FOURTH DIVISION Decem

ber 21, 2006

No. 1-05- 0813 FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, ) ILL INOIS, a

n Il l i noi s Spe cial

Di strict, ) ) Pe ti ti on er -A pp el l an t, ) Petition For Rev ie w ) o f Or de ro f T he I llino is v. ) Labor Relations Board ) Case No. L-CA-3020 ILLINO IS LA

BOR R ELATION S BOA

RD, ILLINOIS ) L-CU-3020 LA BOR RELA TIONS B OA

RD, L ocal

Panel , FR

ED ) WICKIZER, Acti

ng Ex ecuti ve Di rector, JA

CK IE ) GA LL AG HER, Pa ne l Chai rm an , DONA

LD H UBER T, ) Mem ber, EDWA

RD E. SADLOW SKI, Mem ber, JOHN ) L. CL IFF ORD, A

dm i nistrati ve Law Judg e, MICHELE ) CONTRUPE , Admi

ni strat iv e Law Judge, JACALYN J. ) ZIMMERMA

N, General

Counsel , STATE AND ) MUNICIPAL TEAM STERS, CHAUFFEURS, A ND ) HELPE RS, LO CAL 726, a nd INT ERNATI ONAL ) BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM STERS, LOCAL 726, ) ) Res

ponde nts-A ppel l ees . )

PR ESI DI NG JU STI CEQUIN

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Peti ti one r F ores t Pre serv e D i stri

ct of Cook Cou nty (Distri ct) f i l ed a p eti ti on seeki ng di rect review of

an order from the Il

li nois Stat e Labor Rel

ations Board (Board) fi ndi ng that the Di strict had com mi tt ed an un fai r lab or pract ic e under sections 10(a)(1) and (a) (4) of the Illi

nois Publ ic Labor Relations A

ct (Act) (5 I LCS 315/10(a)(1), (a) (4)1-05-0813

-2-

(Wes t 200 2) ). On ap pea l, t he Dist rict co nt ends t hat t he Bo ar d exc eed ed it s au t hor ity by
com m i tti ng seve ral proc ed ura l err ors an d that the D i stri

ct di d n ot com m i t an unf ai r lab or pr act ice und er t he Act wher e it ha d no obligat ion t o ba rg ain with r esp ond ent St at e and Municipa l Tea mste rs, Chau ffeurs and H elper s Unio n, Lo cal 72 6 ( Lo cal 72 6) . Fo r t he follow ing re aso ns, w e affirm the Bo ar d’s d et er minatio n.

I. Bac kgr ou nd A. The Ch

arge and A

me nded Ch arge On S ept ember 2 4, 200 2, Lo cal 72 6 filed a cha rg e wit h t he Bo ar d ( cas e No . L- CA03-02 0), al

l egi ng th at the D i strict ha

d vi ola ted se cti ons 1 0(a)(1 ) and (a)(4 ) of th e Act. The cha rge all eged that on September 16, 2002, the Di strict ann ounced that it was im ple me ntin g a pl an to hire a pri

vate contracto r to operate and man age the golf

courses owned by the Di strict, which would resul t in the l ay off of approxi

ma tely 97 em ploy ees repr es en ted b y Loc al 72 6. Th e ch arge

also a l l eg ed th at th e D i str i ct m ade th e dec i si on to
en ter th e p ri v ate con tra ct a n d i m pl em en ted th e dec i si

on wi th out n oti ce to an d g ood- f ai th ba r ga ining wit h Lo ca l 72 6 r eg ar din g t he impa ct o f t he de cis io n o n ba r ga ining un it
em ploye es. On De ce mbe r6, 20 02 , Lo ca l 72 6 a men de d it s c ha r ge t o inc lud e c laims t ha t in 200 1, t he Dist rict bega n co nsider ing a plan t o hir e a p ar t icular pr ivate co nt ra ct or . T he
am ended ch arge al so all

eged that when L ocal 726 l earned of thes e pl ans, i

t made
repe ate d r eq

ue sts to b e i n v ol v ed i n th e dec i si

on -m ak i n g. T h e D i str i ct d i d n ot re sp on d to1-05-0813

-3-

Loc al 72 6’ s req

ue sts , a n d on Ju l y 9, 2 00 2, t

h e D i str i ct v oted to hi reth e p ri v ate
co nt ra ct or . T he amend ed c har ge a lso s t at ed t hat aft er hiring t he pr ivate co nt ra ct or , t he Dis trict contacted Lo cal

726 to dis cuss the ef

fects of i ts decis ion. On

Septembe

r 16, 2002, th e District gave notice

that i t in tended to l ay

off ba rgai ni ng u ni t me m bers em pl oy ed at th e g ol f cou rs es an d d ri v i n g r an ge s. On Nov em b er 17 , 20 02 , b etw een

50 to 60 bar ga ining u nit membe rs we re laid o ff. The am ended ch arge al so all

eged that on Octo ber 30, 2002, the Dis trict
anno unce d a p ro po sed budg et t hat included furt her layoffs, d epa rt menta l reo rg anizat ions and p ro po sals t o hir e pr ivate co nt ra ct or s t o p er for m wor k t hat was being pe rfo rmed by bar gaining unit members. On No vember 6 , 2 002 , Lo cal 72 6 de manded informat ion and ba rgai ni ng r egard i ng th e lay off s, propose d reorga

ni zation an d an y f urthe r deci sion to hi re outs i deve

nd ors . The f

ol l owi ng da y , th e D i stri

ct i nf orm ed Loc al 726 tha t i ts b oard of
co mmiss io ne r s w as co nsid er ing an ap pr o pr iat io ns o r din an ce , wh ich wo uld r es ult in layoffs wit hin the ba rg aining unit . Lo cal 72 6 r epe at ed it s de mand fo r ba rg aining and
em phasi zed that mean

in gful bargai ni ng m ust precede adopt ion of

the budget. On Novem ber 21, 20 02, the

Di strict adopted th

e budget. The am ended ch arge al so stat ed that on Decemb er 3, 2002, t he District in form ed Lo ca l 72 6 t ha t : ( 1) it be lieve d t he pe nd ing gr iev an ce r eg ar din g p r iva t iza t io n o f t he go lf course was not arbitrabl

e becaus e i

t was not co vered by

the contract; (2) t he District i n ten de d to l ay of f appr ox i mate l y 95 b argai n i n g u n i t mem b er s a n d al l th at rem ai n ed to disc us s was th e e f f ects o f th at dec i si

on ; an d ( 3) b y A pri l 1, 2 00 3, t

h e D i str i ct p l an n ed to
consol i da te tw o depa

rtm en ts a nd , as a re sul t, ter m i na te 3 1 e m pl oyee s wi th th e ti tl e of1-05-0813

-4-

"Forester" and "W

oodsman," to create new titles and to all ow the termin

ated empl oyees to apply for tho se positions. In the am ended ch arge, Local 726 agai

n al le ged vi olations of secti ons 10(a)(1)
an d ( a) (4 ) of

th e A ct a n d r eq ue ste d a n ord er re qui ri n g th e D i str i ct to b argai

n ab out i ts decisi ons to privatize golf

oper ations, lay

off em ployees, and consoli

date dep artments. Loc al 726 also req ue ste d a n or de r re qui ri ng rei ns tate men t an d a ppr opri ateba ck pa y f or al l em pl oy ee s i n j ur ed b y th e D i str i ct’ s f ai l ur e to b arga

i n an d th e p ost i n g of appropri ate notices. B. The Memo ra ndums o f Under st anding Th e r ec o rd sho ws t hat t he p ar t ies’ re pr es ent at ives met t o dis cu ss t he imp ac t o f the la yof f an d reached an

agreem ent. On Decem

ber 19, 2002, the Dis

trict executed a
mem orand um of u nde rstan di ng (MOU I), wh i ch Local 726 s i gne d on F ebruary

6, 2003
. MOU I r elat ed " so lely to t he Re duc t ion in Fo rc e nec essit at ed by t he pr ivatiza t ion o f the
man agement, oper ations and contr ol of the District’s Golf Facili ties." MOU I also pr o vid ed t ha t "n eit he rPa r t y wa ive s a ny p r ev io us po sit io n o n ma t t er s a ffec t ing t he t er ms and condi tions of e mpl oym ent of Local

726 em ploy ees, or t he ri

ght to negotiate on such
matte rs i n th e f uture." MO U I a

l so p rovi de d that “

ne i the r pa rty wai ve s i ts p osi ti on regar ding the [unfair labor pra ctice] c harge Lo cal 726 has fil ed reg arding the Dist rict’s f ai l ure to ba rga i n ov er th e dec i si on to pri va tize .” M OU

I al so p rovi de d s evera

nc e p ay f or golf driv in g range em

ploy ees, i ni tiated thei r lay off and recal l ri ghts, and establ

is hed "b umpi ng r ig ht s" ba se d o n s en io r it y.1-05-0813

-5- On Ju ly 22, 2 003 , Lo cal 72 6 exe cut ed a memor andu m of und er st anding r ega rd ing employee layoff and r eca ll (MOU I I) and a memor andu m of und er st anding r ega rd ing resource technici an posi

tions (MOU III). The Di strict executed both MOU II and M OU III on A ugust 8, 2003. MOU II expr ess l y provi ded that i t super cede d MOU

I. MOU II cite d t he layoffs and st at ed t hat t he pa rt ies had "eng age d in nego t iatio ns re gar ding t he im pact o f these lay-off

s [sic] on the bargaini

ng uni t and its mem

bers." MOU II also required that the Di strict create a sin gle recall l is t o f em ploy ees f rom al l l ay off s, provided that empl oyees retai

ned recal l ri ghts for a m

axi mum of two years, and s et out how to deal with v arious si tuations i nvol vi ng recal li ng em ploy ees to po si

tions other than the ones t hey held immediate ly before being laid o ff. MOU II pr ovid ed t hat upo n its e xecu t ion, Lo cal 72 6 wo uld wit hdr aw t he gr ievance it had fil ed o n Dec ember 1 8, 200 2, re gar ding the reorganiza

tion of the two departments. MOU II al so required Local 726 to withdraw "that p art o f Case No. L-CA-03-02 0 regarding privatizati on of the go lf cour se op er at ions. " The par t ies also agr eed in MOU I I t hat t hey wo uld ar bitr at e whe t her t he Di stri ct had vi ol ate d the l

ab or ag ree men t when i t pri va tize d the g ol f

cou rs es , an d, u pon the selection of an

arbi trat or for t hat griev

ance, Local

726 was to dism

is s wi th prejudi ce a la wsui t it had f il ed i nvol vi ng that sam

e case. MOU II I c onc er ned t he r eso ur ce t echnician p os itio ns re sult ing fro m the reorganization of the two depart me nts and the creation of crews staf fed b y s uch t ec hnic ian s. MO U I I I pr o vid ed t ha t "t he Pa r t ies wis h t o fully a nd fina lly se t t le a ll dis pu t es be t we en t he m re ga r din g t he r eo r ga niz at io n, elimina t io n o f po sit io ns, un it placem ent of RT’s [Reso urce Technici ans] and Resources Aides, and the hi ring of RT’s."1-05-0813

-6-

T he pa r t ies sp ec ified ho w t he va r io us st ill-u nfilled r es o ur ce t ec hnic ian po sit io ns w o uld be f il le d, in cl udin g the Di strict creating a

li st of eligi ble i ndi vi dual s that gave hi

ringpreferen ce to t hose al

ready e mpl oyed i n the un it and e stablis

hi ng the rate of pay

for that job ti tle. MOU III al so recorded t hat the parties h ad agreed to incl

ude the new resource t echnician p os itio ns in the bar gaining unit and t o jo intly pet itio n t he Bo ar d t o a mend t he
ex ist ing un it de sc r ipt io n. Lo ca l 72 6 w as t o wit hd r aw it s p r ev io us ly filed un it clarificat ion p et itio n in case N o. L-U C-0 3- 002 and it s gr ievance re gar ding t he reorgan ization. On Septem ber 11, 20 03, coun

sel f or Local 726 w rote a l etter to a Board i n v esti ga tor s tati n g th at L oca l 72 6 w as wi th dr awi n g " th e p orti

on of th i s ch arge

re l ate d to the pri va tiza ti on of Fores t Pre serv e G ol f

Cou rs esan d the p ortion r

el ate d to c ons ol i da

ti on of t he Co nser vat ion and Fo re st ry Dep ar t ments into a new Reso ur ce M anag ement Departmen

t." The letter also stated that "[t ]hi s l eaves the port ion of

the charge wh

ic h alle ge s t ha t t he [ Dis t r ict ] impr o pe r ly re fus ed t o ba r ga in abo ut t he layo ff o f ap pr o ximat ely 95 bargai ni ng uni t mem bers on Decem

ber 31, 2002. The Uni

on requests that t he [Board] procee d qui

ckl y to is sue a Com plai nt on th i s rem ai ni ng a l l egati on."

C. The Co mplaint On Ja nuar y 13, 200 4, t he Bo ar d’s Ac t ing Exe cut ive Direc t or issued a co mplaint for heari ng. The com

pla in t concerned, in

part, t he District’s decisi on to elim in ate two job t itles, lay off barg aining-u nit emp loyees , a nd co nso lidat e t wo dep ar t ments into one dep ar t ment s t affed by no n-ba rg aining unit employee s in thr ee ne w job t itles. The1-05-0813

1 In ac cord an cewi th MOU III, Loc al

726 f orm al l y wi thd rew the UCPeti ti on on t he da y of t he hea ring a nd ag re ed t o file t he pa per s for t he pa rt ies t o jo intly agr ee t o t he addi tion of the resource techn ic ia n posi tion to t he b argain

in g uni t. On August 6, 2004, ALJ Clifford re t ur ned t he UC Pet itio n t o inves t igat ion fo r a ct ion by t he Bo ar d’s Ac t ing Ex ecuti ve Di rector, w ho a men de d the u ni t to i nc l ude the ti tl e of res ourc e te ch

ni ci an on Septembe r 20, 2004. -7- compl ai nt als o inc lude d Local 726’ s al le gations that the Di strict fai le d to provide n

ot ic e and ba rg ain reg ar ding it s de cision a nd t hat t he de cision invo lved wa ges , ho ur s o r w or king
con di ti ons wi thi n th e m ea ni ng of the A ct a nd wa s th ere f ore a man da tory su bj ec t of ba rga i ni ng . On De cem be r 19 , 20 02, Loc al

726 f i l ed a p eti ti on f or am en dm en t or cl ari f i ca ti on of un i t (U C P eti

ti on) w i th th e B oard ( ca se

No. L- UC -0 3- 00 2) , s eeki n g to add the em

ploye es i n the thre e new j ob ti

tle s to the existi

ng Local 726 b argai

ni ng u ni t. The petition and com

pla in t were consolidated for purposes of heari ng. 1 On Febr uar y 10, 200 4, t he Dist rict fil ed a re spo nse t o t he co mplaint fo r he ar ing and a ffi rmat ive defens es. In it s answ er t o t he co mplaint, t he Dist rict admit t ed t he allegat ion in par agr aph 7 , w hich alleged t hat , " In o r be for e Oc t obe r 2 002 , t he Re spo ndent deci ded to impl

em ent a l ay off of uni t empl oyees." As an af

fi rmati ve def ense, the District arg ue d that L ocal

726 ’s ch arg e w asren

dered moot by two m em oran dum s of unde rst anding be t wee n t he pa rt ies. T he Dist rict asse rt ed t hat on F ebr uar y 6, 2 003 , t he par t ies ent er ed int o a "Memo ra ndum o f Under st anding R elat ing t o t he Re duc t ion in Fo rc e nec essit at ed by t he pr ivatiza t ion o f the manage ment, op er at ions a nd co nt ro l of t he1-05-0813

-8-

District’s Golf

Facili ties," whi ch gave l

aid-off empl oyees "bum

pin g rights," two weeks' severance, and paym

ent of accrued vacat ion and compensato ry tim e. The District also stated t hat on Jul

y 22, 2003, the parties

entered in

to a second agreem

ent, entitl ed "Mem orandum of

Understandi

ng Regardi

ng Em ploy ee Lay off and Reca ll ," which sup er ced ed t he first agr eement and p ro vided t hat t he pa rt ies had enga ged in nego t iatio ns re gar ding t he impact of layo ffs. T he Dist rict also asse rt ed t hat t he se co nd ag re ement provided that Local

726 agreed to withdraw "that part o f Case No. L-CA-03-020 regarding privati

zation of the go lf

cour se operat ions." The Di strict al so asserted that t he parties agreed i n a thi rd agreemen

t, o n Jul y 22, 2003, entitl ed "Mem

orandum of

Understandi

ng Regardi

ng Resource Techn

ic ia n Positions ," that "the Parties wi sh to ful ly and f in ally settle al l di sputes between them regardin g the reorganiza

tion, elim in ation of posi

tions, uni t placem ent of [resource techni ci ans] an d Resource Ai

des, and the h

iri ng of [resource techni

ci ans]." The Di

strict
asse rt ed t hat it fully dischar ged any barg aining obligat ion t hat it may have ha d by
en teri ng i nto the th ree m em orand um agree men ts. On Fe bruary 16, 2004, shortly b efore the origi nal date schedul

ed for the heari

ng, counsel for Local 726 wrot e a l etter to counsel for the Di strict in

an attempt to "spell

out th e iss ue s. " Th at l

ette r s tate d i n perti n en t pa rt: "A good starti

ng p oin t is the A mended Cha

rge i n th i s ca se. We a llege t hat o n Oc t o ber 30 , 2 00 2, t he E mplo yer ann o unc ed a p lan t o lay o ff approx i matel y 95 b argai ni ng u ni t me m bers at th e en

d of the c alendar y

ear. The reas on f or the l ay off wasecon omi c, i.e. , the Empl

oyer’s b udget1-05-0813

-9- sho rt fall. We allege t hat t he Unio n t wice d emande d t o ba rg ain pr ior t o t he im plem entation o f the budget and that the District did not respo nd to these dem ands. W e al so all ege that when the parti es m et on Decemb er 3, 2002, the Empl oyer ann ounced that the lay

off deci si on had al

ready b een m

ade and that the parties sh

ould proceed to 'eff

ects bargai

ni ng.' I h ave en cl osed a copy of the

Am ended Ch arge for y our reference. We thi nk the f acts wil l s how: (1) that t he parties

bargai ned ab out the effe ct s a nd ( 2) t ha t at no t ime d id t he Un io n w aiv e o rwit hd r aw it s c laim th at th e dec i si on wa s m ade i n v i ol ati on of th e l aw an d th at a pp rop riate
rem edi es a re the ref ore i n orde r." On March

10, 2004, t he District fi

le d a m ot ion f or summ ary judgme

nt arguin g, inter al ia , that Local 726 wai

ved i ts right to bargain

and that Local 726 h

ad al ready recei ved i ts remedy where the partie s had en

gaged i n i mpa ct bargain in g, which resul

ted i n MOU s I , II, an

d II I. Th e D i stri ct i nc l ude d the l etter wr i tten by Loc al 726 ’s cou ns el on Febr uar y 16, 200 4, as a n exhibit t o it s mot ion fo r su mmary judgment . I n t he su ppo rt ing
memor andu m acco mpanying its mo t ion, t he Dist rict set ou t t hat t her e had been o ne la yof f i n three stages: the f

irst stage i

n Novem ber 2002, the second on Decem ber 31, 2002, and the thi

rd on March 31, 2003. The Di strict ide ntif ie d the is sue as b ei

ng whether Lo cal 72 6 had uneq uivo cally waived it s right t o ba rg ain "o ver t he implementa t ion o f the second stage of thi s RIF (Reduction in Force), whic

h be cam e eff ective on Decem

ber 31, 200 2. " Lo cal 72 6 did not re spo nd t o t he Dist rict ’s mot ion fo r su mmary judgment , a nd the B oard den

i ed that m otion on A pril 19, 200 4.1-05-0813

-10- D. The Hea ring a nd Amendment t o t he Co mplaint At the heari

ng on May

13, 2004, admi

ni strative l

aw j udge (ALJ) Mi

chel e N. Cot rupe at tempted t o set out the issues. She stated t hat her underst andi ng of the case in cluded the foll

owing i ssues: "1. Whether the Responden t violated section[s] 10(a)(4) and (1) of the Act when

it i mpl em ented a lay

off of em ploy ees represen

ted by the Chargi ng Party i n October, 2002. 2. W h eth er th e R es pon den t v i ol ate d s ecti on [s ] 1 0( a) (4 ) a n d ( 1) of th e A ct when i t f ai l ed an d re f us ed to prov i dethe Ch argi ng Par ty wi th i nf orm ati on that it requested on Octo ber 30, 2002. An d, fi nal ly , whether the uni

t descripti on should be revi sed to in cl ude the title s of Res ource Manager, Resource Techn ic ia n an d Resource Man agem en t Ai de." Fo llowing t his rec itat ion o f the issues , c ou nsel for Lo cal 72 6 r equ est ed t o a mend t he
com plai nt. Coun sel f or Local 726 stated, "[w]i

th res pect to the th

i rd i ssue, on the rec ord t od ay we w ou ld like t o a mend t he [ unit clarificat ion] pet itio n, p er an ag re ement wit h t he Fo re st Pr ese rve , t o ju st include t he t itle o f Reso ur ce T echnician. " Co unse l for t he District stat ed, "That ’s fi

ne. We hav

e no objections." Counsel f or Lo cal 726 al so wit hdr ew t he se co nd pa rt of t he co mplaint r elat ing t o t he pr ovisio n of infor matio n. Wi th respect to the fi

rst issue i n the com pla in t, t he parties

noted that t hey

had
re ach ed an ag re em en t wi th re sp ect to the p ri

v ati za ti on of th e g ol f cou rs es , w h i ch l ed to1-05-0813

-11-

t he Oc t obe r layo ffs refer ence d in t he co mplaint. Co unse l for L oc al 726 st at ed t hat t he compl ai nt should in

stead referen

ce the lay off s that to ok place i

n Decem ber 2002 and tha

t she “ would l ike to move on the record t o amen

d the compl

ai nt” to incl ude the fol

lowi ng: "That o n Decem

ber 31, 2002 , t he Empl

oyer lai d off approxim

ately 95 uni

t employ ees." Counsel for the Di strict stated t hat she di d not o ppose the motion an d ALJ Cotr upe agreed that the compl ai

nt would be

am ended. At the concl

usi on of counsel

for Local 726’s openi

ng statemen

t, co unsel for the Di strict stated: "The District i s goi

ng to at thi

s ti me obj ect to any

f urthe r proceedin gs. There has

not been a com

pla in t for heari ng i ssued on the Dec ember 2 002 , layo ff. The co mplaint fo r he ar ing t hat ’s bee n issued in this case i s f or Oct ober 2002. The Peti tion er has a mended h i s ch arge to i nc l ude the Dec em

ber 2002, la yof f; however, no compl

ai nt for heari

ng has been

is sued wi th res pect to the D ecem

ber 2002 , l ay

off ." Counsel for Local 726 responded: "I want to say one thi

ng ab out that, in addi

tion to t he f

act that I’ve moved to ame nd th e com plai nt. If you read th

e com plai nt very closel y , i n Pa ragra ph 7i t say s, ' In or b ef

ore Oc t o be r20 02 , t he Re sp o nd en t de cid ed t o imple men t a la yo ff o f un it
em ploye es.' I think the evi

dence is very cl ear that the Forest Preserve District was contempl ating the la yof f of uni t empl oyees an d, in deed, the la

yof f that1-05-0813

-12- was the budgetary

la yof f i n October 2002; an

d as a consequen

ce, I thin k, if y ou re ad t he co mplaint ver y close ly, the re is not hing in the co mplaint t ha t ’s inc o nsis t en t wit h d ea ling wit h a layo ff t ha t o cc ur r ed aft er 20 02 , in eithe r g olf o r a n eco nomic layoff, or in the layo ffs tha t wer e ca use d by t he
merger of the two depa

rtme nts." Counsel for the Di strict then stated: "T he co mpla int fo rhe ar ing t ha t wa s is su ed by t he Bo ar d s pe cific ally addre ss esthe

Oc tobe r 20 02, l ay

of f . It m akesno r ef ere nc e w ha tsoeve r to a Decem ber 2002, l ay

off . Therefore, that issue

is not before the Board at t hi s tim e, as a com plai nt f or the De cem

ber 2002 , l ay

off ha s n ot been f i l ed b y the B oard." ALJ Co t ru pe no t ed t hat co unse l for L oc al 726 had mo ved t o a mend t he co mplaint and al lowed Local

726 to proceed with the presen tation of i ts evidence. A

LJ Cotrupe also not ed t hat t he pa rt ies wo uld be a llowed t o br ief whet her t he co mplaint sho uld be
ame nde d t o re flect t he D ec embe r 2 00 2 la yoff. Local 726 ca

ll ed Ji m Green to testify on its b ehal

f. Green testifi ed that he had been e mployed a s Lo cal 72 6's c ou nsel for 10 yea rs a nd se rve d as chief spo kes man dur ing
con tract ne gotiati

ons . W he n G ree n l ea rned ab out pos si

bl e l ay of f s d uri ng the su m mer of 20 02 , re l ati

n g to th e D i str i ct’ s g ol f cou rs es , Gre en

testi f i ed th at L oca

l 72 6 dem an de d to meet wit h t he Dist rict and filed a g rievanc e. Lo cal 72 6 de manded t o ba rg ain abo ut t he Di stri ct’ s dec i si on to l ay of f em pl oyee s, b ut the D i stri

ct’ s p osi ti on wastha

t i t did n ot have t o ba rg ain ove r t hat issue. Gr een t est ifi ed t hat t he pa rt ies did ba rg ain ove r t he1-05-0813

-13-

eff ects of the lay

off s and reach

ed an agreem

ent on Novem

ber 1, 2002, which was
me mori aliz ed i

n a m em orandum of

understandi

ng dated Novem

ber 4, 2002. Green testif

ie d that t he secretary

-treasurer for Local 726 sub sequentl y s howed hi m a press release f

rom the Di strict’s web si

te. So me tim e after October 30, 2002, Green dow nl oaded the pre ss rel ea se f rom the Di stri ct’ s w eb si te, w hi ch set out h i gh l i gh ts f rom t he Dist rict ’s pr op os ed 2 003 budg et , includ ing t he co mbinatio n of t wo exist ing dep ar t ments into one and t he elimination o f 473 po sitio ns. G re en t est ifi ed t hat at t he t ime, t her e w er e a lso ar t icles in new sp ap er s r eg ar ding t he b ud ge t and po t ent ial layo ffs and reductions . Green al so test if ie d that shortly thereaf

ter, Lo cal 726 recei ved a “ Notice of Proposed Reduction i

n W ork Force” from the Di strict, which was da ted Novemb er 4, 2002. Gr een

also t esti f

i ed th at af ter th e D i str i ct ref us ed to b argai n ab out i ts d ec i si on to pr ivatize t he go lf cou rse s, L oc al 726 fil ed a n unfair labo r p ra ct ice cha rg e. Afte r t he
an nou nc em en t of the su bs eq ue nt b udg eta ry l ay of f s, G ree n d i rected an othe r attor ne y f or Loc al 72 6 to w ri te a l ette r ob j ecti n g to th at acti on , de man di n g to m eet wi th th e D i str i ct, and d emanding r esc ission o r p os t po nement pend ing bar gaining o f tha t act ion. Su ch a le tt er was i ssued b

y a n attor ney

for Local 726 on Novem

ber 6, 2002, but Green testif ie d that t he District did n

ot respond to t he l

etter . Green testif

ie d that an atto rney

for Local 726 issued a fo llow- up let t er on N ove mber 2 0, 200 2, which wa s du ring t he t ime that t he pr opos ed b udget wa s i

n th e p roc es s of

b ei n g adop ted

b y th e D i str i ct. Green testif

ie d that after the budget had be en adopted, t he parties began to me et on De cem

ber 3, 200 2, rega

rdi ng th e ef f ect of that b udget on ba

rgai ni ng u ni t em ploye es.1-05-0813

-14-

Gr een t est ifi

ed t hat t he Dist rict re fused t o ba rg ain with r esp ect t o L oc al 726 's de mand t hat t he Dist rict re scind it s ac t ion and po st po ne t he layoffs pe nding bar gaining abo ut t he de cis io n. T he Dis t r ict t he n se nt o ut a " No t ice t o E mplo yee " t o emp lo yee s t ha t po t en t ially
we re t o be la id o ff, a dvis ing t hat "[ t ]h er e a re pla ns t o hav e a re du ct io n in fo rc e ( La yoff) in la te Decemb er." Not ic es to indi vi dual s of termi

nation of servi ces ef fecti ve Decem ber 31, 2002, were issue d by

the Di strict on Decem

ber 4, 2002. Gr ee n t es t ified t hat t he p ar t ies me t ag ain t o bar ga in abo ut t he e ffec t s o f t he la yoff du e to th e D i str i ct’ s red uc ed b udget i n l ate De cem b er 20 02 , a n d c on ti n ue d to b argai

n i n to January and Fe bruary 2003. Green testif

ie d that t he parties

al so began b argain

in g about the eff ect of the reorganization of the other department. Green testif ie d that t he parties entered in to a m em orandum of

understandi

ng, whi ch set f ort h the process by

whi ch peo ple wo uld be r eca lled, w hat right s t hey wo uld have t o bu mp t o a different po sitio n, and t he amo unt of t ime that t hey wo uld r et ain tho se r ight s. G re en t est ifi ed t hat t he par t ies also ent er ed int o a memor andu m of und er st anding r ega rd ing t he effect s o f the
reor ga ni za ti on of the two de pa rtm en ts i nto on e, w hi ch i nc l ude d that the n

ew l y cre ate d j ob title woul d be un der Local 726' s j urisdi

ction. Green testif

ie d that t he parties

never bar gained abo ut t he Dist rict ’s de cision t o ha ve t he layoffs. Gr een t est ifi ed t hat t he Dis t r ict mad e it cle ar t ha t it wo uld no t ba r ga in o ve rit s d ec isio n a nd Lo ca l 72 6 ma de it cl ea r th at i t woul d b arg ai n a bou t the ef f ec ts, b ut wou l d n ot i n a ny wa y wai ve i ts p osi ti on t hat t he Dist rict was re quir ed t o ba rg ain abo ut t he de cision. Dur ing cr os s-e xaminatio n, G re en t est ifi ed t hat t he co llective ba rg aining agree men t betwe en the D i strict and Loca

l 726 c ontai

ne d a " managem

en t rig hts" claus e.1-05-0813

-15-

The record shows that the collective bargai ni ng agreem

ent between the parti es was eff ective f rom January 1, 2000, t hrough December 31, 2002. The "man agement righ

ts" clause i n article II, section 1, o f the agreemen t pr ovides: "Th e U n i on re cog n ize s th at th e D i str i ct h as th e f ul l au th ori ty an d r es ponsi b i l i ty f or di re cti n g i ts o pera ti on s a n d dete rm i n i n g p oli cy. Th

e D i str i ct res er v es un to it se lf all p o we r s, r igh t s, au t ho r it y, d ut ies an d r es po nsib ilit ies co nfe rr ed up o n it
an d v es t ed in it by t he st at ut es o f t he St at e o f I llino is, an d t o ad o pt an d a pp ly all rules, re gul

ati ons a nd p oli cies a s i t ma y deem ne ces sary

to carry out itsstatutory responsi bi li ties; provided, h

owever, that t he District shal l a bi de by and b e lim

ited only by the specifi

c and ex press terms of

this Agreem ent, to the extent permi

tt ed by law." Green testif

ie d that he di d not recall

the ma nagem ent righ ts claus e bei

ng m entione d dur i ng ne gotiati ons . Green te sti

f i ed tha t i f the pa rti esha d agre ed on a l ay of f prov i si on dur ing co nt ra ct nego t iatio ns, t hey co uld have put t hat agr eement in the c ollect ive ba r ga ining ag r ee men t . Gr ee n a lso t es t ified t ha t t he co llec t ive ba r ga ining ag r ee men t did not co nt ain so me of t he t op ics ad dr esse d in t he memor andu m of und er st anding r ega rd ing emp lo yee layo ff an d r ec all. Th e D ist ric t ca lled it s c hief fina ncia l o fficer , B ar bar a M cKinz ie, t o t es t ify
co nc er ning t he Dis t r ict ’s bu dg et ar y co nst r ain t s. Sh e t es t ified t ha t t he Dis t r ict wa s le ga lly
r eq uir ed t o ha ve a b ala nc ed bu dg et an d t ha t t ax ca ps en ac t ed in 1 99 5 limit ed inc r ea se s in its i ncom e and capped i

nf rastructur e debt. McKi

nzi e testif ie d that t he i

ncom e for each fiscal ye ar lagge d by

12 to 24 months , and theref ore t he b udget had to be balanced b ased1-05-0813

-16-

on expected i

ncom e. McKi nzi e testif ie d that t he District recei

ved i ts revenue i

n two in stall me nts, with the f

irst one i n March . McKi

nzi e testif ie d that because the District
use d "s eas ona l help" t o c ove r t he hea vy peak t ime betw een M ay and O ct obe r, t he Dis t r ict ’s ex pe nse s w o uld go up a lo t wh ile it wa s no t ge t t ing an y re ve nu e a nd t ha t it would rece i

ve the s econ

d i nstal l men t of i nc ome af ter the s eas on wa s the oreti cal l y over. McKen zi e al so test if

ie d that, in 2001, the Di strict’s b oard passed a resoluti on that "went on reco rd with a policy *** t hat there w ould not be bor rowing any more." McKi nzi e subs equentl

y j oine d the Di strict in

February 2002. McKen

zi e testif ie d that an aud it t hro ugh 2 001 sho wed t hat , fo r a number of year s, t he Dist rict had be en sp ending
mo r e mo ne y t ha n it ha d r ec eiv ed in r ev en ue s. Mc Ke nz ie t es t ified t ha t t he "fir st st ep in the budget would b e to get the ma nagers to determi

ne h ow they can

operate and reduce cost t o mi rror what we were t aki

ng i n." McK enzi e testif ie d that t he District had a $2 mi ll ion de fi ci t in 2001, b

ut t hat the Di strict did n

ot fi ll all b udgeted positions a

nd m ade an ef fort to cut cost s i

n 2002, resul

ting i n no def ic it i n 2002. McK

enzi e al so test if

ie d that due to an adjustm

ent in accountin

g procedures, t he District’s b al ance at the end of 2002 sh owe d a $2 m i l l i on i n crea se i n de b t. M cK en zi e te sti f i ed th at th e D i str i ct too k s tep s to reduce the def

ic it i n the 2003 b

udget. McKenzi

e testif ie d that in 2002, wh

en sh e arriv ed, t he Bo ar d h ad de cid ed t o pr iva t ize it s g o lf co ur se s a nd pr o po se d a n o ve r all r ed uc t io n in opera ti on s wi th i n th e D i str i ct. The Dist rict also called J ona t han Ro t hst ein to t est ify. R ot hst ein te st ifi ed t hat he
was an at t or ney rep re sent ing t he Dist rict dur ing its ne go t iatio n of t he co llective bar gaining ag re ement wit h Lo cal 72 6. Ro t hst ein te st ifi ed t hat t he co llective ba rg aining1-05-0813

-17-

agree men t did n ot con tai n l ay of f prov i si ons an d s tate d that i

t wa s n ot a sub j ec t of negotiations . Rot hstei

n testif ie d that t he agreem

ent had a provi si on addressi ng when senio rit y right s co uld be t er minated . R ot hst ein also t est ifi ed t hat all employees in the
resour ce technici

an j ob classi

fi cation had previously

been i n f orest ry positions. Fo llowing t he hea ring, ALJ Co t ru pe r esigne d her po sitio n wit h t he Bo ar d and ALJ Jo hn C liffo r d w as as sig ne d t o t his c as e. ALJ Cliffo r d n o t ified t he pa r t ies o f his
as si gn men t on or a rou n d J un e 2 8, 2 00 4, a

n d th e rec ord doe s n ot re f l ect th at e i

th er pa rty obje cted to that assign

me nt. On August 30, 2004, ALJ C li ff ord issued a recom

me nded deci sion an d order, i n w hi ch he gran ted Loca l 726' s m otion to ame nd th e com plai nt. In doing s o, ALJ Cl

if ford found that as l

ate as February

2004, both parties assum ed that pa ra gr ap h 7 of th e c om pl ai n t re f er re d to th e D i str i ct’ s dec i si

on i n Oc tob er 20 02 to imple men t a D ec emb er 20 02 layo ff. ALJ Cliffo r d s t at ed , "T he ame nd men t mer ely cla r ifies t he o r igin al a lleg at io n a nd ar ise s o ut o f t he sa me s ub jec t mat t er , as it mer ely adds that the October 2002 decisi on to im ple me nt a la yof f resul ted in the Decem ber 2002 la yof f. A lthough Local 726' s proposed amendm ent adds nothi

ng to paragraph 7 as origi na l l y und erstood, I gra

nt i t to avoi d an

y conf usi on." ALJ Cl i f f ord f oun d that the D i stri

ct’ s dec i si on to i m plem en t a l ay of f f or bu dg et ar y re as o ns w as a ma nd at o ry su bje ct o f ba r ga ining an d t ha t Lo ca l 72 6 d id n o t , in bargainin g with t he District, waive i ts r ight to bargain about the budg eta ry lay off. ALJ Cliff or d fo und t hat t he Dist rict violat ed s ect ions 1 0( a) (1 ) a nd ( a) (4 ) o f the Act by fail ing and re fus ing t o bar ga in wit h Lo ca l 72 6 o ver it s O ct o ber 20 02 de cisio n t o lay o ff
em ploye es i n D ecem ber 2002
.1-05-0813

-18- On October 6, 2004, the Distri ct file d exceptions to ALJ Cl if ford’s recom

me nded deci sion an d order. O n M arch

5, 2005 , the B oard af

f i rmed th e A

LJ’ s de ci sion an

d, inter alia ordered t he District to : (1) reins tate t he l ai d off em ploy ees and m ake them whole ; (2)
on r equ est , ba rg ain co llectively with L oc al 726 abo ut t he de cision; ( 3) po st not ices; a nd (4 ) no t ify t he Bo ar d o f its ac t ions. The Dist rict app eals fro m the B oa rd 's de t er minatio n.

I I
. Ana lysis A . Th e D i str i ct’ s P roc ed

ur al A rgum en ts The Dist rict ra ises se ver al arg ument s t hat t he Bo ar d exc eed ed it s au t hor ity du ring the proceedin

gs. "Pursuant to t he A

ct, judici al

review of the Board’s decisi on is li mi ted and governe d by

the Adm in is trat iv e Revi ew Law (735 ILCS 5/3-110; 5 ILC S 315/11(e) (We st 2002 ))". Ci

ty of Bel vi dere v . Ill i

noi s State L ab or Rel

ati ons B oard , 181 Ill . 2d 191, 20 4 ( 19 98 )
. Whe n r ev iew ing pr o ce ed ing s u nd er t he Ad minist r at ive Re vie w L aw , t his
co ur t must det er mine whet her t he pr oc edu re s re quir ed by law w er e t ake n by the administr at ive age ncy and, if so, whet her t he de cision o f the age ncy was a gainst t he
man i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Metz v . Ill i

noi s State L ab or Rel

ati ons B oard , 23 1 I ll. Ap p. 3d 10 79, 109 3 (199 2). A n adm i nistrati ve agen cy ’sf actual determ i na tions are co nt r ar y t o t he man ifes t we igh t o f t he ev ide nc e w he r e t he o pp o sit e c o nc lus io n is c lea r ly
evi den t. Ci ty of Bel vi dere , 18 1 I l l . 2d

at 2 05 . Th

e rev i ewi ng c our t also h as a d uty to
ex am i n e th e p roc ed ur al meth ods em pl oy ed at th e adm i n i strati v e h ea ri n g to e n su reth at a f ai r and i m partial procedu re wa s us ed. Ander so n v. H uman Right s Co mm'n, 31 4 I ll. Ap p. 3d 35 , 41 (20 00).1-05-0813

-19- 1. The Di strict’s A

rgumen t That All Charges i

n the Com

pla in t Were Settled The Dist rict first co nt ends t hat t he Bo ar d er re d by co nduc t ing a hea ring w her e t he
matte rs rai

se d i n th e c om pl ai nt h ad be en res ol ve d b y the va riousmem

oran dum s of unde rst anding e nt er ed int o by bo t h par t ies. C ont ra ry t o t he Dist rict ’s co nt ent ion, not hing in the three MOUs states that Local 726 was to withdraw i ts charge and am

ended ch arge so far as i t concerned an al

le ged vi olation b y the Dis trict to bargai

n over the October 200 2 de cision t o lay o ff i

ndividuals t hat re sult ed in t he De cember layoffs. While t he MO Us st at ed t ha t va r io us o t he ras pe ct s o f t he alle ga t io ns w er e t o be wit hd r aw n, t he y did not i nc l ude the Octob er 200 2 dec i sion to l ay off i ndi vi dual s. In addi ti on , L oca

l 72 6 c l ari f

i ed th at i t wa s c on ti n ui n g to pur sue th

i s iss ue i n i ts le tt er to a Board in

vestigator on Septembe

r 11, 2003. In that letter, counsel for Local 726 st at ed t hat Lo cal 72 6 wa s wit hdr awing “t he po rt ion o f this cha rg e r elat ed t o t he pri va tiza ti on of Fores t Pre serv e G ol f

Cou rs esan d the p ortion r

el ate d to c ons ol i da

ti on of t he Co nser vat ion and Fo re st ry Dep ar t ments into a new Reso ur ce M anag ement Departmen

t.” The letter also stated that “[t] his l eaves the port ion of

the charge wh

ic h alle ge s t ha t t he [ Dis t r ict ] impr o pe r ly re fus ed t o ba r ga in abo ut t he layo ff o f ap pr o ximat ely 95 bargai ni ng uni t mem bers on Decem

ber 31, 2002.” Fur t her , o n Febr uar y 16, 200 4, co unse l for L oc al 726 's let t er t o c ou nsel for t he Dis trict stated t hat its am

ended ch arge alle ged that on Octo ber 30, 2002, the Dis trict
anno unce d a p lan to lay off app ro ximately 95 ba rg aining unit members a t t he end of t he calend ar year fo r e co nomic r eas ons . C ou nsel for Lo cal 72 6 also st at ed t hat while the1-05-0813

-20-

pa rti esmet to b arg ai

n a bou t the ef f ec ts of the l ay of f , “ at n o ti me di d the U

ni on wai ve or wi thdra w i ts cl ai m that the deci sion wa s m

ade i n v i ola tion of the law.” 2. Lo cal 72 6's Amend ment t o t he Co mplaint T he Dis t r ict als o co nt en ds t ha t t he Bo ar d e xc ee de d it s a ut ho r it y in g r an t ing Lo ca l 726's m ot ion to ame

nd the com

pla in t where none of the requi

remen ts for all owing
am endm ents are presen

t in this case. We di sagree. S ec t io n 1 1( a) o f t he Ac t pr o vid es t ha t “[ a] ny s uc h c o mp lain t may b e a men de d b y th e m em b er or hea ri n g of f i cer c on ducti

n g th e h ea ri n g f or th e B oard i n h i s d i scre ti on at
an y ti me p rior to th

e iss ua n ce of an ord er b as ed th ereon .”5 I LC S 3 15 /1 1( a) (West 2002) . Under s ection 122 0.50(f ) of th e Rul es a nd R egul ati ons of the Il l i noi s La bor Relations Board (Rules) (80 Ill . Adm n. Code, amen

ded at 27 Ill . Reg. 7436 (eff . May 1, 200 3) § 122 0.5 0(f

)), “ [t]h e A dm i ni stra ti ve La w J udg e, on the j udg e' s ow

n m oti on or on t he mo t io n o f a p ar t y, ma y ame nd a c o mpla int t o co nfo rm t o t he ev ide nc e p r es en t ed in the heari ng or to in

cl ude unch arged alle gations at any

tim e prior to t he i ssuan

ce of the Ju dg e' s r ec o mmend ed de cis io n a nd o r de r . ” T he Bo ar d’ s c as e la w p r o vid es t wo sp ec ific insta nces in which a co mplaint may be amend ed: “(1 ) w her e, aft er t he co nclusio n of t he he ari ng , th e a men dm en t woul d c onf orm the pl eadi ng s to th e evi denc e a nd woul d n ot unf ai rly prejudi ce any party; an d (2) to all a

ll egations n

ot li sted in the underl

yi ng ch arge, so l ong asthe adde d al l eg ati

ons are cl ose l y rel ate d to the ori

gi na l ch arg e, or gre w ou t of the sam e subj ect matter during the pen dency of the case.” Service Empl oyees In ter n ati on al Un i on , L oca l 73 v . V i l l ag e of

W i l mette , 20 Pub . Em

ploye e Re p. (Il l .) Par. 85, Nos. S -CA-01-23 1, S-CA -01-23 3, S-CA

-02-12 5 (Ma

y 14, 200 4).1-05-0813

-21- Here, we fi

nd that the ALJ

properly allowed Local

726 to am

end the
co mplain t whe re t he a mend ment mer ely cla rifie d t he o rig inal a llega t io n an d a ro se o ut o f the same subj ect matt er as the o rigi nal all egation. The reco rd showed t hat as late as Febr uar y 2004 , w hen co unse l for L oc al 726 wr ot e a let t er t o t he Dist rict ’s co unse l, t he pa r t ies as su med t ha t pa r ag r ap h 7 o f t he co mpla int r efe rr ed t o t he Dis t r ict ’s de cis io n in October 2002 to im

ple me nt a Decem

ber 2002 lay

off . The am endm ent me rely added that the October 2002 decisi

on resul ted in the Decem ber 2002 lay

off . The am endm ent ma de clear what t he co mplaint int ende d and what t he pa rt ies und er st oo d it t o mea n pr ior t o t he heari ng. The Di strict further argues that the AL J was requi

red to conduct a new in vestigation prior to amen

din g the co mpl

ain t because t he Decemb er 2002 layoff was a ne w u nt imely c ha r ge . Ho we ve r , we r eje ct t he Dis t r ict ’s ar gu men t wh er e, as pr ev io us ly discu ssed , t he amend ment d id no t co nst itu t e a ne w cha rg e, but ra t her clarified t he
com plai nt i n th i s ca se. 3. The Dist rict ’s Ar gument t hat Only ALJ Co t ru pe Wa s Pe rmitt ed t o Amend t he Com plai nt an d Iss ue th e Re com

mended D ecision an

d Orde r The District argues t hat as the judge who co nducted t he heari ng, only ALJ Co t ru pe ha d t he au t hor ity t o a mend t he co mplaint. In his r eco mmended d ecisio n and order, ALJ Clif

ford found that “

the propo sed am

endm ent adds nothi

ng to paragraph 7 as origi nal ly understood” and “grant[ed] it to avoid any confus ion.” Howeve

r, the1-05-0813

-22-

re cord sh ows

th at d uri n g th e h ea ri n g, A LJ Cotr up e d i d g ra n t Lo ca l 72 6' s a men dm en t to the com pl ai nt th en l ater s tate d that she

woul d al l ow the p arti

esto su bm i t f urth er b rief s on the i ssue . The f

oll owin g exc han ge took place

duri ng the hea rin g: “[Counsel for Local 726]: Let’s do it this

way : I would like

to move on t he r eco rd t o a mend t he co mplaint, and my pr op os ed a mendment is the followi ng: *** [A]dd to paragraph 7 the sentence, ‘Th at on Decemb er 31, 2002, t he Em ploy er l aid of f approx i matel y 95 un i t em ploye es.’
*** [C ounse l f or th e D i str i ct] : If th at’ s h i s a men dm en t, that’ s h i s a men dm en t. [A LJ Cotr up e] : D o y

ou op pos e i t? [Coun sel f or the Di strict]: Opp ose h

i m am endi ng? He’ s goi ng to ref i l e an y way . So n o, I d on ’t o pp ose . Th

ere is n o se n se i n prol ongi n g i t. [AL J Cotrupe ]: Oka

y . The n the com plai nt wi l l be am ended.” Co nt ra ry t o t he Dist rict ’s co nt ent ion, ALJ Co t ru pe d id per mit Lo cal 72 6 t o a mend t he
com plai nt. The Di strict al so con

tend s tha t ALJ Cl i f f ord ha d no a uthori ty to i ssue hi s order gr ant ing t he amend ment s imultaneo usly with his r eco mmended d ecisio n and o rd er . T he Distr i ct a rgue s th at i t wa s dep ri

v ed of i ts r i gh t to f i l e a wri tten re sp on se to th e dec i si

on to
am en d th e c om pl ai n t. Section 11(a) pro vides that “[t]he perso n who is the subj ect o f the complain t has1-05-0813

-23-

the righ t to f i l e a n a ns wer to th e ori

gi na l or am en de d c om pl ai nt a nd to appe ar i

n p ers on or by a representativ

e and gi ve testim ony a t t he pl ace and ti me fi xed i n the com pla in t.” 5 ILC S 3 15/ 11( a) (Wes t 200 2) . H er e, t he Dist rict ’s co unse l was p re sent at t he hea ring a nd presented testim

ony a nd other evidence. Counse l was not precluded f rom f il in g an answer t o t he amendm

ent, but wa ived his objection t o t he amendm ent by stat ing “I do n’t op po se. ” T he Dist rict also not es t hat it w as a ble to brief t he issue re lating t o t he
am en dm en t i n i ts c l osi ng br i ef . There f ore, the Di stri ct w asnot p

rev en ted f rom presenti ng i ts position i

n thi s case. The District further argues t hat ALJ Cl if ford lacked the autho rity to issue his recom mended d ecision an d order w here he was

not the A

LJ w ho con ducted the h eari ng. Our supreme

court has h

el d that, in the ab sence of statut ory provi si ons to t he
co nt r ar y: “‘[I]t is n ot necess ary that testim

ony i n adm in is trat iv e proceedin

gs be taken be f ore the s am

e of f i cers who hav e the ul tim ate dec i sion-m

aki ng a uthori ty. [Cit at ions. ] * ** [ A]d mini st ra t ive pr oc eed ings may be co nduc t ed by hea ring of f i cers wh o ref er th e c as e f or f i na l de term i na ti on to a boa rd w hi ch has n ot “hear d” t he evide nce in pe rso n. T he r equ irement s o f due pr oc ess a re met if t he de ci si on- mak i ng boa rd c ons i ders the

ev i denc e c onta

i ne d i n th e re port of pr oc eed ings befo re t he hea ring o ffi cer and ba ses it s de t er minatio n t her eo n. [Citations .]’” St arkey v. Civi l Service Comm’ n , 9 7 I ll. 2d 9 1, 100 (1 983 ), quo t ing Hom ef i nd ers Inc. v . Ci ty of Ev anston , 65 Il

l . 2d 115 , 128 (1 976).1-05-0813

-24-

Th i s c our t h as also f oun d th at th e req ui re men ts o f proce du ral du e p roc es s a

realso m et, unde r t he Act , w hen a s ubst itu t ing hear ing o ffi cer base s his dec ision no t only o n t he
ev i denc e p res en

ted be f ore h i m bu t al so on the ev i denc e c onta

i ne d i n th e re port of procee di ngs be f ore a pri or hea ri ng of f i cer. Nor th Sh oreSa n i tar y Distr i ct v . Il l i n oi s S tate Lab or Rel ati ons B oard , 262 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 27 9, 295 ( 1994)
. Here, ALJ C li

ff ord co nsi dered the evi

dence prese

nted to him

as wel l as the
ev i den ce pr es en ted to ALJ Cotr up e d uri n g th e h ea ri n g. I n addi ti on , nei th er pa rty objecte d t o ALJ Clif

ford’s assignment t o t his case after ALJ Cot rupe lef t t he Boar d’s
em ploy . ALJ Cl

if ford al so noted in h

is recomm ended deci

si on and order that he was unab le to dis cern an

y c redibil ity is sues i n thi s case. See Nort h Shore Sani tary Di strict , 262 Ill. App . 3 d at 295 (w her e cr edibility is a det er mini ng fact or in a case , t he pr esiding heari ng off ic er must part ic ipa

te in the deci si on). Therefore, the fact that ALJ C li ff ord,
r at he rt ha n AL J C o nt rup e, mad e t he ult imat e r ec o mmend ed de cis io n t o t he Bo ar d is i nc onse quen

tia l
. The District, nonetheless, cites Gil christ v. Hu man Ri

ghts Co mm ’n , 312 Ill . App. 3d 597 (2000), in s

upport of i

ts argumen

t t hat ALJ

Clif ford l acked the authority

to is sue the recomm

ended deci

si on and order in

this case. We f

in d Gil christ t o be dist inguishable. In Gil

christ , thi s c ourt f

oun d that the H

um an Ri gh ts C om m i ss i on exce ed ed i ts a uthori ty where i ts determ i na ti on f ai l ed to meet the

sp ec i f i c re qui rem en ts of t he I lli nois H uman Right s Act . T his co ur t held t hat t he st at ut or y req uire ment t hat t he pr esiding he ar ing o ffi

cer t ra nsmit his o r he r impre ssio n of w itnes s cr edibility to t he he ar ing o ffice rwh o au t ho r s t he find ing s a nd r ec o mmend ed o r de rwa s no t met . T his1-05-0813

-25-

co ur t also fou nd t hat t he r equ irement , u nder t he Hu man Right s Act , t hat t her e be no questions of

witne ss credi

bi li ty presen ted by the record as found b

y the presi din g off ic er was not met. Unl

ike Gil christ , t he ALJ in t his c as e w as no t bo un d b y t he sp ec ific requ irements under t he Human Rights Act . In ad dition, we a gree w ith ALJ Cl if ford’s determ i na tion that the re were no credi

bi l i ty i ssues prese

nt i n th i s ca se. 4. Th e D i str

i ct’ s A f f i rm ati v e D ef ense s a n d M oti on

f or S um m ar y Judgmen t The D i str i ct n ex t con ten dsth at b ec au se

Loc al 72 6 di d n

ot re sp on d to i

ts affirmative d efense s and mot ion fo r su mmary judgment , t he Dist rict ’s affirmat ive defen ses sh ould ha ve b een deem

ed adm itted and the com

pla in t should h ave b een di sm i sse d or the D i strict’smotion f or sum mary j udgm en t shoul d ha ve be en gran ted. The Di strict argues that where the Board’s rules are si le nt, the Board should ha

ve appl ie d pr ovisio ns o f the Illinois Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re t o find t hat t he Dist rict ’s affirmat ive def en ses are adm i tted. Unde r t he Act , t he Bo ar d has t he o bligat ion t o p ro mulgat e “pr oc edu ra l rules a nd regul ati ons w hi ch shal l govern a l l Board proceed

i ngs .” 5 IL CS 31 5/5(I) (W est 200 2). Plead ing befo re t he Bo ar d in unfair labo r p ra ct ice pr oc eed ings is go ver ned no t by the Ill in ois Code of Ci

vi l Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. ) (West 2002)), but
r at he rby t he Bo ar d’ s R ule s ( 80 I ll. A dm. Co de §§ 12 00 t hr o ug h 1 24 0) ame nd ed at 27 I ll. Reg. 7 436 (e f

f . May 1, 2003 ). General

Service Empl

oyees Un ion, Local 73 , 3 P ub lic Em ploye e Re p. (Il l .) Par. 30 30, Nos. L -CA-87-20 0, L-CA-8 7-205 (Septem ber 21, 19 87), Intern ati onal Brotherhood of

El ectrical

Worke rs , Local 193 , Pub l i c Em

ploye e Re p. (Il l .) Par. 20 24, No. S-CA-9 2-104(Apri l 30, 199 3). This cour t has also no ted that the Co de’s1-05-0813

-26-

provisi ons general

ly do not appl

y to admi ni strative proceedi

ngs. See Jo nes v. De pa rtm en t of Hu man Ri gh ts , 16 2 Ill. App. 3d 7 02 ( 198 7); Desai v. Metropo li

tan Sani tary Di strict of Greater Chicago , 125 I ll . App. 3d 10 31 (1984 ). This i s because adm in is trat iv e procedure is si

mpl er, less form al and l ess techn ic al than j udic ia

l procedu re. Desai , 125 Ill . App. 3d at 1033. Also, pursuant to the Board’s Rules, once the compl ai nt for heari

ng i s i ssued i

n an unf ai r l ab or practi

ce proc eedi

ng, th e ch argi ng p arty i s n ot requi red to f i l e an y thi ng. Se cti on 12 20 .40 (b ) of

th e R ul es prov i de s i

n perti n en t pa rt: “(b) Wheneve r t he E xecu t ive Direc t or issues a co mplaint fo r he ar ing, t he
re spo ndent shall fil

e an a nswe r w ithin 15 days a fte r se rvice o f the co mplaint and de liver a c o py t o t he ch ar gin g p ar t y by o r din ar y mail t o t he ad dr es s s et fo r t h in the compl ai nt. ***
*** (2 ) T he ans wer shall also includ e a s pec ifi c, det ailed st at ement of a ny affir mat ive de fen se s. ” 8 0 I ll. A dm. Co de § 1 22 0. 40 ( b) ( 2) , ame nd ed at I ll. Reg. 7 436 (e f

f . May 1, 2003 ). Co nt ra ry t o t he Dist rict ’s co nt ent ion, t he Ru les ar e no t silent o n t he mat t er of a ffi rmat ive defen ses. Rather, section 1220.40(b )(2) of the Rule s compel s a responden

t t o file an an swe r to the com

plai nt an d i nc l ude i n the answe

r an y af f i rm ati ve def en ses . Howev

er, there is nothin g in the Rul es stating tha

t a chargin

g party, such as Local

726, must then
r es po nd t o t he affir mat ive de fen se s. T he r e is als o no pr o visio n fo ra r es po nd en t t o file any motion or pleading, other t han an answer, when served wi

th a complai

nt. The Rules1-05-0813

-27-

do no t p ro vide that if a charging part y decli nes to fi le a respo nse to a respo ndent’s af f i rm ati v e def ense s or su m mar y j udgm en t m oti on , i t wi l l b e s ub j ect to de f

aul t j udgm en t. Further, the standard for granti ng sum ma ry j udgme nt is not whether a party f

il ed
a res pons e but whe

ther the ri ght of the m ovi ng p arty i s cl ear a nd f ree f rom d oubt. Mi dfi rst Bank v. A

bne y , 36 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 63 6, 64 3 ( 20 06 )
. "S umma ry jud gme nt is appr opri ate

onl y wh ere 'th e p l eadi

n gs , de pos i ti on s, an d adm i ss i on s on f i l e, togeth er

wi th the aff ida vi ts, if any , show that there is n

o genui ne i ssue as to any

ma terial fact an d that the movi ng party is en

titled to a judgm

ent as a matter of law.' " Midfirst Bank , 36 5 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 643, quoti

ng 7 35 IL CS 5/2 2-100 5(c)(W est 200 2). W

he n a moti on f or su m mar y j udgm en t i s u n opp ose d, t

h e c our t m us t n on eth

el es s c on duct a

n ex am i n ati on to determ i ne wh ethe r the m ovi ng p arty i s en titl ed to sum mary j udgm en t. Midfirst Bank , 36 5 I l l . A pp . 3d at 6 43 . F or th

es e rea son

s, we re j ect th e D i str

i ct’ s a rgum en t th at i ts af f i rm ati ve def en ses shoul d ha

ve be en deem ed ad m i tted and m

otion f or sum mary judgm ent should have been

granted agai

nst Local 726. B. Mandatory Subj ect of Bargai ni ng The Dist rict next co nt ends t hat its r efusa l to bar gain wit h Lo cal 72 6 r ega rd ing t he De cem be r 20 02 l ay of f di d n ot con sti tute a n u nf ai r lab or prac ti cei

n v i ol ati on of se cti on 10 o f t he Ac t ( 5 I LC S 3 15 /1 0 ( We st 20 02 ) ) wh er e t he bu r de n o n t he Dis t r ict t o ba r ga in over th e lay off outweighe d an

y bene f i ts to Local

726 a nd, th eref ore, was not a m andatory subj ect of bargai

ni ng.1-05-0813

-28- Se cti on 10 of th e A ct prov i de s i n perti n en t pa rt: "(a) It shal

l b e an unf

air l abor prac tice for an empl

oyer or its agent s: (1 ) t o int er fere wit h, r est ra in or co er ce p ublic employee s in

the exercise of the ri

ghts guaranteed i

n thi s Act or to domi

nate
o r int er fer e w it h t he fo rma t io n, exis t enc e o r a dminist ra t io n o f
an y l ab or orga

n iza ti on or c on tri b ute f i n an ci al or oth er su pp ort to it ***;
*** (4) to ref us e to b arg ai

n c ol l ec ti ve l y i n g ood f ai th w i th a l ab or o r ga niz at io n w hic h is t he ex clu sive r ep r es en t at ive o f pu blic
em ploye es i n a n a ppropri ate un i t ***." 5 ILCS 315/1 0(a)(1 ), (a)(4) (W est 200 2). In resolvi ng whether the District co mm itted an unfai

r labor pract ice i

n vi olation of these
se ct io ns, t his c o ur t mus t de t er mine w he t he rt he Dis t r ict ha d a man da t o ry du t y t o ba r ga in coll ecti ve l y wi th Loc al 726 re gardi

ng th e Dec em ber 2002l ay

off
. Be fo r e a dd r es sing t he mer it s o f t his is su e, we mus t firs t ad dr es s t he ap plic ab le stan dard of revi ew. Th

e i ssue of wh ethe r a publ i c em

ploye r i s req ui red to ba rgai n over a sp ec ific s ub

jec t ge ne r ally inv o lve s a mixed qu es t io n o f law an d fa ct , an d t he ap plic ab le standard o f revi

ew is "cl early erro neous." Ci

ty of Bel vi dere , 1 81 I ll. 2d a t 205 . I n Ci ty of Bel vi dere , our su pre me c ourt exp l ai

ne d that the term

"w ag es , hours , an

d other c ond

i ti ons of
em pl oy men t" is a l eg al term tha t req ui res i nte rpreta ti on a nd f oun d that the Il

l i noi s S tateLa bor Relations Board's

determi nation w hether the m

atter was a m

andatory ba

rgain in g subj ect1-05-0813

-29-

in volv ed the fa ctual consi

deration of wh

ether the bargai

ni ng sub je ct in que stion af

fected "wages, hour s, and ot her conditions of em ploym ent." Ci ty of Bel vi dere , 181 Il

l . 2d at 20 5. Under the cl

early erroneous standard of review, an agen cy's deci si on wil l b e reversed onl y wh ere the rev

i ewi ng c ourt, on the

en tire record, is " ' l ef

t wi th the def i ni te and f i rm co nvictio n t hat a mista ke ha s bee n commi tt ed.' " AFM Mes seng er Ser vice, Inc . v. De pa rtm en t of Em pl oy men t Se cu ri ty , 198 Ill . 2d 380, 395 (2001) , quot in g Unit ed S t at es v. Un i ted State s G y psum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 766, 68 S . Ct. 525, 542 (1948)
. Ou r s upr em e c ourt h asalso sta

ted tha t, notwi ths tan di ng the cl ea rl y err one oussta

nd ard of
rev i ew , an ag en cy 's f ac tua l f i nd i ng s shou l d b e a f f orde d a gre at d eal

of de f ere nc e a nd wi l l not be reverse d on a

ppea l unl ess such f i ndi ngs were agai nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Ci ty of Bel vi dere , 181 Il

l .2d at 20 5. W e ca

n n ow turn to the

meri ts of th i s ap peal
. The Act i mposes a duty on a pub li

c em ploy er, such as the Di

strict, to engage i

n goodf ai th col l ecti ve ba rgai ni ng w i th i ts em ploye es’ repre sen

tativ e un der ce rtai n c i rcum stan ces . Pursuant to section 7 of

the Act, an em

ploy er has a duty

to bargai n over i ssues wh

ic h af fect "wa ges , ho ur s, a nd o t her co ndit ions o f employment ." 5 I LCS 315 /7 (Wes t 200 2) . S ect ion 4 of the A ct f urth er provi de s i

n p art: "Em

pl oyers sh al l not b e re qui

red to ba rga i n ov er m atters of inhe r en t man ag er ial p o licy * **
. E mplo yer s, ho we ve r , sha ll be r eq uir ed t o ba r ga in
co llectively with r ega rd t o p olicy matt er s dire ct ly aff ect ing wag es, hou rs a nd t er ms and cond i tions of em ploym en t." 5 ILC S 315/

4 (West 200 2). Oft ent imes, ho weve r, an issue affect s bo t h t he co ndit ions o f employment and
ma nagem ent’s i nhe rent authority. In suc

h a “ hy brid” si tuation, the determi

nation of whether the em pl oyer m us t col l ec ti ve l y ba rga i n c an onl y be res ol ve d by we i gh i ng the be ne f i ts of1-05-0813

-30-

ba rgai ni ng w i th the bur dens on m

anagem en t. Ce nt r al C it y Ed uc at io n As so cia t io n v. I llino is Educa tion al Lab or Rel

ati ons B oard , 149 Il

l . 2d 496 , 523 (1 992). In Ce n tral Ci ty , our suprem

e court se t forth a thre e-par

t test for determ

i ni ng w hether a
ma tt er is a m andatory sub

je ct of bargai

ni ng. Pursuant to t he Ce

n tral Ci ty test , a matter is a
man da tory su bj ec t of ba rga i ni ng i f i t: (1 ) con cern s w ag es , hours , an

d te rms a nd con di ti ons of
em ploy me nt; and (2) is ei

ther not a matter o f i

nhe rent man ageria l a uthority; or (3) is a m

atter of inher ent manage rial au t hor ity, bu t t he bene fits o f barg aining ou t weigh t he bur dens ba rgai ni ng i m poses on the em ploye r's authority
. Ce

n tral Ci ty , 149 Ill . 2d at 523 . Wh ethe r a matt er co ncer ns wa ges , ho ur s, a nd t er ms and c ond itio ns o f employment is a qu est ion t hat t he admi ni strat iv e agency " is un

iquel y qual if ied to answer." Ce

n tral Ci ty , 149 Il l . 2d at 52 3. Her e, t he Bo ar d r elied o n t his co ur t ’s de cision in Am erica n Fede ration of State, Coun ty & Mun i ci pal Em ploye es v . State La

bor Re l ati ons B oard , 274 Ill . App. 3d 327 (1995) ( AFSCME ), i

n d eterm i ni ng tha t the De cem be r 20 02 l ay of f wa s a man da tory su bj ec t of bar gaining. In AFSCME , t his c o ur t re co gniz ed t hat t he e mplo yer ’s d ec isio n t o lay o ff
em ploy ees was i nex tricabl y c onnected wi

th the terms an

d condi tions of e mpl oym ent, but that it al so in volv ed a m atter of i nhe rent man ageria l a uthority. In that case, thi s court not ed that th e red uc ti on i n f orc e w as moti v ate d p ri mari l y , if n ot ex cl us i v el y , by ec on om i c c on strai

n ts resul ting f rom a sh ort fal l i n the em ploy er’s budge

t and that matters relatin

g to overall

budget are withi n the scope of m

anageri al policy . This

court concl

uded: “[ A] ft er we ighing t he b ene fits and bur de ns, it bec o mes c lea r t hat a d ec isio n t o layo ff employee s du e t o a dec re ase in St at e fund ing t ru ly i nvites t he us e o f the co llective ba rga i ni ng proc es s. * ** [ A ] b arg ai

ni ng repres en tati ve i s f req uentl y i n th e b es t pos i

ti on1-05-0813

-31-

to provide al

ternatives whi ch m ay alle viate economic condi

tions an d avoi d em

ploy ee layoffs. N ot only is the re pr ese nt at ive aut hor ized t o ne go t iate on be half of t he
em pl oy ee s, b ut h e or sh e of ten pos se ss es

i n f orm ati on wh i ch may n ot b e a v ai l ab l e to
ma nagem ent and wh

ic h coul d in fl uence m anagem ent’s decisi on to reduce i

ts force.” AFSCME , 274 Ill . App. 3d at 333. Thi s court also found that the purport ed burdens upon ma nagem ent were i ll

usory an d aff irm ed the State La bor Re l ati ons Boa rd’ s determ

i na ti on th at the l ay of f wa s a man da tory su bj ec t of ba rgai ni ng. Here, the Board de term

i ne d that the D ec em

be r 20 02 l ay of f wa s a man da tory su bj ec t of bar gaining bas ed o n t his co ur t ’s ana lysis in AFSCME . The Di strict argue s tha

t the Boar

d erred by fai li ng to apply

the Ce n tral Ci ty t est t o t his case and failing t o w eigh t he bene fits and burdens of bargai ni ng i n thi s case. However, both parties a cknowl edged that the lay

off was con ne cte d w i th th e terms a nd con di ti ons of em pl oy men t an d that i t al so i nv ol ve d a matter of i n h eren t m an ag eri al au th ori ty . C on tra ry to th e D i str

i ct’ s a ss er ti on , the B oard di d c on duct a be ne fit an d b ur de n a na lysis o f ba r ga ining
. T he Bo ar d a gr ee d w it h AL J C liffo r d’ s d et er mination tha t t he District violated sections 10(a)(1) and (c)(4) o f the A ct. In hi s recomm

ended dec ision and or der , ALJ Cliff or d sp ecifically i

nclude d t he bene fits o f barg aining re gar ding layoffs, a s t his co ur t discu ssed in AFSCME . ALJ Cliff or d also re

jected t he District’s
asse rt ed bu rd ens t hat bar gaining wo uld impo se u po n it. ALJ Clifford det er mined t hat t he Dist rict ’s as ser t ed bu dge t ar y pro blems wer e no t so imm ediat e t hat bar gaining co uld no t have
occurre d. A

LJ C li f f ord noted th

at the D i strict was

awar e of bud getary i ssues i n F ebruary 2002 when

it hi red a new ch

ie f f in anci al off ic er and adopted a poli cy

to hav e a bal anced1-05-0813

-32-

budget and n

ot borrow funds. The Di

strict al so announced i

ts plans i n October 2002, which i nc l uded the D ecem

ber 2002l ay

off . The ref ore, the D i strict ha

d ti me to barg ai

n. Accordin gly , we fi nd that the Board proper ly determi ned that the Di strict’s decisi on in volv ed
a ma nd at o ry su bje ct o f ba r ga ining an d t ha t t he Dis t r ict co mmit t ed an un fair lab o rpr ac t ice in
v i ol ati on of se cti on s 1 0( a) (1 ) a

n d ( a) (4 ) of

th e A ct. The District, nonetheless, cites Ch ica go T r an sit Au t ho r it y v. Amalg ama t ed T r an sit Uni on, Local 241 , 299 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 93 4 (199 8) ( CTA

) in sup po rt of it s ar gument t hat t he De cem be r 20 02 l ay of f wa s n ot a m an da tory su bj ec t of ba rga i ni ng where Loc al 726 di d n ot pr ese nt any evidenc e r elat ing t o t he bene fits o f barg aining. I n CTA , t his co ur t uphe ld t he Board’ s determ

i na tion that the CTA ’sdeci

sion to recl

ass i f y j ob posi tions wa s n

ot a ma nda tory subjec t of ba rg aining. I n CTA , th e B oard f oun d that the u

ni on th at f i l ed the unf ai r lab or pra cti cech arg e " 'pres en

ted no e vi de nc e or l eg al arg um en t to dem ons trate tha t the be ne f i ts of bargai ni ng over the particul

ar reclas si fi

cation decisi on *** out weighed the b urdens that bar gaining wo uld impo se o n CT A’s au t hor ity t o a dminister its p os itio n classificat ion sys tem.' " CTA , 299 Ill . App. 3d at 939. Unli ke CTA , in

this case, the Board reli

ed on l egal
ar gu men t s r eg ar din g t he be ne fit s o f ba r ga ining r ela t ing t o layo ffs, as t his c o ur t dis cu ss ed in AFSCME . T he Bo ar d also re ject ed t he Dist rict ’s as ser t ed bu rd ens t ha t ba r ga ining wo uld im pose upon it. We f

in d no error in the Board’s appl ic ation of the Ce

n tral Ci ty t es t , wh er e it
cons i dered

the b enef i ts an d bu rdens of ba rgai ni ng. Th e D i stri

ct al so c onte

nds th at, eve n i f i ts dec i si on wasa m

an da tory su bj ec t of bar ga ining, Lo ca l 72 6 w aive d a ny rig ht t o bar ga in abo ut t he d ec isio n t o co ndu ct a la yoff.1-05-0813

-33-

A par t y to a co llective ba rg aining agr eement may waive its right s t o ba rg ain unde r t he Act where the

contractual

l anguag e ev

i nc es a n un equi voca l i nten t to reli nqu i sh such ri ghts
. AFSCME , 2 74 I ll. App. 3d a t 334 . H ow ever , e vidence t hat a pa rt y to a labo r a gr eement i nten ded to wai

ve a statutory

ri ght m ust b e cl ear a nd u nm i staka bl e. The langua ge s ust aining the w ai ver m ust b e sp eci

f i c an d wai ver i s nev er pre sum

ed. AFSCME , 274 Ill . App. 3d at 334. We find t ha t no cle ar an d u nmist ak ab le int en t t o wa ive r igh t s t o ba r ga in e xist s in t his
cas e. The Dist rict po ints t o t he manag ement right s clau se o f the co llective ba rg aining agreem ent as reservi

ng the Di strict’s right to la y of f em ploy ees. However, that clause does not mention lay

offs or reduct ions i

n f orce. The District cites AFSCMEi n su pp ort of i ts
ar gument t hat suc h claus es c an co nst itu t e wa iver, but in that cas e it w as c rit ically impor t ant that t he cl ause expres sl

y i ncl uded as m

anagem ent fun ctions the ri

ght " 'to relieve em

ploy ees fro m dut y becau se o f lack o f wo rk or ot her legit imate r eas ons ; [a nd] t o d et er mine the s ize and composition of the work force.' " AFSCME , 274 Ill . App. 3d at 334-35. No such l anguage appears i n the colle ctive

bargai ni ng agreem

ent in this case. The District has theref ore faile d to dem onstrate t hat the contractual provis ions constitute “clear and un

mi stakable” evi

dence of wai ver. The Dist rict furt her ar gue s t hat by engag ing in im pac t bar gaining and acc ept ing t he be ne f i ts of the MO Us , Loc al

726 wai ve d i ts ri gh t to ba rga i n r eg ard i ng the Di stri ct’ s dec i si on to i m pl em en t l ay of f s i n De cem b er 20 02 . H owev er , the f

i rs t MOU e x

pr es sl y de al t onl y wi th th e g ol f an d d ri v i ng r an ge pri v ati za ti on . It a l so i n cl uded a state men t th at " n ei th er pa rty
wai ve s a ny pre vi ouspos i ti on on matters af

f ec ti ng the term s a nd con di ti ons of em pl oy men t of Lo cal 72 6 emplo yees, or t he r ight t o ne go t iate on s uch mat t er s in the fut ur e. " The sec ond1-05-0813

-34-

MOU explicitly st at ed t hat t he pa rt ies wished t o r eso lve "ce rt ain of t hese matt er s" and t he t hird MO U st at ed t hat t he pa rt ies wished t o s et t le "all dispu t es be t wee n t hem reg ar ding t he
re or ganiza t ion, elimi

nat ion o f po sitio ns, u nit p lacement of RT ’s and Reso ur ce Aide s, a nd t he hi ri ng of RT’s ." No wa

i ver i s cl ear a nd u nm i staka bl e on the f ace of these docum en ts. In addi tion, the second an

d third MOU s were entered i nto after Local 726 f

il ed i ts charge about the deci si on to la

y of f em ploy ees i n Decem ber 2002, y

et nothing i

n the MOUs

required L ocal 726 to withdraw that aspect of the ch arge al though Local 726 was

required to withdraw other portions of

the cha rge. Fu rth er, the re i s n o ev i de nc e that the D i stri

ct’ s rep res en

tati ve s of f ere d to b arg ai

n or att empted t o bar gain about Local 726 waivi ng any ri ght t o bar gain about the Distr ict’s dec ision. The evidenc e sho wed t hat t he Dist rict ’s r epr ese nt at ives re fused t o ba rg ain abo ut t he deci si on to la

y of f em ploy ees i n Decem ber 2002. Local

726's couns el , Green, testif ie d that the parties n

ever ba rgain ed about the Distri ct’s deci si on to have the l ay off s and that Local

726
made i t cl ea r that i t wou l d b argai n ab out th e e f f ects, b ut w oul

d n ot i n an y wa y wai v e i ts positi on that t he District was requi red to bargai

n ab out the deci si on. Green al so test if ie d that he di d not recall

the ma nagem ent righ ts claus e bei

ng m entione d durin

g negotiations

and that if the p ar t ies had agr eed on a layoff pro vision du ring c ont ra ct nego t iatio ns, t hey co uld have put that agreem

en t in the c oll ecti ve ba rgai ni ng a greem en t. For the se re asons, we concl ude that the evi den ce f ail s to dem

onstra te that L ocal

726, i n a clear a nd u nm i staka bl e m an ner, wa ived it s r ight t o bar ga in abo ut t he d ec isio n t o co ndu ct t he D ec embe r 2 00 2 la yoff.1-05-0813

-35- C. Local 726 's Un i t Cl ari f i ca ti on P eti ti on Th e D i stri

ct l as tl y con ten dstha t the Boa rd s hou l d n ot ha ve am en de d the des cri

ption of the b argai ni ng u ni t bec aus e Loca

l 726 h ad ag reed to wi

thdra w i ts UC P eti

tion
. The record shows that on September 20, 2004, the Acti ng Executi

ve Di rector is sued
an o rd er and c er t ifi

cat ion o f clarified unit in case N o. L-U C-0 3- 002 , w hich add ed t he Dis t r ict ’s ne wly c r ea t ed t it le o f Re so ur ce T ec hnic ian t o t he ex ist ing hist o r ica l ba r ga ining un it represented by

Local 726. The

record also shows that i

n MOU II, the Di strict and Local 726 agree d t hat "t he Union wil l wi thdr aw its pending UC pet ition before t he ILRB, Ca se No . LUC-03-002." However, in that same m

em orandum of

understandi

ng, the parties a

ls o agreed t hat “[t ]he RT [r eso ur ce t echnician] po sitio n will be adde d t o t he bar gaining unit and t he Pa r t ies ag r ee t o t ak e a ll st ep s ne ce ss ar y t o ac co mplis h t his a cc r et io n, inc lud ing jo int ly pe ti ti oni ng the IL RB , i f ne ce ss ary

, f or an am en dm en t to the ex i sti ng un i t de scri ption. ” A l so, at the h eari ng, c ouns el

f or Local 726 stated: “

Wi th res pect to the th

i rd i ssue, on the rec ord toda y we wou l d l i ke to am en d th e U C p eti ti on , pe r a n ag re em en t wi th th e F ore st Pre se

rve, to jus t incl ude the title

of Resource Techn

ic ia n.” Counsel

for the Di strict then responded, "Tha t ’s fine. We have no objec t ions. " Acc or dingly, t he Dist rict is pre clude d fro m arg uing that the Board e rred i n a mendi ng th e b argai ni ng u ni t descri pti on on a ppea l
.
III. Con cl us i on For t he above-st ate d reaso ns, we affi rm the Bo ard’s de ter mi

nation t hat t he District’s deci si on to la

yof f em ploy ees was a proper subj ect for man dator y b argain

in g, that Local 7261-05-0813

-36-

di d n ot wai ve ba rga i ni ng ove r th at i ss ue , an d that the D i stri

ct c om m i tted a n u nf ai r lab or pr act ice und er sec t ions 1 0( a) (1 ) a nd ( 4) of t he Act by fail ing t o c omp ly with bar gaining requi rem en ts. Af fi rmed. CA MPB ELL an d NEVIL LE, JJ ., conc

ur.