text:
    (No. 78-CC-1680
    Dan F. Fultz, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

The report of the Department of Revenue confirms the facts alleged by the Claimant, and the Attorney General stipulates to the facts and the law as it relates to this claim as follows:

“This is a claim for 15 percent premium pay to a Department of Revenue auditor for out-of-state travel for the pay period June 1 to June 15, 1978. According to rules and regulations of the Department in effect at the time of the rendering of the services the Claimant was entitled to a premium pay of 15 percent of the base pay for out-of-state travel. Claimant has been paid the base pay but was not paid this premium pay at the time of the processing of the payroll vouchers for the period in question. The question presented here is whether the payment of the premium pay at this time, in view of the fact that the Claimant has already been paid and accepted the standard rate of pay for the period in question, would amount to a violation of the prohibition contained in Ch. 127, para. 145 (Section 9 of the “Finance Act”).
The prohibition in Section 9 of the “Finance Act” is as follows:
‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State, either temporary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and no additional sum shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump sum appropriation, appropriation for extra help or other purpose or any accumulated balances in specific appropriations, which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’ (emphasis added)
This case is analygous to the case of Claire Crawford v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, in which this Court granted an award to the Claimant where the Claimant had been misallocated and was paid for the payroll period in question at the lower allocation rate. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra held that where an employee is erroneously allocated to a lower paying position than his duties call for, he is being erroneously paid too low a salary and has, therefore, not been previously paid for services performed. Inasmuch as he was not previously paid for the services performed but only paid at a lower rate they held that this was not a violation of para. 145 inasmuch as remuneration had not already been made for the work performed.
The same is true here inasmuch as the duties included travel out-of-state for which payment was not made. It is, therefore, this writer’s opinion that para. 145 would not be violated by the additional payment of the 15 percent premium.”

This Court agrees with the position stated by the Attorney General.

Claimant is, therefore, granted an award in the amount of $62.58 with appropriate withholdings, deductions and additional benefits for F.I.C.A., taxes and retirement.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 78-CC-1682
    Thomas Esker, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

The report of the Department of Revenue confirms the facts alleged by the Claimant, and the Attorney General stipulates to the facts and the law as it relates to this claim as follows:

“This is a claim for 15 percent premium pay to a Department of Revenue auditor for out-of-state travel for the pay period June 1 to June 15, 1978. According to rules and regulations of the Department in effect at the time of the rendering of the services the Claimant was entitled to a premium pay of 15 percent of the base pay for out-of-state travel. Claimant has been paid the base pay but was not paid this premium pay at the time of the processing of the payroll vouchers for the period in question. The question presented here is whether the payment of the premium pay at this time, in view of the fact that the Claimant has already been paid and accepted the standard rate of pay for the period in question, would amount to a violation of the prohibition contained in Ch. 127, para. 145 (Section 9 of the “Finance Act”).
The prohibition in Section 9 of the “Finance Act” is as follows:
‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State, either temporary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and no additional sum shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump sum appropriation, appropriation for extra help or other purpose or any accumulated balances in specific appropriations, which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’ (emphasis added)
This case is analygous to the case of Claire Crawford v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, in which this Court granted an award to the Claimant where the Claimant had been misallocated and was paid for the payroll period in question at the lower allocation rate. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra held that where an employee is erroneously allocated to a lower paying position than his duties call for, he is being erroneously paid too low a salary and has, therefore, not been previously paid for services performed. Inasmuch as he was not previously paid for the services performed but only paid at a lower rate they held that this was not a violation of para. 145 inasmuch as remuneration had not already been made for the work performed.
The same is true here inasmuch as the duties included travel out-of-state for which payment was not made. It is, therefore, this writer’s opinion that para. 145 would not be violated by the additional payment of the 15 percent premium.”

This Court agrees with the position stated by the Attorney General.

Claimant is, therefore, granted an award in the amount of $34.12 with appropriate withholdings, deductions and additional benefits for F.I.C.A., taxes and retirement.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1685
    Linda S. Danner, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Linda S. Danner, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $340.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1699
    Larry A. Book, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed June 12,1979.

   Per Curiam.

The report of the Department of Revenue confirms the facts alleged by the Claimant, and the Attorney General stipulates to the facts and the law as it relates to this claim as follows:

“This is a claim for 15 percent premium pay to a Department of Revenue auditor for out-of-state travel for the pay period June 1 to June 15, 1978. According to rules and regulations of the Department in effect at the time of the rendering of the services the Claimant was entitled to a premium pay of 15 percent of the base pay for out-of-state travel. Claimant has been paid the base pay but was not paid this premium pay at the time of the processing of the payroll vouchers for the period in question. The question presented here is whether the payment of the premium pay at this time, in view of the fact that the Claimant has already been paid and accepted the standard rate of pay for the period in question, would amount to a violation of the prohibition contained in Ch. 127, para. 145 (Section 9 of the “Finance Act”).

The prohibition in Section 9 of the “Finance Act" is as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State, either temporary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and no additional sum shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump sum appropriation, appropriation for extra help or other purpose or any accumulated balances in specific appropriations, which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’ (emphasis added)

This case is analygous to the case of Claire Crawford v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, which this Court granted an award to the Claimant where the Claimant had been misallocated and was paid for the payroll period in question at the lower allocation rate. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra held that where an employee is erroneously allocated to a lower paying position than his duties call for, he is being erroneously paid too low a salary and has, therefore, not been previously paid for the services performed but only paid at a lower rate they held that this was not a violation of para. 145 inasmuch as remuneration had not already been made for the work performed.

The same is true here inasmuch as the duties included travel out-of-state for which payment was not made. It is, therefore, this writer’s opinion that para. 145 would not be violated by the additional payment of the 15 percent premium.”

This Court agrees with the position stated by the Attorney General.

Claimant is, therefore, granted an award in the amount of $56.91 with appropriate withholdings, deductions and additional benefits for F.I.C.A., taxes and retirement.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1700
    Catherine Osterbye, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Y ear 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Directór of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20,1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Catherine Osterbye, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $60.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1702
    Albert W. Edmonds, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Order filed November 20, 1978.

   Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In Bargas v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1, we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in Bargas v. State, supra, and Doubling v. State, supra, the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1726
    Urmel B. Richardson, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

The report of the Department of Revenue confirms the facts alleged by the Claimant, and the Attorney General stipulates to the facts and the law as it relates to this claim as follows:

“This is a claim for 15 percent premium pay to a Department of Revenue auditor for out-of-state travel for the pay period June 1 to June 15, 1978. According to rules and regulations of the Department in effect at the time of the rendering of the services the Claimant was entitled to a premium pay of 15 percent of the base pay for out-of-state travel. Claimant has been paid the base pay but was not paid this premium pay at the time of the processing of the payroll vouchers for the period in question. The question presented here is whether the payment of the premium pay at this time, in view of the fact that the Claimant has already been paid and accepted the standard rate of pay for the period in question, would amount to a violation of the prohibition contained in Ch. 127, para. 145 (Section 9 of the “Finance Act”).

The prohibition in Section 9 of the “Finance Act” is as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State, either temporary or regular, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll or other voucher and no additional sum shall be paid to such officer or employee from any lump sum appropriation, appropriation for extra help or other purpose or any accumulated balances in specific appropriations, which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of a collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’ (emphasis added)
This case is analygous to the case of Claire Crawford v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl._, in which this Court granted an award to the Claimant where the Claimant had been misallocated and was paid for the payroll period in question at the lower allocation rate. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra held that where an employee is erroneously allocated to a lower paying position than his duties call for, he is being erroneously paid too low a salary and has, therefore, not been previously paid for the services performed but only paid at a lower rate they held that this was not a violation of para. 145 inasmuch as remuneration had not already been made for the work performed.
The same is true here inasmuch as the duties included travel out-of-state for which payment was not made. It is, therefore, this writer’s opinion that para. 145 would not be violated by the additional payment of the 15 percent premium.”

This Court agrees with the position stated by the Attorney General.

Claimant is, therefore, granted an award in the amount of $46.32 with appropriate withholdings, deductions and additional benefits for F.I.C.A., taxes and retirement.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1727
    Lindsey Schaefer, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Lindsey Schaefer, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $80.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1732
    Debra Ann Sommer, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20,1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Debra Ann Sommer, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $100.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1733
    Brenda J. Paluska, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard u. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20,1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Brenda J. Paluska, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $220.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1741
    Ruby M. Meyers, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20,1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Ruby M. Myers, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $440.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1749
    Kenneth Stephenson, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Order filed December 4, 1978.

   Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In Bargas v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1, we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in Bargas v. State, supra, and Doubling v. State, supra, the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1771
    Holly Smith, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard u. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl._, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31,1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Holly Smith, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $400.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1789
    Marie T. Reich, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20,1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Marie T. Reich, was employed by the Department of Revenue. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $160.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1809
    Iris J. Staples, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Iris J. Staples, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $260.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1828
    Judith C. Nevitt, v. State Of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed March 6,1979.

   Per Curiam.

This cause comes before this Court as a result of a reconsideration of a job audit by the Director of Personnel. This claim is for retroactive pay as a result of the reallocation of the Claimant’s job reclassification.

The Respondent, represented before this Court by the Office of the Attorney General, submitted a stipulation which is as follows:

“Now comes the Respondent by William J. Scott, Illinois Attorney General, William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General of Record and stipulates in the above captioned matter as follows:
1. This case arises as a result of a reconsideration of a job audit conducted October 13,1978, and pursuant to Rule 1-30 was held to he effective on December 1,1977.
2. The issue before this Court in this case is whether the awarding of retroactive salary as a result of a reallocation of job classification violate the prohibitions set forth in Chapter 127, para. 145, which in part provides as follows:
‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State..., shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll... and no additional sum shall be paid. . . which payments would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, ...’
3. The above issues were dealt with fully in the case of Claire Crawford, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, and is dispositive of the issues presented by this case.
4. The Court in Claire Crawford, supra, decided that the misclassification amounted to an administrative error and that an award should be granted consistent with the Department of Personnel’s application of Rule 1-30.
5. Wherefore, Respondent consents to an award to this Claimant in the amount of $363.00 subject to appropriate added benefits and deductions and withholdings as required by law and the rules and regulations of the State of Illinois for retirement, F.I.C.A. and income tax withholdings.”

This Court concurs with the Attorney General and hereby grants an award to Judith C. Nevitt in the amount of $454.50, subject to the appropriate added benefits and deductions and withholdings as required by laws, rules and regulations of the State of Illinois for retirement, F.I.C.A. and income tax withholdings.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1851
    Harold Berman, Claimant, v. State Of Illinois, Respondent

      Opinion filed February 26, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

The record in this cause indicated the purpose of the expenditure by the Illinois Department of Revenue for which this claim was filed was for reimbursing the Department of Revenue auditor for 15 percent premium pay for out-of-state travel for period June 1 through 15, 1978, and that the Attorney General has submitted a stipulation by Respondent based upon information forwarded to his office by said Department, as evidenced by the departmental report attached to the stipulation by Respondent.

Accordingly, this Court finds that this was a properly authorized expenditure at prices reasonable, usual and customary in the area where received. No part of this expenditure has been paid and the total outstanding is $34.12. Money was appropriated under appropriation and fund number 001-49212-1120, of which appropriation $17,582.56 lapsed and was returned to the State Treasury.

The sole reason said claim was not paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant, Harold Berman, be and is hereby awarded, in full satisfaction of any and all claims presented to the State of Illinois under the above captioned cause, the sum of $34.12.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1855
    Josie P. Martin, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6,1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14,1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Josie P. Martin, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $140.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’ s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1858
    Jacqueline Thames, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment o f $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, arid the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of theincrease demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each monthofserviceserveddmingtheFiscalYearl978.Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Jacqueline Thames was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $160.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1883
    Catherine Teresa Hoban, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2 May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Catherine Teresa Hoban, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $360.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’ Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1887
    Carol Ann Schmidt, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Y ear to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Carol Ann Schmidt, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $320.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1916
    Betty Coleman, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 31,1979.

   Per Curiam.

In the case of John J. Beard v. State of Illinois, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.__, the Respondent stipulated, in part, as follows:

“This case arises out of an RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The effective dates of the agreement are July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1979. The relevant provision is found in Article XXXIII, Section 4 on page 62 of the Agreement which reads as follows:

‘All employees in the bargaining unit shall receive a lump sum payment of $10.00 per month for each $10,000,000.00 ‘excess’ of actual revenues over projections as determined under Section 3, up to a maximum of $50.00 per month (a maximum payment of $600.00 for the year).
Any such payment shall be applied retroactively to all employees for all time paid during Fiscal Year 1978, and the monthly increase shall be added to the base rates for all classifications and steps set out in Appendix A, effective July 1, 1978. Employees not on the active payroll for the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 shall be entitled to the lump sum retroactive payment on a pro-rated basis. Any employee who has voluntarily quit or been discharged during Fiscal Year 1978 will be required to make claim for retroactive payments due within 60 days of the end of the Fiscal Year to the Employer.’

Pursuant to said Article XXXIII, Section 4 the employees’ union demanded a lump sum payment to the employees. The Department resisted the amount of the increase demanded and the matter was eventually settled by an arbitrator who ruled that $40.00 per month was to be paid retroactively to each employee for each month of service served during the Fiscal Year 1978. Subsequently, the Eightieth General Assembly passed House Bill 3237 which provided the funds for the payment of the retroactive lump sum payment to the employees.

The issues before this Court are as follows:

1. Does Ch. 127, para. 145 prohibit the retroactive pay envisioned by Article XXXIII, Section 4 of RC 14 Collective Bargaining Agreement?

2. May the Director of Personnel agree to and abide by an arbitrator’s decision?

Chapter 127, para. 145 paraphrased provides in essential part as follows:

‘Amounts paid from appropriations for personal service of any officer or employee of the State,* * *, shall be considered as full payment for all services rendered between the dates specified in the payroll * * * which payment would constitute in fact an additional payment for work already performed and for which remuneration had already been made, except that wage payments made pursuant to the application of the prevailing rate principle or based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement between the State, or a State agency and an employee group shall not be construed as an additional payment for work already performed.’

In view of the fact that the retroactive pay provided for in the collective bargaining agreement was based upon the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, the relevant section does not violate Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 127, para. 145.

As to the second issue, as to whether the Director of Personnel has the authority to agree to and abide by arbitration, Respondent would like to point out the following. Nowhere in the Personnel Code is the Director given the authority to delegate or relegate his powers or responsibilities to determine or negotiate working conditions, etc. However, as set forth earlier, the facts in this claim are that the General Assembly passed an appropriation bill for the sole purpose of the payment of this lump sum retroactive payment to these employees, thereby ratifying and thereby validating by subsequent legislation the actions of the Director of Personnel and making moot the question as to his authority to submit to arbitration.

The Claimant in the instant case, John Beard, was employed by the Department of Public Aid during Fiscal Year 1978 from July 20, 1977, to January 31, 1978, as a Clerk II, a classification on the RC 14 bargaining unit. Inasmuch as this Claimant was not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978, Article XXXIII, Section 4 of the RC 14 contract agreement provides that such employees are entitled only to a lump sum retroactive payment on a prorata basis for the number of months worked contingent upon their making claim for the retroactive benefits within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978.

This Claimant filed his claim on October 6, 1978 (not within the original 60 days), however, the Director of Personnel extended the filing date to October 14, 1978.”

This Court adopts the comments of the Respondent, in the above stipulation, insofar as the Beard case is analogous to the present case, as the position of this Court on the law.

The Claimant in the instant case, Betty Coleman, was employed by the Department of Public Aid. This Claimant, as was Mr. Beard, was employed for only a portion of the period of the retroactive benefits and is, therefore, entitled to only a prorata payment.

Accordingly, there is hereby awarded to Claimant the amount of $80.00 plus the State’s contribution to the State Employee’s Retirement System and the F.I.C.A. From the aforesaid award to Claimant there shall be deducted amounts for the Claimant’s Federal and State income tax withholding and amounts for the Claimant’s contributions to the State Employees’ Retirement System and to F.I.C.A.