text:
    (No. 78-CC-1460
    William A. Gay, 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 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 responsibilties 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 an 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, William A. Gay was employed by the Department of Corrections. 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 $300.00 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.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 78-CC-1485
    William A. Swanson, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Order filed November 2, 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 allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisioned, 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-1531
    William K. Schroeder, 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 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 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 barganing 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, William K. Schroeder 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 $180.00 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-1538
    Benjamin Lazarovitz, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed April 13,1979.

   Per Curiam.

This claim coming to be heard on the Respondent’s stipulation and this Court being fully advised in the premises:

This Court finds that the Claimant is making a claim for back salary arising out of a collective bargaining agreement between A.F.S.C.M.E. and the Department of Public Aid. The back salary in question was attributable to Claimant’s deceased spouse, Natalie Lazarovitz, for Fiscal Year 1978 between July 1, 1977, and November 4, 1977, the date of her death.

The collective bargaining agreement provided that employees who were not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 would be entitled to a lump sum retroacative payment on a pro-rated basis for the number of months worked.

Employees affected had to file a claim with the Department of Public Aid within 60 days of the end of Fiscal Year 1978 or August 30,1978. The Director of the Department of Personnel extended this deadline until October 14,1978. The Claimant herein filed his claim with the Department of Public Aid on September 26, 1978.

An investigation of this claim by the Department of Public Aid determined that money was appropriated for this expenditure by the following appropriations;

a. Field Level Operation 001-47810-1120-00-00

b. Retirement 001-47810-1161-00-00

c. Social Security 001-47810-1170-00-00

and that the following amounts were returned to the State Treasury at the time of the lapsing of said appropriations;

a. $86,477.78

b. $ 4,142.04

c. $ 5,066.04

The amount of $180.00 which was due and would have been paid in the regular course of business had the claim been presented to the proper office at the appropriate time. The sole reason said claim was not previously paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred, the same having been confirmed by the written report of the Department of Public Aid, a copy of said report being attached to the stipulation by Respondent submitted herein.

We find that Claimant is entitled to back salary credited to his deceased spouse in the amount of $180.00. Pursuant to the Comptroller’s Uniform Statewide Accounting System Procedure 23.5.20, no deductions are taken from any salary due a State employee which is paid after the death of such employee. -

It is therefore ordered that Claimant, Benjamin Lazarovitz, surviving spouse of Natalie Lazarovitz, deceased, be and is hereby awarded the sum of $180.00 in full satisfaction of any and all claims arising herein.


author: Holderman, J.

text:
    (No. 78-CC-1557
    Brokaw Hospital, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Order filed June 27,1979.

   Holderman, J.

This matter comes before the Court upon a motion by Respondent to dismiss said cause and objections to said motion filed by Claimant.

Respondent’s motion is based upon the premise that Claimant’s contract with the State was exceeded and that there was no contract in existence at the time the services were rendered.

Claimant, in its objections to Respondent’s motion, cites the case of Vancil, Inc. v. State, 27 Ill.Ct.Cl. 352. It is the Courts opinion that the present case is distinguished from the case above cited because of the fact the services rendered by Claimant in the above case were of an emergency nature and for the benefit of the State whereas in the present case the services were rendered on behalf of the patient and were not for the benefit of the State.

For the Court to order payment of this claim could and would result in services being rendered in amounts far above those provided for in the contract and would practically eliminate the need for contracts between the State and Claimants.

It is hereby ordered that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, granted and this cause is dismissed.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1559
    Brokaw Hospital, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Order filed June 27,1979.

   Holderman, J.

This matter comes before the Court upon a motion by Respondent to dismiss said cause and objections to said motion filed by Claimant.

Respondent’s motion is based upon the premise that Claimant’s contract with the State was exceeded and that there was no contract in existence at the time the services were rendered.

Claimant, in its objections to Respondent’s motion, the case of Vancil, Inc. v. State, 27 Ill.Ct.Cl. 352. It is the Court’s opinion that the present case is distinguished from the case above cited because of the fact the services rendered by Claimant in the above case were of an emergency nature and for the benefit of the State whereas in the present case the services were rendered on behalf of the patient and were not for the benefit of the State.

For the Court to order payment of this claim could and would result in services being rendered in amounts far above those provided for in the contract and would practically eliminate the need for contracts between the State and Claimants.

It is hereby ordered that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, granted and this cause is dismissed.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1576
    Iris C Stuart, 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 month 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 barganing 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 subsequest 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 C. Stuart, 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 $240.00 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-1582
    Mary Lou Remling, 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 barganing 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 111. 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, Mary Lou Rem-ling, 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-1585
    John J. Beard, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.

      Opinion filed May 8, 1979.

   Per Curiam.

In this case the Respondent submitted a stipulation 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 month 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 barganing 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.”

The Department in its departmental report recognizes that on a prorata basis the additional salary for the time in question would amount to $260.00 prior to any additions or withholdings for FICA, retirement or taxes. The departmental report contains payroll information relative to these additions and witholdings should the Court desire to avail itself of the computations provided by the Department.

This Court adopts the Respondent’s stipulation as the law relevant to this case as this Court sees it.

Claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $260.00 subject to such usual additional benefits and withholdings.


text:
    (No. 78-CC-1587
    Ruth V. Lyons, 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 prorated l asis 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 subsequest 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, Ruth V. Lyons, 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-1593
    Paul Lindholm, 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, Paul Lindholm, 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-1596
    Linda Cloyd, 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, Linda Cloyde, 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 $180.00 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-1605
    Willie Ladd, 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-1621
    Mary L. Carpenter, 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, Mary L. Carpenter, 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-1622
    Ethel M. Le Gier, Claimant, v. State of Illinois.

      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, Ethel M. Le Gier, 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’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-1638
    Linda J. Burke, 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 situation, 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 J. Burke, 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-1648
    Lillie Jamison, 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, Lillie Jamison, 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-1657
    Deborah D. Friederich, 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 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 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, Deborah D. Friederich, 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-1661
    Leroy Allison, 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, Leroy Allison, 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-1662
    Mary A. Conover, 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, Mary A. Con-over, 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-1667
    Michael Anderson, 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-1669
    John Kampfer, 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, John Kampfer, 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 $480.00 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.