{
  "id": 2948803,
  "name": "Board of Trustees of Junior College Dist. No. 508, County of Cook, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Board of Trustees v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 59052",
  "first_page": "1053",
  "last_page": "1056",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 Ill. App. 3d 1053"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill.App.3d 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5376067
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/21/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill.App.3d 1090",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2841690
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/3/1090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill.App 3d 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2747902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/2/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ill.App.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2594320
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/68/0145-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 415,
    "char_count": 7778,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.43484252767663e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5167975044104888
    },
    "sha256": "263bab1decec1952987f117912c81e7e80c4c90ed5e22712f2eab68d1ca427b4",
    "simhash": "1:362e89ee0b42d412",
    "word_count": 1252
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:04:13.341458+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Board of Trustees of Junior College Dist. No. 508, County of Cook, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE DIE RINGER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an interlocutory appeal from an order entered on April 2, 1973, in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The order granted to the plaintiff, the Board of Trustees of Junior College District No. 508, its motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendant, Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, from proceeding in certain designated arbitration cases between the parties.\nThe issues presented for review are whether the Uniform Arbitration Act provides the exclusive remedy for restraining arbitration, and whether it was error for the court to hear the case under the assignment number of a previous case.\nThe parties were engaged in a collective-bargain'ng relationship since 1967. In May of 1970, the union presented to the board five grievances on behalf of various faculty members, alleging that they had been denied promotions in rank in violation of \u201cpast practices\u201d of the Board allegedly covered by the collective-bargaining agreement. As remedies the union demanded promotions for each of the grievants to the faculty rank immediately above the rank they occupied at that time.\nThe grievances were denied by the board, the union filed demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, and the cases were docketed by the Association.\nOn October 20, 1970, the union, with the board\u2019s consent, requested these cases be held in abeyance because of pending negotiations between the parties concerning the subject matter of the grievances.\nIn September of 1972, the union advised the American Arbitration Association of its desire to reinstate the grievances on its calendar for hearing.\nOn March 29, 1973, the board filed a petition for an injunction and an accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction, alleging that the matter of promotions is not subject to arbitration under the prior or present collective-bargaining agreements, and remains a matter within the discretion of the Board which cannot be lawfully delegated to an arbitrator or limited by a collective-bargaining agreement.\nThe union filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s petition for injunction and to deny its motion for the prelim \"nary injunction. On April 2, 1973, the court entered an order granting the board leave to file its petition and motion, denying the union\u2019s motion to dismiss, and temporarily enjoining the arbitration of the union\u2019s grievances.\nThis case was consolidated for hearing in the appellate court with Case Number 58326 because this dispute arose out of the continuing litigation between the same parties and because the issue in each case is whether the parties were required to proceed under the Uniform Arbitration Act rather than seeking relief in the circuit court.\nThe Union first contends the circuit court may only enter an order enjoining an arbitration upon a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate the issue which is the subject of the arbitration. Section 2(b) of the Un form Arbitration Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 10, \u00a7 102(b)) reads as follows:\n\u201cOn application, the court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or threatened on a showing that there is no agreement to arbitrate. That issue, when in substantial and bona fide dispute, shall be forthwith and summarily tried and the stay ordered if found for the moving party. If found for the opposing party, the court shall order the parties to proceed to arbitration.\u201d\nThe mvon also relies on the case of School District No. 46 v. Del Bianco (1966), 68 Ill.App.2d 145, for the proposition that section 2(b) provides the exclusive remedy for staying arbitration. The court stated:\n\u201cThe foregoing provisions of the Act militate against the contention that a party to an arbitration agreement may choose between the judicial or arbitration forum. The sole issue under the Act on the preliminary hearings to compel or stay arbitration, is whether there is an agreement to arbitrate. If so, the court should order arbitration; if not, arbitration should be refused. Upon this simple formula, the preliminary hearings on such issue should be determined.\u201d 68 Ill. App. at 156.\nHowever, in the case of Stephenson County v. Bradley & Bradley, Inc. (1971), 2 Ill.App 3d 421, the court held that an application to stay arbitration proceedings need not be governed exclusively by the Act:\n\u201cAlthough Stephenson County filed a declaratory judgment action rather than an application to stay arbitration under the Act, the existence of an agreement to arbitrate was squarely raised and ruled upon. No authority has been cited to us, and we have found none, holding that an application to compel or stay arbitration is the exclusive route to a judicial determination of this threshold question. The remedies do not appear incompatible, and in somewhat different circumstances a suit for declaratory judgment was filed and maintained after a demand for arbitration had been made by the opposing party.\u201d 2 III.App.3d at 425.\nIn the instant case the determinative question is whether the issue sought to be arbitrated is one which may be properly decided by an arbitrator, not whether there was an agreement to arbitrate or whether the matter was within the scope of arbitration. In companion Case Number 58326, filed this day, we held the question of whether the board\u2019s statutory power could be delegated in a collective bargaining agreement was for the court and not the arbitrator. Board of Education v. Rockford Education Association (1972), 3 Ill.App.3d 1090; Board of Education v. Johnson, (1974), 21 Ill.App.3d 482.\nIn the instant case the board alleged in its petition that the matter of promotions is not subject to arbitration under the prior or present collective bargaining agreements and remains a matter within the discretion of the board which cannot lawfully be delegated to an arbitrator or Hmited by a collective bargaining agreement.\nTherefore, we hold the Uniform Arbitration Act does not provide the exclusive remedy for restraining arbitration, and an arbitrator must defer to the courts when there is a question concerning the delegation of authority to enter into a collective bargaining agreement.\nThe union also contends the court erred by accepting the boards petition for injunction and motion for prehminary injunction as part of the ongoing litigation between the parties rather than awaiting the opening of a new case. The union states the issue in the present case arose out of a different bargaining agreement than that of the principal case and suggests the board \u201carrogated to itself the assignment responsibilities of the presiding judge.\u201d Therefore, the board should have presented its petition to the circuit court as a new action.\nEven assuming the boards petition was not properly includable within the principal case over which the court had retained jurisdiction, there has been no aUegation of bad faith on the part of the board or prejudice to the union.\nIt is important to note the union appeared, filed responsive pleadings, and participated in all hearings. The union\u2019s contention does not go to the court\u2019s jurisdiction to hear the case, and absent a showing of prejudice, any error which might have occurred is clearly harmless error which is not sufficient for setting aside the order of the trial court.\nFor these reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nADESKO, P. J., and BURMAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE DIE RINGER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Dale Berry, of Kleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Roger J. Kiley, Jr., of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Board of Trustees of Junior College Dist. No. 508, County of Cook, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 59052;\nFirst District (4th Division)\nSeptember 25, 1974.\nJ. Dale Berry, of Kleiman, Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRoger J. Kiley, Jr., of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1053-01",
  "first_page_order": 1075,
  "last_page_order": 1078
}