STATE OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATE PANEL

State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of Children and

Family Services),

Petitioner,

and

American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, Council 31,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. S-UC-17-067

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

On February 10, 2017, the State of Illinois, Department of Central Management

Services (Petitioner or CMS) filed a unit clarification petition with the Illinois Labor

Relations Board (Board) seeking to exclude the position of Public Service Administrator,

Option 6, Position Number 37015-16-18-422-50-01, working title Call Floor Supervisor,

at its Department of Children and Family Services from an existing bargaining unit on the

basis that the position is supervisory under Section 3(r) of the Illinois Public Labor

Relations Act (Act). On March 28, 2017, the American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Respondent or Union) filed its response objecting to

the petition.

The matter was set for hearing and was heard on March 14 and 15, 2018, before the

undersigned administrative law judge. At hearing, both parties had an opportunity to call,

examine, and cross-examine witnesses; introduce documentary evidence; and present

arguments. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs in lieu of closing arguments. After full

consideration of the parties’ stipulations, evidence, arguments, and briefs, and upon the

entire record of this case, I recommend the following:

I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

The parties stipulate, and I find, that:

1. At all times material, the State has been a public employer within the meaning of

Section 3(o) of the Act.

2

2. At all times material, the State has been subject to the jurisdiction of the State Panel

of the Board, pursuant to Section 5(a-5) of the Act.

3. At all times material, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning

of Section 3(i) of the Act.

4. At all times material, the Union has been the exclusive representative of the RC-63

historical bargaining unit.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Deanna Large and Julie Summers testified on behalf of the State. Tracy Reasonover

and Cecelio Ever Perez testified on behalf of the Union.

Deanna Large (Large) is the Administrator of the State Central Register (SCR) for

the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), a position she has held

since July 2015. In that capacity, she is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the

SCR, which includes responsibility for all the operations of DCFS’s child abuse and

neglect hotline as well as the Call Floor. Large testified that the most important purpose

of the Call Floor is to receive, process, and assess reports of suspected child abuse and

neglect to determine if the legal criteria for a report for investigation is met and, if so, to

distribute that report to the respective DCFS Field Office for investigation. Large and SCR

Assistant Administrator Trista Cox (Cox) are herein collectively referred to as “SCR

Administration.”

a. The Call Floor

To help ensure the safety of Illinois children, DCFS manages a toll-free hotline

which receives calls regarding suspected child abuse and neglect. Calls to DCFS’s hotline

are processed by its Call Floor. The Call Floor, approximately the size of a football field,

contains rows of cubicles staffed by Call Floor Workers, who receive and process calls.

Call Floor Workers hold the title of Child Welfare Specialist or Child Welfare Advance

Specialist. Large testified that there are currently 86 Call Floor Workers at DCFS. Each

Call Floor Worker is in a bargaining unit, except for newly-hired Call Floor Workers on

probationary status, which are not.

At the perimeter of the Call Floor are offices for Call Floor Supervisors. Large

testified that Call Floor Supervisors are responsible for the immediate operations of the

Call Floor, including reviewing the work of Call Floor Workers to ensure it is completed

properly. Currently, there are approximately ten Call Floor Supervisors, none of whom are

presently in a bargaining unit. Each Call Floor Supervisor has the same job duties,

regardless of the shift they work. The position of Call Floor Supervisor at issue in this

matter is currently held by Julie Summers (Summers), who assumed the position in May

of 2017. Prior to assuming her current position, Summers worked as a Call Floor

3

Supervisor on another shift, a position which she assumed in February 2016. According

to the DCFS organizational chart, Summers has capacity to supervise approximately 24

direct reports.1 However, most of those positions are currently vacant, and Summers in

practice has approximately nine subordinates reporting to her. Currently, the maximum

number of subordinates reporting to any one Call Floor Supervisor is approximately 14.

Cecelio Ever Perez (Perez) and Tracy Reasonover (Reasonover) are also Call Floor

Supervisors. Perez has been a Call Floor Supervisor since April of 2017, and Reasonover

since approximately 2015. Both Perez and Reasonover previously worked as Call Floor

Workers before becoming Call Floor Supervisors.

There are statutes, administrative regulations, and departmental procedures which

regulate the Call Floor’s operations. One such statute is the Abused and Neglected Child

Reporting Act (ANCRA). ANCRA created the SCR and the hotline, and outlines what

constitutes a neglected or abused child. It also identifies mandated reporters, which are

individuals who are required to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DCFS. In

addition to ANCRA, DCFS promulgates certain rules and regulations which guide abuse

and neglect determinations, including Part 300. Part 300 is contained within the Illinois

Administrative Code.2 In addition, DCFS develops its own internal procedures, including

Procedure 300. Procedure 300 is not contained within the Illinois Administrative Code.

Call Floor Workers sign in and out of their phones as needed. When a call comes

in, it rounds until it finds a signed-in worker who is available to take the call. When a Call

Floor Worker receives a call, they verbally interview the reporter and gather certain

information to determine if the legal criteria for a report for investigation are met. To make

this determination, the Call Floor Worker utilizes Part 300, including an appendix to that

part, Appendix B.3 Appendix B sets forth detailed definitions of each allegation and gives

common types of circumstances that fall within the scope of each allegation.

If the criteria for investigation are not met, no report will be taken. However, if the

criteria are met, the Call Floor Worker applies Procedure 300, completes an intake,

generates a report, and distributes that report to the appropriate DCFS Field Office for

investigation. Procedure 300 provides that if a mandated reporter disagrees with the

determination made by the Call Floor Worker, he or she may speak with a Call Floor

Supervisor for a review. The Call Floor Supervisor would then review the intake

completed by the Call Floor Worker and apply Part 300 and Appendix B. If the Call Floor

Supervisor determines a report should have been taken based on the allegations reported,

the supervisor would direct the Call Floor Worker to take one.

1 A “direct report” is another term for subordinate. 2 See 89 Ill. Admin. Code 300. 3 Appendix B can also be found at 89 Ill. Admin. Code 300.

4

When a call cannot be answered by a Call Floor Worker, the call goes into the

queue. Call Floor Supervisors monitor the queue and decide which calls need to be

prioritized and promptly returned by a Call Floor Worker. Reasonover testified that he

does this by assessing the type of messages in the queue and uses his discretion to determine

which calls in the queue need to be responded to in which order.

b. Desk Duty

Each Call Floor Supervisor works a seven-and-a-half-hour shift. For

approximately four hours of that shift4, they are assigned “desk duty.” During desk duty,

Call Floor Supervisors provide direction to Call Floor Workers regarding calls; Summers

testified that she meets with Call Floor Workers who have questions or who are seeking

consultation to determine the direction of a given call. Perez and Reasonover testified

similarly.

Typically, there are two Call Floor Supervisors on desk duty at any given time

during the day shift. During the day shift, each Call Floor Worker is assigned a color,

either green or blue. The Call Floor Supervisors on desk duty alternate which color they

will take that day, and hang a sign outside of their office indicating such color. Blue

workers take questions and concerns to the blue Call Floor Supervisor, and green workers

go to green. This means that, in some cases, a Call Floor Supervisor on desk duty will

field questions from Call Floor Workers who are not a direct report of theirs.

A significant portion of desk duty involves reviewing intakes completed by Call

Floor Workers.5 In order to ensure child safety, certain intakes are required to be reviewed

by a Call Floor Supervisor automatically, including intakes involving a death, serious harm,

or certain high-profile events that may garner media attention. In addition, each intake

completed by a new Call Floor Worker that is still in probationary status is reviewed by

the Call Floor Supervisor on desk duty.6

The review processes for both types of intakes required to be reviewed is the same:

the Call Floor Supervisor reviews the intake to determine if it was properly processed. If

so, he or she would approve the intake. To make this determination, the Call Floor

Supervisor checks to see if the information entered by the Call Floor Worker matches the

disposition chosen by the Call Floor Worker; for example, if the Call Floor Worker

determines to apply a certain allegation, the Call Floor Supervisor checks to ensure the

narrative of the intake matches that allegation. If the Call Floor Worker believes the

4 Perez estimated that he spends approximately a minimum of two and a half days per week on desk duty,

and Reasonover testified that most of his day is spent on desk duty. 5 Perez, for example, testified that he spends most of his time on desk duty reviewing the intakes of his

subordinates. 6 Probationary Call Floor Workers are discussed in more detail, infra.

5

information does not rise to the level of an allegation, the Call Floor Supervisor would

check the information presented to confirm.

When reviewing intakes, a Call Floor Supervisor applies ANCRA, Procedure 300,

and Part 300, including Appendix B. If the intake is approved, it is then distributed

electronically to DCFS Field Staff. If the Call Floor Supervisor believes the intake was

not properly processed, he or she can direct the Call Floor Worker to contact the reporter

and ask for additional information, or instruct the worker to perform other tasks to ensure

accuracy of the intake. Additionally, the supervisor may simply overturn a worker’s

decision to not take a report, and turn that intake into a report. Finally, the supervisor may

determine that a different allegation ought to be applied on a given report, or include

additional allegations supplementing an existing allegation. The Call Floor Supervisor

does not need permission or authorization from SCR Administration to make any of these

decisions.

On occasion, certain Call Floor Workers are assigned to desk duty, with at least one

Call Floor Worker assigned to desk duty on a weekly basis. This is referred to as a

“temporary assignment”. Large testified that only Call Floor Workers who hold the title

of Child Welfare Advanced Specialist can be temporarily assigned to desk duty because

they have more specialized training and typically hold a master’s degree. Call Floor

Workers that have been temporarily assigned to desk duty perform the same duties that a

Call Floor Supervisor would perform in that capacity. Large testified that temporary

assignments to desk duty are not a part of a Call Floor Worker’s regular job duties, and as

a result, they receive extra compensation.

c. Review of Subordinate Work and Evaluation

i. Daily Statistics

Call Floor Supervisors perform daily review by tracking and compiling information

on their subordinates. Summers testified that she gets this information from the phone

system records and a statewide child welfare database, SACWIS. Various information

relating to Call Floor Worker productivity is captured, including when an employee signs

into his or her phone, the number of incoming and outgoing calls to and from that phone,

the number of intakes completed per day, and how many hours the individual worked per

day, which is used to calculate an intake-per-hour average for a worker. Summers testified

that Call Floor Workers have a goal of two intakes per hour. All of this information is

inputted into an Excel spreadsheet by the Call Floor Supervisor. In addition, the supervisor

can include comments in the document. Summers testified that she gave input as to what

daily metrics should be tracked during a meeting attended by the Call Floor Supervisors

and SCR Administration. Summers testified that she spends approximately 30 minutes per

day gathering and compiling these statistics, and she complies those numbers when she is

6

not on desk duty. She uses these statistics when completing the annual evaluation of her

direct reports, and the Call Floor Supervisor’s own performance evaluation makes clear

that he or she is responsible for attaching an analysis of each employee’s statistical

performance to their annual evaluation.

ii. Monthly Intake Review

Once a month, Call Floor Supervisors must review at least one intake from each of

their subordinates. This review includes listening to a call recording, reviewing the intake

that was completed based on the call information, and then completing an Intake

Monitoring Tool which rates various practice elements relating to receiving, reviewing,

assessing, and gathering information. Large testified that the calls to review are chosen at

random by the Call Floor Supervisor. Summers testified that she completes this intake

review when she is not on desk duty.

The Intake Review Tool measures a Call Floor Worker’s interviewing skills,

assessment skills, and proficiency with the computerized system into which intakes are

entered. Large testified that the Intake Review Tool utilizes a standardized scoring system:

the Call Floor Supervisor rates each of the practice elements on the tool, and then totals

those scores to arrive at a final overall score, which is used to determine if the intake

exceeded standards, met standards, or did not meet standards. Large, Cox, and the Call

Floor Supervisors collaboratively developed the Intake Review Tool, including the review

criteria, over the course of several meetings. Large testified that, during this process, she

and Cox followed the recommendations of the Call Floor Supervisors because they review

intakes daily and have the training, education, and experience to identify what constitutes

a quality intake. Summers testified that, at these meetings, the Call Floor Supervisors

suggested categories they wanted assessed in the tool, and discussed how to score those

categories, and determined the point values for each.

To complete the Intake Review Tool, Summers listens to the recorded phone call

for the given intake. She testified that she checks the worker’s demeanor, gauges their

professionalism, considers the way they ask questions, and checks to see if they are rushing

the caller through. She checks for specific pieces of information such as location of the

alleged vulnerabilities and perpetrators, certain demographic information, dates of birth,

race, and language preferences. She is also gauging the worker’s general job knowledge,

including whether the correct allegation is selected, and that the report is correctly assigned

to the appropriate Field Office. The maximum number of points an employee can get on

the Intake Review Tool is 100.

After completing the Intake Review Tool, the Call Floor Supervisor meets with the

Call Floor Worker to go over the results of the review. If a Call Floor Supervisor

determines that a Call Floor Worker did not properly process the intake being reviewed,

7

Large testified that the supervisor has the ability to take several courses of action. Minor

issues may simply be addressed with the Call Floor Worker verbally during the meeting.

For more serious issues, Large testified that the Call Floor Supervisor may decide to review

prior intakes to see if it was an isolated incident, or if there is a pattern, and may take

“further action” if necessary to determine how to correct the performance of the employee.

Large did not describe what “further action” may entail. Summers’s assessments do not

need to be reviewed or approved by anyone either before or after meeting with the

employee. In some circumstances, Summers may listen to more than one call per employee

per month; for instance, if the worker seemed to be struggling with information gathering

or not understanding how to assign allegations. She uses her discretion in deciding whether

to review additional calls or not. When it comes time to complete the annual evaluation,

each monthly intake score is averaged and the final score is inputted into the annual

evaluation.

Summers testified that it takes her approximately 30 minutes to complete one

monthly intake review. Perez testified that it takes him approximately 30 minutes, and

Reasonover spends about 40-45 minutes. The performance evaluation for the Call Floor

Supervisor lists, as an objective, that the supervisor will perform at least 12 intake reviews

per employee, annually.

iii. Annual Evaluation

Call Floor Supervisors complete an annual evaluation of each of their subordinates.

The annual evaluation document contains a section wherein the Call Floor Supervisor

appraises certain pre-determined objectives. The objectives for the annual evaluation were

developed by the Call Floor Supervisors themselves, as well as by Large and Cox, during

a series of supervisor meetings starting in 2015 and continuing into 2017. These meetings

were separate and apart from regular supervisory meetings. Large testified that during

those meetings, the group looked at the existing performance objectives, and discussed

each in detail, including whether any needed to be revised and why. Each person had input

into the development of the review document, and the recommendations made were

collective. Call Floor Supervisors were specifically instructed to not share these

discussions regarding performance evaluations with Call Floor Workers as the project was

not yet complete and they wanted to avoid the spread of misinformation.

Some of the annual objectives are quantitative in nature, such as an intakes-per-

hour goal, while others are qualitative, such as “make wise use of time” and “handle all

duties in a responsible, professional manner.” When completing an annual evaluation,

Summers testified that she looks at such factors as the worker’s daily statistics, considers

if the employee had done anything exceptional throughout the year, and considers feedback

from other supervisors. Monthly intake reviews are also factored into the evaluation.

8

Summers testified that has never been directed to change her evaluation of an employee by

her supervisors.

Large and Cox review completed annual evaluations to ensure they are completed

in accordance with the employee code and to ensure the documents are internally

consistent. Large testified that she and Cox sign off on annual evaluations after the Call

Floor Supervisor has completed the evaluation, reviewed it with the employee, and both

the employee and Call Floor Supervisor have signed the document. Large and Cox are not

at this meeting between the employee and the Call Floor Supervisor. Large testified that

she does not have a role in reviewing a Call Floor Worker’s productivity or quality to

complete the annual evaluation, and she has never returned an evaluation to a Call Floor

Supervisor because she disagreed with the supervisor’s substantive assessment of a worker.

An annual evaluation is kept in an employee’s file for one year. The consequence for a

poor annual evaluation may be additional training, or possibly discipline and a corrective

action plan, the latter of which would be developed by the Call Floor Supervisor. Large

testified that non-probationary employees have, in fact, been placed on corrective action

plans.

Summers testified that she spends several hours—approximately three to four—

completing annual evaluations, and she completes them at different times of the year based

on a worker’s seniority or start date. Perez and Reasonover both testified that they spend

approximately an hour and a half doing each annual review. Call Floor Supervisors are

responsible on their own performance evaluations for ensuring that these annual

evaluations are completed two weeks prior to the due date.

d. Probationary Employees

Call Floor Supervisors review the performance of newly-hired Call Floor Workers,

who start off on a six-month probationary period. During the initial period of training, a

probationary Call Floor Worker has each of his or her intakes reviewed by a Call Floor

Supervisor. This is known as “intake review status”. If the worker adequately progresses,

a Call Floor Supervisor can recommend that the probationary worker be removed from

intake review status. Large testified that, when this happens, the Call Floor Supervisor

would then review only every third intake. If the employee continues to adequately

progress, he or she would eventually only have the same intakes reviewed that are required

of all other Call Floor Workers. Summers testified that she has the discretion to decide

when it is time for a Call Floor Worker to be relieved of their requirement to have their

intakes reviewed; there is no automatic time at which somebody is stepped down or

dropped from intake review status. When Summers believes an employee can come off

intake review status, she will email Large with her recommendation, and will include an

9

explanation as to why she believes the decision is appropriate.7 Summers testified that she

has never had a recommendation of this type rejected by her superiors. After the

recommendation is accepted, Large will email the Call Floor Worker and explain the

decision, including why the Call Floor Supervisor believed it was the proper course of

action.

During the probationary period, the Call Floor Supervisor performs a first

probationary evaluation of the Call Floor Worker. In that evaluation, the Call Floor

Supervisor may identify specific areas of improvement for the worker. At the end of the

six-month period, the Call Floor Supervisor completes a final probationary evaluation of

the Call Floor Worker, and recommends within that document whether the employee

should be certified or not. Although Large or Cox review and sign off on probationary

employee evaluations, Large testified that she has never rejected the recommendation of a

Call Floor Supervisor with respect to whether a probationary Call Floor Worker should be

certified or not. If a Call Floor Worker does not become certified at the end of the six-

month probationary period, they are typically discharged from employment. However, a

Call Floor Supervisor can recommend that a probationary employee’s probationary period

be extended if the supervisor believes that the Call Floor Worker can improve their

performance. Such extensions have in fact occurred, with one such occurring as recently

as January of 2018. In one instance, Summers testified that she recommended extending

an employee’s probationary period based on her assessment of his performance. After the

extended period, Summers re-evaluated the employee, determined the employee had

progressed sufficiently, and recommended he be certified. Large testified that she has

never rejected a Call Floor Supervisor’s recommendation that a probationary period be

extended. The Call Floor Supervisor is responsible for determining whether or not the

employee is sufficiently improving during the extended probationary period. At the end of

the extended probationary period, the Call Floor Supervisor makes the final

recommendation as to whether the employee should be certified.

Large testified that if a Call Floor Supervisor determines that a probationary Call

Floor Worker is not meeting standards during the probationary period, he or she may

recommend that the employee be put on a corrective action plan. The Call Floor Supervisor

would develop the corrective action plan which would identify ways to improve the

employee’s performance. Although Large testified that SCR Administration ultimately

decides whether to put the employee on a corrective action plan, she made clear that SCR

Administration has never rejected a Call Floor Supervisor’s request to place an individual

on a corrective action plan. If they employee does not progress sufficiently on the plan, he

7 On at least one occasion, Reasonover similarly emailed Large recommending that an employee come off

intake review status.

10

or she would be discharged. Large testified that in 2017, there were three to four corrective

action plans developed for probationary employees. During the corrective plan period for

one such employee, Large testified that the Call Floor Supervisor completed a probationary

evaluation, identified deficiencies, and made a recommendation as to what type of training

plan would help remediate the employee. The training was carried out by both a qualified

Call Floor Worker and the Call Floor Supervisor. Although certain experienced Call Floor

Workers provide on-the-job-training to probationary workers, there is no evidence they

make recommendations of any sort.

e. Discipline

If a Call Floor Worker commits a “no call, no show”—meaning he or she does not

show for a scheduled or mandatory overtime shift, and fails to call in—the Call Floor

Supervisor on duty would document the occurrence and notify SCR Administration. In

addition, the offending worker’s supervisor would be contacted, if that supervisor is not

already on duty at the time. Summers testified that she has the discretion to ask for

documentation from the offending worker to substantiate the reason for the absence, and

she decides whether that documentation is valid or legitimate, in her opinion. If she

determines the documentation is valid, she would report such to SCR Administration.

Summers could not recall an instance in which she determined that documentation

provided by a worker was not valid.

However, most of the time, the offending employee does not have an explanation

as to why he or she missed the shift. In these situations, the Call Floor Supervisor simply

reports to SCR Administration that the employee has no explanation for their absence.

SCR Administration then forwards the information onto DCFS Labor, which considers the

offense and any mitigating factors, determines the appropriate discipline, and notifies the

Call Floor Supervisor as to what discipline needs to be issued to the Call Floor Worker.

Large clarified that DCFS Labor has an established policy which provides that, when an

employee misses an assigned shift, he or she receives an oral reprimand. The Call Floor

Supervisors then physically presents the discipline to the offending worker.

Large testified that not every incident of a missed assignment is reported to DCFS

Labor. If an employee provides a valid explanation or documentation to the Call Floor

Supervisor, SCR Administration would not refer the matter on. In one example, Large

testified that an employee left her shift because her husband was in the emergency room.

The Call Floor Supervisor reported the situation to SCR Administration and recommended

that the employee not receive discipline because of the exigent circumstance and stated

that the excuse was credible. SCR Administration accepted this recommendation, and the

matter was not forwarded to DCFS Labor for discipline. Large relies entirely on the Call

Floor Supervisor’s assessment that the documentation or excuse was valid, and she has

11

never rejected a Call Floor Supervisor’s assessment that an explanation was either valid or

invalid.

Both Perez and Reasonover testified that they have never made a recommendation

to SCR Administration with respect to discipline of their subordinates, but Reasonvoer

clarified that he has the ability to give his opinion to his supervisors that certain individuals

may not be trustworthy in their reasons for being absent. For example, in one instance, he

reported to Cox and Large that he suspected a certain employee was abusing time relating

to FMLA. He did so because he believed he had an obligation to ensure his employees

aren’t abusing time on his shift because such abuse would put strain on the rest of his staff.

The only record evidence involving alleged rule infractions that did not relate to missed

shift involved subordinates of Perez. In one instance, a Call Floor Worker was alleged to

have not been wearing shoes. In another, a Call Floor Worker was allegedly sleeping

during shift. A final instance involved a Call Floor Worker allegedly using a cell phone

during shift. In each of these incidents, Perez informed SCR Administration about the

allegations. There is no evidence he recommended discipline for any of the employees.

f. Bargaining History of the Call Floor Supervisor Position

On December 2, 2008, the Board certified the Union as the exclusive representative

of the position of Public Service Administrator, Option 6 (PSA Option 6). Subsequently,

on June 29, 2012, the Board issued a Corrected Certification of Unit Clarification, wherein

it enumerated specific PSA Option 6 position numbers to be included and excluded from

the Union’s RC-62 bargaining unit. It further provided that all PSA Option 6 positions not

included in the RC-62 unit that were considered professional were to be included in the

RC-63 unit. The Call Floor Supervisor was one such position residually included in the

RC-63 unit.

On March 17, 2014, the State filed a petition pursuant to Section 6.1 of the Act,

which allowed the Governor of the State of Illinois to designate certain positions excluded

from collective bargaining. The position of Call Floor Supervisor at DCFS was one such

position sought to be excluded in that petition. After a hearing, the Board adopted the

ALJ’s findings, which included that the those occupying the DCFS Call Floor Supervisor

position “have significant and independent discretionary authority because they possess

the authority to responsibly direct their subordinates or to make effective recommendations

concerning direction.” See State of Illinois (DCFS), 30 PERI 308 (ILRB-SP 2014). The

Board granted the petition, and eight Call Floor Supervisor positions at DCFS were

excluded from the RC-63 unit.

III. ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS

12

There are two issues in this matter. The first is whether the instant petition is

properly before the Board. The second is whether the position of Call Floor Supervisor,

Position Number 37015-16-18-422-50-01, is supervisory under the Act.

With respect to the first issue, the State argues that the instant petition is properly

before the Board because an employer may file a unit clarification petition at any time in

order to remove a statutorily excluded employee from a bargaining unit. Although the

position at issue was vacant at the time the instant petition was filed, the State argues that

the subsequent filling of the position by Summers renders any objections the Union may

have to unit clarification are moot. It continues that, even if the position was vacant, the

Board has held that petitions concerning vacant petitions can nonetheless be proper.

The Union argues that the petition is procedurally inappropriate because none of

the unit clarification factors listed in Section 1210.170 of the Boards Rules are present. It

also argues that, even if the petition is procedurally appropriate, the State waived its right

to file the petition because it did not raise a supervisory objection when the PSA Option 6

position was originally included in the Union’s bargaining unit, rendering the petition

improperly filed.

Concerning the second issue, the State argues that the Board’s decision in State of

Illinois (DCFS), 30 PERI 308 (ILRB-SP 2014) supports the proposition that the Call Floor

Supervisor position in this case must be excluded from the bargaining unit as supervisors.

A failure to exclude the position, it continues, would result in a situation where eight other

Call Floor Supervisors are outside the bargaining unit, while one remains in, likely

resulting in disparate terms and conditions of employment, and conflicting loyalties,

between those in the unit and those out of the unit.

The State also argues that the record evidence demonstrates that the Call Floor

Supervisor position meets all of the factors for supervisory exclusion: the position performs

principal work substantially different from its subordinates; the position performs a number

of the statutory indicia of supervisory responsibility; the position uses independent

judgement in performing those supervisory functions; and the position spends a

preponderance of its work time exercising supervisory authority. The Union flatly disputes

that the Call Floor Supervisor meets any of the four factors.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

a. Procedural Issues

i. Appropriateness of the Petition

The instant petition is appropriately filed.

The Union correctly points out that the Board’s Rules permit unit clarification

under three circumstances: 1) substantial changes occur in the duties and functions of an

13

existing title, raising an issue as to the title's unit placement; 2) an existing job title that is

logically encompassed within the existing unit was inadvertently excluded by the parties

at the time the unit was established; or 3) a significant change takes place in statutory or

case law that affects the bargaining rights of employees. 80 Ill. Adm. Code 1210.170(a).

However, Section 1210.170 is not an exhaustive list of the situations in which the

Board will accept a unit clarification petition. See City of Washington v. ILRB, 383 Ill.

App. 3d 1112, 1118–19 (3d Dist. 2008) (City of Washington) (“[S]ection 1210.170(a) does

not define the only circumstances when the unit clarification procedure applies.”). In

addition to the three circumstances enumerated in Section 1210.170, unit clarification is

appropriate to include newly-created job classifications entailing job functions already

covered in an existing unit. See AFSCME, Council 31 v. ILRB, 333 Ill. App. 3d 177 (5th

Dist. 2002). Further, the Board will accept a unit clarification petition to include titles that

the Board excluded as objected-to when certifying a majority interest petition that had

majority support irrespective of the objected-to titles. 80 Ill. Admin. Code

1210.100(b)(7)(B); City of Washington. Therefore, to the extent that the Union argues that

the inexistence of any of the Section 1210.170 situations in this matter necessarily renders

the instant petition improper, its contention is without merit.

The State’s argument for the appropriateness of the petition is straightforward: it

simply argues that it may file a unit clarification petition at any time in order to remove a

statutorily excluded position from an existing bargaining unit. It relies several cases to

support this proposition, including Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. ILRB, 364 Ill. App. 3d

1028 (4th Dist. 2006) (AFSCME Drug Screeners). In AFSCME Drug Screeners, the

Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, held that a unit clarification petition alleging a

confidential exclusion was properly filed even though none of the above-listed

circumstances were involved. Id. at 1034. Specifically, the court explained that “[i]f, at

any point, the [employer] determines that a confidential employee is a member of a

bargaining unit, the [employer] must be allowed to file a unit-clarification petition to

remove that confidential employee.” Id. at 1035-1036 (emphasis added). The court

continued: “[w]e thus conclude that [an employer] can file a unit-clarification petition to

remove a confidential employee from a bargaining unit at any time.” Id. at 1036 (emphasis

added).

Although both AFSCME Drug Screeners dealt with the confidential employees, the

Board, more recently, held that the reasoning in AFSCME Drug Screeners can be extended

to allow for unit clarification at any time to remove other forms of statutorily excluded

employees beyond just confidential. See State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (DCFS/IDES), 34 PERI 79 (ILRB-SP 2017) (appeal pending)

(holding that the unit clarification procedure is “appropriately used to remove employees

14

who are managerial or supervisory within the meaning of the Act” and that a petition

seeking to do so “can be brought at any time.”). This is precisely what the State has done

in this instance. Accordingly, I find that the petition is properly before the Board.

ii. Waiver

The State has not waived its right to file a unit clarification petition in this matter.

The Union argues that the State waived its right to exclude the Call Floor

Supervisor position because it failed to raise a supervisory objection to the position when

the PSA Option 6 category was first included in a bargaining unit. However, this

contention cannot be squared with the holdings in AFSCME Drug Screeners—including

its progeny8—and State of Illinois (DCFS/IDES); namely, that a unit clarification petition

seeking to remove a statutorily-excluded position can be filed at any time. It also contends

that the Board’s State of Illinois (DCFS/IDES) decision should be reconsidered and

reversed. On this issue, I will simply note that the decision is presently being appealed,

and leave that decision to the appellate court.

b. Effect of Gubernatorial Designation of Eight Call Floor Supervisors

The Board’s treatment of eight other Call Floor Supervisors in State of Illinois

(DCFS), although persuasive, is not dispositive.

It is important to point out what the Board did not do in State of Illinois (DCFS): it

made no determination that the Call Floor Supervisor was a supervisor under Section 3(r)

of the Act. One of the factors to qualify for gubernatorial designation under Section 6.1 of

the Act is that a position must “have significant and independent discretionary authority as

an employee.” 315 ILCS 6.1(b)(5). Section 6.1 also provides that, to amount to “significant

and independent discretionary authority” an employee must “qualif[y] as a supervisor of a

State agency as that term is defined under Section 152 of the National Labor Relations Act

[NLRA] or any orders of the National Labor Relations Board interpreting that provision or

decisions of courts reviewing decisions of the National Labor Relations Board.” 315 ILCS

6.1(c). The ALJ in State of Illinois (DCFS) determined that the Call Floor Supervisors

did, in fact, have significant and independent discretionary authority, and the positions

were subsequently excluded.

The State, in its post-hearing brief, argues that State of Illinois (DCFS)

demonstrates that the Call Floor Supervisors are supervisors who are statutorily excluded

from collective bargaining. But the supervisory test utilized in that case, which arises under

8 See Niles Township High School Dist. 219, Cook County v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Board, 369 Ill.

App. 3d 128, 142 (1st Dist. 2006) (finding the AFSCME Drug Screeners rationale of allowing unit

clarification petitions to remove statutorily excluded employees at any time “persuasive.”); City of

Washington, 27 PERI 3 (ILRB-SP 2011) (relying on AFSCME Drug Screeners in holding that a petitioner

will not be estopped from making claim that employees should be removed from an existing bargaining

unit because they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.)

15

the NLRA, lacks the “preponderance” element required under Section 3(r) of the IPLRA

and our sister act, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. See Southern Illinois

University Board of Trustees, 5 PERI 1197 (“[t]he addition of the “preponderance of their

employment time” to the definition of supervisor under the IELRA distinguishes our Act

from the NLRA and most other public sector labor laws.”). Therefore, the Board’s

concurrence with the ALJ’s determination that the Call Floor Supervisors exercised

significant independent discretionary authority does not amount to a finding that the

position is supervisory under the IPLRA, which controls this analysis, because the two tests

are distinguishable.

Even though the Call Floor Supervisors were excluded under a different

supervisory test in State of Illinois (DCFS) than the one utilized here, they were nonetheless

excluded. The State points out that, if the Board were to find the position here to be non-

supervisory, it would result in a situation where one Call Floor Supervisor would be in a

bargaining unit while the rest would not, despite each position performing the same duties.

However, that issue is moot in this case, as I find the position to be supervisory.

c. Supervisory Status

The Call Floor Supervisor position is supervisory under the Act.

An employee classified as a “supervisor” under Section 3(r) of the Act is not

considered a “public employee” under the Act, and for that reason is ordinarily excluded

from collective bargaining. City of Freeport v. ISLRB, 135 Ill .2d 499, 505 (1990) (City of

Freeport); Village of Elk Grove Village v. ISLRB, 245 Ill. App. 3d 109, 115 (2nd Dist.

1993). To protect against the possibility that pro-union bias might impair a supervisor’s

ability to apply the employer’s policies to subordinates in accordance with the employer’s

best interests, the Act provides that a bargaining unit may not include both supervisors and

non-supervisors. 5 ILCS 315/3(s)(l); Chief Judge of the Cir. Ct. of Cook Cnty. v.

AFSCME, Council 31, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 516 (1992); City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 505-

506.

Under Section 3(r) of the Act, a supervisor is an employee who: 1) engages in

principal work that is substantially different from that of his subordinates; 2) has the

authority, in the interest of the employer, to perform at least one of 11 enumerated indicia

of supervisory authority, or to effectively recommend such the performance of such

actions; 3) consistently uses independent judgment in the exercise of that supervisory

authority; and 4) devotes a preponderance of his employment time to the exercise of that

authority. See 5 ILCS 315(3)(r) (2012); City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 512 (1990). The

party seeking the supervisory exclusion has the burden of proving each of these four

elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook

16

Cnty., 18 PERI ¶ 2016 (IL LRB-SP 2002); Cnty. of Boone and Sheriff of Boone Cnty., 19

PERI ¶ 74 (IL LRB-SP 2003).

i. Principal Work

The Call Floor Supervisor position performs principal work that is substantially

different from their subordinates.

The requirement that a supervisor’s principal work be substantially different from

that of his subordinates is easily satisfied where that work is obviously and visibly different

from the work of his subordinates. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 514. The Union contends

that the principal work requirement is not met in this case because Call Floor Workers that

have been temporarily assigned to desk duty perform the same duties as a Call Floor

Supervisor would in that capacity. However, not all Call Floor Workers perform this

function; only those who hold the Child Welfare Advanced Specialist title can be

temporarily assigned to desk duty. In addition, Large testified that temporary assignments

are not part of a worker’s regular job duties, and, as a result, those Call Floor Workers

temporarily assigned to desk duty receive additional compensation. In other words, Call

Floor Workers are not hired to perform the desk duty function, whereas Call Floor

Supervisors are.

However, even assuming, arguendo, that this singular similarity between a certain

subset of Call Floor Workers and the Call Floor Supervisor is persuasive, it is not the end

of the analysis. Even in situations when an alleged supervisor performs functions that are

facially similar to those of his or her subordinates, the principal work requirement can still

be satisfied by demonstrating that the alleged supervisor’s functions render the nature and

essence of his or her work substantially different. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 514; City

of Burbank, 1 PERI 2008 (IL SLRB 1985). The “nature and essence” test is satisfied by

showing that the alleged supervisor has the “authority to influence or control personnel

decisions in areas most likely to affect the employment of the subordinates and, thus, most

likely to fall within the scope of union representation.” City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d. at 518.

The nature and essence test is a qualitative, rather than a quantitative analysis, and the

existence of the supervisory authority, and the ability to exercise it to impact a

subordinate’s employment at any time, changes the nature of the relationship between the

alleged supervisor and his subordinates to an extent which renders the nature of their

functions very different despite their facial similarity. Id. at 518.

Here, the Call Floor Supervisor performs a number of tasks that Call Floor Workers

do not which can directly impact a Call Floor Worker’s employment including: performing

monthly review of intakes, compiling and assessing daily statistics on Call Floor Worker

productivity, evaluating Call Floor Workers on an annual basis; evaluating the performance

of probationary Call Floor Workers and making recommendations based on those

17

evaluations, recommending corrective action plans, giving input into the composition of

the instruments used to evaluate Call Floor Workers, and monitoring and assigning work

based on the queue. For reasons explained in more detail, infra, these functions are

supervisory and can, or necessarily do, impact or influence personnel decisions relating to

the Call Floor Worker. What is more, explained in the negative, Call Floor Supervisors do

not perform the key tasks that Call Floor Workers perform: to directly communicate with

those calling in to report suspected child abuse or neglect, to solicit various pieces of

information from those callers, and to decide what appropriate action ought to be on each

intake. In other words, the nature and essence of the Call Floor Worker’s work is different

than that of the Call Floor Supervisor.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the nature and essence of the work performed

by the Call Floor Supervisor is substantially different than that performed by the Call Floor

Worker, and find the principal work prong of the supervisory test met.

ii. Supervisory Indicia

The Call Floor Supervisor possess the authority to direct the work of the Call Floor

Workers; to effectively recommend promotion or discharge of probationary Call Floor

Workers; but not to discipline, nor effectively recommend discipline, of Call Floor

Workers.

1. Direct

The authority to direct involves functions relating to overseeing the employer’s

operations or functions which indicate responsibility for the performance of a subordinate’s

work. Vill. of Germantown Hills, 29 PERI ¶ 130 (IL LRB-SP 2013); Vill. of Glen Carbon,

8 PERI ¶ 2026 (IL SLRB 1992); City of Lincoln, 4 PERI ¶ 2041 (IL SLRB 1988). Indicia

of “direction” include a variety of job functions: giving job assignments, overseeing and

reviewing daily work activities, providing instruction and assistance to subordinates,

scheduling work hours, approving time off and overtime, and formally evaluating job

performance when the evaluation is used to affect the employees’ pay or employment

status. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook Cnty., 19 PERI ¶123 (IL SLRB 2003);

Cnty. of Cook, 16 PERI ¶ 3009 (IL LLRB 1999); City of Naperville, 8 PERI ¶2016 (IL

SLRB 1992). In order to constitute “direction” within the meaning of the Act, an

employee’s responsibility for his or her subordinates’ work performance must also involve

discretionary authority that affects the subordinates’ terms and conditions of employment.

Cnty. of Cook, 28 PERI (IL LRB-SP 2011); State of Ill., Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv., 25

PERI 186 (IL LRB-SP 2009).

Here, the Call Floor Supervisor directs by providing instruction and assistance to

Call Floor Workers when on desk duty; the record evidence demonstrates that the main

purpose of desk duty is to allow Call Floor Workers to take their call-related questions or

18

concerns to a supervisor for assistance or direction. The Call Floor Supervisor, based on

their experience and interpretation of applicable rules and procedures, provides that

assistance or direction to the worker. What is more, the Call Floor Supervisors direct when

reviewing intakes while on desk duty because the Call Floor Supervisor has the authority

to instruct the Call Floor Worker to take a different course of action on a given intake, such

as adding an allegation, replacing a listed allegation with another allegation, or to direct

that a report be taken in instances where one was not. The Call Floor Supervisor also

provides direction by identifying and prioritizing which calls in the queue need to be

responded to promptly, and assigning those calls to certain Call Floor Workers.

Reasonover’s testimony makes clear that he uses his own discretion when making this

determination.

The Call Floor Supervisor also directs within the meaning of the Act when he or

she performs monthly intake reviews. Although they are required to perform one intake

review per month, the Call Floor Supervisor can choose to review more than one call per

month, if they believe additional review is needed. When reviewing intakes, the Call Floor

Supervisor applies the Intake Review Tool, which was developed in large part based upon

the effective recommendations of the Call Floor Supervisors themselves. The Call Floor

Supervisor then goes over the intake review with the employee, discussing areas of concern

or deficiencies. Large testified that, for more serious issues, a Call Floor Supervisor may

take further action.9 Each monthly intake review score is averaged and used in the

employee’s annual evaluation.

In addition, the Call Floor Supervisor oversees and reviews the daily work activities

of the Call Floor Worker by capturing and analyzing daily statistics relating to Call Floor

Worker productivity, which includes, inter alia, an intakes-per-hour measurement. This

measurement is averaged and used in the employee’s annual evaluation, and a copy of the

employee’s productivity statistics are required to be attached to that evaluation.

Finally, the Call Floor Supervisor also directs when they evaluate Call Floor

Workers’ performance. The annual performance evaluations of non-probationary Call

Floor Workers are performed solely by the Call Floor Supervisor. Although these

evaluations are subsequently reviewed and signed off on by Large or Cox, this review

occurs only after the supervisor has already completed the evaluation, discussed it with the

employee, and had the employee sign off on it; Large and Cox are not involved at any of

these stages. Even assuming¸ arguendo, that Large and Cox’s role in this review process

9 Although there was no testimony presented on what “further action” entails, there was testimony given by

both Large and Reasonover that Call Floor Supervisors can recommend and develop corrective action plans

to help remediate the performance of their employees. Corrective actions plans are discussed in more

detail, infra.

19

somehow renders these evaluations mere recommendations from the Call Floor Supervisor,

they are nonetheless effective recommendations. An effective recommendation is one that

is adopted by the alleged supervisor’s superiors as a matter of course with very little, if

any, independent review. See City of Peru v. ISLRB, 167 Ill. App. 3d 284, 289 (3d Dist.

1988); Peoria Housing Authority, 10 PERI ¶2020 (IL SLRB 1994); Vill. of Justice, 17

PERI ¶2007 (IL LRB-SP 2000). Large’s testimony makes clear that her review of

evaluations is largely perfunctory as it is limited to ensuring internal consistency within

the document. Perhaps most critically, Large has never returned an evaluation to a

supervisor because she disagreed with that supervisor’s substantive assessment of the

employee.

The Union argues that evaluations do not bear upon the wages, hours, or terms and

conditions of Call Floor Workers. In the case of probationary Call Floor Workers, this is

plainly not the case; evaluations serve the basis for the effective recommendation from the

Call Floor Supervisor as to whether that employee will continue his or her employment

with DCFS. For non-probationary employees, a poor annual evaluation can result in a

corrective action plan, developed by the Call Floor Supervisor. Although there was no

testimony or evidence on what such a plan would entail, or its possible consequence for

non-probationary employees, a probationary employee placed on a corrective action plan—

also developed by the Call Floor Supervisor—who fails to properly remediate would be

discharged from employment. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that an employee on a

corrective action plan who fails to adequately remediate his or her performance would face

no consequence impacting on their terms and conditions of their employment. For this

reason, I find the Union’s argument unpersuasive, and find that evaluations directly bear

on a Call Floor Worker’s terms and conditions of employment.

Moreover, the Call Floor Supervisor’s ability to direct is magnified when

considering probationary Call Floor Workers. For these employees, the Call Floor

Supervisor, in addition to performing reviews of their intakes, also conducts evaluations of

the employee’s performance and determines, based on those evaluations, an employee is

progressing adequately enough to have their intake reviews decreased, and ultimately

discontinued. At the end of the probationary period, the Call Floor Supervisor recommends

whether an employee should be certified or not, which determines their continued

employment with DCFS. Even if these can be considered mere recommendations, they are

effective ones: Large testified that supervisor recommendations with respect to decreasing

intake review and certification are always followed. Finally, Call Floor Supervisors make

effective recommendations when they decide whether to recommend extending a worker’s

probationary period. Large testified that she has never rejected a decision of a Call Floor

Supervisor to extend the probationary period.

20

However, I find that the Call Floor Supervisor does not have the power to

discipline, or to effectively recommend discipline. The majority of the evidence on

discipline centered around the “no-call, no show” scenario, and in that situation, the Call

Floor Supervisor’s function is to simply gather information and report such to Large or

Cox. Although they may determine the veracity of the evidence they receive, they do not

determine the discipline to be issued themselves, nor do they recommend to Large or Cox

that discipline be issued over the offense. The Union, in its post-hearing brief, correctly

identifies the job of the Call Floor Supervisor in this scenario as a “reporting function,”

and such reporting function does not establish disciplinary authority. See The Republican

Company, 361 NLRB 93 (2014); Ohio Masonic Home, 295 NLRB 390 (1989). What is

more, even after the Call Floor Supervisor reports to SCR Administration, Large or Cox

must then report the matter to DCFS Labor, who determines what discipline will be issued.

It is unclear if Large or Cox actually recommend a certain course of disciplinary action to

DCFS Labor, but even if they do, there is no evidence suggesting how often DCFS Labor

adopts that recommendation. In simplest terms, the role of the Call Floor Supervisor is far

too removed from the actual discipline-issuers for me to determine that Call Floor

Supervisors are authorized to discipline or recommend discipline.

iii. Independent Judgement

The Call Floor Supervisor uses independent judgement in performance of each of

the above-listed supervisory functions.

The requirement that a purported supervisor use independent judgment when

exercising any of the eleven indicia of supervisory authority is satisfied when the employee

at issue “make(s) choices between two or more significant courses of action without

substantial review by superiors.” Chief Judge, 153 Ill. 2d at 516. The frequency with which

independent judgment might be required, rather than the number of times supervisory

authority requiring independent judgment is actually used, controls the analysis under the

third prong. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 520-21.

Here, the Call Floor Supervisor uses independent judgement in each of the

supervisory duties they perform. With respect to reviewing intakes on desk duty, the Call

Floor Supervisor uses independent judgment to determine if the intake comports with his

or her interpretation of the established rules and procedures. The Call Floor Supervisor

also exercises independent judgment when he or she instructs the Call Floor Worker to take

a certain course of action on an intake, and does not need permission or advance

authorization from their supervisors to make these decisions on intakes. Further, when

using the Intake Review Tool and completing the annual evaluation, the Call Floor

Supervisor utilizes his or her independent judgement to make certain subjective

assessments, such the demeanor and professionalism of the Call Floor Worker. The Call

21

Floor worker likewise does not need advance authorization to make these determinations.

Finally, for probationary Call Floor Workers, the Call Floor Supervisor uses independent

judgement to decide between multiple courses of action when doing the following:

determining when an employee is progressing adequately enough to have their intake

reviews decreased, and ultimately discontinued; deciding if an employee should have their

probationary period extended; and effectively recommending whether the probationary

employee continues employment at DCFS.

For these reasons, I conclude that the Call Floor Supervisor utilizes independent

judgment when carrying out its supervisory duties.

iv. Preponderance of Employment Time

The Call Floor Supervisor dedicates a preponderance of his or her time on

supervisory functions when measured both quantitatively and qualitatively.

In order to satisfy the fourth prong, the State must demonstrate that the Call Floor

Supervisors spend a preponderance of their time on supervisory functions. This requires

that the purported supervisory position must spend the most significant allotment of his or

her time exercising supervisory functions. State of Ill. Dep' t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. (Dep' t

of Corr.) v. ISLRB, 278 Ill. App. 3d 79, 85 (4th Dist. 1996); City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d

at 532. Preponderance of time can be measured quantitatively or qualitatively. State of Ill.

Dep' t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. (Ill. Commerce Comm.), 30 PERI ¶ 205 (IL LRB-SP 2014).

Measured quantitatively, an employee spends a preponderance of his or her time on

supervisory functions when he or she spends a majority of his or her time engaged in these

functions. State of Ill. Dep' t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. (Dep' t. of Children and Family Serv.)

v. ISLRB, 249 Ill. App. 3d 740, 746-747 (4th Dist. 1993). Measured qualitatively, an

employee spends a preponderance of his or her time on supervisory functions when these

functions are more significant than his or her non-supervisory functions, regardless of the

amount of time spent on these supervisory functions. Cnty. of Vermilion v. ILRB, 344 Ill.

App. 3d 1126, 1136 (4th Dist. 2003); AFSCME Council 31 v. ILRB, 2014 IL App (1st)

130655, aff' g State of Ill. Dep' t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. (Ill. Commerce Comm' n), 30 PERI

¶ 206 (IL LRB-SP 2014).

Here, measured quantitatively, the Call Floor Supervisor position spends a majority

of its time on supervisory tasks. The majority of a Call Floor Supervisor’s workday is

comprised of desk duty, during which time he or she performs the supervisory functions of

intake review providing direction to Call Floor Workers who have questions regarding

calls. However, Summers engages in duties outside of desk duty that are also supervisory:

she completes monthly intake reviews, which take approximately 30 minutes per

subordinate; she compiles daily statistics on worker productivity to be used during the

employee’s annual evaluation, which takes approximately 30 minutes per day; and she

22

completes annual evaluations of her subordinates, which takes approximately three to four

hours to complete, although the record is unclear whether this is three to four hours per

employee, or cumulatively. However, the point to be made is that the time it takes

Summers to perform all the above functions is in addition to the four hours each day spent

already performing the supervisory function of desk duty. Factor in the other supervisory

functions for which there was no record evidence regarding how long a supervisor spends

on them, but are undoubtedly greater than zero (effectively recommending extending

probationary periods, certifying or not certifying employees, conducting probationary

evaluations, monitoring and assigning work based on the queue, and giving input into the

creation of the intake review tool and annual evaluation documents), and it is clear that the

Call Floor Supervisor spends a preponderance of his or her work day on supervisory tasks,

when measured quantitatively.

Also, when measured qualitatively, it is clear that the Call Floor Supervisor’s

supervisory functions are far more significant in importance to their non-supervisory

functions for the record demonstrates they are responsible for the immediate operations of

the Call Floor, including ensuring that the work of Call Floor Workers is completed

properly. With respect to just the aspect of intake review—whether mandatory or monthly

review—the importance of the Call Floor Supervisor’s role cannot be understated: the Call

Floor exists to ensure that accusations of child abuse and neglect are properly processed,

and a lapse in that process could prove catastrophic. By performing supervisory tasks, i.e.,

reviews of intakes, ensuring they are properly completed, and most importantly, directing

deficient intakes to be remedied, the Call Floor Supervisor ensures this function. To put a

finer point on the matter, the Call Floor Supervisor is rated on their own performance

evaluation with respect to a number of supervisory tasks, such as compiling daily statistics,

conducting intake review, and completing annual evaluations. This demonstrates they are

responsible for ensuring those functions are completed. Accordingly, I find that the Call

Floor Supervisor spends a preponderance of his or her time on supervisory tasks when

measured qualitatively.

In sum, the Call Floor Supervisors perform principal work different than their

subordinates, engage in several supervisory tasks, use independent judgement to complete

those tasks, and spend a preponderance of their work day on those tasks. For these reasons,

they are supervisors under the Act.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The instant unit clarification petition is appropriately filed.

23

2. The position of Public Service Administrator, Option 6, Position Number 37015-

16-18-422-50-01, working title Call Floor Supervisor, is supervisory within the

meaning of Section 3(r) of the Act.

VI. RECOMMENDED ORDER

The petition is granted.

VII. EXCEPTIONS

Pursuant to Section 1200.135 of the Board’s Rules, parties may file exceptions to

the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order in briefs in support of

those exceptions no later than 14 days after service of this Recommendation. Parties may

file responses to exceptions and briefs in support of the responses no later than 10 days

after service of the exceptions. In such responses, parties that have not previously filed

exceptions may include cross-exceptions to any portion of the Administrative Law Judge’s

Recommendation. Within 5 days from the filing of cross-exceptions, parties may file cross-

responses to the cross-exceptions. Exceptions, responses, cross-exceptions, and cross-

responses must be filed with the General Counsel of the Illinois Labor Relations Board,

160 North LaSalle Street, Suite S-400, Chicago, Illinois 60601-3103, or to the Board’s

designated email address for electronic filings, at ILRB.Filing@Illinois.gov in accordance

with Section 1200.5 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, 80 Ill. Admin. Code §§1200-

1300. All filing must be served on all other parties.

Exceptions, responses, cross-exceptions, and cross-responses will not be accepted

at the Board’s Springfield office. The exceptions and/or cross-exceptions sent to the Board

must contain a statement listing the other parties to the case and verifying that the

exceptions and/or cross-exceptions have been provided to them. The exceptions and/or

cross-exceptions will not be considered without this statement. If no exceptions have been

filed within the 30-day period, the parties will be deemed to have waived their exceptions.

Dated: September 5, 2018

Issued: Chicago, Illinois

/s/ Matthew S. Nagy

Matthew S. Nagy

Administrative Law Judge

Illinois Labor Relations Board

801 S. 7th Street, Suite 1200A

Springfield, Illinois 62703

Tel. (217) 785-3155 / Facsimile (217) 785-4146