Chicago City Hall has asked a Cook County judge to shelve a request from nearly two dozen unions for an order blocking the city from enforcing its COVID vaccine mandate on thousands of city workers.
In a brief filed Nov. 19, attorneys for the city assert any intervention by the court is unnecessary in this case, as the unions and City Hall appear well on their way to resolving their labor dispute over the vaccine mandate through arbitration, before the Dec. 31 vaccination deadline.
Further, the city said, it believes the law and “management rights” language within its various union contracts give it the power to require workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19, or risk losing their jobs.
The city likened the language to that which has enabled City Hall to implement new worker attendance and sick leave policies without first negotiating with the unions.
“Arbitrators consistently hold that the management rights provision in each of Plaintiffs’ contracts authorize the City to implement rules to protect health and safety of employees and members of the public,” the city wrote in its Nov. 19 brief. “… The City’s Vaccination Policy falls comfortably within the City’s inherent managerial right to manage its operations and to set standards necessary to protect its workforce and the public.”
The city’s filing comes two weeks after a large swath of the city’s unionized workforce filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court, seeking to block Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot from enforcing her Dec. 31 COVID vaccine deadline.
The unions asserted the city has steadfastly refused to negotiate over the vaccine mandate, or heed the union’s accusations of unfair labor practices against the city.
ll city employees, including those represented by unions, were required to report their vaccination status to City Hall by mid-October, and then were required to each receive a full dose of a COVID vaccine by the end of the year. Failure to abide by these orders could result in discipline, including termination.
The Chicago city worker vaccine mandate was similar to mandates issued by other private and public employers, including the state of Illinois, through Gov. JB Pritzker.
Police officers and firefighters, in particular, have pushed back against the vaccine orders.
A group of Chicago firefighters, along with other city workers, filed suit in federal court, claiming the mandates violated their constitutional rights.
A federal judge in that case refused their request for a temporary restraining order against the city’s vaccine mandate.
The Chicago Police union, however, opted for a different strategy, petitioning a Cook County judge to declare the vaccine mandates violated their rights under their collective bargaining agreement.
Cook County Judge Raymond Mitchell agreed, saying Lightfoot denied police officers a meaningful opportunity to press their grievances over the vaccine mandate.
While the city agreed the dispute belonged in arbitration, Judge Mitchell noted arbitration would be meaningless if the city was still allowed to force city workers to be vaccinated against their will, while the arbitration continued.
In short, Mitchell said the city’s position that the mandate could go forward, and grievances handled later, is unreasonable, because vaccinations cannot be reversed.
In their complaint, the 23 city worker unions said they are seeking an order similar to the one Mitchell issued on behalf of the police union.
In response, however, the city noted it has already scheduled arbitration sessions for early December. The city said this should enable the arbitrator to rule in the dispute by the Dec. 31 deadline.
And that, the city said, eliminates the need for an emergency order in this case, similarly blocking the city from enforcing its vaccine mandate.
“If the arbitrator agrees with Plaintiffs that the City violated its contracts by implementing the Vaccination Policy, there will be no harm to Plaintiffs’ members because their grievances will have been resolved before the December 31, 2021, vaccination deadline,” the city wrote. “Conversely, if the arbitrator determines that the City did not violate the contract, Plaintiffs cannot claim any injury because the integrity of the arbitration process will have been preserved.”
Notwithstanding Mitchell’s ruling in the police union case, the city continued to specifically argue it holds the power and moral authority to impose the mandate.
While the unions argued, and Judge Mitchell ruled, that forced vaccination could amount to irreparable harm, the city said it was seeking to prevent a greater harm: illness and death among the city workforce and the public.
The city noted the unions are not arguing against the vaccination mandate on any scientific grounds, or out of concern that COVID vaccines might harm workers.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint with the Vaccination Policy is not that vaccination is harmful, but that a small minority of their members do not want to get vaccinated,” the city wrote. “However, no one is forcing Plaintiffs’ members who do not wish to be vaccinated to get a shot.
“Instead, Plaintiffs’ argument is that their members should not have to choose between getting vaccinated and the consequences of noncompliance with the Vaccination Policy.
“… Being required to do something you do not want to do to avoid a loss of pay is not irreparable harm that justifies an injunction in aid of arbitration, particularly when compared to the overwhelming and unassailable public health and safety interest on the other side of the scale.”
The city asserted Mitchell’s ruling is not “binding” upon any other judge, and contended his ruling differs with most other judicial opinion on the question of compulsory vaccination.
The city is represented in the action by attorneys Michael A. Warner, James C. Franczek, David A. Johnson, William R. Pokorny, Jennifer A. Dunn and Jason Patterson, of Franczek P.C., of Chicago; and Celia Meza, corporation counsel with the city’s Department of Law.
The unions are represented by attorney George A. Luscombe III, with the firm of Dowd Bloch Bennett Cervone Auerbach & Yokich, of Chicago.