Court Opinion

ID: 9521229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:00:53.297379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:27.580203
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: I fully agree with the majority that the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (820 ILCS 405/100 (West 1994)) would be frustrated "if striking employees could receive unemployment benefits by obtaining sham employment.” 179 Ill. 2d at 155. The task which confronts this court, however, is to identify and enforce those safeguards established by the Act to prevent such abuse. The majority instead imposes a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefits which is wholly absent from the Act and, in doing so, neglects the only interpretation of the Act which plausibly comports with the legislature’s directives. I therefore respectfully dissent. In plain language, section 604 of the Act prohibits an employee from receiving unemployment benefits while he is on strike from the establishment at which he was "last employed.” 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1994). In Dienes v. Holland, 78 Ill. 2d 8 (1979), this court held that, as used in the statute, "last employed” means simply "last in time.” Dienes, 78 Ill. 2d at 13-14. In so holding, this court refused "to add any additional conditions to the statute in order to qualify a claimant for benefits.” Dienes, 78 Ill. 2d at 14. In direct contravention of this precedent, the majority adds a judicial gloss to the Act by providing that striking claimants may qualify for unemployment benefits if they can show that they accepted interim employment in "good faith.” The majority asserts that this requirement is consistent with Dienes because that case was based only on its specific facts. 179 Ill. 2d at 155. On the contrary, however, one of the conditions which the Dienes court specifically considered but refused to add to the statute was a good-faith test. See Dienes, 78 Ill. 2d at 13. In adopting such a test today, the majority does what Dienes refused to do: that is, provide a claimant the opportunity to establish something in addition to what the statute requires in order to qualify for benefits. Dienes, 78 Ill. 2d at 15. It is no surprise that the legislature has not imposed the requirement adopted today by the majority. The good-faith inquiry will subject both the claimant and the Department of Employment Security to onerous burdens. To qualify for benefits, the striking claimant will henceforth be required to show that, in accepting interim employment, he was not "primarily motivated by a desire to remove the labor dispute disqualification.” To withhold benefits, the Department will be required to establish that the claimant did not make " 'a genuine effort to remain in the active workforce.’ ” 179 Ill. 2d at 156. Due to the subjective nature of these inquiries, it is doubtful whether either of these factors can be satisfactorily proven. It is certain, however, that valuable resources will be squandered in the attempt. In sharp contrast to the majority’s approach, the appellate court correctly based its analysis solely on the language of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/100 (West 1994)). Nine years after this court decided Dienes, the General Assembly enacted section 1502.1 of the Act. This section requires that the last employer from whom an unemployment claimant was separated after working for at least 30 days pay the benefit charges arising from that claimant’s unemployment. 820 ILCS 405/1502.1 (West 1994). Section 604, however, continued to prohibit a claimant from receiving benefits while on strike from the establishment at which he was last employed. 820 ILCS 405/604 (West 1994). The instant case requires this court, for the first time, to apply section 1502.1’s scheme for assessing benefit charges to section 604’s prohibition against employees receiving unemployment benefits while on strike. The appellate court reasoned that, to harmonize these two provisions, section 604 must be interpreted to withhold benefits from striking workers who obtain interim employment for less than 30 days. This is because if benefits are instead granted to a claimant who works for an interim employer for less than 30 days, section 1502.1 would require the original employer, from whom the employee is still on strike, to pay the claimant’s benefits, rather than the interim employer, who made the claimant eligible for benefits by firing him. The appellate court correctly concluded that this would violate the policy embodied in section 604 that strikers are prohibited from collecting unemployment benefits at the struck employer’s expense. Yet this is precisely the result dictated by the majority’s holding: if a claimant worked for an interim employer for less than 30 days (as did most of the instant appellants), but nevertheless were found to have obtained that interim employment in "good faith,” Bridgestone, the very firm the claimant is striking, will be assessed payment for the claimant’s unemployment benefits. The appellate court’s proper construction of the Act instead assures that unemployment benefits will not be charged to the employer from whom an employee is on strike. A simple, straightforward requirement that striking workers hold interim employment for at least 30 days before becoming eligible for unemployment benefits is thus the only plausible interpretation of the current version of the Act. The appellate court’s opinion is correct. As opposed to the majority’s analysis, it is based entirely upon the language of the Act. In erroneously charging that the appellate court "rewrote” the statute "to remedy perceived shortcomings” (179 Ill. 2d at 154), the majority describes only its own gratuitous behavior. I would affirm the appellate court’s faithful adherence to the statute. JUSTICES MILLER and NICKELS join in this dissent.