Board of Trustees of Community Colleges Dist. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local No. 1600

• Decision Date: 15 November 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-2956,84-2956
• Citation: 487 N.E.2d 956,94 Ill.Dec. 79,139 Ill.App.3d 617
• Parties: , 94 Ill.Dec. 79, 29 Ed. Law Rep. 1086 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES DISTRICT 508, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COOK COUNTY COLLEGE TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 1600 and Ann B. Degerstrom, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 956

487 N.E.2d 956

139 Ill.App.3d 617, 94 Ill.Dec. 79,

29 Ed. Law Rep. 1086

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES DISTRICT 508 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COOK COUNTY COLLEGE TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 1600 and Ann B. Degerstrom, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-2956.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

Nov. 15, 1985.

Supplemental Opinion on Denial

of Rehearing Jan. 17, 1986.

Gilbert Feldman, Cornfield and Feldman, Chicago, for defendants-appellants.

Mark E. Jones, Jones, Ware & Grenard, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellee.

SULLIVAN, Justice:

This appeal is from an order granting summary judgment for plaintiff, Board of Trustees of Community Colleges District 508 (the Board of Trustees), in its action against defendants, Cook County College Teachers Union, Local No. 1600 (the Union) and Ann Degerstrom (Degerstrom), to enjoin arbitration of her grievance against the Board of Trustees. In support of their position that summary judgment was improperly granted, defendants contend that the trial court: (a) lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) provides for an administrative hearing with review directly in the appellate court and (b) erred in finding that the nondelegability doctrine precluded arbitration of a grievance involving teaching qualifications.

It appears that Degerstrom taught nutrition and food service management since 1966, first at Loop College and then at Malcolm X College and had twice received promotions in rank based upon her proficiency in both fields. In 1979, she was asked by her program director to drop a nutrition course from her schedule so that the director could teach it. After she refused the request, the college administration found her not qualified to teach nutrition, removed that course from her schedule and assigned it to the director. Degerstrom filed a grievance which was eventually settled and she was reinstated to her nutrition courses. However, after continuing to teach them for several years, she was again found unqualified to teach nutrition and it is that action on the part of the administration which formed the basis for the grievance at issue here. Defendants characterize the decision as one which was not because of any lack of qualification on her part but rather was to provide a position for an administrator who wished to return to teaching. The Board of Trustees, however, posit that Degerstrom was seeking employment in a capacity other than her then-current position and that she was not hired for the new position because the administration determined that she was not qualified for it.

Degerstrom's grievance was denied and, after the Union submitted it to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the Board of Trustees filed this action to enjoin the arbitration proceeding on the basis that its decisions with respect to qualifications were nondelegable and not subject to arbitration. Arbitration proceedings in which certain jurisdictional motions regarding the nondelegability issue had been taken under advisement, were terminated when the trial court granted summary judgment for it. This appeal followed the denial of defendants' motion for rehearing.

OPINION

I.

Defendants first contend that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the grievance was arbitrable. In support thereof, they argue that section 15 of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) confers the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (IELR Board) with jurisdiction over unfair labor practices (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, par. 1715 (Smith-Hurd Supp.1985)), and provides for direct appellate court review of final orders of the Board (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, par. 1716(a) (Smith-Hurd Supp.1985)). Refusal to bargain collectively in good faith, which includes the refusal to discuss grievances with the exclusive representative of employees is one of the unfair labor practices prohibited by IELRA (Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, par. 1714(a)(5) (Smith-Hurd Supp.1985)), and defendants assert that under section 1715 of IELRA only the IELR Board had jurisdiction over the Board of Trustees' refusal here to proceed with arbitration. We note, however, that even if this particular unfair labor practice encompasses an employer's refusal to arbitrate, the statutory enumeration of unfair labor practices pertaining to the Union does not include a provision allowing the Board to charge the Union with an unfair labor practice based upon an attempt to arbitrate an allegedly inarbitrable matter. The portion of the statute which defines unfair labor practices applicable to union activity provides that:

"(b) Employee organizations, their agents or representatives or educational employees are prohibited from:

(1) Restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under this Act.

(2) Restraining or coercing an educational employer in the selection of his representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances.

(3) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an educational employer, if they have been designated in accordance with any provisions of this Act as the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit.

(4) Violating any of the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board regulating the conduct of representation elections.

(5) Refusing to reduce a collective bargaining agreement to writing and signing such agreement.

(6) Refusing to comply with the provisions of a binding arbitration award." Ill.Ann.Stat., ch. 48, par. 1714(b) (Smith-Hurd Supp.1985).

It is clear that the Union's attempt to arbitrate an allegedly inarbitrable matter does not constitute an unfair labor practice as defined by the IELRA and the statute thus does not prohibit the type of action filed by the Board of Trustees here. We therefore find that the IELRA does not abolish a traditional action in the circuit court to enjoin arbitration and, accordingly, we hold that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction. We also conclude that, where the employer takes the position, as the Board of Trustees does here, that the particular grievance is inarbitrable, the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the circuit court rather than by the arbitrator. See Board of Education, North Palos Elementary School District No. 117 v. Williams (1983), 118 Ill.App.3d 256, 73 Ill.Dec. 676, 454 N.E.2d 773.

II.

We next turn to a determination of whether this grievance is arbitrable. Despite a provision in a collective bargaining agreement which states that an arbitrator is to decide disputes involving the application and interpretation of the agreement, the scope of an arbitrator's powers may be further limited when an educational employer is involved. (Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, County of Cook v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1979), 74 Ill.2d 412, 24 Ill.Dec. 843, 386 N.E.2d 47.) Initially we note that a dispute "is not arbitrable if it would constitute an impermissible delegation of discretionary public responsibility specifically reposed by law in [the Board]." (Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, County of Cook v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1979), 74 Ill.2d 412, 420, 24 Ill.Dec. 843, 386 N.E.2d 47, 50), and that the determination of faculty qualifications is one of the Board's nondelegable discretionary powers, as established through judicial interpretation of the Public Community Colleges Act. Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508, Cook County v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1980), 87 Ill.App.3d 246, 42 Ill.Dec. 317, 408 N.E.2d 1026; see also Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 122, pars. 103-30, 103-42.

Defendants contend, however, that IELRA repealed the nondelegability doctrine but the Board takes the position that, whatever the effect of the IELRA, it should not be applied retroactively. In this regard, it is well established that a statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent clear statutory language to the contrary (Matviuw v. Johnson (1982), 111 Ill.App.3d 629, 67 Ill.Dec. 370, 444 N.E.2d 606), and here there is no such statutory language. While an exception to the general rule allows retroactive application without such language where the statute relates only to procedural matters, that exception does not apply where the operation of the procedural rule would affect the assertion of a substantive right or destroys such a right. (Matviuw v. Johnson.) The Board of Trustees here argues that it has the right to determine the qualifications of its teachers, but defendants maintain that the Board is a creature of statute and has no right to any particular procedure. In an analogous situation, however, a statute which authorized judicial review of decisions of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which were previously not subject to review, was not applied to Board decisions rendered prior to the enactment of the statute. The court found that the statute "created substantial changes in the earlier procedures and, if given retroactive effect, would have a substantial effect on the earlier action of the [Board]." (In re Reilly (7th Cir.), 442 F.2d 26, 28, cert. denied (1971), 404 U.S. 854, 92 S.Ct. 96, 30 L.Ed.2d 95; see also Hospital Employees Labor Program of Metropolitan Chicago v. Ridgeway Hospital (7th Cir.1978), 570 F.2d 167.) Here, the Board posits that its decision was not subject to review in an arbitration proceeding because determination of qualifications is its nondelegable function. The elimination of the nondelegability doctrine, which the Union argues was effected by the passage of the IELRA, would produce an effect similar to that found unacceptable by the court in Reilly, the right to review previously unreviewable board decisions. Additionally, we note that, despite the parties'...