Clerk of the Circuit Court of Lake County v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
2016 IL App (2d) 150849
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Jan 2015 AFSCME Council 31 filed a majority-interest (card-check) petition to be certified as exclusive representative of certain Lake County Circuit Court Clerk employees; the Clerk was notified to respond and to present clear and convincing evidence if it alleged fraud or coercion.
- The Clerk timely objected, alleging the Union used fraudulent statements and coercive tactics (home visits, threatening texts, tracking) and submitted affidavits from supervisors and three employees describing those contacts; some statements were anonymous or hearsay.
- The ALJ issued an order to show cause requesting the Clerk to demonstrate why its affidavits constituted clear and convincing evidence; the Clerk supplemented with two additional affidavits.
- The ALJ concluded the submissions were insufficient under the clear-and-convincing standard (noting hearsay and lack of objectively coercive conduct) and recommended certifying the Union, excluding two managerial positions.
- The Illinois Labor Relations Board split 2–2 (one member absent), resulting in the ALJ’s recommended decision standing as a nonprecedential disposition; the Clerk appealed claiming procedural irregularities and that it had produced sufficient evidence to require a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clerk) | Defendant's Argument (Union/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board improperly acted with an absent member and produced an unreviewable decision | Board should not have left decision on a tie; absent member could vote or special member could be empaneled | Quorum of at least three existed; four members voted so action was valid and tie results in adoption of ALJ RDO as nonprecedential | Board properly acted; quorum rules permit the result (affirmed) |
| Whether Board’s order was invalid because it lacked findings or declined to address exceptions | Board abdicated duty by not resolving exceptions on the merits and by leaving ALJ RDO unreviewed | Tie vote produced nonprecedential adoption of ALJ RDO; ALJ’s opinion provides findings sufficient for review | ALJ RDO was adopted and supplies adequate findings; form did not defeat substance (affirmed) |
| Whether the Board/ALJ imposed an incorrect procedural burden (requiring clear-and-convincing evidence at the production stage rather than a two-step produce-then-hear process) | Rules require only that employer produce evidence showing a material issue, then an evidentiary hearing to test whether evidence is clear and convincing | Board rules require employer to include clear-and-convincing evidence in its written response; ALJ can issue show-cause to cure deficiencies before hearing | Court interprets rules to require clear-and-convincing evidence in the written response stage (with ALJ investigation analogous to summary-judgment screening); no procedural error (affirmed) |
| Whether the Clerk produced sufficient evidence of fraud or coercion to compel a hearing | Affidavits showed fraudulent promises and objectively coercive conduct (home visits, tracking, threatening texts, police report) requiring hearing | Affidavits were largely hearsay/conclusory, identified no threats, no evidence of retaliation, and none of the affiants signed cards under duress; objective-coercion standard not met | Evidence was insufficient (hearsay/ conclusory; no objective coercion or clear-and-convincing proof); no hearing required (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31 v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 216 Ill. 2d 569 (Illinois 2005) (governs standards of review and administrative-review principles)
- Department of Central Management Services/Illinois Commerce Comm’n v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 406 Ill. App. 3d 766 (Ill. App. 2010) (explains ALJ investigative/summary screening role and when oral hearings are required)
- County of Du Page v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 231 Ill. 2d 593 (Illinois 2008) (describes card-check/streamlined recognition purpose of section 9(a-5))
- Support Council of District 39 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 366 Ill. App. 3d 830 (Ill. App. 2006) (tie vote adopting hearing officer’s decision as nonprecedential is valid)
- Board of Education of Community Consolidated High School District No. 230 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 165 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. 1987) (quorum and tie-vote considerations when a member is absent or recused)
- Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 315 Ill. App. 3d 522 (Ill. App. 2000) (same principle regarding nonprecedential adoption after tie)