Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Fourth-Year Non-Tenured Teacher Against Claim of Violation of Teacher's Right to Union Representation at Evaluation Meetings 

In a long-awaited decision, the Illinois Supreme Court has reversed its appellate court and held a  special education cooperative did not commit an unfair labor practice when it non-renewed a fourth-year probationary teacher. The Court found the teacher did not engage in protected union activity because she had no right to union representation during post-observation "remedial" meetings.

As reported in the November 2009 Extra Mile, your professional organizations, the Illinois Association of School Boards and Illinois Association of School Administrators retained HLERK to file a friend of the court ("amicus curiae") brief with the Supreme Court in support of the Cooperative.

In Speed District 802 v. Warning, Docket No. 108785 (February 25, 2011), a fourth-year probationary teacher was placed on a "correction plan" calling for regular meetings between the teacher and principal to evaluate her progress. The plan stated that failure to follow the plan could result in her termination.

The teacher insisted that a union representative accompany her to the meetings. The principal stated that the teacher did not have the right to the union representative's attendance because the meetings were about performance and not discipline. After the principal allowed the union representative to attend and then prohibited the representative from commenting during the meetings, the principal gave the teacher unsatisfactory reviews and notified her that her teaching contract would be terminated at the end of the year.

The union filed an unfair labor practice against the cooperative. The union alleged that the cooperative retaliated against the teacher for her insisting on having a union representative present at her meetings, which it claimed was a protected union activity under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA).

The Illinois Educational Labor Board (IELRB) agreed with the union and held that the cooperative committed an unfair labor practice and ordered the cooperative to reinstate the teacher with tenure and back pay. An Illinois appellate court affirmed holding that the IELRB's award of reinstatement was not an abuse of discretion, even though the reinstatement resulted in the teacher obtaining tenure.

The Supreme Court reversed on a 4-3 vote. In so doing, the Court found that the teacher failed to prove she engaged in protected union activity because she had no right to have union representation at the post-observation and remediation meetings absent language in the collective bargaining contract granting teachers such right. Accordingly, there could be no finding that the cooperative discriminated against her for engaging in protected activity. 

Finding that the cooperative did not commit an unfair labor practice, the Court did not consider whether reinstating the teacher to a tenured position was an appropriate remedy. Interestingly, two of the three dissenting justices would not have granted the teacher tenure even though they found that the cooperative illegally retaliated against the teacher. Rather, they would have granted her another year of probationary service as the appropriate remedy.

As school districts make their employment decisions the SPEED decision is a welcome support.  Call Stan Eisenhammer with questions concerning the decision or Tina Christofalos with your employment non-renewal and dismissal issues.