Michels v. ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BD.
969 N.E.2d 996
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Michels discharged from the Illinois Department of Corrections on May 20, 2008 after an investigation revealed misconduct including abuse of parolees, sexual conduct with a parolee, falsification, and other civil rights violations.
- The Union representing Michels (AFSCME Council 31) Grieved the discharge; the Union later informed Michels on December 2, 2008 that it would not pursue arbitration and proposed a written resignation with records purge if accepted, which Michels did not accept.
- Michels filed unfair labor practice charges with the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB) on June 4, 2009 against CMS and the Union, alleging the CMS discipline was pretextual and the Union breached its duty of fair representation.
- The ILRB Executive Director dismissed both charges as untimely (CMS) and not established (Union). Michels appealed; the Board affirmed the Director’s dismissal, and Michels challenged on appeal consolidated grounds.
- The appellate court held (a) the CMS charge was untimely because the six-month period began May 20, 2008 and expired November 20, 2008, not December 4, 2008; (b) the Union claim failed for lack of evidence of intentional misconduct; and (c) the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Union charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of CMS charge under six-month limit | Michels argues six-month clock starts December 4, 2008 | CMS contends clock starts May 20, 2008 | CMS charge untimely |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support Union duty of fair representation claim | Union acted with hostility and failed to properly represent him | Union had broad discretion; no evidence of discriminatory motive | Board did not abuse discretion; no proof of intentional misconduct or discriminatory motivation |
| Whether the Board properly reviewed and dismissed the charges | Board should have ordered an evidentiary hearing | Board correctly exercised discretion at investigation stage | Board’s dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 206 Ill.App.3d 327 (1990) (filing period begins when charging party knows facts, not legal significance)
- Chicago Joint Board, Local 200, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 2011 IL App (1st) 101497 (2011) (six-month period begins upon knowledge of conduct; filing even if not aware of legal significance)
- Murry v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 1111, 305 Ill.App.3d 627 (1999) (Board acts as grand jury; abuse of discretion standard in reviewing dismissal)
- Metropolitan Alliance of Police v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel, 345 Ill.App.3d 579 (2003) (duty of fair representation requires proof of intentional misconduct and discriminatory motive)
- Jones v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 272 Ill.App.3d 612 (1995) (duty of fair representation not violated by incorrect union position absent discriminatory intent)
- Long v. Mathew, 336 Ill.App.3d 595 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing Board decisions)
- Deen v. Lustig, 337 Ill.App.3d 294 (2003) (abuse of discretion; articulate, reasoned decision required)