Court Opinion

ID: 9520780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:49:45.282583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:54.666598
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, dissenting: The circuit court’s order confirming the Commission’s decision should be affirmed. The parties agree that the proper standard of review is whether the Commission’s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant takes issue with the inferences the Commission made in determining that claimant was not ordered to attend the picnic, while the employer maintains that the Commission’s inferences were supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. Claimant suggests that Auto-Trol Technology Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n, 189 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (1989), supports his position that the Commission erred in denying benefits. In Auto-Trol, an employee was injured at a company picnic. The Commission determined the injury was compensable under section 11 of the Act. 820 ILCS 305/11 (West 1998). On the pivotal issue of whether the employee was ordered or assigned to attend the picnic, the Commission noted that when informed of the picnic, the claimant therein inquired whether attendance at the picnic was mandatory. His supervisor responded “ ‘that it would serve his career very well if he attended [the] function.’ ” Auto-Trol, 189 Ill. App. 3d at 1067. The Commission also noted testimony from a coworker that, when he informed his supervisor the picnic conflicted with his previous plans, the supervisor responded, “ ‘[N]o, you will be there.’ ” Auto-Trol, 189 Ill. App. 3d at 1067. The Commission also found significant that the only two employees who were excused from attending the picnic were one whose wife was expecting a baby and another who was in a family wedding. Auto-Trol, 189 Ill. App. 3d at 1067-68. In affirming the Commission, the appellate court in Auto-Trol found this record was sufficient to allow the Commission to determine that attendance at the picnic was ordered and assigned. Auto-Trol, 189 Ill. App. 3d at 1070. The statement that attendance would “ ‘serve his career very well’ ” and the unequivocal order to the coworker, along with the fact that only the most extreme of family events (childbirth and being a member of a wedding party) would excuse attendance, allowed the Commission to infer that attendance at the picnic was mandatory. The court also noted the clear business purpose of the company picnic, where business was discussed between sales staff and engineering staff, further supported a finding that attendance at the picnic was ordered. Auto-Trol, 189 Ill. App. 3d at 1070. In Auto-Trol the clear business purpose of the picnic, along with other evidence concerning the employer’s desire that employees attend the picnic, supported an inference that the claimant therein was ordered to attend the picnic. Here, in contrast, only a vague statement that it was hoped by the employer the picnic might somehow improve overall morale and the fact that if an employee chose not to attend the picnic he would have to use a personal/vacation day in order to be paid would support a finding that attendance was ordered. But a finding that claimant was not ordered to attend the picnic can also be inferred from the lack of a clear business purpose to the picnic and the fact that employees could opt out of attendance by simply taking the day off, without the imposition of any form of discipline. Under a manifest weight of the evidence standard of review, it would appear, as in AutoTrol, that more than one inference can be made from the record and that the Commission’s inferences that claimant was not ordered to attend the picnic is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence. The order of the circuit court should be affirmed.