![]() ![]() The arbitrator issued an award in January 2007 (the Award) finding that the Sheriff adopted the Policy in a proper manner. ![]() In the arbitration, the union alleged that the Sheriff's unilateral adoption of a new attendance policy regarding unauthorized no-pay status (the Policy) violated the agreement. She alleged that the Sheriff and the union representing Sheriff's correctional officers had engaged in arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff filed a motion before the Board to dismiss the Sheriff's complaint. The complaint alleged that these acts violated the Sheriff's general orders, specifically a requirement to be in authorized payroll status and prohibition on being in unauthorized no-pay status. Lastly, plaintiff allegedly failed to report for duty in unauthorized no-pay status on March 26 and April 2, 3, and 8, 2006. Three more investigations, on February 1, March 2, and March 23, 2006, found that plaintiff was in unauthorized no-pay status and recommended 13, 17, and 29 days' suspension, respectively. Her application on December 28 for family medical leave was denied because she had not worked enough hours to qualify. An investigation found on December 20, 2005, that plaintiff was in unauthorized no-pay status and recommended eight days' suspension. However, she continued to use benefit leave time improperly, and she was reprimanded in writing on November 4, 2005, for being in unauthorized no-pay status. The Sheriff alleged that, on October 7, 2005, plaintiff was counseled about being in unauthorized no-pay status and informed that she could seek family medical leave or disability leave. In November 2006, the Sheriff filed a complaint with the Board seeking plaintiff's termination. Plaintiff was employed by the Sheriff as a correctional officer since July 2002. Plaintiff responds that the Board erroneously disregarded an arbitration award finding that the policy under which she was discharged was unreasonable. ![]() Presiding Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the court:ĭefendants Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board and its members (collectively, Board) and the former and present sheriff of Cook County (collectively, Sheriff) appeal from a decision of the circuit court reversing the Board's discharge of plaintiff Sonia Cruz from employment by the Sheriff On appeal, defendants contend that the Board's findings were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and that the Board acted reasonably in discharging plaintiff. Cicinelli, Elmhurst, IL, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee. State's Attorney, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants. Driscoll, Jr., Deputy State's Attorney, Donald R. *654 Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney of Cook County, Patrick T. 1-08-2648.Īppellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. Sheahan, Former Sheriff of Cook County, Defendants-Appellants. Storino and Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County and Michael F. The COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S MERIT BOARD, and its members, James P. This order revises the order explaining how to obtain a refund of filing fees collected or paid in error.914 N.E.2d 653(2009) Sonia CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this order shall be effective January 9, 2017. IT IS ORDERED that all motions to reopen outlying county cases assigned to an inactive judge shall be filed before the judge designated to serve the county. ![]() IT IS ORDERED that all motions to reopen Cook County cases that are assigned to an inactive judge shall be filed before the Chief Judge according to the Chief Judge's motion schedule. Motions to Reopen Cases Closed to an Inactive Judge Order Regarding Deposit and Investment of Registry Funds ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |