City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-0774 Rel

Case Date: 05/03/2007

Preview:NO. 4-06-0774 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, STATE PANEL; and THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 49, Respondents-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Filed 5/3/07

On Direct Appeal from Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, No. S-CA-04-166

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH delivered the opinion of the court: Petitioner, the City of Bloomington (City), appeals the decision of respondent Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), finding the City committed an unfair labor practice. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 49, 22 Pub.

Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 107, No. S-CA-04-166 (Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, August 23, 2006) (hereinafter 22 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 107). The City argues the Board

erred in holding that the City was required to bargain with respondent International Association of Firefighters, Local 49 (Union), over promotions to the position of assistant fire chief, a position outside the bargaining unit represented by the Union. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND The Union is the exclusive bargaining representative of a historical bargaining unit composed of the City's firefighters,

fire lieutenants, and fire captains. bargaining unit is captain.

The highest rank in the

Promotions within the bargaining unit are controlled by the parties' bargaining agreement. The parties stipulated that

the Bloomington Fire and Police Commission (Commission) controlled promotions to the rank of assistant fire chief, which since June 2003 has been the rank immediately above that of captain but is not within the bargaining unit. On May 21, 2004, the Union sent the following letter to the City: "It has come to the attention of IAFF Local [No.] 49 that Chief Ranney had proposed two (2) options to the Bloomington Fire and Police Commission ([Commission]) altering the promotional process for [a]ssistant [c]hief. According to the Fire [Department] Promotion[] Act [(Promotion Act) (50 ILCS 742/1 through 999 (West 2004))] the City is required to bargain with the certified representative of the rank immediately below the rank of [a]ssistant [c]hief, to wit IAFF Local [No.] 49 over the weights assigned to the various components of the test. Accord-

ingly, as the representative of IAFF Local

- 2 -

[No.] 49, I hereby demand that we commence formal negotiations over the new Assistant Chief promotional exam pursuant to the [Promotion Act]." The City refused the Union's demand for bargaining. The City

claimed that while it was "bound by the provision of the *** Promotion Act," the process of appointing individuals to positions outside the bargaining unit was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. See Village of Franklin Park v. Illinois State Labor

Relations Board, 265 Ill. App. 3d 997, 1005, 638 N.E.2d 1144, 1148-49 (1994) (First District); see also 50 ILCS 742/10(a), (d)(2) (West Supp. 2003) (eff. August 4, 2003). On June 21, 2004, the Union filed an unfair labor practice with the Board. In November 2005, the executive direc-

tor of the Board issued a complaint for hearing alleging the City violated sections 10(a)(4) and (1) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (4) (West 2004)) when it failed and refused to bargain in good faith over changes to the criteria for promotion to the rank of assistant fire chief. December 2005, the City filed its answer to the complaint. Because the facts were not in dispute, the parties agreed that in lieu of a hearing, the case should be decided on the basis of the record. The record consists of the complaint, In

the City's answer, stipulations by the parties, the Union's

- 3 -

motion for summary judgment, and the City's response to the motion for summary judgment. On April 25, 2006, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a recommended decision and order herein finding an unfair labor practice based on Libertyville Professional Firefighters Ass'n, IAFF, Local 3892 v. Village of Libertyville, 21 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 211, No. S-CA-05-045, at 762, 762-63 (Illinois Local Labor Relations Board November 28, 2005) (finding the Promotion Act made the topic of promotions to nonbargaining unit positions a mandatory subject of bargaining) (hereinafter Village of Libertyville, 21 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 211)). International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 49, 22 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 107, No. S-CA-04-166 (ALJ recommended decision and order April 25, 2006). On May 31, 2006, the City filed its The City claimed the

exceptions to the recommendation and order.

ALJ erroneously held the Village of Libertyville board ruling was the law of the case, and the City asserted the First District's opinion in Village of Franklin Park v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 265 Ill. App. 3d 997, 638 N.E.2d 1144, was the controlling decision. The City also argued the ALJ erroneously

held that the Promotion Act required the City to negotiate the terms of promotion to the assistant fire chief position. In June 2006, the Union, in its response to the City's exceptions, sought additional relief. Specifically, the Union

- 4 -

claimed that since May 2004, the City had continued its promotional process for the rank of assistant fire chief, resulting in the creation of a promotion list and promotions being made in January 2006. The Union requested the promotional list be deemed

invalid and any promotions to the rank of assistant fire chief since May 21, 2004, be rescinded. In August 2006, the Board upheld the recommendation of the ALJ and adopted it as the decision of the Board as modified. The modifications included the additional relief sought by the Union. 22 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 107, at 414-15. This appeal followed. affects only two individuals. II. ANALYSIS The City argues that at the time in question--prior to the 2006 amendment to the Promotion Act (Public Act 94-809,

Download City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Board.pdf