STEPHEN O. TRIPP, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought $208 for unused vacation time, arguing entitlement under the Civil Administrative Code. The court held the Code did not apply to the Military Department and that vacation is a waivable privilege, granting the Attorney General's motion to dismiss.
Statutes cited: sec. 22, Civil Administrative Code
Cases cited: Sanitary Dist. of Chicago vs. Burke, 88 Ill. App. 196; Crooker vs. Sturgis, 175 N. Y. 158
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- SALARY-claim for additional, during vacation period not availed ofwhen denied. Employee of State Military Department not entitled to additional salary for services rendered during alleged vacation period not availed of by him, as a vacation is a personal privilege that can be waived, and especially when it does not appear that claimant ever requested a vacation or that vacation was denied him.
- CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE CODE-Section 22 of, not applicable to employees of Military Department of State. Section 22 of Civil Administrative Code, providing that each of the employees of the several State departments shall be entitled during each calendar year to fourteen days leave of absence with full pay, does not apply to employees of Military Department of State.
Claimant was formerly an Assistant Quarter Master General in the Military and Naval Department of the State of Illinois, and herein makes claim for Two Hundred Eight ($208.00) Dollars, representing one-half month's salary claimed to be due for the period of two weeks for a vacation [*138] period during the year 1932-1933, to which plaintiff claims he was entitled. In his claim he avers that he did not receive a vacation during said period due to the fact that his work at that time was such that his absence from the office was not practicable; that having been entitled to a vacation which he did not receive he is entitled to an additional two weeks' pay.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss the claim as it fails to state any legal cause of action against the State.
The Civil Administrative Code contains the following provision, upon which claimant relies, i. e.: "Each employee in the several Departments shall be entitled during each calendar year to fourteen days leave of absence with full pay." sec. 22, Civil Administrative Code.
We do not believe that the Civil Administrative Code is applicable to the Military Department, and even if it were so construed, claimant herein would not have an allowable demand on the facts stated. In the case of Sanitary Dist. of Chicago vs. Burke, 88 Ill. App. 196, a laborer had worked overtime and sought additional pay therefor. The court there held that, "The mere fact that the employee has voluntarily worked more than eight hours a day does not of itself authorize a demand for extra compensation, unless it should also appear that extra compensation was agreed upon or was reasonably within the contemplation of the parties at the time."
In Crooker vs. Sturgis, 175 N. Y. 158 in passing upon a demand for additional pay because of a vacation period which had not been availed of by the plaintiff, the court held, "A vacation is a personal privilege that can be waived."
It does not appear in the complaint herein that any request for a vacation was ever made by claimant, or such vacation denied to him. It does appear that his employment by the State was terminated upon a summary notice, but the complaint fails to show any ground upon which an additional amount of compensation over the regular wages received by him, could now be allowed.
The motion of the Attorney General to dismiss is granted and the claim dismissed. [*139]
RECK, LANGENDORF AND COMPANY, A CORPORATION v. 139 STATE OF ILLINOIS.