Department of Central Management Services/The Department of Public Health v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel

ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appellate Court
Department of Central Management Services/The Department of Public Health v. Illinois
Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 2012 IL App (4th) 110013Appellate Court THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES/
Caption THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, and THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, Petitioners, v. THE ILLINOIS LABOR
RELATIONS BOARD, STATE PANEL; JACALYN J. ZIMMERMAN,
MICHAEL COLI, MICHAEL HADE, JESSICA KIMBROUGH, and
ALBERT WASHINGTON, the members of said Board and Panel in
Their Official Capacity Only; JOHN F. BROSNAN, Executive Director
of Said Board, in His Official Capacity Only; WILLIAM WAECHTER,
Administrative Law Judge of said Board in His Official Capacity Only;
THE LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL
2002; THE STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION; and THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, Respondents.
District & No. Fourth District
Docket No. 4-11-0013
Argued November 7, 2012
Filed November 16, 2012
Rehearing denied December 24, 2012
Held The Illinois Labor Relations Board erred in declaring that a group of
(Note: This syllabus professional engineers with the job title of senior public service
constitutes no part of administrators were public employees within the meaning of section 3(n)
the opinion of the court of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, and not supervisors within the
but has been prepared meaning of section 3(r) of the Act, and were eligible to be included in a
by the Reporter of collective bargaining unit, since the engineers spent the predominant
Decisions for the amount of their time on supervisory activities.
convenience of the
reader.)
Decision Under Petition for review of order of Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel,
Review Nos. S-RC-09-038, S-RC-09-060.
Judgment Reversed.
Counsel on Joseph M. Gagliardo and Lawrence J. Weiner (argued), Special Assistant
Appeal Attorneys General, of Chicago, for petitioners.
Jacob Pomeranz (argued), of Cornfield & Feldman, of Chicago, for
respondent American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro,
Solicitor General, and Sharon A. Purcell (argued), Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel), for respondent Illinois Labor Relations Board, State
Panel.
Panel JUSTICE POPE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Knecht concurred in the judgment
and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 Petitioners, the Department of Central Management Services (CMS), the Illinois
Departments of Public Health (DPH) and Natural Resources (DNR), and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bring this action for direct review of a decision by
the Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel (Board), declaring the American Federation
of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Council 31), to be the exclusive
bargaining representative of a group of professional engineers with the job title senior public
service administrator (option 8E), employed at DPH, DNR, and EPA.
¶2 The Board, adopting the administrate law judge’s (ALJ) findings, concluded the option
8Es were public employees within the meaning of section 3(n) of the Illinois Public Labor
Relations Act (Act) (5 ILCS 315/3(n) (West 2008)) and not supervisors within the meaning
of section 3(r) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008)) and thus were eligible for inclusion
in the collective-bargaining unit.
-2-
¶3 Petitioners appeal, arguing the option 8Es were supervisory employees within the
meaning of section 3(r) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008)). We reverse.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND
¶5 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we discuss them only to the extent
necessary to put the parties’ arguments in context.
¶6 A. Procedural History
¶7 On September 9, 2008, Council 31 filed a petition with the Board (case No. S-RC-09-
038) to become the exclusive bargaining representative of option 8Es working at DPH, DNR,
and EPA. See 5 ILCS 315/9(a)(1) (West 2008). The petition sought to add approximately 25
employees to the bargaining unit.
¶8 On October 15, 2008, Laborers International Union of America, Local 2002 (Local
2002), also filed a petition with the Board (case No. S-RC-09-060) to become the exclusive
bargaining representative of the option 8Es in DPH, DNR, and EPA. The Board entered an
order consolidating the two petitions and scheduled a hearing for October 21 and 22, 2008.
¶9 During the October 21 and 22, 2008, hearing, Jason DeWitt, Bruce Yurdin, and William
Schuck, option 8E employees with DPH, DNR, and EPA, respectively, testified regarding
the job duties of option 8Es. We note the parties stipulated the testimony of these three
employees would be representative of what the other petitioned-for employees, if called,
would testify to.
¶ 10 B. Option 8Es
¶ 11 According to the CMS class specification, a senior public service administrator who is
an engineer, i.e., an option 8E, “plans, organizes, coordinates, and reviews the work of a
large engineering and technical field staff engaged in conducting field investigations and
inspections and monitoring activities.”
¶ 12 C. DeWitt’s Testimony
¶ 13 DeWitt is the section chief of the general engineering section of DPH. The section
administers various environmental health programs, including asbestos abatement,
swimming facilities, manufactured housing and recreational facilities. DeWitt holds an
engineering license and has been an option 8E with DPH for four years. He has 15
subordinates comprised of multiple engineers (engineers III and IV), several clerical persons
(including administrative assistants I and II), and another option 8E, John Riley, who reports
directly to DeWitt. DeWitt reports to the acting division chief, who in turn reports to the
deputy director.
¶ 14 According to DeWitt’s testimony, Riley and the engineers respond to complaints from
the general public, conduct investigations to determine compliance and enforcement, and
generate reports, which DeWitt reviews. DeWitt reviews his engineers’ reports for accuracy
-3-
and clarity regarding how the facts are presented. DeWitt also reviews his subordinates’ work
to make sure it conforms to statutes, administrative regulations, and DPH’s policies and
procedures. He also reviews their findings to determine whether the agency could bring a
legal cause of action against the alleged violators. DeWitt testified he spends, on average,
two to three hours per week reviewing reports.
¶ 15 DeWitt also testified his staff would seek his involvement in reviewing plans and
specifications for asbestos abatement jobs “either because of some matter that the code didn’t
particularly handle well or had broader implications and so they would typically pull me in
to that review *** to find out what direction we would want to go as a department.” He
testified he would spend approximately four to five hours a week on such work.
¶ 16 DeWitt testified he has trained two employees during the four years he has worked for
DPH. DeWitt testified he trains new employees by
“showing them how to assemble an investigative file, [and] also going through the proper
way to investigate those cases, whether it be questioning witnesses, collecting evidence,
things of that nature to make sure that our policies and procedures are being transferred
to them [so] that we’re being consistent [so] that no matter which engineer goes to do an
investigation they’re done the same [way].”
¶ 17 In training clericals, DeWitt makes sure they understand the written manual of procedures
for how to perform their job. The clericals frequently come to DeWitt with questions not
covered by the manual. DeWitt testified if he aggregated those occurrences it would amount
to approximately an hour a day. When asked how much time he spends working with his
staff on technical issues, DeWitt replied, “if I aggregated all of those occurrences[,] I would
guess around an hour and a half a day.”
¶ 18 DeWitt testified, “on a typical normal daily basis *** I authorize time sheets so I do
spend some amount of time signing off on time sheets[,] and also for the section there is a
weekly time reconciliation that I’m responsible for. No, I mean, that’s the majority of my
time I spend doing that.” DeWitt also testified he has authority to grant or deny his
subordinates’ time-off requests. He spends 15 minutes a day authorizing such requests.
¶ 19 DeWitt also testified it is part of his job to decide overtime requests. DeWitt considers
an employee’s personal circumstances in granting overtime and whether denying it would
cause the employee a personal hardship. DeWitt used the example of an employee having
to drive back and forth from Springfield to Schaumburg to finish a job. DeWitt also testified
he does not need his supervisor’s approval to grant overtime. According to DeWitt, an
overtime issue comes up approximately 10 times per month. He spends a few minutes
dealing with each request.
¶ 20 DeWitt testified he has had to deal with disciplinary issues regarding his staff. He would
be considered a “first[-]line implementer of discipline with [his] subordinate staff.” DeWitt
testified about an incident involving an employee and her misuse of state resources. He
testified “I believe that we merely extended a reprimand to her in this case.” Regarding
another incident involving an employee who was abusing sick time, DeWitt testified, “[W]e
issued proof status as allowed by the [union] contract so that we could monitor whether or
not she was indeed sick the times that she called in.” In another instance, DeWitt issued a
-4-
memorandum to an employee to relay his concerns to her and notify her what she needed to
do to correct the behavior. That memorandum was placed in the employee’s personnel file.
¶ 21 DeWitt also conducts evaluations of his staff. DeWitt testified he had evaluated only one
merit compensation employee, who has since retired and whose position has remained
unfilled. However, DeWitt testified an “accomplished” rating would result in a $150 per-
month raise. An “exceptional” rating would result in a $200 per-month increase. DeWitt also
testified regarding a one-time annual discretionary bonus, which could also result in a raise.
¶ 22 DeWitt testified he spends the rest of his time
“[t]ypically working on either issues that have come to the department that have been
passed to me to be dealt with. It may be dealing with special interest groups, it may be
dealing with legislation, rule revisions. I spend a fair amount of time in meetings with
different groups, for instance the Illinois Association of Park Districts discussing
swimming facility matters.
I spend a fair amount of time engaging the public with those types of meetings. A
good amount of time is spent responding to correspondence for those subpoenas. I
occasionally get called to testify at hearings. *** I’m [also] engaged quite heavily with
the Illinois Attorney General’s Office in prosecuting cases that we have sent to them for
prosecution.”
DeWitt testified he spends two to three days a week testifying in hearings when he is called
as a witness.
¶ 23 DeWitt also testified he spends from one to three hours a day on average dealing with
calls from the public regarding situations that come within the purview of his section’s
responsibilities.
¶ 24 DeWitt testified he spends eight hours a week dealing with Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests. DeWitt is the “last reviewer” of FOIAs before they go to DPH’s FOIA
officer. According to DeWitt, he reviews the requested documents assembled by the clerical
staff to make sure they do not release protected information.
¶ 25 D. Schuck’s Testimony
¶ 26 Schuck testified he has been an option 8E with DNR for 15 years. Schuck testified he is
the division manager of project implementation at DNR’s Office of Water Resources, which
regulates construction within floodways in Illinois and prepares plans and specifications for
flood control and water-based recreation projects throughout Illinois. Schuck reports to Gary
Clark, the director of DNR’s Office of Water Resources.
¶ 27 Schuck testified he has eight subordinates comprised of two senior public service
administrators (SPSA), one public service administrator (PSA), two secretaries (all of whom
work in the Springfield office) and three civil engineers. While the civil engineers live in the
Chicago area, their work could take them anywhere in the state. Ted Montrey, one of the
SPSAs, is the head of the design section and prepares plans for construction projects. Schuck
testified he gives design plans a “quick look” to see if anything “jumps out” at him. Amy
Giesing, another SPSA, works as the operations engineer. She performs inspections of dams
-5-
and agency construction projects. The PSA, Jay Johnson, works to acquire land rights. The
civil engineers ensure the construction projects are built to specification.
¶ 28 Montrey reports to Schuck regarding funding, design status, and issues that arise during
construction. Schuck testified Montrey keeps him informed about “which projects they’re
working on so that we know how to request funding for those projects, what [the] timetable
might be when they’ll be ready for construction.” Schuck spends approximately an hour to
an hour and a half a day on such conversations with Montrey. Schuck noted Giesing had only
been at DNR for a couple of years so she has “lots of questions.” Schuck testified he advises
Giesing regarding how things are done and “what might need to be done as far as inspections
as far as her field crew, what they’re going to be doing this week, next week and what needs
to be done [as well as] what might need additional funding.” Schuck testified he speaks with
Giesing on average 60 to 90 minutes per day regarding her projects. Schuck testified he
communicates with Johnson about 30 to 60 minutes a day regarding the history of the
projects. By “history,” Schuck testified he meant how a project got to a certain point.
¶ 29 Schuck spends approximately three to four hours per week talking to the three civil
engineers. According to Schuck, the engineers “basically tell[ ] me where they are in their
construction, [about] any problems that they’ve encountered [and] if they have any
questions.”
¶ 30 Schuck also testified he checks the monthly pay estimates for each construction project,
which are created by the engineers. Schuck gets one or two per month to check. Schuck
testified the engineers follow a format, and he basically uses a calculator and checks the
bottom line just to make sure everything “balances.” On average, Schuck would spend 5 to
10 minutes per day reviewing his subordinates’ time-off requests (some days there are no
requests). Schuck checks to make sure the employee has the time available. Schuck also
approves overtime, which is frequently required by the nature of the project. According to
Schuck, the resident engineers “just basically tell me when [overtime is] coming up and I just
have to check and make sure that we have enough money to pay for that because they do get
paid for it.” Schuck testified he has never disapproved overtime. Schuck testified he spends
approximately 10 to 15 minutes twice a month dealing with overtime requests.
¶ 31 Schuck also prepares performance evaluations. While a recommendation of
“exceptional” or “unsatisfactory” performance requires the approval of Schuck’s supervisor,
an “acceptable or “accomplished” rating does not require approval. According to Schuck’s
testimony, Giesing received an “acceptable” rating that year. While Schuck could not recall
exactly, he testified it was routine for an employee to receive a raise of $100 or $150 for an
“acceptable” or “accomplished” rating. Schuck did not testify regarding how much of his
time is spent conducting employee evaluations.
¶ 32 Schuck testified the two executive secretaries prepare correspondence. Schuck reviews
the correspondence to make sure it says what he wants it to say. He spends approximately
an hour during a normal week reviewing their work.
¶ 33 Schuck testified he spends the majority of his day “solving problems that come up during
the construction” such as “conditions in the field” and “problems the contractor might run
into.” Schuck testified he uses his engineering background as well as his knowledge of the
-6-
rules and the office’s mandate to determine how to solve those problems.
¶ 34 E. Yurdin’s Testimony
¶ 35 Yurdin testified he works as the acting manager of field operations in the Bureau of
Water in the water pollution control division of the EPA. The section he manages is in
charge of the field operations for Illinois. Yurdin reports to Marsha Wilheight, the chief of
the Bureau of Water, who in turn reports to Doug Scott, the EPA director.
¶ 36 Yurdin has six subordinates, all of whom are SPSAs. Yurdin testified his subordinates
are located across the state. Their job is to inspect waste water treatment plants, enforce
compliance with applicable statutes, and respond to citizen complaints. Yurdin testified the
employees often submit work product to him, which he reviews for “[c]onsistency,
completeness, thoroughness, accuracy.” Yurdin testified he spends between 75% and 80%
of his time communicating with his subordinates and reviewing their work product. Yurdin
discusses ongoing investigations and fields questions from his subordinates. Yurdin also
checks their reports for consistency with other agency decisions in similar cases.
¶ 37 Yurdin also testified he relies on his engineering training and experience in working with
his subordinates. According to Yurdin, “the type of work that we do involves wastewater
practices, but a lot of it has to do with biological, chemical, and even physical hydrologic and
hydrology types of work that are conducted in school. So[,] I’d say that those things *** are
the types of things that I rely upon.” In addition, Yurdin testified his work involves applying
the appropriate quality standards as found in federal guidelines, federal law, federal EPA
standards, state law, and state administrative regulations to a particular case. When asked if
he was ultimately responsible for decisions about what is consistent and what is compliant
with the law, Yurdin replied that while he certainly voices his opinion, he was not sure he
had the final word.
¶ 38 Yurdin testified he also writes evaluations for his subordinates and determines whether
they have performed “acceptable or accomplished work.” An “accomplished” or
“exceptional” evaluation can result in a $150 or $200 per-month bonus for the subordinate.
Yurdin spends approximately two days per person per year making those evaluations. While
authorized to do so, Yurdin testified he rarely needs to approve overtime and did not think
he had ever denied an overtime request.
¶ 39 F. ALJ and Board Decisions
¶ 40 On December 15, 2008, the ALJ issued his recommended decision and order. The ALJ
concluded the option 8Es were public employees within the meaning of section 3(n) of the
Act (5 ILCS 315/3(n) (West 2008)) and not supervisors within the meaning of section 3(r)
of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008)). The ALJ recommended a secret-ballot election be
conducted among employees “in the classification title of Senior Public Service
Administrator Option 8E to be represented in a bargaining unit of professional employees,”
where the employees would be given the opportunity to vote whether they wished to be
represented (1) by Council 31, (2) by Local 2002, or (3) have no representation. The Board
mailed the recommended decision and order to the parties by certified mail that day.
-7-
¶ 41 On January 5, 2009, the Board received CMS’s exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended
decision and order. The State excepted the ALJ’s findings of fact (1) Schuck and Yurdin did
not have authority to exercise any one indicia of supervisory authority and (2) DeWitt’s
review and approval of overtime did not meet the preponderance of employment time test.
¶ 42 On February 18, 2009, the Board’s acting general counsel issued an order on behalf of
the Board dismissing as untimely CMS’s exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended decision and
order. The order stated records maintained by the United States Postal Service showed CMS
received the ALJ’s recommended decision and order on December 17, 2008. According to
the Board’s rules and regulations, any exceptions had to be postmarked by December 31,
2008. Because CMS’s exceptions were postmarked on January 2, 2009, they were untimely.
After considering the matter at a February 10, 2009, meeting, the Board declined to review
the ALJ’s recommended decision and order on its own motion. Because no party filed timely
exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended decision and order, the parties waived their exceptions
and the ALJ’s recommended decision and order was final and binding.
¶ 43 On June 11, 2010, this court reversed the Board’s determination the State’s exceptions
were not timely filed and remanded the matter to the Board to consider the merits of the
exceptions. Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois Labor Relations Board,
State Panel, No. 4-09-0491, slip order at 20 (June 11, 2010) (unpublished order under
Supreme Court Rule 23).
¶ 44 On December 1, 2010, the Board issued its second decision and order adopting the ALJ’s
findings that neither Schuck nor Yurdin exercised any indicia of supervisory status. As for
DeWitt, the Board accepted the ALJ’s finding while he used independent judgment in
approving his subordinates’ overtime, the amount of time he spent approving overtime was
insufficient to be a supervisor under the Act. The Board disagreed with the ALJ’s decision
DeWitt did not use supervisory authority to discipline subordinates. However, the Board
found DeWitt spent a small amount of time disciplining subordinates. Ultimately, the Board
agreed with the ALJ’s recommendation the option 8Es were not supervisors within the
meaning of section 3(r) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008)). Council 31’s certification
as the representative bargaining unit for the option 8Es was reinstated.
¶ 45 This appeal followed.
¶ 46 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 47 On appeal, petitioners argue the Board erred in finding the option 8Es were not
supervisory employees within the meaning of section 3(r) of the Act (5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West
2008)). Specifically, petitioners contend the option 8Es use independent judgment when they
perform the following supervisory functions over other employees: (1) directing, (2) training,
(3) reviewing work product, (4) granting or denying overtime and leave requests, (5)
evaluating employees, and (6) disciplining their subordinates.
¶ 48 A. Standard of Review
¶ 49 The Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 to 3-113 (West 2008)) governs the
-8-
judicial review of a decision by the Board certifying a labor organization as the exclusive
bargaining representative of a group of employees. 5 ILCS 315/9(i) (West 2008); County of
Cook v. Illinois Labor Relations Board–Local Panel, 351 Ill. App. 3d 379, 385, 813 N.E.2d
1107, 1113 (2004). According to section 3-110 of the Administrative Review Law, our
“hearing and determination shall extend to all questions of law and fact presented by the
entire record.” 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008).
¶ 50 This court may apply three standards of review when reviewing the Board’s decision,
depending on the nature of the question we are considering. If the question is one purely of
fact, we deem the Board’s findings and conclusions to be “prima facie true and correct” (735
ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008)), and we will overturn such findings only if they are against the
manifest weight of the evidence. Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral
Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 210, 886 N.E.2d 1011, 1018 (2008). A factual determination is
against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or
if the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence. Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 210,
886 N.E.2d at 1018.
¶ 51 If, however, the question is one purely of law, we give the Board no deference unless it
resolved a genuine ambiguity in a statute or regulation it was charged with administering. See
Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 362 Ill. App. 3d 652, 656, 840
N.E.2d 704, 708 (2005). We decide legal questions de novo. City of St. Charles v. Illinois
Labor Relations Board, 395 Ill. App. 3d 507, 509, 916 N.E.2d 881, 883 (2009).
¶ 52 We review mixed questions of fact and law by asking whether the agency’s decision is
clearly erroneous. AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198
Ill. 2d 380, 392, 763 N.E.2d 272, 280 (2001). Under the clearly erroneous standard of review
we give some deference to the Board’s decision, but not as much deference if the question
were one purely of fact. AFM, 198 Ill. 2d at 392, 763 N.E.2d at 280. A finding is clearly
erroneous if, despite the existence of some evidence to support the finding, the evidence in
its entirety leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that the finding
is a mistake. AFM, 198 Ill. 2d at 393, 763 N.E.2d at 280-81.
¶ 53 Here, petitioners do not challenge the ALJ’s or the Board’s findings of facts or the
applicable statutory law. Instead, petitioners contend the Board and ALJ erred in their
application of the facts to the law. As petitioners’ argument raises a mixed question of fact
and law, we apply a clearly erroneous standard of review.
¶ 54 B. Supervisory Status
¶ 55 Section 6 of the Act provides “[e]mployees of the State *** have, and are protected in
the exercise of, the right to self-organization, and may form, join or assist any labor
organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing on
questions of wages, hours and other conditions of employment.” 5 ILCS 315/6(a) (West
2008). The Act defines “employees” as “individual[s] employed by a public employer, ***
excluding *** supervisors.” 5 ILCS 315/3(n) (West 2008).
¶ 56 “In order to ensure that a pro-union bias will not impair a supervisor’s ability to apply the
employer’s policies to subordinates in accordance with the employer’s best interests, the Act
-9-
provides that a bargaining unit may not contain both supervisors and nonsupervisors.”
Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 278
Ill. App. 3d 79, 83, 662 N.E.2d 131, 134 (1996). The Act excludes supervisors from
bargaining units that contain their subordinates, in order to avoid the conflict of interest that
arises when supervisors, who must apply the employer’s policies to the subordinates, are
subject to control by the same union representing the subordinates. City of Freeport v.
Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 135 Ill. 2d 499, 517, 554 N.E.2d 155, 164 (1990). We
note petitioners state in their brief on appeal the option 8Es “will be in the exact same
bargaining unit as their subordinates.”
¶ 57 “Supervisors” are those employees who engage in work that is “substantially different
from that of [their] subordinates and who ha[ve] authority, in the interest of the employer,
to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, direct, reward, or discipline
employees, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively recommend any of those actions, if
the exercise of that authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the
consistent use of independent judgment.” 5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008). Thus, an individual
is a supervisor if all three of the following propositions are true: (1) the individual has
principal work substantially different from that of his or her subordinates; (2) the individual
has authority on the employer’s behalf to perform at least one of the outlined indicia of
supervisory authority–namely, the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, direct, reward, or discipline employees, to adjust their grievances, or effectively
recommend any of those actions–and consistently uses independent judgment in doing so;
and (3) the individual spends a preponderance of his time in the job performing supervisory
tasks. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 512, 554 N.E.2d at 162.
¶ 58 In this case the Board upheld the ALJ’s determination the option 8Es performed principal
work that was substantially different from that of their subordinates. This was undisputed by
the parties. Thus, only the second and third elements of supervisory status are at issue in this
appeal.
¶ 59 1. Indicia of Supervisory Authority
¶ 60 Petitioners, as the party seeking to exclude the employees from the union, had the burden
of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the employees were “supervisors.”
Department of Central Management Services (State Police) v. Illinois Labor Relations
Board, State Panel, 382 Ill. App. 3d 208, 220-21, 888 N.E.2d 562, 575 (2008). To carry that
burden, petitioners had to prove the regional supervisors had the authority to perform 1 or
more of the 11 supervisory functions listed in section 3(r), while exercising independent
judgment in performing those functions. The exercise of supervisory authority must not be
routine and clerical in nature, but must involve the consistent use of independent judgment.
City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 520, 554 N.E.2d at 166. An employee uses independent
judgment whenever he or she must choose between two or more significant courses of action.
City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 521, 554 N.E.2d at 166.
¶ 61 As stated, on appeal petitioners argue option 8Es use independent judgment to direct their
subordinates regarding the following supervisory functions: (1) directing, (2) training, (3)
-10-
reviewing work product, (4) granting or denying overtime and leave requests, (5) evaluating
employees, and (6) disciplining their subordinates. We agree. The following unrebutted
evidence shows DeWitt, Schuck, and Yurdin use independent judgment to engage in several
indicia of supervisory status.
¶ 62 a. Supervisory Authority and Independent
Judgment To Direct Subordinates
¶ 63 Schuck testified he spends two to three hours each day advising Giesing and Montrey.
Schuck testified he advises Giesing, who is relatively new to the job, regarding how things
are done and “what might need to be done as far as inspections as far as her field crew, what
they’re going to be doing this week, next week and what needs to be done [as well as] what
might need additional funding.” Schuck also testified he discusses project status with
Montrey. Those discussions also involve Montrey reporting to Schuck about funding, design
status, and issues that arise during construction.
¶ 64 Yurdin testified he spends 75% to 80% of his time in discussions with his subordinates
to ensure the enforcement proceedings and investigations are on track and going according
to plan. Yurdin also advises his subordinates regarding the interpretation of federal
documents and standards and whether certain standards apply in certain situations.
¶ 65 b. Supervisory Authority and Independent
Judgment To Review Work Product
¶ 66 Petitioners argue option 8Es’ review of their subordinates’ work product shows
supervisory authority. We agree.
¶ 67 DeWitt reviews his engineers’ reports for accuracy and clarity regarding how the facts
are presented. DeWitt makes sure the reports conform to statutes, administrative regulations,
and DPH’s policies and procedures. He also reviews the report’s findings to determine
whether the agency could bring a legal cause of action against the alleged violators. DeWitt
also testified he reviews his subordinates’ plans and specifications for asbestos-abatement
jobs. DeWitt’s subordinates would also ask him how they should proceed in cases involving
code ambiguities or having broad policy implications. DeWitt also testified he reviews the
materials his subordinates assemble in response to FOIA requests. DeWitt actively checks
the materials to ensure they do not contain confidential medical information prohibited from
inclusion by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). He
also reviews the documents to make sure they are not related to any ongoing litigation
involving the agency. DeWitt also removes certain documents if he determines a subordinate
has interpreted a FOIA request too broadly. While DeWitt may be guided by the FOIA
requirements and HIPAA privacy rules in reviewing the documents, it is difficult to see how
he does not exercise judgment in determining what would be outside the scope of a FOIA
request.
¶ 68 Schuck testified he also reviews his subordinates’ work. He reviews the work to ensure
the plans created by his staff are designed well and comply with construction rules. Schuck
-11-
also reviews design plans to see if anything “jumps out” at him. In addition, Schuck testified
he reviews the accuracy of his civil engineers’ math on the construction project pay estimates
to ensure everything “balances” out. Schuck also testified he reviews the correspondence the
secretaries prepare to ensure it reflects what he asks to include.
¶ 69 Yurdin testified approximately 10% to 15% of his time is spent reviewing his
subordinates’ reports. According to Yurdin, his review of the reports involves determining
whether they are complete, thorough, and accurate. Yurdin testified he checks the reports for
consistency with other DPH decisions in similar cases.
¶ 70 c. Supervisory Authority and Independent
Judgment To Train Subordinates
¶ 71 Petitioners argue option 8Es are supervisors because they train their subordinates. We
agree. DeWitt testified he has trained new employees regarding the agency’s investigation
procedures and how to assemble an investigatory file. He has also trained clerical employees,
who come to him with questions regarding how to handle matters not covered by the
procedures manual. While DeWitt trains his subordinates pursuant to agency procedures, the
record affords no indication he is in any way constrained in the manner in which he chooses
to train them or answer their questions regarding matters outside the manual.
¶ 72 d. Supervisory Authority and Independent Judgment
To Grant and Deny Leave and Overtime Requests
¶ 73 DeWitt testified he authorizes overtime and leave requests. As the ALJ determined, it
appears from the record DeWitt exercises independent judgment in deciding overtime
requests. DeWitt testified he considers an employee’s personal circumstances in granting
overtime and whether denying it would cause the employee any hardship. DeWitt also
testified he did not need anyone else’s approval prior to granting overtime. Schuck testified
he reviews his subordinates’ leave requests. Schuck also has discretion to authorize or deny
his subordinates’ overtime requests. Yurdin testified he has discretion to authorize or deny
his subordinates’ overtime requests. Whether exercised or not, the inherent authority to
choose whether to grant or deny overtime requests without having to obtain further approval
demonstrates independent judgment on the part of option 8Es.
¶ 74 e. Supervisory Authority and Independent
Judgment To Evaluate Subordinates
¶ 75 DeWitt testified he evaluates his subordinates. He creates objectives for his subordinates
without input from his supervisor and rates them accordingly. DeWitt testified he had
evaluated only one merit compensation employee, i.e., non-bargaining-unit employee, who
has since retired and whose position has remained unfilled. However, DeWitt also testified
an “accomplished” rating would result in a $150 per-month raise. An “exceptional” rating
would result in a $200 per-month increase. DeWitt also explained a one-time annual
discretionary bonus could result in a raise equal to a percentage of their income.
-12-
¶ 76 Schuck testified he evaluates his subordinates. We note the Board found Schuck’s
“evaluations cannot constitute an indication of supervisor status” because “Schuck is unable
to independently impact his subordinates’ pay by issuing good or bad evaluations.” We
disagree. While Schuck’s “exceptional” and “unsatisfactory” recommendations require his
supervisor’s approval, he testified he can unilaterally rate a subordinate either “acceptable
or “accomplished.” While the Board chose to focus on Schuck’s uncertainty regarding
whether the resulting raise would be $100 or $150 per month, it appears from his testimony
an “accomplished” rating results in a $150 per-month pay increase. This “accomplished”
rating is not automatic and requires Schuck to make an independent choice in rating his
subordinates’ performance.
¶ 77 Yurdin testified he evaluates his subordinates and meets with them to discuss the results.
An “accomplished” or “exceptional” evaluation can result in a $150 or $200 per-month
bonus for the subordinate. The evidence presented shows DeWitt, Schuck, and Yurdin
choose which rating to assign their subordinates. The fact that in some instances their
supervisors have to approve the recommendation does not diminish the fact their initial
determination is an exercise in judgment between the various ratings choices. For example,
while Schuck’s “exceptional” recommendation requires approval, he still exercises his
judgment independent from any supervisor’s input in determining to recommend that rating
instead of an “acceptable” or “accomplished” rating. These ratings have the ability to affect
subordinates’s pay. Option 8Es’ ability to affect pay raises through employee evaluations
demonstrates their supervisory authority in that regard.
¶ 78 f. Supervisory Authority and Independent
Judgment To Discipline Subordinates
¶ 79 We note petitioners do not argue either Schuck or Yurdin exercised supervisory authority
by disciplining their employees. Instead, petitioners focus their argument on DeWitt. As
stated, the Board disagreed with the ALJ and found the fact DeWitt could place a
memorandum in the employee’s personnel file showed supervisory authority. The Board also
found DeWitt’s authority to place an employee on “proof status” evinced independent
judgment sufficient to show an indication of supervisory authority to discipline. We agree
with the Board. See 5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008) (supervisors “ha[ve] authority, in the
interest of the employer, to *** effectively recommend [discipline], if the exercise of that
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the consistent use of
independent judgment”).
¶ 80 Here, petitioners presented sufficient and unrebutted evidence to demonstrate option 8Es
collectively use independent judgment to (1) train and direct subordinates, (2) evaluate
subordinates and their work product, (3) approve time off and overtime for their
subordinates, and (4) discipline their subordinates, each of which shows option 8Es exercise
supervisory authority under the Act.
¶ 81 2. Preponderance of Time Element
¶ 82 The third element of the supervisory definition specifies the employee must also devote
-13-
the preponderance of his employment time to exercising supervisory authority to be found
a supervisor. Chief Judge of the Circuit Court v. American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, Council 31, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 515, 607 N.E.2d 182, 185 (1992). In City
of Freeport, the supreme court considered the “preponderance” test and accepted the Board’s
interpretation, stating, “The Board has interpreted the term ‘preponderance’ to mean that the
most significant allotment of the employee’s time must be spent exercising supervisory
functions. [Citation.] In other words, the employee must spend more time on supervisory
functions than on any one nonsupervisory function.” City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 532-33,
554 N.E.2d at 171.
¶ 83 We note petitioners request this court find the preponderance of time requirement does
not apply in this case because the statute includes the phrase, “State supervisors
notwithstanding.” 5 ILCS 315/3(r) (West 2008). However, petitioners have forfeited
consideration of this issue on appeal by failing to first raise it before the Board. See
Department of Central Management Services, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 82, 662 N.E.2d at 133(“The failure of a party to raise an argument in its exceptions to the hearing officer’s
recommended decision and order waives that argument for purposes of review.”). Forfeiture
aside, we note this court has previously found the “State supervisors notwithstanding”
language of the statute “does not exempt State supervisors from the ‘preponderance’
requirement.” Department of Central Management Services v. Illinois State Labor Relations
Board, 249 Ill. App. 3d 740, 745, 619 N.E.2d 239, 243 (1993). We decline petitioner’s
request to reconsider our prior decision.
¶ 84 While the Board found DeWitt exercised supervisory authority to discipline, it
determined he did not do so frequently enough to satisfy the preponderance of employment
time test. However, the number of times a supervisor exercises his authority is not
dispositive. Village of Maryville v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 402 Ill. App.
3d 369, 374-75, 932 N.E.2d 558, 563-64 (2010); City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 518, 554
N.E.2d at 164 (“[t]he potential for a conflict of interest lies in the supervisors’s authority to
influence or control personnel decisions in areas most likely to affect the employment of
subordinates and, thus, most likely to fall within the scope of union representation”
(emphasis in original)). Instead, “it is the existence of the supervisory authority *** that is
essential, not the amount of time such authority is exercised.” City of Peru v. Illinois State
Labor Relations Board, 167 Ill. App. 3d 284, 292, 521 N.E.2d 108, 114 (1988); City of
Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 518, 554 N.E.2d at 164-65 (“[t]he Board’s reliance upon the number
of times such authority was exercised was improper”).
¶ 85 Moreover, DeWitt testified he spends two to three hours per week reviewing his
subordinates’ reports during the slower season and six to eight hours a week in the summer.
He also testified he spends approximately eight hours a week reviewing documents compiled
by his subordinates in responses to FOIA requests. He also spends an additional hour and a
half each day advising and training his subordinates. When asked how much time he would
spend directing and advising the clerical staff, DeWitt responded, “if I aggregated all the
occurrences, in the neighborhood of maybe an hour a day.”
¶ 86 Further, Schuck testified he spends two to three hours a day advising Giesing and
Montrey. He also testified he spends three to four hours per week advising the civil
-14-
engineers. He also spends one hour each day reviewing the clerical workers’ correspondence.
Schuck’s testimony demonstrates he spends at least four hours per day performing
supervisory tasks.
¶ 87 Finally, Yurdin testified 75% to 80% of his time each day is spent in discussions with his
subordinates. According to Yurdin’s testimony, these conversations bore directly on ensuring
his subordinates’ investigations and enforcement proceedings were being done on time and
in the correct fashion.
¶ 88 In sum, the unrebutted testimony of DeWitt, Schuck, and Yurdin demonstrates they
spend a predominate amount of time involved in supervisory functions. Even considering the
clearly erroneous standard of review, we conclude the Board erred in finding the option 8Es
are not supervisors within the meaning of section 3(r) of the Act.
¶ 89 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 90 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Board’s decision.
¶ 91 Reversed.
-15-