Amalgamated Transit Union v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 21 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-16-0999,1-16-0999 |
| Citation | 2017 IL App (1st) 160999,87 N.E.3d 315 |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Local 241, Petitioner, v. The ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Local Panel and The Chicago Transit Authority, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jacobs, Burns, Orlove & Hernandez, of Chicago (Sherrie E. Voyles and Taylor E. Muzzy, of counsel), for petitioner.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (David L. Franklin, Solicitor General, and John P. Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel.
Karen G. Seimetz, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Stephen Wood and Rachel Kaplan, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for other respondent.
¶ 1 The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 (Union), brought an unfair labor practice charge against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) for violating the parties' collective bargaining agreement and failing to bargain with the Union when the CTA implemented an open fare payment collection system, known as Ventra. The Ventra contract resulted in the CTA eliminating Union positions and subcontracting what had been Union jobs to a private company. The Illinois Labor Relations Board (Board) dismissed the unfair labor practice complaint as it pertained to the subcontracting of Union jobs as untimely because the charge was not filed within six months of the date that the Union received a copy of a request for proposals (RFP) for Ventra from the CTA. The Board then dismissed the rest of the complaint because it determined that the elimination of Union positions was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Union appealed the Board's decision to this court directly.
¶ 2 In our original decision, issued on March 27, 2017, we rejected the Board's finding that the subcontracting charge was untimely. We held that the Union's charge as to subcontracting was timely filed and remanded to the Board for further consideration of the merits of that charge, as well as reconsideration of the charge on the elimination of Union positions.
¶ 3 On August 9, 2017, we granted petitions for rehearing filed by the CTA and the Board. On reconsideration of the issues in this case, we realize that our initial decision overlooked the possibility that the Union's charge on subcontracting may have been untimely, even though the RFP did not trigger the time to file a charge. We now remand to the Board to further consider the timeliness of that claim and for other consideration as outlined in this opinion.
¶ 6 The following facts are part of the stipulated record agreed to by both the Union and the CTA for its hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
¶ 8 The Union and the CTA were parties to a collective bargaining agreement with a term of January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011. Article II, section 2.7, of that agreement provided, in pertinent part:
The 2007–11 collective bargaining agreement also provided for a "grievance procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration."
¶ 9 In December 2012, the Union and the CTA signed a tentative agreement for a successor collective bargaining agreement with a stated term from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2015. The tentative agreement was ratified by both the Union's membership and the Chicago Transit Board that same month. It did not alter the language of article II, section 2.7, as it appeared in the 2007–11 collective bargaining agreement and also provided for a "grievance procedure culminating in final and binding arbitration."
¶ 11 According to the stipulated record, beginning in 2009, Chicago newspapers published articles about the development of "a single smart card" for use on the CTA, Pace suburban bus lines, and the Metra commuter rail system. In a press release issued on August 12, 2009, the CTA stated that the transition to the new system "would save the CTA in money now used to issue fare media and manage the fare payment and collection system." The CTA explained that the project would have two phases, stating:
The CTA concluded that it expected "to complete the two-step RFP process and begin the transition to an open fare system [the following] summer." Later that same month, on August 24, the CTA issued its RFP for the first phase of the project.
¶ 12 On September 28, 2010, the CTA issued a press release, published on its website, stating that it was "preparing the next phase of its move toward an open fare payment [collection] system" and that, on that day, it was "issuing a Request for Proposal *** on the design, implementation, and operation of an open fare [payment] collection system." In its press release, the CTA also indicated that during the "first phase of the bid process, [it] received initial proposals from 12 private sector teams interested in partnering with the agency on the design, implementation, and operation of an open fare payment collection system."
¶ 13 The CTA's follow-up RFP, titled "Request for Proposals (RFP) Step Two to Provide an Open Fare Payment Collection System," is the RFP that the CTA forwarded to the Union and that the Board found triggered the statute of limitations.
The RFP cover page indicated that the CTA was "seeking proposals for the subject project" and that proposals would be accepted until November 5, 2010. The RFP itself was 190 pages and attached 24 appendices totaling over 300 additional pages. Page 23 of the RFP stated, in relevant part, that to achieve its business goals:
The CTA further indicated on page 23 of the RFP that the contractor would supply support functions for the system, including the "[p]rocessing of all payments, electronic and cash, due to CTA from the [system]."
¶ 14 On September 29, 2010, the CTA's then-vice president of human relations, Robert Gierut, mailed a copy of the RFP to the then-president of the Union, Darrell Jefferson. In his letter, Mr. Gierut simply stated that he was "confirm [ing] transmittal of a copy of the *** RFP for [Mr. Jefferson's] review" and that Mr. Jefferson should "feel free to contact the Project Manager" with any questions about the RFP.
¶ 16 In July 2011, Public Act 97–85 was enacted, amending section 2.04 of the Regional Transportation Authority Act ( 70 ILCS 3615/2.04 (West 2010) ) to require that the CTA "develop and implement a regional fare payment system" by January 1, 2015. Pub. Act 97–85, § 10 (eff. July 7, 2011).
¶ 17 The Chicago Transit Board enacted ordinance No. 011–143 in November 2011, stating that it had "identified Cubic Transportation Systems Chicago, Inc. as the contractor whose proposal best meets the [CTA]'s requirements to provide the [open fare payment collection system]." Chicago Transit Board Ordinance No. 011–143 (approved Nov. 15, 2011). The ordinance authorized the CTA to enter into a contract with Cubic Transportation Systems. Id.
¶ 18 At the same time, the CTA issued a press release about the ordinance, stating that it had "approved an agreement to implement a new, open standards based fare-collection system" and that it had "awarded the $454 million contract to Cubic Transportation Systems." The Chicago Tribune also ran an article that day about the expected approval of the "$454 million, 12-year contract for a new fare-collection system." Jon Hilkevitch, CTA plan would let riders pay fares with credit cards, Chi. Trib. (Nov. 15, 2011), http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-11-15/news/ct-met-cta-fares-1115-20111115_1_chicago-cards-cubic-transportation-systems-prepaid-cards.
¶ 19 Subsequently, the CTA announced in a press release that Pace would also be taking part in the new fare payment collection system and had joined the contract with Cubic Transportation Systems. In a September 2012 press release, the CTA and Pace "unveiled Ventra™," the system being implemented by Cubic Transportation Systems, which the press release described as "a new fare payment system that will provide CTA and Pace customers with a new and more convenient way to pay for train and bus rides." The CTA also stated that transition to the new system for both the CTA and Pace was expected to begin in the summer of 2013, with a system-wide implementation expected by 2014. In the spring and summer of 2013, the CTA held a public hearing and issued another press release about Ventra on its website.
¶ 20 Ventra became operational in September 2013,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trilisky v. City of Chi.
...Plaintiff contends the City has forfeited the issue by failing to raise it in its opening brief. See Amalgamated Transit Union v. Illinois Labor Relations Board , 2017 IL App (1st) 160999, ¶ 59, 417 Ill.Dec. 31, 87 N.E.3d 315. "Forfeiture, however, is a limitation on the parties and not on ......
-
Ward v. Decatur Mem'l Hosp.
...449 N.E.2d 125 ; Bowman v. County of Lake , 29 Ill. 2d 268, 272, 193 N.E.2d 833 (1963) ; Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel , 2017 IL App (1st) 160999, ¶ 59 n.1, 417 Ill.Dec. 31, 87 N.E.3d 315 (by "waiver," the supreme court sometimes means "......
-
Chak Fai Hau v. Dep't of Revenue & Constance Beard
...rules, both appellees and appellants forfeit any points not argued in their initial briefs." Amalgamated Transit Union v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel , 2017 IL App (1st) 160999, ¶ 59, 417 Ill.Dec. 31, 87 N.E.3d 315 (citing Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7), (i) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) ).......
-
Policemen's Benevolent Labor Comm. v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
...and an opportunity to bargain with its employees’ exclusive bargaining representative." Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel , 2017 IL App (1st) 160999, ¶ 35, 417 Ill.Dec. 31, 87 N.E.3d 315. The decision to pursue layoffs for economic reasons c......