Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2009 » Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board - Corrected 1/5/11

Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board - Corrected 1/5/11

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-08-0210 Rel

Case Date: 02/05/2009

Preview:Filed 2/5/09

NO. 4-08-0210 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES/THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, STATE PANEL; JACKIE GALLAGHER, MICHAEL HADE, CHARLES HERNANDEZ, REX PIPER, and MICHAEL COLI, the Members of Said Board and Panel in Their Official Capacity Only; and the ILLINOIS NURSES ASSOCIATION, Respondents-Appellees.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Petition for Direct Review of an Order of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel No. S-RC-07-036

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court: Petitioner, the Department of Central Management Services (employer), brings this action for direct review of a decision by the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), declaring the Illinois Nurses Association (union) to be the exclusive bargaining representative of all public service administrators, option 8, in the Bureau of Administrative Litigation, office of the Inspector General, Department of Healthcare and Family Services, except, as the "Certificate of Representative" says, supervisory, managerial, and confidential employees. See Illinois Nurses Ass'n, 23 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 173, No. S-RC-07-036 (Illinois Labor Board, State Panel, October 30, 2007) (hereinafter 23 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 173). These employees are attorneys who represent the agency in internal hearings before administrative law judges.

For two reasons, the employer urges us to reverse the Board's decision outright or at least reverse it and remand the case for reconsideration: (1) all of the attorneys in question are managerial employees, and (2) the proposed bargaining unit is inappropriate because it carves a subset of employees out of a larger, centralized classification. The Board found the attorneys were not managerial employees. Because that finding is not clearly erroneous, we decline to overturn it. The Board's decisions have created a "presumption of inappropriateness" in situations in which the union seeks to represent only a portion of the employees who perform duties in identical job classifications. The Board could have found sufficient evidence, however, to rebut that presumption. The State employs many more attorneys than the six staff attorneys in the Bureau of Administrative Litigation; option 8L of the classification of public service administrator consists of approximately 134 attorneys. But the record reveals little or nothing about these numerous attorney positions outside the Bureau (e.g., their skills, functions, hours, or working conditions). Given this dearth of information, one could not validly conclude that all of the attorneys in option 8L belong in the same bargaining unit. Therefore, we affirm the Board's decision. I. BACKGROUND A. The Union's Petition and the Employer's Position Statement On September 5, 2006, the union filed with the Board a petition to become the exclusive bargaining representative of all public service administrators, option 8, in the Bureau of Administrative Litigation, office of the Inspector General, Department of Healthcare and Family Services. See 5 ILCS 315/9(a)(1) (West Supp. 2007). (In their -2-

briefs, the parties agree that the employees in question are, more precisely, public service administrators, option 8L, but the union's petition and the Board's "Certificate of Representative" merely say "option 8." It appears, however, that the Bureau of Administrative Litigation has no option 8 employees other than option 8Ls; therefore, failing to specify the subset of option 8 apparently makes no practical difference.) In its petition, the union stated that 30% of the employees requested a secret ballot to determine whether the Board should certify the union as their exclusive bargaining agent. See 5 ILCS 315/9(a)(1) (West Supp. 2007). The Board scheduled an investigative hearing for October 5 and 6, 2006, and requested the employer to submit a comprehensive and detailed position statement addressing the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit. See 80 Ill. Adm. Code

Download Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board - Co