for the metropolitan alliance of police in two thousand and three the general assembly pastor added section nine eighty five of the public labor relations act and comparable section seven c five to the illinois educational labor relations act these sections were intended revised and more expedient means of certifying the representative of units of public employees in the public sector historically a union would present a showing of interest have at least thirty percent and at that point they would have a right to obtain an election and after an election unit would be certified and a representative would be certified these sections take that concept but they move the showing of interest up to fifty percent the six percent is significant if there were an election for example in which only forty percent of the employees showed up twenty one percent the employees would in fact choose to have a union this requires that right up front there be an actual majority of all the employees showing interest in having union representation the primary issue concerns the second sentence of section ninety five which provides that the board show ascertain the employee's choice of employee organization on the basis of tuesday duction authorisation and other evidence and the appellate court to interpret the word and in its joint not  interpretation creates an internal conflict within section nine hundred five in that the very next sentence the third section of nine hundred five requires that there be an immediate election if there is a demonstration of fraud or deduction authorizations comma and other evidence upon which the board would otherwise be loved by tom clearly the third sentence contemplates some situations in which the board is relying on and other evidence how can we possibly say that the showing without do you know resolution passes muster when this is the one type of evidence that the ledger legislature singled out his innocence well i think the the whole reliable in the third sense it's creating a category of evidence of similar reliability to do's detection authorization when they're just render the term deduction evidence of course i mean why did they just say other evidence no it would not if they simply said other evidence that term would be wholly undefined we know by coupling it with tuesday duction authorizations there has to be a degree of reliability attached to that and i submit the board's regulation which goes on and requires that any evidence the majority support whether it be cards or petition containing specific language stating that by signing the card the employee acknowledges that if a majority of his or her coworkers inappropriate union sign evidence of majority support the card can be used by the petition to obtain certification is the employee's exclusive represent with an election renders all the evidence a majority support of similar reliability to do see duction authorization cards in fact it's better than a traditional tuesday duction authorization authorization card is not a very good demonstration of the employee's actual intent anything any evidence that has the language that the the board requires in its regulations would be preferable evidence characteristics separated by the word or you can have a defined unit in the same way that if it lists the number of subcategories with the word and so how it's formulated and how it fits in the overall scheme is how you need to interpret what it means here end of the simple point is the third sentence cannot be reconciled under a definition that requires two forms of that it's in the second sponsor this is the such as were intended to provide a more expedient means to organize so that the employer had less opportunity to interfere in the process of how its employees picked a representative deduction authorization cards as traditional card certainly is not a good fit with that particular purpose as i said they require deduction do say don't talk about whether you want representative representation more importantly perhaps it is they tend to cut out all of those fair share employees you know you have a right for union representation without paying full dues to a union you may have religious you may have political objections to joining one union into paying full dues to them the statute has always protected the rights of these employees to participate in the process they might actually  collective representation and they might actually in an election vote for a union but if you require that used to touch an authorization card to be here there and in effect disenfranchised from this particular way of  expression employed ten far more accurate than a traditional duty touching authorization card would have been the board's interpretation better fits all of the language of section ninety five there are no inconsistent provisions if you use its interpretation there are no clearly undefined terms such as other evidence under its interpretation and the purposes of section nine hundred five are better met it really doesn't make sense for a procedure that's intended to expedite and make it a little easier to be make it have a representative certified to require two forms of evidence and particularly evidence from the same employee i don't know what the second would be other than we really mean it or so so even if the board's interpretation were not better than that submitted by the sheriff or found appellate court if it were merely as reasonable the courts in this court included have found that we would typically defer to the administration sees interpretation if it's a reasonable of an ambiguous statute and this clearly has so in fact the appellate court's substitute interpretation is inferior to that of the board and we submit that that portion of the board of the court's decision needs to be overturned there's a second significant issue in this case having to do with the employer's right to review the evidence of majority support now the issue isn't whether the certification is a final administrative action it is an issue really isn't so much the court's ability to review the cards except in instances like the prior case of the emergency rule words per cent the sealed documents to the employer's counsel i don't think we're overly concerned there will be some chill on the employee's willingness to sign a card by the fact that it's reviewing by by the court as there is probably would be reviewed by the board but it's altogether different type of cio if it's being reviewed by the entity that they typically would not have access to typewriters to type in this information so if you want to reject it you are in effect writing out everything that's written on the card and you're back to the original form now in the forest preserve a little bit more hesitation in signing a card if they know it's going to go to the employer whether a dash it or not so i don't think that is an adequate protection here now the employers previously had no right to review the thirty percent showing of interest under the old procedure in fact there's there's cases that say it would it was a i don't for a legal objective to achieve and try to do that the employer did have a little bit more involvement with the ballots and after an election in that they could have observers the hairs on the observers not a supervisor who might intimidate employees etc but the ballots have no identifying information on them and frankly i'm i'm unaware of any ministry to very view of a labor board certification that had to do with the quality of the ballots or whether the board counted the ballots correctly election certification so either of the prior thirty percent showing interest or in the election procedure the employer had very little no opportunity really to determine how the  if you give them these dues deduction authorization cards or even the redacted versions you're creating a chill in the employees who realize that their their jobs may be at stake or potential for future promotion if you have state by being at the forefront of this organizing effort and courts have recognized as the significance of this chill have set up oats from various federal courts to this extent it is really just state the obvious if you were an employee you would be reluctant to sign such things if it could ever come back on you according to bill sponsor in the senate the purpose of section ninety five was the employer out of the employee representation process if you allow them to have access to the evidence of majority support you for definitely put them back into the process  and i submitted an attempt to review these cards is really an attempt to undo the legislation i'm not sure how useful this provision would be if that were the case it's an employer's ability to show fraud before he accessed the card i submit know that it's not intended that they see the cards and then go on a fishing expedition they have to have evidence of fraud of course and based upon the natural consequences of controlling the employment environment and being aware of what is going on i don't think that was intended to create that pass the the crushing the employers access to the cards raises the larger question  most employers and it sort of indication to page county have a real figure or thumb on the pulse of a campaign by a union there are many employees that will go back to the employer tell them when the meetings are where they are what kinds of things are being said and i'm not sure that the disclosure in about itself would provide any evidence of fraud or coercion i don't know what you would see on the card other than r t d the identity of the employees or supporting the campaign by the union the second district recognizes the inherent risk of those kinds of disclosures by suggesting the redaction these cards aren't blindly submitted and approved there is a review by the labor board as to their accuracy there is name checks there writing checks at one point the employer in this case suggested hiring a handwriting exemplar investigator to investigate these signatures the legislative intent of the entire section was to expe e and i have firsthand experience of how long these matters can pen and i'll talk about that with the dues deduction cards and those are the only two issues that i will address the courts have been very clear federal and state in protecting the ri employees who want to organize found in appropriate disclosures by the time that we are certified we can protect we can step in we can protect employees who are being retaliated against or somehow coerced or affected or impacted in their employment  environment it is it is difficult sometimes to get these cards signed and the board and in the majority petition it has raised the level as mr post explained to you we could have an election where literally twenty or thirty percent of the entire employment group can certify in an election a representative it's a majority of votes cast that day but the burden on the union now is to provide fifty percent plus one of all listed employees as as are interested in becoming represented in this case by the metropolitan lines a police the burden by the legislature to raise that threshold that benchmark is indicative of the importance of the cards being sign it is our it is our extreme request on behalf of our union and in the unions that have filed briefs in this case that this disclosure not be allowed that there not be a and an opportunity for the employer to become even more involved in the system they have ample opportunity to employee of the purpose of the car a doozy duction card as outlined in the county's brief simply says pay us money and you will pay is the amount of money that the union certifies in this particular case had that been done words and i would be happy to address the arguments made by the board i think they are totally incorrect and happy to share the reasons rock but a little bit of history might be helpful under the way rock was first passed for a union that couldn't work out a deal with the employer to get certified they had to have this thirty percent showing of interest significantly the general assembly did not in any way set out the standard of evidence it simply said under such regulations as prescribed by the board thirty percent or more show a showing of interest and the reason this is important is that presumably the legislature knew all of this in those my good wishes the board sent out the standard of evidence they said it made the election to skill workers into phoning against the union even if the workers want to humans solution to this problem for public employees or so out of them to folk for union through the process called check so the difficulty the deal the general assembly sought and by the way we disagreed with them but that's not it issue here is the employer's involvement from the time of the fi then it is by taking section nine eight and simply amending it were it said if you have forty percent showing you have an i want you more than fifty percent certification proof when the general assembly in the act of ninety five he did not say authorization cards which was in the regulations and presumably a new bomb but didn't say authorization cards petitions or other evidence and said authorization cards and other evidence now the other evidence was the kind of evidence the labor ward under knowing they had been collecting for eighteen years forms of employee commitment one use the other to use the same type of evidence so that always been collected under ninety eight and that is some of those it nation by a majority that they wanted the representation from the union and in fact in the rules now they've added and it must say that if i sign this i know i'm doing this and we'll have an election so loose a dozen we should that we want the union to be  all the evidence that's the other evidence the board been collecting for eighteen years and when mine do this authorization the second for me what's that for because that's an entirely different animal we had a duty i'm sorry the last six nine months but prior to that prior to certification there would be no end in even if we presented them we likely wouldn't be doing that and you would have to presume so will there be no duty to present almost to the employer for purposes of checking off tuesday or taking octaves remember now just because the union has a card that says i want the employer deduct my dues the employer has no duty to do that an employer has to reach an agreement with the union to do that and that's one of the concerns that we have and i meant go back to my email assists now under the board's rules and regulations and it please please take a look at them under the rules and regulations for twelve ten eight under noname i'm sorry  d one eight is the standard of proof necessary for the showing of interest for an election it serves no such only may consist of authorization cards petitions or any other evidence the same language is they had before now we have new language from the general assembly dues deduction and other evidence now they were boards rules and regulations say the very same words that they had before the well of evidence is authorisation cards petitions or any other evidence demonstrating a majority so in their view it's the same governance under each situation under the second top level of commitment attained by a person of voter one signing a petition in front of the requestor is different than when the person cast a ballot in secret the reliability of which to understanding it's one employee wants a majority to represent them for purposes of bargaining and they know that by signing the card it could be used to move an election in suck me they've got it sign  for dues authorization used adoption authorization which hands the aura of a financial commitment a potential financial commitment in those are not inconsistent now it's been been sad that the whole purpose was to get the employer out of the certification business there is no support record for that the only support is senator sandoval's statement and that says we want to have the you cut down the time one employer to campaign to change minds so now under this process is the second circuit the second district has interpreted the union would get a signature on a interpretation of wilders i wish we had one but we're dealing with the legislation before us not what we would like so there is no violation of policy whatsoever now questions been raised about why should the employer be able to see the cards well i don't know that we have to address sat here and that is to say that the the second district said the court should be able to review them by the way mr mazzoli and others have said here's what the card says that's news to me the sheriff has never been around to see these cards playground the ones we have no more idea eve even if such cons exist and by the way they may have all been signed by the same person we don't know we can't see them they may be mistreated we don't know i don't know what they say the sheriff doesn't know what they say the county doesn't know what they say were known to him by the way the reviewing court can't say you see them either we filed a motion before the  to challenge bat before the courts that right one point has always had that right i mean that's the last time i was here was and challenging a certification that's never been contested by the way it wasn't addressed friday the court either you can reason objection here it's no secret we have no rights as an employer and that will argue with that with the board down the road but here the appellate court second district had no right to review that evidence and that wasn't going to chill anything in by the way out so if i mess up yes and we get to at the end it's the question of deference to the board's finding them meaning the statute in light of the appellate court's statement that the and without going into talk prettiness in the historical context in which it's arisen might see that it was reasonable but whether it's reason reasonable doesn't make it accurate and doesn't make it correct ok if there is there is there fall i don't know if the board is wrong they're open their view should not carry the day and i don't mean to make a cheap shot but the very last time a interpreted the emergency rolls they were right about that e this mr baird before your time runs out i want to ask you this yes under your position in this case are you saying late let me put the question a hypothetical context because i don't know the exact numbers let's say there's one hundred map members that both sides could agree on that are eligible to exercise their choice ok can i say that's the agreement yes if map submitted hundred cards one hundred percent indicating employee choice you're saying that under your indicates the view of the employee to have the union represent them the other says i will make a financial commitment to the union each of these types of evidence has a different purpose so yes we believe there would have to be a majority of each and they could be obtained simultaneously there's no known necessity of any employer involvement in that process and it would delay the process one now there's been some question about standing there no questions on that i assume that's behind us and also on the bargaining unit a waiver we've argued that no proof if there's any issue of addressing the bargaining unit that further c is that what you're requesting that it be remanded for further proceedings your honor i am not going to disagree at this point with the appellate court i so i am not taking a different position than in here  and then their order so yes i think it should be remanded for further proceedings i agree with the court that the labor board has got to redraft its rules and regulations to accommodate conflicting interests of the parties been one particular person ballots obviously do not have identification of the people voting on them that's a poor reason to allow access to these demonstrations of majority is the employee's understanding when he's confronted with a card like this that he understand that he's voting for a union and as soon as it's there is fifty percent it's there or does he think that he might be dealing with  without getting anything out of it so whether the employer gets these things is not as critical as what the employee understands these to be that's why it's such a poor choice here and i don't think the only choice i didn't the comments regarding the those fair share employees who have a right to return west representation even though they do not want to join to do is i'd like to justice to sterols question with respect to the then go on to statutory construction when ambiguity is as certain with respect to the statute i review is to know we don't have to take the position they took i'd like to get back to specifically outlining that tuesday duction cards were nice but what they did was they they they referred back to the regulation which set out particular three items do authorization evidence and something i can't remember the exact terminology but it was separate by the word order but it listed particular items whereas the statute frames the category of types of the evidence here and as you know reviewed in context when i've not heard from councils any explanation of how the third sentence in section ninety five can be reconciled with the second s if that is the case then i submit that a hard interpretation which does not have this conflict is the better interpretation even if it were not if indeed they were both reasonable interpretations and i don't you know on that have to go back and read the decision again your honor but i don't think that was nearly to arrive at the conclusion thought there were some arbitrariness or some ambiguity in the statute the mere phrase in the statute itself created ambiguity in its justice from section third the third sentence so there is ambiguity in the statute i think that the appellate court did in fact mean to say that we were we had a reasonable interpretation of that statu it's the statute it was called to implement and that special interpretation tool was completely ignored by the appellate court here but me i submit that there's a history as equally supportive of our position here fifty percent showing it is in many ways more significant showed me fifty percent showing in pejorative the interest is more significant than the election procedure in which only forty what the seconds it's had to do with what i believe their position is that the third sentence addresses the words approach when confronted with roger orders and if you look at it that way there is not an inconsistency between that second and third sentence if there's fraud to get an election it's not you then only in those services can you rely on other evidence there is there has been no no presentation of a reasonable interpretation of situations in which the board can rely on other evidence which the third sentence clearly contemplates that is consistent with the second sentences here is the dutch an authorization another thirty appellate court interpretation that  m i believe i mentioned that the importance of the fact that all this fair share employees are being disenfranchised under the appellate court's interpretation here if they have to file dues the duction offer position cards they a ninety five most fundamentally the talk about the history of the purpose of this most fundamentally it was to shorten the time so that the employer had less involvement in this process here and  board's interpretation is consistent with that as well with regard to the section nine and whether they are a person or grieved within the meaning of the term if section ninety five only contemplates one role for an employer that is presentation of evidence of fraud a correction here they didn't attempt to do that so if they did not participate in the one role contra played by nine and a five consequently the end result of the board's processes could not have rendered them an aggrieved party true they are subject to the act they've always been subject to it and when there's a unit certified of course there is some some bargaining obligation on that but it's not the board's action that makes them an aggrieved party and consequently fail to see how they have standing to bring administrative review in this particular context the the the scope of the unit and i submit mentioned before there have been a ministry of use of certifications after an election to my knowledge they involve the proper composition of the unit i've never seen one where the ballots need to be looked at or anything of that nature the employer here can if it has supervising the unit for example bring a unit clarification petition after the certification in those employees can be removed in that process now to the extent that they have argued that the correctional officers who were never contemplated to be in this unit the  brought to the board does not refer to them that excludes them the extent to whether they are peace officers or not really isn't important it's really a secondary issue particularly since the employer