Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Ill. App. 3d 29

Merrill v. Drazek

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 13, 1974

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1974-11-13

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1978

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““(2) On January 1, 1974, the County Department shall cease to be a governmental instrumentality of the county and shall become an instrumentality of the State and agency of the Illinois Department. On that date and thereafter the County Department shall consist of a Director of Public Aid and such staff as the Illinois Department determines to be necessary. The person serving as the Director of the County Department on the effective date of this Act shall continue to serve in that position on and after the effective date of this Act. Any vacancy in said position which thereafter occurs shall be filled by appointment made by the Illinois Department. Such appointee shall be a person recommended by the Personnel Advisory Board hereinafter established who is a resident of the county, who shall have had at least 5 years experience in responsible administrative capacities in the field of public assistance, and who shall not have been politically active in the 5 years preceding his appointment. * * * The Director and the staff designated in subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be employees of the Illinois Department as of January 1, 1974. (a) Persons employed by the County Department on December 31, 1973, shall become employees of the Illinois Department if (i) they are certified under the civil service law applicable to the county, or (ii) they were performing functions in positions the salaries of which were reimbursable by the Illinois Department under Section 12 — 18.4 or payable fro”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 62 Ill. 2d 1 - Merrill v. Drazek

““The County Department shall consist of a Director and such other employees as shall be determined by the County Board, all of whom shall be employees of the county and appointed in accordance with the law in relation to civil service in the county. However, the number and compensation of such employees as are assigned to the performance of the functions and duties prescribed in Section 12 — 2 of this Code, and to the additional functions set out in Section 12 — 18.2 for discharge by the County Department under the supervision of the Illinois Department, shall be subject to prior approval by the Illinois Department. The Illinois Department may prescribe standards of competence and performance which shall be applied in the selection of such employees and in the evaluation of their work and it may withhold State funds for the payment of salaries of any employees who do not comply with the foregoing provisions.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 62 Ill. 2d 1 - Merrill v. Drazek

Relies on 91 Ill. App. 2d 290 - Gregory v. County of LaSalle · 8 Ill. App. 3d 321 - Bruni v. Department of Registration & Education

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-11-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. JUSTICE DIERINGER

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶2This is an appeal from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Cook County declaring the plaintiffs to be employees of the State of Illinois.

¶3The only issue presented on appeal is whether prior to January 1, 1974, the plaintiffs, employees of the Cook County Department of Public Aid, were, for purposes of employee benefits, employees of the State of Illinois or the County of Cook.

¶4On April 28, 1972, seven named plaintiffs who were employees of the Cook County Department of Public Aid filed a class action seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether they were employees of the State of Illinois or the County of Cook. Plaintiffs further sought to enjoin whichever governmental entity was found to be the employer of the plaintiffs from treating them differently than other employees.

¶5A hearing was held on May 9, 1973, to determine the substantive merits of the case. At the close of all the evidence, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were and had been employees of the State of Illinois and were entitled to all job-related benefits of other State employees.

¶6Defendant Allan Drazek, Director of the Illinois Department of Personnel, contends that prior to January 1, 1974, the plaintiffs were employees of Cook County. In support of his contention, the defendant relies on section 12 — 18.1 of the Illinois Public Aid Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 23, § 12 — 18.1), which provides in pertinent part:

“The County Department shall consist of a Director and such other employees as shall be determined by the County Board, all of whom shall be employees of the county and appointed in accordance with the law in relation to civil service in the county.” (Amended January 1,1974.)

¶7Defendant maintains the day-to-day control of administration, hiring, firing and promotion within the Cook County Department of Public Aid is exercised by the county department, and therefore the responsibility of providing employee benefits lies with the County of Cook.

¶8Prior to January 1, 1974, section 12 — 18.1 of the Illinois Public Aid Code provided:

“The County Department shall consist of a Director and such other employees as shall be determined by the County Board, all of whom shall be employees of the County and appointed in accordance with the law in relation to civil service in the county. However, the number and compensation of such employees as are assigned to the performance of the functions and duties prescribed in section 12 — 2 of this Code, and to the additional functions set out in section 12 — 18.2 for discharge by the County Department under the supervision of the Illinois Department, shall be subject to prior approval by the Illinois Department. The Illinois Department may prescribe standards of competence and performance which shall be applied in the selection of such employees and in the evaluation of their work and it may withhold State funds for the payment of salaries of any employees who do not comply with the foregoing provisions.”

¶9On January 1, 1974, the Illinois legislature amended section 12 — 18.1 of the Code, expressly stating that employees of the Cook County Department of Public Aid were employees of the State of Illinois. There is no controversy as to the status of the plaintiffs since January 1, 1974, and no question remains as to their right to job-related benefits as employees of the State since that date. We need concern ourselves, therefore, only with the construction of section 12 — 18.1 of the Public Aid Code prior to January 1, 1974. There appears to be a conflict within the section, which requires clarification.

¶10 The cardinal rule in construction of Illinois statutes, to which aU other canons and rules are subordinate, is that a statute must be construed so as to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the General Assembly as expressed in that statute. (Gregory v. County of LaSalle (1968), 91 Ill.App.2d 290.) In determining the intention of the General Assembly, recourse may be had to subsequent actions of the legislature. (Bruni v. Department of Registration & Education (1972), 8 Ill.App.3d 321.) When these two rules are appfied to the facts of the present case, it appears that by the 1974 amendment the Illinois legislature made it clear that prior to January 1, 1974, it was the intention of the legislature that employees of the Cook County Department of Public Aid were employees of the State of Illinois. By the language used in the amendment, the legislature made explicit what had been implicit in the statute prior to January 1, 1974. We therefore conclude the statute provided that employees of the Cook County Department of Public Aid were employees of tire State of Illinois.

¶11For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶12Affirmed.

¶13BURMAN and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

/24/illapp3d/29 · .json · Public domain