{
  "id": 8449181,
  "name": "In re Collective Bargaining",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Collective Bargaining",
  "decision_date": "2005-01-25",
  "docket_number": "M.R. 19565",
  "first_page": "548",
  "last_page": "551",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ill. 2d 548"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "167 Ill. 2d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        222787
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/167/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Ill. 2d 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        8451513
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "351-59",
          "parenthetical": "Freeman, J., dissenting"
        },
        {
          "page": "349",
          "parenthetical": "Fitzgerald, J., writing in support, joined by McMorrow, C.J., and Kilbride and Rarick, JJ."
        },
        {
          "page": "349",
          "parenthetical": "Fitzgerald, J., writing in support, joined by McMorrow, C.J., and Kilbride and Rarick, JJ."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/211/0346-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 Ill. 2d 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        222787
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/167/0180-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 4657,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20396613856637974
    },
    "sha256": "63f17e6d7060bc7bc18dc05cb32c144695823ad1c9ff06504e4771758f1a4518",
    "simhash": "1:8696d13e4e2c666f",
    "word_count": 744
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:23:20.061705+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW and JUSTICE KIL-BRIDE join in this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In re Collective Bargaining"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nTHIS MATTER, having come before the court upon reconsideration of the supervisory order entered on July 1, 2004;\nTHIS COURT, having further examined the constitutional implications of proceeding with the implementation of the July 1, 2004, order; and\nTHIS COURT, having concluded that proceeding with the implementation of the July 1, 2004, order would undermine the separation of powers principles articulated in Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts v. State & Municipal Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 726, 167 Ill. 2d 180 (1995);\nIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 1, 2004, order voluntarily recognizing Local 1220, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, as the bargaining representative for the Court Reporting Services Employees of the Circuit Court of Cook County is VACATED.\nOrder entered January 25, 2005.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      },
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD,\ndissenting:\nNo question exists in my mind as to whether the court has the authority to vacate its order of July 1, 2004. The court clearly is empowered to do so. The only question is the wisdom of that decision.\nUnder the express terms of our prior order, recognition of Local 1220, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), as the bargaining representative for the Court Reporting Services Employees of the Circuit Court of Cook County, was contingent upon two events: (1) the court reaching a formal written agreement with the IBEW, and (2) additional appropriations. I am dismayed and disappointed that, before we could sit down with the IBEW and attempt to reach an agreement, and before the issue of legislative funding could be addressed, the court has decided to \u201cpull the plug.\u201d The stated reason is that implementation of the July 1, 2004, order \u201cwould undermine the separation of powers principles articulated in Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts v. State & Municipal Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Union, Local 726, 167 Ill. 2d 180 (1995) [AOIC].\u201d This is the same fear expressed by a minority of this court when we entered our prior order. See In re Collective Bargaining, 211 Ill. 2d 346, 351-59 (2004) (Freeman, J., dissenting), at 359-64 (Thomas, J., dissenting), at 364-368 (Gar-man, J., dissenting). Such fear is unwarranted.\nAs I explained in more detail when I wrote in support of the July 1 order, any agreement between this court and the IBEW would, of necessity, \u201ccomply with the Illinois Constitution, this court\u2019s own rules, and this court\u2019s prior decisions \u2014 including AOIC.\u201d In re Collective Bargaining, 211 Ill. 2d at 349 (Fitzgerald, J., writing in support, joined by McMorrow, C.J., and Kilbride and Rarick, JJ.). Further, nothing in the prior order obligated this court to surrender its authority to the labor relations boards. In re Collective Bargaining, 211 Ill. 2d at 349 (Fitzgerald, J., writing in support, joined by McMorrow, C.J., and Kilbride and Rarick, JJ.). Thus, this court\u2019s independence as a co-equal branch of government was never in jeopardy. Whether an agreement that was consistent with separation of powers principles could be reached with the IBEW was not a given. But I believed then, as I do now, that this court should at least try to reach agreement \u2014 not because we know what is best for court reporters, and certainly not because of perceived political coercion. Rather, we should try because it is the right thing to do.\nAs revealed in a survey that this court, itself, commissioned, an overwhelming majority of the court reporters working in Cook County expressed a desire for union membership. This came as no surprise because Cook County court reporters work with numerous other wage earners who already enjoy the benefits of union membership: court clerks, probation officers, deputy sheriffs, police officers, and public defenders. Additionally, I note that Cook County court reporters are part of one of the largest unified court systems in the world. Their workload \u2014 in quality and quantity \u2014 is impressive. They are entitled to have their voice heard.\nIf the Cook County court reporters\u2019 desire for union membership might be realized without this court surrendering its authority to the legislative or executive branches, why shouldn\u2019t we begin the process? Whether our efforts would meet with success, we do not know. Regrettably, however, we will never know. By vacating the July 1, 2004, order, the court has closed the door to unionization. I, for one, was and am willing to walk through that door to give the process a chance.\nI dissent.\nCHIEF JUSTICE McMORROW and JUSTICE KIL-BRIDE join in this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "JUSTICE FITZGERALD,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(M.R. 19565)\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS\nIn re Collective Bargaining"
  },
  "file_name": "0548-01",
  "first_page_order": 560,
  "last_page_order": 563
}