CHICAGO — A state appeals panel has determined Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart acted appropriately when laying off several employees following the repeal of the county’s controversial soda tax.
On Nov. 29, 2017, Dart laid off 16 Court Services Department lieutenants effective Dec. 13. The terminations followed the County Board’s summer decision to repeal a tax on sugared drinks, resulting in a revenue shortfall and labor reductions. The next day, Policemen’s Benevolent Labor Union attorney Joseph Andruzzi emailed Thomas Nelligan, the sheriff’s assistant general counsel, to demand bargaining sessions.
At the first session, Dart and the county agreed to push back they layoffs to Jan. 5, 2018, while the union proposed recovering the money by increasing civil processing fees. Within a week, the union gave notice of plans to file a grievance because the county failed to bargain the impact of the layoffs.
Illinois First DIstrict Appellate Justice Mary Mikva
During a Dec. 28 meeting the union proposed collecting money for conducting active shooter training for other agencies, while the county suggested salary reductions to cut down on the number of layoffs. On Jan. 3, 2018, the union filed an unfair labor practices charge with the Illinois Labor Relations Board, which it continued to pursue while letting its grievance expire.
On March 29, 2019, an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the union, saying the county ultimately implemented layoffs before bargaining ended. On Oct. 9, 2019, the ILRB accepted factual findings but rejected the conclusion the county violated the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The Board said the judge cited a 2008 ILRB decision which an appeals panel later reversed regarding layoff timing and further contended any issues the union raised could’ve been negotiated after the layoffs took effect.
During the appeals process, after the union missed deadlines, the Illinois Supreme Court on Feb. 20, 2020, ordered the Illinois First District Appellate Court to consider the appeal on its merits. Justice Mary Mikva wrote the panel’s opinion on that appeal, issued Dec. 3; Justices Daniel Pierce and Sharon Johnson concurred.
The parties agreed the union’s contract gave the county the power to implement layoffs, but the union said the impact of those layoffs should be bargained, such as whether lieutenants with seniority could accept demotions to sergeant, while junior employees were let go. The appeals panel, however, determined the union ultimately challenged the actual layoffs and not the negotiable consequences of that decision.
“The Union was quite candid about that strategy,” Mikva wrote, including by pushing for an extension of the initial layoff timetable so it had more time to float revenue proposals. “Even the administrative law judge, whose analysis the union now urges us to affirm, acknowledged this, writing: ‘the union’s proposals to increase civil processing fees and conduct rapid response/active shooter training sought to bargain the layoff decision itself.’ ”
If the county didn’t engage seriously with the revenue proposals, the panel continued, that doesn’t prove a lack of good faith bargaining because the subject of those sessions was supposed to concern effects of the layoffs on union members. The panel further explained the county, per the contract, wasn’t obligated to negotiate the timing of the layoffs and work assignments of the lieutenants who would remain employed.
With respect to compensatory time and seniority for the 16 laid-off employees, the panel said the union successfully argued contract provisions don’t clearly address the rights of those who choose to bump junior employees, including by noting sergeants fall under the Fraternal Order of Police. However, the panel said, the ILRB was right to reject the union’s contention of a failure to negotiate in good faith.
“At the Dec. 28, 2019, meeting, the union specifically asked the employers about how the layoffs would affect the compensatory time and seniority of those lieutenants who chose to exercise their bumping rights,” Mikva wrote. “The employers promised to look into it and get back to the union. The record does not reflect any objection by the union when it received this response. Nor does the record suggest that the union ever made any specific proposals related to these issues.”
The county offered to extend recall rights for affected employees to a full year, but the union rejected without making a counter. That offer came after the layoffs, which showed the county was open to continued negotiations even with the workers under a different contract.
“Effects bargaining is an important union right, but it is not a tool to derail government actions that are within the discretion of management or to delay a layoff indefinitely,” Mikva concluded. “On this record, the board’s finding that the employers did not improperly fail to negotiate in good faith was not clearly erroneous.”
The union was represented by attorney Joseph Andruzzi, of the Policemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, Labor Committee, of Chicago.
The ILRB was represented by Assistant Illinois Attorney General Valerie Quinn.
Attorneys Justin L. Leinenweber of Leinenweber Baroni & Daffada, of Chicago, and Ethan E. White, of Emery Law, of Oak Brook, represented the Sheriff's Office.