Court Opinion

ID: 9740604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:38:15.821676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.106331
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE KLUCZYNSKI, dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. There are certain facts in evidence which the majority has failed to consider in reaching its decision. Claimant testified that he knew many of the players on the team prior to joining it, but that he did not get to know them any better from playing softball. He also admitted that the majority of fellow workers at his location and the team manager asked him to play softball when he did not initially join the team, because they knew of his prior experience playing hardball. Bill Murphy, the president of Illinois Bell Men’s Softball League, testified that the positions of president, executive committee and team managers in the league were not limited to supervisory personnel, but were open to all employees whether they were supervisory or craft, union or nonunion employees. The president, executive committee and team managers would meet annually to formulate the league’s bylaws and to schedule the general playing season. Murphy further testified that the league was completely supervised by its own personnel with no interference from Illinois Bell except for the sole provision that no Illinois Bell name or insignia would appear on the uniforms. He admitted he heard that a team used the name “Bell Tell” but he was not sure if this was the complete name or only part of it. But as the majority fails to note, Murphy stated that he had never seen a uniform bearing this name. Walter Krick also testified that he had never seen this name used on the uniforms. The majority places great emphasis on Jewel Tea Co. v. Industrial Com., 6 Ill.2d 304, in support of its position. Such reliance is misplaced. In Jewel Tea each team was under the direction of a captain appointed by the employer’s district managers, after whom the teams were also named. The captain recruited employees to make up the team, and the injured employee had been prevailed upon to join his district team. The playing schedule and the league rules were adopted at an annual dinner meeting paid for by Jewel and attended by Jewel’s personnel chief. The games were held in public parks, and publicity was provided by the company’s internal radio station and the in-company publications. The district and league champions were presented with trophies by Jewel executives at a special banquet given by Jewel. In Jewel Tea this court sustained an award of compensation, since there were present sufficient elements to justify treating the claimant’s activity as an incident to his employment. Among those elements were the high degree of employer organization, supervision, actual or inferred pressure on employees to participate in the activity, and the benefit derived by the employer through advertising or the promotion of employer-employee relations. (Jewel Tea Co. v. Industrial Com., 6 Ill.2d 304, 309-310.) In regard to the last element, there is an essential inquiry of whether there are ascertainable and significant benefits to the employer from the recreational activity so that the activity could be regarded as an incident to employment. Other social-recreational cases before this court have been reviewed in light of these same elements to determine whether the injury sustained during the activity can be regarded as arising out of and in the course of employment. Hydro-Line Manufacturing Co. v. Industrial Com., 15 Ill.2d 156, 159; Keystone Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Com., 40 Ill.2d 160, 162; Burmeister v. Industrial Com., 52 Ill.2d 84, 88. In the case at bar, no evidence was presented as to Illinois Bell’s role in the organization of this league, or, in fact, if it played any role in the organization of the league. The facts clearly show that the supervision and control of the league were vested in its president and executive committee, and that these positions were not limited to management personnel. The only aspect of supervision by Illinois Bell was the provision that neither its name nor insignia would be printed on uniforms. This aspect was specifically contrary to claimant’s position. While there was testimony as to a team using the name “Bell Tell,” there was no evidence that this name was printed on uniforms or publicized. The sole publicity concerning the league came from bulletins provided for company use and from the in-company newspaper. While Illinois Bell did pay for equipment and umpire fees, the league collected entry fees from the teams to pay for trophies and its annual dinner. The fact that Illinois Bell paid for the trophies and the dinner in 1970 is not a significant factor under the circumstances. Moreover, the employer pressure to participate in the activity that was manifested in Jewel Tea is lacking in this case. Claimant testified that Walter Krick, a supervisor, frequently asked him why he did not join the team, although Krick denied it. This is hardly equivalent to the employer pressure prevalent in Jewel Tea. And as the majority observes, Krick was criticized for not accomplishing his assigned tasks due to the lack of personnel to work overtime. It is difficult to conceive that Krick would exert pressure on a fellow employee to engage in recreational activity and thereby place himself in a position to be criticized by his employer for failing to complete his assignments. Finally, reviewing the entire factual situation, I am unable to perceive any ascertainable and significant benefit accruing to Illinois Bell, which, in fact, suffered a detriment in not having employees available to work voluntary overtime on the nights when games were scheduled. As was stated in Keystone Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Com., 40 Ill.2d 160, 163, “The ball game-was solely for the recreation and personal diversion of the employees, without any substantial business advantage to the company. Whatever improvement may have resulted in morale or employee-employer relations is far too tenuous to provide a basis for saying the injury was sustained either out of or in the course of the employment.” Specifically in this case, claimant’s own testimony reveals no visible improvement in morale or in an employee-employer relationship. I find that the facts presented are totally insufficient to show the degree of employer supervision, compulsion on employees to participate, or benefit to the employer that is required in order to view this recreational activity as an incident of employment. It has frequently been held by this court that the Workmen’s Compensation Act does not make an employer an insurer of the safety of his employees at all times while they are engaged in his employment. (Hill-Luthy Co. v. Industrial Com., 411 Ill. 201, 205; Fischer v. Industrial Com., 408 Ill. 115, 118.) This statement is even more applicable to the facts of the present case. The minimal support provided by Illinois Bell should be viewed for what it actually was, a gratuitous contribution to the recreational life of its employees. The circuit court did not err in setting aside the decision of the Industrial Commission.