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.

04/18/89 John K. Mccafferty, v. the Department of Central

April 18, 1989

JOHN K. MCCAFFERTY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

v.

THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS



APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SECOND DIVISION

537 N.E.2d 1070, 182 Ill. App. 3d 289, 130 Ill. Dec. 741 1989.IL.541

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur Dunne, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE BILANDIC delivered the opinion of the court. SCARIANO and EGAN,* JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILANDIC

Plaintiff John McCafferty filed for administrative review with the Illinois Civil Service Commission (Commission) after he was laid off from his position with the Illinois Department of Central Management Services . The Commission upheld his termination. The circuit court reversed the Commission's ruling and reinstated plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Plaintiff began his service with the agency in 1972. He advanced to the position of personnel program supervisor in the Recruiting, Counselling and Examining Unit of the Agency Services-Cook Section. Tobein Tegard is the manager of the Agency Services-Cook Section. Plaintiff was the only employee laid off pursuant to a reorganization intended to eliminate overlapping supervisory duties within the RC&E.

Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Commission. In a letter to the executive secretary of the Commission, plaintiff stated that he had been laid off in contravention of personnel rule 302.520, which provides that layoff plans must include an explanation of the organizational unit selected and be subject to a bona fide review by the Director of CMS. He further contended that the wrong organizational unit was targeted and that the proper unit should have been the entire Agency Services-Cook Section. Plaintiff stated that once this proper unit is identified, other violations are apparent. He claims that the order of layoff was not observed as provided in section 302.530 as no consideration was given to his performance records and continuous service in comparison with other employees within his status group.

Michael E. Tristane, Director of CMS, responded to plaintiff's challenge stating that CMS believes plaintiff's layoff to be in accordance with the Personnel Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 127, par. 63b101 et seq.). A hearing was granted.

At the Commission hearing, CMS contended that RC&E operates as an official and separate entity within the Agency Services-Cook Section. Organizational charts supplied by CMS demonstrated RC&E's placement within CMS's operational structure as a subsection of the Agency Services-Cook Section. Other subsections within that section include an upstate classification unit, a downstate classification unit, an employee assistance program and, currently, the executive recruitment division.

Although there were other personnel program supervisors with less seniority than plaintiff in the other subsections of the Agency Services-Cook Section, CMS contended that their status was irrelevant as they belonged to separate organizational units. They claim that RC&E was the only unit impacted by this reorganization. Because plaintiff was the only personnel program supervisor in RC&E, the alleged unit designated for layoff, it was not necessary to compare his record with any other supervisor and, therefore, the Personnel Code was not violated.

The evidence established that Tegard, plaintiff's immediate supervisor, was required to assume plaintiff's duties as a result of the elimination of plaintiff's position. Tegard testified that these additional duties would affect the amount of time she had at her disposal to effectively manage other subsections under her supervision. In addition, Tegard assumed the additional responsibility of supervising a newly created unit identified as executive recruitment.

Despite this impact on the duties of the manager of the entire Agency Services-Cook Section, the Commission found the subsection RC&E to be the only unit impacted by the reorganization. Plaintiff's termination was upheld.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for judicial review of the Commission's decision. The parties filed a joint motion and stipulation in the circuit court in which "[the] parties [agreed] and [stipulated] that the evidence before the [Commission] [established] that the provisions of the Personnel Code and Rules were not followed by if the Agency Services-Cook Section [was] determined to be the organization unit of layoff." The stipulation noted that plaintiff's contention was that the Agency Services-Cook ...


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.