Foster v. Ill. Dep't of Emp't Sec.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-12-3440,1-12-3440 |
| Citation | 2013 IL App (1st) 123440 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; BOARD OF REVIEW; and CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY CTA MERCHANDISE MART PLAZA c/o BRUCE KIJEWSKI, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.
¶ 1 HELD: The board of review's decision denying unemployment benefits to plaintiff is affirmed; the board's finding that plaintiff committed wilful misconduct at work and therefore isineligible for unemployment benefits is not clearly erroneous.
¶ 2 After plaintiff William Foster was discharged from his employment with the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), he filed for unemployment compensation benefits. The CTA challenged plaintiff's eligibility of those benefits. Ultimately, the Illinois Department of Employment Security board of review (board) found that plaintiff was discharged because he had committed misconduct at work by conducting personal union business while on his employer's time and, therefore, was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The circuit court affirmed the board's decision. Plaintiff now appeals the board's decision claiming that the decision should be reversed because the CTA failed to prove that there was a policy in place and that plaintiff wilfully violated that policy. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the board's decision.
¶ 4 Plaintiff William Foster worked for the CTA as a foreman overseeing painting at various CTA properties for approximately 31 years until he was discharged on January 26, 2012. According to plaintiff's notice of discharge, on July 21 and 22 of 2011, he had been soliciting signatures at three work-site locations, Skokie Shop, Western Congress/Blue Line, and 77th Paint Shop, while he was assigned to be working out of the North SideDistrict. The signatures were being collected in order to dispute the CTA's unilateral decision to reduce wages for painters by approximately six dollars an hour. The notice of discharge also alleged that plaintiff had instructed other employees under his supervision not to use their GPS-enabled mobile phones, which was contrary to management directives. Accordingly, the CTA discharged plaintiff because he violated CTA rules 14 (e), (i), (j), (q), (u), and (w), which are violations of personal conduct falling under the following respective categories: conduct unbecoming of an employee, leaving an assigned work location, falsifying any written or verbal statement, performing personal work while on duty or on authority property, unauthorized use of personal car for company business, abuse of company time, and poor work performance. The CTA also discharged plaintiff for violating rules 18 (a) and (b), which state:
¶ 5 Following plaintiff's discharge, plaintiff applied forunemployment benefits. The CTA objected to his application arguing that plaintiff was disqualified from receiving such benefits under section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act due to work-related misconduct. The claims adjustor reviewing plaintiff's request for benefits determined that plaintiff had been discharged for misconduct, namely violating CTA rules by soliciting employee signatures for an action against the CTA while on company time, and disqualified plaintiff from receiving benefits under section 602(A).
¶ 6 Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration, or in the alternative, an appeal to a Department of Employment Security administrative law judge. An appeal was filed, and an administrative law judge heard the case. At the hearing, plaintiff submitted several documents and testified on his behalf in support of his case, and the CTA offered the testimony of Geraldine Fielder in support of its case. The documents submitted by plaintiff included: a statement by plaintiff claiming that he was wrongfully discharged, materials relating to prior labor disputes involving the CTA, a copy of the petition that had been circulated on July 21 and 22 with 21 signatures, a petition labeled "Charge Against Employer" before the Illinois Labor Relations Board on behalf of the CTA Trades Coalition, and plaintiff's notice of discharge.
¶ 7 Geraldine Fielder testified that she had conducted an investigation into plaintiff's conduct and found that plaintiff was discharged for three reasons. First, on July 21 and 22, plaintiff left his work location to solicit signatures at multiple other work locations instead of performing his duties as a foreman. Fielder testified that while union representatives may obtain permission to do union business on company time, workers who were not union representatives, like plaintiff, would have been required to solicit signatures on their own personal time. Fielder noted that according to the GPS system, the employees who gave plaintiff signatures were not on break at the time plaintiff was visiting their locations. Further, on the 21st and 22nd, plaintiff indicated on the payroll that he had worked his full eight hours each day, despite admitting that he took time to obtain signatures on those days, thus amounting to falsification of his payroll. Additionally, while plaintiff was permitted to visit the three locations he had visited on the 21st and 22nd, Fielder learned that he had no business reasons to visit the Skokie Shop, and that the employees he had visited at Western and Congress were not his employees. And, although plaintiff stated that he went to the paint shop to procure supplies, according to his manager, he did not procure any supplies from the shop on the 21st or 22nd. It was plaintiff'smanager's belief that the only reason plaintiff was at the paint shop was to solicit signatures.
¶ 8 Fielder testified that the second reason for plaintiff's discharge was because the CTA had received reports from employees under plaintiff's supervision that he had instructed them not to use their CTA-issued, GPS-enabled mobile phones, in direct conflict with directives from CTA management. In an interview with Fielder, plaintiff admitted that he told his employees that the phones could not be used for disciplinary purposes, but denied instructing them not to carry the phones. Fielder further testified that plaintiff's employees advised her that they regularly left their phones at the office even though plaintiff told her this did not happen. Moreover, plaintiff initially denied receiving training relating to the use of the phones, but when confronted with a document with his signature acknowledging that he received such training, plaintiff stated that he signed the document in protest. Even though the phones were in fact used to track employees and verify payroll, plaintiff insisted that the phones could not be used for discipline, were not used for payroll, and were not a good business practice.
¶ 9 Fielder testified that the third reason for plaintiff's discharge was his insistence on signing payroll documents "under protest" for workers under his supervision. Because of this, CTAmanager Tim Webb had to re-verify payroll using the GPS phones. When Fielder decided it was appropriate to discharge plaintiff, she did not take into consideration any prior incidents of union activity. Fielder also testified that as a result of plaintiff's actions, many hours of production time were taken up in the investigation of plaintiff's case and the calling of employees as witnesses.
¶ 10 Plaintiff testified that the charges against him were false and inflated. He argued that he had legitimate reasons to be at each of the places he visited on the 21st and 22nd and, as a foreman, he argued that he was permitted to stop at various locations where employees were allowed to give him their grievances. Plaintiff testified that the locations he visited on the 21st and 22nd were for work purposes as he went to the South Shops to pick up respirators and paint primer and to the West Shop to deal with materials specifications. Plaintiff also stated that issues pertaining to workers were routinely discussed on company time, and that this did not prevent him from getting his work done. He also testified that he had a protected right to gather signatures and that his discharge constituted retaliation and discrimination.
¶ 11 Upon further questioning, plaintiff stated that he obtained approximately ten signatures at the South Shops and approximatelythree at the Western station; ten signatures were from people who were on break. Plaintiff further stated that he did tell his employees that the GPS phones could not be used for discipline, but denied telling them not to use the phones. Plaintiff also explained that he signed the payroll "under protest" because the CTA was comparing GPS phone data to the payroll and he knew his hours would not match up due to his time-keeping practice of allocating hours spent obtaining supplies and materials across several jobs; he was worried that if his hours did not add up, the CTA would accuse him of falsifying documents.
¶ 12 On March 12, 2012, the administrative law judge found that the CTA had failed to establish that plaintiff intentionally...
To continue reading
Request your trial