Amalgamated Transit Worker's Union v. Pace Suburban Bus Division
407 Ill. App. 3d 55
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- ATU Local 241 sues Pace Suburban Bus Division seeking declaratory judgment and injunction over pace's discipline of drivers for red-light-camera violations.
- Pace allegedly reassigns tickets to drivers, requiring drivers to pay fines and suspending them for violations.
- Red light cameras began in western Cook County in 2006; statute 11-208.6 authorizes municipal notices to vehicle owners and limited defenses.
- Plaintiff alleges notices to drivers are untimely and the practice of fining drivers violates law and the CBA.
- There is a collective bargaining agreement with a grievance/arbitration clause; the circuit court dismissed under 2-619(a)(9) for failure to exhaust contractual remedies.
- Appellate court affirming, holding the policy is disciplinary and within the CBA’s grievance process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pace’s ticket-fining policy is a CBA grievance | ATU argues policy is a disciplinary matter outside the CBA. | Pace contends policy concerns employee discipline governed by the CBA. | Yes; constitutes a grievance under the CBA. |
| Whether notices to drivers are sufficient for discipline under the CBA | ATU alleges insufficient notice undermines due process in discipline. | Pace asserts any discipline is within CBA and proper with adequate cause. | Disciplinary issues within the CBA; notice sufficiency is a grievance. |
| Whether the alleged “assignment” of tickets to drivers is valid or ultra vires | ATU asserts assignment is improper and outside statute. | Pace contends there is no assignment; drivers reimburse Pace for fines. | No assignment occurred; policy is disciplinary and within the CBA. |
| Whether Daniels/Semmens/Croom distinctions apply to allow independent relief | Plaintiff relies on those cases for independent relief. | Those cases are distinguishable; here the issue is within the CBA. | Distinguishable; the action arises from the CBA discipline clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Semmens v. Board of Education of Pontiac Community Consolidated School District No. 429, 190 Ill.App.3d 174 (Ill. App. 1989) (arbitration not mandatory where lunch-period issue not addressed by the CBA)
- Daniels v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 277 Ill.App.3d 968 (Ill. App. 1996) (independent statutory right not present; action arises from CBA discipline)
- Croom v. City of DeKalb, 71 Ill.App.3d 370 (Ill. App. 1979) (broader arbitration language; discipline within CBA; distinguishable)
- City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 135 Ill.2d 499 (Ill. 1990) (definition of grievance as any employment-relationship dispute)