Court Opinion

ID: 9861137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:45:59.748901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:27:18.173365
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TULLY, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. The anomaly that has been created by the decision in this case flies in the face of the Wage Actions Act (705 ILCS 225/0.01 et seq. (West 1994)). This act provides that an employee is entitled to attorney fees if a court or jury finds that the employee is owed wages. 705 ILCS 225/1 (West 1994). It is also true that a court must interpret an award so as to validate its finding. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. State of Illinois, 124 Ill. 2d 246, 254, 529 N.E.2d 534 (1988). Because no mention of arbitration is made in the Wage Actions Act, the majority feel that this act cannot serve as a reason for correcting this purported error, i.e., the denial of attorney fees. I believe that the arbitrator’s award violates a strong public policy shown in the Wage Actions Act. It is my feeling that employers who require or foist arbitration on their employees by virtue of a contract are utilizing improper pressure such as, in this instance, withholding employment. The employer is in a stronger position and, hence, can require arbitration proceedings. If arbitration proceedings are not covered by the Wage Actions Act, then laborers can recover only their back pay and wages less the attorney fees and costs of the proceedings. This creates an unfair disadvantage for the employee. The correct method would require the employer to pay the attorney fees and costs of the employee, for it is the employer who wrongfully withheld the wages. For these reasons, I must dissent.