Policemen's Benevolent Labor Comm. v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1-19-2209 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 192209,193 N.E.3d 675,456 Ill.Dec. 435 |
| Parties | POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT LABOR COMMITTEE, Petitioner, v. The ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, LOCAL PANEL, the County of Cook, and the Sheriff of Cook County, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Joseph Andruzzi, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Valerie Quinn, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Labor Relations Board.
Justin L. Leinenweber, of Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, LLC, of Chicago, and Ethan E. White, of Emery Law, Ltd., of Oak Brook, for respondent Sheriff of Cook County.
Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Rebecca M. Gest, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for other respondent.
¶ 1 This is a direct appeal from a final administrative decision of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel (Board), dismissing an unfair labor practices charge brought by the Policemen's Benevolent Labor Committee (Union), against Cook County (County) and the Sheriff of Cook County (Sheriff). The Board found that the County and Sheriff, as joint employers, did not commit unfair labor practices when they laid off 16 lieutenants in the Sheriff's Court Services Department while the parties were still in the midst of impact bargaining. The Union now appeals. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board's decision.
¶ 3 The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) ( 5 ILCS 315/1 et seq. (West 2016)) regulates "labor relations between public employers and employees, including the designation of employee representatives, negotiation of wages, hours and other conditions of employment, and resolution of disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements." Id. § 2. The general purpose of the statute is "to prescribe the legitimate rights of both public employees and public employers, to protect the public health and safety of the citizens of Illinois, and to provide peaceful and orderly procedures for protection of the rights of all." Id.
¶ 4 The Sheriff and the County (Employers) are public employers as defined by the Act. The Union, a labor organization as defined by the Act, serves as the exclusive bargaining representative for lieutenants employed in the Cook County Sheriff's Court Services Department.
¶ 5 The following facts are based upon the pleadings and testimony heard at an October 22, 2018, hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Board.
¶ 7 In the summer of 2017, the Cook County Board of Commissioners voted to repeal the beleaguered "Soda Tax," leading to an unplanned shortfall in revenue. In response, the County began a series of layoffs in its public workforce.
¶ 8 As part of this, and following a directive from the County, on November 28, 2017, Mr. Thomas Nelligan, assistant general counsel for the Sheriff, sent an e-mail to Union officials explaining that, due to the deficit in the County's operating budget, plans were in motion to lay off lieutenants in the Court Services Department. The following day, the human resources office at the Sheriff's Department sent e-mails to the 16 affected lieutenants, informing them that their jobs would be eliminated effective two weeks later, on December 13, 2017. Providing the lieutenants with two weeks’ notice satisfied a provision of the governing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Employers and the Union that granted the Employers the authority to pursue layoffs when deemed necessary "due to lack of funds or lack of work." The Union acknowledges that the Employers provided appropriate notice of the layoffs.
¶ 9 On November 30, an attorney for the Union, Mr. Joseph Andruzzi, sent an e-mail to Mr. Nelligan with the subject line: "Demand for Bargaining." In the e-mail, Mr. Andruzzi explained:
The Employers notified the Union that they agreed to the demand for bargaining, and representatives of the Sheriff's Department met on three separate occasions with Union officials to discuss the impending layoffs. These meetings took place on December 8, 2017, December 28, 2017, and January 9, 2018.
¶ 11 At the first meeting, the Employers advised the Union that at the Union's request for more time, it was going to push back the effective date of the layoffs from December 13, 2017, to January 5, 2018. The Union presented a revenue-raising proposal intended to address the deficit and offset the need for the layoffs. The proposal consisted of unilaterally raising civil processing fees. Mr. Nelligan said he would "look into" the Union's proposal but expressed doubt that such fees could be easily raised, as it was his understanding that they were set by statute.
¶ 12 Following the meeting, on December 14, 2017, Mr. Thomas Pleines, an attorney for the Union, sent an e-mail to Mr. Nelligan informing him that the Union would be filing a grievance and demanding arbitration over the Employers’ alleged failure to bargain the impact of the layoffs. Mr. Pleines explained that the Union did not consider the December 8 meeting to have been a valid bargaining session. The grievance was filed the following day, on December 15, 2017, by the president of the Union, Lieutenant Susan Joyce, who had attended the first meeting. On the official grievance form, she reported:
The Employers did not officially respond to the grievance, causing it to be automatically advanced to the second phase of the four-step grievance process delineated in article V of the CBA.
¶ 13 Three days later, on December 18, 2017, Mr. Nelligan responded to Mr. Pleines's December 14 e-mail, inquiring about dates for the parties to "meet again to discuss the impact." Mr. Pleines suggested December 28, which Mr. Nelligan agreed to.
¶ 14 At the second meeting, on December 28, the Union once again took the opportunity to present a revenue-raising proposal, claiming that its members could bring in additional funds by facilitating active-shooter training sessions for other law enforcement departments. Mr. Nelligan expressed skepticism at the plan, worrying about its feasibility and liability issues.
¶ 15 The Union also raised questions about how the layoffs would affect seniority, "bumping rights," recall rights, and other miscellaneous matters. At the end of this second meeting, Mr. Nelligan said he needed to do more research on these topics and the parties agreed to meet again on January 9, 2018, to continue their conversation. Mr. Nelligan also testified that he broached the subject of salary reductions to alleviate the need for some of the layoffs but that the Union ignored the comment.
¶ 16 Between meetings, and away from the bargaining table, the parties exchanged follow-up e-mails concerning some of the topics they had discussed. The Employers sought to verify with the Union that their information on seniority was up-to-date, and the Union provided corrections to their lists. The feedback was incorporated. The Union also notified the Employers that all the lieutenants identified for layoff would be exercising their bumping rights save for two, who would be retiring instead.
¶ 17 A "bumping right" is a contractual right to replace a lower ranking or less senior employee in the event of a layoff. Here, as the Board explains in its brief, the CBA expressly granted lieutenants bumping rights, stipulating that in the event of a layoff, "the lieutenants could choose to accept a demotion to sergeant rather than be laid off, thereby displacing sergeants with less seniority."
¶ 18 On January 3, 2018, two days before the layoffs would take effect (and six days before the parties were scheduled to meet again to continue discussing the effects of the layoffs), the Union filed a charge of unfair labor practices with the Board, alleging that the Sheriff and County had failed to bargain in good faith at the prior two meetings. In the accompanying memo, the Union alleged:
¶ 19 On January 9, four days after the layoffs were implemented, the parties met as planned for the third time for what would be their final meeting. At the meeting, Mr. Kramer, hoping to arrive at a "good resolution to this," proposed extending the recall rights for all the laid off lieutenants. The Union declined the offer, later explaining that they were wary of any proposals not reduced to writing. The Union did not make any additional proposals or counterproposals at this meeting....
To continue reading
Request your trial