Union motion in Illinois

2001See, e.g., City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 , 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). 4 We find De Witt pertinent to the disposition of this appeal, despite the fact that it was cited in a mere footnote in the Union’s brief and only touched upon briefly by the City in its reply brief. 5 Justice Sheila M.

2001See, e.g., City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 181 Ill. 2d 191 , 692 N.E.2d 295 (1998). 4 We find De Witt pertinent to the disposition of this appeal, despite the fact that it was cited in a mere footnote in the Union’s brief and only touched upon briefly by the City in its reply brief. 5 Justice Sheila M.

2017July 1, 2008), we choose to exercise our discretion and address the issues on their merit. ¶ 18 Does the Award Draw Its Essence from the CBA? ¶ 19 Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is “ ‘extremely limited.’ ” Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721, ¶ 18 (quoting American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State, 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254 (1988)).

2017July 1, 2008), we choose to exercise our discretion and address the issues on their merit. ¶ 18 Does the Award Draw Its Essence from the CBA? ¶ 19 Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is “ ‘extremely limited.’ ” Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721, ¶ 18 (quoting American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State, 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254 (1988)).

2020Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis, 451 U.S. 401, 402, 415-17 (1981).

2020Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis, 451 U.S. 401, 402, 415-17 (1981).

2017July 1, 2008), we choose to exercise our discretion and address the issues on their merit. ¶ 18 Does the Award Draw Its Essence from the CBA? ¶ 19 Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is “ ‘extremely limited.’ ” Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721, ¶ 18 (quoting American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State, 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254 (1988)).

2017July 1, 2008), we choose to exercise our discretion and address the issues on their merit. ¶ 18 Does the Award Draw Its Essence from the CBA? ¶ 19 Judicial review of an arbitrator’s award is “ ‘extremely limited.’ ” Griggsville-Perry Community Unit School District No. 4 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, 2013 IL 113721, ¶ 18 (quoting American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State, 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254 (1988)).

2014To support its position, the Union cites Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill. 2d 541, 551 , 387 N.E.2d 258, 261 (1978), wherein the supreme court held that "where an administrative body's assertion of juris- diction is attacked on its face and in its entirety on the ground that it is not authorized by statute, exhaustion of administrative remedies and compliance with the Administrative Review Act is not required." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 29 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's administrative authority "on its face" as unauthorized.

2014To support its position, the Union cites Landfill, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 74 Ill. 2d 541, 551 , 387 N.E.2d 258, 261 (1978), wherein the supreme court held that "where an administrative body's assertion of juris- diction is attacked on its face and in its entirety on the ground that it is not authorized by statute, exhaustion of administrative remedies and compliance with the Administrative Review Act is not required." (Emphasis added.) ¶ 29 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's administrative authority "on its face" as unauthorized.

2011See 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008); see also Burgess v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 209 Ill.App.3d 821, 827 , 154 Ill.Dec. 430 , 568 N.E.2d 430, 434 (1991) ("It is well established that affidavits which were not made a part of the record in proceedings before the administrative agency may not be considered in an administrative review action.").

2011See 735 ILCS 5/3-110 (West 2008); see also Burgess v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 209 Ill.App.3d 821, 827 , 154 Ill.Dec. 430 , 568 N.E.2d 430, 434 (1991) ("It is well established that affidavits which were not made a part of the record in proceedings before the administrative agency may not be considered in an administrative review action.").

2011Wood Dale Fire Protection District v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 395 Ill.App.3d 523, 535 , 334 Ill.Dec. 341 , 916 N.E.2d 1229, 1239 (2009). ¶ 18 Here, the Board granted the Union's motion for sanctions against the City based on Aikin's testimony as to the various reasons he did not promote Williams to lieutenant.

2011Wood Dale Fire Protection District v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 395 Ill.App.3d 523, 535 , 334 Ill.Dec. 341 , 916 N.E.2d 1229, 1239 (2009). ¶ 18 Here, the Board granted the Union's motion for sanctions against the City based on Aikin's testimony as to the various reasons he did not promote Williams to lieutenant.

2011International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 965-965A-965B-965C-965RA v. Associated General Contractors of Illinois, 845 F.2d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1988). ¶ 15 The City argues the trial court erred in granting the Union’s motion for summary judgment and denying its motion for summary judgment for the following primary reasons: (1) no evidence shows the Malcom controversy is arbitrable under the collective-bargaining agreement and (2) the Union lacked standing to file the grievance on behalf of Malcom.

2011International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 965-965A-965B-965C-965RA v. Associated General Contractors of Illinois, 845 F.2d 704, 706 (7th Cir.1988). ¶ 15 The City argues the trial court erred in granting the Union's motion for summary judgment and denying its motion for summary judgment for the following primary reasons: (1) no evidence shows the Malcom controversy is arbitrable under the collective-bargaining agreement and (2) the Union lacked standing to file the grievance on behalf of Malcom.

2011App.3d 725, 727-28 , 217 Ill.Dec. 30 , 666 N.E.2d 699, 701 (1996). ¶ 11 After a hearing on the motions, the trial court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and petition to compel arbitration.

2011App.3d 725, 727-28 , 217 Ill.Dec. 30 , 666 N.E.2d 699, 701 (1996). ¶ 11 After a hearing on the motions, the trial court granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and petition to compel arbitration.

2002See Anderson v. Financial Matters, Inc., 285 Ill.

2002See Anderson v. Financial Matters, Inc., 285 Ill.

2019App. 3d at 1042 -43 , 255 Ill.Dec. 371 , 749 N.E.2d 472 (holding that arbitrator made rational implicit finding that employee was amenable to discipline and that the risk of future incidents was low, where arbitrator noted that the employee had long work history, good evaluations, and lack of prior discipline and that he did not provoke the fight with the inmate) ) than Des Plaines , where the court determined that the arbitrator's findings were ambiguous ( Des Plaines , 2015 IL App (1st) 140957 , ¶¶ 37-41, 391 Ill.Dec. 328 , 30 N.E.3d 598 (holding that the award was "incomplete, or at least a

2019App. 3d at 1042 -43 , 255 Ill.Dec. 371 , 749 N.E.2d 472 (holding that arbitrator made rational implicit finding that employee was amenable to discipline and that the risk of future incidents was low, where arbitrator noted that the employee had long work history, good evaluations, and lack of prior discipline and that he did not provoke the fight with the inmate) ) than Des Plaines , where the court determined that the arbitrator's findings were ambiguous ( Des Plaines , 2015 IL App (1st) 140957 , ¶¶ 37-41, 391 Ill.Dec. 328 , 30 N.E.3d 598 (holding that the award was "incomplete, or at least a

2018A finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court, on the entire record, is 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security , 198 Ill. 2d 380 , 395, 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364 , 395, 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ). ¶ 13 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's findings of fact, but contends both that the Board applied incorrect legal standards and that its ultimate conclusions-that each of the six d

2018A finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court, on the entire record, is 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security , 198 Ill. 2d 380 , 395, 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364 , 395, 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ). ¶ 13 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's findings of fact, but contends both that the Board applied incorrect legal standards and that its ultimate conclusions-that each of the six d

2018A finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court, on the entire record, is 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security , 198 Ill. 2d 380 , 395, 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364 , 395, 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ). ¶ 13 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's findings of fact, but contends both that the Board applied incorrect legal standards and that its ultimate conclusions-that each of the six d

2018A finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court, on the entire record, is 'left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' " AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security , 198 Ill. 2d 380 , 395, 261 Ill.Dec. 302 , 763 N.E.2d 272 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364 , 395, 68 S.Ct. 525 , 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948) ). ¶ 13 Here, the Union does not challenge the Board's findings of fact, but contends both that the Board applied incorrect legal standards and that its ultimate conclusions-that each of the six d

2025It concluded that the circumstances here were akin to those in Kilpatrick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2023 IL App (2d) 230088, ¶¶ 4, 23-24 , relied on by the Union, where a filing made close to the deadline was rejected because the attorney inadvertently included his law firm’s attorney number rather than his own attorney registration number, and where this court determined that this was “an entirely avoidable attorney error” that 9 No. 1-24-2109 highlighted “the perils of waiting until the [last] day to file a [complaint].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The circuit court found distingui

2025It concluded that the circumstances here were akin to those in Kilpatrick v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2023 IL App (2d) 230088, ¶¶ 4, 23-24 , relied on by the Union, where a filing made close to the deadline was rejected because the attorney inadvertently included his law firm’s attorney number rather than his own attorney registration number, and where this court determined that this was “an entirely avoidable attorney error” that 9 No. 1-24-2109 highlighted “the perils of waiting until the [last] day to file a [complaint].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The circuit court found distingui

2022Otherwise, important rights under the Act would be lost simply by the passage of time and the course of litigation.’ ” Chicago Board of Education, 30 PERI ¶ 162 (IELRB 2012) (quoting Grand Rapids Press, 331 N.L.R.B. 296 , 300 (2000)); see also Wheaton Firefighters Union, Local 3706 v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 2016 IL App (2d) 160105, ¶ 13 , 58 N.E.3d 161 (refusing to hold moot a claim of bargaining in bad faith when the - 11 - union and employer subsequently settled and executed the underlying collective bargaining agreement at issue).

2022Otherwise, important rights under the Act would be lost simply by the passage of time and the course of litigation.’ ” Chicago Board of Education, 30 PERI ¶ 162 (IELRB 2012) (quoting Grand Rapids Press, 331 N.L.R.B. 296 , 300 (2000)); see also Wheaton Firefighters Union, Local 3706 v. Illinois Labor Relations Board, State Panel, 2016 IL App (2d) 160105, ¶ 13 , 58 N.E.3d 161 (refusing to hold moot a claim of bargaining in bad faith when the - 11 - union and employer subsequently settled and executed the underlying collective bargaining agreement at issue).

1994See Barter Exchange, Inc. v. Barter Exchange, Inc. (1992), 238 Ill.

1990See Taylor v. NLRB (11th Cir. 1986), 786 F.2d 1516 (finding Olin standard for post-arbitral deferral arbitrary and capricious); see generally Comment, Further Convolutions in a Convoluted Policy: Olin, Taylor, and NLRB Deferral to Arbitral Decisions, 82 Nw.