STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATE PANEL

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31,

Charging Party and Case No. S-CA-17-053 State of Illinois, Department of Central Management Services (Department of Employment Security),

Respondent

ORDER

On January 28, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Matthew S. Nagy, on behalf of the Illinois

Labor Relations Board, issued a Recommended Decision and Order in the above-captioned matter. No party filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommendation during the time allotted, and at its May 7, 2019 public meeting, the Board, having reviewed the matter, declined to take it up on its own motion. THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 1200.135(b)(5) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, 80 Ill. Admin. Code §1200.135(b)(5), the parties have waived their exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order, and this non-precedential Recommended Decision and Order is final and binding on the parties to this proceeding. Issued in Chicago, Illinois, this 7th day of May 2019. STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD STATE PANEL /s/ Helen J. Kim___________________________________ Helen J. Kim General Counsel

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

STATE PANEL

American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, Council 31,

Charging Party,

and

State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of Employment

Security),

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. S-CA-17-053

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER

On November 2, 2016, Charging Party American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, Council 31 (Charging Party or Union) filed an unfair labor practice

charge with the Illinois Labor Relations Board (Board), alleging that the Respondent, State

of Illinois, Department of Central Management Services, Department of Employment

Security (Respondent or CMS) violated Section 10(a) of the Illinois Public Labor Relations

Act (Act), 5 ILCS 315 (2014), as amended. On May 23, 2018, the Board’s Executive

Director issued a Complaint for Hearing on the charge, alleging that the Respondent

violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Act.

A hearing was held on September 13, 2018 in Springfield, Illinois, before the

undersigned Administrative Law Judge, at which time all parties were given an opportunity

to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses; introduce documentary evidence; and

present arguments. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs in lieu of closing arguments.

After full consideration of the parties’ stipulations, evidence, arguments, and briefs, and

upon the entire record of this case, I recommend the following:

I. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

The parties stipulate, and I find, that:

1. At all times material, the State has been a public employer within the meaning of

Section 3(o) of the Act.

2. At all times material, the State has been subject to the jurisdiction of the State Panel

of the Board, pursuant to Section 5(a-5) of the Act.

2

3. At all times material, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning

of Section 3(i) of the Act.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

a. IDES Peoria Field Office

The Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) maintains a field office in

Peoria. Certain of the field staff at the IDES Peoria office are represented by a local of the

Charging Party, AFSCME Local 51.

The Peoria field office is a large open room with a divider separating a front section

from a back section. The front section, referred to as the Resource Room, is where

members of the public are received when they enter the Peoria office through the front

door. Members of the public who come into the IDES office can include “clients” or

“claimants.” These are individuals who seek to receive services from IDES or one of its

partners. In addition, IDES may receive employers who may make inquiries. Members of

the public who come to the office first go to the greeter’s desk, and the greeter would

determine why the person was there and direct them accordingly. The Resource Room

contains an open-space common area, as well as a small enclosed area with computers

which are used by members of the public to file claims or look for employment. The back

of the Resource Room has a divider which spans from the floor to approximately six feet

high and is broken by openings at different intervals. Behind that divider is a work area

with approximately 40 or 45 cubicles. Visitors are not allowed to go through the partitions

dividing the Resource Room from the work area unless they are escorted.

Most of the cubicles in the work area have walls on three sides, which are

approximately four feet high. However, around ten cubicles have higher walls,

approximately six feet tall. Unlike the low-walled cubicles, these high-walled cubicles

have two partial front walls on either side of the entrance to the cubicle, broken in the

middle by the cubicle entrance itself.

IDES employees work in these cubicles; some of these employees are Employment

Specialists, who assist in providing services for job seekers and employers, whereas others

are Adjudicators, who rule on unemployment claim issues. In addition to State of Illinois

employees1, the cubicles in the Peoria office are also staffed by “partners.” Partners are

certain private entities that receive federal funding and use the IDES work area to provide

employment services.

Mark Weidemer (Weidemer) is employed by IDES and began work in the IDES

Peoria field office in or about November of 2014. During his time at the Peoria field office,

1 Weidemer testified that several employees from the Illinois Department of Revenue also work in these

cubicles.

3

he held the title of Employment Security Specialist 3, and in that capacity worked to

provide employment services to ex-offenders. Weidemer was also the chief Union Steward

and Vice President for Local 51 while he was at the Peoria office. From November of

2014 until in or around May of 2016, Weidemer worked in one of the low-walled cubicles.

He testified that he had several items posted on the interior walls of his low-walled cubicle,

including personal photographs, a small piece of artwork, and a red neckerchief that had

“Local 51 Union” printed on it. Weidemer testified that other employees also posted items

in their cubicles, including sports memorabilia, personal photos, and motivational posters.

Certain low-walled cubicles contained shelves that sit flush with or just below the top of

the cubicles. Weidemer testified that some employees had certain items on top of those

shelves that protruded above the top of the cubicle, including bobblehead dolls and lamps.

In addition, Weidemer also testified that one individual, whose cubicle butted up against

the back of the wall dividing the Resource Room from the work area, had an approximately

two by three-foot poster featuring characters from the Peanuts comic strip. This Peanuts

poster was posted on the back of the dividing wall, above the level of the low-walled

cubicles, and facing toward the cubicle section, meaning that members of the public who

were in the Resource Room could not see the poster.

Weidemer testified that he would occasionally meet with members of the public in

his low-walled cubicle, including ex-offenders whom he would counsel and help find

employment, as well as advocates for those ex-offenders. In addition, he testified that other

employees who occupied the low-walled cubicles would likewise meet with members of

the public in their cubicles.

In or around May of 2016, Weidemer moved to one of the high-walled cubicles.

When he first moved into the cubicle, he posted a decal, approximately six inches wide and

eight inches tall, on the outside of one of front walls of his cubicle. The decal was a

modified image of the iconic “Rosie the Riveter,” which included the colors green and

white—the colors of AFSCME—and the statement “Union Strong” at the top, and “First

to Serve” at the bottom. The modified Rosie the Riveter wore a pin which read “51,” in

reference to Local 51. The words “AFSCME Local 51” were also included in the image.

The image was posted on the outside front wall of Weidemer’s cubicle for several months.

Weidemer testified that the image was visible above the level of the low-walled cubicles.

As he did in his low-walled cubicle, Weidemer met with clients in his high-walled cubicle.

Weidemer testified that he always had some sort of Union material posted outside

his cubicle so employees would know where the Union representative was located.

Weidemer stated that he was never told to remove the Rosie the Riveter decal from the

outside wall of his cubicle, nor was he told that he was not allowed to post signage,

including union material, on the outside wall of the cubicle. The only restriction that

4

Weidemer was aware of regarding postings on the outside wall of his cubicle was that he

could not post anything pornographic, obscene, or political in nature. Weidemer testified

that another employee in a high-walled cubicle next to him would occasionally post sheets

of paper on the outside of the front wall of his cubicle. These sheets of paper, usually

handwritten, related to a certain sports team and generally served to notify passersby of the

team’s successes. Weidemer remained in a high-walled cubicle until he transferred to the

IDES Springfield field office in or about January of 2017.

Steve Hutton (Hutton) is employed by IDES as an Employment Services Program

Representative at the Peoria field office. In that capacity, he assists ex-offenders and

military veterans with respect to employment services. Hutton is also the Local 51 Union

Steward for the Peoria office. In the summer of 2016, Hutton was working in one of the

low-walled cubicles. Hutton testified that, prior to August of 2016, he would post various

union-related items on the interior wall of his cubicle, including flags and signs. He also

posted personal items, including pictures and birthday cards, one of which included the

image of actor Clint Eastwood. Hutton stated that some of these images were visible from

the Resource Room. As for other employees, Hutton testified that another employee had

a picture of Yankee Stadium posted on the inside wall of his or her cubicle, which was

partially visible from the Resource Room. Hutton testified that, prior to August of 2016,

he saw Weidemer’s Rosie the Riveter image on the outside wall of Weidemer’s cubicle,

and that such was generally visible within the office. Hutton testified that he also would

bring clients back to his cubicle, approximately two to three times a week on a regular

basis.

Rissa Robertson (Robertson) is employed by IDES as Assistant Labor Relations

Manager, a position she has held since September 2016. Prior to that, Robertson was a

Human Resources Specialist with IDES, and held that position through August of 2016.

Initially, Robertson testified that her understanding of IDES policy as it was in August of

2016 was that employees could not post anything on the outside of their cubicles, but then

later, she testified that employees can have some postings outside of the cubicle, so long

as they are not inflammatory, derogatory, negative, or political.2 She testified that IDES

policy permitted employees to post the GET READY sign on the inside of their cubicles.

Gregory Ramel (Ramel) is First Deputy Counsel and Acting Labor Relations

Manager for IDES, a position he has held for six months. He testified that, in his experience

as Acting Labor Relations Manager, he understood the IDES policy on postings to be that

IDES employees are not allowed to have non-agency related items on the outside of their

work stations where it might be visible to the public. The basis for this understanding came

2 On cross-examination, Roberston re-iterated that employees were not allowed to post anything which was

inflammatory, political, or derogatory on the outside of their work space.

5

from “a reading of what is in our procedures manual.” Inside the cubicle, Ramel

understood the policy to be that employees may post what they wanted, so long as the

posting was not inflammatory or political in nature. Ramel acknowledged that he does not

work in the Peoria office and does not know what the practices were in other local offices

in terms of hanging signs, and he was also not personally involved in the decisions as to

what was hung in the Peoria field office.

Vince Knight (Knight) is the Office Manager of the IDES Peoria field office, a

position he has held for approximately seven years. Knight is, essentially, the highest

person on the IDES Peoria Office organizational chart. In that capacity, he oversees all

staff and stated that he walks around the office approximately three to four times per day.

He testified that his understanding of the IDES policy as it existed in August of 2016

regarding employees hanging non-work-related items inside of their work space was that

employees were allowed to post anything inside their cubicles. As to the policy for non-

work-related items on the outside of the work space, including outside walls and doors,

Knight testified that he could not speak to what that that policy was. He did state that the

practice was not to allow personal items on outside someone’s work space, except for

common areas like the break room. Knight did not recall ever seeing the Rosie the Riveter

sign on the outside wall of Weidemer’s high-walled cubicle but did recall seeing the sign

previously at some point. He testified that, if he had seen the sign on the outside of

Weidemer’s cubicle, he would have asked him to move it inside his work space because

the agency “typically” doesn’t allow personal items outside the work space. He said

typically means “on a general basis” because he could not “quote a policy” of the agency

regarding postings on the outside of work spaces.

Knight testified that, most of the time, members of the public do not go back to

employee work stations because what they are there for is something that can be handled

in the Resource Room. However, Knight acknowledged that he occasionally saw members

of the public meeting with IDES employees in their cubicles, and in those instances, the

members of the public were able to see whatever was in the employee’s cubicle, including

union or GET READY signs. Additionally, Knight testified that what was in the low-

walled cubicles would have been visible to members of the public as they walked by those

cubicles.

b. The Parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement

Thomas Edstrom (Edstrom) testified on behalf of the Union. Edstrom is

Supervising Counsel for the Union. Edstrom testified that the Union and CMS entered into

a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which spanned 2012-2015 and continues into

effect today. The CBA is a master contract which covers bargaining unit employees at

6

various state agencies, including IDES and the Illinois Department of Revenue. Edstrom

testified that CMS bargained the CBA on behalf of the State of Illinois.

Article 6 of the parties CBA is entitled “Union Rights.” Article 6, Section 4 is

entitled “Union Bulletin Boards.” It reads, in full, as follows:

The Employer shall continue to provide bulletin boards and/or space

at each work location. The number, size, and location of each shall

be mutually agreed to by the parties in local level negotiations. The

boards shall be for the sole and exclusive use of the Union. The

items posted shall not be political (including solicitation of funds or

volunteers for a political candidate or political party), partisan or

defamatory in nature. Nor shall such literature be posted in an

employee’s work space.

Edstrom testified that he believed the language of Article 6, Section 4 does not limit

or waive the right of bargaining unit employees to engage in concerted activity under the

Act by posting signs in the work place.

c. S-CA-13-076 Settlement Agreement

On December 19, 2012, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the

Board alleging that the Illinois Department of Revenue violated Sections 10(a)(1) and

10(a)(2) of the Act when it required that union-related signs displayed by bargaining unit

members at the Willard Ice Building must displayed inside the employee’s cubicle only.3

Subsequently, on or about May 7, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on

the charge (Settlement Agreement). Therein, the parties agreed that “[t]he Illinois

Department of Revenue” would allow for bargaining unit employees to place one size-

restricted item on the “outside of their workspace, which may be an item supporting the

Union and/or advocating for a Union position in a contract or other dispute with the State

or Department.” The agreement also provided that it would be “precedential for the

Department of Revenue and binding on the parties.” The caption of the agreement

document listed the respondent as the “State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of Revenue).”

The Settlement Agreement was signed by Erin O’Boyle (O’Boyle) for the

Employer. O’Boyle, who was CMS’s Deputy General Counsel of Labor Relations at the

3 The charge, S-CA-13-076, was not offered into evidence, but I take administrative notice of the charge

document itself pursuant to Section 1240.80(i) of the Board’s Rules. 80 Ill. Admin. Code 1240.80(i)

(providing it is within the authority of ALJ to “[t]ake administrative notice of generally recognized facts of

which Illinois courts may take judicial notice and of other facts within the specialized knowledge and

experience of the Board[.]”

7

time of hearing, testified that unfair labor practice charges are filed against the State’s

Department of Central Management Services, which represents state agencies under the

governor’s control in matters relating to issues arising under collective bargaining

agreements and the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. O’Boyle testified that the

Settlement Agreement applies only to the Department of Revenue and no other State of

Illinois agencies.

d. GET READY Campaign

Edstrom testified that at some point subsequent to January 8, 2016, the Union began

to distribute signs to its bargaining unit members throughout the state in response to

contract negotiations between CMS and AFSCME. The signs were green and white, the

colors of AFSCME, and contained simply two words, in all capital letters: GET READY.

Around August of 2016, Weidemer received and disseminated copies of the GET READY

sign among bargaining unit members at IDES, encouraging them to display it. Weidemer

posted the GET READY sign on one of the front outside walls of his high-walled cubicle,

replacing the Rosie the Riveter image with the sign.

Hutton testified that he likewise posted the GET READY sign on the inside wall of

his cubicle which faced the Resource Room, next to his picture of Clint Eastwood. He

testified that a portion of the sign was visible from the Resource Room. In addition, Hutton

posted another sign that read “Get Ready To Vote.” Hutton testified that the GET READY

signs could possibly be seen from certain points in the Resource Room, depending on

which cubicle wall they were posted. Further, he testified that when members of the public

were led back to the cubicle area, the signs were plainly visible within the cubicles, and

when he brought back clients to his cubicle, those clients could see the GET READY sign

regardless of where it was placed in the work space. Both Weidemer and Hutton testified

that several other employees posted the GET READY signs in the inside of their cubicles.

On or about August 31, 2016, Knight approached Weidemer and informed him that

the GET READY sign needed to be removed from the outside of his cubicle. Weidemer

testified Knight told him that if he did not take the sign down, it would be removed. Knight

testified that he told Weidemer that he could post the sign inside his cubicle. Weidemer

responded that he would remove the sign, but that he would subsequently be filing a

grievance over the issue. On the same date, Knight approached Hutton. Hutton testified

that Knight told him to remove any GET READY signs that faced the front of the building,

toward the Resource Room. Hutton stated that Knight told him the signs could be put on

any of the other walls of the cubicle, but not the walls which faced clients at the front of

the building. Hutton testified that Knight’s directive applied only to the GET READY

sign, and no other sign or image in Hutton’s cubicle. After this conversation, Hutton moved

8

his GET READY sign, and went around to each employee who posted GET READY sign,

and each one moved theirs as well.

Knight testified that, after the instant charge was filed, he was asked by IDES Labor

Relations manager Phil Cobb (Cobb) to give an account of what took place on August 31,

2016. On November 17, 2016, Knight sent an email to Cobb wherein Knight noted that he

instructed Hutton on or about August 31, 2016 that the GET READY signs that were hung

throughout the office should be confined to staff cubicles “and not visible to the public.”

Knight went on to note that Hutton immediately complied and saw to it that all signs were

moved so as not to be seen by the public. Knight also stated that he informed Weidemer

that he needed to move the GET READY sign from the outside to the inside of his cubicle

so that it was “not visible to the public.” Knight noted that Weidemer complied but

indicated that he would grieve the issue.

III. ISSUE AND CONTENTIONS

The issue in this matter is whether the Respondent violated Section 10(a)(1) of the

Act when it instructed Weidemer to remove the GET READY sign from the outside of his

cubicle.

The Union argues that the right to display union insignia, such as the GET READY

sign, is protected by the Act, and that the Respondent has not demonstrated any justification

for the restriction of such insignia. Moreover, it points out that, under the National Labor

Relations Act, employees have the right to inform the public of labor disputes and to

encourage public support of the union’s and employees’ position in a labor dispute. It goes

on to argue that, to the extent that IDES had a policy that may arguably be interpreted as

restricting employees’ right to display union insignia or messages, it has not consistently

enforced such policy in the past, and that IDES may not strictly enforce a work rule in

response to protected concerted activity. Finally, it argues that the parties’ CBA does not

clearly and unmistakably waive an employee’s right to display union insignia or messages

under the Act.

CMS argues that an employer may restrict employee postings to only work-related

items without violating Section 10(a)(1) of the Act, and that so long as all non-work-related

postings—including personal and union postings—are prohibited, the employer is carrying

out a non-discriminatory policy that does not violate Section 10(a)(1). It goes on that each

of its witnesses testified that prior to August 31, 2016, IDES policy was that it prohibited

all non-work-related postings, including personal and union postings, on the outside walls

of cubicles and work spaces, and that this non-discriminatory policy does not violate

Section 10(a)(1).

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

9

The Respondent violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Act when it instructed Weidemer

to remove the GET READY sign from the outside wall of his cubicle.

Under Section 6 of the Act, public employees are guaranteed certain rights,

including “the right of self-organization, [the right to] form, join or assist any labor

organization, [and the right] to bargain collectively through representatives of their own

choosing on questions of wages, hours and other conditions of employment.” 315 ILCS

6(a). In addition, Section 6 provides protection for employees engaging “in other concerted

activities . . . for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

Id. It is well established that an employer violates section 10(a)(1) of the Act when it

engages in conduct which reasonably tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees

in the exercise of rights protected by the Act. City of Lake Forest, 29 PERI 52 (ILRB-SP

2012); City of Mattoon, 11 PERI 2016 (IL SLRB 1995); Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook

Cnty., 7 PERI 2019 (IL SLRB 1991); City of Chicago, 3 PERI 3011 (IL LLRB 1987). A

violation of Section 10(a)(1) in this fashion does not depend on the employer’s motive.

City of Mattoon, 11 PERI 2016; Dep’t. of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. (Dept. of Conservation), 2

PERI 2032 (ISLRB 1986). There is no requirement of proof that the employees were

actually coerced or that the employer intended to coerce the employees. Vill. of Calumet

Park, 23 PERI 108 (IL LRB-SP 2007). Instead, the test is whether the employer’s conduct,

viewed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable employee, had a tendency to

interfere with, restrain or coerce the employee in the exercise of a right guaranteed by the

Act. Clerk of the Circuit Court, 7 PERI 2019; Dep’t. of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. (Dept. of

Conservation), 2 PERI 2032.

Here, the GET READY sign was promulged by the Union to its bargaining unit

members in response to the status of contract negotiations between the State of Illinois and

AFSCME, and contained the colors of the Union—green and white. The Board has held

that Section 6 protects the display of union-related insignia and messages. See Dep’t. of

Cent. Mgmt. Servs. (Corrections), 25 PERI 12, 2009 (union-related pins, including pins

reading “No Scabs,” found to be protected activity under the Act); see also Brandeis Mach.

& Supply Co. 342 NLRB 530 (2004), aff’d, 412 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2005) (finding the right

to wear union insignia protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act).

Accordingly, I find that the display of the GET READY sign to be protected activity under

the Act.4

4 The Union argues that the display of the GET READY sign is also protected as an extension of an

employee’s right to inform the public of labor disputes and to encourage public support of the union’s and

employees’ positions in a labor dispute. It cites NLRB v. Calkins, 187 F.3d 1080, 1086-7 (9th Cir. 1999),

for support of this proposition. I initially note that this theory has not been adopted by the Board. Moreover,

I find Calkins distinguishable; in Calkins, Union representatives engaged in picketing were distributing

leaflets directly to an employer’s customers which explicitly called for the public to support the Union.

Conversely, the GET READY signs were posted in an area where members of the public were not allowed

10

Further, a reasonable employee would have objectively viewed Knight’s directive

to Weidemer as tending to interfere with, restrain, or coerce that employee’s rights under

the Act. Knight did not merely suggest, imply, or otherwise hint to Weidemer that the sign

should be moved; rather, Knight, the de facto head of the IDES Peoria office, directed

Weidemer, his subordinate, to remove the GET READY sign from the outside wall of his

cubicle. What is more, Weidemer testified that Knight stated that if the sign did not come

down, it would be moved. This testimony was unrebutted by Knight. The Board has held

that Employer statements to employees which contain threats of reprisal have been found

to violate Section 10(a)(1) of the Act. Village of Calumet Park, 22 PERI ¶ 23 (IL SLRB

2005); City of Highland Park,18 PERI ¶ 2012 (IL SLRB 2002); City of Chicago

(Mulligan), 11 PERI ¶ 3008 (IL LLRB 1995); City of Chicago (Chicago Police

Department), 3 PERI ¶ 3028 (IL LLRB 1987).

The Employer argues that it administers a non-discriminatory policy which

prohibits all non-work-related postings on the outside of employee workspaces, and that

Knight’s directive to Weidemer could not violate the Act as it was nothing more than

enforcement of that policy. As a starting point, Respondent did not enter into evidence any

written IDES policy or procedure which prohibits the posting of non-work-related material

on the outside of employee workspaces, despite Ramel’s testimony that his understanding

of the policy came from a reading of the agency’s procedures manual. I also have no

evidence to demonstrate when the policy was created, or who created it.

More importantly, though, the firm contours of the policy are unclear from the

record evidence, specifically from the testimony of the Respondent’s own witnesses. The

testimony of Robertson regarding the nature of the policy was inconsistent, as she initially

testified that employees were not allowed to post any materials on the outside of their

cubicles, but later testified that the restriction postings outside the cubicle were on materials

that were inflammatory, political, or derogatory. Additionally, Knight flatly testified that

he could not “quote a policy” on non-work-related materials on the outside of the

employee’s workspace, referring it instead as a “practice.” What is more, Ramel testified

that he understood the policy to prohibit a posting on the outside wall “where it might be

visible to the public,” suggesting postings not visible to the public may be tolerated.

However, even assuming, arguendo, that IDES did have a policy which restricted

the posting of non-work-related signage on the outside walls of employee workspaces, the

into without an escort. What is more, the Union did not offer any evidence to suggest that the purpose of the

GET READY sign was to garner support from the public with respect to the status of contract negotiation.

Finally, the sign did not mention the AFSCME nor Local 51 and gave no indication as to what one ought to

be “getting ready” for. Accordingly, I find the Union’s contention that the GET READY sign sought to

inform the public of a labor dispute or to encourage public support of its bargaining position to be without

merit.

11

record demonstrates that such a policy was not consistently observed. At least one other

employee would occasionally hang sports-related signage on the outside wall of his

cubicle, and Weidemer himself hung the Rosie the Riveter decal on the outside wall of his

cubicle consistently for several months. Neither employee was directed to remove that

signage by IDES management, despite the fact that Knight walked through the office

several times each day. The NLRB has held that an employer’s more stringent enforcement

of its work rules violates the NLRA when such “is a consequence of employee participation

in protected activity.” In Re Schrock Cabinet Co, 339 NLRB 182, 183 (2003) (finding

supervisor’s threat of stricter enforcement of employer’s work rules in response to

employee’s protected activity violated the NLRA); see also Village of Romeoville, 26

PERI 29 (ILRB ALJRDO 2010).

The Employer also argues that the parties’ CBA and the Settlement Agreement

demonstrate that State of Illinois agencies, including IDES, only allow employees to hang

personal items, including union insignia and messages, on the inside of their cubicles and

work spaces. However, the issue in this case is whether Weidemer’s statutory rights under

the Act have been violated. In order for statutory rights to be waived under a collective

bargaining agreement, such waiver must be clear and unmistakable. State of Illinois,

Department of Central Management Services (Corrections) v. ILRB, 373 Ill. App. 3d. 242

(4th Dist. 2007); Village of Oak Park v. ISLRB, 168 Ill. App. 3d 7, 20 (1st Dist. 1988).5

As the party asserting waiver, it is the Respondent’s burden to establish that the Union’s

waiver of such a statutory right is “clear, unequivocal, and unmistakable.” City of Chicago

(Department of Police), 21 PERI 83 (ILRB-LP 2005); State of Illinois (Department of

Military Affairs, 16 PERI ¶ 2014 (IL SLRB 2000).

Here, Respondent points to Article 6, Section 4 of the parties’ CBA to support its

assertion that the Union waived the statutory right of its bargaining unit members to display

Union insignia at work. However, that section relates to union bulletin boards, and the

only reference to work space postings is a prohibition on what cannot be posted “in an

employee work space”: political, partisan, or defamatory postings. Article 6, Section 4

does not define what constitutes “employee work space,” nor does it explicitly restrict the

display of Union insignia in such an “employee work space.” As such, I cannot find that

this CBA provision rises to a clear and unmistakable waiver on the part of the Union.

The Respondent also suggests that the Settlement Agreement in S-CA-13-076

demonstrates that State of Illinois agencies, including IDES, do not allow for personal

5 In addition, under the NLRA, there are certain rights which a union cannot waive. See NLRB v.

Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322 (1974) (holding that a union cannot waive the rights of employees under

Section 7 of the NLRA to distribute union-related literature in non-working areas during non-working

time).

12

postings on the outside of workspaces unless they specifically agree otherwise. However,

the Respondent’s own witness, O’Boyle, testified that the Settlement Agreement applied

only to the Department of Revenue, and not to any other state agency, such as IDES.

Further, Respondent’s witnesses testified at length about IDES’s policy relating to signage,

suggesting that each agency develops its own policies on signage, and that there is no

overarching CMS policy which applies at all agencies. Moreover, the Settlement

Agreement does not provide that the Union is waiving or otherwise limiting the statutory

right under the Act for its bargaining unit members at other State agencies, such as IDES,

to display Union insignia at work. For these reasons, I likewise find that the Settlement

Agreement falls short of a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right of IDES employees

to display Union insignia at work.

V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Respondent violated Section 10(a)(1) of the Act when Knight directed

Weidemer to remove the GET READY sign from the outside of his cubicle.

VI. RECOMMENDED ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of Employment Security), and its officers and agents,

shall:

i. Cease and desist from:

A. Interfering with, restraining, or coercing Charging Party’s

bargaining unit members in the exercise of their right to

display Union insignia or messages at work.

B. More stringently enforcing its policies, procedures, or other

work rules because employees have exercised their rights

under the Act.

C. In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining,

or coercing Charging Party’s bargaining unit members in the

exercise of their rights under the Act.

ii. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the

policies of the Act:

A. Post, for 60 consecutive days, at all places where notices to

employees are normally posted, signed copies of the

attached notice. The Respondent shall take reasonable

13

efforts to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or

covered by any other material.

iii. Notify the Board within 20 days from the date of this decision of the

steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.

VII. EXCEPTIONS

Pursuant to Section 1200.135 of the Board’s Rules, parties may file exceptions to

the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order in briefs in support of

those exceptions no later than 30 days after service of this Recommendation. Parties may

file responses to exceptions and briefs in support of the responses no later than 15 days

after service of the exceptions. In such responses, parties that have not previously filed

exceptions may include cross-exceptions to any portion of this decision. Within seven days

from the filing of cross-exceptions, parties may file cross-responses to the cross-

exceptions. Exceptions, responses, cross-exceptions, and cross-responses must be filed

with the General Counsel of the Illinois Labor Relations Board, Helen Kim, 160 North

LaSalle Street, Suite S-400, Chicago, Illinois 60601-3103, or to the Board’s designated

email address for electronic filings, at ILRB.Filing@Illinois.gov in accordance with

Section 1200.5 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, 80 Ill. Admin. Code §§1200-1300.

All filing must be served on all other parties.

Exceptions, responses, cross-exceptions, and cross-responses will not be accepted

at the Board’s Springfield office. The exceptions and/or cross-exceptions sent to the Board

must contain a statement listing the other parties to the case and verifying that the

exceptions and/or cross-exceptions have been provided to them. The exceptions and/or

cross-exceptions will not be considered without this statement. If no exceptions have been

filed within the 30-day period, the parties will be deemed to have waived their exceptions.

Dated: January 28, 2019

Issued: Springfield, Illinois

/s/ Matthew S. Nagy

Matthew S. Nagy

Administrative Law Judge

Illinois Labor Relations Board

801 S. 7th Street, Suite 1200A

Springfield, Illinois 62703

Tel. (217) 785-3155

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES FROM THE

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 801 South 7th Street, Suite 1200A

Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 785-3155

160 North LaSalle Street, Suite S-400 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3103

(312) 793-6400

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED.

Case No. S-CA-17-053 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees, Council 31/State of Illinois, Department of Central Management

Services(Department of Employment Security))

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent, State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of Employment Security), shall:

i. Cease and desist from:

a. Interfering with, restraining, or coercing Charging Party’s bargaining unit

members in the exercise of their right under the Illinois Public Labor Relations

Act (Act) to display Union insignia or messages at work.

b. More stringently enforcing its policies, procedures, or other work rules because

employees have exercised their rights under the Act.

c. In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing Charging

Party’s bargaining unit members in the exercise of their rights under the Act.

ii. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:

a. Post, for 60 consecutive days, at all places where notices to employees are

normally posted, signed copies of the attached notice. The Respondent shall

take reasonable efforts to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced or

covered by any other material.

iii. Notify the Board within 20 days from the date of this decision of the steps the

Respondent has taken to comply herewith.

State of Illinois, Department of Central

Management Services (Department of

Employment Security)

_________________________________________

Date: January 28, 2019 (Employer)

This notice shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days at all places where notices to our

bargaining unit members are regularly posted.

S-CA-17-053 GCO.pdfS-CA-17-053 rdoS-CA-17-053 ALJRDO FINAL.pdfS-CA-17-053 Notice to Employees.pdf