## Facts

- Teamsters Local 726 (the union) represented a bargaining unit of police employees of the City of Markham (the city).
- The union and the city negotiated a successor collective-bargaining agreement but reached impasse on certain contract terms.
- The unresolved items were submitted to compulsory interest arbitration before the Illinois Labor Relations Board (ILRB).
- A central disagreement involved proposed contract language addressing “neutral arbitration” for disciplinary matters.
- The union supported including discipline language that had been used by a prior interest arbitrator and had appeared in two earlier agreements between the parties.
- The city opposed neutral arbitration for discipline and contended that disciplinary matters should be decided by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

## Issues

1. In ILRB compulsory interest arbitration, may the resulting contract include a clause providing for neutral arbitration of police disciplinary matters instead of decision-making by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners?
2. When the parties propose conflicting disciplinary procedures (neutral arbitration versus board determination), how should the interest arbitrator resolve the impasse for the successor agreement?

## Decision

- The interest-arbitration proceeding went forward before the ILRB to resolve the parties’ contract impasse, including the discipline-related dispute.
- The arbitrator considered the union’s proposed neutral-arbitration language (based on prior arbitration language and prior contracts) and the city’s position that discipline should be handled by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.
- Publicly available information about Case No. S-MA-01-232 (2003) does not provide the full text of the award, so the specific contract language ordered on discipline (and the detailed reasoning) cannot be confirmed from accessible sources.

## Legal Principles

- Compulsory interest arbitration under the Illinois public-sector labor framework is used to set terms of a successor collective-bargaining agreement when bargaining reaches impasse.
- In interest arbitration, the decision-maker may be asked to choose between competing proposals on the same subject (here, the process for resolving disciplinary matters).
- Where a public employer argues that discipline is assigned by law to a police and fire commission, the legality of substituting or adding a neutral-arbitration process becomes a central question for the arbitration of contract terms.
- Prior bargaining history, including prior contract language and prior arbitration-imposed language between the same parties, may be offered to support a proposal, but its use in a successor agreement remains subject to any limits imposed by governing law.

## Conclusion

Teamsters Local 726 v. City of Markham Police Dep’t, Case No. S-MA-01-232 (2003), concerns a compulsory interest-arbitration dispute before the ILRB over whether a successor agreement could include neutral arbitration for police disciplinary matters, as the union sought based on earlier arbitration language and prior contracts, or whether discipline should be decided by the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, as the city argued; the existence of the arbitration and the competing positions are documented, but the publicly accessible record does not supply the complete award text or a verifiable statement of the exact discipline language ultimately imposed.


Teamsters Local 726 v. City of Markham Police Dep't, Case No. S-MA-01-232 (2003)