State v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
2014 IL App (1st) 130262
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- CMS and AFSCME entered a four-year CBA in 2008 with scheduled wage increases.
- CSAs in 2010 deferred wages and sought budgetary savings; mediation produced a January 26, 2010 resolution.
- Further CSAs in 2010-2011 continued deferrals, furloughs, and cost reductions; AFSCME ratified.
- May 2011 budget appropriations partially funded the CBA/CSAs; CMS froze pay for 14 agencies due to insufficiencies while others paid.
- July 2011 Benn awarded that State must pay the deferred wages; State sought to vacate; court proceedings ensued; parties reached interim agreements; State ultimately paid; issue on appeal to confirm or vacate remains.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Benn’s award draw its essence from the CBA/CSAs? | State argues award misreads the Act and policy. | AFSCME contends award derivable from CBA/CSAs with enforceable contract terms. | Yes; award drew its essence from the CBA/CSAs. |
| Does the Act/appropriation power void the award as contrary to public policy? | State contends appropriation power vitiates obligations under CBA/CSAs. | AFSCME maintains multiyear contracts are enforceable despite funding gaps. | No; award consistent with public policy favoring enforceable multiyear contracts. |
| Does 5 ILCS 315/21 permit the General Assembly to defeat contractual obligations by lack of appropriation? | State claims CBA/CSAs must be subject to appropriation. | Union argues contract promises survive absent explicit contingent language. | No; statute does not render CBA subject to generalized appropriation power. |
| Was the trial court’s partial vacation of the award proper? | State argues public policy requires withholding some payments. | AFSCME argues award draws essence and should be confirmed. | Incorrect; court should not have vacated; award should be confirmed. |
| Is the appeal moot after payments were made? | State contends mootness; actions completed. | AFSCME argues mootness not applicable to correctness of decision. | Mootness not foreclosing jurisdiction; court proceeded to decide on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- AFSCME v. CMS, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (Ill. 1996) (arbitrator must draw essence from the contract; courts review for public policy)
- Iowa Council 61 v. State, 484 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa 1992) (state may be compelled to perform contractual obligations despite appropriation)
- Circle Management, LLC v. Olivier, 378 Ill. App. 3d 601 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2007) (duty to determine mootness in appellate review; rule of necessity considerations)
- Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721 (Ill. 2013) (essence test for arbitrator’s contract interpretation)
- Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286 (Ill. 2004) (conflict-of-interest considerations on adjudicative review)