Court Opinion

ID: 9717262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:00:57.398736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:52.210988
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I disagree with the majority’s finding that the average weekly wage should be based upon 67 hours per week worked by the claimant. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois does not define overtime. The Eight Hour Work Day Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 1) does define hours of labor and overtime compensation. Specifically, section 1 provides hours of labor as follows: “1. On and after the first day of May 1867, eight hours of labor between the rising and the setting of the sun, in all mechanical trades, arts and employments, and other cases of labor and service by the day, except farm employments, shall constitute and be a legal day’s work, where there is no special contract or agreement to the contrary.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 1.) In this case, as pointed out by the majority, two fellow employees of the claimant testified that employees had to work as much as the respondent requested and that the average weekly amount was about 60 hours. The respondent’s assistant treasurer testified that the required working hours were 40 per week but that during busy periods employees were required to work overtime. As stated in the claimant’s brief, the work hours amounted to at least 10 per day, 6 days per week, with the weekly total coming to at least 60 hours. There was also testimony that the union contract required the employee to work the hours that the company wanted, and in the event the employee did not do so, he was subject to dismissal. As testified to, the minimum hours were 10 to lOVa hours per day. This testimony, along with the definition in section 1 which states that eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day’s work “where there is no special contract or agreement to the contrary,” is a complete justification for the Commission finding that the employee’s regular workweek was 60 hours. The Commission could find that pursuant to the section cited, there was a special contract or agreement between the employer and claimant and, based upon the evidence presented, the employee was expected to work 60 hours per week. It could be argued that even accepting the Commission’s determination that the workweek was 60 hours renders the word “overtime” as used in the Workers’ Compensation Act meaningless. To say that the employee’s workweek was 67 hours completely emasculates the Act and renders meaningless the word “overtime.” To arbitrarily use the claimant’s income for the last 52 weeks, regardless of overtime, is contrary to the provisions of section 10 of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Commission’s determination that the workweek was 60 hours is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is then necessary to determine what the average weekly wage of the claimant was, based upon the 60 hours per week of work. The Commission found that the claimant’s average weekly wage should be based upon 60 hours per week at his regular pay scale. The claimant should be paid at the rate or actual income he received for the 60 hours, which would be 40 hours of regular rate and 20 hours of time and a half. Based upon the Commission’s determination that the workweek was 60 hours and keeping in mind that section 4(a) of the Minimum Wage Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 48, par. 1004(a)) provides that the employer must pay an employee in excess of the regular hours’ work at a rate not less than V-h times the regular rate at which he is employed, the employer knew at the time he was employing the claimant for the 60-hour week that he would be required to pay 20 hours at time and a half. The result is that claimant’s average weekly wage should be 40 hours at the regular rate and 20 hours at the rate paid for the excess time. This is consistent with the provisions of the Eight Hour Work Day Act defining a legal day’s work and at the same time gives credence to the Commission’s finding that the relationship between the claimant and the employer was that he would work 60 hours per week. Once again, the Commission’s determination that employees were required to work 60 hours per week but were not required to work in excess of that time is not against the manifest weight standard. I do not disagree with the Commission’s findings as affirmed by the circuit court that the employee sustained accidental injuries which arose out of and during his employment and that there was a causal connection between the accident and the need for the bypass surgery.