Find Legal Information

FIRST DIVISION

September 23, 2002

PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner-appellant Stanley Pierce (petitioner) filed charges of unfair labor practicesagainst his employer, respondent-appellee City Colleges of Chicago-Malcolm X College (CityColleges), with respondent-appellee Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (Board). TheBoard conducted an investigation and issued a complaint. A hearing was held, and at itsconclusion, an administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended the dismissal of the complaint dueto a lack of supportive evidence. Petitioner filed for review with our court instead of filingexceptions to the ALJ's decision with the Board. Petitioner then filed a motion with the Boardfor leave to file his exceptions instanter. The Board denied this motion and accordingly issued afinal opinion and order adopting the recommended decision of the ALJ. Petitioner appeals prose, asking that we entertain this appeal on its merits so as to reverse the findings of the Board andaward him compensatory and punitive damages, as well as lost benefits. For the reasons statedbelow, we dismiss this appeal.

BACKGROUND

The record of the proceedings before the Board indicate the following facts, which are notin dispute.

Petitioner was an adult educator employed by Malcolm X College, one of seven CityColleges of Chicago. He testified that since 1988, he had been teaching literacy at the CookCounty Department of Corrections (CCDOC), one of City Colleges' sites for adult education. City Colleges typically monitored the classes of adult educators three times per semester;however, this number could increase if attendance was low or problems were reported. TheAmerican Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Local 3506(union), represented City Colleges' adult educators, and a collective bargaining agreementgoverned the terms and conditions of their employment. Pursuant to this agreement, themaximum number of hours an adult educator could teach was 24 hours per week; petitioner'sscheduled teaching hours comprised this maximum.

In December 1997, petitioner was informed that his schedule would be reduced to 16hours per week. In January 1998, petitioner spoke with his union and a grievance was filed onhis behalf, as well as other employees, against City Colleges protesting this reduction.⁽¹⁾ In thefollowing months, City Colleges monitored petitioner's classes more frequently, as well as thoseof Oscar Walden, the only other adult educator teaching similar classes at CCDOC. CityColleges noted that the classes at CCDOC rarely began on time, if at all, and often experiencedvery low attendance.

Petitioner, Walden, the dean of City Colleges and the coordinator who was monitoringthe CCDOC classes exchanged written correspondence and held meetings in an effort to solvethese problems. Several new schedules were proposed, and, as a result, petitioner's and Walden'sclass times were shifted as a means of affording CCDOC students a better start time and, in turn,increasing attendance. Class locations in CCDOC were also changed to provide the studentswith easier access to petitioner's and Walden's classes. Further monitoring revealed, however,that problems persisted. In addition, City Colleges discovered that placement test scores of thosestudents in petitioner's literacy classes were high, indicating that they should be enrolled in moreadvanced classes.

For these reasons, City Colleges cancelled the literacy classes at CCDOC and reassignedpetitioner and Walden to teach elsewhere. On June 30, 1998, petitioner filed a charge with theBoard against City Colleges for unfair labor practices, alleging that City Colleges had harassedhim, discriminated against him and cancelled his classes in retaliation for his filing the earliergrievance regarding the reduction in hours. The Board investigated petitioner's charge and issueda complaint based on his assertions.

A hearing was held in June 2000. Petitioner appeared pro se. He, as well as several otherwitnesses, testified and exhibits were entered into evidence. On November 14, 2000, the ALJissued her recommended decision and order. In it, she found that the dean of City Colleges had"testified credibly" as to the reasons for the cancellation of petitioner's classes. Moreover, shefound that petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing a prima facie case of employerinterference, restraint or coercion under section 14(a)(1) of the Illinois Educational LaborRelations Act (Act) (115 ILCS 5/14(a)(1) (West 1998)), because he could not show that CityColleges' cancellation of his classes was motivated by his filing the grievance regarding reductionin hours. The ALJ concluded that based on the evidence, there was no support for petitioner'sclaim of anti-union animus or that any of City Colleges' actions would have been different had henot filed the work-hour grievance. After dismissing the complaint, the ALJ included thefollowing language in her recommended decision:

"Right to Appeal

Pursuant to 80 Ill. Adm. Code 1105.220(b) and (d), the parties may file exceptions to this Recommended Decision and Order and briefs in support ofthose exceptions no later than twenty-one (21) days after receipt of this Recommended Decision and Order. If no exceptions are filed within the 21-day period, theparties will be deemed to have waived their exceptions, and unless the [Board]decides on its own motion to review this matter, this Recommended Decision andOrder will become final and binding on the parties."

The record shows that petitioner received a copy of the ALJ's decision via certified mail onNovember 16, 2000.

On December 6, 2000, petitioner filed with this court a document that he designated ashis "petition for review," and that we accepted as his notice of appeal, stating in its entirety:

"Plaintiff-Appellant, Stanley L. Pierce, Pro se, hereby appeals to the Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial District, from the Decision and Order of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board Issued on December [sic] 14, 2000 in the matter of Cased Number 99-CA-0002-C inwhich [sic] the IELRB ruled in favor of City Colleges of Chicago - Malcolm X College."

The Board was served with a copy of this notice of appeal on December 7, 2000. Later, onDecember 20, 2000, petitioner sent and the Board received a "Filing of Exceptions" to the ALJ'srecommended decision and an attached motion for leave to file exceptions instanter. Petitioneradmitted therein that he mistakenly filed an appeal to this court in this matter⁽²⁾ but that hecorrected his error as soon as he discovered it by bringing this motion before the Board.

On May 16, 2001, the Board issued its final opinion and order. It found that petitionerhad received a copy of the ALJ's decision on November 17, 2000.⁽³⁾ It then concluded that,pursuant to sections 1105.220(b) and (d) of the Board's rules and regulations (80 Ill. Adm. Code