Health & Hosp. Sys. of Cook v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–15–0794.,1–15–0794. |
| Parties | The HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEM OF the COUNTY OF COOK, Petitioner, v. ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, LOCAL PANEL; Robert M. Gierut, Chairman; Charles E. Anderson, Member; Richard A. Lewis, Member; Melissa Mlyinski, Executive Director; and Local 200, Chicago Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL–CIO, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Daniel F. Gallagher, James Pullos, and Andrew J. Creighton, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for petitioner.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, Chicago (Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General, and Daniel J. Hartweg, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel et al.
Jacob Pomeranz, Cornfield & Feldman LLP, Chicago, for respondent union.
¶ 1 The Health and Hospital System (HHS) of the County of Cook (the County), petitioner, appeals from a final order of the Illinois Labor Relations Board (the Board), granting Local 200, Chicago Joint Board, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL–CIO's (the Union's) petition to add ten recruiting positions to the existing bargaining unit. We affirm.
¶ 2 The sole issue in this appeal is whether ten recruitment and selection analysts (RSA) employed by a county hospital system are “confidential employees” as that term is defined in section 3(c) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/3(c) (West 2012)). The Act permits public employees to organize, but it excludes confidential employees from the collective bargaining unit. 5 ILCS 315/3(n) (West 2012).
¶ 3 The petitioner on appeal is the County. In its petition, the County challenged the Board's finding that RSAs, who are county employees, are not confidential employees. It is this decision that the County asks us to review. Respondents are: (1) the Board; and (2) the Union.
¶ 5 This case is a direct administrative review action from an order of the Board. The order granted the Union's majority interest representation petition, which sought to add the ten RSA positions at Stroger Hospital, an affiliate HHS, to the existing bargaining unit.
¶ 6 The Union filed its initial petition with the Board on April 2, 2014. The County filed a response opposing the petition, arguing that RSAs were prohibited by statute from joining the Union both as “confidential employees” as defined under section 3(c) of the Act, as well as “supervisors” under section 3(r) (5 ILCS 315/3(c), (r) (West 2012)). After an evidentiary hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a recommended decision, finding that RSAs are neither confidential employees nor supervisors under the Act. Subsequently, the Board adopted the ALJ's findings in a written “Decision and Order,” and granted the Union's petition to add RSAs to the bargaining unit.
¶ 7 The County does not contest the Board's finding that RSAs are not supervisors and, thus, at issue in this appeal is only whether RSAs are confidential employees. Accordingly, the facts below are limited to those relevant to determining whether RSAs are confidential employees. As we discuss later in the analysis, confidential employees are those employees (1) who assist management with respect to labor-relations policy; or (2) who have access to collective bargaining information. 5 ILCS 315/3(c) (West 2012).
¶ 9 On July 18, 2014, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing to determine whether the ten RSAs were confidential or supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act, and were therefore prohibited from collective bargaining. During the hearing, the parties presented the following evidence relevant to determining whether RSAs are confidential employees.
¶ 11 The basic job responsibilities for the RSA position were detailed in an official job description from the Human Resources Department of HHS. The description contains a job summary which provides, in relevant part:
¶ 12 The job description also includes a list of typical duties for the RSA position. RSAs implement “the policies and procedures established by the Human Resources Bureau and explain them to the general public, County's departmental personnel and other governmental agencies via telephone or in-person.” RSAs additionally act “as a liaison to department heads in the preparation of current job descriptions and minimum qualifications necessary to qualify for select positions and to acclimate them to the policies and procedures associated with task analysis to produce job descriptions and job postings forms,” and “[m]ay serve as a liaison on special advisory committees which analyze the various components of exams: establishing weighted values, determining test sites, scheduling exams, preparing exam materials, coordinating oral interviews, producing examination announcements, proctoring exams, rating test applicants and utilizing the ATAS1 for applicant selection accuracy.” RSAs also assist “hiring managers as it pertains to recruitment, staffing issues, policies and procedures,” and conduct “reference checks and employment verification for review and approval.” Lastly, an RSA will prepare an “offer letter for selected candidate in a timely fashion,” and provide “basic benefit information to hiring managers and candidates.”
¶ 14 The County provided the ALJ with an organization chart depicting the structure of the HHS Human Resources Department. It indicates that the Chief of the Department of Human Resources reports directly to the HHS Chief Executive Officer. The chief supervises a deputy chief, who in turn oversees the five divisions of the Human Resources Department: “Learning and Development,” “Labor and Employment Counsel” (Labor Team), “Workforce Development and Talent Acquisition,” “Inpatient Support Services,” and “Outpatient Support Services.” The chart shows that class and compensation and recruiting employees, including RSAs, fall under Workforce Development and Talent Acquisition.
¶ 16 At the administrative hearing, the ALJ first heard testimony from Gladys Lopez, the current Chief of Human Resources for HHS. In that capacity, her duties involved “managing the strategic vision of the department, executing policies, creating policies as part of the organizational strategy,” and “working with department heads on various HR-related matters.” As part of these responsibilities, she oversaw recruitment, labor, class and compensation, and operational matters. She testified that she attended some, but not all, labor negotiations in her role as human resources chief.
¶ 17 Lopez testified that she was familiar with RSAs and their role in the department. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately ten RSAs. Their basic duties involved posting job listings on “TALEO,” HHS' online applicant tracking system.2 TALEO includes job listings for which both internal candidates and external candidates may apply. However, to comply with existing collective bargaining agreements, the department must initially list vacancies on TALEO only for internal applicants. After a set period of time, the department may open vacancies to applicants outside HHS or the relevant bargaining unit. RSAs must ensure that HHS complies with any relevant collective bargaining agreements in making hiring decisions.
¶ 18 After listing a position on TALEO, the RSA reviewed submitted applications and evaluated applicants' qualifications against the minimum qualifications necessary for the position.
¶ 19 Next, the RSA prepared a “validated eligibility list” of candidates who met the qualifications. The RSA then submitted the list to the appropriate department head or hiring manager to begin the interview process. At this step, the RSA again determined that there was compliance with collective bargaining agreements. For example, Lopez testified, “for [a union such as] Local 200, * * * while their employees may have applied, if they're not members of Local 200, they will not be given to the hiring manager, so the [RSA] has to also make sure that they are in compliance with the [bargaining agreement] to ensure that they only give Local 200 members to the hiring manager on an internal posting.” This was the only stage in the recruitment process where RSAs could personally disqualify a candidate, but such a disqualification was generally final. In sum, the RSA determines that the applicant is a member of the union.
¶ 20 In some cases, RSAs had a role in shaping minimum qualifications for certain vacancies that proved difficult to fill. “For example,” Lopez testified, “if we see that we have posted a position several times externally and we are not getting candidates, we ask [RSAs] to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Maxey
-
Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Emps., Council 31 v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
...315/9(i) (West 2014); Health & Hospital System v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel , 2015 IL App (1st) 150794, ¶ 49, 401 Ill.Dec. 130, 49 N.E.3d 518. Our review is governed by the Illinois Administrative Review Law, which provides that our review "shall extend to all questions of......