STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LOCAL PANEL Cook County Health & Hospitals System, ) ) Petitioner ) and ) Case No. L-UC-17-002 ) Chicago Joint Board, Local 200, ) RWDSU, United Food and Commercial ) Workers International Union, ) ) Employer ) ) ORDER On May 21, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Kimberly F. Stevens, 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 August 7, 2018 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the parties have waived their exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order, and this non-precedential Recommended Decision and Order is final and binding on the parties to this proceeding.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 8th day of August 2018. STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LOCAL PANEL /s/Helen J. Kim________________________ Helen J. Kim General Counsel
31
Embed
STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LOCAL … · functions of the RPCs and also that Petitioner had not made a sufficient showing that the RPCs ... Zoraida Calderon (Calderon),
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL PANEL
Cook County Health & Hospitals System, ) ) Petitioner )
and ) Case No. L-UC-17-002 ) Chicago Joint Board, Local 200, ) RWDSU, United Food and Commercial ) Workers International Union, ) ) Employer ) )
ORDER
On May 21, 2018, Administrative Law Judge Kimberly F. Stevens, 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 August 7, 2018 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the parties have waived their exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Decision and Order, and this non-precedential Recommended Decision and Order is final and binding on the parties to this proceeding.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 8th day of August 2018. STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD LOCAL PANEL /s/Helen J. Kim________________________ Helen J. Kim General Counsel
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL PANEL
Cook County Health & Hospitals System, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case No. L-UC-17-002
and )
)
Chicago Joint Board, Local 200, )
RWDSU, United Food and Commercial )
Workers International Union, )
)
Employer. )
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
On October 28, 2016, Cook County Health & Hospital System (Petitioner or CCHHS) filed
a Unit Clarification (UC) Petition (Petition) in Case No. L-UC-17-002 with the Local Panel of the
Illinois Labor Relations Board (Board) pursuant to Section 1210.170(a)(1) of the Board’s Rules.
80 Ill. Adm. Code § 1210.170(a)(1). The Petitioner seeks to exclude three Residency Program
Coordinator (RPC) positions, employed by CCHHS, from collective bargaining. The Petitioner
asserts that the positions are excluded from coverage under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act,
5 ILCS 315/1 et seq. (2014), as amended (Act), pursuant to the exemption for supervisory and
managerial employees.
On November 22, 2016, Chicago Joint Board, Local 200, RWDSU, United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union (Respondent or Local 200) filed a response to the
Petition, stating that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a substantial change in the duties and
functions of the RPCs and also that Petitioner had not made a sufficient showing that the RPCs
should be statutorily excluded. Thereafter, Petitioner amended the Petition to clarify that it now
sought to exclude the two RPCs assigned to the Internal Medicine Department and no longer
sought to exclude the one RPC assigned to the Pediatrics Department.
In accordance with Section 9(a) of the Act, an authorized Board agent investigated and
determined that there was reasonable cause to believe that a question concerning representation
existed. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Kenyatta Beverly conducted a hearing on this matter on
March 22nd and 23rd, 2017.. Both parties filed timely post-hearing briefs. After full consideration
2
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:
1. Cook County Health and Hospital System is a public employer within the meaning of
Section 3 (o) of the Act.
2. Local 200, Chicago Joint Board, RWDSU is an exclusive representative within the
meaning of Section 3(f) of the Act.
3. Local 200, Chicago Joint Board, RWDSU is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 3(i) of the Act.
4. The Local Panel of the Illinois Public Labor Relations Board has proper jurisdiction to
hear this matter and issue a decision on the merits.
II. ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The issues are as follows: 1) whether substantial changes occurred in the RPCs’ duties that
render the UC Petition procedurally appropriate; 2) whether the RPCs are supervisory employees
within the meaning of Section 3(r) of the Act; and 3) whether the RPCs are managerial employees
within Section 3(j) of the Act.
Petitioner argues that the Petition is appropriate because after the RPCs inclusion in the
bargaining unit, substantial changes occurred in the duties and functions of the RPCs due to an
increase in industry regulations and a change in the Internal Residency Program leadership. The
Respondent asserts that the Petition should not be considered because the unit in question was only
recently certified and Petitioner provided no evidence that any of the Board’s requirements for a
unit clarification were satisfied.
Next, Petitioner argues that the RPCs should be excluded from the bargaining unit because
they are supervisory employees. Petitioner claims that the RPCs’ principal duties are substantially
different from the work of their subordinates and the RPCs have the authority to perform some or
all of the 11 supervisory functions enumerated in Section 3(r) of the Act. Respondent argues that
the RPCs are not supervisory employees because there is no evidence that the nature of the RPCs’
job responsibilities differs from that of other clerical employees on their team. Respondent also
argues that: the RPCs participation on a hiring panel is not a supervisory function; there is no
evidence that the RPCs played any role in discipline; and there is no evidence that the RPCs used
3
independent judgement when directing their subordinates. Furthermore, Respondent argues that
the RPCs cannot reward or punish their subordinates and that Petitioner has not demonstrated the
RPCs spend a preponderance of time performing any alleged supervisory duties.
Finally, Petitioner alleges that the RPCs should be excluded from the bargaining unit
because they are managerial employees. Petitioner contends that the RPCs are managerial
employees because they possess final responsibility and independent authority in directing the
effectuation of management policies. Specifically, Petitioner states that the RPCs create policies
to ensure compliance with accrediting agencies and effectuate attendance policies. Petitioner
further argues that RPCs oversee effective and efficient operations of the Residency Program by
participating in compliance meetings, Clinical Competence Committee meetings, and promotions
committee meetings in addition to representing the program by meeting with and communicating
with outside agencies. Respondent argues that there is no evidence that RPCs are responsible for
the establishment or direction of any significant CCHHS function. Respondent contends that the
RPCs’ duties are not distinguishable from the duties of their subordinates in this regard.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Bargaining Unit
The Internal Medicine Residency Program at CCHHS has two RPCs and 4 Administrative
Assistants. All of these employees are currently included in the same bargaining unit. The RPCs
were certified in the bargaining unit in or around October 2015.
2. The Internal Medicine Residency Program
CCHHS has multiple residency programs that provide specialized medical training to
doctors who are known as “residents.” One program, the Internal Medicine Residency Program
(Residency Program), provides three years of post-medical school training for residents who seek
to be eligible for board certification by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). The
Residency Program is the largest residency program in the hospital, accepting approximately 45
residents per year, and authorized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
(ACGME) to train up to 144 physicians. For each new resident cohort, the Residency Program
begins on July 1 and ends three years later on June 30.
Dr. Suja Mathew (Dr. Mathew) is employed by CCHHS as the Chairman for the
Department of Medicine at Stroger Hospital and oversees the provision of internal medicine
services throughout CCHHS and its facilities. Dr. Mathew supervises 14 divisions within the
4
Department of Medicine at Stroger Hospital. Each division has a chair who reports to Dr. Mathew.
Zoraida Calderon (Calderon), CCHHS’s Business Manager, reports to Dr. Mathew, as do
additional direct reports at Provident Hospital.
3. Dr. Acob’s Arrival and Changes to the Residency Program
In March 2016, Dr. Christine Acob (Dr. Acob) became the Residency Program’s Interim
Program Director. According to testimony at hearing, Dr. Acob’s role is to “basically run the
program” and she is involved in “anything that has to do with education, curriculum, the cycle of
those three-year residency training, any disciplinary actions with residents’ performance, running
the support staff as well, but anything and everything to do with the program.” Dr. Acob is one of
the 14 chairs that reports to Dr. Mathew. The RPCs report to Dr. Acob.
When Dr. Acob became the Interim Program Director she implemented new initiatives
within the Residency Program. In addition to Dr. Acob’s new initiatives, the Residency Program
also became subject to increased ACGME, graduate medical education office, ABIM, and
institutional requirements. RPC Talath Alikhan (RPC Alikhan) stated that Dr. Acob’s new
initiatives, combined with the new regulatory requirements, recently increased the RPCs’ level of
responsibility, workload, and delegation of duties to Administrative Assistants (AAs).
The two at-issue RPC positions were certified and included in the bargaining unit in
October 2015. Dr. Acob testified that, after she became Interim Program Director in March 2016,
the role of the RPC changed because she “started redoing some of the protocols that we have in
place to make it more efficient, and the expectation has gotten to be much more.” For example,
Dr. Acob now expects the turnover time of the RPCs’ tasks to be much faster. Whereas previously
it was acceptable for several weeks to pass before an RPC fulfilled a request for credentialing and
verification, Dr. Acob now expects turnover to occur within a week of a request.
Dr. Acob also noted the changes to regulatory reporting requirements which now require
RPCs to submit reports regarding residents’ rotations, attendance, conference compliance, and
module compliance to ACGME every six months. If the RPCs fail to submit the required reports,
the program will lose its accreditation. The Residency Program currently has 132 residents whose
reports must be submitted to ACGME every six months. Additionally, for the graduating class,
the same report must also be submitted to the ABIM so that the residents can be eligible to sit for
board examinations.
5
Prior to ACGME’s recent change to the new accreditation system requiring six-month
reporting, the old model expected training reports every 36 months; therefore, reporting occurred
after the residents completed training. ACGME’s new accreditation system was implemented in
2012; however, the Residency Program was not required to submit reports on the individual
performance of residents until approximately 2016. Dr. Acob testified that RPCs are heavily
involved in the reporting process. RPCs compile the reports, ensure the accuracy of the reports,
communicate with the ACGME and ABIM, and ensure residents are approved to take board
examinations.
In addition to ACGME’s new accreditation system, Dr. Acob testified that the RPCs’ duties
have increased due to a change in the residents’ rotations policy. The reports that they submit to
ACGME have nearly doubled in size because, one and a half years prior to hearing, the program
went from having three years of one-month rotations (totaling 13 rotations per year) to allowing
two-week rotations. Thus, whereas the Residency Program previously covered 39 rotations over
three years, that number doubled due to the shorter two-week rotations. Dr. Acob stated that this
impacted the RPCs’ duties because “instead of you just having one evaluation for a month, that
may require now two.”
4. The Residency Program Coordinator
Dr. Mathew is familiar with the RPC position because she helped to create the RPCs’ job
descriptions, participated in the hiring process for the RPCs, and participated in the hiring process
for individuals who applied for the role in other CCHHS residency programs. Dr. Acob is
knowledgeable about the RPC position because she trained in the Residency Program and “is
familiar with the way things are run.” Dr. Acob also helped to define the expectations of the RPC
role. The Residency Program has two RPCs – RPC Alikhan and RPC Shanta Reynolds-Woods
(RPC Reynolds-Woods).
Dr. Mathew testified that the RPCs’ job duties require them to “manage, essentially, all
administrative aspects of the Residency Program. That involves the on-boarding management
through those three years, the off-boarding management of those residents at the end, assisting in
managing the evaluation process, and evaluation and assisting in the scheduling process.”
Similarly, Dr. Acob stated that the RPCs’ job duties are vast and require them to oversee on-
boarding, licensing, Visas, rotations, ensuring residents comply with various policies and
regulations, ensuring resident reports and evaluations are submitted internally and externally,
6
generally ensuring that the Residency Program meets regulatory standards, and off-boarding of
residents after they complete the program.
RPCs are involved in resident recruitment season and arrange the agenda for the Residency
Program tour, interact with residents, and collect residents’ paperwork. RPC Alikhan testified that
her duties include “overseeing and evaluating residents as well as administrating responsibilities
to staff, delegating, overseeing projects, ensuring time lines are met and kept, adhering to the
American College of Graduate Medical Education . . . also working with . . . the internal medicine
board to ensure that the residents complete their requirements so they can take their boards in order
to graduate in a timely fashion.”
Regarding on-boarding, once the RPCs receive matched residents, they assist them with
licensing, visas, provide them with information required to start the Residency Program, and
ensure that the residents’ contracts with CCHHS are properly executed. While residents train in
the Residency Program, RPCs “help facilitate their evaluation process, help do compliance, ensure
that they’re meeting all the requirements – institutional based as well as per ACGME standards.”
RPCs participate in the off-boarding process by ensuring that the residents meet all educational
requirements, complete evaluations, and meet ACGME, ABIM, and Residency Program
standards.
RPC Alikhan stated that she represents the Residency Program at ACGME meetings and
is listed as one of the program’s main contacts. RPCs also represent the Residency Program before
the ABIM. RPC Alikhan testified that AAs do not represent the Residency Program before outside
agencies. To ensure that residents are meeting their requirements, RPCs attend Clinical
Competence Committee (CCC) compliance meetings. RPCs also attend meetings to monitor
residents’ performance. RPCs attend promotions committee meetings to evaluate various
improvement plans for residents. Additionally, RPCs assist residents with requests ranging from
finding housing to ensuring they complete their rotations in a timely fashion.
Dr. Mathew stated that RPCs have staff that support the body of work that RPCs are
responsible for, “[s]o they are also expected to supervise and manage the individuals that report to
them and coordinate their activities for completion of that entire body of work.” According to Dr.
Mathew, RPCs exercise substantial independent decision-making authority within the Residency
Program and allocate duties to their staff. RPC Alikhan assigns the AAs “tasks and certain
responsibilities that are sort of routine, and then there’s other special projects that come up
7
throughout the year.” RPC Alikhan reviews AA’s work and AAs often approach her with
questions – sometimes daily – regarding projects, payroll, and scheduling. Overall, RPC Alikhan
ensures “that our program runs as smoothly as possible.”
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs communicate with agencies including: ACGME; the
ABIM; the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG); the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS); and the Illinois Department of Professional and
Financial Regulation (IDPFR). RPCs prepare all documents for ACGME on site visits. On the
day of the visit, RPCs assist in ensuring that the Residency Program is meeting all ACGME
requirements.
RPCs participate in the recruitment of residents through the National Residency Matching
Program. Every year, the Residency Program receives approximately 5,500 applications that must
be considered for the Residency Program’s 45 available spots. RPCs review these applications
and prepare them for additional review by the program directors and the admissions committee.
RPCs also arrange the resident interview process and assist with ranking applicants for the
National Residency Matching Program. Once the Residency Program receives its “matched
resident list”, the on-boarding process of new residents begins.
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs possess the authority to alter the resident-intake process;
however, because this process is a collaborative effort between three different departments, the
RPCs must negotiate with the other departments if they desire to change the process. RPC Alikhan
is involved in resident document collection management, and she altered the process for how
documents come into the Residency Program, specifically regarding the Visa acquisition process.
RPC Alikhan communicates with IDPFR, the Residency Program’s licensing entity, regarding
securing residents’ licenses. RPC Alikhan interacts with, and responds to, inquiries from IDFPR
“independent of any other program leadership.”
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs participate in the Residency Program’s resident promotions
committee by setting up evaluations, organizing evaluations, ensuring evaluations are completed,
and preparing the evaluations for review at the resident promotions committee’s meetings. If a
resident fails to complete an evaluation, Dr. Mathew stated that RPCs are responsible for
communicating this issue to a program director. RPCs are expected to understand the residency
review committee standards for the Residency Program.
8
The Residency Program has policies to ensure compliance with various accrediting
agencies. Dr. Matthew and Dr. Acob testified that RPCs effectuate some of these policies. For
example, the Residency Program has a policy that relates to ACGME’s limits and guidelines
regarding the number of hours that residents spend at work and in other related duties. To ensure
that ACGME’s requirements are met, the Residency Program “developed an expectation list as
well as policies that allow for work within the structure that’s defined by ACGME. And we are
expected to monitor that we are in compliance with that requirement.” Compliance is achieved
through residents self-reporting and the RPCs are responsible for tracking the residents’ duty hours
and ensuring that self-reporting is completed. If self-reporting is not occurring, the RPCs must
report the non-compliance. RPCs also collate self-reporting results and present them as necessary
to requesting parties. Dr. Acob stated that RPCs effectuate policies when they ensure that residents
complete all required infection control modules and adhere to all related policies.
RPC Alikhan testified that, generally, she can change policies related to timekeeping,
recruitment, and delegation of responsibilities. RPC Alikhan stated that she changed one of the
Residency Program’s policies when she reorganized and reassigned responsibilities after a member
of the staff was displaced, decreasing the number of AA staff from five to four.
RPC Alikhan asserted that she is responsible for providing recommendations to develop
policies for the Residency Program. For example, RPC Alikhan made changes to the Residency
Program’s swipe policy, explaining that she “streamlined it more to be more effective . . . by
making it less stringent.” Under RPC Alikhan’s more streamlined approach, residents were
required to call in two hours before they were due to report for training, as opposed to four hours
as previously required. This change was vocalized to residents and not presented in writing.
While ACGME certifies the Residency Program based on residents meeting reporting
requirements, the ABIM is the certifying body for individual trainees. Residents must meet the
ABIM’s requirements for board certification, including rotational and reporting requirements. Dr.
Mathew stated that RPCs identify and address deficiencies in residents meeting these
requirements. Overall, RPCs are expected to ensure that residents comply with CCHHS mandates,
required certifications, and trainings.
According to Dr. Mathew, RPCs represent the Residency Program at CCHHS’s Graduate
Medical Education Committee (GMEC) meetings and ACGME annual meetings. The most recent
annual ACGME meeting was in Orlando, Florida, and both RPCs attended. Additionally, RPCs
9
represent the Residency Program, as necessary, when the IDFPR meets with program coordinators
to review resident licensing requirements.
RPC Alikhan is involved in “employment exiting” and “training exiting,” and uses multiple
documents to facilitate the exiting process. One of these documents is a checklist that she signs
when completed. Regarding training exiting, Alikhan stated that she has the authority to change
requirements in the program’s documents that are used to facilitate the process. RPCs do not have
authority to change ACGME requirements; however, Dr. Mathew testified that no one outside
ACGME has the authority to change the requirements.
The only difference in the roles of the Residency Program’s two RPCs, Alikhan and
Reynolds-Woods, is that, operationally, RPC Alikhan has direct responsibility for the program and
management of the staff while RPC Reynolds-Woods assumes this responsibility on assigned
special projects or when RPC Alikhan is absent.
5. Residency Program Coordinators Compared to Administrative Assistants
The RPCs supervise four Administrative Assistants (AAs): Queenie Mendonca
(Mendonca), Cecilia Griffin (Griffin), Margie Miranda (Miranda), and Sharon Barnes (Barnes).
The AAs and RPCs are all represented by Local 200. Dr. Acob testified that the AAs are charged
with tasks such as payroll, scheduling appointments, room reservations, making copies for
conferences, and issuing resident identification.
Dr. Mathew and Dr. Acob testified that, in the future, RPCs would be involved in
developing the AAs’ job description and are expected to participate on the interview panel to hire
new AAs. The interview panel is comprised of two to five members of the Residency Program.
Each member holds various positions in the program and their input holds equal weight. Thus far,
an opportunity to hire new AAs has not presented itself; however, RPC Alikhan testified that the
Residency Program will need to hire an AA in the near future to fill an expected vacancy. RPC
Alikhan stated that, when the new AA position is posted, she expects to participate in the interview
process as well as on the selection committee.
According to Dr. Mathew, the role of the RPCs is different than the role of the AAs because
RPCs “have oversight and supervise and have ultimate responsibility for the program. The AAs
assist them in that complete body of work by doing the duties assigned to them by the RPCs.”
Additionally, RPCs monitor AAs and delegate duties to them. RPC Alikhan and Dr. Acob testified
that the RPCs do not need their supervisor’s permission to assign the AAs tasks.
10
Dr. Acob stated that there are certain tasks that cannot be handled by the AAs. For
example, when Dr. Acob was recently out of town the RPCs, not the AAs, covered calls regarding
Residency Program business. Dr. Acob also noted that RPCs supervise the residents’ compliance
with various policies, such as the swiping policy. AAs are tasked with reporting issues to RPCs,
but the RPCs decide how to address the issues.
The four AAs perform different duties and are not expected to delegate to anyone else. Dr.
Mathew testified that they are not supervisors and “complete job duties as assigned to them by
their job description or other duties as assigned by their supervisor, which is the program
coordinator.” RPC Alikhan stated that her job is multifaceted and that she not only works with the
residents but also oversees the work of the AAs to ensure that all work is completed. RPC Alikhan
stated that RPCs oversee the program and “the ultimate responsibility lies with myself and my co-
coordinator, Shanta Reynolds-Woods.”
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs are expected to discipline AAs and recounted an incident
in which RPC Alikhan addressed AA Mendonca’s performance deficiencies through a “Program
Feedback Session” and follow-up email (Exhibit Nos. 9 and 10). AA Mendonca’s deficiencies
were brought to RPC Alikhan’s attention by Dr. Acob and involved failing to meet timelines and
poor time management. To address this issue, RPC Alikhan, Business Manager Calderon, Dr.
Acob, Carrie Bird (Labor Relations), and George Leonard (Union President) held a Program
Feedback Session with AA Mendonca and “reviewed sort of her processes, how to adhere to
certain tasks, and gone through that step by step just to ensure that we could try and help – help
her manage her time so projects could be completed in a timely fashion.” After the Program
Feedback Session, RPC Alikhan and AA Mendonca developed a plan of action to effectively meet
AA Mendonca’s duties. AA Mendonca was not reprimanded or suspended. RPC Alikhan testified
that the Program Feedback Session was not a pre-disciplinary meeting.
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs play a role in the suspension or termination of AAs. In the
two years prior to hearing, the RPCs had not had an opportunity to suspend or terminate an AA.
However, RPC Alikhan testified that she was trained “with the employment plan for the
disciplinary process as a manager” and would be expected to participate in the suspension or
termination process, initially as a fact-finder, and thereafter by following the disciplinary steps
outlined in the AAs’ collective bargaining agreement.
11
The RPCs have never received a formal grievance from the Union; however, RPC Alikhan
testified that she is expected to resolve grievances. In the two years prior to hearing, RPC Alikhan
was not aware of any AAs filing grievances. The closest incident related to a grievance occurred
when RPC Alikhan had an AA that did not want to complete a task because she did not have
enough time, “so she had a bit of a grievance regarding that . . .” and came to RPC Alikhan to
figure out how to address the issue. RPC Alikhan responded by delegating the responsibility to
more than one person so that the deadline could be met within the allotted timeline. RPC Alikhan
testified that this incident did not comprise a formal grievance.
Dr. Acob testified that an AA filed a grievance within the last six years, and that the
grievance was addressed by an employee who served in a role that was the equivalent of the RPC
position, although the role was titled “program coordinator” at that time. When the grievance was
filed, the current RPC roles did not exist within the Residency Program, and only the “program
coordinator” title existed. CCHHS Business Manager Calderon served as the program coordinator
at that time and responded to the grievance.
RPCs are expected to regularly monitor and evaluate the performance of AAs and thus are
the first individuals to identify a performance deficiency. The AAs have not received performance
evaluations by the RPCs; however, RPC Alikhan testified that she communicates with the AAs
regarding their performance. Dr. Mathew explained that “there has not been system-wide
evaluations done since Ms. Alikhan has been in the position” and RPC Alikhan testified that
performance evaluations are not performed annually, although she believes performance
evaluations occurred prior to her becoming an RPC. Dr. Acob testified that, when AAs do receive
performance evaluations, the RPCs will oversee them.
If an AA performance deficiency is identified, Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs are expected
to work with the AA and “make an independent judgment about how to handle that deficiency.”
If an RPC determines that an AA needs to participate in the discipline process – anywhere from
counseling to reprimand and on up the progressive discipline process, including resolving
grievances – Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs are expected to work with Human Resources and
Labor Relations throughout the disciplinary process. According to Dr. Mathew, RPCs
independently make decisions regarding AAs without conferring with her or Dr. Acob.
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs create, oversee, and make changes to the policies that
govern the staff that report to them and “effectuate the policies of attendance reporting” of the
12
Residency Program. RPCs have changed the management of call-in procedures for staff that call
in sick or are unable to work for other reasons. Regarding specific changes to call-in procedures
made by the RPCs, Dr. Mathew testified that “initially it was a very loose process. Someone would
call . . . like one particular clinical supervisor . . . but it wasn’t following a chain, and all individuals
who needed to be notified of an absence were not being notified[.]” Dr. Mathew stated that the
RPCs changed the call-in procedure process by requiring documentation of an absence and altering
the method in which individuals “throughout the organization are notified and who is responsible
for that notification[.]”
While there have been no collective bargaining or labor relations issues to which the RPCs
have had to respond, Dr. Mathew testified that, if such issues occurred, she would “invite the
comment of the residency program coordinators.” RPCs also have access to residents’ personnel
documents and training files, which include resident evaluations, schedules, licenses, visa
documents, ranking documents, and letters of recommendation.
Dr. Mathew testified that RPCs are held accountable for AAs’ performance deficiencies
and accordingly address them when they arise. Dr. Mathew provided an example where an RPC
assigned an AA the task of scheduling resident in-training exams and the task was not completed.
In that instance, the assigning RPC was held responsible for the AA’s deficiency and expected to
complete an investigation to hold others accountable as well.
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
1. The Unit Clarification Petition is Appropriate
Use of the unit clarification procedure to add employees to an existing bargaining unit
circumvents the regular representation procedures, thereby denying the employees an opportunity
to choose their representative. Accordingly, the Board limits the circumstances in which the unit
clarification procedure may appropriately be invoked. City of Chicago, 9 PERI ¶ 3026 (IL LLRB
1993); City of Chicago, 2 PERI ¶ 3014 (IL LLRB 1986).
There are five circumstances in which a unit clarification petition is appropriately filed.
Section 1210.170(a) of the Board’s Rules identifies three of the five circumstances: (1) substantial
changes occur in the duties and functions of an existing title, raising an issue as to the title’s unit
placement; (2) an existing job title that is logically encompassed within the existing unit was
inadvertently excluded by the parties at the time the unit was established; and (3) a significant
13
change takes place in the statutory or case law that affects the bargaining rights of employees. 80
Ill. Admin. Code §1210.170(a).
Additionally, a unit clarification petition is appropriate to include newly created job
classifications entailing job functions already covered in the unit. City of Evanston v. State Labor
Rel. Bd., 227 Ill. App. 3d 955, 969-70 (1st Dist. 1992), citing State of Ill. (Dep’t of Cent. Mgmt.
Servs. & Public Aid), 2 PERI ¶ 2019 (IL SLRB 1986). It may also be used to include titles that
the Board excluded as objected-to when certifying a majority interest petition that had majority
support without consideration of the objected-to titles. 80 Ill. Admin. Code §1210.100(b)(7)(B);
City of Washington v. Ill. Labor Rel. Bd., 383 Ill. App. 3d 1112 (3d Dist. 2008); Treasurer of the
State of Ill., 30 PERI ¶ 53 (IL LRB-SP 2013) rev’d on other grounds, Am. Fed’n of State, Cty. &
Mun. Employees, Council 31 v. Ill. Labor Rel. Bd., 2014 IL App (1st) 132455. A unit clarification
petition may also be used to exclude statutorily exempt positions. See Chief Judge of Circuit Court
of Cook Cty. v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cty & Mun. Employees, Council 31, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 521
(1992) (employer could file unit clarification petition to remove statutorily exempt employee from
bargaining unit at any time).
In this case, the at-issue RPC positions were certified into the bargaining unit in October
2015. CCHHS alleges that a substantial change occurred in their duties and functions rendering a
unit clarification petition appropriate pursuant to Section 1210.170(a) of the Board’s Rules. I
agree.
The record demonstrates that two substantial changes occurred in 2016, affecting the duties
and functions of the RPC titles: (1) ACGME changed its regulatory standards, resulting in the
Residency Program increasing its internal requirements, and resident reports significantly
increasing in size and nearly doubling in volume; and (2) there was a change in hospital leadership
when Dr. Acob became Interim Program Director and implemented new initiatives. Each of these
occurrences directly impacted the RPCs’ duties and functions.
The RPCs’ job description states that the RPCs’ job duties include, but are not limited to
the following:
• the preparation of required documents for regulating or accrediting agencies;
• preparing reports for ACGME, ABIM, and other accrediting bodies;
• managing the data management for residents, fellows, and teaching faculty
including scheduling, evaluations, and record retention;
14
• collecting, entering, and assigning evaluations to respective residents and attending
physicians;
• notifying the Program Director or Department Chairman when residents or
attending physicians are within substandard compliance;
• tracking duty hours through New Innovations and submitting reports regarding this
to the GMEC on a regular basis or as requested.” (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2)
ACGME’s new accreditation system, as well as Dr. Acob’s new initiatives, impacted each of these
tasks.
The duties of RPCs, as performed when they were included in the bargaining unit in 2015,
are not the same as those performed at the time of hearing. Prior to the change in ACGME
requirements, the resident performance reports were submitted every 36 months – essentially after
the resident completed the three-year program. After ACGME changed its requirements, RPCs
were required to submit the reports every six months. As earlier noted, the Residency Program
currently has 132 residents whose reports must be submitted to ACGME. This change alone
comprises a considerable increase in the RPCs’ workload as they are responsible for this task.
Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. While ACGME implemented its updated reporting requirements in 2012,
CCHHS only began reporting the individual performance of residents in response to these changes
in 2016. Therefore, a change in the RPCs duties was not realized until 2016.
In addition to more frequent reports to ACGME, the Residency Program increased its
internal requirements regarding resident rotations reports. This further increased the RPCs’
workload because the Residency Program now allowed two-week specialty rotations compared to
the prior one-month rotations. This change increased the RPCs’ expected generation of rotation
reports from one report to two reports per month, essentially doubling the number of rotation
reports prepared by RPCs.
Finally, when the RPCs were certified in 2015, Dr. Acob was not the Residency Program’s
Interim Program Director. She assumed that role in March 2016, after the RPCs were already
certified into the bargaining unit. While Dr. Acob’s acceptance of a new role is not a substantial
change when considered alone, the record demonstrates that Dr. Acob made changes when she
assumed the Interim Program Director position, and these actions impacted the breadth of duties
assigned to RPCs.
15
Testimony from multiple witnesses consistently indicates that Dr. Acob implemented new
initiatives that required the RPCs to complete projects on a more expedited timeline and delegate
more tasks to the AAs when compared to pre-2016. The RPCs report to Dr. Acob, and she has the
authority to assign them other duties as necessary, on top of the RPCs’ duties already affected by
ACGME’s and the hospital system’s updated requirements. Dr. Acob’s arrival and
implementation of new initiatives caused a substantial change in the duties and functions of the
RPCs.
For these reasons, I conclude that the RPCs’ positions experienced a substantial change in
duties since being certified in 2015, and, therefore, the unit clarification petition is appropriate.
2. The Supervisory Exclusion
CCHHS argues that RPCs are supervisors within the meaning of Section 3(r) of the Act.
The purpose of the supervisory exclusion is to avoid the conflict of interest that may arise when
supervisors, “who must apply the employer’s policies to subordinates, are subject to control by the
same union representing those subordinates.” City of Freeport v. Illinois State Labor Relations
Board, 135 Ill. 2d 499, 517 (1990).
Under Section 3(r), employees are supervisors if they (1) perform principal work that is
substantially different from that of their subordinates; (2) have the authority, in the interest of their
employer, to perform any of the enumerated supervisory functions or effectively recommend such
action; (3) consistently use independent judgment in performing those functions; and (4) spend a
preponderance of their time exercising that authority. Chief Judge of Circuit Court of Cook Cnty.
v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., Council 31, AFL-CIO, 153 Ill. 2d 508, 515 (1992).
Under Section 3(r), the eleven enumerated supervisory functions are: “hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, direct, reward, or discipline employees, or to adjust
their grievances, or to effectively recommend such action, if the exercise of such authority is not
of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the consistent use of independent judgment.” 5
ILCS 315/3(r)
A. Principal Work
In determining whether the principal work requirement has been met, the initial question
is whether the work of the alleged supervisor and that of her subordinate is obviously and visibly
different. City of Freeport, 135 Ill. 2d at 514. If the answer is yes, the principal work requirement
is satisfied. Id. If the answer is no, the determinative factor is whether the “nature and essence” of
16
the alleged supervisor’s principal work is substantially different than the “nature and essence” of
her subordinates’ principal work. Id. This requires consideration of the supervisory authority and
the ability to exercise it at any time, and identifying the point at which an employee’s supervisory
obligation conflicts with her participation in union activity with the employees she supervises. Id
at 518. However, the “mere possession of any supervisory indicia is insufficient to change the
nature and essence of substantially similar principal work.” Village of Burr Ridge, 23 PERI ¶ 102
(IL LRB-SP 2007).
In this case, CCHHS argues that the RPCs’ principal work is different from the principal
work of the AAs. The testimony and documentary evidence supports CCHHS’s position. Dr.
Mathew, the Chairman for the Residency Program, testified that “[n]one of [the AAs] would be
expected to delegate to anyone else. None of them are supervisory. They complete job duties as
assigned to them either as determined by their job description or other duties as assigned by their
supervisory which is the [RPC.]” Examples of specific tasks that are assigned to AAs include:
scheduling, making room reservations, payroll tasks, and making copies. For the most part, these
tasks are found in the AAs’ job description but not in the RPCs’ job description. Exhibit Nos. 1-
4. Additionally, RPCs delegate tasks to the AAs, review their work, answer their payroll and
scheduling questions, and ensure that the Residency Program runs smoothly. AAs do not delegate
work to anyone.
CCHHS contends that, unlike the AAs’ role, the RPCs’ role is multifaceted, and they are
required not only to work with the residents, but also to oversee the work of the AAs and ensure
that all work is completed. RPC Alikhan testified that, unlike the AAs, RPCs assign tasks to