## I L L I N O I S 

## O F F I C I A L 

## RE P O R T S Appellate Court

Metropolitan Alliance of Police , River V alley Detention Center, Ch apter 228 v. Illinois Labor Relation s Board

, 2013 IL App (3d) 120308

Appellate Court Caption M E TROPOL I TAN AL L IANCE OF POL I CE, RIVER VAL L E Y DETENTI ON CENTER, CHAPTER 228, Petitioner, v. I L L I NOI S LAB OR RELATI ONS BO ARD; RI VER VAL L EY J UVENI L E DETENTI ON CENTER; and GERAL D KI NNEY, Chief J udg e of t h e Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Respondents.

District & N o. Third District Docke t No. 3-12-0308

Filed November 8, 2013

Held (Note : This syl lab us

con st it ute s n o par t of the opi nio n of the cour t but has bee n pre

par ed by the Repo rt er of D e c i s i o n s f

o r t h e

c o n v e n i e n c e o

f t h e

rea der

. ) The dismiss al of the unfair labor prac tice char g e filed by employees of a juvenile detention cente r based on the re j ection of their reque st for interest arbitration in the labor neg otiations arising from their attempt to repla ce their exi s t i n g collective barg aining agree ment was upheld on appea l, sinc e the employ ees worke d at a juvenile detention cente r, not a

corr ection al fac ility
, they wer e not security employ ees, they wer e not entitled to interest arb itration, and the reje ction of their reque st for interest ar bitration was not an unf

air labor prac tice.

Dec ision Under
Review Petition for revie w of order of I llinois L abor Relations Boa rd, State Panel, No. S-CA-11-055.

J udg ment Confirmed.Counsel on

Appea l J oseph R. Mazz one (a rgued), of J oliet, for petitioner.

L isa Madig an, Attorney Gene ral, of Chicag o (Va lerie Quinn (argued) and Evan Siega l, Assistant Attorney s General, of counsel), for responde nt I llinois L abor Relations Boar d.

Amber L

. Stefankiew icz and Mark W. Be nnett (argued), both of L aner Muchin Domb row Be cker L evin & Tominberg
, of Chicag o, for responde nt Gera ld Kinney

.

Panel J USTI CE O’B RI EN deliver ed the judgment of the c ourt, with opinion.
J ustices Carter

and McD ade c oncurr ed in the judg ment and opinion.

OP INION

¶ 1 Petitioner Metropolitan Alliance of Police, River Valley Detention Center, Chapter 228 (MAP), br o ug ht this petition for review of the di smissal of i ts unfair labor practice char g e ag ainst responde nts, the I llinois L abor Relations Boa rd (I L RB), the River Valley J uv en ile Detention Center (Center) and Ger ald Kinney
, Chief J udg e of the Twelfth J udicial Circuit, by an I L RB adminis trative law judge (AL J ), and aff irmance of t he d i s missal by the I L RB. We affir m.

¶ 2 FACTS ¶ 3 Petitioner MAP is a union comprised of employ ees at the detentio n cente r, including shift supervisors and nonline supervisors. The barg aining unit eng ag ed in labor neg otiations with responde nt River Valley J uvenile Detention Center (RVJ DC or Center) to rea ch a collective barg aining agree ment (CBA ) to re p l ace the agree ment that expired in 2009. After a failed mediation, MAP filed a demand for compulsory interest arbitration. Respondent Chief J udg e Kinney reje cted MAP’s reque s t fo r i n t ere st arbitration and MAP there afte r filed an unfair labor prac tice char g e ag ainst the C en t er an d Kinney

. In the char g e, MAP alleg ed that the Center and Kinney violated sections 10(a) (1) and (a) (4) of the I llinois Public L abor Relations Act. 5 I L CS 315/10(a)( 1), (4) (West 2010) (unfa ir labor prac tice for an employ er to interfe re with union employ ees or

activities and “ to refuse to barg ain collec tively in good f aith”). ¶ 4 Respondent I L RB issued a complaint for hearing. The Center and Kinney answe red the
comp l ai n t and denied that the employ ees wer e “sec urity employ ees” entitled to interest arbitration. Both parties filed prehe aring memo randa and submitt ed a joint statement of uncontested fac ts. The uncontested fac ts are as follows. The Center is a public employ er;

-2-MAP is a labor org anization; MAP is the ex clusive represe ntative of the s hift and n o n l i ne

supervisors at RVJ DC; the MAP unit was cer tified in 2005; the parties’ CBA expired in November

2009; the parties ha

ve been neg otiating a

succe ssor agree ment since Nove mber 2009; MAP filed a demand for compulsory i n t er es t arbitra tion in September 2010; and Kinney ref

used the arbitration r equest on the basis that the barg aining unit was not e ntitled to interest ar

bitration. ¶ 5 A hearing took place befor e the administrative l aw j u d g e. MAP elec ted t o stand on its documentar

y evi d en ce co nsisting of its brief and exhibi ts. The exhibi ts included, in part, employ ee job descr iptions; offe nse and detention statistics; various forms, brochur es, handbooks, policy manuals and website content from the Center; information reg arding the Wil l County

adult detention fac ility ; a nd juvenile corr ections and detention standards. The statistics reve aled that the aver ag e population of the Center was 54 juveniles, with an aver ag e stay of 23 day s, acc ordi n g t o a fi s cal y ear 2009-10 repor t. In 2010, the aver ag e daily populat i o n wa s 4 4
, with 711 admissions. In the period from J anuar y 2009 to J une 2011, juveniles wer e deta ined in a ra ng e from 763 day s for a first degree murder char g e to 1 day for a contempt of c ourt cha

rg e. ¶ 6 Thadde us Z ito testified for the Center and Kinney

. He is the assistant superintende nt of
t h e C en t er and employ ed by the chief judge of the Twelfth J udicial Circuit. The Center i s under the auspice s of the I llinois Depa rtment of J uvenile J ustice (IDJ J ) and is not g overne d by the I llinois Depa

rtment of Correc tions (I DOC). In 2006, the I DOC J uvenile Division was abolished and the I DJ J was cre ated. 730 I L CS 5/3-2.5-1 et seq. (West 2010). The Center still

uses the I DOC standards beca use new ones have not been implemented for the I DJ J but the residents are not in I DOC custody

. The Center houses both males and fema les, g ener ally ag es 10 to 16, with some limit ed statutory ag e exceptions. Th ere are two way s residents are detained at the Center. The first way is from a ref err al by an arr esting office r or depar tment. The juveniles are evaluated by Center staff who deter mine whether they should be admitted. I f approve d for admittance, the juvenile is there afte r g iven a detention hearing wher e the trial
court decide s if there is probable cause that t he juvenile is delinquent. The other means is throug h court order

. The “vast majority” of residents have not been adjudi ca t ed but are

awa iting disposition of their case s and ar e not there for a deter minate per iod. ¶ 7 Th e s h i ft s up ervisors maintain the secur ed part of the Center; supervise the juvenile detention offi ce rs , who interac t with the Center’ s juveniles; schedule the staff; chec k in

v i sitors; and provide programs when neede d. The nonline supervisors include the court liaison, the programs manag er, the training supervisor, and the techni ca l coordinator. The shift and nonline supervisors are m anage ment personne l require d to meet the minimum standards established by the I llinois Supreme Court as set forth in the definition of probation

o ff icer in the Probation and Probation Offic ers Act (Probation Act) (730 I L CS 110/9b (3 ) (West 2010)). Employ

ment appointments are made pursuant to section 15 of the Probation Act. 730 I L CS 110/15 (West 2010) (I llinois Supreme Court authorized to establish probation service s). The juven i l e detention office rs, who are hired by Wil l County court service s, monitor the health, safe ty and welfa re of the residents; overse e the juveniles’ daily activities; and attend to the emotional needs of the juveniles. Per the rec ommendation of the Administrative Offic e of the I llinois Courts (AOI C), the Center maintains an 8-to-1 ratio of

-3-juveniles to staff. The Center is under the AOI C’s probation and court service s di v i s ion,

which sets standa

rds for the juvenile detention fa cilities. ¶ 8 J ohn Prinz i te stified. He is the superintende nt of the Center, responsible for the day-today operations a

nd is e mploy ed by the chief judge of the Twelfth J udicial Circuit. J uvenile detention is under the oversight of the AOI C, whose mission, in par t , is to “improve and enhanc e the probation court servic es fi el d .” He submits the Center’ s annual plan to the AOI C, including a budg et. The AOI C provides the Center’ s funding
, in part, and the Center
must repor

t its expenditures to the AOI C. The AOI C promulgates standar ds for hiring and jobseeke rs must complete an A OI C application and be found AOI C-elig ible prior to being hired by the chief

judge . The AOI C sets salary schedule s, as well as compensation criter ia and standards. The Center is acc redited through t h e Americ an Correc tional Association, which provides auditing and oversight for juv enile detention fac iliti es, in addition to

corr ectional f

acilities. The I DOC does not provide a ny fundingfor the Ce nter. ¶ 9 MAP called rebuttal witnesses. J ohn Hall testified that he i s a s h i ft s upervisor at the Center. The Center is desig ned for direc t supervision, simil ar to the design at the Wil l County Adult Detention C enter (ADC). Bre t J erka tis, the C enter ’s technic al coor dinator, testified. He was a member of the transition team involved in the design of the Center. It was modeled off the a dult detention center

. ¶ 10 The parties filed posthearing briefs wher ein they prese nted their leg al arguments. MAP

asser ted that the Center is a corr ectional fac ility and that the shift and nonline supervisors are not probation office rs. In response , the Center and Kinney argued that the Center is not a

corr ectional fac ility and the employ ees are probat i o n o ffice rs and not secur ity employ ees entitled to inter est arbitra tion. The AL J found that the juveniles at the Center wer e inmates under the supervision and control of the shift supervisors, who overse e the juvenile detention office rs (JDOs). The AL J further found that t he C enter was not a correc tional fac ility
, and

acc ording ly
, the supervisors wer e not secur ity employees entitled to interest arbitration. The AL J rec ommended dismiss al of MAP’s unfair labor prac tice char g e. Both parties filed exceptions to the AL J ’s rec ommended decision and order

. The I L RB adopted and aff irmed the AL J ’s orde r. MAP appea led.

¶ 11 ANALYSI S ¶ 12 The issue on appea l is whether the I L RB er red when it a ffirme d the AL J ’s dismiss al of MAP’s unfair labor prac tice char g e. MAP argues that the AL J and I L RB improperly found that the Center’ s supervisors wer e not secur ity emp l o y ees entitled to interest arbitration beca use they did not work in a “cor rec tional fac ilit[ y ].” It complains that the AL J and I L RB failed to g ive the definition of “cor rec tional fac iliti es” its plain and ordinary meaning and that their fa ilure to do so rende rs an a bsurd re sult. ¶ 13 The car dinal ru l e o f s t at u t o ry co n s t ru ct i o n is to asce rtain and g ive eff ect to the leg islature’s intent. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc. v. Topinka
, 334 I ll. App. 3d 454, 458 (2002) (c iting People v. Maggette
, 195 I ll. 2d 336, 348 (2001))

. The best indicator of legi s l at i v e intent is the statutory langu age , which is to be g iven its plain and ordinary meaning

. Balmoral R acing Club, Inc. , 334 I ll. App. 3d at 459. A dictionary may be used as an aid in

-4-deter mining the ordinary meaning

. Bailey v. Illinois Liquor Control Comm’n
, 405 I ll. App. 3 d 5 5 0, 555 (2010) (citing Cojeunaze Nursing Center v. Lumpkin
, 260 I ll. App. 3 d 1 0 2 4
, 1029 (1994))

. Howeve r, statutory definitions control when construing a statute and common law definitions yield to statutory definitions. People v. Perry
, 224 I ll. 2d 312, 326-27 (2007) (citing 34 I ll. L

. and Prac. Statutes § 51 (2001))

. On revie w of an I L RB decision, we acc ord defe renc e to t he B oard’ s rea sonable interpr etation of a statute it is charg ed with enf orcing

. Burbank v. Illinois State Labor Relations B o a r d
, 1 2 8 I ll. 2d 335, 345 (1989). We revie w de novo an ag ency d et ermination on issues of statutory interpre tation. Mingus v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pe nsion Fund , 2011 I LApp (3d) 110098, ¶ 10. ¶ 14 T h e I l l i n o i s P ub l i c L abor Relations Act (Ac t) prohibits “sec urity employees” from striking but provides them the rig ht to i n t er es t arbitration. 5 I L CS 315/14(m), (a) (West 2010). The Act define s a s ec u ri t y em p l oy ee as “an employ ee who is responsible for the supervision and control of inmates at corr ectional fac iliti es.” 5 I L CS 315/3(p) (West 2010). The Unifie d Code of Corre ctions defines “corr ectional f acility” as “ any

building or pa

rt of

a building wher e committed persons are k ep t i n a secur ed manner .” 730 I L CS 5/3-1-2(d) (West 2010). A committed person is a person committed to the Depa rtment of Correc tions. 730 I L CS 5/3-1-2(c ) (West 2010). Commi tment is “a judicially deter mined place ment in the custody of the De partment of Correc tions on the basis of delinquency or conviction.” 730 I L CS 5/ 3-1-2(b) (West 2010). ¶ 15 The J uvenile Court Act of 1987 define s detention as “the temporar y car e of a minor who is alleg ed to be or has been adjudicate d delinquent and who require s secur e custody for the minor’s own protec tion or t he community ’s protec tion in a fac ility desig ned to phy sically restric t the minor’s movements, pending dispositi on by the court or execution of an order of the cour t for plac ement or c ommitm ent.” 705 I L CS 405/ 5-105(5) (West 2010). ¶ 16 The Probation Ac t defines a probation off

icer as: “a p erson employ ed full time in a probation or court service s depar tment providing service s to a court under this Act or the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 [(705 I L CS 405/1-1
et seq. )]. A probation office r includes detention staff *** who meet minimum standards established by the Supreme Court and who are h i red under the direc tion of the circ uit
court. These probation office rs are judicial employ ees desig nated on a circ uit wide or county basis and compensated by t h e ap propriate county board or boards.” 730 I L CS 110/9b(3) (West 2010). ¶ 17 The I llinois L abor Relations Act does not define “cor rec tional fac iliti es.” MAP urg es this
court to adopt a def

inition of “ corr ectional fac ility ” it f ound online at usleg al.com and find that RVJ DC is a corr ectional f acility , its supervisors are secur ity employ ees, a

nd the MAP unit is entitled to interest arbitration. MAP’s p roff ere d definition of “corre ctional facility” is as follows:
“Corre ctional fa cil ity is a term that may be used to ref er to a jail, prison, or other place of incar cer ation by g overnme nt officia ls. They serve to confine and reha bilitate prisoners a

nd may be cla ssified as minimum, medium, or maxi mum security fac iliti es,

or contain separ ate divisions for such cate g o ri es of prisoners. The prisoners may participate in educa

tional and vocational programs as well as in paid industries programs

-5-or a work rele ase program.” US L eg al, http:// definitions.usleg al.c o m / c/cor rec tionalfac ility / (last visited Oct. 4, 2013). ¶ 18 In arguing that the Center is a corr ectional fac ility
, MAP r elies extensively
, in addition
to the above definition, on alig ning the l ay o u t and furnishing of the C enter , its proce dures and prac tices, and the nature of the juveniles detained there with t h e W i l l C ounty Adult De t en t ion Center. MAP’s compar ison does not aid its position. Even if we wer e to fi n d MAP’s comparison with the adult detention cente r appropr iate, and we do not, MAP has not introduced any evidenc e that the adult detention cente r and its super visors are employ ed in

a corr ectional fac ility as secur ity employ ees entitled to interest arbitration

. Moreove r, we agree with the AL J ’s decision to look to I llinois statutory definitions of “cor rec tional fac iliti es” instea d of a g ener al online def inition chosen by

MAP. ¶ 19 The AL J noted that the Boa rd had not y et addre ssed what constitute s a co rr ec t i o n al fac ility and whether a juvenile detention cente r qualifies as one. The AL J looked to two other administrative decisions in rende ring the decision. Chief Judge of the Fifth Judicial Circuit
, 18 PERI ¶ 2057 (IL R B S t ate Panel 2002) (finding juvenile detention cente rs to be

corr ectional fa ci l i t ies beca use they deprive juveniles of liberty and confor m to I DOC standards) ; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 330
, 18 PERI ¶ 2026 (I L RB State Panel 20 02) (finding juvenile detention cente rs are not corr ectional fac iliti es beca use the juveniles are detained there and not committed, and the leg islature ex p re s sly delineate d “dete ntion fac iliti es” from “cor rec tional fac iliti es”)

. The AL J relied on the distinction found in Teamsters, Local 330
, distinguishing committed juveniles from detained juveniles and statutory support for the distinction in rea chingher de cision. ¶ 20 We consider the AL J ’s rea s o n i n g and conclusion corr ect. We reje ct MAP’s proffe red definition and instead look to the statutory framework to discern the leg islative intent as an aid in defining “cor

rec tional fac iliti es” under the Act. The J uvenile Court Act provides that

a juvenile is detained when he or she is alleg ed or adjudicate d delinquent and require s secur e custody in a restric ted fac ility pending co urt dispositi on or execution of a court order for place ment or commitment. 705 I L CS 405/5-105(5) (West 2010). In contra st, under the Unified Code of Correc tions, a corr ectional fac ility houses committed persons place d in the custody of the I DOC by a judicial deter mi n at i o n based on delinquency or conviction. 730 I L CS 5/ 3-1-2(b), (c ), (d) (West 2010). ¶ 21 As conclude d by the AL J
, the nature of confinement i s the critical distinction between the Center and a corr ectional fac ility

. The residents who are detained at the Center are

awa iting adjudication and have not y et been found delinquent or sentenc ed to a term of incar ce ration. They are detained under a detention order
, not an order of commitment. Testimony at the hear ing established there had been no such commitments in the witness’s 13-year tenure at the Center and MAP did not prese nt any evidenc e that committed juveniles have ever been held at the Center except those juveniles that are awa it i n g t ra nsfer to a specific ty

pe of treatment fac ility pursuant to a court order

. Statist ics submitt ed by MAP indicate that betwee n J une 2007 and J une 2011, the Center’ s population r ang ed from 19 to 84 juveniles. In fiscal year 2009-10, the avera g e population was 54 a nd the ave rag e stay

at the Center was 2 3 d ay s. Day s in detention pending trial rang ed from 763 day s for a first degree murder char g e to 1 day for a contempt of court char g e. The statistics offe red by MAP

-6-did not incl u d e an y i n formation that juveniles had been sentenc ed to serve a term at the

Center a fter be ing a djudicated de linquent. ¶ 22 We are fu rt h er persuade d that the s wee ping chang es t he legislature made to the nature

o f incar cer ating juveniles when it cre ated the Depa rtment of J uvenile J ustice supp o rt s o u r deter mination. See 730 I L CS 5/3-2.5-5 (West 2010) (“pur pose of this Article is to cre ate the Depa rtment of J uvenile J ustice” and direc ting the I DJ J to “embr ace the leg islative policy of the State to promote the p h i losophy of balanc ed and restorative justice” as set forth in the J uvenile Court Act of 1987 (705 I L CS 405/5-101 (West 2010)). The cr eation of the I DJ J
separ ated juvenile justice from the I DOC
, wh i ch i s not involved in the operation of the Center. The juveniles detained at the Center are not in I DOC custody

. Although the Center
operates under I DOC standards beca use no other standards are in place
, it is acc redited as a detention cente r, not a juvenile co rr ectional fac ility

. At the Center, the supervisors in the MAP unit direc t the juvenile detention office rs, who are g ener ally responsible for the safe ty , secur ity and super

vision of the residents. Contrary to MA P’s a ssertions, the J DOs ser ve as advocates and counselors, not as corr ectional officer s. See 730 I L CS 5/3-2.5-40.1 (West 2010) (dete ntion cente r staff to be trained “to work with a broad rang e of youth and possess the skills nece ssary to assess, eng ag e, educate, an d intervene with youth in its custody in
way s that are appropr iate to ensure succe ssful outcomes for those youths”). The distinction b et we en a detention cente r and a corr ectional fac ility is additionally supported by the Probation Act, which identifies d etention staff, but not corr ectional staff, as probation office rs. 7 3 0 I L C S 110/9b(3) (West 2010). See also 705 I L CS 405/1-4.1 (West 2010) (distinguishingbetwee n detention ce nter a nd secur e cor

rec tional fac ility). ¶ 23 Detention staff are require d to meet AOI C standards and are employ ed by the probation
or court service s depar

tment. 730 I L CS 110/9b(3) (West 2010). F urther distinguishing the Center from a corr ectional fac ility is that it is funded and operated by the AOI C and the Wil l C o u n t y chief judge

. 705 I L CS 405/6-6 (West 2010). The AOI C require s applicants for positions at the Center to pa ss its elig ibilit y standards, afte r which the chief judge hires the Center’ s employees under the circ uit’s proba t i o n and court service s depar tment. Had the leg islature intend ed t h e staff at juvenile detention homes to be considere d corr ectional office rs and the detention homes to be corr ectional fac iliti es, it would have done so. Instead, the leg islature expressly differ entiated betwee n detention homes and corr ectional fac iliti es. ¶ 24 Be cause the supervisors here do not work at a corr ectional fac ility
, they do not meet the definition of secur ity employ ees and are not entitled to interest arbitra t i o n

. There was no unfair l ab o r p ra ctice in Chief J udg e Kinney ’s ref usal to proce ed with interest arbitration. Acc ording ly , we f

ind that MAP’s unfair labor prac tice cha

rg e wa s proper ly

dismiss ed. ¶ 25 For the for ego i n g re as o n s , t h e j u d gm ent of the I llinois L abor Relations Boa rd is confirme d.

¶ 26 Confirmed.

-7-