HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - None - 04/18/1977 - Opposing House Bill 2 A Resolution Opposing House Bill 2
WHEREAS, House Bill 2, an Act in relation to the settlement of
differences between public employers and public employees and providing
for collective bargaining, has been reviewed by the City Council of the
City of McHenry; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the following to be among the more
serious shortcomings of House Bill 2 as proposed (not necessarily listed in
order of importance):
1. Under House Bill 2, all supervisory employees, except elected
and appointed officials, would be entitled to be represented
by labor organizations for the purposes of collective bargaining.
This is in conflict with the need to avoid conflicts of in-
terest in negotiations and administration of employee relations
policies and the need to assure strong management direction of
public organizations.
2. House Bill 2 would make the Illinois Anti-Injunction Act
applicable to the public sector, legislatively reversing the
unanimous decision of the Illinois Supreme Court (City of
Pans versus Crowe) and thereby prohibiting the issuance of
injunctions against strikes by public employees.
3. House Bill 2 does not include certain unfair labor practices
of unions in its listing of unfair labor practices:
a. While House Bill 2 indicates it is an unfair practice
for an employer to discriminate in "hiring, discharge,
promotions, or other conditions of employment on the
basis or race, religion, sex, or national origin,"there
is no similar union unfair labor practice specified.
b. Unions are not prohibited from causing or attempting
to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee
because of membership or nonmembership in a labor or-
ganization (included in National Labor Relations Act) .
c. Unions are not prohibited from engaging in secondary
boycotts, recognitional picketing, etc. , (included in
National Labor Relations Act) .
d. Unions are not prohibited from causing or attempting to
cause an employer to pay or deliver, or agree to pay
or deliver, any money or other thing of value in the nature
of exaction for services which are not performed or not
to be performed (included in National Labor Relations Act) .
4. House Bill 2 does not exclude any subjects from the scope of
collective bargaining, thereby allowing collective bargaining
over matters of inherent managerial policies including such
areas of discretion or policy as the functions and programs
of the public
- 2 -
employer, standards of services, its overall budget,
utilization of technology, the organization structure,
and selection and direction of personnel.
5. While the National Labor Relations Act requires 'that
questions concerning representation be' resolved by
secret ballot elections, House Bill 2 provides for
the use of "any other appropriate and suitable method
defined to ascertain the free choice of the majority
of such public employees," thereby authorizing the use
of card checks, with their inherent threat to the
democratic process, to determine majority status.
6. House Bill 2 would cause excessive fragmentation of
bargaining units at tremendous administrative cost to
both the employer and employees by enabling each
separate craft union and each separate profession to
establish a separate bargaining unit, and be so
designated by the State Board.
7. Contrary to the recommendations of the Kerner Advisory
Commission on Labor Management Policies for Public
Employees and recommendations of the American Bar
Association, House Bill 2 allows police to be repre-
sented by any union or association, thereby fostering
conflict between police responsibilities and
occupational or union loyalties.
6. The following four deficiencies in provisions for
determining unfair labor practices are:
a. House Bill 2 removes the use of rules of evidence,
so far as practicable, from the proceedings in
hearing unfair labor practice charges.
b. House Bill 2 does not allow for back pay to be
required of a labor organization if it is
responsible for the discrimination suffered by an
employee (only is the employer so liable) .
c. House Bill 2 further loosens the provision of the
National Labor Relations Act by allowing an
employee to file charges considerably more than
six months after an occurance of an unfair labor
practice.
d. House Bill 2 allowsjudicial review of a refusal
by the State Board to issue a complaint, thereby
allowing further legal harrassment of public
employers and associated costs.
9. There is a lack of clarity as to the circumstances
under which mediation would be made available and how
this service would be provided.
10. House Bill 2 provides for compulsory, binding, final
offer arbitration of any issues not resolved more than
thirty days prior to contract expiration in negotiations
involving police, fire fighters, prison guards, or
security personnel. This places extraordinary authority
in the hands of arbitrators who are not elected and
have no direct responsibility to the taxpayers. It
also involves risk of chilling negotiations.
11. House Bill 2 allows all public employees to strike
thirty days after requesting mediation or conciliation
of a dispute. Further, it would permit strikes over
grievances concerning the interpretation or application
of the provisions of the agreement during the period
- 3 -
covered by a collective bargaining agreement rather than
relying on grievance procedures in the agreement.
12. House Bill 2 places uncertain restrictions on the appointment
of negotiators and bargaining teams by the employer.
13. House Bill 2 encourages excessive use of "fact finders" since
the State Board pays the fee, rather than stimulating both
parties to engage in good faith bargaining to reach an agree-
ment.
14. Union security and, more specifically, the union shop are
permitted.
15. House Bill 2 does not contain a conflict of interest provision
prohibiting a person who is a member of the interested em-
ployee organization or who has an interest in the outcome of
the negotiations, which is in conflict with the interest of the
public employer, from participating in negotiations on behalf
of the public employer.
and
WHEREAS, if a bill containing the above provisions were enacted in
the State of Illinois, public employers would experience a considerable
increase in operating and administrative costs, the ability of the public
organization to function on a coordinated basis would be severely jeopard-
ized, and, most importantly, the result would be a severely increased
financial burden on the taxpayer.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the members of the City Council
of the City of McHenry to strongly object to the provisions of House
Bill 2; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be forwarded
to members of the Illinois General Assembly, the Governor, all Illinois
municipalities, the Illinois Municipal League, the Illinois City Managers
Association, and other appropriate bodies.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE/ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY on this
If ' day of i1'PIOL , 1977.
A1106404NOlitil
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk