Find Legal Information

PRESIDING JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

BACKGROUND

MAP filed a previous representation/certification petition in 1995. The Board denied that petition, finding that the sergeants employed by the Village were "supervisors" as defined by the Act. Several years later, in October 2002, MAP filed another petition, claiming that the sergeants werenot supervisors. The Village objected to the petition on the ground that the issue had already beendecided. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sharon B. Wells agreed with the Village that the Boardcould not revisit the 1995 decision unless MAP proved that circumstances had substantially changedsince the decision. Following a hearing, the ALJ determined that the Village's sergeants were stillsupervisors and consequently denied the petition. As for the preliminary issue of changedcircumstances, the ALJ wrote: "Inasmuch as that issue also requires discussion of the sergeants'supervisory status, I will only address the substantive issue of whether sergeants are supervisorswithin the meaning of the Act." Indeed, the ALJ never did address the issue of changedcircumstances.

The Board upheld the ALJ's decision, agreeing with MAP that "changed circumstances"warranted revisiting the 1995 decision, although it did not identify what circumstances had changed. However, the Board sided with the Village on the substantive issue, finding that the sergeants werestill "supervisors" as defined by the Act. This timely appeal followed.

The facts are taken from the hearing before the ALJ. There are three divisions within theVillage's police department: patrol, investigative services, and support services. The investigativeservices division is divided into a tactical unit and a detective unit. Over each division is a deputychief, who reports directly to the chief of police. There are eight sergeants, six of whom are assignedto the patrol division and one each to the tactical and detective units within the investigative servicesdivision. The sergeants oversee a total of 38 sworn officers and five civilian community serviceofficers (CSOs). There is no sergeant assigned to the support services division. Neither the chiefnor his deputies are on duty on nights and weekends. During these times, the sergeants are thehighest command authorities on duty in their respective divisions.

Some of the sergeants--in particular, patrol and tactical sergeants--have duties similar to thoseof officers. For instance, patrol sergeants spend about 75% to 80% of their time in the field. Theyrespond to calls, take reports, make arrests, and write parking tickets. Unlike patrol officers,however, patrol sergeants have discretion whether to respond to calls other than emergencies. Frequently when they do respond, it is primarily in backup or oversight supervisory capacities ratherthan as primary responders. Patrol sergeants make fewer arrests and write fewer tickets than patrolofficers. Tactical sergeants, too, spend the majority of their time in the field.

Sergeants also have many duties not shared by officers. These duties fall into the followingclassifications.

I. Oversight/Direction

In addition to conducting roll call at the beginning of a shift, sergeants assign the beats forthat shift. The beats are assigned according to a prearranged rotation drafted by a group of sergeants. If there are not enough patrol officers on duty to cover all beats in a shift, the sergeant may chooseto either cover the beat himself, call in an off-duty officer, or leave the beat uncovered. Sergeantsalso address requests for vacation and overtime.

Sergeants review and edit the incident reports submitted by officers. A sergeant will returna report for redrafting if he finds it deficient. Sergeants perform periodic evaluations of officers andCSOs. The evaluations of officers have no impact on their salaries, which are set by a collectivebargaining agreement between the officers and the Village. The evaluations are, however, a factorin promotions. An officer seeking promotion is assigned a numerical rating between 0 and 100. Amaximum of 7.5 points is awarded based on the average of the officer's six most recent evaluations. The evaluations of CSOs impact their pay increases, but there was no evidence of just how muchimpact they have.

II. Grievances

The officers' collective bargaining agreement with the Village defines a "grievance" as "adispute involving the interpretation or application of this Agreement." The contract prescribes afour-step procedure by which officers must pursue grievances. First, the officer must notify his"immediate supervisor," i.e., a sergeant, of the grievance. The sergeant must answer the grievancewithin a prescribed time. The contract provides that "if the grievance is not settled in Step One, orif a timely answer is not given," then the officer must appeal to a deputy chief, and from there, ifneed be, to the chief of police and ultimately to the village administrator. Chief Geoffrey Kourosconfirmed in his testimony that the Village's sergeants have discretion to grant or deny grievancesat step one. Sergeants Kenneth Boehm and Terrence Freeman testified that they have resolvedgrievances regarding bereavement leave, overtime, and vacation. Boehm and Freeman recountedseveral specific incidents where they denied such grievances. They did not mention any times wherethey granted grievances.

III. Discipline

Department regulations require sergeants to ensure that patrol officers abide by thedepartment's rules of conduct and to take corrective action when a violation occurs. The sergeantshave the authority to orally reprimand. Though, technically, a sergeant may not issue writtenreprimands, he may make a record of an oral reprimand, which will become part of the employee'spersonnel file for 30 months and may be used as a basis for future discipline should furthermisconduct occur. If the sergeant believes that the infraction is deserving of a sanction greater thanan oral reprimand, such as a written reprimand or a suspension without pay, he will refer the caseto a deputy chief, who will review the sergeant's recommendation regarding further punishment. Thefinal decision is made by the chief. Chief Korous testified that he gives a sergeant's recommendation"a large amount of weight" and accepts it in 95% of cases. Korous testified that, of the 20 to 22internal investigations that are performed each year, he could recall only two incidents where asergeant's recommendation on discipline was rejected in whole or in part. Sergeants Chris Maremaand Terrence Freeman recalled three incidents where a sergeant's recommendation was rejected inwhole or in part.

IV. Other Duties

Various other responsibilities distinguish sergeants from officers. Sergeants approvepersonal recognizance bonds and grant permission for overnight parking on the Village's streets. Sergeants coordinate special policing activities, such as roadside safety checks and the bicycle patrol,and also serve as liaison officers for various department outreach programs. Sergeants overseespecial training programs such as the annual departmental training session, which employs acomputerized combat simulator. Sergeants are also involved in setting department policy andpreparing budgets. ANALYSIS

An administrative agency's findings of fact are reviewed under the manifest weight standard,and its legal determinations are reviewed de novo. City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor RelationsBoard, 181 Ill. 2d 191, 204-05 (1998). An agency's determination of a mixed issue of law and fact,however, is reversible only if clearly erroneous. City of Belvidere, 181 Ill. 2d at 205. Here, neitherthe facts nor the law is contested, the sole question being whether the Board properly applied the Actto the undisputed facts. Therefore, we review for clear error.

The Village raises a preliminary issue, arguing that the Board failed to provide adequatefactual findings on the question of whether circumstances had substantially changed since theBoard's prior adjudication of this matter. As the Board recognized in its decision, "it is notappropriate to reconsider a prior decision of the Board unless there has been a substantive changein the relevant facts (i.e., a substantial change in the duties and functions of an existing title), or asignificant change in the controlling statutory or case law." See Cook County Hospital DoctoralStaff/199 National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, 4 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par.3017, No. L--RC--88--20 (ILLRB May 18, 1989); Village of Alsip, 3 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par.2051, No. S--RC--87--57 (ISLRB July 23, 1987). The Village poses this preliminary issue as a barto our review of the substantive issue in this case. We agree with the Village that the Board shouldhave more fully analyzed the issue of changed circumstances before proceeding any further. However, the Board did in fact proceed beyond this preliminary issue and determined that theVillage's sergeants are supervisors. Since, as we explain below, we agree with that holding and sidewith the Village, there would be no point in our remanding this case for a finding on the preliminaryissue.

We proceed, therefore, to the substance of this appeal. MAP argues that the Board erred inconcluding that the sergeants are "supervisors" under the Act. The Act excludes supervisors fromparticipation in the same collective bargaining units as nonsupervisors in order "to ensure employersthat 'pro-union bias will not impair the supervisor's ability to apply the employer's policies tosubordinates according to the employer's best interests.' " Chief Judge of the Circuit Court v.American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 515(1992), quoting City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 135 Ill. 2d 499, 506 (1990). The Act seeks "to avoid the conflict of interest which arises when supervisors, who must apply theemployer's policies to subordinates, are subject to control by the same union representing thosesubordinates." City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 517. "The potential for a conflict of interest lies in thesupervisor's authority to influence or control personnel decisions in areas most likely to affect theemployment of subordinates and, thus, most likely to fall within the scope of union representation."(Emphasis in original.) City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 518.

Section 3(r) of the Act defines a "supervisor" as

"an employee [1] whose principal work is substantially different from that of his orher subordinates and [2] who has authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer,suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, direct, reward, or discipline employees, to adjusttheir grievances, or to effectively recommend any of those actions, [3] if the exercise of thatauthority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the consistent use ofindependent judgment. [4] Except with respect to police employment, the term 'supervisor'includes only those individuals who devote a preponderance of their employment time toexercising that authority, State supervisors notwithstanding." 5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2002).

In order to be deemed a supervisor, an employee must meet all parts of the Act's definition. ChiefJudge, 153 Ill. 2d at 515. Of course, by the terms of the statute, police employees need not complywith the fourth part of the definition.

In determining whether the first part of the definition is satisfied, i.e., whether an employee'sprincipal work is substantially different from that of his subordinates, the Board follows a two-stepinquiry. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 514. First, the Board determines whether the employee'swork is "obviously and visibly different" from that of his subordinates. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2dat 514. Where the employee's work is "facially similar to those of the rank and file," the Boarddetermines whether " 'the nature and essence' " of his work is substantially different. City ofFreeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 514, quoting City of Burbank, 1 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2008, No. S--RC--45 (ISLRB June 6, 1985).

" 'The nature and essence test [is] a qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis. Theexistence of the supervisory authority, and the ability to exercise it to impact a subordinate'semployment at any time, changes the nature of the relationship between the [ranking officers]and the patrol officers to an extent which renders the nature of their functions very differentdespite their facial similarity.' " (Emphasis in original.) City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 518,quoting Village of Alsip, 2 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2038, No. S--RC--303 (ISLRBSeptember 5, 1986).

Thus, if the employee's work is either obviously or visibly different from that of his subordinates,or is substantially different in nature and essence from their work, then part one of the definition issatisfied.

The ALJ found that the duties of sergeants were not obviously and visibly different fromthose of officers, but were substantially different in nature and essence. Though the Village and theBoard challenge both findings, we need not examine whether the duties of sergeants are obviouslyand visibly different from those of officers, because we find that they are substantially different innature and essence. Although some of the sergeants, particularly the tactical and patrol sergeants,perform many of the same tasks as officers, the sergeants as a body have many duties that officersdo not have. Sergeants assign beats, perform evaluations, resolve grievances, approve requests forvacation and overtime, address violations of the rules of conduct, and play a role in the fashioningof departmental budgets and policy. These supervisory and administrative aspects distinguish thesergeants' work in nature and essence from the work of officers. See City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at519 (nature and essence of ranking officers' work was substantially different where the chief reliedon them "to observe, direct, evaluate and discipline their subordinates and to ensure that the[officers] are properly performing their jobs"); Village of Justice, 17 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par.2007, No. S--RC--00--009 (ISLRB November 13, 2000) (nature and essence of sergeants' work wassubstantially different where sergeants had authority to schedule work, review and approve reports,and address grievances); Village of Glen Carbon, 8 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 20, No. S--UC--91--102 (ISLRB June 6, 1992) (sergeants had "authority to assign patrolmen, issue verbal and writtenreprimands to subordinates, to suspend a subordinate for a day without pay, to complete evaluationsfor subordinates, to determine whether to utilize subordinates for overtime pay, and to instructsubordinates in the performance of their duties"). Also significant is the fact that sergeants, notofficers, are the highest command authorities present on nights and weekends when the chief andhis deputies are not on duty. See City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 519; Village of Glen Carbon, 8 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2026.

MAP advances no real argument against the ALJ's holding on this point, but merely asserts,absent substantiation, that the supervisory and administrative functions of sergeants do not have thepotential to "impact *** [the] terms and conditions" of the officers' employment. There indeed isthe potential for such impact in the sergeants' ability to address grievances on such issues asbereavement leave, overtime, and vacation, and to issue reprimands that may be the basis for furtherdisciplinary action. We conclude that the principal work of the Village's sergeants is substantiallydifferent from that of their subordinates, and therefore part one of the definition of "supervisors" issatisfied.

Next, we determine whether the sergeants perform at least 1 of the 11 duties enumerated inpart two of the definition, and whether they do so with "independent judgment," as required by partthree. "The presence of even one indicium of supervisory authority accompanied by independentjudgment is sufficient to support a finding of supervisory status." Department of CentralManagement Services v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 278 Ill. App. 3d 79, 83 (1996). Anemployee exercises "independent judgment" when he makes a choice between two or moresignificant courses of action without substantial review by superiors. Metropolitan Alliance ofPolice v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, 354 Ill. App. 3d 672, 679 (2004).

The ALJ found that all sergeants employed by the Village exercise independent judgment inrecommending discipline for officers and in adjusting their grievances.⁽¹⁾ MAP disputes bothdeterminations. First, MAP argues that the sergeants have no effective power to recommenddiscipline, because their recommendations are independently reviewed by a supervisor, who has onoccasion rejected them. "In order to be deemed effective, [a recommendation] must be adopted asa matter of course, with little, if any, independent review." Village of Hoffman Estates, 21 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 15, at 53, No. S--RC--03--133 (ISLRB January 19, 2005). In Village ofHoffman Estates, the Board held that a sergeant's ability to issue recommendations to superiorsregarding punishment of officers did not qualify him as a supervisor, because his recommendationswere subject to full review by the superiors, who occasionally rejected the recommendations, at leastin part. See also Chief Judge, 153 Ill. 2d at 521 (employees within probation department did nothave the power to discipline with independent judgment, because their recommendations regardingpunishment were reviewed by superiors). Although the recommendations of the Village's sergeantscarry great weight with the chief, they nonetheless are subject to review and have on occasion beenrejected, at least in part. Therefore, we conclude that the ability of the sergeants to issuerecommendations for punishment does not evince sufficient authority to qualify them as supervisorsunder the Act.

However, in addition to the power to recommend punishment, sergeants have the authorityto issue oral reprimands and document them for future reference. There is no evidence that thesedocumented oral reprimands are reviewed for appropriateness by the chief or deputy chief. Furthermore, the reprimands may serve as the basis for discipline if further misconduct occurs. InMetropolitan Alliance of Police, the court held that sergeants employed by the City of Bellwood hadauthority to recommend discipline with independent judgment based on their ability to issue apersonal incident report describing the misconduct of an officer, which remained in the officer'spersonnel file for six months and could be used as the basis for more severe discipline. MetropolitanAlliance of Police, 354 Ill. App. 3d at 681-82. Under this reasoning, the documented oralreprimands issued by the Village's sergeants show the requisite authority exercised with independentjudgment. Next, MAP attacks the ALJ's determination that the Village's sergeants adjustgrievances with the exercise of independent judgment. MAP relies on Village of Elk Grove v.Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 245 Ill. App. 3d 109 (1993), in suggesting that the sergeantsdo not "adjust grievances" according to the definition of the Act, because their authority extends inpractice only to minor matters. In Village of Elk Grove, the court held that the lieutenants in ElkGrove's fire department did not adjust grievances within the definition of the Act, because thematters they addressed concerned "minor disputes *** such as personality conflicts and complaintsregarding work assignments." Village of Elk Grove, 245 Ill. App. 3d at 114. Here, by contrast, theofficers' collective bargaining agreement with the Village defines a "grievance" as any disputeinvolving a matter addressed in the agreement, which governs a veritable host of matters, includingwages, vacation, and sick leave. The Village's sergeants are empowered by the agreement to addressgrievances at step one of the grievance process and have in fact addressed grievances involvingbereavement leave, overtime, and vacation. Thus, the Village's sergeants are authorized by contractto address, and have in practice addressed, grievances of clearly greater weight than those thelieutenants in Village of Elk Grove were authorized to address, and therefore we find that casedistinguishable.

MAP claims there is no consequence to the bare fact that the agreement vests sergeants withthe authority to address grievances at step one. MAP cites several cases for the proposition that"[m]ere designation as the first step in a grievance procedure, without more, does not constitutesupervisory authority under the Act." See Metropolitan Alliance of Police, Chapter No. 4, 19 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 125, No. S--RC--01--063 (ISLRB June 30, 2003), (hereinafterBolingbrook); City of Aurora, 7 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2026, No. S--UC--90--3 (ISLRBApril 24, 1991); American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 5 Pub. EmployeeRep. (Ill.) par. 2012, No. S--RC--88--76 (ISLRB April 28, 1989). A look at the facts of these caseshelps us to understand this rule. In Bolingbrook, the lieutenants whose status was at issue weregiven contractual authority to deny or grant grievances at the first step of the grievance procedure,but they routinely denied all grievances, including the ones they agreed with. Moreover, theevidence was unclear whether the chief of police had ever informed the lieutenants that they couldgrant grievances. The Board inferred from these facts that the lieutenants did not in practice haveany discretion with respect to grievances. In City of Aurora and American Federation of State,County & Municipal Employees, there was no evidence that the employees whose status was at issuehad ever addressed any grievances despite being empowered to do so by contract.

The present case is distinguishable from these authorities. Unlike the employees in City ofAurora and American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Village's sergeantshave indeed addressed grievances pursuant to the contract. Although this case is like Bolingbrookin that there is no evidence of any specific incident where a sergeant granted a grievance,Bolingbrook is ultimately inapposite because there is no indication that the sergeants routinely denygrievances pursuant to unwritten policy. The Village's sergeants enjoy more than a "meredesignation" as first reviewers of grievances.

We conclude that the Village's sergeants recommend discipline of subordinates and adjusttheir grievances, both while exercising independent judgment. We agree with the Board that thesergeants are "supervisors" within the meaning of the Act.

For the foregoing reasons, we confirm the decision of the Board.

Confirmed.

BYRNE and GILLERAN JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

1. The ALJ also found that patrol and detective sergeants, particularly, exercise independentjudgment in evaluating and directing subordinates. We need not evaluate this finding, because weaffirm the ALJ's conclusions regarding the supervisory authority common to all sergeants.