Green v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-12-1398,1-12-1398 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (1st) 121398 |
| Parties | ROBERT GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS EDUCATION LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VICTOR BLACKWELL, and RONALD F. ETTINGER, GILBERT F. O'BRIEN, MICHAEL H. PRUETER, MICHAEL K. SMITH, Board Members and EAST AURORA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 131, SUPERINTENDENT JEROME ROBERTS, JOAN GLOTZBACH, CRYSTAL ENGLAND, MARGARET BOYD, BOARD MEMBERS RAYMOND HULL, MARY ANN TURZA, STELLA GONZALEZ, DEE WEAVER, JUANITA WELLS, AND ANNETTE JOHNSON, Respondents-Appellees, ROBERT GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS EDUCATION LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VICTOR BLACKWELL, and RONALD F. ETTINGER, GILBERT F. O'BRIEN, MICHAEL H. PRUETER, MICHAEL K. SMITH, Board Members and LOCAL 604, IFT/AFT PRESIDENT DICK MANLEY, TREASURER ARLIE FENDER, and LOCAL PRESIDENT CRAIG RHODES, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Petition for Review of the Order from the Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel
Petition for Review of the Order from the Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel
¶ 1 Held: The Illinois Labor Relations Board's determination dismissing petitioner's unfair labor practice charges against the District and the Union are affirmed as petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case.
¶ 2 Petitioner, Robert Green (Green), brings this action for direct administrative review of a decision by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (Board)1, dismissing unfair labor practice charges filed by him against East Aurora School District 131 (the District) and IllinoisFederation of Teachers / American Federation of Teachers (IFT/AFT) Local 604 (the Union). Green asserted before the Board that the District committed an unfair labor practice by discharging him from his teaching position for filing grievances, a union activity. Green further alleged that the Union committed an unfair labor practice by declining to represent him at his termination hearing. The Board's Executive Director found Green failed to establish his prima facie case and dismissed both unfair labor practices charges. The Board upheld the Executive Director's determination. On appeal, Green contends he presented sufficient grounds to establish an unfair labor practice against the District under sections 14(a)(1), (3) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Act) (115 ILCS 5/14(a)(1), (3) (West 2012)), and against the Union under section 14(b)(1) of the Act (115 ILCS 5/14(b)(1) (West 2012)). For the following reasons, we affirm.
¶ 4 On September 21, 2010, Green filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board against the District and Union after being terminated from his teaching position. Green's petition alleged the District terminated him in retaliation for filing grievances and that the Union breached its duty of fair representation by denying his request for representation at the hearing before the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). Green claims the District violated sections 14(a)(1), (3) of the Act and further maintains the Union violated section 14(b)(1) of the Act. 115 ILCS 5/14(a)(1), (3), (b)(1) (West 2012).
¶ 6 Upon Green's filing of the unfair labor practices claim, an investigation into thoseallegations was commenced by a designated Board agent. The District and the Union filed position statements with respect to the charges. Green, in turn, filed responses to the position statements. The parties' submissions established the following facts.
¶ 8 Green was a tenured physical education instructor and coach employed by the District. During the course of his employment, Green was alleged to have engaged in instances of inappropriate physical contact with students and teachers. Two of these incidents were deemed so severe that the District issued Green Notices of Remedial Warning (Notice to Remedy). The first was issued on December 5, 2000, for "use of inappropriate physical contact and excessive physical force in disciplining a student during a physical education class." The notice also asserted Green's "use of inappropriate language and conduct towards a student *** including, but not limited to making statements encouraging a student to initiate a fight with [a] teacher." Green was ordered to cease and correct the aforementioned deficiencies. The notice warned of dismissal from the District if the alleged conduct was repeated.
¶ 9 The second Notice to Remedy was issued on November 20, 2006, for unsatisfactory professional conduct during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years. The notice stated Green "engaged in a pattern of inappropriate contact/communication with colleagues and students." The notice set forth conditions for Green to follow including only "necessary, appropriate, non-aggressive physical contact with students." The notice to remedy cautioned Green that failure to comply with the terms in the notice could result in a discharge from employment.
¶ 10 On March 1, 2010, Green filed a grievance with the Union against the District in whichhe complained of the District's improper maintenance of the notices to remedy contained in his personnel file. Specifically, Green sought to have the notices cured and removed from his file. This was the seventh grievance filed by Green against the District since 1995.
¶ 11 On March 3, 2010, a physical education class was in progress as other classes were being dismissed. Approximately 30 to 50 students entered the stairwell and hallway leading to the gymnasium. Green attempted to prevent the students from entering the gymnasium by standing in the doorway with outstretched arms. Two students confronted Green and attempted to get past him to gain access to the gymnasium. Both students pushed at Green's outstretched arms and he pushed them back. One student was pushed backward into a wall, striking his head, and the other student was pushed into an individual, but did not fall down.
¶ 12 On March 4, 2010, the District placed Green on leave with pay. On April 5, 2010, the District terminated Green because he failed to correct the deficiencies in the notices to remedy previously issued by the District and he continued to engage in inappropriate physical contact with students as indicated by the March 3, 2010, incident.2
¶ 14 Following Green's termination from the District, he appealed to the ISBE under the Teacher Tenure Act (Tenure Act) (105 ILCS 5/24-14 (West 2010)). Green then requested the Union represent him in that proceeding. In a letter dated April 12, 2010, the Union declined Green's request for representation due to an adversarial relationship between the Union and Green based on Green's multiple lawsuits against the Union, which created a conflict of interest. The letter further indicated the Union owed a duty of fair representation only to issues associated with the collective bargaining agreement, and had no duty to represent Green with respect to claims arising under the Tenure Act.
¶ 16 On December 15, 2011, following an investigation of Green's charges, the Board's Executive Director dismissed the charges against the District and the Union. The Executive Director determined Green failed to establish his prima facie case, as there was insufficient evidence that the District terminated Green based on the protected activity of filing grievances. The Executive Director further determined that the Union was not obligated to represent Green because his claim arose under the Tenure Act, and the duty of fair representation did not extend to matters in forums outside the grievance mechanism. In addition, the Executive Director found that the Union did not have an obligation to represent Green even if it represented other teachers in Tenure Act proceedings before the ISBE. The Executive Director further stated Green presented no evidence of intentional misconduct. The Executive Director concluded Green did not meet his burden as the evidence did not establish a prima facie case that the Union violated the Act.
¶ 17 On December 27, 2011, Green exercised his right to file exceptions to the December 15, 2011, order. In his exceptions, Green claimed the improper motivation for his dismissal was demonstrated by the inconsistent reasons asserted by the District for his termination. On April 11, 2012, the Board affirmed the Executive Director's determination and dismissed the unfair labor charges against the District and the Union. The Board stated the applicable test under the Act to establish a prima facie case requires proof of improper motivation by the employer. The Board concluded Green provided no evidence of the District's use of retaliation for union activity as the reason behind his termination. The Board noted that although Green's discharge occurred shortly after he filed a grievance, timing alone is insufficient to establish antiunion animus. Ultimately, the Board determined Green failed to meet his burden as he did not set forth any evidence that the District adversely terminated him for engaging in union activities.3 Regarding the Union, the Board reached the same conclusions as the Executive Director and the charge was dismissed.
¶ 18 On May 17, 2012, Green filed a timely judicial review of the Board's decision directly to the appellate court, in accordance with section 16 of the Act (115 ILCS 5/16 (West 2012)) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335. Ill. S. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial