Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
980 N.E.2d 1259
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Union petitioned to form a unit including four State Police attorneys (public service administrator 8L) with Kondelis and Jarvis in dispute positions.
- Department objected to including State Police 8L attorneys; Hosteny led the legal office and assigned matters.
- ALJ Tarver recommended Kondelis and Jarvis were neither managerial nor confidential; Hosteny’s 8L position was excluded for lack of evidence.
- Board later found Jarvis not confidential; certified Kondelis’s position as part of the unit; Department sought review.
- Court reverses in part: finds Kondelis not clearly erroneous as non-managerial; but vacates certification by recognizing Kondelis as confidential under authorized-access test; relies on position duties and potential access to bargaining materials.
- Record shows State Police legal office has hierarchical structure; Kondelis assisted in merit-board cases and lab-related legal matters but had limited independent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Kondelis a managerial employee under 3(j)? | Department argues Kondelis is managerial. | Board/Union contends not managerial. | Not clearly erroneous; Kondelis not managerial. |
| Is Kondelis a confidential employee under 3(c)? | Department argues Kondelis meets confidentiality with access to labor-relations matters. | Board contends insufficient confidential exposure in practice. | Kondelis is confidential under authorized-access test; certification including Kondelis vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME, Council 31 v. City of Chicago, 153 Ill. 2d 508 (1992) (confidential-employee tests for labor relations; loyalties divided)
- One Equal Voice v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 333 Ill. App. 3d 1036 (2002) (reasonableness/future duties when evaluating confidential status)
- Salaried Employees of North America (SENA) v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 202 Ill. App. 3d 1013 (1990) (two tests for managerial status; focus on duties and structure)
- City of Evanston v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 227 Ill. App. 3d 955 (1992) (authorized-access and general working information not enough for confidential status)
- Chief Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 178 Ill. 2d 333 (1997) (loyalty division rationale for managerial exclusions)
- AFSCME v. City of Chicago (relevant excerpt cited as AFSCME), 153 Ill. 2d 508 (1992) (confidential employee framework)