2020 IL App (4th) 190143
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background
- Western Illinois University (University) and the exclusive bargaining representative, University Professionals of Illinois Local 4100 (Union), were governed by a CBA containing grievance arbitration and faculty layoff procedures (Article 24) and a confined-arbitration clause (Article 6.12).
- In April 2017, Arbitrator Fredric Dichter heard grievances from 10 laid-off faculty; on July 6, 2017 he issued a binding award finding violations as to two faculty (Ogbaharya and Stovall), ordering remedies and stating he would "retain jurisdiction for no less than 90 days" to resolve implementation issues.
- The University sent September 12, 2017 letters describing its post-award efforts to find positions and concluded it could not place the two faculty, so layoffs would proceed. The Union alleged noncompliance and asked Dichter to determine implementation.
- Despite the University’s objections that the IELRB has exclusive primary jurisdiction to enforce arbitration awards under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (Act), Dichter held a January 2018 hearing and, on March 5, 2018, issued a supplemental award finding noncompliance and ordering remedies.
- The Union filed unfair labor practice charges alleging violations of 115 ILCS 5/14(a)(8) and derivatively (a)(1) (refusal to comply with binding arbitration awards). The IELRB found the University violated those provisions and ordered compliance; the University sought direct administrative review in the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the question of the University’s compliance with the July 2017 arbitration award was arbitrable | University: Not arbitrable as a matter of law because the IELRB has exclusive primary jurisdiction under the Act to determine compliance | IELRB/Union: Arbitrator retained jurisdiction to resolve implementation and therefore could decide compliance | Held: Not arbitrable to the arbitrator; allowing arbitrator to decide compliance would usurp IELRB’s exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether arbitrator Dichter had contractual authority under the CBA to determine compliance/issue a supplemental award | University: CBA confines arbitration "solely" to precise issues submitted; arbitrator exceeded scope and was functus officio after the award | IELRB/Union: Arbitrator’s retention of jurisdiction for implementation was permissible under arbitration rules/CBA and practice | Held: Dichter exceeded his contractual authority; Article 6.12’s "solely" and "precise" language requires narrow scope; arbitrator lacked authority to decide compliance |
| Whether the March 5, 2018 supplemental award was binding on the University | University: Supplemental award was void because arbitrator lacked jurisdiction/authority, so University privileged to refuse compliance | IELRB/Union: Supplemental award binding; refusal violated 14(a)(8) | Held: Supplemental award was not binding because arbitrator lacked jurisdiction/authority; University could not be found to have violated 14(a)(8) based on that award |
| Appropriate remedial/next-step procedure | University: IELRB must consider all relevant evidence (including ALJ hearing testimony) regarding compliance | IELRB: May follow arbitrator’s factual findings but relied on arbitrator for implementation finding | Held: Vacated IELRB order and remanded; IELRB may adopt arbitrator’s factual findings but must consider subsequent evidence presented before the ALJ in deciding compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Education of Community School District No. 1 v. Compton, 123 Ill. 2d 216 (1988) (Act divests circuit courts of primary jurisdiction over educational labor arbitration awards)
- Chicago Board of Education v. Chicago Teachers Union, 142 Ill. App. 3d 527 (1986) (IELRB has exclusive primary jurisdiction to review binding arbitration awards under the Act)
- Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721 (2013) (parties who contract for arbitration accept the arbitrator’s view of facts/meaning of contract)
- Hollister Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 170 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (1988) (arbitrator exceeds powers when deciding matters not submitted; functus officio doctrine)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois, 124 Ill. 2d 246 (1988) (arbitrator must draw essence of award from the CBA and cannot dispense independent industrial justice)
- Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 224 Ill. 2d 88 (2007) (standard of review and deference principles for labor-board decisions)
- SPEED District 802 v. Warning, 242 Ill. 2d 92 (2011) (administrative-review standards for IELRB decisions)