International Union of Operating Engineers v. Office of the Comptroller
2014 IL App (4th) 131079
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- On April 4, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 965 (Union) and the Illinois Office of the Comptroller (Comptroller) executed two CBAs (different bargaining units), effective July 1, 2012–June 30, 2015; both units included employees titled Public Service Administrator (PSA).
- On April 5, 2013, the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act was amended to exclude Comptroller PSAs from the Act’s definition of "public employee." The Comptroller treated PSAs as excluded effective that date and refused to process grievances for PSAs.
- The Union filed grievances (April 26, 2013) asserting the Comptroller’s removal of PSAs breached the CBAs; Comptroller refused and filed a unit-clarification petition with the Illinois Labor Relations Board (Board) on May 13, 2013.
- The Union then filed declaratory-judgment petitions in circuit court (May 29, 2013) to compel grievance processing and arbitration and to declare the amendment only prospective (not affecting existing CBAs); the Comptroller moved to dismiss, arguing administrative remedies (unit-clarification) were the proper route.
- The circuit court dismissed the Union’s petitions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the Board later granted the Comptroller’s unit-clarification petition excluding PSAs, and the Union appealed that Board decision separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Union could seek declaratory relief in court without first exhausting Board remedies | Union: The dispute is purely legal (statutory interpretation) and not subject to exhaustion; declaratory relief appropriate | Comptroller: Unit-clarification before the Board is the proper, exclusive initial forum; exhaustion required | Court: Dismissal affirmed — Union must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking declaratory relief in court |
| Whether the April 5, 2013 statutory amendment applied immediately to remove PSAs from CBAs in effect at that time | Union: Amendment is prospective only and does not affect existing CBAs until they expire (June 30, 2015) | Comptroller: Amendment took effect on enactment date and removed PSAs from bargaining units as of April 5, 2013 | Court: Did not decide the substantive construction in this appeal; found the Board was the appropriate forum and its unit-clarification proceeding was proper |
| Whether unit-clarification was an inappropriate procedure because the change would not immediately affect bargaining rights | Union: Unit-clarification is improper because the amendment does not presently affect rights under existing CBAs | Comptroller: Amendment is a "significant change" in statutory law affecting bargaining rights and fits unit-clarification rule 1210.170(a)(3) | Court: Unit-clarification appropriate; administrative rule covers statutory changes even if immediate effect on rights is disputed |
| Whether the Union’s challenge to Board jurisdiction excused exhaustion (facial jurisdictional attack) | Union: By challenging Board jurisdiction, exhaustion is excused | Comptroller: Board has statutory authority to hear unit-clarification; exhaustion required | Court: Union’s challenge was not a facial attack on Board’s authority; exception inapplicable; exhaustion required |
Key Cases Cited
- Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363 (discusses when claims are initially cognizable before an administrative agency and exhaustion principles)
- Canel v. Topinka, 212 Ill. 2d 311 (explains purposes of exhaustion and allowing administrative agencies to develop the record and apply expertise)
- Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 132 Ill. 2d 304 (identifies exceptions to exhaustion doctrine)
- Coles-Moultrie Electric Cooperative v. City of Charleston, 8 Ill. App. 3d 441 (upholds trial court discretion to dismiss declaratory-judgment actions when administrative proceedings are pending)
- State of Illinois v. State of Illinois, 364 Ill. App. 3d 1028 (describes unit-clarification purpose and appropriateness to remove statutorily excluded employees)
- SEDOL Teachers Union v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 276 Ill. App. 3d 872 (supports use of unit-clarification to remove statutorily excluded employees)
- Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673 (explains facial challenge standard to a statute)