Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel
406 Ill. App. 3d 766
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- CMS seeks review of ILRB State Panel certification of eight Illinois Commerce Commission ALJs as exclusive representative for RC-10 unit; CMS argues lack of oral hearing denied due process and prevented witness examination; Board decision relied solely on written submissions; unresolved issue whether ALJs are managerial employees; CMS posits ALJs have major influence via recommended orders rarely modified by Commission; Board remand requested to resolve managerial status.
- CMS filed two majority-interest petitions on July 28, 2009 seeking union certification; CMS submitted position statements arguing ALJs are managers; the Board ordered CMS to show cause and CMS supplied documentary evidence including dozens of orders written by ALJs; the Board found no issues warranting a hearing and certified the union on Sept. 10, 2009.
- ALJs’ role described as issuing recommended orders that the Commission often adopts; CMS contends ALJs effectively formulate and implement policy; controversy centers on whether this makes ALJs managerial employees under 5 ILCS 315/3(j).
- The Illinois Administrative Code 1210 governs whether an oral hearing is required; the rule permits an oral hearing if unresolved issues exist after investigation; the court reverses the Board’s failure to hold an oral hearing for unresolved issues about managerial status.
- This opinion clarifies that whether the ALJs are managerial employees is an issue to be resolved on remand, acknowledging the possibility that ALJs’ recommendations may be sufficiently influential to classify them as managerial under Yeshiva and related Illinois authority.
- Simultaneously, the decision discusses that ALJs of the Human Rights Commission can become final by lack of exceptions, but Commerce Commission ALJs do not automatically become final without exceptions; thus, the Board’s initial process was not dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by denying an oral hearing. | CMS: live issue on managerial status requires hearing. | Gallagher/Board: no unresolved issues after written submissions. | Reversed as to need for hearing; remand for managerial-status determination. |
| Whether the eight ALJs are managerial employees under the Act. | CMS: ALJs’ recommendations effectively direct policy implementation. | Board: status unclear; not conclusively managerial at this stage. | Remand to resolve managerial status; no final ruling on status. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel, 396 Ill. App. 3d 61 (Ill. App. 2009) (clear-error standard for hearing decision)
- Illinois Council of Police v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel, 387 Ill. App. 3d 641 (Ill. App. 2008) (due-process/notice and hearing standards in LRB context)
- AFSCME v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (Ill. 2001) (definition of managerial employee and related standards)
- Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672 (Sup. Ct. 1980) (effective recommendations doctrine for managerial status)
- Cook County State's Attorney v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 166 Ill. 2d 296 (Ill. 1995) (surrogate status of assistant prosecutors under managerial framework)
- Chief Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 178 Ill. 2d 333 (Ill. 1997) (surrogate concept; managerial status)
- Elk Grove Village v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 245 Ill. App. 3d 109 (Ill. App. 1993) (tests for managerial status include directing policy implementation)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (leading standard for relying on agency inferences)
- In re Commonwealth Edison Co., Unpublished Illinois Commerce Commission order (Ill. 2006) (illustrative order drafted by ALJ directing policy effectuation)