Skip to main content

Metropolitan Alliance of Police v. State of Illinois Labor Relations Board

Ill. App. Ct.December 24, 2003No. 1-02-0960Cited 12 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Hall, South, Karnezis
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

RetaliationBreach of Contract

Outcome

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Labor Relations Board's decision finding that the Metropolitan Alliance of Police violated the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act by refusing to arbitrate Joe Cunigan's grievance in retaliation for his support of a rival union and by threatening not to process his future grievances.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Must Represent All Members, Even Critics** This case involved Joe Cunigan, a corrections officer whose union, the Metropolitan Alliance of Police, refused to help him with a workplace grievance. The union declined to take his complaint to arbitration (a formal dispute resolution process) because Cunigan had supported a rival union that was trying to represent the workers instead. The Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of Cunigan and against the union. The court found that the Metropolitan Alliance of Police violated state labor law by retaliating against Cunigan for his political activities within the union. The union also illegally threatened not to process any of his future grievances. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling reinforces an important protection for union members. Even if you disagree with your current union's leadership or support alternative representation, your union still has a legal duty to represent you fairly. Unions cannot punish members by withholding representation services just because those members hold different political views or support competing unions. This ensures that all workers receive equal treatment from their union representatives, regardless of internal union politics.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada
11th CircuitDec 2005
Remanded
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win
Commercial Money Center, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance
6th CircuitNov 2007
Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.