Board of Education of Sesser-Valier Community Unit School District No. 196 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

Citations: 620 N.E.2d 418; 250 Ill. App. 3d 878; 189 Ill. Dec. 450; 1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 1341Docket: 4-92-0151

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 2, 1993; Illinois; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Board of Education of Sesser-Valier Community Unit School District No. 196 appeals decisions made by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) regarding complaints from the Sesser-Valier Education Association. The central issue involves the District granting benefits to certain employees without engaging in collective bargaining, which represents a misunderstanding of its obligations under section 14 of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. 

Key incidents include:

1. In 1989, Wayne Samuels requested early retirement with the District covering military leave costs, which the District approved without bargaining, despite the Association's assertion that this should be negotiated.
2. In 1990, David Simpson received a three-year leave of absence, with the District covering his health insurance and retirement contributions, again without prior negotiations.
3. In 1988, Stan Douglas was allowed early retirement under a part-time contract with similar terms, and the Association was informed only after the arrangement was approved by the Board.

The Association contended that these unilateral actions violated the bargaining agreement, and they expressed concerns in a letter to the Board president, demanding an end to such practices. The opinion seeks to clarify that changes to employee benefits require good-faith bargaining, emphasizing the updated responsibilities imposed by the Act on school administrators and boards.

In July 1990, the Board rehired Douglas under a previously approved arrangement. Colleen Cochran was awarded a $500-per-year contract as a volunteer pompon sponsor without prior notice to the Association or bargaining over the terms. On January 28, 1992, the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) determined that the District had violated sections 14(a)(5) and 14(a)(1) of the Act by bypassing the Association and entering into individual agreements with employees Samuels and Simpson, as well as unilaterally changing employment terms for these individuals and Douglas. The District further violated the Act by subcontracting the pompon squad sponsor position without negotiation. The IELRB mandated that the District cease bypassing the Association, refrain from unilateral changes to wages and employment conditions, and stop interfering with employee rights. Additionally, it required the District to rescind the subcontracting of the pompon squad sponsor position. Under Section 10(a) of the Act, educational employees must negotiate in good faith with their representative regarding wages, hours, and other employment conditions. Unilateral changes in these terms are considered unfair labor practices. The IELRB emphasized that the District's actions, which provided special benefits to certain employees, did not align with past practices and should not be used to bypass the bargaining requirement. The ruling highlighted that any direct dealings with individual employees regarding employment conditions violate the principle of collective bargaining.

Permitting the employer to negotiate directly with employees, despite the employees' designation of a bargaining agent, disrupts the established negotiation framework and undermines the union's role, leading to potential conflict—contrary to the objectives of the Act. The employer's direct dealings with employees, following their selection of an exclusive bargaining representative, amounted to a refusal to engage in collective bargaining, regardless of whether the initiative came from the employees or the employer. The District's argument that simply listening to employees does not constitute negotiation was rejected, as it was found that the District acted on employee requests to change employment terms without involving the Association, thus benefiting individual employees at the expense of the union's collective bargaining power. The IELRB concluded that bypassing the exclusive representative compromises the union's authority, which the Act intends to protect. Furthermore, once the Association identified military retirement credit contributions as a bargaining issue, attendance at a Board meeting did not waive this requirement. The IELRB affirmed that midterm bargaining was necessary and that the District's actions were inconsistent with established practices. The District's assertion regarding the timeliness of an unfair labor practice charge was also addressed, emphasizing that such charges must be filed within six months of the charging party becoming aware of the unlawful conduct, typically marked by the announcement of the change.

The District maintained that it engaged Douglas on a part-time basis for three years under an agreement from 1988 and argued that there was no negotiation for a separate agreement between the Board's actions on April 11, 1988, and July 23, 1990. Consequently, the District claimed that any alleged violation of the Act occurred on April 11, 1988, rendering the Association's charge from October 3, 1990, untimely. Despite Douglas' proposal for a three-year hire, the record did not confirm that the Board's April 1988 decision was intended to cover the 1990-91 school year. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) deemed the July 1990 approval of Douglas's arrangement as a separate action constituting an unfair labor practice, despite finding the Association’s charge regarding direct dealings with Douglas untimely.

The IELRB concluded the District violated sections 14(a)(5) and 14(a)(1) of the Act by hiring a non-member for the pompon squad sponsor role and unilaterally determining employment conditions for that position. It stated that subcontracting work can be an unfair labor practice if it deviates from established practices or significantly impacts job security for bargaining unit members. The determination of whether subcontracting is a mandatory bargaining issue hinges on whether employees had a reasonable expectation of performing that work. The District contended it was not obligated to negotiate over the pompon sponsor position, asserting that no bargaining unit member had previously held that role and that the collective-bargaining agreement did not recognize it as an employment opportunity. However, the IELRB indicated that while the position was not listed in the agreement, it had never been a paid role before, and the agreement allowed the District to negotiate salaries with nonmembers for unfilled positions prior to the school year.

Buchanan testified that previously unpaid extracurricular positions were incorporated into the paid list as they became compensated roles. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) observed that when the marching band director and scholar bowl sponsors were paid in 1988, they were added to the collective bargaining list for compensation. The IELRB argued that the pompon squad sponsor's duties were not sufficiently distinct to warrant separate treatment from existing listed positions, as similar responsibilities were held by two cheerleading coaches already on the list. The IELRB concluded that once the pompon squad sponsor position became paid, it became a legitimate claimable opportunity for the District's certified employees. The IELRB's opinion noted that, apart from the pompon squad sponsor, all other paid extra-duty positions were included in the collective-bargaining agreement, guaranteeing certified employees priority in filling these roles. Historical negotiations regarding extra-duty positions indicated that certified employees could reasonably expect a similar negotiation process for the pompon squad sponsor position once it was paid. The IELRB's decision was affirmed by KNECHT and LUND, JJ.