The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31(AFSCME), brought this action for an injunction in aid of arbitration against the State ofIllinois Department of Central Management Services and its director, Michael S. Schwartz,in his official capacity (collectively referred to as CMS). On March 5, 2002, AFSCME filedits original complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to Illinois's UniformArbitration Act (710 ILCS 5/1 et seq. (West 2002)) and sections 8 and 16 of the IllinoisPublic Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/8, 16 (West 2002)). AFSCME alleged that CMS'sactions to implement a statewide one-day furlough program violated the terms of the parties'collective bargaining agreement (Agreement). AFSCME asked that the one-day statewidefurlough be enjoined pending a decision by an arbitrator on the grievance it had filed underthe Agreement. The complaint also asked that CMS be ordered to go to immediatearbitration on AFSCME's grievance.

In response, CMS filed a motion pursuant to the Uniform Arbitration Act and askedthe circuit court to compel AFSCME to grieve and arbitrate its disputes involving allegedbreaches of the Agreement. CMS also asked the court to stay the injunction hearing. CMSobjected to the entry of an order compelling immediate arbitration.

The circuit court of St. Clair County entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) onMarch 8, 2002, restraining the implementation of the one-day furlough plan, but the courtgranted CMS's objection to AFSCME's request for an order compelling immediatearbitration. CMS filed an interlocutory appeal from the TRO. On March 19, 2002, this courtaffirmed the TRO. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council31 v. Schwartz, No. 5-02-0181 (March 19, 2002) (unpublished order pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 23(c) (166 Ill. 2d R. 23(c)).

Following the entry of the TRO, CMS amended its furlough plan to provide forpermanent layoffs in seven State agencies and began to implement the amended plan. Inresponse, AFSCME amended its grievance to encompass the permanent layoffs.

On April 29, 2002, the circuit court denied CMS's motion to compel arbitration andstay the preliminary injunction hearing. On the same date, the circuit court grantedAFSCME leave to amend its complaint to add claims regarding the permanent layoffs. Theamended complaint sought to have the statewide one-day furlough and the permanent layoffsenjoined pending a decision by an arbitrator on the grievances AFSCME had filed under theAgreement.

A preliminary injunction hearing was held on May 3, 2002, and on May 15, the circuitcourt entered a preliminary injunction "enjoining the Defendants from implementing theirplan to require all AFSCME bargaining unit employees statewide to be subject to a one[-]daytemporary and/or indefinite layoff/furlough[,] pending a decision by the arbitrator." On May24, 2002, CMS brought this interlocutory appeal as of right to challenge the April 29, 2002,and May 15, 2002, orders. We affirm.

AFSCME and CMS are parties to a collective bargaining agreement for the periodbetween July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2004, which contains a grievance procedure culminatingin final and binding arbitration. The Agreement contains a detailed layoff article thatrestricts CMS's authority to use temporary layoff provisions to implement a statewidefurlough program. Article 20 of the Agreement expressly provides as follows: "Temporarylayoff provisions contained herein shall not be used for implementing a statewide furloughprogram which would affect all State agencies without the Employer first notifying andnegotiating with the Union over such intent." The same article also requires that layoffs,including temporary layoffs, "shall be by position classification" and "in inverse order ofseniority." Additionally, CMS is prevented from temporarily or permanently laying off any"certified or probationary employee within a position classification within an appropriateorganizational unit *** until any temporary or emergency employee, within such positionclassification[,] is terminated noncertified." The Agreement further limits CMS's authorityto "employ, or cause to be employed through a firm or agency as a subterfuge to [theAgreement], individuals through the use of personal service contracts when the servicesperformed under such contracts are within the scope of bargaining unit work."

A supplemental collective bargaining agreement prevents CMS from laying offbargaining-unit employees in the Department of Human Services "within a work location ***until all temporary, contractual, provisional, emergency employees, Illinois Work ExperienceProgram Workers, Green Thumb Workers, Community Work Experience Program Workers,or other non[]profit workers in that work location have been laid off/terminated." A secondsupplemental agreement precludes CMS from laying off bargaining-unit employees in theDepartment of Public Aid "within a work location *** until all temporary, contractual,provisional, emergency employees, Illinois Work Experience Program Workers, SummerYouth Program Workers, Unemployed Parent Work Employment Workers, Green ThumbWorkers, Community Work Experience Program Workers, or other workers in that worklocation have been laid off/terminated." The Agreement requires notifications to bothAFSCME and employees targeted for a layoff and an opportunity for employees to exercisebumping and transfer rights in lieu of layoffs.

On December 4, 2001, CMS notified AFSCME that it intended to implement a one-day furlough plan that would require approximately 44,000 AFSCME bargaining-unitemployees statewide to take a day off without pay. Between December 18, 2001, andFebruary 7, 2002, the parties met for the purpose of negotiating a furlough program. Noagreement to implement a furlough program was reached during the course of thosenegotiations. On February 7, 2002, CMS ceased negotiations and informed AFSCME thatit had decided to use the temporary layoff provisions of the Agreement to implement astatewide furlough program. On February 14, 2002, AFSCME filed a grievance protestingCMS's implementation of the plan as violating the Agreement's provisions as previously setforth. AFSCME requested that the grievance be scheduled for immediate arbitration in orderthat an arbitrator's decision on the grievance could be rendered prior to March 15, 2002, thedate on which the furloughs were scheduled to begin. In its request, AFSCME emphasized"the immediacy of the situation, as well as the high degree of potential Employer liability." CMS declined AFSCME's request to schedule the grievance for immediate arbitration. (CMS objected to AFSCME's bypassing step 3, agency/department head, and step 4A,prearbitration meeting.)

The grievance alleged three types of contract violations with respect to permanentlayoffs: (i) violations of the substantive rights of the employees subject to a layoff thatdetermine who will eventually be laid off or transferred and who will exercise their seniorityto remain employed, (ii) violations of the procedural rights of the employees and AFSCMEwith respect to matters such as the contractually specified notice intended to enable theemployees to exercise their contract options when targeted for a layoff, and (iii) violationsof AFSCME's rights to protect its dues-paying members against a layoff while non-bargaining-unit employees are being retained. The alleged violations relate to numerousprovisions in the Agreement as follows:

(i) Article 1, the recognition article; article 4, section 3, the fair share article;and the "Personal Services Contracts Memorandum" of understanding by the use oftemporary employees and employees under personal service contracts to performbargaining-unit work that should be performed by bargaining-unit employees.

(ii) Article 14, section 3, which has limits on the time during which work maybe assigned to a temporary employee before a position must be filled with apermanent employee.

(iii) Article 20, the layoff article, which requires the following under section2(e): "No certified or probationary employee within a position classification withinan appropriate organizational unit shall be laid off until any temporary or emergencyemployee, within such position classification[,] is terminated noncertified."

(iv) Article 20, which contains a requirement for notices to both AFSCME andemployees targeted for a layoff so that the employees can exercise their bumping andtransfer options in lieu of a layoff under the contract.

(v) Article 20, which requires that layoffs be by seniority.

(vi) Supplemental agreements with the Department of Human Services and theDepartment of Public Aid requiring that numerous categories of non-bargaining-unitemployees be terminated prior to the layoff of bargaining-unit employees.

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sounddiscretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb that decision absent a clearabuse of discretion. Desnick v. Department of Professional Regulation, 171 Ill. 2d 510, 516,665 N.E.2d 1346, 1351-52 (1996). "Appellate review of the issuance of preliminaryinjunctions is restricted to determining whether the circuit court properly exercised its broaddiscretionary powers." Cannon v. Whitman Corp., 212 Ill. App. 3d 79, 81-82, 569 N.E.2d1114, 1116 (1991). An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person would takethe position adopted by the lower court. McKenzie Dredging Co. v. Deneen River Co., 249Ill. App. 3d 694, 700, 619 N.E.2d 188, 192-93 (1993). The test is not whether the appellatecourt agrees with the trial court's decision, but whether the lower court " 'acted arbitrarilywithout the employment of conscientious judgment or, in view of all the circumstances,exceeded the bounds of reason and ignored recognized principles of law so that substantialprejudice resulted.' " Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 213 Ill. App. 3d 591,594-95, 572 N.E.2d 1119, 1122 (1991) (quoting In re Marriage of Aud, 142 Ill. App. 3d 320,326, 491 N.E.2d 894, 898 (1986)); see also In re J.S., 267 Ill. App. 3d 145, 147, 640 N.E.2d1379, 1381 (1994); Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill. App. 3d 611, 615, 635 N.E.2d 468, 471(1994).

With respect to the order denying CMS's motion to compel arbitration, the solequestion is whether there was a sufficient showing to justify the order of the trial courtdenying the relief sought. See Glenn H. Johnson Construction Co. v. Board of Education,245 Ill. App. 3d 18, 22, 614 N.E.2d 208, 211 (1993).

Federal labor law policy prohibiting injunctions in peaceful labor disputes overarbitral issues is set forth in the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C.