Chestnut v. Lodge
| Decision Date | 20 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 10632 |
| Citation | 62 Ill.App.2d 27,210 N.E.2d 336 |
| Parties | William J. CHESTNUT, Robert Emmings, Louis Grampp, John J. Jerome, Mike McCiatchey, and Davis Garner, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William T. LODGE, Director, Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois, Maude Myers, Director, Department of Personnel of the State of Illinois, Michael J. Howlett, Auditor of the State of Illinois, and Francis Lorenz, Treasurer of the State of Illinois, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Chicago, Richard A. Michael, John J. O'Toole, A. Zola Groves, Chicago, of counsel, for appellants.
G. William Horsley, Horsley, Vespa & Lott, Springfield, Giffin, Winning, Lindner & Newkirk, James M. Drake, Springfield, of counsel, for appellees.
The circuit court of Sangamon County by its order in this mandamus and declaratory judgment proceedings ordered the plaintiffs restored to positions as Park Supervisor I and Park Supervisor II in the Department of Conservation from the date of August 21, 1961. The order further provided for the payment of certain back salaries, and as a declaratory judgment determined that the layoff of the plaintiffs as a result of job abolition was illegal and void and that the plaintiffs were entitled to wages and salaries from the date of discharge to the date of ordered reinstatement.
An appeal was perfected to the Supreme Court on the ground that State revenue was involved. That court caused the appeal to be transferred here.
The plaintiffs, employees of the Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois in the job classifications of Park Supervisor I and Park Supervisor II, held positions under and subject to the provisions of the Personnel Code. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 127, paras. 63b101 et seq.)
In July of 1961 the Director of the Department of Conservation, by a letter addressed to the Director of the Department of Personnel, recommended the abolition of the above positions. That letter was as follows:
'In accordance with Rule 24.2 of the Personnel Manual of Rules, I would like to recommend that the following positions in our Division of Parks and Memorials be abolished.
The position of Park Supervisor II, including any unassigned job allocations, is to be discontinued. Present employees working on those particular job classifications are Mr. Robert Emmings, who was certified September 2, 1958, and Mr. James McMillen, who was certified May 24, 1961.
This Department also recommends that the position of Park Supervisor I, including any unassigned position allocations, is to be abolished. Those presently employed in this category are:
Louis Grampp Certified 8/8/58
William Chesnut Certified 4/16/59
Davis Garner Certified 8/8/58
Leonard B. Brantley Certified 8/8/58
Mike McClatchey Certified 8/8/58
John Jerome Certified 8/8/58
The above recommendations are made as a result of a personal survey made at the request of Governor Kerner and in accordance with the recommendations of the survey committee, the Department concurs in the recommendation of the survey group and would recommend that the classifications mentioned be permanently abolished. The committee determined that geographic assignment of these various positions and the manner in which the supervisors were functioning did not contribute to an efficient administration of the State Parks system. The job descriptions on these positions are obviously misleading in that at the present time a $150.00 per month increase is recommended for the Supervisor I level and a $210.00 per month increase for the Supervisor II level. It is obvious that the present supervisor structure in the Division of Parks is improperly classified and the assignment by geographic areas is unsound.
The Survey Committee consisted of Mr. Rhodell E. Owens, Director, Peoria Pleasure Driveway and Park District; Mr. Kenneth R. Cougill, Director of the Division of State Parks, State of Indiana; Mr. David H. Fritz, Superintendent of Parks, Highland Park, Illinois; and Mr. Arthur L. Janura, a Technician from the Cook County Forest Preserve District organization. This Committee made other recommendations other than the abolishment of these positions but they were emphatic in their recommendation pertaining to the unstable supervisory organization within the Division of Parks.
It is my recommendation, and I request your approval, to abolish the present positions of Park Supervisor I and II, and I am attaching Personnel Forms 103 and request your approval for the layoff of the personnel involved.
.............................................................
...................
* * *(Signed) WILLIAM T. LODGE
.............................................................
...................
* * *Director'
This recommended abolition was approved by the Director of Personnel and the plaintiffs were each notified of their layoff because of the abolition of positions. Each employee thus affected was also notified as to his rights and priorities under the Personnel Code and as are allowed in the rules pursuant thereto as to eligibility lists.
This action in mandamus and declaratory judgment was then instituted by the plaintiffs for reinstatement and for other relief designed to obtain back salaries, which relief was granted by the circuit court by the combination of its declaratory judgment and its writ of mandamus.
Prior to the time that the instant proceeding was filed, the complainants in this action had instituted an administrative review action in the circuit court of Sangamon County. That action was still pending and the defendants in the instant case filed a motion to strike the mandamus and declaratory judgment proceeding for the reason that another action was pending. The record does not disclose the disposition of that motion.
Subsequently the defendants filed an answer which contained an allegation that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all administrative remedies. The circuit court, in its order granting the relief prayed for in this proceeding, made an affirmative finding that the plaintiffs had exhausted any and all administrative remedies available to them.
Initially, we must examine into the question of jurisdiction and appropriateness of the remedy of mandamus and declaratory judgment. Section 11a of the Personnel Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 127, para. 63b-111a) provides:
'All final administrative decisions of the Civil Service Commission hereunder shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the 'Administrative Review Act', approved May 8, 1945, as heretofore or hereafter amended. * * * The term 'administrative decision' is defined as in Section 1 of the
* * *
* * *
Section 2 of the Administrative Review Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 110, para. 265) provides in part:
* * *
* * *
Section 8 of the Personnel Code provides that the Director of Personnel shall prepare and submit rules to the Civil Service Commission for all positions and employees subject to the Personnel Code. The rules are required to provide for layoffs by reason of lack of funds, lack of work, abolition of position, or material change of duties or organization. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1961, ch. 127, para. 63b108b(13.) Rules thus submitted by the Director of Personnel stand approved by the Civil Service Commission unless affirmatively disapproved within thirty days of their submission.
Rule 24, adopted pursuant to the procedure above outlined, relates to layoff and is essentially a restatement of the statute. This rule provides for layoffs within organizational units established by the operating agency in accordance with a plan of layoff, which said plan is required to be approved by the Director of Personnel.
It is not here in dispute that the plan for layoff was within the procedural framework of the statute and the applicable rule. The plan was for the layoff of employees within an organizational unit; the plan was submitted to and approved by the Director of Personnel. The question in dispute here is whether the plan was one adopted in good faith for a permissible objective or, as alleged, one to discharge certified employees because of political considerations.
The Administrative Review Act is not self-executing and has application only to cases where it is adopted by express reference. People ex rel. Kohorst v. Gulf, Mobile & O. R. R., 22 Ill.2d 104, 174 N.E.2d 182 (1961). The act was designed to provide a single uniform method by which administrative decisions of State governmental agencies may be reviewed. People ex rel. Chicago & No. Western Ry. v. Hulman, 31 Ill.2d 166, 201 N.E.2d 103 (1964). As stated by Mr. Justice Daily in Hulman:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, Ill.
... ... E.g., Chestnut v. Lodge, 62 Ill.App.2d 27, 210 N.E.2d 336, 341 (1965), rev'd on other grounds, 34 Ill.2d 567, 216 N.E.2d 799 (1966) ... 12 The Illinois Supreme ... ...
-
Murphy v. Policemen's Annuity and Ben. Fund of City of Chicago, 77-1135
... ... People ex rel. Naughton v. Swank (1974), 58 Ill.2d 95, 317 N.E.2d 499; Varnes v. Dougherty (1976),39 Ill.App.3d 476, 350 N.E.2d 6; Chestnut v. Lodge (1965), 62 Ill.App.2d 27, 210 N.E.2d 336 ... It may be noted that recent court decisions have spelled out the purpose of ... ...
- Chestnut v. Lodge
-
Dorner v. Civil Service Commission, 78-858
... ... Ill.Rev.Stat., 1977, ch. 127, par. 63b111a ... [85 Ill.App.3d 961] The defendants rely on Chestnut v. Lodge (1966), 34 Ill.2d 567, 216 N.E.2d 799, in which the plaintiffs brought a mandamus action to contest their layoff from the Department of ... ...