JUNIOR B. BERANEK, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought back wages as an employee of the Department of Rehabilitation. The court denied the claim because the claimant failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Personnel Code and Court of Claims Act, having used an arbitrator instead of the Civil Service Commission.
Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 37, par. 439.24-5
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent . STATE EMPLOYEES’ BACK SALARY CLArMs-claim for retroactiue pay not proven-remedies not exhausted-cluim denied. The Claimant’s action seeking to recover certain back wages based on arbitration and bargaining awards and agreements was denied, since Claimant failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to an award, and, in addition, he failed to exhaust his remedies under the Personnel Code and collective bargaining agreement.
- ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause coming before this Court on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and the Court being fully advised in the premises finds that these are claims for additional compensation based upon an arbitrator’s decision. This Court further finds that the Personnel Code provides for the promulgation of the grievance procedure, with appeal from that grievance procedure to be heard by the Civil Service Commission. The Claimant, having utilized an arbitrator rather than the Civil Service Commission as provided by law, has failed to exhaust his remedies as required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 37, par. 439.24-5), and Rule 6 of this Court, and therefore, in accordance with Rule 9 ,of this Court, these claims are dismissed.
[*188] ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
ROE, C.J. This cause coming on to be heard on the Claimant’s motion for hearing, it appearing that due notice has been given, and the Court being fully advised in the premises; On June 11,1982, this claim was dismissed by order of the Court. The motion at bar was filed June 17, 1982.
Therefore, we construe this motion to be a request for a rehearing. Rule 22 of the Rules of the Court of Claims provides that petitions for rehearing briefly state the points supposed to have been overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, with authorities and suggestions concisely stated in support of the points. In support of his motion Claimant did not address the basis of our order.
It is hereby ordered that this claim be, and hereby is, denied.
OPINION I
ROE, C.J. I
I
I
Claimant, an employee of the Respondent’s I Department of Rehabilitation at the Illinois School for II
I
the Deaf in Jacksonville, Illinois, brought this claim I seeking back wages. He alleged in his complaint that he I demanded payment of certain back wages from his I
I
employer and the Respondent’s former department of I personnel and his demand was refused. I This matter came on for hearing on March 18,1983, i
I
after the Court had sustained two motions to dismiss. At ~
I
the Claimant’s request, however, a hearing was granted I based upon the Claimant’s representations that he could I
I
better present his case by way of testimony. ‘
I
:
I
[*190] Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court of Claims. To hold otherwise would allow a dissatisfied union member to disavow the authority of his union representative and circumvent the Personnel Code and collective bargaining agreements and to come here for resolution of a grievance. This case clearly presents the need for the aforementioned section 25 and Rule 6.
Claim denied.