Sections:

Article

Complete text of Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (IELRB) decision finding that Chicago Public Schools has violated the law in its pursuit of the 'waiver' votes

Below is the full text of the IELRB decision on the Chicago Teachers Union unfair labor practice complaint against the CPS "waiver" and "pioneers" pushes. As the reader can easily learn from the following, over a period of three weeks during September 2011, officials of Chicago Public Schools engaged in an unprecedented attack on the rights of Chicago Teachers Union members, and union staff and officers. Among other things, CTU officials (including this reporter) were ordered out of schools, threatened with arrest, and even, in at least one case, told that they could not be within 100 feet of a school.

Chicago Teachers Union President Karen Lewis reported the decision of the IELRB to the press at a press conference at the union's offices on October 14, 2011. Above, left to right, union attorney Robin Potter, union attorney Robert Bloch, CTU Financial Secretary Kristine Mayle, President Karen Lewis, Vice President Jesse Sharkey, and Recording Secretary Michael Brunson. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.The preliminary decision by the IELRB director, below, moves the case towards hearings. CPS officials have made it clear that they will continue to ignore the law. This is the third time in less that two years that CPS officials have been found in violation of federal and/or state law. The first time, in March 2010, was when a federal judge ruled that CPS officials did not have the right to prevent meetings on the upcoming CTU election in the schools.

The second time, in 2010, came when a federal court held that CPS officials had violated teachers' tenure rights in the layoffs that were promulgated in June, July and August 2010.

This third instance, involving Illinois law, just adds to the list of illegal activities by the Chicago Board of Education and officials of Chicago Public Schools.

Case No. 2012-CA-0009-C

STATE OF ILLINOIS

EDUCATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

In the Matter of: Chicago Board of Education, Respondent,

And Chicago Teachers Union, Complainant

Case No. 2012-CA-0009-C

COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

Complainant having charged that the Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices as set forth and defined in the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, 115 ILCS 511, et seq. (“Act”), an investigation having been conducted, and the Executive Director of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board (“IELRB”) having found that there are sufficient Issues of law and fact to warrant a Hearing, the Executive Director hereby issues this Complaint pursuant to Section 15 of the Act and 80 111. Adm. Code 1120.30.

Complainant alleges as follows:

1. Complainant filed the unfair labor practice Charges in this proceeding on September 8, 2011, end a copy thereof was served on Respondent. An amended charged was filed on September 9, 2011, and a copy thereof was served on Respondent.

2. At all times material herein. Respondent has been, and is, an educational employer within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act.

3. At all times material herein, Complainant, has been, and is, an employee organization within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and an exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act.

4(a). The following employees of the Respondent constitute a bargaining unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act: Retired Teachers employed under Article 44-39. Elementary School Teacher, High School Teacher, Substitute Teacher, City-Wide Coach Teacher Leader; Counselor, Librarian, School Nurse, School Psychologist, School Social Worker, speech Pathologist, Physical Therapist, Occupational Therapist, Playground Teacher, Stadium Director ("Teachers"), Audio-Visual Technician, Audiometric and Vision Screening Technician, Community Relations Representative I and II, Computer Technician. Educational Sign Language Interpreter I, II and Ill, Guidance Counselor Assistant, Health Service Nurse, Head Start Educational Resource Assistant, Head Start Health Resource Assistant. Head Start Parent Resource Assistant, Head Start Social Service Resource Assistant, Hospital Licensed Practical Nurse. Instructor Assistant I and II, Interpreter Clerk, Occupational Therapist Assistant, Parent Advocate, Parent Advocate – Bilingual, School Assistant, School Assistant – Bilingual, School Assistant – Bilingual – Spanish, School Assistant II, School Assistant II – Bilingual, School Assistant II – Bilingual – Spanish, School Clerk Assistant, School Clerk I, School Clerk I – Bilingual – Spanish, School Community Representative, School Library Assistant, School Library Assistant II, School Social Service Assistant, Special Education Support Clerk, Speech/Language Pathology Paraeducator, Speech/Language Pathology Paraeducator – Bilingual, Student Special Needs Program Assistant, Student Special Services Advocate, Teacher Assistant, Teacher Assistant – Montessori Program, Teacher Assistant II, Teacher Assistant II – Montessori Program, Technology Coordinator I, II, III, Truant Officer*

(b). Since on or about a date prior to January 1, 1984, and at all times material herein, the Complainant has been the designated exclusive collective bargaining representative of the bargaining unit described above at paragraph 4(a)

(c). At all times since January 1, 1984, the Complainant, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, has been, and is the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit described above in paragraph 4(a) for the purposes of collective bargaining. This exclusive representative Status has been reflected in a succession of collective bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective by its terms from July 1, 2007 until June 30, 2012.

5. At all times material herein. The following-named persons have occupied the positions set forth opposite their respective names, and have been at all times material herein supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act and/or managers of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(o) of the Act:

Krish S. Mohip Principal, Walsh Elementary School;

Ethan James Netterstrom Principal, Skinner North Classical School;

Nancy Hanks Principal, Genevieve Melody Elementary School;

Relanda Hobbs Principal, Laura Ward Elementary School;

Maria McManus Principal, STEM Magnet Elementary School;

W. Delores Robinson Principal, Charles Sumner Math and Science Academy;

Elizabeth Baggett-Hopkins Principal, Horace Mann Elementary School;

Marion Strok Principal, Evergreen Academy Middle School;

Safuart Giwa Assistant Principal, Evergreen Academy Middle School;

Vincent B. Payne Principal, Ira F. Aldridge Elementary School;

Teresa Denise Dunbar Principal, Henry H. Nash Elementary School;

Ginger Vernette Bryant Principal, Austin O. Sexton Elementary School;

Janet Jenkins-Jamison Assistant Principal, Austin O. Sexton Elementary School;

Jacqueline Faye Hearns Principal, Helen M. Hefferan Elementary School;

Kimbrena Taylor-Goode Assistant Principal, Helen F. Hefferan Elementary School;

Rachel Resnick Labor Relations Officer;

Keishe S. Campbell Principal, Howe School of Excellence;

Daphne Sherrod Assistant Principal, Howe School of Excellence;

Miyoshi Knox Assistant Principal, Howe School of Excellence;

And

John Mellios Director of Technology and Assessment.

6. Since on or about September 2, 2011, in all of Respondent's schools named below by Respondent's supervisors and agents, meetings on the longer school day were not conducted in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and/or in accordance with the past practice for such meetings.

7(a). On or about September 6, 2011, Respondent, by Krish S. Mohip, promised employees of the Respondent at the Walsh Elementary School additional funding for the Walsh Elementary School and individual monetary stipends if they voted in favor of a longer school day.

(b). On or about September 6, 2011, Respondent, by Krish S. Mohip, came uninvited into a meeting of employees represented by the Complainant and informed the employees that the Walsh Elementary School would receive additional money if the employees voted in favor of a longer school day.

(c). On or about September 7, 2011, Respondent, by Krish S. Mohip, cancelled the vote on the longer school day because he did not believe there was strong majority support among the employees for a longer school day.

8(a). On or about September 2, 2011, Respondent, by Ethan James Netterstrom, held a meeting of employees represented by the Complainant at the Skinner North Classical School. Netterstrom promised the employees more money for Skinner North School and a salary increase If the employees voted in favor of longer school day.

(b). On or about September 2, 2011, Respondent, by Ethan James Netterstrom, allowed employees to vote on the longer school day, even though the employees he allowed to vote were not eligible to vote on the issue of the longer school day.

9(a). On or about September 2, 2011, Respondent, by Nancy Hanks, called a meeting of employees represented by the Complainant at the Genevieve Melody Elementary School. Hanks told the employees that if the employees voted in favor of the longer school day, the Melody Elementary School would receive additional money that could be used to hire additional employees and that each employee would receive a lump sum payment.

(b). On or about September 2, 2011, Respondent, by Nancy Hanks, threatened employees with possible closure of the Genevieve Melody Elementary School if the employees voted against the longer school day.

10(a). On or about September 7, 2011, Respondent, by Relanda Hobbs, called employees who were represented by the Complainant into a meeting in which the employees were to vote on the question of a longer school day at the Laura Ward Elementary School. Hobbs said that if the employees voted in favor of a longer school day, Ward Elementary School would receive additional money to purchase additional equipment and supplies. Hobbs also told the employees bat, if they voted in favor of a longer school day, each employee at the Laura Ward Elementary School woula receive a lump sum payment.

(b). On or about September 7, 2011, Respondent, by Relanda Hobbs, also said that, if the employees did not vote for a longer school day, Ward Elementary School might have to reduce the number of positions and possibly layoff employees.

11(a). On or about August 24. 2011, Respondent, by Maria McManus, promised employees at the STEM Magnet Elementary School that, if they voted in favor of the longer school day, every employee would received an iPad and an extra compensatory day off with pay per quarter. McManus also said she would seek to obtain a lump sum payment for each teacher.

(b). On or about August 24, 2011, employee Luke Albrecht told McManus that, since the changes McManus proposed for the STEM Magnet School concerned changes in employees' terms and conditions of employment, the changes would have to be discussed with the Complainant. Albrecht also said that to begin the process, the employees would have to elect a Union Delegate to represent the employees at the STEM Magnet Elementary School.

(c). On or about September 2, 2011, employees represented by the Complainant, met with McManus to discuss the proposal for a longer school day. McManus told the employees that they needed to vote on the proposal for a longer school day by 1:00 p.m. that day. McManus said that if they voted in favor of a longer school day, each employee would receive an iPad, one comp day per semester, and ij two percent of Salary lump sum payment.

(d). On or about September 2. 2011, employee Luke Albrecht told McManus that the vote on the longer school day must be postponed until the employees elected a Union Delegate from the STEM Magnet School, certified and sworn in by the Chicago Teachers Union and until the employees had the opportunity to discuss the issue of the longer school day.

(e). On or about September 2, 2011, Maria McManus asked Luke Albrecht whether he had been speaking to officers and represents of the Complainant about what was going on at the STEM Magnet School concerning the vote on the longer school day. Albrecht replied that he had spoken officers and representatives of the Complainant concerning the vote on the longer school day.

(f). On or about September 2, 2011, employees at the STEM Magnet School. who were represented by the Complainant, met to vote on the question of the longer school day. Prior to the employees casting their votes McManus said that if the employees voted in favor of the longer school day, "we would be the Mayor's pet school."

(g). Respondent, by John Mellios, told Luke Albrecht to sign the ballot form and the results of the waiver vote, even though Albrecht had not been certified and sworn in by the Chicago Teachers Union as the Union Delegate at the STEM Magnet School.

(h). On or about September 3, 2011, Respondent, by Maria J. McManus, sent a e-mail to employees represented by the Complainant, informing the employees that they were not obliged to listen to or respond to any telephone calls from any officers and representatives of the Complainant.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (left) looks on approvingly as STEM magnet school principal Maria McManus speaks on the opening day of school, September 6, 2011. The mayor and CPS staged a massive media event at STEM as school began for regular track schools for the 2011 - 2012 school year, ignoring the fact that STEM has taken a highly controversial (and now ruled illegal) vote in favor of the "Longer School Day" contract waiver, despite warnings from union officials not to do so. The publicity stunt organized by the mayor and the STEM principal included using the school' children as props at various points in the event. Among other things, McManus told the school's teachers that they had to vote for the waiver in order to become Mayor Emanuel's "Pet School." Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.(i). On or about September 6, 2011, Maria McManus informed employees in a staff meeting that they would not have lo speak with any officers or representatives of the Complainant who sought to communicate with them.

(i). On or about September 6, 2011, Maria McManus refused to give Luke Albrecht a copy of the vote tally so he could send a copy of the vote tally to the Complainant.

12(a). On or about September 7, 2011, Respondent, by W. Delores Robinson, distributed a proposal for a longer school day among the employees at the Charles Sumner Math and Science Academy. Robinson said that, if the employees did not approve the longer school day, the Respondent would close the Summer Math and Science Academy. Robinson said that the money the Academy would receive if the employees approved the longer school day would help to avoid the closing of the Sumner Math and Science Academy.

(b). On or about September 7, 2011, Robinson told the employees represented by the Complainant at the Charles Sumner Math and Science Academy that, if the employees of the Math and Science Academy lost their jobs due to the closing of the Academy, they would not be able to find jobs with any of the Respondent's other schools.

13(a). On or about September 6, 2011, Respondent, by Elizabeth Baggett-Hopkins, met with employees of the Horace Mann Elementary School represented by the Complainant and told the employees that she would have to lay off employees due to lack of funds. However, Baggett-Hopkins said that if employees voted in favor of a longer school day, the Respondent would provide Horace Mann Elementary School with additional funding.

(b). On or about September 15, 2011, Baggett-Hopkins insisted that she had a right to be present when the employees at Horace Mann Elementary School voted on the longer school day. On or about September 15, 2011. Baggett-Hopkins did attend the meeting where the Horace Mann employees voted on the longer school day.

14(a). In or about August and September 2011, Respondent, by Marion Strok and/or Safuart Giwa, met with employees of the Evergreen Academy Middle School in a series of meetings concerning the vote on the longer school day in which the employees' attendance at said meetings was mandatory. During this same period, Strok also had informal meetings with Evergreen Academy employees. In all of the meetings, Strok urged employees to vote in favor of the longer school day.

(b). On or about September 20, 2011, the employees at the Evergreen Academy Middle School voted against the longer school day.

(c). After the employees voted against the longer school day. Respondent, by Marion Strok and/or Safuart Giwa, informed the Evergreen Academy employees that Respondent's Law Department would challenge the employees' vote against the longer school day. Furthermore, Strok and Giwa said that Respondent's Law Department would use the fact that Complainant's officers and representatives Kristine Mayle and John Kugler had been on the grounds of the Evergreen Academy on or about September 20, 2011 and met with employees represented by the Complainant to discuss the vote on the longer school day, in challenging the vote on the longer school day.

15(a). On or about September 9, 2011, Respondent, by Vincent B. Payne, polled the employees at the Ira F. Aldridge Elementary School by secret ballot as to whether they wanted to have a longer school day. The majority of the employees at Aldridge Elementary School voted against the longer school day.

(b). On or about September 12, 2011, Respondent by Vincent B. Payne, entered a meeting of employees at the Aldridge Elementary School being conducted by Michael Brunson, Complainant's Recording Secretary, and cancelled the meeting, falsely claiming that Complainant failed to give twenty-four hours notice of the meeting to Aldridge Elementary School.

16(a). On or about September 12, 2011, Respondent, by Teresa Denise Dunbar, scheduled a meeting for September 13, 2011 with the employees represented by the Complainant at the Henry H. Nash Elementary School for a vote on the questions of a longer school day, even though Dunbar knew that employees opposed to the longer school day would not be at work on September 13, 2011.

(b). On or about September 13, 2011, Respondent, by Teresa Denise Dunbar, conducted a vote among the employees at the Henry H. Nash Elementary School on the question of the longer school day. While the initial vote tally was fifteen to fourteen in favor of the longer school day, it was later determined that one of the ballots in favor of the longer school day was cast by an individual who was not qualified to vote on the issue of the longer school day. While agreeing that the individual was not qualified to vote, Teresa Dunbar refused lo sign an amended tally showing a fourteen to fourteen tie vote.

17(a). On or about September 14, 2011, Respondent, by Ginger Vernette Bryant and/or Janet Jenkins-Jamison, ordered Norine Gutekanst, Complainant's Head of the Union Organizing Department, to leave the Austin O. Sexton Elementary School. Gutekanst had been passing out literature to the employees at the Sexton Elementary School explaining why the employees should vote against the longer school day.

(b). On or about September 14, 2011, Respondent, by Ginger Vernette Bryant and/or Janet Jenkins-Jamison, after Gutekanst told them she had a right to be in the Sexton Elementary School building, telephoned the police department and had the police remove Gutekanst from the school building.

18(a). On or about September 16, 2011, Respondent, by Jacqueline Faye Hearns and/or Kimbreana Taylor-Goode, ordered Norine Gutekanst, Complainant's Head of the Union Organizing Department, to leave the Helen M. Hefferan Elementary School. Gutekanst had been passing out literature to the employees at the Hefferan Elementary School, explaining why the employees should vote against the longer school day.

(b). On or about September 16, 2011, Respondent, by Jacqueline Faye Hearns and/or Kimbreana Taylor-Goode, after Gutekanst said she had a right to be in the Hefferan Elementary School building, told Gutekanst to leave the Hefferan Elementary School building.

(c). On or about September 16, 2011, Respondent, by Jacqueline Faye Hearns and/or Kimbreana Taylor-Goode, told Gutekanst that she could not attend the meeting concerning the longer school day for employees at the Hefferan Elementary School, which was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on or about September 16, 2011.

19(a). On or about September 13, 2011, Respondent, by Teresa Denise Dunbar, asked John Kugler, Complainant's Citywide Coordinator, to leave the Henry H. Nash Elementary School. Kugler was in the Nash Elementary School to meet with Shelly Nation-Watson. Complainant's Union Delegate at the Nash Elementary School, concerning the scheduled vote among the employees at the Nash Elementary School on the question of the longer school day. Kugler refused to leave Nash Elementary School.

(b). On or about September 13, 2011, Respondent, by Teresa Denise Dunbar, denied John Kugler's request to attend the meeting of the employees and speak to said employees concerning their vote on the longer school day at Nash Elementary School. However, Dunbar relented to the extent that she allowed Kugler to come into the meeting only after Dunbar spoke to the employees regarding their vote on the longer school day.

20. On or about September 20, 2011, Respondent, by Marion Strok and/or Safuart Giwa, disrupted a meeting employees at the Evergreen Middle School were having with Kristine Mayle, Complainant's Financial Secretary, and John Kugler, Complainant's Citywide Coordinator, in the school parking lot. Mayle, Kugler arid the employees were discussing the vote on the longer school day. Strok and/or Giwa yelled that Mayle and Kugler were not allowed to be on Evergreen Middle School grounds and that they must be at least one hundred feet from the entrance to Evergreen. Strok and/or Giwa threatened to call Respondent's Law Department and have Mayle and Kugler removed from the school grounds.

Many union activists have concluded that the Chicago Board of Education is following a strategy that calls for routinely violating the law and forcing the unions to pay legal fees to challenge each illegal action by the Board. Recent cases that held the Board had acted illegally and unconstitutionally have been against the administration's of Chief Executive Officer Ron Huberman (in March 2010 and September 2010) and more recently, in the IELRB case, against CEO Jean-Claude Brizard. Two of the constants at CPS while Boards of Education and CEOs change are Rachel Resnick, head of labor relations (above left) and James Franczek (above right). Franczek's law firm has been paid more than $1 million per year over the past several years for "outside" work for CPS. In July 2011, the Board of Education voted to pay Franczek's firm $500,000 without discussion of debate. The above photograph was taken at the Board's June 15, 2011 special meeting, when the Board voted to break the unions' contracts, claiming it did not have a "reasonable expectation" that it could pay the four percent raises in the final years of the unions' five-year contracts. A month later, the Board found the money to pay a half million dollar to Franczek's firm, while maintaining an in-house legal staff of more than 70 people. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.21(a). On or about September 15, 2011, Respondent, by Rachel Resnick, ordered John Kugler, Complainant's Citywide Coordinator, to leave the Howe School of Excellence building. Kugler was in the building to meet with Complainant's Union Delegate at Howe School of Excellence concerning the vote to be taken among the employees at Howe School concerning the proposed longer school day.

(b). On or about September 16, 2011, Respondent, by Rachel Resnick, told Kugler that he could not speak with the Principal or either of the Assistant Principals at Howe School and again ordered Kugler to leave the Howe School building.

(c). On or about September 16, 2011, Respondent, by Daphne Sherrod and/or Miyoshi Knox, ordered a paraprofessional employee to escort Kugler from the Howe School building. As he was leaving the Howe School building, Kugler asked the paraprofessional if there was a vote on the longer school day scheduled for that day. The paraprofessional employee responded that employees at Howe School were not allowed to talk with Kugler about any vote on the longer school day.

Chicago Public Schools Chief Executive Officer Jean-Claude Brizard (above at microphone) continued his career of trying to go outside the law in dealing with teacher and other unions. Prior to his controversial selection to be CEO of CPS by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Brizard had engaged in so many deceptive and dubious practices while serving as Rochester New York schools superintendent that the city's teachers gave him a 95 percent "no confidence" vote. Parents and community leaders also rejected Brizard's work, and thanked Chicago when Brizard broke his contract in Rochester and departed for Chicago. One of Brizard's first acts as CEO of CPS was to accept a contract which paid him the highest in history ($250,000 per year, plus $30,000 "relocation expenses"). Brizard's clout with Mayor Rahm Emanuel came from the fact that he is a protege of the Broad Foundation, the controversial union-busting "leadership training" organization funded by billionaire Eli Broad. Substance photo by George N. Schmidt.22. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21 because employees of the Respondent formed, joined, supported and assisted the Complainant in continuing as the collective bargaining representative of the employees and for mutual aid and protection in utilizing and enforcing their rights under their collective bargaining agreement, by, with and through the Complainant, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in such activities or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.

23. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21 because employees of the Respondent joined, supported or assisted the Complainant and engaged in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection, and in order to discourage employees from engaging in such activities or other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection.

24. Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21 in order to bargain with the Complainant through the employees for which the Complainant is, and has been, the exclusive representative for the purpose of negotiations with the Respondent over the salaries, wages, hours and/or other tens and conditions of employment of the employees In the bargaining unit described above at paragraph 4(a).

25(a). Since on or about September 6, 2011, Complainant has requested the Respondent, by Maria McManus, to furnish it with the a copy of the vote tally for the vote taken among the employees at the STEM Magnet School on September 2, 2011 on the questions of the longer school day.

(b). Since on or about September 6, 2011, Respondent, by Maria McManus, has failed and refused to furnish the Complainant with the information requested as described above in paragraph 25(a).

(c). The information requested by the Complainant, as described above in paragraph 25(a), is necessary for, and relevant to, the Complainant's performance of its function as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the bargaining unit described above in paragraph 4.

26(a). Since on or about September 12, 2011, Complainant has requested the Respondent, by Vincent B. Payne, for copies of the ballots cast by the employees at the Aldridge Elementary School on or about September 9, 2011 on the question of the longer school day.

(b). Since on or about September 12, 2011, Respondent, by Vincent B. Payne, has failed and refused to furnish the Complainant with the information requested as described above in paragraph 26(a).

(c). The information requested by the Complainant, as described above in paragraph 26(a), is necessary for, and relevant to, the Complainant's performance of Its function as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the bargaining unit described above in paragraph 4.

27(a). Since on or about September 2, 2011, Complainant has requested that Respondent furnish it with information concerning the precise propositions voted on and inducements offered to teachers.

(b). Since on or about September 2, 2011. Respondent has failed and refused to furnish Complainant with the information requested as described above in paragraph 14(a).

(c). The information requested by the Complainant, as described above in paragraph 14(a), is necessary for, and relevant to, the Complainant's performance of its functions as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit described above in paragraph 4.

28. By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21, and by each of said acts, Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining and coercing, employees in the exercise of their rights Guaranteed in Section 3 of the Act, and Respondent thereby has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 14(a)(1) of the Act.

29. By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21 and paragraph 23, and by each of said acts. Respondent has discriminated, and is discriminating, in regard to the hire, or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership In an employee organization, and Respondent thereby has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 14(a)(3) and, derivatively. 14(a)(1) of the Act.

30. By the acts and conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 21 and paragraph 24 through 27, and by each of said acts. Respondent has failed and refused, and is failing and refusing, to bargain collectively and in good faith with the representative of its employees, and Respondent thereby has been engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 14(a)(5) and, derivatively, Section14(a)(1) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, Complainant demands judgment against Respondent and asks the IELRB to grant any and all relief that it finds appropriate pursuant to Section 15 of the Act.

YOU ARE NOTIFIED that pursuant to 80 111. Adm. Code Section 1120.30(d), Respondent must file copies of its Answer to Complaint with the IELRB and serve a copy on Complainant no later than 16 days after service hereof, and that pursuant to 1120.30(d)(3), failure to file a timely Answer shall be deemed an admission of all allegations in the Complaint.

YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2011, and on consecutive business days thereafter until completed at 160 North LaSalle Street, Suite S-501, Chicago, Illinois, before Colleen Harvey, an Administrative Law Judge of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. The public hearing will be conducted pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, 115 ILCS 5/15, and 80 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 1100; 1105 Subpart B: and 1120.

All parties are entitled to be represented by legal counsel, to present evidence, to respond to evidence presented by opposing parties and to make argument. The parties are also advised that disposition may be made by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default

Dated: October 13, 2011

Issued: Springfield, Illinois

Victor E. Blackwell

Executive Director

Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1270

(2 7) 782-8068



Comments:

October 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM

By: bob busch

Lawyers sticking with the union?

A Change

Despite the fact that I think our present union leadership fumbled the ball on SB7 and may have lost the game, credit where it is due. In years gone by, the Board would pull something and Union leaders would scream "Sue!" Usually, that was the end of it. Months or even years later, we would hear that the Union lost because someone missed a deadline or even filed the wrong complaints. Either we got new lawyer,s or Ms. Lewis is serious — or both. In any event, well done.

October 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM

By: Chris Rudzinski

The IELRB decision

Great. What the next step is going to be? Read the Tribune article from yesterday.

October 18, 2011 at 10:50 PM

By: George N. Schmidt

Next Step on IELRB complaint is clear. Read the decision.

Readers (and "Chris"). Normally we don't respond to comments from readers who only post their first names, but since we were able to locate the full name of the person who wrote the above comment, we are responding.

Also, we don't normally respond to people who hang out on First Class, the Board of Education's teacher exchange, to slander Substance, our staff, our union's leaders, and our friends (often resorting to off the wall redbaiting, as Chris Rudzinski has been doing), but in this case we're making an exception since this response is easy, requiring less that ten minutes (more time than the commenter deserves, by the way).

Chris...

If you read the entire decision, which we published in John Kugler's article, you would have gotten to the following at the end:

"YOU ARE NOTIFIED that pursuant to 80 111. Adm. Code Section 1120.30(d), Respondent must file copies of its Answer to Complaint with the IELRB and serve a copy on Complainant no later than 16 days after service hereof, and that pursuant to 1120.30(d)(3), failure to file a timely Answer shall be deemed an admission of all allegations in the Complaint.

"YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m. on December 14, 2011, and on consecutive business days thereafter until completed at 160 North LaSalle Street, Suite S-501, Chicago, Illinois, before Colleen Harvey, an Administrative Law Judge of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. The public hearing will be conducted pursuant to Section 15 of the Act, 115 ILCS 5/15, and 80 Ill. Adm. Code Parts 1100; 1105 Subpart B: and 1120.

"All parties are entitled to be represented by legal counsel, to present evidence, to respond to evidence presented by opposing parties and to make argument. The parties are also advised that disposition may be made by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default..."

Now, we know that people who routinely red bait, slander, and otherwise attack militant union leaders are much more at home reading the Chicago Tribune than reading Substance or spending some time getting the facts.

But if you were interested in "What's next?" the answer was available.

On December 14, we will be at the State of Illinois building for the next step in the hearing, just as we and our colleagues have been at most of the federal court hearings since Karen Lewis and the current CTU leadership team were elected and faced the outrageous, illegal and unconstitutional antics of the CPS leadership (now in its third "CEO" since Karen became President, you might note) that we have faced the past 16 months (yes, that's how short a time it's been since your erstwhile buddies were ousted after looting the union treasury and driving our contract almost into oblivion).

Next time you comment on Substance, give our readers both your first and last names, or we will simply DELETE your comment rather than responding to it.

Add your own comment (all fields are necessary)

Substance readers:

You must give your first name and last name under "Name" when you post a comment at substancenews.net. We are not operating a blog and do not allow anonymous or pseudonymous comments. Our readers deserve to know who is commenting, just as they deserve to know the source of our news reports and analysis.

Please respect this, and also provide us with an accurate e-mail address.

Thank you,

The Editors of Substance

Your Name

Your Email

What's your comment about?

Your Comment

Please answer this to prove you're not a robot:

4 + 4 =