Court Opinion

ID: 9524037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:27.813856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:46.392611
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WARD delivered the opinion of the court: These consolidated appeals concern the question of claimed retaliatory discharges of employees. The plaintiff in cause No. 59341, Terry Midgett, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County alleging that he was unjustly discharged by his employer, Sackett-Chicago, in retaliation for his filing a claim with the Industrial Commission under the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.). Jose Gonzalez and John Repyak, plaintiffs in cause No. 59350, filed separate complaints in the circuit court of Livingston County alleging that their employer, Prestress Engineering, discharged them in retaliation for their filing workers’ compensation claims under the Act. In all three cases the trial courts granted the employers’ motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court in the fourth district consolidated the Gonzalez and Repyak appeals and in a Rule 23 order (87 Ill. 2d R. 23) affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of each complaint. (Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp. (1983), 118 Ill. App. 3d 1167.) The appellate court in the first district, however, reversed the trial court in Midgett, holding that a cause of action was stated. (Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago (1983), 118 Ill. App. 3d 7.) We allowed a petition of Gonzalez and Repyak for leave to appeal from the fourth district judgment in Gonzalez (cause No. 59350) and allowed the petition of the defendant Sackett-Chicago for leave to appeal from the first district judgment in Midgett (cause No. 59341), under our Rule 315 (87 Ill. 2d R. 315). The appeals were consolidated for review. In cause No. 59341 Terry Midgett, who was injured on January 31, 1979, in the course of his employment with Sackett-Chicago, filed a workers’ compensation claim with the Industrial Commission. The claim was still pending when Midgett was discharged from his employment by Sackett in January 1980. Sackett reached a settlement of the claim with Midgett in August 1980. On December 31, 1980, Midgett, claiming a retaliatory discharge, filed an action in tort in his own name and on behalf of his wife and minor children, seeking compensatory and punitive damages against Sackett. Sackett moved to dismiss, stating that Midgett was a union member covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with specific grievance provisions for the arbitration of disputes, under which an arbitrator would determine if a discharge from employment was for “just cause.” Sackett argued that Midgett, who had not filed a grievance, was limited to contract remedies under the agreement and had no cause of action in tort. Midgett filed cross-motions that in part alleged that the union and Sackett had prevented Midgett from filing a grievance for his discharge. The trial court dismissed Midgett’s complaint. In cause No. 59350 Gonzalez, in August 1981, filed a workers’ compensation claim after suffering an injury while employed by Prestress Engineering. On August 23, 1982, an Industrial Commission arbitrator denied compensation on the ground that plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Gonzalez was discharged on September 20, 1982, and he later filed his tort claim for retaliatory discharge against Prestress. Plaintiff Repyak was also injured at defendant Prestress’ plant and in July 1981 was awarded certain bene-' fits under the Workers’ Compensation Act. His employment by Prestress was terminated October 6, 1982, and he, too, filed a retaliatory-discharge action against Prestress. Repyak alleged in count II of his complaint that he and his wife, Elsie Repyak, were denied pension benefits because of his discharge approximately one year before his pension vested. Both employees were union members and were covered by a collective-bargaining agreement between the local and Prestress, with grievance procedures requiring “just cause” for an employee’s discharge. Neither Gonzalez nor Repyak filed a grievance against the employer. The motions of Prestress to dismiss the complaints were granted. The appellate court in the fourth district affirmed the Gonzalez and Repyak dismissals (118 Ill. App. 3d 1167), reasoning that, since the plaintiffs were union members protected by the collective-bargaining agreement and not employees at will, they could not bring a cause of action for retaliatory discharge as described in Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172. Instead they were required to pursue and exhaust their grievance remedies under the agreement. The appellate court in. the first district, in reversing the dismissal of Midgett’s complaint (118 Ill. App. 3d 7), held that the tort of retaliatory discharge extended to union employees covered by such a collective-bargaining agreement in order to promote the strong public policy to favor protection of employees who exercise their rights under the Act, whether the employees are members of a union or not. In Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172, this court held there was a remedy in tort for employees who were discharged in retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims. Otherwise employers could coerce employees to forgo their rights under the Act by threatening to terminate, or by actually discharging, employees who claimed compensation for industrial injuries. This remedy implements the public policy underlying the Act of providing employees an effective and equitable means to seek compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment without fear or risk of losing their jobs. In Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 124, an employee was terminated for informing police of suspected criminal activities of his coworkers. In holding that the tort of retaliatory discharge was applicable we stated: “The foundation of the tort of retaliatory discharge lies in the protection of public policy, and there is a clear public policy favoring investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses. * * * All that is required [to bring a cause of action] is that the employer discharge the employee in retaliation for the employee’s activities, and that the discharge be in contravention of a clearly mandated public policy.” 85 Ill. 2d 124, 133-34. The defendants here, however, argue that the action for retaliatory discharge was created to protect only “at-will” employees, such as those involved in Kelsay and Palmateer, who would otherwise be without a remedy for a vengeful discharge. The plaintiffs here are not “at-will” employees but are union members, protected by collective-bargaining agreements which provide specific grievance procedures to ensure discharge from employment only for “just cause.” Since the plaintiffs here have a remedy through the union agreement, the defendants argue that the rationale in Kelsay is not involved and that the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints was proper. The defendants cite other decisions of the appellate court that support their argument: Mouser v. Granite City Steel Division of National Steel Corp. (1984), 121 Ill. App. 3d 834; Suddreth v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1983), 114 Ill. App. 3d 396; Deatrick v. Funk Seeds International (1982), 109 Ill. App. 3d 998; Cook v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1980), 85 Ill. App. 3d 402. Emphasizing that the employees in Kelsay and Palmateer were at-will employees, they cite, too, Lamb v. Briggs Manufacturing (7th Cir. 1983), 700 F.2d 1092, which held that union employees under collective-bargaining agreements could not maintain an action for retaliatory discharge. We consider, however, that in order to provide a complete remedy it is necessary that the victim of a retaliatory discharge be given an action in tort, independent of any contract remedy the employee may have based on the collective-bargaining agreement. In Kelsay, an essential factor in providing the action for retaliatory discharge was a recognition of the importance of permitting the allowance of punitive damages against the offending employer. This court stated: “In the absence of the deterrent effect of punitive damages there would be little to dissuade an employer from engaging in the practice of discharging an employee for filing a workmen’s compensation claim *** The imposition on the employer of the small additional obligation to pay a wrongfully discharged employee compensation would do little to discourage the practice of retaliatory discharge, which mocks the public policy of this State *** In the absence of other effective means of deterrence, punitive damages must be permitted ***.” (Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 172, 186-87.) Applying this reasoning here, there is no reason to afford a tort remedy to at-will employees but to limit union members to contractual remedies under their collective-bargaining agreements. (Wyatt v. Jewel Cos. (1982), 108 Ill. App. 3d 840, 841-42.) Generally, if a union employee’s grievance goes to arbitration and the arbitrator does not find just cause for the employee’s discharge, the remedy will be simply job reinstatement and full back pay. (See Silzer, Workers’ Compensation: Retaliatory Discharge of Employes Covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (1981), 70 Ill. B.J. 164, 166.) If there is no possibility that an employer can be liable in punitive damages, not only has the employee been afforded an incomplete remedy, but there is no available sanction against a violator of an important public policy of this State. It would be unreasonable to immunize from punitive damages an employer who unjustly discharges a union employee, while allowing the imposition of punitive damages against an employer who unfairly terminates a nonunion employee. The public policy against retaliatory discharges applies with equal force in both situations. (That Illinois has a strong public policy to insure the protection of workers covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act is clear. Section 6 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.6) requires employers to post printed notices containing information concerning the Act which is necessary to aid employees to safeguard their rights under the Act in the event of injury. Employers are required to file reports of injuries and other matters with the Commission, and the failure to do so constitutes a petty offense. Section 26 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.26) provides that in the event of any violation of the Act, which is declared to be a petty offense, the Attorney General and the State’s Attorney of each county, upon the request of the Industrial Commission, shall enforce the penalties prescribed in the Act.) The defendants argue that if union employees are allowed the tort action recognized in Kelsay, it would be violative of the Federal labor-law policy for industrial stability through the use of arbitration in union agreements. The argument is unconvincing. We cannot see any perceptible effect on the use of arbitration. There is an important public interest in protecting the rights of workers under the Act, and in deterring unscrupulous employers from discharging employees. The appellate court observed in Midgett: “[T]he recognition of a cause of action in tort merely allows an employee an additional remedy in areas where strong public policies, as opposed to purely private interests, are involved. Such an alternative is especially necessary and desirable in a case such as this where there has been an allegation of collusion between the union and the employer.” Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc. (1983), 118 Ill. App. 3d 7, 9. In light of defendants’ argument regarding a Federal policy favoring arbitration, it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court has allowed employees, covered under a collective-bargaining agreement with an arbitration provision, to bring claims against employers that are founded upon violations of Federal statutory rights, such as violations of civil rights (McDonald v. City of West Branch (1984), 466 U.S. 284, 80 L. Ed. 2d 302, 104 S. Ct. 1799), racial discrimination (Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1974), 415 U.S. 36, 39 L. Ed. 2d 147, 94 S. Ct. 1011), and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981), 450 U.S. 728, 67 L. Ed. 2d 641, 101 S. Ct. 1437). Our conclusion that employees like the ones here are not limited to contractual remedies available under collective-bargaining agreements has been reached in other jurisdictions. See Puchert v. Agsalud (1984), _Hawaii_, 677 P.2d 449; Peabody Galion v. Dollar (10th Cir. 1981), 666 F.2d 1309; Carnation Co. v. Borner (Tex. 1980), 610 S.W.2d 450; Vaughn v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co. (1980), 289 Or. 73, 85-89, 611 P.2d 281, 287-90; Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (1978), 22 Cal. 3d 658, 586 P.2d 564, 150 Cal. Rptr. 250. Sackett contends that Midgett’s complaint was properly dismissed because he alleged no facts in his supporting affidavits, such as the exhaustion of grievance procedures, to sustain a cause of action. A plaintiff, however, need not plead the exhaustion of contract remedies to bring an action in tort. As was stated in Palmateer, the plaintiff must allege a retaliatory discharge and that the discharge violated a clear public policy. Midgett did this, and thus a cause of action was stated. Midgett, however, did not appeal the dismissal of his wife and children as plaintiffs. Those portions of the appellate and circuit court judgments dismissing them as party plaintiffs are, thus, to be left undisturbed. John Repyak and his wife claim that, due to his discharge, they have an independent cause of action to recover his pension rights which were lost upon his discharge, which occurred one year and four months before they would have vested. Their complaint, however, alleges that Repyak was discharged because he filed a workers’ compensation claim and not because the employer wished to defeat his pension rights. The loss of pension rights would be a consequence of his discharge, and he may allege it as an element of damages in a retaliatory-discharge action against his employer. Prestress, in cause No. 59350, filed a motion in this court to strike certain documents in Gonzalez’ brief and the references to them, which motion was taken with the case. The documents in question were not made part of the record on appeal. Too, they were not before the trial court or the appellate court, and Prestress’ motion to strike is allowed. Midgett also filed a motion to strike portions of defendant Sackett’s brief. This motion was also taken with the case. Midgett argues that those portions of the brief raise issues which were not raised in the trial court or in the appellate court and that Sackett has waived those issues for review here. After reviewing Sackett’s briefs, we have determined that Sackett did not earlier raise the issue of Federal preemption. We therefore allow Midgett’s motion to strike as to the portion of the brief discussing this issue. For the reasons given, the judgment of the appellate court in cause No. 59341 is affirmed; the judgment of the appellate court and the judgments of the circuit court of Livingston County in cause No. 59350 are reversed and the causes are remanded to the circuit court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 59341 — Judgment affirmed. 59350 — Judgments reversed; cause remanded.