Court Opinion

ID: 9724690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:08:47.40479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:04.634804
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion accurately states the law applicable to this situation, but in my opinion erroneously affirms the trial court in its misapplication of the law. When one reviews the majority’s opinion and compares the disclaimer of contract in the instant case with that in Perman v. ArcVentures, Inc. (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 758, 554 N.E.2d 982, cited by the majority, one finds that the disclaimer in the Perman case was much stronger, yet enforceable contractual rights concerning discharge procedures were found. The majority opinion also notes ambiguity in the application of grievance procedures in resolving termination and discharge matters, stating, “[a]lthough a grievance procedure is set forth, it is not clear that this procedure, relating to assistance for employees in solving ‘on-the-job problems,’ applies to matters relating to termination and discharge.” (210 Ill. App. 3d at 934.) Applying the well-settled rule that an ambiguity will be resolved against the drafter of the instrument, in this case the hospital which unquestionably is in a superior bargaining position, and further given the disclaimer that does not reach the Perman standard and the ambiguity noted above, I believe that this matter was erroneously decided. Since all three requirements of Duldulao are present here, this cause should be reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.