W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd.
| Decision Date | 21 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 126082 |
| Citation | 2021 IL 126082,184 N.E.3d 249,451 Ill.Dec. 662 |
| Parties | WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, Appellee, v. The ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and Frank H. Bieszczat, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board.
Melissa J. Auerbach, of Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich, of Chicago, for other appellant.
Roy G. Davis and Abby J. Clark, of Davis & Campbell L.L.C., of Peoria, for appellee.
Loretta K. Haggard, of Schuchat, Cook & Werner, of St. Louis, Missouri, for amicus curiae Illinois Education Association.
¶ 1 The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (Board) found that Western Illinois University (University) committed an unfair labor practice in violation of section 14(a)(8) and, derivatively, section 14(a)(1) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Act) ( 115 ILCS 5/14(a)(1), (8) (West 2016)) by failing to comply with two arbitration awards. On administrative review, the appellate court vacated the Board's decision and remanded with directions. 2020 IL App (4th) 190143, 444 Ill.Dec. 821, 165 N.E.3d 467.
¶ 2 In reviewing the decision of the Board, we consider whether an arbitrator in the public educational labor relations context exceeds his authority by reviewing a party's compliance with his own award in contravention of the Act, which vests exclusive primary jurisdiction over arbitration awards with the Board. We also consider whether the Board may limit the evidence it will consider in an unfair labor practice proceeding under the Act to the evidence before the arbitrator. We hold that an arbitrator does exceed his authority in conducting such a review and that the Board may not limit the evidence in this way. Accordingly, we vacate the Board's decision and remand with directions to consider all evidence relevant to whether the University violated section 14(a)(8) and, derivatively, section 14(a)(1) of the Act.
¶ 4 The Act governs labor relations between public education employers and employees. 115 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2016). Among other things, the Act requires that public education employers and employees collectively bargain, reduce their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to writing, and arbitrate disputes that arise under the agreement. Id. § 10. Refusal to comply with the provisions of a binding arbitration award is an "unfair labor practice" under the Act. Id. § 14. The Act's "unfair labor practice procedures" assign review and enforcement of unfair labor practices to the Board. Id. § 15.
¶ 5 Arbitrators acting pursuant to the Act—and, indeed, arbitrators acting across varying contexts and jurisdictions—routinely retain limited jurisdiction of their awards for the sole purpose of resolving remedial issues that may arise from the award itself. See Am. Bar Ass'n, Elkouri & Elkouri: How Arbitration Works , 7-49 to 7-54 (Kenneth May ed., 8th ed. 2016) (hereinafter How Arbitration Works ). This retained jurisdiction is sometimes referred to as "remedy jurisdiction." The classic example of remedy jurisdiction in action is where an arbitrator orders a party to be "made whole." If the parties cannot agree on the particulars of what is required to make the party whole, they may petition the arbitrator for an explanation. The arbitrator may then exercise his retained jurisdiction to specify what must be done.
¶ 6 In this case, an arbitrator exercised this remedy jurisdiction specifically to determine whether a party had complied with his earlier award. We must decide whether this exercise of remedy jurisdiction conflicted with the language and procedures of the Act, which vests exclusive primary jurisdiction over compliance review of arbitration awards with the Board. Board of Education of Warren Township High School District 121 v. Warren Township High School Federation of Teachers, Local 504 , 128 Ill. 2d 155, 166, 131 Ill.Dec. 149, 538 N.E.2d 524 (1989) ; Board of Education of Community School District. No. 1 v. Compton , 123 Ill. 2d 216, 221, 122 Ill.Dec. 9, 526 N.E.2d 149 (1988). With this general background in place, we turn to the facts.
¶ 8 In response to declining enrollment, the University laid off 19 professors throughout the 2016-17 school years. Ten of the laid off professors, represented by University Professionals of Illinois, Local 4100, IFT-AFT, AFL-CIO (Union), filed grievances pursuant to the parties’ CBA. The Union alleged that the University had not followed the proper procedures outlined in the CBA for laying off these professors. The grievances proceeded to arbitration.
¶ 9 The arbitrator issued his original award on July 6, 2017. In this award, the arbitrator noted that the parties agreed on the following issue: Relevant here, the arbitrator found that the University violated the CBA as to Dr. Daniel Ogbaharya by failing to properly consider the factors required by the CBA in coming to its layoff decision. The arbitrator ordered that Dr. Ogbaharya be made whole for the 2016-17 school year and that the University reevaluate its layoff decision by properly considering all factors set forth in the CBA. The arbitrator also found that the University violated the CBA as to Dr. Holly Stovall by failing to make a reasonable effort to locate other equivalent employment within the University prior to the effective date of her layoff. The arbitrator ordered the University to make a reasonable effort in this regard and report back to Dr. Stovall on this effort. At the close of the award, the arbitrator stated he "shall retain Jurisdiction for no less than 90 days to resolve any issues regarding the implementation of this Award."
¶ 10 On September 12, 2017, the Union's attorney sent an e-mail to the arbitrator, which opened:
A few days later, the University responded with documentation purporting to detail its compliance and stated its position "that no further proceedings are warranted."
¶ 11 A series of e-mail exchanges ensued over the next few months. The Union continued to invoke the arbitrator's remedy jurisdiction in its request for a hearing on whether the University complied with the award. The University argued that the arbitrator lacked statutory authority to determine compliance because the Board was vested with exclusive primary jurisdiction over such review by the Act. It also argued that the arbitrator lacked contractual authority under the terms of the CBA to review its compliance with an earlier award. The Union replied that taking the matter to the Board was not required at this time because the arbitrator had retained jurisdiction over the remedy and such retention was proper. Near the end of this set of e-mails, the Union sought to clarify its position that it was asking the arbitrator to "resolve issues regarding the implementation of the award."
¶ 12 The arbitrator decided to hold a hearing:
¶ 13 On January 2, 2018, two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board alleging the University violated section 14(a)(8) and (1) of the Act by refusing to comply with the original award.
¶ 14 On January 16, 2018, the arbitrator held the hearing with both parties in attendance. The arbitrator noted the University's objection to his authority but proceeded with the hearing, stating, "what we are here today is on the Union's contention that with regard to those four grievants, that the University has failed to comply with the requirements of my earlier award." Following the hearing, the parties filed briefs repeating their arguments.
¶ 15 On March 5, 2018, the arbitrator issued a "supplemental award." In it, he found that the University "failed to comply with the Award" as to Dr. Ogbaharya and had "violated the Award" as to Dr. Stovall. The arbitrator ordered that Dr. Ogbaharya be offered reinstatement and be made whole until offered reinstatement. As to Dr. Stovall, the arbitrator found that there were open classes she could have taught in the fall semester of 2017, and the arbitrator ordered that she be made whole for that semester. The arbitrator also directed that "[s]he should have been offered work for the Spring Semester and the 2018-9 year if the same factors were present." The supplemental award ended: "The Arbitrator shall continue to retain jurisdiction as to the remaining two Grievants to resolve any questions regarding the implementation of this Supplemental Award."
¶ 16 On March 8, 2018, the Union amended its unfair labor practice charge to include the University's refusal to comply with the supplemental award.
¶...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Peoria
...). De novo review is also appropriate, as we must construe both the Act and the ordinance. See Western Illinois University v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board , 2021 IL 126082, ¶ 32, 451 Ill.Dec. 662, 184 N.E.3d 249 ("An issue of statutory interpretation presents a question of law......
-
Grimes v. Cnty. of Cook
...5/2-102(A). That textual difference between the IHRA and Title VII must be given effect. See W. Ill. Univ. v. Ill. Educ. Lab. Rels. Bd., 184 N.E.3d 249, 260 (Ill. 2021) (recognizing that another jurisdiction's “interpretation of its [analogous] statute is relevant” when interpreting an Illi......