Bd. of Trustees v. LABOR RELATIONS BD.
966 N.E.2d 1239
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Board certified UIC United Faculty, AFT-IFT as exclusive bargaining representative for a Chicago campus unit comprising tenured, tenure-track, and nontenured faculty.
- University challenges the second paragraph of section 7(a) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act as controlling the composition of the sole appropriate unit for Illinois UI campuses.
- Statutory text describes a unit that includes all tenured/tenure-track faculty and limits fragmentation, with specific college exclusions for separate units.
- Board's regulations attempted to define a unit including both tenure-system and nontenured faculty; university argues includes all such faculty across programs.
- Legislative history shows amendments (Public Acts 89-4 and 93-445) narrowed the sole appropriate unit to include only tenured/tenure-track faculty at each campus, excluding nontenure-track.
- Court reverses the Board, concluding the second paragraph of section 7(a) is ambiguous and that legislative history forecloses Board interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §7(a) ambiguous regarding unit composition? | University: includes all at campus; Board misreads the clause. | Board: includes both clauses describing the entire unit. | Ambiguous |
| Does legislative history favor Board or University interpretation? | History supports Board interpretation as reasonable. | History shows intent to exclude nontenure-track from the unit. | History favors University interpretation |
| Should a court defer to agency interpretation when statute is ambiguous? | Chevron deferential standard supports Board. | Legislative history shows contrary intent; deference not sufficient. | Deference given to Board only to extent reasonable; underlying intent controls |
| What is the proper construction of the word 'includes' in §7(a)? | Includes means partial list; does not equate to 'comprises'. | Includes can mean 'is comprised of' under historical text. | Ambiguous; both readings plausible |
Key Cases Cited
- Wahlman v. C. Becker Milling Co., 279 Ill. 612 (1917) (ordinary meaning of include vs comprise discussed)
- Gekas v. Williamson, 393 Ill.App.3d 573 (2009) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Quad Cities Open, Inc. v. City of Silvis, 208 Ill. 2d 498 (2004) (avoid superfluous language; statutory construction)
- Paxson v. Board of Education of School District No. 87, 276 Ill.App.3d 912 (1995) (include as explanatory, list vs. component interpretation)
- Saltiel v. Olsen, 77 Ill.2d 23 (1979) (amendments and interpretation presumptions)
- Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill.2d 392 (2003) (legislative history as aid to interpretation)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretation when ambiguous)