Am. Fed'n of State v. State
| Decision Date | 22 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–14–0656,1–14–0656 |
| Citation | 96 N.E.3d 534,2018 IL App (1st) 140656 |
| Parties | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, Petitioner, v. STATE of Illinois; DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES (ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION); and Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Cornfield & Feldman LLP, of Chicago (Mark Stein and Gail E. Mrozowski, of counsel), for petitioner.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and Linda Boachie-Ansah, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondents.
¶ 1 This is a direct appeal from a final order of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), finding that six directors at the Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) are managerial employees excluded from collective bargaining. The Board denied a representation petition filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Union), seeking to include the employees in one of its existing bargaining units, and the Union now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board's decision and order with respect to each of the six directors that the Union seeks to represent.
¶ 3 The Illinois Commerce Commission is a quasi-judicial body, charged under the Public Utilities Act ( 220 ILCS 5/1–101 et seq. (West 2016)) with regulating public utilities in the state. 220 ILCS 5/2–101, 3–105, 4–101, 4–201, 13–101 (West 2016). The Commission is engaged in, among other things, rate-setting, the certification of private entities seeking to provide public utilities, safety oversight, and the investigation and resolution of complaints against utility companies. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31 v. State of Illinois , 2014 IL App (1st) 130655, ¶ 3, 388 Ill.Dec. 769, 25 N.E.3d 52 (hereinafter AFSCME ). The Commission is comprised of five commissioners, who appoint an executive director to oversee its day-to-day operations. 220 ILCS 5/2–101, 2–105(a) (West 2016). The executive director is authorized to organize the Commission into bureaus or other subunits and to delegate the supervision and direction of those bureaus to staff members. Id. § 2–105(a). Bureaus are typically headed by chiefs and subdivided into divisions headed by directors. At present, six bureaus and an Office of Retail Market Development report to the executive director.
¶ 4 On October 5, 2010, the Union filed a representation petition with the Board seeking to include nine directors in its RC–63 bargaining unit. The Commission opposed the petition, arguing that the directors are excluded from collective bargaining for three reasons: because they are managerial employees pursuant to section 3(j) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Labor Relations Act) ( 5 ILCS 315/3(j) (West 2010)); the directors are supervisory employees, pursuant to section 3(r) (id. § 3(r)); and the directors are confidential employees, pursuant to section 3(c) (id. § 3(c)). The Commission alternatively argued that, even if the directors are not excluded from collective bargaining, the RC–63 unit is not the appropriate bargaining unit for those employees. The Union ultimately stipulated that three of the nine directors should be excluded from the bargaining unit, leaving the status of only six directors in dispute. They are (1) Torsten Clausen, director of the Office of Retail Market Development; (2) Jerry Oxley, director of Information Technology Services in the Bureau of Planning and Operations; (3) Peter Muntaner, director of Consumer Services in the Bureau of External Affairs; and (4) Harry Stoller, Joy Nicdao–Cuyugan, and Jim Zolnierek, the directors, respectively, of the Energy, Financial Analysis, and Telecommunications Divisions of the Bureau of Public Utilities.
¶ 5 At an evidentiary hearing in June 2011, the administrative law judge (ALJ) in this case heard testimony primarily from the Commission's executive director and the bureau chiefs to whom these six directors report. In her recommended decision and order issued on February 27, 2013, the ALJ recommended that the Board find that three of the directors (Mr. Clausen, Mr. Oxley, and Mr. Muntaner) were managerial employees excluded from collective bargaining and that the remaining three directors (Mr. Stoller, Ms. Nicdao–Cuyugan, and Mr. Zolnierek) were public employees with full collective bargaining rights. Both the Union and the Commission filed exceptions to the ALJ's recommendations.
¶ 6 The Board agreed in part with the ALJ, finding in its February 14, 2014, decision and order that all six directors were managerial employees. The Union appealed directly to this court. To avoid repetition, where we discuss the Board's finding as to each of the directors below, we include in that discussion a summary of the relevant evidence and the ALJ's recommendations.
¶ 7 Briefing in this case was stayed pending decisions by the Fourth District in Department of Central Management Services/The Illinois Commerce Comm'n v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel , 2015 IL App (4th) 131022, 2015 WL 1577123, and by this district in American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31 v. State , 2016 IL App (1st) 133866-U, 2016 WL 283529. The stay was lifted in January 2017.
¶ 9 The Board entered its final order, dismissing the Union's petition in this matter on February 14, 2014, and the Union timely filed its petition for review on March 10, 2014. Orders of the Board dismissing representation petitions are final orders and may, in accordance with provisions of the Administrative Review Law , be appealed directly to the appellate court for the district in which the aggrieved party resides or transacts business. 5 ILCS 315/9(i) (West 2010). We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to section 9(i) of the Labor Relations Act (id. ), section 3–113 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( 735 ILCS 5/3–113 (West 2012) ), and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 ( Ill. S. Ct. R. 335 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994)).
¶ 11 The issue before us is whether the Board properly classified each of these six Commission directors as managerial. By law, an employee's classification determines his or her right to engage in collective bargaining. The Labor Relations Act, which allows public employees to bargain collectively ( 5 ILCS 315/2.5(1) (West 2010)), specifically excludes "managerial employees" from the definition of a "[p]ublic employee" (id. § 3(n)). As our supreme court has explained, "[t]he exclusion is intended to maintain the distinction between management and labor and to provide the employer with undivided loyalty from its representatives in management." Chief Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board , 178 Ill. 2d 333, 339, 227 Ill.Dec. 313, 687 N.E.2d 795 (1997). In accordance with these goals, "managerial status is not limited to those at the very highest level of the governmental entity." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Office of the Cook County State's Attorney v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board , 166 Ill. 2d 296, 301, 209 Ill.Dec. 761, 652 N.E.2d 301 (1995). Rather, "it is enough if the functions performed by the employee[s] sufficiently align [them] with management such that the employees should not be in a position requiring them to divide their loyalty to the administration * * * with their loyalty to an exclusive collective-bargaining representative." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
¶ 12 On review from this final order by the Board, we apply different levels of deference depending on the nature of the question presented. Although we consider an agency's ruling on issues of law de novo , we deem its findings on issues of fact to be prima facie correct unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Speed District 802 v. Warning , 242 Ill. 2d 92, 111–12, 351 Ill.Dec. 241, 950 N.E.2d 1069 (2011) ; 735 ILCS 5/3–110 (West 2012). We also defer to an agency's experience and subject-matter expertise when considering mixed questions of law and fact and will reverse the agency's findings on mixed questions only if they are clearly erroneous. City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board , 181 Ill. 2d 191, 205, 229 Ill.Dec. 522, 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). A finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court, on the entire record, is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ " AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security , 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395, 261 Ill.Dec. 302, 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ).
¶ 13 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's findings of fact, but contends both that the Board applied incorrect legal standards and that its ultimate conclusions—that each of the six directors were managerial employees—were clearly erroneous. We first consider the proper legal standards.
¶ 15 The Union contends that the Board applied an improper legal standard in two respects. It first argues that the Board should not have relied on this court's recent interpretation in AFSCME , 2014 IL App (1st) 130655, ¶ 29, 388 Ill.Dec. 769, 25 N.E.3d 52, of the word "predominantly" in section 3(j) of the Labor Relations Act to mean "superiority in importance or numbers." According to the Union, AFSCME improperly introduced an alternative, qualitative, definition of predominance that contradicts other decisions of this court, which the Union contends look only to whether the employee spends most of his or her time on managerial activities. According to the Union, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Emps., Council 31 v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
...a mixed question of fact and law subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. See American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31 v. State , 2018 IL App (1st) 140656, ¶ 26, 420 Ill.Dec. 449, 96 N.E.3d 534 (reviewing the question of whether employees are mana......