{ "id": 222642, "name": "CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, IFT/AFT, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Appellee (Chicago Board of Education, City of Chicago District No. 299, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant)", "name_abbreviation": "Chicago Teachers Union v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board", "decision_date": "1998-05-27", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201496\u20143551", "first_page": "785", "last_page": "795", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "296 Ill. App. 3d 785" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "520 N.E.2d 1150", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 Ill. App. 3d 730", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5069941 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "742-43" }, { "page": "743" }, { "page": "743" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/166/0730-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 N.E.2d 926", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 Ill. App. 3d 1013", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2586597 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1021" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/202/1013-01" ] }, { "cite": "652 N.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 Ill. 2d 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 198923 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303" }, { "page": "301-02" }, { "page": "304" }, { "page": "301" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/166/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 672", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11307871 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "682" }, { "page": "125" }, { "page": "862" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 N.E.2d 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385557 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3112244 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/95/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "518 N.E.2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 Ill. App. 3d 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3614210 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "55" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/165/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "508 N.E.2d 1058", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 Ill. 2d 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5543281 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/116/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 N.E.2d 1130", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 Ill. App. 3d 898", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5666957 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "906" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/143/0898-01" ] }, { "cite": "549 N.E.2d 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 Ill. 2d 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3260643 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "44" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/133/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "485 U.S. 439", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 13539 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "445" }, { "page": "544" }, { "page": "1323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/485/0439-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 917, "char_count": 24371, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.682524327565526e-08, "percentile": 0.45263082905605695 }, "sha256": "9f6f21b67c47bae78421be5b64dc83572d54f1e404c2112170b8775ca817e8ad", "simhash": "1:7b8228c26c83e788", "word_count": 3762 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:46.961592+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, IFT/AFT, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Appellee (Chicago Board of Education, City of Chicago District No. 299, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CAHILL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPublic Act 89 \u2014 15 added a section to article 34 of the Illinois School Code effective May 30, 1995. See 105 ILCS 5/34 \u2014 8.1b (West 1996). The section, in effect, bars Chicago public school assistant principals from membership in the teachers\u2019 collective bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement signed by the Chicago Board of Education and the Chicago Teachers Union (the Union) took effect September 1, 1995, and included assistant principals as members of the bargaining unit.\nThe Union filed a unit clarification petition and a representation petition with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB). Both petitions sought to have the Chicago Teachers Union declared the collective bargaining representative for assistant principals employed by the Chicago Board of Education (Board of Education). The administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the petitions. The ALJ found that assistant principals were managerial employees and so ineligible for membership in the teachers\u2019 union. The ALJ did not rely on section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code to reach his decision. Instead, he made an independent finding that assistant principals are \u201cmanagerial employees\u201d based on IELRB interpretations of section 2(o) of the Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/2(o) (West 1996)). The IELRB affirmed the ALJ\u2019s recommended decision and order.\nThe Union appealed directly to this court under section 16 of the Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/16 (West 1996)). The Union makes five arguments on appeal. The first three address the impact of section 34 \u2014 8.1b on the case, while the last two address the findings of the ALJ independent of section 34 \u2014 8.1b: (1) the recently enacted section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/34 \u2014 8.1b (West 1996)) \u2014 which prohibits Chicago assistant principals from belonging to the teachers\u2019 collective bargaining unit \u2014 is unconstitutional local legislation under article IV, section 13, of the Illinois Constitution (111. Const. 1970, art. IV, \u00a7 13); (2) section 34 \u2014 8.1b is an unconstitutional infringement on the assistant principals\u2019 freedom of association under the first amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. I); (3) section 34 \u2014 8.1b violates the principle of separation of powers under article IV, section 1, of the Illinois Constitution (111. Const. 1970, art. IV, \u00a7 1); (4) assistant principals should be recognized by the IELRB as a separate unit covered by the existing contract; and (5) the IELRB erred in finding that assistant principals are managerial employees under section 2(o) of the Educational Labor Relations Act (115 ILCS 5/2(o) (West 1996)).\nThe Board of Education filed a cross-appeal and argued: (1) the IELRB erred in finding that assistant principals are not supervisors under section 2(g) of the Educational Labor Relations Act; and (2) the IELRB erred in finding that former assistant principals who are now full-time teachers, but bear the title \u201cassistant principal\u201d and receive assistant principal stipends, could remain in the teachers\u2019 bargaining unit. Because we agree that the IELRB is empowered to decide whether assistant principals are managerial employees, we do not reach the issues the Union raises about the validity of the statute. The Board found independent reasons to declare assistant principals ineligible for teacher union membership.\nThe ALJ heard testimony that revealed that from 1967 to 1995, the Union was the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit that included full-time teachers, assistant principals, and other Board of Education employees. The Board of Education has about 44,000 employees, 40,000 of whom are teachers. The parties disagree about the number of assistant principal positions. The Union\u2019s petitions suggest that an assistant principals\u2019 unit would consist of 532 members. The Board of Education\u2019s records, on the other hand, show 701 such positions.\nThe Board of Education\u2019s current job description for assistant principals reads:\n\u201cAssistant Principals shall take charge of their respective schools when their principals *** are absent from the building for any reason. Assistant Principals shall be subject to the supervision of the principal *** and shall perform such duties the principal *** may direct. Such duties may include, but are not limited to, providing assistance in the organization, supervision, administration, and discipline of the schools. In the event there are multiple Assistant Principals in a school and the principal *** [is] absent, the principal shall designate which Assistant Principal shall be in charge.\u201d\nPrincipals select assistant principals and set their work schedules and duties. When a principal resigns, retires or is discharged, the new principal may select new assistant principals. Assistant principals selected by an earlier principal lose their positions if not selected by the new principal.\nThe ALJ heard testimony from a number of principals and assistant principals. The testimony reveals that the duties of assistant principals vary from school to school. Some assistant principals teach full-time, with no other duties. Others have disciplinary responsibilities in addition to teaching. Still others are given only nonteaching duties. These include monitoring student attendance and tardiness, monitoring lunchrooms, observing and evaluating teachers, enforcing discipline procedures, interviewing prospective teachers, coordinating curriculum, managing budgets, administering specific programs, and overseeing school operations when the principal is absent.\nAfter hearing the testimony, the ALJ dismissed the unit clarification petition. The ALJ held that he did not have authority to rule on the constitutional challenges to section 34 \u2014 8.1(b) of the School Code. Since the Union\u2019s constitutional challenges to the statute were the only predicate for a unit clarification petition, there were no grounds in the petition the ALJ could address.\nThe ALJ then addressed the representation petition. The ALJ determined that assistant principals are not \u201csupervisors\u201d within the meaning of section 2(g) of the Educational Labor Relations Act, but are \u201cmanagerial employees\u201d under section 2(o). The ALJ reasoned that assistant principals are not supervisors because they do not have the authority to hire, discharge, reward or punish teachers. But assistant principals are managerial employees because the primary role of the assistant principal is that of a qualified executive employee who assists the principal in running the school. He further reasoned that since assistant principals serve only as long as the principal who appointed them, their interests are aligned with those of management.\nBoth the Union and the Board of Education filed exceptions to the ALJ\u2019s decision. The IELRB affirmed most of the ALJ\u2019s findings. The Board differed only in ruling that employees who hold the title of assistant principal, but who in fact teach full-time with no managerial duties, are not managerial employees. The IELRB found that these employees are not excluded from the teachers\u2019 union by the language of the new section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code because neither their job description nor their actual duties requires a \u201cType 75 General Administrative Certificate.\u201d\nThe IELRB argues on appeal that we need not address the constitutional challenges to section 34 \u2014 8.1b raised by the Union. Constitutional questions will not be considered if a case can be disposed of on other grounds. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass\u2019n, 485 U.S. 439, 445, 99 L. Ed. 2d 534, 544, 108 S. Ct. 1319, 1323 (1988); In re Estate of Longeway, 133 Ill. 2d 33, 44, 549 N.E.2d 292 (1990). The IELRB argues that if we affirm the decision that assistant principals are managerial employees, then the Board of Education is not required to bargain with them under the Act without regard to section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code. The Union does not address this argument.\nWe can avoid the constitutional question only if the IELRB had the authority to review whether assistant principals are managerial employees without regard to the issues raised in the Union\u2019s petition based on section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code. We noted earlier that assistant principals are included in the collective bargaining agreement effective from September 1, 1995, through August 31, 1999. The statute that prohibits their membership took effect three months earlier. While the constitutionality of the statute would come into play if the IELRB had relied upon it, nothing prohibits the IELRB from reaching the separate question of whether assistant principals are managerial employees, so long as the finding does not conflict with the statute. The IELRB has interpreted its rules and regulations to permit review of an employer challenge to employee status even during the term of a collective bargaining agreement. See Lockport Township High School District 205, 8 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1068, No. 92 \u2014 UC\u20140003\u2014C (IELRB June 29, 1992); Rock Island School District, 2 Pub. Employee Rep. (111.) par. 1060, Nos. 85 \u2014 UC\u20140010\u2014C, 85 \u2014 UC\u20140011\u2014C (IELRB April 21, 1986). The Union does not challenge this power. So we agree with the IELRB that, even absent the Union\u2019s petition based on section 34 \u2014 8.1b, the IELRB had jurisdiction to address the Board of Education\u2019s challenge to the status of assistant principals. Because we affirm the IELRB\u2019s decision that assistant principals are managerial employees \u2014 an issue within the scope of the IELRB\u2019s powers \u2014 we need not address the constitutional issues raised by the Union, challenging the statute.\nThe Union next argues that, even if the IELRB has the power to decide if assistant principals are managerial employees, the IELRB erred in finding that assistant principals are managerial employees under IELRB precedents and the Educational Labor Relations Act. The Union maintains that the work of assistant principals, as a whole, is not managerial. In the alternative, the Union argues the IELRB erred in concluding that the Board of Education met its burden of proving that all non-full-time teaching assistant principals are excluded from the bargaining unit as \u201cmanagerial employees.\u201d The Union suggests that each assistant principal must be given a separate hearing because the duties of assistant principals vary.\nWe will not reverse the findings of the IELRB unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Board of Education of Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 143 Ill. App. 3d 898, 906, 493 N.E.2d 1130 (1986). Although we are not bound by the IELRB\u2019s interpretation of the Educational Labor Relations Act, we give weight and deference to the interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its administration and enforcement. Airey v. Department of Revenue, 116 Ill. 2d 528, 536, 508 N.E.2d 1058 (1987); Board of Education of Community Consolidated High School District No. 230 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 165 Ill. App. 3d 41, 55, 518 N.E.2d 713 (1987). Deference is appropriate where, as here, the agency brings unique experience and expertise to the issue. Illinois Consolidated Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm\u2019n, 95 Ill. 2d 142, 153, 447 N.E.2d 295 (1983).\nSection 3 of the Educational Labor Relations Act gives \u201ceducational employees\u201d the right to organize for purposes of collective bargaining with educational employers. 115 ILCS 5/3 (West 1996). Section 2(b) excludes from the definition of \u201ceducational employee\u201d those who are \u201csupervisors, managerial, confidential, short term employees, student, and part-time academic employees of community colleges.\u201d 115 ILCS 5/2(b) (West 1996). Exclusion of managerial employees maintains a distinction between management and labor and provides employers undivided loyalty from their representatives in management. Chief Judge of the Sixteenth Circuit v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 178 Ill. 2d 333, 339, 687 N.E.2d 795 (1997), citing National Labor Relations Board v. Yeshiva University, 444 U.S. 672, 682, 63 L. Ed. 2d 115, 125, 100 S. Ct. 856, 862 (1980).\nSection 2(o) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act defines \u201cmanagerial employee\u201d as:\n\u201can individual who is engaged predominately in executive and management functions and is charged with the responsibility of directing the effectuation of such management policies and practices.\u201d 115 ILCS 5/2(o) (West 1996).\nThe Act does not define \u201cexecutive and management functions.\u201d But several Illinois cases interpret and apply either section 2(o) of the Educational Labor Relations Act or the identical definition of \u201cmanagerial employee\u201d in section 3(j) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (5 ILCS 315/3(j) (West 1996)). See Office of the Cook County State\u2019s Attorney v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 166 Ill. 2d 296, 652 N.E.2d 301 (1995); Salaried Employees of North America v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 202 Ill. App. 3d 1013, 560 N.E.2d 926 (1990); Board of Regents of the Regency Universities System v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 166 Ill. App. 3d 730, 520 N.E.2d 1150 (1988).\nThe Union\u2019s argument that assistant principals are not managerial employees relies primarily on facts that distinguish this case from Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, 166 Ill. 2d 296, 652 N.E.2d 301. In Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, our supreme court held that assistant State\u2019s Attorneys are \u201cmanagerial employees\u201d within the meaning of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. The Union notes that in Cook County State\u2019s Attorney the court found that assistant State\u2019s Attorneys are \u201csurrogates\u201d of the State\u2019s Attorney \u2014 acts of assistants are regarded as acts of the State\u2019s Attorney himself. See Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, 166 Ill. 2d at 303. The Union emphasizes that the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s statutory duties are \u201cin almost every instance performed by an assistant who prosecutes or otherwise handles a case according to his independent professional judgment.\u201d The Union argues that Cook County State\u2019s Attorney is distinguishable because assistant principals are not \u201csurrogates\u201d of school principals, but are merely \u201chelpers\u201d or \u201caides.\u201d\nThe term \u201csurrogate\u201d as used by the court in Cook County State\u2019s Attorney emphasized the high level of alignment of assistant State\u2019s Attorneys\u2019 duties and interests with those of management. We agree that the duties of assistant principals and principals are not so interchangeable that assistant principals can be considered \u201csurrogates\u201d of principals. But Cook County State\u2019s Attorney does not suggest that to be considered a \u201cmanagerial employee\u201d an employee\u2019s only duties must be to carry out the responsibilities of management.\nIn Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, our supreme court held that \u201c[t]he authority to make independent decisions and the consequent alignment of the employee\u2019s interests with management\u2019s are hallmarks of managerial status for purposes of labor law.\u201d 166 111. 2d at 301.\nThe court reasoned:\n\u201c \u2018Managerial status is not limited to those at the very highest level of the governmental entity, for it is enough if the functions performed by the employee sufficiently align him with management such that the employees \u201cshould not be in a position requiring them to divide their loyalty to the administration *** with their loyalty to an exclusive collective-bargaining representative.\u201d \u2019 \u201d Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, 166 Ill. 2d at 301-02, quoting Salaried Employees, 202 Ill. App. 3d at 1021, quoting Board of Regents, 166 Ill. App. 3d at 742-43.\nThe court found that the assistant State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s duties under statute and case law made them \u201cmanagerial\u201d because of three features of the assistant State\u2019s Attorney position: (1) close identification of a State\u2019s Attorney with the actions of assistants; (2) unity of professional interests; and (3) power of assistants to act on behalf of the State\u2019s Attorney. Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, 166 Ill. 2d at 304.\nThe IELRB relied on similar aspects of the assistant principal position in finding that assistant principals are managerial employees. The IELRB found that \u201cthe primary purpose of assistant principals, the specific duties assigned to assistant principals, and the fact that assistant principals serve at the will of the principal, lead inescapably to the conclusion that the assistant principals are responsible for directing [Board of Education] policies and practices in their individual schools, and that the professional interests of assistant principals cannot be separated from those of their principals.\u201d See Chicago Board of Education, 12 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1089, Nos. 96 \u2014 RC\u20140006\u2014C, 96 \u2014 UC\u20140004\u2014C, at IX \u2014 371 (IELRB September 17, 1996).\nThe role of an assistant principal is not sharply defined. Rather, the role is a flexible one that allows principals to assign duties to assistant principals where their help is needed most. As the IELRB noted, although their duties vary, all assistant principals are \u201cbearing responsibility for a number of disparate, unrelated tasks, for the fundamental, overriding purpose of the successful operation of a school.\u201d Chicago Board of Education, 12 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1089, Nos. 96 \u2014 RC\u20140006\u2014C, 96 \u2014 UC\u20140004\u2014C, at IX \u2014 371 (IELRB September 17, 1996). The IELRB\u2019s conclusion did not depend on a quantitative analysis of how much time each assistant principal devoted to executive functions.\nWe note that the managerial work of assistant principals need not take up most of their time to be considered \u201cpredominant\u201d work under section 2(o). The \u201cpredominant\u201d character of executive and management work is determined not only by the amount of time the employee spends on managerial functions, but also by considering whether these functions are \u201cuppermost in importance and influence.\u201d Southern Illinois University Board of Trustees, 5 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1197, Nos. 85 \u2014 RC\u20140022\u2014S, 85 \u2014 RC\u2014 0027 \u2014 S, 85 \u2014 RC\u20140030\u2014S, 85 \u2014 RC\u20140031\u2014S, 85 \u2014 RC\u20140032\u2014S, 85 \u2014 RC\u20140033\u2014S, 85 \u2014 RC\u20140035\u2014S, 86 \u2014 RC\u20140011\u2014S, at EX \u2014 530 (IELRB September 30, 1988). In Board of Regents, the court found that directors of \u201cpublic affairs centers\u201d at Sangamon State University were managerial employees under the Educational Labor Relations Act even though they also held half-time faculty positions. Board of Regents, 166 Ill. App. 3d at 743.\nThe varied duties assigned to assistant principals preclude us from relying on individual duties alone in deciding whether assistant principals as a whole are managerial employees. The managerial nature of the assistant principal role is determined not only by the tasks performed, but by what assistant principals stand ready to do: whatever administrative work the principal assigns.\nWe agree with the ALJ\u2019s finding that \u201c[t]he primary reason for the existence of the assistant principal position is to provide each of the [Board of Education\u2019s] schools with an additional qualified executive whom the principal can entrust with the overflow from the myriad of tasks, requiring discretion and independent judgment, that confront principals in running the schools.\u201d Chicago Board of Education, 12 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 1034, Nos. 96 \u2014 RC\u20140006\u2014C, 96 \u2014 UC\u20140004\u2014C, at VE \u2014 115 (IELRB February 29, 1996). Assistant principals are like the assistant State\u2019s Attorneys in that both assist management in carrying out managerial functions. This responsibility \u201cclosely aligns\u201d assistant principals with management in the same way assistant State\u2019s Attorneys are aligned with management. The IELRB\u2019s conclusion that assistant principals are \u201cmanagerial employees\u201d is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nBecause the IELRB relied on all characteristics of the assistant principal position, not just individual duties, we reject the Union\u2019s argument that \u201cwhether a particular assistant principal is a \u2018manager\u2019 might well require a hearing with respect to each particular [assistant principal].\u201d All assistant principals who engage in nonteaching managerial tasks assigned by principals are aligned with management and \u201cshould not be *** [required] to divide their loyalty to [management] with their loyalty to an exclusive collective-bargaining representative.\u201d Board of Regents, 166 Ill. App. 3d at 743.\nWe next address the Board of Education\u2019s argument that the IELRB erred in finding that employees who teach full-time, but carry the title of \u201cassistant principal\u201d and continue to receive the same stipend as other assistant principals, are not managerial employees or excluded from the teachers\u2019 bargaining unit under section 34\u2014 8.1b of the School Code.\nThe defining characteristic of managerial employees is the authority to make independent managerial decisions. See Cook County State\u2019s Attorney, 166 Ill. 2d at 301. Where an assistant principal is assigned the same duties as a teacher, and has not been assigned managerial tasks, that employee is not authorized to engage in managerial functions or assist the principal in a way that aligns professional interests. The IELRB did not err in finding that such employees are not managerial employees. Why the Board of Education continues to pay and recognize employees with no managerial functions as \u201cassistant principals\u201d cannot be gleaned from this record. That some full-time teachers continue to get assistant principal stipends is a policy issue for the Board of Education, not the IELRB. Salary is not a determining factor under the Educational Labor Relations Act\u2019s definition of \u201cmanagerial employee.\u201d\nWe further note that full-time teachers are not excluded by statute from the teachers\u2019 bargaining unit under section 34 \u2014 8.1b of the School Code. Section 34 \u2014 8.1(b) of the School Code requires:\n\u201c[A]ny employee of the Chicago public schools system whose job description or actual performance of duties requires an Illinois Type 75 General Administrative Certificate or its equivalent shall not be a member of the teachers collective bargaining unit.\u201d 105 ILCS 5/34 \u2014 8.1b (West 1996).\nAssistant principals who are, in fact, full-time teachers do not need \u201cType 75 General Administrative Certificates\u201d to perform teaching duties. And the job description for Chicago assistant principals does not require a \u201cType 75 General Administrative Certificate.\u201d\nWe also find unavailing the Board of Education\u2019s argument that \u201cassistant principals\u201d who are full-time teachers are \u201cmanagers\u201d or need \u201cType 75\u201d certificates for their jobs because they could be called upon, under the Board\u2019s job description, to run the operations of the school in the principal\u2019s absence. We acknowledge that a principal could appoint these employees to oversee operations of the school in her absence, in effect placing that employee in the managerial class of assistant principals. But the IELRB did not abuse its discretion in holding that the possibility that assistant principals who teach full-time might be called upon one day to exercise such responsibilities is not sufficient to find that they are predominantly engaged in managerial tasks, are closely aligned with management, or that their duties require \u201cType 75\u201d certificates.\nThe IELRB has made clear two things: (1) the definition of a managerial employee, and (2) whatever an employee might be called, a full-time teacher with no other duties may be a member of the Union.\nAffirmed.\nLEAVITT, P.J., and COUSINS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CAHILL" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lawrence A. Poltrock, Gregory N. Freerksen, and Michael J. Merrick, all of Witwer, Poltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago, for petitioners.", "James E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, and Karen J. Dimond, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board.", "Andrea R. Waintroob and Sally J. Scott, both of Franczek, Sullivan, Mann, Crement, Hein & Relias, P.C., of Chicago, for respondent Chicago Board of Education." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, IFT/AFT, AFL-CIO, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent-Appellee (Chicago Board of Education, City of Chicago District No. 299, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant).\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201496\u20143551\nOpinion filed May 27, 1998.\nLawrence A. Poltrock, Gregory N. Freerksen, and Michael J. Merrick, all of Witwer, Poltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago, for petitioners.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Barbara A. Preiner, Solicitor General, and Karen J. Dimond, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board.\nAndrea R. Waintroob and Sally J. Scott, both of Franczek, Sullivan, Mann, Crement, Hein & Relias, P.C., of Chicago, for respondent Chicago Board of Education." }, "file_name": "0785-01", "first_page_order": 803, "last_page_order": 813 }