The Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council
73 N.E.3d 18
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council (Union) filed grievances contesting how newly promoted Forest Preserve District patrol officers were placed on the sergeant salary schedule.
- The parties’ CBA was silent on post‑promotion step placement; the Cook County Personnel Rules (Rule 2.07) required placement at a salary at least two steps above the pre‑promotion salary and set the promotion anniversary for step progression.
- The District’s human resources applied Rule 2.07 by moving an officer’s pay two steps along the patrol scale and then matching that dollar amount to the next higher sergeant step.
- Arbitrator James R. Cox sustained most grievances, concluding Rule 2.07 sets a minimum and ordering placement based on total District longevity (historical practice), though he upheld the District’s Rule 2.07 application for at least one sergeant (Kennedy).
- The District sought vacatur in circuit court, arguing the award did not draw its essence from the CBA (and improperly disregarded the Personnel Rules); the circuit court vacated the award for lack of an interpretive route and inconsistent treatment.
- The union appealed; the appellate court affirmed the vacatur, finding the arbitrator deviated from the governing Personnel Rules and imposed a noncontractual practice without showing a basis in the CBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator’s award "draws its essence" from the CBA | Award fails essence test — arbitrator ignored Personnel Rules and imposed personal view/historical practice; must be vacated | Arbitrator interpreted that Rule 2.07 is a minimum and historical practice supports placement by total longevity | Held: Vacatur affirmed — award did not draw its essence from the CBA; arbitrator improperly deviated from Personnel Rules and relied on unproven practice |
| Whether there is an interpretive route to the award given inconsistent outcomes (Kennedy) | Inconsistency shows arbitrator acted without a contractual interpretive route; award arbitrary | Union: Majority of analysis consistent; asks for remand to correct ambiguity (raised on appeal) | Held: No interpretive route; inconsistent results (same facts, different outcomes) support vacatur; remand request forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721 (explains limited judicial review and "draws its essence" standard)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Department of Central Management Services, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (arbitrator determines meaning of CBA; courts defer unless award lacks essence)
- State v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2016 IL 118422 (discussion of deference and finality in arbitration review)
- Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, 74 Ill. 2d 412 (courts should not substitute their judgment for arbitrator’s where award draws its essence)
- Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 v. Chicago Transit Authority, 342 Ill. App. 3d 176 (award must be rationally derived from the CBA)
- Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 935 F.2d 1501 (interpreting when an award is so "zany" it indicates willful disregard of contract)