Last Thursday, Local 150 of the International Union of Operating Engineers faced off against the Algonquin Township Road District over Road Commissioner Andrew Gasser’s contention that the 5-year contract signed by predecessor Robert Miller after he lost the Republican Primary Election in February, 2017, was invalid.
Here is the order of the 2nd Appellate Court issued today in the case of Local 150 against Algonquin Township’s Road District:
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court did not err in dismissing the counterclaims, and it did not err in granting judgment for plaintiffs on their FOIA complaint. In addition, counterplaintiffs did not provide an adequate record to review the court’s findings on fees and contempt, and we therefore resolved those issues in favor of plaintiffs. Accordingly, we affirmed.
¶ 2 Plaintiffs, James M. Sweeney and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO (Local 150), alleged violations of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140, et seq. (West 2016)) against defendant, Algonquin Township Road District (Road District). Sweeney was the President-Business Manager of Local 150.
¶ 3 Defendants and counterplaintiffs, Andrew Gasser and the Road District,1 filed a counterclaim against Local 150 alleging, in relevant part, that the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Local 150 and the Road District was invalid. Gasser was the Algonquin Township Highway Commissioner (Commissioner) and served as head of the Road District.
¶ 4 Plaintiffs moved for judgment on the pleadings, and defendants moved for summary judgment. The circuit court granted plaintiffs’ motion and denied defendants’ motion. Plaintiffs then petitioned for costs, attorney fees, and sanctions. Local 150 also petitioned for a rule to show cause. Defendants filed a premature notice of appeal in November 2018, but on this court’s own motion on April 18, 2019, we deemed defendants’ January 14, 2019, amended notice of appeal timely. Defendants argue that the circuit court erred in dismissing their counterclaim, compelling arbitration, denying their motion for summary judgment, awarding fees to plaintiffs, and finding Gasser in indirect civil contempt.
¶ 5 We affirm