Village of Oak Lawn v. LABOR RELATIONS BD.
964 N.E.2d 1132
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Union represents firefighters and lieutenants in Oak Lawn under a 2003–2006 CBA; Section 7.9 sets minimum manning and staffing levels.
- Negotiations for a successor CBA began in 2006–2007; interest arbitration occurred under Illinois Act.
- In 2008 the Union charged that Oak Lawn declined to negotiate over section 7.9, deleting it from the contract, violating the Act.
- November 2008 successor CBA acknowledged petitioner's view that 7.9 topics were permissive, while union disputed and proposed including 7.9 text.
- Board later found minimum manning a mandatory subject of bargaining after ALJRios’s recommendation applying Central City balancing; petition for review followed.
- Petitioner argues 7.9 topics fall outside mandatory bargaining and disputes Section 14(i) applicability; Board affirmed violation of 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is minimum manning a mandatory bargaining subject? | Oak Lawn argues 7.9 covers management policy or not a mandatory subject. | Board/Union contend minimum manning relates to wages/hours/conditions and is mandatory. | Yes; minimum manning is a mandatory bargaining subject. |
| Does Section 14(i) preclude treating Manning as mandatory for firefighters? | Section 14(i) excludes certain topics from arbitration, impacting Manning’s status. | Section 14(i) excludes only total department headcount, not Manning; Manning not prohibited. | Section 14(i) does not categorically prohibit Manning as a mandatory subject for firefighters. |
| Did Oak Lawn’s refusal to bargain over Section 7.9 constitute an unfair labor practice? | Petitioner asserts not mandatory; not an unfair labor practice. | Board determined failure to bargain over a mandatory subject violates 10(a)(1)/(a)(4). | Yes; failure to bargain over a mandatory subject violated the Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Central City Education Ass'n, IEA/NEA v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 149 Ill.2d 496 (1992) (central balancing test for mandatory subjects)
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill.2d 191 (1998) (balancing framework for mandatory topics; inherent managerial authority)
- County of Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Board Local Panel, 347 Ill.App.3d 538 (2004) (sect. 14(i) determines negotiability for firefighters; Central City test applied when not excluded)
- Forest Preserve District of Cook County v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 369 Ill.App.3d 733 (2006) (application of Central City balancing to determine mandatory status)