Peters v. Health and Hospitals Governing Commission
| Decision Date | 18 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 54544,54544 |
| Citation | 88 Ill.2d 316,430 N.E.2d 1128,58 Ill.Dec. 877 |
| Parties | , 58 Ill.Dec. 877, 111 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2619 Donald PETERS et al., Appellees, v. The HEALTH AND HOSPITALS GOVERNING COMMISSION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Richard M. Daley, State's Atty., Chicago (Jane Clark Casey, Deputy State's Atty., Chief, Civ. Actions Bureau, John A. Dienner, III, and Roman L. Sukley, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.
Lester Asher, Marvin Gittler and Joel A. D'Alba, Chicago (Asher, Goodstein, Pavalon, Gittler, Greenfield & Segall, Ltd., Chicago, of counsel) for appellees.
Plaintiffs, as officers and representatives of two unions, representing the employees of hospitals under the control of defendant, the board of commissioners of Cook County (Board), brought this action in the circuit court of Cook County against the Board and its members seeking specific performance of two election agreements entered into by the Board's predecessor, the Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Cook County (Commission). The circuit court allowed defendants' motions to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs appealed, the appellate court reversed (91 Ill.App.3d 1104, 47 Ill.Dec. 648, 415 N.E.2d 653), and we granted leave to appeal. The facts are adequately set forth in the appellate court opinion and will be reviewed here only to the extent necessary to discuss the issues.
In two "election agreements" executed by the Commission and the unions represented by plaintiffs it was agreed that secret-ballot elections would be held to determine whether a majority of the employees in designated units at defendants' hospitals wished to be represented by a union. The first of these agreements was executed in 1971, and apparently several bargaining agreements were subsequently entered into between that union and the Commission. The agreement with the second union was entered into in 1979, and no bargaining agreement was ever entered into as the result of that election. Under the provisions of section 10 of the County Hospitals Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1980 Supp., ch. 34, par. 5020), effective November 30, 1979, the Board took over the operation of the hospitals. Section 10 in pertinent part provides: "(a)ll rights, duties and obligations of the Commission shall become the rights, duties and obligations of the Board of Commissioners."
In reversing the judgments of the circuit court dismissing the actions the appellate court held that the contracts were not terminable at will and that the agreements were enforceable against the Board. It held that the statute transferring jurisdiction over the county hospitals from the Commission to the Board effected the transfer of the Commission's obligations under these election agreements.
This record presents no question of the enforcement of specific contractual provisions concerning wages, hours, conditions of employment, or which disputes may properly be submitted to arbitration. The relief sought by plaintiffs in these actions is that the Board be ordered "to bargain in good faith concerning wages, hours and working conditions" of certain of its employees and "to submit all unresolved negotiation issues to an impartial fact finder." The narrow question presented is whether, because section 10 of the County Hospitals Act provides that the duties and obligations of the Commission shall become the duties and obligations of the Board, the defendants can be required to negotiate in accordance with the prayer of the complaints.
Although much of the appellate court opinion was devoted to determining whether the election agreements were of perpetual duration and therefore terminable at will, or whether they contained ascertainable points of termination, we do not reach these issues. If the agreements are construed to be of perpetual duration, they were terminable at will and defendants were free to terminate them. Assuming, arguendo, that the provisions for termination upon the unions' loss of majority representation of the employees constituted an ascertainable point of termination so as to preclude construing the agreements to be of perpetual duration, we are of the opinion that the agreements are nevertheless unenforceable.
The agreements imposed upon the Commission only the duty to bargain in good faith. The only intended result of such bargaining is the execution of an agreement covering the compensation, benefits and working conditions of the affected employees. Whether its source is the Constitution (Ill.Const.1970, art. VII), the Cook County commissioners' act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 34, par. 909) or the County Hospitals Act, the power to fix compensation, benefits and working conditions requires the exercise of the Board's discretion.
This court has held that a public body may not delegate a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cress v. Recreation Services, Inc.
...Hospitals Governing Comm'n, 91 Ill.App.3d 1104, 1107, 47 Ill.Dec. 648, 415 N.E.2d 653 (1980), rev'd on other grounds,88 Ill.2d 316, 58 Ill.Dec. 877, 430 N.E.2d 1128 (1981); Dawson v. W. & H. Voortman, Ltd., 853 F.Supp. 1038, 1042 (N.D.Ill.1994) ("Under Illinois law, a contract provision tha......
-
First Commodity Traders v. Heinold Commodities
...Governing Commission, 91 Ill.App.3d 1104, 47 Ill.Dec. 648, 415 N.E.2d 653 (1st Dist.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 88 Ill.2d 316, 58 Ill.Dec. 877, 430 N.E.2d 1128 (1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S.Ct. 60, 74 L.Ed.2d 63 (1982). Heinold's position is that the Agreement specifies no du......
-
Brucato v. Edgar
...66 Ill.App.3d 564, 23 Ill.Dec. 441, 384 N.E.2d 77), it could not be compelled to do so (Peters v. Health and Hospitals Governing Com. (1981), 88 Ill.2d 316, 58 Ill.Dec. 877, 430 N.E.2d 1128, cert. denied (1982), 459 U.S. 826, 74 L.Ed.2d 63, 103 S.Ct. 60). 3 Thus, unlike Cronin, in which pla......
-
Profile Products v. Soil Management Technologies
...Governing Comm'n, 91 Ill.App.3d 1104, 47 Ill.Dec. 648, 415 N.E.2d 653, 656 (1980), rev'd on other grounds by 88 Ill.2d 316, 58 Ill.Dec. 877, 430 N.E.2d 1128 (1981). SMT argues, first, that the "complete language" of the termination agreement provides the necessary definiteness, because sect......