Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bourne v. Johnson

FEBRUARY 8, 1966.

JACK F. BOURNE, ETC. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

v.

LLOYD M. JOHNSON, ETC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. THOMAS F. TAPLIN, ETC. ET AL., INTERVENORS-DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. CHARLES S. DOUGHERTY, Judge, presiding. Judgment reversed.

MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE BRYANT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

Rehearing denied and opinion modified March 24, 1966.

This appeal comes from a judgment order entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County, January 31, 1964. The action was tried before the court sitting without a jury upon a stipulation of facts.

It was agreed that certain named plaintiffs were all employed as linemen in the classified civil service of the Department of Streets and Sanitation of the City of Chicago, having been certified to their respective positions on the following dates:

Name Date of Certification

Jack F. Bourne July 20, 1953 Robert Johnson June 16, 1948 Angelo Zangeri January 28, 1952 William F. Nolan July 27, 1953 Charles Elliott July 3, 1953 John J. Burke Sept. 4, 1951 Michael Pembrook June 16, 1948 John Lanigan August 24, 1951

It was further agreed that certain other named plaintiffs were all certified and appointed as civil service linemen in the year 1953, but were not presently working as linemen, having been laid off from said position for alleged lack of work; that their names had been placed on the reinstatement list for the position of lineman pursuant to the rules of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago. Other named plaintiffs were laid off from their respective positions as linemen on May 15, 1963, for alleged lack of work.

The positions of both lineman and foreman of linemen are positions in the classified civil service of the City of Chicago. The position of lineman is in the next lower rank or grade to that of foreman of linemen, and the position of foreman of linemen is a promotional position from that of lineman. The plaintiffs below claim they should have priority on the list for reinstatement over certain foremen of linemen who sought reinstatement both as linemen and as foremen of linemen.

The Civil Service Commission rules bearing on the case at bar are as follows:

Rule IV: Certifications

"Certification. A written notice, upon blanks prescribed by the Commission shall be mailed to the eligible, at his latest address as shown by the records of the Commission, stating that his name has been certified to the appointing officer. A similar notice shall be sent to the appointing officer, containing the name of the eligible certified. Employees accepting certification from a promotion register are thereby permanently separated from the positions formerly held by them. No person shall be certified from a promotion register who has been separated permanently from the service of the City. An eligible may accept certification to a position in a grade lower than that for which he was examined, and in the same general class of service and similar duties, but the acceptance of any such lower grade position shall fix permanently the grade of the appointee therein.

"Certification from More than One Register. An employee who leaves a position to accept employment by certification from another eligible register shall be separated permanently from the position formerly held by him. Any such employee, may within six months, be reinstated in any vacancy in the same branch, class and grade from which he was so separated with the consent of the Commission and the approval of the department or departments concerned, or his name may be placed on the appropriate reinstatement register upon his resigning from, or being separated from, his new position. Where an officer or employee accepts certification to a higher position, the duties of which are merely temporary, he shall be reinstated in his former position without loss of seniority when such higher duty is completed, if and when such former position is or shall become vacant. . . .

"Probation. Original appointment shall be on probation for a period of six months. In no case shall a probationer be discharged until after the appointing officer has received from the Commission a notice in writing that the Commission has approved such discharge. Time served on probation, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.