Skokie Firefighters Union v. The Illinois Labor Relations Board
2016 IL App (1st) 152478
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Skokie Firefighters Union and the Village of Skokie failed to reach agreement on promotion criteria for lieutenant while negotiating a successor to the 2009–2010 collective bargaining agreement and entered compulsory interest arbitration.
- The Union sought to adopt baseline standards from the Fire Department Promotion Act (Promotion Act); the Village sought to preserve the status quo promotion provisions from prior contracts (which deviated from the Promotion Act).
- The Union submitted a pre‑hearing settlement offer describing its proposed Promotion Act–based terms; the Village objected at arbitration that the topic was untimely and beyond prearbitration bargaining but did not submit a prehearing counteroffer.
- The arbitrator declined to address jurisdiction/timeliness and ruled for the Village, adopting the status quo promotion provisions from the prior contract.
- The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge; the Illinois Labor Relations Board dismissed it, finding merely submitting a permissive subject to arbitration was not an unfair practice. The Union sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promotion standards under the Promotion Act are mandatory or permissive subjects of bargaining | Promotion standards are permissive; Union may insist on statutory baseline and is free to refuse prior waivers | Village conceded the subject is permissive | Court: Promotion standards are permissive subjects; Promotion Act sets default rights the Union may insist upon |
| Whether submitting a permissive subject to interest arbitration, by itself, is an unfair labor practice | Submission that results in deprivation of union members’ statutory rights and an adverse award is an unfair practice | Mere submission of a permissive subject to an arbitrator is not per se an unfair practice (relying on prior board decisions) | Court: Mere submission is not automatically unlawful, but here submission plus an adverse merits ruling on an impassed permissive subject that prejudiced statutory rights constitutes an unfair labor practice |
| Whether the Village’s conduct breached duty to bargain in good faith (insist to impasse and seek arbitration) | Village insisted to impasse on a permissive subject and allowed arbitrator to decide, prejudicing members’ statutory rights | Village says arbitration resolves impasse and Union did not timely present some proposals; Village disclaims responsibility for arbitrator exceeding authority | Court: Where Union insisted on statutory rights and the parties were at impasse, Village’s conduct in putting the permissive issue before the arbitrator and obtaining a status‑quo award that forced a waiver constituted bad‑faith bargaining and an unfair labor practice |
| Whether arbitrator’s failure to rule on jurisdiction/timeliness defeats Union’s claim | Union: Arbitrator ruled on merits without factual findings as to prearbitration bargaining; record lacks basis to find Union failed to bargain | Village: Issue before ILRB was only whether submission alone was unlawful; also argues arbitrator’s action not attributable to Village | Court: Because arbitrator decided the permissive issue on the merits in the face of Union objection and there is no record finding the Union failed to bargain, the Union was prejudiced and Village’s conduct is actionable |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 201 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2002) (standards of review for agency decisions)
- Town of Cicero v. Illinois Association of Firefighters, 338 Ill. App. 3d 364 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) (impassed mandatory subjects are for arbitrator)
- Lid Elec., Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 134, 362 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing permissive subjects of bargaining)
- Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1971) (prior contract inclusion of a permissive subject does not make future bargaining on it mandatory)
- Mt. Vernon Education Ass’n v. Illinois Education Labor Relations Board, 278 Ill. App. 3d 814 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (waiver of statutory rights is a permissive subject)
- City of Bloomington v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 373 Ill. App. 3d 599 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (statutory promotion standards are the default starting point)