METROPOLITAN ALLIANCE OF POLICE, RIVER VALLEY DETENTION CENTER, CHAPTER 228, Petitioner,
ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD; RIVER VALLEY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER; and GERALD KINNEY, Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Respondents.
Appeal from the Illinois Labor Relations Board, No. S-CA-11-055 State Panel Honorable Anna Hamburg-Gal, Administrative Law Judge.
JUSTICE O'BRIEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Carter and McDade concurred in the judgment and opinion.
¶ 1 Petitioner Metropolitan Alliance of Police, River Valley Detention Center, Chapter 228 (MAP), brought this petition for review of the dismissal of its unfair labor practice charge against respondents, the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB), the River Valley Juvenile Detention Center (Center) and Gerald Kinney, Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, by an ILRB administrative law judge (ALJ), and affirmance of the dismissal by the ILRB. We affirm.
¶ 2 FACTS
¶ 3 Petitioner MAP is a union comprised of employees at the detention center, including shift supervisors and nonline supervisors. The bargaining unit engaged in labor negotiations with respondent River Valley Juvenile Detention Center (RVJDC or Center) to reach a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to replace the agreement that expired in 2009. After a failed mediation, MAP filed a demand for compulsory interest arbitration. Respondent Chief Judge Kinney rejected MAP's request for interest arbitration and MAP thereafter filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Center and Kinney. In the charge, MAP alleged that the Center and Kinney violated sections 10(a)(1) and (a)(4) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. 5 ILCS 315/10(a)(1), (4) (West 2010) (unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with union employees or activities and "to refuse to bargain collectively in good faith").
¶ 4 Respondent ILRB issued a complaint for hearing. The Center and Kinney answered the complaint and denied that the employees were "security employees" entitled to interest arbitration. Both parties filed prehearing memoranda and submitted a joint statement of uncontested facts. The uncontested facts are as follows. The Center is a public employer; MAP is a labor organization; MAP is the exclusive representative of the shift and nonline supervisors at RVJDC; the MAP unit was certified in 2005; the parties' CBA expired in November 2009; the parties have been negotiating a successor agreement since November 2009; MAP filed a demand for compulsory interest arbitration in September 2010; and Kinney refused the arbitration request on the basis that the bargaining unit was not entitled to interest arbitration.
¶ 5 A hearing took place before the administrative law judge. MAP elected to stand on its documentary evidence consisting of its brief and exhibits. The exhibits included, in part, employee job descriptions; offense and detention statistics; various forms, brochures, handbooks, policy manuals and website content from the Center; information regarding the Will County adult detention facility; and juvenile corrections and detention standards. The statistics revealed that the average population of the Center was 54 juveniles, with an average stay of 23 days, according to a fiscal year 2009-10 report. In 2010, the average daily population was 44, with 711 admissions. In the period from January 2009 to June 2011, juveniles were detained in a range from 763 days for a first degree murder charge to 1 day for a contempt of court charge.
¶ 6 Thaddeus Zito testified for the Center and Kinney. He is the assistant superintendent of the Center and employed by the chief judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. The Center is under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ) and is not governed by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). In 2006, the IDOC Juvenile Division was abolished and the IDJJ was created. 730 ILCS 5/3-2.5-1 et seq. (West 2010). The Center still uses the IDOC standards because new ones have not been implemented for the IDJJ but the residents are not in IDOC custody. The Center houses both males and females, generally ages 10 to 16, with some limited statutory age exceptions. There are two ways residents are detained at the Center. The first way is from a referral by an arresting officer or department. The juveniles are evaluated by Center staff who determine whether they should be admitted. If approved for admittance, the juvenile is thereafter given a detention hearing where the trial court decides if there is probable cause that the juvenile is delinquent. The other means is through court order. The "vast majority" of residents have not been adjudicated but are awaiting disposition of their cases and are not there for a determinate period.
¶ 7 The shift supervisors maintain the secured part of the Center; supervise the juvenile detention officers, who interact with the Center's juveniles; schedule the staff; check in visitors; and provide programs when needed. The nonline supervisors include the court liaison, the programs manager, the training supervisor, and the technical coordinator. The shift and nonline supervisors are management personnel required to meet the minimum standards established by the Illinois Supreme Court as set forth in the definition of probation officer in the Probation and Probation Officers Act (Probations Act) (730 ILCS 110/9b(3) (West 2010)). Employment appointments are made pursuant to section 15 of the Probation Act. 730 ILCS 110/15 (West 2010) (Illinois Supreme Court authorized to establish probation services). The juvenile detention officers, who are hired by Will County court services, monitor the health, safety and welfare of the residents; oversee the juveniles' daily activities; and attend to the emotional needs of the juveniles. Per the recommendation of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Court (AOIC), the Center maintains an 8-to-1 ratio of juveniles to staff. The Center is under the AOIC's probation and court services division, which sets standards for the juvenile detention facilities.
¶ 8 John Prinzi testified. He is the superintendent of the Center, responsible for the day-to-day operations and is employed by the chief judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit. Juvenile detention is under the oversight of the AOIC, whose mission, in part, is to "improve and enhance the probation court services field." He submits the Center's annual plan to the AOIC, including a budget. The AOIC provides the Center's funding, in part, and the Center must report its expenditures to the AOIC. The AOIC promulgates standards for hiring and jobseekers must complete an AOIC application and be found AOIC-eligible prior to being hired by the chief judge. The AOIC sets salary schedules, as well as compensation criteria and standards. The Center is accredited through the American Correctional Association, which provides auditing and oversight for juvenile detention facilities, in addition to correctional facilities. The IDOC does not provide any funding for the Center.
¶ 9 MAP called rebuttal witnesses. John Hall testified that he is a shift supervisor at the Center. The Center is designed for direct supervision, similar to the design at the Will County Adult Detention Center (ADC). Bret Jerkatis, the Center's technical coordinator, testified. He was a member of the transition team involved in the design of the Center. It was modeled off the adult detention center.
¶ 10 The parties filed posthearing briefs wherein they presented their legal arguments. MAP asserted that the Center is a correctional facility and that the shift and nonline supervisors are not probation officers. In response, the Center and Kinney argued that the Center is not a correctional facility and the employees are probation officers and not security employees entitled to interest arbitration. The ALJ found that the juveniles at the Center were inmates under the supervision and control of the shift supervisors, who oversee the juvenile detention officers (JDOs). The ALJ further found that the Center was not a correctional facility, and accordingly, the supervisors were not security employees entitled to interest arbitration. The ALJ ...