2011-09-02

Police board refuses to promote G20 officers

That practice has been a sore spot for years among some on the board, who feel uneasy about giving more authority to officers they believe have shown questionable judgment and character.

Police spokesperson Mark Pugash said he would not comment on “hypothetical questions” such as: “Is it appropriate to promote a young officer who has already had disciplinary action taken against them?”

As for the grievance, Pugash said “We’re not a party to this. This is a grievance between the police association and the board. We have no role. It makes no sense for us to comment.”

Tensions on the police board first surfaced after Mayor Rob Ford appointed Councillor Michael Thompson as its vice-chair. Thompson and Blair have quietly clashed on a number of issues. Most recently, on Wednesday Thompson said he was “extremely disappointed” that Blair spoke out about potential layoffs.

Chair Alok Mukherjee maintains there is absolutely no problem with cohesiveness between members and Blair.

“It is always understood that the board has the right to accept or not accept the chief’s recommendation.”

During the June 2010 G20 summit, a total of 90 police officers were found to have removed their name tags during demonstrations. Those officers, including the nine at the centre of the promotion controversy, were given a one-day suspension without pay as punishment.

One argument being raised against the board’s decision is a rule that prevents officers from being punished twice for the same offence. Board critics say that because the officers already lost a day’s pay they can’t be denied a promotion because of their G20 offence.

Furthermore, Ontario’s police act does not permit the withholding of a reclassification as a disciplinary act. In some police circles, some have argued this is what the oversight board is doing.

Mukherjee counters that denying a promotion is not a punishment.

“It is our view that reclassification or promotion is a reward that the board bestows on an employee in its capacity as the employer,” he said. “In making such a decision, the board should be able to articulate clear and cogent reasons for its decision.”

And as long as clear reasons are given, the board is not necessarily bound to accept a recommendation from the chief.

Police association president Mike McCormack disagrees.

“Through the collective agreement and past practices, if the chief recommends you go up, you go up. The chief is making decisions based on evaluations and specific criteria,” said McCormack.

“The board is just taking a position that they want to be the ones to judge on reclassification based on. . . criteria we don’t know.”

McCormack would not confirm or deny whether any of the impacted constables were disciplined for the G20 summit, but he did say it is not the association’s understanding that the summit has anything to do with the board’s decision.

The involved officers are second- and third-class constables who are eligible to be made first- and second-class constables. New police officers begin their careers as a fourth-class constable and typically spend a year at each level before moving up.

The promotion would have meant a significant pay raise. Third-class constables earn $64,839 annually. Second-class $72,948. And first-class constables make $81,046 a year.

The union grievance was filed on behalf of 10 officers. One had been recently disciplined for something unrelated to the G20.

Source: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1048123--police-board-refuses-to-promote-g20-officers?bn=1