1

STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

LOCAL PANEL International Brotherhood of Teamsters, ) Local 700, ) ) Charging Party ) ) and ) Case No. L-CA-15-042 ) County of Cook and Sheriff of Cook County, ) ) Respondents )

DECISION AND ORDER OF THE ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LOCAL PANEL

On May 23, 2017, Executive Director Kimberly Stevens partially dismissed a charge filed

by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 700 (Charging Party or Union), a

representative of employees in the title Correctional Officer, employed by the Cook County

Department of Corrections (CCDOC). The Union filed its charge on February 6, 2015, and twice

amended it to include additional allegations. The charge, on the whole, alleged that the County of

Cook and Sheriff of Cook County (Respondents), engaged in unfair labor practices within the

meaning of Sections 10(a)(4), (3), (2), and (1) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act), 5

ILCS 315 (2014), as amended.1

1 In relevant part, Sections 10(a) of the Act provides as follows:

Sec. 10. Unfair labor practices. a) for an employer or its agents:

(1) to interfere with, restrain or coerce public employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in this Act *******

(2) to discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or any term or condition of employment in order to encourage or discourage membership in or other support for any labor organization….

(3) to discharge or otherwise discriminate against a public employee because he has signed or filed an affidavit, petition or charge or provided any information or testimony under this Act;

2

Specifically, the charge alleged that the Respondents violated Sections 10(a)(4) and (1) of

the Act by repudiating the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, refusing to provide the Union

with requested, relevant and necessary information, making numerous unilateral changes to

employees’ terms and conditions of employment, and violating certain grievance arbitration

awards and letters of agreement. The charge also alleged that the Respondents violated Sections

10(a)(3), 10(a)(2) and 10(a)(1) of the Act by some of that same conduct. Finally, the charge alleged

that the Respondents violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Act when they retaliated against an Assistant

Chief Union Steward for engaging in protected activity.

In most relevant part,2 the Charging Party alleged that the Respondents repudiated their

collective bargaining obligations by establishing new criteria for the transfer of Correctional

Officers to vacant Deputy Sheriff positions, represented by the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).

According to the Charging Party, the Respondents violated an agreement reached by the parties to

resolve a grievance, which an arbitrator memorialized in mediated award (“Lunch Premium

Award”). That agreement established criteria that unit members must satisfy to transfer into

Deputy Sheriff positions within the Court Services Division, and to successfully retain those

positions. The Respondents had authority to return transferred employees to Corrections within

one year of their transfer, but only for just cause; although the Respondents tried to negotiate a

physical fitness requirement for successful maintenance of the position, that requirement did not

become part of the parties’ agreement. The Charging Party contends that the Respondents then

effectively imposed new transfer criteria on its members through an agreement it subsequently

reached with the FOP, which established a Physical Agility Test requirement for the Deputy

(4) to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with a labor organization which is the exclusive

representative of public employees in an appropriate unit…. 2 This is the only allegation that is the subject of the appeal.

3

Sheriff position. The Charging Party contends that this requirement was in fact a new transfer

criterion because it was applicable solely to newly-transferred employees from the Charing Party’s

bargaining unit and exempted incumbent FOP position holders. The Charging Party concludes

that the Respondents negotiated their agreement with the FOP to circumvent their agreement with

the Charging Party and to obtain the result that they could not successfully reach through

negotiations.

The Executive Director issued a complaint on certain of the allegations but dismissed all

others. Relevant to this appeal, the Executive Director dismissed all allegations related to the

Respondents’ decision to impose new criteria for the transfer of Correctional Officers to vacant

Deputy Sheriff positions. She found that the Charging Party did not raise issues of fact or law for

hearing on the alleged violation of Section 10(a)(4) of the Act because the allegation simply

described a contract dispute or, alternatively, a dispute concerning the enforcement of an

arbitration award, over which the Board has no jurisdiction. She also found that the Charging

Party failed to identify any instances of an independent Section 10(a)(1) violation, arising from

this conduct.

On June 5, 2017, the Charging Party filed an appeal that takes issue solely with the

Executive Director’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondents violated Sections 10(a)(4)

and (1) of the Act by including a Physical Agility Test (PAT) as part of the transfer criteria to the

Deputy Sheriff positions in the Court Services Division.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the Executive Director’s dismissal of the alleged

Section 10(a)(4) violation, referenced in the appeal, and direct issuance of a Complaint.3 We allow

3 The Complaint should also include a derivative alleged violation of Section 10(a)(1) of the Act, but the Charging Party has offered insufficient evidence that the Complaint should also include an independent Section 10(a)(1) allegation.

4

the remainder of the dismissal to stand as a non-precedential disposition of the Board because the

Charging Party did not take issue with it.

We find that the Charging Party raised issues for hearing on the allegation that the

Respondents repudiated their collective bargaining obligation in violation of Section 10(a)(4) of

the Act when they imposed new criteria for the transfer of Correctional Officers to Deputy Sheriff

positions in the Court Services Division.

A respondent repudiates its collective bargaining obligation when its conduct demonstrates

a disregard for the collective bargaining process, evidences an outright refusal to abide by a

contractual term, or prevents the grievance process from working. City of Loves Park v. Illinois

Labor Relations Board State Panel, 343 Ill. App. 3d 389, 395 (2nd Dist. 2003), citing City of

Collinsville, 16 PERI ¶ 155 (IL SLRB 2000), aff’d City of Collinsville v. Illinois State Labor

Relations Board, 329 Ill. App. 3d 409 (5th Dist. 2002). Where the breach is substantial and an

employer’s stance or argument is without rational justification, one can infer that the employer has

repudiated its agreement. City of Kewanee, 23 PERI ¶ 110 (IL SLRB 2007); Chicago Transit

Authority, 15 PERI ¶ 3018 (IL LLRB 1999).

The Executive Director correctly observed that the Board generally lacks jurisdiction to

enforce negotiated agreements and, by extension, grievance settlements and arbitration awards.

State of Ill. (Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv., Environmental Protection Agency), 14 PERI ¶ 2005 (IL

SLRB 1997); Vill. of Creve Coeur, 3 PERI ¶ 2063 (IL SLRB 1987); County of Cook (Cermak

Health Facility), 7 PERI ¶ 3020 (IL LLRB 1991). However, “where a party’s failure to abide by

such an agreement is so egregious and lacking in good faith as to amount to a repudiation of the

collective bargaining process, its conduct will be deemed a violation of the statutory obligation to

negotiate in good faith.” State of Ill. (Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt. Serv., Environmental Protection

5

Agency), 14 PERI ¶ 2005 (citing City of Chicago, 13 PERI ¶ 3014 (IL LLRB 1997); Cnty. of

Cook, 11 PERI ¶ 3021 (IL LLRB 1995); Cnty. of Cook, 6 PERI ¶ 3019 (IL LLRB 1990); State of

Ill., Dept. of Cent. Mgmt. Services (Dept. of Corrections), 4 PERI ¶ 2043 (IL SLRB 1988); City

of Burbank, 3 PERI ¶ 2009 (IL SLRB 1986); State of Ill., Dept. of Cent. Mgmt. Serv. (Depts. of

Revenue, Corrections and Mental Health), 3 PERI ¶ 2033 (IL SRLB 1987), aff'd, 192 Ill. App. 3d

108 (1989)).

To that end, a party’s failure to comply with a grievance arbitration award issued pursuant

to a negotiated grievance procedure may be a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, depending

on the circumstances. City of Loves Park, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 395; cf. State of Ill. (Dep’t of Cent.

Mgmt. Serv., Environmental Protection Agency), 14 PERI ¶ 2005 (setting forth this legal principle,

but finding that there were no issues of fact for hearing on the claim that the respondent repudiated

the grievance arbitration award). Similarly, we have held that a public employer violates the

statutory duty to bargain in good faith when it repudiates a clear and undisputed grievance

settlement agreement. Cnty. of Cook (Office of Public Defender), 13 PERI ¶ 3005 (IL LLRB

1997) (employer failed to implement entire grievance settlement by neither reinstating nor paying

backpay to terminated employee, thereby repudiating the settlement agreement); see also Ill. Dept.

of Corrections and Cent. Mgmt. Servs., 4 PERI ¶ 2043 (IL SLRB 1988) (“that the parties’ bargain

herein may also be enforced by the courts pursuant to Section 16 of the Act does not take it out of

the realm of our jurisdiction.”).

The Executive Director did not consider the theory of the case that falls within these

holdings. She instead reasoned that the Charging Party failed to present evidence in support of the

claim that the Respondents engaged in a wholesale repudiation of the parties’ collective bargaining

agreement. Such wholesale repudiation of an agreement certainly does violate the Act, but it is

6

not the only means by which a respondent can repudiate the collective bargaining process. See

cases supra.

Applying the principles outlined above, we find that the Charging Party raised issues of

fact and law on the allegation that the Respondents repudiated the collective bargaining process.

First, the Charging Party presented evidence that the Respondents violated an unambiguous,

mediated, grievance arbitration award because it presented a subsequent award in which an

arbitrator made that finding. Notably, the arbitrator stated that the mediated award was

unambiguous on its face and that the parties’ bargaining history further supported his conclusion.

Second, the Charging Party presented evidence of the Respondents’ bad faith by way of

that same arbitrator’s opinion. The arbitrator found that the Respondents and the Charging Party

negotiated the terms governing the transfer and reversion (i.e., return) of the Charging Party’s

Correctional Officers to Deputy Sheriff positions, but that Respondents failed to successfully

bargain a physical agility requirement. He further found that the Respondents then negotiated

with the FOP a new physical agility requirement for the FOP-represented Deputy Sheriff positions,

but applied it only to those newly transferred employees from the Charging Party’s unit. These

findings raise issues for hearing because they suggest that the Respondents entered into an

agreement with another union, to nullify their agreement with the Charging Party and to achieve

the result they could not obtain from the Charging Party during negotiations. Chicago Transit

Auth., 15 PERI 3018 (IL LLRB 1999) (bad faith found where employer made change to

employees’ terms and conditions of employment after failing to successfully obtain that change

during negotiations).

In addition, the Respondents allegedly prevented the grievance process from working its

course by achieving their goal through an agreement with another union, over which the grievance

7

arbitrator had no authority. Although the arbitrator who issued the earlier transfer criteria award

retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes that arose from its implementation, he could not adequately

remedy the alleged breach, at issue here, because he could not interfere with an agreement between

the Respondents and the FOP. City of Loves Park, 343 Ill. App. 3d at 395 (employer violated the

Act when it combined its refusal to comply with grievance arbitration award with attempts to

deprive employee of due process rights and attempts to nullify contract’s grievance provision).

In sum, we find that the Charging Party raised issues of fact and law for hearing on the

Respondents’ alleged repudiation of the collective bargaining process, and we direct the Executive

Director to issue a complaint on this allegation. We leave undisturbed the remainder of the

dismissal because the Charging party has not expressly excepted to the Executive Director’s other

findings.

BY THE LOCAL PANEL OF THE ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

/s/ Robert M. Gierut

Robert M. Gierut, Chairman /s/ Charles E. Anderson

Charles E. Anderson, Member

/s/ Angela Thomas ______ Angela Thomas, Member

Decision made at the Local Panel’s public meeting in Chicago, Illinois on September 7, 2017, written decision approved at the Local Panel’s public meeting in Chicago, Illinois on October 17, 2017, and issued on this date.