{ "id": 4263252, "name": "THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections) Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees.; THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections), Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "State v. State", "decision_date": "2006-04-12", "docket_number": "Nos. 4\u201405\u20140276, 4\u201405\u20140277 cons.", "first_page": "1028", "last_page": "1036", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "364 Ill. App. 3d 1028" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "625 N.E.2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 Ill. App. 3d 932", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2965400 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "941" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/252/0932-01" ] }, { "cite": "747 N.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "481" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 Ill. App. 3d 228", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 132420 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "236" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/321/0228-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 N.E.2d 194", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 Ill. App. 3d 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8498547 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/218/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "702 N.E.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 1088", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 221497 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1095" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/299/1088-01" ] }, { "cite": "823 N.E.2d 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "167" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 Ill. App. 3d 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3599994 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/355/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 N.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "189" }, { "page": "189" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 Ill. 2d 508", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4738696 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523" }, { "page": "523" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/153/0508-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. Reg. 7393", "category": "laws:admin_register", "reporter": "Ill. Reg.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "amended May 1, 2003" }, { "parenthetical": "amended May 1, 2003" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "658 N.E.2d 1364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1368" }, { "page": "1368" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 Ill. App. 3d 872", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 927654 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" }, { "page": "879" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/276/0872-01" ] }, { "cite": "775 N.E.2d 1029", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1032" }, { "page": "1032" }, { "page": "1032" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 Ill. App. 3d 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 487096 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" }, { "page": "181-82" }, { "page": "182" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/333/0177-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 704, "char_count": 16928, "ocr_confidence": 0.805, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.281809865857162e-08, "percentile": 0.4789665343423497 }, "sha256": "ec7e4fcce71ad751315ebe64cecded167ad5547c510d6180d74575da2cfb44fc", "simhash": "1:9b3122c6654e2242", "word_count": 2612 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:54.493342+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections) Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees. \u2014 THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections), Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn February 2005, the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), dismissed the jointly stipulated bargaining-unit-clarification petitions of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which sought to exclude (1) David Suarez from the office of collective bargaining (OCB) RC \u2014 063 bargaining unit (case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140276) and (2) Jennifer Ronzone, Karen Downey, and Sharin Moss-McBride from the OCB RC \u2014 028 bargaining unit (case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140277).\nCMS appeals, arguing that the Board erred by dismissing the clarification petitions in both cases. We have consolidated these cases for purposes of this appeal. We reverse and remand.\nI. BACKGROUND\nA. Case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140276\nIn March 2004, CMS and AFSCME filed a stipulated bargaining-unit-clarification petition with the Board, seeking to exclude David Suarez, an information systems analyst II, from the OCB RC \u2014 063 bargaining unit on the ground that Suarez was a \u201cconfidential employee.\u201d In April 2004, Suarez filed an objection to the clarification petition with the Board, arguing that (1) his position had been represented by the OCB RC \u2014 063 bargaining unit since its January 2001 creation; (2) his previous position, information systems analyst I, was covered by the same bargaining unit; and (3) the petition was motivated by \u201cpolitical retribution.\u201d\nIn October 2004, the Board\u2019s acting director granted CMS and AFSCME\u2019s stipulated petition, upon finding that Suarez was a \u201cconfidential employee\u201d under section 3(c) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/3(c) (West 2004)). That same month, Suarez appealed the decision of the Board\u2019s acting director.\nIn February 2005, the Board reversed the acting director\u2019s order and dismissed the stipulated petition. The Board did not reach the issue of whether Suarez was a confidential employee. Instead, the Board dismissed the petition, upon finding that CMS and AFSCME\u2019s petitions did not fall under any of the four situations in which a bargaining-unit-clarification petition is permitted. The Board also stated, in part, as follows:\n\u201cThe State and AFSCME\u2019s assertion that they mistakenly included Suarez in RC \u2014 63 is particularly untenable in view of the fact that he has been included in the unit for eight years, the last four in his current title, and has been covered by numerous AFSCME/State collective[-]bargaining agreements during that time.\u201d\nB. Case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140277\nIn July 2004, CMS and AFSCME filed a stipulated bargaining-unit-clarification petition with the Board, seeking the removal of Jennifer Ronzone, Sharin Moss-McBride, and Karen Downey from the OCB RC \u2014 028 bargaining unit on the ground that they were confidential employees. All three of the employees worked as drug screeners for the Department of Corrections. Their positions had only been included in the bargaining unit since April 2004. Later in July 2004, Moss-McBride and Downey objected to the petition.\nIn October 2004, the Board\u2019s acting executive director granted the stipulated petition, upon finding that Ronzone, Moss-McBride, and Downey were confidential employees. In so finding, the acting executive director stated as follows:\n\u201cThe rights of parties to a stable labor[-]relations environment outweigh[ ] the rights of employees in this case. The confidential exclusion sought in this matter is designed to protect the integrity of the employer\u2019s labor[-]relation policies. It is never appropriate to include statutorily excluded positions in a bargaining unit. A unit clarification petition is appropriate any time that a party seeks to remove a statutory exclusion.\u201d\nIn February 2005, the Board reversed the decision of its acting executive director and dismissed the stipulated petition for clarification, upon concluding that \u201cthere clearly was no basis for the filing of the instant unit[-]clarification petition.\u201d According to the Board, the bargaining-unit-clarification procedure can only properly be utilized in \u201cfour extremely limited circumstances,\u201d none of which existed in this case.\nThese appeals followed.\nII. ANALYSIS\nA. Bargaining-Unit-Clarification Petitions\nA bargaining-unit-clarification petition is a procedure created by the Board\u2019s regulations and case law. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 333 Ill. App. 3d 177, 181, 775 N.E.2d 1029, 1032 (2002). The purpose of such a petition is to provide an official determination of a bargaining unit\u2019s composition. Sedol Teachers Union v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 276 Ill. App. 3d 872, 878, 658 N.E.2d 1364, 1368 (1995). A party may appropriately file a unit-clarification petition only under limited circumstances. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 181-82, 775 N.E.2d at 1032.\nSections 1210.170(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of the Illinois Administrative Code (Code) provide as follows:\n\u201c(a) An exclusive representative or an employer may file a unit[-] clarification petition to clarify or amend an existing bargaining unit when:\n(1) substantial changes occur in the duties and functions of an existing title, raising an issue as to the title\u2019s unit placement;\n(2) an existing job title that is logically encompassed within the existing unit was inadvertently excluded by the parties at the time the unit was established; and\n(3) a significant change takes place in statutory or case law that affects the bargaining rights of employees.\u201d 80 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7\u00a7 1210.170(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), as amended by 27 Ill. Reg. 7393 (amended May 1, 2003).\nIn addition, under Illinois case law, a party may file a unit-clarification petition when a newly created job classification has job functions similar to functions already covered in the bargaining unit. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 333 Ill. App. 3d at 182, 775 N.E.2d at 1032.\nB. CMS and AFSCME\u2019s Joint Request for Clarification\nCMS first argues that the Board should have affirmed the executive director\u2019s decision because CMS and AFSCME had jointly requested the removal of the \u201cconfidential employees\u201d from the respective bargaining units. We disagree.\nAccording to the Code, after the posting period for a stipulated unit-clarification petition ends, the Board can \u201capprove or disapprove the unit clarification depending upon whether the amendment or clarification is consistent with the Act. If objections have been filed, the Board shall proceed in accordance with [sjection 1210.170(e).\u201d 80 Ill. Adm. Code \u00a7 1210.175(c), as amended by 27 Ill. Reg. 7393 (amended May 1, 2003). Because the affected employees in this case filed objections to the unit-clarification petitions, the Board could not have merely deferred to the parties\u2019 stipulated petitions.\nC. The Board\u2019s Decisions To Reverse the Executive Director\u2019s Dismissal of the Unit-Clarification Petitions\nCMS argues that the Board erred by reversing the decisions of the acting executive director and dismissing their unit-clarification petitions. The Board responds that this court should affirm its decisions because (1) the unit-clarification petitions did not arise out of any of the four circumstances that justify the filing of such petitions; and (2) once CMS has intentionally included certain employees within a bargaining unit, it should be estopped from later seeking to remove those employees from the unit.\n1. Whether a Unit-Clarification Petition May Properly Be Used To Sever Confidential Employees From Bargaining Units\nInitially, we acknowledge that CMS\u2019s unit-clarification petitions do not fall within any of the four \u201climited circumstances\u201d under which a party may file such a petition. However, in our view, under the unique circumstances that exist in these cases \u2014 that is, where allegedly confidential employees were improperly included in a bargaining unit \u2014 the filing of a unit-clarification petition is appropriate.\nSection 3(c) of the Act defines a confidential employee as follows:\n\u201c[Ajn employee who, in the regular course of his or her duties, assists and acts in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies with regard to labor relations or who, in the regular course of his or her duties, has authorized access to information relating to the effectuation or review of the employer\u2019s collective bargaining policies.\u201d 5 ILCS 315/3(c) (West 2004).\nSection 3(n) of the Act excludes confidential employees from the definition of \u201cemployees\u201d to which the Act applies. 5 ILCS 315/3(n) (West 2004). In Chief Judge of the Circuit Court v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, AFL-CIO, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 523, 607 N.E.2d 182, 189 (1992), our supreme court explained this exclusion as follows:\n\u201cThe purpose of excluding confidential employees is to keep employees from \u2018having their loyalties divided\u2019 between their employer and the bargaining unit which represents them. The employer expects confidentiality in labor[-]re!ations matters but the union may seek access to the confidential materials to gain a bargaining advantage. City of Wood Dale, 2 Pub. Employee Rep. (Ill.) par. 2043, at 299, No. S \u2014 RC\u2014261 (ISLRB September 5, 1986).\u201d\nGiven the importance of confidentiality in labor-relations matters, to protect both the employers and the confidential employees (who could find themselves torn between loyalty to their employer and their bargaining unit), we hold that a unit-clarification petition may appropriately be used to sever confidential employees from a bargaining unit.\nWere we to accept the Board\u2019s argument that unit-clarification petitions may only be filed under the four limited circumstances previously stated, an employer would be barred from removing a confidential employee from a bargaining unit regardless of what information that employee has access to until a new bargaining-unit contract is negotiated.\nIn so concluding, we recognize that the Board is not bound by the rulings of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (IELRB) (see 5 ILCS 315/15.1 (West 2004)). However, we note that the IELRB has recognized that the unit-clarification process is appropriate \u201cto remove statutorily excluded employees from a bargaining unit.\u201d Sedol Teachers Union, 276 Ill. App. 3d at 879, 658 N.E.2d at 1368. We agree with the IELRB. The Board must allow the State to file unit-clarification petitions to remove \u201cconfidential employees\u201d from bargaining units.\n2. Whether Equitable Estoppel Applies\nThe Board also argues that because CMS and AFSCME consciously chose to include the employees in their respective bargaining units, they cannot now seek to sever those employees from the units. In essence, the Board contends that the unit-clarification petitions are barred by equitable estoppel. We disagree.\nIn Schivarelli v. Chicago Transit Authority, 355 Ill. App. 3d 93, 103, 823 N.E.2d 158, 167 (2005), the First District discussed the equitable estoppel doctrine as follows:\n\u201cTo invoke equitable estoppel against a municipality there must be an affirmative act on the part of the municipality and the inducement of substantial reliance by the affirmative act. [Citation.] The affirmative act that prompts a party\u2019s reliance must be an act of the public body itself such as a legislative enactment rather than the unauthorized acts of a ministerial officer or a ministerial misinterpretation. \u2019 \u2019\n\u201cIf a municipality were held bound through equitable estoppel by an unauthorized act of a governmental employee, then the municipality would remain helpless to remedy errors and *** be forced to permit violations \u2018to remain in perpetuity.\u2019 \u201d Hamwi v. Zollar, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1088, 1095, 702 N.E.2d 593, 598 (1998), quoting Chicago v. Unit One Corp., 218 Ill. App. 3d 242, 246, 578 N.E.2d 194, 197 (1991).\nIn this case, for estoppel to apply, CMS\u2019s conscious act of permitting the subject employees to be members of the bargaining units would need to have constituted an \u201cact of the public body such as a legislative enactment.\u201d Under section 3(n) of the Act, confidential employees of the government are not \u201cpublic employees.\u201d 5 ILCS 315/ 3(n) (West 2004). Accordingly, assuming the employees were confidential employees, CMS had no authority to place them in their respective bargaining units. An unauthorized act of a ministerial officer cannot be the basis for equitable estoppel.\nIn addition, this court has stated that \u201c[o]ne who invokes the doctrine of estoppel against the government must establish affirmative misconduct going beyond mere negligence, that the government\u2019s wrongful act will cause a serious injustice, and the public\u2019s interest will not suffer undue damage.\u201d Department of Public Health v. Jackson, 321 Ill. App. 3d 228, 236, 747 N.E.2d 474, 481 (2001).\nThe Board has failed to establish (1) affirmative misconduct beyond mere negligence, (2) that the government\u2019s wrongful act will cause a serious injustice, and (3) the public\u2019s interest will not suffer undue damage. Indeed, in this case, if the employees in question are found to be confidential employees, the public\u2019s interest will suffer damage if the employees (1) are allowed to stay in their respective bargaining units, (2) have access to their employer\u2019s confidential material, and (3) feel pressured to share that confidential material with their bargaining-unit representatives. We emphasize that by these remarks, we mean to indicate no position as to any findings the Board, when it conducts hearings as we require on remand, may make regarding whether the employees in question are confidential employees.\nD. Timeliness of the Petition in Case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140276\nThe Board also argues that the unit-clarification petition was properly dismissed in case No. 4 \u2014 05\u20140276 because it was untimely. We disagree.\nAs our supreme court recognized in Chief Judge of the Circuit Court, 153 Ill. 2d at 523, 607 N.E.2d at 189, the State has an interest in keeping confidential employees out of bargaining units. If, at any point, the State determines that a confidential employee is a member of a bargaining unit, the State must be allowed to file a unit-clarification petition to remove that confidential employee. The fact that a confidential employee was improperly placed in a bargaining unit and the issue of his placement was not raised for several years should not dictate that he forever be allowed to stay in the bargaining unit. We thus conclude that the State can file a unit-clarification petition to remove a confidential employee from a bargaining unit at any time.\nIn so concluding, we note that Water Pipe Extension, Bureau of Engineering v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 252 Ill. App. 3d 932, 625 N.E.2d 733 (1993), does not require a different result. In Water Pipe, 252 Ill. App. 3d at 941, 625 N.E.2d at 739, the appellate court affirmed the Board\u2019s decision that a unit-clarification petition was untimely filed. However, Water Pipe did not involve confidential employees and the unique circumstances that we previously discussed.\nAccordingly, we reverse the Board\u2019s decisions. Because the Board failed to determine whether the employees in question were confidential employees under section 3(c) of the Act, we remand this case to the Board for such a determination. If the Board determines that any of the employees are confidential employees, CMS\u2019s unit-clarification petitions should be granted with regard to each confidential employee.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we reverse and remand for the Board to determine if any of the employees named in the unit-clarification petitions are \u201cconfidential employees\u201d under section 3(c) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(c) (West 2004)).\nReversed and remanded.\nAPPLETON and KNECHT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STEIGMANN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gagliardo, Lawrence Jay Weiner (argued), and Joshua A. Dombrow, Special Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for petitioner.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Paul Racette (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), and Jacalyn J. Zimmerman, of Illinois State Labor Relations Board, of Chicago, for respondents.", "Karen Downey, of Springfield, respondent pro se." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections) Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees. \u2014 THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, The Department of Central Management Services (The Department of Corrections), Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, et al., Respondents-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNos. 4\u201405\u20140276, 4\u201405\u20140277 cons.\nArgued February 16, 2006.\nOpinion filed April 12, 2006.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Joseph M. Gagliardo, Lawrence Jay Weiner (argued), and Joshua A. Dombrow, Special Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for petitioner.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gary S. Feinerman, Solicitor General, and Paul Racette (argued), Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), and Jacalyn J. Zimmerman, of Illinois State Labor Relations Board, of Chicago, for respondents.\nKaren Downey, of Springfield, respondent pro se." }, "file_name": "1028-01", "first_page_order": 1044, "last_page_order": 1052 }