International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 700 v. The Illinois Labor Relations Board
411 Ill. Dec. 394
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 700 (Union) represents Cook County correctional/court employees; Sheriff of Cook County issued two general orders effective Jan 25, 2013: (1) "Gang Order" (prohibits membership/association with "Known Criminal Organizations," adds a biannual disclosure form and "knew or should have known" standard) and (2) "Rules of Conduct Order" (extends existing "conduct unbecoming" rules to social media).
- Union demanded to bargain immediately after issuance; employer responded by pointing to the issued orders and invited specific concerns but did not show a willingness to bargain before implementation.
- Union filed an unfair labor practice charge arguing the Gang Order was a mandatory subject of bargaining and the social-media extension was overbroad under §10(a)(1) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.
- ALJ found for the Union: Gang Order required bargaining (it changed terms/discipline) and social-media extension was overbroad; recommended relief.
- Illinois Labor Relations Board reversed the ALJ as to the Gang Order (treating it as inherent managerial policy tied to safety) but affirmed the social-media extension; the appellate court reversed the Board on the Gang Order and affirmed on social media.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gang Order is a mandatory subject of bargaining | Gang Order (disclosure + "knew or should have known") changes terms/conditions, increases discipline risk, so must be bargained | Security and crime-prevention fall within inherent managerial authority; immediate safety needs justify unilateral implementation | Gang Order is a term/condition of employment and, although tied to managerial authority, benefits of bargaining outweigh employer burdens; employer violated duty to bargain |
| Whether employer refused to bargain in violation of Act | Union timely demanded bargaining; employer failed to show willingness to bargain before implementation | Employer contends it never refused and would bargain; no written refusal | Employer implemented the order as a fait accompli after Union demand and thus refused to bargain; violation found |
| Whether social-media extension to "conduct unbecoming" unlawfully chills protected activity under §10(a)(1) | Extension is overbroad/vague; could reasonably be read to prohibit protected, concerted criticism on social media | Conduct-unbecoming language existed in predecessors; merely clarifying that it applies to electronic media does not chill rights | Maintenance of the social-media clarification is not unlawful on its face; reasonable reading does not show it would chill protected activity |
| Standard for evaluating facial overbreadth of workplace rules | Apply NLRB's Lutheran Heritage test: rule unlawful if reasonable employee would construe it to prohibit protected activity, was promulgated in response to union activity, or has been applied to restrict protected rights | Board urged different standard but offered no workable alternative; relied on longstanding practice and lack of enforcement history | Court adopts Lutheran Heritage framework as persuasive; applied it and found the social-media clause lawful on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Central City Education Ass’n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill. 2d 496 (Ill. 1992) (sets test for when employer actions are mandatory subjects of bargaining versus inherent managerial policy)
- Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 224 Ill. 2d 88 (Ill. 2007) (matters at the core of entrepreneurial control constitute inherent managerial authority)
- Forest Preserve District of Cook County v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 369 Ill. App. 3d 733 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006) (standard of review and balancing analysis on bargaining duty)
- Chicago Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 299 Ill. App. 3d 934 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (announcing that presenting changes as a fait accompli can constitute failure to bargain)
- Town of Cicero v. Illinois Ass’n of Firefighters, IAFF Local 717, 338 Ill. App. 3d 364 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (employee interest in avoiding discipline is relevant in bargaining-benefit balancing)