Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Behind the ‘complete wipeout’ in DuPage and what’s to come
Next Post: RETAIL: Strengthening Communities Across Illinois
Posted in:
* From the 2024 campaign…
* The state’s attorney has now filed this response to the unionization attempt with the Illinois Labor Relations Board…
The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (“Employer” or “CCSAO”) submits this response in the above majority interest representation petition, objecting to recognition of the unit of employees the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 700 (“Union”) seeks to represent. The petitioned-for employees are, as a matter of law, subject to the managerial exclusion under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (“Act”) and are not public employees entitled to representation. Office of the Cook County State’s Attorney v. Illinois Local Labor Relations Board, 166 Ill. 2d 296, 652 N.E. 2d 301, 1995 Ill. LEXIS 95, 209 Ill. Dec. 761 (1995)(“State’s Attorney Case”) The petition should be dismissed in its entirety. […]
All ASAs are, as a matter of law, subject to the managerial exclusion under the Illinois Labor Relations Act (“Act”) and are not public employees entitled to representation. The Workers’ Rights Amendment passed in 2022 does not upend ASAs legal status as supervisors. In addition, certain ASAs have supervisory and/or confidential job duties that exclude them from the coverage of the Act. […]
For the reasons set forth above, the Employer requests that the Union’s petition to represent all ASAs be dismissed in its entirety because, under controlling Illinois Supreme Court precedent, all the petitioned-for employees are managerial as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, that Supervisory ASAs be excluded from the certified bargaining unit represented by the Union because they are subject to the supervisory and confidential exclusions under the Act.
A majority interest petition is a board generated form filed by a union seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining representatives for a unit of employees, not through an election but through the Board’s card check procedures.
Card check is simply another name to describe the majority interest procedures, whereby a union may be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative, if a majority of employees sign cards (or other evidence) indicating their desire to be represented by the union. The Board checks the cards to determine majority showing of interest. Upon a satisfactory determination, the Board issues the certification.
* The Illinois State’s Attorney Association filed in opposition to HB2973, which removes some of the managerial designation from assistant state’s attorneys. But State’s Attorney O’Neill Burke’s office did not file a witness slip. That amended bill is now on 2nd Reading in the House.
* I asked for an explanation…
Hey Rich, this is a procedural filing that reflects the relevant caselaw. I’d refer you to our previous statement, which is:
“State’s Attorney Burke supports organized labor and the right of workers to collectively bargain, including ASAs once Illinois law allows for it. Decades of binding case law must be addressed for that to happen, however, and as the county’s chief law enforcement officer and a former judge, she has taken an oath repeatedly to uphold the law. Our office looks forward to working with the appropriate stakeholders to get this right.” — Matt McGrath, CCSAO spokesman
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 9:34 am
Previous Post: Behind the ‘complete wipeout’ in DuPage and what’s to come
Next Post: RETAIL: Strengthening Communities Across Illinois
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hypocrisy, plain and simple, and misleading. She does not have to wait on any such law change to recognize the ASA’s union. She was all for it during her campaign when she wanted votes and campaign cash.
Comment by Prairie Dude Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 9:47 am
Why won’t a lawyer run over a snake?
Professional courtesy.
Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 9:57 am
That’s some nice gaslighting there, but I’m pretty sure filing a response citing the case that says ASAs cannot form a union means you oppose them forming a union.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 10:07 am
You wanted the Workers Rights Amendment, you got the Workers Rights Amendment.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 10:17 am
Democrats wonder why labor, despite Trump and GOPers blatant stances, remains skeptical of their labor leanings. Dems love the photo ops and big checks for election time, but then turn into “the boss” as soon as they are elected.
If Republicans in Illinois started being pro-labor, the Democratic party would no longer have super majorities in this state, and possibly not every constitutional statewide position.
Until then, labor continues to suffer these indignities from Dems.
Comment by John Candy and Nuts Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 10:47 am
So, I guess the question is did she not know about these laws when she made that campaign statement, thereby rendering inept or…. she knew full well what she was doing and is proving to be a liar. Neither bodes well for Cook County. If only the General Assembly was willing to take a stand for workers and the collective bargaining process, oh, wait….
Comment by Retired School Board Member Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 10:48 am
BTW- it’s not a serious question. Of course she knew.
Comment by Retired School Board Member Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 10:49 am
The State’s Attorney is not wrong with her assessment of the law - that does not change the fact that she is taking a position contrary to her campaign promise. She will have to work that out with her backers in labor.
Comment by Remember the Alamo II Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 11:21 am
The Illinois Constitution expresly provides that “No law shall be passed that
interferes with, negates, or diminishes the right of
employees to organize and bargain collectively over their
wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment
and work place safety.” I thought she took an oath to support the constitution?
Comment by Not So Innocent Bystander Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 11:32 am
===She will have to work that out with her backers in labor.===
How about the ASAs that signed the cards, and now have the rug pulled out from under them?
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 11:51 am
what mcgrath said.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 11:54 am
“Why won’t a lawyer run over a snake?”
I read an article years ago about drivers and roadkill. For the most part, drivers would avoid running over roadkill, with the exception of snakes. The article said that drivers would intentionally steer to drivers over a snake. The study documented 1 driver that not only drove over the snake, they stopped, backed over the snake, and drove forward over the snake a second time.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 11:59 am
=that does not change the fact that she is taking a position contrary to her campaign promise=
Campaign promises are like candy at a parade - give some out to everyone - but when it comes to how politicians govern or administer, that’s a whole different story. The question is, will this create an accountability problem that lasts until her re-election?
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 12:22 pm
To be subject to union membership you need to meet the statutory defn of “employee” - the Constitutional amendment does not expand upon that definition- Burke whether she reneged on a
campaign promise is correct on the law- you need a legislative fix unless she agrees to voluntary recognition
Comment by Sue Monday, Apr 7, 25 @ 12:25 pm