ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARDL-CA-15-042, 34 PERI ¶ 72 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 13 -14) •Teamster represented DOC deputies transferring to Court Services required to pass Physical

2019 IPLRA UPDATEILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Board MembersState Panel

• William E. Lowry, Jr., Chairman• John S. Cronin• Kendra S. Cunningham• Jose L. Gudino • Thomas Willis

Local Panel

• Robert M. Gierut, Chairman• Charles E. Anderson• Angela C. Thomas

Board StaffExecutive DirectorKimberly F. Stevens

Mediator/Investigator Michael L. Provines

InvestigatorsOlivia L. CampbellYumnah M. Tayyab

Tiara L. Mackins

Chief Fiscal OfficerAaron M. Itulya

Information Tech. OfficerJodi M. Marr

Case Manager/Assist. to Exec. Director

Lori F. Novak

Personnel OfficerCarla A. Stone

Board StaffGeneral Counsel

Helen J. Kim

Associate General CounselAnna Hamburg-Gal

Administrative Law JudgesDonald W. Anderson

Matthew S. NagyMichelle N. OwenSharon A. Purcell

5

340

185 193

477

315

191

242

193

314

369 372

335364

309322

278

338354

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019

Cases

Cases Filed

Petition Management Unfair Labor Practice Charges

6

$1,644.5

$1,409.4$1,559.4 $1,559.4

$1,295.8

$0.0 $100.0

$1,506.8

$1,639.5 1431

1233

1039

1248

988

869 889950

1160

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

$1,400.0

$1,600.0

$1,800.0


Cases

Thousands

Appropriation vs. Caseload

Appropriation Caseload

FY2016 - Agency did not receive a budget appropriation due to the State's Budget Impasse. FY2017 - Agency received a partial budget appropriation.

7

162143

94 80 71 8457

88 96

210

560533

417

327293

272

312331

396364

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020

Cases

Cases Pending at Start of Fiscal Year

Petition Management Unfair Labor Practice Charges

8

$1,644.5

$1,409.4

$1,559.4 $1,559.4

$1,295.8

$0.0

$100.0

$1,506.8

$1,639.5

20

17

1918

1514

13 1314

0

5

10

15

20

25

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

$1,400.0

$1,600.0

$1,800.0


Employees

Thousands

Appropriation vs. Staff

Total Appropriated Dollars Headcount

FY2016 - Agency did not receive a budget appropriation due to the State's Budget Impasse. FY2017 - Agency received a partial budget appropriation.

Case Studies:The Representation Cases

Teamsters & Chicago Transit AuthorityL-RC-18-021, 36 PERI ¶ 36 (IL LRB-LP 2019), (Outline p. 3)

• Majority Interest Petition• 6 Project Managers in CTA’s Capital Construction Division• Project Managers responsible for managing, directing,

reviewing, and evaluating capital construction projects.

• ISSUE:

• Are Project Managers managerial employees?


• ALJ & Board:

• Project Managers not managerial employees under traditional test.

• Serve in subordinate and advisory role.

• Recommendations on major policy issues not readily accepted by superiors.


Union and Management Takeaways

AFSCME v. ILRB & City of Chicago2019 IL App (1st) 181685; L-RC-16-034, 35 PERI ¶ 129 (IL LRB-LP 2019);(Outline p. 2)

•Petition for Review •Board:

•Dismissed majority interest petition for Senior Procurement Specialists (SPSs) at City of Chicago

•Found SPSs are managerial employees

AFSCME v. ILRB & City of Chicago2019 IL App (1st) 181685L-RC-16-034, 35 PERI ¶ 129 (IL LRB-LP 2019);(Outline p. 2)

• ISSUES:

•Did Board ease City’s burden to demonstrate SPSs are managerial?

•Did Board improperly use caselaw to bridge gaps in the record?


Court:• Board did not ease City’s burden.

• City presented specific unrebutted evidence showing SPSs are managerial employees.

• Caselaw appropriately used to find City “exercises its discretionary power granted under the laws” through the SPSs.



AFSCME & City of ChicagoL-RC-16-034, 35 PERI ¶ 129 (IL LRB-LP 2019)(Outline p. 2)

• Majority Interest Petition • Supervising Disease Control Investigators (SDCIs), City of

Chicago’s STD/HIV Prevention and Control Services Program

• ISSUES:

• Is petition barred by exclusionary clause in prior Board certification?

• Are SDCIs supervisors?


ALJ & Board:

•Petition not barred; no basis given for prior exclusion.•SDCIs are supervisors; satisfied 4-part supervisory test.

•SDCIs’ use of expertise in reviewing and evaluating subordinate work amounted to exercise of supervisory discretion.

•Expertise applied in interest of employer.



AFSCME & City of ChicagoL-RC-16-035, 35 PERI ¶ 12 (IL LRB-LP 2019)

• Majority Interest Petition • Supervisor of Personnel (SPSs), City of Chicago

(various depts)

• ISSUES:• Are SPSs confidential employees?• Does advanced knowledge of contemplated

discipline satisfy authorized access test?


ALJ & Board:•SPSs are confidential employees•Advanced knowledge of contemplated disciplinary action satisfied authorized access test

•Board declined to abandon recent decisions re advanced knowledge of contemplated disciplinary action satisfies authorized access



AFSCME & Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook CountyS-RC-18-003, 36 PERI ¶ 42 (IL LRB-SP 2019) (Outline p. 3)

• Majority Interest Petition • Investigator IIIs at Cook County Juvenile Temporary

Detention Center

• ISSUES:

• Are Investigator IIIs confidential employees?

• Does advanced knowledge of contemplated discipline satisfy authorized access test?

AFSCME & Chief JudgeS-RC-18-003, 36 PERI ¶ 42 (IL LRB-SP 2019) (Outline p. 3)

ALJ:

• Investigator IIIs are confidential employees; satisfied authorized access test.

•Similar to investigators in Ill. Dep’t of Central Mgmt. Servs. (Corrections), 33 PERI 121 (IL LRB-SP 2017), who were confidential employees.

AFSCME & Chief JudgeS-RC-18-003, 36 PERI ¶ 42 (IL LRB-SP 2019) (Outline p. 3)Board:

•Followed decision in Ill. Dep’t of Central Mgmt. Servs. (Corrections) (aff’d by ct. in unpub. Order) but expressed reservations decision expanded authorized access test

•Maintain consistency with L-RC-16-035•Petition for review filed in First District

AFSCME & Chief JudgeS-RC-18-003, 36 PERI ¶ 42 (IL LRB-SP 2019) (Outline p. 3)


PBPA & County of Marion & Laborers Int’lS-RC-19-060, 36 PERI ¶ 57 (IL LRB-SP 2019)(Outline p. 4)

• County and Incumbent union negotiated two separate CBAs covering different groups within a single bargaining unit.

• CBA for one group expired in November 2018; CBA for other group expires in November 2020.

• PBPA petitioned to represent bargaining unit in 2018.


Issue:Is petition barred by CBA expiring in 2020?

Executive Director:• Petition timely filed.• Recognized one single unit as certified by Board in

Case No. S-RC-05-128.• Directed election.


Board:•Reversed and remanded for hearing. •Found Petition raised issues for hearing.•Section 1210.35—Timeliness of Petitions/Bar to Election—”. . .[CBA] covering all or some of employees in the bargaining unit. . .”



Case Studies:The ULPs

Teamsters & Cook County & Cook County SheriffL-CA-15-042, 34 PERI ¶ 72 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 13-14)

• Teamster represented DOC deputies transferring to Court Services required to pass Physical Agility Test (PAT).

• PAT requirement part of Court Services deputies’ CBA negotiated by IFOP.

• Teamsters claimed PAT requirement for transfer repudiated DOC deputies CBA and a prior arbitration award.

Teamsters & Cook County SheriffL-CA-15-042, 34 PERI ¶ 72 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 13-14)

ALJ & Board:

•Outright refusal to abide by negotiated agreements or arbitration awards amounts to repudiation.

•Terms of Teamsters CBA applied to unsuccessful transferees because they remained in Teamsters bargaining unit.

Teamsters & Cook County SheriffL-CA-15-042, 34 PERI ¶ 72 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 13-14)


Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local 130, U.A., & City of ChicagoL-CA-18-072, 36 PERI ¶ 37 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 14-15)

•Discharged City Foreman hired by NPL Construction, one of City’s contractors.

•NPL fired foreman after foreman grieved discharge from City.

•Union alleged City directed NPL Construction to fire the foreman in retaliation for grieving his discharge.


•Executive Director dismissed charge—foreman not a public employee.

•Board reversed dismissal and remanded for further investigation.

•Charge raised issues for further investigation.


Issues on Remand:•Was foreman blacklisted? •Did City direct NPL to fire foreman because he filed grievance over discharge from City?

• Is NPL construction a joint employer or public employer under the Act?



Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge #7 & City of Chicago (Department of Police)L-CA-16-079, 35 PERI ¶ 148 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 8-9)

•City implemented a Transparency Policy providing for the release of video footage relating to misconduct investigations.

•FOP alleged the City was obligated to bargain over Transparency Policy.


•ALJ found implementing Transparency Policy did not constitute a unilateral change.

•Board held matter in abeyance in consideration of consent decree and ongoing negotiations for a successor agreement.



Travis Koester & County of Sangamon & Sheriff of Sangamon CountyS-CA-16-133, 35 PERI ¶ 70 (IL LRB-SP 2018) (Outline p. 4-5)

• Sheriff’s Tactical Response Unit (TRU) members requested Koester’s removal from TRU after expressing lack of trust in Koester due to his filing grievances affecting fellow members.

• Koester removed from TRU because of lack of trust.• Koester alleged Sheriff removed him because he filed

grievances.

Travis Koester & County of Sangamon & Sheriff of Sangamon CountyS-CA-16-133, 35 PERI ¶ 70 (IL LRB-SP 2018) (Outline p. 4)

•ALJ found Sheriff removed Koester from TRU because he filed grievances in violation of Section 10(a)(1).

•Board found no causal connection and dismissed charge.

•Petition for review pending in Fourth District.

Travis Koester & County of Sangamon & Sheriff of Sangamon CountyS-CA-16-133, 35 PERI ¶ 70 (IL LRB-SP 2018) (Outline p. 4)


Erik Slater v. ILRB & Chicago Transit Authority2019 IL App (1st) 181007L-CA-16-017, 34 PERI ¶ 160 (IL LRB-LP 2018) (Outline p. 15)

•Petition for review•Board:

•Found multiple violations of the Act but dismissed allegation CTA denied Slater’s use of CTA office space for union business in violation of the Act

•Found Slater/union had no proprietary interest in office space


Court affirmed Board decision:

•Use of office space for union business not a term or condition of employment

•Rejected Slater’s argument that Board applies “benefit to the bargaining unit” test to determined adverse action



Documents

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARDL-CA-15-042, 34 PERI ¶ 72 (IL LRB-LP 2019) (Outline p. 13 -14) •Teamster represented DOC deputies transferring to Court Services required to pass Physical