Vill. of Hanover Park v. Bd. of Trs. of the Vill. of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund
| Decision Date | 28 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2-20-0380 |
| Parties | The VILLAGE OF HANOVER PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the VILLAGE OF HANOVER PARK POLICE PENSION FUND, the Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter 102, Rick Colucci, Anthony Koneck, Michael Kozenczak, Cindy Leon, and Jennifer Smith, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert J. Smith Jr. and Paul Denham, of Clark Baird Smith LLP, of Rosemont, for appellant.
Robert M. Zelek, of Park Ridge, for appellee Board of Trustees of the Village of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund.
Richard J. Reimer, of Reimer Dobrovolny & Labardi PC, of Hinsdale, for other appellees.
¶ 1 This matter comes before us on administrative review from the circuit court of Du Page County, which affirmed the decision of defendant the Board of Trustees of the Village of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund (Board) that holiday pay under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) dated May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2016, between plaintiff, the Village of Hanover Park (Village), and defendant the Metropolitan Alliance of Police Chapter 102 (MAP), is pensionable salary for purposes of calculating pension benefits. Individual defendants Rick Colucci, Anthony Koneck, Michael Kozenczak, Cindy Leon, and Jennifer Smith (collectively, retired officers), are retired patrol officers of the Village's police department, were members of MAP, and are represented by MAP on appeal.
¶ 2 The Village now appeals, contending that the Board's decision was clearly erroneous. MAP, the Board, and the retired officers (collectively, defendants) have filed a joint brief in opposition. Because the evidence before the Board conclusively established that holiday pay under the CBA is not "fixed" compensation as defined in section 4402.30 of Title 50 of the Illinois Administrative Code (Administrative Code) ( 50 Ill. Adm. Code 4402.30 (1996) ), we reverse.
¶ 4 The Board is an administrative agency created under section 3-128 of the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code) ( 40 ILCS 5/3-128 (West 2018) ). As authorized by section 3-132 of the Pension Code (id. § 3-132), it controls and manages the Village of Hanover Park Police Pension Fund (Pension Fund), and it administers retirement benefits to the Village's retired police officers. MAP represents the full-time police patrol officers below the rank of sergeant within the Village's police department.
¶ 5 The distribution of and eligibility for holiday pay for police patrol officers employed by the Village is established in article 6 of the CBA. Section 6.1 of the CBA establishes a list of nine days that "[a]ll police patrol officers covered by [the CBA] shall have *** considered as holidays." Section 6.2, in turn, generally governs how holiday pay is awarded to patrol officers. It provides, pertinently:
¶ 6 Section 6.3 governs the eligibility requirements for police patrol officers to receive holiday pay. Although the instant dispute concerns the CBA in effect from May 1, 2013, to April 30, 2016, the parties agree that section 6.3 was utilized in the previous collective bargaining agreements between them and that this section has remained unchanged since at least 2011. Section 6.3 provides:
¶ 7 For clarity, we outline in chronological order the pertinent bargaining history between the parties, as well as the several instances when the Public Pension Division (Pension Division) of the Illinois Department of Insurance (Department) weighed in on the general issue presented in this appeal.
¶ 9 Between 2009 and 2010, the Pension Fund underwent a compliance audit by its regulator, the Pension Division. See 40 ILCS 5/1A-104 (West 2008) (). As part of its examination, the Pension Division "spot checked" pension deductions from the salary of active participants of the Pension Fund under the then-current CBA, which was in effect from November 1, 2005, to October 31, 2008.
¶ 10 In a written report dated February 22, 2010, the Pension Division concluded, pertinently, that holiday pay under the then-current CBA was pensionable salary.1 In reaching this determination, the report quoted at length section 6.2 of the then-effective CBA, which it noted provided all patrol officers with holiday pay for nine enumerated holidays. The report also noted that section 6.2 stated that "appropriate deductions shall be withheld; however, police pension deductions shall not be withheld." The report found, however, that "in the above circumstances this type of pay is considered salary, in accordance to [sic ] Section 4402.30" of Title 50 of the Administrative Code. The report concluded that holiday pay under the then-current CBA should have been considered compensation for purposes of calculating pension contributions and pension benefits. In a letter enclosed with the report, the Pension Division invited the Board to respond in writing to indicate whether it agreed with the findings or, if it did not agree with the findings, the Board could request a hearing prior to the report being made available to the public.
¶ 11 The Board thereafter disagreed with the findings of the report regarding holiday pay, among other findings not relevant here. Specifically, the minutes from the Board's April 20, 2010, meeting, at which the Board discussed the report at length, state that the "[t]he [B]oard determined holiday pay was not apart [sic ] of base pay and was a contractual agreement the [V]illage pays to police officers." On May 24, 2010, Board president George Sullivan sent a letter to the Pension Division documenting the Board's disagreement with the report findings. Pertinently, the letter stated, Sullivan enclosed a copy of article 6 from the then-current CBA with the letter.
¶ 12 On June 23, 2010, the Pension Division replied that it would place Sullivan's letter "on file," but it stated that it denied several of Sullivan's objections, including the Board's objection concerning holiday pay. It explained, "[t]he Board of Trustees of the Hanover Park Police Pension Fund in conjunction with Illinois statutes should be the sole arbitrators as to what salary is pensionable and what is not."2
¶ 13 Based on the Board's determination that holiday pay was not pensionable, the Village continued not to withhold pension contributions from holiday pay and calculated the pensions of its retiring officers using salary figures that did not include holiday pay.
¶ 15 In March 2013, the Village and MAP engaged in negotiations for a successor agreement to the CBA that was in effect from 2011 to 2013. Using the prior agreement as a starting point, MAP initially proposed, pertinently, that (1) the phrase "[h]owever, police pension deductions shall not be withheld" be removed from section 6.2 and (2) section 6.3 be removed in its entirety. On September 16, 2013, the parties executed a "tentative agreement," wherein they agreed to remove from section 6.2 the phrase "[h]owever, police pension deductions shall not be withheld." However, the parties agreed to leave section 6.3 in the agreement, unchanged. As such, under the tentative agreement, the only revision to article 6 of the CBA was the removal of the prohibition on the Village from withholding pension contributions from its officers’ holiday pay. The tentative agreement was later incorporated into the ratified CBA.
¶ 16 To clarify and emphasize the agreed-upon amendment to section 6.2, we recite section 6.2 in its entirety as it appeared in the prior agreement, but we strike through the language that was removed from the CBA:
To continue reading
Request your trial