Village of Posen, Illinois v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council
2014 IL App (1st) 133329
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Hammond, a Village of Posen police officer, was terminated for allegedly double-dipping after receiving salary and workers’ compensation checks for the same period.
- The Union represented Hammond in a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement; the arbitrator ruled Hammond was not discharged for just cause and reinstated him, making him whole with jurisdiction retained for 60 days.
- The Village filed to vacate the arbitration award, contending Hammond was not covered by the CBA due to allegedly unlawful hiring and that the arbitrator exceeded authority or denied due process.
- The Village argued the arbitrator required strict proof by clear and convincing evidence and that a pretermination hearing should have occurred; it also sought a remand for a setoff.
- At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court properly vacated the award and whether remand for setoff was appropriate; the court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and declined remand.
- The court held the Village waived arbitrability by participating in arbitration and failing to object at the outset, and the award drew its essence from the CBA and did not violate public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was arbitrability waived by the Village? | Hammond not lawfully hired; arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. | Waived by participation and agreement to arbitrator’s authority. | Waived; arbitrator’s jurisdiction preserved; judgment affirmed. |
| Did the arbitrator apply the correct quantum of proof? | Village required preponderance; arbitrator erred by requiring clear and convincing. | Arbitrator could determine the quantum; contract silent; burden adequately applied. | Arbitrator’s approach permissible; any error did not vacate the award. |
| Does the award violate public policy? | Reinstating Hammond violates public policy against theft/trustworthiness of officers. | Arbitrator found no theft and did not violate explicit public policy; decisions within contract scope. | No explicit, dominant public policy violated; award affirmed. |
| Did the arbitrator exceed authority by requiring a pretermination hearing? | Pretermination due process rights violated under AFSCME II rationale. | Preemption; merits-based approach; no impact on outcome. | Issue not grounds for vacatur; declined to address further. |
| Should the matter be remanded for a setoff? | Village entitled to offset overpayments against back wages. | No setoff issue was raised before arbitrator; award silent on offsets; remand inappropriate. | No remand for setoff; award affirmed as to remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721 (Illinois Supreme Court (2013)) (arbitrator’s interpretive scope and essence of contract; narrow public policy review)
- AFSCME II v. State, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (Illinois Supreme Court (1996)) (public policy exception to vacatur; essence of the agreement)
- City of Northlake v. Illinois Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council, 333 Ill. App. 3d 329 (Ill. App. 2002) (limits on vacatur when award draws essence from contract)
- Amalgamated Transit Union v. Chicago Transit Authority, 342 Ill. App. 3d 176 (Ill. App. 2003) (essence of the agreement; deference to arbitrator’s interpretation)
- AFSCME v. Department of Central Management Services, 173 Ill. 2d 299 (Illinois Supreme Court (1996)) (pretermination rights and public policy context in arbitration)