ILRB Administrative Law Judge Rules for Oak Lawn: Vacates $3.1 Million Compliance Order
Legal updates
ILRB Administrative Law Judge Rules for Oak Lawn: Vacates $3.1 Million Compliance Order
June 12, 2015
Earlier this year, the public safety community was taken aback by news that the Illinois Labor Relations Board (“ILRB”) ordered the Village of Oak Lawn to pay approximately $3.1 million in back pay and interest for allegedly understaffing its Fire Department. We are pleased to report that today, June 12, 2015, ILRB Administrative Law Judge Anna Hamburg-Gal (“ALJ”) has vacated that compliance decision, affirming that the Village properly staffed the fire department in accordance with the bargaining agreement. Village of Oak Lawn, Case No. S-CA-09-007-C (2015).
In February 2015, the ILRB’s Compliance Officer issued a Compliance Order, indicating that the Village had not fulfilled the Board’s order requiring the Fire Department to staff 22 employees per shift. As such, the Compliance Officer ordered that the Village pay to the Union a total of $3,163,801.73 in back pay, covering the time period of January 1, 2009 to the present. In March 2015, the Village filed objections to the Compliance Order, arguing that the Compliance Officer erred in determining that the Arbitration Award required the Village to staff a shift with 22 employees – the status quo only required the Village to staff a shift with 21 employees. The Village objected to the multi-million dollar back pay award because the Village sufficiently staffed the shift with the required number of employees at all relevant times.
The ALJ has reversed the $3.1 million back pay and interest award in its entirety! The ALJ concluded that the Compliance Officer erred in determining that the Arbitration Award required the Village to staff a shift with a total of 22 employees. Indeed, the plain language of the Award itself stated that “parties intended and maintained for 15 years under five contracts a mutual commitment to assign 21 employees per shift.” The ALJ also underscored the fact that, despite the Union’s contention in this forum, the Union understood and affirmed the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the 21 employee staffing requirement as demonstrated by the Union’s related filings in State circuit court. As such, staffing a shift with 21 employees did not equate to a unilateral change in staffing as contended by the Union.
While the victory is tremendously important to the Village and the interest and welfare of the public, it is also an important reminder that the public sector community must understand the dramatic impact that staffing clauses can have on a fire department’s finances – in addition to the weight and potential for adverse consequences if something goes awry. If you have any questions about this important decision, or minimum staffing issues generally, please contact a Clark Baird Smith LLP attorney to discuss strategies you can use to maximize your chances of success while limiting potential staffing liability.
Created by Olive + Ash.
Managed by Olive Street Design. 