The city of Chicago's bridge tenders usually don't make news. When they do, it's either because of a spectacular accident or in diverting, pleasant feature articles designed to aid digestion.

There's something fascinating about bridges and bridge tenders, just as there's something fascinating about railroad trains and their engineers. Engineers take a big piece of machinery and drive it back and forth. Bridge tenders take a big piece of machinery and move it up and down. It's simple yet awesome; it's beautiful and basic. It's an uncomplicated necessity that everyone can understand.

There are other uncomplicated necessities, at least in a demoracy, but not everyone can understand them. One of those necessities is the freedom of workers to choose their own union. Chicago bridge tenders understand this. On October 29, 1986, bridge tenders chose the Independent Bridge Tenders Organization (IBTO) to be their union in an election which was held by the Illinois Local Labor Relations Board. IBTO defeated the other contender, Local 134 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), by a vote of almost two to one.

But the city of Chicago doesn't understand this. The city wants the loser, Local 134, a union of trade electricians, to represent the bridge tenders.

The city is willing to go to great lengths to get its way in this matter. The bridge tenders accuse the city of union-busting tactics, including withheld pay raises and retaliatory layoffs which they say threaten the safety of both auto and boat traffic at the city's 43 bridges. The city has gone even further, however. The city refuses to bargain with IBTO, despite the IBTO election victory.

This puts the city and the labor board into a legal face-off. The labor board has certified IBTO as the only legitimate bargaining agent for the bridge tenders, and it formally reaffirmed that decision on April 15. If the city doesn't blink and the labor board won't budge, the Illinois Supreme Court may ultimately decide which of the two must stand down. At stake, according to the city, is its ability to manage its labor relations effectively. In certifying IBTO, the labor board "separated'' the bridge tenders from their pre-existing relationship with Local 134. This created a new, additional bargaining unit for the city to have to deal with. The city fears the IBTO recognition will be a precedent-setter for other groups of workers who are dissatisfied with their unions. The city wants to discourage the "proliferation" of bargaining units which it claims would "require more staff to negotiate and administer contracts, increase labor costs, increase taxes and increase the risk of strikes."

"The cardinal sin for sound labor relations in the public sector is a fragmentation or multitude of bargaining units with which a public employer must deal," said Anthony E. Dombrow, a private labor relations lawyer who represents the city in the bridge tender case.

While this is not a frivolous concern, the bridge tenders say it bears little relation to their case. According to James Chiakulas, IBTO's attorney, the labor board's rulings are so clearly restricted to the specifics of the bridge tender case as to be virtually insignificant as precedents.

And, speaking personally, Stuart Garbutt, the labor board's general counsel, said, "My impression is that the IBTO case is unusual and that it is unlikely that there will be many others like it."

The bridge tenders argue that the city's concern for "administrative convenience" is not a good reason to dispense with their right to self-determination. They don't belong in Local 134, they say, because it is a union which has represented them poorly, if at all, and wants only to milk them for membership fees.

The union does not dispute that its representation of bridge tenders has been less than perfect. But according to Reed Lee, Local 134's attorney, this is because there was no comprehensive collective bargaining act in effect for public sector employees prior to 1984. Now that Illinois has such an act, he said, "134 wants a chance to show that now that we have the tools, we can do the job right."

The union may want another chance, but according to the labor board, only the bridge tenders should have the right to grant it. "Local 134 had plenty of chances, both before and after the new act," said IBTO Secretary George Costas. "They threw them away because they thought they owned us. Their most recent chance was the union election, which they and the city spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to deny us. If they want another chance, why don't they just wait for the next election?"

May 1987/Illinois Issues/15

Chicago bridge tenders want their own union. The dispute with the city could mean more than the rise and fall of bridges. Pictured is the Michigan Avenue bridge.  Photo provided by Illinois Department of Transportation.

The bridge tenders contend that there is another compelling argument for why the city is on the wrong side in this fight. Their recent relationship to Local 134 was shaped in the years when racial steering employment practices were in full swing in the city of Chicago. "Restoring the bridge tenders to Local 134 would be the moral equivalent of returning an escaped slave to the plantation," said George Costas, IBTO's secretary.

The bridge tender work force is racially integrated, but this, say the bridge tenders, is not the result of enlightened hiring policies. As Chicago's population mix began to change over the years, the Democratic political machine doled out more patronage to blacks in recognition of demographic necessities. But patronage for blacks was kept as segregated as the neighborhoods they lived in. More blacks were becoming bridge tenders. Few, if any, blacks were becoming city electricians.

The predominately white Local 134 kept the bridge tenders at arm's length. The union issued work permits to bridge tenders but seldom allowed them to become full members. In this way, say the bridge tenders, Local 134 could collect permit fees without having to let bridge tenders share in the benefits of full union membership such as apprenticeship programs, health insurance or the pension plan.

The bridge tenders contend that Local 134 handled its minorities in much the same way in the private sector. A private sector lawsuit (Ridgeway et al v. IBEW Local 134 and Chicago Chapter, NECA) likewise alleged that Local 134 put blacks and Hispanics on work permits instead of in the union. The Ridgeway case dragged on for years before Judge Nicholas J. Bua in the U.S. District Court. It wasn't until 1984 that the attorney for the minorities succeeded in arriving at a settlement with Local 134.

"Ridgeway has nothing to do with bridge tenders," said Reed Lee, "or with racial steering employment. In the Ridgeway case there is no evidence anyone did anything wrong. There was no decision." But James Chiakulas disagreed. "That settlement," he said, "is, in effect, a negotiated remedial agreement. When the defendant [Local 134] pays $290,000 to the other side's attorney and $300,000 to the complainant minorities, that tends to show that the racial discrimination charges had a basis in fact. Moreover, the agreement calls for long-term court supervision of Local 134's hiring hall practices."

City officials are well aware of Local 134's private sector track record, say the bridge tenders. The attorney for the minorities in the Ridgeway case was none other than Judson H. Miner, Mayor Washington's corporation counsel, chief of the city's Department of Law and the man nominally in charge of the city's campaign to force the bridge tenders back into Local 134.

"They're mixing apples and oranges," said Jill Goldy, chief of the labor relations division of the City Corporation Counsel's Office. For one thing, she said that the bridge tenders are not a uniformly black unit. For another, she said, "Ridgeway doesn't deal with the situation the city has. I think it's a red herring."

"If the city wins in court against the labor board and the bridge tenders, the bridge tenders will become members of Local 134 permanently," said IBTO attorney Chiakulas. "They will be locked into a union they never voted for and can never again vote to leave."

Can never again vote to leave? A look at the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA) tells the story. The IPLRA is the state statute which governs labor relations between local governments and their employees. The Illinois Local Labor Relations Board itself was created by the act to administer and enforce its provisions among local governments in Cook County, including the City of Chicago. The act took effect on July 1, 1984. Its purpose was to provide collective bargaining rights to public sector employees and to clean up some of the more embarrassing anachronisms of public sector labor relations in Illinois.

The act does eliminate some anachronisms, but it locks in others. Section 9b, the so-called "grandfather" clause of the IPLRA says that a group of workers who were "historically represented" by a union can (or must) continue as part of that union, provided the local government involved recognizes the relationship. The city of Chicago recognized the historical relationship between Local 134 and the bridge tenders in 1984.

Ostensibly such a clause promotes labor stability. In reality, the power to "recognize" historical relationships allows the city to dictate — or at least attempt to dictate — which unions its workers belong to.

"We were just sitting around minding our own business," said one of the city's water technicians, "when suddenly we get letters from the city saying they 'recognize' our 'historical' relationship to the plumbers union. We've never had anything to do with the plumbers local, not work permits, not meetings, not even rumors of a relationship to the plumbers until the city sent us those letters. Hell, some of our guys had AFSCME cards!"

Like the bridge tenders, the water technicians were separated from their city-assigned union after hearings before the labor board. The plumbers union made initial attempts to hold onto the water technicians but soon gave them up. The water technicians later voted 37 to 3 to form their own union.

For the bridge tenders, the grandfather clause was bad enough, but combined with another provision of the IPLRA, it could still be lethal to their efforts to remain separate from the electricians. The IPLRA (Section 9a) allows that with the support of 30 percent of the members of the "appropriate" bargaining unit, workers can petition for a union election. But before the labor board's ruling, the "appropriate" bargaining unit was the one they were grandfathered into, the electricians union. And, if the bridge tenders are returned to Local 134, they will comprise only 15 percent of its membership. They will stand almost no chance of getting, much less winning, another election.

16/May 1987/Illinois Issues

So far, the city has not had much luck in its legal battles with IBTO. Even the combined resources of the city and Local 134 have not been able to prevail in the case.

In granting the bridge tenders' petition for a union election, the labor board had to find in their favor on two counts. The first was whether Local 134 had historically represented the bridge tenders. Here, the record of Local 134 weighed in as an embarrassing litany of historical neglect. Among other things, the labor board hearing officer found, "Until 1984, bridge tenders were not allowed to come to union meetings. Additionally, at least until 1984, bridge tenders were told by the City [the Chief Bridge Tender] that they could not have a job unless they joined IBEW [Local 134]. ... Furthermore, upon being steered to the union, the bridge tenders were not granted the full benefits of union membership, were not allowed to, or found it almost impossible to, join the union and were not even represent by a steward for 20 years."

In his summation, Local 134's lawyer came close to arguing that even bad historical representation was historical representation nonetheless. But the labor board hearing officer, Judith B. Greiman, did not agree. (She is the daughter of Illinois House Assistant Majority Leader Alan J. Greiman.) She ruled that there had been no historical representation within the meaning of the IPLRA. Greiman was sustained in her opinion by labor board members Ray Simon, the appointee of Cook County Board chairman George Dunne, and Lamont Stallworth, the appointee of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington. Board chairman William Brogan, the appointee of Gov. James R. Thompson, dissented.

In reality, the power to 'recognize' historical
relationships allows the city to dictate — or at least attempt to
dictate — which unions its workers belong to

The second count was "unit appropriateness." The issue here was whether the city's 100 bridge tenders were a large enough and distinct enough work force as to constitute an appropriate, separate bargaining unit. The city argued that bridge tenders were too few in number to be an appropriate bargaining unit. IBTO countered that the city recognizes dozens of units which are smaller than the one proposed by IBTO, including marble cleaners (two members), tuckpointers (three members) and plasterer helpers (two members), as distinguished from the plasterers they help (three members). The labor board again ruled in favor of IBTO and ordered the election in which IBTO defeated Local 134.

Thwarted in its legal maneuvers, the bridge tenders say, the city has turned to other kinds of maneuvers to press them back into the fold. The city's first action was to withhold a scheduled pay raise from bridge tenders early in 1986. IBTO filed a complaint on this with the labor board charging the city with retaliating against bridge tenders for union organizing. After several months of hearings, the labor board hearing officer issued an opinion restoring the pay raise to bridge tenders. In another action, in May of 1986, the city laid off 14 bridge tenders who had been hired the previous year. The city claimed this was a budget-trimming layoff. The bridge tenders claimed it was another retaliation for union organizing and promptly filed another complaint with the labor board. In January, the hearing officer ruled in the city's favor that the layoffs were not intentionally retaliatory.

While the layoffs were not ruled retaliatory, they created a manpower shortage on the bridges. Consequently the city began to require bridge tenders to work overtime in double-shifts to compensate for the shrunken work force.

There are 43 movable bridges in Chicago and, after the layoffs, less than 100 tenders to operate them on four shifts. As a partial solution to this self-inflicted personnel shortage, the city eliminated the night shift on most downtown bridges. Even so, the Calumet River bridges must operate around the clock, seven days a week because of the heavy ship and barge traffic there.

The situation looked serious enough to prompt a cautionary letter from the U.S. Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is responsible for river traffic in Chicago, and it reminded the Department of Public Works of the city's obligations to raise bridges "upon signal" from boats or face stiff penalties.

The city ran afoul of another federal agency in its haste to economize on bridge tenders: the Wages and Hours Division of the U.S. Department of Labor. Though the city was now requiring bridge tenders to work overtime, it was failing to compensate them at time-and-a-half in accordance with federal regulations.

Bridge tenders are not paid for overtime in money. They receive compensatory time off instead. But the city was awarding only one hour of time off for each hour of overtime worked until the Labor Department showed the city its error. Jill Goldy, the city's chief of labor relations, said that "the city was in the process of rectifying that when the Labor Department entered."

The city had laid off bridge tenders ostensibly to save money. With bridge tenders getting time-and-a-half for overtime by filling in for the layoffs, however, this economy move began to seem less economical. As of February, the city had rehired about half of the laid-off bridge tenders.

May 1987/Illinois Issues/17

The late Rube Goldberg, master of nonsensical gadgetry, might well have admired the process the city must use to appeal the labor board's rulings. The IPLRA does not allow for the city of Chicago to go directly to court to try to reverse the labor board.

Instead, according to labor board counsel Garbutt, the city had first to refuse to bargain with IBTO, in defiance of the labor board. The bridge tenders then had to file an "unfair labor practice charge" against the city with the board. The labor board then issued a complaint in the matter, and the parties argued the issues of historical representation and unit appropriateness all over again. On April 15 the board reaffirmed its earlier rulings. If the city still refuses to bargain with IBTO, then one of two things can happen. Either the labor board will go to the circuit court to get its rulings enforced, or the city can appeal to the Illinois appellate court.

Either route could take the case to the Illinois Supreme Court. What might happen is a matter for speculation, but some of the unions are anxious lest the court finds the grandfather clause of the IPLRA to be unconstitutional.

"The labor board gave the city a break," said IBTO attorney Chiakulas. "In granting our petition for a union election, the board could have handed down a much broader ruling, one which might have opened the door to other groups of workers seeking their own independent union representation. Ironically, by refusing to bargain with IBTO, the city could force a court fight whose result may be just that."

In the meantime, as the city and the labor board prepare for their stratospheric court fights, tiny IBTO is being romanced by several other unions of city workers. It is possible that IBTO will be incorporated into another union local. If that happens, the city's worries about the "proliferation of bargaining units" may be moot, since the bridge tenders will already have been absorbed by a pre-existing unit. "There is the possibility that this would resolve the question," said Goldy.

Regardless of the outcome if the labor board rulings go into the state court system, IBTO is exploring another possibility: filing a racial discrimination suit against the city in the federal courts. Many bridge tenders, particularly the black ones, are at a loss to understand why the reform administration of Harold Washington is fighting to preserve a "political plantation system" which they claim was created by the racial steering employment practices of its predecessors.

IBTO secretary, George Costas, confirmed that bridge tenders have conferred with well-known lawyers in the field of civil rights litigation. "Nothing is final," said Costas, "so I can't tell you who it is, except that it won't be Judson Miner."

Kent Peterson, researcher and investigator for Alderman Martin Oberman from 1975 to 1982, also did research for the Independent Bridge Tenders Organization in 1985 and 1986. He now works for a financial public relations Firm in Chicago.

18/May 1987/Illinois Issues