Vill. of Barrington Hills v. Labor Relations Bd.

2013 IL App (1st) 121832

VILLAGE OF BARRINGTON HILLS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. THE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, JACALYN J. ZIMMERMAN, as Chairman of the Labor RelationsBoard, PAUL S. BESSON, JAMES Q. BRENWALD, MICHAEL G. COLI, and ALBERT WASHINGTON,as Members of the Labor Relations Board, METROPOLITAN ALLIANCE OF POLICE,VILLAGE OF BARRINGTON HILLS POLICE DEPARTMENT, and GARY DEUTSCHLE, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 1-12-1832

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST DIVISION

FILED: May 20, 2013

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).

Petition for review of order

of Labor Relations Board.

No. S-CA-10-189

PRESIDING JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Cunningham and Rochford concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Order of the Labor Relations Board was affirmed where its findings that the Village violated sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (3) (West 2010)) were not clearly erroneous.

¶ 2 The appellant, the Village of Barrington Hills (the Village), filed this action for direct administrative review of the final order of the respondent, the Labor Relations Board (the Board),which found that the Village committed unfair labor practices in violation of sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Public Labor Relations Act (the Act) (5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (3) (West 2010)) when it rescinded a previously-announced 2% wage increase for its patrol officers and revoked a previously-approved tuition reimbursement benefit for patrol officer, Gary Deutschle. Deutschle was also a union organizer and local chapter president for the respondent, Metropolitan Alliance of Police (MAP). The Board determined that the Village had rescinded the wage increase and revoked Deutschle's tuition reimbursement approval because of the patrol officers' unionizing activities. The Board ordered a make-whole remedy, granting the officers the 2% wage increase as promised, with interest, and providing for Deutschle's tuition reimbursement in accord with the Village's policies. The Village argues that the Board erred in finding that it violated sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Act, because its decisions were based on financial concerns, not anti-union animus. We affirm.

¶ 3 On February 8, 2010, MAP filed a charge with the Board against the Village, alleging the following facts. On November 24, 2009, Village's Police Chief, Michael Murphy, announced to all police department personnel in an office memorandum that the Village had approved the 2010 budget, which included a 2% wage increase for all police department employees. On November 26, Deutschle received an e-mail message from Alice Runvik, a police department administrative assistant, informing him that his request for tuition reimbursement had been approved by the Village. On November 30, MAP mailed its petition for representation to the Board; a copy of which was also sent to Village President, Robert Abboud, along with a letter requesting that the Village maintain the status quo regarding wages and other conditions of employment as required by the Act. On December 7, the Board served notice of the petition on Abboud. On December 22, counsel for MAPwas informed that the Village did not approve the wage increase due to the filing of the petition and that Abboud opined that wages were now a mandatory subject of bargaining. Additionally, counsel for MAP was informed that Deutschle's tuition reimbursement approval had been revoked. MAP's complaint that the Village violated sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3) of the Act proceeded to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) on November 9, 2010.

¶ 4 The following background information is derived from the testimony adduced at the hearing. The Village is an appropriation-based municipality, which begins its financial process for the next fiscal year by drafting a budget. The budget is assembled from information provided by Village officers, including the police chief. For instance, Murphy submits the police department's proposed budget for the next fiscal year to the finance and public safety committees, and it is reviewed by the Village treasurer, who uses the information to formulate a budget. The Village budget is approved by a consensus of the board of trustees, not by resolution or ordinance. According to Robert Kosin, the Village's director of administration, the budget is not concrete and does not obligate the Village to certain expenditures. Rather, it is a forecast of revenue and expenses for the upcoming year and is a reliable document for planning purposes. The approved budget is then used by the Village treasurer and attorney to draft the property tax levy, which is then presented to the board of trustees for adoption. Once adopted, the levy is tendered to the county clerks of the four counties and used to collect property taxes. The Village treasurer and attorney then draft the appropriation ordinance for the board of trustees. Once the appropriation ordinance is adopted, the Village pays its expenses on a monthly basis. Abboud submits a monthly list of expenses to the board of trustees during its regular monthly meeting for approval. Once each expense is approved, Abboud may disburse thefunds.

¶ 5 The parties stipulated to the following facts. The Village employed 19 sworn police officers, including one police chief, three lieutenants, three sergeants, and 12 patrol officers. On November 24, 2009, Murphy sent a memorandum to all police department personnel, stating that the Village had approved the 2010 budget the day before and that budget included a 2% wage increase for all department members. On November 26, 2009, Deutschle received an e-mail from Runvik, stating his request for tuition reimbursement had been approved. On November 30, MAP sent its petition to organize the patrol officers to the Board and Abboud.

¶ 6 The parties further stipulated that the Village was aware that the patrol officers were engaged in collective activities protected by the Act by the filing of the petition. They also agreed, that in 2010, police department positions that were not covered by MAP received wage increases: the police chief received a 1.8% increase; lieutenants received a 3% increase; and sergeants received a 2% increase. The Village and MAP were still negotiating the patrol officers' 2010 wages.

¶ 7 The parties further stipulated that Deutschle received tuition reimbursement in January 2010 for law school course work completed in 2009. Deutschle initially requested tuition reimbursement approval on September 4, 2009, for his Spring 2010 classes and received approval via an e-mail from Runvik on November 26, 2009. Deutschle was the chapter president of MAP's Chapter 576 unit and one of three patrol officers negotiating a collective bargaining agreement on behalf of the Barrington Hills Police Department with the Village.

¶ 8 Deutschle testified that he had been employed as a police officer by the Village since January 1, 2006. At the time, Deutschle was working toward his Master's Degree. In order to receive thetuition reimbursement benefit, Deutschle was required to submit a request for approval to the Village; after the coursework was completed, he submitted his grades and receipts for tuition and books. He completed this process and received tuition reimbursement for seven Master's Degree classes taken in 2006 and some law school classes taken in 2009. After receiving approval for his Spring 2010 classes, Deutschle was later informed by a lieutenant that his tuition reimbursement approval was withdrawn. No reason was given for the withdrawal. He continued with his classes despite this information. Deutschle never filed a grievance with the Village to contest its decision to withdraw his tuition reimbursement approval.

¶ 9 Deutschle was president of MAP's Chapter 576 since its inception in October or November 2009; he actively organized Chapter 576, speaking to each patrol officer about the possibility of forming a union. Deutschle testified that he believed the Village engaged in coercive activity after the petition for organization was filed, including questioning employees, retracting previously-approved vacation benefits, and threatening to change health insurance coverage and work hours. Deutschle also testified that patrol officers received a $50 gift card for Christmas two weeks after all other non-union employees received their gift cards. The gift cards were hand-delivered to the officers by Abboud; all other employees received the cards in their department mailboxes on their pay day, which was the usual manner of delivery. Deutschle asked that another employee be present when he went to receive the gift card, fearing Abboud might try to intimidate him because of his unionizing efforts.

¶ 10 Steven Calcaterra, counsel for MAP, testified that, when officers told him that they were not receiving their 2% wage increase, he contacted counsel for the Village. On January 7, 2010, counselfor the Village informed Calcaterra that the Village decided to renege on the 2% wage increase, because wages were a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Later, Calcaterra spoke directly with Abboud, who also stated that he believed wages for 2010 were to be determined through collective bargaining. Abboud further informed him that the budget was subject to change despite having been approved. Called as a rebuttal witness, counsel for the Village, Thomas McGuire, denied that he ever stated that the Village rescinded the increase because of the officers' pending union organization efforts.

¶ 11 Murphy testified that he issued his November 24, 2009, memo to inform the staff that the Village passed its 2010 budget, which included a 2% wage increase for them. About a week after he issued this memo, Murphy spoke to Abboud. Murphy learned that Abboud wanted to...