Chi. Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 308

2018 IL App (1st) 170702

108 N.E.3d 285

The CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 308, Defendant–Appellee.

Nos. 1–17–0702 & 1–17–1851 (consolidated)

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

Jackson Lewis P.C., of Chicago (James P. Daley, David M. Novak, and James D. Thomas, of counsel), for appellant.

Anita Tanay and Brandon Anderson, of Jacobs, Burns, Orlove & Hernandez, of Chicago, for appellee.

JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Two arbitration awards issued in 2016 found that the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) had violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 308 (ATU) when the CTA unilaterally implemented rules that directly affected certain rights of the workers concerning their schedule choices and work hours. Thereafter, the circuit court denied the CTA's petitions to vacate the arbitration awards.

¶ 2 On appeal, the CTA argues that the arbitration awards should be vacated because (1) they are contrary to the well-established Illinois public policy requiring the CTA to provide safe mass transportation to the riding public or (2) the arbitrators usurped the CTA's nondelegable statutory right and duty to provide safe mass transportation to the riding public.

¶ 3 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court that affirmed the arbitration awards.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 This appeal arises from a dispute between the CTA and the ATU over the CTA's unilateral implementation of several new rules following the 2014 derailment of a CTA train at the end of the Blue Line at the station at O'Hare International Airport. Specifically, the train, which was operated by an employee represented by the ATU, overran the bumper at the O'Hare station and partially ascended the escalator leading to the airport. Approximately 30 people claimed injuries. The CTA concluded that operator fatigue caused the derailment and implemented several operational changes to enhance the overall safety of the CTA's customers and employees. However, the ATU argued that these unilateral operational changes violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and it filed grievances and an unfair labor practice charge against the CTA. Two separate arbitration proceedings addressed the unilateral changes imposed by the CTA.

¶ 6 In the first arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator heard the grievances concerning whether the CTA had violated the collective bargaining agreement by, inter alia , (1) requiring a minimum of 10 hours of rest time between shifts for both "picked" and "extra board" work, (2) requiring full-time temporary flaggers (FTTFs) who were qualified to operate trains to pick 32 hours of motor runs per week, and (3) limiting FTTFs and rapid transit operators (RTOs) in their first 12 months of employment to a maximum of 32 hours per week of train operation.

¶ 7 The arbitrator issued an award in June 2016 sustaining the grievances in part and denying the grievances in part. The arbitrator found that, despite the CTA's compelling interest in enhancing operational safety, the CTA had violated specific obligations contained in the plain terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, when the CTA unilaterally increased the minimum time off between shifts from 8 to 10 hours, this change had a major impact on employees' substantive rights to pick any shift or shifts as long as they had 8 hours between work days. Furthermore, by requiring the FTTFs qualified to operate trains to pick 32 hours of motor runs per week, the CTA had infringed on a contractually protected right that "picking" was to be done by seniority. Finally, by limiting first-year RTOs to 32 hours of train operation per week, the CTA had infringed on their right to exercise their seniority and pick their work assignments and schedules. The arbitrator ordered the CTA to cease and desist enforcement of the rules found to be in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

¶ 8 The CTA filed a petition to vacate this arbitration award, and the ATU filed a cross-petition to affirm the award. In March 2017, the circuit court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment in favor of the ATU.

¶ 9 Meanwhile, in the second arbitration proceeding, another arbitrator heard grievances concerning whether the CTA violated the collective bargaining agreement by (1) limiting rail operations employees to 12 hours of work a day in any 14–hour period and (2) requiring that all rail operations employees work no more than six days within any consecutive seven-day period.

¶ 10 The arbitrator issued an award in October 2016 sustaining the grievances in part and denying the grievances in part. The arbitrator found that the CTA's rule limiting rail operations employees to 12 hours of work a day in any 14–hour period was a clear breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator recognized that the CTA had a compelling interest to enhance safety and that the rule was a reasonable attempt to advance this interest; however, the arbitrator concluded that the rule violated the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator found that the CTA was required to negotiate this change and ordered the CTA to rescind the rule and make all affected employees whole. The matter was remanded to the parties to determine the appropriate remedy.

¶ 11 The CTA filed a petition to vacate this arbitration award, and the ATU filed a cross-petition to affirm the award. In July 2017, the circuit court confirmed the award and entered judgment in favor of the ATU.

¶ 12 The CTA timely appealed the denials of its petitions to vacate, and this court consolidated the appeals on review.

¶ 13 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14 On appeal, the CTA contends that the arbitration awards should be vacated because they are contrary to a well-established Illinois public policy that requires the CTA to provide safe mass transportation to the riding public. Alternatively, the CTA contends that this dispute was not arbitrable because the CTA has a nondelegable statutory right and duty to provide safe mass transportation to the riding public.

¶ 15 A. The Public Policy Exception

¶ 16 A court's review of an arbitration award is extremely limited, and courts must construe arbitration awards, if possible, as valid. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO v. State , 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254, 124 Ill.Dec. 553, 529 N.E.2d 534 (1988). Where, as here, the arbitration involved a collective bargaining agreement, a court, consistent with section 12(e) of the Uniform Arbitration Act ( 710 ILCS 5/12(e) (West 2016) ), will disturb the arbitration award only on the common-law grounds that existed prior to the enactment of the Uniform Arbitration Act, i.e. , "instances of fraud, corruption, partiality, misconduct, mistake, or failure to submit the question to arbitration." American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL–CIO v. Department of Central Management Services , 173 Ill. 2d 299, 304, 219 Ill.Dec. 501, 671 N.E.2d 668 (1996) ( AFSCME 1996 ).

"The rationale for the limited review of an award interpreting a collective bargaining agreement is that the parties have contracted to have their disputes settled by an arbitrator, rather than by a judge. [Citation.] A labor arbitration award must be enforced if the arbitrator acts within his scope of authority and the award draws its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement. [Citation.]

However, a court will vacate the award if it is repugnant to the established norms of public policy. [Citation.] The public policy exception is narrow and its successful invocation requires a clear showing that the award violates some explicit public policy. [Citation.] The contract as interpreted by the arbitrator must violate some explicit public policy that is well-defined and dominant and ascertainable by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from generalized considerations of supposed public interest. [Citation.] Accordingly, the public policy of a state must be determined by its constitution, laws, and judicial decisions. [Citation.] * * *

To vacate an award under the public policy exception, this court is required to undertake a two-step analysis. The threshold question is whether a well-defined and dominant public policy can be identified. [Citation.] If so, the court must determine whether the arbitrator's award, as reflected in his interpretation of the agreement, violated public policy. [Citation.] As our supreme court has cautioned, although a rote recitation of the exception's two-prong test can be easily made, the exception's ultimate applicability to a case is necessarily fact dependent. [Citation.]" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Chicago Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241 , 399 Ill. App. 3d 689, 695–96, 339 Ill.Dec. 444, 926 N.E.2d 919 (2010) ( ATU Local 241 ).

The question of whether an award violated public policy is one of law, which we review de novo . City of Des Plaines v. Metropolitan Alliance of Police, Chapter No. 240 , 2015 IL App (1st) 140957, ¶ 20, 391 Ill.Dec. 328, 30 N.E.3d 598.

¶ 17 The CTA does not contend that the arbitrators exceeded their authority or that the awards failed to draw their essence from the collective bargaining agreement. Instead, the CTA argues that this court should vacate the arbitration awards because the awards violate the well-defined and dominant Illinois public policy requiring the CTA to provide safe mass transportation to the public.

¶ 18 The arbitration awards at issue here held that the CTA could not bypass the collective bargaining process and unilaterally impose rules that directly affected certain rights of the workers concerning their schedule choices and work hours. These awards cannot be vacated under the public policy exception unless the CTA clearly shows that...