{ "id": 3650680, "name": "PROVISO COUNCIL OF WEST SUBURBAN TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 571, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, PROVISO TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOLS, DISTRICT 209, Defendant-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Proviso Council of West Suburban Teachers Union v. Board of Education", "decision_date": "1987-09-08", "docket_number": "No. 86\u20143255", "first_page": "1020", "last_page": "1029", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 Ill. App. 3d 1020" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811365 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 N.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 N.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 696", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2625338 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/30/0696-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 N.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "643" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5376067 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "494" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/21/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 913", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12143861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0913-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 U.S. 593", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166577 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/363/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "501 N.E.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 Ill. App. 3d 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3502393 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/150/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 N.E.2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 3d 789", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2872832 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "793-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/33/0789-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 N.E.2d 1026", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1030" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ill. App. 3d 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3182423 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "249" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/87/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 N.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2970244 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/62/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "318 N.E.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "22 Ill. App. 3d 1060", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2938640 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/22/1060-01" ] }, { "cite": "454 N.E.2d 773", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 Ill. App. 3d 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5660510 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/118/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "76 Ill. App. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2575767 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/76/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 N.E.2d 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 3d 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2460336 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "228" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/15/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 N.E.2d 792", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 Ill. App. 3d 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3184600 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/86/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 864, "char_count": 21590, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.185190561200027e-08, "percentile": 0.3837679339606286 }, "sha256": "da61bb768d41966ed6f883676b1b407b5339f7d7d63a243b303b2c395784e223", "simhash": "1:6faa61b27e04b504", "word_count": 3371 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:05.010141+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "PROVISO COUNCIL OF WEST SUBURBAN TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 571, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, PROVISO TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOLS, DISTRICT 209, Defendant-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINLAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiffs, Proviso Council of West Suburban Teachers Union, Local 571 (union) and union member John Spaulding (Spaulding) appeal the decision of the circuit court of Cook County granting summary judgment to the defendant board of education, Proviso Township High Schools, District 209 (board). The plaintiffs\u2019 complaint had alleged that the board breached a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the union by its decision to \u201chonorably\u201d dismiss Spaulding and retain another teacher with equal seniority, following the board\u2019s administrative decision that declining enrollment necessitated a reduction in staff. The complainants contended that the procedure employed by the board in choosing between the two teachers was improper.\nBoth Spaulding and the retained teacher, Robert Kruse (Kruse), were tenured at the time of the discharge determination. The board had first hired Spaulding for a social studies teaching position in the academic year 1972-73. Kruse also began his employment with the district in 1972-73. However, Kruse was originally assigned to the physical education department and did not transfer to the social studies department until the 1976-77 school year. Kruse had a good attendance record and taught a full load of courses each year. Spaulding, on the other hand, was granted a disability leave for the 1979-80 academic year and, when he returned, requested and was granted five'study halls and only one teaching assignment in the department. The superintendent recommended that the board effect a reduction in teaching staff for the 1981-82 school year through the retention of Kruse as a social studies teacher with \u201ccrossover\u201d capability to the physical education department and the honorable discharge of Spaulding.\nThe board voted to follow the superintendent\u2019s recommendation to dismiss Spaulding and another teacher on March 16, 1981. On March 17, 1981, the board sent a letter to Spaulding advising him of their decision not to offer him a position for the 1981-82 school year. In accordance with the CBA, Spaulding filed a grievance with the superintendent through his union representative concerning his dismissal. The superintendent denied the grievance filed by Spaulding and, in accordance with the grievance procedures set out in the CBA, communicated his decision to Spaulding together with supporting reasons in a letter dated March 31, 1981. Although acknowledging that Spaulding had superior academic preparation, in his decision letter of March 31, 1981, the superintendent focussed on the greater vers\u00e1tility of Kruse\u2019s \u201ccrossover\u201d capability, noting Kruse was qualified to teach either physical education or social studies while Spaulding was only qualified to teach social studies.\nWhere a board must choose between two tenured teachers for a single position, the Illinois School Code specifically provides for the situation as follows:\n\u201cAs between teachers who have entered upon contractual continued service, the teacher or teachers with the shorter length of continuing service with the district shall be dismissed first unless an alternative method of determining the sequence of dismissal is established in a collective bargaining agreement or contract between the board and a professional faculty members\u2019 organization ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.)\nThe CBA in effect at the time of Spaulding\u2019s discharge did include a bargained-for alternative procedure for the board to follow in the event of an administrative decision to reduce teaching staff. It provided:\n\u201cIn the event of a reduction in teachers, for any reason, the rule of district seniority within the subject area being reduced shall be the sole determining factor. [Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), art. VIII (E)(4).]\n* * *\nShould a conflict arise concerning two teachers with identical seniority, the superintendent shall pick the teacher with the best qualifications for the available position. [CBA, art. VIII (E)(9).]\u201d\nThe parties to this appeal agree that Spaulding and Kruse had identical seniority, which, under the terms of the CBA, gave the superintendent the power to select and retain the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d teacher. After Spaulding was honorably discharged and the superintendent denied his grievance, the union pursued the final step in the grievance procedure and filed an appeal with the board. Subsequently, in a letter dated April 27, 1981, the board also denied the grievance for the reasons set forth in the superintendent\u2019s letter of March 31.\nFollowing the exhaustion of his grievance remedies under the CBA, Spaulding and the union invoked the impasse procedure. The CBA provided that if, after invoking the grievance procedur\u00e9s, a party believes a grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved it could submit the grievance to an impasse board consisting of three appointed members and that: \u201c[t]he findings or recommendations of the Impasse Board shall be received in good faith by both parties.\u201d The CBA provided that the impasse board had authority to resolve all impasses strictly on the basis of the terms of the existing contract and consistent with the applicable laws (CBA, art. VII, sec. D). The Union sent notice of impasse to the board, but rather than appoint an impasse board as provided in the CBA, the parties agreed among themselves to submit the grievance to an independent arbitrator. The mutually chosen arbitrator held a hearing concerning the impasse on May 18, 1982, and, subsequently, issued an award in favor of the union and Spaulding on October 29, 1982.\nThe written findings of the arbitrator concurred with the board that both Kruse and Spaulding had equal seniority, but in construing the CBA mandate that the superintendent choose the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d of the two tenured teachers, the arbitrator found that the superintendent\u2019s evaluation of relative qualifications was arbitrary and unreasonable. The arbitrator specifically found that the board\u2019s emphasis on the \u201ccrossover\u201d factor resulted in the retention decision\u2019s being tipped in favor of the teacher best suited \u201cfor the Administration\u2019s scheduling needs\u201d rather than the teacher \u201cwith the best qualifications for the available position\u201d as set out in the CBA. CBA, art. VIII (D).\nThe arbitrator thus concluded that the superintendent had given undue emphasis to Kruse\u2019s crossover capability to the exclusion of other relevant considerations. The arbitrator then determined that a limited reconsideration process was necessary to vindicate Spaulding\u2019s bargained-for rights under the CBA, stating:\n\u201cThis type of emphasis on one characteristic to the virtual exclusion of other factors is arbitrary and unreasonable. While it is not an arbitrator\u2019s province to substitute his judgment for that of an administrator\u2019s during an evaluation and selection process, it is an arbitrator\u2019s duty to examine the process to see if it was conducted fairly and in accordance with contractual guidelines. While it is apparent that many factors must be considered in evaluating comparative qualifications, fairness dictates that one factor not be given overwhelming weight.\u201d (Arbitrator\u2019s report.)\nThe arbitrator sustained the plaintiff\u2019s grievance on the basis of his finding of this defect in the superintendent\u2019s procedure for choosing the better qualified teacher. He granted the plaintiff a limited award which directed the board to reconsider the plaintiff\u2019s grievances and to follow the proper procedure in determining the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d of the two tenured teachers.\nOn February 15, 1983, following a second evaluation in which the superintendent stated that he employed the procedures set out in the arbitration award, he again sent a letter to Spaulding and the union affirming his earlier decision to retain Kruse while honorably discharging Spaulding. The union and Spaulding then filed the instant suit in the circuit court of Cook County on September 20, 1983, alleging breach of contract and seeking reinstatement of Spaulding. In addition, they sought full compensation for the wages and other benefits lost from the date of Spaulding\u2019s alleged wrongful discharge.\nThe parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and a consolidated hearing was held. After considering the arguments of both parties, the trial court determined that the board\u2019s honorable discharge of Spaulding, after the arbitrator sustained the union grievance, was a breach of neither the CBA nor of applicable law. The court found that the arbitration clause in the CBA (CBA, art. VII (D)) provided that the impasse board was without the power or authority to make any decision contrary or inconsistent with the terms of the contract, and that the contract only required that the impasse board\u2019s findings be accepted by both the union and the board in good faith. Furthermore, the trial court found it was implicit in the arbitrator\u2019s decision on impasse that \u201cthe superintendent would now reconsider his decision in light of the broader criteria, and that would be the end of it.\u201d Accordingly, the trial judge concluded that, while the arbitration process was not binding on the parties, the superintendent had reevaluated his decision in view of the expanded criteria set out in the award, his actions were in good faith, and hence there was no breach of any contract terms which would sustain the plaintiffs\u2019 cause of action. On this basis, the trial court found that the defendant board was entitled to summary judgment.\nPlaintiffs, in this appeal of the trial court\u2019s order granting the board\u2019s motion for summary judgment, contend that a fair reading of the award mandated reinstatement, not reevaluation, because the board was directed to \u201ctake appropriate action to remedy this violation.\u201d Thus, plaintiffs ask that the cause be remanded to the arbitrator for an order transferring Kruse back to the physical education department and reinstating Spaulding as the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d social studies teacher, or, at the very least, a clarification of the arbitrator\u2019s decision based on a finding that the award is ambiguous. The board, on the other hand, argues here as it did below that the CBA cannot limit any of its discretionary powers, including the power to lay off teachers as permitted in the School Code. The board contends that the decision to retain Mr. Kruse over Mr. Spaulding is not reviewable because it is an \u201cabsolutely\u201d discretionary decision. The board further argues that, even if the grievance was arbitrable, it has complied with the findings of the arbitrator in \u201cgood faith\u201d by conducting a second evaluation of the relative qualifications of Spaulding and Kruse. We concur with the Board's position and affirm the trial court\u2019s decision granting summary judgment to the board for the reasons that follow.\nThe issues presented by this appeal are whether the board\u2019s discharge determination is arbitrable under the CBA and Illinois law and, if so, whether the board breached the agreement in its decision reaffirming the discharge of Spaulding following the arbitrator\u2019s award which sustained Spaulding\u2019s grievance. It is well settled in Illinois that school boards have the authority to enter into valid and binding collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions. (Perlin v. Board of Education (1980), 86 Ill. App. 3d 108, 407 N.E.2d 792; Classroom Teachers Association v. Board of Education of the United Township High School District No. 30 (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 224, 304 N.E.2d 516.) Thus, we initially note that the CBA, including its grievance and nonbinding arbitration provisions and the procedure for selecting between equally senior teachers for a single position, is, accordingly, a valid agreement under Illinois law. (See Chicago Division of the Illinois Education Association v. Board of Education (1966), 76 Ill. App. 2d 456, 472, 222 N.E.2d 243, 251.) Courts will enforce a contract that requires the board to follow certain procedures where those procedures are consistent with ordinary concepts of fairness and were the result of collective bargaining. (Classroom Teachers Association v. Board of Education of the United Township High School District No. 30 (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 224, 228, 304 N.E.2d 516, 520.) Hence, contrary to the board\u2019s contentions, any grievance filed concerning the board\u2019s failure to comply with such valid CBA procedure is arbitrable. Board of Education, North Palos Elementary School District No. 117 v. Williams (1983), 118 Ill. App. 3d 256, 265, 454 N.E.2d 773, 779.\nWhile we have found that Spaulding\u2019s grievance regarding the selection process was subject to arbitration, we further note, however, that under the School Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 1 et seq.), local school boards, such as the defendant here, nevertheless retain the complete power and authority to transfer a teacher to any position which the teacher is qualified to fill (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 11), and to reduce teaching staff through layoffs whenever it is economically necessary in the board\u2019s judgment (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12; Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 318 N.E.2d 193, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 470, 343 N.E.2d 473). Also, the board\u2019s determinations of individual teacher qualifications and seniority are, contrary to Spaulding and the union\u2019s assertions, exempt from arbitration because these decisions properly require the educational expertise of the school board. Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1980), 87 Ill. App. 3d 246, 249, 408 N.E.2d 1026, 1030.\nThus, even where, as here, the board agrees to follow certain procedural limitations in making its decision, \u201cthe act of determining qualifications itself cannot be subjected to binding arbitration, for whether or not a teacher is qualified is the ultimate issue which the Board in its discretion must decide.\u201d Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative v. Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative Association (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 789, 793-94, 338 N.E.2d 463, 466. See also Board of Education of Rockford School District No. 205 v. Rockford Education Association (1986), 150 Ill. App. 3d 198, 501 N.E.2d 338.\nThe case which plaintiffs cite in support of their argument that the grievance should be remanded to the arbitrator, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. (1960), 363 U.S. 593, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1424, 80 S. Ct. 1358, involved a collective bargaining agreement that mandated binding arbitration and expressly provided the remedy of reinstatement and back wages in the event of a discharge in violation of the agreement. Accordingly, United Steelworkers is readily distinguishable from the case at bar, where the parties had not contracted for either binding arbitration or a reinstatement remedy. Moreover, United Steelworkers involved a. private employer which could legally bind itself to such provisions, unlike the public employer in the case before the court which, under the School Code in effect at the time, could not.\nThe only other authority which plaintiffs cite to in support of their remand argument, Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 913, 442 N.E.2d 115, is so factually unique that its holding cannot be applied to these facts. In Board of Trustees, four departments were merged and three of the four former department heads filed grievances. The grievances were submitted to arbitration, hearings were held, and an initial decision was issued. Some five months later, a clarification decision was issued in which the arbitrator expressly reserved his jurisdiction to determine individual awards if the parties could not agree on the date that consolidation was accomplished. The board subsequently sought to enjoin the union from going back to the arbitrator to resolve the asserted contradiction in the dates set out in the arbitrator\u2019s first two reports and determine the date he intended to apply to a particular grievant there. The court ordered the cause remanded to the arbitrator in that instance but, as noted, because of the particular factual and procedural matters in that case, it fails to offer support for the plaintiffs\u2019 argument here that remandment to the arbitrator is required.\nIt should also be noted that where, as here, the CBA fails to specify any guidelines for the weight to be accorded specific factors in determining the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d teacher, the arbitrator may not review the board\u2019s decision \u201cas to the relative importance of each guideline in the ultimate decision,\u201d for such a procedure would effectively substitute the arbitrator\u2019s judgment for that which the legislature has delegated to the board. In Board of Education, South Stickney School District 111 v. Johnson (1974), 21 Ill. App. 3d 482, 494, 315 N.E.2d 634, 643, a tenured teacher was involuntarily transferred between schools in the same district and sought arbitration of her grievance under a CBA. The school board filed suit seeking a stay of arbitration on the grounds that there was no basis for arbitration since the action was entirely within the discretion of the board and there were no factors in the board\u2019s decision that were subject to review. The appellate court agreed and upheld the trial court\u2019s decision granting the board\u2019s summary judgment motion. Here, as in Johnson and Rockford Education Association, the CBA did not specify any weight to be accorded the factors involved in choosing the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d teacher; thus, the ultimate decision concerning the \u201cbetter qualified\u201d teacher was not arbitrable and, accordingly, no valid purpose would be served in remanding this case to the arbitrator.\nThis court reached a similar result in Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 1060, 318 N.E.2d 193, where two nontenured school teachers sought arbitration of the board\u2019s decision not to rehire them for the next school year. The arbitrator had attempted to grant employment contracts to the two teachers as a remedy for the board\u2019s failure to comply with the bargained-for evaluation procedure. The board filed suit in circuit court to vacate that portion of the award on the grounds that under the doctrine of non delegability the legislature had vested hiring decisions solely in the board and, therefore, the arbitrator had exceeded his authority. The trial court agreed with the board and vacated that portion of the arbitration award that granted employment contracts to the teachers. This court affirmed, holding that an arbitrator cannot impinge on the discretionary power of the board to award contracts and that the arbitrator was limited in his remedial powers to delineating defects in the recommendations procedure for which the board must be granted an opportunity to cure.\nIn the case before this court the arbitrator found the initial discharge decision to be arbitrary because the superintendent, in making his recommendation to the board, did not follow the CBA procedure. The board\u2019s interpretation of the award as requiring reevaluation, not reinstatement, is correct because a substantive remedy cannot be demanded to cure an alleged procedural defect. (Board of Education, Argo Community High School District No. 217 v. Christensen (1975), 30 Ill. App. 3d 696, 332 N.E.2d 482; Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508 v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600 (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 470, 343 N.E.2d 634.) Even if the arbitration proceedings were binding here, substantive discretionary decisions such as the evaluation of teacher qualifications cannot be delegated (Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative v. Lockport Area Special Education Cooperative Association (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 789, 338 N.E.2d 463), and, in any event, the arbitrator could not have ordered reinstatement based on his reweighing of the teachers\u2019 qualifications.\nAdditionally, the superintendent here did conduct a second evaluation based on the arbitrator\u2019s findings and issued a second decision together with an expanded explanation of the qualification factors in support thereof. The decision was within the superintendent\u2019s powers under the CBA and the statute, and was not arbitrary or capricious, and, as the trial court found, was supported by \u201coverwhelming evidence.\u201d Here, the trial court could not have found the board\u2019s findings to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and, therefore, properly sustained the board\u2019s decision. See Gilliland v. Board of Education of Pleasant View Consolidated School District No. 622 (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.\nFor the reasons set forth in this opinion, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County which granted summary judgment to the defendant is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nO\u2019CONNOR and MANNING, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE QUINLAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago (Jacob Pomeranz, of counsel), for appellants.", "Ancel, Clink, Diamond, Murphy & Cope, P.C., of Chicago (John B. Murphy, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "PROVISO COUNCIL OF WEST SUBURBAN TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 571, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, PROVISO TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOLS, DISTRICT 209, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 86\u20143255\nOpinion filed September 8, 1987.\nCornfield & Feldman, of Chicago (Jacob Pomeranz, of counsel), for appellants.\nAncel, Clink, Diamond, Murphy & Cope, P.C., of Chicago (John B. Murphy, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "1020-01", "first_page_order": 1042, "last_page_order": 1051 }