City of Chicago v. State & Mun. Teamsters

• Decision Date: 31 August 1984
• Docket Number: AFL-CI,I,No. 84-1433,84-1433
• Citation: 127 Ill.App.3d 328,82 Ill.Dec. 488,468 N.E.2d 1268
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: , 82 Ill.Dec. 488 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE & MUNICIPAL TEAMSTERS, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and STATE & MUNICIPAL TEAMSTERS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harold WASHINGTON, Mayor, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees Union, Council 31,ntervenor.

Page 1268

468 N.E.2d 1268

127 Ill.App.3d 328, 82 Ill.Dec. 488

CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE & MUNICIPAL TEAMSTERS, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and STATE & MUNICIPAL TEAMSTERS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harold WASHINGTON, Mayor, et al., Defendants-Appellees, and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees

Union, Council 31, AFL-CIO, Intervenor.

No. 84-1433.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Fifth Division.

Aug. 31, 1984.

[127 Ill.App.3d 331] [82 Ill.Dec. 490] Sherman Carmell, Carmell, Charone & Widmer, Ltd., and Jack P. Cerone, Erbacci, Syracuse & Cerone, Ltd., Chicago, for State & Mun. Teamsters.

James D. Montgomery, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee City of Chicago; Jerome A. Siegan, Mary K. Rochford and Anthony E. Dombrow, Chicago, of counsel.

Gilbert A. Cornfield, Stephen A. Yokich, Cornfield & Feldman, Chicago, for AFSCME.

SULLIVAN, Justice:

This appeal is from a judgment in a consolidated action which declared lawful the city employee representation elections held pursuant to the election rules promulgated by the city of Chicago (City) Commissioner of Personnel (the Commissioner). The newly enacted Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Public Labor Relations Act) (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, pars. 1601 et seq. (Smith-Hurd 1984 Supp.)) took effect July 1, 1984, and totally preempts the field of collective bargaining for public employees. However, prior to the effective date of the Act, the City--through its department of personnel--divided the City employees into five bargaining units and, as a result, the American Federation of State, County &amp Appellant unions State & Municipal Teamsters; Chauffeurs & Helpers, Local 726; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (Teamsters); and Laborers International Union of North America, Local 1001 and Local 1092 (Laborers) contend here that (1) the power of the City to conduct the elections was preempted by the Public Labor Relations Act; (2) the Personnel Code did not authorize the Commissioner to enact election rules and conduct the elections; and (3) the rulemaking procedure was deficient.

[82 Ill.Dec. 491] Municipal Employees Union, Council 31, AFL-CIO (AFSCME) became the exclusive representative of the City employees in all but one of the five bargaining units.

On February 28, 1984, the Commissioner sent a letter to the Teamsters, the Laborers, and various other labor organizations, informing them that the City intended to conduct union representation elections for unrepresented City employees and had placed employees in five bargaining units for purposes of the election. Those units were:

Unit 1--Administrative and Clerical Employees

Unit 2--Public Safety Employees

Unit 3--Human Services and Inspection Employees

Unit 4--Professional Employees

Unit 5--Library Employees

The letter stated that rules for the elections would be available on March 1, 1984, through the department of personnel, and that the City would accept valid and timely petitions for representation and requests to intervene by unions in a particular election. The City received a number of responses to its announcement. AFSCME filed petitions for representation in Units 1, 3, 4, and 5 and intervened in Unit 2. The Chicago Crossing Guards Association, AFL-CIO (Crossing Guards); Local 165, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (IBEW); and Local 46, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed a joint petition for representation in Unit 2. Local 112(L) of the International Brotherhood of Carpenters Union (Local 112) threatened to pursue judicial remedies unless the City recognized Local 112 as the historical collective bargaining representative of certain City employees in Unit 3. The Teamsters and Laborers, in a letter from the Teamsters' attorneys dated April 5, 1984, demanded that the City rescind the February 28, 1984 notice and the elections rules. The letter raised essentially the same issues presented in this appeal. The Teamsters and Laborers, however, did not file a petition for representation or a request to intervene in any of the five units. After receiving the responses from the unions, the City scheduled elections in Units 1, 3, and 5 for May 3, 1984.

On April 18, the City filed a complaint against the above-mentioned unions and the Chicago Federation of Labor seeking a declaration as to the rights of the parties and the legality of the City's actions in establishing and conducting the representation elections. Motions to dismiss, filed by the Chicago Federation of Labor, the Crossing Guards, SEIU, and IBEW, were allowed. Local 112 was also dismissed as a defendant, and its counterclaim and motion for injunctive relief were withdrawn after the City recognized Local 112 as the historical representative of certain employees. The Teamsters and Laborers filed answers and a joint motion for summary judgment. Edward M. Burke (Burke), an alderman of the City, was granted leave to intervene, and he also filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Teamsters and laborers filed a separate action on April 18, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the mayor of the City and the Commissioner. Alleging that the Commissioner had exceeded his authority and that the elections would deprive the Teamsters and Laborers of their rights under the new Public Labor Relations Act, the Teamsters and Laborers requested the court to enjoin the representation elections scheduled for May 3. On April 27, AFSCME was permitted to intervene as a party defendant in the case filed On April 30, the motion of the Teamsters and Laborers for a temporary restraining order was denied, as were the motions for summary judgment. The trial court also held that the Public Labor Relations Act did not preempt the area until the effective date of the Act--July 1, 1984--and that the Commissioner's actions were impliedly authorized by chapter 25.1 of the Municipal Code. The City's motion for declaratory relief was denied on the basis that the department of personnel had failed to give proper notice of the proposed rules. The court then granted the motion of the Teamsters to impound the ballots.

[82 Ill.Dec. 492] by the Teamsters and Laborers, and the two actions were then consolidated.

On May 1, after the Commissioner announced his decision to republish the election rules and to reschedule the elections for a later date in order to comply with the publication requirement of section 25.1-5 of the Municipal Code, the trial court vacated its order impounding the ballots. The Teamsters and Laborers sent a letter to the Commissioner containing their views on the appropriate determination of the bargaining units. After the Commissioner responded to their comments, the elections in all five bargaining units were schedules for June 5 and 6.

The Teamsters and Laborers then filed a petition for preliminary injunction, challenging the rule making procedures followed by the Commissioner. Prior thereto and after the dismissal in this court of their interlocutory appeal of the denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order, the Teamsters and Laborers filed--on June 1--an amended petition for a preliminary injunction which reasserted their earlier objections concerning the Commissioner's authority. On June 4, the trial court denied the requests of the Teamsters and Laborers to enjoin the election, but did enjoin certification of the results until further order. The elections were then held on June 5 and 6.

On June 8, the trial court ordered the election results in Units 2 and 5 certified, since the Teamsters and Laborers did not object to the composition of those particular units. On June 11, it held that the Commissioner's rule making procedure was lawful, and a final order was entered which dismissed the complaint of the Teamsters and Laborers, denied its amended petition for preliminary injunction, granted the City's complaint for declaratory relief, and directed that the election results be certified. This appeal followed.

OPINION

I.

The Teamsters and Laborers first contend that the Public Labor Relations Act precluded the City from holding the representation elections by preempting the area of collective bargaining by public employees. The state legislature does have the power to preempt the exercise of certain home rule powers by providing for the exclusive exercise of such powers by the state. (Ill. Const.1970, art. VII, § 6.) The parties agree that the Public Labor Relations Act included express language of preemption.

"It is the public policy of this State, pursuant to paragraphs (h) and (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution, that the provisions of this Act are the exclusive exercise by the State of powers and functions which might otherwise be exercised by home rule units. Such powers and functions may not be exercised concurrently, either directly or indirectly, by any unit of local government, including any home rule unit, except as otherwise authorized by this Act." Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, par. 1615(c) (Smith-Hurd 1984 Supp.).

The Teamsters and Laborers maintain that the trial court erred in holding the Public Labor Relations Act's effective date of July 1, 1984 precludes the application of the preemption doctrine before that date. In support thereof, they cite much authority on the rules of statutory construction used to determine legislative intent. In particular, they argue that the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Educational Labor Relations Act), Ill.Ann.Stat.1983, ch 48, pars. 1701 et seq. (Smith-Hurd 1984 Supp.), effective January 1, 1984, and the Public Labor Relations Act, effective July 1, 1984, are in pari materia and should be construed together as one statute.

We reject this argument because rules of construction, including the rule of in pari materia, are not applicable. Initially, we note that such rules are not invoked...