County of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
194 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2459
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- ILRB found Cook County violated the Act by refusing to offer reinstatement at a settlement conference after termination for just cause based on an inadmissible settlement-conference statement.
- Two JTDC employees, Beverly Joseph and Leslie Mitchner, were terminated for refusal to undergo mandated background checks (CANTS/LEADS).
- Arbitration upheld the terminations, finding just cause for gross insubordination and upholding the employer’s actions.
- ILRB consolidated Joseph and Mitchner charges alleging antiunion animus in the settlement process and not offering Mitchner reinstatement.
- ALJ recommended finding antiunion animus; ILRB panel split, with a majority finding antiunion animus for one or both, and a dissent concluding the evidence was insufficient.
- Cook County appealed, arguing ILRB exceeded its power and that the evidence was inadmissible or insufficient to prove antiunion animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ILRB could order reinstatement despite a prior arbitration award finding just cause. | Cook County argues ILRB cannot overturn arbitrator’s just-cause finding or compel reinstatement. | ILRB contends remedy of reinstatement with back pay is permissible. | Reversed; ILRB remedy and decision reversed as unsupported by admissible evidence. |
| Whether the settlement-conference statement was admissible under Rule 408 and ILRB rule 1200.120. | Cook County asserts the statement is inadmissible settlement-privilege evidence. | ILRB treated the statement as admissible to show antiunion animus. | Admissibility rejected; evidence excluded under Rule 408 and ILRB rule 1200.120. |
| Whether antiunion animus was proven by the settlement-conference statement. | Employees showed employer’s antiunion motive for not offering Mitchner reinstatement. | No sufficient admissible proof linking statement to decision-maker’s motive. | Not proven; single inadmissible statement insufficient to establish antiunion animus. |
| Whether the ILRB panel’s reliance on a non-decision-maker remark affected the outcome. | Remark showed antiunion sentiment supporting reinstatement. | Remark from non-decision-maker is irrelevant to Director Lewis-Calvin’s decision. | Irrelevant to core decision; reverses due to lack of admissible evidence. |
| Whether ILRB’s reaffirmation of reinstatement was consistent with public policy protecting minors at JTDC. | Remedy sought to protect minors by ensuring background checks; reinstatement justified. | Public policy supports background checks; reinstatement improper without compliance. | ILRB reversal aligns with public policy and evidentiary constraints. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 (1998) (manifest weight standard; four-element unfair labor practice test)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Department of Central Management Services, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (1996) (arbitration award enforcement and just cause standard)
- Paxton-Buckley-Loda Education Ass’n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 304 Ill. App. 3d 343 (1999) (evidentiary and settlement considerations in ILRB context)
- Central Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1060 (2009) (relevance of arbitration and ILRB remedies)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 368 Ill. App. 3d 948 (2006) (settlement negotiation evidence; Rule 408 applicability)