CBS LLP Clients Prevail In All Four Of Their Cases Before the ILRB on November 18, 2014

Legal updates

CBS LLP Clients Prevail In All Four Of Their Cases Before the ILRB on November 18, 2014

November 19, 2014

Village of Glenview and Glenview Professional Firefighters Local 4186, Case No. S-CA-11-201 (2014)

This case presents a breakthrough development for Illinois municipal employers. The Village made the decision to adjust its level of service by removing one ambulance from service during non-peak hours of operation, but only when the ambulance had to be staffed using overtime. The Village studied the potential change intensely before implementing the new policy, and realized the change could be accomplished safely and effectively. The Union objected that the Village had no right to make the change unilaterally because minimum manning is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Earlier this year, ALJ Heather Sidwell held that minimum staffing in this context is a permissive subject of bargaining, so the Village had no bargaining obligations and was entitled to implement its change unilaterally. Shockingly, the Union filed no exceptions to the ALJ’s decision! On November 18, the Board had the opportunity to review this decision on its own motion. The Board unanimously decided there was no need to review the decision, thus allowing the ALJ’s groundbreaking decision to stand.

 
City of Wheaton and Wheaton Firefighters Union Local 3706, Case No. S-CA-14-067 (2014)

The Board confronted two issues in this case. First, is a health insurance proposal that grants the employer broad flexibility to unilaterally change health insurance benefits a permissive subject of bargaining? Second, is the submission of a permissive subject of bargaining a violation of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.

On the first issue, the Board upheld the ALJ’s determination that a proposal for broad flexibility to unilaterally change health insurance benefits is, in fact, a permissive subject of bargaining. Although disappointing, this outcome is not unexpected given the General Counsel’s previous, non-binding opinion in City of Danville, 26 PERI 32 (2010), which reached the same conclusion. Somewhat surprising, however, is that Board Chairman John Hartnett plans to dissent from this portion of the decision, saying he would prefer to have oral argument on this issue. We will have to closely monitor the written opinion to see whether the Chairman opens the door to further arguments on this issue in the future.

More importantly, the Board upheld prior precedent, and ruled that the mere submission of a permissive subject of bargaining in interest arbitration is not a violation of the Labor Relations Act. Thus, the complaint against Wheaton was dismissed.

Village of Skokie and IAFF Local 3033, Case No. S-CA-13-115 (2014)

In Skokie, the Board upheld the ALJ’s decision that the Union’s unfair labor practice charge was not timely filed. This case revolved around the Village’s use of “reimbursement agreements” for newly hired firefighters. The Village announced the reimbursement agreements during staff meetings, and the Union never requested bargaining. When the Village enforced the reimbursement agreements against a firefighter who voluntarily resigned, the Union filed a bad faith bargaining charge against the Village. Critically, by adopting the ALJ’s decision, the Board held that the time limit to file an unfair labor practice charge began to run when the reimbursement agreements were announced to the entire department (even though Union leadership pled ignorance), not from the date when the Village enforced the agreements. Because the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge more than 6 months after the use of the agreements was announced, the charge was dismissed as untimely.

City of Geneva and IBEW Local 196, Case No. S-UC- 14-007 (2014)

In Geneva, the IBEW sought to organize a new bargaining unit, including two supervisory positions: a Fleet Maintenance Supervisor and a Street Maintenance Supervisor. Significantly, the ALJ’s decision held that both positions met the “preponderance” requirement for supervisory status, even though one of the supervisors spent 40-50% of his time working alongside his subordinates with his hands on the tools. The ALJ ruled that although he was working, the supervisor was simultaneously monitoring and correcting his employees’ work, thus satisfying the preponderance requirement. No exceptions were filed, and the Board upheld the ALJ’s decision. Although this case is a non-precedential decision, it is an indication that employers might have more success arguing supervisory status than in years past.
Share by: