good morning welcomed all of our visitors including two of my daughters this is wednesday may twenty second two thousand and thirteen first case on the call the doctors agenda never sixteen case number one one four eight five three the definition section of the public labor relations act specifically section three and which contains the definitions for public employee and section three zero which contains the definition of public  eight two thousand and ten the general assembly amended those sections of the public labor relations act when to enact a public act ninety six twelve seventy five floor to include within the definition section of public employee peace officers employed by a school district in its own police department and amended section three to include school districts in employment of peace officers in its own police department following that enact meant this case arose when a representation petition was filed by the union  who is also appellant in this case seeking to represent a group of a bargaining unit of employees of the peoria school district under the public labor relations act and that bargaining unit had been previously certified or the union had been certified as the bargaining representative of that unit of those employees under the educational labor relations act  the publicly under section nine of the public labor relations act and its correlating administrative rules in general assembly has provided an orderly investigative procedure for resolving before the labor relations board questions that arise when such a petition is fry old nevertheless the school district thought circuit court intervention yes it to find that it and its employees do not need to definitions of public employee and public employer under the public labor relations act circle quite correctly also the school district asked the circuit court to declare that the m that was unconstitutional yes special legislation because it alleged that the district that the legislation could apply only to it and no other school districts the circuit court correctly dismissed that  complaint on the basis they at the bargaining unit determinations under both the labor relations act and the educational labor relations act are within the exclusive of the labor board's and it also dismissed the claim of special legislation finding that it did not constitute special legislation to discern court was correct because the general assembly has charged the labor board with the authority to administer and in first the act including recognition of bargaining representatives and it has it has given the board exclusive  constitutional it can't show that the legislation it grants a benefit to a class of individuals that withholds from a similarly situated group and even if it required the legislation is rationally related to the states policy of protecting public safety but of course first the first thing that i would like to point out is that this court need not reach the issue of the special legislation issue because there has been as yet no determination as to whether or not the employee sought in this representation petition meet the definition contained in the public labor relations act for public employee that is there's no no determination that they are indeed peace officers employed by a school district in its own police department and the determination that the district is such an employer and it's your contention that the determination should be board to make that determination that that is that is it isn't it is not your contention that the board should have the authority to determine the constitutionality of the amend no no but generally i mean parties do bring don't make their argument and then when the case goes up with the record that has been made on the representation petition all the evidence that has come in then the appellate court has everything that it needs to look at and decide you know what the representation issue and the the constitutional issue so if it's all sort of need to the argument could be made you're saying before the boards as to the constitutionality they could not make a rul binding but then that would be a part of the record that would go to the vote well it would be there for it but for instance in this case because there has not been a determination it could be that the state d employees would be found to be an that the legislation is unconstitutional doesn't have a case i would say that that would that would be the result but given that there is no determination as to what these employees do and what the employer does as i stated this court need not reach that because it may not be necessary it might never be necessary whether or not any employees and employer meet the definitions under the act is never determined until unless and until a representation petition is filed with the board and then under section nine a of the act the general assembly under intended to be adversarial it's just its fact finding and then when the facts come in and the work he has all the facts in it applies the facts to the definitions of the act to see if the standards are met and if not in the words rule specifically provide dadt the the board than or the executive director depending on the status of the case because it can be dismissed even before a hearing if it's obvious that they're not covered we dismissed the petition so the act and the rules both expressly kept template and provide and expect the board to make this determination which contrary to what the district has argued is not a question of law because it's a question involves determining what these employees do what their job is what the district situation is i mean what the employment circumstances are and then applying that to taishan of of the definitions in the act so if i understand you correctly or your request would be that we send this back to the board to make that determination first you know i don't know a good answer to that frankly i know that you know the the circuit court should not be just be deciding whether or not employees are public employees public employers because that is all part of the board's authority and that's their expertise and that's what is these courts have decided in the appellate court given the it's it's in somewhat of an unusual posture would you agree i agree with that and that's because instead of going through disorderly procedure that the act board's rules provide for  that parties generally avail themselves of when these kind of representation petitions are filed there is you know we have this unusual situation  where you know this he had to spend determined by the board already as i said to be a record and the whole the whole case would have come from your position that is what we'd be decided and that the proper place would be that you know that's why we're here because it sent the the whole matter back including the determination of whether or not these are public employees and a public employee or back to the to the to the circuit court for a determination no there is no ruling there is no ruling other than from the circuit court i found that it was not a special legislation it's sent the whole thing back to the labor board yes but the words generally as as we've discussed you don't rule on constitutionality but you know as to the first issue  e courts reasoning really this presents just a really unworkable framework with with a representation petition going back and forth between the labor the procedure posture is about it's quite odd the trial court below said it is not unconstitutional and that was reversed by the appellate court so whether or not the issue of constitutionality is before th and you know theoretically if it's reversed said all the way back on to the trial court we have the clerics who are ruling or before you now so you know the trial court may take a stab at whether or not it's unconstitutional at some point  time but the cases that get to this court no disrespect are few and far between and who better to pass upon that issue than the members of the supreme court and plaintiff is definitely asking for that leave with respect analysis i do want to raise two points number one the analysis that the public court did was either incorrect or incomplete under the special legislation on constitutional provisions and there is without a doubt a legitimate state interest involved in the legislation with respect to that first point  there's a two part test as i read district one fifty nine versus schiller and that's on page forty four of the attorney general's brief and what this animal honorable court said is  that nothing in these special legislation provision of the constitution so nothing in that provision bars the legislature from acting in law specifically addressing the conditions of an entity that is uniquely complaint has pleaded it's true and the complaint this is that the record to see seven paragraph thirty three says district one fifty is the only school district which employed peace officers and its own police department and existence on the effective date of the amendment january one two thousand and eleven so it claims to be uniquely situated and because it claims to be uniquely situat eleven of its decision it's an excel levon the last sentence of the last full paragraph on that page that district won fifty had the distinction of being the only school district in the state that maintains it force so under district one fifty nine versus schiller it is impossible under the complaint as alleged that the plaintiff can meet the first special legislation test special legislation bars a situation where one person is that belongs to the if there has to be at least two in the class and one person is disadvantaged one person got a special benefit to special legislation one and only applied to wants to read history over to see if i recall correctly i don't have the facts squarely before me but i think there was another i think it may have been the complainant or somebody who brought that issue to the court didn't get to take advantage of the same legislation that was involved in that case and again that's my recollection i'm not going to tell you i'm one hundred percent on spot on that there's the fact that the legislature made it impossible for the other school district this act it meant something completely different when it said as of the effective date of this act i think that's reading far too much into the statute with death and some extra legislative history and that sort of thing  any event this court should be aware that without a doubt the plaintiffs claim that they're the only school district in the state that has its own police force in its complaint and that's paragraph thirty three after the attorney general's office ra unique about school district one  please the court i'm stanley eisenhower and i represent the plaintiff epperly the board of education of the peoria school district number one fifty i should note that the one time my one and only time i brought my sons to court they were admonished by the court for end the case following up on just chill bridge question there has been no determination of that issue at this point they're technically that's correct because they won the motions to dismiss and therefore it was reverse that it's unconstitutional but it's technically you could decide by affirming the of the appellate court that it just goes back for that determination that the motion of the smith was act the court said you don't have when you're challenging and and they were challenging the recognition of the clerks under that act the court said you don't know if you're challenging special legislation i mean you challenge the constitutionality of an act you don't have to exhaust the remedies and in this particular case it doesn't really matter i think based on the special legislation whether eventually these people are police officers or not that i'll get into the substance a special little special if station argument but basically you don't have to get it into it it's clear under the act that peace officers as of the date of the act have the right to interest arbitration peace officers after the act dot nor is it the province of the the labor board to side the constitutionality of the law so if you sent it back all the way as a request to later boards they can't how to was only supplemental in order if the you've if the court didn't find the act constitutional we would still be able to prevail on the issue of these are police officers so let's count two is not the pend count one is not dependent on two and i think it is a legal question because the real legal question really is can a school district employ peace officers because of it's not like a municipality the only authority in the which we are arguing the only authority in the at in the school called for something like this is true of officers we can appoint truant officers and the only authority for truant officers to possibly be police officers is a forty year old attorney general opinion that said that the its that truant officers because they could make arrests in the course of their duties qualified to go to police training academy and get training and th opinion was only restricted to the right to go to police academy the police academy not whether they are police officers so really i'm sure it is part of this somewhere along the line of so many don't find a constitution unconstitutional but as the issue of whether school districts can employ peace officers or are truant officers police officers needs to be determined and that is not something within the purview of the letter of the labor board this is a legislative interpretation of the of a school called provision dealing with truant officers and we haven't had a determination yet think there's some real questions about it because of the way the truant officer section is written if they're true put that there are two police officers mr eyes and hammer i'm trying to understand your argument here are you saying that i'm probably making more  i mean down the road are you saying we peel away the procedural problems that you're going to be making an argument that there's no authority to hire these individuals whether you call them peace officers truant officers or whatever but we have the authority to hire truant officers know are you saying your arguments going to be down the road you're going to be a challenge that these people should not have been employed no not that they should the been employed but the definition they're not police officers on the definition either the criminal code or the secondary definition in the in the labor abbott but what's the important what's what's the effect the fact would be assuming the law is constitutional the school districts in this particular situation would still not mr stiction act you could have peace officers and you can have special police officers police officers you have which are almost the same but there are some important distinctions police officers have interest arbitration special police officers still remain under the labor at the public labor at last but they don't have interest arbitration and they have to be and they have to to have to be in separate units so that if that was the issue it would it would be for the labor board the side but this is  jurisdictional issue about which actually should handle it and that's another reason we brought we thought about these issues before before we brought this case one of the one of the issues that made this to do it this way through the current tory judgement action was because of that if we did their way would be even more complicated because we would bring we would bring this issue decide whether the police officers and assuming they are not there would be an appeal on the appeal we would not be able to raise the constitutionality of the act because they didn't have jurisdiction to raise it either so i'd still have to bring it to clark terry judgment we have two actions pending that one one in the public sector labor act one of the educational relations act if we peel both of them to the supreme court so we would be even in a more procedural morass as opposed to what i thought was a simpler way of going which is going to circuit court get the constitutional issue decided if we need to do an secondary we could do that or he could remain on the back to the labor board at that point but that seems a simpler path up i think the only thing that made it more complicated is the trial court should have this should have ruled in our favor and we wouldn't have to worry about should go back to the year or b or a factual determination as to whether these employees come under public employees are you arguing that this is that because the priore of school district doesn't have the authority to hire police officers into point of law they are not police officers and therefore it's not a factual question right so that will that we can put officers but truant officers are not police officers and that is not dependent upon facts that's dependent upon the law right as you read the law because the truant officer section says they are they can make a ras and stop riots but it but it only says in the course of their duties so they can't they're not anywhere in the district if you read it broadly like a police officer that means i can have my own police force that can force that we can have the school district have a separate police force that can force the laws in the city peoria which wouldn't separate well with the city but theoretically we could do this as opposed to a very narrow issue of i'm a truant officer in the course of my duties i can do it otherwise well that we would we could appoint a teacher to be a truant officer some carry a gun and we would have a sense a whole separate army in peoria sources it is a legal it is a legal issue on that particular because the policy is the policy of the school district they don't come under the state garvey they don't come into the state and that we've just recently received a letter saying that you're not you don't come under the state that there 's some issue in how well we have to pay for p t i training just that we used to have to get subsidised fifty percent there's an issue about whether if i use them as security guards which they're used most of the day they're not they're not truant officers at that point is a good cook i mean this is one of the this is a particular issue in peoria that's that sort of we're struggling with which is when i do it because of this forty year old their tribe as it is a school resource officer right i was going to say that the you know the labor boards procedure i think implicitly they've recognized this is the better way to go because there has been no waiting for the supreme court so i think implicitly they recognize this is this a good substantial judicial administrative school resources to do it procedurally this what is your question the constitutional  employed by a school district in the school district's own police department so allan levy was on the effective date of the act so we should be focusing on the police officers as a group group has been favored by this legislation you told the select group our school districts and now and my question is how is the school district favored under this legislation in theory because the the police officers can't go on strike then the puzzle public safety is saved and protected from not having police officers on duty while schools are in equivalent they're not equivalent only how do we get on well first of all this legislation has said that they are no the legislature has not said they are the the attorney general says they are quoting a case from the fourth district that race the same sort district who said that's not what we said at the right to strike an arbitration are not the same it's like saying that the death penalty the death penalty and life in prison is the same because the convicted murderer s in this case i would say yes the reason the reason being is in smaller groups when you look at interest arbitration and smaller groups interest ever trace in favors a smaller group who doesn't help more  formal in this particular case in general that would be a problem but what they've done is they've done it by special legislation they've granted it interest arbitration to p r you are not granted at the peoria but didn't grant it wouldn't be granting it to rockford elgin the st alternative expeditious equitable decision there are alternatives and alternatives in different situations that interest based arbitration is a is a good method when you have public safety let's say the five police and fire  on strike they haven't found it for school districts even though there's been lots of debate whether whether you know interruption of public services education is an important right that should be done by by that so they found them as alternatives they did not find them as equivalent and are there alternatives used in a particular situation that one situation it is appropriate which they found in police and fire but in school districts let's say with teachers they have found that it's not appropriate but well it alternative there are doing the equivalent and there's a there's a big difference because alternative is sometimes it makes sense to have interest arbitration it in a case when public safety is involved and in this case even if you know again the problem here is  first i would like to point out that with regard to mr rising hammers argument that whether or not these employees are public employees is a question of raw their argument their discussion back and forth with your honor's dealt with facts what do these employees do when do they do it where do they do it how do they do it who does it these are manifestly questions that the board is authorized and and has the expertise to resolve and it does so on a routine basis determination so and the and the board's if you look at the definitions in the board of peace officer for instance it's peace officers employed in a department an agency a police force those are not defined so the board routinely determines whether or not peace officers in any of those situations are peace know other purposes of other statutes so it's not contingent on whether or not in any sense an employer is is compliant with some other statute you know they may have their employees doing whatever it is they're doing and that's the facts and so that you know for purposes of the labor act which you know is the promotion of rubber stability as well as public safety and collective bargaining that of course occurs under the act that's what these definitions are looking at and that's what they're meant to do if we get if we don't address the constitutional issue or w are police officers void by the school district or whether they are not authorized are police officers and therefore they don't come under the l r b what you're well without a record as to what these employees  do what but if their argument if i understand it is they don't have the legal authority are police officers and therefore they cannot be you're saying it still is a question of are they saying that on the basis of the truant officer quote that you know what's in what's in the school code does not necessarily i mean the board will consider what the what the code provides while it also looks at what actually is going on because i mean  the legislature by placing that amendment in the air act signals that there may be some employees in the state of illinois who are performing as peace officers and have and a district somewhere maybe that has taken on one or more their you know the function of what normally would be the municipality where instead of having t police in in schools and policing the schools they're doing that whether or not that's something that they're authorized to do i you know  that could be part of the i didn't that that analysis but that question itself coming up under the school called the leader board doesn't enforce the school code it forces the ex for the purposes of the  has plenty of experiencing experience answering you know our corrections officers peace officers or our deputies in the courts peace officers are for instance a case one time ago before the board i think the the officers would not be peace officers would not be able to go out on strike where other school districts presumably they would be able to go out and strake and there's a public safety concern there and that's  it but that's something they don't want right because if i heard mr rising hammer correctly in smaller groups they'd rather they have the right to strike right as well and th rather than having the arbitration because mauler groups don't have as much clout when it comes to strike as then is it basically what you heard as well yes your honor their argument as even in the wake of sandy hook legislation that is conferring a benefit that they don't want to presume benefit that they don't want that is there any of stoppel argument there or anything else is with respect to asserting that it's special legislation intended to be helpful that in their position this or not that i'm aware now your honor i think the county bureau cases on point and that district one fifty nine case it's just it's you know it's a school district and it was sort of a different deal with labor relations but it's it deals with the issues even even the situation where the statute closed was open and closed on one day that situation existed in that case what's the what any legislative history to find that on that something different than as you know i don't think the legislature yet there's nothing in the legislative history that indicates that it's pacifically intended to close the class on that date briefs the class opening close in two thousand and eleven the significance would be was there anybody else in existence on that date if that's really what the statute means but i think the district has to show there was somebody else if they're unique which is what they alleged in their complaint then it's not special legislation special legislation specifically benefits one person one group over another another similar similar situated if there's a class of one there is no special legislation under that district one fifty nine case police officers what was the last piece of their often they threw out the meno they're referred to as police officers the school police officers are assigned specific sites throughout the district the department has established relationship with peoria police department and the juvenile not it was not but it was asked by the court that's times concluded thank you thank you very much case number one one four eight five three the board of education peoria school district number one fifty apple e versus fury federation