Central City Educ. Ass'n, IEA/NEA v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1992
• Docket Number: Nos. 70425,No. 2,70584 and 70609,No. 133,A,133,2,s. 70425
• Citation: 149 Ill.2d 496,599 N.E.2d 892,174 Ill.Dec. 808
• Parties: , 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 77 Ed. Law Rep. 385 CENTRAL CITY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, IEA/NEA, Appellee, v. The ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al. (Central City School Districtppellant). The BOARD OF EDUCATION, LeROY COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICTppellee, v. The ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 892

599 N.E.2d 892

149 Ill.2d 496, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 77

Ed. Law Rep. 385

CENTRAL CITY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, IEA/NEA, Appellee, v.The ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al.

(Central City School District No. 133, Appellant).

The BOARD OF EDUCATION, LeROY COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT

No. 2, Appellee, v.The ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellants.

Nos. 70425, 70584 and 70609.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 9, 1992.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1992.

S. Jeff Funk and Brian A. Braun, of Miller, Tracy, Braun & Wilson, Ltd., of Monticello, for appellant in No. 70425.

Gregory J. Malovance, Jane Clark Casey and William G. Miossi, of Winston & Strawn, of Chicago, and Sandra Holman, of Springfield, for appellee in No. 70425.

Neil F. Hartigan and Roland W. Burris, Attys.Gen., of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz and Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Sols. Gen., of Chicago, of counsel), for the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board in No. 70425.

Charles P. Rose, of Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, of Chicago, and Melinda L. Selbee, of Lombard, for amicus curiaeIllinois Association of School Boards in No. 70425.

Allen D. Schwartz, Everett E. Nicholas, Jr., Philip H. Gerner III, Timothy A. Bridge and Vernon A. Kowal, of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiaeIllinois Community College Trustees Association in No. 70425.

R. Theodore Clark, Jr.(Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, of Chicago, of counsel), for amici curiae University of Illinois and Illinois Public Employer Labor Relations Association in No. 70425.

Gilbert Feldman and Stephen A. Yokich, of Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Federation of Teachers in No. 70425.

Joel A. D'Alba, of Asher, Gittler, Greenfield, Cohen & D'Alba, Ltd., of Chicago, for amici curiaeIllinois State Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in No. 70425.

Sherman M. Carmell and Adrianne E. Hampo, of Carmell, Cherone, Widmer, Mathews & Moss, Ltd., of Chicago, for amicus curiaeChicago Federal of Labor and Industrial Union Council in No. 70425.

Neil F. Hartigan and Roland W. Burris, Attys.Gen., of Springfield (Robert J. Ruiz and Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Sols. Gen., of Chicago, of counsel), for appellantIllinois Educational Labor Relations Board in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

Christopher T. Hexter, of Schuchat, Cook & Werner, of St. Louis, Missouri, Gregory J. Malovance and William G. Miossi, of Winston & Strawn, of Chicago, and Sandra J. Holman, of Springfield, for appellantLeRoy Education Association in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

John T. Taylor and Merry C. Rhoades, of Robbins, Schwartz, Nicholas, Lifton & Taylor, Ltd., of Decatur, for appellee in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

Gilbert Feldman, of Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for amicus curiae Illinois Federation of Teachers in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

Anthony G. Scariano, Raymond A. Hauser and Jon G. Crawford, of Scariano, Kula, Ellch & Himes, Chtd., of Chicago Heights, for amicus curiaeBoard of Education of School DistrictNo. 88, Du Page County in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

Justice THOMAS J. MORANdelivered the opinion of the court:

In order to avoid confusion among these three consolidated causes, we shall set out the history of cause No. 70425(Central City ) and cause Nos. 70584and70609(LeRoy ) individually.

CENTRAL CITY

The Central City Education Association(CCEA) filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board(IELRB) alleging that Central City School DistrictNo. 133(District 133) had "unilaterally reduced in force at least four (4) bargaining unit employees represented by * * * [the CCEA] without adequate notice and bargaining in good faith."The executive director of the IELRB issued a complaint and notice of hearing.District 133 timely answered, and the parties filed a joint stipulation of record as well as a motion to remove the cause to the IELRB for decision.The hearing officer then ordered that the cause be removed to the IELRB for decision pursuant to 80 Ill.Adm.Code § 1120.40(f)(1991).

Following the submission of briefs and oral argument, the IELRB issued its opinion, finding that a school district's decision to reduce in force (RIF) is not a mandatory subject of bargaining.(Central City School District 133, 5 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1056, No. 87-CA-0018-S(IELRBMar. 2, 1989).)The IELRB also found that the impact of the decision to RIF is a mandatory subject of bargaining, but that District 133 had met its burden regarding that issue.The CCEA then filed a petition for review in the appellate court.(Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1716.)The appellate court reversed the decision of the IELRB, holding that a decision to RIF for economic reasons is a mandatory subject of bargaining.(Central City, 199 Ill.App.3d 559, 145 Ill.Dec. 648, 557 N.E.2d 418.)This court allowed District 133's petition for leave to appeal(134 Ill.2d R. 315).

LeROY

The LeRoy Education Association(LEA) filed a complaint with the IELRB alleging that LeRoy Community Unit School DistrictNo. 2(District 2) violated the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Act) by failing to bargain concerning the development and implementation of a teachers' evaluation plan, and concerning the impact of that decision.(Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 48, par. 1714.)The hearing officer found that District 2 had violated the Act.District 2 then filed an exception to that ruling with the IELRB.Following the submission of briefs and oral argument, the IELRB filed an opinion adopting the hearing officer's findings and affirming the hearing officer's determination that District 2 had violated the Act.LeRoy Community Unit School District2, 5 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1131, No. 88-CA-0031-S(IELRBJune 23, 1989).

District 2 thereafter filed a petition for review in the appellate court.That court reversed the IELRB's decision and found that District 2 did not violate the Act by failing to bargain with the LEA over the implementation and impact of a teachers' evaluation program.(LeRoy, 199 Ill.App.3d 347, 145 Ill.Dec. 239, 556 N.E.2d 857.)This court then granted the LEA's petition for leave to appeal(134 Ill.2d R. 315), and consolidated the LeRoy and Central Citycases.

ISSUES

The issues on appeal to this court are: (1) whether the decision to reduce in force in Central City, or the development and implementation of the teachers' evaluation plans in LeRoy, are mandatory subjects of bargaining under the Act; (2) whether section 16(c) of the Act, as amended (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1716(c)), permitting enforcement actions to be brought by the IELRB in the appellate court, unconstitutionally expands the jurisdiction of that court; and (3) whether timeliness or waiver issues affect determination of appellants' rights.

FACTS: CENTRAL CITY

The parties in Central City filed a joint stipulation of record before the IELRB.Thus, the facts are not in dispute.

In January of 1987, District 133 notified its certified employees that it was considering a reduction in force (RIF) for the upcoming school year.On March 10, 1987, District 133's board of education voted to dismiss one nontenured certified employee and to eliminate the positions held by three full-time teachers, effective at the end of the 1986-87 school year.District 133 did not notify the CCEA directly of its decision to RIF, but did inform the teachers by letter.District 133 explained publicly, and privately to the CCEA, that the four teachers were laid off as a cost-saving measure because of District 133's fragile financial condition, as well as for other reasons such as declining enrollment.Prior to the teachers' dismissal, there had been no collective bargaining between District 133 and the CCEA regarding the decision to RIF.

The CCEA president wrote to the school board expressing shock over its unilateral decision to RIF, and demanding to bargain the board's decision.Although there were four fewer teachers the following school year, the classes, courses, and programs that had been taught by the laid-off teachers were offered again and taught by the remaining teachers.

FACTS: LeROY

The facts of the LeRoy case were laid out fully in the appellate opinion (LeRoy, 199 Ill.App.3d at 351-56, 145 Ill.Dec. 239, 556 N.E.2d 857).They may be summarized as follows.

The LEA, which represents the certified personnel in District 2, entered into two successive collective-bargaining agreements with District 2, covering the years 1985 through 1989.The first agreement, which expired on June 30, 1988, contained a provision dealing with employee evaluations.Following the passage of article 24A of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, par. 24A-1 et seq.), which required that school districts, "in cooperation with" the teachers' bargaining representative, develop an evaluation plan complying with specific requirements set out in section 24A-5 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, par. 24A-5), the LEA formed a committee to discuss negotiation of an evaluation plan.On May 29, 1986, the LEA sent a formal request to District 2 to bargain the "decisions and effects" of teacher evaluation plans in response to article 24A.Subsequently, the LEA received District 2's first proposed evaluation plan.LEA members were under the impression that the ensuing discussions between the LEA and District 2 were negotiating sessions.District 2, on the other hand, maintains that it sought only "input," not counterproposals, from the LEA.

In September 1987, District 2 presented its evaluation plan to the LEA.The LEA responded with its own plan, which differed in several essential points from the plan drawn up by District 2.In March 1987, District 2's committee gave the LEA committee a second evaluation proposal, and the two committees set up a joint meeting schedule.As a result, several LEA proposals were accepted by the District 2...