* From AFSCME Council 31…

Dear AFSCME Member:

Because you are among those potentially impacted by a layoff plan that Governor Rauner announced last summer, I wanted to let you know the most recent development in the Union’s efforts to prevent those layoffs. As you are likely very aware, AFSCME filed a grievance challenging the layoffs at the time they were announced. We also filed a motion in state court seeking an injunction to halt the layoffs until the grievance was resolved. In response to the Union’s legal action, the Rauner Administration entered into an agreement with the Union to suspend any layoffs pending arbitration of the Union’s grievance—as well as any potential appeal of the arbitrator’s ruling in circuit court.

It is because of that agreement that none of the layoffs have proceeded thus far and you have been able to continue working in your current position.

The grievance was heard by an arbitrator several months ago and yesterday we received notification that the arbitrator had ruled against the Union. The arbitrator found that the state had demonstrated there was a lack of funds in each affected state agency and that there was a lack of work and a material reorganization at the ICC and IDOT. Needless to say, we are very disappointed in this outcome.

However, we are not done with this fight. We will now appeal the arbitrator’s ruling in state court. Per the agreement entered into with the Rauner Administration, the layoffs will remain on hold while that appeal is pending—so there will be no change in your employment status at this time.

If you are among the employees who work at an Illinois State Museum site, you should also be aware that AFSCME is working with Senator Andy Manar to develop a new bill that could help the ISM to reopen.

We know this is a very difficult situation for you—and you can be assured that AFSCME is doing everything possible to prevent the harm that layoffs would cause to Union members.

In Unity,
Roberta Lynch

* The union may not have much of a case on appeal, judging from the ruling…

The breadth of the management rights clause in the contract required the Union to present clear evidence of an improper motive on the part of the State or some other indication the State was acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner. While the Union urged the layoffs were a “political football” designed to gain political leverage, there needed to be evidence presented to support that notion other than references to Governor Rauner’s ubiquitous comments about creating “wedge” issues and his often proclaimed animus toward public sector unions. The State’s fiscal condition and its lack of a budget are unique in its history, a fact even the Union acknowledged in its opening statement when it stated “…things are special this time, things are extraordinary, we’ve never had this situation before…especially when you get into a legal battle, but it’s truly the case that both the state and the union are operating in waters that are both uncharted and unsettled.”

The layoff language has been a part of the parties’ agreement for decades and has been tested in many other court battles and grievance arbitrations over layoffs and issues associated with layoffs. Each time the language has been put to test in the past, the State has prevailed on the question of its authority to layoff. Neither that language nor the law permit the Union or this arbitrator to supplant the Governor’s decision-making with their own. Suggestions of what he could have done or should have done have no bearing on the meaning or application of “lack of work or other legitimate reasons.” Neither the Union nor the arbitrator was elected to be the chief executive officer of this State. It goes without question the Union would have acted otherwise if the power to make such decisions rested with it; so too likely would have this neutral.

The purpose of this arbitration is not for it to constitute an endorsement or a condemnation of the State’s actions, what has transpired with the Illinois State Museum, or the withholding of support for the social service and education programs historically funded by the State. Rather the purpose of this award is limited by the parties’ agreement to being a determination of whether the State violated the negotiated contract language governing the State’s authority to layoff. The burden was on the Union to prove the State’s actions were arbitrary, capricious or arose from an illegal motivation was simply too great for it to surmount. There is no proof in the record that is the case. The Union’s grievance is denied for the detailed reasons that follow in this award.