GEORGE H. SIMMONS, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a discharged employee of Stateville Correctional Center, sought damages under a grievance settlement agreement. The court dismissed the claim, holding the settlement was unauthorized because the Civil Service Commission had exclusive jurisdiction over discharge appeals and the agreement violated the Court of Claims Act.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 127, pars. 63b 110-111; Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 439.1 et seq.
Cases cited: Burton v. The Illinois Civil Service Commission (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 835, 373 N.E.2d 765; Selby v. Health & Hospital Governing Commission of Cook County (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 632, 317 N.E.2d 642; Chicago Rys. Co. v. Commerce Commission (1929), 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E. 846
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRACTICEAND PROCEDURE-bbOr grieoance dismissed for failure to follow correct procedures. The Claimant’s labor grievance was dismissed by the Court of Claims as the parties entered into a settlement agreement which was null and void as the procedures used in arriving at the agreement were pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement and those provisions were contrary to statutory procedures and therefore void and unenforceable.
This matter coming to be heard upon the motion of Respondent to dismiss the claim herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice of said motion, and the Court being fully advised in the premises finds: A. That the Claimant, George H. Simmons, an employee of the Stateville Correctional Center, was discharged on February 9, 1976.
B. That Claimant filed a grievance action which was settled at Step 4A of the Grievance Procedure within Collective Bargaining Agreement RC-6.
C. That said agreement, executed by the Department of Corrections, modified the original decision by same in regard to the disciplinary action to be taken in regard to the Claimant.
D. That said agreement purported to award money damages to Claimant and against the State of Illinois.
E. That the Civil Service Commission did not take part in the adjudication of this claim.
That pursuant to the above finding of facts, the court hereby adopts the following conclusions of law.
A. That as a matter of law the settlement agreement in this case, constituting a reconsideration by the Department of Corrections of its initial decision to discharge the Claimant, was not authorized by statute and was therefore contrary to the appellate court’s decision in Burton v. The Illinois Civil Service Commission (1978), 57 Ill. App. 3d 835,373 N.E.2d 765.
[*212] B. That as a matter of law the procedure set forth in Step4A, section V, of Collective Bargaining Agreement RC-6, for the adjudication of grievances in regard to discharge proceedings, is contrary to Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 127, pars. 63b 110-111, which states that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to hear all appeals relating to employee discharges.
C. That as a matter of law the settlement agreement, executed in accordance with step 4A, section V, of RC-6, by which damages were awarded against the State of Illinois is directly contrary to the procedural requirements of the Court of Claims Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 37, par. 439.1 et seq.
D. That as a matter of law Collective Bargaining Agreement RC-6, Section V, in so far as it provides a procedure for the adjudication of grievance disputes which is contrary to statutory procedures, is void and unenforceable pursuant to Selby v. Health & Hospital Governing Commission of Cook County (1974), 22 Ill. App. 3d 632,317 N.E.2d 642.
E. That as a matter of law the failure by all parties in this case, to follow procedures enjoined upon them by the legislature, for the adjudication of employment disputes, renders the settlement agreement unenforceable pursuant to Chicago Rys. Co. v. Commerce Commission (1929), 336 Ill. 51, 167 N.E.846.
That pursuant to the above findings of fact and law, it is hereby ordered, that the Respondent's motion be, and the same is, hereby granted and the claim herein be and is hereby dismissed.