Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council
2017 IL App (1st) 161499
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council filed grievances challenging how newly promoted patrol officers were placed on the sergeant salary schedule for the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.
- The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was silent on placement after promotion; the Cook County Personnel Rules (Rule 2.07) required placement at a step that yields at least a two-step pay increase and sets a new anniversary date.
- District HR applied Rule 2.07 by finding the officer’s current patrol step, moving two steps up on the patrol scale, then matching that dollar rate to the next-highest sergeant step.
- Arbitrator James R. Cox (substituted after the original arbitrator withdrew) sustained the Union’s grievances, concluding Rule 2.07 set a minimum and that historical District practice placed promoted sergeants by total District longevity, so most officers should be placed by longevity rather than the two-step method.
- The circuit court vacated the award, finding the arbitrator failed to draw his decision from the CBA (or the Personnel Rules), applied inconsistent results (notably treating Sgt. Kennedy differently), and thus acted without an "interpretive route."
- The Union appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding the arbitrator exceeded his authority by substituting his view of proper placement for the controlling Personnel Rules and the CBA’s reservation of district rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s award "draws its essence" from the CBA | District: Award fails essence test because arbitrator ignored Personnel Rules and CBA reservation of district rulemaking | Union: Award is grounded in CBA context and historical practice; Rule 2.07 is a floor not a cap | Held: Award did not draw its essence; arbitrator improperly departed from the Personnel Rules and CBA context and was vacated |
| Whether there is an "interpretive route" to the award given inconsistent results | District: No interpretive route; arbitrator reached opposite results on similar facts (Sgt. Kennedy) showing arbitrary decisionmaking | Union: Inconsistency is limited and rest of analysis supports award; requests remand for clarification (raised on appeal) | Held: No interpretive route; inconsistency and lack of explanation support vacatur; remand request forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Department of Central Management Services, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (1996) (standard that award must draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State, 124 Ill. 2d 246 (1988) (arbitrator may not dispense his own brand of industrial justice)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (famous dictum against arbitrators imposing their own brand of industrial justice)