Opinion ID: 2092295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: supervisors

Text: The employer seeks to exclude 12 employees, alleged to be supervisors, from the bargaining unit. Challenged are the nine intermediate supervisors in the adult probation department and the three clerical supervisors employed in the social casework services department. The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1601 et seq. ) defines supervisor as follows: `Supervisor' is an employee whose principal work is substantially different from that of his subordinates and who has authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, direct, reward, or discipline employees, or to adjust their grievances, or to effectively recommend such action, if the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the consistent use of independent judgment. Except with respect to police employment, the term `supervisor' includes only those individuals who devote a preponderance of their employment time to exercising such authority State supervisors notwithstanding. Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1603(r). The Illinois Public Labor Relations Act states that a bargaining unit may not contain both supervisors and nonsupervisors. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 48, par. 1603(s)(1).) The purpose of such an exclusion is to ensure that pro-union bias will not impair the supervisor's ability to apply the employer's policies to subordinates according to the employer's best interests. City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1990), 135 Ill.2d 499, 506, 143 Ill. Dec. 220, 554 N.E.2d 155. The definition of supervisor contained in the Act has, generally, been reduced to a four-part test and analyzed accordingly. Pursuant to the statute, one alleged to be a supervisor must meet all four parts in order to be excluded from the bargaining unit. The test requires that (1) the supervisory employee must perform principal work substantially different from that of her subordinates; (2) the supervisory employee must have authority to perform some or all of the 11 functions enumerated in section 3(r); (3) the supervisory employee must consistently use independent judgment in the performance of these 11 enumerated functions; and (4) generally, the supervisory employee must devote a preponderance of her time to exercising the authority to handle these 11 functions. Village of Wheeling v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1988), 170 Ill.App.3d 934, 120 Ill.Dec. 776, 524 N.E.2d 958, aff'd sub nom. City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1990), 135 Ill.2d 499, 143 Ill.Dec. 220, 554 N.E.2d 155; County of Peoria, 2 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2022, at 159-60, Nos. S-RC-4, S-RC-54, S-RC-56 (ISLRB April 29, 1986); City of Burbank, 1 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2008, at 48, No. S-RC-45 (ISLRB June 6, 1985). Although only one indicium of supervisory authority accompanied by independent judgment is sufficient to indicate supervisory status (see City of Peru v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board (1988), 167 Ill. App.3d 284, 289, 118 Ill.Dec. 40, 521 N.E.2d citing Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co. v. NLRB (1st Cir.1980), 624 F.2d 347), the Board found that the individuals challenged in this appeal, while having authority to do some of the 11 functions, did not consistently use independent judgment in exercising this authority. Independent judgment has been defined generally by the Board to mean that the alleged supervisor must make choices between two or more significant courses of action without substantial review by superiors. (See St. Clair Housing Authority, 5 Pub.Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2017, at 156, No. S-RC-88-108 (ISLRB March 30, 1989).) The appellate court confirmed this decision. As the issue was phrased, the employer contests the hearing officer's findings only as to whether independent judgment is exercised in discharging supervisory functions. We accordingly limit our analysis.