Laborers Local 773 v. Ill. Labor Relations Bd.

2020 IL App (4th) 200029-U

LABORERS LOCAL 773, Petitioner, v. THE ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, STATE PANEL,and ALEXANDER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRORITY, Respondents.

NO. 4-20-0029

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 8, 2020

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Direct Administrative Review of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel

No. S-CA-18-007

JUSTICE TURNER delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Harris and Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: We find no error with the Board's decision to dismiss the Union's unfair labor practice complaint.

¶ 2 Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 (eff. July 1, 2017) and section 11(e) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Labor Act) (5 ILCS 315/11(e) (West 2018)), petitioner, Laborers Local 773 (Union), seeks direct review of the decision of respondent, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), dismissing the Union's complaint against respondent, Alexander County Housing Authority (Housing Authority). The complaint alleged the Housing Authority violated section 10(a)(1) and (4) of the Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (4) (West 2016)) when the Housing Authority repudiated its collective bargaining agreement with the Union. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In lieu of a hearing, the parties submitted stipulations of fact. The Union and Housing Authority stipulated the Housing Authority was a "public employer" under section 3(o) of the Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/3(o) (West 2016)) and subject to the jurisdiction of the State Panel of the Board pursuant to section 5(a-5) of the Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/5(a-5) (West 2016)). Moreover, the Union was a labor organization as defined in section 3(i) of the Labor Act (5 ILCS 315/3(i) (West 2016)).

¶ 5 The stipulated facts further provided the Union and Housing Authority's collective bargaining agreement expired on September 30, 2015. A copy of that agreement was included as a joint exhibit. The Housing Authority and the Union engaged in bargaining over a successor agreement. During February 2016, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) took possession of the Housing Authority under section 1437d(j)(3)(A)(iv) of title 42 of the United States Code (42 USC § 1437d(j)(3)(A)(iv) (2012)) after HUD determined the Housing Authority (1) was in substantial default of its consolidated annual contributions contract with HUD and (2) had violated provisions of the consolidated annual contributions contract, as well as federal statutes and regulations implementing HUD's low rent housing program.

¶ 6 On August 1, 2016, the Union and the Housing Authority held a negotiations meeting, during which they agreed a modified and more comprehensive agreement would be drafted and presented. On December 22, 2016, a revised agreement was presented to the Union. The Union then presented a counterproposal to the revised agreement on February 27, 2017. The Union and Housing Authority agreed to mediation to assist in their efforts to bargain a successor collective bargaining agreement. On June 26, 2017, the Union and Housing Authority met for mediation but did not reach an agreement on a successor collective bargaining agreement. OnJune 27, 2017, the Secretary of HUD issued a determination directing the immediate abrogation of the collective bargaining agreement between the Housing Authority and the Union under section 1437d(j)(3)(D)(i)(I) of title 42 of the United States Code (42 USC § 1437d(j)(3)(D)(i)(I) (2012)), and the collective bargaining agreement was abrogated as of the issuance of that determination. On June 28, 2017, Towanda Macon, HUD-appointed Housing Authority executive director/HUD Co-Administrator, sent a letter to unit members, informing them (1) their employment would be terminated in 30 days, (2) the collective bargaining agreement had been cancelled, (3) they were not entitled to termination benefits or rights of seniority since the collective bargaining agreement had been terminated, and (4) they would receive all of the compensation to which they were entitled to under state law. A copy of one of the letters was included as the second joint exhibit.

¶ 7 On July 12, 2017, the Union filed a complaint against the Housing Authority with the Board. The date of the alleged wrongful action was June 28, 2017. The complaint asserted the Housing Authority sent correspondence to members of the bargaining unit that indicated the Housing Authority was terminating the collective bargaining agreement between the Housing Authority and the Union. It further alleged the Housing Authority unilaterally terminated the collective bargaining agreement in violation of the Labor Act. Additionally, the complaint alleged the Housing Authority failed and/or refused to bargain with the Union in good faith. The Union requested an order (1) directing the Housing Authority to bargain in good faith with the Union over a successor collective bargaining agreement and (2) enjoining the Housing Authority from terminating any bargaining-unit employees' employment. Attached to the complaint was one of the June 28, 2017, letters from Macon to a bargaining-employment employee.

¶ 8 The Housing Authority and Union filed briefs. To its first brief, the HousingAuthority attached (1) HUD's June 27, 2017, determination abrogating the collective bargaining agreement and (2) Macon's affidavit. On May 16, 2019, the administrative law judge (ALJ) entered its recommended decision and order. The ALJ found the threshold question was whether the Housing Authority exercised control over the actions which formed the basis of the alleged unfair labor practices. It noted the Union, as the party bringing the charge, had the burden of proving the allegations set forth in the charge. The ALJ first stated the plain language of section 1437d grants HUD the authority to abrogate any contract if HUD's secretary determines certain conditions have been met. Nothing in the provision suggests HUD needs to first secure the acquiescence of a housing authority before doing so. The ALJ further found the record contained no evidence the Housing Authority in this case had "any power, authority, influence or control of any sort" over HUD's decision to abrogate the collective bargaining agreement. The ALJ also rejected the Union's argument the determination issued by HUD on June 27, 2017, was not an immediate abrogation of the collective bargaining agreement but was a directive to the Housing Authority to abrogate the collective bargaining agreement. The ALJ concluded the Housing Authority did not violate the Labor Act when HUD abrogated the Union and Housing Authority's contract because no evidence showed the Housing Authority has control over that issue. The ALJ also determined the Housing Authority did not violate the Labor Act by issuing notice of termination letters to the Union's members because no evidence suggested the Housing Authority had control over that decision. Even if the Housing Authority had control, the Housing Authority did not violate the Labor Act in doing so because there was no longer a contract for it to repudiate and its decision was rational and not done in bad faith.

¶ 9 The Union raised five exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision and order. The Union asserted the ALJ did the following: (1) failed to address the Union's argumentconcerning the improperly included exhibits in the Housing Authority's brief; (2) incorrectly held the Housing Authority had no control over the decision to abrogate the collective bargaining agreement based on the stipulated record; (3) erroneously interpreted the HUD Act; (4) incorrectly held the HUD statute authorizes the termination of a collective bargaining agreement, which runs afoul of the Labor Act and has serious policy implications; and (5) erroneously held the Housing Authority did not violate the Labor Act when it sent termination notices to the bargaining unit. The Housing Authority filed a response to the Union's exceptions. On December 11, 2019, the Board entered its decision and order, finding the Union's exceptions were meritless and adopting the ALJ's recommendation and order as the decision of the Board.

¶ 10 On January 14, 2020, the Union filed a timely petition for review of the Board's order dismissing its complaint against the Housing Authority. Ill. S. Ct. R. 335 (eff. July 1, 2017). Accordingly, we have jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 11 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 12 A. Standard of Review

¶ 13 A party aggrieved by a final order by the Board may obtain judicial review in the appellate court of the Board's order entered under the Labor Act in accordance with the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2018)). 5 ILCS 315/11(e) (West 2018). In such appeals, we generally review the Board's final administrative decision and not the recommended decision and order of the ALJ. Slater v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, Local Panel, 2019 IL App (1st) 181007, ¶ 13, 144 N.E.3d 618. However, as here, when the Board adopts the ALJ's recommended decision, it is appropriate to review the ALJ's findings of factand conclusions of law in reviewing the Board's decision. See Petrovic v. Department of Employment Secretary, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 22, 51 N.E.3d 726.

¶ 14 "Under the Administrative Review Law, the scope of judicial review extends to all questions of law and fact presented by the record before the court." Board of Education of City of Chicago v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 14, 69 N.E.3d 809. "The applicable standard of review, which determines the degree of deference given to the agency's decision, depends on whether the issue presented is a question of law, fact, or a mixed question of law and fact." City of Chicago, 2015 IL 118043, ¶ 14. With a question of law, we revi...