Board of Trustees of Univ. Of Ill. v. Ielrb
| Citation | 308 Ill.Dec. 741,862 N.E.2d 944,224 Ill.2d 88 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 101508.,No. 101542.,No. 101450.,No. 101558.,101450.,101508.,101542.,101558. |
| Parties | The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. The ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellants. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Appellee, v. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
Stanley Eisenstein, Harold A. Katz, of Katz, Friedman, Eagle, Eisenstein & Johnson, Joel A. D'Alba and Michele Cotrupe, of Asher, Gittler, Greenfield & D'Alba, Ltd., Chicago, for appellant Service Employees International Union, Local 73/Chapter 119 in Nos. 101542 & 101558.
R. Theodore Clark, Jr., and James J. Powers, of Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Chicago, for appellee in Nos. 101542 & 101558.
Mitchell E. Roth, Wanda Van Pelt, Springfield, Gregory J. Malovance and Sheila P. Frederick, of Winston & Strawn, LLP, Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Education Association-NEA in Nos. 101542 & 101558.
In this consolidated case, we must construe whether the unionized public employees' proposal on parking arrangements for personal vehicles constitutes a subject of mandatory collective bargaining under the applicable state labor relations acts. In each case, the administrative law judge (ALJ) and the reviewing labor relations board applied the test in Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992), to determine whether bargaining was mandatory and concluded that it was mandatory. The appellate court reversed, holding that employee parking is not subject to mandatory bargaining. 359 Ill.App.3d 1116, 296 Ill.Dec. 784, 836 N.E.2d 199; 361 Ill. App.3d 256, 296 Ill.Dec. 772, 836 N.E.2d 187. We reverse the appellate court in each of the consolidated cases.
In the case appealed by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) and the Service Employees International Union, Local 73, Chapter 119 (SEIU), the SEIU proposed a parking fee schedule that based the amount of the fee on the time of day and type of parking. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois at Urbana (University) refused to negotiate on the proposal and unilaterally increased the parking fees because it maintained that parking was subject only to permissive bargaining.
In June 2001, the SEIU filed an unfair labor practice charge with the IELRB. The next year, the SEIU filed a second unfair labor practices charge alleging that the University continued to refuse to bargain on the issue of parking fees. The cases were consolidated, and a full evidentiary hearing was held before an ALJ. The ALJ found that parking and parking fees constituted terms and conditions of employment and that these matters were outside the University's inherent managerial authority. Service Employees International Union, Local 73, Chapter 119, 19 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 150, Nos. 2001-CA-0044-S, 2003-CA-0005-S cons. (IELRB, ALJ's Recommended Decision and Order, September 5, 2003) (hereinafter 19 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 150). Thus, the ALJ determined that, pursuant to the test adopted in Central City, 149 Ill.2d at 523, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892, the University's refusal to bargain collectively on the SEIU's parking proposal was an unfair labor practice in violation of sections 14(a)(1) and 14(a)(5) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Educational Act) (115 ILCS 5/14(a)(1), (a)(5) (West 2000)). The ALJ's recommended decision and order was supported by findings of fact and law and required the University to bargain in good faith over the issue of parking and parking fees. 19 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 150.
The IELRB reviewed the recommended decision and adopted the ALJ's findings of fact. While the IELRB agreed with the determination that parking was a term and condition of employment, the majority believed that parking-related issues were within the purview of the University's inherent managerial authority. Service Employees International Union, Local 73, Chapter 119, 20 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 40, Nos. 2001-CA-0044-S, 2003-CA-0005-S (IELRB March 22, 2004). The majority then applied the third step of the Central City test, finding that the benefits of bargaining the issue of parking and parking fees outweighed the burden it imposed on the University's inherent managerial authority. 20 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 40. Accordingly, the IELRB upheld the ALJ's finding that the University had engaged in unfair labor practices and must collectively bargain on parking issues. A partial dissent to this decision disagreed with the conclusion that the benefits of bargaining parking fees demonstrably outweighed the burdens of bargaining on the University's managerial authority. 20 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 40, at 264 (Snyder, dissenting in part).
The appellate court reviewed the cause and reversed the IELRB's decision. 359 Ill.App.3d at 1124, 296 Ill.Dec. 784, 836 N.E.2d 199. The court asserted that the IELRB's finding that parking fees involved a term and condition of employment was not clearly erroneous, but the majority held the finding that, on balance, the benefits of bargaining outweighed the burdens was clearly erroneous. The court did not consider whether parking fees were a matter of the University's inherent managerial authority, the second prong of the Central City test, because that issue was not raised by the parties. 359 Ill.App.3d at 1122-24, 296 Ill.Dec. 784, 836 N.E.2d 199. Acknowledging that the issue was not before the court, the dissent nonetheless stated that parking fees were not part of the University's inherent managerial authority. The dissent concluded that the majority ignored its limited role on review by overturning the IELRB's balancing decision. 359 Ill.App.3d at 1124-25, 296 Ill. Dec. 784, 836 N.E.2d 199 (Myerscough, J., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part). Both the SEIU and the IELRB filed petitions for leave to appeal, and this court allowed the petitions. 210 Ill.2d R. 315.
In the other cause in this consolidated appeal, the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council (FOP) filed two unfair labor practice charges against the University, similar to those raised in the SEIU case. As a part of ongoing negotiations with the University, the FOP had submitted a proposal containing additional language stating that: "[t]he Employer shall provide bargaining unit members with a parking space for their personal vehicles while on duty in a location reasonably close to their assignment or work, or alternatively, reimburse them for the cost of obtaining same." As in the SEIU cause, the University refused to bargain, maintaining that parking proposals were not mandatory bargaining subjects.
After a full evidentiary hearing, the ALJ issued a recommended decision and order supported by findings of fact and law. The ALJ concluded that the FOP's parking proposals were mandatory subjects of bargaining and that the University's refusal to bargain in good faith was a violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (a)(4) (West 2000)). This decision was based on the ALJ's findings that the FOP's parking proposal concerned a term or condition of employment, but did not involve inherent managerial authority. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, 20 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 84, Nos. S-CA-02-038, S-CA-02-048 cons. (ILRB, State Panel, May 14, 2004). The University brought the case before the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB). The ILRB upheld the ALJ's decision, agreeing that the proposal did not affect the University's inherent managerial authority. 20 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 84.
On administrative review, the appellate court reversed the decisions of the ALJ and the ILRB. 361 Ill.App.3d at 269, 296 Ill.Dec. 772, 836 N.E.2d 187. The court determined that the ALJ's conclusion that parking and parking fees constituted terms and conditions of employment was not erroneous, but the majority believed it was clear error to find that parking and parking fees were not part of the University's inherent managerial authority. 361 Ill.App.3d at 268, 296 Ill.Dec. 772, 836 N.E.2d 187. Next, the majority applied the third prong of the Central City test, finding that the significant burdens that bargaining placed on the University outweighed its limited benefits. Thus, the parking issue presented only a permissible subject for bargaining, not a mandatory one. 361 Ill.App.3d at 269, 296 Ill.Dec. 772, 836 N.E.2d 187. The dissent asserted that the analysis should have ended with the second prong of the Central City test because the ILRB's finding that parking issues did not affect the University's inherent managerial authority should not have been overturned as clearly erroneous. 361 Ill.App.3d at 269, 296 Ill.Dec. 772, 836 N.E.2d 187 (Myerscough, J., dissenting).
Both the FOP and the ILRB filed petitions for leave to appeal. This court allowed the petitions (210 Ill.2d R. 315) and consolidated the appeals of the underlying cause of action with those filed by the SEIU and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reichert v. Board of Fire and Police Com'Rs
... . 905 N.E.2d 861 . 388 Ill. App.3d 834 . 329 Ill.Dec. 23 . Michael REICHERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, . ... review to mere blind deference of an agency's order." Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 224 ......
-
N. Shore Cmty. Bank & Trust Co. v. Sheffield Wellington LLC
...not on the jurisdiction of the reviewing court. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 224 Ill.2d 88, 112, 308 Ill.Dec. 741, 862 N.E.2d 944 (2007).¶ 69 Defendants concede that the Bank executed a mortgage release, but argue that the mortgage relea......
-
Speed Dist. 802 v. Warning
...Ill.Dec. 522, 692 N.E.2d 295. Further, as we stated in Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 224 Ill.2d 88, 97–98, 308 Ill.Dec. 741, 862 N.E.2d 944 (2007): “[T]he clearly erroneous standard of review is proper when reviewing a decision of the IEL......
-
W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd.
...112, 351 Ill.Dec. 241, 950 N.E.2d 1069 (2011) (citing Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board , 224 Ill. 2d 88, 97-98, 308 Ill.Dec. 741, 862 N.E.2d 944 (2007) ). The Board's decision will be reversed as clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court,......