People ex rel. Olin Corp. v. Department of Labor
| Decision Date | 08 April 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-475,79-475 |
| Citation | 51 Ill.Dec. 485,420 N.E.2d 1043,95 Ill.App.3d 1108 |
| Parties | , 51 Ill.Dec. 485 The PEOPLE ex rel. OLIN CORPORATION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, State of Illinois and William M. Bowling, Director of the Department of Labor, State of Illinois, Respondent-Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
William J. Scott, Atty. Gen. of the State of Illinois, Chicago, for respondents-appellants; Robert G. Epsteen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel.
Dorothy Kelley, Olin Corp., East Alton, and Harris, Dowell, Fisher, McCarthy & Kaemmerer, Ronald K. Fisher, Michael E. Kaemmerer, Chesterfield, Mo., for petitioner-appellee.
This case presents the question of whether the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor can, on his own initiative, withdraw his own order entered three months earlier and direct that a hearing on an issue not appealed by the parties to the order be held. We hold that he cannot do so, and we affirm the decision of the trial court that a writ of prohibition will lie to compel reinstatement of the first order and to prevent the Director from holding further hearings.
This particular dispute is but one of many which stem from a strike which affected the East Alton Plant of Olin Corporation from December 1, 1977, to March 4, 1978. During this work stoppage, many Olin employees, including members of the Western Employees' Trade Council (W.E.T.C.) filed claims for unemployment compensation benefits. A claims adjudicator of the Department of Labor determined that certain employees were eligible for these benefits and that others were not. No hearing was held by the adjudicator, as none is required. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, par. 452).
Olin took exception to the findings of the adjudicator and a hearing was held in April, 1978, before a representative of the Director of the Department of Labor. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, pars. 470, 471). Some of the adjudicator's decisions were accepted, and others were not. The representative determined, contrary to the opinion of the adjudicator, that the members of W.E.T.C. were ineligible for benefits. Olin filed objections to the representative's report, but not to the finding concerning W.E.T.C. members. No objections were filed by W.E.T.C.
On October 5, 1978, the Director of the Department of Labor issued an order in which he accepted the representative's report in its entirety. Olin sought judicial review of this order by filing a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Madison County on November 1, 1978. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 110, par. 267). That action is not the subject of this appeal. W.E.T.C. did not file any similar suit within the time limits allowed by the Administrative Review Act.
The Director issued another order in this matter on January 5, 1979. In it he stated that he was unsure whether the members of W.E.T.C. had been given proper notice of the April, 1978 hearing, as required by Sections 801 and 804 of the Illinois Unemployment Compensation Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 48, pars. 471, 474). It was directed that a hearing was to be held to determine whether W.E.T.C. members received proper notice of the April, 1978 hearing. If they had, then the October 5, 1978 order would stand. If not, then an entirely new hearing on the eligibility of W.E.T.C. members for unemployment benefits would be held before a representative of the Director.
Olin petitioned the Circuit Court of Madison County for a writ of prohibition on March 13, 1979. It was requested that the January 5, 1979 order be nullified and that the Department be prevented from holding a new hearing. Following arguments from Olin, the Department of Labor and its Director (W.E.T.C. was denied leave to intervene, not being a claimant of unemployment insurance), the court granted Olin the relief which it sought. The Department and its Director have perfected an appeal to this court.
A writ of prohibition is a device by which a court may restrain an inferior tribunal, such as an administrative agency, from acting outside its jurisdiction. In order to be entitled to the writ, a petitioner must show "(f)irst, that the court, officer or person against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi judicial power; second, that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; third, that it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists." (People ex rel. Blasi v. Burdett (1st Dist. 1915), 195 Ill.App. 255, 258, 259; People ex rel. No. 3 J. & E. Discount, Inc. v. Whitler (1980), 81 Ill.2d 473, 43 Ill.Dec. 721, 410 N.E.2d 854).
Both sides characterize the attempted actions of the Department of Labor as an inquiry into the existence of its own jurisdiction. It cannot be doubted that the action sought to be prevented is judicial or quasi-judicial, rather than ministerial or administrative in nature. (People ex rel. Hurley v. Graber (1950), 405 Ill. 331, 90 N.E.2d 763). Indeed, according to the Department and its Director, a determination of the existence of proper notice requires an interpretation of "(t)he most fundamental requirement of the constitutional guarantee contained in the due process clause" (sic). As we can think of few inquiries more judicial in nature than that proposed by the Department, the first requirement for the issuance of a writ of prohibition is satisfied beyond doubt.
The second of the three requirements is the most contested in this case. The parties agree that administrative agencies, such as the Department of Labor, are creatures of statute, having only the powers granted them by statute and no inherent powers. (Oliver v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago, (1st Dist. 1967), 80 Ill.App.2d 329, 224 N.E.2d 671). The Department and its Director argue that the appropriate statute is the Unemployment Compensation Act, and that if the Department has no jurisdiction to proceed under that act, then the first order was void, and the second order was necessary to correct the jurisdictional error. Olin states that the relevant law is the Administrative Review Act, under which the Department had no authority to issue the second order when it did. An examination of portions of both enactments is necessary to resolve this issue.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., Inc. v. Department of Revenue
...also agrees with the construction given this provision by the appellate court. See People ex rel. Olin Corp. v. Department of Labor (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 1108, 1111, 51 Ill.Dec. 485, 420 N.E.2d 1043; Hoffman v. Department of Registration & Education (1980), 87 Ill.App.3d 920, 924, 43 Ill.De......
-
Goral v. Dart
...can be said that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs have no other remedy at law (citing People ex. rel. Olin Corp. v. Department of Labor , 95 Ill. App. 3d 1108, 1112, 51 Ill.Dec. 485, 420 N.E.2d 1043 (1981) )). We conclude that the exhaustion of remedies doctrine does not preclude a challenge......
-
People v. Vincent K. (In re Vincent K.)
... ... , a juvenile currently confined in the Juvenile Department of Corrections, was adjudicated delinquent ... 39, 393 N.E.2d 1346 (1979), citing People ex rel. Hanrahan v. Felt, 48 Ill.2d 171, 174–75, 269 N.E.2d 1 ... ...
-
Aronson v. Brookline Rent Control Bd.
...Magma Copper Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commn., 67 Ariz. 77, 81-86, 191 P.2d 169 (1948); People ex rel. Olin Corp. v. Department of Labor, 95 Ill.App.3d 1108, 1112, 51 Ill.Dec. 485, 420 N.E.2d 1043 (1981); Franklin v. Iowa Dept. of Job Serv., 277 N.W.2d 877 (Iowa 1979); Phelps v. Sallee, 529 ......