they do record and i'm sure that some of you will listen to use of please make sure you speak into the microphone just for the purpose of recording but also speak up for the purpose of letting everybody hear what's being said and i neglected to ask the clerk to complaint counts one into our alternative counts taking a determination by either an arbitrator or the circuit court of the merits of a contract claim under a public sector collective bargaining agreement  determination by an arbitrator of the merits of the union screen events alleging that see a mass violated the contract by imposing a dental premium insurance premium contribution on retired state employees if the  finding that he did not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the retiring general grievance the arbitrators finding is contrary to section eight of illinois public relations act which requires that as a quid pro quo for the unions waiving its right to strike during the term of the contract the employer agreed to submit all disputes arising under the contract to arbitration the arbitrator found that retirees are not employees under the contract and cannot file grievances but the grievance here is not filed by the retirees or by employees it was filed by the union itself the arbitrator's finding ignores the contracts broad definition of grievance which is quote any difference complaint or dispute that out and some with some emphasis the presence of the word or between the employer in the union or any employee can you tell us why you think that significant and it's the right is significant because the employees and eventually can file grievances groups of employees can file grievances the union can file a grievance on behalf of employees but the union itself can also file grievances either on behalf of employees or on its own behalf to resolve contract disputes and and the section eight of the i p l or a also requires both that grievance procedure apply to all employees in the unit but also that it provides for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the administration or interpretation of agreement less agreed otherwise and that language encompasses disputes that may not involve individual employees or even groups of employees if the retirees you know don't have an ability to file a grievance and the union can file a grievance on their behalf what happens with the retirees well what the arbitrator here found was that the contract does have provisions for guarding retirees i mean there's even a section retiree benefits and he found he's totally wrong he doesn't know what he's arbitrary he was totally wrong because unlike the private sector under federal labor law where the agreement to arbitrate is a matter of private agreement and even though there  it was unilateral it was right it was after the contract started and it was unilateral with respect to the argument that going back to the issue of employees versus union and why that important that the union can file grievances there are other types of disputes besides this one where the union might want to file a grievance and if the grievance procedure and the labor act are interpreted narrowly as only allowing employees to file a grievance information to the union on personnel transactions will make state conference rooms available for union meetings article twenty six section eight provides that cements will notify the union of a new job class of cations and article five section eight provides the even has t right to request and receive information into grievances all of these provisions are provisions that don't apply to employees so if only employees could file grievances none of these provisions could be enforced by the union even though they would be disputes under the contract so clearly under a clear case law which we cite in her brief a union's waiver statutory right which include here the right under section eight to arbitrate must be found in clear and unmistakable contract language that expressed any excludes the any such waiver any arbitrator did not find any such waiver rather the arbitrator focused on the wrong question which was whether retirees can file grievances rather than whether there is any clear contract waiver of the right to arbitrate retiree tunnel issues are to be determined by the arbitrator with respect to substance of r r but ability and there's no evidence because there is no record as to what kind of arbor delay the contract was intended to apply to but to the extent substantive arbet ability is involved the uniform arbitration act which is adopted by section eight of the labor act issue of whether grievances substantively are beautiful is ultimately an issue for the court as own i quite surprised can ice the supreme court in their board of education warren township and the arbitration the arbitrators award on the merits of the grievance would be binding on the parties to the agreement which are the union and the employer it doesn't mean it might not have as i think the court said next line some presidential effect on other cases but it it would benefits during the contract where the contract like the country to here has a broad grievance definition and the court noted that the union may resort to attack anomic weapons with respect to its dispute over retiree benefits since the union represents the bargain you left only to the private agreeing that the parties with respect to the merits of the case the merits of the grievance i'm count one aren't really an issue because under the cases  found that the contract gives retirees rights but that they have to be enforced in some other form rather than arbitration the arbitrator also ignores the fact that the pool of retirees changes as the current as current employees retire even during the term of the contract these current employees and future retirees will be affected by the dental premiums when they become retirees and there's no dispute that it's current employees they're subject to the grievance procedure even if they want to grieve on their own this in fact the stipulated issue to the arbitrator on the merits which the arbitrator did not reach was did the employer violate the collective bargaining agreement when it unilaterally implemented a monthly contribution for retiree participation in the quality care dental plan that would apply to both current retirees and collective bargaining matters but even under the abuse of discretion standard value the state order should still be reversed the court state count two which is the alternative contract claim seeking quiet determination of the dispute  and count three which is a retiree individual retirees claim as broad as a class action challenging and position of the general premium payment as an impairment of contract under article thirteen section five of the constitution the circuit cour sector board has expertise in deciding what constitutes mandatory subjects of bargaining not that it has or that this sport has expertise in interpreting contracts the own publicly relations are exceptions ten eleven give boy the broad jurisdiction over and for labor practices but section sixteen provides that suits for violation of contracts are to be private circuit court after the exhaustion of contract grievance remedies section sixteen is tenuously with neither one preempting the other here the board has primary jurisdiction over and for labor practices but the enslaver practice proceeding will not determine the contract dispute it will determine whether c m s violated a duty to bargain in good faith and what within the primary jurisdiction of the circuit court and not the board the board has no expertise in determining constitutional issues and the facts rely on count three involve individual retirees some of the retirees are not even covered by the waiver of are they may be management people or people who are represented by unions since that congress part is a class action the facts do not involve any facts involved in the labor crisper proceedings they involve what representations were made to the retirees when they retire before they retired so there was no reason to stay count three pending the board proceedings so what specific relief for your request so the relief that we request is that this court reversed the circuit one of the complaint and remand it to be remanded to a new arbitrator for hearing on the merits and that this court reversed the stay order of counts two and three and the man goes to the circuit court which is the outcome forget employee give me another reason that's the problem that's the issue current retirees are not within the classifications that resulted employ right i am a state employee i'm not about as you know a member of i am a state employee ok so who's going to represent you when you retire standing if they're representing a bargaining unit number and what is the union supposed to do if the employer in this case state if they believe that the state is violating a part of the contract for example about the retiree or about independent or something else that really doesn't specifically have something to do with the bargaining unit number of a history with if union itself with of union can organize for example if your position is they can only have standing on  bargaining unit members what happens sometimes other parts of the contract where bargaining unit member is not involved if it's an issue of whether they can organize that's a matter that can certainly go to the labor relations board like composition of bargain here it is an issue that  bargaining unit or the arbiter ability or didn't the union and the state bargain in the contract for those benefits for the dependents and the retiree's they did and the union of the state also bargained in the contract that grievance procedure is fo employees and they defined employees as those classifications listed in table way about that or it's in their little twos two letter word or or the union that indicates that the employee where the union were not represent an employer decides not to grieve an issue an employee wants but means the employee can take it to grievance if the if the union won't do it but have to go through that yes but issues that concern employee ease in the bargaining unit if the arbitrator's decision here is affirmed would they have then allow or empower the state in your judgment to say well we don't think the current retirees should have any health benefits period i just don't know if the arbitrator's decision is there's a firm that means that this doesn't go through the grievance procedure this doesn't mean that there is no breach of contract claim  collective bargaining agreement even if this quote things that the construction is wrong so long as the arbitrator engage in a construction of the agreement it must be a pal and clearly the arbitrator construed the collective bargaining agreement in this case classifications listed in the contract which does not include retirees article five defines the grievance process as any difference or dispute between an employer and the union for any employee and as we discuss again the question isn't whether this court disagrees with the arbitrators construction the question is did the arbitrator construe the cut the budget agreement and if it did because the parties negotiated submit this question to the arbitrator the arbitrators decision the arbitrators construction is what controls and again the parties did agree to submit this this this this question of arbitrary broady to the arbitrator additionally page a thirty nine of the separate appendix describe the arbitration procedure the collective bargaining agreement states questions of arbitrarily shall be decided by the arbitrator arbitrement this is a substantive arbiter ability a threshold arbiter build a determination that set forth in a collective bargaining agreement the parties stipulated that was a statement of the issue before the arbitrator the parties submitted the question of our rich ability to the arbitrator the other traders construction of the collective bargaining agreement to determine that question is subject to the same deferential standard of her view as the arbitrators construction of the collective bargaining agreement to resolve any other substantive issues and that's consistent with the first options case the us supreme court case that defendant cited in their brief to indicate that the question of  one that's given to the arbitrator the same step friends are standard for view apply what's your response the argument of the union from the reply brief page four where they say even the deferential review required by these cases encompasses plaintiff's argument that the arbitrator did not have the authority to refuse to decide the merits of the grievance what's your response to that well  that's incorrect certainly the differential standard of review is still a standard of review right now so this court still sees a role i have to determine if they ever straight or one would hope absolutely  like i do absolutely that is the case is called international brotherhood of electrical workers bush is the city of springfield the site is two thousand and eleven  running zero zero nine zero five one zero zero nine zero five and just to be clear how about if we give you fourteen days to brief the applicability of that case and then the union will have fourteen days  response that would be great thank you very much for our question counsel the main collective bargaining agreement for hibbett c m s from posing any decrease in the benefits received under the agreement during the terms of the agreement and you and you believe as the union does that an adding a cost to retirees dental benefits is a decrease in their benefit that was negotiated under the terms of the contract and what us from just unilaterally changing any part of the contract they want to see him as can still be liable for breach of contract there's a difference between whether it's an article decision and a breach of kind of broad deferential lens that we need to if you have you have that yes that is an important part of the determination that the union has under the contract  bring a claim on behalf of its bargaining unit members and it's bargaining unit members are employed so just to clear up the muddled man that you're looking at now what the state is suggesting then is  rm the decision of the arbitrator saying that they don't have the right to grieve these retirees and then allow the retirees to pursue a breach of contract claim in the circuit court taking it out of the land of arbitration can employees strike on their behalf and give them a voice can grieve benefits trust me they're probably grieving now in anticipation of the fact that they're going to get hammered later on there is no doubt about that there's no doubt about that but that this found because you know they're not employees can now that then the employees of the state go out and strike and say you can't do that to the current retirees because that's not what we bargained for  fact just license the state employees to strike on this issue no because the state employees revoke their right to strike in exchange for the grievance procedure for them for themselves who are in for everybody everybody who's an employee as a potential retiree this is true but they also negotiate the definition of employee in the negotiated the definitions of the grievance procedure they agree to not ever be able to grieve on behalf of retirees is there a specific  i mean if this were a statute that we were looking at we could look at legislative history and know its share and track so we don't really have the extremes or you know information here to figure out whether an after party specifically did bargain on that issue did they it but it would also be it seems quite frankly a little bit absurd to think that just by coming to the agreement on the definition of employees the people who are bargaining for it said that it's open season and retirees that doesn't seem to be particularly when it's not over either it's not open season on retirees because we provide a contract rights for retirees and those rights are still in first of all just because they're not official then they should be a procedure so if they have the contract they should be allowed to strike if they can't grieve they should be allowed to strike retirees know the current employees the current employees gave up the right to strike for the grievance procedure and it was not abuse of discretion under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction the state does not contend that the circuit court could not address the contract issues or the constitutional issues the circuit court has the jurisdiction to address those issues that were raised the point though is that because of the unfair labor practice charge that's been filed before the only labor gratian is aboard the circuit court should hold off to see until the resolution of that to see what happens the reason for that is part of the relief that requested from the labor relations retirees and future retirees but for implementing any such changes they want restoration of the status quo and take an appropriate appropriate monetary relief and that's relating specifically to the october one two thousand and nine imposition of the dental today that first count one is reversed they would go to arbitration first and not press the other two counts they could get that arbitration in the unfair labor practice charge that's why it makes and that is the nature of the issue that's here it's an agency with specialized expertise that under primary jurisdiction the circuit court even though has jurisdiction to resolve and to entertain the contracting constitutional issues should wait and defer to the clearly can has to right under this contract and section eight to bring a grievance i may have of itself because the union has its own interest in protecting the contract that it's bargained and maintaining the integrity of that contract even apart from the interests of  members or retirees with respect to the arbet ability and the argument that the arbitrator substantive arbonne ability finding should be deferred to what if there were and that you know there could be another off the wall finding from an arbitrator that a by by the state are not applicable in commercial contract cases and federal labor law cases it's truly private agreement the parties whether there is an arbitration has to be agreed to by the parties in the contract there is no statutory mandate or the the federal scheme you know where it's understood that arbitration is is taza david in voids unnecessary strife and strikes it was adopted as a matter of the largest by legislature is part of the grievances under the contract cited and therefore that the retirees don't have to exhaust contract grievance remedies before they bring their own circuit court action there's those issues on here because the union did file a grievance so there's no issue of the unions not representing both its current employees and retirees not whether it had to do that