Village of North Riverside v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
2017 IL App (1st) 162251
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- The Village of North Riverside and the firefighters’ Union had a CBA that expired April 30, 2014; the CBA provided it would remain in effect while negotiations or impasse procedures were underway.
- The Union sought bargaining and, after mediation was requested in March 2014, demanded compulsory interest arbitration under section 14 of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (the Act).
- The Village explored privatizing fire services with Paramedic Services of Illinois (PSI), then on October 6, 2014 sent a letter and an accompanying notice asserting the CBA would terminate effective December 5, 2014 and stating PSI would hire the firefighters at comparable terms.
- The Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB); an ALJ found the Village unlawfully changed terms during pending interest-arbitration proceedings and interfered with protected activity; the ILRB affirmed (with modification).
- The appellate court considered whether section 7 notice (termination notice) allows an employer to terminate a CBA while interest arbitration under section 14 is pending and whether the Village’s October 6 notice violated the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Village) | Defendant's Argument (Union / ILRB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compliance with section 7 (tendering termination notice) permits an employer to terminate a CBA while interest arbitration under section 14 is pending | Tendering notice under section 7 satisfies the employer’s duties and negates any obligation to maintain status quo through arbitration | Section 7 does not override section 14; employees statutorily barred from striking must have disputes resolved by arbitration and status quo must be maintained through arbitration | Section 7 does not authorize unilateral termination while section 14 proceedings are pending; arbitration provisions control |
| Whether the Village’s October 6 letter/notice constituted a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment | No change occurred because employees remained in their positions and Village complied with section 7 procedural requirements | The letter unambiguously declared termination (not a proposed termination) and thus altered employment terms and signaled a change | The notice was an unlawful unilateral change in terms and conditions during pending arbitration |
| Whether issuing the termination notice interfered with protected union activity (10(a)(1)) | The Village acted for legitimate reasons (compliance with section 7; financial necessity) and lacked anti-union motive | The timing—notice issued shortly after Union demanded interest arbitration—supports inference the notice was motivated, at least in part, by protected activity | Substantial evidence supported ILRB’s finding that the Village’s action was at least partly motivated by the Union’s arbitration demand and interfered with protected rights |
| Whether an interest arbitrator could consider termination/privatization and employer financial condition | Section 14 limits arbitrators to wages, hours, conditions of employment and refers to negotiating a new/amended agreement, so arbitrators can and should consider employer financial ability | Arbitration factors in section 14(h) expressly include public welfare and financial ability; arbitrators can award termination if warranted | An arbitrator may consider privatization/termination because existence of employment is a condition of employment; section 14 empowers arbitrators to resolve such disputes |
Key Cases Cited
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (agency statutory construction review principles)
- City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 135 Ill. 2d 499 (1990) (deference to administrative agency interpretation)
- State Department of Central Management Services (Department of Corrections) v. State Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 373 Ill. App. 3d 242 (2007) (interest-arbitration framework and status-quo principles)
- Wapella Education Ass’n v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 177 Ill. App. 3d 153 (1998) (unilateral announcement of policy change can constitute an unfair labor practice)
- City of Burbank v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 128 Ill. 2d 335 (1989) (standards for inferring discriminatory motive in 10(a)(1) cases)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200 (2008) (mixed question review standards)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (1964) (collective bargaining agreements are not ordinary contracts)