Metropolitan Alliance of Police, Bellwood Command Chapter No. 339 v. Illinois Labor Relations Board
Case Date: 12/09/2004
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-03-2043 Rel
|
No. 1-03-2043
PRESIDING JUSTICE REID delivered the opinion of the court: The petitioner, the Metropolitan Alliance of Police,Bellwood Command Chapter No. 339 (the Union), appeals from theState of Illinois Labor Relations Board (the Board) decision thatdismissed its petition which sought to form a bargaining unit forsergeants and lieutenants who were employed by the Village ofBellwood police department (Department). On appeal, the Union argues that the Board's determination that theseemployees are supervisors pursuant to section 3(r) of theIllinois Public Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2002))is erroneous. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Board'sdecision. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2002, the Union filed a representation/certification petition with the Board pursuant to the IllinoisPublic Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/1 et seq. (West 2002)(theAct). In its petition, the Union alleged that at least 30% ofthe sergeants and lieutenants employed by the Department wererequesting a secret ballot election to determine whether theUnion should be certified as their exclusive collectivebargaining agent. The Union alleged that there was no existingcollective bargaining agreement covering these individuals. Bothparties subsequently waived the requirement contained in the Actthat an election be held within 120 days of the filing of thepetition. In a letter dated March 22, 2002, Administrative Law Judge(ALJ) John Clifford of the Board informed the parties that he haddetermined that the Union had presented a sufficient showing ofinterest to proceed to an election. ALJ Clifford noted in hisletter that "[a]ssuming that the Village believes that some orall of the employees sought are supervisors or managers and henceexcluded from any unit, we need at the pre-hearing conference todetermine how both parties may efficiently present the facts tome for Board determination." Subsequently, a hearing was held. The sergeants and lieutenants at issue serve as shift watchcommanders in the Village of Bellwood (the Village) patroldivision. The Village argued that these sergeants andlieutenants functioned as supervisors because they exercised therequisite independent judgment necessary to be deemed supervisorsunder the Act and, as such, were not able to form a bargainingunit. The Village is a municipality located in Cook County'swestern suburbs. The Department contains approximately 48 swornpolice officers. Chief Gregory Moore is the principal commanderof the Department. Deputy Chief Tom Bajkowski serves directlybelow Chief Moore. Below the deputy chief are three divisioncommanders. Bajkowski also serves as one of the Department'sfour division commanders. These division commanders each holdthe rank of sergeant. There are two lieutenants and five patrolsergeants. The remainder of the officers are patrol officers andpart-time personnel. The deputy chief is the division commander of the patroldivision, which is also known as the operations division. ThePatrol Division is responsible for patrolling the Village. Thereare three eight-hour shifts in the Patrol Division. A watchcommander is in charge of each shift. Two lieutenants and fivesergeants work in the patrol division. If a lieutenant isworking on a particular shift, he functions as the watchcommander. If no lieutenant is working on a particular shift,the sergeant working on that shift with the most seniorityfunctions as the watch commander. When sergeants in the patroldivision are not functioning as watch commanders, they functionas patrol sergeants. The sergeant with the least seniority isnot assigned to a specific shift. Instead, he functions as therelief sergeant, filling in when another sergeant is not workinghis usual shift. There are 36 patrol officers beneath thelieutenants and sergeants. The Department has rules of conduct for its employees. Anemployee who violates these rules can be disciplined. TheDepartment has a progressive disciplinary policy. The firstlevel of discipline is an oral reprimand. The second level isthe issuance of a personal incident report (PIR). The thirdlevel is a written reprimand. The fourth level is a suspensionwithout pay, which can range from one to five days. The Village's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BFPC)has the exclusive authority to impose any discipline greater thanfive days of suspension without pay. The chief sends a letter tothe BFPC requesting that charges be drafted, and thereafter, ahearing is then conducted by the BFPC. The sergeants and lieutenants are responsible for issuingoral reprimands and PIRs to patrol officers and civilianpersonnel. Patrol officers have no authority to issue PIRs. Asto the discretion that sergeants and lieutenants have with regardto their ability to issue PIRs, Chief Moore testified as follows: "Q. Okay. And again, who can -- who can initiatethis type of discipline? A. Sergeants and above. Q. Okay. And how would it be initiated? A. Well -- Q. You can give me a hypothetical. A. It's based upon discretion of a sergeant --hypothetical, if a person is continuously late and --the sergeant has the discretion of telling the person,'You can't continue to be late.' And if they continue to be late, then the sergeantwould issue a personal incident report to document thisperson being late, and then, after a couple of -- ofpersonal incident reports, then we move to a writtenreprimand." Lieutenant Robert Frascone, a police officer for the Villageof Bellwood, testified that he worked for the Department for 26years. Frascone stated that he was appointed chief of police inOctober 1990. He stated that he held that post for 5 |
||||