Central City Educ. Ass'n, IEA/NEA v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Bd., No. 133

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS J. MORAN
Citation149 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.
Decision Date09 June 1992
Docket NumberNos. 70425,No. 2,70584 and 70609,No. 133,A

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.

Page 894

[149 Ill.2d 499] [174 Ill.Dec. 810] S. Jeff Funk and Brian A. Braun, of Miller, Tracy, Braun & Wilson, Ltd., of Monticello, for appellant in No. 70425.

[149 Ill.2d 500] 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 curiae Illinois 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 curiae Illinois 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 curiae Illinois 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 curiae Chicago Federal of Labor and Industrial Union Council in No. 70425.

[149 Ill.2d 501] 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 appellant Illinois 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 appellant LeRoy 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 curiae Board of Education of School District No. 88, Du Page County in Nos. 70584 & 70609.

Justice THOMAS J. MORAN delivered 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. 70584 and 70609 (LeRoy ) individually.

Page 895

[174 Ill.Dec. 811] 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[149 Ill.2d 502] City School District No. 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 (IELRB Mar. 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 District No. 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.) [149 Ill.2d 503] 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 District 2, 5 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1131, No. 88-CA-0031-S (IELRB June 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 City cases.

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.

[149 Ill.2d 504] 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

Page 896

[174 Ill.Dec. 812] 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 [149 Ill.2d 505] 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,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 practice notes
  • AFM Messenger Serv. v. Dept. of Employment Security, No. 89984.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 20, 2001
    ...technical expertise that would help resolve the controversy); Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 523, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992) (labor relations board is "uniquely qualified" to answer certain questions involving collect......
  • W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., Docket No. 126082
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 21, 2021
    ...the Act where the language is clear and unambiguous), with Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board , 149 Ill. 2d 496, 509, 512-23, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992) (consulting multiple extrinsic sources in order to resolve a conflict between two sec......
  • Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., No. 1–13–0285.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 27, 2014
    ...which the IELRB is eminently qualified to resolve.” Central City Education Ass'n, IEA/NEA v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 523, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992).¶ 27 The Board contends that under this balancing test, the question of whether it is permitt......
  • Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., Nos. 118043
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 17, 2015
    ...in the Act as to what should, and should not be bargained." Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 522, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992). The main issue on review from the IELRB involves the application of the correct statutory int......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
75 cases
  • AFM Messenger Serv. v. Dept. of Employment Security, No. 89984.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 20, 2001
    ...technical expertise that would help resolve the controversy); Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 523, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992) (labor relations board is "uniquely qualified" to answer certain questions involving collect......
  • W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., Docket No. 126082
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 21, 2021
    ...the Act where the language is clear and unambiguous), with Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board , 149 Ill. 2d 496, 509, 512-23, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992) (consulting multiple extrinsic sources in order to resolve a conflict between two sec......
  • Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., No. 1–13–0285.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 27, 2014
    ...which the IELRB is eminently qualified to resolve.” Central City Education Ass'n, IEA/NEA v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 523, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992).¶ 27 The Board contends that under this balancing test, the question of whether it is permitt......
  • Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., Nos. 118043
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • December 17, 2015
    ...in the Act as to what should, and should not be bargained." Central City Education Ass'n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496, 522, 174 Ill.Dec. 808, 599 N.E.2d 892 (1992). The main issue on review from the IELRB involves the application of the correct statutory int......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT