7th Circuit - First Amendment - Labor - Unionization The Cook County, Illinois Sheriff's Office was embroiled in a labor issue in which a level of supervisor called "commander" sought to be represented by a union. Management was opposed believing that this level of employee fell outside the class of employee entitled to representation. The issue had existed for some time. Two coalescing events occurred that brought the issue to the courts. An ALJ with the state department of labor concluded that the employees were entitled to representation and at roughly the same time the Sheriff's Office was hit with a huge budget shortfall that required a significant reduction in spending. Various solutions were developed including one that would eliminate all commander positions. This solution was favored by the county budget staff, but there were other options to address the shortfall and other options regarding the elimination of the commander level positions including allowing those employees to bump lower ranked employees thereby retaining employment but at lower levels. The Sheriff chose to eliminate the position entirely and several of the affected employees sued claiming that their positions were eliminated due to their exercise of their Frist Amendment rights to advocate for unionization. About three months after the jobs were eliminated, the state department of labor reversed the ALJ's decision on appeal, but this decision had no effect in changing the Sheriff's decision. The lower court concluded that the Sheriff acted for legitimate budgetary reasons rather than to retaliate for the exercise of First Amendment rights and concluded that no reasonable juror could disagree. In a 2-1 decision the panel affirmed. The majority discussed the budget issues, the lack of attacks on other unionized members and the fact that all commanders' positions were eliminated as opposed to those only union supporters, and that the county's budget staff preferred this option as it believed the department was top heavy in management. The dissent viewed this case as fact bound and required a jury's view. Consolino vs. Dart, processWebInputExternal.pl<https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D11-05/C:23-2968:J:Jackson-Akiwumi:dis:T:fnOp:N:3287574:S:0>, https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2024/D11-05/C:23-2968:J:Jackson-Akiwumi:dis:T:fnOp:N:3287574:S:0 Both as an aside and learning tip: The County did an excellent job of teeing this case up for defending the action. The court seemed to rely heavily on the recommendation of the County Board's staff recommendations which the majority pointed out seemed to have no bias for or against unionization. Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>