City of Springfield v. Policemen's Benevolent

• Citation: 2021 IL App (4th) 200164,197 N.E.3d 1233,459 Ill.Dec. 341
• Docket Number: 4-20-0164
• Decision Date: 27 July 2021
• Parties: The CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Petitioner, v. The POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, UNIT #5; the Springfield Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 37; and the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, Respondents.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2021 IL App (4th) 200164
197 N.E.3d 1233
459 Ill.Dec. 341

The CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Petitioner,
v.
The POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, UNIT #5; the Springfield Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 37; and the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, Respondents.

No. 4-20-0164

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

Filed July 27, 2021

James K. Zerkle, Steven C. Rahn, and John M. Zimmerman, of Springfield, for petitioner.

Ronald J. Stone, of Stone Law Office, of Springfield, for respondent Policemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, Unit No. 5.

Matt Pierce and Margaret Angelucci, of Asher, Gittler & D'Alba, Ltd., of Chicago, for respondent Springfield Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 37.

Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Carson R. Griffis and Valerie Quinn, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for other respondent.

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

459 Ill.Dec. 344

¶ 1 Petitioner, the City of Springfield (City), seeks administrative review of a decision of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board). The Board found the City committed unfair labor practices and violated sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) ( 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (4) (West 2016)) by (1) unilaterally adopting a rule amendment affecting City employees without giving respondents—the Policemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, Unit #5 (Policemen's Union) and the Springfield Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters, Local 37 (Firefighter's Union)—notice and an opportunity to bargain over the change and (2) altering the status quo during interest arbitration with the unions. Policemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n, Unit #5 , 36 PERI ¶ 113 (ILRB State Panel 2020) (hereinafter Policemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n , 36 PERI ¶ 113). On review, the City argues the Board erred in

197 N.E.3d 1237

459 Ill.Dec. 345

finding it violated the Act because it neither (1) refused to bargain the application or impact of the amendment nor (2) altered the status quo. We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The City is a public employer under the Act. It has 1400 employees, 237 of which are members of the Policemen's Union and 205 of which are members of the Firefighter's Union. The City also has a civil service commission, established by city ordinance, which sets forth "standards" for City employees. Commissioners of the City's Civil Service Commission are appointed by the City's mayor with the advice and consent of its city council.

¶ 4 On September 5, 2018, the Civil Service Commission adopted an amendment to one of its rules, Civil Service Commission Rule 4.3 (Rule 4.3), that allowed for an award of residency "preference points" to City employees on examinations for promotion. In November 2018, the Firefighter's Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the City (case No. S-CA-19-046) based on that amendment. It alleged the City violated sections 10(a)(1), 10(a)(4), and 14(l) ( 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (4) ; 14(l) (West 2016)) of the Act because it unilaterally changed the status quo during the parties’ contract negotiations "by amending the rules for promotions" without notice or an opportunity for bargaining with the union. In December 2018, the Policemen's Union also filed an unfair labor practice charge against the City (case No. S-CA-19-066), raising similar claims. Following investigations, the Board's executive director issued complaints for hearing in each case. The matters were consolidated for a hearing, which occurred in June 2019 before an administrative law judge (ALJ).

¶ 5 At the hearing, the parties presented a combined stipulation of facts for the ALJ's consideration that showed the following. The City and the Policemen's Union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that expired on February 28, 2018. In December 2017, shortly prior to the expiration of that CBA, the parties began negotiations for a successor CBA. In January 2018, the Policemen's Union invoked the "interest arbitration process" under section 14 of the Act (id. § 14). During the bargaining process, the City proposed a change to residency requirements for union members, in that newly hired members would be required to live within the City while current members "would be subject to a grandfather clause." The City "did not make any proposals relating to residency preference points for promotions." Conversely, the Policemen's Union "proposed that the status quo on residency requirements be maintained."

¶ 6 The parties’ stipulated facts also showed the City and the Firefighter's Union were parties to a CBA that expired on February 29, 2016. On January 27, 2016, the Firefighter's Union also invoked "the interest arbitration process" under section 14 of the Act. Id. On February 28, 2019, the City and the Firefighter's Union signed a successor CBA, effective March 1, 2016, through February 28, 2021.

¶ 7 The parties agreed that, on September 5, 2018, the City's Civil Service Commission approved a change to one of its rules, Rule 4.3, entitled "Veteran's Preference in Examinations and Promotions and Residency Preference for Original Appointment/Entry-Level Positions and Promotions." The change added a new subsection that provided for an award of residency "preference points" to City employees on examinations for promotions in the event the employee had lived within the city for nine consecutive months prior to the examination. The added subsection stated as follows:

197 N.E.3d 1238

459 Ill.Dec. 346

"D. Qualified persons who have passed an examination for promotion shall be granted residency preference points if the following condition is met:

1. The legal residence of the candidate must be an address that is within the City of Springfield corporate limits and has been the candidate's legal residence for at least nine (9) consecutive months as determined by the chief Examiner in the application packet. Residency preference points shall be made effective and apply to any promotion eligibility list that is certified after the date this rule is passed by the Civil Service Commission. For any written examination taken prior to the certification of an eligibility list that is certified after the date this rule is passed, proof of residency shall be provided within the thirty (30) days after the passage of this rule, and proof of residency shall include but is not limited to a prior utility and/or telephone bill in the candidate's name, rental agreement in the candidate's name or property tax bill in the candidate's name. Thereafter, proof of residency must be provided prior to taking the written examination for promotion, which may include but is not limited to a prior utility and/or telephone bill in the candidate's name, rental agreement in the candidate's name or property tax bill in the candidate's name.

2. The Civil Service Commission shall add three points to the final examination grade of any candidate who has met the criteria outlined above."

¶ 8 The change to Rule 4.3 was adopted while contract negotiations were ongoing between both unions and the City and after both unions had invoked interest arbitration procedures. In correspondence between the City and the Policemen's Union after the rule amendment, the union asserted the change concerned "a mandatory subject of bargaining" while the City maintained the change would not apply to existing employees and offered to bargain its "impact."

¶ 9 Also at the hearing, both unions presented testimony from their respective union presidents. Grant Barksdale testified he was the president of the Policemen's Union and was involved in its contract negotiations with the City. He stated that "residency" was "a topic" of current negotiations but that there were no proposals for "anything that had to do with promotional exams."

¶ 10 Barksdale testified he was aware that the City claimed the amendment to Rule 4.3 would not be applied for many years. However, he noted that there were other provisions in the parties’ contract that similarly covered future events, including "the sick leave cash-out at the end of someone's career." Barksdale stated the terms of the parties’ contract were changed as to that topic and that the change only affected new hires and would not be applied for approximately 20 years.

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Barksdale testified that a police officer had to serve as a patrol officer for seven years before he or she became eligible to apply for a promotion. Further, he agreed that the Policemen's Union had not asked to bargain the "impact" of the amendment and that the City had not refused "impact" bargaining.

¶ 12 Gary Self testified he was the president of the Firefighter's Union from 2015 to 2019 and involved in the most recent CBA negotiations with the City, which began in November 2015. The previous CBA expired in February 2016, and the new CBA was not finally agreed to until February 2019. Self testified that during the parties’ contract negotiations, no proposals were...