startup base of current Virginia LEO members in jurisdictions all over Virginia. You are probably asking yourself what will this do for your local? It will help you and your local dramatically. VCOPS can grow only so far in the structure that we currently exist. There are only a few large cities left to organize. However the state is full of small to medium police departments and a very large deputy and correctional officer base that is currently unrepresented or poorly represented. When we have members in most jurisdictions in Virginia we will gain the power and influence that we need to make significant changes here in Virginia. We need you to begin to promote Virginia LEO now. Thanks for your help.
Chris
The Only Game In Town
Why We Need A Strong Political Action Program
By Dave Lyons, Grievance Advocate VCOPS, VALEO
It’s an article of faith for most people: we don’t like politics, and we don’t think much of politicians.
We complain about the corruption, the futility, and the ultimate pointlessness of the political process. While there is some truth to all of the above, one thing is certain: without political action on behalf of our members, we will never achieve anything of value as public safety workers in Virginia. If we concede the field to other side because of apathy or disdain, we will gain nothing.
In the absence of collective bargaining, political action is the ballgame. Done effectively, it can enable us to take control of our lives and begin the process of change that will bring fair wages, dignity, and safety to law enforcement professionals in the Commonwealth.
Many law enforcement unions begin with concerns about legal protections and grievance rights. These are critical concerns for every LEO, as they should be, especially given the way some of our IA divisions behave. But the laws that underlie these concerns, and the politicians who write them, are answerable only through the political process. Just having a strong presence in court doesn’t ultimately succeed, as the other side has all the time and money in the world.
The victories we have had are because of hard political work. Better benefits, safety protections, and the guarantee of basic procedural rights are the direct result of effective political action.
Money is important, and can provide the punch we need to compete in political races at every level. But manpower is important as well; one area where we can out- work the other side is in turning out people, providing campaign support, pounding in signs and handing out literature. You may not believe it, but office seekers appreciate this kind of labor almost as much as money.
I will let you in on a poorly kept secret: 30% or less of the people vote in local elections, and in some cases it is below 10%. It isn’t as hard as you may think to control an election by deploying money and manpower in critical areas. I have worked in this arena for over 25 years, and I know it can be done.
I would also like to address the most common complaint I hear about political action, which is that many of the candidates endorsed have views, especially on social issues, that are completely contrary to many folks’ core beliefs. No one is asking you to forego your conscience at election time. But endorsements made by VCOPS of VLEO are based solely on candidates’ responses to law enforcement officers’ issues, and nothing else. I would ask all members to beware of the political shell game where rhetorical nonsense is used to divert your attention from the issues that affect your working lives. We are sticking to the concerns of law enforcement professionals, and nothing else. We are not concerned with party loyalty. And remember, every politician, regardless of party, wants the support of law enforcement.
In the coming months, as we continue to establish a strong political action program, we urge all our members to get involved in the process. This is your union; you get to decide whom we endorse and where your money is spent. We can’t afford to let people who don’t know or understand our concerns to control our lives. Organized political action on behalf of our union brothers and sisters is the answer.
LEGISLATIVE CORNER
BY CHIP CONDON
SECRETARY/TREASURER
Here is a brief wrap up of our legislative issues for 2005/06. You probably already know that this years General Assembly Session has not ended. Both sides are still pretty much at an impasse over Budget Issues. This is good for us on one hand, since that means our Retirement Bill is still hanging on, and could still possibly be funded. On the other hand, it’s not so good, because the HB 599 monies that most localities eagerly are awaiting come July 1st, still have not been approved either. So that might tend to tighten things up at the local budget level. If you have been following the debates, you know the biggest point of contention is Transportation funding. How much to spend on it and where the monies will come from. The Senate ahs made several concessions, but the House does not appear to want to compromise. The Governor generally supports most of what the Senate has proposed and is ready and willing to work on a compromise solution. The sooner the House comes to its senses, and genuinely sits down to negotiate a compromise with Senate, the sooner we will all be much better off. There are Town Hall meetings being held across the State on a weekly basis in reference to Transportation and the Budget Impasse. I would urge you to attend one of these meetings and voice your concerns over doing nothing again this year with our transportation problem and urge them to pass funding that the Senate and the governor have laid out to address many of our transportation issues as well as fully funding the public safety items. They need to hear from ALL of US.
Overall we faired pretty well this year in the Regular General Assembly Session. Our Retirement, although on “life support”, is still alive in the Senate and Governors Budget. We were able to pass an increase to the Line-of-Duty Death Act, from $75,000. to $100,000. Although the two Procedural Act Bills were tabled, we believe there will some meaningful discussion including members of the Chiefs of Police Association, VCOPS, FCOPS and others that are involved with Internal Affairs. From these discussions this year, we hope to come up with some meaning changes and a Bill that all the groups can hopefully support. We supported a change in the way Military Leave was determined for those who worked more than an 8 hour shift, and although the increase was not what was initially introduced we were still able to get an increase. With the help of the Governors Veto, we were able to defeat a Bill that would have allowed anyone to carry a concealed weapon in their vehicles. We were also successful in making some changes to a House Bill that included numerous changes to the concealed handgun code section, although we lost the section that allows localities to require fingerprints in order to get a permit. We may revisit that again in the future. We were unable to get the funding to include the local employees that were excluded from line-of duty act health care coverage. We are continuing to research the supposed Attorney Generals opinion that initially excluded those individuals.
We plan on starting on our General Assembly Package for next years Session. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, please feel free to share them with me. Also, just a reminder, that we will need some people to meet and provide input on our Procedural Acts Bill.
Finally, we live and work in a “Right to Work” State. The only way we can have a meaningful impact in our work environment and quality of life is to become and stay politically active. That means both during the General Assembly Session, to make and/or change laws and in your localities, to find and support candidates that will make meaningful changes to support you and your families.
VOTE, VOTE, VOTE and GET OUT TO SEE YOUR LOCAL AND STATE REPRESENTATIVES!!!!!
USE IT OR LOSE IT:
THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
FOR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES IN VIRGINIA
VCOPS’ Office of the General Counsel
Law Firm of Woodley and McGillivary
Virginia does not permit collective bargaining in the public sector. Thus, public sector employees in Virginia do not have many of the protections that come with a collective bargaining agreement. One of the few protections Virginia law offers to public sector employees, however, is a statutorily mandated grievance procedure that the state government, and all local governments, is required to adopt. Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code provides that if any local government body fails to adopt or certify its own grievance procedure, it will be “deemed to have adopted” the grievance procedure for public sector employees contained in that title. Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1507(A). This grievance procedure, however, is of no benefit to public sector employees unless it is properly understood and taken advantage of. There are two key issues that must be considered by any employee that wishes to assert his or her rights to a grievance under Virginia law: 1) the time limits that are imposed on an employee that wishes to file a grievance; and 2) which employee complaints are properly grievable under Virginia law and which are not.
Virginia law provides that the time for submitting an initial complaint shall not be less than twenty (20) calendar days after the event giving rise to the grievance. Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1507(A)(6). Local governments, may, however, at their option, allow for a longer time period. Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1507(A). Once an employee timely files his or her grievance, the “first step” of the grievance procedure under Virginia law is for management to provide for “an informal, initial processing of employee complaints by the immediate supervisor through a nonwritten, discussion format.” Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1507(A)(8)(a).
Most often, once an employee begins to exercise his or her grievance rights under Virginia law, the employer’s first step will be to assert, incorrectly in many instances, that the employee’s complaint is not properly grievable under Virginia law. Because of this, it is essential for employees to be aware of which complaints are grievable and which complaints are not. Essentially, employees can grieve the misapplication of policies and procedures, but cannot grieve the contents of the policies. Under Virginia law, employee complaints based on the following four subjects are grievable: 1) disciplinary actions, including dismissals, disciplinary demotions, and suspensions resulting from formal discipline or unsatisfactory job performance; 2) the application of personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations; 3) discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, political affiliation, age, disability, national origin or sex; and 4) acts of retaliation for pursuing a grievance under Virginia law or for complying with any federal or state law or reporting an employer’s violation of any federal or state law. Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-1507(A)(1).
An employee may not grieve the following subjects: 1) the establishment and revision of wages, salaries, position, classification, or general benefits; 2) work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment which may be part of the job content; 3) contents of ordinances, statutes, or established personnel policies, procedures, and rules and regulations; 4) methods, means, and personnel by which work activities are to be carried on; 5) termination, layoff, demotion or suspension from duties because of lack or work or a reduction in force; 6) hiring, promotion, transfer, assignment, and retention of employees within an agency; and 7) relief of employees from duties of the agency in emergency.
Decisions regarding grievability will initially be made by the chief administrative officer of the local government. Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1507(A)(9)(a). If the chief administrative officer decides that the employee’s complaint is nongrievable, the employee may, within thirty (30) days, appeal that decision to the state circuit court for a hearing on whether the employee’s complaint is properly grievable under Virginia law and should proceed forward under the Virginia Grievance Procedure. Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1507(7)(b).
Virginia courts have held that employee complaints regarding the misapplication of a local government policy or procedure by the employer or discriminatory acts by the employer are grievable. For example, in November v. City of Richmond, 66 Va. Cir. 326 (2005), a police officer with an injured left knee filed a grievance alleging that the city failed to provide him with a sedentary position to accommodate his disability, which was required by the city’s personnel rules. The court found that this complaint was grievable because it alleged the misapplication of the city’s “written personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations,” which provided that the city would provide reasonable accommodations to injured employees. Also, in Daniels v. City of Newport News, 52 Va. Cir. 75 (2000), the employee, after having been denied a promotion by his employer, filed a grievance, alleging that the city’s policies and procedures for promotion were not correctly followed. The employee alleged that the city denied him a promotion for lack of training while simultaneously promoting another employee who also lacked the same training. The court held that the city “did not follow its established polices and procedures and, as a consequence, failed to apply its policies fairly” as to the complaining employee. Thus, the matter was properly grievable under Virginia law. Similarly, in In re Grievance of Robert L. Jolley, 19 Va. Cir. 321 (1990), the court stated that a panel hearing on the merits of a grievance is proper where the employee alleged an “inconsistency in application” of Virginia Department of Transportation guidelines.
An employee may not, however, challenge the “content” of a policy, procedure, rule or regulation. In Ellis III v. City of Richmond, 9 Va. Cir. 229 (1987), the employee challenged a recently implemented directive which modified his seniority rights regarding leave time. The new directive effectively limited to 18 days the total time a fire fighter could select on a given shift for vacation leave. The court, in finding the matter nongrievable under Virginia law, stated that the employee was grieving “the content of the Directive and not improprieties in its interpretation or application.” For that reason, the employee’s complaint was nongrievable under Virginia law.
Once an employee’s complaint is determined to be properly grievable, the grievance will advance to the final step – the panel hearing. The panel hearing is a hearing before an impartial panel. In some jurisdictions, this is a standing civil service commission or board; some jurisdictions have impartial arbitrators paid for by the employer; and in other jurisdictions a panel consists of one member appointed by the grievant, one member appointed by the employer and a third member selected by the first two members. Both the grievant and the employee may call appropriate witnesses or be represented by legal counsel. Under Virginia law, the decision of the panel is final and binding on the parties.
The Virginia Grievance Procedure is one of the few protections afforded to public sector employees in Virginia. It is of no use, however, unless it is understood and used by employees who feel they have been treated in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner by their employer. If you would like more information on the Virginia Grievance Procedure, or if you would like a chart prepared for your local providing the time limits and issues that are or are not grievable, please contact Woodley & McGillivary at (202) 833-8855.
NEW CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND SUPREME COURT
ISSUE IMPORTANT DECISION
IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEES’ WORK TIME PAY CLAIMS
In the first employment decision issued during the first term of new Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that once employees begin performing work for their employer, they must be paid for all subsequent hours during the workday. In other words, once the workday begins it is continuous and cannot be chopped up into compensable and non-compensable time periods.