McHenry County Sheriff Keith Nygren’s Republican primary election opponent Zane Seipler was fired by Nygren. Seipler sought reinstatement under the union contract and the arbitrator ruled in his favor.

Nygren challenged the arbitrator’s decision under a concept called “Administrative Review.”

As I understand it, when an administrative law judge or someone playing a similar role makes a decision, an aggrieved party can challenge the decision in court.

That is what Nygren did.

Associate Judge Thomas Meyer, who rendered the decision, started his opinion by pointing out that a decision could be overruled under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act only “in instances of fraud, corruption, partiality, misconduct, mistake or failure to submit a question to arbitration…if the Arbitrator acts within the scope of his or her authority and the award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.” He cited 1981 and 1998 cases.

Nygren asked that the arbitrator’s decision be overruled because it violated the paramount considerations of public policy known as the “public policy exception.”

To meet that standard Nygren’s attorney had to show

1. “a well-defined and dominant public policy can be identified” and
2. “if so, the Court must determine whether the Arbitrator’s award, as reflected in his interpretation of the agreement, violated the public policy.”

The facts in the case were not disputed.

Whether Nygren will appeal again remains to be seen.

Seipler runs the blog McHenry County Sheriff’s Department Exposed, which has been a gathering point for those critical of Nygren’s stewardship of the department.

If Seipler regains his job, standing orders would prohibit his continuing to operate the web site.

What was arbitrated?

“Was the grievant, Zane Seipler’s termination for just cause and, if not, what is the appropriate remedy?”

The judge ruled that the arbitrator’s ruling fell into the scope of his charge.

He ruled that there was no “just cause” for firing Seipler.

The arbitrator then ruled that the “appropriate remedy” was a 3-day suspension.

Meyer decided that the arbitrator’s decision fell within his authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the stipulations of the two parties to the dispute.

Using that chain of logic Meyer rejected Nygren’s argument that the arbitrator acted “without authority.”

The next question was whether the arbitrator’s decision violated a “well defined and dominant public policy.”

“In the instant case, it is clear that there is a public policy interest in having law enforcement personnel issue citations that are not based on misrepresentations or falsification. This concept is so obvious that no further discussion as to the basis of public policy is required.”

“Accordingly,” the decision continues, “this court must now turn to the issue of whether the arbitrator’s award, as reflected in his interpretation of the agreement, violated an obvious public policy.”

The judge then points to the Sheriff’s argument that “law enforcement officers (should) be held to a high standard of honesty and credibility and that those who commit crimes or abuse their position of trust should be discharged.”

The Sheriff’s “reliance on this assertion is called into question by his handling of the matter involving Deputy Asplund.”

While the Sheriff “argued that Deputy Asplund issued citations to people who had actually violated the law, the fact remains that the citations that were issued were inappropriate and seeming violations of the public policy that the Petitioner now demands be strictly construed.

“This fact was considered by the Arbitrator and incorporated into his interpretation of the agreement as well as into his decision.

“The Arbitrator’s decision clearly ‘draws its essence’ from the collective bargaining agreement in that it relies on the progressive and corrective discipline set forth…which permits suspension of ‘up to thirty days’.

“In light of the handling of the Asplund matter this court cannot accept the contention that public policy demands that Deputy Seipler be terminated.

“The Arbitrator’s decision that the more appropriate remedy for Deputy Seipler’s actions was a suspension does not violate any clear, well defined public policy as it does not encourage or excuse activity that is a violation of the public policy that law enforcement officers be held to a high standard of honesty and credibility.

“Rather, it merely finds that under the circumstances, in the instant case, a suspension was warranted rather than termination.”

And, that’s why Judge Meyer affirmed the arbitrator’s decision and dismissed Sheriff Nygren’s appeal.

Meyer found a similar situation in which a different deputy received a penalty of similar severity to that what was suggested by the arbitrator.

Associate Judge Meyer’s decision in the case follows: