Opinion ID: 2229953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Assistant Public Defenders

Text: In applying the managerial exclusion as defined in the Act, we find that this court's recent decision in Cook County State's Attorney is dispositive of the issue. We note that the Board reached its decision in the instant case before Cook County State's Attorney was decided and that the appellate court relied heavily on that case in reaching its conclusion. As in Cook County State's Attorney, the statute and case law define the duties of the public defender and assistants, such that the instant case can be decided as a matter of law. We hold, as a matter of law, that the assistant public defenders are managerial employees and therefore not subject to the collective-bargaining provisions of the Act. As noted, the statutory purpose of the public defender's office is to provide quality legal representation in criminal and related proceedings for indigent individuals. 55 ILCS 5/3-4000 (West 1994). The statutory duties of the public defender's office are to provide quality legal representation for certain individuals in criminal cases, juvenile cases, and parental notice of abortion cases. 55 ILCS 5/3-4006 (West 1994). As was true of assistant State's Attorneys, the assistant public defenders act as officers for the performance of the general duties of the public defender's office, exercise some portion of the sovereign power of the state, and perform acts that are generally regarded as acts of the public defender. See 55 ILCS 5/3-4008, 3-4008.1 (West 1994); Warren v. Stone, 958 F.2d 1419, 1424 (7th Cir.1992); People v. Benford, 31 Ill.App.3d 892, 895, 335 N.E.2d 106 (1975); People ex rel. Cook County v. Majewski, 28 Ill.App.3d 269, 271-73, 328 N.E.2d 195 (1975). Although no exact criteria define a managerial employee, this court, in Cook County State's Attorney, 166 Ill.2d at 304, 209 Ill. Dec. 761, 652 N.E.2d 301, relied heavily on the existence of three factors in determining that assistant State's Attorneys are managerial employees: (1) the close identification of a State's Attorney with the actions of his or her assistants, (2) the unity of their professional interests, and (3) the power of the assistants to act on behalf of the State's Attorney. The relationship between the public defender and the assistants also manifests these characteristics. The assistant public defenders possess significant authority and discretion to discharge the mission of the public defender's office. In effect, they act as surrogates for the public defender. The Board and AFSCME argue that Cook County State's Attorney is distinguishable from the instant case. They assert that assistant State's Attorneys, in general, provide legal representation on behalf of the state. In contrast, the Board and AFSCME argue, the assistant public defenders represent the interests of their indigent clients but do not represent the interests of the state or chief judge. A similar argument was recently rejected by the Supreme Court. In National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America, 511 U.S. 571, 114 S.Ct. 1778, 128 L.Ed.2d 586 (1994), the Court was required to determine whether certain nurses should be considered supervisors within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. The National Labor Relations Board argued that the nurses were not supervisors because they acted in their own professional interests, not in the interests of their employer. The Court rejected that argument and noted that such an argument had also been rejected in Yeshiva: The Board's interpretation, that a nurse's supervisory activity is not exercised in the interest of the employer if it is incidental to the treatment of patients, is similar to an approach the Board took, and we rejected, in NLRB v. Yeshiva Univ., 444 U.S. 672 [100 S.Ct. 856, 63 L.Ed.2d 115] (1980). There, we had to determine whether faculty members at Yeshiva were `managerial employees.'    Like supervisory employees, managerial employees are excluded from the Act's coverage. [Citation.] The Board in Yeshiva argued that the faculty members were not managerial, contending that faculty authority was `exercised in the faculty's own interest rather than in the interest of the university.' [Citation.]    The Board's reasoning fares no better here than it did in Yeshiva. As in Yeshiva, the Board has created a false dichotomy-in this case, a dichotomy between acts taken in connection with patient care and acts taken in the interest of the employer. That dichotomy makes no sense. Patient care is the business of a nursing home, and it follows that attending to the needs of the nursing home patients, who are the employer's customers, is in the interest of the employer. [Citation.] We thus see no basis for the Board's blanket assertion that supervisory authority exercised in connection with patient care is somehow not in the interest of the employer. Health Care, 511 U.S. at 577-78, 114 S.Ct. at 1782, 128 L.Ed.2d at 593-94. See also Chief Judge, 229 Ill.App.3d at 187-88, 171 Ill.Dec. 102, 593 N.E.2d 922 (rejecting the Board's argument that Cook County guardians ad litem represented the many individual wards of the court instead of representing the interests of their employer). For similar reasons, we reject the purported distinction as meaningless. The Board also relies on conflict of interest cases to suggest that the assistant public defenders are not closely aligned with the public defender's office. See People v. Spreitzer, 123 Ill.2d 1, 121 Ill.Dec. 224, 525 N.E.2d 30 (1988); People v. Banks, 121 Ill.2d 36, 117 Ill.Dec. 266, 520 N.E.2d 617 (1987); People v. Robinson, 79 Ill.2d 147, 37 Ill.Dec. 267, 402 N.E.2d 157 (1979). In these cases, the relevant question was whether an assistant could represent a client even if other attorneys in the office had a conflict of interest involving that client. This court found no per se conflict of interest. This court determined that the attorneys in the public defender's office could act in the professional interests of their clients and perform the statutory duties of the office despite any allegiance to the office and the other attorneys in the office. See, e.g., Banks, 121 Ill.2d at 42-43, 117 Ill.Dec. 266, 520 N.E.2d 617. The conflict of interest cases cited by the Board are not helpful in the context of collective bargaining. As stated, like the relationship between the State's Attorney and his or her assistants, the assistant public defenders act on behalf of the public defender in carrying out the statutory duties of the public defender's office. The nature of this affiliation is not affected by the ability of the assistants to set aside any personal allegiance in a particular case and perform the statutory duties of the office. The professional interests of the public defender, his or her assistants, and the office remain the same: to provide quality legal representation to indigent individuals. In addition, the assistants retain broad authority to act on behalf of the public defender. Finally, the Board and AFSCME argue that certain public sector attorneys in Illinois and other jurisdictions have been allowed to organize into collective-bargaining units. The cases and certification orders cited provide little support to the matter involved here. In many of these decisions, the question of managerial status was not even at issue. In addition, the duties of these public sector attorneys are generally different from the duties of the assistant public defenders, as provided by Illinois statute and case law. We emphasize, as we did in Cook County State's Attorney, that the holding of the instant case should not be broadly interpreted to mean that all publicly employed attorneys or other professional employees are deemed managerial employees under the Act. Instead, we hold only that the assistant public defenders meet the definition of managerial employee under the Act.