*1 all for the for resale for which there was sales with a deduction sales rejected explanation documentation. The trial court the officer’s proper actions, for a stating sophisticated, for his that it would be inconceivable or to requirements, hard-nosed businessman to unaware of the Act’s requirements. his Act’s explanation not ask accountant for an there was stating trial court ruling upheld to pay. of wilful failure support finding in the record to ample evidence instant De There no such evidence of record case. his book partment that the defendant instructed did not demonstrate obligation consciously tax or that the defendant keeper underreport his The De of Revenue. Department chose to other creditors before the pay in his affidavit he partment failed to refute defendant’s statement tax had no reason to believe that sales had personal knowledge voluntarily, A con knowledge been must have underreported. person file amount of taxes sciously intentionally pay fail to the correct issue of material genuine due. record demonstrates existence underreported not the wilfully fact whether or defendant regarding Therefore, was in obligations summary judgment tax corporations. court of McLean Accordingly, judgment appropriate. County part, is affirmed reversed in remanded. part, and remanded. part, part, Affirmed in reversed WOMBACHER, JJ., STOUDER and concur. DISTRICT

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL COUNTY, EARLE Petitioner-Appellee, v. JEFFREY NO. COLES al., OF EDUCATION COMPTON et Respondents-Appellants. BOARD —THE COUNTY, Peti- NO. COLES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT COMMUNITY al., Respondents (The JEFFREY EARLE COMPTON et tioner-Appellee, v. Board, Respondent-Ap- Relations Intervenor Illinois Educational Labor pellant). 4—86—0427, cons. District Nos. — 0475

Fourth 4—86 Opinion filed June 1987.

LUND, J., concurring. specially J.,

GREEN, dissenting. General, Hartigan, (Roma Attorney Springfield Neil F. of Jones Stewart, General, Terrazino, Attorney Solicitor Imelda R. Assistant Gen- eral, Hammer, Chicago, counsel), C. of of for appellant and Randi Illinois Labor Educational Relations Board. Malovance, Strawn, J. of

Gregory Chicago, Ralph Winston & of and H. Loewenstein, P.C., appellants of Deffenbaugh, Springfield, Drach & of for Jeffrey Compton Earle and Charleston Association. Braun, Miller, Wilson, Ltd., Monticello,

Brian Braun Tracy, A. & of appellee. Vedder, Price, P. Charles Rose John R. both Spitzig, and Kaufman & Kammholz, Chicago, for amicus curiae.

PRESIDING opinion JUSTICE SPITZ delivered the of the court: Petitioner, board of education of School District No. 1 Community (District 1), respondent, No. and Charleston Education Association (Association), had entered into a collective-bargaining agreement March 1984. Under District No. recognized As- sociation as the bargaining representative exclusive No. District l’s teaching certified personnel agreement provided and the pro- certain cedures for the and termination a griev- of teachers and evaluation procedure resolving concerning alleged ance-arbitration disputes the agreement. violations of at teacher employment No. 1 Compton’s

District terminated re- following 1983-84 without year the conclusion school awas Compton the collective-bargaining agreement. quirements The Associa- teacher the time of dismissal. first-year nontenured at a vio- contending grievance Compton tion a- on behalf filed written agreement. lation was submitted in favor of the Association binding and the arbitrator ruled wages and with full back Compton ordered reinstated Compton and other benefits. peti- and filed a refused to with the award comply

District No. Asso- the circuit court. The tion to aside and vacate the award in set the award ciation the circuit court to confirm Compton petitioned both moved parties and enter judgment accordingly. Subsequently, in fa- granted summary judgment The trial court summary judgment. The Associa- 1 and vacated the award. vor District No. tion moved for a of the trial court’s Compton reconsideration circuit court. The judgment alleging lack inter- filed a motion to (Board) Educational Labor Relations vene in the alternative to reconsider. and a motion to dismiss or court allowed Board to intervene. In June the circuit the Association’s motion court denied reconsideration motion to or reconsider. Board’s dismiss *3 Association, and a notice of Compton, timely appeal. the filed the

On Board contend the Association and the appeal, Compton, seeking subject-matter jurisdiction court lacked over actions involving employers vacate or enforce arbitration awards educational representing agree. and unions teachers. We 1983,

In the (Act) (Ill. Illinois Education Labor Relations Act enacted, becoming 1985, 48, through 1721) ch. was 1, in January major change effective 1984. The Act was a school law, allowing, limita collective and with certain permitting tion, for the enactment is set right policy the strike. The stated 1, and, part, forth section provides: is the of this and the of this public policy purpose

“It State relationships and between promote orderly Act to constructive dis- employees employers. all educational their Unresolved the their putes employees employers between educational and the General is there- injurious public, Assembly must for mini- adequate fore aware that means be established Ill. for their resolution.” Rev. Stat. mizing providing them and 1985, 48, ch. par. 1701. aware, public, problem created general

We are as is the strikes affecting public Illinois, education. In such walkouts were illegal, being against public strikes, The of policy. continuation these often orders, in violation of court coupled conflicts between in- terests collective bargaining and issues of delegability, great was concern to all and was impetus legislative action. mustWe consider reasoning for enactment in determining extent of its application.

The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act em provides ployee organizational rights and the selection of an employee representative. (Il 1985, 48, Rev. Stat. ch. par. 1703.) Employer rights, l. certain areas from limiting bargaining, “bargain obligation collectively regard policy affecting wages, matters directly hours and terms and as impact conditions employment well 1985, thereon” are (Ill. 48, 1704.) created. Rev. Stat. ch. The established, given Board was subpoena and mandated to power, “adopt, promulgate, amend rescind and regulations rules in accord ” ance with ‘The Administrative Act’ (Ill. Procedure 1985, 48, ch. par. 1705(h)).The requirement recognition bar gaining agent (Ill. par. 1707), created Rev. Stat. ch. method selection of election is representative by provided secret (I Rev. Stat. ch. par. 1708). duty bargain col ll. times, to meet at reasonable lectively, faith, confer and to good agreement execute written is provided (Ill.

par. 1710).

Section 10(c)provides as follows:

“(c) The bargaining agreement negotiated collective between representatives of educational and the employees educa- tional shall employer contain resolution procedure all apply which shall in the unit and shall binding disputes concerning administra- tion or interpretation agreement. shall language also contain strikes appropriate prohibiting duration agreement. costs such arbitration shall be borne and the equally employer employee educational organization.” par. 1710(c). Ill. Rev. Stat. outline a course of

Impasse procedures mediation par. 1712) which seeks avoid the strikes allowed Included within the list par. 1713). specific *4 unfair “to practices comply provisions labor is the refusal 1985, 48, a binding par. Rev. Stat. ch. (Ill. award” handling alleged The unfair labor 1714(a)(8),(b)(6)). procedure using the established, injunction is for enforcement providing

443 48, 1985, par. 1715). (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. courts powers circuit in district through Appellate judicial “the Court Review 1985, Stat. (Ill. its office” Rev. principal Board maintains which the Provisions of the to be this court. 48, happens par 1716(a)), ch. law, other executive over conflicts Act control prevail 48, 1985, ch. regulation par. order, (Ill. or administrative 1717). Act Illinois Labor and the Pub

The Illinois Educational Relations (Ill. pars. ch. 1601 lic Relations Act Rev. Labor in 1627) legislative were the same session and through adopted at: for the regulatory pub “a scheme tempted provide comprehensive Board Educa in (Chicago lic sector collective Illinois.” 527, 530, tion v. Teachers Union 142 Ill. 491 Act 1261-62.) (Ill. The Illinois Public Labor Relations N.E.2d for enforcement Stat., par. 1608) provides Supp., (Ill. with the accordance Arbitration Uniform. Relations does through 123). Educational Labor pars. provides refer to the Arbitration Act but enforce

not Uniform 1715). through ment Act, compel the Uniform Under Arbitration arbi tration, arbitration, award, stay seek to en vacation award, court. through force an circuit 114, 116.) The Illinois Educational Labor Relations court, not review in the circuit Act does administrative of Board in the court. providing only appellate review action Thus, strong there are indications in the Hlinois Educational La- legislative bor Relations Act’s that courts were intended history under the Uniform Act to vacate arbi- to have Arbitration collective-bargaining agreements pub- tration awards out legisláture incorporate provi- lic education. Had the intended into the sions of Uniform Arbitration Act Educational Labor language it used that effect it Relations could have express Act. did in the Public Labor Relations there is a legislative

We come the conclusion that interest streamlining litigation proceedings governing education. public advantage having employers educational If every statewide center of and decisions is interpretations obvious. jurisdiction, court can necessar- question be used terms of collective-bargaining effect of the ily interpreting the various resolve edu- consistency. Early a lack of agreements, there will be cational not be disputes possible. will 5 years minimum of calling for “a statutory requirement

experience related to directly labor and employment rep relations in resenting educational or educational employers employees in collective (Ill. matters” ch. 48, par. when 1705(a)) selecting members, Board provides expertise hardly to available some 700 different trial judges from 102 different counties. policy provision of Hlinois the Educational Labor recognizes Relations Act the difference between educational and other employees employees recognizes the need minimize disputes. Unresolved are disputes “injurious” called' (Ill. par. 1701). We come the conclusion all disputes that arise the filing of griev relating ances allegedly agree violations of collective-bargaining ments must be through contested the Board. recognize

We in this present jurisdictional facts case question! 14(aX5) Section of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act 1714(a)(5)) lists one of the unfair practices as: Refusing to “(5) bargain faith an em- collectively good with ployee which is the of' representative representative exclusive unit, appropriate but not limited to including discussing grievances with the exclusive representative; however, provided, if an unfair labor in- alleged volves terms interpretation collective application bargaining ¿greement and said contains a grievance procedure, defer the Board resolution may of such to the con- dispute procedure and arbitration agreement.” tained in said employer questioning jurisdiction, relating spe- to a grievance,

cific elect to discussion await a be- hearing refuse may arbitrator, may go jurisdiction, fore Board questioning Board, and then right jurisdictional issue to appeal to the appellate statutory provision allowing court. Board require first arbitration is unreasonable. Rela provision

The absence of a in the Illinois Educational Labor tions similar to section 12 in Uniform Arbitration Act is not fatal now par. 112) position to those of subpara taken court. Provisions similar section (a)(1), (2), (4) (Ill. graphs (3), re-. (3), necessarily scope included within

112(a)(1), (2), (4)) arbi protection necessary due-process view the Board to hearings. tration v. Chi- Board agree with the decision We 142 Ill.

cago Teachers Union many make enter would we now to the one contrary that a decision mean- Labor Relations Educational the Illinois provisions court exer- and the appellate it is for agree also ingless. We its juris- within keep review power judicial cising diction. position forth, respondent’s we concur

For the reasons set jurisdiction. court lacked that the circuit

Reversed. concurring: LUND, specially

JUSTICE circuit courts If the Spitz. of Justice opinion with the concur Ar- of the Uniform 12(a) in section set forth the issues were review law, minimizing dis- common or those established bitration *6 one frustrating thus delay, unnecessary by be putes hampered would dissent, indicated by apparent, It is of the of the Act. purposes such particulars, in but lacking is certain original legislation that of the Act. emasculation justify judicial does not not involve facts which would may us the case now before While the school system, sore within festering further growth will control fact situ- precedent make does create a decision we of labor History in education. disruption public ations that can lead to dis- of employee-employer determination argument early law is Board, in as stated Labor Relations The Illinois Educational putes. dissent, is created with built- Green’s Judge Judge Spitz’s opinion dupli- economically Board cannot be of the speciality expertise. circuits. many judicial cated in the dissent, agree leg- I Green’s Judge

With due deference Judge opinion recognized is appropriately islative intent of the Gen- the responsibility is tuning legislation A fine Spitz. Green envi- Judge the problems cure easily eral and can Assembly sions. GREEN, dissenting:

JUSTICE circuit court that the determination colleagues’ disagree my I con- the instant matter. to hear lacked County of Coles merits to rule on the proceeded the circuit court properly clude that decision of the I dissent from the Accordingly, it. issues before us later may be before dispute Because the merits majority. address that issue at route, properly I cannot a different though upon the issue only passed concern will dissenting opinion time. This by majority.

446

The thesis of the that, is majority although the Illinois Educa tional Labor Relations (Act) (Ill. Act

1701 through 1721) did not eliminate expressly the previously used procedure whereby might actions brought vacate de cisions from collective-bargaining agreements covering educa tional employers, unions, it employees does so. The implicitly states that the refusal to comply with such an award is an unfair la bor whether committed by employer (Ill. par. 1714(a)(8)) by their organizations (Ill. par. 1714(b)(6)).The majority’s theory

the Act envisions that a having recognizable complaint against those a decision should raise that issue by refusing award and obey then defend on that basis proceedings brought before the Illinois Educational Labor Relations (Board) under section 15 of the them par. 1715) charging with an un fair practice. outset,

At the some discussion of the history background circuit-court procedure question is desirable. That is provided by Union, the decision in Board Education v. Chicago Teachers Lo- No. (1981), cal 86 Ill. 2d which case is to be distinguished from Chicago Board Education v. Chicago Teachers Union Ill. 3d.527, N.E.2d cited the ma- The 1981 jority. case was before the decided enactment the Illinois There, Educational Labor Relations Act. the claim a teacher for salary back was submitted pursuant collective-bar- gaining agreement. The arbitrator awarded certain sums. The su- court preme upheld dismissal, circuit court’s motion, on subsequent aof complaint school board seeking vacate award. The recognized that a circuit court could hear such properly a case agreed but the trial court it was *7 apparent that fact of the record that the school board was not entitled relief.

The of importance us decision was the foregoing recogni tion that an to challenge action the award existed. Also significant that, was the statement of court of that because of the sec provisions tion 12(e) 1977, 10, Uniform Arbitration Act ch. the criterion par. 112(e)), by arbitrator’s award was be examined was not that set forth in the Uniform but Arbitration rather that existing was in the common law before enactment that legislation. The at grounds attacking, such an award common law “fraud, misconduct, mistake, corruption, partiality, were stated be (Board or failure to submit to arbitration” question 469, 474, v. Teacher’s Local No. 1 86 Ill. 2d (1981), Union v. Hult- Mining Co. The case of White Star 1201). cited. 77 N.E. was berg Ill. now, sec- decision, as foregoing time of

At the Act stated: of the Uniform Arbitration 12(e) tion other Section “Nothing any in this Section or any or correcting vacating, modifying, shall to the apply which is agreement result entered as a award of an bargaining agreement; collective to a a of or part pursuant correcting or such an vacating, modifying, the grounds the enactment prior shall those which existed award par. this Act.” Ill. Rev. (Emphasis added.) 112(e). Act stated:

Then, now, Arbitration 12(a) section the Uniform award, the court “Vacating (a) Upon application party, an shall vacate award where: or other corruption, fraud

(1) procured by award was means; undue

(2) by appointed There evident arbitrator partiality was or mis- as a one of the corruption any neutral or arbitrators rights party; conduct prejudicing any (3) powers; arbitrators exceeded their hearing upon (4) postpone arbitrators refused héar evi- being sufficient cause shown therefor or refused to or controversy dence material to the otherwise so conducted hearing, to the of section as to contrary provisions preju- rights dice substantially party; the issue was

(5) agreement There was no arbitration not under Section determined in adversely hearing without did not party participate such but fact that relief was that raising objection; the. it could not or not be the circuit court granted would to confirm the award.” ground vacating refusing Ill. par. 112(a). 8 of the Labor majority, As indicated section Illinois Public by the. Relations Act states and arbitration provisions “[t]he Illinois ‘Uni agreement subject shall be collective ” Thus, 1608).. form Arbitration Act’ legislation remedy apparent change intent of was correcting award vacating, modifying or an arbitration the common collective-bargaining thereby covered from. as stated section of the Uniform Arbitration remedy, 12(e) law forth in section par. 112(e)) set (Ill. Rev. *8 448

12(a) the Uniform Act (Ill. Arbitration par. Here, 112(a)). under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations the of any change, absence similar the common law re remedy would main, unless, maintains, as the majority was remedy implicitly eliminated.

Most of the the basis for inference that the majority’s procedure seeking to vacate arising an award from a covered col- lective-bargaining is that to do would so be consistent with the the Act worthy purposes of and its comprehensive scheme. Sev- factors eral me from prevent drawing same inference. suggested that the before procedure loser can arbitrator

raise traditional attack on the the de- refusing decision to obey and then attacking brought cision decision when charging before Board an unfair cannot used labor be when decision not to do in- require anything. does loser For stance, if a teacher’s for back is claim submitted to arbitration salary and the teacher loses under circumstances tradi- whereby he or she tionally decision, could seek vacation that teacher rea- cannot sonably commit an act would the decision which violate and raise issue whether the to obey refusal the decision was an unfair labor practice.

I have an abhorrence the situations in it is expanding which for parties, in order to test of an necessary propriety order or agency, charge that order and themselves to a defy subject contempt other misconduct such as the commission of an unfair practice. This sometimes but this court procedure necessary, has described it as a “distasteful in the M.B. method” case In re 992, 995, (1985), 137 Ill. 1157. Requiring stated procedure nothing such does to further the policy promot “relationship parties. (Ill. ing orderly between” in 1985, ch. cannot infer that the par. 1701.) easily legislature procedure. tended for such problem crite majority determining sees no However, of an may

rion which decision arbitrator attacked. there are differ prior legislators apparently have deemed that some recognized desig énces between the criteria at common law those in section 12 of the Uniform Arbitration Act nated not 112) else would have voted to par. they likely the common criterion retained arbitration concerns have law when agreement. a collective-bargaining Const. VI,

Article section 9 Constitution here, VI, that, with exceptions applicable art. sec. 9) states mat justiciable of all have original courts shall “[cjircuit decision of an arbitration seeking vacation remedy ters.” im nonjusticiable by deem to been rendered would have majority of the Uniform Arbitration remedy is not the statutory plication rem et law seq.) common but (Ill. Rev. Stat. Chicago v. Teach in edy described *9 Union, 1199. While ers No. 86 Ill. N.E.2d Local we remedy, destroy can a common law legislature I concede that remedy law a common stronger destroy should inference require a statutory with another. replace remedy than one Act, its intent to make of the worthy purpose I do not dispute solving problems serious involved available for expertise through tribunals nor its to channel many intent problems. with those acquire familiarity would have an opportunity intended, However, legislature saying infer without I cannot so, de- (1) deprive subject merely those to arbitration decisions that to do require anything, nied them relief and did not them decisions, wishing to test others procedures (2) require available de- decision, (3) to test defy decisions arbitrator remedy. common stroy time-honored law under legislature decisions making action Arbitra

the Illinois Labor Relations Act Uniform subject Public tion Act no simi par. 1608) making while lar the Illinois does not provision in Educational Labor Relations Act an intention to eliminate in the circuit necessarily procedures indicate court to The legislature test arbitration under the Act. could decisions just that, as well intended Hlinois have Labor Relations under subject such decisions were the Uniform Arbitration law, than, such deci previously, rather under the common while common sions under the Act should continue be tested under the law. frailty majority,

Because of the inference drawn dissent.