VICTORIA BRYANT, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, by and through, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a former nurse, sought relief after being discharged for job performance failures. The court dismissed the claim because she had settled her grievance through a Resolution Prior to Arbitration, waiving further remedies, and failed to prove the union breached its duty of fair representation.
Cases cited: Jones, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 417
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Union Control Over Employee Grievance Process- If a Labor Union is vested with control over Employee’s grievance process by previous contractual agreement, that union has sufficient authority to settle grievances on behalf of the employee. The union thus has the authority to effect a settlement for, and to bind, the claimant to the agreed upon terms.
- Claimant barred from further adjudication without proof of breach of dutyThe claimant is bound by prior the prior agreement entered into by the union representative on their behalf, and by virtue of this settlement cannot sue their employer without first proving the labor union breached its duty of fair representation by entering into the settlement.
ORDER
Kubasiak, J.
THIS MATTER coming to be heard on the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the claim herein, followed by oral argument presented by the parties.
The Court being fully advised in the premises:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 18, 2010, Claimant was discharged from her position as a Registered Nurse 1 with the Mabley Developmental Center, a part of Respondent’s Illinois Department of Human Services (“DHS”).
Claimant was discharged for three charges for Failure to Perform Job Duties and one charge of Failure to Follow Facility and Departmental Policies for three separate incidents that had occurred in late June and Early July of that same year.
On June 17, 2010, after it was reported that a client was injured, Claimant failed to examine the client, failed to complete the proper documentation indicating an injury existed, failed to complete the necessary paperwork for unobserved injuries, and failed to document the injury to the client in the nursing notes.
This Statement of Charges stated as follows:
Charge 1: Failure to Perform Job Duties:
In that, on or about 06-17-2010, Ms. Victoria Bryant, Registered Nurse I at the Jack Mabley Developmental Center, received a report from a Mental Health Technician that a male client had an injury of unknown origin.
Ms. Bryant failed to examine this client and failed to complete the required documentation.
[*231] Charge 2: Failure to Perform Job Duties:
In that, on or about 06-21-2010, Ms. Victoria Bryant, Registered Nurse 1, at the Jack Mabley Developmental Center, documented that she passed Noon medications to Johnson Home residents.
However, she left the facility at 10:50 a.m. to be evaluated for an injury she stated she received nearly 6 hours earlier.
Despite documenting that she passed the medications, Ms. Brant did not pass a single medication on 06-21-2010.
Charge 3: Failure to Perform Job Duties:
In that, on or about 07-05-2010, Ms. Victoria Bryant, Registered Nurse 1, at Jack Mabley Developmental Center, reported to a Program Nurse at 7:00 am that she had passed all medications on residential home except for one client [sic].
The Program Nurse noted that the cup contained too many medications for this client.
Upon identifying the additional medications, it was determined that the cup contained medications for two clients.
Also, Victoria
Bryant failed to document that she passed any of the medications on the residential home for that morning.
Charge 4: Failure to Follow Facility and Department Policies:
In that, on or about 06-17-2010, Ms. Victoria Bryant, Registered Nurse I, she failed to complete an injury reports, failed to complete an unobserved injury packet and failed to document in the nursing notes.
Also, on or about 7-05-2010, she failed to secure medications behind double locks, failed to document medications administered, removed medications from identifying containers.
One week after the final incident, on July 13, 2010,
Claimant was granted a pre-disciplinary/Pre-Termination Meeting, which concluded that Claimant had violated Mabley Procedures 22 VIII.G and 22 VII.G.I, as well as Departmental policies 5003, 7012, 5006, 607, 2041, 2028, 2044, and 2043.
After determining that Claimant already had been charged with five day suspension for a previous March 2010 incident, and that Claimant had created seven medication errors in the July 5, 2010 incident alone, Claimant was placed on a 30 day suspension pending discharge.
On August 16, 2010, the Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS) approved the recommended discharge.
Claimant’s discharge for cause became effective on the end of Claimant’s 30 day suspension, August 18, 2010.
At all relevant times, Claimant, as an employee of DHS, was covered under the Agreement between the Illinois Nurses Association RC-23 (“INA”) and the State of Illinois, July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2012 (“Agreement”) as a Registered Nurse I.
The agreement sets out the grievance procedure for resolving disputes at the administrative level.
Article IV, Section 2.
At step 1, “[w]ithin five workdays of receipt of the written grievance from the employee…the Employer representative(s) will schedule a meeting with the employee(s) and his/her representative(s) in an attempt to resolve the grievance” and within ten days from that meeting, “a written answer will be placed on the grievance by the appropriate agency representative(s):.
Article IV, Section 2, Step 1.
“If dissatisfied with the Employer’s answer in Step One…the grievance must be appealed to the Agency director by the [INA] within fifteen workdays from receipt of the answer in Step One.
The
designated agency representative(s) will meet with the employee representative within twenty workdays to discuss and attempt to resolve the grievance”, and the written decision of the agency will be given to the grievant within twenty days of the [*232] Step two meeting.
Article IV, Section 2, Step 2.
“If the grievance is not resolved through [Step 1 and 2] the grievance may be appealed to a representative of the Office of Labor Relations, [CMS].
A representative of [INA] and a representative of [CMS] will meet… to effect a resolution prior to proceeding to Step 3B…” Article IV, Section 2, Step 3A.
“Grievances which have not been resolved under [Step 1, 2, and 3A] may be appealed …to arbitration within ten workdays from the date of the agency’s answer in Step Two or following the meeting with CMS..”
Article IV, Section
2, Step 3B.
In addition, Article IV, Section 8 of the Agreement contains an “opt out” provision whereby an employee-member can abandon his grievance process and instead press his claim with the Civil Service Commission: “An employee who files an appeal to the Civil Service Commission under the Provisions of the Personnel Code and Rules of the Department of Central Management Services shall waive any and all rights provided in this Article”.
An August 20, 2010, Claimant initiated the grievance process for INA grievance number 232556, alleging she had been unjustly terminated and requesting to return to work and to be “made whole in all ways.”
The grievance was not resolved in steps 1 through 3A and was moved to Step 3B, arbitration.
Thereafter, in January 2011, DI-IS and INA executed a Resolution Prior to Arbitration concerning grievance numbers 232490 and 232556, resolving Claimant’s grievances and wherein Claimant agreed to voluntarily resign in exchange for any mention of a discharge being purged from her record.
Most importantly, for purposes of Claimant’s claim before this Court, the resolution Prior to Arbitration states and the parties thereto agreed that:
The Union and the grievant, Victoria Bryant, agree to refrain
from initiating or pursuing against the Employer any other
grievance, administrative or other judicial proceedings arising
out of this disciplinary action or the circumstances that led to
the filing of the charges resulting in the suspension and
discharge.
This resolution is made without precedent or prejudice in the
disposition of other cases, and may not be utilized in any
subsequent proceedings except for the enforcement of its
terms
On December 22, 2011, Claimant filed her Verified Complaint in the Court of Claims alleging she was wrongfully terminated and seeking $41,797.00 in back wages. THE COURT FINDS:
Claimant has waived any and all rights to pursue further grievance, administrative or judicial proceedings arising out of the circumstances of her discharge from employment.
The terms of the Resolution Prior to Arbitration are clear and Claimant is bound by them.
The language contained in Article IV, Section 2 of the Agreement gives the union the right of control over the employee grievance process and vests the union with sufficient authority to settle grievances on behalf of employees.
In pertinent part, the Agreement states: “the parties agree that all persons responsible for resolving grievances at all levels of the procedure shall be vested with sufficient authority to undertake meaningful discussions and to settle the grievance if appropriate,” Article IV, Section 2.
[*233] Based on identical language in a similar wrongful termination claim, this Court held that a union has the authority to effect a settlement for, and to bind, the claimant to its terms.
Jones v. Illinois, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. 414, 417 (2002).
In Jones, the claimant, an IDOC employee and AFSCME member, brought a wrongful termination suit, alleging she was discharged without cause in violation of the union’s collective bargaining agreement.
During the underlying employer-employee grievance process, the union settled the grievance on behalf of the claimant by entering into a Resolution Prior to Arbitration, Therein, the claimant waived any remaining procedural rights against IDOC, including any right to sue. Id.
This Court held that the claimant was barred from pursuing her claim in the Court of Claims and dismissed it with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies - procedural remedies such as arbitration she would have been able to pursue but for the settlement agreement - and by virtue of the underlying settlement.
Jones, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. at 417.
As such, this Court must enforce the terms of the Resolution Prior to Arbitration.
The Resolution Prior to Arbitration is evidence that Claimant failed to pursue available administrative and procedural remedies against DHS.
Claimant, instead of entering into the Resolution Prior to Arbitration, could have proceeded to arbitration of her claim per the Agreement.
In the alternative, she could have “opted out” of the grievance procedure altogether and pressed her claim with the Civil Service Commission per her statutory rights.
The Claimant is bound by the Resolution Prior to Arbitration and by virtue of this settlement cannot sue Respondent (her employer) without first proving the INA breached its duty of fair representation to her by entering into the settlement.
Jones, 55 Ill.Ct.Cl. at 417.
This, however, must be established in a court of other appropriate forum of proper jurisdiction, not the Court of Claims. Id.
As Claimant has failed to do so, Claimant’s claim should be dismissed with prejudice as settled.
CONCLUSION
The facts of the claim before the Court mirror those in Jones, supra.
Both claimants were employees of a state agency, both claimants were Union members and subject to the terms of the Agreement between Unions and Respondent, both claimants were discharged, both claimants filed grievances alleging they were discharged without cause, and both claimants entered into Resolutions Prior to Arbitration settling their grievances and waiving any future remedies.
Accordingly, Jones controls the matter before the Court and the claim is dismissed.